'Assassin's Creed Unity' plagued by poor frame rates, other performance issues

[Shawn Knight]

One of the year’s most anticipated games launched yesterday but based on a wealth of feedback from disgruntled gamers, Ubisoft may have rushed it to market before it was ready. I’m of course referring to Assassin’s Creed Unity and if you’ve had a chance to play it, you might be able to relate.

There’s no shortage of complaints and examples of poor performance in the latest installment of the popular franchise. As shown in the clip below from YouTuber ZeroX03 Gaming, an act as simple as maneuvering about a wall inside a church on the PlayStation 4 version of the game causes obvious stuttering.

Several others have taken to Reddit to voice their concerns. Merkwerk believes the game is nowhere close to being locked at 30 fps and instead feels like it’s running in the mid-20s most of the time. The Reddit user even said it has dipped way below that a couple of times.

The problems aren’t limited to the PlayStation 4 version, either. Redditor unvirable says the Xbox One version is really running sub-30 fps which makes it unplayable while YouTube user TotalBiscuit adds that the PC version includes glitchy lighting, killer pop-in and just a general mass of bugs.

Have you had a chance to play Unity yet? If so, what do you think so far? Are you experiencing the same sort of frame rate dips and overall poor performance as others? Let us know in the comments sections below.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/58791-assassin-creed-unity-poor-frame-rates.html

 

[cmbjive]

I have it on delivery from Wal-mart, but I might just return it and put the money towards Dragon Age and GTA V next week.

 

[Zenodroid]

Was it testet on amd hardware ? or intel+nvidia ? those fact are important in such tests.

 

[BlueDrake]

Was it testet on amd hardware ? or intel+nvidia ? those fact are important in such tests.

TB is running the i7-5960X with dual 980's so there's your Intel + Nvidia response, needing both to even reach a 60fps which still drops below said level. It's a silly state of affairs though, that the specs are set so high (680 minimum) that it doesn't make sense. Obviously rushed and badly designed game, all in hopes of screwing users over. This is making a significant mark against Ubisoft's credibility to me, that they are even remotely trustworthy with a good launch.

Taken from the Steam customer reviews:

Assassin: Ubisoft
Target: Your Wallet
Method: Over Hyping

Assassination Successful.

 

[Skidmarksdeluxe]

Was it testet on amd hardware ? or intel+nvidia ? those fact are important in such tests.

TB is running the i7-5960X with dual 980's so there's your Intel + Nvidia response, needing both to even reach a 60fps which still drops below said level. It's a silly state of affairs though, that the specs are set so high (680 minimum) that it doesn't make sense. Obviously rushed and badly designed game, all in hopes of screwing users over. This is making a significant mark against Ubisoft's credibility to me, that they are even remotely trustworthy with a good launch.

Taken from the Steam customer reviews:

Assassin: Ubisoft
Target: Your Wallet
Method: Over Hyping

Assassination Successful.

Why would anyone even consider an i7 5960X for playing games?

 

[BlueDrake]

Why would anyone even consider an i7 5960X for playing games?

It's used for more than gaming, but he goes all out for the sake of bragging rights. Last system was an i7 (don't recall which) with dual Titan, which was handed down to his wife. He does editing on his system along with everything else, and honestly we all know people who spend the money for no reason.

I'm considering a 5930K when prices drop, being I often multitask but my system isn't up to par. Struggling to do a whole lot, when I really want to do those 4+ intensive things at once.

Edit: removing the giant block of text, and fixing some typos

 

[GhostRyder]

Well with that video the irony is that it looked to be running better on the Xbox ONE over the PS4 even though the PS4 is supposed to be more powerful. Either way I have it and it definitely is not fully optimized from what I have seen so far which is very disappointing and pointing to an issue with this yearly release cycle they have going.

