Ubisoft on 900p: "Ubisoft Does Not Constrain Its Games"

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Ubisoft on 900p: "Ubisoft Does Not Constrain Its Games"

assassins_creed_unity_sp_assassinationcontract

Ubisoft states anything over 900p resolution in Assassin's Creed Unity would have come at a cost to the gameplay.

Ubisoft has further clarified its decision to lock Assassin's Creed Unity at 900p in a statement issued to the company blog. In this statement, Ubisoft claims a resolution higher than 900p would have led to sacrifices in gameplay.

"Ubisoft does not constrain its games," Gary Steinman, Ubisoft's senior communications manager, wrote on the company's blog. "We would not limit a game's resolution. And we would never do anything to intentionally diminish anything we've produced or developed."

Ubisoft first revealed the resolution for Assassin's Creed Unity in an interview with Videogamer; both the Xbox One and PS4 versions of Unity will run at 900p and 30 frames per second. The interview implied Ubisoft lowered the specs specifically for the PS4 version. Senior producer Vincent Pontbriand said, "We decided to lock them at the same specs to avoid all the debates and stuff."

Pontbriand then elaborated the AI and numerous NPCs on screen limited Ubisoft to running Unity at 30 frames per second. Since then, Ubisoft developer Nicolas Guérin told TechRadar Ubisoft kept framerate down to give the game a cinematic feeling.

After consumers accused Ubisoft of decreasing the game's performance on PS4 to match the Xbox One, Ubisoft issued an official statement: "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."

In yesterday's company statement, Pontbriand said he understands how the interview led people to believe Ubisoft was "holding back" Unity on PS4. "I simply chose the wrong words when talking about the game's resolution, and for that I'm sorry."

Ubisoft defended its decision to lock the resolution at 900p and said Assassin's Creed Unity is pushing the Xbox One and PS4 more than ever before. Buildings in Paris nearly have a 1:1 scale whereas previous games set buildings at three-fourths the size. Unity also has more NPCs - thousands on screen at a time, Ubisoft states - to recreate the size and density of Paris. Ubisoft also noted a game's resolution isn't set until late in development.

"The team has dedicated much of the past few months to optimizing Unity to reach 900p with a consistent 30 frames per second," Steinman wrote. "Considering the sheer number of pixels that are being moved around at all times - which affects both the CPU and GPU - that's a significant achievement, especially as Assassin's Creed Unity will release when the new-gen consoles are barely more than a year old."

Source: Ubisoft

Permalink

I'd be angry if I wasn't so tired and beat down by listening to this same drivel every time.

We need to burn down the games industry, salt the earth it's currently on, and come back again in a decade or two to start again.

They are still lying. I could believe their official explanation that the CPUs are woo weak if the PS4 version ran at a higher framerate. The PS4 is literally 50% stronger than the Xbone. There is no excuse for both versions to be the same. The cinematic feeling argument is designed to combat this specific accusation. But we all know (hopefully) that framerate in video games has nothing in common with framerate in the movies. You can't get a more cinematic feel by limiting the framerate. It's pure bullshit and they know it.

The most probable explanation is that Microsoft payed them. We've seen how far they're willing to do go sell their shitty console when they bought the rights for Tomb Raider and wasted $2.5 billion on Minecraft. And Tomb Raider is a game that has a long history as a PlayStation/PC title.

Ubisoft, you are so obviously trying to bullshit us it's not even funny.

"Ubisoft does not constrain its games,"

Nice Watchdogs "Who cares it's PC" Edition fuckwits.

Sidenote: I like how the spellchecker on this site tells me to change 'fuckwits' to 'kiwifruits'.

Id be angry if i was ever going to buy it on console.

Or ar all, if they fuck up the PC version.

As long as its as engaging and interesting as AC: Black Flag was....the game could be in (OH MY GOD!!! SO SHIT!!) 720p for all I care.

It's semantics: no, they didn't initially set it at 1080 and reduce it to 900, the INITIALLY SET THE BAR LOWER and went for 900. So he's both right and misleading: they didn't "reduce" the game, they just set their bar really fucking low.

