AC Unity Will Have Same Specs On Xbox One And PS4 To Avoid 'Debates'

AC Unity Will Have Same Specs On Xbox One and PS4 To Avoid 'Debates'

Video game publisher Ubisoft is taking a whole lot of fire today after one of their developers implied that the company intentionally limited the PlayStation 4 version of the upcoming Assassin's Creed Unity in order to maintain graphical parity with the Xbox One version.

It started with a quote from Ubisoft Montreal producer Vincent Pontbriand, speaking to the website Video Gamer about their decision to keep Unity maintaining 900p resolution and 30 frames per second on both the Xbox One and PS4.

"We decided to lock them at the same specs to avoid all the debates and stuff," Pontbriand reportedly said, no doubt referring to a string of extended conversations that have sprung up in the past year over the technical differences between Sony and Microsoft's current-gen consoles.

Around a year ago, gamers spent a whole lot of time arguing over what was then dubbed ResolutionGate, a controversy triggered by discoveries that several multiplatform games had higher resolutions on PS4 than Xbox One. In the months that followed, as more and more third-party publishers released games for both systems, it became clear that the newest PlayStation was at least slightly more powerful than its Xbox competitor. Though there's been a ton of debate over the significance and importance of resolution and frame-rate differences, comparison videos and technical breakdowns have almost consistently favoured the PS4.

In fact, last year's Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag saw a patch days after release that bumped up its resolution to 1080p on PlayStation 4, an improvement over the Xbox One version's native 900p display.

So today, people are interpreting Pontbriand's quote — "We decided to lock them at the same specs to avoid all the debates and stuff" — as the company admitting that in order to avoid triggering more of these debates, they intentionally capped out the PlayStation 4 version of the newest Assassin's Creed, which will be out on November 11. I reached out to Ubisoft earlier today for clarification on this point, but they weren't able to comment further by press time.

Meanwhile, gamers are fuming. There are GAF and Reddit threads stuffed with people angry at Ubisoft for this decision, and the newly-created #PS4NoParity hashtag on Twitter is full of people asking Ubisoft not to lock the PS4 version's technical capabilities and threatening to boycott their games.


Comments

    That's dumb. I don't own a PS4 and will likely get it on Xbone but I'd be extremely annoyed if I had a PS4.

      Its bound by CPU not GPU though in this case.

      Both PS4 and XB1 are based off same CPU except XB1 is clocked at 1.75 whilst PS4 is 1.6.

      So you could argue that PS4 is the cause of the issue, not the XB1.

      It'd be great if the article actually mentioned this. If you click on the link to "video gamer" the original article you'd see it states.

      Technically we're CPU-bound," he said. "The GPUs are really powerful, obviously the graphics look pretty good, but it's the CPU [that] has to process the AI, the number of NPCs we have on screen, all these systems running in parallel.

      "We were quickly bottlenecked by that and it was a bit frustrating, because we thought that this was going to be a tenfold improvement over everything AI-wise, and we realised it was going to be pretty hard. It's not the number of polygons that affect the framerate. We could be running at 100fps if it was just graphics, but because of AI, we're still limited to 30 frames per second."

      Though people shouldnt be blaming EITHER console for this imo. It comes down to the best the devs can do with what theyre given. If the game looks and plays good, who cares!

      Last edited 07/10/14 9:54 am

        Yes, this! Read this before you start complaining how Xbox one beat you up and stole your lunch money people

          LOL @ beat you up and stole your lunch money.
          Gold!

        It makes me hopeful for the PC version then, that with a moderately powerful CPU I will be able to run it much better than 900/30

        I'm no dev, and therefore anything I day afterwards is just armchair theory, but reading the interview by the Metro Redux dev implies that the PS4 is faster regardless because the API's are much closer to the metal. Maybe it's changed since then, who knows.

        http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-metro-redux-what-its-really-like-to-make-a-multi-platform-game

          It really isnt though, people offload to the GPU more easily on the PS4. 1 dev stated you can get more out of the PS4 CPU than the Xbox One CPU and all of a sudden theres a bunch of articles stating its "more powerful" which is totally untrue!

