Well... The CPU's themselves are weak but judging by all the games that have been out between the two platforms, the resolution does not seem to matter in terms of CPU horsepower (which should be the case in most cases)... And so far, it seems to be parity only for the games that are "Microsoft Marketed" so it just seems a bit wonky loll.

The only way to know for sure is if more and more games do that and they aren't "Microsoft Marketed" or "Sony Marketed"

I hope someone leaks the details, because that would be insanely bad PR for MS and Ubisoft.

Or, maybe everyone says"Holy Shit!  that wasn't a Lie?".  Of course, whatever proof that could be leaked to prove Ubisoft right would be met with "they are still lying".

It will be hard for diehards on either side to believe it no matter what "it" is.

I don't think it is a clause or anything of the sort. Realistically I think Ubi probably thought "let's not potentially hurt sales of one by making and acknowledging that the other is better" or something along those lines. Let's face it, there are people out there who do not own both systems who would refuse to purchase the game on their system if it was viewed - and even presented - as the inferior of the options.

Big tech guy here; it is simply marketing bs from them.

The devs don't want to admit that a) the consolves vary a huge amount in power, b) the hardware of the consoles is already very dated

The ps4 is just shy of 2 tflops which means it really should be able to play games like ACU at 1080 30fps - if not 1080p, then 45fps +. But clearly they are capping the performance to the lowest console (xbone). Why they are doing this hits me as a backhander from MS to the publishers/devs as they shouldn't really give a toss which looks better or which platform sells more as they still get the same returns.

The other issue is that I think the devs don't want people to see that they have forked out a few hundred £/$ for a new peice of kit....which is far outstripped by a PC which costs either the same or fractionally more, because then it shows the consoles to be anything but cutting edge.

Either way, we, the gamers are getting shafted by morons in charge and frankly boycotting these games would be the best option.

They dont want to lose sales so they make they take the lowest common denominator, they will give up this parity when the ps4 total domination will be well established , then the sales lost on x1 will be irrelevant.

So at the opposite to what most thought, the gap will grow

I agree with the sentiment that gamers are getting shafted, only if the developer doesn't have to do any additional work to get to the 1080p or higher fps.  If the Developer gains nothing by releasing one version less than the other, then they would gain nothing by making onversion better than the other.

If there is no additional cost to make the PS4 version better, then Ubisoft is screwing the buyers of the PS4 version.  The problem here though is that we don't know if there is.  What if the XB1 was a lead platform for development and the PS4 version is a port of sorts?  Why bother to optomize it (thus increasing the costs)for the PS4 if it won't really improve the sales of the game?

Since quite a few multiplatform games last fall were 1080p on PS4, while not reaching that level ok X1, it kind of proves there is no such thing as a parity clause. I do think some developers do it just to have equal experiences, some do it to just the power and add other effects instead and some simply can't reach a higher level on these two underpowered systems at the moment.

And as a PS4 user i refuse to buy a game inferior then it should be i want PS4 quality not gymped to x1 quality, so either way they are losing potential sales.  So your reasoning does not work.

It all points to a clause, becasue if they were going by caring most about sales potential they wouldnt brilliantly gymp the version backed by the biggest user base.

Even though i don't disagree with the notion of not wanting a gimped game, I still have a hard time with the whole"i am not going to buy it".  If you are an AC fan and want more of the series, and this game looks better than any previous version, why would you care about the number being 1080p or 900p?  Isn't it more about playing the game?  

This still falls into the "Prove IT" category for me.  I need someone to prove that Ubisoft is lying or that they are not.  Until that happens, I have to go with the theory that I will play the game as it is and enjoy it.