Whatever. So many gamers are just sheep and since sheep just know about eat grass, they can say "because numerology". It would have the same impact.

"Ubisoft does not constrain its games".

Watch_Dogs on PC would like a word with them then.

I mean, the original statement for AC: Unity was, quote, "We locked it... to avoid all the debates and stuff."

That's... that's, like, insanely clear-cut. You can't misstate or misinterpret that.

If they are legitimately simulating a city of thousands of NPCs at a time (which smells of marketing) then at least they're trying something big to make the technical downgrades worth it. If not, given this is looking like a trend I have to wonder why we even have a new console generation. Making things more HD was the hallmark of the sixth generation going to the seventh. If we're just going to keep doing that, striving for 60fps smoothness would have at least given some unique appeal to the new gaming era. Pushing the polygon limit never had to be the default response to the new hardware power.

So they're entirely willing to dump literally hundreds of hours into modelling a single cathedral to be an exact copy of the real world original, most of which you probably won't see, but putting some more hours into something that affects the entire game didn't come up in the meetings at all?

"And we would never do anything to intentionally diminish anything we've produced or developed."

Like withholding parts of the game for day one DLC. Or On-Disc DLC. Or demand always when the playerbase hates it. Or...........

I don't think they thought this one through. "You think our games are made bad on purpose? Well haha, they're not we do our best but just suck at making games so there." At least constraining their games is an incompetence that makes some sort of sense.

Normally at this point I'd be feeling all Smug PC Master Race, but given how Ubisoft treats the PC platform we'll be lucky if AC:U doesn't set our machines on fire and, with their final dying erg of power, display a bluescreen with "lawl buy xbawx pc luzer" on it.

Hahah, yeah, sure...

At this point, I think it would be better if they just lay low and keep their mouths shut. Because all that comes from them, recently, is either controversial, or downright stupid.

$5000 says that assassins creed unity will do anything but "push the PS4 more than ever before".

It'll be a graphically average game with no more on-screen than Shadow of Mordor (1080p, 60fps on the ps4) or GTA V (1080p, 30fps on the PS4).

Shhh! stop saying stuff, Ubi! Youre not very good at this, remember? Just release the game...no statements...so i can play and enjoy mounting beautiful parisienne architecture. J'adore, people...j'adore!

Keep digging, Ubi. You haven't quite reached the molten core of the Earth yet.
It's not as if I care, exactly. My TV is only 720p. But I don't like being lied to my face.

If Ubisoft keeps this up I'm going to fill my card on AAA Bingo!

<1920x1080p rez
<60 FPS
"30 FPS is Cinematic"
"Hardware can't give better performance"
Declaration of never Constraining the game for one version when constraining a version
Revisionist History
Lacking mention of PC*

*Only counts if it is confirmed to have a PC version and if two consoles are directly named in the statement.

It is really rare to get 5th and 7th spots on that list in one go, PC is normally required when lies about Constraints are brought up.

"We don't constrain our games, except when we do." Do they even read their own press releases?

Why exactly do they need to cram it full of more NPCs? All they do is get in the fucking way when you're trying to run from the guards or chase down a quarry. This is one area where I would happily forgo some 'realism' to make the game more playable.

Both systems don't even have one year on the market and we are already making compromises?

At least Revelations runs in 60fps. AC3 did too, but then 60fps doesn't mean much when the "game" is too unstable to actually run properly on top of being completely simplified even more than it was after the first game.

Seriously, if there were any decent AC games, they've had their time in the sun. They're still there for us to enjoy, but there's really no point in getting any of the games in the series after Revelations.

shadowmagus:
I'd be angry if I wasn't so tired and beat down by listening to this same drivel every time.

We need to burn down the games industry, salt the earth it's currently on, and come back again in a decade or two to start again.

That's a terrible idea. We need to burn down the parts of the industry that don't deserve to survive and let the good ones rake in the bucks. (To wit, hardly anyone ever complains about Atlus, so why should THEY burn?)

