• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Watch Dogs delayed until Spring 2014

Next gen consoles are vastly underpowered, the games running on actual hardware are looking inferior to what has been available on PC for atleast 18 months. They really fcked up with these 8 core netbook cpus.
 
futurefields said:
Next gen consoles are vastly underpowered, the games running on actual hardware are looking inferior to what has been available on PC for atleast 18 months. They really fcked up with these 8 core netbook cpus.
Click to expand...


Yea, they really should put a Titan and 4770k in a small form factor and sell it for $399.

The sacrifices they make in the name of power usage and cost are totally unacceptable.

🙄
 
futurefields said:
Next gen consoles are vastly underpowered, the games running on actual hardware are looking inferior to what has been available on PC for atleast 18 months. They really fcked up with these 8 core netbook cpus.
Click to expand...

Yeah. It would have been much better with a tegra 4 but we are stuck now.
 
This really sucks. I was really looking forward to playing what I considered the first truly next gen single player game of the year. 🙁

This was also supposed to be a PS4 launch title..
 
huh

Probably just sell the ps4 when it gets here then. I'm starting to not have much of a reason to have one at launch. I can wait.
 
It's pretty big news for the next gen consoles. I know a lot of people have this game on pre-order. It's not a minor push back either. Spring 2014 could mean up to 6 months from it's original release date. Something big must have gone wrong. Ubisoft is certainly not above putting out buggy, broken games.

Of course for us PC gamers, this is just business as usual from Ubi. Time someone else got willy slapped by them for a change. :sneaky:

futurefields said:
Next gen consoles are vastly underpowered, the games running on actual hardware are looking inferior to what has been available on PC for atleast 18 months. They really fcked up with these 8 core netbook cpus.
Click to expand...

Well, the PS3 and 360 were equivalent to higher end gaming PCs when they came out. They cost a fortune and suffered rather high failure rates as they literally melted themselves to death. Sure you could slam a Titan or HD 5990 in there with a 8 core AMD FX or Haswell i7-4771. However the thing would cost two grand and be able to heat an apartment block. Nobody's going to buy that. You got to strike a balance between what's powerful and what's practical for consumers.

Besides, part of why PC games need so much power is because of poor optimization. It's why Bioshock Infinite runs smooth on my system but Assassin's Creed III runs like crap.

VulgarDisplay said:
Yeah. It would have been much better with a tegra 4 but we are stuck now.
Click to expand...
Tegra 4 is a 32-bit processor, so RAM would be limited to 4GB. Tegra 6 will be the first 64-bit ARM processor from nVidia. It's due out sometime in 2014. AFAIK, the Apple A7 is the only consumer grade 64-bit ARM processor currently on the market.
 
I haven't seen any statements from Ubisoft saying the problem was with inconsistent performance. There is currently no reason to believe that performance is the cause of the delay. I think its far more likely based on the limited scenarios we have seen they haven't yet managed to create enough content of high enough quality to complete the game. It may well be they underestimated the effort of modelling and scripting a next gen quality experience, not just graphics but the characters and their interactions.

I am very sad to see the game delayed as it was probably my top new game I was looking forward to this autumn. I don't want a buggy, poor performing and/or incomplete game either so the delay I accept for what it is.
 
i think releasing assassin creed black flag and watch dog together would have hurt ac sale thats why they delayed it.
 
BrightCandle said:
I haven't seen any statements from Ubisoft saying the problem was with inconsistent performance. There is currently no reason to believe that performance is the cause of the delay. I think its far more likely based on the limited scenarios we have seen they haven't yet managed to create enough content of high enough quality to complete the game. It may well be they underestimated the effort of modelling and scripting a next gen quality experience, not just graphics but the characters and their interactions.

I am very sad to see the game delayed as it was probably my top new game I was looking forward to this autumn. I don't want a buggy, poor performing and/or incomplete game either so the delay I accept for what it is.
Click to expand...

I dont think they said at all the reason. Could be content or performance or both. Based on the ridiculous system requirements for PC, and the lack of experience with optimization for the new consoles, I could see that performance could be a problem. I dont really see how at this late date they would decide to make major changes to the content or gameplay. Just a guess, but it would seem to me that they ran into performance or AI glitches.
 
{bad} said:
i think releasing assassin creed black flag and watch dog together would have hurt ac sale thats why they delayed it.
Click to expand...

Yeah thats what I'm thinking too.. I was only going to buy Watch Dogs as it was releasing around the same time as AC IV, but it looks like I may pick up AC IV now instead....depending on how good the reviews are at any rate.
 
futurefields said:
Next gen consoles are vastly underpowered, the games running on actual hardware are looking inferior to what has been available on PC for atleast 18 months. They really fcked up with these 8 core netbook cpus.
Click to expand...

