-
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.
Assassin's creed Unity PC version System requirements
- Thread starter catmario
- Start date
I think the potential losses from people not having fast enough PCs would probably be greater than any kickbacks they might get from parts manufacturers.
Vulcano's assistant
Banned
A 'you are wrong' usually works, I don't charge.
Well that GIF posted above your post kind of highlights your point!
Weemanply109
Member
My confidence in this game is completely lost now. I hit the recommended, but despite this I still don't believe that it's accurate. It'll probably still run like crap like previous AC games.
While it could be true I would imagine that the requirement's will get higher anyway. In the end PC setting's are pushed higher than console's it's needless to say that because the console's are better than last gen the min spec's will change no matter if they only have mid range to low spec's. I'm guessing this will be the norm eventually but as for this particular case I think it's just usual fuss for nothing but a crap port. Don't see why a lot are moaning anyway. Isn't it a good thing after all for progress.
Aside from Kinthalis' point on price, you do not understand the point I was getting at. I'm running a resolution that's 78% more demanding than what most people are using with a GPU around the recommended one and am not even remotely worried... despite that additional 78% overhead. That's meant to be reassuring for people at lower resolutions and cards. I know what these kind of cards are capable of from extensive experience and knowledge of GPUs and I know the specs people are miscontruing as being necesary for decent 1080p playing are actually well above and beyond capable of more. The 680/7970 are not so much weaker than a 970/780 Ti (neither of which are close to $1000 btw) that they'll be incapable of good 1080p performance. They are not a minimum, Ubisoft are posting very haphazardly-chosen and inaccurate spec requirements.
I seem to have made a miscalculation in assuming everyone understood the significance of resolution's relation to performance and in assuming there is nothing offensive about posting my specs and what I think they'll do especially as an example of my point and confidence in Ubisoft being wrong, as is the proper context of this thread. Did I say anyone needed to pump $1000 into a GPU, did I even remotely hint they need to buy the stuff I do? No, I didn't. I am letting other people with similarly powerful cards know I think they're far more than qualified, but it's been duly noted that some people get offended by posting my own specs and impression pertaining to those, misinterpreting it as epeen and an insult to those without the same cards rather than just my personal thoughts and confidence that Ubisoft are dead-wrong on this one.
phxxBullet
Banned
I already expect some funny specs when R* is about to release GTAV for PC.
But yeah, always nice to read these threads.
I'm not able to achieve steady 60+fps on Borderlands2 with a HD5870 and a Phenom II 960, most of the time it's around 40, dropping down to under 20 when there's alot of stuff going on (NV physix maxed out as everything else too, 1080p).
So I'd say the 50-80fps is way too much on AC3.
Even better, the HD5870 was from 2009! Got one too hehe
I wonder why?
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Couple of things:
The 5970 came out in September of 2009 and was priced around $350 or so, so not a very "high-end" card, but definitely top of the mid-range. The i5 2500k came out in January of 2011 and was definitely more of a mid-range chip.
By holiday 2012, none of the hardware could be considered "high-end."
Not only that, but the Assassin's Creed III I played was not the PS3/360 game. Not only did those games run at 1280x720, but by all accounts they looked muddy and jaggy and performed like garbage (couldn't maintain 30fps with frequent dips into the low 20s). That's not even accounting for any kind of draw distance/environment pop-in etc.
The experience I got was vastly superior and obviously more resource demanding. The game looked very good.
Now, that's not to say Ubisoft couldn't have easily made it run and even look much better on the PC if they devoted some more resources to it. I definitely wouldn't call it a particularly well optimized game, but it certainly was not an atrocious port. That kind of language should be reserved for stuff like Saints Row 2 and the original Resident Evil 4 PC version.
phxxBullet
Banned
Tested 720p/900p/1080p everything on medium/high with physix off/on/maxed.
Physix didn't reduce the FPs much.
In fact, I gained more by switching from 1080p to 900p, compared to turning off Physix.
