Watch Dogs PC Modders Find Hidden "E3" Settings, Improve Performance - Update

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Good god. And that code comment.

This is almost as infuriating at the ME3 ending. Almost.

Seems Ubisoft really wants EA's Crown of Most Hated Game Company. I wonder what excuse they'll trot out for us this time.

RJ 17:
Seems Ubisoft really wants EA's Crown of Most Hated Game Company. I wonder what excuse they'll trot out for us this time.

Well for me they already took over that title with what they did with Prince of Persia(2008).
(releasing DLC consoles only, and raging every single PC user who actually bought the game, when they released it without DRM stuff)

Needless to say, I haven't bought a single game from Ubisoft since.

Rozalia1:

J Tyran:

Rozalia1:

Really getting tired of this...where is your (and everyone elses)evidence that there is any forcing going on by the big three (I notice you're at least smart enough to not put Nintendo there).

You want proof, well getting our hands on Ubisofts financing would be damn hard but what about this?

So yeah thats pretty much a smoking gun right there, you have Ubisofts PR guys running around claiming that the PS4 version will the "definitive version" while they are working with Sony in cross promotions with Sony, Ubisoft, the PS4 and Watch Dogs. Thats just one link, click here if you want to see how much time Ubisoft went around trumpeting that the PS4 release of Watch Dogs will the the "definitive version".

One

Then it turns out the deliberately disabled features in the PC version that would make it look better, how much more "proof" do you need? Thats pretty much case closed unless someone is determined to follow a pre conceived bias that flies in the face of facts.

Really now you're passing rumors, and the fact Sony promotes something as evidence that your conspiracy theory is fact?

No they are not rumours, they are actual quotes coming out of the marketing departments of Sony and Ubisoft. Straight from the horses mouth, one of those quotes came from Jonathan Morin, the Creative Director for Watch Dogs. Straight from him, that is not "rumour".

At the same time Sony are advertising The True Watch Dogs Experience, Only on PS4

So we have,

-The creative director of Watch Dogs telling us that the "definitive" version of Watch Dogs will be on the PS4
-Sony claiming that the "The True Watch Dogs Experience" is only on the PS$
-PC release has deliberately disabled/hidden/obfuscated settings that would put the graphical fidelity of the PC version beyond the console versions

Boom, smoking gun, case closed. Sony and Ubisoft where collaborating on the marketing for Watch Dogs and the PS4, all supported by the facts and the modding scene has revealed the truth about the disabled and hidden settings. Now here is where the speculation begins,

Ubisoft either didn't want to jeopardise that relationship or Sony gave Ubisoft some incentive for nerfing the PC release, I wont claim to 100% know why they did it but its undeniable that they did do this.

Rozalia1:
Really getting tired of this...where is your (and everyone elses)evidence that there is any forcing going on by the big three (I notice you're at least smart enough to not put Nintendo there).

Also these graphics would draw people to the PC platform... are we in the 1990s? You really believe that the big three has undergo a campaign to hide the fact better graphics are possible on PC?
Graphics being better on the PC is well known, and yet the sales of most titles show that it really doesn't matter.

I stated quite clearly that I find it just as likely that it was Ubisoft's idea, meaning that no pressure was needed. And Ubisoft has a long history of favoring consoles over the PC. As for evidence of THAT fact, just do a quick search for "Ubisoft" on pretty much any gaming journalism site and skim the results for the past 3-4 years.

As for your second paragraph, you are missing the point. Of course everyone knows that you can have better graphics on the PC. But just because you can have a superior product on one of the platforms doesn't mean you want to make it that way, especially if you have a vested interest in other platforms...

Scrumpmonkey:
It's like they are actively trying to shit on the PC audience.

This is Ubisoft. They have been actively shitting on PC audience for years.
PC gaming was always huge. companies, of course, hate it. because unlike consoles, they cant control the market. So they do their best to spread lies, and when that no longer helps, sabotage it.

black_knight1337:

Of course, the only way things will change will be when they start losing money. I doubt it'd actually get anywhere or have any long term impact though. Really depends on what their response is.

Oh, i dont think it works either. merely tried to explain the redditors actions more. Personally since i didnt buy the game i got nothing to claim refund on. Havent bought Ubisoft game since AC2. AC2 DRM made me boycutt them and i was going to stop it for Watch Dogs because they seem to have been getting rid of their DRM policies and stuff, but i wasnt rushing into it.... and looks like i wont be stopping that boycott after all.

black_knight1337:

Of course, law are different in other parts of the world so I might be missing something. But even IF they did intentionally sabotage the PC version, it would be almost impossible to prove. You could claim false advertising but the fact that it's a two year old demo couple with the fact that the pre-launch advertising was accurate hurts that claim significantly.

what i meant was legal grounds for refund because product is not as advertised.

Rozalia1:
Xbox has always been that way and they aren't really struggling to shift machines, they may not have PS4 level sales but they have plenty of time to avoid a disaster (look at the PS3).

Stretching to find any excuse with Sony aren't you now? Can't find anything in gaming so you'll just fish elsewhere...

Nintendo has been in the business a long time, they'll recoup as they always do, and besides what would Nintendo even have to do with this sort of thing? The PC platform likely don't even register to Nintendo, as in they really couldn't care less for it. They haven't promoted "top graphics" in a long long time.

So Ubisoft are being big meanieheads and have shown they don't care about you, and your platform...and you're blaming the big three still? Either you're a really big Ubisoft mark which is why you want to shift the blame elsewhere, or you're a PC mark who hates on the competition to nonsense levels because you have to justify being a mark.

Its true Xbox division was like that from the start. And Microsoft was sabotaging PC gaming ever since too. Games for Windows live, 0 support for windows gaming, retiring drivers that were necessary for backward compatibility of games, messing with shaders (the reason Vista could not play a lot of games) and generally making windows hard to develop games for (the reason there is such a scramble to try and get Linux gaming in effect).

