Ubisoft Graphics Downgrades: E3 vs. Retail

See this just goes to show that when people bring up Watch_Dogs as an example of downgrading I always have felt that, out of most games these days, Watch_Dogs was very mild in comparison. A few less people and a few less over the top scripted sequences, sure, but over all we still pretty much got what we were shown game play and graphics wise.

My biggest disappointment was The Division and Bioshock Infinite which I know isn't an Ubi game but I still had major issues with it.

Otherwise Far Cry 3 looked about the same, if not better, but the other Far Cry was incredibly dumbed down. Nothing even looks the same...
 
The last time pre-release trailers got me was the PS1 announcement trailer for Final Fantasy VIII. Ever since, I've known to take these things with a grain of salt.
 
Taking advantage of the consumer no excuses they make it seem like the Game demo at E3 is actual in game play or if it is they are implying that is what the customer is getting. Rainbow six Siege is probably my last ubisoft game.
 
At least in the Retail versions they seem to reduce the lens flare and bloom. The E3 videos were all very annoying in that regard.

I cannot stand excessive amounts of lens flare and bloom.

And if all that detail shown in the E3 videos was in game, here would be your complaints:

1. These games take up too much space - I shouldn't have to download 60+ GB.
2. I can only fit 1-2 games on my SSD. Why are devs wasting so much space?

And... as for the console crowd, I am guessing that they would have a fit if the PC versions looked so much better than the console versions, which is probably most of the reason for the downgrades.

It does make me wonder why they don't just release the ultra detail packs for download for those with systems that have enough power to run them.

I would also like to know what type of systems they were running in the E3 videos or if everything was just a pre-rendered video.
 
Trailers used to sell consoles, not copies. The last guardian is vaporware used for each playstation gen to sell and hype up the console, and every year people fall for it and get their hopes up.
 
games at E 3 are never optimized for real world use .. ubi downgrades are nothing new .. you have to take anything you see at event's like that with a grain of salt

go look up Soldier of Fortune 2 @ E 3 from back in 2000 ..you'll see what i mean or LOL Duke Nukem Forever

game developers always have a better video before a games released and the final numbers get crunched

is UBISOFT GUILTY as charged?? yes .. so are all game dev's ..they want to Sell games so they bring the best canned video they can produce

not defending the practice .. its just hows it always been ..if ya ask me

plus never PRE ORDER ..wait till a game ships see the initial reviews on hardware similar to what you have
\
\bought FarCry 4 and Far Cry Primal after i saw the initial reviews .. i was not let down @ all

granted i did not pay a full Steam price for the games and Primal bought a uplay only version the day it shipped .. much cheaper @ online at another site ..worked perfectly
 
Last edited:
Yeah....Haven't bought a Ubisoft game in years.....many years.
 
mere graphics/lighting aside, the content, gameplay, audio, and UI downgrades are probably more disheartening...

love how they show the folks walk out on stage afterwards... screams of douch-baggary, although I wouldn't blame those particular folks
 
The problem that people are having with Just Cause 3 is that the company is releasing a ton of DLC and not releasing fixes that work. Even with the downgrade to Watch_Dogs it still ran horrible. The problem with Watch_Dogs is that it was just plain boring and driving was like SR 2. Even though Witcher 3 got a downgrade it still looks pretty, even though the game needed a ton of patches to fix the lag issues that were not related to video drivers.
 
This is why I pre-order NOTHING.

No more pre-orders for the rest of my life. A demonstration at E3 is nothing but a canned, heavilly scripted, barely-final pre-rendering.

Never Pre-Order, lest you want this sort of thing to continue.
 
Been used to this since "artist renderings" back in the Intellivision/Atari/Coleco days! LOL
Nothing has changed, and never will ;)
 
Mut1ny said:
Otherwise Far Cry 3 looked about the same, if not better, but the other Far Cry was incredibly dumbed down. Nothing even looks the same...
Click to expand...
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.
 
cyclone3d said:
At least in the Retail versions they seem to reduce the lens flare and bloom. The E3 videos were all very annoying in that regard.

I cannot stand excessive amounts of lens flare and bloom.

And if all that detail shown in the E3 videos was in game, here would be your complaints:

1. These games take up too much space - I shouldn't have to download 60+ GB.
2. I can only fit 1-2 games on my SSD. Why are devs wasting so much space?
Click to expand...

The answer to that is get a bigger SSD obviously. There is only one word to what they're doing: False marketing. The final version of watch dogs looked like 90's Mafia game honestly.
 
Doom(2016) was nearly 50GB.

Do you hear anyone crying out for justice? No? Because it was a fucking awesome game.


Skyrim had bugs and was clunky as hell, but people don't boycott the game, because it was an AMAZING GAME.


These publishers (ubi and the rest of the shovelware brigade) don't realise that people don't bitch about small problems in GOOD GAMES. People bitch about small problems in mediocre games that aren't worth the effort.
 
