Ubisoft downgrades

[WATER DRAGON]

What games by Ubisoft were not downgraded? At least from my point of view Assassins Creed always looked like what they showed at E3 and I really haven't heard anyone complain about the last Splinter Cell. Also do you think Watch Dogs 2 will get a downgrade? I mean the graphics look fair for a multi platform open world game. Because looking at the E3 gameplay for it, at least to me it doesn't look as good as the gameplay Ubisoft showed for Watch Dogs 1 which the graphics for that were just too good to be true. Also November isn't that far away. I understand taking something apart is obviously easier then putting it together but will Ubisoft have enough time to get away with sh*tting all over Watch Dogs 2 before it's release date? All this in mind I'm not pre ordering it with a risk like this.

[Jvaz615]

Does this really need its own topic

[chronic lumbago]

 

 

It's a good topic if you ask me, it really doesn't look good how ubi is f*cking with us. It all looks so good on the big E3 screens but the end product looks like sh*t if you compare it. I thought watch dogs looks bad but the division they sold is not the same game they showed us. Just look at it.

Now they announced another load of games which 90% of are gonna look like sh*t anyways. This is pure false advertising, shouldn't they be sued for this?

 

(Don't remember if I clicked the video on youtube or if someone posted this on the forum

edit: yeah, feckyerlife posted it in the watch dogs 2 topic.)

Edited June 18, 2016 by fashion

[GTA3Rockstar]

(Don't remember if I clicked the video on youtube or if someone posted this on the forum

edit: yeah, feckyerlife posted it in the watch dogs 2 topic.)

 

It was the ubisoft 30 year topic.

 

 

Either way, people should know by now to not trust what they see at E3. lol If it looks too good to be true, then it is too good to be true.

[WATER DRAGON]

 

 

It's a good topic if you ask me, it really doesn't look good how ubi is f*cking with us. It all looks so good on the big E3 screens but the end product looks like sh*t if you compare it. I thought watch dogs looks bad but the division they sold is not the same game they showed us. Just look at it.

Now they announced another load of games which 90% of are gonna look like sh*t anyways. This is pure false advertising, shouldn't they be sued for this?

 

(Don't remember if I clicked the video on youtube or if someone posted this on the forum

edit: yeah, feckyerlife posted it in the watch dogs 2 topic.)

They can't be sued because before gameplay they always have a product not yet finished message before the gameplay. I think that's what's protecting them. Like a loop hole almost. Just like how there's no rule against making graphics better while letting people know that it's not finished there's no rule against making it worse I guess. They could go to court over this and say this is how we intended the final product to look. I think Gear Box had gotten in to a lot of trouble for false advertising their last Alien game. I'm assuming they didn't use Ubisoft's bull sh*t loop hole that's been protecting them over the years. Then again I don't know. I'm still looking in to whether or not what Ubisoft is doing is completely legal.

[Osho]

Downgrades are understandable on consoles, isn't it?

I mean, its obvious ( whether Ubi or not ) certain sacrifices will just have to be made for the games designed with consoles in mind.

This issue has so much to do with the game's optimization and the platform in question to run a demanding game. If people are more upset with the downgrades in terms of how the game ( say Watch Dogs ) looks in comparison to E3 / pre-release footage then I believe people are seriously lacking in information to understand the reasons behind such downgrades.

The dev team is completely dedicated to getting the most out of each platform, so the notion that we would actively downgrade quality is contrary to everything we've set out to achieve. We test and optimize our games for each platform on which they're released, striving for the best possible quality. The PC version does indeed contain some old, unused render settings that were deactivated for a variety of reasons, including possible impacts on visual fidelity, stability, performance and overall gameplay quality. Modders are usually creative and passionate players, and while we appreciate their enthusiasm, the mod in question (which uses those old settings) subjectively enhances the game's visual fidelity in certain situations but also can have various negative impacts. Those could range from performance issues, to difficulty in reading the environment in order to appreciate the gameplay, to potentially making the game less enjoyable or even unstable. Thanks for playing Watch Dogs and stay safe on the mean streets of Chicago.

 

-The Watch Dogs Team

Edited June 18, 2016 by Osho

[Jabalous]

Downgraded Ubisoft Inc.

Edited June 18, 2016 by FiS!!HeR

[Leat]

I somehow doubt that Watch Dogs 2 is getting downgraded. Ubisoft literally didn't say a word about the graphics and they don't even look anything special.

Edited June 18, 2016 by Leat

[otachi]

Downgrades are understandable on consoles, isn't it?

I mean, its obvious ( whether Ubi or not ) certain sacrifices will just have to be made for the games designed with consoles in mind.