          Fact is, its going to differ for each game and what theyre trying to do. There will be some situations where you'll get more from the CPU on the PS4, and there'll be other situations which are the opposite, where the XB1's higher clock will allow it to do more becaues they simply couldnt offload particular things (as is the case for AC Unity).

          Seriously though, if the game is smooth and looks good, nobody should care if the resolution is a little different or not.

          EXAMPLE, Destiny beta on XB1 was 900p, the final release is 1080p. looks the fucking same. maybe if you side by side it you'd see a slight difference, but realistically, i could not tell the difference at all and it made ZERO impact on my thoughts on the game in the end.

          So all this hoo ha about a game being 900p or 1080p mean shit all in the end.

        Plus XB1 has the ability to offload some of that processing to Azure.

          First of all, there is nothing stopping games on other platforms from also offloading processing to cloud services too.

          Second, this kind of offload is pretty useless for the kinds of processing that need to happen every frame, responding to user input. I get a 14 ms ping to my ISP's main web site. That's the time it takes to construct a trivial network packet, send it to the that host and have it construct a similar trivial packet and send it back with no processing. If a game is targeting 30 fps, then it has 33.3 ms to process each frame. So even if the cloud computing centre was hosted at my ISP, half the time would be spent waiting on network traffic. If you bump up to 60 fps, then the entire frame time is spent waiting on network traffic.

          There are cases where offloading to a server can help, but these "must be done every frame" type calculations are not one of them.

            Frame by frame? Nope. Intelligent randomising AI profiles? Definitely.

            AI processing isn't frame-by-frame, it's just time sensitive. The quote doesn't word it well, but the processor time required to handle AI updates takes processor time away from graphic pipeline handling, which reduces the framerate output.

        Okay, so that describes why upping the frame rate could be difficult on the system with the slower CPU.

        But if the GPU is under loaded at 30 fps, then surely that headroom could be used to bump the resolution slightly?

          Without knowing the engine's rendering pipeline it's impossible to say for sure, but resolution does have a small impact on CPU load. Whether it's enough to matter, only Ubisoft knows. It may be that the XB1 is bottlenecked on graphics and the PS4 is bottlenecked on CPU, and both are used as a cap.

            Both are bottlenecked at CPU. Anyone who says the Xbox One's CPU is more powerful is just grasping at straws. A 0.15 difference is not going to create a noticeable difference, and they are essentially the exact same CPU, except the Xbox One CPU is slightly overclocked.

              A 9% difference in CPU performance is hardly trivial.

        This should be the focus, not res or fps but how the jump in hardware is pathetic and stifled what devs thought would be next-gen as far as ramping up the experience.

          If you wanted better hardware you needed to wait longer (and people where crying the 360 and PS3 where too old) or pay more.

          Neither Sony or Microsoft thought they could launch a console for more than what they did.

        Could be the case however you also need to remember that the Xbox has 2 of those cores dedicated to the Dashboard VM through the Hypervisor leaving 6 for the game VM. I believe the PS4 skew's it's resource allocation more heavily in the direction of the game VM.

        So they are CPU-bound because of the AI, but what difference does it make to the CPU to be able to display those AI units at 900p or 1080p? It sounds like obfuscation to me...

        Actually that's incorrect. When he is talking about being CPU bound, he is talking about the frame rate. Which is true, frame rate is a much more CPU intensive aspect of a game.

        Resolution however, is GPU intensive, and since the PS4's GPU is much more powerful that the Xbox One, they 100% be able to push this game to 1080p on the PS4.

    I thought this game was set in France, not England.

    That's the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Sony and Microsoft are competitors. They need to be competing to give us, the consumer, a better product at a better price. Not to mention all the software and hardware advancements that competition brings. If game developers are not using the consoles to the best of its capabilities and keeping the end results the same regardless, then that competition is going to stop, and we all lose. Not to mention the fact that the people who bought a ps4, knowing the advantages of that system, are being robbed of those advantages. They paid these money for it, they should get it.

