Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ubisoft Points Finger At AMD For Assassin's Creed Unity Poor Performance

Posted by samzenpus on from the who's-to-blame dept.

MojoKid (1002251) writes "Life is hard when you're a AAA publisher. Last month, Ubisoft blamed weak console hardware for the troubles it had bringing Assassin's Creed Unity up to speed, claiming that it could've hit 100 FPS but for weak console CPUs. Now, in the wake of the game's disastrous launch, the company has changed tactics — suddenly, all of this is AMD's fault. An official company forum post currently reads: "We are aware that the graphics performance of Assassin's Creed Unity on PC may be adversely affected by certain AMD CPU and GPU configurations. This should not affect the vast majority of PC players, but rest assured that AMD and Ubisoft are continuing to work together closely to resolve the issue, and will provide more information as soon as it is available." There are multiple problems with this assessment. First, there's no equivalent Nvidia-centric post on the main forum, and no mention of the fact that if you own an Nvidia card of any vintage but a GTX 970 or 980, you're going to see less-than ideal performance. According to sources, the problem with Assassin's Creed Unity is that the game is issuing tens of thousands of draw calls — up to 50,000 and beyond, in some cases. This is precisely the kind of operation that Mantle and DirectX 12 are designed to handle, but DirectX 11, even 11.2, isn't capable of efficiently processing that many calls at once. It's a fundamental limit of the API and it kicks in harshly in ways that adding more CPU cores simply can't help with.

34 of 262 comments (clear)

  1. A highly relevant comment from the previous post by supersat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    http://games.slashdot.org/comm...

  2. Ok, even giving them the benefit of the doubt by RogueyWon · · Score: 5, Informative

    So let's give Ubisoft the benefit of the doubt for a moment. I'm not going to slate them for the fact that you need a top-end graphics card to get good performance with all the bells and whistles. I actually quite like to see developers showing a bit of ambition when it comes to pushing the envelope on PC graphics. Let's even assume that something went badly wrong in the AMD optimisation. It's not completely unknown for things to go wrong with a GPU manufacturer at the last moment - the PC version of Rage was a hideous mess on PCs with Nvidia cards when it released, because a driver update that was anticipated between the game going golden-master and hitting the shelves turned out not to be what the developer was expecting.

    But even allowing for that, how does it explain the console versions being such a mess? There are detailed performance analysis reports out there showing frankly shocking levels of performance on both of the console platforms (Playstation 4 and Xbox One - no last-gen releases for this game). Both platforms fail to hold even a consistent 30 fps, with the Playstation 4 version (which in theory should be the better of the two, as the console does have a little bit more horsepower) having some truly shocking moments where the framerate dips into the teens.

    If you're used to playing games on a PC, this might not sound too shocking. After all, unless you have a particularly old PC, you can almost always salvage a playable framerate by dropping your graphics quality. But that option isn't there on a console. For action oriented games on a console, a locked 60 fps rate is the "gold standard" and is becoming almost mandatory for twitch-shooters, precision driving games and other genres that rely on rapid response times. The popularity of the Call of Duty series, generally inexplicable to PC gamers, has largely been driven by the fact that the series has long adhered to the 60 fps standard on the consoles, meaning that it has felt tighter and more precise than its competitors.

    But if you can't manage a locked 60 framerate, then the general consensus is that a locked 30 framerate is an acceptable fallback. It won't feel as precise, but it at least eliminates the disconcerting impact of framerate fluctuations (particularly unpleasant when you're playing on a controller). For a console action-game to fail to manage even a locked 30 fps is pretty shocking these days. For it to be dipping into the teens suggests either misguided design choices or terrible optimisation (or both).

    Plus, yeah, the whole "falling through the floor" thing is happening on consoles as well as PC. The game's broken and it's not (entirely or chiefly) down to a particular brand of graphics card.

