AC4 is not optimized for PC & Ubisoft admits they don't care about PC performance

[Kamatsu]

I think it's fairly obvious with all the performance issue's a wide variety of people are having on a range of machines (from low to high end machines), being reported both here on the Steam discussion forums and Ubisoft forums, that the game is not well/much optimized for PC.

And we have it right from Ubisoft that they didn't do much to optimize the game for PC. Because in their opinion optimizing for PC is pointless, as PC user's can just upgrade their machines to compensate for the terrible performance on an un-optimized game.

To quote Assassin's Creed 4's associate producer Sylvain Trottier: "On PC, usually you don't really care about the performance, because the idea is that if it's not [running] fast enough, you buy a bigger GPU."

With that kind of attitude, does anyone really think they spent much time, money and/or effort in optimizing AC4 for PC? Pfft.

http://www.videogamer.com/pc/assassins_creed_4_black_flag/news/assassins_creed_4_producer_says_pc_optimisation_isnt_important.html

http://www.incgamers.com/2013/11/ubisoft-trolls-pc-users-buy-bigger-gpu-comment

This is why I did not pre-order the game, and no I have not pirated it either. After the debacle of AC3's optimization & bugs... and Ubisoft's apparent lack of regard for the PC platform, I decided to wait and see.

This should sota really confirm that Ubisoft don't give a damn about the PC for anyone who doubted that fact - the fact the associate producer for AC4 is clearly stating they didn't care about optimization or the performance of the game on PC... speaks a lot about Ubisoft's general attitude to the PC - they only care that the games are generally playable on PC (ie they run, have relevant graphical & sound & keybinding options) and thats it.

Edit (23/11/13): Sylvain Trottier has responded to the above quotation of what he said. Here is his reply:

“The statement that appeared online was very much taken out of context. I was discussing the process of developing for next gen platforms and, in particular, the R&D phase. Therefore, when I was referring to PCs, I was referring to them being used during the development of software for next gen consoles. I was commenting that when doing R&D, performance doesn't matter. What you want is to be able to measure, to see the best results you could potentially get, how the game could look and feel if you would have this tech in the game. For example, if you are trying to see how the naval fight would look with tons of particle effects, you ask your FX Artist to simply add tons of particles. If it doesn't run on your development PC, then you put a bigger GPU in the system and then you can see in game how it could look and feel. That doesn't mean you ship this in the final game! Once you have a better idea of the visual results you could achieve with these new techs, then you need to start compromising and optimizing. Very often you end up deciding to drop certain parts of the feature (even if they were really nice!), in order to be able to run the new feature in real time, on all the targeted platforms. There was no tech developed during the R&D phase that wasn’t optimized prior to shipping on each platform - PC included.

"We are very proud of the PC version of Assassin’s Creed IV Black Flag. The game runs well on low-end PC’s and lots of additional features were added for higher-end machines, allowing each and every customer to fully enjoy the experience on their PCs. Our partnership with Nvidia that saw our respective engineering teams work together to develop a highly optimised PC version also demonstrates our commitment to the platform. On top of this, additional features were implemented such as: keyboard and mouse optimized control, three screen support, higher resolution support including 4K support, unique effects and technologies, including NVIDIA HBAO+ (occlusion), NVIDIA PCSS, NVIDIA TXAA and NVIDIA GPU-accelerated PhysX in an upcoming patch."

[captain lost]

this deserves a sticky, ubisoft is nothing but a giant careless snake.

[Barf_Burp]

at least they offer thier product to PC unlike Rockstar and EA Sports. Runs fine on my rig, 60fps 80% of the time and when it dips, i have not seen dips past 48fps. All options including antialiasing(txaa 4x) on highest setting. I run fx8350 cpu, 16gigs 1600 ram, win7x64, ssd's and gtx680 sli, so my rig is no slouch, but it isn't the tits either compared to what is available nowadays. Game seems great to me. AC3 for the most part was running great also except for the game breaking dlc story.

[RetroSteve0]

I really wonder what kind of qualifications their designers really have when the associate producer states "On PC, usually you don't really care about the performance, because the idea is that if it's not [running] fast enough, you buy a bigger GPU."

This isn't exactly true. When a game's engine isn't optimized to utilize a certain type of technology properly then no matter how beefy your hardware is, the engine isn't going to perform very well. Users with Core i7's and GeForce GTX 700 series cards who are experiencing abysmal performance can attest to this.

I'm not at all surprised, given the state of Ubisoft's PC ports dating as far back as when the original Assassin's Creed ported to PC, and even before then.

A lot of times developers will show up here on the Steam forums to address any issues the people may have who pay their bills. Will they have the balls to show up this time?

