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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mengy said:
Watch dogs on PS4 runs at 900p, but it runs at 792p on the Xone. There is still a step up for the PS4, the reason is because the PS4 is a more powerful machine. Whatever can be done on the Xone can always be done better on the PS4, with effort. It's just a fact.

That doesn't mean the Xbox one sucks or isn't a good gaming machine, it's just not as powerful as the PS4.

In this case though, Ubisoft is holding back the PS4 version from being all that it can be. Not because they can't do better, but because they don't want to bother doing better.
Click to expand...

Thinking more about it, what if the actual story is that they were doing their best to bump up the xbox one version to what the PS4 version was outputting at 900p? Similar to Watchdogs. That would explain some of the reports of the unstable framerate on xbox one.
 
CyberPunked said:
Heh
RnCWbT6.png

Boogie knows what's up :P
Click to expand...

So make game only on pc that only few people can run and go out of business.
 
Knoxcore said:
While everyone argues over something as meaningless as 633,600 pixels, I'll be playing the next iteration of Assassin's Creed this fall.

This whole debate is utterly pointless.
Click to expand...

Must be nice to see the world from your high horse. By the way, it's not just resolution people are discussing here, but of course why would you know that? You only came to the thread, not to add anything to the topic, but to try and feel above us with that statement.

Edit: That was quick.
 
Mengy said:
Watch dogs on PS4 runs at 900p, but it runs at 792p on the Xone. There is still a step up for the PS4, the reason is because the PS4 is a more powerful machine. Whatever can be done on the Xone can always be done better on the PS4, with effort. It's just a fact.

That doesn't mean the Xbox one sucks or isn't a good gaming machine, it's just not as powerful as the PS4.

In this case though, Ubisoft is holding back the PS4 version from being all that it can be. Not because they can't do better, but because they don't want to bother doing better.
Click to expand...

Yeh, but WD is one of the earlier games, and plenty of devs had stated already that initially Xbone tools were really crap and with lots of performance issues...

The gap in performance might still exist, but it doesn't need to be so large as launch titles implied. There's even a few recent examples for that.
 
teckmonkey said:
Just curious. How many people that have posted on this thread are programmers? I ask because a lot of what these posts look like are speculation at best.

It would be one thing if someone who's actually worked on both platforms for a AAA title said, "yeah, we could have run it at 1080P at 60 FPS, but Microsoft paid for my car, blah blah blah". It's quite another when some guy reads something on a blog somewhere and says "YOU GUYS, PS4 VERSION IS GIMPED BECAUSE PS4 SPECS ARE BETTER!"

This would be like me, being a baseball fan, complaining that since my team didn't trade for a right-handed power bat, they didn't get into the playoffs. Never mind the fact that you need to identify whether or not you actually need that player, finding that player, determining his availability, determining what it would take to trade for that player, determining if you can live with the asking price, determining the potential for the player(s) you'd need to trade away, and if he'll sign a long term contract to stay.

I work in IT. What the fuck do I know about running a baseball franchise?

For all we know, Ubi's decision to run the PS4 version at the same rate as the Xbox may allow the PS4 version to look even better because it has the horsepower to run more features of the engine! IMO, this thread looks like one big circlejerk on why Ubisoft, and by extension, Microsoft, are awful entities despite knowing nothing about what goes into running a game development company.

tl;dr: Just because you're a fan of something doesn't make you an expert on the inner workings of a game development company.
Click to expand...

With all due respect your comment or post doesn't seem to highlight what is pissing most of us off about this entire parity issue.
 
Knoxcore said:
While everyone argues over something as meaningless as 633,600 pixels, I'll be playing the next iteration of Assassin's Creed this fall.

This whole debate is utterly pointless.
Click to expand...
The fact that you're not discerning enough to care doesn't mean that the practice isn't harmful to consumers. If anything, people need to yell louder because gamers are going to buy every hyped game anyway, regardless of how much it's been bungled.

I can't think of any reason for Ubi to toot the parity horn this hard unless they have some kind of financial incentive to do so, and that's exactly the type of thing we don't need. You don't see them bleating about parity on the PC port they're inevitably going to delay.
 
sjay1994 said:
Im sorry. Your cancelling a pre order for a watch.... because of parity.

A watch.

