Support NeoGAF

[Papacheeks]

I get locked 30fps without blackbars and increased FoV, I could even SS it, but I couldn't take the occasional drop to 28fps. Sure, locked 60fps would better, but stating that PC isn't better by much just isn't true. Is much better on a medium+ PC.

Go look at the Eurogamer article and look at the difference in the screen shot comaprison and video comparison and you tell me how much the IQ is better.

Because it's not, only resolution, FOV, and frame rate are better by a larger margin.
Comparison they did shows very little gains using PC hardware for higher graphical fidelity.

Don't know if your like me and compare it to other PC port's, but when I do it doesn't show the huge gains that other games do on PC.

Edit Fixed correct article

 

[Lonely1]

Go look at the Eurogamer article and look at the difference in the screen shot comaprison and video comparison and you tell me how much the IQ is better.

Because it's not, only resolution, FOV, and frame rate are better by a larger margin.
Comparison they did shows very little gains using PC hardware for higher graphical fidelity.

Those makes the game to look and perform (and play) much better... FPS alone is a massive improvement. And that article is PS4 pre-patch vs Post-patch. Now I'm puzzled as what you are referring to with improved IQ... PC exclusive assets?

 

[Papacheeks]

Those makes the game to look and perform much better... FPS alone is a massive improvement.

But outside of frame rate, it's a personal choice. As seen in Patrick Kleptick's recent article. Some people like patrick didn;t mind the bars once the game kicks into high gear.

I'm not going to get into this on a AC:unity thread, PM me if you want to discuss it further.

 

[martino]

Go look at the Eurogamer
Because it's not, only resolution, FOV, and frame rate are better by a larger margin.
Comparison they did shows very little gains using PC hardware for higher graphical fidelity.

Don't know if your like me and compare it to other PC port's, but when I do it doesn't show the huge gains that other games do on PC.

not huge gain in iq but better framerate and fov are huge gain when it come to better gameplay
if you have to choose thoses gain are preferable over IQ one
Game that play better > game that look better
edit :grilled

 

[Lonely1]

Resolution isn't a choice. Higher resolution in a 3D is always better, and even if your monitor can't support it and want to keep the black bars for artistic purity, super sampling improves the IQ significantly, keeping the same FoV and aspect ratio.

Do you guys think this will have the same PC requirements as Batman Arkham Knight?

Isn't B:AK UE3? That engine has always performed nice on PC.

 

[paolo11]

Do you guys think this will have the same PC requirements as Batman Arkham Knight?

 

[martino]

But outside of frame rate, it's a personal choice. As seen in Patrick Kleptick's recent article. Some people like patrick didn;t mind the bars once the game kicks into high gear.

as you can like nigth even if you don't see anything, you can like small fov and black bar but it is a fact you don't see better and game doesn't have better playability with them

 

[Papacheeks]

not huge gain in iq but better framerate and fov are huge gain when it come to better gameplay
if you have to choose thoses gain are preferable over IQ one
Game that play better > game that look better

Right, but also note, that the developer doesn't recommend it, and it's an advantage in being able to use Debug commands.

Which is something mainly for developers to fix, test issues.

If you can get by the black bars, or they dont bother you which some people on GAF have expressed, then realy your getting a resolution bump and better frame rate.

And to me to buy something permanent on my PC, it not a great pro, especially if I don't like the game.

Let's not deraill the tread, PM me if you want to discuss it.

 

[martino]

Right, but also note, that the developer doesn't recommend it, and it's an advantage in being able to use Debug commands.

Which is something mainly for developers to fix, test issues.

If you can get by the black bars, or they dont bother you which some people on GAF have expressed, then realy your getting a resolution bump and better frame rate.

And to me to buy something permanent on my PC, it not a great pro.

Let's not deraill the tread, PM me if you want to discuss it.

this is what happened to this studio when they choose thoses options( black bars and fov )

 

[TheFNEffecT]

Isn't B:AK UE3? That engine has always performed nice on PC.

