Hardcore Gamer: Despite what Ubisoft might think, their decision to lock both versions to 900p/30fps doesn’t make a lick of sense.
Microsoft must have paid Ubisoft a lot of dough-re-me for this move.
It does sound suspicious that MS and Ubi happen to have a DLC deal, but hey, maybe because of the negative press, they'll try to get both versions running at 1080p
Not trying to troll, but is that possible on Xbox One whilst keeping it at 30fps?
@ValKilmer Sure its possible, but the game is supposed to launch in a month and... well there really isn't much time left. I just find it odd that they are now realizing this because they seemed so confident that it would run at 1080p 60FPS for both.
Black Flag got a 1080p patch on the PS4. I'm expecting something similar for Unity. I'll likely buy it anyways. Even at 900p, it will likely be the best iteration of AC to date. Ubi has improved the gameplay so much by LISTENING to gamers. For that, they deserve my money regardless of whatever "deal" they have with MS.
Really? Did they not also have a deal cod ghosts, but ghost was 720p on xbox one and 1080p on ps4?
It really depends on the developer it seems. Or in some cases, like Diablo, MS said that the sub 1080p res they were going to ship in was unacceptable and MS helped them get that game to 1080p. I guess they are tired of the bad press from this issue. I think if MS could help get this game to 1080p too they would..
There are no deals. Just paranoid fan boys.
has that happened for any game previously on XB1? Pretty sure it hasn't
Think the point is that MS has done such before. Not only with DLC on a regular basis, but the main reason we are where we are worrying more about graphics than anything else has been MS only insisting their systems offered the best.
@Godmars Sure, but DLC isn't the same as demanding resolution pariety. Phil has said on a number of occasions that 'resolution and framerate is up to the developer' And you're right Xbox may have started the DLC first trend but Sony has picked up that torch and ran with it. Its always been one month with CoD, Destiny is 6 months to a year.
Yeah. Not understanding how "one did it first, but now the other does it too". That's literally the problem getting worse. Being accepted as the standard way of things.
Actually it does make sense, if the primary concern is gameplay with decent enough graphics to represent them. 3rd party devs should have been doing that from the beginning if they were putting out multiplatform titles. Let 1st, 2nd as well as their own exclusive games try to prioritize what one specific console has to offer. Disagree away.
No disagrees on a logical statement? Am I really on N4G?
Sure, yea let's all have the exact same experience regardless of the hardware capabilities of the console we own, god forbid the developers take advantage of whatever extra power one console might have over the other. Hell, let's throw a Wii U version into the mix since it's a next gen console as well and drop all console versions resolution to 720p or sub-HD, i mean the Wii U is capable of producing "decent enough graphics" is it not? let the 1st party guys worry about the headaches of optimizing for each console. Pretty brilliant stuff, hopefully the trend goes over to PC gaming as well, let's have every game there locked at the resolution and graphics settings the minimum card on the market can run, let the modding community do the rest and unlock the potential of each card individually.
"Hell, let's throw a Wii U version into the mix since it's a next gen console as well and drop all console versions resolution to 720p or sub-HD, i mean the Wii U is capable of producing "decent enough graphics" is it not?" If 3rd party devs are going to offer their games on the WiiU - which they aren't - then yes. Those 3rd party devs should build with the WiiU in mind and deal with the freakin, consequences. If that means less sales of their games on the PS3/PS4/360/XB1 then so be it. Everyone from merchant to consumer has to deal with that choice.
You guys have no idea what you're talking about... This goes WAY deeper than you think! Microsoft killed JFK! Bill Gates is a Templar! THERE IS NO 'PHIL SPENCER'!!!
Hey finally someone admits to it. LOL ;-)
Well since Assassin's Creed Black Flag was a also on Xbox 360 and PS3 could it be that this particular game didn't really push the limits of what Ubi wanted to do? Unlike this new AC game which is strictly for the next gen consoles and features a lot more on screen, co-op/multiplayer, more NPC's onscreen and god knows what else. Hey, who knows, I'm just going to blame the parity clause and say MS paid Ubisoft for the heck of it.
