By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
IamAwsome on 06 October 2014
Edit Thread
poklane said:
IamAwsome said:
ethomaz said:

IamAwsome said:

This isn't forced parity. Ubisoft said the CPU was a bottleneck for BOTH consoles.

CPU didn't affect resolution at all... the CPU made the game runs at 30fps instead 100fps like they exemplified.

Maybe the game was developed for XB1 first? (as is the case for 99% of exclusive marketing games). My point being MS didn't pay for parity like NeoGAF wants to believe.

So then Unity would just be a lazy port.....

I don't know. Possibly? People are acting like Ubisoft wronged consumers just because a game runs at the same resolution on both consoles. Last gen there were several crappy ports on both consoles, and you never heard people saying "X console is holding back the other". It was even worse in the 6th gen. Now people are getting all up in arms because a game looks THE SAME and not worse?? I don't get it. Having a more powerful console doesn't mean EVERY game will look better unless said console is the lead platform for every game.