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

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

J Tyran:

andago:

J Tyran:

aced additional performance

ontent, best grunning smoother than the PC version and would point to any sort of collusion with Ubisoft.

The problem is yo

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.

-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

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

Mate, I never talked about Nvidia and AMD here. My primary PC is an old 2009 PC with an ATI HD 5770. It runs just dine on my new (old) monitor I am forced to use (1440x900) and it plays Watch Dogs on medium 30-50 fps (depends on scenes). Whilst I do believe that it should do better/more (as it looks worse then many other games like this).

In fact, my newer PC (that I for some reason do not use often) with a GTX 760 has MORE ISSUES with the game. True it is playing Ultra 1680x1050... but it stutters no MATTER the settings.

I do not buy the Nvidia story. The game runs like shit on Monster AMD and Nvidia cards.

Illessa:

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.

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.

J Tyran:

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

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".

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

Uhm... Metro Last Light UNOPTIMIZED???!?#?/
If you are having problems mate, then that is deffinitely strange. This is how Metro Last Light runs on a 5 year old PC (4GB RAM, i5 750, ATI HD 5770 1GB):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSsbpRr_Qog&index=2&list=PLXwNdCgzy0wrZCWrcfylNusA_2I_Wc-_X

It runs great on what is now considered anemic hardware. On the other GTX 760 PC, it flies!
Hell, even Metro 2033, apart from the insane DX11 DoF effect and early tesselation, was also quite well optimized.

It is a benchmark BECAUSE it makes use of hardware AND Look beautiful.

And GSC achieved this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAYLHAPPkvw&index=4&list=PLD2B82E405CF9650C
in 2008. On a low budget. And it ran acceptably (for how it looks) and even well after patches. And their overall AI system is still best in bussiness (though no one even tries so yeah :P )

I 100% dont agree. The difference when I played Last Light and all comparison to Ubisoft titles apart from the Far Cry devs, is gigantic.

Fireprufe15:
Some of the effects are real nice, while others like the DoF were clearly meant for trailer making as it makes the game damn near unplayable by defocusing almost everything 5 feet away from you.

There are different camera settings, the creator likes using the close range one for some reason, but go with normal/far to reduce the range of the bokeh.

Charcharo:

Uhm... Metro Last Light UNOPTIMIZED???!?#?/
If you are having problems mate, then that is deffinitely strange. This is how Metro Last Light runs on a 5 year old PC (4GB RAM, i5 750, ATI HD 5770 1GB):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSsbpRr_Qog&index=2&list=PLXwNdCgzy0wrZCWrcfylNusA_2I_Wc-_X

It runs great on what is now considered anemic hardware. On the other GTX 760 PC, it flies!
Hell, even Metro 2033, apart from the insane DX11 DoF effect and early tesselation, was also quite well optimized.

It is a benchmark BECAUSE it makes use of hardware AND Look beautiful.

And GSC achieved this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAYLHAPPkvw&index=4&list=PLD2B82E405CF9650C
in 2008. On a low budget. And it ran acceptably (for how it looks) and even well after patches. And their overall AI system is still best in bussiness (though no one even tries so yeah :P )

I 100% dont agree. The difference when I played Last Light and all comparison to Ubisoft titles apart from the Far Cry devs, is gigantic.

M:LL runs just fine for me thanks, I just picked up a GTX 780 so it's looking pretty beautiful. But I know a bunch of people that had problems with it initially, especially on some AMD cards (another game that suffered from disparity from that graphics card sponsorship stuff I mentioned upthread), and 2033 was worse. And a quick bit of googling brings up plenty of similar complaints.

Mostly with GSC I was thinking of how incredibly buggy S.T.A.L.K.E.R was initially. You won't hear me arguing about the AI, it's incredibly clever (I don't know if I'd say no one has done better, AI is a very diverse field, so it's not like you can compare like with like, and game AI in particular by its very nature is... kind of weird and deliberately neutered, but it's definitely up there). I have zero idea how well the AI is coded because again, I'm not privy to the source code, but it has a ton of smart ideas that I really wish other developers would take cues from :).

So yeah, I love both 4A and GSC, I think they're fantastic, but they don't produce perfect code, and to be honest, with a few outliers I would expect most studios with more than a dozen employees to be relatively similar code-quality wise.

I would describe the relationship between code and the actual game to be like the builders who are constructing a new building. Even if you're the best builder in the world it won't make a blind bit of difference if you only get to work on one corner, and the architect comes to you with completely new plans every couple of weeks because the people holding the purse strings have decided that it needs to be taller, or have a swimming pool on every level, or have foundations made of gold (and they won't listen no matter how much you tell them that won't work). Equally, if you have some genius architects who are allowed to do their thing without interference, it doesn't really matter if your builders are more mediocre - as long as they're not incompetent they can produce something beautiful.

direkiller:
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.

Right, spoken like a person who understands the dev cycle and how comments work. I'd know for sure if they only signed their comments like my company requires.

Atmos Duality:

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.

In a development cycle, the mere fact that something may not have been fully tested is enough to not release it live. Perhaps it existing live caused lower spec'd machines within the minimum requirements to stutter out of control or maybe something else? Maybe they just didn't know what it would do and couldn't push the release date back any further? We may never know unless they update us but the most likely probability in my mind is that they largely rewrote the code to make the game more viable on other consoles and older generations and this is a vestige of the original code that developers decided not to throw away (perhaps with the intention to test and reactivate it in a later patch, maybe even a ULTRA HD DLC pack which would follow the money trail and something I wouldn't put path EA Ubisoft). The problem here is more that everyone is going with greed conspiracy theories when they actually would benefit a lot more from a stunning PC version. We just don't know yet but if we follow the money it doesn't add up to make the most lucrative version of the game look bad.

Charcharo:

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 :(

Rozalia1:
I love being proven correct, where are the usual suspects to tell me the big three are at fault? Ultratwinkie, Charcharo... and NuclearKangaroo wasn't it? Am I correct now or what? I hope you don't all now go all conspiracy theories on me.

J Tyran:
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.

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.

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.

Microsoft pushed Call of Duty Ghosts saying how it was the best version (due to the timed DLC and all that other jazz), were Microsoft involved in an insidious conspiracy to gimp the PC too?
Not everything has to be some grand scheme you know.
And again for the third time (and I'm not the only one telling you this), definitive as a term does not usually take the PC version into account, and its PR, not evidence of shady goings on.

You have evidence Ubisoft did something and go on to blame Sony...where is the evidence they were in any way involved in the decision? Oh wait you admit yourself you have no idea why it was done, so you're just going to go with what you'd like it to be.

Illessa:

Charcharo:

Uhm... Metro Last Light UNOPTIMIZED???!?#?/
If you are having problems mate, then that is deffinitely strange. This is how Metro Last Light runs on a 5 year old PC (4GB RAM, i5 750, ATI HD 5770 1GB):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSsbpRr_Qog&index=2&list=PLXwNdCgzy0wrZCWrcfylNusA_2I_Wc-_X

It runs great on what is now considered anemic hardware. On the other GTX 760 PC, it flies!
Hell, even Metro 2033, apart from the insane DX11 DoF effect and early tesselation, was also quite well optimized.

It is a benchmark BECAUSE it makes use of hardware AND Look beautiful.

And GSC achieved this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAYLHAPPkvw&index=4&list=PLD2B82E405CF9650C
in 2008. On a low budget. And it ran acceptably (for how it looks) and even well after patches. And their overall AI system is still best in bussiness (though no one even tries so yeah :P )

I 100% dont agree. The difference when I played Last Light and all comparison to Ubisoft titles apart from the Far Cry devs, is gigantic.

M:LL runs just fine for me thanks, I just picked up a GTX 780 so it's looking pretty beautiful. But I know a bunch of people that had problems with it initially, especially on some AMD cards (another game that suffered from disparity from that graphics card sponsorship stuff I mentioned upthread), and 2033 was worse. And a quick bit of googling brings up plenty of similar complaints.

Mostly with GSC I was thinking of how incredibly buggy S.T.A.L.K.E.R was initially. You won't hear me arguing about the AI, it's incredibly clever (I don't know if I'd say no one has done better, AI is a very diverse field, so it's not like you can compare like with like, and game AI in particular by its very nature is... kind of weird and deliberately neutered, but it's definitely up there). I have zero idea how well the AI is coded because again, I'm not privy to the source code, but it has a ton of smart ideas that I really wish other developers would take cues from :).

So yeah, I love both 4A and GSC, I think they're fantastic, but they don't produce perfect code, and to be honest, with a few outliers I would expect most studios with more than a dozen employees to be relatively similar code-quality wise.

I would describe the relationship between code and the actual game to be like the builders who are constructing a new building. Even if you're the best builder in the world it won't make a blind bit of difference if you only get to work on one corner, and the architect comes to you with completely new plans every couple of weeks because the people holding the purse strings have decided that it needs to be taller, or have a swimming pool on every level, or have foundations made of gold (and they won't listen no matter how much you tell them that won't work). Equally, if you have some genius architects who are allowed to do their thing without interference, it doesn't really matter if your builders are more mediocre - as long as they're not actively incompetent.

You can find issues on every single game mate. By that logic there is nothing that runs well.
You probably know hardware, you know what an ATi HD 5770 is. It runs great for me. On all PCs I ever had. Considering it uses all CPU cores, is a 64 bit executable by defaul (uses more thne 3.25 GB RAM) and makes good use of GPUs, Id say it is very well done.
The thing with AMD GPUs thankfully is that they fixed it on day 3. Though it never should have been so.

