Watch_Dogs’ Director Talks Difference Between PS4 and PC, Free Roaming, Weather and More

Watch_Dogs Creative Director Jonathan Morin has taken a short break from responding the enormous amount of questions on the game he receives every day on Twitter but he’s finally back with another round of answers to satisfy the fans' curiosity on Ubisoft’s upcoming open world game.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
jlo1690d ago ShowReplies(25)
Jahbu1690d ago

Pre-ordered it for $33...much better than $60. That's the main difference between the two versions for me.

deadfrag1690d ago (Edited 1690d ago )

Indeed Pc games are way more cheaper than console games and im talking of Physical versions!I really dont understand the reason i can buy this game and others on PC for £30 and the PS4 and Xbox one are £45 to 47.Someone is been greed and getting on the pockets of gamers that only play on consoles.Wolfenstein: The New Order £27 for Pc,£46 for PS4 and Xboxone ;Batman: Arkham Knight (PC DVD)£29 ,Ps4,Xboxone £45,The Evil Within (PC DVD)£25;PS4 ,Xboxone £49......

bienio1690d ago

That why Im happy to be Pc gamer😉peace!

system221689d ago

also... a console... at least the last gen lasted only... hmmm 8 years. so $400 for 8 years of console. pc's last time i checked tend to be a lot more expensive. a decent graphics card costs almost as much if not more than most consoles and need to be updated every 1-3 years (considering most pc people really need to have the best as our dear friend "JLO" has pointed out above. this is only my own wild speculation of course but I'm not sure one ends up being cheaper than the other in general life cycle. well.. i guess the pc cycle never really ends.

Qrphe1689d ago

>way more cheaper

$0 is pretty cheap

DeadIIIRed1689d ago

Alot of it has to do with price elasticity. Basically demand is higher on consoles so the price helps level it out with supply. For PC demand is relatively lower so a lower price boosts demand.

Not hating on PC with the whole demand thing, just read quarterly statements from big publishers once in a while.

insomnium21689d ago

With a higher pricetag people would pirate the game even more on PC. I'm sure this is one of the reasons for the lower price.

Anyway my backlog is so huge I buy games when they reach the below 20 USD mark anyway so the difference doesn't bother me as much. It really is an overkill with PS+ with my backlog...

masterfox1689d ago (Edited 1689d ago )

yeah is cheaper, but then I realize I need to spend 400 bucks on a video card to barely play this game, I need to spend 60 or more for ram, 300+ for a decent i7 CPU, oh lol I forgot the motherboard 150-250 bucks, hey the case!! 80 bucks. whopping 1000+ dollars total!! yay is cheaper!!? O_o, and guess what probably a build like that it won't play the Witcher 3 in max settings, even worse I would still struggle to play at max settings Metro Last light. So right now is it worth to invest on a PC gaming rig ?, well my answer is absolutely NOT, STEAM is flooded with mediocre indie games and you don't actually need a gaming rig like that to play this games. So what games are out-there that justifies this ammount of money on a gaming rig ?

Meanwhile the PS4 will play this game on high settings native 1080p. for less than 500 bucks and not mentioning all the awesome games are coming exclusively to the PS4.

Don't get me wrong investing on a high performance gaming rig is worth it if you use the PC for designing stuff(Maya, autocad, Solidworks) in other words for work. But if is only for gaming, I'm sorry but that is totally brainless.

Vegamyster1689d ago (Edited 1689d ago )


Doesn't sound like you know anything about PC gaming judging by that comment, you don't need that stuff unless you want the highest graphics fidelity AND performance. We don't know what graphics settings the PS4 compares to on the PC also the PS4 version runs at 30 fps.

PC gaming doesn't need have to be expensive and you can build a PC that rivals/beats out consoles at a similar cost:

SonyNGP1689d ago

Don't bother with masterfoxx. He's a notoriously biased fellow on another forum I frequent.

starchild1689d ago (Edited 1689d ago )


That isn't actually true. The main reason games are usually cheaper on PC is because there is competition between different digital distribution sites and because the games are direct digital downloads so it cuts out the middle men and allows more of the money to go into the developers' and publishers' pockets.


Yay, more uninformed BS.

It's possible to build a gaming rig for roughly $600 that will outperform the consoles for the entire generation. The difference in up front cost will quickly be made up for with cheaper games and free online.

And that's only if you haven't built a gaming PC before. So far this generation I have only spent $300 to upgrade my graphics card to a GTX 770, while my PS4 cost me $400. In other words, this generation I have already spent more on my PS4 than I have on my gaming PC, even though my PC performs way better on multiplatform games and I have bought more games for my PC than my PS4.

Volkama1689d ago

Why would you want a physical version of a PC game? On consoles you can argue for the ability to sell/trade it, but that hasn't been true on the PC for at least a decade.

