Support NeoGAF

[Doctor_Thomas]

Is the PS4 version 1080p yet?

 

[opticalmace]

Ubisoft PR sure is lookin' good.

 

[Deadly Cyclone]

Not so much anti-consumer as "These chumps are gonna buy it anyways". And then you buy it.

Stop buying their subpar products and annualized cash-ins, then maybe Ubi will listen.

Seems like an opinion. ACIV was great.

 

[Pennywise83]

It is nearly the definition of anti-consumer.

Being a consumer is about having choice in the market. You plant your stake in a company based on the differences it offers in relation to the competition. If every dev takes steps to "avoid all the debates and stuff" and forces parity, they're effectively nullifying your choice and creating a market where all that exists is an illusion of choice.

It doesn't have to be completely surreptitious to be anti-consumer. (And you're assuming that they've laid out the truth in whole without keeping anything back, which is likely not a safe assumption.)

Sorry, but this is not "nearly" the definition of anti-consumer; and I do not see how this situation is going to reduce the choice of consumers in the market.

Ubisoft is not engaging in any fraud, because it is clearly saying what the resolution is going to be on PS4, The reasons why it is so are not of importance here; they might be known or not, but it all bodes down to the decision of a company to not provide a certain feature on a certain platform... Which might be annoying, debatable, but not anti-consumer. Were multi-platform on Wii that did not use Wiimote controls anti-consumers? Of course not. They were lazy efforts (because companies did not want to invest on the platform, did not have time to properly develop specific controls, and so on), but they did not go against any consumer right.

Ubisoft is not even conducting a practice that goes against competition: actually the opposite. The fact that you as a consumer has switching costs because you bought a platform at a fixed entry fee does not matter here, because we are talking about a third party that can develop as it wants what it wants, as long as it does not fraud anyone or try to dampen competition (which is not the case here). If Sony, instead, does not provide an acceptable level of features on the platform it is selling to you (and this platform was sold at a certain premium price with respect to the compatition -and it's not the case here), then I would say there are more chances of being an anti-consumer practice.

If you apply the legal definition of anti-consumer to this scenario, you'll get whatever answer the law specifically defines as anti-consumer.

If you use common sense, you can appreciate that it is completely anti-consumer to deprive PS4 owners of a higher specification on AC Unity due to the competitive platform's shortcomings. You'll also maybe see that you don't need to have it stand up in court to validate the feeling of getting shafted by a company who makes these sort of arbitrary decisions.

If you're argument is that AC Unity parity is not anti-consumer because it won't stand up in court, well then you're basically arguing that PS4 consumers aren't getting fucked over, which they are. Legal application aside, there is an anti-consumer element that is clearly at play in this scenario. If you have a better name for it, offer it by all means (edit: I guess you're calling it 'lazy port', which it isn't because AC4 was 1080p post release, the company is neither lazy, nor are they porting it to PS4) You also seem to be ignoring the words that cannot be taken back, the Ubi exec said they are at parity to "avoid debates and stuff". The word that comes to my mind is anti-consumer when thinking of arbitrarily gimping one SKU to accommodate the capabilities of an entirely different, competing platform.

I do not think this is true at all (at least in my opinion, so I respect yours... But beg me to disagree). Companies that are developing lower-quality products because of harmonization across platforms (of whatever genres) exist all the time. In the gaming sector, you can think of PS3/PSV multi that are technically constrained because of PSV limitations with respect to PS3; or cross-platform games; or multi with platforms such as Wii or Wii U that do not feature Wiimote or GamePad controls. Is this really anti-consumer? No, it is just a business decision that most of the time it is announced and well-known by consumers (and those consumers who do not know probably are not interested -at least in this very case).

Legal definitions aside (which are important anyway beucase anti-consumer has a specific definition nonetheless), I do not even see how the accomodation of a competing platform can be seen as anti-consumers. Ubisoft is just trying to minimize differences across platforms to maximize sales; it is the same company releasing two versions of the same game.

They're trying to fool people in to believing the XBone is just as good as the PS4.

MS seem to have a lot of parity clauses designed to ensure PlayStation never looks better. That's anti-consumer.