 

[Skidmarksdeluxe]

It must take an exceptional talent to take what is fundamentally a good game, manage to stuff it up horribly then try BS your way out by loosely implying we (the gamers) are more stupid than they (Ubisoft) look.
I was really looking forward to this game because since AC revelations there hasn't been an AC game worth looking at and this one looked the part to me in the release trailer. If patches manage to fix a lot of it's shortcomings I'll still probably pick it up but only in a bargain basement sale, if not I'll give up on the franchise altogether.

 

[davislane1]

I have it on delivery from Wal-mart, but I might just return it and put the money towards Dragon Age and GTA V next week.

I actually caved to the DA preorder. From what I've seen and heard, Bioware has delivered a respectable product. Tuesday will tell the tale, tough.

AC, on the other hand, has been one shenanigan after another. Apparently, they even tried to play it slick with the game's micro transactions: http://www.gamerheadlines.com/2014/11/assassins-creed-unity-hidden-prices/#ixzz3IruECAzh

After having played the Crew beta last weekend, it seems to me that Ubisoft is having internal troubles of some form or another. The quality of their games has noticeably dropped off over the past three years. This is not to mention their half-baked PR recently.

 

[SuperVeloce]

Way to much raw computer power is needed for this game. It looks good, but not enough for what it needs.

 

[Guest]

As always it is all about the build of your PC, the average computer is going to get wrecked by this game. However the other top 5% of machines out there we are drooling over this game and we are happy campers.

This game is similar to the release of the original Crysis it hammered every piece of hardware out there besides the top end users. Ubisoft has done the same thing this game is pushing the limits of next gen to the max.

Here is my gameplay so far I only do intro commentary. Running i7 3770k, 16gb ram, and gtx 980 on 1440p maxed settings between 40-60fps. I did have to change my codec after the first few videos to smooth it out and get a little better quality so watching Sequence 2 Memory 2 or 3 and after runs very smooth and great quality =)

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLe80Ox7i8ZfcvsiDpKz_iSG_WfUFW-zOc

 

[cmbjive]

It must take an exceptional talent to take what is fundamentally a good game, manage to stuff it up horribly then try BS your way out by loosely implying we (the gamers) are more stupid than they (Ubisoft) look.
I was really looking forward to this game because since AC revelations there hasn't been an AC game worth looking at and this one looked the part to me in the release trailer. If patches manage to fix a lot of it's shortcomings I'll still probably pick it up but only in a bargain basement sale, if not I'll give up on the franchise altogether.

Ubisoft really needs to take a look at their business model for AC. Having a game come out every year is starting to take its toll. And the story, which was always flabbergasting, is now just ridiculous. It's about time they start looking for the exit to this series.

 

[Linkinworm]

Its just cinematic, like the letterbox on evil within, the less FPS the better.

 

[Realtekkie]

Was it testet on amd hardware ? or intel+nvidia ? those fact are important in such tests.

TB is running the i7-5960X with dual 980's so there's your Intel + Nvidia response, needing both to even reach a 60fps which still drops below said level. It's a silly state of affairs though, that the specs are set so high (680 minimum) that it doesn't make sense. Obviously rushed and badly designed game, all in hopes of screwing users over. This is making a significant mark against Ubisoft's credibility to me, that they are even remotely trustworthy with a good launch.

Taken from the Steam customer reviews:

Assassin: Ubisoft
Target: Your Wallet
Method: Over Hyping

Assassination Successful.

It cracks me up that you people are complaining about Ubisoft "hoping to screw over" customers out of 60 bucks by releasing ("too soon") a new game about every year when you spend the THOUSANDS you do on hardware. I think you may want to take a look at the video card industry and why you need a new $500 or more card every 2 to 3 months. Honestly....hysterical!

 

[BlueDrake]

Was it testet on amd hardware ? or intel+nvidia ? those fact are important in such tests.

TB is running the i7-5960X with dual 980's so there's your Intel + Nvidia response, needing both to even reach a 60fps which still drops below said level. It's a silly state of affairs though, that the specs are set so high (680 minimum) that it doesn't make sense. Obviously rushed and badly designed game, all in hopes of screwing users over. This is making a significant mark against Ubisoft's credibility to me, that they are even remotely trustworthy with a good launch.

