Corsair H115i RGB Pro XT liquid cooler review
XFX Radeon RX 5600 XT THICC 3 review
Fractal Design Define 7 XL review
Guru3D Rig of the Month - January 2020
Palit GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER GamingPro review
Team Group T-Force DarkZα 3600 MHz DDR4 review
Corsair Scimitar Elite RGB gaming mouse review
Cougar 700K Evo keyboard review
Aorus Liquid Cooler 360 review
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990X review
An overview of Ubisofts downgraded games (video)
Hah, intersting compilation video. This comparison shows differences inbetween E3 demos and the retail version of recent Ubisoft games.
I encourage you to not only focus on textures or lighting, but also on animation, level design, assets, physics, and sound. Recorded in 1080p at max settings on PC with a controller. Check it out:
Reddoguk
Senior Member
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2010-05-26
Senior Member
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2010-05-26
#5285708 Posted on: 06/07/2016 06:49 PM
It's obvious to me that they code/make these games on really high end machines, target the best possible graphics they can do @30 fps and then work backwards until that game works on low end PCs.
That's diversity in the PC market for you. If we all had the same machine then i don't think this would happen so often.
It's almost criminal if you ask me, people are not getting what they see on the box/ads. It's very close to false advertising and will in the long run push people into not trusting the Devs/Company.
And they wonder why people pirate their stuff.
If we can't trust our very own eyes and have to have faith in a company like Ubi then i'm afraid that's what makes it easy for them to fool people into buying this nerfed content.
Only early adopters are the ones conned by this, giving money for a chance at early access and shiny trinkets and seeing an amazing level of detail in alphas/betas, contracted by an NDA to never speak of the game and then a realization that the final release is totally different to the game that people will be getting.
Ubi is guilty of this on a huge scale but they all do it.
What do you want, a polished turd that doesn't work very well or a turd that's unpolished but works. This is Ubi's stance on this. ^^
It's obvious to me that they code/make these games on really high end machines, target the best possible graphics they can do @30 fps and then work backwards until that game works on low end PCs.
That's diversity in the PC market for you. If we all had the same machine then i don't think this would happen so often.
It's almost criminal if you ask me, people are not getting what they see on the box/ads. It's very close to false advertising and will in the long run push people into not trusting the Devs/Company.
And they wonder why people pirate their stuff.
If we can't trust our very own eyes and have to have faith in a company like Ubi then i'm afraid that's what makes it easy for them to fool people into buying this nerfed content.
Only early adopters are the ones conned by this, giving money for a chance at early access and shiny trinkets and seeing an amazing level of detail in alphas/betas, contracted by an NDA to never speak of the game and then a realization that the final release is totally different to the game that people will be getting.
Ubi is guilty of this on a huge scale but they all do it.
What do you want, a polished turd that doesn't work very well or a turd that's unpolished but works. This is Ubi's stance on this. ^^
tsunami231
Senior Member
Posts: 9955
Joined: 2003-05-24
Senior Member
Posts: 9955
Joined: 2003-05-24
#5285716 Posted on: 06/07/2016 07:05 PM
last Ubisoft game I bought as AC2, ubisoft dont make any games I like, but companies tend to show things at e3 look worlds better then what we actual get.
Killzone 3 come to mind. it just ubisoft had the most broken game at launch AC unity, which was upstaged by the recent batman game... which is apparently to broke to be fix?
last Ubisoft game I bought as AC2, ubisoft dont make any games I like, but companies tend to show things at e3 look worlds better then what we actual get.
Killzone 3 come to mind. it just ubisoft had the most broken game at launch AC unity, which was upstaged by the recent batman game... which is apparently to broke to be fix?
definfinite
Junior Member
Posts: 10
Joined: 2014-12-01
Junior Member
Posts: 10
Joined: 2014-12-01
#5285747 Posted on: 06/07/2016 07:47 PM
It's obvious to me that they code/make these games on really high end machines, target the best possible graphics they can do @30 fps and then work backwards until that game works on low end PCs.
