Ben-DutkaThroughout 2014, we've seen the news that many high-profile multiplatform games simply perform better on PlayStation 4.
Now, we learn that the upcoming Assassin's Creed Unity won't hit the 1080p/60FPS benchmarks the publisher was reportedly targeting.
This according to a recent VideoGamer interview with senior producer Vincent Pontbriand, who said the team wanted to make the PS4 and Xbox One versions identical in the interest of parity:
"We decided to lock them at the same specs to avoid all the debates and stuff."
Pontbriand had technical reasons as to why the game couldn't reach 1080p HD resolution and 60 frames per second, but that's not the issue here. If you're making both versions the same for two different consoles, this means one version could've outperformed the other but you didn't want to deal with the controversy. And let's not forget that Ubisoft's previous blockbusters – Watch Dogs and Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag – did indeed boast better specs on PS4.
This means there's only one logical conclusion to draw: Because the Xbox One version couldn't quite handle what the PS4 version could handle, PS4 users are getting a slightly lesser product. Is it a big deal? No, of course not. But it's certainly true and certainly worth noting.
In locking in the specs to avoid debates and controversy, they have sparked debates and controversy.
yeah what a stupid thought.
I think it may be Xbox timed exclusivity. After a year, a patch will be delivered to unlock 1080p for ps4
That's what happened with AC4 on PS4 right? The Xbox not getting that 1080p patch?
That was quick. Yeah, and if it was reversed, and xbox was superior to the ps4, it still wouldn't be right. I don't care what your reasoning is, holding something back and not allowing a full experience to be experienced because you don't want to cause problems and stuff? Its not a secret that PS4 is the stronger platform, why the hell would you even bother trying to avert it all now?
Next up, Ubisoft decides all PC versions of their games must be 900p so as to not be out of the reach of consoles. Any modded versions of said games to achieve any higher resolution will no longer run correctly.
I wasn't planning on buying it anyway, but this killed any desire for me to buy any other Ubisoft products. Because now thats its out in the open, and I know for a fact my version of the game is getting the short end of the stick, why should i spend my money on stuff that they put out?
Seriously Ubisoft, that newfound "partnership" you did with MS changed you. Why the hell do companies change so drastically when they partner with MS? Seriously this isnt the first time.
I thought the target was just 1080p at 30fps though, like it was for ACIV.
There's still a PS4 advantage though. Even if both PS4 and XO were set at 1080p and 30fps the PS4 would better cope with the inevitable strain of overloading the engine under intense scenes. That sort of thing is hard to force parity on. So while on the surface the two games will likely appear the same and have the same overall locked frame rate, the PS4 version will do it at a more stable level of performance throughout. This would be much like Diablo III.
Last edited by Temjin001 on 10/6/2014 10:14:39 PM
wait. hold the phone. I read the source. No, it's actually the other way around. The PS4 is holding the XO back.
Remember MS increased the clock speed of the XO's CPU cores some many months ago just following release, making the XO CPU power faster than PS4. The PS4 has the GPU advantage, but not the CPU. He made it clear in the interview that the CPU is what's keeping the perfomance down, where the XO's weaker GPU is keeping the res down.
EDIT: So you know, the added compute units on the GPU of the PS4 could be made to handle CPU operations through concurrent processes. So for exclusives and such, PS4 games should always be better all around.
EDIT2: but this would be about frame rate concerning the CPU thing. The 900p rendering resolution is handled by the GPU alone. SO it's really a mixed bag scenario. it's a middle-of-the-road approximation for both camps, much like most multiplats are. This is why exclusives usually rule the roost in that they're all about digging deep on one set of hardware.
EDIT3: and for my last and final edit, the CPU boost to the XO is actually pretty small. So in reality neither system was going to hit 60fps no matter the case and we PS4 users should be making a stink that we SHOULD at least get 1080p from the deal because there ought to be enough GPU overhead to make it happen for us.
Last edited by Temjin001 on 10/6/2014 10:33:04 PM
I see you leveled up your sarcasm. Very nice!!
what's that angry man? I'm not being sarcastic. The XO and PS4 have the same CPU's, but the XO's are in fact clocked faster. This would mean for a small, but tangible increase in performance as the source made it clear that it's the CPU acting as the bottleneck here and nothing else.
EDIT: but as I stated before, if Ubisoft was really concerned about it they would take the EXTRA compute units from the PS4's GPU and assign those to CPU-related processes (as they were intended) but seeing that this is a specialized implementation of the PS4's hardware Ubisoft won't care to optimize in that direction.
Last edited by Temjin001 on 10/6/2014 10:38:45 PM
and so people know the XO Jaguar CPU is clocked at 1.75ghz and the PS4's Jaguar is currently just 1.6ghz.
Last edited by Temjin001 on 10/6/2014 10:44:34 PM
AAHH SO MAnY EDITS
@Temmy, I haven't read the source article if there's more info there, but while what you say makes perfect theoretical sense I must admit that I find it hard to believe that a difference of 0.15ghz would make any major difference.
So if we only talk about a difference so small that is has no real practical consequences whatsoever the only bad thing about this whole story would be that they went public with it.
