Ubisoft issues totally convincing response to Assassin's Creed Unity's resolution

dreamlock said:
To:yves.guillemot@ubisoft.com
Subject: RE: PR problèmes aider, s'il vous plaît
Dear Yves,

Here's my recommendation in response to your previous request.

Best regards,
dreamlock
Click to expand...

On a pas besoin de ton aide pauvre crétin. Je creuse ma tombe MOI MEME TOUT SEUL!
 
Wurdfurd said:
locked framerate sub-1080p game >>>>>>>>>> unlocked framerate 1080p game

I don't care what the resolution is, as long as its fun and plays without fps drops.
Click to expand...

We'll see how consistent it is at release. Watch_Dogs had it's issues, especially with multiplayer.
 
RE_Player said:
This is the same company that is telling it's consumers that 30fps is better than 60 because it gives a more cinematic feeling... They think their audience are morons that will believe whatever is fed to them.
Click to expand...

I don't say this often, but god bless social media. It makes their bullshit easier to mock and discredit.
 
Admiral Woofington said:
So they attempted to give an answer in that the game is intensive to the system due to all of the NPC's and the 1:1 scale of Paris.

But they still haven't answered something crucial that could stop debates right the fuck now: in what ways will the two versions differ? PS4 titles have been pretty consistent in having something 'better'. Whether it's the resolution, the fps, or shadows, something they could use out of the extra power has always come around. If you say right now how the PS4 version will differ to the Xbone version, there'd be a shitstorm but more contained. Unless I missed it on the first read, Ubi is just saying they got it to run at 900p with consistent 30 fps. That's nice and all, but can you do more for the console with more power? What about PC?
Click to expand...

I think the most likely scenario is that there are many things besides resolution that differentiate the versions, but the marketing deal they have forbids them showing the ps4, or even speaking about the differences.
 
Sir TapTap said:
Not quite the same due to api, custom divers, gddr5, console specific settings. You can't expect a pc to perform identically to a console of specific spec, especially since the pc game is a slightly different codebase
Click to expand...

I would expect a PC with similar specs to not perform as good as an optimized console version so I was thinking if the PC version at similar specs could do 1080p then Ubisoft's response would be proven BS and they could have gotten more out of PS4.
 
Scofield94941 said:
I think we can all agree that Money is a powerful thing. There is no way in hell they would ever admit " Ya we lowered it to the same as Xbox one because we are in a marketing deal with Microsoft and they said it was unacceptable to have PS4 1080p while ours is not."

Microsoft and it's money is awful for the gaming industry and COMPETITIION.
Click to expand...
It's not that they lowered the resolution of the PS4 version. It's that they locked the development spec to that of the Xbox One. Its how Microsoft can get away with this. They aren't paying to handicap a version they are paying to have their system the locked lead platform.

It's actually pretty smart in a shady fucked up way.
 
Macready1306 said:
All this over 900p resolution?!? Wow. Can't believe its come to this...
Click to expand...

We've had so many pages of discussion and there are still people coming to the Ubisoft threads believing all of this has been only about the resolution, when the whole thing actually started and if centered on the "locked specs" comment.
 
It's not the difference between 900p and 1080p that bothers me. It is the business practice from Microsoft and Ubisoft that I cannot condone. I basically don't buy anything for my Xbox one anyway. All my friends moved to ps4 because of microsofts business practices and weaker console. But ubi, no patch no new purchase for me. I'll wait and buy it used. Which is sad because I saw this game at e3 and even at 900p it looks amazing.
 
Sushi Nao said:
I think the most likely scenario is that there are many things besides resolution that differentiate the versions, but the marketing deal they have forbids them showing the ps4, or even speaking about the differences.
Click to expand...

If that's what's preventing them from saying so, which realistically it probably is, then that's just going to hurt them more in the long run. If marketing deals dictates they can't talk about the PS4 version is there a loop? Something like letting people play the PS4 version and make their own comments.
 
Not a horrible response if you ignore the fact that he compleltly bypassed the whole reason for the outrage.


The PS4 is factually more powerful than the Xbox One. So what are you doing with that extra power if you were able to reach 900p on XBO without compromising anything else?
 
tea_and_crumpets said:
The confected outrage over this is hilarious.

900p or 1080p, its a marginal difference. 90+ per cent of consumers wont give a damn, otherwise Ubisoft would push for the 'GAF standard' of 1080p 60fps.
Click to expand...

Congratulations! You too are fit to join Ubisoft's PR team. Please apply at this link to start your illustrious new career now.

All joking aside, like Ubisoft, you're missing the point entirely (although unlike Ubisoft, I don't think you're doing it on purpose). The problem isn't that it's 900p vs. 1080p, even though that's a function of the debate. If they made a game and genuinely could do no better, that's fine. It is what it is.