Either way, i never said that these companies are somehow buying ubisoft off or anything, merely corrected your statement about them "Doing well", which neither of them are. whether they tried to bribe ubisoft because of it or not i do not know.

Gaming does not exist in a bubble, Sony floats on gaming and movies now while other divisions are hemorraging. they cannot afford PS4 to fail, it could be end of Sony. Nintendo does have a lot of reserves and they can just sit tight and live through it, sure. does not mean they arent having losses or trying hard to revive WiiUs corpse.

It was Ultrawinkie that blamed BigThree for Ubisofts blunders, not me, i think you got things mixed up here. I perosnally believe that Ubisoft is stupid enough on thier own to do this. Its not like they ever done well in porting games to PC. Heck, as you would notice from my other posts i dont even like Ubisoft and am doing a persona boycott of their games. hardly a mark.

I just want to find the PR director for Ubi and give them a fucking hug. Like, just to say, relax for a minute, because your job just got 100 times harder. I mean Jesus Christ, what the hell happened. I'm not holding the AC:U thing against them, I feel they were in the right, they just dealt with it badly...but I see no justification for this.

For a seemingly less biased and more informed evaluation of the mod, please check out this article: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/06/16/watch_dogs-graphics-mod-video/#more-213533. For those that don't, the long and the short is that it makes the game amazing for on screen moments, but is somewhat troublesome from a gameplay perspective which may be why the setting sweren't implemented in the final product.

The settings in question that were in the code weren't there for launch probably because of stability issues. The mod that fellow released does, if what I've read, contain files that he also created.

And as for that line of code that's going around - bullshit. A screenshot is literally useless. That could be from anything from anywhere. A little more proof is required before demonizing a company.

Frozengale:

They probably won't say it, but I'm guessing they lowered the PC graphics because Sony or Microsoft (or both) wanted this game to sell consoles and so they incentivized to make all versions "equal" graphically.

^Bingo.
That's the only explanation that makes sense from a business standpoint.

To promote the console version ahead of the PC version is one thing, but to actively downgrade the PC settings (including optimization) from what was shown at E3 SOLELY to make the others look better by comparison is inexcusable.

People, please.
STOP BUYING UBISOFT'S GAMES ON LAUNCH. STOP PRE-ORDERING.
That's the only way to send a lasting message to these assholes, because once they have your money, they don't give a fuck what you think.

And that's why the only two Ubisoft games I bought this year were Far Cry 1 and 2 off GOG (and with a big discount). Why bother with those fuckers?

My guess is that these just haven't been tested enough to have released. Maybe, maybe not. There's virtually no benefit for a company to hold back significant improvements unless they haven't been tested enough or have been tested but do cause problems. You've got to ask yourself, how would not adding them benefit Ubisoft since they've clearly been written? Having a poorer quality game only hurts them. Don't get me wrong, I think Ubisoft is basically EA's evil younger brother, but we're jumping the gun here.

Illessa:

Halyah:

Ultratwinkie:
Found some code in W_D:

image

They were really so stupid as to leave something like that in the code and then release the game to a playerbase famous for scouring through code for just about anything under the sun? Did they really think that was gonna go unnoticed?

I seriously doubt they did. No way decompiled code would look like that, the comment wouldn't be there, and that #else stuff is specifically compile-time logic that would vanish in the final files (that's literally the point of that syntax). So either W_D shipped with uncompiled C knocking about (veeeeeery unlikely), the source code leaked (which might be the case, but the coders would have no reason to expect it and sanitise their comments), or that snippet is made up/from somewhere else.

Also, if we had a larger segment of the code it would make sense in context. Like that could be an area that would traditionally have been built to apply to Consoles too but this particular line only gets applied to PCs so it doesn't matter as an else clause and the developer is referring to that since it's going to happen on the PC anyways and is just jumping through the hoops of best practices. What it does not necessarily mean is that the pc doesn't matter. But I'm sure everyone who knows nothing about coding is going to run with this like it means something.

But if anyone is actually interested, Else clauses are logic based. The start of this clause could be the assumption that this is for PC and the else clauses are only applied to consoles. So it'd actually be the opposite. You know? Who cares about this code I'm adding now because it will only ever be used on the PC. They're including it because it may eventually be converted to use on consoles.

Rabid_meese:
The settings in question that were in the code weren't there for launch probably because of stability issues. The mod that fellow released does, if what I've read, contain files that he also created.

And as for that line of code that's going around - bullshit. A screenshot is literally useless. That could be from anything from anywhere. A little more proof is required before demonizing a company.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=838538&page=21
http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?p=4843210#post4843210
image

Its a real screenshot from the shader files, specifically deferredambient.inc.fx located in the shaders.dat file. A compressed file that can be unpacked into readable files. Anyone can go and unpack that file and see it. Its been confirmed.

A simple google search can find it.

andago:
For a seemingly less biased and more informed evaluation of the mod, please check out this article: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/06/16/watch_dogs-graphics-mod-video/#more-213533. For those that don't, the long and the short is that it makes the game amazing for on screen moments, but is somewhat troublesome from a gameplay perspective which may be why the setting sweren't implemented in the final product.

This will be fixed by the modders in time. I am certain of it. The new version is already better then the last, so its an upward trend

Atmos Duality:

Frozengale:

They probably won't say it, but I'm guessing they lowered the PC graphics because Sony or Microsoft (or both) wanted this game to sell consoles and so they incentivized to make all versions "equal" graphically.

^Bingo.
That's the only explanation that makes sense from a business standpoint.

To promote the console version ahead of the PC version is one thing, but to actively downgrade the PC settings (including optimization) from what was shown at E3 SOLELY to make the others look better by comparison is inexcusable.

