Watch Dogs: 30 FPS on Both Xbox One and PS4, Confirms Ubisoft

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Watch Dogs: 30 FPS on Both Xbox One and PS4, Confirms Ubisoft

Watch Dogs Gun Down

Watch Dogs will run at 900p/30FPS on PS4, and 792p/30FPS on Xbox One.

Oh dear. First Watch Dogs was 1080p/60FPS on the PS4... then it wasn't, then it was again, but now it looks like Ubisoft has come down with the hammer to confirm final resolutions and framerates for the game on both PS4 and Xbox One. Watch Dogs will run at 900p/30FPS on PS4, and 792p/30FPS on Xbox One, according to the official Ubisoft blog post on the matter.

"Resolution is a number, just like framerate is a number. All those numbers are valid aspects of making games," said Creative Director Jonathan Morin. While most next-gen (and many last-gen) games strive to offer native 1080p, Morin belives it is much more important "to deliver an amazing next-gen experience than it is to push a few more pixels onto a screen."

He went on to say that the scope and scale of Watch Dogs compared to a standard "corridor shooter" is completely different. "People tend to look at corridor shooters, for example, where there's a corridor and all the effects are on and it's unbelievable, and they forget that if you apply those same global effects to an open city with people around and potential car crashes and guys in multiplayer showing up without warning, the same effect is applied to a lot of dynamic elements that are happening in every frame."

As for what Ubisoft was doing during the game's most recent delay if not optmizing the resolution, "that extra time was spent ensuring the team could fully realize their vision for Watch Dogs, polishing all aspects of the gameplay and making sure hacking is fully integrated into every system," claims Morin.

"[The hacking stuff] is important. Resolution has nothing to do with that. That's why stuff like resolution can scale a bit down so that we never compromise the soul of Watch Dogs."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought we were to expect 1080p/60FPS as the standard with this generation? I would especially have expected to see it on such a big-name title as Watch Dogs. I also don't buy Morin's excuse, as almost all PC gamers will tell you that having a game run at native resolution with a steady framerate makes for a much better experience than watching a "pretty slideshow".

Source: Ubisoft

Permalink

This gen is so last gen. And we're already a year in. Where is the 7th gen optimism? Where is the wonder that anything is possible? At the beginning of the gen?

Because it seems its been shot in the back of the head and buried along side all the devs EA has killed.

Now its compromises, and low expectations.

Victims of their own success, really. They were so able to sell larger numbers that when they fell apart, there was no way they could fall back on rational thinking.

I await the time when they manage to make up for the trust that they've borrowed.

(But I won't be holding my breath.)

That's underwhelming. It makes me glad I didn't buy a console this generation.

So even after going back into development it still runs like shit... good job Noobisoft.

Ugh this gen is depressing I would have figured at least every game would be 1080 60fps maybe 30 if its insane looking. How junk is the hw in these things. Could we be looking at a massive PC swing in three years when even a 150 dollar GPU is blowing the pants off w/e is in these. Also scares me as graphics could stagnate even harder than last gen.

Each passing day makes this "hallmark" of the new generation look like ... well ... not.

I found Morin's quote "to deliver an amazing next-gen experience than it is to push a few more pixels onto a screen." interesting, in that isn't pushing a few more pixels onto a screen indicative of a next-gen experience? One of the reasons we upgrade to a next-gen system is so that we can get improved game play and pretty pixels which aren't exclusive of each other.

I wonder how many more of these kind of statements we will get with upcoming releases such as Destiny and Dragon's Age 3, to name a couple of AAA productions.

Only one phrase about the "next gen" consoles come to mind. One phrase that marketers, the morons and drones that gobble up their manufactured hype, were parroting over and over.

Supercharged PC!

ghalleon0915:
I found Morin's quote "to deliver an amazing next-gen experience than it is to push a few more pixels onto a screen." interesting, in that isn't pushing a few more pixels onto a screen indicative of a next-gen experience? One of the reasons we upgrade to a next-gen system is so that we can get improved game play and pretty pixels which aren't exclusive of each other.

I wonder how many more of these kind of statements we will get with upcoming releases such as Destiny and Dragon's Age 3, to name a couple of AAA productions.

Not as many I would imagine. Open-world games are -a lot- more draining on a system than pretty pixels ever were, unless they use a lot of downsized stock textures and cardboard houses. It's hard to not have a demanding game when the stuff in the distance is actual stuff and not just a skybox or backdrop that's rendered in. Not that these contradictory statements are that excusable, but it's the reality of sandbox titles.