Taken from the Steam customer reviews:

Assassin: Ubisoft
Target: Your Wallet
Method: Over Hyping

Assassination Successful.

It cracks me up that you people are complaining about Ubisoft "hoping to screw over" customers out of 60 bucks by releasing ("too soon") a new game about every year when you spend the THOUSANDS you do on hardware. I think you may want to take a look at the video card industry and why you need a new $500 or more card every 2 to 3 months. Honestly....hysterical!

It's also hysterical that you thought I spent that. Someone built said PC to replace the one they had, mostly so their significant other could have an actual PC and not a basic laptop. It's clear they want to screw users over, with their clear embargo dates that end after it's launch. Don't let those who have power ruin your chances of money, because we all know the game is absolutely garbage.

I'm running 2010 hardware with the only newer addition being a GTX 660, so it's quite silly of you to assume I said that by taking it out of context. Also said PC is likely for the multitasking power it provides, do a few videos in the background while doing a few other things. Who knows! It's someone who has money to spare, and was going the extra mile for their own reasons.

I get maybe 1 big AAA game per year usually, because most of the time it's series after series nonsense. BF? Pass. CoD? Pass. AC? Pass. It's just getting so stomach churning, seeing them take 0 risk and slap together the same nonsense. All for the sake of their personal survival, yes have your silly series but also make something new. I'm wondering if the majority of the AC budget, was shifted to The Crew in hopes of it not being a flop.

Just an FYI: Read the entire post, before you criticize someone. I was posting specs of a known critic, because they asked for PC spec info. I'm below their "minimum" specs, not that I'd willingly drop $70 on a game. Not without having first hand footage, seeing how actually bad it appears to me. Something you can't get in a written review, without them actually talking about it.

Many review sites wouldn't dare slander Ubisoft too much, just to prevent being blacklisted from early review copies. Just what do I know?

 

[cliffordcooley]

It cracks me up that you people are complaining about Ubisoft "hoping to screw over" customers out of 60 bucks by releasing ("too soon") a new game about every year when you spend the THOUSANDS you do on hardware.

You are almost making it sound as if the $1000+ PC will only have one function of playing that one game. Yeah when you look at it that way, it does look bad.

I spent $1500 on my PC and hope it last 10 years, while playing hundreds of games. My GTX 660 should be able to run any game with ease, until the day consoles are built to substantially outperform.

The "video card industry" sells their merchandise to those who haven't spent money the last few generations. Even if someone does purchase hardware every generation, I doubt the previous generation is considered a financial loss (assuming there was no hardware failure).

 

[Xtreme gamer]

Black flag was mostly running on 1 thread on my PC. 1 out of 12.. .lol
I disabled multithreading and performance went up a tiny bit. Was still crap tho.
Poorly made game??

 

[VivsNero]

I have 3770k(4.2Ghz) 8gigs RAM & R9 290-Trixx, at Full HD with ultra textures, FXAA & HBAO+ Enabled I get around 45 FPS Average, the FPS drops bellow 30FPS During every cut-scene.
Terrible optimization from Ubisoft. I'm worried about Far Cry 4 now.

 

[Zenodroid]

Was it testet on amd hardware ? or intel+nvidia ? those fact are important in such tests.

TB is running the i7-5960X with dual 980's so there's your Intel + Nvidia response, needing both to even reach a 60fps which still drops below said level. It's a silly state of affairs though, that the specs are set so high (680 minimum) that it doesn't make sense. Obviously rushed and badly designed game, all in hopes of screwing users over. This is making a significant mark against Ubisoft's credibility to me, that they are even remotely trustworthy with a good launch.

Taken from the Steam customer reviews:

Assassin: Ubisoft
Target: Your Wallet
Method: Over Hyping

Assassination Successful.

what os and dx version ?