PC lead platform for Watch Dogs says Ubisoft CEO

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by IgGy621985 (4987 posts) -

Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot has revealed that the promising open-world hack-em-up Watch Dogs is being developed using PC as the lead platform. In an interview with Dutch site Inside Gamer, Guillemot explained how, for once, its the consoles that are on the receiving end of the port process. Id joke about PS4 owners being forced to deal with incomprehensible QTEs asking them to press LMB, but Im not bitter.

So whats the benefit of leading with PC over consoles? We expect fewer problems with porting games to the PS4 than the PS3, which had a completely different infrastructure, Guillemot said. Previously, we developed games first on the Xbox 360 and then translated them onto the PS3. It took a lot of time and money to port.

Sauce

Thoughts?

Edit: Just noticed there's a thread already. Feel free to lock this one.

#2 Posted by clyde46 (47595 posts) -
I read that its high end PC's AND next gen consoles.
#3 Posted by Kinthalis (5340 posts) -

I almost do wish that the console gamers got a taste of the "wrong button prompts" BS we PC gamers occasionally get straddled with, but I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.

 

Also, PC version superiority - confirmed :P

#4 Posted by Wasdie (50641 posts) -

With the next Playstation and next Xbox having x86 chips, expect this to be the norm next gen. It will be much easier for them to build the game for the PC and then port it to the consoles rather than the other way around. 

The PS4 having 8 gigs of ram means it won't be a bottleneck for level design like the PS3/360 were and having 4-8 cores open for game processing should allow developers to better thread up their games so that PC CPUs can actually be used properly.

Towards the end of this gen a lot of devs were building on the PC and scaling back on the console. Battlefield 3 and Crysis 3, two of the best looking games out there, were built first on the PC and then their engines and graphical fidelity were scaled back for the consoles. Rage was too but the DVD limitation of the Xbox 360 prevented it from having higher resolution textures. John Carmak said he has a 100 gig version of Rage on his machine and it looks 100x better than the version they launched. The original texture files added up to like 10+ terabytes of data and had to be scaled to fit on 3 DVDs. Hence the textures sucked.

 

#5 Posted by IgGy621985 (4987 posts) -

Yeah, basically it could be a win-win situation for both PC and next-gen consoles, which is very good, in contrast to last-gen where PC basically suffered because of lack of console hardware resources.

#6 Posted by Truth_Hurts_U (9459 posts) -

Doubt it. I didn't see anything reminiscent of PC level besides the graphics.

The scale of GTA V is more impressive.

Running around taking people info, changing street lights and doing other repetitive tasks are going to get old fast.

Plus it's UBI... I don't feel like buying a game from them. Atleast not yet lol.

#7 Posted by topgunmv (10368 posts) -

With the next Playstation and next Xbox having x86 chips, expect this to be the norm next gen. It will be much easier for them to build the game for the PC and then port it to the consoles rather than the other way around. 

The PS4 having 8 gigs of ram means it won't be a bottleneck for level design like the PS3/360 were and having 4-8 cores open for game processing should allow developers to better thread up their games so that PC CPUs can actually be used properly.

Towards the end of this gen a lot of devs were building on the PC and scaling back on the console. Battlefield 3 and Crysis 3, two of the best looking games out there, were built first on the PC and then their engines and graphical fidelity were scaled back for the consoles. Rage was too but the DVD limitation of the Xbox 360 prevented it from having higher resolution textures. John Carmak said he has a 100 gig version of Rage on his machine and it looks 100x better than the version they launched. The original texture files added up to like 10+ terabytes of data and had to be scaled to fit on 3 DVDs. Hence the textures sucked.

 

Wasdie

Megatextures isn't going anywhere as long as it takes 50+gigs to have the textures look decent.

#8 Posted by faizan_faizan (7868 posts) -
Was there any doubt?
#9 Posted by k2theswiss (16599 posts) -

With the next Playstation and next Xbox having x86 chips, expect this to be the norm next gen. It will be much easier for them to build the game for the PC and then port it to the consoles rather than the other way around. 

The PS4 having 8 gigs of ram means it won't be a bottleneck for level design like the PS3/360 were and having 4-8 cores open for game processing should allow developers to better thread up their games so that PC CPUs can actually be used properly.

Towards the end of this gen a lot of devs were building on the PC and scaling back on the console. Battlefield 3 and Crysis 3, two of the best looking games out there, were built first on the PC and then their engines and graphical fidelity were scaled back for the consoles. Rage was too but the DVD limitation of the Xbox 360 prevented it from having higher resolution textures. John Carmak said he has a 100 gig version of Rage on his machine and it looks 100x better than the version they launched. The original texture files added up to like 10+ terabytes of data and had to be scaled to fit on 3 DVDs. Hence the textures sucked.

