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

Status
Not open for further replies.
spencman said:
I don't think it's outrage. It's just realizing, that the PS4 is not that powerful, as the internet is over hyping it.
People can't believe it, so they're bulding tales to realize (MS moneyhat...)

Next multi platform title somebody should start a thread about "not using azure technology to outsource and improve AI on MS console"...

Sony should start their business... ;)
Click to expand...

You sir are an child........!If you realy think thats the case you are completly missing the point!
 
Geez, what is it with Ubi and giving bullshit excuses!?

I mean, I don't even CARE if it's gonna be 900p or 1080p,
but I'm so sick and tired of their lame excuses for everything.

It's insulting.
 
spencman said:
I don't think it's outrage. It's just realizing, that the PS4 is not that powerful, as the internet is over hyping it.
People can't believe it, so they're bulding tales to realize (MS moneyhat...)

Next multi platform title somebody should start a thread about "not using azure technology to outsource and improve AI on MS console"...

Sony should start their business... ;)
Click to expand...
I believe you're missing the point here..
 
spencman said:
I don't think it's outrage. It's just realizing, that the PS4 is not that powerful, as the internet is over hyping it.
People can't believe it, so they're bulding tales to realize (MS moneyhat...)

Next multi platform title somebody should start a thread about "not using azure technology to outsource and improve AI on MS console"...

Sony should start their business... ;)
Click to expand...

I'm having a hard time telling if this is a genius mrX impersonation, or a very uninformed person.
 
To those talking about weaker platform: it didn't happen all generations (SNES and Genesis were strong at different things, to say SNES is weaker is too simplistic ) and it was a coincidence because you just have to cater to the platform/s accounting for over 60-70% the marketshare. Wii was the odd one, but it wasn't just weaker, it was a generation behind. 360 was the far superior hardware as far as gaming development is concerned, its lead over PS3 was not as meaningful as what we've been seeing here with PS4 and XB1, and PS3 was used as lead platform like once every ten games.

I'd say for being the leader unit in the industry PS4 is getting the second shittiest treatment of all time, right behind the Wii, while XB1 is getting the absolute best one for a lagging-behind console, whatever the contractual agreements leading to this are.
 
Vidpixel said:
The signs foretelling of this day were there all along: Paris + Unity = Parity

Sneaky marketing there, Ubisoft.
Click to expand...

2425156-the+rock+clapping.gif
 
SwiftDeath said:
There are more sides to this thread and discussion then "parity? pre-order cancelled" and "900p versus 1080p is small anyways so what does it matter?"

Purposefully limiting your product on one platfrom to appease a different platform holder or its fans is objectively anti-consumer so while it is indeed likely a small concession however one wants to argue the change of resolution, it is entirely bad form on publishers and developers. Imagine if every developer/publisher wanted to seek parity across all PC/consoles ports and nerfed the PC port/limited options etc. It's just entirely in poor taste and benefits no one but a single platform holders image
Click to expand...
First of all, it's not being said that this is to appease a platform holder. If you develop a game you must target some specs at which you want the game to run, otherwise it will be an inconsistent mess. Then afterwards, you can decide if you want to improve on that for another systems better specs. This can be worth it or not and it's completely the publisher's right to decide on if they want to do it or not. And yes, I acknowledge that it could possibly be part of the agreement with Microsoft for co-publishing, however, this has never been the case before, as evident by better PS4-performance in for instance CoD. As long as both versions play well, I still think it's a sad state if gamers put so much emphasis on minor stuff like potential resolution bumps as to even canceling preorders and discussing it with more emotional backing than what really counts in games: Their gameplay.
jonezer4 said:
So, it's preposterous to assume that a native current-gen game's resolution could match that of its cross-gen ancestor from last year? And yet, Xbox One was somehow able to do exactly that while PS4 was not? Come on.
Click to expand...
No, it's not preposterous, however, it's a horrible metric. And assume the following situation: Xbone's version of AC4 could have been upped to 1080p, but the framerate would have suffered from that. PS4's version could be upped (with some obvious extra work) to 1080p without framerate issues. This time around, the Xbone version couldn't be upped to 1080p at all, the console is being pushed as is, because it was the lead platform in development. PS4 in principle could get bumped to 1080p, but only with performance issues. So in both cases, they decide against bumping the resolution in exchange for performance issues (and in the latter case to avoid discussions on which version is actually the better one, with one running consistently, the other having the better resolution). I do not claim this is the case, but it could very well be the case and be consistent with what was being said and seen in the past. So, even though I think the whole issue is a non-issue either way, we do not even know if the pressumed "evil intent" of Microsoft and Ubisoft is true at all.
 
Paracelsus said:
To those talking about weaker platform: it didn't happen all generations (SNES and Genesis were strong at different things, to say SNES is weaker is too simplistic ) and it was a coincidence because you just have to cater to the platform/s accounting for over 60-70% the marketshare. Wii was the odd one, but it wasn't just weaker, it was a generation behind. 360 was the far superior hardware as far as gaming development is concerned, its lead over PS3 was not as meaningful as what we've been seeing here with PS4 and XB1, and PS3 was used as lead platform like once every ten games.

