Support NeoGAF

[jediyoshi]

No, sorry, phrases like "subjectively enhances the game's visual fidelity in certain situations" and "potentially making the game less enjoyable" are just plain meaningless bullshit.

Is having needlessly heavy DOF objectively better? Wasn't there just a GAF thread on this

 

[vareon]

The effects are unoptimized, so they opted it out and used different stuff. Don't see anything evil here. Happened to a lot of games too I reckon.

 

[Handy Fake]

Is having needlessly heavy DOF objectively better? Wasn't there just a GAF thread on this

There was, but the further back you went the blurrier it got. People gave up.

 

[jacksepticeye]

All from a game that was delayed too

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

But it's pretty clear that knocking the PC version out of the park was not their priority. It's okay, but it's also something people should be aware of before purchasing.

Or even to ship a product that wouldn't stutter like a motherfucker.

 

[Madrugador]

Ubisoft has zero credibility in the PC space, and it looks like It's going to stay the same for a long time.

 

[PhatSaqs]

Should go without saying. But ragers gonna rage

 

[BPoole]

Would you knowingly release software with settings that could cause system instability?

As for the OP, I think we need to cut down on the conspiracy theories. They had some fancy render settings that they probably didn't have time to test on the vast, vast range of hardware specs available.

Yes bokeh DOF and fog is nice, but it's useless when you can't see the game for the effects. That's why the DOF is mostly reserved for cutscenes and when you turn on your profiler.

I personally would not, but Ubisoft would and has done so in the past.

 

[GrizzNKev]

Or even to ship a product that wouldn't stutter like a motherfucker.

It was absolutely clear from their recommended specs that optimization and performance were not goals for the PC version. Remember how everyone reacted to that?

 

[Tesseract]

hack the planet, teach the controversy

 

[Carlius]

Anybody run into "problems reading the environment for gameplay"? Sounds like bollocks. Even if it's the case, why not iron out those problems?

haha ikr? whats that even suppoed to mean?

 

[Foffy]

...the organizational nightmare of working on a game made by 8749 people across 271 teams in 181 countries.

I have no idea if you sincerely pulled out a specific number or are just being hyperbolic. I honestly cannot tell with Ubisoft.

 

[bigboss370]

...I'm not seeing what's unreasonable or untrue about their comments? If they honestly felt that the graphical effects in question were causing an unacceptable amount of issues, and that there was no time or budget available to try and rework or fix them (or that "fix" might simply have just been turning off the graphical effects), then that's what any software developer would do.

I mean, Ubisoft's history of PC ports is... hit or miss, to say the least (which makes the part about getting the most of out each platform a bit funny), but I don't see anything malicious here.

.

 

[Aretak]

The effects are unoptimized

So why does the game perform better with them enabled? The people drinking the Ubisoft koolaid have yet to provide an answer to why the mod improves performance if Ubisoft's claims are true. Or a decent reason why they believe that Ubisoft had any interest in the performance or stability of the PC version at all, considering the laughable state the game shipped in.

Seems like another case of people trying desperately not to be on the 'wild conspiracist bandwagon' even if it means ignoring simple facts right in front of their face.

 

[Hero_of_the_Day]

Ubisoft caring about how a game performs on PC. Yeah the fuck right.

 

[Pimpwerx]

Why is DOF the subject of conversation here? How about we focus on the other effects the mod added which significantly increased visual quality with no performance impact which completely destroys UBI's statement.

The mod IMPROVED performance, made it run BETTER....then UBI came and "Patched" it (smallest patch ever?) and has made it even WORSE than it was before.

Incompetent with a track record as a company for bullshitting PC owners, my mind has been made up.

So, the mod has been put through rigorous QA, testing all situations that could break it or cause glitches? Man, I don't know how people who don't know how games are made can be such vocal critics of the process. All games have to omit stuff for deadlines. An engine isn't s fixed target. It's a moving target, and games ship with what they can get in by the deadline. If a feature doesn't meet the dev's expectations, it's cut. It's as simple as that. The people who wrote those functions and created those assets don't do it to waste their time. So why wouldn't they want to use the fruits of their labor? PEACE.

