@mb: Everyone has the right to make their own purchasing decisions based on what they value. If 60fps is important enough to not play a game then that is your choice as a consumer. I was mostly taking issue with the idea that gamers as a whole all need to value framerate equally as much and anything that doesn't run at 60fps basically deservers to be boycotted. If gamers suddenly decided that the only thing that made a game worth playing was if it ran at 60fps and developers decided their only goal was to achieve that over everything else I don't think I would want to be a part of that culture anymore.

@horseman6: as game developers keep pushing the limits the standards of 60fps or 30fps is always going to be one of the things that takes a hit. What your asking them is to keep the visuals on par for every game and never try to push the limits. The fact is a brand new processor and video card can't always be brand new, and pc makers are yearly putting out new hardware that changes the standards.

Basically game developers are always trying to give us the best game they can, there spending lots of time optimizing there games. For you to push a rule like 60fps for everything is taking allot of resources away from them. Creating video games is an art, and putting rules to art never gives good results, it just makes everything predictable and boring. There is no right or wrong answer, these things need to be experienced first to know if it's the good direction or not.

In an open world game your probably going to see them more around 30fps just so they can cram more stuff into the environments, more traffic, more people on streets, etc. 60fps doesn't always equal better games.

also the ps4 and Xbox one aren't exactly pushing the specs when compared to a good high end gaming pc. When you buy a console you need to understand that compromises have been taken just to get the price to what most find acceptable.

@astupidvdcase:

Some of the bashing on Ubisoft right now is mindless, but a hell of a lot is justified. The context of the situation is important here, and what Ubisoft has tried to sell to consumers as though they were idiots. First, there was the downgrade from the promised 1080p 60fps to just 30fps and 900p (I think). For the most part, that's cool with me, they might have overextended in their ambition for the game and the last option is this cut. Trying to sell 30fps as being actually superior to 60 and being more 'cinematic' is less cool, and shows the level of contempt that Ubisoft (or at least their marketing team) has for their player base. On top of that, it can't even maintain the 30, and when you're dropping frames at that point, boy does it become noticeable quick, especially if you're the one playing. Some don't notice it, but, judging from the outcry, a lot do.

There's also the review embargo situation; 12 hours after launch. There is no other way around it, Ubisoft wanted consumers to remain as uninformed as long as possible because they did not have confidence in the game. Just look at Dragon Age Inquisition; embargo ends a whole week before release, because EA thought that it was a quality product. And that gamble is paying off big time for them right now. This, combined with the aggressive advertising of AC Unity, makes it clear that Ubisoft just wanted to get as many day one sales as possible before it became apparent that the game is not as good as people were expecting and is mired with technical issues.

Maybe I'm already spoiled by my 2 months of 60 fps PC gaming, but that looks like the chunkiest "22-30" fps I've ever seen.

@adequatelyprepared: Did they ever promise the game would be in 1080p 60 FPS? I don't remember them ever saying that, and would be a bold promise if they saw the state of the game every day.

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/report-assassin-s-creed-unity-targeting-1080p-60fps-on-ps4-and-xbox-one/1100-6420580/

If that wasn't the initial promise, they wouldn't have felt the need to sell 30fps as hard as they did.

@mb:

i hope you are trolling cause pretty much every great game last gen ran below 30FPS

I hope you aren't trolling because every great game on PC strives to provide smooth and stable performance at 60 FPS. The hardware and software specs should be able to be driven above a standard 60mhz monitor fresh rate for the smoothest and least distracting presentation.

That said, only a handful of games, mostly in the "serious e-sports" category, really do need that level to "function" but all others can readily drop below that. Do I demand that XCOM or Civ5 run at 60 fps? Naw but I would be highly disappointed my PC couldn't because there is no particular reason why they shouldn't with the amount of hardware stuffed into that thing.

And that is really what the issue with ACU on PC is. It is pretty baffling that this game can not be driven at "Ultra" settings smoothly on a modern PC with 980 in single or SLI let alone the crashing. It looks that thing about "locking to 30fps to avoid controversy" was a smoke screen instead of a choice.

Remember when that guy wrote in about how they locked it at 30 for 900p? Yeah...

@extomar:

from people on forums, PC performance has been hit and miss, one post we have people going "OH it runs better than i expected" while others can't.

Some people are probably underestimating the hardware demand of this game which isn't merely GPU intensive.

The amount of polygons in the game world is pretty crazy and every single building you cant enter looks high quality from the exterior.

The larger buildings all have dozens of rooms which are super detailed and even the smaller buildings you can enter are super nice to look at.

This game is probably poorly optimized, make no mistake but people are probably confusing this with their biased expectations just cause this is a mainstream AAA AC game :/.

If people are expecting this to run 60FPS on ultra with a single 970 or 980 they are insane (high or medium probably achievable looking at youtube) But ultra nope lol.

Remember this, a game like Arma II or Arma III on ultra setting with a single 980GTX or 970 will only fetch you around 50FPS average during wide open sections and probably less if there are multiple unit on screen.

So yeah people are delusional in many cases if they are going "OMG why cant i run this 60FPS with a 970!!!!" especially if you cant even run arma II lol or RTWII with maximum number of units on screen on ultra.

People are getting average 40FPS and stuff which i think is acceptable.

i mean this guy is getting decent FPS? the biggest killer is probably AA on ultra

So PS4 version runs like crap and my PC isn't good enough to run it well either (though I'll still be able to manage better than PS4). Looks like I'm skipping this one.

@thatonedudenick:

i woudl say medium high setting usually looks better than console games, but not sure about PC AC Unity, you could probably get away with High if you turn down the AA

True. I have a friend with a PC of similar specs that is looking to get the game. I'll see how it works out for him before I make a decision.

@astupidvdcase: I'm so jealous of that footage! It looks absolutely amazing and runs amazing, wish the PS4 had half (literally wish it ran at around 25~30fps lol) the frame rate

Are you comparing FS to ubisoft montreal? cause I think you do :)

FS was like a struggling star who needed a push on the back instead of being harshly critical which will result in killing his potential. Now, gamers and critics alike are dealing with them like any other developer.

Ubisoft montreal on the other hand is one of the biggest studios of one of the leading publishers in the industry. So if they fail to set the standards, gamers and critics alike will let them know... And they should.