PDA

View Full Version : Someone please define "PC Port"



McJobless
01-05-2013, 12:29 PM
I refuse to accept the term exists. Unless you somehow, with some kind of magic descended from the gods, were given the ability to use an SDK on a console, you have to build the game on an actual computer. I'm going to go ahead and bet the game was made on Windows. So, the game was made on Windows, it's already on the computer, why the hell does it need to be "ported" to the computer? That's total ********. You can port it to consoles because it wasn't made on the consoles, but you can't backwards port it to something it's already made on. That defeats logic. If the console versions were bugged but the PC version worked, I'd understand that, but how it's other way round, I don't get it. And don't tell me anything about DirectX 11. I bet it was already done before you pulled the PC version's release back. It would have taken you much longer to get it done than one month.

You'd think after the Ghost Recon disaster, Ubi would have fired the incompetent buffoons over at Kiev/Romania, maybe even closed down those two studios. I simply cannot understand how you can **** up something so easy. Even worse if there is no PR on this. At least with games like Mass Effect they had people who made public announcements regarding the problem. The most we've had is the moderators attempting to say what little they can, and support being a complete load of imbeciles. After what EA did to both Alice and NFS, I had thought they were the worst publisher for this generation, but clearly I was wrong.

Ubisoft should fire all the employees at Ubisoft Kiev and Romania and hire staff for PR and QA. That's a sound business strategy, not letting people who barely understand how a computer works "port" a AAA title in the worst manner possible, only to have both in-game and real life problems surround the game with no communication to the paying customers except how you think we're all pirates.

ProletariatPleb
01-05-2013, 01:03 PM
Yes the game is made on a PC, but their audience is on the console. Basically this is how it works mate, if a game is being made for multiple platforms, is it developed with the Xbox in mind, then ported over to PS3 because it doesn't use DirectX but OpenGL which is a completely different renderer. Then the Xbox version is ported to PC, because both use DirectX, it's a fairly simple process, then the game needs optimizations for PC hardware and obvious changes like controls for a PC, this is where Ubi messed up. DirectX11 was added on top of the game for the PC users, but that's not a valid excuse for a bad port.

All in all, I understand your frustration and I'm not buying future Ubi titles till they fix this game.

McJobless
01-05-2013, 01:27 PM
I can see what you're saying, but it urks me that a developer/publisher would be so blind as to not get the game stable on the development platform first before attempting to port it, even if the intent is to primarily get it sold on the other platforms. Even moreso that they outsourced the "porting" to a completely different studio. It seems like a dumb move to me. The studio that worked on the game initially should be the ones to see it right through to the end, including "porting" it to the various platforms. Why bring in a second studio to ruin what is essentially a very important tech demo for the new engine, if the second studio hasn't even been able to fix the issues on their last "port" (mind you, that might be executive meddling, but you would think at least one employee would try and justify why they haven't patched the game yet)?

If Ubisoft could just admit this being an administration error, give us some kind of apology content and then ensure the incident doesn't happen again, then I would forgive them and maybe restore them to a higher rank on my list of publishers. But, they refuse to accept that they caused this mess and they refuse to resolve it. This is the problem with people who have vast amounts of money; never willing to take "risks" which could very well save their business image. If someone could just employ an actual gamer who knows how bad the industry is at the moment as the head of one of these publishers, I bet it could build itself a better reputation.

Also, one of the threads below about DLC ideas got moved to the console forum. So, what they're saying is the developers don't read the PC forums. Any respect I had, gone.

Anykeyer
01-05-2013, 10:56 PM
I think you forgot about compilation target platform. You can write your program entirelly on PC but never compile it for PC. Actually you can write it in such a manner that you would be unable to compile and run it on PC without deep modifications to your code, because you use console's API calls. Thats what console devkits are for. Devs write code using PC, but they write it for consoles directly, then they use devkits - its essentially a console with more memory installed (that extra is used for profiling and debuging purposes) and access to some dev tools.