    1. Re:Ok, even giving them the benefit of the doubt by TellarHK · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Let's also take into account that Ubisoft had to know something was up, because the pre-release copies they gave game reviewers came with an embargo that lasted 17 hours into the release date. I'm not surprised at all to see this, though I'm admittedly surprised it's quite as large a problem as it is. When they announced the system requirements, I winced. I know that the horsepower demand for a game engine designed for a modern console is finally going to be a lot more demanding than last year's titles, but a GTX 680 as minimum specification? Someone screwed up engine design, plain and simple.

      --
      My own pointless vanity vintage computing page
    2. Re:Ok, even giving them the benefit of the doubt by ledow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "pre-release copies they gave game reviewers came with an embargo that lasted 17 hours into the release date"

      Always an encouraging sign to any sensible buyer.

      STOP BUYING STUFF ON RELEASE. Wait a day. A week. A month. Until then, I have no sympathy for people lumbered with a buggy release based on paid-for or embargoed reviews.

    3. Re:Ok, even giving them the benefit of the doubt by PPalmgren · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Problem is the game plays like shit no matter what hardware you're using. The claim against AMD is unfounded because a GTX770, a near-flagship card, can't play the game worth a damn, even with lowered settings. I can't beleive I wasted money buying that garbage.

    4. Re:Ok, even giving them the benefit of the doubt by mrchaotica · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Let's even assume that something went badly wrong in the AMD optimisation.

      But even allowing for that, how does it explain the console versions being such a mess?

      All the consoles run AMD chips. Therefore, getting rendering performance right on AMD was really, really fucking important.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    5. Re:Ok, even giving them the benefit of the doubt by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's perfectly possible that it is purely an AMD performance issue, maybe there's no equivalent nVidia posting because there's no fucking performance problem on nVidia cards because that's what they built against and tested on?

      If Ubisoft built and tested a game intended to run on consoles exclusively on nVidia hardware, they're goddamn morons because all the consoles use AMD chips!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    6. Re:Ok, even giving them the benefit of the doubt by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Look, gamers(as a whole) have no history of actually doing anything to reign in companies that abuse. The AAA companies' executives are familiar with this, and the sense of entitlement that causes gamers to demand things for petty reasons and then given in without a fight.

      I'm in year 6 of a personal EA/Ubissoft/Activision boycott, and I feel like anyone who cares about getting decent treatment as customers should be too. Unfortunately, they clearly don't need my money, and are doing fine. It's just one of those cases where successful marketing clearly beats out delivering a decent product.

      This is fundamentally what GamerGate is too, petty, entitled people making unreasonable demands, and then doing nothing self-sacrificing to make any meaningful changes.

    7. Re:Ok, even giving them the benefit of the doubt by UnknowingFool · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Also it's not like Ubisoft didn't know well in advance that Sony and MS chose AMD to be their CPU/GPU for their next gen consoles. I would say engine development was botched and they are trying to cover it up.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  3. The culture of responsibility switches. by Thanshin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How is it now obvious to them that this excuse mean nothing after release?

    Are they implying they never tested their game on the platforms they specified in the minimum requirements?

    1. Re:The culture of responsibility switches. by TellarHK · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This isn't a testing fault. I'm sure they tested the hell out of it. Dozens if not hundreds of QA people sat in cubes for months, maybe years, testing bits of this game as it got produced. And I'm sure that many of them wrote up really detailed, well reasoned explanations of just how broken it was in every single way that people are counting today.

      And nobody cared because the game had to launch before the holiday season of 2014, Thousands of jobs and millions upon millions of dollars were at stake.

      It isn't that nobody tested, it's that nobody really cared.

      --
      My own pointless vanity vintage computing page
    2. Re:The culture of responsibility switches. by Thanshin · · Score: 4, Funny

      If a tester runs a test and no one is around to see it, does the test return a result?

    3. Re:The culture of responsibility switches. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      They tried it but their fucked up drm prevented them from running the game.

    4. Re:The culture of responsibility switches. by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I can probably make some educated guesses about what may have transpired, at least from the performance side, since I've done engine-side programming for AAA games in the past.