I can't GAF. Your politics are too funny. Lets all tweet at ubisoft about how rustled your jimmies are and watch them respond back to us with the laughs of them swimming in that MS money.
Click to expand...

I wish you were funnier, cuz as it stands, your ridicule posts are just stupid.
 
LukasTaves said:
Yeh, but WD is one of the earlier games, and plenty of devs had stated already that initially Xbone tools were really crap and with lots of performance issues...

The gap in performance might still exist, but it doesn't need to be so large as launch titles implied. There's even a few recent examples for that.
Click to expand...

Sure, but tools can only go so far. In the end, given equal tools, hardware will always be the defining factor. And from a hardware point of view the PS4 can do more than the X1.

keltickennedy said:
Thinking more about it, what if the actual story is that they were doing their best to bump up the xbox one version to what the PS4 version was outputting at 900p? Similar to Watchdogs. That would explain some of the reports of the unstable framerate on xbox one.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting point. Ubisoft may be completely happy with the PS4 running a smooth 900p but maybe they are saying it's not locked down because they can't get the X1 to a stable framerate at 900p? Can you imagine the backlash if it slipped now down to 792p like Watch Dogs was at, heh. I doubt that would happen though, they would probably sooner ship the X1 game at a stuttery 900p than do that now that they have all of this attention...
 
CyberPunked said:
Heh
RnCWbT6.png

Boogie knows what's up :P
Click to expand...

You do understand PC would need to be the lead platform in order for that to happen right? You also know that the "average" PC is weaker than the Xbox/Ps4? Lets say that wasn't the case. Since PC have unlocked hardware, you would have to make a game for a more weaker graphics card to reach a wider audience. Please stop making comments like these assuming console games don't also own gaming PCs.
 
It is unbelievable that people cannot grasp the the source of this PR debacle when it clearly outlined that the parity was enforced on record! There is no other alternative interpretation of that statement; and yet, here we are 100+ pages and strawmen, concern and neutral trolling for the sake of sidetracking discussion.

It all boils down to one simple question: If this was a 'forced' parity, then which of the consoles is compromised?

No, it may not be 1080p or even 1000p. Hell, it can even be 901p for all I care, but it doesn't pinpoint the exact console in question. But this is where we apply other data to accurately access which is the "correct" one. So far the PS4 meets this criteria as it is undisputedly on top - equal on some areas but never below the X1. Not even Ubi's very own games are exempt from this comparison; so it only makes sense that the PS4 is the most accurate choice

But then there are apologists who agree with this notion but implying that it's not the company's "responsibility to cater to one system", which is a logical fallacy since in order to create "parity" effort has either to upscale or downscale. And even if assuming that ridiculous notion to be given credibility; I don't remember the PS4 having that kind of development issues at all. In fact, it's the exact opposite. So far, there have been reports claiming that that the target has ALWAYS been achieved on the PS4 first.

Unless my memory is fading,I distinctly remember some anonymous developers that were interviewed on record that games like COD is able to hit resolution MONTHS before even the X1 could for 720p. Even CD projekt (a pro DX user dev) went on record to claim that it required more effort to get the X1 to catch to the PS4. So, if this is the standard, why is the PS4 taking the brunt force here? I thought developers don't have a responsibility to cater to 1 system and yet here we are observing otherwise. From Diablo right through Destiny. Did it get the resistance it got compared to this particular discussion? Nope.

I find it absolutely revolting that the attempts to not only silence the discussion but to actually demean the consumer for not spending the money they way they want. All because their "console of choice" is getting the heat.
 
UnrealEck said:
Like Arma 3 for example?
Click to expand...

Arma 3 looks like crap and runs like crap. I would show CryEngine as an example, thing can run on toaster, and scales from lowest to highest builds pretty well. Or Tomb Raider for that matter, thing can run at 720p on Intel HD while looking better than past gen versions, or run at 1080p with all the bells and whistles at 60-120FPS and look better than "definitive edition".
 
Mengy said:
Sure, but tools can only go so far. In the end, given equal tools, hardware will always be the defining factor. And from a hardware point of view the PS4 can do more than the X1.