Its not a "bad port" at any rate btw. It got next to zero PC-specific bugs in SP ( I can name only DLC music bug). It didnt crash a single time during my 50h 100% playthrough too. Also its low performance isnt caused by poor porting. Console players dont complain because they used to 20-30 fps and also AC3 looks dramatically better on PC.

dewgel
01-06-2013, 12:23 AM
I can see what you're saying, but it urks me that a developer/publisher would be so blind as to not get the game stable on the development platform first before attempting to port it, even if the intent is to primarily get it sold on the other platforms. Even moreso that they outsourced the "porting" to a completely different studio. It seems like a dumb move to me. The studio that worked on the game initially should be the ones to see it right through to the end, including "porting" it to the various platforms. Why bring in a second studio to ruin what is essentially a very important tech demo for the new engine, if the second studio hasn't even been able to fix the issues on their last "port" (mind you, that might be executive meddling, but you would think at least one employee would try and justify why they haven't patched the game yet)?

If Ubisoft could just admit this being an administration error, give us some kind of apology content and then ensure the incident doesn't happen again, then I would forgive them and maybe restore them to a higher rank on my list of publishers. But, they refuse to accept that they caused this mess and they refuse to resolve it. This is the problem with people who have vast amounts of money; never willing to take "risks" which could very well save their business image. If someone could just employ an actual gamer who knows how bad the industry is at the moment as the head of one of these publishers, I bet it could build itself a better reputation.

Also, one of the threads below about DLC ideas got moved to the console forum. So, what they're saying is the developers don't read the PC forums. Any respect I had, gone.

You're going to have to deal with it buddy. That's how it is these days.

Just because a game is developed on a PC for Windows, doesn't mean it'll actually run on Windows. Besides, they're developed using an Xbox dev kit. Like Sid said, the conversion from Xbox to PC is fairly simple due to DirectX being used, and there's a chance that the PC version would probably run really well on the exact same hardware spec as the Xbox (with the settings matched etc), but because there are that many variations of hardware etc on PC it's impossible to guarantee a smooth experience for everyone.

Basically, you've got to be patient. Personally, I think they released the game too early. They usually wait months to optimise it for PC, they only waited a few weeks this time. On top of that, the PC version came out the same time as the console version usually does.

I'm fairly sure the PC community would be crazy mad if they said "Yeah we're not going to release the PC game until Q1 2013 because we need to optimise it", everyone would be screaming like mad.

At least they released it, and they're working on improving it.

EDIT : Agree with the above. The port is actually the best port ever. On normal settings, it's matched with the console release perfectly. Like he said, no specific bugs have appeared on PC that aren't on the console. Very good point good sir!

McJobless
01-06-2013, 12:54 AM
I think you forgot about compilation target platform. You can write your program entirelly on PC but never compile it for PC. Actually you can write it in such a manner that you would be unable to compile and run it on PC without deep modifications to your code, because you use console's API calls. Thats what console devkits are for. Devs write code using PC, but they write it for consoles directly, then they use devkits - its essentially a console with more memory installed (that extra is used for profiling and debuging purposes) and access to some dev tools.
But you're missing the point. I know very well what a devkit is and how they work because I've purchased a couple. They were going to release it on PC anyway, so they should have got it running on the development platform first. It doesn't make sense to have to do more work to get the game on the consoles, then when they're done outsource it to somebody else who has no idea about this new engine.



Its not a "bad port" at any rate btw. It got next to zero PC-specific bugs in SP ( I can name only DLC music bug). It didnt crash a single time during my 50h 100% playthrough too. Also its low performance isnt caused by poor porting. Console players dont complain because they used to 20-30 fps and also AC3 looks dramatically better on PC.
I'm going to have to disagree with you there. This is expected on consoles using outdated hardware. On a PC, you've got brand new tech, so you should be able to pump it up to 60FPS, but that stupid CPU bottleneck is holding us back. Also, how come my friend hasn't had the same fast-travel glitch I've got, when he's got both console versions?



Just because a game is developed on a PC for Windows, doesn't mean it'll actually run on Windows. Besides, they're developed using an Xbox dev kit. Like Sid said, the conversion from Xbox to PC is fairly simple due to DirectX being used, and there's a chance that the PC version would probably run really well on the exact same hardware spec as the Xbox (with the settings matched etc), but because there are that many variations of hardware etc on PC it's impossible to guarantee a smooth experience for everyone.
They shouldn't need to convert from Xbox to PC. It should be from PC to Xbox, because that's the easiest and most stable way. Yes, consoles are built to specification and are easier to cover all hardware failures, but looking at other games, 90% of the time the "PC Port" is always better than the console version, regardless of the time spent to make it. If another team had worked on this, I bet that this game would have been much better on PC.


