Assassin's Creed Unity Runs at 900p Resolution to "Avoid All the Debates" - Updated

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Assassin's Creed Unity Runs at 900p Resolution to "Avoid All the Debates" - Updated

Assassin's Creed Unity co-op

Both the Xbox One and PS4 will play Assassin's Creed Unity at 900p resolution and 30 fps due to hardware limitations.

Update: Ubisoft has responded with an official statement:

"We understand how Senior Producer Vincent Pontbriand's quotes have been misinterpreted. To set the record straight, we did not lower the specs for Assassin's Creed Unity to account for any one system over the other.

Assassin's Creed Unity has been engineered from the ground up for next-generation consoles. Over the past 4 years, we have created Assassin's Creed Unity to attain the tremendous level of quality we have now achieved on Xbox One, PlayStation 4, and PC. It's a process of building up toward our goals, not scaling down, and we're proud to say that we have reached those goals on all SKUs.

At no point did we decide to reduce the ambitions of any SKU. All benefited from the full dedication of all of our available optimization resources to help them reach the level of quality we have today with the core Assassin's Creed Unity experience."

Original story: According to an interview with Videogamer, Assassin's Creed Unity will run at 900p resolution/30 frames per second on both the Xbox One and PlayStation 4. Ubisoft's Vincent Pontbriand explains that the consoles' CPUs are affecting Unity's performance, and as a result, "We decided to lock them at the same specs to avoid all the debates and stuff."

Pontbriand elaborated on the hardware limitations, saying, that although the next-gen GPUs are "really powerful," the CPU has "all these systems running in parallel," like the AI and numerous NPCs onscreen. "We could be running at 100fps if it was just graphics, but because of AI, we're still limited to 30 frames per second."

Getting frustrated about 900p resolution seems a bit petty, but we're nearly a year into the Xbox One and PS4's lifespans and 1080p/60fps games are still considered newsworthy. Add in reports that the Wii U has more games running at 1080p/60fps than either other next-gen console and Unity's 900p resolution seems even more like a missed opportunity.

We've reached out to Ubisoft for comment and will update with the publisher's response.

Source: Videogamer

Permalink

It's not at all surprising they're hitting a CPU bottleneck with the new consoles, the PC versions of AssCreed only really use 1-2 cores and leave the rest idle. As a result, the PC ports of AssCreed tend not to run well on AMD chips and older Intel CPUs. The low clocked CPU cores on the new consoles would only make this problem worse. The only way to fix this issue would be for Ubisoft to rewrite their game engine, and they're not going to do that when they're churning these things out on an annual basis until people stop buying them.

Wait but I thought with this next-generation we could do anything what about the PS4's sheer power and the Xbone's Infinite Power of the Cloud are you telling me those are just bullshit marketing spiels they fed us? Surely it can't be!

Lol!

Does this mean that the game will be badly optimised for PC again so that the next gen versions don't look quite as lacking in comparison?

We decided to lock them at the same specs to avoid all the debates and stuff."

Translates as Microsoft paid/threatened them to make the PS4 version worse for advertising reasons

Irridium:
Wait but I thought with this next-generation we could do anything what about the PS4's sheer power and the Xbone's Infinite Power of the Cloud are you telling me those are just bullshit marketing spiels they fed us? Surely it can't be!

No no no...The PS4 is still as powerful as 9 high end PCs and the Xbone can still harness the power of extra Xbones through the cloooooooooud.

I never really understood the whole parity thing. The PS4 is the better console hardware wise, but why are Ubisoft so scared to use that little extra power? Is it going to be the whole Watch_Dogs thing all over again?

When the Xbox One and PS4 were announced, I was really expecting the industry standard to finally become 1080p with 60FPS on consoles, but it just seems that aside from one or two games, most seems to end up sticking with 720p 30FPS, or something slightly higher. The games are prettier for sure, but the experience is still mostly the same. To me, this is still last gen, just with a glossier coat of paint.

BrotherRool:

We decided to lock them at the same specs to avoid all the debates and stuff."