Then it is Microsoft to be anti-consumers, given also its relative power in the relationship with Ubisoft. And even in this case, as long as everything is specified by the company, the line between anti-consumer and not-anti-consumer is very thin. It's like when Sony buy exclusive marketing for a game (e.g. Destiny) and trying to "fool" people to believing a version for MS platforms does not exist.

 

[Canis lupus]

Heh

Boogie knows what's up :P[/QUOTE]

Boogie continues to disappoint after saying that exclusives shouldn't exist.

Just think, without consoles PC wouldn't even get these games. AAA publishers earn their bread and butter from consoles. If they targeted PC, what would they target? It's not a fixed platform, close to 50% of Steam users have 4GB ram or less. Just because there is a high end doesn't mean they'll make games specifically for those hardware, they're not gonna limit their install base further.

 

[abcdef]

Ubosoft should put the PS4 version of the game at 1080p/60 FPS, even if they had to decrease graphical quality/effects and the game looked like crap.
After that release a press release saying something like this: PS4 fanboys bitched and whined that they wanted the game at 1080p/60 FPS, so now they have it.

I think it's time for publishers/developers to stand up and send a big f**k off note to all whiny fanboys. This is getting way out of hand.

 

[lyrick]

Boogie continues to disappoint after saying that exclusives shouldn't exist.

Just think, without consoles PC wouldn't even get these games. AAA publishers earn their bread and butter from consoles. If they targeted PC, what would they target? It's not a fixed platform, close to 50% of Steam users have 4GB ram or less. Just because there is a high end doesn't mean they'll make games specifically for those hardware, they're not gonna limit their install base further.

close to 50% of all steam users is how many million people?

 

[Impeccable]

I think it's time for publishers/developers to stand up and send a big f**k off note to all whiny fanboys. This is getting way out of hand.

Yeah, that'll show them.

PS: RIP

 

[Beefy]

Ubosoft should put the PS4 version of the game at 1080p/60 FPS, even if they had to decrease graphical quality/effects and the game looked like crap.
After that release a press release saying something like this: PS4 fanboys bitched and whined that they wanted the game at 1080p/60 FPS, so now they have it.

I think it's time for publishers/developers to stand up and send a big f**k off note to all whiny fanboys. This is getting way out of hand.

Some posts on this thread are a joke, this probably being one of the worse.

 

[Doctor_Thomas]

Ubosoft should put the PS4 version of the game at 1080p/60 FPS, even if they had to decrease graphical quality/effects and the game looked like crap.
After that release a press release saying something like this: PS4 fanboys bitched and whined that they wanted the game at 1080p/60 FPS, so now they have it.

I think it's time for publishers/developers to stand up and send a big f**k off note to all whiny fanboys. This is getting way out of hand.

How is that even close to what anyone is saying?

And starring curse words is pointless when we know what word is being used.

 

[SMZC]

It won't happen. Look at Watch Dogs. The internet was raging about the downgrade and it broke record in sales. We are not taking about that Kony guy here. We are taking about some pixels. The vast majority of gamers won't care about any of this and still buy the game. Would I prefer 1080p? Absolutely. Will I deny myself the game so I can "show Ubisoft who wears the pants"? Lol fuck no.

You can buy it in the second hand market a while after the game is released. That's what I will be doing. If you give them your money, you are telling Ubisoft that this is acceptable, and they will keep doing it.

Also, the Watch Dogs situation was entirely different. It was shitty to have the game at 900p, but back then there was no reason to believe that the PS4 version was purposefully held back for shady and/or stupid reasons. That's why people are up in arms about this, it's a terrible treatment from Ubisoft to anyone who has a PS4 and was interested in this game, no matter how you slice it.

Also, there is another key difference that can make all the difference in the world: Watch Dogs was released during the Summer drought. A lot of people bought that game, even people who weren't very interested in it in the first place, simply because there was nothing else to play at the time. Ubisoft is now stupid enough to pull off this stunt with Unity in November, which is packed to the brim with games. That is to say, packed with competition. People don't have to put up with Ubisoft's crap this time around, because there is barely enough time to play everything as it is. That's why this time even the people who were interested in Unity are cancelling their preorders.

 

[martino]

Boogie continues to disappoint after saying that exclusives shouldn't exist.

