all i see there is a guy with a mid level video card, complaining he doesnt have the same 4 titans the devs use to showcase it
Comment has been collapsed.
Are you sure? Because that's the highest settings available for the game.
Comment has been collapsed.
I can run max settings at 1080 on my r9 270x, it wont look the same as max settings on a titan. Dx11 vs dx12. Devs have access to the best hardware, and the newest builds of directx, video card drivers, etc.
I mean of course theres a chance they had some after effects put into it, I cant swear thats not the case, but I just dont think its a giant conspiracy.
Comment has been collapsed.
Preview releases have small binary size, not implemented majority of retail features that were added later, and are made to show one segment in best possible way. Nobody is showcasing retail product, but pre-release, a release that can and WILL change DRAMATICALLY later, as it's not yet released for a reason.
Later during game development stage, developers often remove features and degrade quality to satisfy market needs. Pre-release doesn't have graphics slider, it's meant to be run on specific hardware. In order to satisfy graphical slider, some crucial changes have to be made in a game. Not everything can be switchable, it's usually up to developer how many things the option will affect.
They're not doing it intentionally, this is what release cycle is. If you still can't visualize this, then imagine 5-seconds short clip from your favourite movie. Then think how that 5-seconds short clip would look like, if camera focused on one single object/person in that clip instead of movie as a whole (including re-recorded footage). This is what is happening - you're watching clip focused on that one thing, and not whole movie. If you compare that one object from those 2 clips later, you'll notice that camera focused on an object shows it much better than the other one.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why can EA have the same footage graphics from pre release and post release then?
I'm not EA fan, but at least their games show exactly what would've been showed for the release.
Comment has been collapsed.
Possibly because their game was closer to final release cycle than Ubisoft title was. Possibly because EA title didn't have advanced graphics options implemented at later stage. Possibly because developers responsible for engine optimization already put majority of work into the title, unlike ubisoft ones who were still experimenting with engine and latest technology. Or possibly they didn't do it intentionally yet, as the effect would be a bit better than after doing so, which is not the same as intentionally faking footage.
Choose your reason.
Comment has been collapsed.
If i recall that the reason they degraded it was they think people won't be able to run it so they disable most of the stuff.. Modders and Coders had to open the files and codes to reactivate the game as it look on E3. All asset files btw. Its not about having 4 useless Titans or so when they disable them for launch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1Y2l9XrqpM
Comment has been collapsed.
The reason was to make it look closer to consoles. It was the point where 8th gen still wasn't selling for shit compared to projections, and Watch_Dogs was supposed to be one of the many seller games. Of course it failed like all similar big saviours, but then nobody knew that.
Comment has been collapsed.
Video is from two years ago, is this still the case? I haven't gotten around to Watch_Dogs yet and I certainly don't mind grabbing a mod, but I'm wondering if Ubi has responded/ stopped caring and given those options directly to the players.
Comment has been collapsed.
With Ubisoft it's hard to tell if it's intentional or not. They did leave a lot of the effects shown in the E3 demo in the final code (in the PC version at least), it was just not accessible from any options menu. Modders were able to restore a lot of it, and surprisingly enough, the game actually ran considerably better once they had restored the cut graphics features (on my computer it went from a borderline unplayable framerate to a quite acceptable one). So the PC version could very well have looked closer to what they had presented in the E3 demo, had the not deactivated some features.
Comment has been collapsed.
Then the real question is why they did it, for sure they had a reason. talgaby provided a good one above.
Comment has been collapsed.
Parity between consoles and PC? Yeah, that's the reason I hear most often as well. Shame they crippled the PC release by doing so (worse graphics is one thing, but choppy gameplay, that's far more serious).
Comment has been collapsed.
Still dosent make it right - as they show it to the customers who will buy it expecting it to be the same.
all what you wrote would have been ok for lets say an engine potential show - not for an actual title you intend to sell as a product of those "potential".
dont promises what you cant fulfill.
Comment has been collapsed.