      What fantasy world do you live in, where Microsoft and Sony aren't having sleepovers at Ubisoft/Activision's house and talking way past bedtime about the easiest ways for everyone to make money?

        And what fantasy world do you live in where you think two of the biggest competitors in the gaming industry who are constantly battling in sales and marketing, would suddenly get together in the name of improving the sales of the trailing company at risk of their own potential sales?

        They don't care about everyone getting a fair share of the money, they care about getting as much of that money as possible and go to great lengths to do so.

        Do you honestly think Hirai jumped on the phone to comfort his pals at Microsoft when their sales fell behind? "Don't worry Nads, we will request all future titles be lowered in quality so you can sell more units. Don't worry about the investors, they will understand a decision to help a competiing company"
        Yeah, with Christmas quickly approching I highly doubt that.

          I highly approve of nick naming Satya Nadella "Nad's"

        What you have described has literally happened between a plethora of other, competing companies.

      but we already have a better product in the form of a PC but I don't see people rushing out to get those so really people don't care about that.

      all they care about s who can market stuff to them better and which exclusives are on what console, performance has nothing to do with it.

      Sony and Microsoft do need to compete with each other if one of them fall it will be bad for all of us.

      The problem is this is Ubisoft not wanting to screw over their AC fans on one system. And has nothing to do with Microsoft or Sony.

    ridiculous! well i wont be buying it, and if you dont want this sort of thing happening on a regular basis you shouldnt either! how is it my fault the xbox one has less powerful hardware?

      It's the PS4's fault actually. Still won't buy it?

      Let's say I make a game, that game runs better on one console than the other. Should I release it like that and annoy my fans on the other side of the fence or should I make them as identical as possible and annoy my fans who are desperate to shout about how they made the best console choice. Or should I allow the ultra smug PC Master Race to have the best version? Because they can get more CPU and GPU than either the XB1 or PS4.

      The XB1 or PS4 are practically the same there is no one that is the obviously better than the other there is only one which is better for you.

      Case in point, people keep telling you the XB1 version would be ahead of the PS4 version because the CPU on the PS4 is the bottleneck not the XB1 GPU. But you want the PS4 to be the best ever so you blame the XB1, what your really saying is the PS4 should have the worst version of the game.

    This has been happening for years with PC ports of console games. It sucks, but it's much easier for developers working on cross-platform software. Welcome to the club, PS4 owners, there's a spot on the couch for you.

    [email protected] is a joke. Consoles have a reduced FOV and can get away with some lower quality textures and low-poly models due to viewing distance, that's fine, but when you're doing that and dropping the frame rate in half and the pixel count by 30%, clearly you need to adjust your design spec or do a bit more optimization.

      Or maybe they put so much stuff in they had to drop Frame rate and Resolution?

      Perhaps due to the fact that the PS4 and XB1 are basically PCs they aren't needing to learn how to coax the power out of the system and they can just make it like a PC game.

    We're admitting that the PS4 could of handled a higher resolution and fps to stop the debates.... Yeah, that'll work

      Except if you read the full quote, it's the ps4 that would suffer if they raised the resolution, not just the Xbox one

      Last edited 07/10/14 10:09 am

        All that was said was that the CPUs were an overall bottleneck against running at "100 fps" which is such nonsense.

          It's not nonsense. CPU can easily bottleneck framerate regardless of GPU power. There's a non-trivial amount of per-frame work that is done by the CPU before the GPU ever gets involved. What the quote is saying is that other tasks (like AI calculations) take up a significant amount of CPU time, leaving not enough to handle high framerates. Lower framerates means lower CPU power required, so more can be spent on other work.

          Resolution is mostly GPU dependent, but can have a small effect on the CPU. The PS4 probably could handle higher resolution than the XB1, but it seems the reverse is true for the framerate because of CPU load.

            Saying that you can only get the X1 or PS4 to pump out 30fps down from 100fps or 900p from 1080p simply because of CPU load is non-sense, I realise that CPU can have some impact of GPU process but not that much of an impact. Not at all.

