Ubisoft Graphics Downgrades: E3 vs. Retail

[Krixon]

Why do they bother doing this?

I currently have a GTX 750 TI and I can play a lot of games (especially Ubisoft games) on high at 1080p and around 60fps, so there is plenty of reason to be angry about them removing more complex settings.

Because the screencaps from announcements look great on Tech/Gaming blog websites, and the deceit unfortunately builds hype from fans who don't know any better - all which translates into stronger sales for the most part. It is a grim reality that bull-shots and bull-trailers reward publishers more than they hurt them.

The new Doom was a day-one purchase from me partially because it looked just as good as when they showed it off. It's not the most amazing looking game, but it is well optimized and plays buttery-smooth at sub-60 fps.

 

[tetris42]

my point was that most gamers who buy high end cards like a 980Ti don't want to hear about lowering a lot of graphical settings...people expect that it will play maxed out (or close to it) at 1080p or even 1440p...they also don't want to hear that they need to buy a Titan Z or invest in a multi card setup...

According to Steam, that's 0.95% of users. Oh no, wouldn't want to upset them! Better downgrade the entire game! Get real. You're talking about a minority of a minority. Many AAA games have an automatic calibration option to get optimal settings if that was the issue. Yes, I'm sure there will be some of that 0.95% will complain, they'll probably complain when they don't get free ice cream either. Besides, would that really complain that much if the game LOOKS amazing at max settings? Again, this is just Ubisoft trying to maintain console parity.

 

[silent-circuit]

my point was that most gamers who buy high end cards like a 980Ti don't want to hear about lowering a lot of graphical settings...people expect that it will play maxed out (or close to it) at 1080p or even 1440p...they also don't want to hear that they need to buy a Titan Z or invest in a multi card setup...

...and those people are idiots that should be ignored for the greater good. Having a single high end card shouldn't mean you get the absolute best possible experience when multi-GPU is out there are there are people who are willing to invest in it. Hell, I don't expect to be able to turn /everything/ on in all titles even with my setup. It's what I aim for, sure, but if the game honestly looks good and the point where things get too complex makes some semblance of sense -- i.e. there has been at least some effort put in to optimization -- I'm fine with it. I suspect so are most others who've put this kind of money in to a machine. We understand that someone has to push the limit or there will be no progress. Saying we should stop that progress so that Jimbob the extreme gamer with his new ubercard won't get butthurt is nothing but damaging.

 

[yourgrandma]

Are you kidding me? Maybe this video didn't show it off well. Check out this one instead:



There's basically half the foliage of the original, plus plenty of minor lighting effects. The lack of jungle alone changes the whole atmosphere of the game. You can really see it starting at around 0:53. Far Cry 1 literally had more jungle than 3.

I think far cry 3 has been overstated compared to literally everything else ubisoft game has downgraded. Some areas had more foliage and some had less, mostly what changed was the aesthetics. Nothing compared to literally faking the whole game like so

 

[M76]

to be fair if Ubisoft shipped the game with those E3 level graphics there would be a ton of people complaining about how they can't play the game even with their relatively high end GPU...so they did what they needed to get the game working on a wider range of GPU's...people will complain either way so best to go with the one where more people can play the game (and complain)

No, just no and no. There is no defending this. If they dumbed it down so it would run well, then they should've known at E3 already that it won't run looking like that, and therefore shouldn't have shown it like that.GTA IV couldn't be maxed out even on high end hardware when it was released. Yes some people complained. But did it hurt the game? Not at all. If anything it made it more future proof.

If ubisoft made cars, then they would show you a V8, and sell you an inline-3. This is a scam and they know it, I hope some big time lawyer sees the opportunity and sues them on behalf of all their customers.

 

[tesfaye]

So that's what The Division is supposed to look like! Seems like they sucked the extra detail out along with the much of the atmosphere. I'm having fun because I'm playing with friends, but it isn't the most exciting game and I expected more as I made my way through the city. They didn't have to hit the mark perfectly as per the demo footage, but damn, some of that and more of the background audio would have been appreciated.