That's an interesting point. Ubisoft may be completely happy with the PS4 running a smooth 900p but maybe they are saying it's not locked down because they can't get the X1 to a stable framerate at 900p? Can you imagine the backlash if it slipped now down to 792p like Watch Dogs was at, heh. I doubt that would happen though, they would probably sooner ship the X1 game at a stuttery 900p than do that now that they have all of this attention...
Click to expand...

Personally, no matter what console I was playing it on, I would want a solid framerate over anything else.
 
Derpcrawler said:
Arma 3 looks like crap
Click to expand...

Can't say I agree with you. Arma 3 runs like crap when you crank the settings probably due to things like the draw distance and things like reflections. But fair enough with the CryEngine example. Crysis 3 was clearly a PC game and it shows in the scalability and performance.
 
UnrealEck said:
Like Arma 3 for example?
Click to expand...

Arma 3 is a good example of a PC game done right.

Proper mission editor and development tools for mods, in-game downsampling, view distances up to 20km, detailed assets, and still daily patches a year after release.
 
NickFire said:
I think they mean, "We are sorry some of you misunderstood our guy. We did not gimp the game after we made it. Rather, we gimped it while we made it. But don't worry, it will still look very nice. But now we think we might un-gimp it, but we aren't sure either way, so please don't cancel your pre-orders"
Click to expand...

Excellent interpretation.
 
So because Ubi say they want both consoles to have the same res etc because it stops debates ( and stuff). Even tho the PS4 is more powerful then the Xone, it is both consoles fault for bottlenecking PC? Am I getting it right? How does this even have a part in what Ubi have said?
 
keltickennedy said:
Thinking more about it, what if the actual story is that they were doing their best to bump up the xbox one version to what the PS4 version was outputting at 900p? Similar to Watchdogs. That would explain some of the reports of the unstable framerate on xbox one.
Click to expand...

I've wondered the same. It's starting to sound like Ubi might have their hands full getting the game to work acceptably on the One at 900p, and they might be trying to 'avoid' the resolution debate at the cost of an acceptable frame rate there.

Still, Ubi has to be under pressure from Microsoft to make the bone version the best one, or at least not say f'ing anything in public that would cast that into doubt. Must be 'fun' making games these days. ;-/
 
If the PS4 version being pared down to the One's level is fine, I don't want to hear PC gamers complain about getting Dark Souls 1 esque ports. If you're fine with console versions being trimmed down for the sake of equal performance to stifle debates, whether you like it or not, it's going to filter down to PCs as well, because it's more than clear that consoles are the focus on this generation and a lot of PC games won't be getting a very optimized port.
 
Mengy said:
I'm not embarrassed, I'm proud that gamers are standing up for what they want. As consumers we have every right to, I'd even go as far as to say we have a duty to.


EA said Simcity couldn't be played offline. Consumers spoke up, and now it is offline.

Microsoft said the Xone couldn't be changed to remove the online DRM. Again consumers spoke up, and it was removed.

Whenver anti-consumer polices are forced upon gamers we have a responsibility to speak out, or else we are just as guilty as the AAA studios mistreating us. There really is no justifiable reason for the PS4 version to be 900p other than Ubisoft didn't feel like making it 1080p. They have even stated as much, saying they kept both versions at 900p to make them equal. So the PS4 consumers will get an inferior product not because the console can't do better, but because the console they DIDN'T buy can't do better.

That's utter horseshit, and consumers should not be okay with it.

Nothing really to be ashamed about IMHO.
Click to expand...

^This! Well said!
 
Mengy said:
I'm not embarrassed, I'm proud that gamers are standing up for what they want. As consumers we have every right to, I'd even go as far as to say we have a duty to.


EA said Simcity couldn't be played offline. Consumers spoke up, and now it is offline.

Microsoft said the Xone couldn't be changed to remove the online DRM. Again consumers spoke up, and it was removed.

Whenver anti-consumer polices are forced upon gamers we have a responsibility to speak out, or else we are just as guilty as the AAA studios mistreating us. There really is no justifiable reason for the PS4 version to be 900p other than Ubisoft didn't feel like making it 1080p. They have even stated as much, saying they kept both versions at 900p to make them equal. So the PS4 consumers will get an inferior product not because the console can't do better, but because the console they DIDN'T buy can't do better.

That's utter horseshit, and consumers should not be okay with it.

Nothing really to be ashamed about IMHO.
Click to expand...