              I think you might be confused about the quote so I'm repeating it here:

              We could be running at 100fps if it was just graphics, but because of AI, we're still limited to 30 frames per second.

              What this quote is saying is that the framerate is bottlenecked by the CPU. This is a common occurrence and the cause of most framerate drops in CPU-bound games like Skyrim and World of Warcraft. Everything goes through the CPU, your GPU cannot magically outperform what the CPU sends it, and yes, the CPU can have that much effect (and more) on framerate if it's choked.

              Resolution isn't mentioned in the quote, and I agreed with you that the PS4 could probably handle higher resolution, but not higher framerate.

                It's also marketing bullshit to try and defend themselves because they are making this choice to purposely gimp one of the consoles for parity. I read the quote, I understand the quote, do I believe the quote? absolutely not.

                I am not sure what you mean about GPUs outperforming CPUs. The commands shipped off to the GPU are only translated and then sent through, this is not a CPU intensive process, there is no outperforming each other, they serve two different functions.

                Last edited 07/10/14 3:27 pm

                  You're welcome to believe what you want, of course, but from personal experience working on rendering pipelines in the past, it's not bullshit at all.

                I think the problem is less what fps it is running at but rather that the resolution is decreased. Increasing fps is much harder than increasing resolution. The idea that the PS4 could not handle a bump to 1080p/30fps if the Xbox is running at 900p/30fps is pretty hard to believe, since there are many other games that have achieved this quite easily, including ACIV.

                  I've said a few times I agree the PS4 probably can handle a resolution bump. My comments have mainly been to address the framerate issue as it relates to CPU bottlenecking. Ubisoft keeping both versions at the same resolution is much more likely to be for baseline reasons than performance.

                Whats amazes me is that Ubisoft are making this choice to "prevent the debates that it will cause".
                They are doing this cause of the sour xbots who cant wrap it around their heads the PS4 is stronger in everyway and will complain and whinge. They even stated it in their statment. But the first thing all you xbots use is the CPU thing. He didnt mention if it was the PS4 or Xbone holding it back.
                but looking back, the PS4 since release has had better Framerates and Resolution on every game released on both consoles. This choice from ubisoft is because of the Xbone. The past dont lie, and all info is pointing towards the xbone at fault.

                So AC Black flag could get 1080p on PS4 but only 900p on Xbone. How the hell could the Xbone not be the cause of this crap. It only takes a Good Working brain and eyes to figure out that statement.

                  I don't use either current generation console, so you missed the mark with your attempt to categorise me with 'you xbots'. I am, however, a software developer with console development experience, and having spoken to former colleagues who are developing for this generation, I can confirm that if Ubisoft's statement about CPU being the choke point is correct, the PS4 will be the one holding it back here. The PS4 has a weaker CPU but a stronger GPU. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.

                  The past does not lie, it is misinterpreted.

                  You look at a Previous Generation game like AC4, they bump the resolution and poly count because that's easy. They don't put it into development for another year to improve the AI. You can bump it easier on the PS4 because of its superior GPU.

                  Now for the New Generation, they want to do something more interesting than a bigger resolution and a higher poly count. So they make the AI better, this means they need more CPU and this is where they hit the wall. To avoid pissing off fans, they want both versions to be equal as possible so that the owner of the XB1 or PS4 doesn't feel shafted by getting what many would call the inferior version.

                  Some games will want more CPU, they will be better suited to the XB1.
                  Some games will want more GPU, they will be better suited to the PS4.

                  At the end of the day XB1 or PS4 doesn't matter, there is no "right console" there is only the right console for you.

                  And in all seriousness, as a console owner you've been holding back the PC gamers for years, probably best not to call attention to yourself because even now both the PS4 and XB1 are still holding back PCs.

        I think the point is intentionally limiting one side to match the other (regardless of which way or why) will only fuel the fire and not stop the "debates"

        And we all know what happened for Black Flag on PS4 and X1.

    The only company this benefits is MS. I wonder if they had anything to do with this.

      Well if you weren't a dumb ass pleb and actually read the original article he says "cpu bound" the Xbox One has a faster CPU than Ps4...

