Ubisoft promises Far Cry 4 on PS4, Xbox One is equal to high-end PC

[MentalIlness]

http://www.tweaktown.com/news/38517...4-xbox-one-is-equal-to-high-end-pc/index.html

Come on, Ubisoft - the Internet and PC community is still rabid about Watch Dogs being gimped on PC, but now promising something once again for your other big title coming soon - Far Cry 4?

Well, Ubisoft has said that Far Cry 4 on the PS4 and Xbox One will be equal to that of the PC set on Ultra High settings. This means that Far Cry 4 won't look that great (for a big budget, AAA title released in 2014 on next-gen platforms) or the PC version will be gimped, like Watch Dogs was most obviously.

Far Cry 4's Creative Director, Alex Hutchinson, talked with Major Nelson on his latest podcast, talking about the differences between current- and next-gen consoles. Hutchinson also talked about showing off how beautiful Far Cry 4 is on both next-gen consoles, and PCs, where he said: "We want the experience to be the same on all platforms so we're leaning on technical differences. Everything you see, whether it's the fur on the animals, the grass on the ground or the leaves on the trees. All these things are bumped up a huge amount in the next gen version".

Hutchinson said that Far Cry 4 is being developed primarily on PC - like we've never heard that before - so that the studio was able to get the game cranked up to ultra high quality immediately. He explains: "We develop on PC primarily, which is actually unusual. With Assassin's Creed, we develop on console, so we start at that and we push the boundary of the console as hard as we can. But because we develop on PC, you've never really seen on console the ultra-high PC version before".

Hutchinson continues: "So even out of the box, even day one, we just stuck the code on the new consoles and we were able to dial it all the way up. So as a console player you're already getting by far the best version we can ship". But, Hutchinson responded to Forbes pretty quick, where he added: "The PS4/XB1 versions will be the best console versions console players have yet seen, well above 360 and PS3 for Far Cry 4". Damage control? Possibly.

I don't know what to expect at this point, because if the game is developed on multiple platforms - which it is - and what the One and PS4 are capable of (which is far less than even a mid-range PC, let alone a decent or enthusiast/powerful rig) - then the PC version must not be that special. With most mutli-platform games being released, the Xbox One and PS4 are seeing their games pumped out at 729p, or 900p - let alone 1080p. Most of the games don't look that great - considering these "next-gen" consoles will be with us for another half-decade.

 

[mmntech]

Ubisoft either gimps the PC version or never optimizes the code for it, so it runs like a dog's breakfast on all but the most high end rigs.

 

[Rage187]

Ubisoft will gimp the PC version like Watch_Dogs

 

[ImpulsE69]

LMAO. So dumb and obvious misdirection. These companies, and you wonder why I refuse to support them. They'll say anything to make people jump on board. Sadly the masses will eat it up. For those that will come after and be like "i don't care about gfx if its a good game" I don't disagree, but let's be honest, why reward flat out treating the consumers like dumb bitches. The sad part is "this" is considered the in the know crowd and will still defend them. I'd be much more open minded if they simply said yea, we did this because we know we'll sell more on consoles anyway, PC gamers be lucky you are getting a version.

I guess that's they new way, truth means nothing, just lies, coverups and misdirections and you'll hand them your money.

The "we want the experience to be the same on all platforms" is simply code for, we know that if we release it looking better on PC then our console sheep will be mad. Apparently picking the exact same game on 3 different platforms is considered "options" these days. So disinterested in this gen, only more of the same fvck you to the masses as has been happening more and more lately.

I'm sure I got more in me, it's been a bad week.

 

[futurefields]

I'm sure it's running on the same creaky old engine that Far Cry 3 uses, which is the Far Cry 1 engine with some better foilage and global illumination bolted on. A lot of the assets even look reused from FC3.

 

[Topweasel]

I'm sure it's running on the same creaky old engine that Far Cry 3 uses, which is the Far Cry 1 engine with some better foilage and global illumination bolted on. A lot of the assets even look reused from FC3.

Obvious that you don't know enough about Far Cry. Far Cry was Crytek's first title and launched using CryEngine 1. Ubi was the distributor and I think through funding development owned to the rights to Far Cry. Far Cry 2 and 3 use Uni's internal engine, in the end as old as CryEngine 1 is, if they used that for 3 it probably would have been superior. Don't know enough about 4 and its engine to tell you whether that is true still, but CryEngine 1 is not to be taken lightly I think it still holds its ground pretty well.

 

[gorcorps]

I'm sure it's running on the same creaky old engine that Far Cry 3 uses, which is the Far Cry 1 engine with some better foilage and global illumination bolted on. A lot of the assets even look reused from FC3.

FC3 looked pretty good on the PC. Don't really care what it uses

 

[billclutterman]

They may have gimped Watch Dogs so it would play on more PC's. I think a lot of people max their settings out when they shouldn't out of ego or just not knowing what they have. So when the game runs awful, Ubi gets complaints.. who knows?

 

[TeknoBug]

Ubisoft will gimp the PC version like Watch_Dogs

GAH! you beat me to it!

