Thursday, June 5th 2014

Ubisoft and NVIDIA Team Up On Assassin's Creed Unity, Far Cry 4 And More

Ubisoft and NVIDIA today announced the next chapter in their strategic partnership bringing amazing PC gaming experiences to life in Ubisoft's highly anticipated upcoming titles including Assassin's Creed Unity, Far Cry 4, The Crew and Tom Clancy's The Division.

NVIDIA's GameWorks Team is working closely with Ubisoft's development studios to incorporate cutting edge graphics technology and gaming innovations to create game worlds that deliver unprecedented realism and immersion. NVIDIA's GameWorks technology includes TXAA antialiasing, which provides Hollywood-levels of smooth animation, soft shadows, HBAO+ (horizon-based ambient occlusion), advanced DX11 tessellation, and NVIDIA PhysX technology.

"Working with NVIDIA has enabled us to bring an enhanced gameplay experience to our PC players," said Tony Key, senior vice president of sales and marketing, Ubisoft. "We look forward to continuing our partnership with NVIDIA on our biggest upcoming titles."

This announcement builds on the successful collaboration between Ubisoft and NVIDIA that added visually stunning effects to Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell Blacklist, Assassins Creed IV Black Flag and Watch Dogs.

"We're excited to continue our long-term partnership with Ubisoft in bringing our latest PC technology to their games", said Tony Tamasi, senior vice president of Content & Technology at NVIDIA. "Through GameWorks, we have been able to add unique visual and gameplay innovations to deliver amazing experiences for these stellar Ubisoft games, I can't wait to play them myself."
Add your own comment

86 Comments on Ubisoft and NVIDIA Team Up On Assassin's Creed Unity, Far Cry 4 And More

#1
Ronnyv1
Bringing the amazing watch dogs experience to pc kappa
Posted on Reply
#2
EzioAs
by: Ronnyv1
Bringing the amazing watch dogs experience to pc kappa
I really wanted to know what the problem people have with watch dogs on the PC. I finished the game with a 3570K and GTX660, setting the graphics to reasonable level (high texture, SMAA, other settings mostly high) and it seems fine.

The only problem I have with the game is that if I alt+tab out and in, there's a huge stutter + freeze but it's fixed if I restart the game.
Posted on Reply
#3
natr0n
oh great purposely poor performing games ahead.

They way its meant to be paid.
Posted on Reply
#4
Prima.Vera
Still promoting the junk called TXAA I see. How can they still pursue this garbage forward, is beyond my understanding....
Posted on Reply
#5
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
by: EzioAs
I really wanted to know what the problem people have with watch dogs on the PC. I finished the game with a 3570K and GTX660, setting the graphics to reasonable level (high texture, SMAA, other settings mostly high) and it seems fine.

The only problem I have with the game is that if I alt+tab out and in, there's a huge stutter + freeze but it's fixed if I restart the game.
The problem is lack of good performance with AA cranked up on Radeon. Radeon users have no TXAA, so we're left with 4x MSAA to have any hope of clean graphics, and 4x MSAA roasts the GPU, leading to throttling and rubber-banding.

The end result still doesn't end up looking like it needed so much GPU power to process.

This is what makes Gameworks suck, and incomparable to AMD GamingEvolved. Games bearing GamingEvolved play just as good on AMD and NVIDIA, with the same effects and features; while Gameworks gives games features that are exclusive to GeForce.

Don't bring in the Mantle argument. Mantle doesn't give a game any new eye-candy. It only makes low-end CPUs play the game better.
Posted on Reply
#6
Prima.Vera
by: btarunr
The problem is lack of good performance with AA cranked up on Radeon. Radeon users have no TXAA, so we're left with 4x MSAA to have any hope of clean graphics, and 4x MSAA roasts the GPU, leading to throttling and rubber-banding.

The end result still doesn't end up looking like it needed so much GPU power to process.
Relax. No need for the blurry-resource hog TXAA. I am playing using Temporal SMAA which is way, way better, both quality and speed, than any TXAA, MSAA or other resource hungry techniques.
Posted on Reply
#7
FrustratedGarrett
I didn't see any special visual effects playing Watch Dogs on my GTX670. The graphics look very cartoonish and flamboyantly bright. The physics effects and movement mechanics are pretty much identical to those in Assassin's Creed. I didn't finish the game, or rather I couldn't get myself to play the game after a couple of days or 3.5 hours of game play.

I'm also opposed to Nvidia's Gameworks "middleware". Considering the game doesn't look better than BF4 and runs much worse than BF4, I don't see what the point was in using a bunch of specially compiled .dll files by Nvidia without any source code around to make sense of by both Ubisoft and AMD/Intel.
Posted on Reply
#8
Razorfang
by: btarunr
The problem is lack of good performance with AA cranked up on Radeon. Radeon users have no TXAA, so we're left with 4x MSAA to have any hope of clean graphics, and 4x MSAA roasts the GPU, leading to throttling and rubber-banding.

