Ubisoft AC:U patch attempted to "fix" performance issue by lowering graphical settings

[RH00D]

Ubisoft has resorted to paying people to say nice things about them on forums it seems.

 

I love how people here think saying something nice about a company that hasn't received the holy blessing of LTT automatically means you're paid off.

[KungPaoChino]

dat tag doe.... digging

[eelnico09]

Am i the only one who looked at the photo and thought it looked better

Nope, i think the same, i think it looks more real on the right pictures, lol.

 

 

I love how people here think saying something nice about a company that hasn't received the holy blessing of LTT automatically means you're paid off.

I wish i got paid for not agreeing with everyone, lol.

[Lewellyn]

Nope, i think the same, i think it looks more real on the right pictures, lol.

 

Then you have either been over saturated with poor lighting in games or there is something wrong with your eyes. Colors are grayed and cast shadows are almost non-existent. These result in a duller, less dynamic experience. Any good photographer would easily tell you that the screenshots on the left are more photo realistic.

[Yoinkerman]

Well apparently to be a cool kid you need to hate on ubisoft

Not really, but the game runs almost perfect with a 780 and the same cpu i have, i saw it on a friends house, what i mean is that the game has to fix shit with mid-range gpu, high-end need a tweak to reach constant 60fps.

I agree the game at launch was shit, then it got better, almost completely playable.

And no, my system shouldn't, my gpu is almost 3 years old(went out in 2012), it makes sense if it's not enough.

A 780 is like 5x the performance of a console gpu. Five times. Yet the game doesn't run nearly 5x better or even 2x better. What can it be other than poor coding? Consoles are not very powerful. At all.

Also, a 7950 = 280, which is still a high end gpu. And new cpus are basically only single digit improvements over yours anyway.

[eelnico09]

A 780 is like 5x the performance of a console gpu. Five times. Yet the game doesn't run nearly 5x better or even 2x better. What can it be other than poor coding? Consoles are not very powerful. At all.

Also, a 7950 = 280, which is still a high end gpu. And new cpus are basically only single digit improvements over yours anyway.

I don't think a 280 is a high end gpu, i think a high end gpu is a 290, a 780, a 970.

 

I'm not saying the game was poorly coded, but they fixed it a little big, and i guess it'll be completely fixed when this 3rd patch comes out, but we don't know, so we should wait for it to come out to complain, i see pc gamers complaining just in case the 3rd patch will be shit on PC, and i don't see that happening.

 

 

Then you have either been over saturated with poor lighting in games or there is something wrong with your eyes. Colors are grayed and cast shadows are almost non-existent. These result in a duller, less dynamic experience. Any good photographer would easily tell you that the screenshots on the left are more photo realistic.

Well i am not a photographer, nor i care about one's opinion. All i know that if i am standing on a closed room, with no windows, and the only light is 2 candles, i won't look like the picture on the left.

[ThreePinkApples]

As long as they admit they have done this and then admit they did so because the consoles are too weak or because they have been to bad at optimizing I am fine with this.

 

else

 

Keep up the diggin' guys!

[Lewellyn]

Definitely not a photographer that's for damn sure. It's the 'cinematic' experience to have entirely poor shadows and lighting effects across the board it seems.

[Octagoncow]

I'm a little skeptical of this; I'll wait to see how many people confirm it, but it just seems a little bit odd. If it's true then Ubisoft is going to reach china pretty soon.

[OlekKing]

Tried the patch and the game is still a stuttering pile of shit, unplayable, it stutters even when you look at the ground or sky.

 

There's no downgrade, that was just a lighting glitch.

[Sharkyx1]

Having graphics downgraded(graphics which YOU paid for) is not bad?

It's like you buying a painting but, later, the author took away a few strokes because it's "too complex" for your brain to understand.

But its not graphics we pay for, otherwise games with better graphics would cost more, besides if you are going to take that stance, every piece of cut content is something you paid for. 

[papeles]

I'm sure you can max out crysis 3 with a 280x: http://www.hardwareluxx.de/images/stories/galleries/reviews/2013/radeon7990/bench/crysis3-4.jpg

Unless maxing out for you means low filters, nearly no antrostopic filtering, and high settings. OR you can max out the game and run it at 35fps.

 

I've accepted my 7950 is not enough, i don't get why you and many others don't (:

because all af modes are msaa (wich is the most demanding one). I played it 50-60fps on most situations with my 280x+ 4670k at 4.4. I tone down prolly only shadows. Still, even if it was 30fps's maxed out, it would still be better  than unity, wich still proves my point.