The problem is they admitted out loud that the reason they're doing it is for the bumfucking retarded reasoning of "[they] wanted to avoid debate", which is just fucking over the majority of potential consumers for Assassin's Creed: Unity - PS4's userbase dwarfs XBO - to either appease whining fanboys or their business partner Microsoft. 180p is actually substantively a huge difference, 600,000+ pixel difference and is extremely noticeable to anyone with an even remotely discerning eye. So while you're right the mass market might not know better, that doesn't actually change the fact that it's bad for everyone involved.

In no way is this a positive for any consumer: Microsoft fanboys were going to get the game at 900p/30fps no matter what, and in the future if they got a PS4 they could try a better version of the game. And PS4 fans are now stuck with an inferior version of the product because petulant fanboys cannot shut their goddamn mouth about their own stupid console buying choices. If those fanboys did the research, they'd know PS4 is significantly more powerful and that would be the result 99% of the time (as it has been so far). But instead, Ubisoft irresponsibly decides that they're now business partners with Microsoft, so it's in their best interest to actually appease these sick "gamers" and with the double benefit of pleasing their $$ backer as well.
 
HardRojo said:
Again, 900p hasn't been the center of the discussion. There's a lot more behind it, specially the "locked specs" part.
Click to expand...

Well yeah. We're assuming it meant resolution, but it could mean a number of things: shadow quality, LOD differences, AA methods/quality, etc.

I still find it interesting that they have continually framed the question as 'lowering' resolution though. Of course the question was always, did you intentionally lock the game to the same spec on PS4 and Xbox One to avoid debates?

In terms of resolution anyway, as I mentioned in my previous post, the resolution wasn't set until late in the development cycle, so even if the PS4 is capable of 1080p, they never actually lowered it because it was never set.

Either way, they still never answered the question. Speaking about the game in general terms doesn't really mean much because there are a number of SKUs including PC. It is about the PS4 specifically.
 
Chose the wrong words, lol. Well, he accidentally 'chose' an incredibly specific statement then.

This whole thing reeks of bullshit. Me and Ubi are gonna have an indefinite cooling down period I think.
 
Macready1306 said:
All this over 900p resolution?!? Wow. Can't believe its come to this...
Click to expand...

Mastperf said:
If you think a little harder you'll realize there's more to it than just that.
Click to expand...

.

dreamlock said:
Isn't it pretty ironic that their title is called "Assassin's Creed: Unity" considering what's going on?

We're like the assassins, (read: gamers) all part of the same creed (gaming) and now we stand united in a rebellion. Maybe what they really wanted to create was the ultimate next-gen experience, something that none of us could possibly ever imagine, and in fact it is so good that we're actually playing along right now without even realizing it?.......

............and then I woke up. I was back in the real world. I found myself on my knees as I just couldn't stand up straight due to the constant laughter after just pressing the "Cancel" button on my pre-order of AC:Unity.

As I slowly regained my composure I muttered silently: "Requiescat in pace."

Fin.
Click to expand...
 
He says some weird things in this response. People were expecting 1080p for both next gen consoles? Um, not really. We pretty much expected it for PS4 only, just as it was for Black Flag last year.

Then he goes on to say 1080p and 60fps are the gold standard. Why other even bringing that up again?
 
tea_and_crumpets said:
The confected outrage over this is hilarious.

900p or 1080p, its a marginal difference. 90+ per cent of consumers wont give a damn, otherwise Ubisoft would push for the 'GAF standard' of 1080p 60fps.

This said, their attempt to roe back on very clear remarks about graphical parity are also hilarious.
Click to expand...

While it's definitely true that most people won't care and the game will probably post record numbers, I won't be supporting what looks like a shady deal between Microsoft and Ubisoft, it's that simple. I honestly don't care that much about the difference between 900P and 1080p (although 1080p is preferred).
 
Macready1306 said:
All this over 900p resolution?!? Wow. Can't believe its come to this...
Click to expand...

tea_and_crumpets said:
The confected outrage over this is hilarious.

900p or 1080p, its a marginal difference. 90+ per cent of consumers wont give a damn, otherwise Ubisoft would push for the 'GAF standard' of 1080p 60fps.

This said, their attempt to roe back on very clear remarks about graphical parity are also hilarious.
Click to expand...
What is with comments like this? Do you people lack reading comprehension, or just simply didn't even bother to look into how this entire debacle started in the first place and wanted to join in on the fun discussion immediately, bypassing any attempt at understanding what the discussion is actually about?

It's not about "900p sucks".

It's about the original Ubisoft guy's comment of how they forced parity to avoid debates about which console looks better. Restraining the PS4 version, no matter how "marginally" better it would have been, is ridiculously stupid and reeks of money-hatted corporate bullshit.