The end result still doesn't end up looking like it needed so much GPU power to process.

This is what makes Gameworks suck, and incomparable to AMD GamingEvolved. Games bearing GamingEvolved play just as good on AMD and NVIDIA, with the same effects and features; while Gameworks gives games features that are exclusive to GeForce.

Don't bring in the Mantle argument. Mantle doesn't give a game any new eye-candy. It only makes low-end CPUs play the game better.
Yet developers are choosing to use GameWorks regardless of everything you said.
Posted on Reply
#9
Lionheart
by: Razorfang
Yet developers are choosing to use GameWorks regardless of everything you said.
$$$$$:wtf:
Posted on Reply
#10
EzioAs
by: Prima.Vera
Still promoting the junk called TXAA I see. How can they still pursue this garbage forward, is beyond my understanding....
Imo, it's the best AA/performance hit there is that pretty much removes visible aliasing. Blurry? Yes and it's quickly noticeable but I think just leaving the option there for those that prefer having no aliasing rather than sharper image is a pretty good idea. At least we can choose whether we want to use it or not while Nvidia (or others) works on something new (hopefully).

I really hope SMAA catches up though. It baffles me that some games still only have FXAA, since SMAA is plain better while having around the same performance hit.
Posted on Reply
#11
claylomax
by: btarunr
The problem is lack of good performance with AA cranked up on Radeon. Radeon users have no TXAA, so we're left with 4x MSAA to have any hope of clean graphics, and 4x MSAA roasts the GPU, leading to throttling and rubber-banding.

The end result still doesn't end up looking like it needed so much GPU power to process.

This is what makes Gameworks suck, and incomparable to AMD GamingEvolved. Games bearing GamingEvolved play just as good on AMD and NVIDIA, with the same effects and features; while Gameworks gives games features that are exclusive to GeForce.

Don't bring in the Mantle argument. Mantle doesn't give a game any new eye-candy. It only makes low-end CPUs play the game better.
Well said.
Posted on Reply
#12
Krekeris
NOOOOO!!! Sad thing, Nvidia workshop means all Ubi games be unoptimized laggy mess even for Nvidia users. GG.
Posted on Reply
#13
MustSeeMelons
For me, as an AMD GPU user this means that I will download the game to check how it runs, before paying anything.
Posted on Reply
#14
Recus
by: natr0n
oh great purposely poor performing games ahead.

They way its meant to be paid.
I thought you will be happy. (GR: Future Soldier, Tomb Raider, Dirt Showdown, Far Cry 3, Hitman Absolution...)

by: Prima.Vera
Still promoting the junk called TXAA I see. How can they still pursue this garbage forward, is beyond my understanding....
Why scrubs so desperately trying to prove that FXAA/TXAA blurs especially when they don't even use it?

by: btarunr
This is what makes Gameworks suck, and incomparable to AMD GamingEvolved. Games bearing GamingEvolved play just as good on AMD and NVIDIA, with the same effects and features; while Gameworks gives games features that are exclusive to GeForce.
This remind me Dirt Showdown and global illumination.

So what's better: don't have some features (GameWorks) or have it but can't turn them on because gameplay would be impossible.

by: FrustratedGarrett
I didn't see any special visual effects playing Watch Dogs on my GTX670. The graphics look very cartoonish and flamboyantly bright. The physics effects and movement mechanics are pretty much identical to those in Assassin's Creed. I didn't finish the game, or rather I couldn't get myself to play the game after a couple of days or 3.5 hours of game play.

I'm also opposed to Nvidia's Gameworks "middleware". Considering the game doesn't look better than BF4 and runs much worse than BF4, I don't see what the point was in using a bunch of specially compiled .dll files by Nvidia without any source code around to make sense of by both Ubisoft and AMD/Intel.
Because BF4 based on renamed Frostbite 2 engine from 2011. Ant it runs on 2014 hardware.
bunch of specially compiled .dll files by Nvidia without any source code around to make sense of by both Ubisoft and AMD/Intel.
Where did I heard this? Oh yeah, Mantle. No sence for Nvidia, Intel, Mali, PowerVR.
Posted on Reply
#15
Xzibit
Ignorant as always

by: Recus

Why scrubs so desperately trying to prove that FXAA/TXAA blurs especially when they don't even use it?
Ever occurred to you people might own both ?..

by: Recus
Where did I heard this? Oh yeah, Mantle. No sence for Nvidia, Intel, Mali, PowerVR.
Mantle doesn't affect competitors DX performance. The compiled .DLL issue with GameWorks was raised by developers through social media and how it was bad for the industry before Nvidia partially opened it up to certain features after pressure.
Posted on Reply
#16
mroofie
by: Xzibit
Ignorant as always.

Mantle doesn't affect competitors DX performance. The compiled .DLL issue with GameWorks had to be raised by developers complaining through social media and how it was bad for the industry before Nvidia partially opened it up to certain features.
and yet what recus mentioned above is true, stop being a fanboy all of the evidence shows that if amd had more developers in their pocket the same would happen to us. Amd is far from being classified as "good" company !!

by: mroofie
and yet what recus mentioned above is true, stop being a fanboy all of the evidence shows that if amd had more developers in their pocket the same would happen to us.