I'd say for being the leader unit in the industry PS4 is getting the second shittiest treatment of all time, right behind the Wii, while XB1 is getting the absolute best one for a lagging-behind console, whatever the contractual agreements leading to this are.
Click to expand...

I think this is a direct result of the financial disparity between the two platform makers. Microsoft is being a bully. Compare this to their place in the smartphone/tablet market where they hold no such advantages.
 
Yoshi said:
Wow, I found this whole debate ridiculous from the start but now it's really getting out of hand. So if a developer just targets Xbone specs with a game, makes it run there as intended and doesn't get the resolution / framerate bumped up on PS4 without performance issues or an additonal investment that probably is not worth it at all (because really, who gives a fuck, outside of NeoGAF; PS3 consistently had the worse multiplatform versions for years and still beat the crap out of 360 in sales in Europe and Japan), you rather have this game banned from sale on PS4? What should Sony's restriction be anyway? "PS4 games of multiplatform games must have a higher resolution or a higher framerate without any disadvantages compared to the Xbone-version, otherwise it must not be released"?

People, be videogamers, not warriors, this thread is making me sick.



Yeah, because last-gen ports were able to run in 1080p without much hassle, the same must absolutely be true for native current-gen games. Apples and oranges...
Click to expand...


So you are ok with getting an gimped version of the game for the sake of Parity and not having to deal with a "discussion" as Ubisoft put it?

you are ok with a developer that can do more, but they choose not to utilise the maximum power of the hardwear.

My point was, we should never let developers get away with parity. People who bought the PS4, a stronger hardware than the Xbox one, are getting shit on thanks to this.
 
TAJ said:
Doesn't mean much. MS is more desperate now.
Click to expand...

Indeed. What they don't realize, is that no one's falling for their crap like they did with Xbox 360 when Microsoft pretty much got away with RROD, as well as ditching core fans for Kinect & Media while only having Halo, Gears, Forza, & Fable as exclusives ever since E3 2010.

stitch512 said:
Holy crap people, what a reaction. First world problems here. So much outrage for something so insignificant.
Click to expand...

spencman said:
I don't think it's outrage. It's just realizing, that the PS4 is not that powerful, as the internet is over hyping it.
People can't believe it, so they're bulding tales to realize (MS moneyhat...)

Next multi platform title somebody should start a thread about "not using azure technology to outsource and improve AI on MS console"...

Sony should start their business... ;)
Click to expand...

LOL, more comedy gold posts. Thanks for the laugh, fellas.
 
What the hell you guys? Stop debating! Can't you see this is why they're keeping the versions the same?

You're doing the exact opposite of what they wanted!
 
robertsan21 said:
you are ok with a developer that can do more, but they choose not to utilise the maximum power of the hardwear.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, yes. A game need not utilise every ounce of power a console offeres. Actually I even prefer if they don't completely exhauste the console, because look at what happened to framerates late last gen or on N64 (in particular in Rare's later games).
 
spencman said:
I don't think it's outrage. It's just realizing, that the PS4 is not that powerful, as the internet is over hyping it.
People can't believe it, so they're bulding tales to realize (MS moneyhat...)

Next multi platform title somebody should start a thread about "not using azure technology to outsource and improve AI on MS console"...

Sony should start their business... ;)
Click to expand...

In this point in time we know the ps4 is the better console in terms of performance, the problem is the anti consumer approach Ubisoft is taking. It goes both sides around.

We as customers need to vote with our wallets and show these companies that we are the power and not them.

Good products lead too a good business, failure to deliver leads to a broken sales and business.

In this case I do know it will sell millions, but things can change, like the Xbox 180.
 
Pathfinder said:
Wow, some people really can't take a joke...

And are you seriously putting a negative spin on Microsoft sending engineers to Blizzard to help them get the most out of their console?

Optimizing is suddenly a bad thing?
Click to expand...
No that is not a negative spin at all. I mentioned it to show that Microsoft has become very sensitive to performance differences in games lately. I also mentioned that Microsoft has been offering up ever improving deals and a rather shady advertising campaign to show their more aggressive attitude.

It goes to show that the way Microsoft viewed the CoD performances in the past might no longer apply. I have absolutely no problem with Microsoft building up their own performance. I do have a problem when they have to bring down their competitor's performance in order to stay relevant.

Oh and the very first thing I said in my reply was to acknowledge that I got my fact wrong. I wasn't defensive at all. It is you who have entirely misread my comment.
 
Wynnebeck said:
Does not compute. How can you say there is hardly anything taxing CPU wise in the game when all we've seen are a few environments? You have no clue what Kojima is planning on throwing at us.
Click to expand...