Translates as Microsoft paid/threatened them to make the PS4 version worse for advertising reasons

Quoted for probable truth. There's no way that the CPUs are a bottleneck. How can they not be able to utilize 6 of the available cores appropriately? It's one of two things. Bad coding, or Microsoft payed them.

So instead of pc being held back by consoles... Consoles are being held back by consoles.

The irony of trying to "avoid the debates" only to stumble into one with the race of a drunk, blind rhinoceros is not lost on me.

I feel bad for laughing at the inevitable, forceful backlash.

Laggyteabag:
I never really understood the whole parity thing. The PS4 is the better console hardware wise, but why are Ubisoft so scared to use that little extra power? Is it going to be the whole Watch_Dogs thing all over again?

1) It is expensive to spend time developing, testing and optimising features that a third of your prospective market cannot use (using a third very loosely here).

2) Microsoft is likely making it worth Ubisoft's while not to hand the PS4 version an obvious visual advantage. Reviews of things like CoD and Battlefield all ending and it looks so much better on PS4 last year were painful to say the least for Microsoft.

Laggyteabag:
I never really understood the whole parity thing. The PS4 is the better console hardware wise, but why are Ubisoft so scared to use that little extra power? Is it going to be the whole Watch_Dogs thing all over again?

When the Xbox One and PS4 were announced, I was really expecting the industry standard to finally become 1080p with 60FPS on consoles, but it just seems that aside from one or two games, most seems to end up sticking with 720p 30FPS, or something slightly higher. The games are prettier for sure, but the experience is still mostly the same. To me, this is still last gen, just with a glossier coat of paint.

3rd Party Developer Stripped of Resource and Time

image

1080p60 High is really in the GTX 760 or 280x range. I don't think SONY or Microsoft would have much success selling an $800 console. And can you imagine how expensive games would be? Even still, Digital Foundry was really taken aback by the particle engine in Infamous: Second Son. And Roberts of Star Citizen has talked about the possibility of a console port, so they're powerful enough -- a stripped down mid-range PC -- according to him.

How much would you pay for a console?

This sounds like it wont please either party really. Sure theyre avoiding one debate but theyre just getting themselves into another one

Great, so they can't even hit 1080p a year from the launch of the consoles, and they're already talking about the tradeoff that comes from having to code for AI. At what point is everyone going to actually see the HD quality they paid for?

It's only going to get worse when 4k inevitably becomes the new standard.

3rd Party Developer Stripped of Resource and Time

image

1080p60 High is really in the GTX 760 or 280x range. I don't think SONY or Microsoft would have much success selling an $800 console. And can you imagine how expensive games would be? Even still, Digital Foundry was really taken aback by the particle engine in Infamous: Second Son. And Roberts of Star Citizen has talked about the possibility of a console port, so they're powerful enough -- a stripped down mid-range PC -- according to him.

How much would you pay for a console?

You know this is the last console generation anyway? Sony and Microsoft have pretty much said so, they lose money on every console they make. The future is plug and play upgradable PC boxes that's why Valve a company known for it's savvy business is creating the Steam Box but not actually making it themselves allowing hardware companies to create their own but what Valve is doing is creating an OS so Microsoft/Google or other software companies can't hold them and their customers to ransom with licensing costs.

This statement means 1 of 2 things:

1. Microsoft paid them off to restrict the PS4 version to the Xbone's level or
2. Lazy, Lazy, Lazy devs that have no idea how to optimize a game.

Shadow of Mordor runs at 1080p/60FPS on the PS4 with ease, but only runs at 900p/30FPS on the Xbone. There is just as much AI and all the rubbish he is talking about in SoM (I'd even go as far as to say there is more AI running in SoM).

This just screams laziness and/or a big bag of cash from MS. There is no reason a PS4 game should be running at 30fps at a resolution of under 1080p, maybe one or the other, but not both.

EDIT: Wow.. that update is chock full of so much shit I don't even know where to start.