Just think, without consoles PC wouldn't even get these games. AAA publishers earn their bread and butter from consoles. If they targeted PC, what would they target? It's not a fixed platform, close to 50% of Steam users have 4GB ram or less. Just because there is a high end doesn't mean they'll make games specifically for those hardware, they're not gonna limit their install base further.

if console would not exist where do you think enthousiast gamer from those plateform would put their money (saved from plateform buy and licence on each game ) ?

 

[ShadowSoldier89]

since when does something have to be a legal issue for us to consider it anti consumer?

 

[opticalmace]

Ubosoft should put the PS4 version of the game at 1080p/60 FPS, even if they had to decrease graphical quality/effects and the game looked like crap.
After that release a press release saying something like this: PS4 fanboys bitched and whined that they wanted the game at 1080p/60 FPS, so now they have it.

I think it's time for publishers/developers to stand up and send a big f**k off note to all whiny fanboys. This is getting way out of hand.

Perma'd on first post. Is that a record?

 

[FairXchange]

Ubosoft should put the PS4 version of the game at 1080p/60 FPS, even if they had to decrease graphical quality/effects and the game looked like crap.
After that release a press release saying something like this: PS4 fanboys bitched and whined that they wanted the game at 1080p/60 FPS, so now they have it.

I think it's time for publishers/developers to stand up and send a big f**k off note to all whiny fanboys. This is getting way out of hand.

Of course, publishers and developers have the consumers best interests in mind 100% of the time, even when they admit on record that they are making arbitrary decisions to "avoid debates and stuff". Or, that if you want to trade in games and play offline, you can buy go and buy a 360. There are so many examples of publishers and developers literally destroying the goodwill of their customers, and our vocal community has been instrumental in reversing these bullshit anti-consumer policies, but somehow you want publishers and developers to tell us to "fuck off?" If you like putting your money into the shredder, by all means. Please don't wish that same daft mentality on other informed consumers.

Edit: I should have realized beforehand he'd get nuked from orbit for that post.

 

[perfectsil]

Just think, without consoles PC wouldn't even get these games.

What would these developers be doing? flipping burgers? without consoles they will make games on platforms people play games on, be it phones, tablets, PCs, or streaming services.

 

[Quadraphonic]

Ubosoft should put the PS4 version of the game at 1080p/60 FPS, even if they had to decrease graphical quality/effects and the game looked like crap.
After that release a press release saying something like this: PS4 fanboys bitched and whined that they wanted the game at 1080p/60 FPS, so now they have it.

I think it's time for publishers/developers to stand up and send a big f**k off note to all whiny fanboys. This is getting way out of hand.

God domn Ubosoft.

 

[Paracelsus]

What would these developers be doing? flipping burgers? without consoles they will make games on platforms people play games on, be it phones, tablets, PCs, or streaming services.

It's because of the mainstream market buying Watch Dogs, Destiny and Call of Duty that the industry grew bigger and allowed smaller devs making your Dark Souls and Bloodborne to thrive and earn their spot.

That mainstream market will never ever exist on PC unless Steambox grows into a smash hit.

 

[Canis lupus]

if console would not exist where do you think enthousiast gamer from those plateform would put their money (saved from plateform buy and licence on each game ) ?

Surely not PC and neither would the casual Fifa/CoD audience that brings in the big profits, they'd be even more reluctant to continue gaming on their computer.

What would these developers be doing? flipping burgers? without consoles they will make games on platforms people play games on, be it phones, tablets, PCs, or streaming services.

Yeah they'd be making mobile games about flipping burgers, you're not gonna see Watch Dogs or AC Unity in its current form. PC only gamers would complain even more that the mobile ports are looking terrible and stuff.

 

[Ur_momshere]

 

[martino]

Surely not PC and neither would the casual Fifa/CoD audience that brings in the big profits, they'd be even more reluctant to continue gaming on their computer.

Thinking yourself omniscient doesn't make you rigth. And are you serious thinking most people plays games only because console exists ?

 

[FairXchange]

It's because of the mainstream market buying Watch Dogs, Destiny and Call of Duty that the industry grew bigger and allowed smaller devs making your Dark Souls and Bloodborne to thrive and earn their spot.

That mainstream market will never ever exist on PC unless Steambox grows into a smash hit.

This thread is amazing.

