Watch Dogs was intentionally hobbled on PC

tetris42 said:
Ubisoft gets the majority of their sales from consoles, so if the PC version looks better, they could perceive that as hurting their profits from the console sector.
Click to expand...

intentionally gimping the PC version to make consoles look better makes no sense because the demographic is too different...PC gamers usually don't choose between PC or console...PC gamers are more technically proficient and know the advantages...maybe they own a console in addition to a PC...console owners would never buy a PC because they don't know enough or care enough about the differences

so why developers continue to gimp the PC makes no sense...if anything they should be working to fully take advantage of the PC so that the game itself looks as good as it can
 
I think the issue is more caused by incompetence than a deliberate attempt to gimp the PC version.
Click to expand...
Okay wow, we're talking about a LOT of incompetence then:

-Incompetence at programming all these graphics features, making them work for E3, then not being able to make them work elsewhere, I mean that's a lot of fucking time, work, and resources to just throw out.

-Incompetence at the head of Ubisoft not knowing what the fuck his own company is doing by making statements that the graphics have not been downgraded when they obviously have.

-Incompetence at not retracting the above statement and allowing the game to ship, with the company knowing full well what he said was false.

-Incompetence in having no PR response once this bomb exploded.

intentionally gimping the PC version to make consoles look better makes no sense because the demographic is too different...PC gamers usually don't choose between PC or console...PC gamers are more technically proficient and know the advantages...maybe they own a console in addition to a PC...console owners would never buy a PC because they don't know enough or care enough about the differences
Click to expand...
I'd say it doesn't matter what the reality is, so long as the people making the decisions BELIEVE that PCs cut into the console sales. All it takes is one manager being an asshole to steer the course of the whole company.
 
Have any of you guys got the game and unlocked the content as per the mod?

How detrimental is enabling all the bells and whistle on performance? The thread over at guru3D Is painful to read.

I just can't fathom why they wouldn't enable the content for PC gamers. The only thing I can think of is that Ubisoft were lobbied by Sony and MS to tone down the PC version after it came to light that the console versions would simply not match up.
 
Syphon Filter said:
Have any of you guys got the game and unlocked the content as per the mod?

How detrimental is enabling all the bells and whistle on performance? The thread over at guru3D Is painful to read.

I just can't fathom why they wouldn't enable the content for PC gamers. The only thing I can think of is that Ubisoft were lobbied by Sony and MS to tone down the PC version after it came to light that the console versions would simply not match up.
Click to expand...

I've maxed out the setting w/ the tweaker tool, which runs really well. When I add the mod, it lags my system to 5 to 20 FPS. Not good whatsoever & I hate how DoF is overused to limit the viewing distance from character.
 
patch indicator? could they possibly be planning more patches? that's interesting.
 
schizrade said:
How did this thread end up bagging on GTAV? Jesus people. The video of the PC/PS4/X1 they showed is a VAST improvement over the initial 360/ps3 version. GTAIV was not a bomb on PC, it was a bomb on ALL platforms. Too much to process, not enough power. As bad as it ran on PC, it was WAY worse on console.
Click to expand...

no it wasnt. I never noticed any problems with it on xbox 360. But when i got it for pc It was literally unplayable at 20 fps. and this was with a amd 6950 2500k oc to 4.3.
 
Stanfiem said:
no it wasnt. I never noticed any problems with it on xbox 360. But when i got it for pc It was literally unplayable at 20 fps. and this was with a amd 6950 2500k oc to 4.3.
Click to expand...

This. Swear to god, by the time it took Rockstar to get to fixing all the bugs and optimization errors, PC tech has advanced to the point that it no longer mattered, lol.

Still keep it installed on my system now, though - ENB and a good car pack make this game sing like nothing Ive played before or since.
 
Am I the only person who hasn't had any performance issues running everything maxed out? I've got a 4770k, 7950 boost, and 16gb memory. I know that is more than a lot of people have, but I haven't once noticed any stutter or slowdown.

I haven't done any fps benchmarking, but I've never FELT like it hit a point where I noticed it.
 
aeonrevolution said:
Am I the only person who hasn't had any performance issues running everything maxed out? I've got a 4770k, 7950 boost, and 16gb memory. I know that is more than a lot of people have, but I haven't once noticed any stutter or slowdown.

I haven't done any fps benchmarking, but I've never FELT like it hit a point where I noticed it.
Click to expand...

Stuttering or not, I want the E3 graphics promised in the game, out of the box, without special "mods" to enable it.
 