 

[Ur_Mom]

I think people with high end GPU's, say for example a 980Ti rightfully feel they should be able to play games at high resolutions maxed out (or close to it) with high AA etc...if games were released with E3 type of graphics people would probably need a Titan single card or even multi-GPU setups for optimal performance...that's where people would complain...you cannot release games for the top 1% of gamers...

my point was that most gamers who buy high end cards like a 980Ti don't want to hear about lowering a lot of graphical settings...people expect that it will play maxed out (or close to it) at 1080p or even 1440p...they also don't want to hear that they need to buy a Titan Z or invest in a multi card setup...

Crysis, Quake 3 Arena and others did this. You could run Ultra, but it was a slideshow. It was built for the NEXT generation of GPU's, not the current ones.

I'd rather have to upgrade to get the absolute best than have a high end system that can run the game the same as a mid-level system (or a console). What would be the point of having that Titan X or 1080 if it doesn't do much beyond increasing the resolution. Give me more detail. Give me better lighting.

The games used to push the hardware. Not anymore.

So much wasted potential.

 

[polonyc2]

Crysis, Quake 3 Arena and others did this. You could run Ultra, but it was a slideshow. It was built for the NEXT generation of GPU's, not the current ones

those days are over...you have to think of it from a business perspective and not a consumer...

 

[tetris42]

I think far cry 3 has been overstated compared to literally everything else ubisoft game has downgraded. Some areas had more foliage and some had less, mostly what changed was the aesthetics. Nothing compared to literally faking the whole game like so]

Please, show me what areas had MORE foliage in Far Cry 3 final than in E3. In my eyes, it lost about 50% of the foliage. It turned what should have been an atmospheric jungle experience into a bunch of fields with some brush here and there. For me, it totally changed the atmosphere of the game. Again, Far Cry 1 has more jungle. There are lots of more subtle lighting effects changed too, but you're right, later games probably have that beat with how extreme the changes are. Still, make a game about jungle + remove half the jungle = lame.

 

[Ur_Mom]

those days are over...you have to think of it from a business perspective and not a consumer...

Yea, I know. It still sucks.

No longer are they creating things for the consumer. They are creating things that bring out the most profit. Remember when game programmers loved to play games? Pepperage Farms remembers.

I think a lot of these videos and posts reflect that there is a push back with it, though. Dumbing down PC releases due to consoles. Overpromising and underdelivering. It's not an isolated incident. It's a common practice now.

 

[NExUS1g]

This is lying, plain and simple. To me it's like seeing a commercial for Aliens and then when I get to the theater, getting some homemade film.

 

[cptnjarhead]

Its sad that any company does this, but they all do it.
IMO, its fraud. The product video is the game i though i was buying, but the end product is not like the video.
But they put the damn disclaimer in there to save their asses.
We need to stop pre-ordering, and use our wallets to show them this is not acceptable.
Trying to get console kiddies to do this, is impossible though.

 

[VeerK]

That was genuinely heartbreaking to watch, Seige took a gameplay downgrade as well in some aspects too

 

[bertkelmer]

Its sad that any company does this, but they all do it.
IMO, its fraud. The product video is the game i though i was buying, but the end product is not like the video.
But they put the damn disclaimer in there to save their asses.
We need to stop pre-ordering, and use our wallets to show them this is not acceptable.
Trying to get console kiddies to do this, is impossible though.

Yup. As long as people buy it, doesn't make a difference.

 

[pothb]

I think people with high end GPU's, say for example a 980Ti rightfully feel they should be able to play games at high resolutions maxed out (or close to it) with high AA etc...if games were released with E3 type of graphics people would probably need a Titan single card or even multi-GPU setups for optimal performance...that's where people would complain...you cannot release games for the top 1% of gamers...

There is a difference though, in making it 1% capable. My computers are never that high end. But don't show it as something way better then kick it down several notches.

Another thing, I remember watching a video regarding the whole graphics stuff, most likely due to W_D as well... and I agree with them. It's these companies that constantly exclaim about the great graphics. But they are also the ones that renege on it as well. Can't remember whose vid it was, I think it was Total Biscuit, but it could easil be someone else's.

 

[ZodaEX]

This is lying, plain and simple. To me it's like seeing a commercial for Aliens and then when I get to the theater, getting some homemade film.

How is it lying? I take it that you are unfamiliar with a work in progress.

 

[tetris42]

How is it lying? I take it that you are unfamiliar with a work in progress.

If I hear "work in progress" for a game, I expect placeholder models, simple textures, maps without a lot of detail, missing sound effects, etc. For almost any other product, a "work in progress" looks WORSE than the final thing, because it's still being made. Something is wrong if it looks substantially better than the final polished consumer version. For most circumstances, it doesn't make sense to do all the work to make it look good, then intentionally go back and make it look worse.

 

[SPARTAN VI]

Only thing that would upset me here are the clear discrepenancies in gameplay between their E3 demo and the actual product. I'm not upset because I couldn't careless about the marketing materials, I watch my friends or other streamer's "let's plays" to get an idea of whether I'd like a game or not.

 

[Youn]

 

[pothb]

Seriously, fuck car manufacturors too.

That said, I don't care for cars all that much, so I'm less affected. Also, I don't want games to go in that direction. It's shit.

Though I have to wonder, why the fuck can't they do the concept as the final for cars, I don't see anythin that is particular hard to do.

 

[Armenius]

There is a difference between "concept" and "work-in-progress." The auto industry uses the former while the video game industry uses the latter. Another difference is that people are shown the final production version of a new vehicle months in advance of orders becoming available, while the video game industry enforces 0-day embargoes on reviews.

 

[Flogger23m]

Some of these replies are face palm worthy. Things get remade in games throughout development. It may not look the same in the end. Making two or three lighting engines for a single game while hoping it runs well on hardware 2-3 years down the line isn't a smart move either. You can't optimize for hardware you don't have or know.

Far Cry 3 foliage changes were likely for AI reasons and player visibility for all we know. Managing sensible enemy view range can be a pain, especially when you are dealing with seeing through dense trees. No one likes it when AI can see you but you can't see them. The real question we should be asking is why AI has been at a standstill for years. And other gameplay shortcomings.

 

[pothb]

How about not showing off things that won't make it. Facepalm worth, alright.

 

[tetris42]

Some of these replies are face palm worthy. Things get remade in games throughout development. It may not look the same in the end. Making two or three lighting engines for a single game while hoping it runs well on hardware 2-3 years down the line isn't a smart move either. You can't optimize for hardware you don't have or know.

If only there was some way to run these games on modern hardware that are already being run in realtime 2 years out at E3!

 

[Flogger23m]

How about not showing off things that won't make it. Facepalm worth, alright.

That would be nice, but I don't think it will ever happen. Unless you revealed your game two weeks before it went on sale, but I think the lack of marketing time would hurt sales.

If only there was some way to run these games on modern hardware that are already being run in realtime 2 years out at E3!

A lot of those videos aren't real time and are merely in engine and/or disable a lot of stuff to get the game view able to show off. Another great example to use is The Witcher 3. The lighting engine used in the original videos was redone, hence why the retail game looks so much uglier. They cited performance shortcomings, and seeing that it is rather demanding as it is you can't blame them. Often times getting good performance on modern hardware is more difficult than hitting a magical "make it less pretty so we get more frame rates button". Probably why CD Projekt redid the lighting engine. It likely just wasn't workable on current hardware no matter what they were doing, so a less ambitious re-write was required. Stuff are re-done all the time in game development. And graphics are often changed for gameplay/technical reasons (again, NPC navigation, accuracy, player navigation, ect.) that are entirely unrelated to prettiness or performance.

 

[pothb]

That would be nice, but I don't think it will ever happen. Unless you revealed your game two weeks before it went on sale, but I think the lack of marketing time would hurt sales.

I don't see why it can't. Unless all art assets, programming, sound, etc are finished on the exact same day for some reason. I find that that takes more effort to do than not to do.

