Here's a comparison of Assassin's Creed Unity screenshots from the PC & PlayStation 4 versions.
Looks significantly better on PC, although that was to be expected with all the additional NVIDIA effects. I just hope they can improve frame rate with a patch soon
So the cheaper PC version looks better than PS4. Got it. Console gaming is so expensive.
Software is cheaper, yes. The hardware is the opposite.
@alex Lol no, I am still using my PC from 2009, just with a GPU upgrade (which costs cheaper than a PS4). For 400usd you can get a pretty monstrous GPU these days (GTX970 costs 350usd these days). PS4 would be no match. Software costs tend to add up real quick. Consider 2-3 games bought a month, Plus pay to go online. Console gaming is very expensive in comparison to PC. Edit: if i bought just 2 games every month, for a year and they were about 20usd cheaper on the PC. I would end up saving 500usd on software alone every year. Id save paying to go online too. Multiply that by a few years, Then tell me how PS4 is cheap lol.
The big difference is you have absolutely no right to sell the cheap PC copy.
that parity...can't tell the difference
so i just priced up the cpu and the gpu in UK and it comes to over £450 just for those 2 parts to get that difference. system prices are cheaper in US im sure but silly in UK. i can get a ps4 with unity game for £329 so pc gamers enjoy there better hair. but the pic with the pillar still has issues
If you add it up, a console is magnitudes more expensive than even an enthusiast level PC over the course of its lifespan. I was honestly shocked at the difference.
at caylee YEAR 1 PS4 + PS+ (indie games only so far, 2 per month at 5-10$ each, roughly 80 - 100$ worth of value) PS4 $399 initial purchase/one time PS+ $50 FREE GAMES: 24 TOTAL COSTS $349 ($399 + $50 - ~$100) costs/value estimate after PS+ Bonis YEAR 2 PS+ $50 FREE GAMES: 48 TOTAL COSTS $299 ($349 + $50 - ~$100) costs/value estimate after PS+ Bonis YEAR 3 PS+ $50 FREE GAMES: 72 TOTAL COSTS $249 ($299 + $50 - ~$100) costs/value estimate after PS+ Bonis ... after 4 years you have pretty much paid only $199 for a PS4 and gotten 70+ games for free in return, you do not really need to buy any other games, the longer you sub, the better your value/investment (YEAR 1) will be. (assuming that the PS+ value of games is always around $100 each year (not inl. any "real games") In other words : grab a ps4 and sub for 4+ years and use it a netflix machine + indie support + F2P titles and if you purchase a ps4 for cheaper than $399... well.
@thisismyaccount You arent taking into account paying more to buy any game you actually want to play. This can be as much as 10-30usd per new game released. That adds up very quickly in a year. Also while on PS+ you need to pay 50usd to get free games. On Steam you get free games by paying nothing. There are many free games on Steam too. You cant use that to justify the high price of games you actually want to buy. Also its a fact that Steam or other PC networks offer much better discounts and much sooner than any console network or retailer ever can. In the long run Console gaming is surely more expensive than PC. Plus when the Gen ends, you cant even play all the games you bought on the next console, an advantage PC clearly holds. Look at all the games being touted for rereleasing this gen alone and how console gamers are desperate to pay again to play what they already paid for. Factor in the hidden costs, Console gaming is very expensive.
Why do the consoles STILL not do anisotropic filtering properly? WHY? It's such a low cost filter that makes a big difference to textures but it's still not always done on the newest consoles. 16x aniso has been used by every PC gamer everywhere for at least a decade because it really doesn't take a lot of performance. Yet I still see tonnes of console games not using a higher quality! Just the other day I also noticed it is incredibly poor on the Master Chief collection. If you don't know what I mean, then look at the courtyard block paving and red carpet pattern. In the foreground it is clear, as it goes further back the texture all blurs to crap on console. It's still pin sharp on PC because of the anisotropic filtering. http://www.worldsfactory.ne... http://www.worldsfactory.ne...
GTX970 is worth every penny, and I don't even game on pc as often as on PS4
@Kaylee Lol no You don't get to negate the original cost of your total pc and just compare the GPU cost to a console The comparison would be original cost of your pc (minus the old gpu I'll give you that) + the new gpu.