      Unless you're working with an established and already-polished game engine, all the art content for a game of this size has to be built far in advance of when the engine is fully ready to render it at full efficiency. By it's very nature, optimization is something that has to occur near the end of development for a game, since there's no way to optimize game features until they're largely finished and can approach performance issues holistically. The hardest thing about that is you have to make a very early prediction about how much your game will be able to render. It's extremely time-consuming to fix if it turns out your engine simply can't cope with the amount of artwork or game content it's being asked to process, as that artwork and game content has been in the pipeline for years.

      The kicker is that you can't really know for sure what the bottlenecks are exactly and how you can improve on them before you begin the investigation and optimization process, nor can you really predict with 100% certainty how effective your efforts will be, or how long it will take. This is why the recommended specs on boxes are often, at best, simply guesses that are made by the engine developers many months in advance of the title's ship date, and are a reflection of how well they *think* they can get the game engine working. Of course, in other cases, it's managerial wishful thinking, trying to sucker people with lower-end systems into purchasing the game. To me, it seems entirely likely that the programmers either overestimated how much they could optimize the engine / game code or the artists went far beyond their established budgets. Maybe both. Management compounded this issue by not giving the development team time enough to fix the problems.

      None of this excuses them in the least, of course, especially on consoles with immutable, fixed hardware to test on. They should have owned up a many months ago and let people know the game wouldn't be ready, because there's zero chance they didn't know about all these problems. Unfortunately, there's a great deal of pressure put on programmers to simply try to patch up the game as best they can given the current time left in the schedule, rather than re-assessing realistically how much time they *actually* need to fix the game, because, you know, money. Instead, I'd imagine that those guys were crunching for many months before the game shipped, and they're still crunching away with insane hours, trying to fix all those bugs. It probably ending up being counter-productive too, because, at least in my case, the quality of my code dropped rather dramatically when I was exhausted.

      It's pretty difficult to really know what's going on inside a company. For any game we released, I always saw lots of fan speculation about what was going on, and more often than not, it was well off the mark. So definitely take any speculation, including mine, with a grain of salt. What's absolutely inescapable, though, is that Ubisoft management is ultimately responsible for the go/no-go ship decision, and decided that they didn't care enough about their customers or their reputation to bother getting their game polished to an acceptable standard before launch.

      I haven't bought an Ubisoft game since they started on this ridiculous anti-consumer DRM campaign, and this makes me really glad I'm still staying the hell away from them. Yeah, I'd probably have enjoyed the Assassin's Creed series, but there are plenty of game companies that don't piss all over their customers, and they'll be getting my dollars instead.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
  4. If at first you don't succeed... by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Cheat your customers, cover it up by suppressing reviews, and then lie about whose fault it is. Has nothing to do with properly testing your product and releasing quality software.

    --
    -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    1. Re:If at first you don't succeed... by Tyr07 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ubisoft probably has this as a moto around their office, painted on the walls.

      I'm really getting sick of Ubisoft, the last game I purchased under their banner was Anno 2070. Great game, only part of that game that ever pisses me off? Ubisoft game launcher that comes with it and is necessary to operate it. Even though i purchased it on steam and launch from there.

      Ubisoft needs to focus less on market manipulation and DRM software, more on quality games. Anno 2070 was a fantastic game, great quality, you waste time and effort on your uplay launcher and other things trying to mimic software that is out there that already does it better.

      Sure, just because there is better software doesn't mean you shouldn't try, but at least (Even though I'm not a fan of Origin) At least EA with Origin actually put serious effort into making a distribution platform and making improvements to it so it has similar quality to something well known as Steam.

      Now, I still think Steam is way beyond Origin and definitely my preferred content distributor, and I have origin only for Mass Effect 3 and Battlefield 3. Steam gets installed every single time as part of my top 5 programs to reinstall if I format my system, for my contacts and extensive game library. Also because Steam feels quick, I don't feel it bogs down my system, and is useful to me.

    2. Re:If at first you don't succeed... by TellarHK · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is a side effect of what happens when game franchises become more profitable than movie franchises. Once the flow of money starts on a game with a budget in the tens of millions like the Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed, or Grand Theft Auto franchises to name just a few - there comes a point of no return where you finish what you started, because you've sunk millions upon millions into something that just turned out *wrong*, like this. Just like Warner Brothers couldn't put the Green Lantern movie on hold and rewrite it to not suck, Ubisoft backed themselves into a corner.