 

Wasdie

*places left hand on WASD and right on mouse*

tumblr_mbqr1xlQX71r2e4eh.gif

#10 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38219 posts) -

With the next Playstation and next Xbox having x86 chips, expect this to be the norm next gen. It will be much easier for them to build the game for the PC and then port it to the consoles rather than the other way around. 

 

Wasdie

I really hope that's the case. Not because I am a PC fanboy or anything, but I believe that will yield the best results across all the platforms, the PC wouldn't be gimped by a poor console port and the consoles would have very high assets scaled down until they work well. In other words building down from high end rather than building up from nothing. If that makes any sense. 

Either way the new consoles are such a nice injection into the market with the new architecture and it will make multiplats a joy next gen I think. 

#11 Posted by BPoole96 (22814 posts) -

I think this will be the trend next gen. Since consoles are basically made out of off the shelf PC parts,, it makes most sense to start with the PC and at the upper tier and then port downwards rather than up. Ubisoft has also recently claimed that they are trying to improve their relationship with PC gamers.

#12 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38219 posts) -

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

With the next Playstation and next Xbox having x86 chips, expect this to be the norm next gen. It will be much easier for them to build the game for the PC and then port it to the consoles rather than the other way around. 

The PS4 having 8 gigs of ram means it won't be a bottleneck for level design like the PS3/360 were and having 4-8 cores open for game processing should allow developers to better thread up their games so that PC CPUs can actually be used properly.

Towards the end of this gen a lot of devs were building on the PC and scaling back on the console. Battlefield 3 and Crysis 3, two of the best looking games out there, were built first on the PC and then their engines and graphical fidelity were scaled back for the consoles. Rage was too but the DVD limitation of the Xbox 360 prevented it from having higher resolution textures. John Carmak said he has a 100 gig version of Rage on his machine and it looks 100x better than the version they launched. The original texture files added up to like 10+ terabytes of data and had to be scaled to fit on 3 DVDs. Hence the textures sucked.

 

k2theswiss

*places left hand on WASD and right on mouse*

 

You just helped me realise why he's called "Wasdie"... :? That took me way too long to realise

#13 Posted by k2theswiss (16599 posts) -

[QUOTE="k2theswiss"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

With the next Playstation and next Xbox having x86 chips, expect this to be the norm next gen. It will be much easier for them to build the game for the PC and then port it to the consoles rather than the other way around. 

The PS4 having 8 gigs of ram means it won't be a bottleneck for level design like the PS3/360 were and having 4-8 cores open for game processing should allow developers to better thread up their games so that PC CPUs can actually be used properly.

Towards the end of this gen a lot of devs were building on the PC and scaling back on the console. Battlefield 3 and Crysis 3, two of the best looking games out there, were built first on the PC and then their engines and graphical fidelity were scaled back for the consoles. Rage was too but the DVD limitation of the Xbox 360 prevented it from having higher resolution textures. John Carmak said he has a 100 gig version of Rage on his machine and it looks 100x better than the version they launched. The original texture files added up to like 10+ terabytes of data and had to be scaled to fit on 3 DVDs. Hence the textures sucked.

 

seanmcloughlin

*places left hand on WASD and right on mouse*

 

You just helped me realise why he's called "Wasdie"... :? That took me way too long to realise

lol didn't even notice that lol
#14 Posted by skrat_01 (33767 posts) -
It's an extremely efficient way of building a game, let alone engine for publishing on more platforms, especially when PC hardware as we know it is already well into 'next gen' territory. They're looking forwards too, so it wouldn't make sense focusing on current consoles with all their limitations and PowerPC architecture. Makes more sense scaling it back for these systems, if they're planing to release it there then designing around it.
#15 Posted by Badosh (12741 posts) -
You just helped me realise why he's called "Wasdie"... :? That took me way too long to realiseseanmcloughlin
... Sad.
#16 Posted by tenaka2 (17040 posts) -

The games doesn't look like anything special, or is that just me?

#17 Posted by faizan_faizan (7868 posts) -

The games doesn't look like anything special, or is that just me?

tenaka2
Just you.
#18 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38219 posts) -

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]You just helped me realise why he's called "Wasdie"... :? That took me way too long to realiseBadosh
... Sad.

Very fvcking sad bro :(

#19 Posted by Wasdie (50641 posts) -

You just helped me realise why he's called "Wasdie"... :? That took me way too long to realise

seanmcloughlin

That's actually not why my name is Wasdie.

