Support NeoGAF

[Xyber]

I think you have unreasonably high expectations of what a PC version should be compared to last gen. When we got those older ports of PS3/360 games, they did start using DX11 features for the PC version because DX9 is old as fuck now and if their engine allowed them to use DX11 stuff they often did. That made it so that the PC version did have a lot of extra graphical features compared to the DX9 console version.

But now both of the new consoles can also use all those effects (but perhaps scaled down a bit to keep the performance in check), so a PC version will not be that huge leap above consoles for a while tech-wise. But that's where the extra horsepower of the PC comes in and you can get higher resolution, more/better AA and in some cases higher quality effects and such. But overall it will still look fairly similar to the console version, just cleaner and run better.

There will probably not be a lot of PC only features in PC versions (apart from the Nvidia stuff) until we start seeing DX12 games and whatever new stuff that will introduce.

And you bring up 4K performance and make it sound like it should be easy for a high-end PC to run Ryse maxed out at 60FPS. For some of the most demanding games, you will have to settle with 1440p if you want to play a game maxed out or close to it at 60FPS even with the best GPU's available now. Then we get a few exceptions like Alien: Isolation that runs amazing. But that game is also just a bunch of hallways for the most part, so it is easier to make it run good than something with more open environments (doesn't change the fact that it is a great PC version and I wish all games ran that good).

And Ryse did get an SLI profile in the latest driver update released the other day, no idea how good it works though. The game also got an update that improved SLI/Crossfire performance.

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.

You are comparing apples to oranges here really. As even you say, it's because the console version is limited by the hardware that the PC version looks so much better last gen. Ryse wasn't limited in that way and therefore they can't really add much more to the PC version to make it look so much better.

 

[Kezen]

Indeed. Ryse runs at 900p/30fps on a 1.31tflops GPU so it's not surprising that even high end hardware might not cut it for a perfectly locked 60fps at 1080p or 1440p.

http://www.hardwarepal.com/ryse-son-rome-benchmark/5/

However, high-end PC hardware manages some pretty impressive performance, it's a totally different league compared to the very frequent drops below 30fps found on Xbox One.
R9 290 and 290X do incredibly well.

 

[alexandros]

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.

I don't understand what it is you are trying to argue here. I really don't. You "proved"... what exactly? That if you have a low-end gaming PC you'll get console - like performance, if you have a midrange PC you'll get better than console performance and if you have a monster gaming PC you'll get much better than console performance. OK? You proved something that was already well known for years. What else did you prove? That dual graphics cards setups sometimes have issues? Again, this is common knowledge, so what exactly are you trying to say? Could you maybe sum it up in a couple of sentences? Because I really am at a loss, I see big posts one after another but no actual point.

 

[Qassim]

And Ryse did get an SLI profile in the latest driver update released the other day, no idea how good it works though. The game also got an update that improved SLI/Crossfire performance.

It worked very well for me. I was north of 80fps 90% of the time, and in many parts of the game, I was 120fps+ for long periods of time. This is on two GTX 780s, 1080p, Ultra settings. In certain sections I hit the 144fps limit (on my G-Sync display) for a reasonable periods too. There was some hiccups here and there which hit down to 55-60fps, but these seemed to be just odd bugs as there was nothing in particular that had changed in the scene that I could see.

The driver also included some performance enhancements for NVIDIA GPUs in general, so I think it was SLI profile + NVIDIA driver optimisations that gave the improved performance.

Ryse, whilst obviously not providing many of the PC niceties that Crysis 3 did, was a rather good PC game.

 

[Papacheeks]

I don't understand what it is you are trying to argue here. I really don't. You "proved"... what exactly? That if you have a low-end gaming PC you'll get console - like performance, if you have a midrange PC you'll get better than console performance and if you have a monster gaming PC you'll get much better than console performance. OK? You proved something that was already well known for years. What else did you prove? That dual graphics cards setups sometimes have issues? Again, this is common knowledge, so what exactly are you trying to say? Could you maybe sum it up in a couple of sentences? Because I really am at a loss, I see big posts one after another but no actual point.