      Nobody had the balls or the power to say "Wait a minute, we're overreaching. Let's scale this back to something that will actually run." Instead, they launch a buggy, bad game because they're into just the marketing campaign for tens of millions of dollars. It's so much worse for consumers than a flop of a movie, because you're spending $60+ on the cost of entry, and when the reviewers are embargoed there's just no way to tell if you're going to get screwed. Thank the big budget productions and stock market demands for this kind of disaster.

      Every time I see something like this, or a botched Call of Duty release, I get a *little* less annoyed with Valve for not saying a word about Half-Life 3/Ep. 3. They're private. They can take the time without investors freaking out.

      --
      My own pointless vanity vintage computing page
    3. Re:If at first you don't succeed... by KingOfBLASH · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If we want to see a change of heart from the publishers, people should start actually returning defective games.

      Despite what the EULA may say, lemon laws make it illegal to sell something that doesn't work, and even if a store says they don't take returns of software, if you tell them the return is because it's defective they'll take it anyways.

      I can guarantee you if all the people who gave cash to Ubisoft turned around and asked for their money back because the game is defective (doesn't even play on a console), Ubi would think twice about pulling similar shenanigans in the future.

    4. Re:If at first you don't succeed... by gbjbaanb · · Score: 4, Informative

      This happened with the last X game - X:Rebirth, released with a lot of fanfare and expectation and hype and.... truly, truly dreadful. Not just in gameplay but bugged to hell and back again.

      The forums on Steam and Egosoft were full of people either asking how to get a refund, complaining they had been told to "sod off" by Steam, or rejoicing that they had managed to scrape a refund out of Steam.

      Incidentally, this game too was not available for review before it was on sale.

    5. Re:If at first you don't succeed... by KingOfBLASH · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you buy with a credit card (which you are if you're using steam), you can call your credit card company and get them to issue a charge back.

      I've done this with a couple software titles where I was told to "sod off" and nothing bad happens, and you get your money back.

      The thing that makes me sad is most people don't ask for a refund, so they are creating an incentive for video game companies to create bad titles.

      It's almost like the Producers, in video game form. Hype up a game, get a ton of preorders, make it absolute steaming shit, say "Sorry no refunds" and haul in the cash

    6. Re:If at first you don't succeed... by VGPowerlord · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Steam has indeed come a long way, about 10 years ago it was loathed and hated by gamers. Many people would not buy a game if it needed Steam, Ubisoft with their crappy launcher are where Steam was 10 years ago.

      10 years ago, Steam was a glorified auto-updater that sat there and sucked up system resources... something like 64MB of RAM when 128-512MB was standard.

      Steam now takes something like 128MB of RAM in a time when 8192-16384MB of RAM is common. In addition to being an auto-updater, it also has a store, friends list, friends chat, game library, a non-puke green color scheme, and a host of other features. ...and if you ask me how I know this, I'll toss my Steam "11 year" badge at your face.

      (Note: I'm guesstimating at these RAM usage numbers, and they're the numbers when you're not actively using it.)

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    7. Re:If at first you don't succeed... by zarthrag · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you buy with a credit card (which you are if you're using steam), you can call your credit card company and get them to issue a charge back.

      If you try this, there's a 99% chance that you'll lose your steam/origin/ubi account, and everything in it. Companies are vindictive like that.

      --
      Why can't all fpga/microcontroller manufacturers just release free optimizing compilers???
  5. Re:A highly relevant comment from the previous pos by Noah+Haders · · Score: 5, Interesting

    the linked comment is super cool, but unsourced. However, it has a ring of truth for me. the comment calls out several nvidia technologies like TXAA and SMAA. It was the second time today I heard those terms. The first was when watching a gamestop video where an designer talks about all the cool tech that makes far cry 4 so pretty on the compuper. "Together with NVIDIA, Ubisoft has been working to incorporate GAMEWORKS technologies to add visual enhancements for the PC version of the game." LINK

  6. Re:A highly relevant comment from the previous pos by eddy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Here's something that doesn't need 'conspiracy' to understand. Unity is playing bad on the PC because they're issuing 50k draw calls on DX11.

