At least the found time for their shitty DLC-fest:
omg... i just... i just don't know what to say about this. that's really pathetic. greedy greedy greedy of them.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Ubisoft: Watch_Dogs will run at 900p on PS4 and 792p on XB1, both at 30fps
- Thread starter nynt9
- Start date
omg... i just... i just don't know what to say about this. that's really pathetic. greedy greedy greedy of them.
Patrick Bateman
Member
If it is good game, of course.
If they don't hit their targeted specs it'd be better to concentrate more on the technique than on those DLC...
At least the found time for their shitty DLC-fest:
Absolutely disgusting.
Sounds like thread whining to me
JonathanPower
Member
No they are not, and he is right. Infamous: SS looks better and it's 1080p so there really is no excuse for this game for not being 1080p as well.
Admiral Woofington
Member
I want to get off Mr watch dog's wild ride!
Morphine_OD
Banned
^
that
Can't see much difference between Sleeping Dogs, GTAV and ISS open worlds and I doubt there is a lot of it. Developers know that people won't focus on it anyway, so they add nice touches like different idle animations and reactions to Day/Night and weather cycle. ISS delivered on this - people were hanging around with umbrellas during rain, were talking on cell-phones, hanging around in cafes and so on and so forth.
Honestly I don't remember a single event from GTAV that made me go "wow, it's a living breathing city and ISS is not".
But looking better doesn't mean it does a better job on the technical side. We don't know what in this game is eating up cycles so the comparison just visually is totally off to me.
old manatee
Banned
So Ubisoft is saying that I should get the PC version in 2 years when they have rounded up all of the dlc. Got it.
Codiox
Member
Thank you!
But it's $60 on Steam and GMG only has Uplay codes (which is an issue for another thread) hence why I wanted to Gamefly it on PS4
I can wait. I've got about 100 Steam games I haven't opened once.
I just want to point out that there is a lot more that you can do in Watch Dogs and GTAV than there is to do in Infamous Second Son.
What I'm interested in is that I get an explanation how the additional living breathing worldniness impacts the actual graphics. What's wrong with asking for clarification for a post while (I thought humorously) pointing out the enthusiast-press goto description that has no explanatory power.
That's practically the issue. Sony pushed a lot of marketing money promoting the graphics capabilities of PS4 and PS4 practically sold a lot just based on its power rather than the existing games. There were also those kind of statements "you will talk a lot about 1080p 60fps" and the mistake of stating that Watch Dogs will be 1080p 60 fps only amplified everything. On one side it is good for Sony, as they can market PS4 way more easily, the secondary effect being that any big game that is not 1080p has a backfiring potential. And because they are relying so much on the 3rd party games, this is also out of their hand. A beautiful hot potato with lots of polygons.
Now, Ubisoft has a big part of the guilt, as they should have been more transparent about this and announce the resolution/framerate way earlier. I mean, look at Order 1886, everyone accepted it will be 1080p with two big black bars and the damage is minimal. But Ubisoft kind of handled this game like an unwanted child in terms of communication anyhow.
Hyperbole on your side isnt less amazing.
We dont live in the 80ies and 90ies anymore. Technical awareness has grown and many of us decide for themselves what to spend their money on. A company wants my money and reveals a graphically very sohisticated game but fails terribly to deliver. If you like it or not, graphics and fidelity are also part of the fun and if that part underwhelms like this I dont buy it.
Sorry that your expectations are still set in the 80s and 90s.
toastyToast
Member
Never wanted this game anyway. The theatre surrounding it has been very enjoyable however
All the computing time and memory spent on simulation is computing time and memory that can't be spent on graphics, simple as that. There's a real tug of war between the two.
Other question: is game logic totally for free in every frame and every cycle in a system spent into rendering frames? One could imagine exactly that reading most of the comments here. In fact it's obviously not. Simulating NPCs, AI, traffic system, just to mention a few. Yes, was all done before, but perhaps WD is taking it to a better level than it was before? If, then this does *not* come for free in your game.
In the quote I posted I have stated my assumption that this is all smoke and mirrors. Do you not agree?
Is Watch Dogs actually a AAA Dwarf Fortress?
Infamous has NPCs, AI and traffic.
I think I've made it pretty clear that I want specifics and not hand-waving.
That's your conjecture then. I'll wait for the poster that I responded to initially to expand on what he specifically thought about when he made that statement I quoted.
Droopaloop
Banned
"Yes, was all done before, but perhaps WD is taking it to a better level than it was before? If, then this does *not* come for free in your game."
coolmast3r
Member
At least they found time for their shitty DLC-fest:
Wow.
Morphine_OD
Banned
I'd say most of the graphics stuff is made on a GPU and on a dedicated CPU thread called "rendering thread". Game logic is a whole different beast and doesn't usually overlap with it. What exact simulation are you talking about? Why is it so costly?