Basically, you've got to be patient. Personally, I think they released the game too early. They usually wait months to optimise it for PC, they only waited a few weeks this time. On top of that, the PC version came out the same time as the console version usually does.

I'm fairly sure the PC community would be crazy mad if they said "Yeah we're not going to release the PC game until Q1 2013 because we need to optimise it", everyone would be screaming like mad.
As I was informed by sid last night, they pushed this release for December this year for storyline reasons. I personally think that's ******** and they should have held it back. And no, the console versions are usually out first with a "PC Port" taking sometimes upto 6 months. If I had known this game would be as bugged as it is, I would have gladly waited an extra 6 months for them to screw their head on straight and make it work.


At least they released it, and they're working on improving it.
B/S, they're probably focusing on another title. "PC Assassins" have been screwed over.

EDIT: Considering they announced the PC game at the same time as the console versions, and knowing the workload to implement DIrectX11, the only reason the PC version was delayed was for anti-piracy reasons.

Anykeyer
01-06-2013, 09:15 AM
But you're missing the point. I know very well what a devkit is and how they work because I've purchased a couple. They were going to release it on PC anyway, so they should have got it running on the development platform first. It doesn't make sense to have to do more work to get the game on the consoles, then when they're done outsource it to somebody else who has no idea about this new engine.
Who said its more work? Developing on PC but directly for console is less work than developing for all target platforms simultaneously or developing for PC first and then porting to console. So in the end its less work for main studio, and thats what was their goal. You also assume that Ubi Kiev was given finished source to make modifications. This is impossible, to release this game just after 1 month they should have it for a long time and actually develop it in parallel. I bet like any normal programmers they use source control tools and share 99% of the code, with only difference at compilation stage in API calls, which can be easily done with separatng renderer to frontend (all internal work) and backend (API calls). If this is true (and most likely it is) then frontend does not differ for different platforms, or differs only slightly. So you cant blame PC porting for performance issues, problems should be much deeper.



I'm going to have to disagree with you there. This is expected on consoles using outdated hardware. On a PC, you've got brand new tech, so you should be able to pump it up to 60FPS, but that stupid CPU bottleneck is holding us back. Also, how come my friend hasn't had the same fast-travel glitch I've got, when he's got both console versions?

And about that last bit about new engine. It may be new, but not completelly. Actually this CPU performace bottleneck is completelly the same as it was in AC2/B/R. Game even behaves the same if you watch cores load in different situations (open spaces with less foliage, crowded city streets, indoor areas). Maybe you forgot, but AC2 used to give 30fps on Core 2 (didnt even matter if it was Duo or Quad), and that was very good CPU at that time. I can also find some places that give me 30 fps in ACB (on i5 + GTX 660). I have more in AC3 actually, for me game runs at around 45, worst case is 30 (40 if I switch TXAA for Very High AA, but I wont cause TXAA greatly reduce small detail flickering when moving and because of this feels at least just as smooth, despite lower fps numbers)
And lastly consoles CPUs arent outdated hardware yet.

SaDem99
01-06-2013, 01:18 PM
Yeah, yeah , we could ramble about this all we want , for all we know , we could be the one developing the game since we think logically unlike ubisoft , but what we nedd to do is get us a freaking fix , talking is easy , but we need actions.

ProletariatPleb
01-06-2013, 01:39 PM
And lastly consoles CPUs arent outdated hardware yet.

http://data.whicdn.com/images/34546461/funny-gif-man-jump-out-the-window_large.gif


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztVMib1T4T4

Anykeyer
01-06-2013, 10:20 PM
LOL. Dont you like proving how really uneducated you are? You have to learn something about Xenon. Its has 3 PowerPC cores with similar to Intel's hyper-threading tech (giving 6 threads total). Performance estimate is 40 GFLOPs at least. Modern PC CPUs arent that much superior compared to it. Its no surprise that it easily handles 30fps...
Xbox 360 hardware may be old, actually really old. But PC CPUs didnt make much progress since then. And its GPU is adequate if you take into account somewhat simplified visuals, almost free AA, 720p (even lower in some games) resolution and 30 fps target performance

ProletariatPleb
01-07-2013, 06:52 AM
Dont you like proving how really uneducated you are?
http://cdn.motinetwork.net/motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0808/irony-demotivational-poster-1219594294.jpg

Hoisted by your own petard.