 

[yurinka]

...I'm not seeing what's unreasonable or untrue about their comments? If they honestly felt that the graphical effects in question were causing an unacceptable amount of issues, and that there was no time or budget available to try and rework or fix them (or that "fix" might simply have just been turning off the graphical effects), then that's what any software developer would do.

I mean, Ubisoft's history of PC ports is... hit or miss, to say the least (which makes the part about getting the most of out each platform a bit funny), but I don't see anything malicious here.

Yes, what they say and what you assume makes sense. If not, why they would disable these things? The only obscure / paranoic possible theory would be that they wouldn't make the PC version look too better than the console versions.

But if it was the case instead of disabling them they simply wouldn't develop it. And well, considering it's the first game of the engine/team in a new generation and that they even show it once two years ago they didn't know its final hardware specs, I think it's really understandable that something didn't fit or worked as spected so they'd need to cut it during all this period of time.

The game has a ton of content, includes several game mechanics mixed in a way they didn't mix before, new elements etc. It isn't like they only had to care about this, they had a huge amount of work so maybe they dropped this because it was the only way to solve the possible issues it generated and / or they didn't have time to address it and thought that the other stuff was more prioritary for the game.

Sounds more or less like the female characters in AC Unity co-op. Sometimes to deliver on time you need to drop some feature out of a ton of them, and in this case some content for your customizable character that see the other players see as you when playing co-op. It isn't that they didn't want to do this feature or that it was too difficult/expensive to do: is that maybe they had to deliver several thousands of things and to be in time they needed to cut a few of them, and this was one.

Something really common in game development. Often devs keep secret their development or features and content as much as possible to avoid players to be dissapointed if later they need to cut it. Cases where some people who doesn't know how game development works go crazy, specially when combined with some statements that can be improved when explaining these things.

 

[See You Next Wednesday]

lol

 

[CassidyIzABeast]

Oh! Is that true? Did they completely remove the hidden options somehow or does the mod just need to be updated to work with the new version?

I believe there's a work around now.

 

[Doctoglethorpe]

Is everyone missing the worst part of this? Watch Dogs wasn't just downgraded, it was clearly intentionally "upgraded" beyond their expectations for media presentations. So they were outright lying the whole time. My proof? The're called fuckin "E3" settings. Clear as the sun shine people.

So now Ubisoft's world class PR department has gone from "We didn't downgrade, promise!" to "Okay, we did, but it was for your own good!" and yeah, neither of those are as bad as the truth.

How come this game isn't getting the same criticism Colonial Marines got?

 

[bigboss370]

So, the mod has been put through rigorous QA, testing all situations that could break it or cause glitches? Man, I don't know how people who don't know how games are made can be such vocal critics of the process. All games have to omit stuff for deadlines. An engine isn't s fixed target. It's a moving target, and games ship with what they can get in by the deadline. If a feature doesn't meet the dev's expectations, it's cut. It's as simple as that. The people who wrote those functions and created those assets don't do it to waste their time. So why wouldn't they want to use the fruits of their labor? PEACE.

This. I don't think they go around arbitrarily cutting features because they feel like it. Heck they're still making a WiiU version!

 

[foxuzamaki]

Holy crap, how does ubisoft keep getting people's money?

 

[Goon Boon]

Yeah reduced the stuttering for a lot of people.

The fact that the mod made by people largely just messing around with cfg files was largely increasing performance, stability, and visual quality says they did the absolute bare minimum to bring it to PC.

Its good to know that Ubisoft cares about stability and performance so much. I guess that's why their latest patch removed the mod and reportedly made the framerate worse.

This removed the ability to even use the aforementioned beneficial settings? This is actually fucking EVIL, the half-assing was just penny-pinching/cheap, this is actively spitting on your customers.

 

[Blizzard]

As I said in the last thread on the subject of secret conspiracies, it was clear from day one that the cause here was neglect--the PC version of this game is at most the fifth or sixth most important SKU. It's not about deliberately worsening the product, it's about neglecting to invest resources to improve the product. They developed with a certain baseline level of effects, they toned them down to improve performance on the console SKUs, and then they chose not to finish development and testing and refining on what they already done. And as is normally the case, the final build contains cut or unused content. Many games even have playable, very near completion cut content. It happens.

