Assassin's Creed Syndicate recommended system requirements will target 1080p 30 FPS on PC

[TheConverter]

i grew up with my PC having a GT 7700, i know what it feels like to play at 30 FPS and played it until 3-4 years ago, i can never go back to 30 after playing at 60, it's just too much workaround to get my mind adjusted to 30 when all your movements are based on 60. and are we really supporting game devs to start optimizing games for 30 here in 2015? 

 

Bullshit, yes you can. I prefer playing Witcher 3 at around 30FPS at 5K then 75FPS at 1440P.

 

What I can't understand is how people play FPS games at 60hz, while complaing about a third person view game at 30FPS.

[Dabombinable]

the gtx 980 doesnt even make up 1% of the market. You might be an enthusiast but that doesnt make up the bulk of the steam community. a 760 gets under 60 fps on Assassin's Creed 3, according to Nvidia's site. How the hell do you think it's going to perform, not on AC4, Unity but on Syndicate, aka AC6?

 

http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gtx-760/performance

 

So? You're like agreeing with my point while trying to make a counter-point. The vast majority of people dont use a triple sli 980 TI. Fuck the 980 TI isnt even statistically relevant enough to make the list, think about this. Think about this, that means it's not even 0.31% of directx11 GPUs used on steam.

My point about the OEM computers and the wording 'relatively expensive dGPU' is the fact that a lot of people buy OEM builds because of the price, and being OEM they don't buy the ones with dGPU as they cost significantly more. Understand this, Intel iGPU might have the largest market share, with dGPU such as the GTX 760 having less. However your forgetting the plethora of other dGPU/iGPU that aren't on that image you showed, dGPU/iGPU going right back to the Nvidia Geforce FX 5*** series and even before it. Going off the first column you've only shown 20.69% of the GPU market shares. 20.69% out of all other dGPU owned people who use steam.

 

(Oh and BTW, my Geforce FX 5500, Geforce 6200, Intel 910GMA, GTX 650ti, GTX 970, Intel HD 4400, Quadro NVS 110M, Riva TNT2, Ati Mobility Radeon 9000igp, Ati Mobility Radeon HD 5650, Ati Mobility Radeon HD 4250 and Intel 3100 GMA are all part of the statistics-I've taken the Steam survey with all of those dGPU in use).

[Rohith_Kumar_Sp]

Bullshit, yes you can. I prefer playing Witcher 3 at around 30FPS at 5K then 75FPS at 1440P.

 

What I can't understand is how people play FPS games at 60hz, while complaing about a third person view game at 30FPS.

oh so just because you can play does mean everyone can ? i call that BS also. it works both ways buddy. 

 

 

But seriously, when will people stop with the 60FPS circlejerk? You don't need 60FPS for a third person game.

FIFY

But seriously, when will people stop with the 30FPS circlejerk? You need 60FPS for a third person game.

[sgloux3470]

i grew up with my PC having a GT 7700, i know what it feels like to play at 30 FPS and played it until 3-4 years ago, i can never go back to 30 after playing at 60, it's just too much workaround to get my mind adjusted to 30 when all your movements are based on 60. and are we really supporting game devs to start optimizing games for 30 here in 2015? 

 

Game devs have been doing 30 FPS for a long, long time.

 

It's just games that ran at 720p/ 30 FPS on ps3/360 could be bruteforced to 1080p/60 FPS on PC fairly easily at console quality settings.  Yet now people expect games that run at 1080p/30 FPS on consoles (if that) to run twice as well on mid range PC hardware.  (With higher graphical settings no less.)  People simultaneously expect graphical excellence as well as performance excellence. Unless your hardware is twice as powerful as consoles (Which would mean something like a 390 or 970 at a minimum.) you're not going to double the framerate.  And that's at console quality settings, if you bump everything else up then you're going to need more than double to do 1080p/60 FPS.  You're looking at a GTX 980 or 390x as a bare minimum to play a game at 1080/60 FPS that barely runs at 1080p/30 on consoles. (i.e See The Witcher 3)

 

That said, lots of consoles games run locked at 30 FPS but could manage quite a bit more than that.  Some like Infamous Second Son even let you unlock the framerate. But games like The Witcher 3 or Unity that regularly drop to 25 FPS on consoles at times?  You're going to need atleast 1.25x more horsepower than consoles to do 1080p/60 FPS at all times.

 

Now you could argue that console devs shouldn't even be targeting 30 FPS, they should scale back their graphical fidelity or focus more on optimizing their assets to maintain 60 FPS.  I'd agree there.  But until the majority of gamers stop buying games for being very pretty, this is what we're going to keep getting.  Technical wizardry like the Fox Engine used by Metal Gear are a rare treat.

[Dabombinable]

Bullshit, yes you can. I prefer playing Witcher 3 at around 30FPS at 5K then 75FPS at 1440P.

 

What I can't understand is how people play FPS games at 60hz, while complaing about a third person view game at 30FPS.

Here is a challenge for you, play Halo Combat evolved on an Xbox at 30FPs, then play it on PC at 60FPs and notice the difference. I myself was able to do that comparison on my 1024x768 85Hz IPS monitor/TV and Halo seemed almost broken on the Xbox compared to my PC.

