GearNuke: "Another evidence points towards Watch Dogs running at 1080p and 60 fps on the PS4."
We will see soon.
If this is true, then there's no way it will be locked 60fps. It will be variable, like it is on Tomb Raider, Killzone SF and Infamous SS. Hopefully, Ubisoft give the option to lock it at 30fps for people who don't like variable framerates....assuming this is true anyway, which i doubt it is.
It is important to mention that the early build of the game, that was shown to the press, was not locked to 30 fps. Although the frame rate was not really stable at that point. I don't think it is locked 60 fps, seems to me it can be unlocked like Tomb Raider: DE.
Don't know why... but i prefer the unlocked. Played infamous locked and unlocked and the variable FPS was the most enjoyable.
well i Think its 60 fps beacuse the Graphics on this game is good. So a lock on 30 fps wouldnt be good. But by the other hand. If they scaled the Graphics down on ps4. A 30 fps would have been perfect. And scale down is not a valid option. 60 fps is more than enough.
Keep in mind that Killzone and Infamous was never advertised as a 60fps game tho. But I'll think it stay closer to Tomb raider. Generally 55-60 fps, with some drops when alot of stuff happen
Kinda hope it's not 60. Only because I can't see this cross-gen multiplat game out-doing infamous, so if it is 60 it will surely be at the expense of visual fidelity elsewhere.
@Lukas, Whats the deal with wanting it to be unlocked at 60FPS. Surely having it locked down prevents stuttering frames rates during gameplay. If Ubi have managed to get the game running 1080p 60fps, then why lave it unlocked just so the frame rate can dip. What am I missing here? @Volkman If Ubisoft have got the game running at 1080p 60fps, how is that a loss in visual fidelity? Again what am I missing here, isn't 1080p 60fps the 'holy grail' of console visual fidelity?
You might be right. But occlusion culling can work wonders. Being in a city with skyscrapers means the draw distance can be limited. I've seen some scenes that show more of the city at once, but most of the actual game play seems to be in areas where much of the view is blocked off. Not saying it's the case, just theorizing. @Mike If they locked the frame rate and resolution, they may have to lower the polys, textures or rendering effects to keep it locked, thus lowering visual fidelity. Ryse for instance used a lower resolution to maintain the look of the game that Crytek wanted. Again, not saying that's the case with WD though.
When it's 1080p @60fps, people complain about downgraded graphics... When it's 1080p @30fps people complain about it not being 60fps... Come on! Just enjoy the Damn game for what it is already, gezz...
"well i Think its 60 fps beacuse the Graphics on this game is good. So a lock on 30 fps wouldnt be good. But by the other hand. If they scaled the Graphics down on ps4. A 30 fps would have been perfect. And scale down is not a valid option. 60 fps is more than enough." meltic, I'm not going to lie...I don't have a single clue what the hell you're trying to say. I read this at least 5 times and I'm lost.
I dont see the problem with a variable frame rate as long as it dosnt drop too far below 30, then its really noticable. us console gamers are just so used to 30fps i guess.
@archangelmike no 1080p is not a holy grail of the visuals of the game, lighting, shading, aesthetics and the game engine matter alot more than resolution.
Wonderful news if true, but I agree, it probably won't be stable. Ubisoft is skilled but not THAT skilled.
Just give me the option to lock it at 30. I mean, if it could handle explosions and chaotic scenes without dropping badly it would be amazing. But if jumps and falls like crazy I would want it locked
Remember all those zombie apocalypse movies where no one knows what causes the outbreak except for the obvious virus infection? Well the ‘Bitching Virus’ has overtaken N4G and its spreading at 30fps, for now with a slight chance to 60fps!
if it is,WELL DONE UBI. just hope the trend of making most of each consoel carrys on throughout. im a ps4 gamer but i hope that dx12 helps MS with there current display issues
http://www.youtube.com/watc... This game did it, why couldn't Watch_Dogs Lots of stuff going on in many of those scenes
Ground Zeroes isn't as big as the city in Watch Dogs I guess.