Indeed Arkham Knight is UE3, granted the devs have said it is a heavily modified UE3.

 

[Lonely1]

Game that play better > game that look better

Why not both!?

 

[Sothpaw]

Minimum 7970 lmao

 

[Gormenghast]

The result of those ridiculous requirements is that the game will sell very, very poorly on PC, with the consequence that Ubisoft will blame the poor sales on "piracy" and cut even more the already insufficient PC support.

So next time it's even worse, or maybe there's no next time and this is the last AC on PC.

 

[roytheone]

So next time it's even worse, or maybe there's no next time and this is the last AC on PC.

Nah, the "next" assassins creed for PC will be rogue, and that one will have way lower system requirements than this one.

 

[Papacheeks]

this is what happened to this studio when they choose thoses options( black bars and fov )

HAHAHAHA!

Should have used the 1994 fantastic four thing gif.

But yea, it seems to be a weird situation as someone brought up in another thread, look at RE4 for gamecube. It has black bars, but doesn't cut of leon's feet. IT'S used in away that actually complements the game.

 

[jett]

This reminds me, has Ubisoft delayed the PC version yet?

 

[Gormenghast]

You could also consider the "conspiracy" angle:

Ubisoft fears piracy on PC, so with low requirements or much better yields on PC they think a significant portion of players may just buy the PC version, or rather pirate it having the option. And so these become sale losses.

But if instead the PC version is subpar, or only good for a very small minority with very powerful hardware, then these numbers are very small and won't likely even dent the console sales overall.

Therefore, crap PC port = no threat to console game sales.

 

[Qassim]

You could also consider the "conspiracy" angle:

Ubisoft fears piracy on PC, so with low requirements or much better yields on PC they think a significant portion of players may just buy the PC version, or rather pirate it having the option. And so these become sale losses.

But if instead the PC version is subpar, or only good for a very small minority with very powerful hardware, then these numbers are very small and won't likely even dent the console sales overall.

Therefore, crap PC port = no threat to console game sales.

Or they could just not make a PC version if that were the case, instead of spending significant time and resources making a PC version that they don't want people to play.

Sorry, but it sounds like nonsense to me.

 

[Genio88]

This reminds me, has Ubisoft delayed the PC version yet?

Please don't call it

 

[Kabouter]

You could also consider the "conspiracy" angle:

Ubisoft fears piracy on PC, so with low requirements or much better yields on PC they think a significant portion of players may just buy the PC version, or rather pirate it having the option. And so these become sale losses.

But if instead the PC version is subpar, or only good for a very small minority with very powerful hardware, then these numbers are very small and won't likely even dent the console sales overall.

Therefore, crap PC port = no threat to console game sales.

Yeah, that's definitely more plausible than a PC version just not selling enough to warrant extensive optimization.

 

[-PXG-]

Why is this a surprise? This is Ubisoft we're talking about here. They're the masters of having stupid high minimum system reqs for games that shouldn't really need them. They've pulled this shit for years. Everyone should be accustomed to it and gotten with the program by now. They can't optimize for shit.

 

[Gormenghast]

Or they could just not make a PC version if that were the case, instead of spending significant time and resources making a PC version that they don't want people to play.

Sorry, but it sounds like nonsense to me.

It's a matter of numbers. If the PC version was significantly better than consoles and ran on common hardware then maybe a significant portion of the playerbase decides to play on PC too. And if they fear piracy then they fear that these are sale losses that would be otherwise console game sales.

But on the other hand removing entirely the PC version means they lose that portion of players who don't even have a consoles, and certainly won't buy one just because of an AC game.

By doing a poor port they:
- spend very little to make it, because it's poor and outsourced
- get that part of the market and PC high-end that just wouldn't play on console anyway

So it might be convenient enough for them to keep a PC version to still reach that market, yet not good enough so that PC sales happen at the expense of consoles sales.