And that's worth it to me, but I don't want to derail the thread haha
Windom Earle
Member
True, Watch Dogs was even more broken than people expected.
AnyoneInCherno
Member
Well, this is absolutely ridiculous.
Borderlands 2 is hugely CPU limited, that's why.
Ricky Ricardo
Member
Seriously though.. Why does this keep happening?
Seriously, did you guys think games wouldn't get bigger?
I don't get it. You think storage capacity keeps increasing because everything is going to stay at 25GB?
Sometimes, I wonder if folk really did believe that resolution and framerate would be the only increase with a new generation ...
The Xbox One has a GPU thats similar to the Radeon HD 7790, while the PS4's is the (roughly 50%) more powerful Radeon HD 7870 (note: Speaking strictly architecturally). Both reserve several gigabytes of RAM for the OS - I believe one has 5GB of RAM, and one has 6GB available for games (I don't remember which). That's unified RAM.
A stock 2500K has 4 cores (as opposed to the 5 available for gaming in the PS4 and Xbox One), but each core pushes roughly 4x as many operations per second as the Jaguar cores in the PS4 and Xbox One. A stock Radeon 7970 is close to 2.5x as powerful as the PS4's GPU.
In other words, the PS4 and XboxOne are working with about 5/16ths (31.25%) of the minimum CPU power, 62.5-75% of the minimum RAM (unified), and 20-40% of the minimum GPU power.
Seriously though.. Why does this keep happening?
Higher resolution assets, probably higher asset count as well ... so quantity and quality increased for assets with the arrival of next gen consoles, thus game sizes increased as well.
But wow, definitely expected higher system requirements for Unity but these minimum ones exceed my expectation. After what ubisoft said about gimping pc version of games and their track record of not so well done pc ports there is a justification to be skeptical as to why the requirements are this high but either way the game will probably be highly demanding (hopefully for the right reasons).
Seriously though.. Why does this keep happening?
Why does what keep happening? Why do games continually increase in size over time?
Fixed that for you.
martino
Member
ok...how will this minimun specs run the game / console version ?
without knowing this impossible to do a correct pc/console comparaison
ノThis chart sums up why I feel this is strange (if true):
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-7.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-7.html
dampflokfreund
Banned
Lol, okay so these specs are confirmed. Totally insane, nobody will buy the PC version. Ubisoft was always shitty about optimizing their games but this is another league.
opticalmace
Member
Sentenza
Member
I will not buy the game on any platform simply because it's an Assassin's Creed, but "confirmed" or not I still feel the urge to laugh at anyone freaking out over meaningless "recommended specs".
This thread is ridiculous as it is predictable. If you match or exceed console-level hardware you'll be able to play at or above console-level settings, it's as simple as that.
In other news...
Evolve Alpha PC Specs:
http://evolvegame.com/news/pc-specs-for-evolves-big-alpha
One thing to bear in mind: These are NOT the final system specs for when the game launches. What you’re seeing here are the current minimum and recommended spec levels for the Big Alpha build of the game. There is still lots of optimizing to be done before Evolve ships in February.
Got to love that i7 920 still trucking, and it's not even overclocked.
In other news...
Evolve Alpha PC Specs:
http://evolvegame.com/news/pc-specs-for-evolves-big-alpha
One thing to bear in mind: These are NOT the final system specs for when the game launches. What you’re seeing here are the current minimum and recommended spec levels for the Big Alpha build of the game. There is still lots of optimizing to be done before Evolve ships in February.
Got to love that i7 920 still trucking, and it's not even overclocked.
More specifically I meant games being released over the last couple of months that have massive install sizes. Sacred 3, Risen 3: Titan Lords, Shadow of Mordor, The Evil Within, FFXIII, Alien: Isolation are all pretty damn big in comparison to games coming out this time last year.
..or maybe I'm crazy.
It ran watchdogs well enough. minus the stupid stuttering everyone got.
Certain games have some explanation for being massive. Of Titanfall's 55gb install on PC 35GB of that was from uncompressed audio. I also believe that FF13 on PC has both english and japanese voices and cutscenes included in the base install by default.
