Assassin's Creed dev thinks industry is dropping 60 fps standard

[Ashley]

I used to think "60fps is great, I doubt we can perceive much above that." Then I OCed my monitor. Going from 60 to 75 made things look very noticeably smoother but I think the benefits trailed off at about 85.

 

Point being: greater than 60fps titles would be well.. Great.

[DeViLzzz]

Wow! Microsoft must really be handing out some nice bribes trying to get Ubisoft and other companies who make games to talk like idiots.  Seriously how much money Microsoft are you handing them?  What sort of agreements do you have for the future?

[gangangan]

Why dont Ubi give their games out for free? Money is just a number. 

[bnShadow13]

I initially thought that they were raising the bar above 60 FPS. But lowering it is a going in the opposite direction and a disgrace to PC gaming.

[Badman5]

60FPS is my standards, if they drop it won't buy their games, simple. i rarely buy their games already lol. I'm not saying we need 120fps like some people think but i can see a difference between 30 and 60 fps. Anyways this would kill nvidia's industry, why would people want to buy more cards if fps didnt matter.

[Coollok100]

60fps SHOULD be dropped as a standard. 120fps all the way........

 

But, on a more serious note, there are very few instances where I'd want to prioritise graphical settings over a consistent high framerate. For console players, who've probably gotten used to sub 30fps performance on many previous generation titles, a locked 30 might not seem that bad, but having used the PS4 and Xbox One in a variety of games, the first thing I notice is the framerate. Sure, the games do look quite impressive, but I feel like there should be some more options for console players. For example, being able to turn some particle/lighting effects down in order to get a consistent 1080p60. That way, developers can show off how beautiful and "next-gen" their games are to the majority of people, but those who really don't care how good it looks when it feels bad to play can just press a button and configure it as such. But then again, maybe I've just been spoiled by deep configuration menus found in many PC games.

 

Oh, and don't get me started on the whole "60fps doesn't feel like the real thing" nonsense. The world runs at a practically infinite framerate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time for all you you theoretical physicists) and so increasing the frame-rate is only going to make it feel MORE like real life. Put it this way, if we extrapolate the whole "lower frame-rate is more betterer" thing, we're gonna end up playing slideshows in not too long. 24fps is an arbitrary standard and is in no way the fastest that the human eye can see, or the "natural point" for the eye. In fact, I preferred seeing The Hobit in HFR - normally when I go to see a film I can occasionally notice slight stutteryness in the video, especially on fast moving objects, and to not have to deal with that was great. I do understand that 24fps can help with creating a 'filmic look', but when playing games you often lack the advantages of motion blur, and crucially input latency is dramatically increased by reducing frame rate like that. I'd really be surprised if anyone (with decent technical knowledge) at Ubisoft ACTUALLY believes this...

[Sigmatech]

I think no one should be STATING 60FPS in any sort of Gaming Adverts if they cannot sustain that level of performance above the listed recommended specfications.


Yes i mean including PhysX, Yeah i include Ultra settings etc etc.

If it can't be done, DON'T ADVERTISE it as a glorious thing.

Sick of it.

30FPS locked if it works, 60FPS locked/sustained if it works.

Wolfenstein got it right.

[Cl2G]

Anything less than 60 fps is peasantry.

They're trying to sell you less for more.

[PC-NOOB]

 

 

"At Ubisoft for a long time we wanted to push 60 fps. I don't think it was a good idea because you don't gain that much from 60 fps and it doesn't look like the real thing. It's a bit like The Hobbit movie, it looked really weird.

This guy must be high or has never played on a PC before.

[Cl2G]

They are literally lying their asses off because the console based hardware can't hang and they are trying to justify shit fps and resolutions.

[Puck_Man]

I get wanting the ''cinematic feel'' for some games. I mean with BF3, I had to sacrifice some fps for visual quality, and I remember thinkng to myself ''this is pretty cool it looks like a movie'' and with all the crazy stuff and explosions going on in BF3 it kinda made sense. I guess it works for Assassin's Creed as well. But industry standard? No. Imagine a racing game at 30fps.

[TraXor]

The fact that you are not achieveing 60fps, is not a indication of the need for a new standard.. It is a indication of you not doing your job well enough. blame no-one except yourself, and start from scratch, if that is what it takes. cause if 60fps is "too much"... then you got yourself a problem.. either you fix it, and the problem goes away.. or you don't, and Ubisoft goes away.. tick tock

[Cowkiemonster]

I swear to god, if ubisoft dosen't stop actively fucking over pc gamers soon , i am going to stop buying their games and watch fucking walktroughs on youtube instead. I wish they coul start being honest about why they are handicapping their games like this, i wish they would just say that the hardware in the ps4 and xbone is outdated and bad to work with ! 
Seriously ubi, stop spewing out bullshit exuse for ruining games !

[Trollon_4hire]

This is another good example of content lazy devs making a shit game for shit consoles. I'm not an elitist but 60 should be a standard always you need it for butter smooth controls while tho its true its more significant in a shooter game or something that requires precision still not a good excuse. If we let this happen the bad ports will get worse. 