You're comparing a secluded detainment camp with a simulation of Chicago? I love Ground Zeroes but to think that just because GZ was able to do 60fps locked that WD will be able to do it too is ridiculous. Clearly these Sony customer service reps don't know what they're talking about and it's not the first time they posted incorrect information on their website. Most likely WD on the PS4 will run 1080p with unlocked framerate, sometimes hitting 60 and sometimes going as low as the 20s. If the Xbone can do this game in 1080p native I'd be extremely surprised. And whatever resolution it ends up with I expect the framerate would dive to the single digits quite often. This game requires a hefty system, Xbone isn't cutting it.
If true it would be a amazing feat in itself to hit a full 1080p 60fps in a open world game so early in the consoles life cycle.
if true, 60 fps is a must, you can see a huge difference if false, you don't need more than 30 fps for this type of game, 30 fps is fine lol
better be locked 60fps
It wont be so dont buy it.
Not the greatest reason not to buy a game to be fair.
I doubt it will be. Either features were cut back to get this gain or some cheeky PS4 hardware customisations are being abused if it turns out to be true. Not hopeful though.
"better be locked 60fps" If the framerate is not locked, then it is not 60 frames-per-second. PERIOD. The rest of the world calls that a "variable framerate".
Oh damn, if what the rest of the world thinks matters then MS might as well scrap the XB1 right now.
They wouldn't have this problem if they made the console just that little bit more powerful. Don't try & tell me the dev's choose to make it either 30 or 60, the fact is if they could just make it 1080/60 which should be standard in 2014, they would.
Actually it's always going to be up to devs where they spend their power. Every single game could be [email protected] if they downgraded the graphics to get it. It's up to devs how far they push the effects and what rez and framerate they settle on.
Yeah, if they downgraded the graphics. That's my point. Games like SS & Killzone would have been a steady 60fps with those amazing graphics IF the console was a tad more powerful, without having to downgrade anything. People come on this site every day talking about 1080/60. Every day there's talk of it. I've been playing 1080/60 on PC for years & although it enjoy the great games on my PS4 it is a fact that it can't do these high graphical games at both 1080/60. Take B4, why do you think it's running at 900/60, it's because with the graphics they want to produce on the console hasn't the power to hit that magic 1080/60.
@iistuii That would mean the machine would cost more which probably wasn't an option for Sony. PS4 is not a high end gaming machine like your expensive PC.. People keep talking about how 60fps should be the standard but the thing is that games are constantly evolving and they need more and more power. If the PS4 would be a little more powerful you would still be here complaining in few years because the games need even more power to hit 1080p/60fps and it couldn't handle it with "high graphic settings"..
@yezz Yeah I agree we will always want more, I also agree that they wanted to keep the price down. But that's not my point. My point that nobody seems to accept is it can't do a smooth 1080/60 on high graphical games & no matter how many times people disagree it's a fact. People are disagreeing & making the price or other arguments, but if people didn't want 1080/60 they wouldn't keep coming into forums in hope they will get it. Anyone can look at my gamertag. I have played & completed nearly every PS4 game that's been released, I'm just not blind to facts.
MGS GZ had amazing graphics and achieved this. So how do you guys figure the machine has to be more powerful?
that's why crying that one can not do 1080p/60 is false. Its up to the dev. to use their best judgment to make the best game for each platform from 3ds all the way up to cpu's.
I've been playing great games for years, and the resolution and frame rate was never really a consideration. The only time it was bothersome was when the frame rate would stutter in a couple games here and there. This whole resolution/FR thing is getting boring. So far I haven't been disappointed in any game's graphics, and while i know it won't match up to PC, I know that games will continue to look good, and hopefully play good. I wouldn't have minded if both systems packed in more power, but we got what we got, and so long as the games for these consoles are fun, I'll continue to buy them.
A tad more powerful? To maintain 60fps in killzone and infamous at all times you would need 2x power. Do you think that's worth the money for the masses?