Agree. Optimization is crucial. It's almost kinda wizardry that they can cram that much content on the screen whatever downgraded the end product looks like.
I'll bet that with the optional fidelity of those demos on full scale, the game would just take way too much space and would not work even on the highest, most ridiculous rigs.
It's obvious to me that they code/make these games on really high end machines, target the best possible graphics they can do @30 fps and then work backwards until that game works on low end PCs.
Agree. Optimization is crucial. It's almost kinda wizardry that they can cram that much content on the screen whatever downgraded the end product looks like.
I'll bet that with the optional fidelity of those demos on full scale, the game would just take way too much space and would not work even on the highest, most ridiculous rigs.
Domingo
Member
Posts: 95
Joined: 2009-11-19
Member
Posts: 95
Joined: 2009-11-19
#5285755 Posted on: 06/07/2016 08:23 PM
Even if I don't like it, I've just grown to accept it. MS and Sony love this kind of thing for a game that is "coming soon." Everyone wins. You'd better believe they're telling UBI to back off of a vastly superior PC version when it comes down to brass tacks, though.
I tend to believe that Watch_Dogs very well could have and probably did look/run like that demo at least for a little while. That's when they discovered that the PS4 and Xbox One likely pulled 10 FPS looking like that.
Do graphics matter? Sure. If they didn't, we might as well all rock hardware from a decade ago. Games were fun back then, right? Why bother with newer consoles and PC hardware if gameplay is all that matters? Not everything needs to push the bleeding edge, but if graphics/realism are your selling point - they'd better be good.
Even if I don't like it, I've just grown to accept it. MS and Sony love this kind of thing for a game that is "coming soon." Everyone wins. You'd better believe they're telling UBI to back off of a vastly superior PC version when it comes down to brass tacks, though.
I tend to believe that Watch_Dogs very well could have and probably did look/run like that demo at least for a little while. That's when they discovered that the PS4 and Xbox One likely pulled 10 FPS looking like that.
Do graphics matter? Sure. If they didn't, we might as well all rock hardware from a decade ago. Games were fun back then, right? Why bother with newer consoles and PC hardware if gameplay is all that matters? Not everything needs to push the bleeding edge, but if graphics/realism are your selling point - they'd better be good.
isidore
Senior Member
Posts: 6197
Joined: 2006-02-01
Senior Member
Posts: 6197
Joined: 2006-02-01
#5285758 Posted on: 06/07/2016 08:26 PM
Agree. Optimization is crucial. It's almost kinda wizardry that they can cram that much content on the screen whatever downgraded the end product looks like.
I'll bet that with the optional fidelity of those demos on full scale, the game would just take way too much space and would not work even on the highest, most ridiculous rigs.
Agree but then stop showing gameplay scenes at does settings. That is false advertising. Watch Dogs, when i first saw it, was mind-blowing, but as time passed they removed more and more and it became dull. Same happened to Witcher 3 and a lot of nowadays games.
What i don't understand is why they remove completely the features, most of them can be left there to be enabled by users with high-end rigs. And if the size it's what bother some, they can release the features as a patch to be downloaded afterwards.
Agree. Optimization is crucial. It's almost kinda wizardry that they can cram that much content on the screen whatever downgraded the end product looks like.
I'll bet that with the optional fidelity of those demos on full scale, the game would just take way too much space and would not work even on the highest, most ridiculous rigs.
Agree but then stop showing gameplay scenes at does settings. That is false advertising. Watch Dogs, when i first saw it, was mind-blowing, but as time passed they removed more and more and it became dull. Same happened to Witcher 3 and a lot of nowadays games.
What i don't understand is why they remove completely the features, most of them can be left there to be enabled by users with high-end rigs. And if the size it's what bother some, they can release the features as a patch to be downloaded afterwards.
tsunami231
Senior Member
Posts: 9955
Joined: 2003-05-24
Senior Member
Posts: 9955
Joined: 2003-05-24
#5285770 Posted on: 06/07/2016 08:55 PM
Consoles inferior hw hold back pc games looks, there nothing new about it been know for over 2 decades if not more, some people refuse believe this but it is true, IF they made PC verison of game look and run the way they could, the Console version which where there money off no one would buy consoles or the games.