Based on the system requirements, I'll go out on a limb and say that they're struggling to optimize this for the consoles, It's not going to look good if they cannot get a game like this out on next gen running in native 1080p.
 
THat's a big delay. I don't think it's to do with AC. THey would have known about the clash a long time ago, and even so, why delay it by so much? One month would be enough to stop them damaging sales of AC.

I'm more inclined to think it's a technical reason. Major bugs, frame-rates, etc.
 
WiseUp216 said:
Yea, they really should put a Titan and 4770k in a small form factor and sell it for $399.

The sacrifices they make in the name of power usage and cost are totally unacceptable.

🙄
Click to expand...

Why are my only choices the current 8 core netbook cpu and a super powerful 4770k? They don't need 4770k. And its not even the GPU's thats the problem. The GPU's are fine. GPU's dont hold back gameplay, but shitty CPU's can and will. You can always use lower-precision shaders and less polygons etc and the game is still exactly the same. You start snipping parts of the game world, stripping out physics and AI and generally dumbing shit down because the CPU cant keep up, and now you are messing with game development in a way that is infuriating to enthusiast gamers.

They should have gone with something quad core and 3+ ghz, but im guessing AMD can't make an APU like that for whatever reason.

I sound like a broken record but ill say it again these CPU's are absolutely terrible for making next-gen games, wait till 3-5 years down the line. They are 1.6-1.7ghz... that is absurdly low.
 
Last edited:
futurefields said:
I sound like a broken record but ill say it again these CPU's are absolutely terrible for making next-gen games, wait till 3-5 years down the line. They are 1.6-1.7ghz... that is absurdly low.
Click to expand...

They are still a helluva lot faster than the CPUs in current gen consoles.

The only way I see the CPU being a problem is if the engine isn't multithreaded well enough and doesn't take advantage of all the cores. That's one of the good things about the next gen consoles, as it will FORCE developers to thread their game engines as much as possible. Any developer that can't do that will not be in business very long.

Also remember, consoles have a much, much thinner API than PCs, and in certain situations, developers can probably bypass the API completely.

Having a unified memory pool will also help a great deal.
 
Sheik Yerbouti said:
Goddammit. I just bought a new vid card specifically for this game. I was pretty stoked about it, and now, well, shit. 😡
Click to expand...


Same here.Picked up a new Gigabyte 4GB GTX770 at the end of July,in anticipation of playing Watch Dogs in mid-November.

Bah humbug.(At least I'll have Assassin's Creed IV PC-DVD to play on Nov.19,2013.)
 
Well im happy they have some standards. If they released a half broken game i imagine the reaction wouldve been alot shittier & reflected poorly on them. Just look @ Rome 2. What a disaster of a.release that was & CA's reputation for releasing totally broken games has been cemented!
 
mmntech said:
Tegra 4 is a 32-bit processor, so RAM would be limited to 4GB. Tegra 6 will be the first 64-bit ARM processor from nVidia. It's due out sometime in 2014. AFAIK, the Apple A7 is the only consumer grade 64-bit ARM processor currently on the market.
Click to expand...
I don't think you got it. So I'll explain after this.

futurefields said:
Why are my only choices the current 8 core netbook cpu and a super powerful 4770k? They don't need 4770k. And its not even the GPU's thats the problem. The GPU's are fine. GPU's dont hold back gameplay, but shitty CPU's can and will. You can always use lower-precision shaders and less polygons etc and the game is still exactly the same. You start snipping parts of the game world, stripping out physics and AI and generally dumbing shit down because the CPU cant keep up, and now you are messing with game development in a way that is infuriating to enthusiast gamers.

They should have gone with something quad core and 3+ ghz, but im guessing AMD can't make an APU like that for whatever reason.

I sound like a broken record but ill say it again these CPU's are absolutely terrible for making next-gen games, wait till 3-5 years down the line. They are 1.6-1.7ghz... that is absurdly low.
Click to expand...

These CPU's were the only option for making next gen games. Sony and Microsoft cannot release a 500 watt set top box and keep it cool for under $1000 bucks. They probably could for $1000 but no one would buy it, and it would be annoyingly loud. One of their design constraints was low power, and using these Jaguar cores was really the only feasible option while designing the consoles. They could have gone with an intel ulv core but with intel's markup the price would have been outrageous again. They could have gone with a tegra from nvidia but performance would have been even worse than the jaguar CPU's.

Some folks just live in a fantasy world where they see that gaming rig pulling 1000w's and think that it should be what the consoles are based off of. 😱
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top