You gave each console your full optimization efforts? really? then why is the more powerful PS4 running at the exact same specs as the weaker Xbone? why was shadow of mordor able to achieve 1080p/60fps on the PS4 (but only managed the exact same specs ACU runs at on the Xbone)? Why did you mention the Xbox One first?

I'm leaning more towards this game being developed on the Xbox One console and the devs being too lazy to actually optimize it for the more powerful PS4, and that statement Ubisoft gave is basically 3 paragraphs of bullshit.

It would be extremely embarrassing (to the point of demoting/firing) if the AC devs tried their hardest and couldn't break 900p/30fps on the PS4... especially when other open world/AI intensive/high screen clutter games were so easily able to run at 1080p/60fps on the PS4. (Shadow of Mordor and Infamous: second son come to mind)

This just shows that console exclusives are the only reason for having one console over another. I mean, I use one because I like using a controller on my couch with my big TV, but if I could afford it I'd mainly hook up a gaming PC to those peripherals.

"We never reduced the resolution, we just decided all along to never aim for 1080p!"

Yep. Alright. Good thing I'm not a fan of these games lol.

Adam Jensen:

BrotherRool:

We decided to lock them at the same specs to avoid all the debates and stuff."

Translates as Microsoft paid/threatened them to make the PS4 version worse for advertising reasons

Quoted for probable truth. There's no way that the CPUs are a bottleneck. How can they not be able to utilize 6 of the available cores appropriately? It's one of two things. Bad coding, or Microsoft payed them.

And the thing is, we already know that Microsoft have been putting pressure on developers because of the whole 1080p thing. There was just recently a game where MS force the developers to cap it to 30FPS so that Microsoft could advertise 1080p on the sticker.

MS are in a situation where they're losing the console war badly and they're really afraid of the PS4 getting the reputation for being the more powerful console so they're sticking the boot in to try and turn it around. Microsoft have loads of bargaining power, they can say something like 'we won't let you publish your game on our console unless you sign a contract promising equal performance with the PS4' and of course Ubisoft would cave. I'm not normally into conspiracy theories, but both publishers already buy exclusives, or timed exclusives that they advertise as exclusives, they pay for DLC and they pay developers to use the Kinect or six-axis. We know that Microsoft are really scared about this 1080p deal, to the point where they'll force the devs to make the framerate suck.

...it just seems really likely, given Ubisofts comments and that complete corporate BS speak update that MS have made a deal.

Laggyteabag:
I never really understood the whole parity thing. The PS4 is the better console hardware wise, but why are Ubisoft so scared to use that little extra power? Is it going to be the whole Watch_Dogs thing all over again?

When the Xbox One and PS4 were announced, I was really expecting the industry standard to finally become 1080p with 60FPS on consoles, but it just seems that aside from one or two games, most seems to end up sticking with 720p 30FPS, or something slightly higher. The games are prettier for sure, but the experience is still mostly the same. To me, this is still last gen, just with a glossier coat of paint.

To some degree it always takes 2-3 years before the actual next gen games come out. With the games coming out now, the developers didn't even know the specs of the consoles until they were 2/3rds of the way into development. So they just cram in some lightning tricks from the PC to make it look next gen. (And those lighting effects rock. Destiny looks really sweet, even if nothing else about it is)

In 2-3 years time, we'll have games that have been made for the ground up knowing what the consoles are capable of.

For some comparison, check out a screenshot of a PS3 launch title vs a PS3 game that came out at the end of the lifespan.




See the difference between a launch game and a real 'next-gen' looking game?

So basically they did cut corners and this is their round about way of trying to lie about the fact without sounding like they're just lying in order to not have to deal with comparisons between platforms. The PS4 (and obviously pcs) are spec and performance wise quite significantly above the One so all three versions of the game were compromised in order to meet the minimum requirements set by having to make the One version. Had they actually taken advantage of ps4 and pc obviously the One version of the game then would have had to run at lower settings in order to maintain a 30+ frame rate and everyone would be saying haha why would I want the One version it looks terrible.

