Assassin’s Creed Unity PC Specs

Impressive. I hope they use that to their full potential. Could be a killer game visually if they can do that.

I'm fine with the specs, but if games keep making higher requirements like this (2600K is mine, which is technically below the 3770, but overclocked, I'm fine), I will have a reason to upgrade my computer. :) Hopefully, Intel can bring out something to make me want to upgrade hardware just because... :)
 
Ubisoft: You would be less of a joke if your recommended MINIMUM card wasn't 75% more powerful than the Playstation 4 and ~250% more powerful than the Xbox One.
 
tetris42 said:
Ubisoft: You would be less of a joke if your recommended MINIMUM card wasn't 75% more powerful than the Playstation 4 and ~250% more powerful than the Xbox One.
Click to expand...

True. Also, only a small percentage of PC gamers even own the ~$550+ cards they're recommending. Why even bother porting something to PC if you're going to put no effort into it at all?
 
Ultima99 said:
Yeah this better destroy the console versions.
Click to expand...

But it won't, that's the sad part. It will look 100% identical while playing 200% worse than any console version; including the XB360 and/or PS3 (which I'm sure will happen further down the road; the XB360 and PS3 are still a huge cash cow for Ubisoft).
 
Lemme guess what will happen:
  • Ubisoft releases ACU PC as is.
  • Many customers balk at the extremely high requirements and don't buy.
  • Ubisoft whines about low sales on PC, blame it on piracy.
 
tetris42 said:
Ubisoft: You would be less of a joke if your recommended MINIMUM card wasn't 75% more powerful than the Playstation 4 and ~250% more powerful than the Xbox One.
Click to expand...

The XB1 isn't a third as poweful as the PS4/250% less powerful than a 680. But otherwise I agree.
 
hmm,

i can only infer that neither the xb1 or the ps4 will be able to enjoyably play it.
 
I find it hard to believe that a minimum required GPU is GTX 680. That GPU is in a completely different league than those crappy APU in the consoles, let alone the recommended one which will make the brand new consoles look ancient.

Does anyone really believe Sony/MS will Ubisoft them to do that? I highly doubt so. While I really do want to see such advancement in PC gaming, it can't come from multi platform games, not at the moment.
 
PCunicorn said:
The XB1 isn't a third as poweful as the PS4
Click to expand...
Never said it was a third as powerful as the PS4. I did make a mistake though thinking the 680 was a tad more powerful than it was however. While it's not absolute, TFLOPS are a decent indicator of GPU performance:

Xbox One = 1.31
PS4 = 1.84
Geforce 680 = 3.09 (I thought it was 3.2 for some reason when I made that post)
 
I bet money that it has the same graphics as Assassin's Creed Black flag, nothing like re-skin and profit.
 
I can't wait until someone tears the game code apart and finds that the developers purposely made the game unplayable on older graphics cards. Maybe it'll even say "This is PC only, who cares."
 
Cmdrmonkey said:
True. Also, only a small percentage of PC gamers even own the ~$550+ cards they're recommending. Why even bother porting something to PC if you're going to put no effort into it at all?
Click to expand...


To be fair they aren't recommend $550+ cards. The 970 is $329, and it's faster than the 780 they recommend.

Anyway, I'm not excited at all for the new AC game. Ubisoft pumped out waay too many sequels for this franchise and it got stale for me.
 
x3sphere said:
Anyway, I'm not excited at all for the new AC game. Ubisoft pumped out waay too many sequels for this franchise and it got stale for me.
Click to expand...

This right here. Shit's gotten worse than CoD. I played AC1, AC2, Brotherhood, and Revelations. After that I gave up on following it year after year after year. I loved the initial premises for it, but after Revelations I stopped caring about the overall storyline.
 
x3sphere said:
To be fair they aren't recommend $550+ cards. The 970 is $329, and it's faster than the 780 they recommend.

Anyway, I'm not excited at all for the new AC game. Ubisoft pumped out waay too many sequels for this franchise and it got stale for me.
Click to expand...

Agreed you can find both of those cards now for $250.

Those cards were $550 in 2012 not anymore.
 
TorxT3D said:
2500k at stock should be the recommended cpu.

im just lol
Click to expand...
The minimum requirements don't make a whole lot of sense. They list both a Phenom II X4 940 and a Core i5 2500k as "minimum"

Those two processors are in ENTIRELY different leagues.
 