They never promised you anything. They're showing you actual footage from game in it's current stadium. Doesn't really matter if you think it's something else or you expect from final release to look exactly like this.
Comment has been collapsed.
that aint true.
they show us the game in order to market it and sell it - and they do it by showing us how it supposedly is.
and our decision to buy the game (or not) is based on what we see and expect from it from that point - witch means they actively false advertise the game.
the point we all got burned time after time with that, and that you have made peace with it dosent change that fact.
Comment has been collapsed.
not true, it can include games as well. But, disclaimers can get go a long way toward mitigating it.
From a more practical perspective, the game buyer would need to sue the developer. For it to have any real impact, it would need to be certified as a class action. For that to happen, it'd have to be quite substantial.
Comment has been collapsed.
I never followed the Aliens: Colonial Marines saga but if anything came close to class action, that would have been it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not really. The cost of fighting the lawsuit would easily have eclipsed amount they were willing to settle for. Legal fees run between $400 and $1500 per hour per lawyer, not including research fees (which, for a matter like this will easily be 6 figures) and other add-on fees. Defending a class-action lawsuit is easily a couple hundred hours of legal work. Feel free to do the math.
Sega just got lucky.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's like food photography. The demo was made with a game engine, but... it might not be the same one you buy. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Then start from suing McDonalds, because I'm yet to receive cheeseburger I see in the picture.
Comment has been collapsed.
Exactly. There are much bigger Filet'o'Fish to fry.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think they are delivering you what they are offering so you can't sue something just because it's not the same in the picture. Nobody says you will get the exact same thing as the picture.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ahh maybe... I recall doing some shoots for an ad company for work experience in High School, and for a lot of items other stuff was Substituted.
EG - We did a photo for a TV dinner company for their Roast Dinner.
The mashed potatoes were not white enough, so a pile of cotton balls was sprayed with a mix of whipped cream and paint to produce the best looking "mash" I have ever seen. To get it steaming properly, for that "fresh cooked" look, a tampon was dipped in coffee and microwaved until it was steaming. This was placed just out of shot behind the "Potatoes".
The Roast Beef slices were plastic from a kids "Kitchen Play Room", coated with lacquer to give it that just glazed and sliced goodness, and another tampon was placed.
The only damn thing in the picture that was real were the vegetables - which were not the vegetables from the dinner, but from an opened can of cheap mixed Carrot and Peas tin.
At the time I was working there, I heard of a LOT of tips and tricks, and the attitude was - "We have been asked to provide a picture of a roast dinner with these ingredients. It is not our responsibility nor legal obligation to ensure that the package does in fact contain these items."
Comment has been collapsed.
Not exactly. The picture of a cheeseburger is an actual cheeseburger, not a model. However, the people involved will literally spend hours taking several burgers, posing them, working the lighting, doing a little touchup here and there, until it looks near-perfect (and is probably no longer edible) ~source: a professional photographer who did food ads)
Comment has been collapsed.
I would consider gluing pieces of the food to plates/itself kind of ruining the whole "the picture of a cheeseburger is an actual cheeseburger" thing. Once I can't eat it, it stops being food.
Comment has been collapsed.
Pre-release footage isn't advertising per se. Everything is subject to change until it hits the market.
The sooner people remember that the less they fall for pre-ordering stuff or the hype in general.
Comment has been collapsed.
at least i could play witcher 3, no complains ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Comment has been collapsed.
The biggest problem is that if Ubisoft or EA did that, there'd be an outrage. CDPR barely got a slap on the wrist and that was just by the more keen-eyed consumers.
It's annoying that it happened, but this game is an amazing example of people not having the problem with the issue at hand, but it's just the blind anti-hype against a big corporation. It's cool to hate these companies. It's like asking people why they hated Rebecca Black's "Friday". Most people would say they hated it (for a reason), but most could not name the reason why. They're just like sheep following the shepherds.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ah, saw this video in the recommended list the other day, it's funny overall. I laughed out loud when i saw both Tom Clancy titles in there, the map downgrades are just too hilarious that i couldn't stop laughing.
