Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition Framerate Confirmed

iGR: "For those who’ve been contemplating the purchase of the Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition for either Xbox One or PS4, this fact could, and should affect your decision."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Kayant1372d ago

DF's Faceoff will sure be interesting to see ;)

GarrusVakarian1372d ago (Edited 1372d ago )

As i said in the other article, i would much rather have 60fps without the power hogging hair TressFX. But if it's a stable 30 then it's all good.

"tbh if I had the hardware to max it out I would rather play the PC version."

If you have a good enough PC for tressFX and 60fps then you might as well, it's super cheap on PC too.

Edit: What with the disagrees? You people prefer fancy hair to 60fps?

Kayant1372d ago

tbh if I had the hardware to max it out I would rather play the PC version. I don't like the new face to me it's more of a *downgrade* than up and the other improvements don't seem like a big deal to warranty the asking price currently.

But yh I second that tressfx is nice but not at the cost of half the framerate if they could get it to run well at 60fps.

WalterWJR1372d ago

The disagrees are probably from your assumptions that TressFX is a hardware hog. It used to be in it's very early stages but now it hardly makes any difference.

Hatsune-Miku1372d ago

Is it 1080p at 30 fps in order to have parity on both xbox one and ps4 because the ps4 by fact is 50% more powerful than the xbox one.

AliTheSnake11372d ago (Edited 1372d ago )

The hair TressFX is so ugly and out of place, After going through mud and dirt, her hair looks like she just got out of a salon, with fans working around the hour all over her head.

For the 30fps and 60fps thing. I prefer 30fps. Because we all know, Nextgen only games will Have to be in 30fps. So why spoil yourself by getting used to 60 fps in a third person game? (Going from playing in high frames to playing in low frames is not easy, PC gamers' constant FPS bitching is a proof)

hkgamer1372d ago

its console gaming, most devs will rather pish for graphics and effects rather than 60fps unless the gameplay will really benefit from 60fps.

i would have purchased this game if it was 60 fps, but i guess i give this a pass, or buy it digitally when it is cheap.

DejectedJeff1372d ago

No, i didagreed because youre satisfied with a 60 dollar port that csnt even run at above 30 fps

GarrusVakarian1372d ago


Way to assume there buddy! For one, im English, so it will cost me £37 to buy new (£17 with my Amazon discount card). Secondly, no where did i say that i was satisfied with paying full retail.

" that csnt even run at above 30 fps"

DOESN'T run at 60fps, not can't. As i explained below, the devs make the decision of 30fps with effects or 60fps with less effects.

Learn to read.

Skip_Bayless1372d ago

It's 30 frames to keep the consoles even. Thanks X1..

AliTheSnake11372d ago

You know what's funny about this?
If the game ran at 60 fps. People will complain about how bad the graphics are.

Aleithian1371d ago

I didn't "disagree" with you, because your statement is your opinion, but I do in fact disagree with you. For me, I'd rather than the fancy hair than the 60fps. I've been gaming for decades - I can deal with 30fps. But fancy hair is new and innovative, and increases the immersion for me as I play the game.

jc121371d ago

people always disagree on this site...seemingly for little reason most times other than to just disagree...

Army_of_Darkness1371d ago (Edited 1371d ago )

"the lack of 60FPS alongside the 1080p resolution makes the definitive edition much less attractive. This may act as a deal breaker for those who have been thinking about “double dipping” on the title. It’s also harder to justify the full retail price-tag when resolution is really the only upgrade."

That's exactly how I feel... I really was hoping for [email protected] 1080p, that would have convinced me to play it again... oh well, Deal broken for me.

vigilante_man1371d ago

Two things are clear here:

1) It seems to be like a HD-remake (Or Super next gen HD) and those games always sell for at least half price if not less than new games.

2) If the fps and resolution are the same on PS4/XB1 then they have gimped it for parity sake. We all know which machine is the most powerful now.

You can not please all the people all of the time so stop trying. Max out the game for each platform and get a bit of self-respect!

SharnOfTheDEAD1371d ago

Despite the frames and what not, I'd happily pay full price again for the DF Edition because it is a good game and was one of my fav titles from last year. Honestly anyone in 2 minds about this should try it out. Tomb Raider at it's finest. If your judging on buying a game because it's 30 or 60 frames.... well.... you have my pity

JsonHenry1371d ago

This is 30fps WITHOUT certain lighting effects and and Physx.

TressFX really made the character model seem more real though. The blowing in the wind or moving as she moved made for a much more cinematic feel.

1upgamer991371d ago

I don't do PC gaming much anymore. Too much hassle, but If my PC could handle it I would rather have 60fps...

I feel like the developers are lazy. I mean common "definitive" version at 30fps on perfectly capable hardware. I don't care if the PS4 is more powerful than Xbox1, I am sure both could have handled 60fps.

I am not buying this game anyway, been there done that. I am not even that impressed with the enhancements, and the asking price for an upgrade to a game I played not long ago, does not seem worth it.

+ Show (13) more repliesLast reply 1371d ago
Play2Win1372d ago

Jesus Gentlemen ...

you don't need 60 FPS for this game while playing with Pad. I play this bad boy on PC with 60 FPS just because it feels much better with mouse and keyboard. But be glad it is 1080p with nice graphics. Sweet locked 30 FPS are good enough.

starchild1372d ago

Of course you don't "need" 60fps to enjoy a game. But then again you don't "need" to play videogames at all.

Just because you don't need something doesn't mean it isn't better to have it.

Every kind of game is better at 60fps than 30fps. The temporal resolution is much clearer (i.e. how well you can see things while there is motion on screen, which is most of the time in a video game). And the latency is much lower therefor the controller response is much quicker and, well, more responsive.

I do think going for 30fps is still the better trade-off for most console games. Doubling the framerate literally doubles the power needed to run the game.

GarrusVakarian1372d ago (Edited 1372d ago )

For once, i agree with starchild when he says that every game will be better at 60fps ( but i also agree with your point that not every game NEEDS to be 60fps. I also agree with starchild when says that 30fps will be the best trade-off for many console games.

PC gamers get the luxury of 60fps for every game (if they have a good enough PC). Whereas consoles devs are going to have to decide which is more important, 30fps with bells and whistles or 60fps with less bells and whistles. Personally, i care much less about 60fps third person games than i do first person games.

Back-to-Back1372d ago

30fps? lol go f#ck yourself square enix.

Studio-YaMi1372d ago (Edited 1372d ago )

Well,the game is an action adventure,it's not an fps game where frame rate matters most,it's a third person shooter,a visual upgrade @ native res is more appreciated than frame rate in this case tbh as long as it's at buttery smooth 30fps.

Although it would have been nice to have both,but I guess it's down to limitations of hardware.

wtopez1372d ago


There's nothing "buttery smooth" about 30 fps. Maybe for a Gif file.

SugarSoSweet1372d ago

NO WAY IN HELL am I paying full 60 dollars for this

AsheXII1372d ago

Good thing gamers can wait for a price drop. Crazy, right?

Ashlen1372d ago

At least until games are only released via streaming...

LocutusEstBorg1372d ago

Then that drop shoud have been even lower since the initial price shouldn't have been 60.

liquidhalos1372d ago

Join me in a few months getting it from the discount bin

Agent_00_Revan1372d ago

I don't see a whole lot of incentive to buy it at all honestly. Sure, Slightly better graphics, but without the 60fps, I dont know.

Sony_Fan1372d ago

Seriously its 2014,the fact that PS4 can't do acceptable framerates for lastgen games is pathetic.

ambientFLIER1372d ago

Locked 30fps is very acceptable and smooth, and it has nothing to do with being last gen. It's been improved to where it looks like it's running on a PC.

windblowsagain1371d ago


Both XB1/PS4 IS 1080p - 30fps.

PS4 has twice the POWER of XB1 and could do 60fps no problem. It's either to keep parity or Ms has thrown a few quid their way.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1371d ago
angelsx1372d ago

Another next gen game 30fps.Cmon . .

GarrusVakarian1372d ago (Edited 1372d ago )

I think we will see a lot of this in this gen. Devs will decide what's more important in their opinion, 30fps with effects such as 4k textures, tressfx, 1080p, subsurface scattering, increased particle effects etc etc...or 60fps with less effects.

Not saying i agree with the devs in this instance, just telling you to expect it. To me, it depends on the game, i enjoyed AC4 at solid 30fps...but i don't think i would enjoy BF4 half as much as i do if it was 30fps (hated it on 360/ps3). It's all about compromising with the tech you have.

ThePope1372d ago

What was the Framerate on the PS3 and 360? I played it on the 360 and thought the game was brilliant.

GarrusVakarian1372d ago (Edited 1372d ago )


Which game are you asking about?

Battlefield? If so, it was definitely sub-30fps. It was horrible. Whereas GTA5 is also sub-30fps a lot of the timer and i can play that game for hours on end. It's just way more important for me for an FPS to run at 60fps than a TPS.

Sony_Fan1372d ago

its 2014, 30fps in 2014 is just plain sad.

GarrusVakarian1372d ago (Edited 1372d ago )

Whatever you say "Sony fan".

plaZeHD1371d ago

Are you trying to defend this?

GarrusVakarian1371d ago (Edited 1371d ago )


Did you even read my comment bro?

"Not saying i agree with the devs in this instance, just telling you to expect it"

And then another quote from my comment above -

"As i said in the other article, i would much rather have 60fps "

Some people have serious reading problems on this site.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1371d ago
Deadpoolio1372d ago

What is it that people like you don't grasp that a game doesn't need to be 60fps unless it requires fast twitch, which Tomb raider certainly does not..

someoneagain61372d ago

You can't even twitch on a controller. Turn up the sensitivity on the joystick (if it's available) and make your character do a 360 degree turn instantly. You can't.

Over time, games have had to be designed in a way that compensated for this. That's why most modern third-person shooters chest-high walls and cover mechanics, so you can take your time aiming.

Irishguy951371d ago (Edited 1371d ago )

Tomb Raider was WAY better at 60FPS than 30FPS. I lowered the GPHX on my PC to get 60FPS. Same goes for Mass Effect(Didn't need to lower graphics for that though). Mass effect is MUCH better on PC than the consoles.

Before ME I didn't think 60 FPS mattered much for Tps. But yes, yes it ****ing does.

It's not about 'needing'. Its about which is better and TPS are alot better with 60FPS too

To be honest I believe the fact that I played TR 60FPS is one of the bigger reasons I thought the game was better than Uncharted series

Btw, Tomb Raider on PC was pretty demanding for a multiplatform game. For example, my PC wiped the floor with Skyrim and Mass effect. Tomb Raider though, not at all. The recommended requirements are quite a decent amount above the Next gen consoles. GPU needs more power, CPU needs alot more power. I'd say it's a feat to have this game running at 1080P with a solid 30FPS

Eyeco1372d ago (Edited 1372d ago )

Except that it's not a next gen game, it's a LAST GEN F***ING PORT SMH, there is zero excuse for this, no way in HELL am I spending $60 on a LAST gen port that can't even run in 60fps.

AliTheSnake11372d ago (Edited 1372d ago )

Watch Dogs, AC4, Thief and most nonexclusive games for the next two years, should all be in your logic :( LAST GEN F***ING PORT SMH), and most of them run 30 fps on ps4. But you WILL spend that 60 bucks on that watch dogs, won't you ? now go ahead and shake your F H

LocutusEstBorg1372d ago

It's actually a downgrade of the PC version.

webeblazing1372d ago

You do realize y'all so called next gen game features have been done on PCs for the longest. This game is next gen stop hyping up games like we haven't been seeing graphics like this. I do agree about $60 is too much for a late port

starchild1372d ago

You act like it is surprising. I don't understand why, since MOST next gen console games are 30fps.

And Tomb Raider's visuals on the PC at high settings are right up there with any next gen console game I have seen. If the definitive version is as good as that, or even better in some ways, it is not at all surprising that it can only run at 30fps on next gen consoles.

_LarZen_1372d ago

You honestly think that developers will pick higher fps over higher visuals? What do you think sells better to the average costumer?

DC7771372d ago

Agreed. While it doesn't bother me much while playing the fact that we still have 720p and 30 fps games in 2014 when 1080p has been the home tv standard for years now is pretty lame.

specialguest1371d ago (Edited 1371d ago )

30fps will forever be present on console gaming. Leave it up to devs and they will more than likely choose graphics over framerate. Back in the PS1 days, there were games that ran at 60fps like Bloody Roar. It's been said before many time, 60fps is always possible, but devs will not sacrifice graphics due to hardware limitations.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 1371d ago
Nephesh1372d ago

They just lost my purchase!