And that would explain why even with good engines the benefits of PC hardware are kept at a bare minimum.

 

[Red Comet]

My computer exceeds all of the reccomended requirements, however that is no guarantee that the game will run great for me. I really do not trust Ubisoft when it comes to PC optimization, so I'm thinking I'll just get the PS4 version and be done with it. It will look nicer on my tv anyway and I can avoid the crapfest that is Uplay.

 

[alexandros]

Because it's not, only resolution, FOV, and frame rate are better by a larger margin.

Oh, only that?

Yeah, that's definitely more plausible than a PC version just not selling enough to warrant extensive optimization.

Chicken or egg situation? Even if that is the case, maybe an extensively optimized version would sell much better?

 

[GaimeGuy]

The consoles' biggest advantages are lower level APIs (less CPU overhead) and shared memory (less memory copying and memory use). But I wonder how much the CPU advantage is since PC CPUs are much faster.

But most PCs don't have nearly the VRAM as the consoles. According to Valve, somewhere around 30% of PCs have at least 2 GB VRAM. It's console designed games that are loading up many massive textures that are pushing up the PC VRAM requirements.

And personally I see that as a good thing. This will only push PC video cards to be better. The PC VRAM specs have already caught up on new cards.

A console should have more ram - best way to future proof a closed architecture system since you can optimize code for a particular processor's instruction set in a closed hardware env.

 

[Papacheeks]

Oh, only that?

Wow, real mature.

Can I ask you a question in all seriousness?

Do you primarily play on PC?
And do you own a next gen console?

Just wondering.

 

[Shadownet]

So I have a copy of AC:Unity preordered. I'm going to ask Steam to regift it cause I'm not sure I will be able to run it well. (I only have a GTX760, not even recommended). If that happen, anyone want my copy. Its yours for $52. I'll just buy mine on PS4. Pm me if you're interested.

 

[opticalmace]

So I have a copy of AC:Unity preordered. I'm going to ask Steam to regift it cause I'm not sure I will be able to run it well. (I only have a GTX760, not even recommended). If that happen, anyone want my copy. Its yours for $52. I'll just buy mine on PS4. Pm me if you're interested.

Can't you just cancel the preorder?

 

[Renekton]

There are only two possible outcomes here. A, these requirements are bullcrap and this is another case of needlessly inflated system requirements. B, Ubisoft did really mess up the PC version that badly that it needs powerful hardware to run decently.

The spec may well be false, but it is a troubling trend that people are automatically categorizing any title with high requirements as a bad port.

 

[Lizardus]

You could also consider the "conspiracy" angle:

Ubisoft fears piracy on PC, so with low requirements or much better yields on PC they think a significant portion of players may just buy the PC version, or rather pirate it having the option. And so these become sale losses.

But if instead the PC version is subpar, or only good for a very small minority with very powerful hardware, then these numbers are very small and won't likely even dent the console sales overall.

Therefore, crap PC port = no threat to console game sales.

Or

Game with batshit insane requirements = more people who will pirate it to see if it runs well on their system. I doubt people will be willing to drop $60+ on a game that might not run on their machine.

 

[alexandros]

The spec may well be false, but it is a troubling trend that people are automatically categorizing any title with high requirements as a bad port.

I know, I made a thread on the misuse of the term bad PC port. These minimum requirements however make no sense for multiple reasons. They would only be reasonable if even the lowest graphical setting on PC is far beyond the quality offered by consoles which seems extremely unlikely.

 

[Shadownet]

Can't you just cancel the preorder?

it was a gift copy.

If you pre-ordered it on Steam, you can cancel your pre-order.
If you bought it as gift, Steam won't revert back it from your library into a gift again.

And JaseC told me the opposite if you have a gift copy. He told me they'll do it once.

