CONFIRMED: Assassin’s Creed Unity PC System Requirements are OFFICIAL.

[ComradeHX]

i doubt that's the minimum requirements. 

 

W_D had similar minimum requirements (updated now), but I was able to play it on my 7770 upon release. developers tend to up the reqs for some reason.

It's just Ubisoft.

[Altecice]

I think Ubisoft are 100% serious with these requirements.  I could only get about 60fps on Ultra @ 1080p with my 4770K and GTX 780 while playing Assassin’s Creed IV Black Flag and Watch Dogs. Unity is supposedly bigger than both.

 

Watchdogs was an unoptimized POS. I was running AC:BF @ 5760x1080p with two 290x's and getting smooth fps.

[Pickle]

Ubisoft, have you met my friend, Optimization? I'm so tired to Ubisoft's shit that even though I am one of the few people who have the hardware to run the game properly, I just don't want to play it anymore. I don't want to give money to Ubisoft.

[MrPetya19]

So how this thing will run on consoles or it's a really shitty console port.

[Valentyn]

So how this thing will run on consoles or it's a really shitty console port.

 

 

It's 900p 30 fps on console, and they're going for console Parity where both look and perform the same. It seems they're forcing that on PCs as well with terrible optimisation.

[ComradeHX]

Ubisoft, have you met my friend, Optimization? I'm so tired to Ubisoft's shit that even though I am one of the few people who have the hardware to run the game properly, I just don't want to play it anymore. I don't want to give money to Ubisoft.

The PC version IS optimized.

 

 

 

 

Optimized for console...

[Octagoncow]

So what extra games are running in the background while unity is running. These minimum requirements make absolutely no sense since they destroy the consoles. It's a good thing that minimum requirements are just numbers.

[Valentyn]

So what extra games are running in the background while unity is running. These minimum requirements make absolutely no sense since they destroy the consoles. It's a good thing that minimum requirements are just numbers.

 

Unless they build in a system check into the game that refuses to launch unless you meet the minimum spec in its entirety.

[Guest]

Firstly, this is one reason why I always got into RAM wars with people on proposed builds.  Since the beginning of 2014, people continued to recommend 8GB of RAM as "more than enough", as is if they knew what they were taking about.

 

Secondly, If you work any type of tech support then you know EXACTLY why the minimum specs keep on going up.... It saves you a lot of hassle.

If the advertised minimum requirements were 4GB of RAM and a gtx 480 (which could definitely run the game), you'd double the number of support calls/emails because people with older hardware having problems with their experience (for random ass reasons).

But certain games, lik W_D, actually needed 8GB; my old computer had 4, and it SUCKED.

Thought to be fair, that was mostly the game's awful PC optimization.

[Octagoncow]

Unless they build in a system check into the game that refuses to launch unless you meet the minimum spec in its entirety.

Hopefully they don't have anything ridiculous like that (or hopefully modders will remove it). I was actually just referencing Ubisoft's lovely quote, "Resolution is just a number."

[Valentyn]

Hopefully they don't have anything ridiculous like that (or hopefully modders will remove it). I was actually just referencing Ubisoft's lovely quote, "Resolution is just a number."

Ah I see.

 

Also yes, I really hope they don't implement such a check. Even so until Ubisoft sorts themselves out in regards to PC gamers, I'm not touching them anymore.

The last game I played from them was Might & Magic Legacy X, and they dropped support for the game only 3 months after it was released, and refused to fix the game breaking bugs. Since then I've avoided them; it's horrible to see how they're spiralling down while constantly trying to say they care about PC gamers.

[Gamingfreak]

Looks like Ubisoft is trying to beat their previous record of worst optimized game ever (Watch Dogs) with this new one. Either way I'm done with Ubisoft. If they don't give a shit about PC gamers then they can expect me to not give a shit about anything they have to offer in the foreseeable future. Who knows though, maybe they'll change their ways eventually...or they can just keep on digging.

[Midnight]

lol, 680 as minimum

[FellTheSky]

i love how they put

2500k or phenom 955, and 3770 and 8350, even though the 2500k is faster than the 8350...

[Jens Peter]

These numbers don't mean Jack, wait and see how it performs in benchmarks and then buy it or don't. 

[thewhitestig]

even though the 2500k is faster than the 8350...

Wut? Say that again. http://anandtech.com/bench/CPU/345

[Mindtrickz]

Wut? Say that again. http://anandtech.com/bench/CPU/345

 

That's a very selective benchmark. Why not show the entier thing? You'll notice that the 8350is faster is faster multi-threaded applications, while the 2500K is faster in single threaded applications (such as games). In fact overall the 2500K is faster according to your OWN link.

 

http://anandtech.com/bench/product/697?vs=288

[GarnetDevil]

We need to shoot all the pricks (or nuke the hell out of ubisoft) who are contaminating steam with horseshit system requirement but poorly optimised and graphic games like this

[Mindtrickz]

This is what Ubsoft REALLY thinks about the PC Community:

 

http://s1.webmshare.com/aRaK7.webm

[SpaceCore]

It's not like I'm buying the game.

even if it goes on sale.

 

I've not purchased anything from Ubisoft for over 3 years now.

I'm good.

[thewhitestig]

That's a very selective benchmark. Why not show the entier thing? You'll notice that the 8350is faster is faster multi-threaded applications, while the 2500K is faster in single threaded applications (such as games). In fact overall the 2500K is faster according to your OWN link.

 

http://anandtech.com/bench/product/697?vs=288

I use Cinebench because it's the most reliable benchmark that takes proper advantage of all cores. It's not selective at all. When comparing performance you should always chose benchmarks that are vendor neutral. Passmark for example favors AMD CPUs, Cinebench does not favor any. You can always pull a benchmark that shows a Celeron having higher performance over an i7. But that wouldn't be fair, would it? The 8350 is significantly faster than the 2500K, there is just no comparison. None at all. The 8350 falls between the 4690 and the 4790 in terms of performance, although it is much closer to the 4690 than it is to the 4790. When you don't know what the hell you're talking about just stop talking. You're misleading other people with your ignorance, who are not educated on the subject.

[LukeTim]

GTX 680 still costs as much as a PC4 (£350 - http://www.ebuyer.com/store/Components/cat/Graphics-Cards-Nvidia/subcat/NVIDIA-GTX-680-Series)

This is fucked up.

[thewhitestig]

GTX 680 still costs as much as a PC4 (£350 - http://www.ebuyer.com/store/Components/cat/Graphics-Cards-Nvidia/subcat/NVIDIA-GTX-680-Series)

This is fucked up.

 

The 680 is a very old product hence the high price.

[Guest]

Unless they build in a system check into the game that refuses to launch unless you meet the minimum spec in its entirety.

Which would make me want to punch everything in the face.

 

Why put in the extra effort to be a bunch of dicks? If we want to play it at 10FPS, let us.

[thewhitestig]

Which would make me want to punch everything in the face.

 

Why put in the extra effort to be a bunch of dicks? If we want to play it at 10FPS, let us.

lol yeah, I have a friend that played trough AC IV: BF on a dual core Athlon X2 5000+ and a GT 430 videocard at 14fps average in the city and 25fps in the sea.