I do think it's smoke and mirrors too, but it can still be resource-intensive smoke and mirrors.
These days the barriers blur. A number of precomputations will be run on either CPU threads or tthe GPU (using compute shaders) with a much less clear separation between game logic and graphical tasks. To take a simple but resource-intensive example, culling is usually performed on CPU despite being graphics-related because its whole goal is to limit the amount of data the GPU will handle and it's particularly important for streaming worlds, and one of the best currently know methods is to actually render a simplified version of the scene entirely on CPU. Some of the more complex skinning tasks also have to be done on CPU, as does part of the global illumination, etc.
But SS is empty by comparison. Less traffic and pedestrians equals higher res and framerates. Different by design.
I enjoyed SS but it was empty even by GTA standards.
smh.
CouchMaster
Member
We did actually.
Herbspiceguy
Member
It's understandable when it comes to massive projects like this (reported 600 employees worked on this game); bloated marketing will sell the game in the millions to the mainstream audience, who don't care for 1080p/60fps.
It's nothing we haven't seen before. I'd go as far to say it's standard for a Game release like this nowadays.
A lot of this DLC looks like the DLC skin tat that you could take or leave anyway. Anything under the DLC in that table isn't required to enjoy the game.
They're not but losing 180 lines of resolution doesn't phase me. Then again maybe it's the Xbowners that are complaining the most because they have 288 lines less.
You must dread every console game reveal then wondering for years if 1080p will be reached when the game eventually releases. Last gen must've been a real bitch for you with every game company "failing terribly to deliver" .
My condolences. bro hug.gif
Droopaloop
Banned
Of course they did. They completely intended on the game selling itself and decided to spend their entire budget on marketing. Marketing that did them absolutely no good because the game got delayed. Nothing like paying for premature marketing. I'm sure it was completely in their intentions to release a marketing campaign, and then delay the game. Who knows, they probably demoted their programmers to marketers. I'm sure it probably cost them nothing.
In fact, they probably spent money on counter-marketing. Too bad you weren't there to fix all the problems. Your resume must have gotten lost in the mail.
Needs to be 900p for them graphics
That is not even the same location in game (look at the map) and then you also have to take into account the fact it is not raining in the newer gif, that it is a different car and that the bridge looks like that because the game is highlighting it.
s-bojan
Banned
I refused to play PAL Tekken games. Am I allowed to complain about WD?
Its hard to discuss with somebody who can only talk sarcastically. Last gen was limited by its tech and specs like this gen. I bought the version that was the best, most titles ran at 720p and steady 30 fps on 360 and that was fine for me and I had fun with those. A cross gen title that has been constantly downgraded for 2 years now while other devs manage to run similar games at 1080p with better performance on PS4 makes wonder what happened with this game. They might patch this after release like AC4 but I doubt it. I know GAF has changed recently but being called out here because I have realistic standards is so absurd that I cant really discuss this topic anymore.
I dont know why people keep posting on here suggesting that others buy a pc. It's only one game and the reason it's poor is because of ubisoft and not either console. This game is a ps360 game at its core for crying out loud. There is no reason it should run so poorly. As a dev, you know your constraints and its your job to work within them.
As someone who games on PC, I would never recommend it to someone unless they were technically adept. The only thing that is organized in the pc gaming world is steam. Everything else is a giant pain in the ass. Using 3rd party software to do everything thing is a giant pain as well. Some games require you to install proprietary software like ubisoft games and EA games. There is also other nonsense to deal with like punkbuster and TeamSpeak. There's even more nonsense like waiting for new drivers when a new game comes out and then updating said drivers. If you're a Nvidia person, it's relatively simple but if you're using amd........
There is this notion that gaming on PC saves you money, this is true to an extent. If you a smart purchaser and purchase only what you'll play, then there is the potential to save quite a bit of money. Unfortunately, most pc gamers fall into the trap of purchasing games that they will never play because of sales, etc. The backlog continues to grow and people continue to fool themselves by justifing useless purchases with the statement, "Look how much money I saved." You will save a lot of money if you purchase games not on because of their price but because it fits into your time budget. If you know game X & Y will take up your time for the foreseeable future, then there is no need to buy game Z that is coming out today. By the time you get around to buying game Z, it will be cheaper thus saving you money. Please note that not all pc gamers spend like this.
There are 2 main reasons why people buy consoles, affordability and simplicity. Just because people have money to purchase a $400 console doesn't mean that they have the money to purchase an $800-$900 pc. Pc's are great and they are powerful but when gaming on PC, you're chasing a moving target. The reason people suggest pc is to get 1080p@60fps. Yea, you will get that on today's games but games next year or the year after will result in a drop in performance. The next comment we often hear is this: "At least it's running better than consoles." True but you didn't spend 800-900 for just that, you spent that money for 1080p@60fps. Then people will tell you that if this is important to you, just turn down the settings. I hope you see where I'm going with this. At this point, you ate now experiencing to concept of tradeoffs which is what devs have to deal with everyday. The question at the end of the day is "was this 800-900 purchase worth it?" That is up to you to decide.