 

[alexandros]

On the latest Linus Tech Tips podcast the hosts theorized that Ubisoft just couldn't be arsed testing more graphics cards which is why the devs set the oldest ones they tested as a minimum.

 

[Kezen]

On the latest Linus Tech Tips podcast the hosts theorized that Ubisoft just couldn't be arsed testing more graphics cards which is why the devs set the oldest ones they tested as a minimum.

That seems a lot more plausible than the game actually requiring a 680 class GPU to run well. Saving QA and support costs.

It will also affect their sales significantly, too many will be scared off by the minimum requirements. I wonder how many copies they might be able to sell on PC.

 

[jet1911]

Minimum - NVIDIA GeForce® GTX 680 or AMD Radeon HD 7970 or above

Welp. When your GPU(GTX560) doesn't even make the cut for the minimal requirements you know it's time to upgrade lol.

 

[Xyber]

Shadows of Mordor plays well on PC, but doesn't make good use your hardware in advanced features compared to it's console counterparts. Textures don't look as good as other HD textures. Alien Isolation definitely though.

But hen you have Dead Rising 3, Ryse:Son of Rome and those though may play ok, don't show good use of Desktop GPU'S and CPU's.

And show how unoptimized they are for PC.

Ubisoft is known for shitty ports. Sucks that it's hit or miss with a lot of console ported games. Guess the days of dx 11 features for games like Bulletstorm, AVP, Tomb Raider, and sleeping dogs are over for a while till these companies get their shit together.



Yea it's pretty bad all around dude. On PC and console mainly because of the shit optimized engine IDTECH5. Same goes for AC:Unity.
TEW for PC is better than console version, but not by much. ANd doing the fixes gives you better visual experience, but upping FOV causes frame rates to be unstable past 30.

Did you just put DR3 and Ryse together and said that they both don't make good use of desktop GPU/CPU's?

Ryse is one of the best looking games on PC right now (tech wise) and it runs pretty damn good for how it looks.

It's nowhere near as bad as DR3 and it's just plain wrong to lump those 2 together.

 

[alexandros]

That seems a lot more plausible than the game actually requiring a 680 class GPU to run well. Saving QA and support costs.

It will also affect their sales significantly, too many will be scared off by the minimum requirements. I wonder how many copies they might be able to sell on PC.

Yeah, this is beyond idiotic and it will bite them in the ass.

 

[axb2013]

What about the GTX 590? Or AMD's 6990? Not on the requirement sheet but definitely above minimum requirements. I know those are older, niche cards but they should be compatible with all the feature sets that 680 and 7970 comply with on top of being more powerful than them. I don't own either card, I'm merely bringing them up to raise another point.

I understand why publishers and studios have to be vague with requirements, if for no other reason then because PR and legal departments won't let them. Way too many factors play into performance, no way should they even try. Last thing I would want to see is someone taking developers to court because they didn't get expected fps. I would like to dismiss the notion as nonsense myself but NA is a lawsuit happy place, even more ridiculous law suits happen all the time.

On the other hand, it wouldn't hurt them to type out a few more lines in these specs releases and pay more attention to PC configs in general. If studios and publishers don't like the bad PC port stigma and I expect they don't, it doesn't take much to address the issues before they are blown out of proportions. I mean, if they take the time and resources to make 20 AC Unity preview videos, why not shoot one to address the concerns of the PC crowd? It has to better for Ubisoft to make one PC centric article or video per game than to have Jim Sterling make yet another Ubisoft video.

 

[mugurumakensei]

I know, I made a thread on the misuse of the term bad PC port. These minimum requirements however make no sense for multiple reasons. They would only be reasonable if even the lowest graphical setting on PC is far beyond the quality offered by consoles which seems extremely unlikely.

well pc version does support hbao+, tesselation, and other exclusive effects.

 

[Xyber]

well pc version does support hbao+, tesselation, and other exclusive effects.

Which can be disabled and should not count towards the minimum requirements in any way.