This issue has so much to do with the game's optimization and the platform in question to run a demanding game. If people are more upset with the downgrades in terms of how the game ( say Watch Dogs ) looks in comparison to E3 / pre-release footage then I believe people are seriously lacking in information to understand the reasons behind such downgrades.

The dev team is completely dedicated to getting the most out of each platform, so the notion that we would actively downgrade quality is contrary to everything we've set out to achieve. We test and optimize our games for each platform on which they're released, striving for the best possible quality. The PC version does indeed contain some old, unused render settings that were deactivated for a variety of reasons, including possible impacts on visual fidelity, stability, performance and overall gameplay quality. Modders are usually creative and passionate players, and while we appreciate their enthusiasm, the mod in question (which uses those old settings) subjectively enhances the game's visual fidelity in certain situations but also can have various negative impacts. Those could range from performance issues, to difficulty in reading the environment in order to appreciate the gameplay, to potentially making the game less enjoyable or even unstable. Thanks for playing Watch Dogs and stay safe on the mean streets of Chicago.

 

-The Watch Dogs Team

 

The witcher 3 was downgraded,even the developer admit so,i don't see anybody complain.

[Moving Idiot]

The witcher 3 was downgraded,even the developer admit so,i don't see anybody complain.

Plenty of people complained. But unlike CD Projekt RED, Ubisoft is a serial downgrader.

Edited June 19, 2016 by TalkingPear

[Dutch Psycho]

 

The witcher 3 was downgraded,even the developer admit so,i don't see anybody complain.

Plenty of people complained. But unlike CD Projekt RED, Ubisoft is a serial downgrader.

Lol serial downgrader.

[chronic lumbago]

That's not a real excuse to show us a much better game to get everyone's attention. People preorder these super deluxe editions and whatnot only to be highly disappointed afterwards. If Ubisoft knows the game won't run well with those hidden better comercial settings then they shouldn't be used to advertise the game. I understand if they have to lower the graphics on consoles a little or maybe redesign or remove a feature but this is clearly too much.

 

So they realize 80% of their games won't run and downgrade them? They know it long before they start advertizing. It's not just the graphics either, watch Rainbow six siege and the division and you'll see.

Division should have been delayed for a year.

 

 

 

Watch dogs 2 luckily doesn't look like it has to be downgraded graphically but they could reduce the amount of stuff happening while exploring the city like in WD1, where they reduced traffic. Maybe they decided to give us an awesome anmouncement trailer and thats it.. I'm almost sure preorders appeared right after it.

 

STEEP could be worse though, it looks very impressive but I suspect they won't sell the same product they shown.

Edited June 19, 2016 by fashion

[FriendlyFireOFF]

I somehow doubt that Watch Dogs 2 is getting downgraded. Ubisoft literally didn't say a word about the graphics and they don't even look anything special.

 

Ah perhaps they are going to upgrade them instead....in time for release day build?

[Gremlin Sombra]

The witcher 3 was downgraded,even the developer admit so,i don't see anybody complain.

I'm pretty sure the big reason why its a big deal here is because they don't admit it. It can make them look rather untrustworthy.

[otachi]

 

The witcher 3 was downgraded,even the developer admit so,i don't see anybody complain.

I'm pretty sure the big reason why its a big deal here is because they don't admit it. It can make them look rather untrustworthy.

 

I'm sure they did.

[darthYENIK]

Graphics, I'll let go.

 

I couldn't care less about graphics. I mean I could, but graphics are the least worry I have in games.

 

It's when the gameplay is changed that I hate it. Ubisoft has done this. I still enjoy a lot of their games, but I don't like seeing a game with immersion like they showed with The Division, and then seeing actually finished product looking completely different.

 

Look at ACIV. They did a similar downgrade from that E3 gameplay footage (before it crashed) to the finished game, but the game was still fun.

 

In short, I think there's something to complain about, but I also think people are blowing this out of proportion. Especially the PC crowd who seem to put a premium on graphics, and hate Ubisoft already for their past DRM policies.

[Wastelander (Suzuki)]

Graphics, I'll let go.

I couldn't care less about graphics. I mean I could, but graphics are the least worry I have in games.

It's when the gameplay is changed that I hate it. Ubisoft has done this. I still enjoy a lot of their games, but I don't like seeing a game with immersion like they showed with The Division, and then seeing actually finished product looking completely different.

Look at ACIV. They did a similar downgrade from that E3 gameplay footage (before it crashed) to the finished game, but the game was still fun.