This is not really an anti-consumer policy, sorry.

I do not really care about the issue, but I was reading the thread to keep me updated on gaming news. If a company is willingly developing a game such that it is 900p and let consumers know this (which is what is happening here, really), there is not infringement of consumers' right.

Then consumers can protest, but no rights have been infringed here. Lazy companies exist, and always existed. If this is such a big issue, consumers will not buy the product. My feeling is that those complaining are just a vocal minority.
 
easy to talk boycotts on kind of an annual churn out game like this, especially since I don't particularly care about AC, but I had to wonder if I'd pass on buying a game over forced parity if it was something I REALLY wanted -- like, for example, a dark souls type game. I think I'd just buy it anyway.

which is why I think a lot of t he people committing to boycotts were unlikely to buy either way.
 
Well, I think I make the right choice by upgrade my PC instead of pick a NG console. All this money everywhere to win the war of the "less worst" version...
 
Mengy said:
I'm not embarrassed, I'm proud that gamers are standing up for what they want. As consumers we have every right to, I'd even go as far as to say we have a duty to.


EA said Simcity couldn't be played offline. Consumers spoke up, and now it is offline.

Microsoft said the Xone couldn't be changed to remove the online DRM. Again consumers spoke up, and it was removed.

Whenver anti-consumer polices are forced upon gamers we have a responsibility to speak out, or else we are just as guilty as the AAA studios mistreating us. There really is no justifiable reason for the PS4 version to be 900p other than Ubisoft didn't feel like making it 1080p. They have even stated as much, saying they kept both versions at 900p to make them equal. So the PS4 consumers will get an inferior product not because the console can't do better, but because the console they DIDN'T buy can't do better.

That's utter horseshit, and consumers should not be okay with it.

Nothing really to be ashamed about IMHO.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but you don't really know that, having not worked with the new engine Ubisoft developed for Unity and (I would guess) never developed anything for the PS4 hardware.
 
Pennywise83 said:
This is not really an anti-consumer policy, sorry.

I do not really care about the issue, but I was reading the thread to keep me updated on gaming news. If a company is willingly developing a game such that it is 900p and let consumers know this (which is what is happening here, really), there is not infringement of consumers' right.

Then consumers can protest, but no rights have been infringed here. Lazy companies exist, and always existed. If this is such a big issue, consumers will not buy the product. My feeling is that those complaining are just a vocal minority.
Click to expand...

You do realize that UbiSoft is, in fact, catering to a vocal minority here, right? Their entire rationale for this decision is to avoid Internet debates, debates that the vast majority of AC fans do not care about or even know exist.

Rather than deliver the best possible experience for all fans, they're forcing a minimum spec just to satisfy a VERY small percentage of their fan base.
 
Pennywise83 said:
This is not really an anti-consumer policy, sorry.

I do not really care about the issue, but I was reading the thread to keep me updated on gaming news. If a company is willingly developing a game such that it is 900p and let consumers know this (which is what is happening here, really), there is not infringement of consumers' right.

Then consumers can protest, but no rights have been infringed here. Lazy companies exist, and always existed. If this is such a big issue, consumers will not buy the product. My feeling is that those complaining are just a vocal minority.
Click to expand...
Ubi's statement makes it sound like it's a marketing decision, and not a development decision. Which implies that the game runs at 1080p just fine on the PS4 without any additional development, but they will launch it at 900p so the XB1 version has parity. Artificially decreasing the quality of a product in such a manner is very anti-consumer. If that's not the case then they're welcome to clarify, but so far they've only released an empty statement that offers no further insight to the situation.

If a company does something anti consumer, and consumers don't react to it, then it may become an acceptable practice. And jobbing a port is not an acceptable practice for the game industry.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Assassin's Creed full universe infographic
27
1K
Cyberpunkd replied
'Assassin's Creed' no saviour for struggling Ubisoft
2
92
1K
K' Dash replied
  • Poll
Prince of Persia VS Assassin's Creed
Opinion 
17
348
HYDE replied
Is anyone here still playing ONLY on last-gen consoles - i.e., Xbox One or PS4, no PC?
2
65
871
mafon2 replied
Assassin's Creed Shadows Preview (Hands on) and Description
4 5 6 7 8
368
24K
viveks86 replied
Top Bottom