#20 Posted by skrat_01 (33767 posts) -
[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

The games doesn't look like anything special, or is that just me?

faizan_faizan
Just you.

*raises hand* I'm really aiming to take the flack here. Don't get me wrong, it looks slick, but that's really all there is to it at the moment, a chic facade without knowing the actual contents.
#21 Posted by faizan_faizan (7868 posts) -
[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"][QUOTE="tenaka2"]

The games doesn't look like anything special, or is that just me?

skrat_01
Just you.

*raises hand* I'm really aiming to take the flack here. Don't get me wrong, it looks slick, but that's really all there is to it at the moment, a chic facade without knowing the actual contents.

Ok, So 2.
#22 Posted by R4gn4r0k (17518 posts) -

It seems like Ubisoft is really turning back around. Now let massive make RTS games again ! :evil:

Rage was too but the DVD limitation of the Xbox 360 prevented it from having higher resolution textures. John Carmak said he has a 100 gig version of Rage on his machine and it looks 100x better than the version they launched. The original texture files added up to like 10+ terabytes of data and had to be scaled to fit on 3 DVDs. Hence the textures sucked.

Wasdie

Good for Carmack, shame for everyone else who played Rage. It's textures were really the ugliest thing in the game to me.

I don't see how 360 holding them back kept them from releasing a 50GB PS3 version or 100GB PC version. 

#23 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38219 posts) -

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

You just helped me realise why he's called "Wasdie"... :? That took me way too long to realise

Wasdie

That's actually not why my name is Wasdie.

You should say it is :P

#24 Posted by IgGy621985 (4987 posts) -

Something tells me that Ubi's pro PC talk smells like a bull. Mostly because they just started they own DD service and partnered with Origin, and they obviously expect a bunch of cash from DD business, but they're way too late.
So when they realize they started with DD too late, and get no revenue because of Steam superiority, they will start with "OMFGLOL PC gaming is dead" again.

#25 Posted by Wasdie (50641 posts) -

It seems like Ubisoft is really turning back around. Now let massive make RTS games again ! :evil:

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Rage was too but the DVD limitation of the Xbox 360 prevented it from having higher resolution textures. John Carmak said he has a 100 gig version of Rage on his machine and it looks 100x better than the version they launched. The original texture files added up to like 10+ terabytes of data and had to be scaled to fit on 3 DVDs. Hence the textures sucked.

R4gn4r0k

Good for Carmack, shame for everyone else who played Rage. It's textures were really the ugliest thing in the game to me.

I don't see how 360 holding them back kept them from releasing a 50GB PS3 version or 100GB PC version. 

The PS3 version was like 35 gigs, just like the PC version. A 100 gb game is just... ridiculous. 

#26 Posted by AdrianWerner (28228 posts) -

I expect most games next-gen will be developed as PC lead, including those that in the end never will get PC version.

#27 Posted by faizan_faizan (7868 posts) -

[QUOTE="R4gn4r0k"]

It seems like Ubisoft is really turning back around. Now let massive make RTS games again ! :evil:

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Rage was too but the DVD limitation of the Xbox 360 prevented it from having higher resolution textures. John Carmak said he has a 100 gig version of Rage on his machine and it looks 100x better than the version they launched. The original texture files added up to like 10+ terabytes of data and had to be scaled to fit on 3 DVDs. Hence the textures sucked.

Wasdie

Good for Carmack, shame for everyone else who played Rage. It's textures were really the ugliest thing in the game to me.

I don't see how 360 holding them back kept them from releasing a 50GB PS3 version or 100GB PC version. 

The PS3 version was like 35 gigs, just like the PC version. A 100 gb game is just... ridiculous. 

MegaTextures were a fail.
#28 Posted by -RocBoys9489- (6285 posts) -
So hyped, the golden age for PC gaming begins on PS4/720 launch days.
#29 Posted by omarissac (177 posts) -

LOl anybody would who isn't in fantasy world would know there is now in hell wiiu was a lead platform, i love how nintendo fans ignore the specs and think there hardware is not crap.

#30 Posted by tagyhag (15867 posts) -

This is why I'm glad about the PS4 specs and hope the new Xbox also follow x86.

It means the PC version will take advantage of the superior hardware, and the PS4/Xbox ports won't be sh*t.

 It's win/win for everyone. Well, except for those that think their system should get the best version for no reason.

#31 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38219 posts) -

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="R4gn4r0k"]

Good for Carmack, shame for everyone else who played Rage. It's textures were really the ugliest thing in the game to me.

