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

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Assassin's Creed Unity will run at 900p/30fps on both PlayStation 4 and Xbox One, Ubisoft has confirmed, with the publisher opting to aim for platform parity to avoid discussion over the differences in performance.

"We decided to lock them at the same specs to avoid all the debates and stuff," senior producer Vincent Pontbriand told VideoGamer.com while explaining that it's the consoles' CPUs ? not the GPU ? that prevents Ubisoft Montreal from improving the game's performance.

"Technically we're CPU-bound," he said. "The GPUs are really powerful, obviously the graphics look pretty good, but it's the CPU [that] has to process the AI, the number of NPCs we have on screen, all these systems running in parallel.

"We were quickly bottlenecked by that and it was a bit frustrating, because we thought that this was going to be a tenfold improvement over everything AI-wise, and we realised it was going to be pretty hard. It's not the number of polygons that affect the framerate. We could be running at 100fps if it was just graphics, but because of AI, we're still limited to 30 frames per second."

Last year's Assassin's Creed 4: Black Flag also shipped at 900p/30fps on both PS4 and Xbox One. A post-release patch, however, bumped the PS4 version to 1080p. Ubisoft has given no indication that it has plans to do the same for Unity.

Assassin's Creed Unity launches on PS4, Xbox One and PC on November 14.

Source: http://www.videogamer.com/ps4/assassins_creed_unity/news/assassins_creed_unity_is_900p_30fps_on_both_ps4_and_xbox_one.html

Yes I know we have a topic for resolution and FPS but this is a developer saying avoiding debates and "stuff" is a reason to fundamentally impact development.

You do not see PC developers artificially affect things for Nvidia/ATi cards, if one PC GPU is more powerful it simply runs the game better.

Going to blow up in their face for those comments, and rightfully so, just squeeze the best you can out of each console, comments like this actually fuel a war, not dampen it.

[Polonium]

*cough* MS paying for it to be gimped *cough*

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

*cough* MS paying for it to be gimped *cough*

Absolutely not, those conspiracy theories are just as daft as saying Sony paid for Ubisoft to patch AC4 to 1080p.

What isn't daft to speculate is a developer trying to be indifferent or cuddle up to avoid backlash. The boxes have the innards they have, developers use them, no need to feel a sense of entitlement to one or the other, just push each to the best your game can run.

[Polonium]

I'd love to believe you and say it has nothing to do with MS but the simple fact they have bought exclusive DLC to the game, have a record of doing this stuff in the past, I can't believe you.

 

I genuinely think MS have something to do with this...

[Noir Angel]

Next gen? still crap in comparison with PC's. A perfect advertisement for why I don't buy consoles. And I don't buy the argument that an 8 core x86 CPU isn't fast enough to handle the game's AI, I'd consider the one's weak GPU to be the real culprit.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

I'd love to believe you and say it has nothing to do with MS but the simple fact they have bought exclusive DLC to the game, have a record of doing this stuff in the past, I can't believe you.

I genuinely think MS have something to do with this...

Pressure, DLC deals, the eyes of a console creator looking at you with that kind of wink. Sure. But money exchanging hands for this? Jeez. That's like scraping ###### off a shoe desperate in this economy to pay for parity or pay for a 1080p patch.

So they say that above and this about the Wii U:

UBISOFT: ASSASSIN'S CREED UNITY COULD NOT RUN ON WII U

"It wouldn't be possible."

"It wouldn't be possible, in our minds we?d be cheating fans by providing a lesser version of the same game".

http://uk.ign.com/articles/2014/10/06/ubisoft-assassins-creed-unity-could-not-run-on-wii-u

If technical experience matters then the debate does exist in Ubisoft and there is only one correct answer, as I said above use each console to its limits - No gamer benefits from parity just to avoid debate...

[MightyJordan]

"Kaz Hirai" has already summed up my thoughts pretty well...

 

Javascript is not enabled or refresh the page to view.

Click here to view the Tweet

Javascript is not enabled or refresh the page to view.