Yeah, I was necessarily trying to defend the game or whatever. I am more just curious at this point than anything else.
 
Brent_Justice said:
Stuttering or not, I want the E3 graphics promised in the game, out of the box, without special "mods" to enable it.
Click to expand...

But you got those graphics, didn't you get Ubi's memo that there was no downgrade :p

tweet%201-493-100.jpg
 
Blade-Runner said:
But you got those graphics, didn't you get Ubi's memo that there was no downgrade :p

tweet%201-493-100.jpg
Click to expand...

I feel like they've been running the propaganda machine since the infamous E3 demo. All Ubisoft employees must be brainwashed like a Reaper indoctrinated mind-slave.
 
CrimsonKnight13 said:
All Ubisoft employees must be brainwashed like a Reaper indoctrinated mind-slave.
Click to expand...

Surely not even the lead creative director for this game is brainwashed?! He would never tell such blatant porky pies considering how easily the truth of his very public statements could be verified!? :p

original.jpg
 
Blade-Runner said:
Surely not even the lead creative director for this game is brainwashed?! He would never tell such blatant porky pies considering how easily the truth of his very public statements could be verified!? :p

original.jpg
Click to expand...

He's doubly brainwashed since he's the loudest mouthpiece to spread the BS really thick. Ubisoft tells him to bang a coconut with a rock; he bangs it with a shiny rock to keep them proud.
 
Rauelius said:
Wouldn't be the first time Ubisoft bent to the will of a larger company, in lieu of their customers.

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2008/05/12/ubisoft-caught-in-assassin-s-creed-marketing-war/1
Click to expand...

OH! Thanks for the link, I must have missed that story a few years back. It all makes ¢ents now! And the precedent has been set, I guess they are following the money.

LoL! Article made me laugh quite a bit, the Ubisoft Montreal studio looks for funding from anybody constantly... here is an example of the government free money they were able to secure just recently :

http://business.financialpost.com/2013/10/01/quebecs-10m-to-ubisoft-shows-how-misplaced-provinces-corporate-generosity-really-is/

Yes, the provincial government is funding a FULL 1/3 of the salaried workers at the studio DIRECTLY, they received millions up front, and many, many, many millions more in tax credits.
 
Brent_Justice said:
Stuttering or not, I want the E3 graphics promised in the game, out of the box, without special "mods" to enable it.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is possible to run this as it did on E3.
I have seen comparisons between modded grfx and E3 video and it isn't even close.
Not sure what they did at E3 to get it to look that good but it aint running like that for the consumer on any platform.
 
HardUp4HardWare said:
I don't think it is possible to run this as it did on E3.
I have seen comparisons between modded grfx and E3 video and it isn't even close.
Not sure what they did at E3 to get it to look that good but it aint running like that for the consumer on any platform.
Click to expand...

One of the big differences in there is much more geometry in the E3 version. Even the hundreds of lightbulbs under the theater sign are modeled. In the release version, they're textures. No amount of config tweaks will fix that.

I'm thinking that likely, there was an E3 branch and a Dev branch. The E3 demo had everything maxed, with special treatment given to that location of the map. The Dev branch probably never had the intentions of looking that good. These options were just in there for E3 and not enabled, but remained part of the engine build.

They probably knew what power they were dealing with on next gen consoles and the scale at which they could do it. Why bug test all of these extra graphics options when it's just easier to program for the least common denominator and scale up via resolution. Ie: 720p on Xbone, 900p(?) on PS4, and whatever for PC. Everything else remains the same. Since these E3 configs couldn't likely run at a healthy frame rate on the consoles, they disabled them for all.

Despite how big the production team looks in the credits. It's possible the PC team is grossly understaffed. Hence why a patch has taken so long. Hence why UBI has a track record of cutting corners for fixes (that RLD! Crack as patch from years ago). To me, this makes the most sense versus the stupidity (ie: not being able to figure it out) and the conspiracy (not wanting PC to blow away consoles). It was likely an upper management design decision.

Speaking of credits... Anyone catch how many Aiden's are there? It's like 20 in a row. No wonder the main character is called Aiden.
 
Last edited:
Spidey329 said:
One of the big differences in there is much more geometry in the E3 version. Even the hundreds of lightbulbs under the theater sign are modeled. In the release version, they're textures. No amount of config tweaks will fix that.

I'm thinking that likely, there was an E3 branch and a Dev branch. The E3 demo had everything maxed, with special treatment given to that location of the map. The Dev branch probably never had the intentions of looking that good. These options were just in there for E3 and not enabled, but remained part of the engine build.
Click to expand...

