Ubisoft Gives Reason for Disabled Settings in PC Version of Watch Dogs

22

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

Blues22475

"Developers have to go for the sweet spot in the lower-middle graphics end to please most of the players. "

IMO, that's a hard argument to make. That's because we don't know what "most players" have. Very easy to code for consoles as, for the most part, people are gonna have uniform specs depending on the system they get. It's also very easy to get lazy and say "Fuck PC's" because they're considered as the minority. It's a shame the fans and Indies do a better job than some Devs/Publishers.

Don't think it's so much that they "dumbed own" the potential of the PC version, I think they just lied about their reasons and then you get things like:

"// This is PC only, who cares."

That statement is going to stoke the fire even more (regardless of what logical defense Ubisoft has).

avatar

John Pombrio

Steam publishes online what the system specs are for the computers that play their games. Search for Steam Hardware and Software Survey . It is huge sample of millions of players. The graphics winner is NVidia with just over half. Percentage wise, Intel HD Graphics 4000 is 4.21%.

avatar

Renegade Knight

They actually do have a fair idea of what most players have. Hence why they have a fair idea of what they need to do to hit a game that plays well with what most have. Thanks to it being on a PC we have more options than if they figured this out about the console version.

avatar

Mikey109105

Yeah I think Ubisoft kinda screwed itself with that comment line in the code. of course they'll say it doesn't exist, but who exactly is going to believe them except for the hardcore Ubisoft fans, which there aren't very many of left? Myself, I'm both a Bioware and Bethesda fan (Mass Effect, Dragon Age, and Elder Scrolls among others). True, Bioware lost a good deal of my trust and support when they basically screwed Mass Effect fans over what that sob ending to ME3, but I still like them enough to let them try to redeem themselves. Whether or not that happens, of course, is up to them.

avatar

tetris42

What this story isn't reporting is Ubisoft has repeatedly lied about this from the get-go up until a couple days ago, claiming "there was no downgrade":

http://www.videogamer.com/ps4/watch_dogs/news/watch_dogs_graphics_not_downgraded_at_all_ubisoft_claims.html

http://www.gamebreaker.tv/games/watch-dogs/ubisoft-pr-watch-dogs-graphics-were-not-downgraded/

Furthermore, this doesn't address the "This is PC only, who cares" comment found in the code. With their history, I'm not even sure the statement about "not intentionally downgrading it" is even truthful. I mean they got this working well for E3 2012 at least. So even if this statement is true and if you ignore their earlier lies about the downgrade, it STILL means they were misrepresenting the game in 2012, which I would argue is a minor form of false advertising.

With Watch Dogs, Ubisoft has put themselves into a situation where they've told (and been caught telling) so many lies regarding the PC version, it's difficult to tell what is the truth anymore.

avatar

John Pombrio

Hmm. I KINDA agree but UbiSoft has a point about balance issues. There are plenty of mods for Skyrim, for instance, that are beautiful to look at but bring even my beefy machine to it's knees. Developers have to go for the sweet spot in the lower-middle graphics end to please most of the players.

However, if there are settings that can increase graphics capabilities for those who have the horsepower, UbiSoft should have a settings option menu that can give these to the players. Otherwise, they ARE downgrading to the lowest common denominator.

avatar

Bucket_Monster

The problem here with Ubisoft's claims is that by all accounts I've read, the mod actually IMPROVED performance, making their statement a complete fabrication.

avatar

Yarbles

The WorseMod looks good but no way does improve performance, at best it maintains what you had before.
If you think about it you are using more resources so how the hell could it perform better without the fundamental change in the Disrupt engine memory management system to eliminate the stuttering
See this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b43ZlqPvBDs&list=UUy1Ms_5qBTawC-k7PVjHXKQ&feature=share&index=7
It’s great that people can unlock that stuff but there’s a hell of a lot of placebo pills being popped when it comes to this mod and performance

That said Ubi’s recent patch has proved utterly useless at performance/optimization

avatar

kiaghi7

A developer not being entirely honest with the purchasing public?