I don't see how 360 holding them back kept them from releasing a 50GB PS3 version or 100GB PC version. 

faizan_faizan

The PS3 version was like 35 gigs, just like the PC version. A 100 gb game is just... ridiculous. 

MegaTextures were a fail.

The idea was good, but it's just not feasible. 100 gigs for a game is fvcking ridiculous and no one should be expected to download that. Sure you have retail versions but it's still a lot. I even thought 30 gigs for Max Payne 3 was too much. 

#32 Posted by faizan_faizan (7868 posts) -

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]

The PS3 version was like 35 gigs, just like the PC version. A 100 gb game is just... ridiculous. 

seanmcloughlin

MegaTextures were a fail.

The idea was good, but it's just not feasible. 100 gigs for a game is fvcking ridiculous and no one should be expected to download that. Sure you have retail versions but it's still a lot. I even thought 30 gigs for Max Payne 3 was too much. 


Max Payne 3 really was a pain to download off steam, But the game really was worth it.
Idea no doubt was great but just like you said 100GB Game is just too much, I don't think anyone would even notice that the textures aren't repeated, HELL i don't even notice repetitive textures in some games even though they ARE repeated.
#33 Posted by R4gn4r0k (17518 posts) -

The PS3 version was like 35 gigs, just like the PC version. A 100 gb game is just... ridiculous. 

Wasdie

You are right, it was. For some reason I thought it was smaller than that. I'm sure there was a way to have better looking textures and not exceed 50GB.

The idea was good, but it's just not feasible. 100 gigs for a game is fvcking ridiculous and no one should be expected to download that. Sure you have retail versions but it's still a lot. I even thought 30 gigs for Max Payne 3 was too much. 

seanmcloughlin

If you would've told me 10 years ago that there would be games that are around 30GB today (not just Max Payne either) I would've told me you were fvcking ridiculous too. Give it another 10 years and I'm sure some games will come close to 100GB.

So no, I don't agree that it is fvcking ridiculous. If you want to move forward you got to break some boundries sometimes. Carmack shouldn't have half-assed his megatextures.

Max Payne 3 really was a pain to download off steam, But the game really was worth it.
faizan_faizan

I disagree. Max Payne 3 was downloaded in the same amount it would've taken me to go to a store, buy it, come home and install the game.

#34 Posted by wis3boi (32006 posts) -

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]

The PS3 version was like 35 gigs, just like the PC version. A 100 gb game is just... ridiculous. 

seanmcloughlin

MegaTextures were a fail.

The idea was good, but it's just not feasible. 100 gigs for a game is fvcking ridiculous and no one should be expected to download that. Sure you have retail versions but it's still a lot. I even thought 30 gigs for Max Payne 3 was too much. 

Maybe offer them for download online for those that have the balls to try them :P

#35 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38219 posts) -

If you would've told me 10 years ago that there would be games that are around 30GB today (not just Max Payne either) I would've told me you were fvcking ridiculous too. Give it another 10 years and I'm sure some games will come close to 100GB.

So no, I don't agree that it is fvcking ridiculous. If you want to move forward you got to break some boundries sometimes. Carmack shouldn't have half-assed his megatextures.

R4gn4r0k

Well yeah as things get higher res it will get more and more, just mean right now it's not really a good thing. But then again in 10 years internet will be leaps ahead of what it is now in places so it kind of cancels itself out. Just for people like myself who are stuck with abysmal internet would be in trouble

#36 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38219 posts) -

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"] MegaTextures were a fail.wis3boi

The idea was good, but it's just not feasible. 100 gigs for a game is fvcking ridiculous and no one should be expected to download that. Sure you have retail versions but it's still a lot. I even thought 30 gigs for Max Payne 3 was too much. 

Maybe offer them for download online for those that have the balls to try them :P

It would be nice to still have them as an option alright, rather than holding out on people. If the 100 gig version looked a lot better I'm sure there are people who would want to get it. Then again it's still a sh!t game

#37 Posted by R4gn4r0k (17518 posts) -

Well yeah as things get higher res it will get more and more, just mean right now it's not really a good thing. But then again in 10 years internet will be leaps ahead of what it is now in places so it kind of cancels itself out. Just for people like myself who are stuck with abysmal internet would be in trouble

seanmcloughlin

I know that feel.

I live in a place where we had abysmal internet for a really long while. But things do get better, now I download games like Max Payne 3 and Shogun 2 like it's nothing.