[DarthNewf]

Which is why Ubisoft will never get another dime from me. Yes, I do own a console, but I do play games on my PC quite frequently as well. I expect that if any dev is going to earn my hard earned $60 per game, they are going to have to show that they care not only about consoles, but about PCs as well. In this day and age, we gamers have many options as to what platform we want to play on, and I expect each dev to optimize their game on any platform they intend to release the game on.

I do have an Xbone on pre-order, but I do not intend to purchase AC4 even if it is better optimized for the next gen consoles. After reading the statement from the dev, they have just lost a customer.

See ya Ubi!

[RetroSteve0]

Originally posted by SweepTheLeg:

at least they offer thier product to PC unlike Rockstar and EA Sports. Runs fine on my rig, 60fps 80% of the time and when it dips, i have not seen dips past 48fps. All options including antialiasing(txaa 4x) on highest setting. I run fx8350 cpu, 16gigs 1600 ram, win7x64, ssd's and gtx680 sli, so my rig is no slouch, but it isn't the tits either compared to what is available nowadays. Game seems great to me. AC3 for the most part was running great also except for the game breaking dlc story.

Rockstar does offer their products for PC. They just don't do it at launch. Their trend is designing for the platform that owns the majority of the market share at the time, and then putting another year of development and polish into the PC port to be released. The only game of recent they've not made accessable to PC gamers is Red Dead Redemption. Rockstar knows PC ports are not their poison, and they would probably not release for PC instead of releasing some half assed port. I believe they learned their lesson from GTA IV. L.A. Noire and Max Payne 3 were much more polished. They have a reputation to maintain, unlike Ubisoft who will release anything no matter how big of a muck up it is.

As for EA Sports - well, consoles is where the money is right now. They are dominating the market share and have since Xbox 360 and PS3 launched in 2005 and 2006 respectively. EA is about making money, and you're going to get by with making as much money as possible while spending as little as possible. The Tiburon studios that makes EA's sports games decides to operate like that. I'm no EA fan ,but you really can't lame them for going where the money's at. When EA does release a PC port, it's at least half decent and they at least make it look like they put an effort into optimization.

As for your computer running it well - I'd sure as hell hope it does with an FX 8350, 16 GB RAM, and tim GTX 680's. However, there are people with Core i7 3770k's, and GeForce GTX 700 series cards that are NOT able to run it at a playable frame rate. Put yourself in their shoes and I bet you wouldn't be a happy camper right now either.

[Rex Power Colt]

Ironically, the people who say bad things about the game don't seem to own the actual game. Their opinions on the game is most likely influenced by the crappy priated version of the game.

[villan in glasses]

Originally posted by Kotton:

Ironically, the people who say bad things about the game don't seem to own the actual game. Their opinions on the game is most likely influenced by the crappy priated version of the game.

You don't actually have to own the game to be disgusted with that ♥♥♥♥♥♥ developers attitude towards the PC.

I mean seriously do you respect yourself that little that when a developer looks you in the face and says you arn't worth their time but they still want your money how do you defend it? I can't even be mad at you because I feel so sorry for you.

[Cakefish]

Originally posted by Dust is OP:

You don't actually have to own the game to be disgusted with that ♥♥♥♥♥♥ developers attitude towards the PC.

Exactly.

[MelGibson]

Originally posted by Kamatsu:

I think it's fairly obvious with all the performance issue's a wide variety of people are having on a range of machines (from low to high end machines), being reported both here on the Steam discussion forums and Ubisoft forums, that the game is not well/much optimized for PC.

And we have it right from Ubisoft that they didn't do much to optimize the game for PC. Because in their opinion optimizing for PC is pointless, as PC user's can just upgrade their machines to compensate for the terrible performance on an un-optimized game.

To quote Assassin's Creed 4's associate producer Sylvain Trottier: "On PC, usually you don't really care about the performance, because the idea is that if it's not [running] fast enough, you buy a bigger GPU."

With that kind of attitude, does anyone really think they spent much time, money and/or effort in optimizing AC4 for PC? Pfft.

http://www.videogamer.com/pc/assassins_creed_4_black_flag/news/assassins_creed_4_producer_says_pc_optimisation_isnt_important.html

http://www.incgamers.com/2013/11/ubisoft-trolls-pc-users-buy-bigger-gpu-comment

This is why I did not pre-order the game, and no I have not pirated it either. After the debacle of AC3's optimization & bugs... and Ubisoft's apparent lack of regard for the PC platform, I decided to wait and see.

This should sota really confirm that Ubisoft don't give a damn about the PC for anyone who doubted that fact - the fact the associate producer for AC4 is clearly stating they didn't care about optimization or the performance of the game on PC... speaks a lot about Ubisoft's general attitude to the PC - they only care that the games are generally playable on PC (ie they run, have relevant graphical & sound & keybinding options) and thats it.

do you cry about every new game that comes out? I bet you do. Also nice fake news articles.

