it was total different hardware...   there is just not so much new to learn

Ubisoft themselves recently published a test to show just how much you can actually get out of GPGPU, and it was a lot more than you can get out of the CPU.

If you check my posts in this thread, you'll se that it's not the fact that it's 900p that bothers me, it's just that they (if this in fact is a Ubisoft dev) come up with this lame excuse. We know that the PS4 could do this in 1080p if they optimised it for GPGPU. I'm not even saying that they have to do that, but instead of this excuse, they should just say it's too much of a hassle, and you only get marginal differences. Now that explanation would've been way better.

Well, you said it itself.

It was a test. The game ships in the next 3 weeks, it´s probably finished main coding in the last 2 months.

So, should Ub delay the game util those tecnics are finished? May be they could recall Watchdogs and try again to reach 1080p. Let´s also ask EA to do same with Battlefield 4.

Because, you know. Reaching 1080p is much more important than any other aspect of the game.

Actually, that is really not the whole point of this debate. We bought hardware that is suppose to be way better than the past ones. So far they still are failing to meet game makers demands. I still think game makers need to stop throwing all this stuff at the consoles, if nothing can run at gamers expectations. Which is usually the res and FPS.

I'd like one of these games, run at real 1080/60. Than see how much of a "downgrade" the other departments really get. I don't know if the game is gonna look "bad", unless someone actually does this. It be stupid, if say AC would work at those levels, if they just cut 20 AI people from the street, for example. Or made the draw distance slightly lower. I seriously doubt any of the reductions would make them look like Launch xbox/ps3 games. All as we know, the game can't run at 1080/60 is because they can't afford to pay the people to get it optimized. And all this is pure BS.

Also, you didnt actually adress any of my points in the post, most of it is just your typicall ''PC is superior'' rambling you are known for here. Thats fine and all, but it doesnt disprove my statments on the next gen consoles being build on developer feedback and the graphics standard being set by the consoles rather than the most powerfull GPUs at the market.

Well, you said it itself.

It was a test. The game ships in the next 3 weeks, it´s probably finished main coding in the last 2 months.

So, should Ub delay the game util those tecnics are finished? May be they could recall Watchdogs and try again to reach 1080p. Let´s also ask EA to do same with Battlefield 4.

Because, you know. Reaching 1080p is much more important than any other aspect of the game.

You are not Ubisoft shareholder. No one here is in the position of "demanding" how they voice their design decisions. Either you buy the game in a given platform your you don´t.

This whole discusion is diminishing what gaming is about. We reached a crazy standard where the number of pixels outputed by the GPU is more what matter the most.

If you check my posts in this thread, you'll se that it's not the fact that it's 900p that bothers me, it's just that they (if this in fact is a Ubisoft dev) come up with this lame excuse. We know that the PS4 could do this in 1080p if they optimised it for GPGPU. I'm not even saying that they have to do that, but instead of this excuse, they should just say it's too much of a hassle, and you only get marginal differences. Now that explanation would've been way better.

I didnt stuck a nerve at me at all, where did I display the signs of annoyance in my post? Maybe its your nerve that its stuck when you are briging up such a defensive statement. Given that your console maker of choice is Nintendo who not only makes underpowered consoles, but rather histerically  underpowered consoles, it wouldnt surprise me that you bring up PCs in every thread related to Xbone/PS4 to compensate for something. This is even more apperant since the majority of your post is about how PCs are better than next gen consoles and not about the original points you or I have made. So much for that.

People dont buy Titan GPUs, not because they dont need them, but because they cant afford them, which is painfully obvious, because most people in the industry dont have 1000$+ to spend on a graphic card alone. And you didnt need a high end PC to play majority of multiplats, most certanly not with the same graphically fidelity which is on PS360. However, this does bring up another major advantige consoles have over PC and that is future-proofing (for the lack of a better word) You buy a console and you'll guranteed to be able to play all multiplat games for the entire generation whereas for PC, you'd have to keep spending hunderds of dollars on upgrading your GPU, CPU and RAM.

Also, you didnt actually adress any of my points in the post, most of it is just your typicall ''PC is superior'' rambling you are known for here. Thats fine and all, but it doesnt disprove my statments on the next gen consoles being build on developer feedback and the graphics standard being set by the consoles rather than the most powerfull GPUs at the market.

Actually I think its stupid to assume more power means visuals. It's good to see Ubisoft pushing ain't etc. Not just ac4 with new story and better graphics.

Yeah, it's totally different hardware, that they had API's written for...for that totally different hardware.  That they improved the efficiency of over a 7 year period...for totally different hardware.

What you think the PS4's API was miraculously birthed at the most efficient level possible, pre-launch, using architecture that only 1 card, at the time boasted, seriously?  Which would, basically be counter to every gen ever?  You realize many games devs still don't properly use all cores in multi-core CPU's (most just use 2, some use 4, few use all 8)?  It's literally the same as when a new High-end GPU is launched.  Very few devs actually design games to utilize that power, because there are so few in circulation for the first few years due to price.  It's also why AMD/Nvidia release driver updates routinely, because their API has become more refined, and utilizes the power more effectively/efficiently.

For an industry of folks who've been working with 7 year old hardware, this gen is no different than any other.  It takes time for the software and the developer knowledge to catch up with what they have available.  This is not rocket science level stuff here, it's the 8th gen, we should be used to it by now.