Last edited by Beamboom on 10/7/2014 3:17:01 AM
yea, it wouldn't make a major difference. no way would it be enough to take it to 60fps. it's just one specific instance where the XO does have some sort of advantage. Seeing that the guy addressed specifically that the CPU was the problem here, it isn't hard to deduce then who is actually holding who back.
but in the case of resolution, as this article is titled, the XO is holding the PS4 back. thats for sure. we ought to have 1080p because the ps4 gpu is clearly more powerful. ps4 users are getting a worst case scenario here.
Last edited by Temjin001 on 10/7/2014 10:46:03 AM
Well yeah, increasing resolution is a GPU task that would be independent from the CPU's AI loading it might have a small amount of relevance but I doubt the 0.15 increase is going to do much.
There was an article back in December that showed the PS4's CPU actually performed better in benchmarks than the XB1. Despite the increased clock speed.
It's a good thing MS has a lot of money. They will need lots of it. Paying off developers to make it seem that both consoles are equal will be costly. Should have spent more on the xo hardware instead of going cheap.
Here's the deal. 8 cores. Your argument about overloading CPU would make sense if these were running dual cores. Most games don't utilize quad cores. If Ubisoft wants to slap the consumer in the face, use a glove that doesn't smell like feces.
If they had a clean track record (PS4 MAGICALLY capable of 1080p via patch for AC:BF), then I wouldn't be so pissed. 900p at 30fps? 30fps? That's some crap. Keep your 1080p. Give me 60fps.
You know what? Keep your stupid f#cking game. Burnt on my PC black flag purchase and, now, we get this crap. If I wanted to get subpar graphics, I'd keep my ps3 through this next Gen.
Sounds like Microsoft needs to overclock their xbone some more. Lord knows that fan and case can use a reasonable excuse for its size.
I'm w knightzane except for the modding part
Way to stir up the sh*tstorm ya dummies.
There's too many of these games.
Funny, these were not issues when the PS2 graphically held back an entire generation, then it was about dat gameplay. Also, 900p was okay with WatchDogs PS4 as long as it was better than the competition's p number. The stupidity in the gaming community has become truly palpable….
Last edited by n/a on 10/7/2014 12:01:48 AM
There's about 3 or 4 things you're overlooking, but I'm off to bed. Perhaps when I'm awake….
"The stupidity in the gaming community has become truly palpable…."
True. And as usual, you're one of the ringleaders.
He's got a point, of course. That's why it stings.
He's making too many assumptions about what was okay in the past and creating false connections to what is going on with the current topic. They are unrelated unless you are looking for an agenda to prove.
But is he, World?
I can only speak for myself, but do I gloat over the fact that we now got the platform where the multiplats will run best? Of course I do! I have done multiple triumphant comments in these respects in the past, and more are to come both from me and others.
And rightfully so, imo! It's what all fans do when their team is leading.
Right before the PS4 were launched there even was those who claimed the PS3 still had years left in it, despite the fact that that generation consoles had held back the entire gaming scene for years already due to their (as time went by) absurd limitations.
So no, the way I see it Kiddo here is just saying what others don't. And of course he should refrain from doing so cause it's just no use in a community like this other than to annoy. But you all don't have to bite on ALL hooks he throws out. Sometimes things are better left uncommented. Unless, of course, one want to whip up a mudsling contest in the comments field and make the thread annoying for the rest of us too.
Last edited by Beamboom on 10/7/2014 10:33:11 AM
The games industry/community has changed considerably since then.
We are now much more knowledgeable about such things, and gaming is also much more widespread.
PS2 was largely still in the inertia of the early gaming days of the PS1 and even SNES I'd say, where such things were meaningless and game play mattered, improved graphics was more in its raw form, as in, the difference between FFVII and FFX, not based on resolution.
This is the generation of the knowledgeable consumer, and we aren't as clueless as we used to be.
Beam, I think gloating about the better performing console is fine regardless of what side you are, anyways. I didn't enjoy the early PS3/360 era where multiplats didn't do so hot on PS3. And in the PS2 era, I totally preferred the PS2 because of the games, and I always will. But I also owned an XBOX. I had BOTH. And at the end of the day, the gameplay and the better options just led me to buy more PS2 games.
And I can honestly say at that time I had absolutely no brand loyalty in me having owned mostly Nintendo consoles and handhelds, the first two PS's, and the first XBOX. (I wanted eet awl!) Now most of my income has to go towards bills and shit and isn't 100% disposable despite making a lot more of it. So I limit myself in what I buy now.
As for Kid, it did matter in the PS2 era but it ended up being moot with there being more than 6 times as many PS2's out there and most devs making their games for PS2, as well as Sony still getting a ton of 3rd party exclusivity back then that no longer happens. (The console slaes parity is the first thing you overlooked. That 3rd party thing is the second fact you over looked.) People did take issue with it being 900 and not full 1080. A lot, in fact… like…. an absolute ton… but whatever. *eyeroll* And finally, the community is not stupid, it's the most informed generation of gamers we've ever had. It's also the most connected. Sure, that brings a long a lot of extra dweebs with internet access and a barely present ability to type and form complete sentences, but just because that group is more vocal, doesn't mean the gaming community is stupid.