Disagrees from geniuses lol. How do you think you go from 30 fps to 60fps??? You need TWICE the power. Notice how I said locked 60fps "at all times", considering these game can drop to the low 30's.
That's the problem with high-end PC gamming it's all ways "a tad bit more". I used to play that game along time ago, then Xbox came out and I said close enough. with out all the time and money and still Fps to boot. Console gamming is just about gamming find the platform you want to support and plug and play. A lot of PC elitist think its just stupid people not wanting to learn or know how but its just smart people who want to game and not worry about up grading drivers or tinker with a pc.
It's not quite as simple as you seem to think. How would Sony build a machine that could run everything at 1080P/60 without knowing the kind of requirements each game would demand? How would they set the baseline for the hardware specs? Let's say they included a GTX 680. Don't you think some developers would use that power for even more effects rather than frame rate and resolution? It's ALWAYS up to the developers on what frame rate/resolution they want to push.
i believe what the OP is saying is it shouldnt have to be a decision. the power should be there to do it. and i agree with him. 1080p/60fps has been a standard on PC for years now. these new consoles are not next gen. just a half gen.
Plus what ever they built it would all ways need more power because devs would push the technology.
beerzombie is absolutely correct. No matter how powerful the ps4 was, most devs would always sacrifice 60fps for higher graphics. It's the reason the ps3/360 games didn't look like ps2/xbox games but with 60fps instead of 30fps, and it will be the same with ps4/xbone. Regardless of what people here want to believe, the average gamer will be more impressed by flashier better graphics than they will be by a higher framerate (when it comes to aesthetics), which results in more sales. As for the story, I'm of the camp that believes this is probably unlocked 60fps (locked would be nice). I don't have a problem with this as long as they have some form of vertical sync or something to stop it from going over 60 and cause screen-tearing. Unlocked will worked best if it can stay at 60 most of the time, of course. If it's usually running closer to 30, it would probably be best to lock it at 30.
@Thamm I don't know why you got disagrees, but you are partly right, Ground Zero graphics fidelity was visually great, big open world, although just a prologue. If it can achieve 1080P 60fps on the PS4 i don't see why Watch dogs can't even with unlocked framerate
I have news for you, your PC isn't going to be running this game at a locked 60fps much less anything higher than that. If you're expecting locked 60fps on at least 1080p resolution, if it's even possible with today's graphics cards which I'm doubting, you're going to need a brand spanking new graphics card, but you PC guys are used to upgrading aren't ya?
Of course it will. It's just a case of if they have the game optimized. I have only 1 game that struggles on ultra settings on my PC & that's Arma3/DayZ because its a shit engine, everything else is maxed out.
Interesting, I wonder if they're just repeating the same information or if it's further proof it's true.
the real question is.... is it NATIVE 1080p or some trashy upscale like shadowfall mp? (love kz sf btw, just that the multiplayer is low res, would rather it been locked 30 frames and native 1080p)
There is NO UPSCALING in KZ MP, dude. How work "temporal reprojection" in KZ's MP ( read this or stay stupid ) : http://www.killzone.com/en_... And....no more bubbles! :)
That's upscaling. Seriously, half the pixels are the result of an upscaling algorhythm. Did you know when a sony tv upscales a lower resolution image it uses 4 algorhythms including a temporal calculation like that in killzone? It also has a database of images and textures that it references in order to add detail that is not included in the native image. Upscaling can be quite fancy, but it is still upscaling.
It's funny how not a single person mentioned that KZ:shadow fall MP looked any different to the Single Player until it was actually acknowledged about the different resolution method... I still can't see any difference
What's funny is that Digital Foundary didn't notice that until several months after launch.
"not a single person" I'm not sure what websites you were visiting around the time of KZ's launch, but i saw people all over the internet, on multiple gaming forums question why the MP looked blurrier than the SP. Anyone who can easily tell the difference between resolutions could instantly tell that the MP didn't look the same as the SP, but nobody knew why exactly due to us being told it was 1080p.