So this smacks of MS getting involved and saying hey Ubisoft throw us a bone pleeeease and no doubt money changed hands to make this possible.

Dunno why companies feel a need to pretend this kind of thing doesn't happen. The ps3 was hard to code for early in its life cycle so tonnes of devs ended up making games for 360 and then porting them to ps3 with the ps3 versions looking and running a lot worse despite the fact the ps3 was actually a more powerful machine than the 360.

Resolution debate still to this day is about the dumbest thing people can get mad about imo.

As long as the game isn't lagging in fucking single player mode I could care fucking less what resolution they put it on.

haha oh that update statement is about the most bland cover your ass statement any PR could ever make.

Dont wishy washy it ubisoft, you could clearly do better but you are cutting corners to accommodate the lowest common denominator that you want to sell to. We'd be getting the same response with the wiiU if you decided to include that.

Their official statement amounts to literally nothing but "we don't want to pick sides, but we would like to emphasize that rather than sink to incompetence we work hard to rise to mediocrity."

sigh. i suppose we should be greatful developers aren't pumping so much graphics tech into nextgen games that the resolution hasn't dropped BELLOW 720.

Hey, Ubisoft, call me when hell freezes over, and then I'll believe whatever it is you're saying in regards to any sentence containing "PC".

Dragonbums:
As long as the game isn't lagging in fucking single player mode I could care fucking less what resolution they put it on.

That's what 30fps is though: Laggy bullshit.

"We have to run at 30 FPS because AI" I... FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU, what a huge ass load of BS.

I'm just going to agitate a bit more (because why not) and point out that if Black Flag is anything to go by, I'm not holding my breath. Black Flag's performance is abysmal even on my brand new shiny custom-built desktop.

So I'm facing a dilemma here. The game does look interesting enough with the fancy new setting and the redesigned combat and the renewed focus on stealth and this being the first time since AC1 (i.e. the first time in almost 8 years) that they changed the main character's animation set in any way. So on one hand, I'm inclined to buy this one. On the other hand, it's another bloody assassin's creed game. I've played it all before. And they stopped being good like five minutes before AC2 ended (with the possible exception of black flag - but I amount that new feeling resembling a bit of fun to the combination of a pirate setting and ridiculously low expectations).

And now there's this. the guarantee that if I decide to buy it, I'm pretty much given a choice between a consistently shit performance on the PS4 and a poorly optimised mess of a PC port that has the potential to run better than the PS4 version (simply by being on the PC) but most likely won't.

Any suggestions? The best idea I've had so far was to stop spending so much time thinking about pointless shit like this and finish my degree. Not a fan of that one though.

Dragonbums:
Resolution debate still to this day is about the dumbest thing people can get mad about imo.

As long as the game isn't lagging in fucking single player mode I could care fucking less what resolution they put it on.

But the game is all about the drop-in online co-op feature being shoehorned into the game because you have to play online in every game evar or else you aren't playing games right! So of course it'll lag because you'll have that to look forward to as well.

OT: I'm not a graphics snob by any means. But I like how each new news drop of this game is just making Unity sound less and less compelling by the second... which is sad because I was really hoping French Revolution would be the one game they make in the series I'd give a shit about. Guess I'll wait for Feudal Japan (like that'll ever happen).

"We could be running at 100fps if it was just graphics, but because of AI, we're still limited to 30 frames per second."

So why isn't it running at 1080p then if you have all those GPU resources left unused?

Incredible how when its the anemic consoles that are suffering, everyone cares.

Yet when I care about lying system requirements or pathetic coding on PC... no one cares...

OT: Meh, it was gonna happen sooner or later. Assassins Creed is not a game famous for good AI or... well anything that requires CPU power. So I dont think the moronic CPU of the PS4 and Xbox One counts here.

HOWEVER METRO LAST LIGHT REDUX looks noticeably SUPERIOR to Unity and is 1080p 60 fps on PS4 and 912p on Xbox One. Yet again Ubisoft cant code as well as a low budget eastern European studio...
If only people paid attention when I was talking... that is what you get.