[Rohith_Kumar_Sp]

Game devs have been doing 30 FPS for a long, long time.

 

It's just games that ran at 720p/ 30 FPS on ps3/360 could be bruteforced to 1080p/60 FPS on PC fairly easily at console quality settings.  Yet now people expect games that run at 1080p/30 FPS on consoles (if that) to run twice as well on mid range PC hardware.  (With higher graphical settings no less.)  People simultaneously expect graphical excellence as well as performance excellence. Unless your hardware is twice as powerful as consoles (Which would mean something like a 390 or 970 at a minimum.) you're not going to double the framerate.  And that's at console quality settings, if you bump everything else up then you're going to need more than double to do 1080p/60 FPS.  You're looking at a GTX 980 or 390x as a bare minimum to play a game at 1080/60 FPS that barely runs at 1080p/30 on consoles. (i.e See The Witcher 3)

 

That said, lots of consoles games run locked at 30 FPS but could manage quite a bit more than that.  Some like Infamous Second Son even let you unlock the framerate. But games like The Witcher 3 or Unity that regularly drop to 25 FPS on consoles at times?  You're going to need atleast 1.25x more horsepower than consoles to do 1080p/60 FPS at all times.

 

Now you could argue that console devs shouldn't even be targeting 30 FPS, they should scale back their graphical fidelity or focus more on optimizing their assets to maintain 60 FPS.  I'd agree there.  But until the majority of gamers stop buying games for being very pretty, this is what we're going to keep getting.  Technical wizardry like the Fox Engine used by Metal Gear are a rare treat.

i never knew consoles existed untill 2007, i didnt have the any outside knowledge untill i got the internet. so i really don't mind console devs making the games for 30 with hard ware limitation they had, i played games at 30-40 when i was on PC. but when i was well adjusted to 60, there's no going back. and i again ask you the question are people really gonna support ubisoft in 2015 for optimizing it for 30 ? i mean really ? 

[Rohith_Kumar_Sp]

-snip-

get back to me when you understand how coherent argument works. 

[Dabombinable]

But you guys are using shitty 60hz screens.

Make sure you read the post below:

get back to me when you understand how coherent argument works. 

[TheConverter]

Here is a challenge for you, play Halo Combat evolved on an Xbox at 30FPs, then play it on PC at 60FPs and notice the difference. I myself was able to do that comparison on my 1024x768 85Hz IPS monitor/TV and Halo seemed almost broken on the Xbox compared to my PC.

Here is a challenge for you, play Battlefield 4 on an Xbox at 900P 60FPs, then play it on PC at 1440P 144FPS and notice the difference.

[TheConverter]

Game devs have been doing 30 FPS for a long, long time.

 

It's just games that ran at 720p/ 30 FPS on ps3/360 could be bruteforced to 1080p/60 FPS on PC fairly easily at console quality settings.  Yet now people expect games that run at 1080p/30 FPS on consoles (if that) to run twice as well on mid range PC hardware.  (With higher graphical settings no less.)  People simultaneously expect graphical excellence as well as performance excellence. Unless your hardware is twice as powerful as consoles (Which would mean something like a 390 or 970 at a minimum.) you're not going to double the framerate.  And that's at console quality settings, if you bump everything else up then you're going to need more than double to do 1080p/60 FPS.  You're looking at a GTX 980 or 390x as a bare minimum to play a game at 1080/60 FPS that barely runs at 1080p/30 on consoles. (i.e See The Witcher 3)

 

That said, lots of consoles games run locked at 30 FPS but could manage quite a bit more than that.  Some like Infamous Second Son even let you unlock the framerate. But games like The Witcher 3 or Unity that regularly drop to 25 FPS on consoles at times?  You're going to need atleast 1.25x more horsepower than consoles to do 1080p/60 FPS at all times.

 

Now you could argue that console devs shouldn't even be targeting 30 FPS, they should scale back their graphical fidelity or focus more on optimizing their assets to maintain 60 FPS.  I'd agree there.  But until the majority of gamers stop buying games for being very pretty, this is what we're going to keep getting.  Technical wizardry like the Fox Engine used by Metal Gear are a rare treat.

 

Yes exactly they expect to play everything at circlejerky ULTRA with 8X AA 1080P 60FPS on their 660's or what not.

 

And yes indeed, of of the worst things about consoles is that the GPU almost never runs at 100%. Propably due to cooling and they need to survive 7 years until the next generation.

[Dabombinable]

-snip-

1. Never getting an Xbone or 360 while my Original Xbox is still working

2. Never getting an Xbone or 360 while I can have just as much fun on my Original Xbox

3. I've compared 30FPS to 60FPS and then 85FPS in a wide variety of games-there is a large difference between each of them as to how smooth gameplay feels.

[TheConverter]

1. Never getting an Xbone or 360 while my Original Xbox is still working

2. Never getting an Xbone or 360 while I can have just as much fun on my Original Xbox

3. I've compared 30FPS to 60FPS and then 85FPS in a wide variety of games-there is a large difference between each of them as to how smooth gameplay feels.

You are telling this to a guy with an 1440P 144hz IPS G-SYNC monitor? Okay.

 

FPS Games: 60hz is unplayable, even on the world fastest 60hz monitor, the Acer Predator XB280HK.

 

Third person view games: You don't NEED 60FPS. While probably somewhere between 30 and 60 is the sweet spot, 30 is playable especially because my monitor is G-SYNC.

[TheConverter]

Get back to me when you are playing the new AC on a $1000+ GPU and monitor and playing on the same framerate as a $300 amd apu console....oh wait..

 

I'm pretty sure that this game will run at 1440P ~60FPS and 4K 45-50FPS.

 

People circlejerked so bad about Unity at release that I went and pirated the game, and guess what? I got ~70FPS in the first mission with a R9 290. Wondering what I get now with an 980Ti.. but waiting it till its 15€ on sale on STEAM (not uplay)

[Dabombinable]

You are telling this to a guy with an 1440P 144hz IPS G-SYNC monitor? Okay.

 

FPS Games: 60hz is unplayable, even on the world fastest 60hz monitor, the Acer Predator XB280HK.

 

Third person view games: You don't NEED 60FPS. While probably somewhere between 30 and 60 is the sweet spot, 30 is playable especially because my monitor is G-SYNC.

60Hz is playable when your higher refresh rate monitor is of a significantly lower resolution and 4:9.

[TrigrH]

I'm pretty sure that this game will run at 1440P +80FPS and 4K 50-60FPS.

 

People circlejerked so bad about Unity at release that I went and pirated the game, and guess what? I got ~70FPS in the first mission with a R9 290.

 

Do you know why this article was even posted? Correct nothing is confirming a 30FPS limit however:

- This is a trend of ubisoft as we all know

- They have outlined 30FPS in the sys req.

[TrigrH]

Third person view games: You don't NEED 60FPS. While probably somewhere between 30 and 60 is the sweet spot, 30 is playable especially because my monitor is G-SYNC.

 

30hz is on the edge of the limit I've seen these ports run at 29, g-sync probably wont even work.

[TheConverter]

 

Do you know why this article was even posted? Correct nothing is confirming a 30FPS limit however:

- This is a trend of ubisoft as we all know

- They have outlined 30FPS in the sys req.

 

Well can you expect more then 30FPS from a 660/760 or what ever the minimum spcs are

 

 

30hz is on the edge of the limit I've seen these ports run at 29, g-sync probably wont even work.

 

24FPS feels like 30FPS on a G-SYNC monitor

30FPS feels like 40FPS on a G-SYNC monitor

45FPS feels like 60FPS on a G-SYNC monitor

 

That's atleast how I feel it, lol.

[Godlygamer23]

Re-opened.

[MEC-777]

Calm down people. This is not a Unity re-skin, I think we can be sure of that. So comparing recommended specs for Unity to this game is pointless at this stage and proves nothing. 

 

If they are targeting 1080p 30fps and if the game is better optimized this time (which they have said they are trying to do this time), then we should see recommended specs that are more reasonable (quad-core AMD, dual-core HT Intel CPUs (i3's) and mid-range GPUs (GTX 960/R9 380) for example). They did not say the game would be locked or forced to run at 30fps. They only said the recommended specs would be aimed at this resolution/frame rate, nothing more. It's nothing to be concerned about at this point. 

 

Hey people, don't fucking buy it this time.

 

More specifically; don't pre-order it and don't buy on day-one!

 

Wait for performance reviews (like TB's port report etc.).

[TheConverter]

More specifically; don't pre-order it and don't buy on day-one!

 

Wait for performance reviews (like TB's port report etc.).

 

Or wait like 2 months and buy it for 15$... 

[cesrai]

there's a reason i said try a 3rd person game, not FPS.

Would you consider Tomb Raider a 3rd person game ? the 2013 one.

[cesrai]

60FPS is unplayable for FPS game like Ghost Recon. Even when I used to have a 60hz monitor I just feeled that it was sooo laggy compared to other players in Battlefield. If you watch closely you can actually see who is playing on a high refresh rate monitor or not. My K/D doubled when I got this 144hz monitor.

 

And I don't boycott, I pre-ordered The Crew, lol. One of the best race games ever made.

You can set the pre-rendered frames to 1 or 0 if you want to reduce input lag. And I disagree 60 FPS is great for FPS games.

[Rohith_Kumar_Sp]

Would you consider Tomb Raider a 3rd person game ? the 2013 one.

what else do you think it is ?  

[cesrai]

what else do you think it is ?

I don't know a platformer ? I get confused about game genres and don't want to make a mistake so I asked.

[Rohith_Kumar_Sp]

I don't know a platformer ? I get confused about game genres and don't want to make a mistake so I asked.

so is Far cry, do you think its a FPS  game or platformer ? 

FPS stands for First Person Shooting

3rd Person being the camera is free to look around a character , 

platformer is a genre, dont confuse it with FPS and 3rd person.  

sure Prince of persia games are a platformer puzzel action adventure, doesn't make it any less true its a 3rd Person game. not fps.