The deception here is that they somehow got from "This is PC only, who cares" to "the dev team is completely dedicated to getting the most out of the platform". I am sure the dev team did their best given the resources and time constraints and the organizational nightmare of working on a game made by 8749 people across 271 teams in 181 countries. But it's pretty clear that knocking the PC version out of the park was not their priority. It's okay, but it's also something people should be aware of before purchasing.

I do think patching out something that was only accessible through a mod is pretty poor form. 99% of the players wouldn't have touched it and the 1% who would have would have done so with the understanding that if stuff broke, it was the mod, not the game.

Wasn't the "PC only, who cares" line from shader code only targeted at the 360/PS3?

For details: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=117111404&postcount=1886

 

[Fallout-with-swords]

Why do people think they hid the better graphical options away if not to make the game run better? It's one thing if the full game could never run as well as the 2012 demo but if the modders proved it could and still runs well enough isn't that confirmation that it was a decision based around making the game run better?

 

[bigboss370]

How come this game isn't getting the same criticism Colonial Marines got?

Probably because it still has great visuals, and is actually a good game?

 

[BurnOutBrighter]

Can we also stop with the confirmation bias. A small number of people reporting performance improvements from these mods does not mean an improvement for every case.

 

[GruntOfAction]

The fact that the mod made by people largely just messing around with cfg files was largely increasing performance, stability, and visual quality says they did the absolute bare minimum to bring it to PC.



This removed the ability to even use the aforementioned beneficial settings? This is actually fucking EVIL, the half-assing was just penny-pinching/cheap, this is actively spitting on your customers.

Welp. I wish I bought the game on Origin so I could do the refund thing. I will never play this shitty game again after hearing this. The Worse's config files were the only thing interesting with it, I already beat the campaign.

 

[Goon Boon]

Can we also stop with the confirmation bias. A small number of people reporting performance improvements from these mods does not mean an improvement for every case.

Whats the rationale for outright removing the ability to use the unused configurations/settings that some people reported gave performance boosts?

 

[LiquidMetal14]

I'm going to give them some leeway as they know their engine better than anyone here. Hopefully that new patch will help.

 

[Toski]

So why does the game perform better with them enabled?

It only "works" on some systems, others are still having problems with stuttering, while others (like myself) have no stuttering. Hopefully Ubi can fix the stuttering for people who have it, while not breaking the game for people who don't have it.

 

[LiquidMetal14]

Can we also stop with the confirmation bias. A small number of people reporting performance improvements from these mods does not mean an improvement for every case.

I agree. I also don't think them putting those settings aside is come conspiracy. I think people need to slow down and think for a minute. And hey, you get what you want with the modding. The devs already had a hard time shipping a game that ran stable enough on the highest settings but hopefully a patch can alleviate that.

 

[Zephyx]

No reason to not believe the makers of the game in this one. There is a possibility they're lying but it's normal for a software development company to cut features/assets when it causes weird issues in performance or it isn't QA'd properly.

 

[Ryaaan14]

What a load of mealy-mouthed bullshit.

I'm dying over here.

 

[McLovin]

But... it runs like crap without the mod too.

 

[SolidSnakeUS]

A crock of shit inside of a crock of shit. That's what that is.

 

[Raynes]

Ubisoft fucked up big with Watchdogs, not just with this downgrade bullshit. The game itself was an absolute crock of shit, it is the very definition of laziness. There seriously needs to be some purging done there.

 

[Iggins]

Ubisoft, please...

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Why do people think they hid the better graphical options away if not to make the game run better? It's one thing if the full game could never run as well as the 2012 demo but if the modders proved it could and still runs well enough isn't that confirmation that it was a decision based around making the game run better?

Well the issue seems to be that it doesn't make it run worse when you enable them. It's more likely the case that they didn't give two fucks about the PC version, and when the features got axed for PS4/XBO versions after they got real devkits, they simply didn't bother with them on PC anymore either.

Given that it runs like doo-doo and has unreasonably high requirements, this seems like a pretty likely explanation. Some of the effects are unfinished or not perfectly implemented, and the PC version in general is suffering from a lack of optimization.