It was never about the 900p. It was about how the lowered resolution was unnecessary from a game design standpoint, and was based around "avoiding debates" about the competing consoles. Fucking ridiculous.

But, feel free to gloss over all that and jump right to your uneducated contributions that entirely miss the point.

And here's the original PR quote about the 900p resolution for you, since I know you're too lazy to look it up yourself because that's not as fun as simply hitting "Reply".

"We decided to lock them at the same specs to avoid all the debates and stuff"
Click to expand...
 
BruiserBear said:
He says some weird things in this response. People were expecting 1080p for both next gen consoles? Um, not really. We pretty much expected it for PS4 only, just as it was for Black Flag last year.

Then he goes on to say 1080p and 60fps are the gold standard. Why other even bringing that up again?
Click to expand...

Obscuring the question. To get the uninformed people supporting Ubisoft and to ignore the original reason this all started.

You have to remember this blog post was made to communicate a message. A lie. 100%. And he knew that others would see through it, but the statement needed to be made, to at least appease Microsoft investors.
 
Admiral Woofington said:
If that's what's preventing them from saying so, which realistically it probably is, then that's just going to hurt them more in the long run. If marketing deals dictates they can't talk about the PS4 version is there a loop? Something like letting people play the PS4 version and make their own comments.
Click to expand...

I can imagine they'll consider very carefully making such marketing deals in the future.
 
Quadraphonic said:
Obscuring the question. To get the uninformed people supporting Ubisoft and to ignore the original reason this all started.

You have to remember this blog post was made to communicate a message. A lie. 100%. And he knew that others would see through it, but the statement needed to be made, to at least appease Microsoft investors.
Click to expand...

Um what are you talking about Quad? You guys just want to find problems, I swear. Look at how concise his answers were to why he misspoke about the "debate" forcing parity:

It’s the first new-gen-only Assassin’s Creed, and it was built from the ground up to offer a wholly new experience. That meant rethinking the core pillars of the gameplay – navigation, stealth, combat – and building a systemic world unlike anything that’s come before. That meant giving unprecedented freedom to players. That meant seamless co-op with a fully customizable Arno. That meant lavish building interiors that players can enter and exit with no loading. And that also meant massive crowds, numbering in the thousands, who react realistically with the player and each other.
Click to expand...

Man, you hear that? It's BEAUTIFUL. Doesn't that answer your question, Quad? No? No. Shit, well try this out for size:

“This is something that the new hardware allows us to do,” Pontbriand says about the number of characters on screen. Of course, massive crowds are also part of the story of the French Revolution, so it was essential to the game’s setting. “We want you to feel that density, the chaos that was happening back then. Paris was a huge city, with almost a million people. So we cranked up our number of NPCs.” Keep in mind that previous Assassin’s Creed games could support around 100 to 150 NPCs; Assassin’s Creed Unity has crowds of thousands of NPCs on screen, and you can interact with each and every one them.
Click to expand...

You hear that? You can interact with EACH and EVERY one, just like...well, just like every other Assassin's Creed game that ever come out. But it's x1000 this time! Woo! I mean clearly this answers everything, right?


Goddamn you're stubborn ok hold on I got one for you:

The beauty of the setting, along with the volume of NPCs, the size of the city and the number of overlapping systems combine to make this a truly next-gen game – and one that takes full advantage of what the newest consoles offer. Which, of course, had some gamers wondering: If this is a truly new-gen game, why not deliver it in full 1080p on both consoles?

The answer is both simple and complex. Assassin’s Creed Unity is pushing the new-gen systems more than any other Ubisoft game has ever done. A quick look at the visuals – the city itself, the crowds, Arno in motion – will show how beautiful and how “next-gen” the game truly is.
Click to expand...

You see? Do you see now? It's gorgeous. Fucking makes eyes melt and shit from the resplendent holiness of its presentation.

If you don't think this is the hard truth I don't know what to tell you, Quad. Gamers, I swear.
 
Amir0x said:
Congratulations! You too are fit to join Ubisoft's PR team. Please apply at this link to start your illustrious new career now.

All joking aside, like Ubisoft, you're missing the point entirely (although unlike Ubisoft, I don't think you're doing it on purpose). The problem isn't that it's 900p vs. 1080p, even though that's a function of the debate. If they made a game and genuinely could do no better, that's fine. It is what it is.

The problem is they admitted out loud that the reason they're doing it is for the bumfucking retarded reasoning of "[they] wanted to avoid debate", which is just fucking over the majority of potential consumers for Assassin's Creed: Unity - PS4's userbase dwarfs XBO - to either appease whining fanboys or their business partner Microsoft. 180p is actually substantively a huge difference, 600,000+ pixel difference and is extremely noticeable to anyone with an even remotely discerning eye. So while you're right the mass market might not know better, that doesn't actually change the fact that it's bad for everyone involved.