 

[scitek]

Wow, real mature.

Can I ask you a question in all seriousness?

Do you primarily play on PC?
And do you own a next gen console?

Just wondering.

In particular, a better framerate and FOV make a game much more playable to me, but I guess that's just me being a PC fanboy.

That seems a lot more plausible than the game actually requiring a 680 class GPU to run well. Saving QA and support costs.

It will also affect their sales significantly, too many will be scared off by the minimum requirements. I wonder how many copies they might be able to sell on PC.

THey save the money on QA, and they know that word-of-mouth will spread about the requirements being inflated and people will end up buying it anyway. I think ever since Dark Souls, console devs on PC have decided the PC community can do the fixing and fact-checking themselves, so why bother?

 

[TGO]

Go look at the Eurogamer article and look at the difference in the screen shot comaprison and video comparison and you tell me how much the IQ is better.

Because it's not, only resolution, FOV, and frame rate are better by a larger margin.
Comparison they did shows very little gains using PC hardware for higher graphical fidelity.

Don't know if your like me and compare it to other PC port's, but when I do it doesn't show the huge gains that other games do on PC.

Edit Fixed correct article

Also

Motion blur is rendered slightly differently on each platform. The effect actually seems to be of the highest precision on PS4. The PC and PS4 version also exhibit direction blur while the Xbox One version applies blur in a more general fashion.

the depth of field effect in TEW adds a lot to the look of the game imo.
Has this been fixed on PC? or is it just ignored?

 

[Papacheeks]

Also
the depth of field effect in TEW adds a lot to the look of the game imo.
Has this been fixed on PC? or is it just ignored?

Not sure, there;s a thread where the developers have taken notice of people modifying the black bars and FOV to get better image quality. But also noted the unstable frames when trying to reach beyond 30. They said they are trying to get a patch out to fix these issues. No word on console fix.

 

[Kezen]

It's safe to say the Unity PC port will be much better than Evil Within and let it be reminded that it comes with several effects not present on consoles like tessellation, PCSS and HBAO+.

Good stuff.

Gotta say I was not expecting PC ports to be so much ahead that early in the generation.

 

[Papacheeks]

It's safe to say the Unity PC port will be much better than Evil Within and let it be reminded that it comes with several effects not present on consoles like tessellation, PCSS and HBAO+.

Good stuff.

Gotta say I was not expecting PC ports to be so much ahead that early in the generation.

Well let's actually see how it runs with everything turned on in advanced features.
Image quality was never the issue with Ubisoft games, it was the performance hit that always pissed me off.

 

[Asgaro]

(Not from me. I never pre order.)

 

[Durante]

To play this game on PC, I should pay 1500 dollars to make completely NEW PC.

Is this a joke?

 

[Kezen]

Well let's actually see how it runs with everything turned on in advanced features.
Image quality was never the issue with Ubisoft games, it was the performance hit that always pissed me off.

And there is no reason to believe Unity will be any easier on the hardware than AC4 was. A very high end PC will certainly be required to take advantage of everything it offers, rightly so.

If you can settle with 30fps however (and console like settings) then I reckon fairly modest hardware will do the job just fine. 265/270, 750ti/GTX 760 paired with a I5.

Some people try to downplay PC versions (not seen much of that on GAF fortunately) by stating how demanding they are but those people forget about the effects they're talking about. At console framerate and settings you would be surprised how easy "unoptimized" ports are on the hardware.
I don't think Unity will be nearly as crushing as some believe. Even on minimum specs the experience should be significantly better than what's on consoles.
You want 60fps and all the bells and whistles ? Understandbly only cutting edge hardware (I7 + GTX 980/R9 290X or even multi GPU) will do, that's why this class of hardware exists after all.

 

[h#shdem0n]

Guess I'll be waiting to upgrade my 660 ti before I buy this game.

