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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I wondered if Unity was being made on a new engine, which could have been the reason for such a big downgrade from 1080p/60 to 900p/30. But it's not. It uses the same AnvilNext engine as AC3, Liberation and Blackflag. Can't even look to Watchdogs for comparison, as that uses a different, bespoke Disrupt engine. And Far Cry uses Dunia engine.

PS4 version being artificially limited is still an assumption, but something majorly fucked has gone on with the game to get downgraded from 1080p/60.

AC4 was 30fps on PS4.
 
I can back up the comments about the price

A. No, you can't. It's been proven in this thread if you would simply stop ignoring the posts to you.


And don't tell me when to post and not to post do you understand? I was done, but I ain't being spoken to like that by you.

B. Too late. I already did :(

PM if you want to continue. I'm suggesting this for your own good, because you don't seem to know when to quit.
 
There are plenty of games gimped on PC. The most recent being dead rising 3, Wolfenstein, and Watch Dogs.
Not the same thing as forced parity. What don't you understand here?
There is no fundamental difference.
Of course there is.
Why should a studio spend time making the best ps4 version,
We are only asking that they don't intentionally cap the resolution when they can already make the game in 1080p on PS4 while no ending the time to make the PC version better? This could be as "simple" as better textures, not locked framerate, more foliage, etc.
Many games DO have these features. You've now gone from "nearly every game on PC" to "plenty of games on PC".

If we need to stand against parity on consoles it should also stand for PC.
WE DO STAND AGAINST FORCED PARITY ON PC. It just seldom happens. While PC games often don't take full advantage of the hardware, they are usually not intentionally gimped to accomodate lesser game console hardware. That's fundamentally different and this situation with AC Unity is NOT the same thing as "nearly every PC game"
.
 
There are plenty of games gimped on PC. The most recent being dead rising 3, Wolfenstein, and Watch Dogs.

There is no fundamental difference. Why should a studio spend time making the best ps4 version, while not spending the time to make the PC version better? This could be as "simple" as better textures, not locked framerate, more foliage, etc.

If we need to stand against parity on consoles it should also stand for PC.

All these games will perform better in PC.
 

The guy is being a bit of an asshole in that video. 99% of that shit isn't necessary.


But he hit the nail on the head with games being 'held back' because of another platform. Lets not pretend like PS4 owners aren't rightfully upset at the idea of this game being capped for no damn reason, and PC gamers have felt that from time to time also. Its never cool when you are on the receiving end of that shit.

Never.
 
I don't care much for this slight differences. Yes it's annoying to own a PS4 and know the game could've looked better but I'm an avid GAFer and videogamer, I own a 50" LED Samsung HDTV and I struggle to see the difference between 720p and 1080p (but I do notice it). I can't see myself being able to discern between 900 and 1080.

That being said I will complain on this point: where was the parity police when clearly inferior PS3 versions (when compared to 360) were being released by third parties with games like Red Dead Redemption, Bayonetta, The Orange Box and GTAIV?

Sony ain't no saint but they sure as hell didn't enforced this parity. Not even when the PS2 was markedly less powerfull than the OG Xbox either.
 
I've owned almost every game from this series. I've owned and still own AC, ACII, AC:B, AC:R, ACIII (limited edition) and AC:IV, and I will sadly have to skip on this game. I just cannot support a shitty practice like this. Intentionally gimping a version? That's mediocre and laughable at best. Why didn't devs forced parity between ps3 and Xbox 360 but are doing it now?

*puts tinfoil hat* I'm just going to get ahead and assume it was a huge check made by Microsoft because Old habits die hard.
 
How can PC gamers go from 'getting it on the PC, it's the only place to play' to 'PC games get gimped because of consoles'

Which is it? Is it worth buying a gaming PC or not? Make your minds up.
 
Unless it gets patched to 1080p, it will not be touching my PS4 now. if they couldn't get there, that's fine. But holding it back because Xbone can't? Screw that.
 
How can PC gamers go from 'getting it on the PC, it's the only place to play' to 'PC games get gimped because of consoles'

Which is it? Is it worth buying a gaming PC or not? Make your minds up.

You do realize there aren't more than 3 people saying that in this thread?
 
They didn't say "res, fps, effects etc", they mentioned resolution and frame-rate, specifically. The person interviewed is speaking very colloquially and his use of the word "specs" in that sentence is not something we can assume to mean all technical aspects are exactly equal. I would actually question how accurate what he's even saying is, when he says things like:



I can pretty much guarantee you that neither version would be capable of running at 100fps if paired with an arbitrarily powerful CPU. If it was, it would mean the graphics processors are running at 30% load or something similarly low. Just a ridiculous claim to make.

