PC version are suppose to be the better version? (AC:Unity)

On most games they do 1080p to 1080p benchmarks. AC unity will make one of 3 games not in 1080p on the PS4. PhysX is also turned on just about every console game that has it on the pc. Metroid Redux features full PhysX on consoles. TXAA and HBAO+ or Nvidia specific features for there marketing BS. Consoles are not going to lock a game at 40 fps. They will lock at at either 60 and if it cant maintain that they will lock it at 30. I don't know any console game where they have locked it at 40 fps. If it can maintain a steady 30 fps i can promise you it would go well above that if it wasn't capped but if the dips are to inconsistent its easier for them to just lock it at 30.

Source?

And please don't say that because "Metroid" Redux has it, that means every console game has it.

lol, metroid redux

@AM-Gamer: Plenty of console games on both PS4 AND Xbone can't even maintain their 30 FPS "locks" and some of those are at sub-1080p resolutions. See: Evil Within, Alien Isolation, Sleeping Dogs: Definitive Edition, and more. These all dip as low as 20 fps on both the PS4 and Xbox One, with the PS4 version doing a little better.

See the Digital Foundry Face Offs on each of these games for your proof. Shall I keep going?

This thread is where consolites come to die.

All of those games are 1080p and mostly Ultra settings. The Evil within uses a Letter boxed approach( so the IQ) of what you see is equal to 1080p but its like 800p with the black bars. You said they were low/med,sub HD and sub 30fps yet every game you mentioned is mostly a match for the highest assets.

Don't back track now you are full of shit. Not one of those games is equal to low/med settings.

lolz meant Metro Redux.

@AM-Gamer: Low quality shadows...less AA, little to no AF, less post processing...yeah, that's medium to low. Maybe the textures are equal to high, but that's it. TLOU Remastered touted as 60 can't even maintain it. Sleeping Dogs, a game from 2012, can't maintain 30 fps. It goes on and on, the consoles are a straight up joke.

You are so in love with your beloved Sony that you have become delusional. Now kindly **** off.

ahh, yet another example of a game that was better on PC :)

Its really hard to find the opposite, even you must admit!

lmfao, console peasants get so angry when you insult their precious corporate overlords.

LMAO PC scrubs that cant even form logical arguments and just make shit up and resort to nonsense when they get called out on their bullshit.

Metro Redux, Trine 2 , The Witcher 3 is also confirmed to have it on consoles. Their is more as well and when I meant every console game I meant on the current gen . Very few PS3/360 games had it.

Is it better on your pc?

@joemann5: holy shit, ANOTHER Cranler alt. Is this a record number of his new alts appearing in one thread?

Um 40FPS would be better than the Console versions you idiot. Even a shitty Ubisoft port will run better and at a higher resolution than than its Welfare Counterparts.

well at least this one isn't COD based

Interesting, had to search on it a bit more. Glad to see Nvidia is allowing it to be used on AMD hardware.

What constitutes 'better' is an entire debate by itself. Most hermits will conveniently define 'better' as 'higher visual threshold'. Meaning that the game has the option of being rendered at Ultra HD resolutions at 60fps. What it costs them to do so is almost always conveniently left out. So more often than not, we're comparing what a $400 machine can do versus what a $800 machine can do. And then again, the performance-to-resource ratio is never a point of debate.

Long story short, you cannot make a blanket claim that PCs have the better version 98% of the time. I would say PCs get the more unoptimized version 98% of the time compared to consoles. But for a machine that cost perhaps 50% more than a console, there is a 98% chance that the game can be rendered on higher settings on the PC, therefore giving the gamer more options.

so according to your incredibly moronic logic a prius is better than a lamborghini because it's cheaper? ROFL

poor peasants thinking they get "the best" because it's cheaper.

Shutup Mr.Alt.

A Prius is cheaper, consumes less gas and cheaper to maintain. A Lambo gives you prestige and it goes faster. If that is your thing.

And I bet you avoided the "The myth that PCs are more expensive than consoles." threads. Because clearly, those guys there are the ones you should be arguing with.

and yet no one will say a prius is better because is JUST PLAIN STUPID.

And no, i don't avoid them, i agree pc is more expensive than consoles, but then again i always think you get what you pay so i tend to expend a little extra for the better things instead of conforming like a peasant, specially in a hobby i spend much time in.