2002whitegt
Member
I'm not too worried. People are acting like the game won't even boot up if you have a 670. I'm confident a 670 will run at 1080p with a mix of medium and high settings at 30fps.
My 980 better eat this game up or I'll just start getting ubisoft games at steam sales only.
My 980 better eat this game up or I'll just start getting ubisoft games at steam sales only.
A.Romero
Member
I was about to pre-order it yesterday on Steam because it recently started supporting my currency (MXN) and it was cheaper. Glad I didn't.
My specs:
i5 3570
8 GB RAM
Radeon 7950
I bought it almost 1 year ago. Didn't think it would get to this so quick.
I guess I'll have to play it on PS4 (I'm a big Asscreed fan)
Isn't this the first major game for new consoles we get that does not have a port to the previous generation? Maybe this is the first of a new wave of PC requirements...
My specs:
i5 3570
8 GB RAM
Radeon 7950
I bought it almost 1 year ago. Didn't think it would get to this so quick.
I guess I'll have to play it on PS4 (I'm a big Asscreed fan)
Isn't this the first major game for new consoles we get that does not have a port to the previous generation? Maybe this is the first of a new wave of PC requirements...
Papacheeks
Banned
Well another un-optimized game engine strikes again!
Can't wait to see how it actually runs seeing as Ubisoft had that spout recently saying " we up till couple weeks ago got the game running close to 30 fps".
They had it at 9fps at one point earlier this year.
Jesus, does optimization take a backseat when development is in full force? And since it's becoming a trend especially with yearly releases, maybe take some time off to get the game where it needs to be performance wise?
I guess it's going to be like 2005-2010 all over again. With port's coming over to PC that play like shit on current hardware.
Guess My PC will be for PC developed games for a while and my PS4 for Multiplats.
Can't wait to see how it actually runs seeing as Ubisoft had that spout recently saying " we up till couple weeks ago got the game running close to 30 fps".
They had it at 9fps at one point earlier this year.
Jesus, does optimization take a backseat when development is in full force? And since it's becoming a trend especially with yearly releases, maybe take some time off to get the game where it needs to be performance wise?
I guess it's going to be like 2005-2010 all over again. With port's coming over to PC that play like shit on current hardware.
Guess My PC will be for PC developed games for a while and my PS4 for Multiplats.
You really think games will start to require hardware that's 4 times the power of a console?
No.
UnrealEck
Member
That's what the first post in every one of these threads should be so people get the picture. Obviously there's the rare exceptions, but generally, if a game isn't an absolute mess on PC and is pristine on console, that sentence sums it up. People flip their shit over these specs lately.
'I just bought this PC last year which has a GTX 770. Guess I'll go with the PS4 version then.'
Original post : http://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrac...ngineering_team_from_ubisoft_is_coming_to_my/
Proof : http://i.imgur.com/hBdu5ot.jpg
A lot of things were said during the presentation, there was a Game Architect, an Online Programmer, and a person from HR.
"So what the hell happened with watch dogs?" u/Egg_Slicer
During the presentation, the Online Programmer said that just before they release a game, they have to send a copy to console manufacturers, which then tell them what to keep and what to throw away (sooo yeah Watch Dogs maybe ?).
"30fps vs 60fps" ? everyone
The Game Architect said that they aim for 60 fps but due to "limitations", they have to settle for 30 fps in recent games. He then implied that console makers are pressuring them into doing the same thing on PC.
"Ask how bad the upper/middle management is." u/Ed130_The_Vanguard
The HR rep said that managers are former programmers and can sometimes be interns. But people are always managed by someone who could do their job.
Not asked, but worth mentionning :
The Game Architect said that they try to re-use code as much as possible. So that's maybe what happened with the AI in Watch Dogs which was taken from AC.