Yes, STALKER was buggy, but it was never too unoptimized and damn it looks good.
I know coders cant be perfect. I just put some on a higher level mate. By comparison.

Rozalia1:

Charcharo:

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 :(

Rozalia1:
I love being proven correct, where are the usual suspects to tell me the big three are at fault? Ultratwinkie, Charcharo... and NuclearKangaroo wasn't it? Am I correct now or what? I hope you don't all now go all conspiracy theories on me.

J Tyran:
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.

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.

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.

Microsoft pushed Call of Duty Ghosts saying how it was the best version (due to the timed DLC and all that other jazz), were Microsoft involved in an insidious conspiracy to gimp the PC too?
Not everything has to be some grand scheme you know.
And again for the third time (and I'm not the only one telling you this), definitive as a term does not usually take the PC version into account, and its PR, not evidence of shady goings on.

You have evidence Ubisoft did something and go on to blame Sony...where is the evidence they were in any way involved in the decision? Oh wait you admit yourself you have no idea why it was done, so you're just going to go with what you'd like it to be.

The problems with the PC version of Ghosts (BTW the console versions were shit by all standards too) was that they lied for the requirements, made it run only on 6+ Gb RAM on purpose (it never used em, it uses 2-3). No idea what purpose, but it was not incompetence this time.
Also, it was OTHERWISE unoptimized and ugly.

Illessa:
snipped for size

Lets start with "Definitive" then, well the dictionary throws up terms like:-

-fully developed; complete
-unequivocal
-Authoritative and complete
-most reliable or complete
-final
-convincing
-established or well-known or widely recognized as a model of authority or excellence
-absolute
-clinching
-decisive
-definite
-conclusive
-precisely and clearly expressed
-irrefutable
-authoritative
-greatest
-ultimate
-reliable
-most significant

I think that illustrates my point, the term "best" been used by both of us but we know thats shorthand as there really is no "best". There is "better" however. Some of the most interesting terms here are "Authoritative and complete" and "most reliable or complete" when we consider the context here, we are talking about a piece of interactive entertainment. Something artistic, when terms like like "most reliable or complete" and "Authoritative and complete" are applied would infer that if the claims where correct that particular release would be "better".

You can continue to dance around subjective terms like "best" if you want but the intent of both Sony and Ubisoft are clear, they are advertising the PS4 version of Watch Dogs as the "better" version, the most "complete" and conclusive.

Whether you want to admit or not the PC is a competitor in the the AAA games market, it would be a consideration for any AAA publisher. It was released on the PC at the same time, it is a competitor and claiming the release of a "definitive" version of a game would include it.

You still have not posted a single reliable source where they say they where not including or competing with the PC.

Why do you still keep imagining that I am referring to "conspiracies" as well like inthis comment:-

Illessa:

I made it clear that its a tug of war between the two companies throughout the lengthy description but I summarised it with this

J Tyran:
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.

The we move onto:-

Illessa:
they have no need to kneecap the PC version

Yet they did Kneecap it, they deliberately, purposefully, intentionally disabled and then obfuscated settings that would have improved the graphical fidelity. Code and features which if my suspicion is correct would have been part of the Gameworks package provided by Nvida as that SDK includes pre developed graphical effects like those, as part of the Nvidia "optimisation" package. If I am right those effects already work, they are in constant development by Nvidia for their Gameworks. As this mod shows it took relatively little time and expense to reintegrate them (I am not dismissing the work the mod team did by claiming it was insignificant, only that it didnt take months or years of work like some mods do)

Please note I am not making accusations of conspiracy here, Gameworks is just a SDK where Nvidia can offer graphical effects like lighting and textures that are pre-optimised for the current APIs. They just work particularly well with Nvidia drivers unless the developer works on optimisation with AMD software or until the AMD software engineers get their hands on it (either during development or after release). Yes some people have tried to say its a conspiracy and Gameworks is bad for the industry but thats bullshit, the code isn't hidden and AMD have access to it. Gameworks is intended to help developers, helping developers make games has an impact on the games, eventually it might impact sales which will impact Nvidia. If the market that Nvidia has a huge stake in grows it benefits them, also in the short term it slightly inconveniences AMD as initial game benchmarks might favour Nvidia which might shift more hardware.

Rozalia1:
You have evidence Ubisoft did something and go on to blame Sony...where is the evidence they were in any way involved in the decision? Oh wait you admit yourself you have no idea why it was done, so you're just going to go with what you'd like it to be.

Here is the thing I openly admitted I do not why this was done, only that we have obvious and irrefutable evidence that it was done. You snap out "Oh wait you admit yourself you have no idea why it was done" like that is a bad thing when its the total opposite, its a good thing because unlike some I am not trying to be an authority that knows the answer.

There is nothing wrong with being honest and not trying to push my claims as fact, I make it pretty clear that it was speculation instead of something objective. Unlike others who state with an unequivocal inference that they are right, that their comments are facts.