People, please.
STOP BUYING UBISOFT'S GAMES ON LAUNCH. STOP PRE-ORDERING.
That's the only way to send a lasting message to these assholes, because once they have your money, they don't give a fuck what you think.

Doubtful. Steam sales give publishers a much higher profit margin compared to console sales. So I seriously doubt Microsoft/Sony could offer them enough to compensate for any losses of PC sales. If they're going to spend that kind of money then they'd get exclusivity, not minor performance tweaks. Doesn't the PC already look substantially better than the consoles anyways with everything turned all the way up?

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/watch-dogs-graphics-comparison-side-by-side/1100-6419991/

Yeah, it does. So I'm unsure how this claim would make sense? In interviews Guay readily stated that the PC version would absolutely look the best on a pc that can handle it. So it really doesn't follow that this was the result of some backdoor deal.

Charcharo:

andago:
For a seemingly less biased and more informed evaluation of the mod, please check out this article: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/06/16/watch_dogs-graphics-mod-video/#more-213533. For those that don't, the long and the short is that it makes the game amazing for on screen moments, but is somewhat troublesome from a gameplay perspective which may be why the setting sweren't implemented in the final product.

This will be fixed by the modders in time. I am certain of it. The new version is already better then the last, so its an upward trend

True. I wasn't really taking either side, just that the Rock Paper Shotgun article seemed a much more informative appraisal of the released state of the graphical tweaks than what has been posted here. It also occurred to me that these were settings Ubisoft decided they could get to work for a staged and limited presentation of gameplay but were problematic when used as-is in the full game, and just didn't spend the time they could have getting it to run properly. Either way, it all seems to be speculation and demonisation, justified or not.

Ultratwinkie:

Rabid_meese:
The settings in question that were in the code weren't there for launch probably because of stability issues. The mod that fellow released does, if what I've read, contain files that he also created.

And as for that line of code that's going around - bullshit. A screenshot is literally useless. That could be from anything from anywhere. A little more proof is required before demonizing a company.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=838538&page=21
http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?p=4843210#post4843210
image

Its a real screenshot from the shader files, specifically deferredambient.inc.fx located in the shaders.dat file. A compressed file that can be unpacked into readable files. Anyone can go and unpack that file and see it. Its been confirmed.

A simple google search can find it.

That's exactly what I thought we'd see if the context was added. The Else clause doesn't matter because this code would only apply to a PC. They aren't saying that they don't care about the PC. They're saying that the else clause is irrelevant for the consoles. It could even be a response to the previous comments saying that what they do on the Xbox is irrelevant in that context.

This is all just a basic logic clause. It has two IF clauses followed by Else clauses (aka, if the IF clauses aren't met, then X happens). I'm sure no one will give this the basic 2 minutes of research it deserves though and will continue to crazy about some vague line that means nothing like they think.

crimson5pheonix:
I hope this causes more than a few crashes for Ubisoft's sake. Otherwise they are going to look so bad when this becomes well known.

Welp. Nevermind then. Grab the torches and pitchforks.

Not uncommon. See remember, that companies like EA, Ubi and what not consider the consoles to be their prefered market because console gamers will always happily pay full price for games. Where as a PC gamer... yeah they'll wait til that sucka goes on sale.

So they do their best to encourage people to buy the console version and by having the game look and play better well that's easy.

J Tyran:

No they are not rumours, they are actual quotes coming out of the marketing departments of Sony and Ubisoft. Straight from the horses mouth, one of those quotes came from Jonathan Morin, the Creative Director for Watch Dogs. Straight from him, that is not "rumour".

At the same time Sony are advertising The True Watch Dogs Experience, Only on PS4

So we have,

-The creative director of Watch Dogs telling us that the "definitive" version of Watch Dogs will be on the PS4
-Sony claiming that the "The True Watch Dogs Experience" is only on the PS$
-PC release has deliberately disabled/hidden/obfuscated settings that would put the graphical fidelity of the PC version beyond the console versions

Boom, smoking gun, case closed. Sony and Ubisoft where collaborating on the marketing for Watch Dogs and the PS4, all supported by the facts and the modding scene has revealed the truth about the disabled and hidden settings. Now here is where the speculation begins,

Ubisoft either didn't want to jeopardise that relationship or Sony gave Ubisoft some incentive for nerfing the PC release, I wont claim to 100% know why they did it but its undeniable that they did do this.

Proves absolutely nothing. Definitive version is a term used against the other console makers. Promotion isn't evidence of bribing, or some grand insidious plot either.

You're so exposed in how biased you are (to the point you're pushing some Sony backed grand conspiracy to gimp PC games), that it is quite frankly embarrassing.
When you've got actual proof that Sony is undergoing a campaign to do such a thing than return to us and post it.

Jandau:

As for your second paragraph, you are missing the point. Of course everyone knows that you can have better graphics on the PC. But just because you can have a superior product on one of the platforms doesn't mean you want to make it that way, especially if you have a vested interest in other platforms...

Its down to them, my point has always been that the talk of the big three being to blame is absolute nonsense. Ubisoft is a big company, they aren't some little indie outfit. Next people will be talking of Sony bullying EA.

Strazdas:
Its true Xbox division was like that from the start. And Microsoft was sabotaging PC gaming ever since too. Games for Windows live, 0 support for windows gaming, retiring drivers that were necessary for backward compatibility of games, messing with shaders (the reason Vista could not play a lot of games) and generally making windows hard to develop games for (the reason there is such a scramble to try and get Linux gaming in effect).

Either way, i never said that these companies are somehow buying ubisoft off or anything, merely corrected your statement about them "Doing well", which neither of them are. whether they tried to bribe ubisoft because of it or not i do not know.

Gaming does not exist in a bubble, Sony floats on gaming and movies now while other divisions are hemorraging. they cannot afford PS4 to fail, it could be end of Sony. Nintendo does have a lot of reserves and they can just sit tight and live through it, sure. does not mean they arent having losses or trying hard to revive WiiUs corpse.