It would help you to care a little less before observing things. Maybe then you wouldn't look for evidence to prove the hypothesis as opposed to testing it.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 10/7/2014 10:39:44 PM
i don't get you. You try to 'prove' me wrong but you havent actually done it. Just talking in circles, confusing eloquence with brilliance. Your argument is since the weakest console was also the most popular, it had the right and privilege to hold back every multiplatform game. What kind of sense does that make? The topic is not about popularity, but the weakest console hindering the strongest. I'm not defending the X1. It is weaker than the PS4. Fact. I just can't wrap my head around why Playstation fans are now obsessed with graphics or a difference in p that can't be noticed without being told, when we never used to be. The Last of Us is touted by many as the best game they have ever played to this day. Does the fact that Amazing Spiderman 2 runs at 1080P/60 fps make it better in any way, besides being the best of a stupid number that make people feel 'smart' and 'informed'?
As far as people being more informed, that isn't necessarily a good thing. Any dope with the internet and a basic grasp of language can now believe they know more about the process of game making than the makers themselves or going to metacritic tells them more about a game than actually playing it, so much so that they feel the right to regurgitate 'this game sucks' or 'this game is awesome' to everyone they interact with. At the end of the day, the only knowledge worth a damn in this hobby is if you have played a game, enjoyed or hated it, and who made it. All this other stuff, long debates about what companies do, what secret deals to create parity, or any other nonsense is bringing an air of seriouness and pretentiousness to a hobby that is supposed to be nothing but fun.
It's a big deal in the sense that if others follow suit PS4 gets lesser games, which is not fair. I mean, whoever heard of limiting a game on one system because another system isn't up to par?
This is terrible! I hope over developers don't follow this example. Why should my experience on the PlayStation 4 be compromised due to the same game being released which is less capable. If the Xbox cant handle it then push it as close as it can get to the PS4 pure experience. It seems a shame that they're not willing to make the most out of what the PS4 can provide. But if anything this is just insult to anyone who intends to buy this game, I would even argue the game should be discounted in price for compensation.
I don't care much for AC in all honesty but if I heard that Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain was compromised in quality due to the Xbox I would utterly flip tables. It's not right for developers to cop out on what the system can provide just to maintain leverage on both systems.
But even beyond that, I just don't see how this can be an issue still, how is 1080p not industry standard yet? heck it really should have been with the PS3/360 gen but this is just silly. I just feel we should be beyond this whole problem by now.
Last edited by Vivi_Gamer on 10/7/2014 5:49:00 AM
I think gamers would be happier if ubisoft said they had optimized one console harder to have both achieve 1080p.
I reckon its to do with a certain party paying for exclusive marketing etc.
Resolution for ACU PS4XBONE sports 900p i wonder because the ps4 can support 1080p n 30 fps thgis what basically ubisoft said(but because ubi wants to sell equally(PS4XBONE) their copies will we see a patch that enables 1080p 30fps in the future like AC IV
P.S. They keep the same strategypolicy as they do with graphics advancement every console cycle end and when the new generation of consoles arrive new graphics are available and they keep them for 8-10 years cycle depending now as seems if one console can't keep up(XBONE) the power of the other(PS4)they lower down some of the features(*Conspiracy Theory)
Of course all this is preposterous PS4XBOX ONE should be able to can handle the new generation res(4k) and watch dogs 2012 pc like graphics
even though the games that release exclusively on PS4XBONE is higher, newer gen graphics quality(pretty)and even though the exclusives PS4(Uncharted 4) n' XBONE (Halo, Scalebound=can't wait) is even, far more graphically advanced, it could be ideal but whatever perhaps PS5XBOX TWO will sport true 4k(not UHD) much more far superior graphics and what the heck TWO hard drives each of 2tb and if the gpu is capable enough optional installation NOT mandatory, but i believe that's more wishful thinking than happening
*Why uncharted 4 to be the last one you have ancient Egypt n' Greece for gods shake
….what?
Assassin's Creed Unity is 900p/30fps on both PS4 & Xbox One
30FPS capped
http://www.videogamer.com/ps4/assassins_creed_unity/news/assassins_creed_unity_is_900p_30fps_on_both_ps4_and_xbox_one.html
Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 10/7/2014 10:19:27 PM
If this trend continues, then I hope Sony delivers with lots more of their first-party games!
I'll be passing on all upcoming ubisoft games like I passed up nearly 99% of EAs crap when they paid off the NFL for full licensing after 2K sports waxed thier shitty madden franchise back in the day. Ubisoft is planning on selling all PS4 owners a crappy version of thier games because money$oft went on the cheap with the xboxdone.
I now call it the XBox361!
And by the way they didn't decide to lock them in the interest of parity, they did it in the interest of laziness and the bottom dollar.whats more cost effective 1 copy of a game that looks like crap or 2 copy that probably will take longer to make?
I can't believe the guy at Ubi actually said that. Ahaha. He will be getting a stern talking to by upper management.
still not great but i would have like the ps4 version to be better cos the hardware would have allowed it
happy gaming