Comment has been collapsed.
If anyone else wants to watch, the reason of the downgrade was Ubisoft launch it with the E3 Assets disable because they think the game won't run nice to majority.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1Y2l9XrqpM
Comment has been collapsed.
First heard about downgrades in Witcher 3 scandal. After playing it, didn't gave a single crap about it as the game is still beautiful - and awesome.
All I see is bad propaganda. All those games are still beatiful in the downgraded versions. Thing is there is a showcase war at these conferences, so everybody is trying to show what they think they will be able to handle, or even knowing they can't.
Comment has been collapsed.
I would gladly take straight up CGI instead of those.
Comment has been collapsed.
Despite the downgrade
In Ubisoft still the most beautiful and detailed game
Comment has been collapsed.
How come companies do this? Isn't it supposed to be the other way around; that graphics only get better as development continues?
Comment has been collapsed.
i have most of the games and they are not look like what the maker of the video are represent as retail , my guess is that the setting are set on mid or low, Its logical that in the presentation that they will use a high end pc so if you have one i am sure it will look close to the presentation , i say close cause sometimes game graphics are downgraided b4 release for varius reasons , but i have to give him watch dogs that game was too much downgraided. Maybe the honest thing to do is on the buy page there would be a section with screenshots from different rigs so you know what are you getting into
Comment has been collapsed.
because the politicans are all old grandpas and grandmas who hav no clue how to use technology properly and dont know the value of games. they will never make laws to stop this kind of things because they dont give a fuck. they only care for their own personal stuff.
Comment has been collapsed.
Watch dogs and Assassin's Creed Unity are great examples of things that went wrong (as in misleading advertising)..don't get me wrong the guys at Ubisoft DO make some great titles-but a lot of the people in the company seem to be *()^&^^ idiots.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's scummy, but legal, since they're not showing the finished product. Otherwise Oculus Rift would have broken the law and most people's messiah, No Man's Sky, would be breaking the laws as well. Also, The Witcher 3, remember that? The game that was declared as a really good game with a dev that would never lie? Guess what, they did! Shit like that ALWAYS happens.
I mean, I was going to say "Oh god, we live in a lie" and stuff like that, but in all honesty, you're watching a damn tech demo. If you really are so gullible as to think that for example No Man's Sky will be so perfect that it'll be better than any game ever made and will replace all games, then you have to be kind of insane. It sucks that it's not a fairytale land we live in, but we also shouldn't leave our doors open to all strangers and hope that we don't get robbed. It's just common sense. Prepare yourself, since we live in a capitalistic society.
Comment has been collapsed.
These are all E3 DEMOS they have been changed they where never promised to be the final version go look at bioshock infinite man
Comment has been collapsed.
At least Farcry 3 looked better retail than in the E3 footage. :) Damn that guy was ugly at E3!
Comment has been collapsed.
I know what I want to say, and I know that I'm not a little bit helping there :D
But I honestly don't care. It's course nice if the actual game would look like the trailers, but I'm gaming now for 20 years, and the progress the games made is just insane.
Compare any of the actual AAA Games on low setting with.... let's say super mario 64. I don't see one reason to complain
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually the progress have been quite slow during the past 7 or so years. A 2011 game does not differ a lot from the game made in 2016 compared to 2011 vs 2007 or 2007 vs 2002 or 2002 vs 1997.
Comment has been collapsed.
Progress has slowed a lot but the subtle differences are what make games from 2016 look so much better than games from 2011. I've seen some screenshots that look almost like real life from recent games, but show me a screen of a game from a few years ago and I could tell you immediately that it very much looks like a video game.
It's the subtle things like improved antialiasing, higher res shadows, better lighting/colors that really make things seem improved. It doesn't compare to the differences you were mentioning like 2007 vs 2002 though.
Comment has been collapsed.
Most come with disclaimers saying it is not indicative of the final product.
Comment has been collapsed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNter0oEYxc
I thought false advertising is a crime, at least in the US.
Comment has been collapsed.