Stock holders say "Why does the PC version look and run like this and console version look and run worse?? downgrade the pc version so most people cant tell difference between pc and console version we dont give crap what pc version looks like or runs we only care about console version sales."
now that probably not what is outright said but it basicly what is happening, Other then fact Q/A is thing of past, game release broke and unchecked awith day one patch that are huge..
If i remeber correctly Unity for XBone patch to fix the game, was pretty much the same size as original digital download.. that is not patch that whole new game. patchs should never be the same size as original digital download let alone anywere near it.
Consoles inferior hw hold back pc games looks, there nothing new about it been know for over 2 decades if not more, some people refuse believe this but it is true, IF they made PC verison of game look and run the way they could, the Console version which where there money off no one would buy consoles or the games.
Stock holders say "Why does the PC version look and run like this and console version look and run worse?? downgrade the pc version so most people cant tell difference between pc and console version we dont give crap what pc version looks like or runs we only care about console version sales."
now that probably not what is outright said but it basicly what is happening, Other then fact Q/A is thing of past, game release broke and unchecked awith day one patch that are huge..
If i remeber correctly Unity for XBone patch to fix the game, was pretty much the same size as original digital download.. that is not patch that whole new game. patchs should never be the same size as original digital download let alone anywere near it.
warezme
Senior Member
Posts: 191
Joined: 2007-05-26
Senior Member
Posts: 191
Joined: 2007-05-26
#5285778 Posted on: 06/07/2016 09:04 PM
Exactly
This dramatic downgrades are just because of consoles. PCs could probably run E3 games, but consoles can't, not even in a dream. So to protect console market witch is big they downgrade PC versions too, so the console fans wouldn't complain about the epic difference.
Today we would have much, much better graphics in games if it weren't for consoles witch are suffocating graphic's progress on PCs.
The sad truth. I once saw Skyrim on a friends PS4. I was like what the heck is this?? Coming from playing this on a PC with 3 screens at 5760x1080 with mods and everything maxed on a good video card it looked amazingly bad in comparison. So much so I almost didn't recognize it.
Exactly
This dramatic downgrades are just because of consoles. PCs could probably run E3 games, but consoles can't, not even in a dream. So to protect console market witch is big they downgrade PC versions too, so the console fans wouldn't complain about the epic difference.
Today we would have much, much better graphics in games if it weren't for consoles witch are suffocating graphic's progress on PCs.
The sad truth. I once saw Skyrim on a friends PS4. I was like what the heck is this?? Coming from playing this on a PC with 3 screens at 5760x1080 with mods and everything maxed on a good video card it looked amazingly bad in comparison. So much so I almost didn't recognize it.
definfinite
Junior Member
Posts: 10
Joined: 2014-12-01
Junior Member
Posts: 10
Joined: 2014-12-01
#5285799 Posted on: 06/07/2016 09:35 PM
Agree but then stop showing gameplay scenes at does settings. That is false advertising. Watch Dogs, when i first saw it, was mind-blowing, but as time passed they removed more and more and it became dull. Same happened to Witcher 3 and a lot of nowadays games.
What i don't understand is why they remove completely the features, most of them can be left there to be enabled by users with high-end rigs. And if the size it's what bother some, they can release the features as a patch to be downloaded afterwards.
Well, would a gamer buy the game based on screens and videos from the "downgraded" end product? Maybe, maybe not. Marketing is the mastery behind pushing the consumer to actually buy stuff. It's just all around us. Just accept that not everything is honestly, 100% true.
Accept and adapt.
Agree but then stop showing gameplay scenes at does settings. That is false advertising. Watch Dogs, when i first saw it, was mind-blowing, but as time passed they removed more and more and it became dull. Same happened to Witcher 3 and a lot of nowadays games.