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)
 
polonyc2 said:
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)
Click to expand...

This is BS, some people will complain, but the truth is this: This is what graphics settings are for. You can turn DOWN graphics settings to run a ton of hardware. People who feel entitled to 'Ultra' need to buy the hardware that can run 'Ultra'.
 
A few things that have always stood out with Ubisoft e3 demos is that they're likely not the actual game. They're hype reels done to test the viability of an actual product. You know if you have cheesy multiplayer voice acting, the video is likely full of shit at this point .

Take for example, a lot of these are more than just optimizations. They're outright recreations. In Watchdogs, the theater area you can tell the e3 demo had each light bulb modelled. In the actual game, they were just repeated textures. Besides the fact that the E3-style graphics were literally labeled "E3" in the config files. That just seems like they knew beforehand those graphics wouldn't make it into the final product.

The R6 one is so blantant, it addresses itself. And The Division has a lot of the game E3 areas "blocked off".

It's not optimization. It's intentional bait and switch marketing, especially when the devs outright deny the downgrades - they may not be lying, the devs making the actual game probably didn't downgrade as they were probably not the ones who made the hype reel. Kinda like them being handed concept art and told to make it work. They're recreating within the confines of what the console's can actually handle.
 
Last edited:
KazeoHin said:
This is BS, some people will complain, but the truth is this: This is what graphics settings are for. You can turn DOWN graphics settings to run a ton of hardware. People who feel entitled to 'Ultra' need to buy the hardware that can run 'Ultra'.
Click to expand...
The way I look at graphics settings is this way you can have your cake and eat it. There is no harm no foul offering the best graphics you have availible and a toggle to turn down the quality for those that need it. The developers kind of do that anyway even when they turn down the graphics quality a bit so why get rid of something a few people can enjoy when it won't hurt anyone else? I guess they don't want to hear about people moaning about performance is the main thing, but pushing the envelop has always been the objective of graphics enthusiasts we want to be emerged in visual nirvana to best our individual budgets allow for. I have nothing against Ubisoft, but these were just unfortunate and poor choices from a developer standpoint to be taking that make little sense so some of the backlash is kind of expected.
 
At what point is it just false advertising?

Car commercials = read the fine print, they say one price, and often show the top of the line with all options
Movies = creative edits are made to make trailers
Fast food = what's filmed or photographed usually are props or fake food
Anything in print (magazines/newspaper) = photoshop
Video games = E3 bull-shots
 
KazeoHin said:
This is BS, some people will complain, but the truth is this: This is what graphics settings are for. You can turn DOWN graphics settings to run a ton of hardware. People who feel entitled to 'Ultra' need to buy the hardware that can run 'Ultra'.
Click to expand...

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...
 
god-of-war-tattoo-fail.jpg
 
polonyc2 said:
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)
Click to expand...
Nice false dichotomy! And as others have said, on PCs, there are these magical things called DEFAULT settings that can run great on many systems! They can even go a step further and give you a warning box if you try to increase your settings, letting you know it may not run well! Your argument has no weight at all. This is done to appease the console market so the PC version doesn't look TOO much better. That's all there is to this.
 
polonyc2 said:
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)
Click to expand...

OR they could have just shown the actual gameplay and listed the platform. If it was a PC they could have used their own "recommended settings"
They could have been HONEST instead of the greasy slimy company they are.

I HATE UPLAY! (sorry I have to say that)
 
DukenukemX said:
This is what happens when games are made for PC, and then remade for console, and then PCs get ports of those games.
Click to expand...

Bingo. Imagine how much further the state of PC graphics and image quality would be if consoles hadn't been such a huge constraint to the devs for the past couple decades.
 
The problem is that they could never release the stuff they made for an E3, I am sure MS and Sony would make sure they never got approval of their game on the console if the graphics disparity between the platforms was exceedingly obvious. Remember these are AAA games with a AAA budget, they need to be able to sell it on all platforms to recover the costs. If MS and Sony said, "no chance you are releasing this game on our platform when the PC version looks that much better because it would hurt the console's image", then the game's fate was decided at that moment.
 
tetris42 said:
Nice false dichotomy! And as others have said, on PCs, there are these magical things called DEFAULT settings that can run great on many systems! They can even go a step further and give you a warning box if you try to increase your settings, letting you know it may not run well! Your argument has no weight at all. This is done to appease the console market so the PC version doesn't look TOO much better. That's all there is to this.
Click to expand...

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...
 
I recall the Spore demo showd a bit more flair than retail, the problem isnt just ubisoft
 
polonyc2 said:
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...
Click to expand...
So true
 
polonyc2 said:
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...
Click to expand...

But when people like me that have an old 4GB GTX670 are still able to max every modern title at 1080p (Witcher 3 runs between 30-40fps for me at max settings including hairworks) then maybe the devs should shoot a little higher.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top