@Magnes "You don't get to negate the original cost of your total pc and just compare the GPU cost to a console The comparison would be original cost of your pc (minus the old gpu I'll give you that) + the new gpu." As you wish, but remember i made my PC during the time PS3 was still in its hay days and cost 600usd. My PC cost me 800 usd. So cost of PS3 + ps4 (600 + 400) = 1000usd. Cost of my PC 800usd + 350usd gpu(new gtx 970) = 1150 usd Now account during the last 6 years every game bought has been 20-30 usd cheaper on the PC. I must have bought about 15-20 games a year. that would equate to about 500usd saving a year(this doesnt consider Steam discounts hence is still highly conservative calculation real savings would be much higher), multiply that by 6 years. Thats about 3000 usd saving in software alone. PC still cheaper and can still run all the games i bought in the last 6 years and plays current games better than PS4. Good luck rebuying everything bought on PS3 as HD remakes lol. So there you go, it further proves my point console gaming is expensive.
I left PC gaming not that I wasn't enjoying it but it became too much hassle, constant upgrades software clashes and driver issues just became annoying. I bought the PS3 for the Blu-Ray player but soon realised gaming on it was so much easier, buy a game stick it in and you know it will work, there are good reasons for PC gaming and I'm not knocking it but for those that just want to play consoles are the best option.
Depends on how much the PC in question cost. Any comparison that doesn't fully describe in detail the hardware platform of the PC in question is invalid. Regardless, the differences are marginal in these shots...you're lying to yourself if you claim otherwise.
@frosty I agree with you, Screenshots dont do the differences justice. One game running between 30-60fps and another dipping to 15fps is a game breaker. Screen shots dont show that extra power. At least on PC you can downgrade the graphics yourself to the point where you have a stable frame rate this is when your hardware is weak. You arent dictated by some developer on how your game runs. Imo dips down to 15fps are simply unacceptable and the screen shots dont show that.
After paying 2-3x what a console costs to get a decent PC, you'll come to find the game still runs like crap. It's a crappy game that was coded terribly. When even the PC version has performance issues on the best hardware on the market, you know you need to hire new developers to make your games.
@Caylee The conversation is about the current gen system you don't get to throw the Ps3 in there to inflate the cost. What does it cost for hardware to play AC Unity at least that's what I'm referring to as well as the article. I have Xb1,PS4,and a gaming rig I even bought AC4 on steam I'm no fanboy. Throwing the Ps3 in there to inflate come on.
@frosty I can list you several AAA games that ran crappy on the PS3 and by the looks of it the trend seems to be in place for the PS4. It wasnt just a few games. So whats the point of the 400usd console that dips to 15fps. I rather put the 400 usd in a bank or on something that actually works. Not my problem if Sony has a habbit of making hard to code machines and the devs dont have the time to optimize for it. Sony should have given the PS4 a real CPU problem solved, tablet CPUs just dont cut it. Installing tablet CPUs then charging 400usd lol, you get what you pay for.
@cayleee Unitys recommended rig is a beast. "I put time into Unity on an IGN PC with a Core i7-4670 CPU, a GeForce GTX 780, and 8GB RAM. With all of the graphical settings maxed at Ultra presets and 1920x1080 resolution, it ran at about 30fps, sometimes dipping into the 20s in the midst of major crowds. With a few minor tweaks, such as reducing shadow quality and bloom lighting, we got it running in the ballpark of 40 to 50, save for in-engine cutscenes which tended to dip back down into the 30s." -IGN everyone that has the rig to run at ULTRA settings, above 1080p and at 60 FPS, SOUND OFF!! I want to know what setup your running.
Can you read? "Our last comparison from gameplay confirms everything we’ve seen so far. Everything from the shadows to chandeliers etc. is much more crisp on PC, but it should also be noted that the PC taking those screenshots is a lot more expensive than a PlayStation 4." Also not to be rude but ubisoft usually makes better console games then pc ports, so stop your crying. The tech was too much for a console it seems.
@ Cayleee - Decrypt and T900 I highly doubt any of you can maintain 30fps at the bare minimum settings- Anyone trying to run this game on Ultra with 30+ FPS is going to be paying out the arse. Any of you can please prove me wrong and post your PC setup here with cost. Just in case you try to leave something out. Case- Power Supply- HDD- RAM- Mobo- CPU- GPU- Don't forget operation system- $120 (I'm sure all of you are running Linux systems right?) Also plan on keeping this system for it's 10 year life cycle. Want to just upgrade? 10 years ago you probably would be running a socket 775 CPU so don't forget to change out your motherboard. Also in 2007 we updated from DDR2 to DDR3 RAM so don't forget about that. One more thing- With each passing year your games will be losing image quality to keep up with the times, while console image quality is getting better each year.
Compare what you can do on a PC and what you can do on a PS4 and you will see how expensive a PS4 are. How many worthless PS3 and PS3 games are there out there? PS2? PS1? On PC you will own the games even if you change hardware. For consoles you need to keep every console to be able to play older games. Games are more expensive on PS4. Can you install other OSes on PS4? Can you program? Surf the web? Run great applications? You can game and maybe watch some netflix depending on if Sony allows you to. You can't compare what you get from a PC to what you get from a console.
@ elweon "Can you install other OSes on PS4? Can you program? Surf the web? Run great applications?" Now you are comparing apples to oranges- Let me change your comparison from PC VS PS4 to lets say... Smart phone VS your PC My phone can: Surf the web - From anywhere Make calls - From anywhere Text - You get the point Play games- Which are less expensive then on PC I can install another OS on my phone I can get GPS directions Yadda, yadda, yadda My phone costs about $800 new and does all of those things so it's better then your PC right? Wrong it's a PHONE first and foremost. "You can't compare what you get from a PC to what you get from a console." For the most part yes, because.. One is a Personal COMPUTER the other is a GAME console. You would have had slightly better argument if you compared a PC to the Xbox One which is trying to be a PC/STB/Receiver/Console/etc.
Good to see the #PS4NoParity campaign is working.
I wonder if MS paid Ubi to not optimize their game for X1 and PS4?
^^ Haha brilliant
Who would've guessed that 900P would look so crap compared to native 1080P. Looks like the PS4 version has a blur filter enabled.
HAHAHA best comment.
OK children.... Stop with the PC master race, console fanboy crap. Just shut up and enjoy the game.. Regardless, the game looks pretty good. Even though I bought it for PS4, I can't help but feel like I'm actually looking at something in real life, when syncing with a tower.
I love how only console fanboys downvote you. Although this is N4G, so anything pro-PC is like...the Devil.
I'm getting it for PS4, simply don't want to handle Ubi's legendary PC port issues.
I wouldn't buy it for PS4. It's a mess on most platforms. But it runs worse on PS4 then XB1. Ubisoft hit a new low.
It's shit on all 3.
That's very strange. It might be the first game to run worse on PS4....
Didn't some Ubisoft dev have the nerve to downplay Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor for 'copying' elements of Assassin Creed games? From what I'm hearing, Shadow is leaps and bound ahead of Unity in terms of both performance and gameplay.
If you like dips all the way to 18fps then Go ahead :D :l
is it really that bad? i take it this is a ubisoft screw up because the consoels should be more than capable imo,look at gta5 for example
and they didn't disappoint!
Enjoy your 18 fps on PS4! Thanks Ubi for amazing optimization <3
It's really ridiculous. It's a great looking game just runs like crap. It's unacceptable I'm mad at myself for buying it ahead of realese.
Let's pray for a magic patch...
@Imp0ssible3 That's what I'm waiting for. If it get's fixed then I'll purchase.
Runs fine on my PC with 30+fps and it looks amazing. I'm enjoying it. I doubt you are a PC gamer with a comment like that. It's one thing if you simply have more friends on console or you like trophies or something like that, but if you are trying to make it sound like you are getting the console version for technical reasons it just makes you sound silly. I have a PS4, but I'm getting solid performance on my PC AND that is at a higher resolution with more advanced graphics. The PC version has higher quality textures and effects, more advanced anti-aliasing (4x MSAA, TXAA), more accurate shading with HBAO+, percentage closer soft shadows (contact hardening shadows) with better shadow cascades and filtering, higher resolutions, higher framerates and will get tessellation in an upcoming update.
Of course the PC version is technically superior, that's for sure. But it takes at least a 600-700$ PC to do something better than PS4
@impossible Well the PS4 version is broke, whats the point for a 400usd machine if its going dip down to 17fps. I rather play it on a 700usd machine if its going to give me 30fps fixed (thats about double the performance not to mention at 1080p).
