Assassin's Creed "Parity": Unity is 900p/30fps on both PS4 & Xbox One

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ethelwulf said:
Honest question: How do we know if MS paid for this?
Click to expand...

I personally don't think MS is behind this. I'm not saying it's not possible, rather I haven't see anything to say it is. And saying they have something to gain is the proof they did did it..is pretty illogical.

That said, I think the bigger question is: why would Ubisoft want parity? Why would they want to limit the performance of their game, and purposely limit a console that a lot of people paid for (because of the consoles specs as a feature)?

The only reason that would make sense, is that it was a business decision. And given that this industry relies heavily on relationships, I dunno. It's not that far fetched. I agree that doesn't damn MS, and especially doesn't prove they paid money for it. Unless I'm missing something. So i agree with you in that sense.

EDIT: I guess I missed a post about an MS marketing deal. I have to go back and read it. For the record, I still think this is a terrible practice regardless the reason.
 
sphinx said:
how the fuck does a thread, ANY thread, reaches page 70 in 5 hours??

damn, I remember how small was GAF in 2008 compared to today.
Click to expand...

Assume there is a non-issue of something that very clearly is an issue, and you'll have people miffed about it. That quote from the Ubisoft employee is legit oil to such a fire regarding parity. Parity that if we are looking under the hood all but assures one version of the game is intentionally being unoptimized for some reason.

Either someone is being moneyhatted - and there is fuel to this fire considering Microsoft was a pretty demanding player last generation regarding parity - or time constraints somehow led to the product being technically poor. Both possibilities are terrible, to be frank, though I personally lead towards the latter. The image posted in this thread a few pages back looks like a 360 game, let alone an 8th gen exclusive title.
 
alr1ght said:
0337_gxkq3.gif
:)
Click to expand...

oh wow lol
 
Bgamer90 said:
Yes, it's wrong for Ubisoft to hold the PS4 back (and stupid for them to say it publicly). 100% agree.

What I'm saying though is that I'm positive this current reaction wouldn't be the same if the PS4 version was a better resolution than the Xbox One version -- even if Ubi still didn't do all they could do for the PS4 version.
Click to expand...

The reaction is bad because Ubisoft basically admitted forced parity because they don't want to deal with controversy. Your hypotheticals really are neither here nor there. But I'll humor you: If the XB1 version was 720p and the PS4 version was 900p and Ubisoft said nothing, sure. But if that were the case and they said that they limited the PS4 version based on parity even then I think people would be in an uproar.
 
Death2494 said:
I thought it was common knowledge that both CPUs were the same as tablets?I actually don't recall anyone saying that the CPU's were beast
Click to expand...

Fanboys do, the average gaming website goes mental about it. It's quite annoying that they even just compare amount of cores and say it is superior in all tasks to a Core i5. People forget that the games is what matters. But I can't stand if people start throwing buzzwords at each other, reminds me of "Blast Processing" ;).
 
JoeTheBlow said:
Christ Bgamer, you just refuse common sense.
Click to expand...

Uh, how? I'm speculating just like many other people. I don't see how the possibility of the XB1 version originally being less than 900p goes against "common sense". If anything, it would make sense for the XB1 version to have more problems running in 900p than the PS4 version since it's the weaker console.

OneEyeTwoHead said:
Who gives a shit what the reaction would be on some hypothetical sitatuation?
Click to expand...

I would imagine the companies (i.e.: Ubisoft) being involved in the speculation that's going on here and other places. Ubisoft's horrible statement/explanation obviously played a big role in this.
 
entering neogaf and reading "parity" - 900p/30fps, i expected a 30 page thread. Pleasantly surprised to see it has more than double of the pages.


In my shit opinion, I think that in the end what will matter is that if the game is good or not, and almost everyone that is losing their mind over resolution and framerate are going to forget it, play the game and enjoy it, or they weren't even going to buy the game in the first place, but posted here to add fuel to the fire.


And if there's so much debacle over resolution/framerate, there's always pc right?
 
Bgamer90 said:
Criticize my thought if you guys want. Just speculating (heh)...

What if MS helped to make AC Unity be 900p on the Xbox One? What if the game was originally set to be less than 900p on the Xbox One?

This wouldn't negate the fact that Ubisoft still held back the PS4 version but even if they did, I doubt the reaction would be the same because you would have had a 900p vs. --less than 900p-- situation; PS4 version would still be better and people would accept that since it's the more powerful system.

