Assassin's Creed: Origins [PC]

[Jupiter]

It seems that patch 1.03 has broken the texture streaming. Textures load visibly.
Because of the complaining about the high CPU usage Ubisoft made also the LoD even on the highest settings more aggressive. Highest PC settings should not be downgraded because of stupid people who don't understand that they don't need to play on the highest settings. I'm extremly annoyed by these people who always complain loudly if their lame PC does not perform 60fps on ultra.

Which site did an article looking at before and after?
I communicated with several good publications about capturing this and they could not do it due to various reasons, in fact this is something I have been keen about for awhile and spoke to them even before the Doom change.
To put it into context, if it had zero impact the studios/publisher would be happy to present this to Eurogamer or one of the other large magazines by inviting them to their location to see it in-house as a performance comparison.
And publications with their tech journalists do visit studios/publishers on invitation so it would not be impossible if the will was there.

Logically, Denuvo MUST have an overhead as it is working on the fly and involving encryption, nothing is for free but like I said how it is interracting these days would be more subtle but we do not know its actual impact on various ways of the game engine.
Remember publishers and developer of Denuvo said even when it was 1st created it had no overhead but they eventually revised/evolved how it worked when there was erratic performance behaviour from certain games with Denuvo.....

Anyway this situation seems even worse here with Assassin's Creed Origins because it looks like it is combining multiple overhead protection programs,algorithms,processes, one of which if done (VMProtect) is pretty much a brute force protection with disregard for consumer and game efficiency/optimisation.

As you say a publisher has the right to protect their investment, but there comes a time when it needs to balance protection and consideration for legit purchasers, especially if it compromises performance or they just use the extra grunt of PCs to add ever more cumbersome protection rather than improve gaming experience.
However all of them should be transparent with such protections and invite publication and tech journalists to analyse at the studio location the game with/without the added protections.
Bear in mind probably most game are developed and early game tested without these protections where they are added quite late in the day.

Once I read a comment from a game programmer of a well-known engine who said that Denuvo does not generate that overhead. It does not affect the game performance. And as I said there was no difference in DOOM after the removal of Denuvo. I prefer to have such protections over a missing of a PC version.

So far it does not seem to be cracked and this is already very good. Of course these criminal programmers and pirates are not happy about this. Criminals are not a reliable sources for me. Currently its statement against statement.

Has anyone heard anything about any kind of VR support in this game? I can't seem to find anything.

As far as I know it supports Tobii eye but no VR.

 

[CSI PC]

lol what a terrible response, though completely expected from them. "Perceptible" uh huh, that's a nice word you threw in there which is very subjective and nothing to do with empirical data on performance impact. And steady 30fps on PC? I don't see why they would even say that, I assume it's not locked to any specific fps? Stupid statement they should have never bothered making.

Well if one takes the statement literally they can say they were not lying in that it has no perceptible effect because they also mention steady at 30fps for PC
But yeah 30fps......
Amazed they did not throw in cinematic experience into the statement as well lol.
Their get out clause is 30fps is one of the game setting options:

What is the maximum framerate of Assassin's Creed Origins on PC?
As on other platforms, Assassin's Creed Origins on PC uses a technology called Dynamic Resolution Rendering that adjusts the resolution on the fly to ensure a framerate as close as possible to the targeted one - in most cases it's totally invisible for the user.
On PC, players can actually choose what baseline framerate they want to target: 30, 45, or 60 fps.
They can also select their maximum framerate between 30, 45, 60, or 90 fps, or decide to completely uncap it.

I really cannot wait for a more detailed comparison between PC and console both at 30fps to see the difference and why PC must require such a more powerful processor than consoles.

 

[swaaye]

It seems to me that every one of these Assassin's Creed games has a lot of problems at launch.

Actually, I think almost every major bleeding edge PC release is a really rough ride and that when you stop and think about it, it has always been that way.

 

[Jupiter]

AC: Origins sold twice as much as AC: Syndicate in the first 10 days. Middle-earth: Shadow of War sold more than 400,000 copies on Steam in one week and now it hits 520.000. Wolfenstein The New Colossus (the game that has been cracked prior launch) disappoints with 180.000 total sales on Steam. AC Origins came later and so far it sold 300.000 units alone on Steam. Perhaps even more on UPLAY. Wolfenstein is only available on Steam I think.

Open World plus RPG are probably doing well in the single player segment. 7-hour long single player titles are behind expectations. I often hear that people don't want to spend "60 bucks" on 7 hour long games etc.

 

[London Geezer]

I feel that there is an over-saturation of FPSs, all crammed in a very short period of time. For sure, I chose AC:O this month as opposed to Wolfenstein because of that reason, knowing full well that I'd probably end up enjoying Wolfy a bit more from the look of the reviews. But really, we devoured Destiny 2, got COD, might get Battlefront 2, not too long ago we got the last Battlefield. Just too much. I will very likely get Wolfy later on, probably at a discount.

EDIT: Maybe wrong thread?