What i don't understand is why they remove completely the features, most of them can be left there to be enabled by users with high-end rigs. And if the size it's what bother some, they can release the features as a patch to be downloaded afterwards.
Well, would a gamer buy the game based on screens and videos from the "downgraded" end product? Maybe, maybe not. Marketing is the mastery behind pushing the consumer to actually buy stuff. It's just all around us. Just accept that not everything is honestly, 100% true.
Accept and adapt.
TimmyP
Senior Member
Posts: 564
Joined: 2003-07-02
Senior Member
Posts: 564
Joined: 2003-07-02
#5285811 Posted on: 06/07/2016 09:56 PM
Piracy leads to less or no ROI for developers. This leads them console-only development so they can make money. Thus we get ports, and really dont have much room to complain aside from the really lazy ones (looking at you AK).
I personally like having console games on PC. I miss the PC exclusives, but accept that until something like UWP becomes a success, they will remain a relic.
Piracy leads to less or no ROI for developers. This leads them console-only development so they can make money. Thus we get ports, and really dont have much room to complain aside from the really lazy ones (looking at you AK).
I personally like having console games on PC. I miss the PC exclusives, but accept that until something like UWP becomes a success, they will remain a relic.
Clouseau
Senior Member
Posts: 2443
Joined: 2011-05-17
Senior Member
Posts: 2443
Joined: 2011-05-17
#5285823 Posted on: 06/07/2016 10:23 PM
Yes the differences are interesting between during development and the final product. Will let that one sentence stand on its own.
How does an architectural firm pitch a design for a building? Are there not drawings and / or models made up. That is what the pitch is, the firm's interpretation of what the client wants to see. I see nothing different here. During the construction phase, there are change orders submitted all the time. There are tradeoffs with reality and the conceptual interpretation of what's desired. Same with the game. Why were the "downgrades" made? What were the tradeoffs? To achieve the kind of graphical fidelity in the trailers would be too costly to achieve; even today. Overall I see nothing different than what has been industry standard for decades; trailer and final product look nothing alike. Now, if what was being compared to was actual game play that was not pre-rendered and shown as a film, then there is monkey business going on. Otherwise it is the same old game, marketing vs reality (final product). Nothing but smoke and mirrors as it has always been.
Yes the differences are interesting between during development and the final product. Will let that one sentence stand on its own.
How does an architectural firm pitch a design for a building? Are there not drawings and / or models made up. That is what the pitch is, the firm's interpretation of what the client wants to see. I see nothing different here. During the construction phase, there are change orders submitted all the time. There are tradeoffs with reality and the conceptual interpretation of what's desired. Same with the game. Why were the "downgrades" made? What were the tradeoffs? To achieve the kind of graphical fidelity in the trailers would be too costly to achieve; even today. Overall I see nothing different than what has been industry standard for decades; trailer and final product look nothing alike. Now, if what was being compared to was actual game play that was not pre-rendered and shown as a film, then there is monkey business going on. Otherwise it is the same old game, marketing vs reality (final product). Nothing but smoke and mirrors as it has always been.
Spartan
Senior Member
Posts: 678
Joined: 2015-06-25
Senior Member
Posts: 678
Joined: 2015-06-25
#5285835 Posted on: 06/07/2016 10:57 PM
Yes the differences are interesting between during development and the final product. Will let that one sentence stand on its own.
How does an architectural firm pitch a design for a building? Are there not drawings and / or models made up. That is what the pitch is, the firm's interpretation of what the client wants to see. I see nothing different here. During the construction phase, there are change orders submitted all the time. There are tradeoffs with reality and the conceptual interpretation of what's desired. Same with the game. Why were the "downgrades" made? What were the tradeoffs? To achieve the kind of graphical fidelity in the trailers would be too costly to achieve; even today. Overall I see nothing different than what has been industry standard for decades; trailer and final product look nothing alike. Now, if what was being compared to was actual game play that was not pre-rendered and shown as a film, then there is monkey business going on. Otherwise it is the same old game, marketing vs reality (final product). Nothing but smoke and mirrors as it has always been.