        1. I can't read the source article as it's restricted at my work for some reason.
        2. The kotaku article is clearly referring to a history of debates between console versions, as far as I know they have been distinctly in PS4's favour.
        3. Why are you so upset? Calm down buddy, it's not like I ran over your dog.

        Sing it with me now: Faster is not always better, especially when it comes to CPUs

      try finding out the facts first, it's more likely the PS4's cpu as the devs have said the GPUs are fine it's a CPU bottleneck.

        CPU has nothing to do with resolution. None, whatsoever.

        As far as FPS, PS4 and XB1 have virtually identical CPU capability. Don't get fooled by that 150Mhz, it's not enough to make any difference and if you want to check some benchmark tests, they give PS4 the edge: http://gamingbolt.com/substance-engine-increases-ps4-xbox-one-texture-generation-speed-to-14-mbs-12-mbs-respectively

          Careful with blanket statements. Resolution and CPU load have a minor but complex relationship that can result in a hit or even an improvement as resolution increases, depending on how the engine is designed.

          A small aside: That benchmark is from launch, where processing power in the XB1 remained reserved for Kinect and other multitasking use. That's no longer the case in current OS.

          Last edited 07/10/14 3:22 pm

      I think Ubisoft was hoping this decision would benefit them by not angering fans of the other console thinking they where stuck with the crap version.

    How many people died over ACIV playing better on PS4 again?

    They're going to gimp the PS4 version to avoid complaints? How did that work when they did it for the PC version of Watch Underscore Dogs?

    Holy fuck. "Gamers" will fucking whinge about anything these days, won't they?
    "Resolutiongate" sounds even fucking dumber than "Gamergate".

      Fight the power brother!

      They're completely entitled to. These "next gen" consoles aren't stacking up so they've decided to neuter them all to save face. These consoles are delivering the promises of last generation and only just. What did people pay for?

        The new hotness that they where told was the meaning of life.

    Ugh if this article had the full quote it would stop the Xbox One conspiracy nonsense.

    If anything in ts case it's the ps4 hamstringing! As the reason they're lowering the visuals is because of the ai processing, which the Xbox one is slightly better at

    Not that any of this matters

    Gamers this gen are the most entitled, whinging little prats I've ever seen. 20 years in this hobby and they have completely turned me off identifying as a gamer

      totally agree with you prohass but in all fairness it's mostly the Sony fanboys who are vocal and annoying largely due to the fact that their console has no games probably... so they clearly need something to do to fill the time or their insecurities

        Oh dear....Really Raze? *facepalm*

        Last edited 07/10/14 11:37 am

        No XB1 has more than enough dickheads screaming incoherently about how the PS4 is the wrong choice.

        There is no Right choice, it's a Game Console picking one over the other has little to no effect on the world. The right choice for you is not the right choice for everybody.

    While not having the fastest CPU in either console might --I say might because having a faster CPU for AI is not going to help if you don't have the bandwidth for the graphics-- explain the capped at 30fps it does nothing to explain the 900p vs 1080p resolution. The difference between those two resolutions would be dependant on either GPU or memory bandwidth not the CPU, both things that the PS4 has a good amount more of than the XBox one. As for " you could argue that PS4 is the cause of the issue, not the XB1.", its kind of a hard argument to make that UBI is intentionally holding back the version on the weaker console rather than holding back the version on the more powerful console, especially when you consider they have a marketing agreement for the game on the weaker console.

      Not that hard an argument really. It's likely they're holding back both (resolution for XB1, framerate for PS4) so they have a uniform target to develop for. This really isn't uncommon at all, this is just the first time this practice seems to have gotten such high profile coverage.

        Other titles that have been released would disagree with you on this, for the most part the PS4 generally has a higher resolution and higher (or more consistent when capped) frame rate. I people here are vastly overestimating the amount extra the XBox One is getting from its CPU, in all likely hood the extra speed is probably not enough to make up for the CPU allocation to the other operating systems that the XBox One runs. The "superior" XBox one CPU certainly hasn't helped that much in other multiplatform releases.