In no way is this a positive for any consumer: Microsoft fanboys were going to get the game at 900p/30fps no matter what, and in the future if they got a PS4 they could try a better version of the game. And PS4 fans are now stuck with an inferior version of the product because petulant fanboys cannot shut their goddamn mouth about their own stupid console buying choices. If those fanboys did the research, they'd know PS4 is significantly more powerful and that would be the result 99% of the time (as it has been so far). But instead, Ubisoft irresponsibly decides that they're now business partners with Microsoft, so it's in their best interest to actually appease these sick "gamers" and with the double benefit of pleasing their $$ backer as well.
Click to expand...

Classy.

Ironically I would describe your post here as petulant.
 
Sushi Nao said:
I can imagine they'll consider very carefully making such marketing deals in the future.
Click to expand...

Haha probably, considering that if the opposite had been true and they could only talk about the PS4 version and the Xbone version ended up radically different there would also be complaints.

I'll enjoy the game but this sneaky PR and dodging the issue is going to make me rent it from GF at first. If the game is solid enough where I can forgive the resolution issues and the lies, I'll consider keeping it.
 
BruiserBear said:
Classy.

Ironically I would describe your post here as petulant.
Click to expand...

Hey, if you don't want to be described as a simpering whining fanboy, don't be a sad, whining fanboy. It's not actually hard calculus. When you put brand loyalty over rational considerations, your opinions and your behavior gets treated for what they are. It's simple.

You are responsible for your actions. If someone acts like a childish fanboy, they get to live with the brand. Not that I need to have this discussion with you: the Phil Spencer ID@Xbox parity thread showed all of NeoGAF exactly what was behind your curtain. Now you'll have to work to change perceptions if you want to be taken seriously.
 
Tidus_Great said:
didn't read lol

bottom line ps4 is more powerful than xbone = fact
most ps4 gmaes run at 1080p = fact
ass creed 4 suddenly became 1080p after fan outrage = fact
asscreed unity is nothing special graphically = opinion
ubisoft is a bunch of snakes and liars = fact
watchdogs was unimpressive and ran at 900p = fact

bottom line boycott ass creed unity. they will take the hint and make it 1080p same as they did asscreed 4
Click to expand...

And yet Creed 4 was aimed at Ps3 and 360 and its not hard to patch in 1080p on a game that is using HALF or less the resources Unity is trying to use. Come on now people. Lets use some common sense.
 
jond76 said:
Eh, you're right. Should've said nothing. After all, if I'm not going to join in with the pitchforks, why bother to share my opinion at all?

Anyway, UBI said what they said, it's up to the individual if they are gonna buy it not. Watchdogs had a similar downgrade controversy, but ended up breaking sales records.
Click to expand...

Well Watch_Dogs had the favour to launch in a very dry period for the new consoles. This will not happen again
 
Was rewatching some footage of the game curtesy of Gamersyde and the game is gorgeous, obviously it's the pc version but while you're all bitching at the PR and rightfully so, has it ever occured to you that this game in its current state cannot do 1080P on the PS4?
 
Donrule01 said:
And yet Creed 4 was aimed at Ps3 and 360 and its not hard to patch in 1080p on a game that is using HALF or less the resources Unity is trying to use. Come on now people. Lets use some common sense.
Click to expand...

If it's so easy then it makes you wonder why AC4 was ever 900p on PS4 in the first place. Hmm... XB1 version was also 900p.
 
Amir0x said:
Hey, if you don't want to be described as a simpering whining fanboy, don't be a sad, whining fanboy. It's not actually hard calculus. When you put brand loyalty over rational considerations, your opinions and your behavior gets treated for what they are. It's simple.

You are responsible for your actions. If someone acts like a childish fanboy, they get to live with the brand. Not that I need to have this discussion with you: the Phil Spencer ID@Xbox parity thread showed all of NeoGAF exactly what was behind your curtain. Now you'll have to work to change perceptions if you want to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...

Goddamn, he's on fire today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

'Assassin's Creed' no saviour for struggling Ubisoft
2
92
247
K' Dash replied
Ubisoft reveals ray tracing performance numbers for Assassin's Creed Shadows (DF Direct)
2
67
148
SuperC replied
How Ubisoft spent $2.1M on influencers to secure the launch of Assassin's Creed Shadows
News Analysis  2 3 4 5
212
10K
Radical_3d replied
Assassin's Creed full universe infographic
27
904
Cyberpunkd replied
  • Locked
Ubisoft Reportedly Has A Plan To Protect Devs From Harassment When Assassin's Creed Shadows Launches
Platform 
1
427
Thief1987 replied
Top Bottom