In short, I think there's something to complain about, but I also think people are blowing this out of proportion. Especially the PC crowd who seem to put a premium on graphics, and hate Ubisoft already for their past DRM policies.

Don't get me wrong, but the The Division on console is a solid game with some solid core gameplay and movement mechanics, the just need some tweaking in some areas (I.E weapon balancing in the up coming 1.3 update along with the Underground DLC), but I agree that the PC crowd and 45% of the console crowd care about Graphics way, way too damn much for their own good, and he'll most real gamers could give two s*its about graphics has long it is up to the standards of the time, and know to take everything form E3 with a grain of salt (or two). Honestly I think Ubisoft's problem comes down to them over doing things at E3 (like mostly every other company at E3) only to realize it just ain't going to work. Again Ubisoft isn't the only one doing this S*it people, if we're going to roast a company for "downgrading" an game, roast everyone f*cking else that is or has done it in the past, cause Ubisoft sure has hell is this the only one doing this. Edited June 20, 2016 by SuzukiBlaze

[Richard Power Colt]

I think it's possible that with some games the devs have maybe tried to make it run with the trailer graphics originally, but failed to optimize it properly so it was downgraded, so it's not like they always went out to deliberately false advertise the game. Though I feel like a lot of companies especially Ubisoft should more or less know the graphical limitations at this point. And with games like Watch Dogs the better graphics could actually be turned on by tinkering with the files and for some people it even improved the game's performance so clearly Ubisoft just gave no f*cks there.

 

And yeah I don't really care about the downgrades, games like Witcher 3 look great on PC regardless of the downgrade. In terms of the look of a game what matters to me more is really the art design. There are games on the PS2 that are still more pleasant to look at than most new games, because of their great art style.

Edited June 22, 2016 by Nutsack McQueen

[OysterBarron]

Wow have any of you seen the latest game play videos that some youtubers have been doing on wildlands. I'm not one for graphics over gameplay but the ubisoft downgrade is so obvious looks nothing like what was shown!

[Sunrise Driver]

Crybabies, stop giving s**t about graphics. Is Ubisoft downgrading gameplay constatly? No? Then shut up.

[RedDagger]

If there's one thing worse than people who judge games entirely on graphics, it's the counter-group of people who think graphics don't matter in the slightest and piss on anyone who thinks otherwise.

Edited July 2, 2016 by RedDagger

[Moving Idiot]

Crybabies, stop giving s**t about graphics. Is Ubisoft downgrading gameplay constatly? No? Then shut up.

Pretty much every gamer prefers good gameplay over good graphics. But like Red said, that doesn't mean that graphics don't matter at all. It's also a matter of principle, they've been deceiving and/or lying to their customers for a long time now.

[Osho]

Watch Dogs 'downgrade' controversy is a lesson learned for Ubisoft link

 

Speaking to the Guardian at this years E3, Ubisoft CEO, Yves Guillemot, conceded that the company had been caught out by the complexity of the project.

 

Guillemot said that reactions to the Watch Dogs demo had re-shaped the companys approach to showing off pre-release games. With E3 2015we said, OK, lets make sure the games are playable, that theyre running on the target machines. When we show something, we ask the team, make sure its playable, make sure gamers can immediately see exactly what it is. Thats what we learned from the Watch Dogs experience if it cant be played on the target machine, it can be a risk."

 

They already acknowledged this and seems to have realized that they did wrong and wouldn't repeat such mistakes again.

Question is did they learn from their mistakes ( from WD ) ???

I don't know. I don't buy their games as often to know whether they have still made mistakes in promoting ( post WD ) future titles or not?

If they have learned then I don't see the need to bitch about the past, but if they haven't then ignore this post and carry on with all the bitching..

[Fireman]

It's not like Ubisoft has exceptional gameplay

The downgrades serve some function, some of the E3 footage seems unplayable with that amount of bloom. What is weird is that both those games seem to follow the same downgrade, turning everything that's suppose to be black into brown.

Edited July 2, 2016 by Fireman

[Mr. Scratch]

I don't know, Driver San Francisco, Far Cry 3 and Splinter Cell Blacklist were all pretty damn dope.

[HaythamKenway]

(...)

They already acknowledged this and seems to have realized that they did wrong and wouldn't repeat such mistakes again.

Question is did they learn from their mistakes ( from WD ) ???

I don't know. I don't buy their games as often to know whether they have still made mistakes in promoting ( post WD ) future titles or not?

If they have learned then I don't see the need to bitch about the past, but if they haven't then ignore this post and carry on with all the bitching..

