Report: Watch_Dogs on PS4 Does Run at 1080p, 60 FPS With Barely Any Frame Rate Drops

A lot of talk has been done in the past few days about the frame rate and resolution of Watch_Dogs on PS4, and a new preview could shed some light on the issue.


Apparently the information given by Ubisoft Germany to Golemn was not correct, as the publisher announced today that the game will run at at 900p on PS4 and 792p on Xbox One, at 30 frames-per-second on both consoles.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
yewles11311d ago

Downgrade Returns: Fanboy Fantasy 13 Million...

AngelicIceDiamond1311d ago (Edited 1311d ago )

(sigh) You know what?

I think it would be ALLOT easier to know if we just wait till launch....

GarrusVakarian1311d ago (Edited 1311d ago )

I gotta say, i hope this isn't true. With this game in particular, i would rather have 1080p @ 30fps with all those effects turned on, over 60fps with no AF, no AO, no decent AA and worse textures.

Don't get me wrong, i love 60fps and greatly prefer it. But for a third person open world game like this...60fps just isn't top priority for me. I'd rather have the extra power spent elsewhere.

I guess we will just have to wait for official confirmation from Ubi, or wait until release. Either way, this is getting ridiculous, we aren't even talking about the games themselves any more, only the numbers of games. Sigh.

Bathyj1311d ago

Agree Lukas. 60fps is not necessary in this type of game, it only matters its a constant framerate.

Hopefully the graphics downgrade is exaggerated or its not a complete build.

Anyway, what Ive seen of the game looks great, so if its that pretty AND 60fps then I'll be happy either way.

Eonjay1311d ago (Edited 1311d ago )

60FPS is back on again:

So I went to bed and I wake up and Ubisoft is continuing its path of destruction and utter confusion. Of course Sony didn't lie about something like this. But by the same token, we have no idea if what Ubisoft has showed us is in fact representative of the game itself. I am sure that by the time I get to work the resolution and framerate will change again because Ubisoft has no damn clue what they plan on releasing in two weeks.

I wonder if the game is called Watch_Dogs anymore. Maybe its called Jack_Ass now.

Ubisoft needs to end this. Like today.

starchild1311d ago

I'm still skeptical, but if it ends up being true then awesome. It should be easy to hit 60fps on my PC in that case.

SniperControl1311d ago

Right, that's my mind made up, i was going to get it on PS4, but will now get it on PC.

That way i get both [email protected]+ & no graphical downgrades with everything turned on.

morganfell1311d ago (Edited 1311d ago )

If this turns out to be true then I called it from the beginning and Abriael called it in the previous thread. Not in the article but rather as part of the explanation as to why the posting was removed from Sony's site.

Also in that previous thread and countless others, there will be several persons having to strap on a lobster bib that will be best worn considering the massive serving of humble pie they will have to force down their gullet. I personally will be glad to be part of the wait staff bringing continual servings.

The truth of the graphics downgrade/upgrade/sideways grade framerate fixed/movable/choosable will be out shortly and all of this idiocy can end. Ubisoft has managed to make an utter mess of this and damaged what otherwise started out promising in the minds of some. I for one was not one of them. Although I am purchasing the game day 1, I stated after the E3 demo that the entire affair of stage was faked and we were not seeing real game footage. For this I was summarily attacked on this site. Vindication certainly has a welcome feel.

avengers19781311d ago

What if it's 1080/60 and it still looks great, I just think everyone should wait till game comes out. They graphics may very well still blow you away. I am cautiously optimistic about watch dogs.

pwnsause_returns1311d ago

its going to be interesting the next few days to hear more about how this game runs.

i agree 60fps in this type of game is not needed. its great if it does, but its an open world game

it makes me think about the controversy surrounding this game from a few months ago with all of the downgrade concerns..

SIX1311d ago

Just going by the first few posts. What is it now? 60 fps is bad? Jeezus, "you're damned if you do, damned if you don't".

