Ubisoft Recommends Intel Core i7-3770, Nvidia GTX 780 For Assassin's Creed Unity

[atoms83]

This is just another way for big publishers to force people into consoles. It's complete BS and any avid PC gamer should know they don't need all that to run dumbass Assassins Creed games. I mean they have been running on the same engine since the first game in the series. I had a Ps4 from day one and recently sold it because I just never used it.

 

[FunSurfer]

All those puffed up requirements and only 3GB VRAM recommended? thought it would be at least 7GB...

 

[DonQuixoteMC]

But hey, no worries! We're only supposed to play games at 30 FPS anyway, right!?!?

Come on, Ubisoft, this is ridiculous.

 

[ohim]

I would say bullcrap at requirements

 

[boytitan2]

A 680 as minimal.That is just laughable.

 

[Pablo Marzocca]

I bet the game is poorly optimized.

Last night I was playing AC III on a 2600k / 290x computer and I still got frame rate drops. It's obvious they don't put any time and effort in the PC ports.

 

[airborn824]

FX-8350 and a i7? Are they saying we need 8 threads since it is made for consoles which are 8 cores? well thats what i think but i probably wont buy because how bad Watchdogs was. I wonder if core count is becoming relevant

 

[dgrambo]

The visual difference between PS4 and PC will be marginal at best. So why the INCREDIBLE difference between hardware specs to run the same game?

Only one answer makes sense..

I guess Ubisoft is a small company without the resources needed to provide a properly code version for PC.

Wait, you say they are a big company with heavy resources?

Only one answer makes sense...

 

[usertemp00]

Weird, they didn't ask for 20% overclocked cpu and a titan...
Companies must really hate pc gaming.... (poor, poor and poor optimization for our beloved machines...)

 

[Joseph DeGarmo]

This is ridiculous. GTX 680 for minimum and GTX 780 for recommended? There is a small gap between those GPUs. So basically, those people with GTX 760s and R9-280s are left out in the cold on this one. I was fortunately enough to have recently upgraded my hardware, which is now capable of running this game (unlike my previous GTX 660 *sarcasm*), but this is true evidence that Ubisoft does not know how to code their games for PC. Who did they hire, a bunch of noob clowns to program the games? I was thinking about getting Far Cry 4 and The Crew, but with garbage like this, I may have to think that over again. I certainly don't want lagging in my games. Looks like I may have to shop for more games from EA instead. (Hmmm...I smell Battlefield Hardline lurking around my shopping list). At least they do a better job in PC optimization. Even Battlefield 4 caters to budget and high-end rigs alike. And Steam games don't do us like this, either. Even Shadow of Mordor can run smoothly with ultra textures on a 4 GB GPU.

 

[skit75]

This is ridiculous. GTX 680 for minimum and GTX 780 for recommended? There is a small gap between those GPUs. So basically, those people with GTX 760s and R9-280s are left out in the cold on this one. I was fortunately enough to have recently upgraded my hardware, which is now capable of running this game (unlike my previous GTX 660 *sarcasm*), but this is true evidence that Ubisoft does not know how to code their games for PC. Who did they hire, a bunch of noob clowns to program the games? I was thinking about getting Far Cry 4 and The Crew, but with garbage like this, I may have to think that over again. I certainly don't want lagging in my games. Looks like I may have to shop for more games from EA instead. (Hmmm...I smell Battlefield Hardline lurking around my shopping list). At least they do a better job in PC optimization. Even Battlefield 4 caters to budget and high-end rigs alike. And Steam games don't do us like this, either. Even Shadow of Mordor can run smoothly with ultra textures on a 4 GB GPU.

BF4 was developed for PC and then ported to console. That might have more to do with DICE, than EA. EA is a bit wobbly here also.

Also when did upvoting your own post become a thing? Hahah. You're not cool if you have to say it....

 

[eklipz330]

this is freaking hilarious! then the next game they're just going to say they arent doing it for pc because the last one was pirated to hell and sales were at an all time low. so pc gamers must not want it!

ubisoft is the new EA! congratulations, you've made it!

 

[anthony8989]

Lol the gameplay better be awesome. Idc if it takes a 5960x + 980's SLI'd to play if the gameplay sucks and the story is unenticing I won't buy that crap any more.

Ryse Son of Rome pulled the last fast one on me. That game maxed out at 1080p brings my system down to 20 FPS in the most intense sequences. And after literally 5 minutes of game play I was utterly bored. Right click on yellow, left click on blue, decapitate a barbarian - repeat 1000x . Great visuals, awesome graphics, absolutely horrible game play and story line. To say the game had "Poor combat mechanics" would be a compliment.

I'm demoing all the games I buy from now on including this one and if it plays like crap they won't get my money.

On the flip side Shadow of Mordor was awesome and visually stunning - especially with the HD pack. What a fantastic game.

 

[turkey3_scratch]

Lol the gameplay better be awesome. Idc if it takes a 5960x + 980's SLI'd to play if the gameplay sucks and the story is unenticing I won't buy that crap any more.

Ryse Son of Rome pulled the last fast one on me. That game maxed out at 1080p brings my system down to 20 FPS in the most intense sequences. And after literally 5 minutes of game play I was utterly bored. Right click on yellow, left click on blue, decapitate a barbarian - repeat 1000x . Great visuals, awesome graphics, absolutely horrible game play and story line. To say the game had "Poor combat mechanics" would be a compliment.