SOMEONE STOP THE PRESSES! We have the story of the century here!!

avatar

RUSENSITIVESWEETNESS

It was widely reported that the version advertised at E3 was not the version Ubisoft released; therefore, this report should not come as a surprise to anyone. Although I have no particular feelings for this publisher (in general, I think all game publishers are scum of the earth, I have to say that it is a common practice to disable video and audio features that may prove unstable in the wild. I know the Elder Scrolls games all have had features shut off or turned down. Doom 3 had its highest settings disabled, only to be later enabled by a modder's patch. Poke around CFG files, and you'll find most every PC game out there has artificial limits placed on it by the developer.

Speaking of developers, I'd rather hear from them, rather than the publisher. Again, game publishers are, across the board, scum of the earth. Nothing they say can ever be accepted at face value.

I assume the developer has all manner of legal gags preventing them from talking about their own damn game.

avatar

CantankerousDave

>Doom 3 had its highest settings disabled, only to be later enabled by a modder's patch.

In the case of Doom 3, I remember the "Ultra" setting being disabled at release for the simple reason that it would use 512GB of graphics memory at a time when top-of-the-line cards topped out at 256MB. So in that one case, it was actually a future-proofing measure to be enabled when the tech caught up, not a gimping.

avatar

MAIZE1951

Now it makes me wonder if Wolfenstein: The New Order, has its highest settings disabled, and an lot of other popular PC games.

avatar

tetris42

Well you can be sure Far Cry 3 did judging from its E3 trailer. Bioshock also had graphics turned down compared to the early footage. From how they're talking, it sounds like Far Cry 4 will also get dialed down. There are probably loads of others, but these are some of the more obvious ones.

avatar

RUSENSITIVESWEETNESS

OMG.

"// This is PC only, who cares."

Written by the developer (Ubisoft Montreal) and placed in actual game code. Now I see why there is such a big stink about this.

I won't buy the game. I don't care how good it is. Ubisoft can go fuck itself.

avatar

Morete

It all comes down to money. Just like many PC games, they're toned down so that the game will play on more PC's. The more PC's the game can play on, the more money they make from increased sales. If word of mouth goes around about how a high graphics game won't play well on old OEM PC's which most people still use around the world, it will be negative advertising for the publisher and developer. They would rather take the chance of losing a few PC enthusiasts instead of hundreds of thousands of non-enthusiasts. It goes above and beyond console ports. Look at the PC exclusive Pay To Win games out there. They have horrible graphics and the reason is so that it can play on the worst spec'd OEM PC out there. Non-enthusiasts don't like tweaking the settings on their point and shoot cameras and they don't like tweaking settings on their PC hardware and game settings. Publishers know this.

avatar

LatiosXT

Oh they coded for a PC. They just want to stick a dildo up PC gamers' rears. Like they did a hundred times before.

And this is why Ubisoft is no longer seeing a cent from me ever again and why I want people to realize Ubisoft is an awful company, on the same leagues, if not worse, than EA.

avatar

Spiral01

I recently picked up Splinter Cell Black List on eBay for 13.00. It was a steam code, i attemptedt to play the game and it seemed good, then the game downloaded updates, big, multiple updates. Thats when the game changed. I can no longer access the single player and im stuck in multiplayer mode. I tell ya, between Advaced warrior, this piece of Crap and another Ubisoft game that played pretty badly, can remember what game it was, i was aware enough to skip purchasing Watch Dogs. It just simply looked lame and honestly, i no longer will waste dough with Ubisoft.

avatar

AFDozerman

I highly doubt they'll release a patch. That would require effort.

avatar

kiaghi7

The nub of it is that they wanted to make the console versions seem as good or better than the PC version, and so they did a half-assed port and purposely hampered the visuals.

Their bread and butter is consoles, and they couldn't care less about PC, but they don't want to deal with the whining about a PC version either so they will lessen the whining with at least some version of it for PC even though it's a lackluster effort.

avatar

Neufeldt2002

In other words: We got lazy and didn't want to code for the PC.

avatar

monkinsane

Atually - they did develop for PC - the settings were allready in the code - they just disabled it pre-launch! Which is why they did deliberately cripple the game on PC pre-launch.

The modder simply turned them back on, he didn't add anything that wasn't allready there.

avatar

ram1220

Exactly! I can remember years ago when Ubisoft actually made good PC games. Not anymore.