 

[CSI PC]

Well the biggest seller in 1st weeks so far focusing on AAA is CoD WW2 if looking at Steam statistics;
To date it has 395K owners in space of 7 days, while it uses Denuvo it makes a mockery of Ubisoft claim one must have VM protect as well.

Wolfenstein 2 I feel has a couple of variables potentially limiting its appeal; a large public focus stating optimised for AMD with AMD functionality added (perception could put off some Nvidia owners who are the dominant gaming % - just look at AoTS and how badly that sold for an RTS), along with a Steam review down to Mixed along with stability concerns, let alone how the Nazi aspect has been taken into a poor context by public general media.

 

[Malo]

Well the biggest seller in 1st weeks so far focusing on AAA is CoD WW2 if looking at Steam statistics;
To date it has 395K owners in space of 7 days, while it uses Denuvo it makes a mockery of Ubisoft claim one must have VM protect as well.

Well they may look at it differently, given the fact that CoD WW2 is already hacked but Assassin's Creed has not been. However, COD is primarily an online game, so those who want to play it beyond the meager single player will purchase it whereas AC is single player, and thus needed more protection.

 

[CSI PC]

Well they may look at it differently, given the fact that CoD WW2 is already hacked but Assassin's Creed has not been. However, COD is primarily an online game, so those who want to play it beyond the meager single player will purchase it whereas AC is single player, and thus needed more protection.

True but CoD WW2 is meant to have its best story/single player for awhile as well, this is what I will be buying it for.
And TBH quite a few are fedup with CoD online pvp, but you are right there will be those wanting it for online gameplay.
Look how many wanted a good single player campaign game from Battlefront Star Wars series.

With loot boxes/microtransactions/etc related revenue services the games become ever more online anyway, including Assassin's Creed Origins.
And depressingly the majority seem to love such services when one looks at the quarterly revenue of EA/Ubisoft/etc and the breakdown between revenue from these and games sold.

 

[Malo]

And depressingly the majority seem to love such services when one looks at the quarterly revenue of EA/Ubisoft/etc and the breakdown between revenue from these and games sold.

I'm sure the companies will be happy to state that it's what the players want based on sales numbers. According to statistics and the amount of money they make, casinos are also something people really want. These games are very carefully designed to appeal to peoples gambling addictions, whether they realize or not. Just a few more loot boxes, I might get a purple!

It's disgusting and it's getting a lot worse with zero regulation or oversight. Successful games are re-designed in sequels specifically to cater for loot boxes and microtransactions.

 

[CSI PC]

I'm sure the companies will be happy to state that it's what the players want based on sales numbers. According to statistics and the amount of money they make, casinos are also something people really want. These games are very carefully designed to appeal to peoples gambling addictions, whether they realize or not. Just a few more loot boxes, I might get a purple!

It's disgusting and it's getting a lot worse with zero regulation or oversight. Successful games are re-designed in sequels specifically to cater for loot boxes and microtransactions.

Totally agree.
IMO the studios/publishers dodged a bullet when some called this same as gambling because it can be argued technically it is not, what the accusation should had been is it is targetting addictive behaviour and reinforcement of such behaviour rather than linking to that of gambling.
Due to the gambling link accusation the official organisations for oversight of gambling have said it is legal and not gambling, which sadly ignores the real downside these recurring costs/services introduce.

I can see another reason they do this beyond revenue (yeah this is the driver) is that it ironically also reduces the impact of pirating, because one would lose access to all these types of services including some types of DLCs, which may also fit into what we are seeing for sales.
The younger generation who do not care about the impact of pirating would probably prefer to have these services and "enhanced" content, but to be sure a study would need to be done to know.
I think it was Ubisoft that showed they earned more in a recent quarter from recurring online costs rather than actual game revenue; was around 51% for recurring "online gaming-DLC-services" type revenue.
One recent official EU government study came to the conclusion piracy is not as harmful as initially thought, but its scope was beyond games.

 

[Malo]

I believe the only reason it isn't classified as gambling yet is because the rewards from loot boxes do not directly carry a real world monetary value, and also there's no way currently for them to enforce and regulate for taxation purposes any possible proceeds. The actual actions involved in procuring, randomization of contents and resulting output of these loot boxes is absolutely gambling.

Microtransactions for items in-game is a good way of procuring additional revenue, and as you said, requires purchase of the game generally due to the online nature of the transaction for verification and purchase via real world money. But at least you're buying a specific item for that set amount of $, you know what you're getting and the value is tied to the power of the item.

Valve are actually one of the worst perpetrators out of all the companies and don't get as much heat as they should. They've been doing this for many years and have gotten away with it. They even provided APIs for 3rd parties to utilize loot box systems for CS:GO for the purpose of selling them on their own sites and allowed the 3rd party to set the percentage chance to win items, as low as zero. And only after the debacle with CSGO Lotto did the government step in and ban its use.

And STILL it wasn't classified as gambling.

 

[CSI PC]

I believe the only reason it isn't classified as gambling yet is because the rewards from loot boxes do not directly carry a real world monetary value, and also there's no way currently for them to enforce and regulate for taxation purposes any possible proceeds. The actual actions involved in procuring, randomization of contents and resulting output of these loot boxes is absolutely gambling.

