Ubisoft has given a more detailed response to accusations that it’s held the PlayStation 4 version of Assassin’s Creed Unity back in order to match the specifications of the Xbox One release. An interview with senior producer Vincent Pontbriand earlier in the week insinuated as much, but in a UbiBlog post, the clearly flustered executive apologised for his comments – and also offered a little more explanation.
“We’ve spent four years building the best game that we could imagine,” he exclaimed. “Why would we ever do anything to hold it back? I simply chose the wrong words when talking about the game’s resolution, and for that I’m sorry.” It’s unfortunate that a developer feels the need to respond in such a way, but his original comments were somewhat misjudged. For those that missed them, he said that the game had been locked at the same specifications on both next-gen consoles to avoid “debates and stuff”.
As a result, the Parisian escapade will run at 30 frames-per-second in 900p on both Microsoft and Sony’s systems – a far cry from the 60 frames-per-second in 1080p target that the developer was supposedly eyeing at E3 earlier in the year. So, why select these specifications? “We wanted to be absolutely uncompromising when it comes to the overall gameplay experience,” he concluded. “Those additional pixels could only come at a cost to the gameplay.”
That’s a fair answer as far as we’re concerned, but it’s not going to prevent the conspiracy theorists from making assumptions. Perhaps the biggest arrow in that subset’s bow right now is that this year’s release is being marketed on the Xbox One, which marks a departure for the series, as it’s always been historically associated with Sony. We just can’t see platform parity being an obligation of the marketing deal, though – that’s insane, right?
[source blog.ubi.com, via vg247.com]
Comments 30
people are too hung up on the numbers in gaming now, what happened to playing for fun?
@FullbringIchigo I don't think it's anything new. Remember 32-bit versus 64-bit, etc? Exact same thing, really.
@get2sammyb true but it seems to be a lot more prevelent now and so petty as well when with most tv's between 20 inch and 30 inch (which is tha average size) you can barely tell the difference between 900p and 1080p
Damage control is through the roof.
"We just can’t see platform parity being an obligation of the marketing deal, though – that’s insane, right?"
Actually I think it would be insane for any company to spend millions buying the right to market the game as "best on" their platform without contractually obligating the publisher to make sure the version on their console is actually the best one at least as far as consoles are concerned
Because you're co-promoting with Microsoft, and this is how Microsoft does business. It's pretty obvious Ubisoft so quit playing dumb.
@FullbringIchigo Just because people talk about this stuff on the internet doesn't mean they don't have fun playing the games. Different things.
Money.
"Why Would We Ever Hold Assassin's Creed Unity Back?"
Depends how big the cheque is, I guess.
If they were eyeing 1080p60, then the PS4 version should surely be capable of 1080p30 at least, with the system's extra muscle?
Not that I should care - I've never bought an AC game, and I won't be starting now. My only concern is that I/we know how MS does business - the clause they were revealed to have for 360 regarding "parity or better" for games is most likely still in effect for PS4/XBone as well.
They never have liked a level playing field, in any area of their business, and they've been fined several times over the years for shady underhand deals and dodgy business practices.
@DualWielding Hmm, I guess. At the end of the day, though, Ubisoft still wants to sell the game on the PS4. Added incentives like DLC and stuff is all well and good, but capping the performance just seems insane to me. I do see your point, though.
I read a AC developer saying that the problem is not the GPU or anything else, but the CPU (which is the same on each console) while i dont believe it 100%, i do think is going to hold this consoles back quite a bit...
CPU are really important for the frames since they need to "prepare" the next one (its quite complicated to explain), and the PS4/XB1are using much better CPUs than the old generation, but its still a Jaguar AMD, a CPU know for being used in tablets and low powered notebooks, who arent created with gsming in mind (Sure, GPGPU and thats its an 8-core version of a 4-core CPU should help, but the performance of each core lacks). Like i said its a MASSIVE improvement and will give us some next-gen performance in time (once they manage to use 6-8 cores at a much better rate), but its still not "optimum" for gaming... Well this is where im going to
IF THATS THE REAL REASON, why not saying it ?, because i can belive that MUCH more than "trying to avoid problems between XB1/PS4 users"... Thats just stupid
Here's the thing though, If Microsoft wants to keep throwing money, don't expect a new system next time as investors will talk and those are what counts in big business. Microsoft threw around money with the 360 and look how good that turned out. I hope Microsoft keeps tossing money around, because all they're doing is screwing themselves.