Assassin's Creed Unity has been engineered from the ground up for next-generation consoles. Over the past 4 years, we have created Assassin's Creed Unity to attain the tremendous level of quality we have now achieved on Xbox One, PlayStation 4, and PC. It's a process of building up toward our goals, not scaling down, and we're proud to say that we have reached those goals on all SKUs.

At no point did we decide to reduce the ambitions of any SKU. All benefited from the full dedication of all of our available optimization resources to help them reach the level of quality we have today with the core Assassin's Creed Unity experience."

Hahahaha.

Does this kind of thinking apply to their employees when they go for a performance review? "Well sir, mediocrity has been my goal all along, and I'm proud to say I've built towards it rather than having to scale back my ambitions. Can I have a raise now?"

Even if both consoles run the game at the same resolution and same framerate, I'd still go for the PS4 version if I was a console gamer. It's still a more powerful system which means that there is less chance of framerate dropping below 30. I wouldn't be surprised if the Xbone suffered from fps drops.

Those saying only a couple of games are 1080/60...http://uk.ign.com/wikis/xbox-one/PS4_vs._Xbox_One_Native_Resolutions_and_Framerates. Exaggeration is rampant on that.

As for the story that I heard elsewhere a little while back before I was watching Raw. Doesn't really matter to me, I know a lot of PC gamers are going to be pissed if they lock the frame rate and perhaps tie it to the speed of the game for a further finger. PS4 gamers may also be pissed on other sites perhaps, but this is the escapist so moot factor.
Me? I play Assassins Creed if its given through PS+, and even than I might not bother. I don't buy that crap, and considering how I just recently bought another bloody game (a SRPG FYI) to add to my constantly growing backlog I won't be playing either.

The whole resolution and frame rate bunkum doesn't much bother me to start with anyway. Unity will be like most ubisoft games, so average its average. 1080/60 wasn't going to change that.

KaZuYa:

You know this is the last console generation anyway? Sony and Microsoft have pretty much said so, they lose money on every console they make. The future is plug and play upgradable PC boxes that's why Valve a company known for it's savvy business is creating the Steam Box but not actually making it themselves allowing hardware companies to create their own but what Valve is doing is creating an OS so Microsoft/Google or other software companies can't hold them and their customers to ransom with licensing costs.

This supposed to be a joke? Or do you just not know how console money making works?
The rest of the post is embarrassing so I'll not go into it.

Charcharo:

HOWEVER METRO LAST LIGHT REDUX looks noticeably SUPERIOR to Unity and is 1080p 60 fps on PS4 and 912p on Xbox One. Yet again Ubisoft cant code as well as a low budget eastern European studio...
If only people paid attention when I was talking... that is what you get.

Exactly, and what about Shadow of Mordor? It runs 60fps at 1080p on the PS4 and it looks just as good (if not better) graphically and the AI and CPU intensive tasks are on par or surpass that of Assassin's Creed.

Infamous Second Son runs 1080p/30fps and it is a large open world with plenty of AI.

Sleeping Dogs HD will run at 60fps/1080p. Akiba's trip on the PS4 (another open world game with lots of AI, though cel-shaded graphics) runs 1080p/60fps. Hell, even GTA V will run at 1080p on the PS4 (though only at 30fps) and that is a much bigger game than ACU, and how about this one for a kicker: ACIV: Black Flag runs at 1080p on the PS4 (30fps)... so they can't even code as well as a previous title in the franchise.

Ubisoft couldn't code themselves out of a wet paper bag.

Honestly, I can understand being restricted to 30fps OR only being able to hit 900p.. but both? really? Even though the last AC was 1080p? and every single game on the ps4 released so far is at least 1080p/30fps, with many being 60fps, with only TWO exceptions.. and one of those exceptions happens to be another Ubisoft game, Watch dogs, which runs 900p/30fps of course.. their favourite numbers!

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here