DSOGaming writes: "YouTube’s ‘CrowbCat’ has shared a video featuring all of Ubisoft’s downgraded games. This video shows the differences between the E3 and the final versions of Watch_Dogs, The Division, Rainbow Six, Far Cry 4 and Far Cry 3."
They always show off pc versions, but even at the end of the day those are even downgraded. Bait and switch at its worst at Ubisoft Anytime ubisoft shows a game off just immediately lower your expectations on how it will really turn out to be This is also why I hate live demos at E3. Only certain devs actually show live demo (Naughty dog an example when the game crashed, a few microsoft, and ea showings). Sure it's embarrassing when it happens, but you know that they're real demo at that point. Ubisoft just scripts everything, make it better looking and has a guy on stage printing to play what is clearly a video
But the recent AC games and Farcry 4 weren't downgraded so its not an every game thing, people who are mainly console gamers just need to stop thinking that they're presenting the console version of the game.
Did u see the video bro? Fc4 downgrade was pretty significant
I saw no downgrade, what I saw was changes to the area not graphics.
The water looked better, more vegetation, volumetric lighting WAS MILES BETTER in the demo, more details like spray paint on rocks and the terrain had statues and more stuff on it than the final game, explosions looked nicer and bigger, animals interacted with each other which never happened in the final far cry 4 video. Like far cry 4 was pretty badly downgraded just as much as far cry 3 was almost sadley..... And the most recent AC game actually was downgraded from Unity imo....UNity had bigger crowds and just looked better. I'm tired of Ubisoft I wish someone would hack their conference at e3 and play this video.
Consoles are to blame unfortunatley.. these upgrades are needed obviously.
I'm so freaking tired of all the hubbub about downgrades. At the end of the day does it really matter that much? It seems to me that developers that aim low from the beginning and hit their low targets are celebrated, while developers who aim for the Sun and only hit Jupiter are criticized to no end. That's absolutely insane to me. Sure, it would be somewhat preferable to me for a dev to aim high and still hit that target, and there are a few very talented and well-funded studios that manage to do that. But honestly 95% of what matters to me is simply how the game ends up when all is said and done. I don't latch onto early trailers and expect the final game to look exactly the same, because that's unrealistic. Even some of the best devs make noticeable changes to their games. It's part of the iterative development process. Whether it's artistic or technical changes, or a combination of both, it's fairly common to see. A recent example are the changes made to Uncharted 4. Whether the changes are artistic or technical doesn't really matter. People may legitimately prefer the way certain things looked before. But does it make sense to get so hung up on such things? The devs are going to make the changes they think are best for their game and by the time the game releases we will have had plenty of time and info to make up our minds whether it's something we want to spend our money on or not. And pushing this agenda of "no downgrades at any cost" is not going to have the desired effect. It will NOT result in better looking games as some naively think. It will actually tend to have the opposite effect. You see, developers don't just arbitrarily downgrade their games 'for the hell of it'. If a downgrade in a certain area occurs it's generally for a good reason. That is, to make a better overall game. Now, you might point to a couple developers that manage to aim high early on and still come pretty close to that target in the final game. But those are the exception. Most devs hit their early targets by the sheer fact they weren't pushing the envelope from the beginning. If your vision for a game is only pushing the console at roughly 75% capacity, for example, of course it's going to be easy to reach that vision in the final game. So if the downgrade brigade keep making a big stink about downgrades most developers will be left with only two choices: don't show their games until later in development OR aim low from the beginning. But the fact is, devs usually don't have much choice in when they show their games, as it's often publishers and marketing departments that make those kinds of decisions, and that's unlikely to change. There are a lot of reasons why you want to get the word out early about your game and give it plenty of time to percolate down to as many people as possible. So while we might force a little change in that regard I suspect that many publishers will continue to show their games off fairly early. The end result will be that many developers just aim low from the start.