It was Ultrawinkie that blamed BigThree for Ubisofts blunders, not me, i think you got things mixed up here. I perosnally believe that Ubisoft is stupid enough on thier own to do this. Its not like they ever done well in porting games to PC. Heck, as you would notice from my other posts i dont even like Ubisoft and am doing a persona boycott of their games. hardly a mark.

Sony is a large company with divisions, the fact you have to pick out separate divisions to push your argument is dishonest. They are doing well and you cannot dispute that, the fact the rest isn't doesn't mean they have to start bribing everyone in sight when quite clearly what they're doing right now is working.

Nintendo will find something to push their consoles, but even if they don't the handhelds are still strong, and at the very worst they could always maintain themselves as just a videogame developer. Nintendo isn't dying anytime soon.

Not so sure on that, your talk of desperation seemed to support it well enough.

Charcharo:

Now onto the Nintendo and Wii U problem you guys have.
You see, the Wii Y has 3 problems:
1. Low user base.
2. Fairly weak hardware. It IS more powerful then the 360 and PS3. But not by much, and that is only due to the GPU and RAM, the actual CPU is worse/same in power.
3. Shit to code for.

Those 3 at ONCE make it a bad idea for third party devs. The PS2 analogy cant be made though.

1. User base is currently higher than that of the Xbox One.
2. Partially true, but they got it working on the PS3 and Xbox 360 already, and as you said important bits are more powerful.
3. So were every single other console before the PS4/One because they were each different , with the PS3 being the worse. That never stopped people before, I can half understand now since the cost of development is stupidly high for games that come out quite average.

So things can be argued, its just a weird situation at the moment and its not unreasonable to assume backroom dealings are being done.

To put my own point across( as a person who bought the PS4 version of watch_dogs), i firmly believe Sony did have a hand in this. Since the marketing effectively moved to it being THE next gen game, and Sony being so heavily linked to it via exclusivity and marketing deals having the PC version outperform it would have been terrible for them and the next gen market, as it would kinda prove what some people have been saying all along. That the next gen as a whole is kinda weak this time around.

Milky1985:

Charcharo:

Now onto the Nintendo and Wii U problem you guys have.
You see, the Wii Y has 3 problems:
1. Low user base.
2. Fairly weak hardware. It IS more powerful then the 360 and PS3. But not by much, and that is only due to the GPU and RAM, the actual CPU is worse/same in power.
3. Shit to code for.

Those 3 at ONCE make it a bad idea for third party devs. The PS2 analogy cant be made though.

dd

1. The Xbox One is, by the looks of it, going to overtake the Wii U :P.
2. I always said its the 3 factors at once.
3. Well, devs DID have to learn the PS3 and PS2. They just had to since they were popular. The 360 and Xbox (original) were different, make no mistake, but not that different :P to PCs. At least in comparison.

Rozalia1:

J Tyran:

No they are not rumours, they are actual quotes coming out of the marketing departments of Sony and Ubisoft. Straight from the horses mouth, one of those quotes came from Jonathan Morin, the Creative Director for Watch Dogs. Straight from him, that is not "rumour".

At the same time Sony are advertising The True Watch Dogs Experience, Only on PS4

So we have,

-The creative director of Watch Dogs telling us that the "definitive" version of Watch Dogs will be on the PS4
-Sony claiming that the "The True Watch Dogs Experience" is only on the PS$
-PC release has deliberately disabled/hidden/obfuscated settings that would put the graphical fidelity of the PC version beyond the console versions

Boom, smoking gun, case closed. Sony and Ubisoft where collaborating on the marketing for Watch Dogs and the PS4, all supported by the facts and the modding scene has revealed the truth about the disabled and hidden settings. Now here is where the speculation begins,

Ubisoft either didn't want to jeopardise that relationship or Sony gave Ubisoft some incentive for nerfing the PC release, I wont claim to 100% know why they did it but its undeniable that they did do this.

Proves absolutely nothing. Definitive version is a term used against the other console makers. Promotion isn't evidence of bribing, or some grand insidious plot either.

You're so exposed in how biased you are (to the point you're pushing some Sony backed grand conspiracy to gimp PC games), that it is quite frankly embarrassing.
When you've got actual proof that Sony is undergoing a campaign to do such a thing than return to us and post it.

I cannot do anything about your obvious refusal to see something placed right in front of you, sorry but there is nothing I can do to help. I gave you quotes that came straight from the Watch Dogs dev team saying he was making the PS4 version the "best" version and highlighted the marketing campaign from Sony claiming that they would have the "best" version of the game, Lo and Behold the PC version is mysteriously and purposefully nerfed. There is also proof positive that they pulled a similar stunt with Nvidia, Nvidia where heavily involved during the development of the game and they collaborated on the marketing of the game. Same kind of PR lines "plays best with Nvidia!" and lo and behold once again it did and AMD users faced additional performance problems, Ubisoft are pre disposed to these kinds of deals and corporate relationships.

How much more obvious can you get? You are the biased one here and I have nothing to be embarrassed about as my cognitive processes are not blinded to the obvious, I would like to know why you consider me biased here as well. Discussing some implications of a companies behaviour is not biased, you think I am anti Sony perhaps? Bullcookies, there might even be a good chance that I own more Sony stuff than you (including 24 PSV games). The difference is I will call any company out for its bullshit, I do not feel the need to champion a company and try to defend its actions with rampaging fanboyism.

In real life evidence like this could be enough to convict someone in a court lets say somebody public announced a manifesto to commit a crime and then that crime actually happened and there was evidence that only the suspect could have left they would probably be convicted right? Ubisoft announced they would be doing this, Sony supported that line and the PC version was nerfed and only the dev team could have done that.

Anyway, you haven't provided anything at all. Literally nothing of value here. Where is your evidence that they did not purposefully nerf the PC version because of a deal or their relationship with Sony?