This, fucking bait and switch.
 
schizrade said:
This, fucking bait and switch.
Click to expand...

I fully expect the following E3 titles to feature this.

FarCry4 - Probably not too much different as graphically, it doesn't seem that much better. It's just more optimized likely.

R6:S / AC:U / The Division - Reduced fidelity, less effects, less particles, less animation continuity, less destruction. I 100% expect that AC:U is not going to look anything like what we saw.
 
Hmm... I hope they don't dumb down FC4. I don't play the newer FC games anyway, but from what I saw of that gameplay video on the front page today, I'm already not too impressed. It doesn't look bad, (not amazing at all) but if they dumbed it down like Watch Dogs, then I can reasonably assume that it will look bad.
 
Basically they admitted they were too lazy to fix the "E3"-like settings because money I guess.
 
It's not the first time Ubi has pulled this shit either: Far Cry 3's visuals were better at the E3 reveal than the finished product.
 
I love how they say it could negatively impact performance when this mod makes the game run better.
 
Sprayingmango said:
I love how they say it could negatively impact performance when this mod makes the game run better.
Click to expand...

They probably meant that it negatively hurt performance on the consoles, so they never tested them on the PC build post E3 and just disabled them on all platforms.

Just my guess.
 
"So you turned off all these options so the game would run better?"

"Yes, it was for you, the PC user, so you could get the best experience"

"But the game runs better with everything turned on. And if that was the case, why didn't you just give us options in a config menu we could turn on and off to tweak performance?"

"THAT IS OUR ANSWER AND WE ARE STICKING TO IT!!!"
 
KazeoHin said:
HAha, console can run "ultra"


At 24 FPS on 720p

I wonder if farcry4 will have 'Starbucks' style options, where the lowest setting is 'high' and the highest is like "mega super ultra kickass sky high fly, guy!"
Click to expand...

No it will run at 1080 / 60FPS once they downgrade the E3 FC4 demo down to console levels and called it "ultra" on PC.
 
Ha! True.

They said "we can just crank it up and it works!"

I say: if the consoles can run Ultra settings, than you ain't tryin' hard enough!
 
HardUp4HardWare said:
I don't think it is possible to run this as it did on E3.
I have seen comparisons between modded grfx and E3 video and it isn't even close.
Not sure what they did at E3 to get it to look that good but it aint running like that for the consumer on any platform.
Click to expand...
hahahhahaahhaaha
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU7WGAJPRRw

Man am i glad i didnt pre order this game based on that video. It is obvious that the video they produced for e3 was either a clever video made to look like real gameplay or a entirely different "gamespace". Because every animation and every aspect of that video is entirely different from what we have today The explosions/sounds/gunplay/hacking/ It is all worse. It is pretty sad when you think about. The developers pulled a fast one with watch dogs. all i can say is...damn.
 
styckx said:
They finally admitted it.

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/...n-e3-2012-files-present-in-pc-watch-dogs.aspx
Click to expand...

Typical corporate gibberish obviously thought up by some PR drone, glad to see that the internet has seen through this facile attempt at explaining away the obvious. Although most people despise Kotaku, I did appreciate the following user post:

Dear Ubi,

While your concern is completely unwarranted and unneeded, here's the thing: Your argument might make sense if Watch_Dogs were a console exclusive. However, it's not. Being on PC, it has a range of visual options. In fact, any PC player could attest that their game allows them a fairly large range of visual choices.

So why is it, when we have all these choices, that you decided to cut off the very pinnacle of these looks? Saying it affects performance is a non-issue; people who would be affected could simply turn down the graphics intensity, as they always have. You had eight extra months to work on this. You have no excuse for cutting these graphical options besides fooling people into thinking the game looked better than it actually did.

Please explain.

- Internet
Click to expand...
 
Plague_Injected said:
It's not the first time Ubi has pulled this shit either: Far Cry 3's visuals were better at the E3 reveal than the finished product.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately isn't this standard practice or close to it? Not just confined to Ubi, either?



Meeho said:
Too late:

http://www.hardocp.com/news/2014/06/19/far_cry_4_on_ps4_xbox_one_equivalent_to_pc_ultra_high
Click to expand...

And here I stupidly thought the "raising the lowest common denominator" bar was something that would at least minimize some of the nonsense. I should have known better.



Well, hopefully the mod community can make up some of the gap here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top