"Are you aware of the negative response to the recent decision to lock your games (like AC:Unity) into 30 frames per second? If so, what do you think about that?" u/TwinDragonsOfChaos
I asked this question at the end of the presentation, everyone laughed. The Game Architect said that on consoles, and for this type of game, they have to chose between graphical fidelity and smoothness. He implied that MS is making them lock the framerate on PC too. Then, he smiled, said "But our eyes can't see past 24 fps anyway" and winked at me.
"Then maybe ask about the impact of AI on these APUs in the consoles."
They said they have to use Microsoft's cloud instead of the APU to do the AI in certain games due to hardware limitations.
"You can also ask what is the preferred platform to develop for."
PC, because they have to use specific languages and debuggers for each console and then validate the game with the constructor.
"You should ask them if they get any say in what the PR people are telling us."
They don't. Clearly the two engineers were no peasants, but they were asked questions they could not answer. He only implied that there were hardware limitations all over the place. And his wink when he told me that 24fps was all we needed confirmed that.
"Do people who work for Ubisoft have mobility ? Can they work abroad if they want or change their career path ?" (question from a classmate)
Yes, engineers can become managers and vice-versa, they can also fill openings in other studios, or change teams.
If you have any questions about the presentation, feel free to ask. It was very interesting, and they offered us internships and jobs. They told us a lot of stuff about game development.
Edit : Thanks for the gold !
Proof : http://i.imgur.com/hBdu5ot.jpg
A lot of things were said during the presentation, there was a Game Architect, an Online Programmer, and a person from HR.
"So what the hell happened with watch dogs?" u/Egg_Slicer
During the presentation, the Online Programmer said that just before they release a game, they have to send a copy to console manufacturers, which then tell them what to keep and what to throw away (sooo yeah Watch Dogs maybe ?).
"30fps vs 60fps" ? everyone
The Game Architect said that they aim for 60 fps but due to "limitations", they have to settle for 30 fps in recent games. He then implied that console makers are pressuring them into doing the same thing on PC.
"Ask how bad the upper/middle management is." u/Ed130_The_Vanguard
The HR rep said that managers are former programmers and can sometimes be interns. But people are always managed by someone who could do their job.
Not asked, but worth mentionning :
The Game Architect said that they try to re-use code as much as possible. So that's maybe what happened with the AI in Watch Dogs which was taken from AC.
"Are you aware of the negative response to the recent decision to lock your games (like AC:Unity) into 30 frames per second? If so, what do you think about that?" u/TwinDragonsOfChaos
I asked this question at the end of the presentation, everyone laughed. The Game Architect said that on consoles, and for this type of game, they have to chose between graphical fidelity and smoothness. He implied that MS is making them lock the framerate on PC too. Then, he smiled, said "But our eyes can't see past 24 fps anyway" and winked at me.
"Then maybe ask about the impact of AI on these APUs in the consoles."
They said they have to use Microsoft's cloud instead of the APU to do the AI in certain games due to hardware limitations.
"You can also ask what is the preferred platform to develop for."
PC, because they have to use specific languages and debuggers for each console and then validate the game with the constructor.
"You should ask them if they get any say in what the PR people are telling us."
They don't. Clearly the two engineers were no peasants, but they were asked questions they could not answer. He only implied that there were hardware limitations all over the place. And his wink when he told me that 24fps was all we needed confirmed that.
"Do people who work for Ubisoft have mobility ? Can they work abroad if they want or change their career path ?" (question from a classmate)
Yes, engineers can become managers and vice-versa, they can also fill openings in other studios, or change teams.
If you have any questions about the presentation, feel free to ask. It was very interesting, and they offered us internships and jobs. They told us a lot of stuff about game development.
Edit : Thanks for the gold !
I hate to say it, but you're definitely right. If you want the definitive version of a multiplat, with respect to resolution, frame rate and IQ, you get it on the console, period. And there certainly hasn't been a specific release within the last 2 weeks that would in any way directly contradict this narrative.
RowdyReverb
Member
There was already a long thread on this topic last week. I don't think there was a consensus about whether or not it was bullshit, but it doesn't really sound plausible to me.