Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Video Game News › [Gamespot] The Division PS4/Xbox One Lets You Change Visual Settings to Improve Frame Rate, Dev Says
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[Gamespot] The Division PS4/Xbox One Lets You Change Visual Settings to Improve Frame Rate, Dev Says - Page 3

post #21 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by TopicClocker View Post

There's a thing called higher system requirements, that can be applied to the minimum and the recommended requirements.
I don't believe PCs are to blame for this, are you implying that you would need a Quad SLI Titan configuration to have this game break away from the console versions?

How can you blame PCs when this is clearly said "We do have to keep it in check with the consoles; it would be kind of unfair to push it so far away from them."

Straight from the Steam page:
For the graphics, this doesn't even make any sense, since when was a 760 equivalent to a 560?
Perhaps the system requirements will be improved and make more sense near the release of the game?

These CPUs are quite capable and this game appears to be well multi-threaded so i don't see much of a problem here.

On the recommended side:
This requires quite a powerful PC, and PC games are made to be scalable, the R9 290 and GTX 970 alone are around 3-4x more powerful than the GPUs that are in the consoles.

Again, I don't believe PCs are to blame for this, there's a clear separation between the minimum and recommended requirements, I don't see much of a problem with this as the game will be able to scale up from the minimum requirements.
The 760 in the minimum requirements is more powerful than the GPUs that are in the consoles, especially the Xbox One.

It's not like the minimum requirements say you need a Core 2 Duo and a Radeon 4850, and the the recommend says you need a Core 2 Quad and a Radeon 7870.

Look how well Grand Theft Auto V and other games scale on PC.

First of all, no, I'm not saying that you need quad titans to break away from the console version. What I'm saying is that there is proof that low-end PCs hold the PC version back since there are published minimum and recommended specifications. You even said it yourself: "there's a clear separation between the minimum and recommended requirements." Meaning that the graphics could have been so much better, but they're held back by the need to support low-mid range PCs. Do you really think that the game couldn't look better if it only supported quad titans? Of course it would, but that's an unrealistic thing to do considering the average consumer wouldn't be able to play it. You can blame consoles all you want, but it it has no more weight than than blaming, for example, mid-range PCs with a single 970 or 290 that hold back high-end PCs. What you're doing is creating a double-standard.

Also, I find it interesting that PC gamers and console gamers alike have already kicked Ubisoft and its statements to the curb, but now that Ubisoft says something they want to hear, it's suddenly fact and no-longer PR BS.
post #22 of 38
Ubi wins again......
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 5820K AsRock Extreme6 X99 Gigabyte GTX 980 Ti Windforce OC 16 GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 840 EVO 250GB - HDD Speed Edtition Samsung SM951 512 GB - I still hate Samsung!  Noctua NHD14 Windows 10 
MonitorMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Achieva Shimian QH270-Lite Overlord Computer Tempest X27OC  Acer Predator XB270HU Filco Majestouch 2 Ninja 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Seasonic X-1250 Fractal Design R5 Razer Naga Razer Goliathus Alpha 
AudioAudio
AKG K702 65th Anniversary Edition Creative Sound Blaster Zx 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 5820K AsRock Extreme6 X99 Gigabyte GTX 980 Ti Windforce OC 16 GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 840 EVO 250GB - HDD Speed Edtition Samsung SM951 512 GB - I still hate Samsung!  Noctua NHD14 Windows 10 
MonitorMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Achieva Shimian QH270-Lite Overlord Computer Tempest X27OC  Acer Predator XB270HU Filco Majestouch 2 Ninja 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Seasonic X-1250 Fractal Design R5 Razer Naga Razer Goliathus Alpha 
AudioAudio
AKG K702 65th Anniversary Edition Creative Sound Blaster Zx 
  hide details  
Reply
post #23 of 38
There is only one reason to put a graphics setting in a console game. Thats so you can then blame the customer for having the setting to high when the game runs poorly.
post #24 of 38
And you know the most pathetic thing of it all? All of these morons continue buying high end cards and will never EVER see the true potential of them. Not even close. rolleyes.gif
post #25 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by FattysGoneWild View Post

And you know the most pathetic thing of it all? All of these morons continue buying high end cards and will never EVER see the true potential of them. Not even close. rolleyes.gif

So because Ubisoft is scaling back and lowering their optimization standards the rest of the market, therefor automatically is too? ...That's a great assumption to make...rolleyes.gif
post #26 of 38
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tempest2000 View Post

First of all, no, I'm not saying that you need quad titans to break away from the console version. What I'm saying is that there is proof that low-end PCs hold the PC version back since there are published minimum and recommended specifications. You even said it yourself: "there's a clear separation between the minimum and recommended requirements." Meaning that the graphics could have been so much better, but they're held back by the need to support low-mid range PCs. Do you really think that the game couldn't look better if it only supported quad titans? Of course it would, but that's an unrealistic thing to do considering the average consumer wouldn't be able to play it. You can blame consoles all you want, but it it has no more weight than than blaming, for example, mid-range PCs with a single 970 or 290 that hold back high-end PCs. What you're doing is creating a double-standard.

