I am... ok with this. Far Cry 3 still looks good to me maxed out on PC. FarCry4 already looks better. If this means everyone gets a good version of the game, I'm cool with that.

Gimped PC version? Pass.

It was acceptable after a few driver updates (Nvidia).

...and it didn't look that good...

Oh I remember the days PC fans were excited that the next(which is now current) gen would put an end to the gimped PC versions. Right back on track I see. The game looks last gen, but we should expect that from all cross gen games.

Assassins Creed and Watchdogs were made for console gamers therefore consoles are the lead platform (I thought you knew this, Ubisoft has long since admitted this). Far Cry is a PC game by history therefore it is lead over there but because of the sales on consoles and readiness of power this gen have been given some leeway. The consoles have at least been up to snuff to give a great showing on all platforms so this is great all around for everyone. Modders will screw with Far Cry anyway, so I don't really see the issue. 

LOL yeah..sure. Pass on a great game because it is at parity with console versions? How shallow. I am sure more gameplay will further entice you to invest.

Nope.  I don't have to latch onto every game that's launched, like a heroin addict, just 'cause.  I have vast options in that regard.  I will not invest in any IP that does this.  It's not shallow to expect standards in gaming to rise, as new hardware/resources become available.  And when devs outright admit to such tactics, it makes it easier for me to do something else.

I may end up getting it, months/years after release after the modders have gotten their hands on it and unfucked whatever bullshit Ubisoft has done to the game though, but only on a sale, when it's ridiculously inexpensive.  Or I may just borrow it from someone, just to ensure they get as little as possible for it.  Or hell, I could even wait until the day I upgrade my GPU, I got a copy of Far Cry 3 included w/ the last one :)

Far Cry's standards have risen. There would have been no difference but for light and shadowing improvements and slightly better graphics, but if Ubisoft says the game is playing on par with ultra on consoles that a testament to the power behind the consoles. Most PC gamers wont even be able to enjoy ultra settings, but only a select few will. Far Cry 3 set the bar and I bet four will follow through. The gameplay is what matters and luckily for us console gamers we finally get a game on par with you guys, especially when we are where the bulk of the sales are coming from. PC gamers have a high level of expectation, but very little that is exclusive to use the power that you guys posess. When squeeze every bit of juice out of consoles people marvel.Why might you ask? Limit the tech and increase the goal to work itself around hardware and you'll see something you havent out of consoles. Far Cry 4 might just blow us all away and no one would've been the wiser because PC's just have to be that superior.

Do you program/design for Ubisoft?  Then I don't think you're in any position, whatsoever, to provide an informed assessment of Ubisoft's standards and practices.  Additionally, a game being purposefully gimped to achieve parity across all hardware (regardless of what's superior and what isn't), doesn't constitute 'on par' with a PC Game that employs the bells and whistles technology have afforded in the past 8 years.  Which is quite clearly demonstrated, by Watch Dogs.

I am glad that the new gen is bringing new experiences to the console, I really am.  But, I'm not so much of a fanboy that I can't be disenfranchised by what is clearly an impedement to future games design.  And we wonder why the beginning of new gens have lackluster titles, why it takes forever for developers to wrap their heads around new hardware; spend so much time with static hardware, and the world of technology passes you right by.

And clearly, PC's don't HAVE to be that superior, but they should be.  Not to assuage the anger of those who've spent the money on their rigs, but because PC should be the test bed, it's where they can go apeshit with their resource needs.  Call it 'preferential' treatment for PC's if you so desire, I however, prefer to look at it as devs learning how to utilize that power, in advance of new gens.  And you're more than welcome to disagree with me, I'm really not bothered by it.  Clearly the tide of public opinion is against me on this, but that honestly matters little.  I stick to my principles, especially when I see something that could damage the industry down the road.

The way ubisoft releases broken PC games consistantly, this makes sense.