As xbox 360 and ps3 games are being phased out the new systems are taking over mostly. The discs drives in the new consoles support games over 100GB. Bluray discs can go over 100GB with the BDXL format. I think the max right now to the public is 128GB multilayered bdxl discs. With those capacities why should developers hold back now. Its like from the n64 cartridge to the cd. Developers use the space because they can mostly. This is the future now. Websites in the past were built to run good on 56k modems. Now you need a broadband connection to use the internet or to view anything other than text. In the future things will only get bigger and bigger. We will see 100GB games soon ;)
 
Conker said:
As xbox 360 and ps3 games are being phased out the new systems are taking over mostly. The discs drives in the new consoles support games over 100GB. Bluray discs can go over 100GB with the BDXL format. I think the max right now to the public is 128GB multilayered bdxl discs. With those capacities why should developers hold back now. Its like from the n64 cartridge to the cd. Developers use the space because they can mostly. This is the future now. Websites in the past were built to run good on 56k modems. Now you need a broadband connection to use the internet or to view anything other than text. In the future things will only get bigger and bigger. We will see 100GB games soon ;)
Click to expand...

With more games going to digital distribution I doubt it. Unless everyone has minimum 50 Mbps connections good lucking downloading 100GB's. Not even going to touch on the small data caps most people have. I think you are getting abit ahead of yourself.
 
I would add to that the fact that disc drives in general are becoming legacy hardware, and we're probably only a generation away from consoles going entirely over to digital distribution themselves.
 
Cmdrmonkey said:
True. Also, only a small percentage of PC gamers even own the ~$550+ cards they're recommending. Why even bother porting something to PC if you're going to put no effort into it at all?
Click to expand...

And that would be bullshit just buy the amount of R290/GTX680/780/970/980 sales alone.
Here is my post on that site and I mean every word. I am so tired of "poor" pc gamers thinking we all should have shoddy graphics cause your pc doesn't support it. Tough, that what consoles are for.

Tough crap if you can't afford to upgrade your PC. ITS ABOUT TIME!! Consoles are for you who can't afford this HOBBY, you ENTITLED brats!! Its time the PC shine and be separated from the low powered consoles! And its not only 5% you babies. Every 980/970 on amazon.com was sold out the first 3 weeks. Microcenter outside Detroit is currently selling 50+ 970's a week. Thousands of Radeon R290's, GTX 780's, 680's, now 970/980's out there hardly is 5%! Oh and if you can't afford an AMD 8350/R290 setup after all the price cuts, like I said. There is the door to the "cheaper" console room, don't let it hit you in the ass on the way out. The PC MASTER RACE is back! Wait till you see the Star Wars Battlefront Specs.
Click to expand...

Suck it.
 
ZeroBarrier said:
But it won't, that's the sad part. It will look 100% identical while playing 200% worse than any console version; including the XB360 and/or PS3 (which I'm sure will happen further down the road; the XB360 and PS3 are still a huge cash cow for Ubisoft).
Click to expand...

I can't imagine it'd be possible for them to. They had a hard time getting the game running acceptably on PS4/XB1 (only 900p 30 fps on both). They made AC: Rogue for the old gen consoles specifically to still reap those sales.
 
SnowBeast said:
And that would be bullshit just buy the amount of R290/GTX680/780/970/980 sales alone.
Here is my post on that site and I mean every word. I am so tired of "poor" pc gamers thinking we all should have shoddy graphics cause your pc doesn't support it. Tough, that what consoles are for.



Suck it.
Click to expand...

Wow you're so cool and amazing
 
fLzJZ3O.gif
 
tetris42 said:
Ubisoft: You would be less of a joke if your recommended MINIMUM card wasn't 75% more powerful than the Playstation 4 and ~250% more powerful than the Xbox One.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this plus 50 gig install. I have 10 PS2 games completely uncompressed on my SSD right now and they don't even crack 40 GB. In HD those games look phenomenal. There is zero reason for installs of this absurd size.
 
SnowBeast said:
Here is my post on that site and I mean every word. I am so tired of "poor" pc gamers thinking we all should have shoddy graphics cause your pc doesn't support it. Tough, that what consoles are for.
Click to expand...
Okay besides gloating how much money you have, because that's mature, here's the problem with their thinking:

1. There is such a thing as pushing graphics to the limit AND having an option for the plebeians! Who would have thought? Maybe they could lower the texture resolution or have a more aggressive LOD or draw distance settings, turn off shadows, AO, etc. You know, really simple options that are easy to turn off that make a big difference in performance. Meanwhile, the high end can have so much eye candy it will make others weep. The debate centering around people complaining that the high end is too high is just stupid and it's a false argument.

2. Seeing as how this is Ubisoft we're talking about, we have NO assurances the game will take this much power because it really looks that good and needs it, or if it's because it's horribly optimized. If it's the former, yeah, can't really complain. If it's the latter, it's horse shit and nothing to celebrate. The fact that the minimum requirements are SO much higher than consoles make things suspicious. Check out the Saints Row 2 PC port if you enjoy shit ports, that STILL won't run smoothly on modern systems.

3. Intentionally targeting such a smaller demographic of the PC gaming market doesn't make much sense from a business perspective. Yes, you need certain minimums, but it's not like we're MILES ahead of a Geforce 680. There isn't even a single-GPU card that's twice as fast as that.
 
Seems like games that require about 50GB of HDD space is the norm these days, glad I bought a 512GB SSD but I'm afraid that won't last long either.

But I'm happy that gaming developers are forcing the use of 64 bit OS's, I don't see the point of running a 32 bit OS anymore especially that most software and games uses more than 4GB these days.
 
This is complete crap! I know idiots will say oh it's ok it's the future, Or say it's ok because it just means that it will be great. However these people are part of the problem! They fall for anything as long as a man in a suite or someone that claims to be a official says so, And they will go out and buy this crap letting Ubisoft and others know they can get away with being cheap and lazy! I myself am tired of lazy console ports! Back when Ubisoft threatened to stop making PC ports everyone should have said fine stop making them! But I just bought this system 5 months ago, I have 8GB of Ram and a AMD R9 270, And My CPU is a Ivy i5 3470 that I got on sale for almost $100 cheaper than a haswell was. Now it is not the latest and greatest, But for crying out loud! No game for the next couple of years should be unplayable on it. That is just insane! And my PC is about what the average PC gamer has. But anyone with a older 1st gen i5 or a Phenom X4 and a ATI 5770/GTS450 should be fine for awhile too! These developers are just getting away with too much now!
 
Anyone tried this yet on lesser hardware? I gave a quick google search and people have it running ok with video cards a lot slower than gtx680.
 
SnowBeast said:
I am so tired of "poor" pc gamers thinking we all should have shoddy graphics cause your pc doesn't support it. Tough, that what consoles are for.
Click to expand...

What I'm tired of is game developers who put zero effort into a port and force obscene requirements for games that, quite frankly, are not justified graphically.

I don't think too many people are whining about games like Crysis 3 requiring a decent machine (although it also scales down quite well). People are upset that we get console ports that look like shit and run like shit to boot.
 
MavericK96 said:
What I'm tired of is game developers who put zero effort into a port and force obscene requirements for games that, quite frankly, are not justified graphically.

I don't think too many people are whining about games like Crysis 3 requiring a decent machine (although it also scales down quite well). People are upset that we get console ports that look like shit and run like shit to boot.
Click to expand...

I have to give Ubisoft credit. The game looks pretty good. For me it also runs very good too, but I'll admit, I have a high end machine.
 
Nytegard said:
I have to give Ubisoft credit. The game looks pretty good. For me it also runs very good too, but I'll admit, I have a high end machine.
Click to expand...

I was thinking more along the lines of Watch_Dogs, but glad to hear that AC:Unity isn't too bad.
 
2600k
780 DCII
8gb Ram

Game runs like ass for me, constant slowdown/stuttering, even if I drop everything to medium, AA off, etc.
 
After looking this over again, is this just a botched press release? Maybe they meant that the "minimum" specifications will be to play the game maxed out at 1080p and consistently higher than 30 FPS while the "recommended" specifications are for playing the game maxed out at 1080p and averaging 60 FPS or better? Otherwise, they obviously do not understand the concept of scaling...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top