This is all just me speculating though. Overall, what I'm trying to say is MS could have added on to this current reaction without them intending to (if again, it's true that they helped AC Unity be 900p on the Xbox One -- but again, it's just me thinking about multiple situations that have led up to this).
Click to expand...

I thought about this scenario too but if that was the case why would they go out of their way to claim to locked specs to avoid debate? That would have been unnecessary.
 
Toki767 said:
That line pretty much would tell you that the PS4 got downgraded vs the Xbox One getting upgraded. Even though who knows, maybe both happened. That's the nature of parity.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, or maybe the PS4 version will have a solid framerate and the Xbone version will dive. MS may have stipulated resolution parity, but that could come at the expense of framerate. Ubisoft were sub-720p most of last gen with AC weren't they?
 
Honorio said:
entering neogaf and reading "parity" - 900p/30fps, i expected a 30 page thread. Pleasantly surprised to see it has more than double of the pages.


In my shit opinion, I think that in the end what will matter is that if the game is good or not, and almost everyone that is losing their mind over resolution and framerate are going to forget it, play the game and enjoy it, or they weren't even going to buy the game in the first place, but posted here to add fuel to the fire.


And if there's so much debacle over resolution/framerate, there's always pc right?
Click to expand...

It's more about a bigger issue here, rather than a single game. People don't like the idea of parity. ie. A company purposely limiting the performance of a game (making it worse than what it could have been), for the sake of another platform. I think it's a reasonable thing to be upset about, and something that should be discussed. Just because it's happened a lot in the past, doesn't make it any more acceptable.

I don't think it's unreasonable for someone NOT buy this game, if it's being made worse than what it could have been for the sake of a business relationship.
 
Honorio said:
entering neogaf and reading "parity" - 900p/30fps, i expected a 30 page thread. Pleasantly surprised to see it has more than double of the pages.


In my shit opinion, I think that in the end what will matter is that if the game is good or not, and almost everyone that is losing their mind over resolution and framerate are going to forget it, play the game and enjoy it, or they weren't even going to buy the game in the first place, but posted here to add fuel to the fire.


And if there's so much debacle over resolution/framerate, there's always pc right?
Click to expand...

With an Ubisoft game? You're lucky if it can even run above 20fps, let alone hitting 30.
 
Dehnus said:
Fanboys do, the average gaming website goes mental about it. It's quite annoying that they even just compare amount of cores and say it is superior in all tasks to a Core i5. People forget that the games is what matters. But I can't stand if people start throwing buzzwords at each other, reminds me of "Blast Processing" ;).
Click to expand...
I don't remember anyone here claim CPU on console
are a beast. Far the contrary.
 
ShogunX said:
Yet some people spend fucking hours/days arguing about which console version looks the shittest pretending they are all about performance despite being in the knowledge that a superior version is out there for a better price.

If we ''gamers'' were even half as bold as you think then the PC version of pretty much every game would smash the sales of the console equivalent. People have been happy paying more for lesser versions of games so why change now?
Click to expand...

PC has no games. its for neckbeards that play MMOs and MOBAS in their parents basements
 
Azula said:
I personally don't think MS is behind this. I'm not saying it's not possible, rather I haven't see anything to say it is. And saying they have something to gain is the proof they did did it..is pretty illogical.

That said, I think the bigger question is: why would Ubisoft want parity? Why would they want to limit the performance of their game, and purposely limit a console that a lot of people paid for (because of the consoles specs as a feature)?

The only reason that would make sense, is that it was a business decision. And given that this industry relies heavily on relationships, I dunno. It's not that far fetched. I agree that doesn't damn MS, and especially doesn't prove they paid money for it. Unless I'm missing something. So i agree with you in that sense.
Click to expand...

They said in the first few pages Ubisoft has some kind of marketing deal with Microsoft, maybe is that?
 
alexandros said:
A few thoughts on this latest controversy:

- I don't think boycotts are that effective and I believe that most people here who are cancelling their preorders in rage will end up buying the game. I do boycott games with some regularity but I do it to stay true to my principles, not because I believe my stance will change anything.

- I can understand why Playstation owners might be frustrated but in the end, it's not that big of a deal. I'm sure the framerate will be more solid on PS4 and maybe the game will have some extra effects.

- Ubisoft doesn't want either of the console audiences to feel like it's getting a worse experience compared to the other and honestly, I understand that. It makes a certain degree of sense as a decision.
Click to expand...