[Sterling Archer]

I love this game. every settings on high. and game runs very smooth on my rig.
the best Assasins Creed game I ever played. due to being able to free roam on your bad ass ship. no such thing as being o.p even of you get all the upgrades maxed out. they sent out hunters(big ship with lots of guns) to sink you when your wanted level is high enough. there's also hunting big ass sharks and whales on your tiny row boats.. being drag around while trying to harpoon your prey gets crazy sometimes.

8 core 4.1 ghz processor AMD FX series, 16 gig ram. 3 tb hd on windows 8 / 64 bit.. GeforceGTX 660 ti

[Tali]

If you run into issues running this dont blame the devs look at your pc and ask what you can or should upgrade. I run on a modest system FX 6300 cpu and 6850 i can max this game and play lag free at a blissful 30 to 40 fps. I Find the game to be perfectable optimized and bug free so far.

[Wardiaper]

It was an unfortunate way of wording what I think he meant. I believe it's not that they don't "care" but aren't concerned about the PC as much because the hardware is superior.

If they didn't care than we wouldn't even get a PC port to complain about.

You guys seriously need to relax a little bit. PC gamers complain so much that one day no devs will make PC games because you guys go off on anything you can find. Just play the game and enjoy it. You are only hurting the 12,000 people that are currently enjoying this game when your attitude is a constant attack on games and developers. If it is so bad, why don't you just give up gaming? The answer - it's not really as bad as you would have everyone believe.

[Master Zone]

After playing it for a while, I have to agree, it is pretty badly optimized. Don't get me wrong though. I mean it looks great. It looks about the same as The Witcher 2's graphics, and I can run The Witcher 2 at max detail (ubersampling off) and have 60+ FPS, and with Ubersampling on I get 50+ FPS. Even with Crysis 3 on max detail (2X TXAA) I get 45-55 FPS. With Battlefield 4 at max settings I get 60+ FPS. But with Assassin'sCreed4 I only get 35-45 FPS on max detail.


I have a EVGA GTX 770 SC, intel i5 4670k 3.4Ghz (overclocked to 4.0GHz) and 16GB DDR3-1866 RAM.


Is it silly of me to expect higher than 35-45 FPS? Or is my system just not good enough?

[WillieWeeb]

http://www.videogamer.com/pc/assassins_creed_4_black_flag/news/assassins_creed_4_producer_says_pc_optimisation_isnt_important.html

I fell like Ubisoft doesn't care about their PC customers from this statement made in the interview. Sylvain Trottier spoke on his own, but it makes you wounder if this is what Ubisoft thinks as a whole. I do remember that Ubisoft said earlier this year that they felt that their PC customers where getting the short end of the stick. (At the moment, I can't find this source.)
In till there is action taking place I will not buy an Assassin's Creed game from now on, and if this then to be the case for PC games from Ubisoft; I will boy cott them too.

[Master Zone]

Originally posted by Wardiaper:

It was an unfortunate way of wording what I think he meant. I believe it's not that they don't "care" but aren't concerned about the PC as much because the hardware is superior.

If they didn't care than we wouldn't even get a PC port to complain about.

You guys seriously need to relax a little bit. PC gamers complain so much that one day no devs will make PC games because you guys go off on anything you can find. Just play the game and enjoy it. You are only hurting the 12,000 people that are currently enjoying this game when your attitude is a constant attack on games and developers. If it is so bad, why don't you just give up gaming? The answer - it's not really as bad as you would have everyone believe.

Mate, I don't want to seem rude, but are you stupid? You act as if people are getting annoyed about silly things. No, the PC customers are not getting annoyed over silly or small things, because when someone has a GTX 780 or GTX Titan and only gets a max of 45 FPS, that IS something of concern and something to be upset and annoyed about!


I have a EVGA GTX 770 SC, intel i5 4670k 3.4Ghz (over-clocked to 4.0GHz) and 16GB DDR3-1866 RAM, yet I only get 35-45FPS, and it even drops down to 25 FPS on heavy moments. How is it that I own a GTX 770 and the game drops down to 25 FPS! So YES, it IS as bad as everyone is making it out to be!


We are not saying the game is bad or looks bad, the game is actually very good. AC4 looks about the same detail as The Witcher 2 at some parts, but the thing is that I get 60+ FPS (never drops below 55FPS) with The Witcher 2 at max detail, and yet I only get 35-45 FPS with AC4... :-\



So if you don't mind me saying, YOU seriously need to relax a little bit, you ignorant man. I really hope you are trolling.