Basically about these Next GEN Ports don't have the gains seen from previous PC versions of past generation.

Mainly because the consoles can do DX11 type features.

Last generation PC had advanced tesselation over consoles, among Ultra HD texture packs and advanced Physx.

Now differences are mainly just resolution and Frame rate.

That's my point.

 

[Kevyt]

Is this a joke?

Well if he/she doesn't have a computer, or one of those prebuilt PC's from HP or Dell... and he/she wants to play the game at recommended specs, then it's close to $1500. Although he could save a lot of money on things like memory, HDD, and PSU. But getting a good PSU is very important. Therefore $1500 is actually very reasonable if you are starting from scratch and want something to hold you on for the coming years. So to answer your question; no, it's not a joke.

Indeed. Ryse runs at 900p/30fps on a 1.31tflops GPU so it's not surprising that even high end hardware might not cut it for a perfectly locked 60fps at 1080p or 1440p.

http://www.hardwarepal.com/ryse-son-rome-benchmark/5/

However, high-end PC hardware manages some pretty impressive performance, it's a totally different league compared to the very frequent drops below 30fps found on Xbox One.
R9 290 and 290X do incredibly well.

It's amazing that the 290x and 290 beat the 970. In most benchmarks, the 970 comes on top of the 290 and 290x. My guess is that Ryse like many other crytek titles just love raw power.

 

[alexandros]

Basically about these Next GEN Ports don't have the gains seen from previous PC versions of past generation.

Mainly because the consoles can do DX11 type features.

Last generation PC had advanced tesselation over consoles, among Ultra HD texture packs and advanced Physx.

Now differences are mainly just resolution and Frame rate.

That's my point.

Every single point you made is false though. Even when compared to the previous console transition this time PC has an advantage in resolution, framerate, features and advanced graphical effects out of the gate. With the exception of Enemy Within, an understandable exception since Japanese developers are now getting the hang of the PC platform, almost every other game had multiple advantages over the console version. In any case the differences are much bigger than those endlessly debated in XB1-PS4 comparison threads.

 

[Papacheeks]

Every single point you made is false though. Compared to the previous console transition this time PC has an advantage in resolution, framerate, features and advanced graphical effects out of the gate. With the exception of Enemy Within, an understandable exception since Japanese developers are now getting the hang of the PC platform, almost every other game had multiple advantages over the console version. In any case the differences are much bigger than those endlessly debated in XB1-PS4 comparison threads.

Please show me examples of Next gen games on PS4 and Xbox that are on PC that have advanced features?

Tessellation, Physx and what not and show me how much of a HUGE difference there is?

 

[alexandros]

Please show me examples of Next gen games on PS4 and Xbox that are on PC that have advanced features?

Tessellation, Physx and what not and show me how much of a HUGE difference there is?

I'm sure you are quite capable of searching for them yourself, start with geforce.com and work your way from there.

 

[GhostTrick]

Please show me examples of Next gen games on PS4 and Xbox that are on PC that have advanced features?

Tessellation, Physx and what not and show me how much of a HUGE difference there is?

You mean like advanced physic, higher res textures on some games, better tesselation compared to no tesselation ?
I mean, take any of Nvidia Gameworks titles... that should give you a clue.
Also, as opposed to what you said, yes, higher framerate and resolution is already a big improvement.

 

[Kinthalis]

Basically about these Next GEN Ports don't have the gains seen from previous PC versions of past generation.

Mainly because the consoles can do DX11 type features.

Last generation PC had advanced tesselation over consoles, among Ultra HD texture packs and advanced Physx.

Now differences are mainly just resolution and Frame rate.

That's my point.

That's the same spiel people said last gen.