Did you know From Software (the company that makes Dark Souls and Bloodborne) existed before every single one of those games you mentioned were made?

 

[Kysen]

Wow this thread is still delivering over a 100 pages later. I'm glad Ubisoft back-pedalled I really enjoyed black flag.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

This thread is amazing.

Did you know From Software (the company that makes Dark Souls and Bloodborne) existed before every single one of those games you mentioned were made?

In fairness, I doubt there were as rich.

 

[test_account]

Heh

Boogie knows what's up

If that arguement is pointless, its just as pointless to argue if consoles is bottlenecking PC or not In my opinion. The arguement is if one platform is holding back another, and that would be the exact same arguement even if we're talking about console to console, or console to PC. I do agree that the arguement might not lead to that much though. Its the developers who decide what they want to do.

 

[Windom Earle]

Heh

Boogie knows what's up

First he is spreading FUD about the console CPUs and now this. Dude needs to shut up. And I am saying this as a PC gamer.

 

[FairXchange]

Wow this thread is still delivering over a 100 pages later. I'm glad Ubisoft back-pedalled I really enjoyed black flag.

They didn't back pedal, show me where they said they'll consider 1080p on PS4 if technically feasible (which it most likely is considering the amount of 1080p content already on the platform).

This trend is worrisome, we've had similar press releases from CD Projekt saying that all console versions will be 900p, despite earlier dev reports that the PS4 build is hitting 1080p. I'd say this is going to become standard practice.

 

[ScriptedReality]

Hmm that Sucks... Idk why he thought that quote would fly though lol

 

[keltickennedy]

Except they literally said they were locking it at 900p/30fps to "avoid debates and stuff." Not because of hardware limitations on the PS4, or because of rendering issues with the engine, or anything tech-related. The reason they gave was, word for word, to avoid debates.

Like I said previously, nobody knows (expect Ubi) if the PS4 version was knocked down, or if the XB1 version was brought up to match the PS4 version at 900p. Just for an example, Watchdogs was 900p PS4 and 792p on XB1.

 

[BeforeU]

Wow this thread is still delivering over a 100 pages later. I'm glad Ubisoft back-pedalled I really enjoyed black flag.

Source? Did I miss the news?

 

[Euron]

I think I should just stop watching the Ubisoft E3 Conferences entirely. Too many disappointments have been coming out of them in the past few years.

Though if they're making another pirate game, sign me up. Black Flag was so fun that the repetitive Ubisoft Open World Formula Checklist™ didn't even matter to me.

 

[Ateron]

First he is spreading FUD about the console CPUs and now this. Dude needs to shut up. And I am saying this as a PC gamer.

He's forgetting that there are a lot of people with mid/low range cards who can't play pc games at 16K at 400fps. It's kinda ridiculous to assume that it's because of consoles, and only consoles, that PC gaming is being pushed back.

Not everybody owns a top of the line rig. Scalability is a thing,sure, but if a dev decides to create a game based on fighting a shit ton of enemies at once what will you do? It's not like you can dial back the amount of enemies without having a significant impact on the gameplay mechanics.

I get that PC gamers may be upset that their hardware is not being pushed to the limits, but it's the nature of the beast. AC:U will probably be held back on the ps4 for no good fucking reason, while people playing on pc will be able to brute force through to make it look/play like they want to. It's not the same thing. We're at the whim of the devs, PC gamers aren't (at least most of the time).

How would they feel if they decided to hard lock AC:U PC version at 1080p/30fps, just to avoid debates and stuff? It's a matter of principle. Let that version be the best it can be, if someone invested that much on a pc they deserve it. But the same applies to consoles, if the ps4 is capable of more, let us have it.

I shouldn't be punished for buying more capable hw (and for a smaller price too) just cause the other box can't keep up. This opens up a very bad precedent, and if it sticks, devs will see the ps4 as nothing more than a quick way to get to a confortable target the x1 can handle and then do nothing more to improve upon it, because they don't wanna upset anyone.

Where was this mindset when I had a ps3 and had to deal with worse versions of multiplats for the better half of the gen? It would be stupid of me to want the other version to be held back as I would gain nothing from it. If I wanted better versions so bad I would have bought a 360 (pc isn't a consideration as it doesn't hang in the same price range).