Just going by Ground Zeroes and what they've shown so far. Don't roast me.
 
I really don't know which is worse? The fact they're intentionally gimping the more powerful console for parity with the inferior version, or the super lame excuse for doing so.
 
Yoshi said:
Absolutely, yes. A game need not utilise every ounce of power a console offeres. Actually I even prefer if they don't completely exhauste the console, because look at what happened to framerates late last gen or on N64 (in particular in Rare's later games).
Click to expand...
I'd prefer if devs would discount games that they didn't put full effort into. Why should I pay full price for partial use of the hardware?
#Price/EffortParity
 
Yoshi said:
Absolutely, yes. A game need not utilise every ounce of power a console offeres. Actually I even prefer if they don't completely exhauste the console, because look at what happened to framerates late last gen or on N64 (in particular in Rare's later games).
Click to expand...

Working man's resources.
 
Ubisoft really are a strange company.

They have some potentially great IPs put seemingly put the absolute mininimum effort into everything they do meaning that very few of their games are ever as good as they should be.

I would not be surprised if this was the largest thread about Unity up to an including its release, when we found it it's exactly the same game they have been releasing for the past five years again.
 
It's kind of funny that UBISOFT is being the ultimate troll.

If ppl weren't console warriors then AC:U would be 1080p/60 on PS4. They say it's to stop 'debates', ie: fanboy console wars.

Crazy thing to say, but it's pretty clear what they mean.

Catch 22
 
hahaha wow, i own both but wont be getting it on either now, treating the consumer as some sort of moron no thanks ubisoft. There becoming way worse than ea, we had the big fuck you to wii u gamers with rayman, we had the watch dogs downgrade bullshit, now this. No thanks ubisoft you can keep your game theres plenty to play this holiday.
 
Yoshi said:
First of all, it's not being said that this is to appease a platform holder.
Click to expand...

Then why else would they do it? Who is it supposed to appease exactly?

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

I'm not even suggesting it's some form of a moneyhat by MS because that seems entirely unlikely but it could simply be to engender goodwill or hell could just be a solely Ubisoft-centric decision but it's idiotic to waste a game's potential on any platform to appease someone not on that platform.

Yoshi said:
If you develop a game you must target some specs at which you want the game to run, otherwise it will be an inconsistent mess. Then afterwards, you can decide if you want to improve on that for another systems better specs. This can be worth it or not and it's completely the publisher's right to decide on if they want to do it or not. And yes, I acknowledge that it could possibly be part of the agreement with Microsoft for co-publishing, however, this has never been the case before, as evident by better PS4-performance in for instance CoD.
Click to expand...

The COD example is from launch and the performance discussions literally just started at that time so MS would've had to somehow strongarm activision to change an already set PS4 version most likely, it's not exactly some perfect example that ensures this was just a Ubisoft-made decision

Yoshi said:
As long as both versions play well, I still think it's a sad state if gamers put so much emphasis on minor stuff like potential resolution bumps as to even canceling preorders and discussing it with more emotional backing than what really counts in games: Their gameplay.
Click to expand...

It is an entirely anti-consumer move that encourages publishers to limit their products to deliver the same experience. What happens if a Bayonetta or Skyrim happens this gen on the XB1? Sure I doubt they would purposefully limit a game to make it unplayable but what happens if it's just barely playable instead? Forcing parity is a terrible practice and doesn't benefit consumers at all so I don't at all see it as something to simply be ignored.
 
Yoshi said:
Absolutely, yes. A game need not utilise every ounce of power a console offeres. Actually I even prefer if they don't completely exhauste the console, because look at what happened to framerates late last gen or on N64 (in particular in Rare's later games).
Click to expand...

LOL wut?
Yeah, let's give devs a free who-cares card on awful optimization and their subpar talents.
 
schennmu said:
He doesn't know what he's talking about:

"Its actually TRUE that the xbox one does have a faster processer, but at this point a portion of that CPU power is still dedicated to the kinect and because of that reserved power, it causes the bottleneck. The more you know (TM)"
Click to expand...


He does a great job explaining why people are up in arms and voices his perspective in a clear way. Who gives a shit if he gets a technicality wrong ?
 
le.phat said:
He does a great job explaining why people are up in arms and voices his perspective in a clear way. Who gives a shit if he gets a technicality wrong ?
Click to expand...
I can't check Youtube at the moment, could you summarize his position in a sentence please?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Assassin's Creed full universe infographic
27
982
Cyberpunkd replied
'Assassin's Creed' no saviour for struggling Ubisoft
2
92
659
K' Dash replied
  • Poll
Prince of Persia VS Assassin's Creed
Opinion 
17
243
HYDE replied
Is anyone here still playing ONLY on last-gen consoles - i.e., Xbox One or PS4, no PC?
2
65
458
mafon2 replied
Assassin's Creed Shadows Preview (Hands on) and Description
4 5 6 7 8
368
23K
viveks86 replied
Top Bottom