IT's terribly shortsighted to think that THIS generaiton there won't be much difference. First off, tessellation STILL remains a feature either exlcusive to PC version, or much more heavily used on PC.

CPU's on PC's are many time smore powerful that what's on these ocnsoles, and once DX12/OpenGL+/Mantle take off, they will be able to apply most of that power to other tasks unreleated to babysitting the renderer/GPU.

That's likely going to be somehting that will push PC's ahead of consoles in unpredicatable ways. So is VR. Much more powerful compute resources will also likely mean tangible differences in future games.

In short, games already run and look better on PC TODAY. Hell the moment these consoles were launched. In 3 years the differences will be just as large as they were last gen.

 

[Papacheeks]

I'm sure you are quite capable of searching for them yourself, start with geforce.com and work your way from there.

I'm talking TRESS FX, and things that you wont see on a console version. Almost every game on PC for the most part, has advances in frame rate, and resolution, maybe anti-aliasing and what not.

But having advanced tessellation that add's even more geometry detail to models in a game I have not seen in current games that can be found on PS4 and XBONE.

Advanced NVIDIA Physx compared to console are night and day. But this generation has shown non so far.

I mean I expect Rock-Steady to have it, since they have some kind of deal with Nvidia. But I'm not seeing anything that blows me away.

Sleeping Dogs on PC blew me away compared to it's console counterpart. Differences in AC4 on PS4 and PC don't even at 4k. I expect higher frame rate and better resolution on PC.

Having things like Advanced tessellation and Nvidia Physx, Tress FX are what make me want the PC version. Unless the console version is complete and utter shit.

Or I get it at a way cheaper price from GMG, amazon, or Getgamesgo.

I'm just saying I saw bigger leaps between console and PC last generation that's all.

 

[Dictator93]

I'm talking TRESS FX, and things that you wont see on a console version. Almost every game on PC for the most part, has advances in frame rate, and resolution, maybe anti-aliasing and what not.

But having advanced tessellation that add's even more geometry detail to models in a game I have not seen in current games that can be found on PS4 and XBONE.

Advanced NVIDIA Physx compared to console are night and day. But this generation has shown non so far.

I mean I expect Rock-Steady to have it, since they have some kind of deal with Nvidia. But I'm not seeing anything that blows me away.

Sleeping Dogs on PC blew me away compared to it's console counterpart. Differences in AC4 on PS4 and PC don't even at 4k. I expect higher frame rate and better resolution on PC.

Having things like Advanced tessellation and Nvidia Physx, Tress FX are what make me want the PC version. Unless the console version is complete and utter shit.

Or I get it at a way cheaper price from GMG, amazon, or Getgamesgo.

I'm just saying I saw bigger leaps between console and PC last generation that's all.

You saw those leaps at around 2007 or so. About 2 years after gen start.

 

[The Janitor]

Basically about these Next GEN Ports don't have the gains seen from previous PC versions of past generation.

Mainly because the consoles can do DX11 type features.

Last generation PC had advanced tesselation over consoles, among Ultra HD texture packs and advanced Physx.

Now differences are mainly just resolution and Frame rate.

That's my point.

New consoles are more powerful than last gen, and they recently came out so of course the difference is gonna be smaller.
But they are eventually gonna grow bigger as this gen goes on. And when we are at the end of this gen,considering how much more powerful PC HW is gonna be, it might be an even bigger gap between PC and console than it was last gen.

 

[Barack Lesnar]

Papacheeks' point is that the core assets and scope of these games, like AC Unity, are always going to be tailored for PS4/XB1 specs. All the PC versions do is increase the framerate and IQ. There may be some subtle graphical effects that are added but bottom line is that the art assets, scope, all the core graphical elements that make up the visual identity for these games are tailored to the consoles and their specs.

 

[Papacheeks]

You saw those leaps at around 2007 or so. About 2 years after gen start.

Yea, which is my point were not there yet, maybe by next year, unless Farcry4, AC:Unity or COD:AW have tons of advanced PC only features we don't know about yet.