There are baby steps, I think. They seem to have learned that unleashing the hype machine, full force and often years in advance, always comes back to bite them in the butt. That's the biggest problem here, in my opinion, not the graphics alone. They just can't help themselves but oversell their games. That's the problem with the whole AAA industry (and I believe consumers, who willingly get fan the flames of hype are just as guilty here, if not more, than the marketing teams who start them), but Ubi probably had the most palpable problems with that in the last few years. Watch Dogs 1 was revealed years before the release, as the "most awesome thing ever", and then the audience was boiling in their own anticipation for all that time, leading to a disappointment that was inevitable, even if the final game looked just as good as the first demo.

 

But now, Watch Dogs 2 and AC Syndicate both had relatively humble, self-aware, self-critical showings (for a flagship AAA title, at least) with visibly downgraded visuals. The new Ghost Recon's marketing campaign is just nowhere near as agressive as Unity's or The Division's, so far. They haven't showed or even teased AC Empire in any way and that might be the biggest AC title since III, if we're to believe the leaks. Just three years ago, I'm willing to bet they'd make a grand, inflated WD-esque demo of it for this year's E3, but now, nope. Their big, end-of-the-show reveal was a snowboarding game five months from the release. All quiet on the Egyptian front.

 

Fair enough, I'm sure by the end of the year, the mall will be plastered in Watch Dogs posters again, but I'd say there is bit more humility in how Ubi conducted the business in the last few months. Things will get back to normal once they'll manage to push out some more critically acclaimed titles and restore some of the general consumer trust, but for now, it seems like they want to keep things cooler.

[chronic lumbago]

About AC Syndicate, I really couldn't care if it was downgraded or not. The graphics on PS4 looked absolutely amazing, especially on the rooftops. But then you jump down the street.

The open world formula was the same old sh*t but there was a huge amount of events around the city, interesting conversations, people singing and doing A LOT of different activities depending on the district. London was done properly but there was nothing to encourage the player to take a closer look at the details, unlike GTA5, where you wanted to explore every single corner. Even though the people in Syndicate had more activities.

 

Still many players disliked the game, maybe a little of topic but why really? It was such an improvement. We had the nicest and most living citt yet, two protagonists, grapling hook and more and imo the only thing you can hate about it is the AC formula itself.

 

I hated the forced abstergo segments by the way, do everyone a favor and get rid of them entirely already.

Edited July 2, 2016 by fashion

[HaythamKenway]

Oh, don't get me wrong, I like Syndicate quite a lot. It's in my personal top four, maybe top three in the series. It's fluctuating up there with IV.

 

I was just talking about how Ubisoft presented and marketed the game. They were far less flashy and boisterous about it than with Unity the year prior. The hype for Unity was massive. Everyone likes to kick into that game now, but there was genuine excitement about it at this time, two years ago. Ubi were riding high on that positive AC IV wave and a soft reboot of sorts, a return to basic assassinating was actually something people were asking for since as early as Revelations. And they've set it in a fan favorite setting to boot. But after that trainwreck of a launch and people lashing out against Unity's formula, Ubi just decided to keep Syndicate's campaign low-key and it worked out in the favor of the game.

 

I don't think Syndicate is nearly as hated as Unity or III was. The hate mostly comes from the general audience, who are just tired of the series at this point and would hate it even if it wasn't just iterating on Unity's base. I've seen mostly positive responses from the people who were actually willing to give the game a shot. It's not a trailblazing game, it's not a peak of the series like II or IV, but it's definitely a fun, refined AC title.

 

But yeah, technically, the game is severely downgraded from Unity, undestandably so, after all the performance issues with that game and Ubi weren't ashamed to showcase that (remember how rough the game looked during the reveal?). I don't hold that against them, they had to work with what they had and it was nice that they weren't sugar-coating it, just like they aren't making WD2 look better than it really is now (as from the demos, it looks just like WD1). That's not a bad thing, mind you. Syndicate still served incredibly impressive visuals, imo, and I think WD2 is a good looking game too. It's just that they weren't advertised to be something that they either weren't, or weren't trying to be something current hardware just can't handle. And that's a positive thing.

[MyName'sJeff]

I don't know, Driver San Francisco, Far Cry 3 and Splinter Cell Blacklist were all pretty damn dope.

Far Cry 3 was absolutely horrendous on the consoles. Even the PC versions got downgraded I'm afraid. San Francisco is literally the only game that I've played from Ubisoft that looked as good as it was from the start. I don't know about Splinter Cell though,

[Mr. Scratch]

I was talking about the gameplay. f*ck your graphics, Blacklist and Driver look exactly the same as their E3 presentations.