 

#38 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38219 posts) -

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

Well yeah as things get higher res it will get more and more, just mean right now it's not really a good thing. But then again in 10 years internet will be leaps ahead of what it is now in places so it kind of cancels itself out. Just for people like myself who are stuck with abysmal internet would be in trouble

R4gn4r0k

I know that feel.

I live in a place where we had abysmal internet for a really long while. But things do get better, now I download games like Max Payne 3 and Shogun 2 like it's nothing.

 

Took me something like 22 hours or more to download Max Payne 3 lol

My college has super fast internet, but you need to be administrator to run steam :( 

#39 Posted by wis3boi (32006 posts) -

[QUOTE="R4gn4r0k"]

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

Well yeah as things get higher res it will get more and more, just mean right now it's not really a good thing. But then again in 10 years internet will be leaps ahead of what it is now in places so it kind of cancels itself out. Just for people like myself who are stuck with abysmal internet would be in trouble

seanmcloughlin

I know that feel.

I live in a place where we had abysmal internet for a really long while. But things do get better, now I download games like Max Payne 3 and Shogun 2 like it's nothing.

 

Took me something like 22 hours or more to download Max Payne 3 lol

My college has super fast internet, but you need to be administrator to run steam :( 

lulz

#40 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38219 posts) -

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="R4gn4r0k"]

I know that feel.

I live in a place where we had abysmal internet for a really long while. But things do get better, now I download games like Max Payne 3 and Shogun 2 like it's nothing.

 

wis3boi

Took me something like 22 hours or more to download Max Payne 3 lol

My college has super fast internet, but you need to be administrator to run steam :( 

lulz

First world problems at their best :P

#41 Posted by AmazonTreeBoa (16745 posts) -

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

With the next Playstation and next Xbox having x86 chips, expect this to be the norm next gen. It will be much easier for them to build the game for the PC and then port it to the consoles rather than the other way around. 

The PS4 having 8 gigs of ram means it won't be a bottleneck for level design like the PS3/360 were and having 4-8 cores open for game processing should allow developers to better thread up their games so that PC CPUs can actually be used properly.

Towards the end of this gen a lot of devs were building on the PC and scaling back on the console. Battlefield 3 and Crysis 3, two of the best looking games out there, were built first on the PC and then their engines and graphical fidelity were scaled back for the consoles. Rage was too but the DVD limitation of the Xbox 360 prevented it from having higher resolution textures. John Carmak said he has a 100 gig version of Rage on his machine and it looks 100x better than the version they launched. The original texture files added up to like 10+ terabytes of data and had to be scaled to fit on 3 DVDs. Hence the textures sucked.

 

k2theswiss

*places left hand on WASD and right on mouse*

tumblr_mbqr1xlQX71r2e4eh.gif

HAHAHA :D:lol::lol::D I almost spit my soda out.
#42 Posted by catasaurus (241 posts) -

sounds good. need to get the one on pc first;)

#43 Posted by kalipekona (2378 posts) -

Doubt it. I didn't see anything reminiscent of PC level besides the graphics.

The scale of GTA V is more impressive.

Running around taking people info, changing street lights and doing other repetitive tasks are going to get old fast.

Plus it's UBI... I don't feel like buying a game from them. Atleast not yet lol.

Truth_Hurts_U

Huh??? Ubisoft have made some of the best games this generation, from the Assassin's Creed games to Farcry 3. Anyway, Watch Dogs looks phenomenal and it is great news that they are leading on the PC.

#44 Posted by k2theswiss (16599 posts) -
[QUOTE="k2theswiss"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

With the next Playstation and next Xbox having x86 chips, expect this to be the norm next gen. It will be much easier for them to build the game for the PC and then port it to the consoles rather than the other way around. 

The PS4 having 8 gigs of ram means it won't be a bottleneck for level design like the PS3/360 were and having 4-8 cores open for game processing should allow developers to better thread up their games so that PC CPUs can actually be used properly.

Towards the end of this gen a lot of devs were building on the PC and scaling back on the console. Battlefield 3 and Crysis 3, two of the best looking games out there, were built first on the PC and then their engines and graphical fidelity were scaled back for the consoles. Rage was too but the DVD limitation of the Xbox 360 prevented it from having higher resolution textures. John Carmak said he has a 100 gig version of Rage on his machine and it looks 100x better than the version they launched. The original texture files added up to like 10+ terabytes of data and had to be scaled to fit on 3 DVDs. Hence the textures sucked.

 

AmazonTreeBoa

*places left hand on WASD and right on mouse*

tumblr_mbqr1xlQX71r2e4eh.gif

HAHAHA :D:lol::lol::D I almost spit my soda out.

:)