When we refer to pc's on gaf, it is referred to as a singular entity. You often read statements like this, "it will run better on PC" or other variations of the statement. This is clearly false, a particular pc build can run it better but it is not true for all pc's.
Essentially what I'm trying to say is can we stop the nonsense that is going on in this thread. We really do not need a pc defense force in the thread and a console defense force in the thread. The discussion revolves around a particular game which appears to be an anomaly in the library of both consoles. Given ubisoft history, the focus should be on the incompetence of the developers and not on a perceived deficiency in the consoles. There are more demanding games that run better on these consoles like BF4. Watch Dogs is a ps360 game and the devs should be criticized for their work. The game barely looks better than gta 5 on the ps360 so it's clearly a dev problem.
As someone who games on PC, I would never recommend it to someone unless they were technically adept. The only thing that is organized in the pc gaming world is steam. Everything else is a giant pain in the ass. Using 3rd party software to do everything thing is a giant pain as well. Some games require you to install proprietary software like ubisoft games and EA games. There is also other nonsense to deal with like punkbuster and TeamSpeak. There's even more nonsense like waiting for new drivers when a new game comes out and then updating said drivers. If you're a Nvidia person, it's relatively simple but if you're using amd........
There is this notion that gaming on PC saves you money, this is true to an extent. If you a smart purchaser and purchase only what you'll play, then there is the potential to save quite a bit of money. Unfortunately, most pc gamers fall into the trap of purchasing games that they will never play because of sales, etc. The backlog continues to grow and people continue to fool themselves by justifing useless purchases with the statement, "Look how much money I saved." You will save a lot of money if you purchase games not on because of their price but because it fits into your time budget. If you know game X & Y will take up your time for the foreseeable future, then there is no need to buy game Z that is coming out today. By the time you get around to buying game Z, it will be cheaper thus saving you money. Please note that not all pc gamers spend like this.
There are 2 main reasons why people buy consoles, affordability and simplicity. Just because people have money to purchase a $400 console doesn't mean that they have the money to purchase an $800-$900 pc. Pc's are great and they are powerful but when gaming on PC, you're chasing a moving target. The reason people suggest pc is to get 1080p@60fps. Yea, you will get that on today's games but games next year or the year after will result in a drop in performance. The next comment we often hear is this: "At least it's running better than consoles." True but you didn't spend 800-900 for just that, you spent that money for 1080p@60fps. Then people will tell you that if this is important to you, just turn down the settings. I hope you see where I'm going with this. At this point, you ate now experiencing to concept of tradeoffs which is what devs have to deal with everyday. The question at the end of the day is "was this 800-900 purchase worth it?" That is up to you to decide.
When we refer to pc's on gaf, it is referred to as a singular entity. You often read statements like this, "it will run better on PC" or other variations of the statement. This is clearly false, a particular pc build can run it better but it is not true for all pc's.
Essentially what I'm trying to say is can we stop the nonsense that is going on in this thread. We really do not need a pc defense force in the thread and a console defense force in the thread. The discussion revolves around a particular game which appears to be an anomaly in the library of both consoles. Given ubisoft history, the focus should be on the incompetence of the developers and not on a perceived deficiency in the consoles. There are more demanding games that run better on these consoles like BF4. Watch Dogs is a ps360 game and the devs should be criticized for their work. The game barely looks better than gta 5 on the ps360 so it's clearly a dev problem.
How fast did sony pull this?
as for the comparison to Infamous, I wonder how populated the city is in comparison. infamous is pretty much empty once you get off the ground level even slightly. Some spots even running around on the ground area are empty as well.
looking at the most recent footage it's a baron wasteland. chicago if a virus had wiped out 3 quarters of its population
Morphine_OD
Banned
Well, I said GPU and a CPU thread. Granted, there could probably be 2 rendering threads, but only one can call the GPU. It doesn't change the fact that game logic and all kinds of simulations are ran separately.
dummydecoy
Member
Knowing UBI, it's more like 900p/16fps with screen tear.
80s and 90s games were 60 fps but you embrace 30 fps games in 2014. Blessed double standards.
This was very obvious in the footage. Now the game not only looks worse than infamous but it's sparsely populated as well. Honestly, it's truly embarrassing for ubisoft. Morin and crew should be ashamed. Ubisoft provided them with 6 extra months of development and the game managed to look worse than their e3 showing. Shameful.
AC4 on PS4 had steady 30 fps with vsync. Ubi could deliver great performance on consoles only if they wanted.