Looking at what Unity is doing from a technical standpoint it is easy to see why the game would be more demanding than AC4, even with some pretty significant optimizations. 900p is what I was predicting for the PS4 version. The only thing I am surprised about is that the Xbox One version is also 900p. I expected a resolution similar to that found in the Xbox One version of Watch Dogs. But it might have other areas that are somewhat pared back which explain why it can match the PS4 version in resolution. In any case, I never take these sorts of offhand remarks from developers seriously. It was one of these kinds of remarks that originally led some people to believe that the game would be 1080p/60fps, even though I knew that was next to impossible.
They should have aimed for 1080p/30fps on both for a better Parity.
i just hope they don't ruin the ps4 version by forcing 1080p , i still want the big crowds and great AI , for me thats what AC has always been about . it reminds me of when insomniac was asked if the new sdk would push sunset overdrive to 1080 , they said they were putting the extra resources into more monsters and better AI .
They should gimp the ps4 version just so they can make it 1080p and see what the fans say then.
not saying they should , if they can give the same game it should be at the highest resolution both console can handle , as long as it doesn't hurt their vision for the game . if sony fans got a gimped version because of the 1080 hysteria it would be really sad for the industry in general .
It would be poetic justice. But most of the clueless people would claim even then that Ubisoft was purposefully gimping the PS4 version. Some of these people honestly seem to think the PS4 has unlimited resources and power.
cancelling my pre-order.
It doesn't make a lick of sense. Ubisoft has never had an issue releasing a game with a lower resolution on XB1 in the past. It is possible on the other hand that they were having issues with the PS4 version. Only reason I say this is they commented on the CPU being the issue and correct me if I'm wrong, but the PS4 has yet to have a game with even a fraction of the number of characters on screen at one time as ACunity. Perhaps they could not overcome the bottleneck. Before anyone jumps at me with the "They have the same CPUs" comment, they do but XB1 clocks faster and has 30gb/s mem bandwidth vs 20gb/s for the PS4.
Ok explain why PS4 is often the one with the better framerates... either way there is a bigger gap in GPU between the two than there is CPU wise and so far XB1 CPU advantages have not shown themselves in majority of games. Even if that was the case here the CPU difference is not enough for XB1 to have 60fps and from the latest previews it has framerate issues so that advantage isn't showing at it's has issues as the PS4 version because they are said to be the "same". "The framerate behaves more erratically than an aristocrat during peasant uprising – obviously it depends on the scene, and the engine seemed to handle quieter streets and interiors without too many issues, but when trying to replicate moments from the trailers, perched up high, looking down on the crowd gathered at Notre Dame, the FPS took a nose dive into the low twenties. This happened a lot, especially during the kind of rooftop chases you can expect to be getting into pretty regularly. We were playing an Xbox One build, but were told that both console versions are the same." http://www.videogamer.com/x...
I expect it will be the same situaion like with alien isolation, same res but ps4 having more stable framerate. " The PS4 version of Alien: Isolation mostly hits a solid 30fps throughout, with frame-rates only mildly impacted in more demanding scenes. On the other hand performance takes a bigger hit on the Xbox One, where frequent frame-rate drops and tearing is commonplace." http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...
Why is even everyone blaming MS? First off it was Ubisofts decision. Second there is no proof that the Xbox One is the limiting console. AC:U is CPU bound, therefore this part of the console is the limiting factor and if the unwashed masses would've done their homework, they would know, that the CPU of the PS4 is weaker than the Xbox Ones. PS4 got the upperhand in terms of graphics, Xbox One in terms of CPU. That's why PS4 is limiting things here. And before anyone tells me I am just a fanboy I'm not. Actually I game on PC and was always buying Sony consoles. Just do your research before accusing someone or something.
Sure but XB1 is having framerate issues based on previews. And if both are meant to be the same then surely PS4's CPU isn't the limiting factor here. Both CPU's are which was explained in the initial statement it is the reason they are both 30fps. On the flip side PS4's GPU is stronger meaning it can handle better effects and higher resolution but it's limited by XB1's weaker GPU because Ubisoft want's to avoid "debate and stuff".
GabeN damn, GPU is not limiting anything in a CPU bound game. That is why it is called CPU bound! Ubisoft choose NPC count over resoultion and framerate and NPC count has nothing to do with the GPU. You get it now?????
