Assassin's creed Unity PC version System requirements
- Thread starter catmario
- Start date
I don't think one company with a track record for bad PC versions of games is a good indication of how things will be in the coming years for PC gaming. Especially now, coming straight after the really good PC versions of Shadow of Mordor and Alien Isolation, the former scaling beautifully on PC hardware and the latter running at max settings with a high framerate on very modest hardware.
GhostTrick
Banned
I guess you didnt read that article either. Because said fix just allows to unlock framerate and fix the black bars. Can you do it on console ? No. So if you don't want to do it, you end up with the same game as on consoles... except the framerate is smoother since it wont drop below 30fps on a decent hardware... in fact, starting with an HD7870 or so, it wont drop below that at all.
Little gain ? If you don't take the fix into account... even The Evil Within has good gains. Cheaper price and more than that stable performances... and now with fixes, 2 times higher framerate and the option to remove black bars and fix FOV.
And for non English people... the possib8lity to use english audio without changing the console language.
Err, I was agreeing with you, so I'm unclear as to what the point of contention is. I think it's generally accepted that the absolute bare-minimum acceptable framerate in this day and age is a locked 30 fps and so I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment that multiplats such as the one you referenced are best played on the consoles.
That's only if you want to stay at max settings all the time.
I built this PC years ago and plan to keep it with this MoBo/Processor for, most likely, the whole console generation still.
Only upgrading GPU.
You won't be able to always keep everything maxed, but you will most likely still play better than on console.
GhostTrick
Banned
To play this game on PC, I should pay 1500 dollars to make completely NEW PC.
My PC is now too old to play this and upcoming fantastic PC games.
But I already pre-ordered PS4 Bastille de Paris edition.....
Even building a new PC from scratch, you could most likely play this game on par (probably better than) with PS4 with 900/1000$.
Again, i wouldn't take those system specs seriously in the slightest, after the whole Shadow of Mordor/Evil Within debacle.
GhostTrick
Banned
To play this game on PC, I should pay 1500 dollars to make completely NEW PC.
My PC is now too old to play this and upcoming fantastic PC games.
But I already pre-ordered PS4 Bastille de Paris edition.....
Lol. Now come on. A R9 290 can be found for 250€, a decent i5 is like 200€. With mobo and ram, that's like below 600€ for the recommended setting. With other components, that'd be like 750 to 800. Half of what you're saying.
Not only accounting the fact that people are just overreacting over these specs...
For that price ? A lot better than PS4.
Indeed, i wanted to stay on the safe side, since i haven't been following too closely recent CPUs and MoBos.
Gipsy Danger
Member
Oh, man. I can't believe this thread is still following the same narrative. It's not like we've had at least 2 other threads where the reqs were ridiculously high and turned out to be complete nonsense. If you're PC is half decent, it will run this game AT LEAST as well as the console, probably better. I have a 2500k OC'd at 4.0GHz and a GTX 980 and I'm still confident I will destroy this game. Everyone just needs to chill out and wait for god damn benchmarks.
GhostTrick
Banned
The 770 is a rebranded 680 with marginally better clock cores. There's no substantial different between the two cards. At most, a couple of frames, but nothing much. This makes the situation a lot crazier, since the 780 itself is really not that much more powerful than a 680. At least, there's no such a wide gap between them that would justify making them the recommended and minimum requirements, respectively.
My last upgrade was ~$1200 (new case, motherboard, CPU, GPU, RAM, PSU, optical drive) and it wasn't even what you could call powerful hardware (560 Ti, i5 2500 (non-K), 8 GB RAM, 500W PSU, average case, nothing fancy). European prices of hardware are much higher than US due to wildly popular trend of $1=1.
The same upgrade would cost me probably around $900 if I lived in the USA.
These requirements are fucking crazy. Either Ubisoft wants people to play this on consoles or they never heard of process called optimization.
Put textures to high Problem solved
Jakoozie89
Neo Member
While a lot of this can probavly be attributed to Ubisofts terrible PC ports, I agree with the people saying this a trend that will be happening for the next year or two, when the consoles are still new.
My plan is to hide behind my Xbox one/ps4 until PC hardware far superior to the consoles is affordable again. I will continue to play PC exclusive games of course, on my 7979/i5 3570k, but I might as well get some multiplatform use out of my consoles until the dust settles.
My plan is to hide behind my Xbox one/ps4 until PC hardware far superior to the consoles is affordable again. I will continue to play PC exclusive games of course, on my 7979/i5 3570k, but I might as well get some multiplatform use out of my consoles until the dust settles.
That solves the performance issues, (mostly, still some stuttering on high), but it puts the texture quality below that seen on console. I'd like to at least be able to have it look as good as on PS4 on my PC, but that doesn't seem to be possible atm with Watch Dogs. I'd lock it to 30FPS if that would solve it, but it stutters just as much then, regardless of the frame rate.
All I'm saying is that I hope Unity doesn't suffer from problems like that. Most bad optimization can be overcome by buying newer and more powerful hardware. Watch Dogs seems to have engine problems (texture streaming) that can't be fixed with faster hardware, and that irritates me to no end. Part of the fun in PC gaming for me is being able to go back an max out games, but that seems unlikely with Watch Dogs.
Console textures are high not ultra,
Guerrillas in the Mist
Member
Yes, your entire machine is now useless because of one out of the hundreds of games released on PC this year has these requirements.
The 780 is probably only a requirement for the unoptimised nividia bullshit that gets bolted on before release.
Even on a 980 that physx smoke in Black Flag still cripples frame rate below 30 fps. Whereas the same effect in Arkham Origins doesn't drop below 60.
I played AC4 at 45-60 fps for the majority of the time on a 670 and COD Ghosts, which also recommended 780, played at 60 too. No physx fur though.