I'm demoing all the games I buy from now on including this one and if it plays like crap they won't get my money.

On the flip side Shadow of Mordor was awesome and visually stunning - especially with the HD pack. What a fantastic game.

Totally agree that Shadow of Mordor was stunning in both ways! Neither graphics nor gameplay was sacrificed.

 

[mesab66]

In the end, if the significantly greater outlay many PC gamers spend on their system isn't realised in gameplay and graphics - compared to consoles! - then quite simply, their revenue from this sector is going to grind to a halt; pretty much permanently.

We need respected review sites to confirm a significant difference - simple ports will not be tolerated.

 

[turkey3_scratch]

Agree, though I console game myself, PC deserves better.

 

[rolandzhang3]

Considering how terribly optimized their recent games are, I doubt even the highest end machines will have an easy time maintaining a smooth framerate due to their crappy coding and disrespectful mentality of 'PC gamers will just upgrade if they can't run it properly'.

This makes one think whether or not they are receiving benefits from a certain party to do this to PC gamers, it's looking more likely every second.

 

[Joseph DeGarmo]

Considering how terribly optimized their recent games are, I doubt even the highest end machines will have an easy time maintaining a smooth framerate due to their crappy coding and disrespectful mentality of 'PC gamers will just upgrade if they can't run it properly'.

This makes one think whether or not they are receiving benefits from a certain party to do this to PC gamers, it's looking more likely every second.

I second that. Remember GTA IV? It set a standard for poor optimization back in those days. And quite frankly, NFS Undercover is even worse. That game still cannot maintain 60 fps, even on minimum settings on a GTX 970!! At least on Windows 8.1, but it could be a Windows compatibility issue since that game ran better on Windows 7. But it still runs like crap in compatibility mode for Windows XP SP3. If Far Cry 4 runs as badly as NFS Undercover, then I wouldn't even bother. Ubisoft has turned into doo doo lately.

 

[skit75]

Well, there is this: http://www.gamespot.com/articles/nvidia-working-with-ubisoft-on-assassin-s-creed-unity-far-cry-4-pc/1100-6420130/

nVidia..... what are you up to? The GTX 780 recommendation doesn't seem so crazy if it is coming from nVidia. Of course they are going to recommend whatever they need to push. The 900 series is out. The 700 series is discontinued. Clearing old stock?

 

[RedJaron]

Lesser hardware always has the option of lowering the settings to a more usable level, but it is very rare that people that spend the money on the top end hardware get to see it used to its maximum potential.

I'm not sure I buy that. Quite a few games offer hi-res texture packs and lighting effects that can only be run with substantial hardware behind it. And gaming across multiple screens is not something that can reasonably be done with a $150 card.

I have never understood why some get upset when companies make games that require higher than an average build spec.

Exactly what is your definition of an "average" gaming computer? The minimum specs are calling for a 280X and an unlocked i5 ( I find it humorous that Ubi is implying that OCing is required to play this game. ) Go to the Home Brew threads around here and you'll find that such a combo is considered much more than just "average" And the recommended settings are decidedly top-shelf. This is like saying a Ferrari is merely an above average car.

The visuals for a given mid range card are going to look exactly the same whether they label the setting 'medium' or 'ultra' so why hold back those with the hardware capable of taking visuals further?

Again, I reference above where quite a few games do have high and ultra options that are far above mainstream hardware. That's the developer's choice, not the market's fault.

 

[Joseph DeGarmo]

I have never understood why some get upset when companies make games that require higher than an average build spec. Exactly what is your definition of an "average" gaming computer? The minimum specs are calling for a 280X and an unlocked i5 ( I find it humorous that Ubi is implying that OCing is required to play this game. ) Go to the Home Brew threads around here and you'll find that such a combo is considered much more than just "average" And the recommended settings are decidedly top-shelf. This is like saying a Ferrari is merely an above average car.

And with that being said, it's like Ubisoft is implying that AC Unity is like a road race which requires a Lamborghini Gallardo LP 570-4 to compete and recommends a Lamborghini Aventador LP 700-4 to win.

 

[CAaronD]

I have never understood why some get upset when companies make games that require higher than an average build spec. Exactly what is your definition of an "average" gaming computer? The minimum specs are calling for a 280X and an unlocked i5 ( I find it humorous that Ubi is implying that OCing is required to play this game. ) Go to the Home Brew threads around here and you'll find that such a combo is considered much more than just "average" And the recommended settings are decidedly top-shelf. This is like saying a Ferrari is merely an above average car.

And with that being said, it's like Ubisoft is implying that AC Unity is like a road race which requires a Lamborghini Gallardo LP 570-4 to compete and recommends a Lamborghini Aventador LP 700-4 to win.

And the Henessey Venom GT cannot win the race lol.

 

[CAaronD]

Their "recommended" system had better run ACU at 1080p ultra 60 fps lol.

 

[ferooxidan]

if this is real that means buying a gtx 970/980 now will be useless since coming two years the requirements will be higher again.

 

[SGM26]

Really? 780s or 290Xs for a 30FPS game? Hah!