So this whole thread and controversy and the resulting PR update on Kotaku is because some senior producer don't understand any technical details about the game his building?

But i understand his intention by saying "we lock them to avoid all the debates and stuff", this means it is not CPU bound problem, not GPU either but simply so Ubi or MS can say they make the game that has the same spec as in PS4 or the other way around depending on your belief system.
 
How can PC gamers go from 'getting it on the PC, it's the only place to play' to 'PC games get gimped because of consoles'

Which is it? Is it worth buying a gaming PC or not? Make your minds up.

When you buy a PC version, most versions will be what the highest developed console platform looks like, with maybe a few bells and whistles they had to cut for performance issues if you're lucky. Plus occassional the dev's lock the resolution or framerate for some god forsaken reason.

By treating the Xbox One version as the lead (the PS4 version is locked at Xbone specs to meet the Xbone's standards), you're getting a way shittier version than if PS4 was the lead and ported down for Xbox One.
 
So it's okay if they are slightly better on PC, but still gimped?

What kind of loaded question is this? You said "simple" stuff, and all PC games have these "simple" stuff and most of them have more complex stuff. And if PC game was gimped, it will get ridiculed for it.
 
When you buy a PC version, most versions will be what the highest developed console platform looks like, with maybe a few bells and whistles they had to cut for performance issues if you're lucky. Plus occassional the dev's lock the resolution or framerate for some god forsaken reason.

By treating the Xbox One version as the lead (the PS4 version is locked at Xbone specs to meet the Xbone's standards), you're getting a way shittier version than if PS4 was the lead and ported down.

Didn't Shadow of Mordor recently get a ultra high resolution texture pack? Don't PC versions of game runs even higher than 60fps (which apparently is so last year) and isn't framerate king for PC gamers? I'm sorry but PC gamers can't in some debates scoff at console gamers and then in another complain consoles are holding PCs back. The two can't be bridged so easily and quickly for convenience sake.
 
I honestly couldn't care less about Assassins Creed, sick and tired of the franchise. All I hope is that this sort of attitude (punishing an entire fan-base to achieve "parity" that only needs to exist because a company was not able/didn't want to do an equally powerful console - that is not up to the consumer, if someone bought the more powerful console, they should get a game that is only hindered by that metric and not by anything else like in this case) doesn't become a trend in the gaming industry, even though its pretty clear that there are huge chances that it will actually happen, sadly, at least with the big publishers/developers.
 

Seriously? Can you not agree that wolfenstein having a locked frame rate and removing graphical enhancements from watch dogs is not gimping and/or forcing parity?

The main argument here is the ps4 version of the game should be "better" whether that be a higher resolution, fps, more eye candy, etc. Why? Because the ps4 is more powerful, people want every ounce of it used.

This is almost never the case for PC owners. If you have a decent rig you can max a new game and have plenty of headroom. Shouldn't these same devs squeeze every ounce here too?
 
Didn't Shadow of Mordor recently get a ultra high resolution texture pack? Don't PC versions of game runs even higher than 60fps (which apparently is so last year) and isn't framerate king for PC gamers?

From good developers, sure, framerate is unlocked and often have much better graphics options. I mostly talking about the bad ports from sub-par publishers/devs like Ubisoft.
 
I can back up the comments about the price, but as I said, this isn't the thread.

And don't tell me when to post and not to post do you understand? I was done, but I ain't being spoken to like that by you.

You feel comfortable in telling a mod what to do and what not to do, so I don't see why you're exempt from the same treatment?
 
This is simply ridiculous, they are not going to avoid debate with this kind of deliberate handicap of one version of the game.

Makes my interest in the game even lower...
 
108 pages in 12 hours. Good grief GAF
This is more than just this console vs that console. This is about platform holders, publishers and developers having shitty practices that try to make their partners happy at the cost of the quality of the product and consumer satisfaction.
 
There's a fundamental difference between not developing a game from the ground up with high end PCs in mind and forced parity.

If a developer chooses not to include mega textures or other major improvements over the console version, that's not the same thing as forced parity. Yes, an AC built from the ground up for high end PCs could be much more expansive and dense and dynamic in its design.