Why do consolites always get to argue which "multiplat is better" when there is a 4-5 frame rate difference and 900p vs 1080p in almost every other thread.............. But when PC gets almost double the frames and 1440p we aren't allowed to say its the better version...

Explain jcho2...explian.

@joemann5: oh shit he spelled it right. Can't be Cranler

@tonitorsi said:

@Ben-Buja said:

Actually read more posts in that Neogaf topic, he was using TXAAx4 at first, without the official Nvidia driver and thus got shoddy performance. The same guy later said that it runs better for him than Black Flag did. 55-60 fps while freeroaming in Paris with max settings sans PCSS, 1080p, FXAA with a 780 GTX and i7 2600k @3,5 Ghz.

The performance is actually what we should expect when we take the console performance and settings into account. Twice the framerate, higher settings, 45% more pixels on a 780 GTX...

And it looks pretty good:

I lost my fucking shit at all of this.

This is amazing.

Provided you have the insane PC specs to run this, don't mind installing several fans to keep your shizz cooled and don't mind the ridiculous electricity bills, this is indeed pretty damn impressive.

I just hate the fact that you have to spend so much to even get something close to this level of IQ.

Wow...UC4 in-engine trailer just got shat over and that too in an open world game with 5000 NPC's and that too without a blurry background.

LOL Huggles thread backfired.

That's because when debating about stuff like that, we need to establish a basis. Are we talking about PCs which cost $500, or are we talking about $1000 PCs.

If you're talking about $1000 PCs, then getting better resolutions and framerates is expected. You get what you pay for. Consolites argue about this because the ps4 and X1 is nearly the same price, so the argument is motivated by the psychological need to feel like they didn't get the short end of the stick for the same price. However, when the notion of $1000 PCs, 4k resolutions and 120fps are brought up, you'll have one group of poor PC gamers coming in posting links about how to custom a $400 - $500 PC and still be able to match the console graphics.

And then when you argue on the same terms as those '$400 PC gamers', another group of aristocrat PC gamers come in comparing PCs to a Lamborghini of gaming.

These are two separate groups of people, and necessitate two different approaches to the debate. I agree that when you compare a Ferrari to a Toyota, you cannot be talking about cost. Cost isn't the issue. Just like how someone who buys a GTX Titan isn't concerned with cost. But there are a huge demographic of PC gamers out there who don't fall under these 'Ferrari' demographic. Their PCs are just a tad bit more expensive than consoles, but that's where economics become the focus of debate.

But as has been proven many times in the past, whichever context you choose to base the debate on, the other faction will jump on you.

Show me a console that can do as much as a PC.

A $300 all in one pc could last 10 year for the average pc user. That plus a $350 console that comes with $90 worth of games is tough to beat

Funny thing is that I bought AC4 and Watch Dogs day 1 on Steam, maxed both out without a single issue, played flawlessly.

Pre-loading Unity right now on Steam and will be enjoying it tomorrow in 1080p with at least 60fps.

But hey, it's better than having 'parity', right?

That very much depends on what you're defining what an average PC user does. I know my laptop which would probably be on par with that PC can struggle with my average use. I'm also wondering, why an average PC user is being bought up in the first place, that doesn't nullify the many things that a PC can be used for other than gaming, much the same with a console.

But yet again, please do post me a link to a console that can do all the things that a PC can, until then, a direct price comparison between the two is pointless.

Crappy port and still better than the console version (that one can't even go above 30 fps)

Yet that is proof the PC version sucks and console version is awesome ?

Yup, that says a lot about the console version and the quality people expect there IMO

Well..your shiny next gen consoles aren't enough to not only keep table 30 FPS, but even to display more than 900p.

I agree I can't wait to pick it up on the 14th.

Dumest 2upic evahhh...

This thread has to be one of the worst backfires ever. The ps4 version looks blurry compared to the pc version on low settings at 1080p, probably because of the lower resolution and it still can't maintain even 30 fps. Maybe a couple of things are better in the ps4 version compared to low on pc though.

@tonitorsi said:

@clyde46 said:

@tonitorsi said:

@bldgirsh said:

@aroxx_ab said:

@clyde46 said:

@aroxx_ab said:

Lol so a gtx 780 is not enough to keep stable 30fps, lol PC gaming

Like your plastic console toy does it any better.... Also, read the thread next time.

Compared to the hardware and the price yeah consoles does a lot better. When you upgrade your PC for the "superior experience" you dont want play at 20-30fps and have to turn down graphic to 900p...