This is just fucking ridiculous, HOW are they still trying to change what their guy said prior to this, and no one told him to not say something as stupid as "we LOCKED it to avoid debates".

I mean, I stopped caring about AC since Brotherhood was a thing, but even then, Ubi might as well just fire their PR people, tell them all to just shut up and focus on making games and not interviews. Since I've heard they haven't come up with a "dreadful" game for a while, but are their bad rep comes from people talking too much or saying something stupid.

Captcha: Who is it?

I dunno captcha, I don't fuckin' know.

LOL at the news DA:I is 900p on X-box One and 1080p on PS4.

On a side note I can't believe the new generation consoles released last year was worse than my, at the time, 2-year old PC. One would think they would future proof them a bit considering last generation lasted for 7 years.

When the new generation already barely lived up to an old mid price range PC, just think how outdated they will be in six years, or even two!

Facepalm. This is why I don't console and I'm genuinely sad for those who do. No being condescending, just unbelieving how bad things are.

I don't understand why this is an issue, why did they even need to make a statement about this. I guess its because I gamed for years on a shitty hand-me-down Compaq that was never meant for gaming so 30FPS/900p seems wonderful compared to my childhood of 15FPS/240p. Or just that I don't give a shit about graphics or framerates as long as they hit a stable 30. But it seems a very large part of the site is either upper middle class PCMR or part of the graphics and FPS obsessed crowd I refer to as "the Biscuit Mafia".

not a console gamer but from what i have read, PS4 is better than xbone. also think that M$ payed them off just to sell more of their crappy console. wasting money on tomb raider, minecraft and now AC. M$ is really desperate.
but ubi is also not an angel and comes up with crappy excuses to bring out their games. i did get watch dogs last week and it sure suffers from performance issues. constant freezing for more then 5 secs. very frustrating. at times when i can move again it freezes again for another 5 sec.
im wondering how unity will be on pc. so far none of the AC games on pc were unplayable or had any major issues. so i still have some hope there.

Ubisoft anounces its going to limit its game, claims its not limiting its games.

Ubisoft:
we would never do anything to intentionally diminish anything we've produced or developed."

you keep saying that, but you keep doing the opposite.

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

ironic, considering this sentence caused far more debates than you could have expected. also downgrading your games to "Avoid debates" is a ridiculous concept. like, pants-on-head retarded level ridiculous.

"Considering the sheer number of pixels that are being moved around at all times - which affects both the CPU and GPU - that's a significant achievement, especially as Assassin's Creed Unity will release when the new-gen consoles are barely more than a year old."

ah, yes, the significant achievement that people achieved somewhere in 1996. wait, what year is it?
And the fact that it releases while the consoles are young and pwoerful should actually mean it has HIGHER resolution than in the future. as later resolution and framerate gets sacrificed for fancier textures. but there is nothing left to sacrifice at launch now.

CpT_x_Killsteal:

"Ubisoft does not constrain its games,"

Nice Watchdogs "Who cares it's PC" Edition fuckwits.

To be fair the who cares its PC note in the comments of code was misunderstood. the code it commented was for Xbox, and the comment basically mean "who cares, its PC version, its not going to run this code anyway" if you look at the full file it basically checks whitch system it runs at and if its xbox it runs one code and if PC another, and the comment basically said that the Xbox part of code is unimportant in the PC version since its never going to run it.

Ark of the Covetor:
display a bluescreen with "lawl buy xbawx pc luzer" on it.

you know i now want to make a fake BSOD like that. run it on fullscreen game. bam - instant karma.

major_chaos:
I don't understand why this is an issue, why did they even need to make a statement about this. I guess its because I gamed for years on a shitty hand-me-down Compaq that was never meant for gaming so 30FPS/900p seems wonderful compared to my childhood of 15FPS/240p. Or just that I don't give a shit about graphics or framerates as long as they hit a stable 30. But it seems a very large part of the site is either upper middle class PCMR or part of the graphics and FPS obsessed crowd I refer to as "the Biscuit Mafia".

