Without any information about which kind of configuration was in use on the given PC, it's a kinda pointless rumor. If this is confirmed, it's more like an Arkham Knight situation than an AC: Unity one.

Anyway, I think it's a bit unlikely. Did Ubi change the AC engine (Wikipedia says it's the same of the latest 2 games)? Because Unity ran reasonably well on my 970, basically high-ultra above 30 fps. Syndicate had an even better performance. The PS4/X1 version of the first one was terrible while the latter was basically passable. Of course, in all platforms both games were buggy as hell, so it was basically terrible all around.

I think it's hard to believe that now the PC version is much worse than the console one, they would actually have to make their engine run worse on PC than the one used on Unity while simultaneously making it run better on consoles. That would be one hell of an achievement, even for their poor standards.

I don't think we should call them lazy or bad at it. It's not easy at all with the high bar we have today for visuals. Budgets are getting huge and development times are increasing. It's hard to make a commercially viable product. The fixed specs on consoles help a bit so it's faster to make everything work decently, even if you won't get the best visuals in the world.

Developers at big companies always report working overtime frequently and tons of pressure paired with impossible deadlines. These guys are on the limit. I guess that companies behind platforms and game engines should invest in tools to speed up development and reduce costs even more than they do today or we will reach a point where the evolution of games won't be dictated by hardware, but by the budget. The latter already plays an important role today, but it's not a hard constrant yet.

Crytek tried to ignore budget limits and push hardware to the limit and they ended up almost bankrupt.

The other downside is that this budget increases are a reason for devs to try to squeeze more from the userbase with DLCs and microtransactions. Just look at Rockstar. They released games almost yearly, but since 2013 their output slowed down a lot. Simply because they found a huge cash cow on microtransactions in GTA Online. I fear that, someday, the AAA market could end up like the mobile one, but with a 60 bucks initial cost on top of all the microtransactions.

Yeah yeah now its the developers fault not the platform? Funny how that works when it comes to PC ports.

The Xbox One X is a great value by the way, cool for them that they get the best version.

It is always harder to devolope for, dueto having different hardware configiration while its only 4 for all consoles who have the same PC architecture now.

Because you can change your PC? You can't change your console so any issues with say a regular Xbox One port from a regular PS4 - that would be Microsoft's fault. Optimization is really only an issue when you have a bunch of different hardware configurations and skus. PC is not a corporation box, you can literally make it into anything you want it to be. 

I don't understand the extreme reaction from console users in this thread that seem to be happy about this. This doesn't prove your console is a better device or that it's more powerful, it proves that Ubisoft has faults as a developer. I wouldn't want this for Xbox users, I wouldn't want this for Playstation users, I wouldn't want this for a user playing any game. I don't understand where this reaction comes from, maybe it's a response to the minority of PC gamers who are assholes, but the PC gamers on this site seem pretty chill. Let's not let internet debates get in the way of what this is : A gamer issue. 

It's unfortunate because I've had this problem with Rainbow Six Siege. The game was very smooth until I tried to apply anti-aliasing and then the game dropped frames significantly even though it didn't look much better. Then I tried another form of anti-aliasing (I can't say i'm an expert, sorry i sound like an idiot) and the game looked extremely blurry on screen. I played a match a couple days ago and it seemed to work with the normal anti-aliasing solution. I got like 90-120 frames versus the 30-50 frames I got before. So now I can use anti-aliasing ....... ...................................... horray! Just seems like such a good port aside from that, it sucks that it ruined my experience with the game.

Love how the attitude in this thread is so radically different from the one about Ubisoft in imminent danger of being eaten by Vivendi. In one it's "I love Ubisoft, they make interesting games" and here it;s "Well, if someone takes a dump on PC and sells it for $60, it's probably Ubisoft."

Still not certain why a PC game would not run well on a build with recommended specs. The hell does "recommended specs" even mean in that case? Not a PC guy, but would still like someone take this aspect of that platform to task - always review games at the recommended specs, nothing above, and see if the companies scramble to fix their shit.

Is it? I feel like I heard about this a lot more when the PS4 and Xbox One were still new, and even then the games weren't optimized for those consoles because they released on the 360 and ps3 too. Like I think Batman Arkham Knight and Ubisoft games are more so the exception. But I'm genuinely asking you, I don't know, I haven't heard of stuff like this since Knight.

Those that spoke positively of ubisoft in that other thread haven't shown up in this one, which is why it appears differently to the other thread.

For years Ubisoft hasn't done a good job when it came to PC ports and even now, they still haven't shown a care for creating a specific team towards porting their games to PC, so in between the years where they cited PC gamers as pirates, to now where they cba optimizing their PC ports at all, they haven't really progressed as much if at all when it comes to the PC side of things.

Hell, their last PC based game, Anno 2205 ran like crap, a game designed only for PC and even then it was watered down. They just don't give a crap about that market (which is why I'll always dislike them and wish for Vivendi to finish them off).

Double double post, sorry.