When I look at the games with downgrade drama surrounding them they tend to have one thing in common: they are some of the better looking games around. I mean, it's not games like Transistor or Minecraft we see with downgrade scandals. It's games like The Witcher 3, Far Cry 4 and The Division, all of which are among the best looking games I've seen on my PC. So, yeah, if a developer can manage to aim high and still hit that target in the final game, great. But I'm not too bothered by downgrades. I know that game development is a balancing act and changes are always being made, whether they're noticeable to our eyes or not. What really matters to me is the end result and whether it's something I think I will enjoy.
Most of these downgrades are downright criminal!
No...just...no. There are NO AAA titles Ubisoft doesn't downgrade. This has always been done in the industry but a few years ago starting I think with Assassin's Creed Revelations Ubisoft took it to a ridiculous level. Before that the most obvious culprit was Killzone 2? It was really frowned upon but wasn't something widely practiced. Now almost every single major game that releases (not all of them but at least 80% of them) are "downgraded" before release. Frankly I feel like what gets a game "certified gold" should be completely reevauluated. Aliens Coloniel Marines is by far the worst downgrade in the last 10 years but Ubisoft is CONSISTENTLY downgrading EVERYTHING. The only series I don't see downgraded is Rayman and Just Dance because those don't really require insanely detailed visuals. Rayman is more like beautiful paintings you interact with overlayed with 3d character models. Just Dance is Just Crap for visuals visuals aren't the point. The kind of stuff Ubisoft PR pulls should be ground for termination and frankly they are so notorious for this nonsense that I think their stockholders could actually take them to court for misrepresenting their product. I started a 6 month Ubisoft boycott after playing Watchdogs. I still play their games but I am always going to buy them used and I won't do so until there have been enough months worth of patches to get the product in a nonbroken state. I really wish more people stopped putting up with this crap. Ubisoft is far from the only company that does this but they are the most notorious for it right now. They are responsible for essentially making what used to be a frowned upon practice the still frowned upon "status quo." They have pretty much lost my trust for the foreseeable future they won't get a cent from me until they can release a solid years worth of titles that work properly and aren't downgraded before launch. Which I think means they are never going to get a cent from me again excluding the indie titles which don't seem to have these problems. Now as for calling you out on this? It isn't personal at all I am trying to give this explanation to let you know about this dangerous truth. Far Cry 4 was downgraded but nowhere near the extent of Watch Dogs or the Crew or The Divison. You are experiencing a smoke and mirrors of sorts. Because those games were so terribly downgraded before launch and Far Cry 4 was downgraded but nowhere near as much you can't even "sense" the difference. We have become so "used" to Ubisoft doing this that when a "servicable" product releases we think "while comparing it their previous recent products" "oh this wasn't downgraded" It was just not as badly. The only company I am more disappointed with right now is probably Konami. They can screw off forever. I am never playing their newer titles again. Sucks as I really liked the Castlevania series but I actually HOPE they go out of business I hope they end up in destitute poverty and homeless shamed unable to get a job anywhere (the big wigs of the company that is) The crap Ubisoft pulls is nothing compared to those waste of lives.
Seriously, Ubisoft need to stop with that bullshot.
PC? Not even the pc versions look the same in the final version. Go look at Watch Dogs, maxed out settings on PC still do not look anything like the E3 Demo. Same goes for Far Cry 3.
You forgot to go into the source code and activate the e3 settings ;)
@annoyedgamer Yeah, i think thats because of catering to the consoles though, if they wernt so underpowered things may have turned out differently.
Same here except doom being an exception.. thought that game would look nothing like the e3 demo but damn it came pretty close
The sad reality is that everything gets downgraded, because it has to with development times. Uncharted, Halo, The Division all of these have been downgraded visually from their initial showing. No one takes the time to fully optimize for the system/hardware they are developing for. Doom 3 took so much time in development because the hardware wasn't there for everyone to run it. The vertical slice they show off is so finely tuned, that all the extra parts of the game whether rendering more or less in terms of objects, physics, characters, etc.. is never as optimized as the initial showing or even the first level of the game. We need experienced developers to show new ones how to do things and publishers give enough time to fully polish their games. Why do you think all of these Unreal Engine showcases look magnificent, its one level or one showcase and thats it. They show off these tiny portions to its full prowess, but when it comes to the initial or full release, things just seem bland or out of place. Of course, Ubisoft is the worst offender. I haven't bought The Division or Rainbow Six Siege because they don't deserve my money. I'll buy them both when they are sub $50 season pass included. I'm not financially strained, but I'll do my best to deter their BS.
Where did you see that Uncharted 4 was downgraded? From what I've seen, it was the opposite (I'm assuming you're talking about 4, but if you're talking about 3, you're right, it was)
Uncharted 4 was downgraded from the original E3 demo to initial release. Was Ubisoft downgrade no, thank god. But it is there. Uncharted always looked good and the changes aren't Ubisoft noticeable.
Not to mention that no Assassin's Creed game ever looked as good as they do in the official screenshots
That's not true. I was playing Unity last night and it looks equally as good as it did in the trailers and screenshots. Actually it looks better, but that's probably because I'm running it at 1440p with downsampling from 4k and SMAA, and seeing it in person. There is literally no aliasing my eyes can see and it looks insanely good overall. I think it is still one of the very best looking games available. Come to think of it, there has never been an Assassin's Creed game I've played where I thought "hey, this doesn't look quite as good as the trailers". They've all lived up to their trailers very well in my opinion.
The only Ubi game that never receives a downgrade to my knowledge is Rayman. Really thirsty for a new one...Michel Ancel is a beast, I'm hoping he's working on a new Rayman along with Wild. Would love to have an entire Rayman title based around the music levels, that was rhythm gaming done right, just fun as all hell. Nothing Ubisoft could announce would get me more pumped.
Publishers are industry experts and know full well they are false advertising (even at E3) and string people along with ad money journalists, doctored bullshots, and fake "in-game" footage all the way to Day 1 to secure preorders and season passes. I don't preorder anything now and at worse I play a game a day late. I am old school and want to SEE what I buy before I buy because there has been enough advertising crime to justify this: https://www.ftc.gov/news-ev...
I was about to reply with something along the lines of people need to just get over the whole downgrade aspect - because graphics are whatever. But not only did the visuals take a hit, but several other aspects were removed entirely. Civilians from Watch Dogs, hacking situations, buildings from The Division, etc... Really a shame. Not something really noticed when playing but after seeing a side by side - it's really depressing.
The new ghost recon also did it.. though it always looked too good to be true
FOR HONOR looked amazing. So I have already lowered my expectations. bring it on Ubi !!
That is the only game i think wont be downgraded as it was playable on different events.. still fingers crossed
If you mean R6 Siege THEN YES! I never realized the downgrade of the game till now.. Beyond that though graphics are better than ever and they will only keep improving so just take these early game plays as a look into the future of gaming.
Really? I thought the Ghost Recon trailer was pretty similar, then again everything was happening quite fast.
I thought it looked just as good. In fact, I was somewhat more impressed by the graphics in the recent trailer than the first trailer. Still, I'm sure some people will find some element that has been changed or downgraded (and ignore any areas or aspects that have been improved) and then blow it way out of proportion.
Take everything Ubisoft shows at E3 with a grain of salt.
Grain of salt? More like this. http://resources.gale.com/g...
or that lol
They go through the trouble of creating something amazing and then even go through more trouble to make it less amazing than it already was. I mean, I understand that gameplay segments are scripted for the sake of the presentation, but just look at how much more detail a map had before it was actually FINISHED.
And a lot of those downgrades aren't even for performance's sake; just look at how the hostage feels alive and how the animation is amazing in the rainbow six siege gameplay presentation compared to the retail version. They purposely made that knowing that it won't be in the final product.
I wholeheartedly agree - if they already made it that way and the game runs fine (which it does in nearly all videos), there's no reason for them to remove it. No reason at all. Hell, the Far Cry 3 Vaas island demo was running on a PS3 and it ran perfectly fine, but for some reason, the version we got looked like utter crap in comparison. I mean, look at the foliage! Just look at it! The jungle looked so much more alive and believable compared to the plastic mess we got in the end.
Nope, i'm 100% sure that the e3 footage is just that, a pre-rendered footage, not actual real-time gameplay.
Nope, they are in most cases heavily scripted live demos. There's a guy on youtube who gets his hands on them and plays through them, so you can see what they're like (I remember him playing through Ghost Recon Future Soldier's E3 demo). The thing is, they've already went through the trouble of making gorgeous scenes, environments and effects only to remove them for no apparent reason. UPDATE: https://www.youtube.com/wat... here it is.
It's almost like the old TV show Bullseye: "And here's what you could of won"
Marketing 101. Kids are fuckin stuuuuupid! ^ Why I don't take any... ANYYYY gameplay video serious until I see people playing it on YouTube. The letsplayer revolution!
Now do this for every game shown at E3 vs release builds. That will shut up a lot of UBI haters.
Probably not. Fanboys of those other games will just pretend nothing has changed in those games, while bashing companies like Ubisoft and EA over the smallest perceived changes.
See this just goes to prove my point that when people bring up Watch_Dogs as an example of downgrading I always have felt that, out of most games these days, Watch_Dogs was very mild in comparison. A few less people and a few less over the top scripted sequences, sure, but over all we still pretty much got what we were shown game play and graphics wise. My biggest disappointment was The Division and Bioshock Infinite which I know isn't an Ubi game but I had major issues with it.
The Division is a Ubisoft game. But I agree, I feel like the Watch Dogs downgrade wasn't half as bad as some of their others, it's still looked rather decent to me.
Got seriously burned by AC Unity and even Brink back in the day. Publishers pass off such BS at E3
Do you mean "Vertical Slices" vs finished product.....games that will be sold on underpowered consoles.....that also run like balls on PC. You'll miss THIS Ubisoft after Vivendi pilages it from the Brothers Gumot.
The kings of vertical slices. Don't trust anything they show at E3 until you actually see it running in front of you. After watchdogs I learned my lesson.
I love CrowbCat, such a brilliant YouTuber lol, definitely subscribe to his channel
Is this really that much of a surprise?! Thought we'd been over this, like 3 years ago... Unless we all purchase a bank of high end PCs that would take up our living room spaces, there's no room to complain about comparing apples to oranges. It may be an interesting comparison, but I truly cannot say my PS4 games look crappy.
It isn't a surprise anymore, a video like this cataloguing it is good to see. Easy to show what a lack of accountability lets big publishers get away with. I know downgrades are basically standard operation now, but some of those differences are insultingly huge. They are showing off a game that they are selling as "representative" of the final product. They need to put "not the actual game, this is a target render" on any game not literally running in real time on consumer grade hardware (PC or Console). Not even a top of the line PC (or "bank of PCs" like you say) can render the game close to what they show. If it was the case that 99% of people couldn't run it to look like they are selling it, that'd be one thing. But NO ONE can get the game to look like that. If we've come to expect it, you can bet they already know Day 1 they can't hit those target graphics. Just come up with a realistic render by showing it run in REAL TIME, even if that rendering is targeting a rig out of most peoples budget, like a $1,700 i7 Extreme Edition and two GTX 1080s in SLI at $1200. Then make sure you leave those options in on the PC version for consumers with the hardware to run it. I rant about PC mostly, but this is true of consoles as well. Show the console versions truthfully and the PC versions truthfully. Shouldn't be hard, but every year we get these things. This video of back to back failures has gotten under my skin for some reason lol.
Haha, perfect timing to remind us not to buy Ubi's bullshit at E3 this year.
This is why I have yet to buy any Ubisoft games this gen (bar Zombi because that started out on the Wii U).
Ubisoft downgrades make them an "ICONIC" name in the gaming industry.
That's why I always say at E3. "won't look like that at retail". It should be crime, they should be fined for misleading people. Ubicon have been doing it for ages. They always do this by explaining it's on every console but never explain what version the footage is on. You cannot defend this
I like many Ubisoft games, but they should stop with the bullshots. Their marketing team are asshats and make the devs look bad.
Why are people still giving Ubi money? The same people who support Bay films?
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.