@Ben-Buja said:

If you read the Neogaf thread a bit further it's actually not quite as bad as it first seems. The TC played with all settings maxed including TXAA which can be very taxing on deferred renderer games like this one, without the Nvidia driver update and without the day 1 patch.

He later stated that it runs in 55-60 fps in Paris while freeroaming on max settings sans TCSS (New Nvidia shadow technology) with FXAA with the new Nvidia driver on his 780 GTX rig.

Now go away @aroxx_ab.

Jesus christ, a 970 and i7 at 4GHz to run this game at the very Max settings. And it still doesn't do solid 60fps in Paris?

That is ridiculous.

Without the day one patch and without the new Nvidia drivers as well as streaming it to Twitch.... Also, its a next gen game without the shackles of the 7th gen....

I still find it shady as hell a 970 backed with a whooping i7 would be pulling framerates in the 40's. I doubt the patch will miraculously bump it up to solid 50's or 60's of fps. Because it apparently didn't fix the framerate on the console versions.

It all just reeks of insanely bad optimization.

The fact the "required" spec recommendation is so high in the first place, just pretty much cements that.

Its Watchdogs 2.0

This game is built from the ground up for the 8th gen. No 7th gen, no DX9, no catering for old hardware. Its time we moved on, stop clinging to these old arguments of "waaah it needs an i7 to run".... This is one guy on Neogaf, running it without the day one patch, without the latest Nvidia drivers and whilst streaming which creates a performance hit. This is the first multiplat game where we can see a large difference between console and PC and its a fucking Ubisoft one at that.

Just read that the PC version is still missing tessellation, it will be patched in later.

Here's a demonstration of the effect:

http://international.download.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/comparisons/assassins-creed-unity/assassins-creed-unity-nvidia-advanced-tessellation-comparison-1.html

From this guide:

http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/guides/assassins-creed-unity-graphics-and-performance-guide

About the console versions performance:

"Assassin’s Creed: Unity is out today in the US, but some people seem to have been getting their copies early with videos of the game appearing on YouTube yesterday. Unfortunately, some of those people who got their hands on the game early are reporting that there are significant technical problems with Assassin’s Creed: Unity, most notably the framerate.

“Seriously I get the game is massive, but jesus the framerate in this game is atrocious,” said Reddit user Merkwerk talking about the PS4 version of Assassin’s Creed: Unity. “It’s not even close to a locked 30 fps, it feels like it’s running at 20 something most of the time and I’ve had it drop way below that a couple of times already.”

Or there’s this from Shehan 1993: “Are you guys experiencing pop ins and huge frame rate drops especially in huge crowds? I’m playing on the ps4. Got any advice to fix this?”"

http://www.nowgamer.com/assassins-cr...-is-atrocious/

The Digitalfoundry analysis will be very interesting.

Got what.? Hahaha poor fakeboy...

lol ubisoft

lol AC

Ubi needs to drop Uplay DRM and then maybe I'll consider buying their games again.

Ouch, Ubisoft have done it again...

Gigabyte comes to rescue for PC gamers

• WATERFORCE :3-WAY SLI Water Cooling System with gtx 980

Topic on Giant Bomb from a PS4 user complaining about severe performance problems in Unity....LMFAOOOOOOOO

http://www.giantbomb.com/assassin-s-creed-unity/3030-45744/forums/ps4-performance-is-terrible-1499223/

@mikhail:

I think it's safe to say that this is not a bad PC port in terms of performance. It's just not well optimised in general, and stronger GPUs perform like you should expect them to, considering the higher resolution and settings.

A 780 GTX pulling off 50-60 fps in Paris freeroam with Max settings sans PCSS and FXAA doesn't sound so bad now, but I'm gonna see for myself soon, I just received my PC retail copy.

The game comes on 5 DVDs lol

You get 150$ of free games with your GPU

Golly people are gullible.

Don't doubt for one minute that Ubisoft is perfectly capable of "porting" this game from one x86 to another x86 system and making it run flawlessly due to the immense horsepower advantage. Just as modders will be perfectly capable to fixing the game for them - for free.

They are being paid to make the game run poorly on vastly superior hardware. My assumption is that it's Microsoft - but it could I guess be Sony as well.

Regardless, if AC was a big seller on PC, they wouldn't even be considering it. So you're trying to make a point using a multi-platform game series that PC gamers don't generally care about.