 

[rpmurphy]

It only "works" on some systems, others are still having problems with stuttering, while others (like myself) have no stuttering. Hopefully Ubi can fix the stuttering for people who have it, while not breaking the game for people who don't have it.

I am curious... I haven't seriously gamed on a PC in a long time, but isn't a lot of PC gaming about tweaking configs to get the balance of performance and features that individuals want to have based on the hardware that they have?

 

[captainnapalm]

Well, it's true that the features the mod enabled do come with their own sets of problems - lights conflicting with other lights, shadows too dark in interiors and other shadow issues. I'm guessing that's what they're referring to when they talk about "problems reading the environment for gameplay". I actually got rid of the mod because the bugs and glitches I noticed were piling up.

What's going to be interesting to see is if modders can actually fix these issues while keeping the new features. Because they seem to be suggesting here that it's not possible.

 

[Fallout-with-swords]

Well the issue seems to be that it doesn't make it run worse when you enable them. It's more likely the case that they didn't give two fucks about the PC version, and when the features got axed for PS4/XBO versions after they got real devkits, they simply didn't bother with them on PC anymore either.

Given that it runs like doo-doo and has unreasonably high requirements, this seems like a pretty likely explanation. Some of the effects are unfinished or not perfectly implemented, and the PC version in general is suffering from a lack of optimization.

Okay fair enough, I'll believe lazy or "saved it for next year" over them deliberately removing the renderers only to make parity with consoles.

 

[Pops Maellard]

Didn't the mod actually *improve* performance, though? Unless I'm mistaken, of course.

No, the performance is not worsened or improved by the mod.

The level of outrage here over a few unfinished effects that don't really make the game look drastically different, let alone better, being left out of an options menu is crazy.

 

[ekgrey]

Ugh. This whole situation is gross and disappointing. I will not be buying another Ubisoft game at launch for awhile.

Spoiler

except Valiant Hearts

 

[Vox Chaotica]

Huh. I could have sworn I've read multiple reports on GAF about the mod improving performance. I guess this requires extensive testing?

Either way, Ubisoft seems to be walking on a very thin line. People will still buy Assassin's Creed: Unity and Far Cry 4, though.

 

[Nethaniah]

We test and optimize our games for each platform on which they’re released, striving for the best possible quality.

but also can have various negative impacts. Those could range from performance issues

that were deactivated for a variety of reasons, including possible impacts on visual fidelity, stability, performance and overall gameplay quality.

Laughable, the game pre-patch ran terrible and stuttered like mad making it unplayable on even the best hardware money can buy and post-patch it runs even worse!

Seriously fuck these people in charge of making these decisions and fuck the ones who greenlighted this press release.

The mod actually improved performance for some people yet the patch that they claim has several performance improvements makes the game run even worse then before, anyone even defending this crap is an enabler, a shill, worst of the worst.

 

[Toski]

I am curious... I haven't seriously gamed on a PC in a long time, but isn't a lot of PC gaming about tweaking configs to get the balance of performance and features that individuals want to have based on the hardware that they have?

If you're talking about lowering certain graphics settings/resolution then yes. Some people have tried lowering certain settings and still reported stuttering. If you're talking about modifying .ini and other files manually, thats more of a power user than the general pc user.

 

[scitek]

Should go without saying. But ragers gonna rage

I don't think it's too much to expect a playable product and one that runs on machine that far exceed the required specs. There are people with 6GB video cards that get stuttery performance on High texture setting, when it says in the options it only requires 2. Ultra settings are flat-out unplayable to practically everyone, regardless of hardware.

 

[Oppo]

No, the performance is not worsened or improved by the mod.

The level of outrage here over a few unfinished effects that don't really make the game look drastically different, let alone better, being left out of an options menu is crazy.

Really, truly, crazy town banana pants crazy.

Their statement is totally reasonable. This tinfoil hat downgrade nonsense has gone on way farther than it ought.

 

[gatti-man]

I am curious... I haven't seriously gamed on a PC in a long time, but isn't a lot of PC gaming about tweaking configs to get the balance of performance and features that individuals want to have based on the hardware that they have?

No.