Microtransactions for items in-game is a good way of procuring additional revenue, and as you said, requires purchase of the game generally due to the online nature of the transaction for verification and purchase via real world money. But at least you're buying a specific item for that set amount of $, you know what you're getting and the value is tied to the power of the item.

Valve are actually one of the worst perpetrators out of all the companies and don't get as much heat as they should. They've been doing this for many years and have gotten away with it. They even provided APIs for 3rd parties to utilize loot box systems for CS:GO for the purpose of selling them on their own sites and allowed the 3rd party to set the percentage chance to win items, as low as zero. And only after the debacle with CSGO Lotto did the government step in and ban its use.

And STILL it wasn't classified as gambling.

Yeah it is a technicality, it is not gambling because you will always receive something even if it is total rubbish and completely useless (so not gambling but a random purchase), along with what you also mention.
Better off if a law was created with the scope to protect from deliberately addictive with negatve reinforcement behaviour mechanism recurring cost services.

1st place to target would be mobile games; bigger problem there tbh for now and then also hit the big game studios/publishers next, followed with it being applied broadly shortly afterwards.

 

[milk]

I am not personally all that into relying and trusting on the nanny state. Most things that are regulated could be solved with personal responsability, and I include gambling there.

 

[Malo]

I am not personally all that into relying and trusting on the nanny state. Most things that are regulated could be solved with personal responsability, and I include gambling there.

The world would be a very different place in many ways if people were generally capable of self regulation.

 

[milk]

The world would be a very different place in many ways if people were generally capable of self regulation.

yes, I'm not a full-on libertarian because I know humans are faliable and the distribution of their capacities is diverese. But really, we still wanna leave as little as sensibly possible out for outside authorities to decide for us. It atrophies our own reasoning skills. And game's fucking upgradedy-gradey roulettes seems like the kind of low priority thing we can leave up for the consumer to regulate himself.

 

[CSI PC]

yes, I'm not a full-on libertarian because I know humans are faliable and the distribution of their capacities is diverese. But really, we still wanna leave as little as sensibly possible out for outside authorities to decide for us. It atrophies our own reasoning skills. And game's fucking upgradedy-gradey roulettes seems like the kind of low priority thing we can leave up for the consumer to regulate himself.

Unfortunately though this is now creating more revenue than the actual games (going by Ubisoft revenue report), and this situation is just going to get worst as they fine tune the addictiveness of said mechanism.
Take-two just announced I think yesterday they will be adding such recurring revenue to all their games going forward as they hit 42% of all revenue coming from their recurrent cost services (which are not as aggressive to date as some others), kinda depressing to think what games will look like in another 5 years without regulation.

Sadly going by the figures I do not think average consumers can regulate themselves when it comes to this, especially as the studios/publishers get better targetting this at consumers.
And we will see most single player games with more and more of said recurring cost related services and content, targeted to convince the consumer to keep spending their cash, not just a problem in massive online games.

 

[CSI PC]

Good analysis by Eurogamer/Digital Foundry looking at the game on PS4 Pro/Xbox One X/PC.

 

[milk]

Unfortunately though this is now creating more revenue than the actual games (going by Ubisoft revenue report), and this situation is just going to get worst as they fine tune the addictiveness of said mechanism.
Take-two just announced I think yesterday they will be adding such recurring revenue to all their games going forward as they hit 42% of all revenue coming from their recurrent cost services (which are not as aggressive to date as some others), kinda depressing to think what games will look like in another 5 years without regulation.

Sadly going by the figures I do not think average consumers can regulate themselves when it comes to this, especially as the studios/publishers get better targetting this at consumers.
And we will see most single player games with more and more of said recurring cost related services and content, targeted to convince the consumer to keep spending their cash, not just a problem in massive online games.

People said rhe wii waggle fad was gonna destroy the market for quality games. Then it was DLCs, then mobile phones and tablets, then it was free2play...
While there are consumers buying quality single player games, there will be products made for that market.

 

[CSI PC]

People said rhe wii waggle fad was gonna destroy the market for quality games. Then it was DLCs, then mobile phones and tablets, then it was free2play...
While there are consumers buying quality single player games, there will be products made for that market.

To me there is a difference between a product for game control and one that provides more revenue than the game but requires it to be hooked into it in such a way to encourage average consumer to repeatedly spend their cash.
In a way DLCs has destroyed games because there are AAA examples showing how games have been stripped back to more of a skeleton structure and then one pays for DLC, or alternatively the gameplay duration is reduced to 4 hours and requires DLC to increase the content.
The worst case offenders even nearly advertised the next DLC at the crucial finale that leaves the gamer hanging.
A recent worst case offender was when WB wanted to charge $5 for the DLC in rememberance of one of the lead devs that died saying it would go to charity but that only applied with certain states when it was looked into, this only changed and became free because even they could see the backlash-bad taste this was causing - the game was Middle Earth Shadow of War.

The last example shows the publishers/certain studios are not concerned about exploitation when it comes to recurring revenue.

 

[Jupiter]

21 Awesome Details In Assassin's Creed Origins: