Gary Swaby of The Koalition writes:
Controversy has struck again in the gaming industry, and it has lead to many gamers showing their ignorance for resolution and performance. Earlier in the week it came out that Ubisoft has capped the resolution of Assassin’s Creed: Unity to 900p/30fps on both the Xbox One and Playstation 4. It was also hinted that this was done to be fair to gamers on both platform, so one version doesn’t run better than the other. Ubisoft has since done damage control, stating that 30fps is more cinematic. Whatever their intention was, should Ubisoft have just not said a word? Will they do the same with Far Cry 4? We discuss it on the show.
Far Cry debuted on March 23, 2004, meaning that next week, it will have been 20 years since Jack Carver first washed up on the shore of a tropical paradise teeming with hostile mercenaries.
Yeah, 4 was good, was hard choosing which Golden Dawn member to side with, when they were both pieces of sh!t.
I've beaten all the main entries except 2 and 6, ended up uninstalling 6 to download something else instead.
I'd love a far cry pack with the original PC game (not the half assed port on ps360) instincts, predator even a port of far cry 2 to modern consoles back when these games had their own identity and weren't far cry 3 cut and pastel
Same here, I don't know why these games get so much hate. I've thoroughly enjoyed every single one of them, with only a couple of exceptions. I wish they'd hurry up and announce Far Cry 7. The only thing I'm concerned about is the rumoured time limit.
Shaz from GL writes: "Assassin’s Creed Unity is looked at as one of the worst in Ubisoft’s iconic franchise. But playing it nearly 10 years later reveals it may just be the best"
Digital Foundry : Whether it's via FPS Boost or bespoke software upgrades, backwards compatibility on the current-gen consoles delivered an unexpected delight - the ability to liberate older console games from their 30fps limits, running them at 60 frames per second or even higher. FPS Boost did the business for Xbox Series consoles on an impressive range of titles, but there was always the sense that PS5 could do more. It's a hunch that checks out as a range of frame-rate unlocks are available for PS5, covering many must-have games - the major caveat being that only exploitable consoles running on older firmwares are invited to the party.
you love to see new life being breathed into older titles but damn the process to get there. It should be automatic that these work for everyone... not just those who exploit their systems. Really wish Sony and MS would keep this program going officially.
Damn this sucks. I want this shit so bad, but I’m not jailbreaking my console. And frankly I shouldn’t have to. I’m not a tech person, but is it really that hard for developers to unlock the framerate? Or would that have to be a large patch?
"but is it really that hard for developers to unlock the framerate?"
I guess it's not.
But it has become a profitable business if you do so.
So no one would pay for only the framerate patched to being unlocked. So studios need to offer more than that.
But this would take more time, polishing and would cost more money. So they shy away, but won't unlock the framerate, either.
That's just my personal assumption. But from what I can comprehend technically, it shouldn't be difficult to unlock framerates via a patch for older games.
... if it hadn't became a business.
frame-rate unlock should be free ...
We've seen many devs offer free patches and updates to pretty old PC titles, even bonuses ... so why can't devs offer the frame unlock patch for free (in consultation with the platform-producers) for a title from just a generation earlier?
RaidenBlack
"frame-rate unlock should be free ..."
Obviously the result of that thinking is that developers aren't even going to do it.
If they had been allowed to charge $5-10 you would see incentivized developers doing it way more often.
People just always want everything for free, but it's not free to make the patch, people have to code it then other people have to test it, and there will always be other costs involved.
If people want dollar store gaming then expect to get what you pay for.
Raiden I might be wrong but last I thought it cost money to put patches out on consoles.
As far as me paying for it, I'm not all that interested tbh. Not enough to pay for it with older games, and newer games have been pretty decent about it for the most part.
Sounds like the modder has to go in to make changes to unlock it on a game by game basis. "Simple" enough to do it unofficially, but to have it done officially, they need someone to go in a make that change, put out a patch and put it through certification, which I believe is not necessarily a cheap thing to do. It's questionable if going through this would then give them enough sales to make it worthwhile.
Many games still have physics tied to framerate, i think it's cause they wouldn't want to go in and do anything extra. Then there's the 10 dollar upgrades they rather charge. The problem is that there's no compromise, cause if I could mod my PS4 and all I'd lose is online play then id jailbreak it immediately. Mods have done so much for PC games and they could do the same for consoles, but manufacturers hafto be willing to compromise.
It's not to hard to do and there's youtube videos that break it down really well. ANyway most of us here arent able to break are console anyway due to being up to date on firmware from playing
Yep, this sucks having to require a jailbreak for something that should be standard in our industry by now. I learned my lesson when PS4 was jailbroken and I didn't keep a console on low firmware for years, but now I'm holding onto two low firmware PS5s specifically because there are features I'll be able to do that you can't do on official firmware, so this will pay off for me soon enough.
This is a good post of a podcast that happened.
Great cast. Even with Ubisoft claiming to have down the Unity lock to "avoid debate", it's not as big a deal as most make it.
I'm very much looking forward to Far Cy 4 and even if it is 900p and 30fps that still won't stop me from buying the game. While Ubisoft handled this matter the wrong way, anyone who says they won't buy Assassin's Creed Unity because of it is fooling themselves. Who pays $400- $500 for a console and doesn't buy games for it? That is absolutely absurd and I guarantee most of the people complaining now will buy the game anyway so they should just keep quiet and enjoy the game for what it is.
They've backed themselfs into a corner with this one
If they do lock it for "parity" then it's going to become obvious they aren't taken advantage of what the other console can do and they will be called for this "new" trend.
HOWEVER
If they don't lock it them people are going to question them over the fact how they can do 1080 for Far Cry 4 but can't do it for Assassins Creed Unity, showing us they can reach it if they want.
Double Edge Sword in my opinion
great show