    The game (in its current state) is issuing approximately 50,000 draw calls on the DirectX 11 API. Problem is, DX11 is only equipped to handle ~10,000 peak draw calls. What happens after that is a severe bottleneck with most draw calls culled or incorrectly rendered, resulting in texture/NPCs popping all over the place.

    Ironically, instead of blaming AMD for this, AMD is actually providing a solution. I don't like it personally, but the Mantle API specifically solves this problem today while we wait for DX12/OpenGL Next.

    Of course, it's only available on AMD hardware and besides, because Ubi is in a company wide PR deal with nVidia to use GameWorks(TM) THEY CAN'T USE IT!

    So instead of blaming AMD, Ubi should either go sit in a corner (because they know what they did wrong), or they need to look into a mirror (because they don't recognize that they're the real problem)

    --
    Belief is the currency of delusion.
  7. That's why it runs like shit on PC as well by Skylinux · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That must be the reason the game runs like utter crap on PC as well. Ohh wait, it is not!

    TotalBiscuit - "Let's not play Assassins Creed: Unity yet "
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    They knew they had a shit game before the release.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    --
    Everyone who buys Wild Hunt will receive 16 specially prepared DLCs absolutely for free, regardless of platform.
  8. Re:A highly relevant comment from the previous pos by fazig · · Score: 5, Informative

    As far as I know AMD's Mantle is freeware and isn't limited to AMD hardware. It could be adopted by nVidia if they wanted to, but their stance so far is that there would be no benefit using Mantle.

    So yeah, I don't see a point in blaming AMD here.

  9. Re:Or, you know, use OpenGL by Prune · · Score: 5, Informative

    Mod parent down for not knowing that in the OpenGL specification documents the "gl" prefix that you otherwise find in actual code is omitted. The call has been available in NVIDIA and AMD drivers since the second half of last year, and is documented in the spec: https://www.opengl.org/registr... see "MultiDrawElementsIndirectCountARB" (again, the "gl" part is always omitted in spec documents). You dun goofed now, AC, and embarrassed yourself. So no, the actual call is not glMultiDrawElementsIndirect and is nowhere as restricted, because it has the critical difference that the count to draw is now also stored in a GPU buffer and thus can be written by the GPU. Combined with the bindless graphics NVIDIA extension and bindless textures in OpenGL 4.4, you can even set up the whole scene graph on the GPU. Finally, as for my experience--(re)writing a graphics engine is exactly what my team is doing. By the way, maybe you should post your comment also at the official opengl forums so the rest of us can too have a good laugh.

    --
    "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
  10. Re:A highly relevant comment from the previous pos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem (or solution rather) is that developers don't want to write the same game 7 times. OpenGL(Linux/Mac OS X/PS3), DirectX9(PC baseline), DirectX12(PC high end), Mantle(PS4), Metal(OS X/iOS8),OpenGL ES2(Android, old iOS),OpenGL ES3(iOS)

    They will simply design a middleware that can "intelligently" pick a rendering backend, and if the game suffers, it suffers because of the weakest backends (DirectX9, OpenGL ES2) force it to. This is a problem with Unity (the 3D game engine), and is a problem with Unreal engine.

    Oddly enough the Crytek engine actually works better on AMD hardware (and Crytek games are often bundled) because the games support higher DirectX levels out of the box.

    But no single-player game engine will ever work for a MMO game, due to the need of many objects in motion at once. The same Crytek engine used for a MMO looks a lot like a 6 year old game. This is because they trade off detail for simultaneous objects because of the need to limit draw calls.