 

[DrDoU]

latest Just Cause also seems like total crap.

that's because it is crap

 

[tetris42]

A lot of those videos aren't real time and are merely in engine and/or disable a lot of stuff to get the game view able to show off. Another great example to use is The Witcher 3. The lighting engine used in the original videos was redone, hence why the retail game looks so much uglier. They cited performance shortcomings, and seeing that it is rather demanding as it is you can't blame them. Often times getting good performance on modern hardware is more difficult than hitting a magical "make it less pretty so we get more frame rates button". Probably why CD Projekt redid the lighting engine. It likely just wasn't workable on current hardware no matter what they were doing, so a less ambitious re-write was required. Stuff are re-done all the time in game development. And graphics are often changed for gameplay/technical reasons (again, NPC navigation, accuracy, player navigation, ect.) that are entirely unrelated to prettiness or performance.

To be clear, I'm mostly thinking of Ubisoft and games where somebody is actually playing it live, not pre-rendered. Plus this is Ubisoft we're talking about. The company doubled down on saying there was no downgrade made to the graphics on Watch Dogs on multiple occasions, even after they got outed. All I can say is it gets old seeing game after game from the same company consistently look better at E3, then see big ratcheting backwards come retail time. This is about console parity. I'm just not seeing the reasons to have some many graphics scaled back after they've already gotten them working years out, in real time.

 

[Litfod]

The real question we should be asking is why AI has been at a standstill for years. And other gameplay shortcomings.

Simple, it's because the majority of big games focus on multiplayer these days so AI isn't a priority. And if you don't think that's true, look at all the people moaning about No Man's Sky not having a traditional multiplayer mode.
I'm not endorsing it, because I play single player predominantly, but it's been a clear trend for at least a decade.

 

[KazeoHin]

Simple, it's because the majority of big games focus on multiplayer these days so AI isn't a priority. And if you don't think that's true, look at all the people moaning about No Man's Sky not having a traditional multiplayer mode.
I'm not endorsing it, because I play single player predominantly, but it's been a clear trend for at least a decade.

To be fair, Nobody is asking No Man's Sky to become a COD-style deathmatch game. Really, all we want is to be able to play the exact same game with our friends on a private server.

 

[N4CR]

To be fair, Nobody is asking No Man's Sky to become a COD-style deathmatch game. Really, all we want is to be able to play the exact same game with our friends on a private server.

They are working on a lobby style system and PvP has been confirmed but we are not sure to what level. We'll see in future.

That said, it's not really a game focused on that. If you want CoD spaceships there are plenty of other games out there already. The faction battles are a very small part of the game play... people forget, this is literally an entire damn galaxy... within galaxies. It's focused on exploring - in this day and age it seems most have too short of an attention span for a game like this. I predict a vast gulf in reviews between people who get it and those who don't and slam it. E.g. 9/10s and 4/10s.


Credit where it's due - the current gameplay footage makes E3 look like an Alpha.. as it should almost every time with a long release window!

 

[knowom]

my point was that most gamers who buy high end cards like a 980Ti don't want to hear about lowering a lot of graphical settings...people expect that it will play maxed out (or close to it) at 1080p or even 1440p...they also don't want to hear that they need to buy a Titan Z or invest in a multi card setup...

Perhaps you prefer the dark ages of PC gaming and are fully satisfied by the graphic prowess and marvel of pong, but some of us have grander visions of what gaming can be and where it can take us and how we can get there and without pushing higher standards we sink in the quicksands of console stagnation. Believe it or not some PC enthusiasts enjoy pushing their hardware to it's limits and both challenges that presents and wave of excitement the new graphical rendering it presents us with. Gaming shouldn't be held back due to so called game enthusiasts that are unwilling to turn their settings down to the next lowest preset that's utterly backwards. What's the point in having a high end card if your going to artificially limit it to run like a entry level card because that's what's closest to console level graphics? I don't see too many game players buying high end video cards running them at equivalent console level graphics settings for their PC game ports.

 

[The Fragile]

How do people stay in business with such terrible tattoo skills? And why do people keep paying them?

 

[aShrubbery!]

How do people stay in business with such terrible tattoo skills? And why do people keep paying them?

Being tattooed while drunk?