When Assassin's Creed Unity launched last week, it was mocked endlessly, thanks to a slew of weird glitches. In the days since, Ubisoft has started work on patches for every platform, and it's doing a surprisingly good job informing players about its process on a recently launched "live updates" blog.

Take, for example, Ubisoft's examination of the game's frame rate. The publisher outlines some of the technical solutions that should resulting a smoother experience:

• "Streamlining some technical aspects of navigation: We’ve fixed a number of edge cases with our detection system to smooth certain behaviors during parkour. We’ve fixed a few objects which were improperly tagged to smooth navigation.
• Improving task scheduling: We’ve tuned the way the computing tasks are prioritized and parallelized by the processor cores to improve framerate in certain edge cases.
• Tweaking performance for Reach High Points: We’ve optimized the reach high points, during the camera swooping sequence to improve framerate a little bit."

It also explains why crowds aren't going to shrink, as it doesn't seem to have a meaningful impact:

"Though crowd size was something we looked at extensively pre-launch, it is something we continue to keep a close eye on. We have just finished a new round of tests on crowd size but have found it is not linked to this problem and does not improve frame rate, so we will be leaving crowds as they are.

We’re working very hard to see these changes rolled out in Patch 3, but as we’re still testing our fixes we need to be conservative with any estimates as far as ETA is concerned. We hope to have further updates on this topic before the end of the week."

None of this absolves Ubisoft from having launched a full-priced video game that clearly wasn't done, obviously, but in an industry full of PR spin and misdirection, a little honesty is appreciated.

Perhaps the bigger question: when are we going to hold Microsoft and Sony accountable for saying this is OK? Ubisoft shipped these games, but the platform holders signed off on them, too.

I agree that the honesty is much appreciated, especially coming from someone who bought the PC release. That being said Patrick, I really think you should be holding Steam just as accountable as Microsoft or Sony for allowing a totally broken game to be sold on their service. Is there just no QA on the seller's side anymore? It's hard to believe that (as someone who meets all of the recommended system requirements according to Steam and has an Nvidia card) someone could have started up AC:U and played for more than an hour without noticing the huge frame-rate and crashing issues present.

I really hope that in the future console manufacturers and online marketplaces like Steam will have to accept some accountability for these sorts of problems, but somehow I doubt that will take place. I can't complain though, I did get a refund from Steam despite their policies about that.

P.S. You should edit your title duder, it says Ubisof!

Game should have been delayed

Steam/Valve's role is pretty different from Microsoft and Sony. Steam doesn't have a certification process, but Microsoft and Sony do. Certification processes exist to ensure a certain level of quality, but it's a bit more wild west on the PC. The onus is entirely on the publisher on the PC.

I just find it a bit baffling that ACU is getting raked over the coals for technical issues, while Dragon Age: Inquisition is reviewing so well. I'm enjoying both games, but DAI's frame rate is dipping into single digits at some points on PS4, and there's several issues with on screen artifacts, especially regarding the HUD and loading icon.

I don't know the sales numbers, but I'd guess they're at least relatively high compared to most games. Until people stop buying stuff blindly, we can't hold the system holders or even Ubisoft accountable. Why wouldn't they put out an unfinished game that they can just fix later if it sells just as well? We'll soon enter an era where every game is a glorified Early Access game.

Amazing how quickly I forgot about this game. Played about three hours the first day (PS4) and had a generally good time. Started it up again the next day, and all its problems were a lot more apparent. Now that there are new games out this week, AC Unity isn't going to get any action from me anytime soon. I hope they fix it because I will come back to it, eventually. I was really looking forward to it but the performance is just so terrible. It really keeps the game from being what it could be.

Bugs are bugs. Maybe there needs to be a meaningful discussion about the number of bugs, or the nature of bugs a game can have, before it can no longer be certified, but such a discussion has never happened. Part of the problem of a "bug", is that the developer doesn't even necessarily know it exists.

And the framerate is not something that would ever cause the game to fail cert. The game chugs at points, but unless it declined to a level that the game became objectively unplayable, there's no real benchmark for what is considered "acceptable". Is a rock solid 30fps the lowest a game should be able to go? Maybe, but then there would be a ton of AAA games over the past 8-9 years that wouldn't meet that standard, including games that reviewed a hell of a lot better than AC Unity. And don't even get me started on N64-era games, where something like Goldeneye could literally go into single digit frames per second, and couldn't be patched... yet is considered a classic. Does cert also have to consider shifting attitudes on what is "acceptable" in the first place?

