This isn\u2019t the first time Ubisoft has been criticised for its defence or adoption of platform parity\u2014that is, a graphical\/technical parity between the PS4, Xbox One and PC\u2014and it probably won\u2019t be the last.<\/p>\n
Ubisoft\u2019s PR team really needs to gather the many employees under the Ubisoft umbrella, so that they might discuss, come to a general consensus and get their ducks in a row.<\/p>\n
That\u2019s because, once again, someone within Ubisoft\u2019s ranks mentioned that the PC version of The Division<\/em> was kept \u201cin check with consoles because it would kind of be unfair just to push it so far away from them.\u201d That\u2019s platform parity, if ever we\u2019ve heard it.<\/p>\n The comments in question were made during the same Team Epiphany interview we talked about a couple days ago<\/a>, in which the same developer let slip graphical settings for the console versions of the game.<\/p>\n Unsurprisingly, in a statement to PC GamesN<\/a>, Ubisoft has denied that the PC version was intentionally held back.<\/p>\n It has come to our attention that a comment from one of our team members has been perceived by some members of the community to imply the PC version of The Division was ‘held back’ and this is simply not true. From the beginning, the PC version of The Division was developed from the ground up and we’re confident players will enjoy the game and the features this version has to offer. And the feedback from PC players who participated in the recent closed beta supports this.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n We were rather hoping Ubisoft would clarify what the development meant when they mentioned holding back the PC version, but we suspect Ubisoft felt a generic clarification the best response \u2013 lacking the potential for it to backfire.<\/p>\n There\u2019s a lot to consider when designing an engine for multiple platforms, as well as how the resources of each platform affects development choices for games using said engine.<\/p>\n Perhaps what the developer was referring to was initial choices made in the coding of the engine \u2013 sacrificing the tools developers might need to push the PC version too far for the sake of financial viability and the complications it might cause. After all, very few PC gamers would have the rigs capable of taking advantage of those assets in the first place.<\/p>\n The original Crysis<\/em>, for example, was way ahead of its time \u2013 a game designed for hardware that didn\u2019t exist just yet, keeping its engine and visuals relevant for years following its release.<\/p>\n We would like to point out that the PC version of The Division<\/em> doesn\u2019t look the much better than the console versions.<\/p>\n It runs smoother, sure, but we\u2019re all well aware that Ubisoft Massive could do a lot more with the PC version if they really wanted to. Perhaps that\u2019s what he\u2019s referring to \u2013 the lack of development time and resources necessary to really drive the PC version home.<\/p>\n At least it runs smoothly on PC, sort of<\/a>.<\/p>\n The Division for consoles has settings for better visuals or performance<\/a><\/p>\n The Division\u2019s beta favours AMD: the R9 390 heavily outperforms the GTX 970<\/a><\/p>\n The Division\u2019s netcode is exploited: hackers everywhere<\/a><\/p>\n
\nThere’s more from The Division too<\/strong><\/h3>\n