I do it because I can. Haven´t bought Destiny and I think I won´t, and not getting this game either. I have lots to play and so many games are coming that you can choose. If it ends up being good I will get it when I get a new PC later.
 
meppi said:
At this point, who really knows.
It's been shown a couple of times already that MS is putting pressure on developers in one way or another. Be that holding back features on competing platforms, parity between different versions or trying to get exclusivity deals.

Hell, if they go as far as to twist the arm of a small company that does nothing but produce a niche pinball game in such a way that a version coming out on a competing platform (PS4 in this case) has to be pushed back until the game has been released on Xbone, how far do you think these people are willing to go with a big name that sells millions of copies?

And just because certain people don't call me out on making any of this up, here's a link.
Click to expand...

Just like some Destiny Expansion content is coming earlier for the PS4 and not Xbox One? both company if they have the chance would pay for timed content. Sony isnt nicer than MS, MS just have more money
 
Azula said:
I personally don't think MS is behind this. I'm not saying it's not possible, rather I haven't see anything to say it is. And saying they have something to gain is the proof they did did it..is pretty illogical.

That said, I think the bigger question is: why would Ubisoft want parity? Why would they want to limit the performance of their game, and purposely limit a console that a lot of people paid for (because of the consoles specs as a feature)?

The only reason that would make sense, is that it was a business decision. And given that this industry relies heavily on relationships, I dunno. It's not that far fetched. I agree that doesn't damn MS, and especially doesn't prove they paid money for it. Unless I'm missing something. So i agree with you in that sense.
Click to expand...

I'd say it is a pretty simple case of marketing dollars. Microsoft will pick the games to spend them on and a game that is significantly better on another platform isn't a good look. Ubi and the rest need that money to boost early sales, so they get a return before gamers realise they just purchased the same game for the fifth time.

All part of the fun of AAA and this time of year. In slower periods I don't think you will see much of this.
 
Wow. There is a right way to do parity and a wrong way. This is the wrong way. Bringing one console up to the resolution of another like Destiny did I'm ok with. But lowering the resolution of the PS4 on this to match the xbox one is just wrong. This is the wrong way to do the parity thing without a doubt.
 
This must have been the worst possible way to communicate this decision, that I honestly think it comes more from development needs than from imaginary conspiracy agreements.

Blame Microsoft for developing the technologically inferior platform on this generation, that is going to hold back the PS4 on many multi-platform titles, not for some shady business deal that probably never happened...
 
Sub Boss said:
They said in the first few pages Ubisoft has some kind of marketing deal with Microsoft, maybe is that?
Click to expand...

Then I must be blind. I apologize. I didn't catch that, I need to go back and re-read the first 15 pages. I was just going off the original quote. I wasn't saying that it was impossible though. And I am on the side of people being angry. I was just saying, there wasn't enough evidence to say 100% MS paid for this (when I made that post).

But if I'm wrong I'm wrong. Regardless, it's a terrible practice.
 
HardRojo said:
I thought about this scenario too but if that was the case why would they go out of their way to claim to locked specs to avoid debate? That would have been unnecessary.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

They woulda just stated both games resolution and framerate and not have mentioned shit about "parity" and to "avoid the debate".

Mugatu said:
If they hadn't said anything, 99.9% of the people complaining would have never even noticed.

Gamer outrage LOL
Click to expand...

What? Have you been in a DF thread? Even before DF threads word travels like fire through the OTs of those games.
 
Zombie James said:
They can't be that stupid, though. It defies all logic.
Click to expand...

Well...

"We decided to lock them at the same specs to avoid all the debates and stuff,"
Click to expand...

He is the one that said they decided to lock them at the same specs to avoid all the debates and stuff,

If that means what it implies, then surely that would mean they wouldn't increase the resolution even if they could?
 
leadbelly said:
What if it really is that they reduced the resolution of the PS4 version simply to avoid all the debates? That is the only reason.

It's not like they are spending more time adding extra features or anything, it is simply a resolution change.

There would be no real reason not to, right? No justifiable reason anyway.
Click to expand...

I mean, surely it would be in Ubisoft's best interest to put out the best possible version they could on any given machine or console. And there is a PC version, so there is a better version out there, it wouldn't be extra work to test and see what the PS4 can handle.