Lots of people thought the multiplayer had terrible post processing. I could tell the difference in single & multiplayer at a glance.
That was because of the overstated motion blur, which has since been fixed.
"That was because of the overstated motion blur, which has since been fixed." I'm not talking about it looking blurry in motion due to motion blur, i was talking about the image quality. It was obvious to many people that the image itself didn't look as sharp or as crisp as the SP did. Now we know why.
The PS4 isn't infamous for trashy upscaled games. As far as I know most PS4 games run in native 1080P and they dont suffer the effects of a terrible upscaler like crushed blacks for example. I haven't played any sub 1080P games yet though so I really can't tell you what a 900P PS4 game looks like from my personal experience. I only made this conclusion based on some of the comparisons of BF4.
BF4 looks great on the PS4. I think it looks really sharp.
Shadowfall does not have an upscaled image, you really need to do you're research.
Sony could tell you gullible was removed from the English dictionary and you'd preach it. Incidentally, Ryse doesn't use the GPU scaler either. It's a 1080p frame, the pixels are calculated software side. That's why it never suffered the over-sharpening in other One games. Is Ryse native 1080p too?
@Volkama I'm the one that's gullible yet you preach about microsoft's cloud. The irony...
This would be terrific if the developers have managed to achieve this. I wonder if, when Sony say 60fps, they are being a bit naughty in their wording and referring to the cut scenes rather than actual gameplay. If they have managed 60fps for the single player it will be really fantastic and smooth.
They are NOT "being naughty". They are flat-out LYING.
You've played the final product? Tell us how this was accomplished. Hmmm no bubbles. Write a blog on the subject.
Omg Even Customer Support database saying that Means it ain't no commen mistake Obviously an open world game can't be 60fps locked unless running on a megaton expensive PC It seems to be like an unlocked frame rate constantly touching 60fps Like KZ MP TitanFall on XBone Tomb Raider on PS4 All are mentioned as 60fps coz average is 50+ Omg this game is gona be insane at 50+ FPS avrg on PS4 Woot woot woot
The hardware in a PC to get 60+ FPS in today's open-world game isn't much. People seriously, SERIOUSLY overestimate the power:cost ratio for PCs. An £800 PC, BUILT ENTIRELY FROM SCRATCH (mouse, keyboard, case, EVERYTHING) can very, VERY easily run almost every game today at 60+ FPS. It's been done. Look at Digital Foundry's findings. Please stop assuming you need a £2000 PC to run today's games at 60 FPS. A £2000 PC will run today's games at 120 FPS consistently. Back on track, Watch Dogs on consoles will be an average 50 FPS, just you watch. It'll hit 60 in less graphically intense scenes like indoors, but outside? I'd expect 50, down into the 40s and 30s. Like Infamous's terrible FPS bouncing around all the time.
Played through Second Son on an unlocked frame rate The game skipped once or twice randomly but it never dropped down even in heavy combat situations I almost never noticed the variable frame rate
If the game hits 60fps at any point they are going to advertise it as running at 1080p/60fps. Even if that's just standing still looking at the ground. If this game isn't locked at 60fps then Sony is falsely advertising this game on it's services. If it drops at any point, that statement is false. They are trying to sell games, I get it. But why advertise something that isn't true, that is going to be debunked as soon as someone gets a copy? I for one can't stand the frame rate bouncing around. Or the terrible AA they use on consoles. But that's another conversation as a whole. Frame rates should be locked. Advertised frame rates should definitely be locked, other wise they are a lie. Also, I agree with the rest of your statement. People like to talk about expensive pc parts, benchmarks, etc without doing a seconds worth of research. No amount of data will change their pc hating ways.
£800 is more then double of £350 So yeah I stand correct that a PC to run all!! Games at 60fps is megaton more expensive then a PS4 Pls keep that in mind for future
idk infamous' fps has been pretty smooth for me. i play with it unlocked and hardly notice anything