Click here to view the Tweet

 

I abandoned Assassin's Creed after III (which I only even played because I got it free through PS+) and with decisions like this, it's gonna stay that way.

[Polonium]

Pressure, DLC deals, the eyes of a console creator looking at you with that kind of wink. Sure. But money exchanging hands for this? Jeez. That's like scraping ###### off a shoe desperate in this economy to pay for parity or pay for a 1080p patch.

 

MS aren't short of money... Minecraft say's hello. 

 

They've done it before, and I don't doubt they've done it here and will do it again.

[Brandon H Supervisor]

the 900p I honestly don't care about. but why 30fps?

I honestly wouldn't mind them dropping the resolution farther (like 720p) just to get the 60fps out of it

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

MS aren't short of money... Minecraft say's hello.

They've done it before, and I don't doubt they've done it here and will do it again.

Without proof I cannot fathom stupidity like that exists. It would genuinely be disgusting to think tactics would stoop that low, and for a publisher/developer to accept such a bribe, as that's what it is, would be equally as disgusting.

It's too bold a claim to make without proof, no matter how quick its natural to assume it. As I said pressure, OTHER financial obligations like DLC, or even just handshakes... But actual payment... I don't ever want to think the console gaming industry would get that bad.

[George P Global Moderator]

Source: http://www.videogamer.com/ps4/assassins_creed_unity/news/assassins_creed_unity_is_900p_30fps_on_both_ps4_and_xbox_one.html

Yes I know we have a topic for resolution and FPS but this is a developer saying avoiding debates and "stuff" is a reason to fundamentally impact development.

You do not see PC developers artificially affect things for Nvidia/ATi cards, if one PC GPU is more powerful it simply runs the game better.

Going to blow up in their face for those comments, and rightfully so, just squeeze the best you can out of each console, comments like this actually fuel a war, not dampen it.

The post quotes the reason as being the weaker CPUs on both as the limiting factor yet you bring up the PC and how they'd never artificially limit things for one GPU over the other (even though that's not true at all as specific games that are part of one or the others promotional deals do in fact favor that GPU over the other in benchmarks), for what reason exactly?  The GPU difference isn't the factor in this unless you don't believe him and his AI+ other parallel systems as being the reasons.

 

As far as any MS conspiracies all I can say to that is *facepalm*.

[Aergan]

Will hopefully be buying this on the PC if/when Ubisoft stop being ###### about it and make it availible again in Steam (UK).

[Pupik]

the 900p I honestly don't care about. but why 30fps?

You're new to this gen. consoles? For cinematic experience.

[Polonium]

Without proof I cannot fathom stupidity like that exists. It would genuinely be disgusting to think tactics would stoop that low, and for a publisher/developer to accept such a bribe, as that's what it is, would be equally as disgusting.

It's too bold a claim to make without proof, no matter how quick its natural to assume it. As I said pressure, OTHER financial obligations like DLC, or even just handshakes... But actual payment... I don't ever want to think the console gaming industry would get that bad.

 

Oh I agree, it is a bold claim and I don't pretend to know for a fact that this is why it's been done - I just can't see any other reason. AC:BF ran at 1080p on PS4 yet couldn't on Xbone, now this new game (entirely built for the new generation) can't do it on either.

 

It just smells fishy to me.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

The post quotes the reason as being the weaker CPUs on both as the limiting factor yet you bring up the PC and how they'd never artificially limit things for one GPU over the other (even though that's not true at all as specific games that are part of one or the others promotional deals do in fact favor that GPU over the other in benchmarks), for what reason exactly? The GPU difference isn't the factor in this unless you don't believe him and his AI+ other parallel systems as being the reasons.

As far as any MS conspiracies all I can say to that is *facepalm*.

The guy probably won't be working at Ubisoft much longer. According to GAF he's gone dark, so I'll find out if that means twitter or something and we can check LinkedIn is it in a week? Adam Orth memories here.

Its easy to turn a conspiracy back on me by saying but he's mentioning CPU! Yeah, right after saying they wanted parity to avoid debates and stuff - That is a ridiculous remark, sorry, but it is. That throws anything technical that comes afterwards into doubt.