I guess it can save on download and bandwidth hassles, but I always worry I'll get a disc with some "you have to have it in the disc drive to play!" mechanism (same reason I will not buy any discs for consoles).

RVanner_1689d ago

Its simple math.
Say the average gamer purchases 2 games a month and gets them £40 cheaper overall on PC
Over 8 years that amounts to £3,840.
The initial higher cost of the PC and then upgrades over the 8 years will not surpass this amount. Therefore PC is definitely the same if not cheaper than consoles. The more games you buy the cheaper the PC becomes. I'm a console gamer since I was 10 by the way but do have a PC too so my view is unbiased and based on my experience with both platforms.

Corpser1689d ago (Edited 1689d ago )

@masterfox just why do you think you need a $400 GPU and $300 CPU when you are comparing it to ps4? That PC would be 3x more powerful than ps4 at least

And I'm playing bf4 on the same pc I built for bf3, haven't had to spend a penny on new hardware

+ Show (9) more repliesLast reply 1689d ago
miDnIghtEr20C_SfF1689d ago

Did I see someone write in the post that was marked for trolling.. did I see them write...

" graphically it isnt a diffrence. But more clearer Picture yes. "

And then get a whole mess of agrees?!?!!? Yet these are the same people who give poo poo to Xbox fans that are getting 900p vs 1080p?

LMAO... too rich..... continue on! Awesome! :D

Yukicore1689d ago

But you will get CD-Key, right?

Or physical copy?

Bladesfist1689d ago

If you want a cd key you can get it on G2A for only £20.

Yukicore1689d ago (Edited 1689d ago )

I got it already there, that's why I was asking. I got it also for 33$, but it's a CD-Key, and Jahbu was comparing it to physical copy.

Although when I had PS3, physical copies at stores often cost less than at the PS-Store

ramiuk11689d ago

i got it on ps4 for £32 delivered in uk,well happy with that price

PoodlePuncher1689d ago (Edited 1689d ago )

Where did you find it for $33?

Oh and to people's comments about PC: It doesn't have to be that expensive. The whole price thing is pretty much the same deal as consoles, you just have a choice. You can spend like $500-$600 on a PC that has similar performance to a console and use it for the entire duration of the current generation of consoles. There are plenty of build guides for gaming PC's around the $600 price range. And if you want a "next-gen" system, you don't have to wait for Sony or Microsoft to release a new one, just upgrade. And when you upgrade all of your older games look better too. They usually have it where you can force anti-aliasing, for example, onto older games. All PC games scale to console settings. You don't have to buy a new graphics card or any other part every year. And it's nice, if you build like a pretty high end $1000 machine you can use it for a really long time. And backwards compatibility isn't an issue on PC. So you get like all generations of consoles in one system, even potentially future generations of consoles.

Dynasty20211689d ago (Edited 1689d ago )


Console gamers say PC gaming is "laughably expensive".

I bought Dark Souls 2, Thief, Watch Dogs and Reaper Of Souls each for £20-£22 pre-ordered through Steam key websites (

Each game would be £45 on consoles. If I bought 10 games a year, that's £450 on consoles, and about £200-220 on PC.

When you consider the cost of a TV, pay-per-year to get online, bband, extra controller etc, you can BUILD a PC, and it's been done and proven plenty of times, that does every game the console do, except at a constant 60 FPS as a minimum. Looks better, runs better, plays better.

Nobody can tell me that Dark Souls 2 is better on consoles when the PC is doing a locked 60 FPS (for now, as mods will break the 60 FPS limit guaranteed), and makes SUCH a big difference.

The simple fact, is that consoles ARE NOT CHEAPER than PC.

Proof. End of debate. PC's are cheaper.

N4Flamers1689d ago

You cant get a PC that does every game consoles do, I'm sure you've heard of exclusives. This is a rather stupid debate honestly. I've played well over 10 games in the past few months without dropping a dime. I'm a ps+ member. I believe both platforms have their merits, you can certainly save money no matter what system you prefer. Consoles have used games and good discounts too. PSN just had a flash sale for easter and currently is running a 30 to 40% discount on batman games.

steves11261689d ago

Please tell me where! That's a great price.

Farsendor11688d ago

that is a very good deal for a new game like watch dogs

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 1688d ago
waltyftm1690d ago

Really looking forward to this.

"By going to sleep in a hideout you can chose the time of day, but you cannot select the weather"

Sounds good, after all Alarm clocks exist and weather machines don't.

DrJones1689d ago (Edited 1689d ago )


tee_bag2421689d ago

Lol nice. Portable HAARP

aLiEnViSiToR1689d ago

lol that was good xD

bubble for ya

MasterCornholio1689d ago

Awww I wanted to hack into gods weather machine I this game.


theXtReMe11690d ago (Edited 1690d ago )

Im guessing that Xbox One is looking at 960p or 720p for resolution, which is why Ubisoft isnt saying anything about it or showing it. My guess is, they want to show the game in its best light, before release and there are issues with the Xbox one version of the game that prevent them from doing so.

I'm not system bashing. But, with the slower memory, ESRAM bottleneck and lesser shader cores... I think this game is running into more issues than others that had to settle for just a lower resolution, due to its size, complexity and heavy reliance on streaming. I imagine it would be very hard to stream textures, when you are already running into bandwidth issues trying to get an HD picture displayed.

UBisoft stated that both the PS4 and Xbox One games look identical, but I'm guessing that's not true. If it was, they would've showed the Xbox One version alongside of the PS4 version in all of these press outings. I wouldn't doubt on top of the resolution being a bit lower, that maybe the frame rate isn't as steady or they had to lower texture resolution or do away with some effects to make it run efficiently on the system. Don't quote me though, but I do find it odd that they haven't shown the Xbox one version of the game at all. To me, that suggests that either it isn't running well or it doesn't look much different than the Xbox 360 version and they just don't want to expose it before the games release. Why else would you hide a game that is supposedly going to be the next huge system seller?

I hope I'm wrong for all of the Xbox one owners sake… But all signs point to major issues happening with that version of the game, as if it was doing well wouldn't you want to flaunt it to sell more copies? Hopefully, per your guys sake, they are just using this extra time to try to get it running at 1080p and they don't want to say or show anything before that happens. So as to not raise the hopes of Xbox one owners artificially, only to be let down when the resolution doesn't stick for launch.

Cross your fingers that this is the case and they arent trying to hide some major issues happening. I hope the best for you guys.

GUTZnPAPERCUTZ1690d ago (Edited 1690d ago )

If it's 960p I would be fine with that! That is really so close to 1080p that you really won't be able to tell a difference. I hope it's not 720p... that would be disappointing, unless they use 4x TXAA

OpieWinston1690d ago

Dude Ubisoft already confirmed it's because they have a contract with Sony.

They aren't allowed to advertise the X1 or any other versions of the game.

If they wanted to show off the best version of the game it'd be on PC.

system221689d ago

i think the biggest reason is because ubisoft has a deal with sony and the watchdogs IP so they play it up. I suspect the xOne version will be 900p but I could see it being 1080p if they both run at 30 fps. tomb raider was 1080p 30 and it was rock solid. Then again, Watchdogs will probably be a bit more intensive... i guess we won't know til we know :)

jessupj1689d ago

Obliviously the xbone version is going to have some kind of downgrade from the PS4 version. The only question is how big will that downgrade be. Only a delusional fool would disagree.

The only reason both version would be the same is if the developers purposely hold back the PS4 version to match the xbone version.

Having said that both games will most give the same experience.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1689d ago
hello121689d ago (Edited 1689d ago )

Its going to be at a lower resolution they coding the old way because its easier for them. Launch games are going to have a lower resolution on x box 1. Watch dogs is still using the old development tools.

DoesUs1689d ago

Ah the good old "old development tools" and "old engine" excuse! LOL. What a VERY long generation awaits XB1 only owners. Comfort hugs are given out daily over on Mr M X's cult site.

lilbroRx1690d ago

If the differences are not huge then I'm not buying this game.

I refuse to buy PC games that are held back by console limitations.

xKugo1690d ago

LOL, then the only games you must be playing are the PC exclusive. Any PC owner knows that every games that releases for a console alongside PC is being held back by the consoles. I'm assuming you played NO games late last generation, because they were all held back significantly. Does Far Cry 3 and Assassin's Creed series ring a bell? Anyone want to take a guess what those could truly look like if they were built with a GTX 580, SSD and I6 2600k in-mind? Would probably be Crysis 2007 all over again. I'm sure you're a troll, but damn at least be smart about it and bring something substantial to the table. Lmao

Qrphe1689d ago

Name PC exclusives that take advantage target high-end cards, because most of best-looking PC games out there are multiplats.

xKugo1689d ago

@Lol, how could I ever tell you that when developers never release the target specs for ANY game to begin with. My argument wasn't whether multi-platform look great, because they certainly do. I'm simply saying that they could be infinitely better looking had they been made with high-end cards in mind. Case in point, Star Citizen is a recent that looks to target a mid-high end card as it's target. Try playing that game with some crap quadro card and an ancient pentium dual-core processor and your PC will probably explode.

-EvoAnubis-1690d ago

Then prepare to not be buying a LOT of games.

Qrphe1689d ago

Then you haven't bought any game in the last ever