Even on a 980 that physx smoke in Black Flag still cripples frame rate below 30 fps. Whereas the same effect in Arkham Origins doesn't drop below 60.
I played AC4 at 45-60 fps for the majority of the time on a 670 and COD Ghosts, which also recommended 780, played at 60 too. No physx fur though.
Didn't solve the problem for me (on a 970, though) even with all the other settings on low or medium.
I think you are. It wasn't as many, but it was a clear trend, continually increasing install sizes for games. I'm just a little confused as to why it is surprising to anyone.
icecold1983
Member
they are actually a mix of high and ultra, and even on high the pc version still stutters
Its the price of playing on a PC with higher LOD values resolution etc etc
Yup, console definitely has some ultra textures at least.
PS4:
PC High:
Sorry for derailing the thread, I'll stop now.
Thats really not how it works... you wont get console level performance with console specs in a PC, I dont even know where you got that idea from.
Yea, no. That's actually how it usually works. Recent games even better.
Dictator93
Member
Depends on the game to be honest. DF comparisons and some last gen ports ahve shown us this.
It'd be a poor way of achieving that. Better ways would be to either significantly delay the PC versions or not do them at all.
It would be a really needlessly convoluted and odd way to achieving this by.. advertising high system recommendations or requirements..
UnrealEck
Member
Just off the top of my head and most recently:
Alien Isolation and Evil Within. Better on PC with respect to resolution, framerate and IQ.
Papacheeks
Banned
Yes I did, and without derailing the thread, I will just say the difference that even is expressed by Eurogamer is negligible in image quality. And if you have a really high end PC and want solid 60 fps, good luck. Because it's also noted in their article and in Patrick's that doing the fix removing the black bars and increasing FOV make the frame rates unstable in trying beyond 30.
alexandros
Banned
From every game released thus far?
UnrealEck
Member
I haven't played WD in a while, but I recall there being more than just texture quality in the options. Was the PS4 maxed out in everything and using a mix of high and ultra textures? It's also running at 900p too on PS4 and capped at 30 FPS.
The consoles' biggest advantages are lower level APIs (less CPU overhead) and shared memory (less memory copying and memory use). But I wonder how much the CPU advantage is since PC CPUs are much faster.
But most PCs don't have nearly the VRAM as the consoles. According to Valve, somewhere around 30% of PCs have at least 2 GB VRAM. It's console designed games that are loading up many massive textures that are pushing up the PC VRAM requirements.
And personally I see that as a good thing. This will only push PC video cards to be better. The PC VRAM specs have already caught up on new cards.
But most PCs don't have nearly the VRAM as the consoles. According to Valve, somewhere around 30% of PCs have at least 2 GB VRAM. It's console designed games that are loading up many massive textures that are pushing up the PC VRAM requirements.
And personally I see that as a good thing. This will only push PC video cards to be better. The PC VRAM specs have already caught up on new cards.
CyanideFuse
Member
Does any one know if this game was available to pre-order on the UK Steam store? I went onto Steam to see and it isn't there.
I am not entertaining buying this game; I had my fill of AC after Brotherhood and it would have to be very special to make me buy it.
Anyway, good old Ubisoft. Seemingly digging more-and-more holes every week.
I am not entertaining buying this game; I had my fill of AC after Brotherhood and it would have to be very special to make me buy it.
Anyway, good old Ubisoft. Seemingly digging more-and-more holes every week.
The performance is bad on consoles.
Papacheeks
Banned
Shadows of Mordor plays well on PC, but doesn't make good use your hardware in advanced features compared to it's console counterparts. Textures don't look as good as other HD textures. Alien Isolation definitely though.
But hen you have Dead Rising 3, Ryse:Son of Rome and those though may play ok, don't show good use of Desktop GPU'S and CPU's.
And show how unoptimized they are for PC.
Ubisoft is known for shitty ports. Sucks that it's hit or miss with a lot of console ported games. Guess the days of dx 11 features for games like Bulletstorm, AVP, Tomb Raider, and sleeping dogs are over for a while till these companies get their shit together.
Yea it's pretty bad all around dude. On PC and console mainly because of the shit optimized engine IDTECH5. Same goes for AC:Unity.
TEW for PC is better than console version, but not by much. ANd doing the fixes gives you better visual experience, but upping FOV causes frame rates to be unstable past 30.
I get locked 30fps without blackbars and increased FoV, I could even SS it, but I couldn't take the occasional drop to 28fps. Sure, locked 60fps would better, but stating that PC isn't better by much just isn't true. Is much better on a medium+ PC.
alexandros
Banned
There are only two possible outcomes here. A, these requirements are bullcrap and this is another case of needlessly inflated system requirements. B, Ubisoft did really mess up the PC version that badly that it needs powerful hardware to run decently. We'll know soon enough, until then I suggest that people remain calm, avoid pre-ordering the game and refrain from making categorical statements about supposed console performance advantages and Carmack tweets.
Well, for obvious reasons it's impossible for developpers to map their tech specifically for any PC like they can do on consoles. That said, I think the game makes good use of ressources, it looks good and runs very well. I don't demand developpers working on borrowed time to devote too many ressources to PC versions, exploiting all the niche hardware possibilities and extracting absolutely every drop of performance is not possible, but I definitely think PC GPUs and CPUs are well taken advantage of in most cases. Some games will always rely on brute force but nothing we can do about that.
I can't complain. We will see what happens with Unity, perhaps they simply didn't push the optimization process much further on PC, or the game is simply too ambitious to scale any lower than 680 class hardware...
That would be very strange considering it's a multiplatform game which development is most likely console centric.
It was available for a while but then disappeared, along with The Crew. I expect both games will suddenly reappear a month or so after their respective releases.
Similar threads
- Featured
- Poll