Amd is far from being classified as "good" company just remember that!!
Posted on Reply
#17
midnightoil
Ubisoft do seem amazingly determined to make people pirate their games.

Personally, I'll avoid anything with this GameWorks crap entirely, despite having a mix of AMD & NVIDIA.
Posted on Reply
#18
sunaiac
Awesome, the rape will go on :respect:
nVidia, destroying PC video gaming the way it's meant to be destroyed.
Posted on Reply
#19
trustedsource
by: btarunr
The end result still doesn't end up looking like it needed so much GPU power to process.
This is not a GameWorks related problem. Watch Dogs only use this lib for two effects. Even if you turn these off, the game still run poorly.
The problem is the engine. Ubisoft spends a lot of money to understand D3D11 deferred contexts. But even Microsoft admits that deferred contexts is a complete failure, so spending money to implement that function is the worst way to gain speed in a D3D renderer. It is hard to implement it right and stable, and the technique is simply not working in a complex game.
Most publishers just don't care about this, and they research other techniques to gain speed. For example well known effects redesigned with compute shaders in mind, or there is a D3D11_MAP_WRITE_NO_OVERWRITE function in D3D11.1, which is a huge help for CPU-limited scenarios.

Ubisoft just don't want to spend too much money on PC. They aware now that even if an idea is good the actual standard APIs are not working correctly in complex scenarios, so the actual implementation could be sucks. In this case they just licenc the effects from NVIDIA, because it's cheap ... and if a studio won't implement Mantle the only thing that matters is to bring the PC port in the cheapest way possible.

by: btarunr
Don't bring in the Mantle argument. Mantle doesn't give a game any new eye-candy. It only makes low-end CPUs play the game better.
There will be Mantle titles where some effects doesn't possible in D3D. In this case these will be Mantle exclusives. Mostly high-tech console effects.
Posted on Reply
#20
semantics
I always find it laughable, to me it just seems like butt hurt people wanting everything anytime mantel or gameworks comes up.

Can't do xxx because i don't own card from company yyy. A complaint that can easily be summed up because it feels wrong and it feels wrong because a person cannot have both without doing something unreasonable like having two gaming computers.

Trying to blame one or the other while especially absolving the other is just mud throwing and unproductive just encourages more partisan tactics.

Simple truth is AMD pays game companies either literally or with resources such as engineers to get mantel into games. It's the same deal with Nvidia and gameworks they give away their time and resources to get their own product showcased.

Mantel wouldn't be in anything larger than indie without that support from AMD and gameworks wouldn't be a thing if nvidia charged companies to use it.

It's the same idea just different vectors.
Posted on Reply
#21
raptori
I hope you Nvidia cooperate more efficiently with gaming industry and bring more SLI utilization not like the garbage Watch dogs ,OMG "The division" RIP.
Posted on Reply
#22
trustedsource
by: raptori
I hope you Nvidia cooperate more efficiently with gaming industry and bring more SLI utilization not like the garbage Watch dogs ,OMG "The division" RIP.
NVIDIA can do nothing if an engine is too complex for efficient AFR. D3D11 és OpenGL don't provide good QoS for multi-GPU and this won't change.
Posted on Reply
#23
Xzibit
by: trustedsource
NVIDIA can do nothing if an engine is too complex for efficient AFR. D3D11 és OpenGL don't provide good QoS for multi-GPU and this won't change.
Bad programming. The engine is a hybrid of Anvil and Dunia and if Ubisoft hasn't figured out how to optimize their own engines time and time again. There is little hope for PC users wanting more then a higher texture/audio console port.

Ubisoft: Watch Dogs’ Engine Was Originally Built for Driver
It’s not like Watch Dogs started as Watch Dogs. The Watch Dogs project was initially another game. At some point it changed. That’s at least three years ago, and then the Watch Dogs project reused some of the work that had been done on this driving engine.”
Posted on Reply
#24
trustedsource
by: Xzibit
Bad programming. The engine is a hybrid of Anvil and Dunia and if Ubisoft hasn't figured out how to optimize their own engines time and time again. There is little hope for PC users wanting more then a higher texture/audio console port.
But the same programmers write extremely good code for consoles. So they are extremely skilled. But even the most talented programmers can't able write a good code for the standard APIs. There is a reason why Mantle is so popular. If you find a problem in the Mantle renderer you just profile it and fix it. You can profile a D3D renderer also, but some case it is almost impossible to fix performance problems. More complex engines means more unfixable scenarios.
Posted on Reply
#25
spectatorx
" NVIDIA's GameWorks technology includes TXAA antialiasing, which provides Hollywood-levels of smooth animation" - so do they mean all their games will be running at 23fps? I think fps in movies is not the same what fps in games and it leads me to conclusion: they do not think.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment