If they're happy enough to drop res, which also cuts IQ, I'm sure they're plenty willing to sacrifice anything and everything extra of PS4.
They explained it in the article "CPU bound" is all they needed to say. The advantages of PS4 don't apply if performance is limited by CPU, infact with the higher clock the Xbone could have a small advantage on the CPU, but they are locking them at 30 so it wouldn't be noticeable.
!People still haven't read the damn quote fully
CPU BOUND REFERS TO FRAMERATE, NOT RESOLUTION.
Assassin's Creed Unity |OT| Liberté, égalité, parité
"We decided to lock them at the same specs to avoid all the debates and stuff"
Guess it's time to vote with my waller then, sorry Ubi.
If you had a PC that could go above the xb1 version, you should have thought of the PC version the entire time?
![]()
I guess they were honest atleast.
Still going to get it. Shame for the people who won't because they care too much about this sort of thing.
What do you mean?
Another post like this one ^
Except I actually quoted someone.
Don't ever change, GAF.
*dismounts from high horse*
Point them out. Have an actual discussion.
I can't say that I'm surprised. All of the non-PC footage they've shown has looked aliased and fuzzy.
And I seriously doubt that the "parity" has anything to do with Ubisoft wanting to end arguments. If they could have gotten the game running at 1080p on PS4 they would have. I'd surmise that it's an issue of time and, more importantly, a weak CPU as they've stated. If a game is CPU limited a better GPU isn't going to do much.
Everyone getting upset needs to relax as well. Running at the same resolution doesn't mean that both games will look the same.
They explained it in the article "CPU bound" is all they needed to say. The advantages of PS4 don't apply if performance is limited by CPU, infact with the higher clock the Xbone could have a small advantage on the CPU, but they are locking them at 30 so it wouldn't be noticeable.
I don't understand plenty of games run the same on both. Why the outrage?
Is MS ok with a PS4 version being 1080p?
Option 1 because the AC engine is garbage.
I'll put my bet on #3
1. Yet they could make the XB1 version run the same, eventhough the hardware is not on the same level with the PS4.
2. That didn't stop them from making the last gen ACs run better on the 360.
3. Yet many other publishers manage to make their games run at 1080p on the PS4 long before the release date.
There is no way for them to come out of this as impartial without actually making use of the more powerful hardware.
Nope. Remember when Phantom Pain was showed at E3 2013 on MS's stage?
Then after the ground zeroes Graphics comparision, MS told Kojima to never come back to their stage again, and thus Sony picked them up.
Nope. Remember when Phantom Pain was showed at E3 2013 on MS's stage?
Then after the ground zeroes Graphics comparision, MS told Kojima to never come back to their stage again, and thus Sony picked them up.
Dev literally confirms holding parity between the two machines.
...this thread might destroy GAF.
Even if you buy used, that's still money GameStop's gonna make on a game they'll feel incentivized to further restock in one way or another. You'll still be supporting the further marketing of a game. That's all you'll be accomplishing.Buying used is the solution for me. Will be the first non digital game I have bought in months but I will trudge down to the gamestop to avoid giving Ubi any money for this. After trading in black flag of course.
They explained it in the article "CPU bound" is all they needed to say. The advantages of PS4 don't apply if performance is limited by CPU, infact with the higher clock the Xbone could have a small advantage on the CPU, but they are locking them at 30 so it wouldn't be noticeable.
I know it's hyperbole and all, but did this actually happen in some way?Nope. Remember when Phantom Pain was showed at E3 2013 on MS's stage?
Then after the ground zeroes Graphics comparision, MS told Kojima to never come back to their stage again, and thus Sony picked them up.
I think Ubisoft is actually right for this one. Resolution/graphical debates between consoles (and in general) have always been childish, and it's sad to see that we always get 40 page threads whenever it's announced that two different versions of a game will have a different resolution.
It seems odd that they say the thing about doing it to avoid debate, but then in the same interview have a technical discussion that could've easily explained the reason (ie our AI is too good for CPUs! *shrug*) for it being the same look on both.
Yep the game does not seem to run any better and it looks worse.Did anyone here actually read the article past the first sentence?
Serious questions:
If a game is CPU-bound, then that only affects frame rate - right?
Resolution is entirely a GPU issue - right?
How about other effects, like AA and post-processing. I've always assumed that they are entirely a GPU problem and don't cause any extra stress on the GPU. Am I right?
I've played CPU-bound games on PC, and generally it means that I can stick everything on 'ultra' and it makes everything look better, while the framerate is essentially unaffected.
I mean, the way I've always diagnosed a CPU-bound problem is literally to reduce everything to low/800x600 and see if it makes a significant difference to framerate. If it doesn't, you're CPU-bound.
So why are the resolutions different?
The only reason to be <1080p is because you are also GPU-bound.
The only justification to have both consoles at the same sub-1080p resolution is (IMO) if you are GPU bound, but want to give one console some extra texture-detail/effects/AA rather than bumping its resolution.
Not so serious question:
Is this the same Ubisoft guy that thought blaming the animation expenses would defuse any possible debate about the exclusively male protagonist?
I bet 1080p/900p would have given them less of a debate than this bullshit.
I just hope MS wrote them a big enough cheque to counter the offset in lost sales..
Im in? Which twitter account do I need to send it to?