By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - 900p and 30fps _ Is it a parity clause???

Landguy said:
Arkaign said:
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.


That is because anything that would make ubisoft right in this case is just not possible.Its really that simple, its not complicated.

There is no way possible that the XB1 version and the PS4 version of a game manages to reach a specific resolution. The extra power on the PS4 has to go somewhere. If they can get the XB1 running at 900p then they pretty surely could have got the PS4 running at 1080p. There has been too many games so far this gen that shows that the PS4 has an obvious power advantage. 

it doesn't hep that ubisoft were stupid enugh to acyually admit that they limited the specs to avoid debates and stuf aka. for parity. 

To me its not even about 900p/1080p... its that ubisoft seems to want to take the road of developing games to the tune of the XB1s limitations. At least with teh PS4 we can say that 1080p is truly an industry standard, but ubisoft wants to build to the lowest denominator. Nothing wrong with that, if it weren't also that their games just so happens to sell better on the platform that they are sidelining now. 

I am convinced that they have lost they minds and whatever disease infected EA has finally infected them.



Around the Network
Bullsrun said:
Neodegenerate said:
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.


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.

In that case you probably shouldn't buy any single game ever made as I am sure that there are things that COULD be done to improve the game that are not done in the interest of actually getting the game out.



Landguy said:
Bullsrun said:
Neodegenerate said:
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.


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.

That's so blatantly a lie that I think it has to be proven it is not, not the otherwise.
As for playing it whatever the resolution, I agree what matters is the game, I don't care myself about the resolution. But telling it otherwise, would it be OK to not have a single native 1080p on 3rd party, because there is a possibilty that a significant part of the XOne players would not accept an inferior version, even if they get the best version for their hardware, and even if the other hardware is better ? So we will never play AC on a native full HD resolution, even if it would take about no effort to Ubisoft ?



Last gen, many titles and developers aimed for parity, or as close as possible, regardless what was possible in each platform.

Now we are in that pathetic and pittyfull pixel counting as the last battleground in the console wars.

It almost appears as an open agenda from Sony supporters as an "PDA service" to make people aware of how evil is Microfsoft with their background parity clauses, and how Sony is pure and good working for the benefit of the true gamers.

In almost one year we have dozens fo games with 1080/900p to show how small that difference is (even XOne exclusive vs PC) and how that doesn´t affect game play or people enjoyment.



Landguy said:
TheJimbo1234 said:

 

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


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?


Actually I have used many game engines which is why I can safely say that there is no extra time or cost to make the graphics better. If anything, it is the same amount of time to cap the fps limit as it is to make it better. Also the PS4 is the easiest console to design for, so they should make it for the ps4, scale it down to the xbone, and easily scale up to the PC as the architecture is very similar for the PS4 to PC.



Around the Network

Btw, how do you even prove that a parity clause does NOT exist? Isn´t that the classical "you cannot prove a negative", like "prove there is no god" or "prove the tooth fairy isn´t real"?



Puppyroach said:
Btw, how do you even prove that a parity clause does NOT exist? Isn´t that the classical "you cannot prove a negative", like "prove there is no god" or "prove the tooth fairy isn´t real"?

No real way to disprove it's existence, although, eventually you'd end up with a disgruntled ex-employee who'd let the cat out of the bag.  I don't understand why we're assuming there's a clause anyway, developers (even though the source was anonymous) stated awhile ago that devs may elect for parity to avoid political backlash from Sony/MS or their fans.  Personally, I find that believable.  The backlash can be extreme, but, to actually say such a thing out loud?  Opens up a huge can of worms.



Until the games are out, who knows/cares.

People get too caught up on resolution. Ryse is 900p and blows away virtually every 1080p game. Even games this gen that are both 1080p, the PS4 version sports some advantages in certain areas of the game. No reason this would be any different. AC Unity could look quite a bit better on PS4 and result in 900p.



mornelithe said:
Puppyroach said:
Btw, how do you even prove that a parity clause does NOT exist? Isn´t that the classical "you cannot prove a negative", like "prove there is no god" or "prove the tooth fairy isn´t real"?

No real way to disprove it's existence, although, eventually you'd end up with a disgruntled ex-employee who'd let the cat out of the bag.  I don't understand why we're assuming there's a clause anyway, developers (even though the source was anonymous) stated awhile ago that devs may elect for parity to avoid political backlash from Sony/MS or their fans.  Personally, I find that believable.  The backlash can be extreme, but, to actually say such a thing out loud?  Opens up a huge can of worms.

I agree. I know the reactions from alot of PS fans last generation with some of the gimped multiplatform titles. It would have been better for the developers to actually reach a consistent level of quality on both platforms instead of making one version awful. This generation we are talking about some pixels here and there though, not a biggie in my book.



Dark_Feanor said:
Last gen, many titles and developers aimed for parity, or as close as possible, regardless what was possible in each platform.

Now we are in that pathetic and pittyfull pixel counting as the last battleground in the console wars.

It almost appears as an open agenda from Sony supporters as an "PDA service" to make people aware of how evil is Microfsoft with their background parity clauses, and how Sony is pure and good working for the benefit of the true gamers.

In almost one year we have dozens fo games with 1080/900p to show how small that difference is (even XOne exclusive vs PC) and how that doesn´t affect game play or people enjoyment.

If only people listened to posts like this rather than seeing the resolution ang going "OMGEE EVIL MICROSOFT WITH TEH PARITIYZ"