 

[Papacheeks]

Did you just put DR3 and Ryse together and said that they both don't make good use of desktop GPU/CPU's?

Ryse is one of the best looking games on PC right now (tech wise) and it runs pretty damn good for how it looks.

It's nowhere near as bad as DR3 and it's just plain wrong to lump those 2 together.

Well according to digital Foundry you can hit 60fps easily at 1080p which is a plus for PC.

But if you try to go beyond that is where performance issues arise and hitting 30 is your best bet.

It's at this higher resolution that we began to run into performance issues that brought our frame-rate down, necessitating a 30fps lock for a consistent update. It's clear now why Crytek went out of its way to note that the 4K experience is designed for 30fps when using high-end GPUs, but thanks to the beautiful post-processing and a superb motion blur implementation, it still looks excellent at the 'cinematic' frame-rate.

So trying to go beyond XBox's performance in image quality takes a shit on performance anything beyond 1080p.

Anti-aliasing options are disappointingly limited though, something that is especially surprising following the wide selection available in Crysis 3. As it stands there are just two levels of SSAA available alongside Crytek's improved implementation of SMAA T1X. That said, Crytek's in-house version of SMAA is really quite impressive to behold, delivering results not unlike Nvidia's TXAA, but with a fraction of the performance cost.

Still, it may prove a bit too soft for some PC gamers' tastes, leading us to examine the available SSAA options. Available in 2x (1.5 x 1.5) and 3x (2 x 2) configurations, super-sampling definitely has the expected effect on both image quality and performance. At 1080p using the normal preset, we were able to achieve a stable 30fps with minor dips to complement the excellent image quality, though 60fps is almost certainly going to require a multi-GPU set-up. Going further, we tried bumping that up to 2x2 SSAA with using the highest possible settings at 1440p (basically 5120x2880) - this produces a breathtakingly clean image, but performance tumbled to around 7fps on our primary set-up. It looked absolutely unreal even at slideshow speeds - giving us some insight into how the latest CryEngine scales given enough horsepower.

Proving that if you have the a decent rig you can have console like performance, but going beyond that is disappointing and to even try to have extreme image qualit at 4k resolution you need a SLI or corssfire setup, that to my knowledge may not even have a profile for.

So those titans, or dual 780ti's in Sli won't be utilized and that sucks if you put that kind of money in your rig.

At this point we should keep in mind that Ryse was developed originally for a closed platform, with initial statements from Crytek even suggesting that the game would never see release on the PC. As a result it's clear that the game was not designed with scalability in mind to the same degree as its predecessor, Crysis 3. The difference between the low and high settings appears strikingly minor at a glance, while the difference between normal and high is subtle to the point that it's nearly undetectable without close examination. The focus here appears to be on getting the most out of existing assets through increased precision and less aggressive LOD (level of detail) management.

RYSE:SON OF ROME DF article

Here they even explain how the engine was made for closed console not PC like Crysis 3 was. Crysis 3 showed huge gains in it's image quality and graphical settings compared to it's console counterparts. Since PS3/XB360 were dx9.
But the consoles out now have the API's to handle most DX11 type features, hell doesn't xbox one have DX11.2 support?
So unless Ryse utilizes DX12 features, or advanced tessellation I don't see giant leap compared to it's console origins.

When I compare AVP, Tomb Raider, Sleeping Dogs, MAX Payne 3 from console to PC it's night and day because some of the DX10,DX11 features only available on PC that make good use of PC architecture. But when a game is built from the ground up in a closed platform instead of the other way around like Crytek's previous entry's I don't see the advantages.

I see a better version definitely with the 60fps option at 1080p. So performance is way better on PC, but image quality suffers.

ANd that's a shame.

Because always thought better image quality and performance always made it worth it for me on PC.

Your right, I shouldn't have lumped Ryse in with Dead Rising 3. But then again it's nothing real special of a game to begin with, and advanced features dont seem to make large gains outside of resolution and frame rate.