Actually they are not using the same engine.

AC Unity is using AnvilNext

Far Cry 4 Dunia engine which is a modifyed version of the Cryengine and they have been using it since Far Cry 2

And Watch Dogs is using Disrupt and with the Havok Physics engine.

I was referring to the Assassins Creed Franchise as a whole... But if they all use completely different engines i have to wonder why...

AC has been using the same engine since dayone. Back when it was only called Anvil engine and than AnvilNext when AC III came out and still utilized in Unity.

So back to my earlier sayings...

Now i ask... With an engine that's had some improvements to it (but hasn't really changed that much), how could it be so broken when so little has changed? You add in models and textures, that doesn't affect performance.


Multi-player is mostly attaching a player (local or network) to a actor/NPC; But for now let's just ignore the Multiplayer aspect of it as the connectivity being offline improves performance for single-player games.

That's not exactly what he said. He's just explaining what the development environment is from Ubi's point of view. Heck, he didn't even work on AC: Unity. He's just illustrating how things can go badly for the console releases. How about on PC then? Well, who knows for sure. His answer certainly does not apply there.

I realize that a "news source" turned a forum post on the development process, which included disclaimers that he had no idea what went wrong with Unity, wasn't talking about Unity, and couldn't explain Unity's problems, into "Ubisoft dev on how ACU’s issues possibly slipped past game testing," but this thread is kind of silly.

Well, this is becoming stupid now, they don't want to accept that they released an Alpha/Beta game and they want to damage control it by blaming AMD, PC, Pirates, PS4.

Next they will blame God/Allah/Buddha, the weather, coffee?

Sadly, that unfinished game is selling well across all platforms... so they will continue to do that in future games because people will accept, but for how long?

I was meaning that AC has always been single player, so let's concentrate on that.

As for code; It could be really easy. Watching TB's recent port report on Farcry 4 brings forth some interesting questions. He says 'My CPU 3 is being used 100%, but all my others occasionally jump up a little', which means quite simply dividing the work among the various resources isn't being done well. Yeah Farcry isn't unity, not close, but the programming practices can't be too different. Too much work is being put on one core that they might not be able to fix. Think for example, if you drop off building a packet and you want it encrypted, that may not take much time, but if you have to send 60k of data a second, that can quickly jump up a bit depending on what the data is and how it's collected and queued. Worse is that probably such a situation such as encryption or waiting for a reply from the server is too slow an action to offload to another CPU, but too quick vs the offloading overhead.

Didn't TB comment on crowd size before? Assassins Creed 1 had a crowd size of like... 400? while Unity has like 4,000? (i'm not sure what the numbers are off the top of my head) If each of them have to have concordance, angles, positions for their full state (or a x,y,z, action id and 0-1000 for where in the animation they are at) that could add a lot of overhead that they aren't offloading to another CPU because they can't.


This is a far cry (pun) from where we came from with dial-up technology, where Blizzard you could use your phone to play a network game with a friend at up to 4k a second, and large lags in time were unnoticed...

Of course it may just want constant pinging from Ubisoft's servers saying 'am i still legit' and it the site says 'yes' and then lets you post a single frame of the game to the screen... But that's an extreme example suggesting if you're playing and they think you're cheating they can hit the big red kill button and make you lose your progress or lock your game from being playable.

Publishing unfinished games has become a norm. I've stopped counting all the disasterous launches some time last year. And people still buy games like this, they still buy the next game from these publishers day one or pre-order, they still buy stuff on early access that never gets finished. At this point I kind of no longer blame the publishers and developers. If people are this stupid they deserve what they get. The publishers are in it for the money after all, and it's the gamers that have made this a viable way of making lots of it.

Those who name now Ubisoft in the past tense say EIH!, and those that don't say NAY!

Ubisoft once said you don't have to bother optimizing on PC because people can just upgrade their hardware. And then people wonder why Assassin's Creed always runs like shit. Meanwhile I am playing the next-gen looking Dragon Age Inquisition on high settings on a 5 year old PC.

Stop supporting Ubisoft.

The days of letting the hardware just get better in 18 months has long since been useless. Back in the 80's and early 90's it might have been usable, but once they hit the 2Ghz in 2001-ish, the heat required makes it impractical so they find other avenues of expanding technology.

And a good algorithms at specific bottlenecks usually are what make the programs fast or slow.

i just want one thing from them
beyond good and evil 2 nothing more

I'd still buy Michel Ancel's games, if he's still there. Rayman Origins and Legends were amazing. The other games they made using the UbiArt Framework (Child of Light, Valiant Hearts) were pretty good, too. But yeah, I just completely ignore everything else they put out.