But Yea I'm awaiting that 2007 difference. Then I'll be gaming more on my PC for single player games.

 

[vasametropolis]

If those minimums are accurate this is a garbage engine.

Anvil IS a garbage engine.

 

[alexandros]

Papacheeks' point is that the core assets and scope of these games, like AC Unity, are always going to be tailored for PS4/XB1 specs. All the PC versions do is increase the framerate and IQ. There may be some subtle graphical effects that are added but bottom line is that the art assets, scope, all the core graphical elements that make up the visual identity for these games are tailored to the consoles and their specs.

That was always the case with multiplatform games, nothing has changed in that regard.

 

[Kezen]

It's amazing that the 290x and 290 beat the 970. In most benchmarks, the 970 comes on top of the 290 and 290x. My guess is that Ryse like many other crytek titles just love raw power.

No, it loves compute which is GCN's strong suit. Although Maxwell and Kepler (GK110) are not "weak" in compute.
GPGPU is only going to be more common because most multiplatform releases target consoles (GCN).

In most compute benchmarks I've seen Maxwell (GM204) fares well enough against the R9 290/290X but we should keep in mind that AMD have yet to update their GPU line up. The future R9 390/390X are going to be very impressive in terms of compute, Nvidia will have to release the GM200 not to be ridiculed.

 

[Crossing Eden]

Anvil IS a garbage engine.

AC4 was great on ps4 performance wise, never noticed any drops.

 

[Papacheeks]

AC4 was great on ps4 performance wise, never noticed any drops.

Wasn't it an engine based on PS3/XB360 architecture and dx9 code?

 

[Rolfgang]

Thank Bird Jesus I just got my GTX 970 and i5 4690K overclocked at 3.8GHz.

 

[TGO]

I don't understand what it is you are trying to argue here. I really don't. You "proved"... what exactly? That if you have a low-end gaming PC you'll get console - like performance, if you have a midrange PC you'll get better than console performance and if you have a monster gaming PC you'll get much better than console performance. OK? You proved something that was already well known for years. What else did you prove? That dual graphics cards setups sometimes have issues? Again, this is common knowledge, so what exactly are you trying to say? Could you maybe sum it up in a couple of sentences? Because I really am at a loss, I see big posts one after another but no actual point.

Sorry I just notice, that's the complete opposite of what he said
It's like you are doing this

 

[lmbotiva]

Thank Bird Jesus I just got my GTX 970 and i5 4690K overclocked at 3.8GHz.

you'll be good to play at 30 frames

Spoiler

i hope, it's ubisoft you know

 

[axb2013]

I'm just saying I saw bigger leaps between console and PC last generation that's all.

This gen missed the mark of contemporary PC's that 360 hit. It had the equivalent of a 7800 GTX which was arguably a high end GPU at the time.

At the moment, if you want to ignore resolution and frame rate, the difference is textures, shadows, tesselation and AA variety. If you are a connoisseur, you can spot them individually but typically the sum of the features is greater than each individual one.
With time, games like Witcher bring more features and other are already in the pipeline.

In 3 years the differences will be just as large as they were last gen

2 more GPU iterations will arrive before consoles enter their 3rd year. Things will get very interesting at that point.

This is precisely the reason why I want each console generation to go all out, because their abilities have an impact on what I can expect on the PC. I would be content with 5 year cycles, bigger form factor and proper cooling solutions. I don't buy the "we sell consoles for razor thin margins" propaganda, not even for a second. These are OEM deals, deals for quantities in the millions. YLOD/RROD probably scared both console makers into scaling down this time around but it's their own fault for insisting the consoles shouldn't be bigger than a cable box, as if the hardware and heat output of a console must conform to the cable box values.

Look at the new 970:

 

[Kris Pistofferson]

Storm in a tea cup, I think. GPU requirements are meaningless without factoring in both display resolution and framerate.

