Ubisoft just released its specs for AC5, it would be interesting to get everyone's opinion. The recommended is i7 and gtx 780 and minimum is i5 (k series!) and gtx 680, which is exactly 104,729.4 times the horsepower of the consoles. I can think of 3 possibilites, though the first one is probably true, let me know what your thoughts are
1. It's a horrible port and will require the horsepower even with their 30fps cap
2. They are highballing to force people into buying more powerful hardware
3. They are aiming for this game to be the most gorgeous and demanding game ever created, one that will shame the xbox and ps4 and show just how fantastic pc can be!
Audiophile here. The only reason to bother with lossless sounds in-game is to up the disk space used. I am guessing that they are trying to make their game seem really graphically intense.
"Guys! Ignore Crysis, guys! Our games are impressively pretty too! Just look at how hard it is to run!"
If it is as hard to run as they say it is, then they either need some better devs or to give more of a shit about the pc. An i5 and a 680 to run it at low with a 30fps cap? Yeah fucking right. Unless they just have no real graphics options, that is just ludicrous. Usually, the minimum specs are low end cards and the recommended specs are closer to high end, so since there is such a small gap between the two specs lists (680~~770 and the difference between that and a 780 isn't that much) tells me that they are spewing shit.
The only possible way that they require a 680 for everyone on low is if the frame rate is directly responsible for the speed in-game. I had this problem with another 30 fps locked console port: Hot Pursuit (well, after I "hacked" the fps cap to 60 anyway). I have no idea why they do that, but time slows down when the frame rate drops. Maybe it is so that it won't look like they missed anything and might be more likely to not notice the frame rate drops (often due to bad porting). It is possible that they are just lying, like CoD often does and/or don't understand how recommended/minimum specs work. Either way, this is a load of bull, and I am getting real tired of Ubisoft's shit.
i see myself as quitte the ac fanboy (yh i do admit it) i even upgraded from an old quadro fx1800 (it was the best gpu i had laying around) to a 660ti for ac3 thinking this will be fine for a year or 3 and then this happens. I think this will run fine on my specs and i'm not planning on upgrading for this. sorry ubi this has gone too far and you must be stopped.
50 gigs is also a fifth of my bandwidth for the month. I'd have to cut down on netflix and porn, not necessarily in that order. Also, AC4 (which was really fun) could barely run maxed at 60 fps on my 780, and thats with physx off (Physx completely crippled everything on an nvidia card....hmmm). It was also not that bad of a port either as these things go. I was recently playing through Splinter Cell conviction and blacklist. I was getting 70 ish on the 2010 game and 80 ish on a 2013 game, Ubisoft can port well when not sitting on their buttplugs
Playstation 4 is 8 gb ddr5 and a 8 core apu like the kabini but lower clock speed with graphics like the 7850. Xbox is same arch with higher clock speed ddr3 and less gpu cores. Intel nvidia equivalent imo would be a gtx750ti with an atom z series on the ps4 and cut the 750ti for something in between the 750ti and a gt740.
Pirated PC d/l of fallout per month 2008 = 270,000 or $2.7 million usd
stolen units on pc 3.24 million
Sold units combined colsoles and pc 4.7 million
Pirated PS3 d/l of fallout per month = 20,000 or $200,000 usd
People actually call bethesda with pirated games for tech support
"The amount of times we see stuff coming through where it’s like, the resolution to the problem was [the] guy had a pirated copy of the game… The amount of money we spend supporting people who didn’t pay us for the game in the first place…it’s f–ing ludicrous. We talk to other developers, guys who are [like] ‘Yeah, it’s a third, it’s 50% of our [customer] support."
50%+ of fallout 3 players stole the game 80% of them were pc gamers. All pc gamers are not pirates but according to data analysed from torrent research by bethesda most of them are.
They would make much more money if they sold the units for less but their idea is so many are getting stolen that in order to combat this they need to charge 2x as much. The games are expensive because of pirating. When the projected sales figures are half of what is expected due to pirating can you blame them for making these decisions.
crysis 2 sales in 2011 500,000
crysis torrent d/ls in 2011 3.92 million
We get shit ports because there is no money in pc gaming. The companies have to sell units on console platforms in order to turn profits. This is not all pc games but an example of some AAA titles and their problems.
yeah i am a huge AC fanboy. I have beaten every AC game ever made(yes this includes both DS games the psp and vita games) and i refuse to play it on pc. I only play them on ps3/4 cause although i love my pc, their ports make me want to punch a baby. I just wish they would get their heads out of their asses and either develop for pc then port to console, or just get better programmers for their porting to pc.
I have to agree with you on this front. If the developers would only lower the costs of the games then they would sell a ton more copies. Why are they selling a digital copy of a game for the same amount as a physical disc copy that someone on ps4 or xbone are buying. $60 for a copy of a game that I dont even get the physical content that comes with a disc copy is just ludicrous. Charge like 30-40 and now we are talking. You still make your profits, not to mention more gamers will buy them, which in turn increases profits even more.
They are just completely out of sync with the pc gaming community as far as I can see. Everyone even close to the pc gaming scene knows that everyone waits until sales to get the majority of their games. They like pcs because they will save money in the long run. PC gamers don't like dealing out cash when they don't have to. I don't know ANYONE on pc who pays $60 for a game. That is just ridiculous. Meanwhile, the 37% of games that are owned by people on steam have never been played. Why? Because we can't pass up a sale. That should show anyone paying attention that it isn't that pc gamers aren't willing to pay for a game. They are just unwilling to pay a stupidly high price for a game. Ubisoft (and most AAA companies for that matter) are out of sync. They are behind the times. PC gaming has moved on and left consoles behind in their archaic sales model. There is no reason to pay for online functionality. There is no reason that your gaming box can't also do your homework. There is no reason to pay $60 for a game. This is the whole conversation with HBO not offering a decent streaming service (until recently, but we will see how that goes) and Game of Thrones being the most pirated show ever. No one wants to pay out the ass for stuff like that. Now that we have alternative means, we aren't going to bend over anymore. They need to realize that and make the necessary adjustments.
Meanwhile, Ubisoft is capping frame rates on PC, saying that consoles will have the best experience with Far Cry 4, and listing stupid specs for Assassin's creed. They are out of touch. There head is too far up their collective ass to be able to see the world around them anymore. They need to take a lesson or two from Valve. Everyone does. Make good games, make them widely available, don't overcharge, then you rake in the cash.
EDIT: Also the pirated numbers are a little misleading. The majority of people I know who are willing to pirate games don't do it because they don't want to pay for a game. They do it because they can't afford it in the first place. They wouldn't buy it even if they couldn't pirate it. That isn't true for everyone, but you get the point. The numbers are just not the whole story. Besides that, you can take it as a statement following what I was saying above: it is partly a consumer response to overpriced goods. They might not think that it was worth what the company was charging and just refused to pay it. That doesn't mean that they didn't want to play the game, just that they didn't want the company getting their money. Again, that isn't true for everyone, but it is true for some, so the numbers are just a bit misleading.
My PC can smash this game but like very other AC game I am getting it on Playstation. I can't go through another Crap_Dogs, Far Cry 3 etc shimozzle again. Most Ubisoft games I either boycott or get on sale for cheap but AC is one of my favourite series so I suck it up and get the console version.
Maybe I should pay for the PS4 version and if the port is by a miracle good pirate the PC version? Nah, that still wrong so just going to stick to F*** Ubisoft.
Black Flag worked on Dual Cores even thought the official specs said it needed a quad core. In fact, it barely even used more than two threads. But I no longer buy Ubisoft games until a year later when they release a full product, so I don't care much about this.