Remember what a mess Skyrim was on consoles? That game was riddled with showstopping bugs, and I'm not sure that it ever really got completely fixed on PS3, did it? And yet it got all kinds of lavish praise and GOTY awards, including from this very website.

I say hold publishers accountable for when their games don't work right, and when it comes to something like a post-release embargo, the entire gaming press should have come together and told Ubisoft to eat shit, rather than acquiesce to their request. Especially when the game is a bug-addled mess with performance issues. People have a right to know before plunking down that $70. Certification is a thornier issue, however.

I dunno, this seems a lot like someone who hurt you saying "Look, mistakes were made. Get over it and let's move on."

Maybe they should have fixed such issues when the game wasn't out yet?

I don't understand how there are more and more games that are coming out entirely too soon. I have a feeling it's the pressure from the publishers to release the game on target, and the devs have thier hands tied as they can only do so much within that time period.

I think we need to see more push backs in development cycles. The publishers/share holders might not like it, but if they want us to walk away from a game with a good taste in our moths, they need to let these games bake longer.

"We can tell you that we have detected a distinct discrepancy between what we observed in the pre-launch versus post-launch environment."

If that is not a PR spin, I don't know what is.

There's no reason for Steam not to have a certification process for games sold on their service, other than because consumers allow them to get away with it. Same with Origin, uPlay, GOG, or any others.

Obviously the PC's platform variability won't allow for as stringent a process (though console cert is a joke now, compared to the olden days), but it could catch some of the universal bugs people encounter (and there were/are plenty of them in AC Unity)

This is honesty?

Nah man ACU is way beyond what you are describing.

For me, Online doesnt work, which locks me out of clubs, chests, missions, costumes etc etc.

Framerate is really weird, even in empty rooms it can dip with no reason.

Statuses ingame arent correct, I keep getting Im legend in the game, which I havent attained yet.

And then there are all the things in the youtube video's, NPC which are acting weird, Arno getting stuck or behaving weird, the faces thing.

No the difference between DA and ACU is lightyears.

If ACU had the issues you described I would be estatic, cause it would mean the game works.

But overall it was a good lesson for me, I have never felt really ripped off until now, and it has made me not buy Farcry 4.

And going forward every Ubi game will wait at least 2 weeks with me before purchase.

It's especially crappy to see Sony and MS turn a blind eye on big pulishers, when you often hear stories about small indie devs having to go through cert multiple times because their title screen animation is .2 seconds too long or whatever.

Honesty is great, but they've already got your money so does it really help?

They knew it was going to be like this. They decided to keep the embargo up, what, 12 hours into the launch? They knew people would say "Yo, this game is broken" and that might affect sales so they put a lid on it as long as they could. It strikes me as dirty and wrong.

Really, what I'd like to know is how acceptable is this going to be? I'd again like to point out that, sure, while they are being decently open with their process to fix the game, they are saying "The game doesn't work to your expectations on any platform right now but hey, we've got your money. So there's that".

Maybe I'm too negative but I think it's bonkers that we have this industry where even the huge blockbuster games can come out barely functioning. If this were some game with 2 people working on it, sure, that could make sense. This is Ubisoft. These guys have 40 minute long credits because they have 700 people working on the game.

Buying a bad game is one thing, but buying one that doesn't work right is another beast all together. And it's a a real bummer.

Considering that the live updates are probably coming from the devs themselves, its probably the reason why its so straight forward. Its also pretty reminiscent to what DICE was doing during Battlefield 4.

Assassin's Creed: Known Shippable.

Let's not throw bouquets at Ubi for being honest post-release. Things are so messy that this is one of those rare instances where being honest about it is better PR than using spin. The franchise's reputation is in the mud right now.

Still ridiculous that they're fixing these things now. If it's so automatic to fix these things, how about doing it during QA, when these issues must have surfaced constantly?

the worst part about all of this is that there's actually a solid game buried underneath all of the technical issues. I've enjoyed my time with it quite a bit, but the technical issues (especially the frame rate) are really holding this game back right now. it's a real shame, as this would've been one of the better AC games if they had actually finished developing it.

Has there ever been an Assassins Creed console game that did not get released during the holidays?

It's quickly feeling like Ubisoft should stop trying to shoot for these seasonal release dates and just release the game when it's good. If anyone is to blame for the Assassins Creed franchises degradation it's Ubisoft themselves.

@scotto said:

Well I think the point Patrick was trying to make is that since Sony / Microsoft *require* certification, what use is it if something this buggy still passes through? Not to mention any fees the publishers have to pay to be tested (and re-tested).

Steam doesn't require certification, and for better or for worse (better for Valve, obviously) they don't have to share the same burden of responsibility as to the quality of the publisher's product.

That's cool, but Unity's problems extend far beyond its wonkiness. The framerate was a real bummer, but by the end of that game the only thing keeping me going was potential open world craziness. Once they've probably/maybe taken that all out, all you're left with is a game that is quite boring.

My only real issue with the game is that AC Initiates is not properly connecting with Uplay as it keeps saying to link previous games to Uplay and all of them are and I have almost all the actions and rewards for each. So its very annoying. I'm actually enjoying the game, haven't come across anything to make me stop playing on PS4.

Would it be naive or stupid of me to suggest that if there was any time to be honest, it should be before release, and not after? Is that too much? I dunno. I'd like to see a positive side to this but you are right, this is pretty much the only option they have. Putting some PR spin on this situation would make things real bad.

@alkusanagi: I haven't seen any of the problems you're talking about. I'm on PS4 also. The frame-rate only dips on cutscenes and its not that bad.

This has to be so stressful for them.

I understand it's a news article, and since it's the written word and not all that exciting, you need to entice people into clicking on it (sadly, as you can tell, it worked), but does every article title need to be so snarky?
Can't news be delivered in a simple, matter-of-fact way? Negativity is irritating, regardless of how accurate it might be.

Any other ones having problems with locations not unloacking in the database?

@doctordonkey: I know some people who work in game dev and there's definitely cases where everything seems just fine during the test run both by the company and the external testers, only for some ugly bug to rear its head once the release is live.

Now, this release has been really bad, but I could imagine the devs at Ubi being surprised at just how much is broken.

Can you explain how this is snarky? The article is mostly positive about the steps Ubisoft is taking.

The most annoying thing about Unity right now is that whatever the resolution or level of detail or antialising there are massive frame rate drops out of nowhere. I'd be running at a low resolution with no AA at 60 frames a second and the game will just drop to mid twenties for no reason. I hope they fix it.

I'm usually sensitive to this kind of thing, but I don't think this title is snarky. I think it can be read that way, like most things on the Internet can, but I don't think it was intended for that interpretation.

As for your question in the article about holding platform holders responsible, yes, absolutely. I think it's unacceptable that Sony and Microsoft (and Steam, don't forget them) have let the "ship a broken game if you can guarantee a day-one patch" culture to become this pervasive. Quality assurance. That's what I expect from a platform holder. I expect them to look out for me by ensuring that publishers like Ubisoft make sure their games actually work properly before letting me purchase them. They all should've refused to let Ubisoft hit their planned release date, and instead, they all failed to protect their customers.

That said, I was already burned by Assassin's Creed III (which was similarly bogged down by inexcusable bugs and endless patches) so I still haven't bothered to pick up Unity yet. By the time I get it, once they've finally finished the game, it'll be cheaper and run way better. I only wish I could've done the same for III. I've never been more furious at a game than then.

Keep writing about this stuff, Patrick. A lot of the time, it's guys like you who are the voice for guys like me.

Neither platform is ever going to have the courage to not certify one of these big games resulting in the the other getting a de facto exclusive.

This is indeed surprising coming from Ubisoft. Most of the time you get the impression that they have nothing but contempt for their customers.

@scotto: There are at least 3 good reasons why Valve/Steam should not have a certification process.

1) There are 5+ games releasing on Steam every day; that's more than an order of magnitude more than Xbox1 or PS4. Certification takes quite a bit of time. Doing that for each game doesn't seem feasible given the scale. Some of these games are Early Access and release intentionally in an alpha or pre-alpha state; not sure how you deal with those.

2) How can you certify something on PC when everyone's hardware is different? Part of the reason Sony and Microsoft CAN certify games is that their hardware is standardized. On PC, Valve would have to test on all different combinations of hardware to truly certify a game. This would drive up the time it takes and the cost, plus they'd still miss some edge cases anyway because you can't possibly test every setup.

3) Certification would be cost prohibitive for small developers. It's pretty expensive paying QA folks to play the game for hours and hours, making sure it doesn't crash and looking for bugs. Couple that with the aforementioned need to test on many many different hardware setups and the cost could be in the range of thousands of dollars for even the shallowest certification. And if you fail? That'll be another several thousand dollars, please!

@alkusanagi: Really? The worst the framerate in inq has gotten for me is probably when it hovers around 25ish frames during large battles.

Especially because you know a ton of people on the development side almost certainly would have loved to delay, because they almost certainly also knew this storm was coming after release. I feel bad for the people who spent money on this before it's worth the price but I also feel bad for the folks on the development team who had no say in the release timeline but likely are bearing the brunt of the blowback now.