          I don't see how what you said disagrees with what I said. 'Other titles' aren't this title, with decisions made by Ubisoft for this title. CPU usage is engine-dependent and task-dependent, so comparison to other games isn't useful for judging load.

          If you're PC-familiar, the equivalent would be looking at Skyrim and The Witcher. The latter arguably looks better, but the former uses considerably more CPU power. Some engines are CPU-intensive (Creation engine), others are less so (Aurora engine). You can't point at The Witcher and say all PC games should have comparable CPU usage, that's just not how the software behind it works.

          Last edited 08/10/14 1:41 pm

            I've read a lot of your posts today, I just want to say you've done a great job with an experienced, consistent and comprehensive argument. But you are making a simple mistake. Your expecting to have a reasonable conversation with a group of rabid Fanboys from both sides. :D

            Still keep trying it's like a little oasis of sanity in a desert of console tribalism and silly posturing.

    this is a complete lie, if you care to look at the legal mumbo jumbo that is the terms and agreements conditions for companies that wish to sell games on xbox, its called DISK PARITY!

    all content must be the same on all formats except for MS exclusives. that's why games are the same on everything and as a pc gamer we have to wait for a period of time usually or have to download a HIGH RES TEXTURE PACK.

    and now we have a new term, graphical parity, is this some new legal line insterted to stop the advancement of technology in games so MS/XBOX can put a false impression that a xboxone graphics are the best out there and nothing is better because we don't allow other companies to make the games better on better hardware if they wish to sell their games on the xboxone console? so its not just disk parity anymore its also graphical parity.

    proof of this is Star Citizen a game completely built on DX11 backbone. that is proof enough that ms is the devil and has been for years, but graphical parity wow now that really is very low of a company to force the NON advancement of games technology unless they say so.

    why do so many people in the community have little to zero insight into this and ive brought it up time and time again but to no avail. would be nice of the author or any kotaku jurno would take the time and investigate this and blow it wide open.

    disk parity is almost like fight club. the first rule of disk parity is to not talk about disk parity. geeez.

    Last edited 07/10/14 11:46 am

      Microsoft's content submission and release policy reads: "Titles for Xbox 360 must ship at least simultaneously with other videogame platforms, and must have at least feature and content parity on-disc with other platform versions in all regions where the title is available.

      "If these conditions are not met, Microsoft reserves the right to not allow the content to be released on Xbox 360."

      so I dare say the same applies to xboxone

      proof of this is Star Citizen a game completely built on DX11 backbone. that is proof enough that ms is the devil and has been for years

      Did you miss a sentence here somewhere? What proof are you offering here?

    It is not actually the PS4 being the weakest though. It is double speak. If they said they are having less AI or NPCs on screen than originally intended because of CPU THAN you could argue PS4 slower CPU this and that held back XB1.
    When it comes to rendering resolution though it has nothing to do with it. So once again it is XB1 at fault.
    Also the slower clock speed on the PS4 does not mean that it is the issue with AI anyway - other devs have confirmed they get more out of the slower clocked PS4 due to the better API.

    The only reason I care though is that I am sick of the console frame rate and resolution handicap. 1080p/60fps should be the crappy minimum standard.
    I'll stick to fluid actual high res gaming on my PC. I suggest everyone else who loves video games do the same.

      I love video gaming, and I play on consoles because they look fine. The PC looks way better. It has always been this way. But the consoles look great. Gamers are just spoiled brats. If visuals matter to you, get a pc, if they don't, get a console, and you'll still get great visuals, just not the best. Horray.

        That is what they call a self serving argument.

        Don't care for visuals get a slower PC and have the same games for cheaper, with little to no drm, community support, backwards compatibility etc etc. There is no longer a valid reason to have a console at all except for exclusives.

        Having some non-bias and playing on PC does not mean you play on PC cause "visuals matter".