Also, I find it interesting that PC gamers and console gamers alike have already kicked Ubisoft and its statements to the curb, but now that Ubisoft says something they want to hear, it's suddenly fact and no-longer PR BS.

You make a fair point, although I'm not the type of person who jumps down Ubisoft's throat over things, I'm not on the Ubisoft hate bandwagon.
I'm guilty of owning many of their games, and even, forgive me for this.. Pre-ordering their games, I have steel books of Far Cry 2, Watch Dogs and Assassin's Creed Unity, alongside a many more of their games in my library.

They made it pretty clear by saying it would be unfair to push it so far away from the console versions, they didn't say anything about the weaker PCs. It's kind of jumping to conclusions by blaming the system requirements, what's stopping them from scaling up? They could be withholding further information about the subject but no one really knows.

Also, would the need to support lower end PCs really hold them back that much? I suppose it sets a benchmark along-side the console versions of what they can scale up from, consoles are fantastic for setting benchmarks for developers, hence the reason why we have seen improvements and advancements in multi platform and exclusive games in terms of gameplay, visuals and the entire technical aspects of games since the introduction of the current generation consoles.

In the minimum requirements, the 760 is above the current generation consoles in raw horsepower, the i5 2400 and FX 6100 could even be considered so, or even on-par.
The i5 is a 4 year old 3.1-3.4GHz CPU, and the FX 6100 is a 3.3GHz six core processor.

However the 7770 and 560 stand out the most, and are weaker than what is in the current generation consoles, however this isn't a big issue as PC Gaming is all about scalability, the console versions are targeting 1080p 30fps and on PC you can run whatever resolution you wanted to with a variety of graphical settings.

Lower end PCs could hold them back, I suppose this is mostly apparent in MMO games, some of them aren't the most appealing visually, however as a result of this they can run on wide range of PCs, possibly even toasters.
Although not only is that a benefit, but this also allows the developers to create massive MMO worlds filled with content as they don't necessarily need to push the boundaries in terms of the complexity of the game, along-side high-end visuals.
They can focus and push more resources towards content as a result of this.

In the videos I saw, the beta was giving 980 Tis a hard time at 1080p max settings whilst not looking much much better than the lower settings.
There is alot of computationally demanding effects on display, but is it enough to warrant the computational demands? This is definitely a bad question to ask as the game is still in development, we will have to wait until the release.

The performance will probably improve in the final version and when newer drivers come out, but from what I've seen and played of the beta, these higher settings didn't look that much better for the computation power that they demanded, even on the highest end hardware available.

So are lower end PCs really to blame? Or could this simply be a prime example of diminishing returns? This is quite a sophisticated matter to tackle as there are many variables, and no clear answers for various subjects.
post #27 of 38
you'll never see that in a Japanese made game
post #28 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Masked View Post

So because Ubisoft is scaling back and lowering their optimization standards the rest of the market, therefor automatically is too? ...That's a great assumption to make...rolleyes.gif

Must have blinders on. This has been going on since the 360/PS3 era and will continue so. Consoles will ALWAYS be priority. The market says so. Like it or not.
post #29 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by FattysGoneWild View Post

Must have blinders on. This has been going on since the 360/PS3 era and will continue so. Consoles will ALWAYS be priority. The market says so. Like it or not.

I didn't offer an opinion...I insinuated that yours is incredibly biased, it is.

PC sales are actually tied with consumer console sales...Regardless of units sold.

The actual disparity is hardware optimization...Ala Batman.

That doesn't mean anyone is wasting anything because, who knows, next week, maybe that "investment" will actually be needed for Camelot Unchained or, Black Desert...
post #30 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmgjet View Post

There is only one reason to put a graphics setting in a console game. Thats so you can then blame the customer for having the setting to high when the game runs poorly.

This!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Video Game News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Video Game News › [Gamespot] The Division PS4/Xbox One Lets You Change Visual Settings to Improve Frame Rate, Dev Says