Open world games rely heavily on the GPU, let's not get silly here. They are the most taxing kind of games graphically. We know that from PC gaming before consoles were even able to do proper open world games.

The CELL is a beast of a CPU/number cruncher but it didn't meant ND could do any better than 720/30 on PS3.

I don't think I know a developer that's had to go backwards either technically. Usually sequels are even better than what you previously released (looking at AC4 1080/30). Ah well maybe the next inFamous game will have CPU issues and go to 900/30?

[Brandon H Supervisor]

You're new to this gen. consoles? For cinematic experience.

ps4 is my first console i've had since my gamecube. was mostly a pc gamer last gen

 

cinematic experience is a BS excuse IMO. heck if you want to have 30fps for a reason such as that then make it optional like naughty dog did for the remastered Last of Us

[vcfan]

i think people are misinterpreting what he's saying.

 

the last game, ubisoft sent out a presser bragging about taking more time and optimizing the ps4 version specifically to reach 1080p, as both console versions shipped at 900p.

 

this time, they aren't giving preferential treatment to any one side. they arent gimping anything. he even says they are both bottlenecked.geez

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

i think people are misinterpreting what he's saying.

the last game, ubisoft sent out a presser bragging about taking more time and optimizing the ps4 version specifically to reach 1080p, as both console versions shipped at 900p.

this time, they aren't giving preferential treatment to any one side. they arent gimping anything. he even says they are both bottlenecked.geez

The act of not treating each console individually, or as you put it, "preferential" treatment is gimping.

There is no sane reason not to develop the game individually on both platforms to push everything out of the hardware. It is NOT identical hardware. As I said before PC games do not ride the fence for AMD/Intel/Nvidia. They just run at the best the hardware can do with no bias.

Ubisoft right off the bat from this remark display a bias, that is, to avoid debates they'd rather not have one console do differently. THAT is preferential treatment as it's artificially tampering with development.

[HawkMan]

Oh I agree, it is a bold claim and I don't pretend to know for a fact that this is why it's been done - I just can't see any other reason. AC:BF ran at 1080p on PS4 yet couldn't on Xbone, now this new game (entirely built for the new generation) can't do it on either.

 

It just smells fishy to me.

They never said it couldn't but Sony paid for the PS4 patch... this Black Flag was an early un optimized game, and Sony paid to have it optimized.

[George P Global Moderator]

The guy probably won't be working at Ubisoft much longer. According to GAF he's gone dark, so I'll find out if that means twitter or something and we can check LinkedIn is it in a week? Adam Orth memories here.

Its easy to turn a conspiracy back on me by saying but he's mentioning CPU! Yeah, right after saying they wanted parity to avoid debates and stuff - That is a ridiculous remark, sorry, but it is. That throws anything technical that comes afterwards into doubt.

Open world games rely heavily on the GPU, let's not get silly here. They are the most taxing kind of games graphically. We know that from PC gaming before consoles were even able to do proper open world games.

The CELL is a beast of a CPU/number cruncher but it didn't meant ND could do any better than 720/30 on PS3.

I don't think I know a developer that's had to go backwards either technically. Usually sequels are even better than what you previously released (looking at AC4 1080/30). Ah well maybe the next inFamous game will have CPU issues and go to 900/30?

 

You're off the mark on a few things, first, not all open world games are GPU-bound, many are CPU bond, it depends on what they do, case in point Watch Dogs is very CPU bound, and it shows in the PC benchmarks.   Also saying that Unity should run better because AC4 ran great is totally off it's not even in the same state.   Just because Unity comes after AC4 doesn't mean it's the same game.  It's not using the same engine, for starters, this is a new one, with a higher level of graphics detail, which shows compared to AC4's tired last gen look, yes even on the PC AC4 looks last gen.   Second of all, as you can see from any of the Unity videos there are way more NPCs packed into a city that's pretty huge, also other events going on that make this a very CPU heavy game.  Compared to AC4s lightly populated and small towns and a world that's 95% empty water, I'd say it's apples and oranges to compare the two games and how they run on the same hardware.