Lightknight:
Doubtful.

Not really. But if we're giving Ubisoft the benefit of the doubt, that requires asking some ugly questions:

Why would Ubisoft sabotage their own presentation?
Why bother burying optimization that adds credibility to their pitch at E3?

Stability issues?
Unlikely, if what I'm reading is to be believed the buried settings improve performance across the board.

As someone already said: "Ubisoft better pray this causes a ton of crashes."

So it really doesn't follow that this was the result of some backdoor deal.

Then what reason? Human idiocy perhaps?

Sure it's always a possibility, but one I find far too convenient given the frequency of its usage and one I seriously doubt given Ubisoft's history of contempt for PC gamers.

Ubisoft could have saved themselves a lot of flak by implementing those settings to make Watch Dogs look as good as they presented at E3, but they didn't. And by your own assertion the PC version was going to look better (but immensely better) anyway.

So unless you're going for the insanity plea, this tactic only makes sense as a measure to narrow that gap in quality to make the new console versions look better.

It's not as though M$ and Sony don't have incentives; this is the first year they've had to really compete against PC in ages. Most of the previous generations' high profile games belonged to them first, while PC got a lot of sloppy seconds.

J Tyran:

I cannot do anything about your obvious refusal to see something placed right in front of you, sorry but there is nothing I can do to help. I gave you quotes that came straight from the Watch Dogs dev team saying he was making the PS4 version the "best" version and highlighted the marketing campaign from Sony claiming that they would have the "best" version of the game, Lo and Behold the PC version is mysteriously and purposefully nerfed. There is also proof positive that they pulled a similar stunt with Nvidia, Nvidia where heavily involved during the development of the game and they collaborated on the marketing of the game. Same kind of PR lines "plays best with Nvidia!" and lo and behold once again it did and AMD users faced additional performance problems, Ubisoft are pre disposed to these kinds of deals and corporate relationships.

The only problem with this is that arguably the PC version is still the best version core experience of Watch Dogs available, as it can run at a higher resolution with higher detail while maintaining a higher frame rate. Ubisoft allowed the game to be optimised for nvidia cards, but that's not the same as saying they deliberately designed their game to not work with AMD (and it should be noted anecdotally that a lot of people using AMD branded tech can still play and run the game well enough.)

The other point is that saying that the definitive experience is on the ps4 does not mean they were claiming that it would look better than the PC version. Looking at the link you provided, it seems they have based this claim on the existence of exclusive ps4 content, best graphical experience on any console and sound quality provided by a Sony headset. None of these claims rely on it looking better and running smoother than the PC version and would point to any sort of collusion with Ubisoft.

It's funny because while playing the PS3 version and bitching about the shit textures and pop in, I kept accidentally muttering Activision instead of Ubisoft.

The thing is, I've been thinking about it. Far Cry 3 was released late 2012. Far Cry 4 is slated for release in November.
Assassin's Creed 4 and Unity also make the window for a known team working on WD unlikely.

So there's this motley crew at Ubi working on this while they keep resources in two other IPs. You would think they would have paid more attention to WD and laid off AC for a bit to make a good impression. Even while borrowing assets from Assassin's Creed, such as the effect when you turn on the profiler, and the free-running mechanics. Plus all the delays, you'd think it would have turned out better. (Also when you purchase a skill it sounds very close to the Ratchet and Clank purchase sound. It's different at the end, but dang. It sounds like they just chopped off the last bit of the effect in Audacity.)

I also like how the driving is laughably bad, and how bad the Online Hacking system is.

While I am ecstatic to play FC4 later this year, I'm going to sit back and chuckle in my armchair wearing my smoking jacket whilst watching Ubi get torn apart for this.

Captcha: Better call saul

They're going to need Johnnie Cochran for this one Captcha.

Consoles are pc's now in all but name. By now they have the same "drawbacks" and hassles that made them different from PC's in the first place.
You have constant updates, updates that regularly break stuff. You have to install games. Games get patches now. Consoles become laden with services and stuff you might not want.
So as consoles creep closer to being simply more shitty pc's, publishers will of course wonder if the target audience might decide to just switch to a damn pc because they have the same hassles but get more oomph for their money.

And if the designated next gen game, on the next gen console that is lauded as not being a shitty pc while it in truth is a shitty pc, turns out to be limited i nthe looks department.... well that makes suits uncomfortable. So steps must be taken to make sure that next gen consoles do not look shite in comparison to pc's.

And then take a close look at watchdogs. What it is.
Its a mixture of just cause, GTA and Saints row. Thats not exactly groundbreaking by itself. So there you go. A game that is a remix of other games, consoles that were already outdated when released.... its shit being stuck with that. It sucks not being able to control informnation like you could when Print gamesm agaziens were still relevant.
Its sucks having people who are smarter than you expose your bullshit. It SUCKS all the more if the smart people that are working for you HATE you and will halfass things.

So yeah, being a PR Guy or upperlevel manager sucks.

Frozengale:
5 bucks says they'll come out with a statement that says they changed the graphical settings of the PC version to be more in line with the console versions.

They probably won't say it, but I'm guessing they lowered the PC graphics because Sony or Microsoft (or both) wanted this game to sell consoles and so they incentivized to make all versions "equal" graphically.

That's what I'm also surmising, that the hardware in "next-gen" consoles can't hold a candle to most gaming PCs built within the last few years. Not even the high-end rigs, even the mid-range rigs. Consoles bid low on parts quality in order to compete on pricepoint, with pressure between the console makers and now added pressure from Valve and other platforms. I'm sure the latest consoles might do some things better, but by all appearances, UbiSoft seems to have hobbled the PC graphics of W_D as a handicap to this proverbial sack race.