[Nick Paviour]

Such a shame with the way Ubisoft are conducting themselves in this time of crisis! 

[osbios]

Breaking news. Unity Patch now enables 60 FPS on console and PC!

[Mindtrickz]

Please tell me this is sarcasm.

 

No, he is right. People were actually complaining that their dual core CPU's could not run the game, even though it did not meet the minimum requirement. People are morons.

[Plasma]

People want better graphics, when their HW can't handle it, they complain, when the graphics are lowered, they complain. GET YOUR FUCKING SHIT TOGETHER PEOPLE.

they buy a console to complain, no reason to buy them otherwise 

[Guest]

Looks like Ubisoft pulled out the fucking Bull Dozer. 

[Majestic]

No, he is right. People were actually complaining that their dual core CPU's could not run the game, even though it did not meet the minimum requirement. People are morons.

 

That's not exactly what he said. He said it in general terms. Don't deny AC:U runs like shit on even the most powerful systems. One only needs to look at TB's video to know enough.

If a 5930K (OC) and 980 SLI's can't run a console port, something is wrong.

 

We should demand better quality, otherwise they will never learn. I think Ubisoft has finally seen they've gone too far, but are doing a terrible job of correcting it.

[Sauron]

with just less lightning effects

 

Do you realize cutting lighting effects because they can't bother fixing their shitty engine is not the way to go about it?

 

Regarding your previous post, high/min filters/40 fps is not acceptable at 1080p with your gpu and you should know that. The graphical downgrade is also huge between ultra and high, as TB even pointed out iin his video where he shows that his sli 980s can't run at 60fps anything more than high settings.

[Techhog]

I love how people here think saying something nice about a company that hasn't received the holy blessing of LTT automatically means you're paid off.

I've hated Ubisoft for years. It has nothing to do with LTT. As for why I said that, it read like a shill post, and I honestly can't believe a PC gamer would say things like that if they knew even the slightest thing about the situation. There's no reason to be an apologist for this company. They fuck over any platform which can't make them enough money, they constantly insult gamers, they use all of the worst business tactics in the industry... and they get away with it. I simply don't see how anyone could defend this company for this BS.

[Sauron]

For the contrary, i know this is ps4, and ubi ont only lowered the graphics, but we can't really tell if the game actually runs better or not with the same graphics, so instead of every1 hating on ubi, just wait for the PC patch, what you say "it will mean PC version isn't getting better performance" it's not confirmed, and just makes no sense, just wait for the pc version, don't assume things.

 

Just let the console players hate untill the patch is out on pc.

 

Excuse me, how would you set it to have the "same graphics" when you're on a ps4? There's no settings menu on those, you know?

[Sauron]

Am i the only one who looked at the photo and thought it looked better

 

That's because of the suit, the red one looks like crap lol ^^ but the lighting and texture quality is better in the first screenshot.

[ACatWithThumbs]

That's not exactly what he said. He said it in general terms. Don't deny AC:U runs like shit on even the most powerful systems. One only needs to look at TB's video to know enough.

If a 5930K (OC) and 980 SLI's can't run a console port, something is wrong.

 

We should demand better quality, otherwise they will never learn. I think Ubisoft has finally seen they've gone too far, but are doing a terrible job of correcting it.

I'm playing the game on Ultra+FXAA on my GTX670 with 30-50fps and that fits very well with the visuals and the performance in other games.

It has some problems but the performance is not as bad as people make it out to be.

In comparison I get the same frame rate in The Witcher 2 but somehow that game gets praised for its PC version.

[Majestic]

I'm playing the game on Ultra+FXAA on my GTX670 with 30-50fps and that fits very well with the visuals and the performance in other games.

It has some problems but the performance is not as bad as people make it out to be.

In comparison I get the same frame rate in The Witcher 2 but somehow that game gets praised for its PC version.

 

The game doesn't look impressive enough to demand these performance requirements. Look at this;

http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Action-Assassins_Creed_Unity-test-ac_1920_msaa.jpg

 

780 SLI to break 60? 

 

And the frametimes are all over the place;

http://www.hardwarepal.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Assassins-Creed-Unity-Frame-times-2560x1440.jpg

 

Take also into consideration that the witcher 2 was a 10mil. budget game. I don't even want to know what AC:U cost to make. And it still ends up being worse.

[ComradeHX]

But its not graphics we pay for, otherwise games with better graphics would cost more, besides if you are going to take that stance, every piece of cut content is something you paid for.

That's not how it works.

You did pay for graphics...