[vcfan]

The act of not treating each console individually, or as you put it, "preferential" treatment is gimping.

There is no sane reason not to develop the game individually on both platforms to push everything out of the hardware. It is NOT identical hardware. As I said before PC games do not ride the fence for AMD/Intel/Nvidia. They just run at the best the hardware can do with no bias.

 

since the game is CPU bound, the xbox one has the edge with the upclock, so if anything, the PS4 is gimping the xbox one version. As an Xbox One fan, i don't care. 

[George P Global Moderator]

I'm pretty sure I pointed out that even on the PC there IS NVidia or AMD/ATI bias with PC games, maybe less now but it's there if you look.  Games that fall into either nVidias  "the way it's meant to be played" promo thingy or whatever AMDs is called always end up more optimized for that specific GPU over the other.  It's what NVidia or AMD pay for in these cases as part of the promotions.  So to say it "never" happens on the PC is wrong, it does happen, it's part of business.   In often cases it's used by some new game to show off some new ability one GPU has or does better over the other.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

You're off the mark on a few things, first, not all open world games are GPU-bound, many are CPU bond, it depends on what they do, case in point Watch Dogs is very CPU bound, and it shows in the PC benchmarks. Also saying that Unity should run better because AC4 ran great is totally off it's not even in the same state. Just because Unity comes after AC4 doesn't mean it's the same game. It's not using the same engine, for starters, this is a new one, with a higher level of graphics detail, which shows compared to AC4's tired last gen look, yes even on the PC AC4 looks last gen. Second of all, as you can see from any of the Unity videos there are way more NPCs packed into a city that's pretty huge, also other events going on that make this a very CPU heavy game. Compared to AC4s lightly populated and small towns and a world that's 95% empty water, I'd say it's apples and oranges to compare the two games and how they run on the same hardware.

I have no doubts the game is graphically more impressive than AC4, but the topic isn't Ubisoft just saying we can't do 1080p on PS4 now due to a new engine. The remark as you can read as many times as you want says they'd rather "avoid debate".

Either way the PS4 GPU should enable some sort of difference, and the faster RAM, so if the game is 1:1, then I buy it's for parity. I don't just mean 1080 or 30/60, there should at least be texture, shadow or foliage based differences. Especially in an open world game. We seen it just days ago with Shadow or Mordor, 1080p with better shadows closer to PC like settings.

[HawkMan]

The act of not treating each console individually, or as you put it, "preferential" treatment is gimping.

There is no sane reason not to develop the game individually on both platforms to push everything out of the hardware. It is NOT identical hardware. As I said before PC games do not ride the fence for AMD/Intel/Nvidia. They just run at the best the hardware can do with no bias.

Ubisoft right off the bat from this remark display a bias, that is, to avoid debates they'd rather not have one console do differently. THAT is preferential treatment as it's artificially tampering with development.

 

That isn't necessarily true.

 

Fully optimizing and developing a cross platform game for each platform costs a lot more resources. Avoiding doing that as much as they can saves them time and money. And its not as if optimizing in this case makes them more sales, so its a waste for them to do so. As such the weak points for each console sets the bar for the other as well, and this goes both ways.

 

There's two issues here, resolution and fps. Resolution is gpu limited for the most part, the fps in this case is CPU limited.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

They never said it couldn't but Sony paid for the PS4 patch... this Black Flag was an early un optimized game, and Sony paid to have it optimized.

 

Citation needed. Just as it is for anyone saying MS have paid for parity, right?

 

since the game is CPU bound, the xbox one has the edge with the upclock, so if anything, the PS4 is gimping the xbox one version. As an Xbox One fan, i don't care. 

 

Probably somewhere on GAF someone has said that as a joke... On Neowin you'll find it's a serious remark.

 

Name one multiplatform game that has ran better on Xbox One? In align with open world games I just pointed out Mordor above, XB1 900/30, PS4 1080p/30 and then the other differences.

 

Even 1st party open world

 

Sunset Overdrive - 900/30

inFamous - 1080/30