I wouldn't blame the PS4 for this mess. Ubisoft has a bad habit of promising things and disappointing results. But obviously with a PC, It is using brute force. Decrypt. What processor do you have in your PC.
well it ran mostly between 50-60 fps on my new gtx 980 on ultra settings and now i'm just waiting for ubisoft to release the nvida dx11 tessellation patch.. the game is really a graphical eye candy..
Ubi AC series always run like crap upon release, and after a month or two it'll run like butter. Case in point being Black Flag. This game being no exception. The only difference is that Unity is clearly a generation leap visually from the other AC series. Out of all the platforms, this game begs to be played on PC due it's graphical opulence.
After that I decided to buy it, I will take certainly on PC.
this comes to my 2K PC
What's a 2K PC?
If anything like my monitor he probably means 2560x1440, compared to HDTV 1920x1080.
In computer graphics 2k refers to QHD, 2560x1440. In television 2k may refer to 1080p
probably means price.
He who paid the iron price shall play AC: Unity in [email protected]
you'd be lucky to be able to run the game at higher than 30 frames at 1080p on a modest set up. For 2k you're gonna need a modern i7 and a GTX 780 minimum. That's like a $1000 investment right there and still wouldn't be able to max out the game. Not even TotalBiscuit with a $2000 high end rig with a SLI set-up and haswell i7 was able to max it out. The game's an unoptimized mess on PC that requires a beast CPU. http://www.twitlonger.com/s... @madmonkey01, maybe, that would make my comment irrelevant though. ;(
High requirements =/= bad port. Unoptimized? lol https://www.youtube.com/wat...
Starting to seem like the PS4 version is the worst version.
well, you might say that it is. The Xbone because it has slightly faster CPU it has an edge over the the PS4 version of 3-5 frames during gameplay. But the PS4 has higher frame-rate during cut-scenes. http://www.eurogamer.net/ar... The PC version is an horrible mess though. The requirements to play the game at 1080p and over 30 frames are ridiculously high.
An i5 2500k and GTX 770 are ridiculously high? I've been enjoying the game with a steady, capped framerate and a mix of high and very high settings.
ms are getting what they wanted from paying ubi off, fanboys for x1 come out the woodwork and try and claim its better than the ps4 = more x1 sales we all know the ps4 is the better console and that ubi have dropped the ball here,i hope no1 buys the game and it back fires on them
@ Starchild Isn't a GTX 770 going for $280 or more? That's just the GPU! CPU is close to 4 years old. You also have the minimum CPU requirements. Paying $800 for a moderate PC is a lot for some.
There doesn't seem to be a "good version" of the game. It runs like crap on all systems.
Indeed, the game has "no optimization" written all over it.
It's demanding, but I don't think there is any justification to call it an "unoptimized mess" as some people are. I agree with Nvidia's comment on the topic: "Next, we come to the hot topic, 'optimization'. Frequently referenced in heated online debates, 'optimization' is commonly and incorrectly used to describe a game's general level of performance, be that good or bad. Instead, optimization should be used to determine a game's comparative performance. "Does the game running on engine x output more graphically intensive scenarios than game y using the same engine?" "Does the new game in a franchise run better than the previous version, and with improved graphics?" "Does a game utilize all available CPU cores, and to a high degree of utilization, in comparison to a similar game or a previous game in the same franchise?" "Is the game in question significantly nicer-looking than another similar game, yet running better?" These are just some of the questions that should be asked when determining if a game is 'optimized'. In the context of Unity, it's immediately obvious that Ubisoft Montreal's new game is doing far more on Low settings than Black Flag did on settings suitable for a GTX 680, and the answers to the questions above are all "yes" when you step back and analyze exactly what Unity is doing on-screen and in the background. Beyond that baseline GTX 680, we see the GeForce GTX 780 Ti running identical settings in Unity as it did in Black Flag, yet doing so much more. Both games run with max settings enabled and 2x MSAA, but unequivocally there's more happening on a technical level in Unity. This is, by its very definition, optimization." http://www.geforce.com/what...
It was definitely not developed to the true capabilities of each platform. It seems like Ubisoft did not want to take the time since they have to crank a new game out each year.
http://n4g.com/news/1624207... "Though crowd size was something we looked at extensively pre-launch, it is something we continue to keep a close eye on. We have just finished a new round of tests on crowd size but have found it is not linked to this problem and does not improve frame rate, so we will be leaving crowds as they are." LMAO. So much for the X1 performing better due to it's slightly stronger CPU.