Bets that they'll lock hidden settings and someday someone will unlock them via a mod like Watch_Dog's mod.

This makes me think that the direciton in PC gaming is going downhill because of devs treating games like this, owning a GTX780 or R9 290 then probably won't matter anymore.

 

[KentState]

Learned my lesson after Watch_Dogs. Never pre-order Ubisoft games and wait a few months for a sale.

 

[cmdrdredd]

They may have gimped Watch Dogs so it would play on more PC's. I think a lot of people max their settings out when they shouldn't out of ego or just not knowing what they have. So when the game runs awful, Ubi gets complaints.. who knows?

Nah, it ran poorly for many given how the game looked and had a lot of options turned off in the game code. Someone made a couple patch files that enable options like depth of field, new reflections from headlights, better use of motion blur, enabled the fog effects that were enabled during the E3 videos but disabled at release, added bloom effects to bright lighting at night and increased the pedestrian density in the city. It's very different playing it with the modified files that only adjust config values so that it is something other than 0. Either it was on purpose or Ubisoft's QA is worthless. Have your pick there. I liked the game and thought it looked alright. It did have it's share of issues with pasted in reflections and the like. I enjoyed playing it though so I don't regret my purchase but after seeing the differences with the options turned on, there is a notable difference that I would have liked to have seen from the beginning, not after I finished it already.

On Farcry 4 the video I saw of gameplay looked fantastic. I don't think I would be too disappointed with that. However, I don't know what Ubisoft means here. Is this code for "ultra high isn't that high to begin with" or "ultra high is cut back on PC so console players don't feel bad"? The only reasons I buy games on PC is for mod potential and graphics enhancement. If the better graphics are immediately taken away that only leaves mods and I don't think many games actually get mod support so what reason is there to keep buying games on PC? There really isn't any for me.

A post on tweaktown was kind of funny, but in some ways spot on. I know this is the console forum and maybe this post was to inform console only players that they aren't getting a poor version of the game or whatever but lets face reality, a PC can do increased visuals over the PS4 and XB1. It is a disservice to not take advantage of that when you can.

Totalbiscuit and Dice dev, Johan Andersson said it best on Twitter.

"If your console version of a game is equivalent to "ultra high" on PC, that's because your PC version isn't good enough." -TB

"Embarrassing to hear devs say their console versions is the same quality as "ultra high" on PC. Then you are _not_ taking advantage of PC!" -JA

 

[futurefields]

Obvious that you don't know enough about Far Cry. Far Cry was Crytek's first title and launched using CryEngine 1. Ubi was the distributor and I think through funding development owned to the rights to Far Cry. Far Cry 2 and 3 use Uni's internal engine, in the end as old as CryEngine 1 is, if they used that for 3 it probably would have been superior. Don't know enough about 4 and its engine to tell you whether that is true still, but CryEngine 1 is not to be taken lightly I think it still holds its ground pretty well.

It's common knowledge that the Dunia engine is modified Cryengine 1. Obvious that you don't know enough about Far Cry.

 

[futurefields]

They may have gimped Watch Dogs so it would play on more PC's. I think a lot of people max their settings out when they shouldn't out of ego or just not knowing what they have. So when the game runs awful, Ubi gets complaints.. who knows?

No, the thing is the game could have looked better with the same or better performance. Ubisoft made the game look worse and run worse on PC to match the "next gen" console versions. This is how weak consoles hold back PC gaming. Developers want console to be the premier version, because they make more money in the console business by far. Literally the only way to have a weak console be the premier version is to make the PC version run like shit on purpose.

 

[gorcorps]

No, the thing is the game could have looked better with the same or better performance. Ubisoft made the game look worse and run worse on PC to match the "next gen" console versions. This is how weak consoles hold back PC gaming. Developers want console to be the premier version, because they make more money in the console business by far. Literally the only way to have a weak console be the premier version is to make the PC version run like shit on purpose.

This doesn't make any sense. Why would Ubisoft go through the trouble of making a GOOD PC game and then gimping it afterward? They pay more for console licenses last I heard (which may be wrong I'll admit) so it seems it would have been better to sell more PC copies if both prices are the same.

Some of these explanations seem to be nothing but silly conspiracy theories

 

[futurefields]

This doesn't make any sense. Why would Ubisoft go through the trouble of making a GOOD PC game and then gimping it afterward? They pay more for console licenses last I heard (which may be wrong I'll admit) so it seems it would have been better to sell more PC copies if both prices are the same.

Some of these explanations seem to be nothing but silly conspiracy theories

You think it takes more trouble to make a game run like crap then it does to make it run good? Ha.

And if you think it's a silly conspiracy theory, then tell me:

How do you make a console version the premier version without gimping the PC version?

 

[Aldon]

LMAO. So dumb and obvious misdirection. These companies, and you wonder why I refuse to support them. They'll say anything to make people jump on board. Sadly the masses will eat it up. For those that will come after and be like "i don't care about gfx if its a good game" I don't disagree, but let's be honest, why reward flat out treating the consumers like dumb bitches. The sad part is "this" is considered the in the know crowd and will still defend them. I'd be much more open minded if they simply said yea, we did this because we know we'll sell more on consoles anyway, PC gamers be lucky you are getting a version.

Can't say it any better. PC gaming is the LEAST preferred platform for ALMOST ALL game developers / publishers. I'm sure Microsoft and Sony gets a huge slice of the pie whenever games are made exclusively for them, so no wonder PC gaming is dying. It's business, it's entertainment.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Well, the alternative besides getting a console is to stop gaming. For many that is not an option we want.

 

[MentalIlness]

http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/06...nist?utm_campaign=fbposts&utm_source=facebook

Ubisoft released an image today of the protagonist from Far Cry 4, the upcoming open-world shooter.

The image, seen below, is a portrait of Ajay Ghale, a "Kyrat native [and] devoted son," according to the Far Cry 4 Facebook page where the image was released.

Ghale's counterpart, the villain Pagan Min –– who is voiced by industry regular Troy Baker –– was a source of controversy when Ubisoft initially released Far Cry 4's box art. Many felt the image gave rise to racial and class issues, concerns to which Far Cry 4's creative director responded.

 

[TeknoBug]

No, the thing is the game could have looked better with the same or better performance. Ubisoft made the game look worse and run worse on PC to match the "next gen" console versions. This is how weak consoles hold back PC gaming. Developers want console to be the premier version, because they make more money in the console business by far. Literally the only way to have a weak console be the premier version is to make the PC version run like shit on purpose.

That's the impression I'm getting..

 

[gorcorps]

You think it takes more trouble to make a game run like crap then it does to make it run good? Ha.

And if you think it's a silly conspiracy theory, then tell me:

How do you make a console version the premier version without gimping the PC version?

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying SPECIFICALLY in the case of Watch Dogs, it seems like there's a bunch of stuff disabled that makes the game look better (unless I'm misunderstanding what the mod does). Why would Ubisoft go through the trouble of making a good looking game, and then put in all this extra crap that makes it look bad again? That doesn't make any sense.

Your question still brings up my post, which you dodged. WHY do you think the console version is the premier version? If console licenses are more expensive than PC, then there's ZERO business reasons for the console to be the more desirable seller from Ubisoft's position.

 

[mmntech]

This doesn't make any sense. Why would Ubisoft go through the trouble of making a GOOD PC game and then gimping it afterward? They pay more for console licenses last I heard (which may be wrong I'll admit) so it seems it would have been better to sell more PC copies if both prices are the same.

Some of these explanations seem to be nothing but silly conspiracy theories

I don't think they deliberately gimp them. What they do is develop primarily for console, then do a rushed port over to PC.

I think they've always assumed low volume on PC game sales due to "piracy". So they really don't take the time and effort to optimize the code. PC game developers have to deal with things like hardware fragmentation, non-unified memory, etc. There's just enough demand to make it profitable, but not profitable enough to make it good.

It's been going on for a very long time. Back when I was a big flight sim fan, I had bought Lock On: Modern Air Combat. Despite exceeding the recommended requirements, the game was unplayable. Ran like a slide show. So you had to download several big patches to fix all the bugs. Then I bought Blazing Angels, and it was the same thing. The game was playable, but had no sound. An in-game bug broke audio compatibility with X-FI cards and Ubisoft refused to patch it. Keep in mind the game came out when these cards were still pretty popular.

 

[purbeast0]

WHY do you think the console version is the premier version? If console licenses are more expensive than PC, then there's ZERO business reasons for the console to be the more desirable seller from Ubisoft's position.

look at the sales numbers.

http://www.vgchartz.com/gamedb/?name=watch+dogs

that is why pc gets the backburner.

ps3 and 360 sold 4x and 3x more than pc, and it's 10 year old tech.

 

[Topweasel]

It's common knowledge that the Dunia engine is modified Cryengine 1. Obvious that you don't know enough about Far Cry.

I could show you water effects and foliage differences in Far Cry 3 that are still crap compared to Far Cry 1.
Dunia is made by a guy working for Ubi while Far Cry was being developed and worked on an engine for Ubi that by their estimates uses 1%-2% of the Crytek1 engine.

If anyone confused Dunia with Crytek1 then they do with blinders on because there is still a lot lacking.

Dunia was made to work with the consoles and basically kills half of what made Crytek 1 great.

 

[TeknoBug]

look at the sales numbers.

http://www.vgchartz.com/gamedb/?name=watch+dogs

that is why pc gets the backburner.

ps3 and 360 sold 4x and 3x more than pc, and it's 10 year old tech.

That site is awesome, I looked up CoD Ghosts and holy cow... D:

 

[Fulle]

It starts to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. When a game is primarily marketed to Consoles, and has a weak PC port, it's not exactly setting up the PC sales to be as good as they can be.

The PC market is very large, and there's plenty of games that are hugely successful on the PC. Ubisoft just hasn't figured out how to succeed with PC gamers yet.... Watch Dogs should have been a big step forward for them, but instead they cut features and further negatively tarnished their already poor reputation.