J Tyran:

I cannot do anything about your obvious refusal to see something placed right in front of you, sorry but there is nothing I can do to help. I gave you quotes that came straight from the Watch Dogs dev team saying he was making the PS4 version the "best" version and highlighted the marketing campaign from Sony claiming that they would have the "best" version of the game, Lo and Behold the PC version is mysteriously and purposefully nerfed. There is also proof positive that they pulled a similar stunt with Nvidia, Nvidia where heavily involved during the development of the game and they collaborated on the marketing of the game. Same kind of PR lines "plays best with Nvidia!" and lo and behold once again it did and AMD users faced additional performance problems, Ubisoft are pre disposed to these kinds of deals and corporate relationships.

How much more obvious can you get? You are the biased one here and I have nothing to be embarrassed about as my cognitive processes are not blinded to the obvious, I would like to know why you consider me biased here as well. Discussing some implications of a companies behaviour is not biased, you think I am anti Sony perhaps? Bullcookies, there might even be a good chance that I own more Sony stuff than you (including 24 PSV games). The difference is I will call any company out for its bullshit, I do not feel the need to champion a company and try to defend its actions with rampaging fanboyism.

In real life evidence like this could be enough to convict someone in a court lets say somebody public announced a manifesto to commit a crime and then that crime actually happened and there was evidence that only the suspect could have left they would probably be convicted right? Ubisoft announced they would be doing this, Sony supported that line and the PC version was nerfed and only the dev team could have done that.

Anyway, you haven't provided anything at all. Literally nothing of value here. Where is your evidence that they did not purposefully nerf the PC version because of a deal or their relationship with Sony?

I told you before and will do again, it is a term used against other consoles...but so what even if it was aimed at PC? They have exclusive DLC (timed or not) and they can claim the best version based on that alone. PR doesn't have to be completely honest.
So they are in a plot with Nvidia, while at the same time screwing Nvidia in a plot with Sony? Complete tosh. What next? Is the US government involved somehow in your conspiracy theory?

Me biased for wanting actual real evidence proving your conspiracy theories are right? I'm sure.

So you invent some wild conspiracy theory of Sony making sure the game is gimped on PC, and than I have to provide evidence that it is not the case? Perhaps you're not aware...but it doesn't bloody work like that.
You invent such nonsense than you have to provide the hard facts, and a Sony PR man saying X is not an admission they have hatched some grand plot against the PC platform.

Lightknight:

Ultratwinkie:

Rabid_meese:
The settings in question that were in the code weren't there for launch probably because of stability issues. The mod that fellow released does, if what I've read, contain files that he also created.

And as for that line of code that's going around - bullshit. A screenshot is literally useless. That could be from anything from anywhere. A little more proof is required before demonizing a company.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=838538&page=21
http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?p=4843210#post4843210
image

Its a real screenshot from the shader files, specifically deferredambient.inc.fx located in the shaders.dat file. A compressed file that can be unpacked into readable files. Anyone can go and unpack that file and see it. Its been confirmed.

A simple google search can find it.

That's exactly what I thought we'd see if the context was added. The Else clause doesn't matter because this code would only apply to a PC. They aren't saying that they don't care about the PC. They're saying that the else clause is irrelevant for the consoles. It could even be a response to the previous comments saying that what they do on the Xbox is irrelevant in that context.

This is all just a basic logic clause. It has two IF clauses followed by Else clauses (aka, if the IF clauses aren't met, then X happens). I'm sure no one will give this the basic 2 minutes of research it deserves though and will continue to crazy about some vague line that means nothing like they think.

Yea it seems like it's responding to the comment talking about the Xbox. Saying this code is PC only, who cares about X-box gamma.
or it could just be an joke between programmers, it's not the first time someone has put something comments that could make people mad if taken out of context.

Illessa:

Doubt it, that would be dumb.

I agree , but you do realise this is ubisoft we are talking about right ?

Ultratwinkie:

Even then, they stopped FIFA games for the PS2 a while ago.

Slight correction but the last FIFA game released for the PS2 was FIFA 14 last November, 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil and FIFA 15 will the first games since FIFA 2000 not to be released for PS2.

I am going to get a ps4 for christmas, and I do still game on my 360.

PC users, please don't shoot me. I have so much to live for.

Rozalia1:

J Tyran:

Anyway, you haven't provided anything at all. Literally nothing of value here. Where is your evidence that they did not purposefully nerf the PC version because of a deal or their relationship with Sony?

I told you before and will do again, it is a term used against other consoles...but so what even if it was aimed at PC? They have exclusive DLC (timed or not) and they can claim the best version based on that alone. PR doesn't have to be completely honest.
So they are in a plot with Nvidia, while at the same time screwing Nvidia in a plot with Sony? Complete tosh. What next? Is the US government involved somehow in your conspiracy theory?

Me biased for wanting actual real evidence proving your conspiracy theories are right? I'm sure.

So you invent some wild conspiracy theory of Sony making sure the game is gimped on PC, and than I have to provide evidence that it is not the case? Perhaps you're not aware...but it doesn't bloody work like that.
You invent such nonsense than you have to provide the hard facts, and a Sony PR man saying X is not an admission they have hatched some grand plot against the PC platform.

Whilst in my previous post I said why I dont believe this is a conspiracy (BTW why did you think I was gonna go for that... we seem to not understand each other :( ), you got to admit it sounds quite nice :P
Still, I do wonder, do you think Ubisoft might have wanted to sell this as a PC-DLC later down the line? If so why did they not take it out or at least break it now. Its just... this is not even modding. This is simple work :(

andago:

J Tyran:

I cannot do anything about your obvious refusal to see something placed right in front of you, sorry but there is nothing I can do to help. I gave you quotes that came straight from the Watch Dogs dev team saying he was making the PS4 version the "best" version and highlighted the marketing campaign from Sony claiming that they would have the "best" version of the game, Lo and Behold the PC version is mysteriously and purposefully nerfed. There is also proof positive that they pulled a similar stunt with Nvidia, Nvidia where heavily involved during the development of the game and they collaborated on the marketing of the game. Same kind of PR lines "plays best with Nvidia!" and lo and behold once again it did and AMD users faced additional performance problems, Ubisoft are pre disposed to these kinds of deals and corporate relationships.

The only problem with this is that arguably the PC version is still the best version core experience of Watch Dogs available, as it can run at a higher resolution with higher detail while maintaining a higher frame rate. Ubisoft allowed the game to be optimised for nvidia cards, but that's not the same as saying they deliberately designed their game to not work with AMD (and it should be noted anecdotally that a lot of people using AMD branded tech can still play and run the game well enough.)

The other point is that saying that the definitive experience is on the ps4 does not mean they were claiming that it would look better than the PC version. Looking at the link you provided, it seems they have based this claim on the existence of exclusive ps4 content, best graphical experience on any console and sound quality provided by a Sony headset. None of these claims rely on it looking better and running smoother than the PC version and would point to any sort of collusion with Ubisoft.

The problem is you cannot explain the deliberately nerfed PC settings, there is no good reason for that at all. The marketing claims can be explained away, like you point out the PC version does run slightly better anyway (for those that have no issues) and I will agree it looks pretty good, not ground breaking or anything but the textures are nice and the lighting and effects are nice and the higher frame rate seals the deal.

With the hidden settings enabled it goes way beyond looking a little nicer and running smoother, it pretty much transcends that. Its damn close to the 2012 footage we saw, now I will ask a code monkey to confirm this because I am not a programmer but some of the disabled features and effects seem to be part of the Nvidia "Gameworks" package.

Nvidia Gameworks is a toolkit/SDK provided by Nvidia, it contains all kinds of graphical effects. To give a simple example imagine if a developer wants a fire effect in their game, they could obtain one in many ways but gameworks offers a series of tools and resources that could make a fire effect. Nvidia developers would have spent huge amounts of time making and patching and updating that effect, this way a developer can get a great AAA quality fire effect easily. There are many other SDKs/engines and ways to do that and get those effects and Nvida isn't unique here, its just another way to do it.

If my suspicions are correct some of those disabled features contain content from Nvidia Gameworks, there was no real reason to include them and then disable them. They purposefully went out of their way to do it.

Why?

Don't you think its incredibly suspicious that Ubisoft disabled graphical features that would get the game looking almost as good as the 2012 "bullshots", it cannot be because they thought people couldn't run it because by all accounts it makes the game run even better. Perhaps because the chunks of the Nvidia Gameworks content they chopped out have been put back? Maybe, again I ask a programmer to look into that possibility.

So on one hand you have a publisher in a collaborative PR campaign that is claiming that the definitive version of the game will be on a particular platform, on the other you have a vastly more powerful platform and the game looks like the earlier footage we saw that was both running and playable. Additionally there is a huge backlash about the game not looking like the earlier footage, lets speculate here.

-You have the game on one platform looking and playing almost as the earlier promos and demos
-The graphics on the platform the you have marketed as the "definitive" version are very noticeable "worse".
-Your company is in bed with the owner of the platform that will have the "definitive" release

So after the fact the modders and code monkeys have discovered a bunch of working settings and features that when enabled will allow the 2012 level of graphical fidelity, which reportedly fixes some of the performance issues people are having with the game (I guess thats what happens when you chop out chunks of a SDK package...)

Yeah it doesnt take much to see whats going on here, like I said I wont claim to know why it was done. Maybe Sony asked/encouraged/enticed Ubisoft to do it, maybe Ubisift didn't want to embarrass Sony after working with them on the advertising for the "definitve" version which wouldn't have been so "definitive" with people running around playing something which looked like the 2012 promo.

Corporate relationships are important, something like that could hurt those relationships. Finally maybe Ubisoft didn't want to risk hurting sales on the PS4 version, the current gen of consoles will be Ubisofts bread and butter as they shift more and more units. There is the possibility of releasing a far "superior" version might hurt their bottom line in the long run.

Its no use trying to divide the market and claim they are just battling the other consoles, they are not. Microsoft and Sony are not just battling each other they are fighting the PC market as well.

Look at the marketing by both of them, they have take shot after shot at PCs. Microsoft claim their APU is a supercomputer and Sony where running around trumpeting that the PS4 is a "supercharged PC". Well they where until the real world performance benchmarks rolled in, this console gen more than any other in recent times is a four way brawl. The PC market as a whole now makes more money than the consoles, the revenues are higher and spread around with a few points of focus like League of Legends but overall the revenue is higher. Most of the industry wants a slice of that big juicy pie, all those consumers to be milked, sheep to be hynpotised into buying map packs and roster updates, all that DLC to sell and people to con into buying season passes. Games that you can port backwards and forwards because of the shared architecture, software engineers working their arses off to create unified APIs like DX-12 and Mantle making it even easier to create mulitplatform games.

Make no mistake PC gaming is in this fight as much as Microsoft and Sony.

Now I am point this out not to claim "PC is betta!" and I am only highlighting that there is another 180KG Gorilla in the ring for Sony and Microsoft to wrestle with, Nintendo are doing their own thing and being Nintendo which makes sense for them. PCs are cheaper and more convenient than ever before, they are direct competitors now.

But back to the nerfing of the PC version, like I said I do not claim to know why it happened/ Whether it was bribery, back scratching/reach-arounds, wanting to avoid the potential embarrassment to a business partner, protecting future potential markets. Whatever the cause I don't know and can only speculate but we have evidence that they did do it.

The disabled code is all the proof you need that they did do it, Ubisoft deliberately, purposefully, intentionally went out of their way to stop the PC release of the game having the highest graphical fidelity.

Charcharo:
post

I never claimed that Ubisoft had a "plot" with Nvidia, just pointing out another example of them having a closer working relationship with one partner that leaves another like a 5th wheel or the 3rd person at a date. Nowhere did I claim there was a "plot", that only happened in your imagination.

You are very good at filling in the blanks and injecting things that you claim I am saying when I never said things like that at all.

The AMD issue wasn't as bad as Forbes claimed, Forbes is reputable so I would hold back from calling bullshit but those benchmarks where.... well not right.

No details on methodology or settings so we didn't know how they tested, no details on the drivers and software versions. All they did was post a selected part of a benchmarks graph that showed AMD where behind, according to their tests. Did they repeat the same section of game? Did they account for variables and repeat each test several times to get several benchmarks they could aggregate? Did they calculate the margin of error for the tests and account for it?Did they use a pre defined benchmark test that favoured or disfavoured a particular GPU? Did they try several drivers? Was it even the same machine? Who actually did the tests? We have no idea and where just presented with a disembodied chart showing an AMD GPU apocalypse.... That never happened.

The basis of the article was the defensive and possibly butt hurt AMD software engineer who would have every reason to try and defend himself and his teams work by pointing the finger elsewhere, he would face the possibility of a horde of angry customers wanting an explanation because they faced performance issues and maybe angry corporate suits asking him why they where facing angry fans as well. I can see why someone in that position would want an excuse, both Ubisoft and Nvidia pointed out the code was distributed and nothing was hidden in their rebuttals. So we had a "he said she said that she said to him" situation with no evidence either way. Both companies pull the same bullshit all the time so both could be guilty, I have little sympathy or patience for excuses from either manufacturer.

(I should add here that I am referring to fortunate people that had the game running well for them, not the people that had to face and put up with the issues)

In the end the performance issues where not that bad, they where within the usual tolerance and margin for error of any other GPU brand optimised game. In my opinion they where not as bad as the issues Nvidia users had with Sleeping Dogs, that was another open world game and Nvidia had to play catch up and eventually managed to claw back around a 20% performance increase.

Charcharo:
Well, some people here already turned it into a conspiracy, not us :P.
To be fair, I do NOT believe that Ubisoft where influenced or buyed out by MS/Sony/Nintendo here. They, whilst incompetent compared to GSC, 4A, Crytek, id and Valve (speaking from a coding-perspective) are not as stupid as to believe that there arent people that are better coders/game makers then themselves amongst the community. They KNOW someone will find this, so they will NOT risk such a shit storm.
Even though its theoretically possible and I would not be suprised if the big 3 were involved, I do not believe it.

I believe it was left due to:
1. Incompetence.
2. They want to make this part of a patch and appease the community.
3. They want to sell this as a DLC but due to stupidity left the code in.

Don't be ridiculous, I'm sure there are plenty of excellent coders at Ubi, there will also be some rubbish ones who just keep their heads down, or who write terrible code that "Gets the job done" very quickly. This is true of pretty much all software houses of more than a couple of dozen people.

Also amused at your examples of good coders. GSC and 4A? Really? You know one of the reasons Metro Last Light is a benchmarking go-to is because it was so poorly optimised, right? I love PC devs as much as the next person but "Makes PC games" != "Writes good code". The only way you're going to find out if a dev writes particularly good or bad code is to. Well get your hands on their source code and have a look. And it will probably be about average with some beautiful bits and some horrible bits.

As for things getting left in, Occam's Razor says that the same as 99% of unsupported/half-implemented features out there in all types of code - if the software is working with it in, then its generally not worth the risk of removing it, better to just leave it and block off access. Especially if you think you might be able to go back and fix it up later. Trust me, this happens all the time.

J Tyran:

J Tyran:
You want proof, well getting our hands on Ubisofts financing would be damn hard but what about this?

So yeah thats pretty much a smoking gun right there, you have Ubisofts PR guys running around claiming that the PS4 version will the "definitive version" while they are working with Sony in cross promotions with Sony, Ubisoft, the PS4 and Watch Dogs. Thats just one link, click here if you want to see how much time Ubisoft went around trumpeting that the PS4 release of Watch Dogs will the the "definitive version".

One

Then it turns out the deliberately disabled features in the PC version that would make it look better, how much more "proof" do you need? Thats pretty much case closed unless someone is determined to follow a pre conceived bias that flies in the face of facts.

No they are not rumours, they are actual quotes coming out of the marketing departments of Sony and Ubisoft. Straight from the horses mouth, one of those quotes came from Jonathan Morin, the Creative Director for Watch Dogs. Straight from him, that is not "rumour".

At the same time Sony are advertising The True Watch Dogs Experience, Only on PS4

You still haven't provided a single instance where they claimed the PS4 version was better than PC. All the "Definitive version" stuff makes constant comparisons with Xbone/WiiU/PS3/360. The one time it mentions PC they say they're "Aiming for parity" on 1080p/60fps (note that first word). The Sony advert says it's the definitive experience because they have "The best graphics on any console and they have exclusive missions.

All of which is to say they have no need to kneecap the PC version. They just need to keep ignoring it.

You also mention their nVidia relationship, there's nothing atypical about that, hundreds of games have those "Way it's meant to be played" or "Gaming evolved" nVidia/AMD splash screens. It generally means that particular company sent them some testing rigs and an embedded developer or two. Again there's no need to sabotage the competitor, the fact that you've got people working on the game with you who know all the dirty tricks and hacks to get the most out of their hardware (and are in a position to push changes to the drivers for you) pretty much guarantees it will work better on the sponsor hardware with no elaborate conspiracy required.

alj:

Illessa:

Doubt it, that would be dumb.

I agree , but you do realise this is ubisoft we are talking about right ?

Ubi do dumb shit all the time, but I can't think of anything thats been straight up nonsensical, and doing something on the premise that they might want to decompile their own code later would definitely be that. Anyways, its a shader, specifically a nerfed shader for consoles, mystery solved etc.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here