Assassin's Creed Valhalla is Ubisoft's best-ever PC launch

Polycount

Posts: 2,680   +562
Staff member
Highly anticipated: Assassin's Creed Valhalla has proven incredibly successful since its launch last week, and for good reason: it's easily one of the best Assassin's Creed games to date, and not just on consoles. Despite more than a few performance problems, the game has become Ubisoft's most successful PC launch ever.

In just one week, Valhalla has become not just one of the highest-rated games of the season, but also a top-seller in Ubisoft's catalog. It's managed to shift more units in week one than any other Assassin's Creed game -- across all platforms -- in the history of the franchise.

"We are truly delighted by the enthusiastic response from players and want to thank the fans for their incredible support," said Assassin's Creed Valhalla producer Julien Laferrière in a statement. "Launch is only the beginning and we have robust content plans for Assassin’s Creed Valhalla that will keep players immersed in their epic Viking saga for a long time to come."

Speaking personally, I've enjoyed Valhalla much more than any of the recent Assassin's Creed games I've played. I didn't particularly like either Origins or Odyssey, feeling that their side content was too repetitive to be worth my time. However, with truly engaging, bite-sized side quests, Valhalla feels like the culmination of a lot of this series' best ideas, and that's a sentiment many other players seem to agree with.

Of course, Valhalla's quality alone is probably not the only factor in its early success. As one of the few examples of a third-party game that's been optimized for both current and next-gen consoles, Valhalla was almost guaranteed to be a hit. Fans are buying it for the Xbox One, the Xbox One X, the PlayStation 5, the PC, Ubisoft+, streaming platforms like Stadia, and more.

With such widespread availability, it would've perhaps been more surprising if Valhalla had somehow flopped. Regardless, we're certainly happy that Ubisoft Montreal's hard work has paid off here. If you haven't tried the game yet yourself, it's well worth a look. As per the usual, it'll run you $60 ($50 on Amazon) if you choose to buy in now.

You may also consider playing it through Ubisoft's aptly-named Ubisoft+ service, which gives you access to the company's entire game catalog for $15/month. With that said, if you're a PC player, it couldn't hurt to wait for a few more performance patches and bug fixes before jumping in.

Permalink to story.

 

Peter Farkas

Posts: 467   +263
If Ubisoft is so thankful for this, they should optimisie their games for PC so that the average blokes can play it with min 60 fps....
 
  • Like
Reactions: loki1944

texasrattler

Posts: 1,013   +452
Average blokes playing on average settings probably hit 60 fps just fine.
The point he is making is that its not optimized very well. For any game at $60, its very poorly optimized on pc.
Also 60 frames aint what it use to be, the sweet spot now is 75-100 frames for the best fluidity aka smoothness. We are in 2020 and if a AAA game cant get above 100 frames with modest settings, its a complete failure and should be called that. There is no reason or excuse for that to happen for big publishers.

Even the article states to wait for more updates to come or I would say just wait a week or so for sales.
 

DrSuess

Posts: 35   +12
If Ubisoft is so thankful for this, they should optimisie their games for PC so that the average blokes can play it with min 60 fps....
Without Ubisoft there would be no need for Ryzen 5000, RDNA2, or Ampere. Because of Ubisoft we need high powered hardware to play their games at mediocre quality and mediocre framerates. Ubisoft is driving technology forward by providing us with an unoptimized graphics engine.
 

tancabean

Posts: 15   +9
The point he is making is that its not optimized very well. For any game at $60, its very poorly optimized on pc.
Also 60 frames aint what it use to be, the sweet spot now is 75-100 frames for the best fluidity aka smoothness. We are in 2020 and if a AAA game cant get above 100 frames with modest settings, its a complete failure and should be called that. There is no reason or excuse for that to happen for big publishers.

Even the article states to wait for more updates to come or I would say just wait a week or so for sales.
Is there a standard for modest settings? Hardly any sites bench at anything under “ultra” these days and yet still complain about performance.
 

R00sT3R

Posts: 326   +802
Everybody wants to be a Viking and kick the crap out of the English!!

Sales in Scotland have been particularly good..
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bamda

OortCloud

Posts: 470   +289
Like all AC games it's just a grind with no real consequence to dying so just grind away doing repetitive tasks around a large map littered with little icons. After about 5 hours when the novelty wears off ask yourself are you really enjoying basically the same open-world game Ubisoft churn out with different graphics packs again and again? Far Cry, AC , Watch Dogs etc all just the same game really, I wish they would innovate, but with sales figures like this why would they?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BSim500

BSim500

Posts: 706   +1,500
Surprised this game is selling so well when it looks exact like the last two assassin's creed games.
And they in turn looked like the previous 84 Assassin's creed games... When you add up the market cap value of the big AAA players (EA + Ubisoft + Square Enix), the "new" ideas they have (minus sequels, prequels, remakes, reboots & remasters) vs the amount of money pumped into "AAA" gaming is now so p*ss-poor it makes even the worst of Hollywood's reamkeitus look "creative" and "fresh"...
 

Endymio

Posts: 1,030   +878
If a AAA game cant get above 100 frames with modest settings, its a complete failure... There is no reason or excuse for that to happen.
AAA Hollywood releases run at an rock-steady 24 fps. Perhaps we should stop watching those, eh?
 

texasrattler

Posts: 1,013   +452
AAA Hollywood releases run at an rock-steady 24 fps. Perhaps we should stop watching those, eh?
If you think moves and games are even remotely made the same or are even related in anyway, just stop posting and get a refund on any education, they failed you.
 

Endymio

Posts: 1,030   +878
If you think moves [sic] and games are even remotely made the same or are even related in anyway [sic], just stop posting.
Well, prior to your post, I had thought they were both primarily for entertainment. Is that incorrect? And to forestall the inevitable rejoinder, I realize that you personally are cybernetically augmented so that 100+ fps frame rates are required to even begin to challenge your sub-millisecond reflexes, but us mere humans are less demanding. Even worse, some of us even (gasp!) play games that aren't first-person-person shooters, and thus a cinematic 30 fps or so is plenty fast enough.
 

Bamda

Posts: 158   +63
I loved Origins and Odyssey. I glad that Valhalla is great also. And some people said that they should kill off Assassin's Creed series. LOL
 

Bamda

Posts: 158   +63
Is there a standard for modest settings? Hardly any sites bench at anything under “ultra” these days and yet still complain about performance.
I have played both Origins and Odyssey on Ultra and the games look amazing. But on a lower setting, both games are extremely good too.