[BiFii]

I honestly think that most of the blame should be targeted towards the whole console vs PC war.

 

Since most games are released on all 3 platforms (PS4, XBONE, PC) the different versions will obviously get compared to each other.

But in my opinion you are comparing apples with pears (is this even an english saying).

You shouldn't even compare a custom build 400$ PC with a console, because an usual console buyer won't even think about buying a 400$ "Gaming"-PC.

Also noone should buy a cheap desktop PC with which you can only play on mediocre settings opposed to a smooth running console (my opinion).

 

Though the comparison is made and game devs need to react to both audiences, which leads to bad excuses why the console version is straight up not on the current PC-level (600+$ PC-Level).

And only the PC users suffer from that comparison, because devs like Ubisoft publish PC versions which are graphicaly on console-level (for "PR"-reasons).

Most console users don't really care about that problem, because they just lay back and play. They probably also never experienced "real" PC gaming in it's full glory.

 

What I want to say is, that there should be a clear cut between console graphics and PC graphics. Both platforms still have their spot in the gaming world.

But game devs should also make a cut. Do the best for each platform!! And if the best they can deliver is 30fps on consoles. So it is. But please don't make the PC version look crappy because of that.

Noone really knows what happens in game development and also console development. Noone really knows where the bottlenecks lay.

[Malrik]

The SoC's they have in the PS4 and XBone are so wildly different to what we've had in the past, we're not going to be getting engines or tools capable of 60fps @ 1080p for a little while. Remember how long it took the, very difficult to develop for, PS3 to shine? All due to tools they had to create the content and years of engine development they had to abuse the system. Sure it's no Cell Broadband engine and they're not going to be struggling as hard, but 8 cores at 1.6Ghz requires a lot of optimization and development to work hard, and sadly, that's very expensive in the time department.

 

Publishers aren't going to want to hear "we're going to spend a year+ developing our tools and profiling our engine until it runs amazingly at 60fps and 1080p". They don't care, no exec is going to want that money sink on their head. They're just doing what the publishers want, since they're the ones with the money for the development studios. And if you're in house, it's probably going to be worse. And you know what? It works. Millions of people buy their games regardless of framerate or resolution. And by the time their tools and engines are up to scratch, the argument will be over. This is no different from previous console releases (compare a release 360 game with an end-of-life 360 game, completely different graphical fidelity).

 

A lot of studios have the pull and leeway to achieve these goals, like CD Projekt RED, Valve, and Roberts Space Industries. Unfortunately, not a lot do, and so we suffer with the mediocre releases whilst they continue to spend time in the background producing tools and engines to enhance what we receive.

The benefit of forcing developers to design and developer for 8 cores to that degree, is that we, the desktop gamers, will get a lot of that leaking into our games (more so than we do now).

[Commander_Z]

And so Ubisoft keeps on digging deeper. 

"resolution is just a number"

"FPS is just a number"

To which I say; revenue is also "just a number".

^This guy knows what's going on

[Prequel]

Both the "news" and your reaction is nothing new. "Dropping"? How did you decide that? Did anything change from the last gen? No. This was always the case. Choosing better graphics over fps MAY become more of an habit but there will always be exceptions and this exception will automatically be the new trend the second new hardware came out. Sure there will also be better graphics then but you can be sure after 5+ years where PC's are used to 120/144Hz console standart WILL be 60 fps. Below that is even low for console standarts. I mean what is he thinking? This isn't just some technology that can become a history, this is just more fluid image. How can such a thing die? Some people are really astonishing with their level of stupidity. I shouldn't even be writing this...

 

Oh well what can you expect from an Assassin's Creed dev? For his information, in case he reads this: I dropped your filthy game at IV and I used to be a hardcore AC fan, so have fun with the rest of your life...

[SparkySamZa]

Absolute joke. Ubisoft good lucky with the pc market now..... 

[Ahmed Connor007]

 

Sorry But I couldn't Hold Myself

[Keristero]

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ljmrvjukwtxpenk/2014-09-30%20093113.png?dl=0

screenshot of 'Trove' at 320x200 with 0.25 super sampling on my Old dell laptop running at 30fps

"If the game looks gorgeous, who cares about the number?"

[Robi_g]

Dare I say that I find framerate fluctuations worse to look at than a constant 30fps. So long as they can keep it stuck at 30fps it won't look 'too' bad. But of course, 60fps all the way on the PC side of things.

[bob345]

ubisoft pls. Why do you do this to your self

[Robi_g]

Meanwhile everyone at EA breathes a sigh of relief.

[ChaosBlades]

Since when was it a standard? I thought console people were fighting so that it could become standard. I play on PC so I don't care about this one bit. If a PC game has a 30fps lock I don't buy it, pirate it, or anything. I just imagine the game was never released on PC.

On console I already know going into it I am going to get a sub-par experience because it is console (nature of the beast) so even then I don't care.

This argument revolves around the fact console people don't want a sub-par experience to PC gaming and that is simply never going to happen.