On the bright side, stuff like 1886 may still look as good as they've shown just because of the scope being smaller.

saltyanon:
Only one phrase about the "next gen" consoles come to mind. One phrase that marketers, the morons and drones that gobble up their manufactured hype, were parroting over and over.

Supercharged PC!

I don't remember anyone, besides the Xbox "kind of" using something similar very recently, saying that. Smells like... haterade. :P

Ferisar:

ghalleon0915:
I found Morin's quote "to deliver an amazing next-gen experience than it is to push a few more pixels onto a screen." interesting, in that isn't pushing a few more pixels onto a screen indicative of a next-gen experience? One of the reasons we upgrade to a next-gen system is so that we can get improved game play and pretty pixels which aren't exclusive of each other.

I wonder how many more of these kind of statements we will get with upcoming releases such as Destiny and Dragon's Age 3, to name a couple of AAA productions.

Not as many I would imagine. Open-world games are -a lot- more draining on a system than pretty pixels ever were, unless they use a lot of downsized stock textures and cardboard houses. It's hard to not have a demanding game when the stuff in the distance is actual stuff and not just a skybox or backdrop that's rendered in. Not that these contradictory statements are that excusable, but it's the reality of sandbox titles.

On the bright side, stuff like 1886 may still look as good as they've shown just because of the scope being smaller.

saltyanon:
Only one phrase about the "next gen" consoles come to mind. One phrase that marketers, the morons and drones that gobble up their manufactured hype, were parroting over and over.

Supercharged PC!

I don't remember anyone, besides the Xbox "kind of" using something similar very recently, saying that. Smells like... haterade. :P

N4G keeps using it. That site is full of fanboys, and none of them understand tech. They have an article up there saying the eye cant see more than 30 fps. And it can.

Anything that isn't Ps4 gets downvoted, and any pandering ps4 announcement is upvoted.

and sandbox titles use pop ins to get around sandbox titles. There is no excuse now because rockstar has shown time and again that any whining over size is pure bull. It can be done.

Eh, doesn't bother me. I am still awaiting my pre-ordered deadsec with growing impatience. It can look like stickfigures and I wouldn't care as long as the gameplay is good.

Does this seriously surprise anyone ever? The consoles were ridiculously underpowered from the moment they were announced and any sane person could see that a game like this would never pull 1080p60 on these boxes. No 3rd party title ever will without some trickery.

On that note, Microsoft can try to explain it away, but resolution IS important, especially on the gigantic TV's people play on these days. FPS IS important and there IS a massive difference between 30 and 60 and even 120.

I guess what I'm saying is that this generation of consoles, at least graphically, is pretty much DoA.

Ultratwinkie:
This gen is so last gen. And we're already a year in. Where is the 7th gen optimism? Where is the wonder that anything is possible? At the beginning of the gen?

Still in the phase of broken dreams and compromise for projects that were going pre-release.

Ferisar:

saltyanon:
Only one phrase about the "next gen" consoles come to mind. One phrase that marketers, the morons and drones that gobble up their manufactured hype, were parroting over and over.

Supercharged PC!

I don't remember anyone, besides the Xbox "kind of" using something similar very recently, saying that. Smells like... haterade. :P

It was the PS4's lead architect, Mark Cerny, that used the term "Supercharged PC architecture" at the PS4 reveal event.

this game has had quite the development cycle, PR lies over PR lies from both Ubisoft and Sony, i seriously doubt it will deliver, doesnt look that good for me, kind of like the multiplaya tough

also i love they try to write off the framerate and resolution as "just a number", yeah, pff who has ever heard of a number being important right fellas? i hope they keep that attitude if the game receives mediocre review scores

Yeah, FPS *is* just a number... and so is the tally in your bank account. Hell, they might even be loosely correlated...

This is my last straw... normally, I would own all three systems, but this time around I'm waiting, simply because so little has been done to make me care. Looks like I get to spend a week building myself a new PC with the return I was saving for these, and maybe snag a WiiU for xmas if SSB looks half as tasty as it seems...

Also, notably, I've no idea who the hell the async-multiplayer is aimed at.

So much for this generation of consoles. They can't even manage 60 frames. Or, perhaps, Ubisoft has no idea what they're doing.