If the PS4 could handle more thrown at it, there would be no good reason for Ubi to gimp it. So either they've made some agreement with Xbox, or they literally cannot push the PS4 version any further due to AI constraints. Those seem like the only options that make sense. The given reason of wanting to avoid debates really makes no sense from a business standpoint.
 
matrixman92 said:
why are people shouting downgrade when they never once said that Unity will be 1080p on ps4 or 60 fps. "Targeting"=/="will be"
Click to expand...

Because PS4 has 50% more GPU power and 100% more memory bandwidth than an Xbox One. Either Ubisoft are spectacularly incompetent or there's some shady shit going on.
 
ioriyagami said:
This must have been the worst possible way to communicate this decision, that I honestly think it comes more from development needs than from imaginary conspiracy agreements.

Blame Microsoft for developing the technologically inferior platform on this next-generation, that is going to hold back the PS4 on many multi-platform titles, not for some shady business deal that probably never happened...
Click to expand...

You realize consoles hold back PC games too right with inferior hardware?
 
Azula said:
I personally don't think MS is behind this. I'm not saying it's not possible, rather I haven't see anything to say it is. And saying they have something to gain is the proof they did did it..is pretty illogical.

That said, I think the bigger question is: why would Ubisoft want parity? Why would they want to limit the performance of their game, and purposely limit a console that a lot of people paid for (because of the consoles specs as a feature)?

The only reason that would make sense, is that it was a business decision. And given that this industry relies heavily on relationships, I dunno. It's not that far fetched. I agree that doesn't damn MS, and especially doesn't prove they paid money for it. Unless I'm missing something. So i agree with you in that sense.
Click to expand...

This in itself doesn't make sense since Assasin's Creed generally sells better on Playstation, Ubisoft would likely need further incentive for this business decision to make sense.

Plus this game also happens to have a Microsoft marketing deal, further muddying the waters.
 
Pathfinder said:
I wouldn't be surprised if some people really think that. There's lots of conspiracy theories being thrown around this thread because of this news and emotions are running high.
Click to expand...

It's not really a conspiracy theory when we know MS are co-marketing the game to the tune of likely millions of US dollars. Whether parity is an explicit mandate or simply an implicit gentleman's agreement so to speak is irrelevant. When you've got a media partner investing heavily in your product, it's not a good look to give them an inferior version. This is basic common sense and logical reasoning you should have developed in grade school, not a conspiracy theory.
 
watership said:
I just don't buy conspiracies like this. I mean if it makes you feel better.. sure.. go ahead :)
Click to expand...

what do you think the reason is for them downgrading the PS4 version? again, decisions like this aren't made for no reason.

the reason they put forward is to "stop discussion", but anyone could tell them it'd have the opposite effect. it's obviously not the reason.

so I'm curious what you think the reason is?
 
watership said:
I just don't buy conspiracies like this. I mean if it makes you feel better.. sure.. go ahead :)
Click to expand...
Even if you discount the possibilty that Ubisoft's co-marketing partner had something to do with this, surely you can see that their statement about wanting to avoid 'all the debates and stuff' is really dumb.
 
Kain said:
What the fucking fuck? That's a bad screenshot, right? Right?
Click to expand...

Yeah, the actual gameplay footage looks better. There was plenty of it released to day, so go have a look.

Anyway, it's still a good looking game. But it's ridiculous that they are not making each version the best it can be. You would think that they would want to.
 
Bgamer90 said:
Yes, it's wrong for Ubisoft to hold the PS4 back (and stupid for them to say it publicly). 100% agree.

What I'm saying though is that I'm positive this current reaction wouldn't be the same if the PS4 version was a better resolution than the Xbox One version -- even if Ubi still didn't do all they could do for the PS4 version.
Click to expand...

the ps4 is more powerful than the Xbox one.the consensus is that ps4 can do whatever the Xbox one can do and more. I don't recall any developer gimping the Xbox 360 version because of ps3. the battlefield community were able to get EA attention with the way hardline was turning out and forced it to be pushed back.i for one don't plan on supporting any developer who uses these kind of practices
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Assassin's Creed full universe infographic
27
831
Cyberpunkd replied
Assassin's Creed Shadows Preview (Hands on) and Description
4 5 6 7 8
368
21K
viveks86 replied
  • Poll
Assassin's Creed: Shadows | Review Thread
Analysis Review  18 19 20 21 22
1K
71K
Rocco Schiavone replied
Assassin's Creed Shadows needs an online connection to install on PS5
2 3
101
5K
Fortress of Regrets replied
Assassin's Creed Shadows: Launch Cinematic TV Ad
45
2K
Chuck Berry replied
Top Bottom