News Ubisoft confirms Assassin's Creed Unity 30fps cap

You are a blatant f*****g liar

 

The comparison to the hobbit is flawed since 60fps should be the same standard in video games whereas 24fps is in movies. I mean, to what the audience has accustomed to.

Try putting out a triple-A movie in 12fps and see what happens.

 

Assassin's Creed Unity isn't the only game they are going to be capping at 30fps, reports suggest that The Crew is also going to be capped at 30fps on both consoles and PCs.

Also from the interview with IGN linked to in the article Nicolas Guérin says...

But as Ubisoft said they were going to treat PC gamers better just two months ago I'm guessing he didn't mean the PC video game industry.

 

If they cap PCs to 30 fps as well there's going to be a massive stink. The most straightforward solution is to not buy their game.

 

Not as much as if they cap PCs to 900p resolution as well...

 

I've personally seen 20 year old games run fine at resolutions / aspect ratios invented in the last three or so years...

So how bloody hard can it be to support multiple resolutions / aspect ratios you already know about while developing a game?

 

Why is this such a big deal? Other games have been capped at 30 FPS before. 24FPS does seem choppy in games but it is ideal for games, and 30 isn't much better. However, if you maintain a constant 30 FPS throughout the entirety of the game, surely it will be fine? I've been a console gamer for years and the lower FPS really doesn't bother or affect me (until the console lags due to a lack of VRAM and grunt (360)).

 

Ah, the "cinematic" argument pops up once again...
This time it makes me angry though, because a creative director should know full well that it's complete BS. (and I'm sure he does, which makes it even worse)

The only reason films look fluent at 24 FPS is because of massive amounts of motion blur (very noticeable if you have the habit of taking screenshots while watching films, like me). PCs are still far off emulating this blur properly in real time, so the only way to get truly fluent graphics is simply by putting out more FPS.

Of course fluency isn't absolutely necessary for an enjoyable experience, but it's one of those things you get used to once, and never want to go back after, since anything lower becomes jarring (it's a bit like having an SSD, or an IPS screen).

 

lol , Ubisoft scumbags . The conspiracy theorists are already picturing backroom meetings involving Microsoft and Ubisoft in order to claw back some ground on the graphics front . This time they could be right and just because Microsoft went for a GPU which is .53 terraflop below the PS4 GPU ; lol Microsoft scumbags .
(Ps I have an xbox 1 as well as windows Pc)

 

I consider HD at 60fps the lowest for PC gaming, and would never sully my Gamer cred by even touching a console.

PC gamer are moving to 2,3 and even 4k gaming on 4k monitors, these guys will be left so far behind they will not be able to see the glow of our excellence on the horizon before them!

 

First up, is there a way the ignore feature can extend to article comment pages? I never want to read a post by S**tDagger ever again (and please don't quote the dribbling imbecile fellow forum goers).

Secondly, as everyone seems to agree, a game really should be played at 60FPS whenever possible. I can tolerate 40FPS and 30FPS is fine for short periods for those harder to run games (Crysis). One thing I will agree though is that in game cut scenes look better at movie FPS but not from an FPS point of view.

Mind you, there are folks out there who insist that games should run at 120FPS minimum, so hey ho.

 

Rather than go into a long winded explanation on why I'll leave it to this guy to explain..



Or this handy web site.

EDIT: Came across this site that goes into the mathematical details of different frame rates, and why the '30 FPS is good enough' argument is BS.

 

I remember, when I replaced my el-cheapo Cry by a Diamondtron one almost 20 years ago. I was playing Unreal at this time at my refresh rate bumped from 50hz to 120hz, resulting in a huge FPS increase. The gaming experience felt so much better.

Now I guess it depends on the game your playing at. For fast paced action, you will want more frames per second. For game like the Sims you won't really care.

 

PC games have been capped at 30fps before, All recent Need for Speed games have had this cap on. Dead Rising 3, Evil Within, Dark Souls 2 ( the orginal was as well the physics engine used in both games can not go past 30fps even if you use a mod to remove the cap), The Crew.

Its not a great thing for the pc industry but you either dont play the affected titles theres a few or you deal with it and play them.

How many people actually can run a modern title at 60fps 1080p outside of forums like this. Steams latest hardware survey paints a not very rosy picture of your average pc is actually below the performance of both recent consoles. Intel Hd 4000 graphics been 5% of the total steam population in the survey. 2 cpu cores still been 48% of all users.

The fastest video card above 1% is the 7970. All the rest are mid range cards which whilst fast enough for most games will struggle if tested. Whats the old saying how many could run crysis if you make that crysis 3 at the settings most websites test at the answer is not many. ( at 1080 and 60fps as seems to be the topic)

 

Its a problem as it has been a worrying trend where the Publishers aren't pushing for the best from a system, there is prior form, hobbling PC titles (Watch dogs) so the consoles look good and now holding back the PS4 version for parity, I am sure this had nothing to do with MS now having the co-marketing deal for this version or Ass. Creed.

 

Isn't the only reason Intel shows up in the Steam hardware survey is because most of their CPU's come with integrated graphics, i would guess Steam is recording both integrated and discrete GPU's. Pretty much any GPU above a 7870 would be faster than either console, I'm not going to add up all the percentages of cards faster than a 7870 but my guess is it would be higher than 50%.

While 2 CPU cores does hold a 48% share, combining the percentage of CPU's with more than 2 cores gives you a 48% share also.

Without running the numbers on GPU's that are able to run most modern games at 1080 & 60fps my guess would be around half of PC's using Steam could run that, after all we are only taking about a £150 GPU.

 

How many can run bit techs own test suite at 60fps 1080p there settings, bf4 is 780ti and above. Crysis 3 is not a lot better. Even bioshock infinite the weakest game tested struggles for the much vaunted 60fps stable minimums outside of the big 6 gpus. ( all are £200+)

I'd not accept anything less than that at 1080p 60fps. To actually obtain it on most systems will require graphical sacrifices somewhere.

Expecting consoles to hit these figures without sacrafices seems a bit strange to me.

As for how steam records figures always assumed it was usage figures not installed figures.

 

Is the average PC capable of running the latest games at 60fps min at 1080p or above?

No.

But that doesn't excuse imposing arbitrary fps or resolution limitations.

 

True the difference between just over 30fps and over 60fps is a bigger ask, so i understand why they want to lock to 30fps on consoles, what i find annoying is when that same frame rate locking carries over to the PC port.

I think Steam surveys 1/12th of it's users who log in each month and then aggregate that upto the total amount of subscribers, although how it works exactly is shrouded in mystery.

EDIT: This is just word of mouth so I'm not sure how much faith to put in the validity of the claims, so you guys can decide for your self. http://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/2j7r9j/delivering_ubisoft_came_to_my_school_for_a/

Ubisoft came to my school for a conference about game programming.

So are the two major console makers pressuring developers into gimping the PC ports of their games ?