Just because you are indifferent of framerate and resolution benefits does not make them somehow unimportant. however your insults makes me think your just jealous rather than indifferent, otherwise why go to such lengths as to invent insults against groups you disagree with?

"Cinematic XYZ" has to be the bullshit word of the year by now. We are not watching movies where a director has control over the camera to mask over that annoying suttering which I still notice every single time the bloody camera moves, we are playing games where the player has control. Cinematic feeling my ass.

Strazdas:

major_chaos:
I don't understand why this is an issue, why did they even need to make a statement about this. I guess its because I gamed for years on a shitty hand-me-down Compaq that was never meant for gaming so 30FPS/900p seems wonderful compared to my childhood of 15FPS/240p. Or just that I don't give a shit about graphics or framerates as long as they hit a stable 30. But it seems a very large part of the site is either upper middle class PCMR or part of the graphics and FPS obsessed crowd I refer to as "the Biscuit Mafia".

Just because you are indifferent of framerate and resolution benefits does not make them somehow unimportant. however your insults makes me think your just jealous rather than indifferent, otherwise why go to such lengths as to invent insults against groups you disagree with?

I've never refused to play a game because it didn't have enough pixels. I've never decided to not buy a game because it didn't run at enough fps. As long as it runs at a constant frame rate and you can see what's going on, neither of those things matter all that much.

You know, I'm starting to have trouble remembering which pile of bullshit leaked out of which triple A company's mouth. I swear all I hear from anyone of the giants these days is brain-dead excuses of why reductions, cuts and laziness is actually a really great thing for us customers!

Seeing these articles now makes me laugh at all the people who cried 'optimisation' whenever people argue consoles against PCs. Clearly, optimisation is bringing results guys. 900p is something to be proud of, its better than 720p of last generation. Maybe the next wave of consoles can finally make it to 1080p, by which point everyone will be using 1440 as the new standard.

major_chaos:
I don't understand why this is an issue, why did they even need to make a statement about this. I guess its because I gamed for years on a shitty hand-me-down Compaq that was never meant for gaming so 30FPS/900p seems wonderful compared to my childhood of 15FPS/240p. Or just that I don't give a shit about graphics or framerates as long as they hit a stable 30. But it seems a very large part of the site is either upper middle class PCMR or part of the graphics and FPS obsessed crowd I refer to as "the Biscuit Mafia".

Ok, you don't care about graphics. That's fine. But sure, let's just belittle everyone who does care about them. It's not like people might want their entertainment to improve in quality? No, heaven forbid we let people have preferences about how resources are spent in a game's development. Heaven forbid people actually want improvement, rather than stagnation.

Strazdas:

Just because you are indifferent of framerate and resolution benefits does not make them somehow unimportant.

No, but the fact that they have no impact on the overall quality of the game does.

insults

Insult, singular. "upper middle class" isn't an insult, and PCMR stopped being a put down when people started using it unironicaly to describe themselves. And for that matter "graphics obsessed" is more of an observation than an insult.

makes me think your just jealous rather than indifferent

*rolleyes* I own a ~$1200 gaming set up, I can do the 1080p/60fps thing, the hand me down Compaq was ten years ago. I just find the attitude some people have about it nauseating. The very idea that you think I'm so small and bitter that I would be "jealous" over marginally better graphics on PC is a far more venomous insult then anything I intended to convey with my post.

clippen05:
Heaven forbid people actually want improvement, rather than stagnation.

Oh I want improvement, but I want in areas that matter: better AI, new destruction/physics engines, more entities on screen and interacting at once, decals and debris that don't instantly fade, deeper combat systems, persistent locational damage, ect. That's what I want, but what I get is fucking tressFX. Because all the publishers care about and all the majority of players see is the continuing effort to make things shinier and make up new lighting effects for me to instantly turn off. I would rather see a game look like its from 2009 than see anything that could effect gameplay in any way sacrificed.

 Pages 1 2 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