Damn...
I was 100% certain that it wont be Ultra settings 1080p 60fps. I was expecting maybe 1080p, 30fps and medium-high settings.
Instead PS4 is getting what looks like high 900p 30 fps. Dissapointing. I gave its hardware too much credit.
Still, Ubi, go for 1080 and low settings even. Resolution> settings. Unless its a gigantic difference and usually it is not.

Not that it affects me, PC gaming :P

Remember when this was marketed on how amazing the game looked? At how good the graphics are? Kinda what they're doing now with the trailers for The Division and the Snowdrop engine - "look at the pretty graphics" is what Ubisoft have been saying for the past year.

I agree that a game shouldn't be judged on it's graphics and yes, pixels and framerate don't necessarily break a game (can do though - they are more than just numbers, don't give that BS) but you don't get to say that when you've been marketing the game on graphics and resolution for so long.

Also, framerate and resolution are half the fucking reason these new consoles exist. That's what the next gen experience was marketed as.

Geez, I was whining before that 1080/60 shouldn't be headline news in this day and age, but I take that back. It clearly is.

Charcharo:
Not that it affects me, PC gaming :P

Don't count on it. Ubisoft are hardly the worlds best at doing PC ports

Not the news Ubisoft was hoping to deliver, I'm guessing.

I don't doubt that it will still be a perfectly fine game. But I'm really getting tired of the big companies trying to spin their bad news as no big thing. I'd really respect the company that came out and said, "Look, I know many of you were expecting 1080p and 60 FPS; we had hoped that we would be able to deliver that to you, but it turned out that wasn't possible while maintaining our vision. We're asking you to make a leap of faith in accepting our statement that the gameplay elements we prioritized are more important to the experience than sheer frame rate and resolution, that you'll still feel you're experiencing something that properly belongs in the "next gen" category, and that you won't be disappointed. Make that leap of faith with us, trust our reputation for quality game play, and we promise we won't disappoint you."

Instead, we're getting plays from Microsoft's playbook. "Resolution and framerate are just numbers"? Really? Ubisoft, are you sure that's how you want to play it...?

...'Cuz, I dunno if you've been paying attention, but that seems to be going over like a lead balloon for big M.

I'm seriously beginning to wonder if this console generation is going to end up being as short as the last one was notoriously long. Because if they can't deliver 1080p now, there are going to be a lot of programmers stirring whiskey into their energy drinks if 4k televisions actually become the phenomenon certain tech companies are hoping for.

Somewhere along the line, Watchdogs slipped from "Oh, yeah, definitely buy when it comes out" to "Wait for a good load of reviews to come in" for me. And I'm planning on playing it on a PC. I can't imagine what the PS4 and XB1 owners are saying right now.

...Actually, I think I can.

That's really pretty hilarious.

Not even getting 1080P, and in a meagre 30FPS, is frankly kinda pathetic.

Delete

Sometimes I wish studios would slow down and stop being so ambitious with visuals in favour of better frame rates. It's pretty disappointing that our "next-gen" hardware is not going to be any visually smoother than the last gen, since they're so determined to jam more polygons on the screen. It's like buying a new PC only to discover that the new version of Word hogs so much memory it'll chug just like your last version did.

We're already in the area of diminishing returns as far as polygon count vs visual quality, and it's only going to get worse from here.

Wouldn't it be hilarious if the Wii U port actually supported 1080p 60fps?

Anyone? At all? Nope? Just me then?

QuadFish:
Sometimes I wish studios would slow down and stop being so ambitious with visuals in favour of better frame rates. It's pretty disappointing that our "next-gen" hardware is not going to be any visually smoother than the last gen, since they're so determined to jam more polygons on the screen. It's like buying a new PC only to discover that the new version of Word hogs so much memory it'll chug just like your last version did.

We're already in the area of diminishing returns as far as polygon count vs visual quality, and it's only going to get worse from here.

Actually, no we are not. The old diminishing returns screenshot is false by using inefficient smoothing. We can go a bit farther.

here is the new one. The reason we can't go that far is because consoles are weak and high end models cost more than low end.

And we all know that development money can't be spent on anything other than marketing. Come on, we all know that.

We are at the border, but we haven't crossed over yet. We won't until we get actual hardware.

*Must resist urge to laugh hysterically*

In all fairness, I feel sad for my console brethren: this new generation has been quite dissapointing up to this point in time.

I hope that at least, the indie games promised for both platforms will be good, as I have lost hope in AAA at this point.

saltyanon:

Except Sony actually did use it and not Microsoft. Microsoft used:

THE POWER OF THE CLOUD!

That you attribute SUPERCHARGED PC to Microsoft makes it sound like you're a sonydrone. Both companies essentially claimed their consoles are far beyond PCs. It's quite fitting that their claims have come back to bite them in the ass. This crooked industry brought this upon itself. I'll thoroughly enjoy watching it squirm and buckle under the weight.

I don't own nor support either console. That you attribute my unfortunately uninformed statement to my console affiliation makes it sound like you're a butt :P The reason I mention the Xbox One is due to an article (on this website) about them saying something along the lines of "we have super-computer architecture that our console is based on" or some-such malarkey. Either way, largely indifferent.

Unfortunate that I seem to have missed both of these claims. Although, given stuff mentioned in this article keeps happening, it's not -that- unfortunate.

Ultratwinkie:

N4G keeps using it. That site is full of fanboys, and none of them understand tech. They have an article up there saying the eye cant see more than 30 fps. And it can.

Anything that isn't Ps4 gets downvoted, and any pandering ps4 announcement is upvoted.

and sandbox titles use pop ins to get around sandbox titles. There is no excuse now because rockstar has shown time and again that any whining over size is pure bull. It can be done.

While true, texture pop-in is used in a lot more games than just sandbox now-a-days (probably because of how functional the tactic is when it isn't easy to see), so it isn't only that that's at play here. But it -is- true that it's not somehow impossible to make a well-running game in a sandbox, because, as you said, rockstar is still a studio.

No idea what N4G is, though. Sounds silly. Especially the 30fps thing.

Ultratwinkie:
We are at the border, but we haven't crossed over yet. We won't until we get actual hardware.

Well I never said we'd crossed yet, just that I feel we're getting close. Even in that newer screenshot the 20k model, to me at least, doesn't look like it should be 10x harder to render than the 2k model. And I doubt a 200k model would look much better considering the effort needed. That said, I hadn't actually seen that picture before. It was just a casual observation of the way we're headed.

I had to laugh at that marketing line since that's sort of why a lot of people are sending angry words Ubisoft's way in the first place. When you tease a game based on its looks I suppose you can't turn around and suddenly decide a 60fps ideology is the way to go.

Callate:
I don't doubt that it will still be a perfectly fine game. But I'm really getting tired of the big companies trying to spin their bad news as no big thing.

Oh this, just so much. It's shocking how many companies will pretend nothing happened instead of admitting things didn't work out and justifying those choices. Leaves the whole situation in an awkward middle ground where they can't propose any solutions because they won't admit any failures, even if it's obvious to the smart people who've been following the situation. A simple "we couldn't manage 60 fps, but we promise the game will make up for it in other ways" instead of this "whaaat, 30's just a number, man".

I can only think of one organisation recently who went for the honest approach, and that was my country's bloody military. I definitely can't remember the last time a commercial company's CEO did.

Wow, so they had to downgrade the graphics and they still can't get it up to 1080p. Can someone give The Ministry of P.A.T.H.E.T.I.C. a call?

Ferisar:
That you attribute my unfortunately uninformed statement to my console affiliation makes it sound like you're a butt :P

That's what you get when you attribute my post to nothing but "haterade", butt.

Ferisar:

Unfortunate that I seem to have missed both of these claims. Although, given stuff mentioned in this article keeps happening, it's not -that- unfortunate.

No, you're not unfortunate. It's actually a blessing. At least you don't lose brain cells everytime a company or their drone claims something stupid like SUPERCHARGED PC or:

THE HUMAN EYE CAN'T SEE 60FPS ANYWAY! YOU CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE!

saltyanon:

Ferisar:
That you attribute my unfortunately uninformed statement to my console affiliation makes it sound like you're a butt :P

That's what you get when you attribute my post to nothing but "haterade", butt.

Ferisar:

Unfortunate that I seem to have missed both of these claims. Although, given stuff mentioned in this article keeps happening, it's not -that- unfortunate.

No, you're not unfortunate. It's actually a blessing. At least you don't lose brain cells everytime a company or their drone claims something stupid like SUPERCHARGED PC or:

THE HUMAN EYE CAN'T SEE 60FPS ANYWAY! YOU CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE!

Y'know, I always wonder, what if someone one day tried to feed me some uncooked dough with sugar poured on top and then told me "Hey man, it has the same nutritional value as those waffles. Your digestive system can't tell the difference", what would my response be.

AND I LOVE HATERADE, DON'T JUDGE ME. D:

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here