I did not make a direct accusation that Sony where "to blame" at all, I asked the question:-

Did the collaborative marketing between Ubisoft and Sony that pushed the PS4 version as "The True Watch Dogs Experience" have any influence on Ubisofts decision to neuter the graphical fidelity of the PC release?

In one my examples I said that Sony might have had nothing to do with it but Ubisoft might have decided to remove the PCs GFX settings so they didn't run the risk of having any impact on their relationship with Sony, in others I said that Ubisoft didn't want to risk affecting sales of the PS4 version by having a far more graphically attractive PC release.

This was just speculation, intended to spark discussion but all it did was attract argument with people trying to nitpick and dance around words and definitions and shouting "gimmme sauce!" whilst providing nothing of value themselves, I can only blame myself though as I should have known better than to walk over that bridge.

I think people are overreacting a little about this one. This game runs like shit on PC, right? No wonder they cut stuff from it.
Besides, there are tons of Skyrim mods, for example, where people are unlocking cool stuff that is inside the code of the game, but for some reason the devs have decided to disable it.

p.s. But do rage on, guys, Ubi is shit anyways.

A PR rep denying something bad happened? Whodathunkit?

What the hell else are they gonna say on Twitter, "Sorry guys, you're right we fucked you in the name of consoles, thanks for the cash!"

nevarran:
I think people are overreacting a little about this one. This game runs like shit on PC, right? No wonder they cut stuff from it.
Besides, there are tons of Skyrim mods, for example, where people are unlocking cool stuff that is inside the code of the game, but for some reason the devs have decided to disable it.

p.s. But do rage on, guys, Ubi is shit anyways.

The mod actually improves performance. Ubisoft's version runs like shit, and looks like shit.

The tweaks make it run better, and look better. An amateur fixed a game that Ubisoft refuses to. Up to 50% improved performance.

You don't pay 60$ for a home security system to have a random drunk walk into your home to protect you from the burglar.

Rozalia1:

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.

SOny is a large company. so is microsoft (where i also pointed to divisions). Nintendo is small enough to be put together because it basically has a WiiU and handheld division anyway. i used Sonys divisions speeare to show that they are banking everything on the console sales because its what keeps them afloat, whereas the sitaution is not so deperate for microsfot, where the console is loosing moeny bot other software covers the expenses. Nintendo is just flat out loosing money, but then, so is sony consolidated.

Once again, i never said nintendo is dieing, i said that WiiU is struggling and causing nintendo losses. SOmething Nintendo wants to change. They want it so much they anounced 13 new games for it.

Milky1985:

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.

PS3 was the most powerful console of last generation. in fact its CPU was multiple times more powerful. its just that it used a cell design, which is great in theory, hell to program for in practice, so noone actually used all its power, ever. because everyone went for the lowest denominator Xbox and PS3 version was merely "just as much" rather than "all PS3 can do".

nevarran:
I think people are overreacting a little about this one. This game runs like shit on PC, right? No wonder they cut stuff from it.

Erm, except that the stuff they locked actually improves performance. so if they wanted it to run better they should have left it unlocked.

image

That's some pretty heavy stuff man.

next thing you know users on here will be telling me factually that it was a grand plot 10 years in the making from the big 3 to collaborate with ubisoft in order to make the PC version so inherently boring, tripe and shit, oh wait that already happened.

I wonder, maybe just maybe that Ubisoft are completely inept at making decent games and could be quite stupid, because history has shown us that yes people in companies as well as entire companies themselves can be quite stupid at what they do, I don't think Ubisoft is exempt from that, they've recently told us they've shelved a Nintendo game they made for 6 months with threats of people having to go buy more Wii U's in order for them to actually release the game, that's both childish and inherently stupid, don't try to say it makes perfect business sense because you'll then admit you're just as retarded by default.

Also love how most of the comments section has devolved into the blaming of consoles, hell even Nintendo somehow and their version isn't even due till freaking November, I swear some people on here hate consoles yet find it impossible for anyone to dislike PC's, it's always got to be the best and spiffiest for that platform, fuck all the rest/sarcasm.

Charcharo:
Snip.

I love how you use EVERY excuse you can get just to preach/show off about how good Stalker/Metro run/looks.

I approve, only because Ubisoft is run by a bunch of lobotomized monkeys, they brag about having "teh best graphicz", while Stalker has already done this since 2008 and very few games have reached that quality, even less surpassed it. They deserve every corny bit of shit the fury machine of the internet will throw at them.

Ohhohohohohohohoho, I'm getting some popcorn, this week does look interesting indeed :)

J Tyran:

Here is the thing I openly admitted I do not why this was done, only that we have obvious and irrefutable evidence that it was done. You snap out "Oh wait you admit yourself you have no idea why it was done" like that is a bad thing when its the total opposite, its a good thing because unlike some I am not trying to be an authority that knows the answer.

There is nothing wrong with being honest and not trying to push my claims as fact, I make it pretty clear that it was speculation instead of something objective. Unlike others who state with an unequivocal inference that they are right, that their comments are facts.

I did not make a direct accusation that Sony where "to blame" at all, I asked the question:-

Did the collaborative marketing between Ubisoft and Sony that pushed the PS4 version as "The True Watch Dogs Experience" have any influence on Ubisofts decision to neuter the graphical fidelity of the PC release?

In one my examples I said that Sony might have had nothing to do with it but Ubisoft might have decided to remove the PCs GFX settings so they didn't run the risk of having any impact on their relationship with Sony, in others I said that Ubisoft didn't want to risk affecting sales of the PS4 version by having a far more graphically attractive PC release.

This was just speculation, intended to spark discussion but all it did was attract argument with people trying to nitpick and dance around words and definitions and shouting "gimmme sauce!" whilst providing nothing of value themselves, I can only blame myself though as I should have known better than to walk over that bridge.

I asked for proof of the big three being to blame and you proceeded to post that nonsense about how Sony promoting the game, and the word definitive being used being a "smoking gun".
And than "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", so yes you did state Sony were to blame.

Don't try to weasel out of it.

Charcharo:

The problems with the PC version of Ghosts (BTW the console versions were shit by all standards too) was that they lied for the requirements, made it run only on 6+ Gb RAM on purpose (it never used em, it uses 2-3). No idea what purpose, but it was not incompetence this time.
Also, it was OTHERWISE unoptimized and ugly.

Well Microsoft promoted it as The version you should buy so clearly its evidence of a Microsoft plot.
Just an example of why that line of thinking is nonsense. Sony got out of it like Microsoft with Ghosts some exclusive timed DLC...and thats it. No "sabotage those PC guys", no "make sure you delay the Wii U version", none of that like so many people in this thread believe.

Strazdas:
SOny is a large company. so is microsoft (where i also pointed to divisions). Nintendo is small enough to be put together because it basically has a WiiU and handheld division anyway. i used Sonys divisions speeare to show that they are banking everything on the console sales because its what keeps them afloat, whereas the sitaution is not so deperate for microsfot, where the console is loosing moeny bot other software covers the expenses. Nintendo is just flat out loosing money, but then, so is sony consolidated.

Once again, i never said nintendo is dieing, i said that WiiU is struggling and causing nintendo losses. SOmething Nintendo wants to change. They want it so much they anounced 13 new games for it.

And speaking with the context of the other posts...why would they (the console division) when doing so well resort to sabotage that if found out would get them in very big trouble and reverse all the goodwill they've created?
Real life doesn't always result in Dick Dastardly stoping to cheat.

Strazdas:
[quote="Rozalia1" post="7.852945.21099803"]
PS3 was the most powerful console of last generation. in fact its CPU was multiple times more powerful. its just that it used a cell design, which is great in theory, hell to program for in practice, so noone actually used all its power, ever. because everyone went for the lowest denominator Xbox and PS3 version was merely "just as much" rather than "all PS3 can do".

This has no bearing on the main point. The point being argued was that the WiiU architecture was different and hard to work with (which is btw something devs that actually work with it say isn't true, its not as easy as the PS4/XBone, but is better than PS3 by a long way) . My point is that hte PS3 was a lot lot harder to work with .. and people still made games for it. Its power is nothing to do with this discussion, its the architecture.

SupahGamuh:

Charcharo:
Snip.

I love how you use EVERY excuse you can get just to preach/show off about how good Stalker/Metro run/looks.

I approve, only because Ubisoft is run by a bunch of lobotomized monkeys, they brag about having "teh best graphicz", while Stalker has already done this since 2008 and very few games have reached that quality, even less surpassed it. They deserve every corny bit of shit the fury machine of the internet will throw at them.

Ohhohohohohohohoho, I'm getting some popcorn, this week does look interesting indeed :)

Me too, this is exactly why i stay up at 2-3 in the morning, just to find these little gems

Olas:
Well this is certainly an interesting debacle. Even the cynic in me wouldn't have guessed that Ubisoft would actually sabotage the PC version of their game.

Nurb:

It makes me wish piracy actually had an effect on big publishers because this sort of monopoly needs to go bankrupt

What monopoly?

The three major publishers own most of the well known developers as they have been buying them up since the mid 90's.

Rozalia1:

J Tyran:

Here is the thing I openly admitted I do not why this was done, only that we have obvious and irrefutable evidence that it was done. You snap out "Oh wait you admit yourself you have no idea why it was done" like that is a bad thing when its the total opposite, its a good thing because unlike some I am not trying to be an authority that knows the answer.

There is nothing wrong with being honest and not trying to push my claims as fact, I make it pretty clear that it was speculation instead of something objective. Unlike others who state with an unequivocal inference that they are right, that their comments are facts.