If the game is 900p/30 on the PS4 then I understand needing a GTX680 for 1080p/60. That doesn't mean that my 660 Ti won't handle it at 1680x1050 at ~50fps. And I'll stake my shoes that you won't need a 780 Ti unless you're running a 2560x1600 display or above.

 

[bj00rn_]

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.

It's hard to understand you because you're setting up these artificial barriers to support odd kind of scenarios.. "try to have extreme image quality", "won't be utilized"..? Well, all I know is that you don't really need SLI to run games in 4K anymore. A more than affordable 970 is running most of my games in 4K at 60fps, and many of the latest games runs at 4K/60fps with some tweaking, as well and most runs fine 60 unlocked and especially 30fps locked goes in a breeze.

Now differences are mainly just resolution and Frame rate.

I'm not sure what you saw last console launch. Because in the big picture it appears now exactly how it was last time, except for one big difference; that the gap between the consoles and PCs is larger. We are very early in the cycle and affordable GPUs are already far more powerful than anything in a console. "mainly, just"? According to the headlines at gaf resolution and framerate kind of seem not so "just". Also add IQ and CPU power to the "just". Before the winter is over we'll probably see 8GBs and above GPUs in fairly mainstream GPUs, so I think there will be plenty of texture packs for everyone before the end of this console cycle..

 

[Yoda]

Unoptimized ubisoft ports ftw?

 

[UrbanRats]

Look at the new 970:

Goddamn.

 

[Crossing Eden]

Wasn't it an engine based on PS3/XB360 architecture and dx9 code?

Anvil was made for last gen consoles. Anvilnext was made with next gen in mind. AC Unity is also using anvilnext. Although it's been pretty heavily modified to take full advantage of the console's capabilities and for the new gameplay mechanics.
http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/ar...to-bring-assassins-creed-unitys-world-to-life
http://tech4gamers.com/assassins-creed-unity-crouching-took-6-million-rewritten-lines-of-code/

 

[Self_Destructive]

Maybe people should benchmark the game again?

The 344.48 GameReady drivers + the recent Ryse patch have made serious performance improvements for Nvidia (especially the 900series gpus)

Hey all,

we have just released a new patch for Ryse that can now be downloaded from Steam. Highlights for this release are the ability to turn of the HUD (we can't wait to see your screenshots in the Community Hub) as well as Controller Rumble (this change being directly based on community feedback).

We have also made further improvements to performance and stability, as you can see from our full Release Notes:


SLI/Crossfire optimization & quality improvements
Improved GPU performance on NVIDIA cards, especially for GTX980/970 versions
Fixed potential crash when running the game in resolutions higher than 1080p
Fixed graphical corruption on nVidia when running in resolutions higher than 1080p
Fixed a bug that occurred on low framerate which prevented the door to open in Pax Romana
Fixed a bug that allowed Legendary difficulty to be selected with mouse even though it is not unlocked
Made CVar accessible to disable/enable force feedback on the game controller: i_forcefeedback 0/1
Made CVar accessible to disable/enable flash (e.g. the ingame HUD for taking beauty screenshots): gfx_draw 0/1
Made CVar accessible to adjust image sharpening: r_PostAASharpening 0…2 (values range from 0 to 2, default is 0.2)
Added support for high resolution timer mode to overcome FPS limits on some systems. Activate via “sys_highrestimer = 1” (without quotes) in system.cfg


Also, NVIDIA has just released new Drivers for a wide range of GeForce GPUs (version 344.48), which include a SLI profile for Ryse!

Keep up the good fight to protect Rome!

The Ryse Team

 

[omonimo]

Is this a joke?

Why? The minimum is quite high. At this point it's better save money on console version than spend more in a rig for the minimum.

 

[Papacheeks]

It's hard to understand you because you're setting up these artificial barriers to support odd kind of scenarios.. "try to have extreme image quality", "won't be utilized"..? Well, all I know is that you don't really need SLI to run games in 4K anymore. A more than affordable 970 is running most of my games in 4K at 60fps, and many of the latest games runs at 4K/60fps with some tweaking, as well and most runs fine 60 unlocked and especially 30fps locked goes in a breeze.



I'm not sure what you saw last console launch. Because in the big picture it appears now exactly how it was last time, except for one big difference; that the gap between the consoles and PCs is larger. We are very early in the cycle and affordable GPUs are already far more powerful than anything in a console. "mainly, just"? According to the headlines at gaf resolution and framerate kind of seem not so "just". Also add IQ and CPU power to the "just". Before the winter is over we'll probably see 8GBs and above GPUs in fairly mainstream GPUs, so I think there will be plenty of texture packs for everyone before the end of this console cycle..

I was just making an observation on what Digital Foundry was saying about 4k resolutions and performance hit you take on Ryse nothing more.

Some one said the new drivers for 900 series cards drasticly imporves performance, so maybe 4k at 30fps is possible on a single card?

Not sure, just going by what Digital Foundry and some people on Nvidia forums were saying about their performance in Sli set up.

 

[omonimo]

It's hard to understand you because you're setting up these artificial barrieres to support odd kinda scenarios.. "try to have extreme image quality"..? Well, all I know is that you don't really need SLI to run games in 4K anymore. A more than affordable 970 is running most of my games in 4K at 60fps, and many of the latest games runs at 4K/60fps with some tweaking, as well and most runs fine 60 unlocked and especially 30fps locked goes in a breeze.



I'm not sure what you saw last console launch. Because in the big picture it appears now exactly how it was last time, except for one big difference; that the gap between the consoles and PCs is larger.We are very early in the cycle and affordable GPUs are already far more powerful than anything in a console. "mainly, just"? According to the headlines at gaf resolution and framerate kind of seem not so "just". Also add IQ and CPU power to the "just". Before the winter is over we'll probably see 8GBs and above GPUs in fairly mainstream GPUs, so I think there will be plenty of texture packs for everyone before the end of this console cycle.

You forget a little detail. To run game like this at minimun on pc you need a rig about 600-700 bucks priced. So the extra power of the pc it's almost useless if you want to play the same games released on console.

 

[Kezen]

Why? The minimum is quite high. At this point it's better save money on console version than spend more in a rig for the minimum.

You don't need 1500 USD for a PC matching the minimum specs and it's entirely debattable if investing in a PC of that caliber is a more desirable option than a console. What if you already have a very good CPU but your GPU is not quite there, why not spend 300 or less and play Unity better than any console could ?

It all depends on your situation obviously.

 

[omonimo]

You don't need 1500 USD for a PC matching the minimum specs and it's entirely debattable if investing in a PC of that caliber is a more desirable option than a console. What if you already have a very good CPU but your GPU is not quite there, why not spend 300 or less and play Unity better than any console could ?

It all depends on your situation obviously.

Honestly I think it's a waste of money upgrade the rig for the minimum. My opinion of course.

 

[Kezen]

Honestly I think it's a waste of money upgrade the rig for the minimum. My opinion of course.

And you are entitled to it, nothing wrong with that.
We can only speculate as to what "minimum" means in the case of Unity but a much better experience (resolution and framerate) than consoles is guaranteed of course.
No idea about textures, 2GB won't be enough, but 680s came with 4GB back in 2012.

 

[omonimo]

And you are entitled to it, nothing wrong with that.
We can only speculate as to what "minimum" means in the case of Unity but a much better experience (resolution and framerate) than consoles is guaranteed of course.
No idea about textures, 2GB won't be enough, but 680s came with 4GB back in 2012.

Mmm. I wouldn't be so sure.Watch Dog at minimun it's far worse than the ps360 version.

 

[Kezen]

Mmm. I wouldn't be so sure.

An I5 2500K and GTX 680 won't do better resolution and framerate wise than consoles ? That would be a first. 2GB will surely limit the texture quality, but 680 come with 4GB also and that should do.

 

[Glorified G]

Cross posting from another recommend PC spec thread

Seeing posts here and in the Evil Within thread just shows how many people have gotten into PC gaming recently. The baseline has been moved just like in the past. You're no longer playing hi res 360 games anymore.

Too many new and uneducated PC gamers giving a lot of bad advice over the last couple years, saying insert GPU/CPU is enough and believing spec requirements wouldn't substantially jump.

 

[omonimo]

An I5 2500K and GTX 680 won't do better resolution and framerate wise than consoles ? That would be a first. 2GB will surely limit the texture quality, but 680 come with 4GB also and that should do.

The question is what ubisoft means for minimun on pc setting.

 

[FunkyMunkey]

I'm less worried about this now, since I've been able to make Black Flag 1080p 60fps maxed-out using d3doverrider for vsync/triple buffering and playing in borderless windowed mode. But it's still ridiculous that Ubisoft is so incompetent with PC optimization that I'm forced to do that, especially running it on a damn 970. This game better be fucking amazing looking at the end of the day.

(Black Flag looks really great, but not great enough to warrant it's requirements, as with other Ubisoft PC titles)

 

[The Janitor]

Why? The minimum is quite high. At this point it's better save money on console version than spend more in a rig for the minimum.

Because the 970 is only 320$. So you could get a rig that meets recommended for less than 1500, and much less if you already have a PC you could upgrade, or use parts from.

 

[Burt]

Yeah, okay 2500k/7970 minimum. Sure thing.

It's like they're purposefully trying to dissuade PC gamers from buying Unity.

 

[JaseC]

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

What I was getting at is that reverting redeemed pre-order gifts is framed as a once-off. To reiterate:

Didn't know that. But I think the gift will revert back to the original purchaser.

As the "giftee", it'll be returned to your inventory. Source: Me.

Edit: To be superly-duperly clear, Valve will only humour said request if it's actioned within the pre-release period.

 

[Kezen]

The question is what ubisoft means for minimun on pc setting.

Whatever they mean won't change the fact that a 4GB 680 and an I5 should do better than any console in Unity, again 2GB 680 might lead to a sacrifice in texture quality below that of the consoles.
3GB of VRAM is most likely what's going to be necessary to match them when it comes to textures and it's also the minimum specs.

 

[Kevyt]

No, it loves compute which is GCN's strong suit. Although Maxwell and Kepler (GK110) are not "weak" in compute.
GPGPU is only going to be more common because most multiplatform releases target consoles (GCN).

In most compute benchmarks I've seen Maxwell (GM204) fares well enough against the R9 290/290X but we should keep in mind that AMD have yet to update their GPU line up. The future R9 390/390X are going to be very impressive in terms of compute, Nvidia will have to release the GM200 not to be ridiculed.

True. Compute is huge with AMD and their cards. I feel like I'm going to have buyer's remorse with the 970 once AMD releases their new cards.

 

[Saintguine]

Nothing in the game jumps out to me as requiring a GTX 680 as an absolute bare minimal GPU.

Nice job Ubisoft. You just can't keep yourself from shooting your feet.

 

[Kezen]

True. Compute is huge with AMD and their cards. I feel like I'm going to have buyer's remorse with the 970 once AMD releases their new cards.

Happens all the time once a new batch of GPU comes out. You will probably have buyer's remorse when GM200 will be released as well.

 

[Kazdane]

I don't know if anyone has seen this already:
https://twitter.com/UbiGabe/status/527432560289533952

Basically, apparently they are "conservative" in their PC requirements because the game needs 4 gigabites of VRAM.

Which makes me wonder what sales expectations they have for the console market. It can't even be worth mentioning at this point.

EDIT: And if it turns out to be true that the game does need for 4 gigs of VRAM to perform well, then I can only wonder if they aren't just trying to justify killing the PC version of next-gen AC games.