All we get from this is, like other posters said before, an illusion of choice. What's the point of having 2 competing - albeit significantly different in raw power consoles - have the exact same versions of games?

I'm not arguing against anything you said, btw, just using your post to address boogie's statement.

 

[Averon]

Like I said previously, nobody knows (expect Ubi) if the PS4 version was knocked down, or if the XB1 version was brought up to match the PS4 version at 900p. Just for an example, Watchdogs was 900p PS4 and 792p on XB1.

Ubi can easily release a statement clarifying that this move was made because of certain limitations to their engine, or the PS4/XB1 hardware, or what have you. The fact that they aren't is their own fault, so they deserve the PR lumps they are getting.

 

[Inuhanyou]

I'm surprised at boogie. It should be obvious that instead of turning this into a PC vs console fight, everyone should get an optimized game for their platform of choice.

Especially considering that Ubisoft doesn't optimize well for PC at all, or did he suddenly forget them taking out all those features in the PC version of Watch Dogs just because they could?

This is about ubi being a bag of dicks and we should stand together on this

 

[martino]

true question : Isn't it possible ps4 advantage was not suffisent in a highly cpu bottleneck scenario to make them prefer 30 fps on both rather than 30 fps on one and 45 unlocked on ps4 ?
why ubisoft will suddently be dealing parity on this ac when they did not for last one (after patch) and watch dog ? even more considering ps4 succes / one .

 

[JohnGrimm]

Source? Did I miss the news?

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...nity-graphics-lock-for-parity-on-ps4-xbox-one

Ubisoft has told Eurogamer that Assassin's Creed Unity's final technical specifications for PlayStation 4 and Xbox One are actually still to be locked down.

 

[Fuz]

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

Not so much anti-consumer as "These chumps are gonna buy it anyways". And then you buy it.

Stop buying their subpar products and annualized cash-ins, then maybe Ubi will listen.

So simple, yet so impossible.
Gamers have no restraint whatsoever.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...nity-graphics-lock-for-parity-on-ps4-xbox-one

bahaha I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Deadly Cyclone]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...nity-graphics-lock-for-parity-on-ps4-xbox-one

Edit: Dates!

Hmm.

 

[Scofield94941]

Did boogie respond in this thread? On twitter he said the only company to benefit from parity is ubisoft....

 

[matrixman92]

well, at least there is good discussion here...over on a different site people are literally saying the entire fanbase is on playstation and this makes no sense to do for the "non-existent xbox fanbase".

I have been getting assassins creed games on 360 since they started coming out, literally getting an inferior product that is missing dlc and what not. This isnt that big a deal to me and I will still get the game day one on ps4. I can see how people are upset that they arent getting the best possible product though. It could also be that we do not know the full story of what is happening.

 

[Mar Nosso]

Edit: Dates!

Hmm.

Edit: Nevermind.

 

[kaching]

Ubisoft is not engaging in any fraud, because it is clearly saying what the resolution is going to be on PS4, The reasons why it is so are not of importance here; they might be known or not, but it all bodes down to the decision of a company to not provide a certain feature on a certain platform... Which might be annoying, debatable, but not anti-consumer.

You don't have to commit fraud to be anti-consumer. Just acting in a manner that isn't in your customer's best interests is anti-consumer. Now, you can argue whether their decision to be anti-consumer was justifiable in any way, but then you'd probably have to know something about the reasons behind their decisions, which you claim are unimportant.

 

[Omega]

It's because of the mainstream market buying Watch Dogs, Destiny and Call of Duty that the industry grew bigger and allowed smaller devs making your Dark Souls and Bloodborne to thrive and earn their spot.

That mainstream market will never ever exist on PC unless Steambox grows into a smash hit.

What?

How does Dark Souls get to exist because CoD sells 30 million? Those same people buying Dark Souls would be buying Dark Souls whether this AAAA market existed or not.

This is like the video game version of a "trickle down" argument.

 

[Biker19]

Boogie continues to disappoint after saying that exclusives shouldn't exist.

Just think, without consoles PC wouldn't even get these games. AAA publishers earn their bread and butter from consoles. If they targeted PC, what would they target? It's not a fixed platform, close to 50% of Steam users have 4GB ram or less. Just because there is a high end doesn't mean they'll make games specifically for those hardware, they're not gonna limit their install base further.