The difference is in this case, even if it's not possible to run those games in their original form with current hardware, you could crank up the graphics ~5 years later with new hardware. But of course this is not possible anymore, because ubi downgraded them. Maybe with mods at some point.
Yes the differences are interesting between during development and the final product. Will let that one sentence stand on its own.
How does an architectural firm pitch a design for a building? Are there not drawings and / or models made up. That is what the pitch is, the firm's interpretation of what the client wants to see. I see nothing different here. During the construction phase, there are change orders submitted all the time. There are tradeoffs with reality and the conceptual interpretation of what's desired. Same with the game. Why were the "downgrades" made? What were the tradeoffs? To achieve the kind of graphical fidelity in the trailers would be too costly to achieve; even today. Overall I see nothing different than what has been industry standard for decades; trailer and final product look nothing alike. Now, if what was being compared to was actual game play that was not pre-rendered and shown as a film, then there is monkey business going on. Otherwise it is the same old game, marketing vs reality (final product). Nothing but smoke and mirrors as it has always been.
The difference is in this case, even if it's not possible to run those games in their original form with current hardware, you could crank up the graphics ~5 years later with new hardware. But of course this is not possible anymore, because ubi downgraded them. Maybe with mods at some point.
KissSh0t
Senior Member
Posts: 7412
Joined: 2011-10-22
Senior Member
Posts: 7412
Joined: 2011-10-22
#5285842 Posted on: 06/07/2016 11:18 PM
It's not just graphical effects that have been downgraded, it's also gameplay.
It's not just graphical effects that have been downgraded, it's also gameplay.
RzrTrek
Senior Member
Posts: 2358
Joined: 2012-04-16
Senior Member
Posts: 2358
Joined: 2012-04-16
#5285926 Posted on: 06/08/2016 05:43 AM
This is why we don't preorder games.
This is why we don't preorder games.
Neo Cyrus
Senior Member
Posts: 9269
Joined: 2006-02-14
Senior Member
Posts: 9269
Joined: 2006-02-14
#5285931 Posted on: 06/08/2016 06:08 AM
Consoles inferior hw hold back pc games looks, there nothing new about it been know for over 2 decades if not more, some people refuse believe this but it is true, IF they made PC verison of game look and run the way they could, the Console version which where there money off no one would buy consoles or the games.
Stock holders say "Why does the PC version look and run like this and console version look and run worse?? downgrade the pc version so most people cant tell difference between pc and console version we dont give crap what pc version looks like or runs we only care about console version sales."
now that probably not what is outright said but it basicly what is happening, Other then fact Q/A is thing of past, game release broke and unchecked awith day one patch that are huge..
If i remeber correctly Unity for XBone patch to fix the game, was pretty much the same size as original digital download.. that is not patch that whole new game. patchs should never be the same size as original digital download let alone anywere near it.
Precisely this. The sad sad truth we all know.
Consoles inferior hw hold back pc games looks, there nothing new about it been know for over 2 decades if not more, some people refuse believe this but it is true, IF they made PC verison of game look and run the way they could, the Console version which where there money off no one would buy consoles or the games.
Stock holders say "Why does the PC version look and run like this and console version look and run worse?? downgrade the pc version so most people cant tell difference between pc and console version we dont give crap what pc version looks like or runs we only care about console version sales."
now that probably not what is outright said but it basicly what is happening, Other then fact Q/A is thing of past, game release broke and unchecked awith day one patch that are huge..
If i remeber correctly Unity for XBone patch to fix the game, was pretty much the same size as original digital download.. that is not patch that whole new game. patchs should never be the same size as original digital download let alone anywere near it.
Precisely this. The sad sad truth we all know.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 6907
Joined: 2005-12-02
I honestly don't really mind the loss in fidelity that much... it's the reduction in atmosphere using little details that get me.
Seriously, the The Division trailer looked so much more "scary" and dark.