Big-studio game development in the current generation just sounds like a severe drag even on a good day.

Ubisoft can shove their honesty up their ass along with this glitchy piece of garbage. They deserve all the shit they get for having the nerve to ship this game in its state for full price.

should've had boats.

Known shippable.

I don't know about blaming Microsoft and Sony. Yeah they have a cert process, but studios know what the game has to do to get through that cert process. It's easy to triage the bugs that will be cert failures as a higher priority. There's people in QA at most studios that their job is to know the cert process like the back of their hand and are there during triage to make sure of this.

In the end, Ubisoft knew it had a broken game, fixed it enough for it to pass cert, and left the rest to be fixed in patches.

Now, if there was funny business going on and they didn't really pass MS and Sony cert, that's another story.

Oh yeah absolutely, they have to be running around like a chicken with its head cut off. I can't imagine the amount of pressure of having to fix as much stuff as they have to while the product is out in the wild. It doesn't excuse anything but I definitely have some empathy for the developers. They can't celebrate the release of their game and relax because they still need to finish it. It sounds like it would be a surreal experience.

Praising them for this is actually pretty hilarious, it really shows how used to the opposite people have become. What is so special about this exactly? That they are decent enough to aknowledge the obvious issues the game has, and are saying what is being done to fix it in a pretty straight forward way? Wow, time to pop the champagne allright :P

If only Microsoft would say something...anything...about the Master Chief Collection.

You can normally see this kind of honesty from Japanese devs. Ubisoft isn't doing anything new, but at least they're acknowledging the issues.

Regarding whether Sony/MS should be accountable, the answer is no. Their only responsibility is to make sure a game doesn't crash/intrude on other running software, and enforce any other rules they set in place in order for a dev to pass certification. Anything else is all on Ubisoft.

It's not really praise, it's just saying that this is probably the best way to handle things when you screw the pooch. Ignoring the situation gets you nowhere fast.

What's their other option at this point? Continue to act oblivious and deny the issues exist? Ubisoft PR is backed into a corner they can't spin their way out of.

@slashdance: Getting through cert requires two things. First that the game doesn't break the console. Second that it follows all of the various guidelines regarding logo displays, button prompts, and so forth. At big publishers they have a department whose sole job is to make sure all of these rules are followed. That is their sole and only job and there are often more of them working on a single AAA game than there are total developers on an indie game. A game doesn't actually have to be fully functional to make it through cert. As long as it doesn't crash the system or interfere with the OS then the game will be approved from a stability standpoint.

A lot of people have been asking why Sony and Microsoft let this game through certification like this (there are many prior examples you can point to as well, say nearly every major Bethesda release on the 360 and PS3.) I don't work in the industry but I've read a lot on certification and remember hearing a developer on a podcast talking about it (sorry, can't remember, it was some time back.) Basically, certification is not the same as QA (if it was, publishers wouldn't do their own) and it's not to ensure that games perform well or even lack bugs. It's to ensure dumb stuff like the game reminding you to not power off the console while it's saving, or to make sure it properly pauses and pops up the message when a controller is disconnected, or to make sure to ask you where you want to save stuff when you first boot it up. It's also there to ensure the game doesn't break in a way that can damage the platform as a whole like say, erasing the hard drive by accident or frequently hard locking the system and forcing a reboot, which can also cause data corruption. When you had hardware like the Rock Band stuff, that had to be tested too.

Ultimately, whether the game runs properly or not isn't a concern, as long as it actually runs and meets the arbitrary checklist set by the platform holders. If they did have standards of performance or "bug freeness", we wouldn't have seen countless other examples of products coming out on consoles that had no right to ship. Remember how Fallout: New Vegas was basically unplayable for weeks? Whether or not these companies should enforce performance and bug standards is another question. Given how the principal argument for consoles over PC is that they're supposed to be less fuss and complication (something that's complete bollocks in this generation especially), maybe Sony and Microsoft should be pushing harder to make that the reality. Such a thing would require a lot more time and money on their part though so it probably won't happen.

Just thought I'd throw this out there. I also used to be one of those people who went "Where was the certification process?!" when buggy console games came out but after I read up on it more, I realised the process really isn't for that and when it comes to games being buggy or running bad, Sony and Microsoft's standards aren't much higher than Steam's. Much like Valve though, they have the same problem of not providing enough transparency which leaves people guessing and sometimes throwing blame to the wrong places. This is first and foremost on Ubisoft but yeah, I'm beginning to wonder if other parties shouldn't have a bigger stake in the process as well.

It's easy to decide if you want to buy their next game or not.