But that doesn't mean the PC version is gimped.
PC version would be gimped if we had a capped frame rate at 30 fps and capped frame rate at sub HD with the same downgraded draw distance and foliage levels.

It shouldn't be a hard concept to grasp that intentionally lowering the resolution of a game so as not to hurt any feelings is not the same thing as developers not putting in a special effort to differentiate the PC version.
 
From good developers, sure, framerate is unlocked and often have much better graphics options. I mostly talking about the bad ports from sub-par publishers/devs like Ubisoft.

Yeah, there are exceptions to the rule. But clearly from the large percentage of PC gamers who openly flaunt their rigs and scoff at console gamers, there are far more games that run better on the PC than don't 'because of consoles'. If the majority of experiences are better then why complain about the few? If it's the few that run better on the PC then why the scoffing?

It just seems as if PC gamers are opportunistic in nature.
 
It's actually not a bad idea. Didn't Microsoft 'send a team' to 'help' devs on some game previously get their shit up to snuff? At the very least if Sony offers and Ubisoft is all like "No, we're good" then maybe that sheds some light. Worst case scenario, nothing improves.

Yeah, they sent a team:
money-bag-dollar-sign.jpeg


Maybe the same team worked for them this time, too?
 
Wolfenstien was locked at 60fps (gimped) and hardly looked better than the console versions. Watch dogs has "secret e3" settings that were disabled on PC.

1) We are talking about resolution here, the PS4 can have identical graphical effects to Xbox One but maintain a 1080P resolution. That's what people are asking ie. not pare back the resolution purposefully.

2) The cases you mentioned are entirely different, none of those were downgraded purposefully so as to get parity.
The "secret" E3 settings were for the vertical slice and most of them were unfinished effects and caused bugs and glitches outside of the E3 location/conditions which is why they never made it to the game, I thought we reached that conclusions a long time ago. And always on DoF is not E3 settings, regardless of how much you modify the ini the game never once looks like E3 it's because the E3 demo was simply a vertical slice and they were never able to meet that quality for the entire game and had to pare it back. It was not gimped, it was just them facing the realities of developing a game and being unable to maintain that standard throughout the city. The PC version of Watch Dogs already has better water simulation, higher draw distance, much better shadows...and that is the kind of improvement you get with superior hardware realistically speaking, not 2x everything. Wolfenstien being locked at 60FPS is hardly it being gimped, it was purely due to the fact that the game logic itself was tied to the refresh rate. The game is so adamant about maintaining this framerate that it'd rather drop resolution on consoles than drop framerate so that the game logic is not effected.
 
I wondered if Unity was being made on a new engine, which could have been the reason for such a big downgrade from 1080p/60 to 900p/30. But it's not. It uses the same AnvilNext engine as AC3, Liberation and Blackflag. Can't even look to Watchdogs for comparison, as that uses a different, bespoke Disrupt engine. And Far Cry uses Dunia engine.

PS4 version being artificially limited is still an assumption, but something majorly fucked has gone on with the game to get downgraded from 1080p/60.

It's hard to imagine that 1080p/60 goal was ever possible. It goes against all the other evidence we have from other games on the same hardware.
 
Isn't this basically the current-gen version of the weaker platform being the lead sku?

You don't get to exploit the stronger console and that sucks. I won't complain; I don't care if they were paid to do it by whomever. I'll show my contempt for practices like this when I buy every game they make used. Don't play with my emotions.

I ain't even mad, tho.
 
So if we look at the initial statement, and take the claim that they've maxed out the CPU yet have ample GPU capability at face value.

If only there was some magical technique they could use that used the GPU for compute tasks... It would be even better if that technology was built into the AMD GPUs both consoles have... And it would be super awesome if one of these consoles has specific customisation to excel at GPGPU compute...

Hmm.
 
Yeah, there are exceptions to the rule. But clearly from the large percentage of PC gamers who openly flaunt their rigs and scoff at console gamers, there are far more games that run better on the PC than don't 'because of consoles'. If the majority of experiences are better then why complain about the few? If it's the few that run better on the PC then why the scoffing?

It just seems as if PC gamers are opportunistic in nature.

It's because we complain when we get the shaft, it's not like we're going to complain at the guy who optimizes their shit properly and offers multi-screen and oculus rift support.

We're going to complain at the guys with bad DRM, dummied out graphical enhancements, locked framerates/resolutions, or otherwise fumbled products. If your favorite game got gimped for bad reasons, wouldn't you be vocal about it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom