Assassin's Creed dev thinks industry is dropping 60 fps standard

Status
Not open for further replies.

WYP

News Guru
After Assassin's Creed Unity was announced to run at 900p at 30FPS on consoles. Now Devs ate trying to make this sound positive saying that it gives a more "cinematic" feel. Come on Ubisoft, really?

09091741227l.jpeg


Read more on Assassin's Creed's move to 30FPS here.
 
Last edited:
what a crock of shi...
i cant believe they are now coming out with this.. I imagine that this stament comes allong and next they will be trying to do 30fps games for pc too 1-1 ports??

in the other thread people were calling them lazy.. and i did defend them saying that the consoles arent really up to it so they had to say something.. Obviously the console parity bs they spouted caused a back lash so now this..

All i can imagine next is they will either port the games over with 30fps cap or say "consoles are on tv, and so 30hz works better for them, but pc's have monitors so look good at 60fps or above"

After all this hype about consoles being so great. all the console fan boys going nuts and saying stupid things like
"the ps4 can do 100fps at 4k, but sony dont want you to do it so next gen will look better"
I would have hoped that some one would have finaly just stood up and said:
"ok we tried to do 1080p 60hz.. the consoles couldnt do it..
so we tried 1000p 60hz.. consoles couldnt do it.
We then tried 900p 60hz. and they couldnt do that either. we knew if we went down to 800 or 720p at 60hz people would be out raged. so we just did 900p 30hz which actually the consoles can handle."

but no.. they cant do that. consoles are the big money audience. little timmy wants to play games, mum and dad arent about to shell out £400 on a graphics card every 3 years because his friends mum did. so they get them all consoles.

i dont even want to see how the console fans defend this. but i guarantee it will be blame ubi and the consoles can definatly do this game at 1080p 60hz easy. because it has 8 feeble cores and a low powered lower performance mobile version of a mid end 2-3 generations old AMD gpu!! ITS ALL ABOUT MANTELL etc etc
 
Last edited:
Devs have been doing that for years. AC is a pile of repetitive crap anyways, so who cares. It's ubisoft.
 
so f**k you ubisoft, don't even think about doing this to pc port, its another case where their porr coding skills got them into trouble with fans, and they are trying to give bs reasons for crippling performance on said platforms, yeah i agree that they simply cannot admit how weak these new consoles are, but my issue is that the pc version suffers a lot from them doing this aswell, im still burned by watch dogs, and don't forget its the company that said fc4 will give you best experience on consoles, they are far to weak to give you 60fps both cpu and gpu wise
 
Last edited:
Ultimately I blame AMD and the mediocre toss they put out. Sony et al buy their shit because it's cheap. Devs have to make do. And before they spend loads of money on doing a decent port to hardware that's clearly more than capable of running 60fps and beyond, they will try and market a shitty port as "cinematic" to save money.

AMD, go shove your mantle and shitty APUs up your arse.
 
Ultimately I blame AMD and the mediocre toss they put out. Sony et al buy their shit because it's cheap. Devs have to make do. And before they spend loads of money on doing a decent port to hardware that's clearly more than capable of running 60fps and beyond, they will try and market a shitty port as "cinematic" to save money.

AMD, go shove your mantle and shitty APUs up your arse.

What the fuck.
I'm not exactly an AMD fan and i don't like the way they do business, but their GPUs can compete with nvidia GPUs and their CPUs have a small market share, so that doesn't matter either.
The xbone and the PS4 both are capable of running games at 1080p 60fps, ubisoft chose to not make their game run at those settings though.
 
to be fair they could have easily chosen better than 8 core jaguar..
"IMO" they went for low heat low power hopeing not to get ylod/rrod so they didnt lose a fortune on replacments/warranty which all stems back to not being allowed to use leaded solder.

but really they could have used a real mobile version of the gpu rather than a lower performing one. and they could have used a sperate reall CPU and that could have been a fx cpu and a nice split of 8gb ram 2gb gddr. they would be able to do 1080p at 60fps with propper optimizing. and i really cant think of many games 1080p that wouldnt run at 60hz "metro last light prehaps?" but optimizing would work just fine. drop some textures down and your looking at 60hz 1080p no probs..
but even if they had i dont think the consoles would have been acceptable for their 8-9 year usuall life span.

this generation of consoles "from the start" has not been looking like it would be worth it.. and this is not helping..
the only hope that these consoles have are if there are api advancments that the gpu's can utilize. but even then its hard to see them competing with the upcoming gaming laptops with things like the 970m let alone high or even mid end gaming pc's.

it really infuriates me that these developers have taken it uppon them selfs to excuse the consoles.
they really need to stand up and just say.. the consoles cant do it.
all that this serves to do is to have the console fans still say "they can do it but they wont develop for it. the consoles can run any modern game 60fps 1080p"
when just looking at the things specs you know they cant.

What the fuck.
I'm not exactly an AMD fan and i don't like the way they do business, but their GPUs can compete with nvidia GPUs and their CPUs have a small market share, so that doesn't matter either.
The xbone and the PS4 both are capable of running games at 1080p 60fps, ubisoft chose to not make their game run at those settings though.

My old pentium d system with 8600 gt could run games at 60fps too. but not many..
 
Last edited:
Leadfree solder has come on a long way since the original PS3. I work with it pretty much every day. It's fine.

Unfortunately they can't just say "the consoles can't do it" because if they did they would lose a big market.
 
They made this generation of consoles to be cheap, an APU requires one cooler, one chip and one unified bank of ram. There is a reason why this is (as far as I know) the first generation of consoled which actually made money on the hardware, rather than losing money.
 
Ultimately I blame AMD and the mediocre toss they put out. Sony et al buy their shit because it's cheap. Devs have to make do. And before they spend loads of money on doing a decent port to hardware that's clearly more than capable of running 60fps and beyond, they will try and market a shitty port as "cinematic" to save money.

AMD, go shove your mantle and shitty APUs up your arse.

So you're going to blame a company who don't really have much to do with it (and who's hardware is either not aimed at you or can easily run said terrible ports)instead of a really lazy, almost comically stupid, games company? GG.

APUs are also better than you'd think. Not for us enthusiasts, but still.
 
If there's one good thing that might come out of this it will be that more people ditch the console for the PC. You can have a rubbish console or a small(er) form factor PC that still links to your telly just fine and is superior in every way. Not a hard choice, and if people are discerning and make that choice then devs won't even try shit like this to begin with.
 
So... sad... Consoles did make the industry possible but for the past 10 years are doing everything possible to stop progress.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top