Ubisoft Comments on ‘Watch Dogs’ PC Mod

Ubisoft has issued a statement attempting to explain why the PC version of Watch Dogs included unused graphical options hidden within its game files. The company also said that a mod enabling these features is not a good thing for PC users because it can cause a number of unwanted technical and gameplay issues.

The options were discovered by modders earlier this week who quickly made a mod available for PC users to apply to the game themselves. The mod was made by a user going by the moniker "TheWorse." Changes introduced by the mod reportedly affect the game's depth of field, dynamic lighting, shadows and more.

The results have been mixed; some users say the mod improves the visual quality of the game, while others complained about performance issues while using the mod.

Ubisoft said in a statement posted on its Watch Dogs web site that enabling these features – old files – is not a good idea.

"The dev team is completely dedicated to getting the most out of each platform, so the notion that we would actively downgrade quality is contrary to everything we've set out to achieve," Ubisoft wrote on the official Watch Dogs website. "We test and optimize our games for each platform on which they're released, striving for the best possible quality."

"The PC version does indeed contain some old, unused render settings that were deactivated for a variety of reasons, including possible impacts on visual fidelity, stability, performance and overall gameplay quality."

"Modders are usually creative and passionate players, and while we appreciate their enthusiasm, the mod in question (which uses those old settings) subjectively enhances the game's visual fidelity in certain situations but also can have various negative impacts. Those could range from performance issues, to difficulty in reading the environment in order to appreciate the gameplay, to potentially making the game less enjoyable or even unstable."

"Thanks for playing Watch Dogs and stay safe on the mean streets of Chicago."

Source: Eurogamer

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    The interesting thing is, Ubisoft claims it "may negatively affect performance," when the mod in question is pretty much confirmed to significantly improve performance across the board, essentially lowering minimum and recommended specs on PC's for playing it.

    The info on the "unused files" had been out for a while – when THIS tidbit came out, though, is when Ubisoft finally decided to comment on it.

  2. 0
    GrimCW says:

    It's probably more likely they added these settings just FOR that event. A massive PR lie to draw people in.

    TBH I get a kick out of how far this false advertising has come, and how far people are willing to just let it go. 
    From companies using fully pre-rendered movies to sell games with commercials that essentially claim that seemingly is the game when its nothing like it *glares at blizzard*, down to the use of bullshots and videos.

    Ubi has a well known history of using bullshots, touched up videos, and pre-rendered videos to sell their games, so the use of extended GFX settings they never intended to include doesn't surprise me one bit.

  3. 0
    Monte says:

    "The PC version does indeed contain some old, unused render settings that were deactivated for a variety of reasons"

    And despite these supposed problems, they thought it was a good idea to USE these render setting when advertising the game last year.

  4. 0
    Wymorence says:

    So you claim you strive for the most out of the tech on each platform, and then claim a second later you strive for the best possible quality. So which would it be then? Best looking or best quality? Because the game doesn't really look much like it did at E3 previously, so you obviously didn't go the best looking route there. But at the same time one can argue you sure as hell didn't go for the 'quality' route either, what with all the problems the PC version has had.

    Not to mention the fact that you left unused config files on a finished product…

Leave a Reply