Plus there's about two posts from a poster named prozac786 from GameFAQ's that I've saved that probably also fits into this account:

The only reason your technology is progressing is because of consoles.

AAA multiplatform titles that justify your top end hardware purchases, are only ported to PCs because of consoles.

The volume of sales of AAA titles on consoles is far, far larger than PCs. In fact, in the cases of most AAA multiplats, PC sales equate to less than 10% of the total sales of these games.

That's why consoles are the lead platform. These sales on consoles are what justify the AAA budgets in the first place and allow the devs to port them to PCs as well. Without consoles, there would be no large volume of sales to justify big budget releases that push hardware. You'd be stuck with PC focused games, like League of Legends and World of Warcraft. Hardly need top end hardware to play those right?

Your AAA games would not exist, had it not been for consoles. Consoles don't need PCs to survive. Top end PCs need consoles to survive.

2nd post from prozac786:

I don't deny that PCs are infinitely better. They ought to be. There are so many hardware components to choose from. The top end GPUs alone cost almost as much as a console, the best ones costing double, tripple or even quadruple the price of a console. Of course PCs will be better.

I wasn't trying to suggest consoles are better. But consoles justify your PC hardware. Small example:

1. Why does Nvidia push forward cutting edge GPUs? To push the max visuals of AAA multiplats on PC.

2. Why do PCs get AAA multiplats? Because they are on consoles.

3. Why are consoles the lead for AAA multiplats? Because that's where the volumes of sales are.

4. Why does this volume of sales matter? Because it is the only thing that justifies the big budgets needed to create such AAA multiplats and port them to PC.

5. Take consoles out of the equation? No AAA titles for PC.

6. No AAA titles on PC? No need for Nvidia to push cutting edge GPUs.

Consoles justify your hardware purchases.

Every title that pushes PC hardware, is a AAA multiplat, designed with consoles in mind as the lead platform, simply because that's where the sales are.

Without consoles, your PCs wouldn't be getting any titles that push PC hardware tech forward.

This is why it is very foolish of PC users to automatically hate on console users.

 

[Paracelsus]

What?

How does Dark Souls get to exist because CoD sells 30 million? Those same people buying Dark Souls would be buying Dark Souls whether this AAAA market existed or not.

This is like the video game version of a "trickle down" argument.

You lure 30 millions of people into buying a new machine, amongst them there may be hundreds of thousands willing to stick for Dark Souls. It's the same for many business, even something as silly as wrestling, if you don't have a Rock to get people to watch the show you'll never know if they'd stick to watch Dean Ambrose too.

 

[martino]

Plus there's about two posts from GameFAQ's from a poster named prozac786 that I've taken that probably also fits into this account:



2nd post from prozac786:

6 is so wrong...why push hardware ? to sell new hardware....a thing you need to do when you're making money from it .
In fact the loop take a false prerequisite. Nvidia push hardware to sell hardware.
Developper will continue to target average hardware power on pc ...console or not console.
And imo with length of last gen and power of current gen overall gaming woul be less bottlenecked without console.

 

[rawd]

Pre order uncancelled!

 

[Prologue]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...nity-graphics-lock-for-parity-on-ps4-xbox-one

What are the chances of it actually changing?

 

[Alchemy]

true question : Isn't it possible ps4 advantage was not suffisent in a highly cpu bottleneck scenario to make them prefer 30 fps on both rather than 30 fps on one and 45 unlocked on ps4 ?
why ubisoft will suddently be dealing parity on this ac when they did not for last one (after patch) and watch dog ? even more considering ps4 succes / one .

PS4 advantages are all in memory bandwidth and GPU, so in a CPU locked situation both systems will perform certain tasks at the same FPS. However that means dick all for the GPU, and by locking the resolution of the game to what the Xbone can handle Ubisoft is just letting the PS4's GPU idle during those frames once its rendering tasks are finished (which it handles faster then the Xbone, so it is guaranteed to be idling).

Frame rate parity is understandable on these machines, game logic and physics are going to resolve basically at the same speed on both machines (minus small variation in OS overhead and a 150mhz advantage on the Xbone). Resolution makes zero sense unless the engine is doing a shit load of post processing on the CPU side, which isn't exactly the most way to split tasks on these systems.