  11. Re:A highly relevant comment from the previous pos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Their stance is completely bogus. Let's take a look at DICE's experience adding a Mantle renderer for Battlefield 4, presented at the AMD & Microsoft Developer Day conference here in Stockholm this past June: http://amd-dev.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wordpress/media/2012/10/Rendering-Battlefield-4-with-Mantle-Yuriy-ODonnell.ppsx

    The numbers don't lie. For those who don't want to download a PowerPoint viewer, I'll give the money shot:

    Benchmarking machine: Core i7-390x, AMD Radeon R9 290x, running at 1080p with Ultra graphics settings

    DX11 renderer: Minimum frame rate 42fps, average frame rate 78fps
    Mantle renderer: Minimum frame rate 94fps, average frame rate 120fps

    The only thing I get out of NVidia not wanting to make use of the Mantle API is a pathological case of Not Invented Here syndrome, combined with a long-term gamble of DirectX 12 providing a cross-vendor implementation of an API similar to Mantle. For those wanting to learn more about DX12, there's a presentation from the same conference here: http://amd-dev.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wordpress/media/2012/10/Introduction-To-DX12-Ivan-Nevraev.ppsx

    In general it seems to provide the same sort of benefits as Mantle, in that it removes a lot of legacy cruft from the pipeline and puts the onus of redundant state checking and resource management on the application authors. This shouldn't be a major problem in and of itself, as one of the things mentioned during the talk was that a lot of engines already do these things, so the kernel-mode driver doing the same checks is simply extra work. I can't blame NVidia for holding out for DX12 given that it will provide a similar bare-metal interface as Mantle, while having support across IHVs, but to say that there's no benefit to using Mantle - and by extension, a bare-metal GPU interface in general - is patently ridiculous given the performance improvements that companies using Mantle have seen.

  12. Re:Runs fine on my system, despite the bugs by PPalmgren · · Score: 3

    A $500 graphics card and a high end processor making it playable is not acceptable. I have a GTX770 and an i5 (3.4ghz) and it plays like garbage, no matter if I lower the settings significantly. The game hiccups every 5 seconds or so noticeably and suffers random spikes during big action, making it difficult to keep track of your character. There are several beautiful games with not-so-lower graphics that have come out in the past couple years that I can run over 100FPS. Thief, Tomb Raider, Skyrim with 4k textures and mods, Battlefield 4, among others.

    AC:U is a poorly designed peice of shit. If it was designed better, you'd be getting more performance with your current hardware. I bought it early because I thought Black Flag was excellent, serves me right I guess.

  13. Re:Blah blah blah by NotDrWho · · Score: 3, Informative

    I imagine Ubisoft's shareholders care.

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
  14. Re:A highly relevant comment from the previous pos by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    DX12 will be irrelevant for years if Microsoft don't release it for Wiindows 7.

  15. Re:A highly relevant comment from the previous pos by Luckyo · · Score: 3, Informative

    Except that Nvidia users are reporting all the same problems. Crashes, clipping issues, massive fps drops in certain buildings. All the nine miles.

    I've even seen reports that even tri-SLI 980s cannot handle the game on 1080p ultra with no AA at stable 60 fps. This is pretty much as powerful of a machine as you can get today. And the game definitely doesn't look good enough to justify that kind of power not being enough.

    This is Ubisoft's shitty optimization dropping the ball.

  16. We, the customer are mostly to blame here. by danknight48 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Over the last 10 years, we've allowed this to happen, we are mostly at fault.

    We buy into products that are less and less quality. Then, we accept that low quality product as "its ok there will be patches". For anyone who purchased this game, i'd suggest you send it back and get a refund. Buy yourself Quake 3 or Elite:Frontier and admire what is possible when the developers care about the product their making.

    Fair play to Ubisoft for taking the next step in blaming others for their failures.
    This has nothing to do with AMD or DX11 draw calls its just bullcrap to confuse the inexperienced. AMD and Nvidia cards are DX11 certified, their cards comply with the DX11 api. Its down to Ubisoft to know the limitations of whats possible and optimize the game accordingly. Their probably using their own inhouse game engine for this game, so there is no excuse.

    This game is a complete failure at all levels of development. Profits are the clear priority here, not the end product. Send the product back for a refund and make Ubisoft realise we wont accept half completed alpha crap for our hard earned money.