I did not make a direct accusation that Sony where "to blame" at all, I asked the question:-

Did the collaborative marketing between Ubisoft and Sony that pushed the PS4 version as "The True Watch Dogs Experience" have any influence on Ubisofts decision to neuter the graphical fidelity of the PC release?

In one my examples I said that Sony might have had nothing to do with it but Ubisoft might have decided to remove the PCs GFX settings so they didn't run the risk of having any impact on their relationship with Sony, in others I said that Ubisoft didn't want to risk affecting sales of the PS4 version by having a far more graphically attractive PC release.

This was just speculation, intended to spark discussion but all it did was attract argument with people trying to nitpick and dance around words and definitions and shouting "gimmme sauce!" whilst providing nothing of value themselves, I can only blame myself though as I should have known better than to walk over that bridge.

I asked for proof of the big three being to blame and you proceeded to post that nonsense about how Sony promoting the game, and the word definitive being used being a "smoking gun".
And than "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", so yes you did state Sony were to blame.

Don't try to weasel out of it.

I don't think he was arguing that there it is was definitely happening so much has he found it strange that Ubisoft would do this. They've made games on PC that worked before (Splinter Cell and Farcry series, for example - and they weren't too bad) so why is this one so badly made? While I don't think it's a conspiracy, this is mind boggling. Why would a company willfully handicap a PC released game when it has released PC games before that actually work? They aren't new to this.

We cannot completely rule out any influence from the console manufacturers. They all want more sales and because they're struggling these days, they would want to stop anything that might make them look bad. Bad games hurt the consoles because people buy the consoles for the games. If a game has the potential to improve console sales - especially when a new console is released - they will do anything to make sure their console gets some recognition when the game is released. Hence the "definitive" version.

You can't assume there was zero influence from the console manufacturers, especially because Ubisoft announced the definitive version would be on the PS4. Why not the PC? What did Sony do that made Ubisoft swing that way instead? Why would they intentionally handicap the PC version? These questions lead to some uncomfortable theories, like the possibility that they may have been influenced by console manufacturers. It would not be in Sony's interest, for example, to be shown up by a superior platform if indeed the graphics are better on it.

These are the questions people want answers to because this just doesn't add up. It's like a murder mystery. People don't know if indeed it was Colonel Mustard in the study with a candestick, but it isn't impossible to make deductions based on the fact that there's a dead body in the study. Proof or no proof, until we get the actual reason this happened, people are going to make some deductions, many of them actually being reasonable.

By reasonable, I don't mean aliens abducted some of the programmers and they had to replace the team with monkeys. I mean that maybe:

1. Ubisoft's commitment to Sony meant they weren't going to jeopardize the relationship by releasing a better looking game on PC. Improved graphics and smoother gaming on PC would mean people would rather pay $60 for those extra 30 frames per second and better graphics, instead of $60 for 30fps and at lower resolution. (remember Ubisoft downgrading their graphics and FPS predications too?) - This assumes Ubisoft makes more money on console (and PS4) than it does on PC.

2. Ubisoft was limited by next gen technology. Their programmers had to design a game that would include hacking in an open world setting that wouldn't destroy the hardware on a console. Working within the confines meant making shortcuts. This meant ditching better lighting, shading, physics and shading so the game would even run (at 30fps) on console. - This assumes Ubisoft overestimated the console's abilities or they didn't anticipate to hit the graphical snares they did.

3. Ubisoft were incompetent, neglectful and inefficient. They wasted time on game mechanics that didn't work, had to change the game multiple times during development and had to make cuts along the way. This can happen to any company because they may have made bad decisions during development which they had to ditch or adjust. This could lead to design flaws and problems in the game, including bad optimisation and bad graphics. Without more time to fix the problems, they released an incomplete game within their deadline, hoping they could fix it along the way. - This assumes the 5 years they spent on it wasn't enough. It assumes they didn't know what they were doing or what direction the game was going to take and didn't have enough time to finalise things, especially for PC.

4. Ubisoft wasted its budget or ran short of cash. Much like point 3, a lack of money would impact on the quality of the game. Without the extra staff or expertise to finish levels or gameplay mechanics, it would lead to shortcuts. This would mean they didn't have enough people to actually improve and optimise the game properly. In point 3 they wasted time on nonsense, while here they just didn't have the budget to make sure there were enough people working on all features. - This assumes Ubisoft either underestimated what it would need to complete the game or they ran short of funds for any number of reasons (lawsuits, expanding marketing budgets, company parties etc).

There are probably other points I may not have included. Those are the ones that stuck out for me.

When money is involved, companies do strange, stupid and illegal things to get ahead. Sometimes they are indeed caught with their pants down. They won't tell you why their pants are down and we'll have to conclude it ourselves until video footage surfaces of console manufacturers pulling their pants down. They might even try to spin it with marketing saying it's better because their junk can finally breathe. They then try to offer us said junk and they wonder why we're angry when we feel screwed after paying $60 for their overhyped, short and uninteresting junk...

Lightknight:
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.

Microsoft/Sony take a 15% cut, Steam takes a 15% cut. What is true is that Steam sales don't have to play platform and retail royalties but that's entirely absorbed by the fact that PC games are $10 cheaper.

Also Steam sales (and multiplatform PC sales in general) are a small fraction of console sales which is why PC keeps getting loaded with cruddy ports.

Take Skyrim for example, 59% of sales were on the 360, 27% on the PS3 and only 14% on the PC. And if anything Skyrim is PC biased. It's the best selling Steam non-Valve game with 6 million sales and the modding aspect of Skyrim is huge.

There are actually only 2 non-Valve owned games which have sold more than 4.2 million total on Steam. Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 sold 4.19 million on Steam compared and yet MW2 sold 15 million in it's first couple of months of release. Of Far Cry 3s 9 million plus sales, only 1.3 million of those belong to Steam. Tomb Raider sold 7 million plus, but only 1.9 million on Steam.

And these figures are after the Steam sales. To give you an idea to the extent that the Steam sales come from discounted games, a full 300,000 of those Tomb Raider sales belong to people who have never even played the game.

So I imagine PC comes a solid last place in terms of profitability for cross-platform titles. Of course it's still pulling in millions which should easily justify good porting. I don't see why anyone would want to spite PC, because I really doubt PC impacts console hardware sales very much*, but it's just at the limits of what people might pay to spite it.

*I'm pretty sure the choice between console and PC is fundamentally about where and how you like to play your games so I doubt the percentage of people who might do one or the other is very big. If you game on PCs your probably going to continue to game on PCs and the same with consoles. I wouldn't be surprised if only 1% of people are on the fence

nevarran:
I think people are overreacting a little about this one. This game runs like shit on PC, right? No wonder they cut stuff from it.
Besides, there are tons of Skyrim mods, for example, where people are unlocking cool stuff that is inside the code of the game, but for some reason the devs have decided to disable it.

p.s. But do rage on, guys, Ubi is shit anyways.

Whell the game actually runs BETTER when those stuff are in it. Its just idiotic. And the reasin bethesda gets a free pass on people fixing their games is that they dont lock you out. They know you want to change the game and they allow you. (They even released a development kit for crying out loud. You dont see ubi does that kind of thing) and im not gonna talk about the shitty drm ubisoft uses.

Ps. I've never heard of locked stuff inside of skyrim's code. Can you give me some sources to read on?

St. Aidan:
It totally would not surprise me if the idea was to release a "patch" that turned all these features on, n optimized the frame rate. But , as I stated before I harbor a growing hatered for Ubisoft so, call me biased.

Yeah didn't they do that with Assassin's Creed 4? IIRC they made the smoke plumes and explosions look a lot better a few months after launch.

On topic, I haven't played this game, but I hear the problems run a bit deeper than the graphics. I've seen a video poking fun at all the problems this game has and most of it was relating more to shoddy AI and weird clipping issues.

This mod is amazing. I don't know what the hell to say about the "conspiracy", but the fact is that a complete amateur was able to accomplish what a dozen professional teams around the world couldn't. If it wasn't complete incompetence, I think they might have been afraid to release an objectively superior version. Sony was paying them, for the exclusive content and DLC and all the talk-up of how it's the ultimate on PS4. I don't think Sony paid them in a back alley and said "and that PC version better not make us look second-rate, buddy". I don't know what Ubisoft would have to gain by deterring people from buying the PC version, obviously they consider it a worthy platform or they wouldn't port everything to it (badly).

Either way, I got a MASSIVE performance increase from this mod. I have an ancient GTX 465 1GB, and I was getting 25-35 FPS with everything on medium. With the mod, I can turn everything but textures and water up to high and with that I'm getting 35-45. I can actually turn the textures up to high despite the 1 GB VRAM, but it stutters really bad. It doesn't show up on the FPS counter but it affects mouse movement and is pretty awful. Also, everyone can try adding "-disablepagefilecheck" without the quotes after their shortcut in the launcher properties, that helped too.

Much thanks to The Worse, he made Watch Dogs playable for me and had it look better in the process. Much thanks to Ubisoft for making a fun game, too. I just...wish that they made it this functional themselves?

nevarran:
I think people are overreacting a little about this one. This game runs like shit on PC, right? No wonder they cut stuff from it.
Besides, there are tons of Skyrim mods, for example, where people are unlocking cool stuff that is inside the code of the game, but for some reason the devs have decided to disable it.

p.s. But do rage on, guys, Ubi is shit anyways.

Ummmm the point is it does NOT run like shit if you turn on the E3 stuff..... So they DISABLED the stuff that helped it run smoother and look better. I used the mod and gained 20+ FPS and it now looks amazing with ZERO stutter.

At minimum there is a what was the point in turning this off and hiding it question running around.

The man can stick to what he says all he want, its still contrary to the evidence.

You can't expect PR reps. to actually tell you the truth lol

Ultratwinkie:

Reddit is planning to flood ubisoft with refunds, chargebacks, lawsuits, and a shit load of other shit. They are now trying to get to every single executive they can find and flood their inbox with complaints. I personally hope they hit Ubisoft where it hurts.

If Ubisoft gets slapped with a lawsuit and loses their W_D profits, I'd be so happy.

Or of course a huge multiplatform boycott that sends the message that consumers aren't idiots and they should stop lying to their customers.

Sounds more like you just don't want WD to be a success. I personally liked the game. I don't think it needs to die just because you didn't like it.

I'm not defending Ubisoft by any stretch but I'm getting so sick and tired of people praying and begging for certain games to fail just because they personally didn't like.

debating whether or not that's worse then when people had to use a mod to get the PC version working right. Still, Ubisoft have been doing a lot of damage to their rep lately, whether it be them holding a Wii U game hostage from release until it sells more, making stupid comments about female characters in Assassin's Creed, and now this. I think them being complete assholes wouldn't bother me so much if they were COMPETENT. As it stands it astounds me how these guys make any sort of profit when they make such boneheaded decisions and then are positively SHOCKED when people tell them how stupid they are. And remember: THESE are the kinds of people that we're supposed to trust to bring us new and exciting experiences for gaming. That's kind of terrifying, ain't it?

Saucycarpdog:

Ultratwinkie:

Reddit is planning to flood ubisoft with refunds, chargebacks, lawsuits, and a shit load of other shit. They are now trying to get to every single executive they can find and flood their inbox with complaints. I personally hope they hit Ubisoft where it hurts.

If Ubisoft gets slapped with a lawsuit and loses their W_D profits, I'd be so happy.

Or of course a huge multiplatform boycott that sends the message that consumers aren't idiots and they should stop lying to their customers.

Sounds more like you just don't want WD to be a success. I personally liked the game. I don't think it needs to die just because you didn't like it.

I'm not defending Ubisoft by any stretch but I'm getting so sick and tired of people praying and begging for certain games to fail just because they personally didn't like.

I would actually want Ubisoft to fail than WD. They get away with too many things, and if one of those things comes back to bite them I am happy. Double points if they thought they got away with it and got bitten in the ass after the fact.

Like boasting how much money they made from duping customers, only to have a lawsuit take it all away would be priceless. WD already sold thanks to the hype train, they'd make another.

Oooh, they pissed off the master race. I wouldn't want to be working for the team that made that...

wow... Ok Ubisoft, when you take features or settings out, disabling them except for those who can change the code to reverse them to their original settings; That's what I'd call a downgrade.

Now if only we could properly get the explosions and fog effects. I'm sure someone can mod the game to be able to run these effects and STILL perform more optimally then it's vanilla settings.

alj:
And that comment ? Strange. Usually a de-compiler cannot find comments in the code as the compiler skipped over them but they may have used some setting in the compiler to preserve the comments in the binary file.

Odds are they won't have done, someone will have de-compiled and added it as a joke but because the Internet, people think that it's definitely the code in-game and people who know stuff about compilers are wrong.

Always knew that the lack of features was down to performance and time limits, but I'm curious to how this now unfolds because "console peasants" conspiracy.

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.

"Hey, this guy is saying screenshots are meaningless bullshit. Lets show him he's wrong by showing him more screenshots"

Again. A screenshot of the code means nothing. Is there proof this is from the game Watch Dogs? How would this code have leaked? A few people have brought up that the code, in this manner, would not be shown unless Watch Dogs had its source code leaked as well. If it was leaked, where is the proof that the people put in the comment "for the PC, who cares".

Authenticity is something that is nearly impossible to prove in this manner, short of cracking the code yourself and taking a look. And even so - what is the context of the line? How are you sure that it wasn't a joke? Can you prove that these files were not embedded into the code for a future HDR download, and not enabled by default because it needed optimization work? The default PC launch has been plagued by performance issues, which seem to be mimicked with this mod, as well as even further drops on machines that aren't high end.

There is no definitive proof of the authenticity or proof of malice. The downgrade could have happened for a plethora of reasons - from optimized performance, aesthetic choices, or for later optimization purposes, and a single screenshot does not make for damning proof in an age where anyone can edit anything.

Wow... Ubisoft PR has obviously not seen the numerous comparison videos between the graphics at release and the graphics with the minor tweaks to the config file that make up the entirety of the "Mod". Using the word "Mod" implies that something was added to the game. This is not the case here - Nothing is added, the stuff is just taken out of hiding

Personally I wish theyd spend a little more cash on improving Uplay account security. Less than a week after I installed Watch Dogs someone somehow was able to access my account AND change details i.e. username, password, email... ALL WITHOUT ANY alerts to the original email that things were being changed...

 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