Assassins creed unity 900p 30fps on xbox1 and ps4
- Thread starter polishwonder
- Start date
- Status
Too bad next gen cant consistently keep up with my 8 year old 1080p 60hz TVs and Monitors, Maybe when 4k is everywhere they will catch up to last decade.
This is a non-sensical statement. "Keep up?" lol, it's a display. I wish some people (seems like an awful lot) could understand the give and take. The 360 could give you 1080p/60fps if the graphics where simple enough. Devs are always going to push to get the best over-all picture they can. Resolution is only a part of it.
Is it? Then how was resolution handled before we had Dedicated Gpu's in video cards? I won't pretend to know the ins-and-outs of how real-time graphics draw resources, but I DO know that I'm not privy to how UBI's engine runs. Perhaps they needed the GPU cycles to help with other things besides resolution or even typical GPU tasks.
I will give you this though- I doesn't sound like UBI's engine has been designed to take specific advantage of each platform.
Still, if the Sony Crowd wants to throw a fit, then they can go for it. The game still looks great to me.
The important thing is the game won't be on Wii U because according to them "It wouldn't be possible, in our minds we’d be cheating fans by providing a lesser version of the same game."
PS4's CPU is reportedly 1.6GHz. Not officially confirmed by anyone high up at Sony, but very likely. Xbox's CPU is officially 1.75GHz.
A developer on Neogaf has said PS4's CPU performs better, which is backed up by benchmarks from the Substance Engine. This might have changed with giving Kinect reserves back to developers. Either way, it's safe to say both CPUs are nearly identical in performance.
Increasing resolution is more a matter of GPU than CPU. Increasing the framerate puts a heavier load on the CPU because it has to process the game engine more frequently, but we're talking about resolution not framerate.
Imo PS4 could run this at 1080p 30 fps with the GPU's extra headroom, without putting additional strain on the CPU. Or the devs could use PS4's better GPGPU ability to take more load off the CPU.
However PS4 could NOT run it at 60 fps, not even at 720p, because that would put a much greater load on the CPU than 30 fps.
A developer on Neogaf has said PS4's CPU performs better, which is backed up by benchmarks from the Substance Engine. This might have changed with giving Kinect reserves back to developers. Either way, it's safe to say both CPUs are nearly identical in performance.
Increasing resolution is more a matter of GPU than CPU. Increasing the framerate puts a heavier load on the CPU because it has to process the game engine more frequently, but we're talking about resolution not framerate.
Imo PS4 could run this at 1080p 30 fps with the GPU's extra headroom, without putting additional strain on the CPU. Or the devs could use PS4's better GPGPU ability to take more load off the CPU.
However PS4 could NOT run it at 60 fps, not even at 720p, because that would put a much greater load on the CPU than 30 fps.
Allow me to expound since you don't understand what I'm getting at .
See where you mentioned "Give and Take" there should be none of this on dedicated cough" NEXT GEN "cough Gaming machines in the year 2014 , These brand new consoles themselves are already the weak link compared to the decade old components they mate with.
I know I'm supposed to be content with what the developers can scrape out of these machines, I mean the games do look better than the nearly 10 year old Xbox360 games after all.
They should be upset just at the comment "We decided to lock them at the same specs to avoid all the debates and stuff" despite later on claiming that theres a CPU bottleneck , he makes it sound in that quote as if the PS4 is intentionally nerfed to keep Xbox one owners from being butthurt , that would be like a Dev cutting out Kinect features of a multiplat just because the PS4 didn't come with one.So much butthurt from the Sonies
From the perspective of a sole Xboxone owner.
Actually they said the game was limited to 30 frames per second due to the CPU; no mention of resolution there. And resolution is only a GPU thing and not related to the CPU, right? Either way, Ubisoft also already stated their reason for making the PS4 900p. Their reason was "to make the two platforms equal and avoid arguments" which was a bs reason as per Ubisoft's usual blunders.
Last edited:
Despite the fact that when they said that they knew it was going to create arguments, oh those trolls at Ubi.
If this game was 1080p on both consoles the sonies would still be crying that their version got nerfed.
That parity. I might end up getting Assassin's Creed Unity for the PS4. Been buying most of my multiplats on the Quad.