        The best point is the top comments first reply:
        "We were quickly bottlenecked by that and it was a bit frustrating, because we thought that this was going to be a tenfold improvement over everything AI-wise, and we realised it was going to be pretty hard. It's not the number of polygons that affect the framerate. We could be running at 100fps if it was just graphics, but because of AI, we're still limited to 30 frames per second."

          Little to no DRM? The only DRM most console games have is put the disc in the drive to play the game. All the troubles I've had with UPlay I wouldn't bring DRM into a fight about what is going to run a Ubisoft game better.

    This is just SEGA vs Nintendo (MegaDrive vs SNES) all over again, but with 100% more internet.

    Back in the 80's the two giant womens magazines in Australia, Cleo and Cosmopolitan, were constantly head to head. Releasing the same day each month, battling for sales.
    Then the two publications decided to get together and come to a resolution.
    They decided to release their publications two weeks apart from each other.
    As a result both publications saw a huge increase in sales because they stopped fighting each other and decided to work with each other.

    Now lets not forget that Sony and Microsoft had the exact same sort of meeting around June 2011. Around when they would have started developing the PS4 and XBone.
    They came to an agreement on console specifications and game platform releases.
    Also it was the same time www.sony-microsoft.com was registered.
    http://thenextweb.com/insider/2011/07/15/microsoft-now-owns-microsoft-sony-com-and-sony-microsoft-com-say-what/

    It is no coincidence that both consoles are extremely similar in design and performance.
    Work together. Sell lots of software. Make lots of $$$.

      I was almost convinced but you didn't link it to the fake moon landings.

      There might be a few holes in your theory though... I think MS would not have been the only one to have the forced online check in if both companies had been planning things together, the price of the two consoles would probably have been closer too.

    Look at all the debates and arguments UBI managed to stop thanks to this policy, pat yourself on the back guys, you're doing great.

    Micro$oft must have deep pockets to pull off this shit with Ubi$oft. As a Ps4 owner I will not buy this game. It's like taking a wii u game and releasing it on the xbox one and telling fans "We decided to lock them at the same specs to avoid all the debates and stuff".

    F***ing outrage.

      If you have to resort to ancient and mind-numbingly bad insults (Micro$oft, Gaystation, Crapple, etc), I'm pretty sure your opinion is worthless.

        His opinion is worth more too me then yours.

          Of course it is, judging by your past comments on Kotaku you're a fanboy. Fanboys only value opinions that support their preconceptions.

          Only because you disagree with Zombie Jesus and agree with jedikilla.

          If you suddenly found out jedikilla here likes the wrong sports team or prefers the wrong car than his opinion will quickly devalue.

          Want me to show you something scary?
          $ony
          Big Corporations are not your friends, they are trying to make money. The best way to do that is to make things you like and then sell them to you for a profit. Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, Sega, Apple, Ubisoft, Samsung, EA, Activision, Coca-Cola, Channel 7, 9 & 10. They all exist to make money, and they are trying to get it from you.

          So yes Microsoft want your money, but so does every other company out there.

    threatening to boycott their games

    sounds familiar right... bet those losers will be first in line on day .

      I think it's an overreaction but don't call people losers. It's a buyer's market and consumers have all the right in the world to take their money elsewhere if they think they're being oversold.

        yeah... the people that actually boycott aren't... the internet crybaby's that threaten to, then go pickup their pre orders are losers.

    As an owner of a PS4 who will be getting Unity on PS4, I can honestly say that I couldn't give less of a damn, it's still the same game. People really need to take the stick out of their collective asses and just enjoy the damn game.

    Ubisoft weren't complacent merely lowering the quality of the PC version, they had to lower the quality of the console versions too. Ubisoft are making some fantastic decisions lately.

    What ever happened to running AI on the GPU itself?

      AMD doesn't have much faith in GPGPU. They push OpenCL only to the point that it competes with CUDA, but it doesn't have strong integration on the consoles where that competition doesn't exist.

        That's really too bad, there is so much potential there. The AI on the non aggressive civilians in AC could potentially free up the CPU if they were run on the GPU, then you might be able to have more complex enemies! I don't know if that would take away a lot of room for processing from the graphics, though.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now