If that's the case, then why not prove the Xbox version has a better CPU? Why not take advantage of that? The so called "parity clause" relates to making it even towards the Xbox - not the other way around. So if the game is "CPU based" why not show case the supposed better Xbox CPU? Other developers have had no issue displaying higher resolution on the PS4, taking advantage of the PS4s better GPU. So why wouldn't Ubisoft do the same with this CPU based game? Why not make it 900p/60fps on Xbox and 900p/30fps on PS4?
First off the parity clause has nothing to do with graphics. It states that in order to publish a game on an Xbox it has to have the same features as the version for rival platforms. This means that e.g a developer is not allowed to cut out features like Multiplayer, game modes and stuff like that if Microsoft demands it or does not get another exclusive feature as compensation. Why not showcase? Maybe Sony made a deal to not show the PS4s weaknesses i ho estly dont know amd wont accuse neither of those companies and both of their mediocre hardware. All I wamt to say is not to judge before you dont know all the facts. Taking advantage of the PS4s GPU is not possible with a CPU bound game, that is why it is called CPU bound. The engine was designed to put a lot of workload on the CPU because of high NPC count and advanced AI. To take advamtage of the GPU they would need to use another engine cut out AI and lower the NPC count in order to reach 1080p at 60 fps. Other devs use GPU bound engines amd therefore can put the workload onto the graphics processor and make the PS4 seem superior. You get it now?
"First off the parity clause has nothing to do with graphics." - Right because it's not like Ubisoft just gave a statement saying they are locking both at the same spec to avoid debate and stuff. No one is talking about a policy that relates to only indie devs in the first place and that is not even the clause MS has in place. It is devs must release the game on the same day as other platforms. "The caveat in question is the launch parity clause — a request that [email protected] developers launch the Xbox One version of their games at the same time as other platforms. This clause tends to be a thorny issue for developers making a game for multiple platforms." http://www.gamasutra.com/vi... "Why not showcase? Maybe Sony made a deal to not show the PS4s weaknesses i ho estly dont know amd wont accuse neither of those companies and both of their mediocre hardware. All I wamt to say is not to judge before you dont know all the facts." - Yh which is why they have a co-marketing partnership. Oh wait... that's with MS. "Taking advantage of the PS4s GPU is not possible with a CPU bound game, that is why it is called CPU bound." - What do you mean? Ignoring going for 60fps for a second why would things like resolution not be possible to do more of? When the CPU isn't doing much more work because the GPU is the one rendering the resolution and the CPU isn't doing anymore instructions then at would for AI, physics, etc at 1080p then at would at 900p because it isn't pushing more CPU based tasks. "Other devs use GPU bound engines amd therefore can put the workload onto the graphics processor and make the PS4 seem superior" - Right because it's GPU being 40% or whatever the percentage is just in people heads and not factual and has been show in countless of games /s
Is anyone else concerned that these systems might not be able to give us 1080p AND next gen AI? I'm not going to lie, ubisofts comments concern me. If I could choose I would next gen AI any day of the week.
I bet Ubisoft will just up the res of the ps4 version to 901p in response to all of this backlash.
An actual benchmark says the x1 cpu is slower. Not to mention the ps4 is heavily geared towards asynchronous compute which allows non-graphics calulations to be done on the GPU, the asynchronous compute on ps4 is 4 times faster then on x1. Ubisoft could have used that advantage of ps4 hardware but they chose not to. http://www.cinemablend.com/...
if you believe that, then you probably believe aliens dont exist too
I see you have 1 bubble http://25.media.tumblr.com/...
What happen if you dumb down both consoles to Wii U status, is it still fair then?
"But it’s not Ubisoft’s job to balance the scales; if a console is capable of going further, it seems like a disservice to limit it to appease its competitor. PS4 owners deserve the version that their system can handle, even if another can’t." This. This is making sense. My bottom line for buying games is that I expect a developer to do the best job for whatever given platform they are developing for, be it pc or console. If a developer can't manage to get that part of the equation right, they aren't getting my money. Period. Ubisoft is making a big mistake to me, because now this puts The Division in my "buyer beware" category, as the game has an xbox tie in and I assume the gimp will be in for that game as well. I can't support that, and I won't. I'll buy another game, or games, whenever The Division comes out if it is "aiming for parity". And the same holds for any other developer that tries to pass this crap off as standard or acceptable. I find it entirely unacceptable. And I've got better things to do with both my time and my money than to waste it on a developer that thinks so little of their customers.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.