So when multi plats come out in the future and they essentially look and play the same between the boxes is there going to be outrage the game was not optimized for the slightly more powerful Sony machine? That seems off. I don't recall outrage over this issue when the first Xbox was more powerful than ps2. Ubisoft is trying to avoid the console fanboys wars and serve all audiences.
PS4s GPGPU could help with this particular bottleneck. We have no clue to what extent it can relieve the cpu resources, but I guess it really doesn't matter for multiplat games. It's highly doubtful that developers for create platform specific enhancements, that they wouldn't be able to use on every other platform.
There was a complete fundamental difference in graphics processing back then. PS2 literally wasn't capable of certain graphical features, whereas on the other hand PS4/Xbox One literally cover the same exact graphical featureset and their gpus are even from the same creator. That comparison isn't a good one, I would say PS3/360 would fit into your comparison better.
There was a complete fundamental difference in graphics processing back then. PS2 literally wasn't capable of certain graphical features, whereas on the other hand PS4/Xbox One literally cover the same exact graphical featureset and their gpus are even from the same creator. That comparison isn't a good one, I would say PS3/360 would fit into your comparison better.
Last edited:
http://kotaku.com/ac-unity-will-have-same-specs-on-xbox-one-and-ps4-to-av-1643054770
"Over the past 4 years, we have created Assassin's Creed Unity to attain the tremendous level of quality we have now achieved on Xbox One, PlayStation 4 and PC. It's a process of building up toward our goals, not scaling down, and we're proud to say that we have reached those goals on all SKUs."
So I guess that means the PC version will be 900p/30FPS as well.
Great job Ubisoft!
"Over the past 4 years, we have created Assassin's Creed Unity to attain the tremendous level of quality we have now achieved on Xbox One, PlayStation 4 and PC. It's a process of building up toward our goals, not scaling down, and we're proud to say that we have reached those goals on all SKUs."
So I guess that means the PC version will be 900p/30FPS as well.
Great job Ubisoft!
well the way they optimise for PC i would be happy with that!http://kotaku.com/ac-unity-will-have-same-specs-on-xbox-one-and-ps4-to-av-1643054770
"Over the past 4 years, we have created Assassin's Creed Unity to attain the tremendous level of quality we have now achieved on Xbox One, PlayStation 4 and PC. It's a process of building up toward our goals, not scaling down, and we're proud to say that we have reached those goals on all SKUs."
So I guess that means the PC version will be 900p/30FPS as well.
The important thing is the game won't be on Wii U because according to them "It wouldn't be possible, in our minds we’d be cheating fans by providing a lesser version of the same game."
Lol, what a complete overreaction. Honestly, I don't know how many gamers even get through the daylol google 900p
Do you think they have such exacting standards for themselves in their everyday jobs? I even saw someone say that they were skipping out on the Witcher 3 because he didn't think the new shots looked good enough, as if there are any games that look better right now. Mind boggling.
30,000 NPCs on screen, and people bitch that it's 900p. They don't even know what differences there would have been off they hadn't locked it down.
It could have looked marginally better and had stability issues, so the just locked it. We don't know, but let's get out the pitchforks and indignation! It's not like it's an ugly game.
They should be happy. Now they can tell themselves it would have run super-sampled 1080p at 60fps and no one can prove them wrong about the PS4 and, by extension, their superiority.
I'm starting to enjoy the meltdowns. I almost wish they'd release some 1080p/45-15fps version.
f***ing Ubisoft asshats, I knew there was going to be some sort of BS with this game as soon as I saw it being demoed on the XB1 at E3 this year.
Gotta love dat parity, Ubisoft are either very smart or very stupid to come out and tell everyone they do what everyone else does but are (usually) too afraid to say it.
I got the game cheap ($53AUD) but intentionally holding back one version for the sake of another is bad for gamers, especially guys like me who own multiple systems.
f***heads.
I wonder if Fart Cry 4 is next.
Gotta love dat parity, Ubisoft are either very smart or very stupid to come out and tell everyone they do what everyone else does but are (usually) too afraid to say it.
I got the game cheap ($53AUD) but intentionally holding back one version for the sake of another is bad for gamers, especially guys like me who own multiple systems.
f***heads.
I wonder if Fart Cry 4 is next.
Last edited:
Ubishaft already stated why they went with parity though so your explanation is not only incorrect but untrue too.
The game was gimped, anyone happy about it (whoever is dumb enough to be happy about it) is either a fanfart/console warrior or just glad there can be no "debates and stuff".
- Status