@get2sammyb I thought Microsoft enforcing performance parity was a common occurrence last gen. Im not 100% on that though.
@Demi_God Nice, monopoly is exactly what we want so Sony can charge us 600 dollars on release of the PS5... Because those were great times !
@Faruko I don't believe that for a second. I think it's just something that people say for the console their cheering for. It's not like Microsoft never created a monopoly before. To be perfectly honest, if Microsoft wasn't in the console business, I actually think it would be better for gamers. Sucks to hear I'm sure, but it is what it is.
Hurrah for windows 8.
@Bad-MuthaAdebis Hurrah for Windows 9...
Wait.
It should read 'Why have we held Assassin's Creed Unity Back?'
@get2sammyb really? People were like this back then? I was born in 1992 so I don't know all the details.
@Alpha it goes all the way back to sega and nes. "Sega does what nintendont." Blast processing this and bit this and bit that. It sure was simpler times before high speed Internet. I think its ruined gaming in a sense. While online multiplayer is nice. What its taken to get that has been a double edged sword. Gaming today is fun but it had a higher quality of fun back then. Newer aged gamers dont know what hard is. The term "nes hard" is around for a reason
@Subie98 I remember that slogan. Barley but I do. But I remember it was about the games, not the graphics. At least my parents friends didn't. And bout the internet? I agree with you.
The Internet doesnt help because people discuss this stuff to death. All we had back then was magazines and 1-800 tip lines lol
@Subie98
Good times. Wish they'd come back. I could do without online gaming myself. I heard there's going to be or already has been a patch for Destiny that makes the game easier. F'ing pathetic.
I try and avoid these kinds of articles. No disrespect to Push Square as I use this site for my PlayStation news fix, bit im sick to death with all this 1080p this 900p that and 30fps this and 60frps that. Alll I want it a game that plays well and looks good too. I say looks good because thats why I jumped to the next gen.
Both PS4 and X1 are good consoles. While there not going to push pixels like a ultra high end PC's they're still a lot faster than there previous versions.
The people to blame for this so called console war are Sony and Microsoft themselves. We as gamers don't need to throw fule on the fire as it helps nobody but the corporations that started it.
Just be happy with the console you went with and enjoy the games instead of acting like children.
@Gamer83 i like online gaming but i get so tried of the mouthy fools. I wish the "report player" button actually had repercussions. Thats sad it's getting a patch. I personally refused to play destiny. I couldnt be less impressed with it. I dont like every fps just because its a fps. Maybe im weird.
PS4 is more superior than Xbox one, in terms of power. So why does it have same resolution, same FPS, same textures and same effects as Xbox one? Especially when AC4 had all those things better on PS4. That guy must explain this to people, and obviously, he can't. There are really only two resons for same graphics on both consoles. Ubi is lazy with PS4 and don't want to spent extra money to get everything from it. Or they've really made a deal with MS. Anyway, Ubi looks very suspicious in this circumstances.
we were promised 1080 and 60frames per second its THE NEXT GENERATION for petes sake and it DOES make a difference.
@Gemuarto
One of the idiots at Ubisoft working on AC Unity actually said he thinks the industry is going to move away from 60 frames per second because apparently 30 is better for more cinematic experiences or some nonsense. Few games are more cinematic than the most recent Tomb Raider and The Last of Us and both those games were even better at 60 fps, so I don't know what that imbecile was talking about, but since apparently everybody at Ubisoft has gone insane, I'm tempted not to buy their games. AC Unity pre-order has already been cancelled, very close to doing the same for Far Cry 4. If I were running Ubisoft, I'd put a gag order on all these morons.
Dragon Age Inquisition (Can run on a 512 MB VRAM card) runs 1080p on PS4 and 900P so, why can't Ubisoft manage 1080p ad 30fps on PS4?
@Wesker You have a good point.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...