AceBlazer131311d ago

So ubisoft probably did what Microsoft did with forza? Dumbed down graphics for 1080p 60fps. Would like for this to be untrue, 30fps and better graphics is preferable, but hey if they got 60fps + kept graphics I'm open to that, but unlikely.

HammerKong1311d ago

i agrees u,but at ign i read that it is not gona run at 60fps so now hows this?

Eonjay1311d ago


IGN is so five minutes ago... you gotta be tuned in live to Ubisoft's daytime drama or else you wont know whats going on.

xander707691311d ago

SIX, that's the problem though...

Gamers have made such a HUGE deal about frames per second that devs are believing, wrongly, that 60fps has become a TOP priority.

This is the downside of the console war. Fanboys overreact to everything, and they can't wait to talk crap about how their system can "run the game better" than the competition because it plays at 60fps. Developers see that frames are the big talking point right now, and so inevitably that is where the focus will shift. And when they make sacrifices just so the game can run at higher frames, they will be confused when gamers moan about all the sacrifices.

Don't get me wrong, 60fps is great, but it's not worth sacrificing a bunch of other visual effects. Not for a game like this.

papashango1311d ago (Edited 1311d ago )

60fps is necessary for this type of game. I'd rather they scale the resolution back if they have to.

ThunderSpark1311d ago

900p vs 792p. With both systems now priced at 400, which console would you choose to play Watch Dogs on?

starchild1310d ago

Looks like I was right. I said it was a mistake in the other thread and that I was "still skeptical" in this thread and had a bunch of people disagree with me.

+ Show (13) more repliesLast reply 1310d ago
Abriael1311d ago

Did you comment on the wrong post?

The Final Fantasy post is below this one :D

badboy7761311d ago

Knew it was true all along.

GamerXD1311d ago

Not a downgrade but a trade. More fps, less effects, but personally I prefer more effects than more fps since a solid 30fps is all I want for this game.

imt5581311d ago (Edited 1311d ago )

More effects>>>>fps
As autor said that they prefer effects over fps. Locked 30fps is great!

Anyway. Nice to hear. One qoute from article translated from german to english :

"Ubisoft spricht vollmundig von 1080p bei 60 fps für die Playstation 4 und in der Tat zeigte das Spiel subjektiv kaum Bildrateneinbrüche. Anderseits wären 30 fps und eine höhere Rendering-Qualiät unserer Ansicht nach die bessere Option gewesen, möglicherweise hätte Ubisoft dann aber bei der Xbox One zu viele Abstriche machen müssen.

Ubisoft are speaking wholehearted about 1080p and 60 fps for the playstation 4 and infact the game subjectively barely drops in terms of framerate.
On the other Hand 30 fps an a better Rendering Quality would be the better Option in our books. But maybe then Ubisoft would have been PRESSED TO MAKE SACRIFICIES FOR THE XBOX ONE VERSION..."

MasterCornholio1311d ago

"On the other Hand 30 fps an a better Rendering Quality would be the better Option in our books. But maybe then Ubisoft would have been PRESSED TO MAKE SACRIFICIES FOR THE XBOX ONE VERSION..."

I hope that isn't true because in a game like this I would prefer a rock solid 30FPS with superior visuals than a variable 60FPS with poorer visuals.

NatureOfLogic_1311d ago

I believe Xbox One is holding back the next gen visuals. If PS4 could get the best possible visuals at 900p 30fps. Xbox One would struggle badly to run the game at 679p 20fps. I think the graphics were downgraded because Xbox One can't keep up with PS4 and PC.

Ausbo1311d ago


how is Xbox holding the ps4 back when all the ps4 multiplatform look better on ps4. Developers are not going for parity anymore

Volkama1311d ago

From the article:
"That said, this comes at a cost, as the build examined seems to have very weak ambient occlusion and visible aliasing. The weak ambient occlusion is especially noticeable at night, during which many objects seem to “float in the air” and several don’t cast shadows. According the preview, textures are also slightly blurry and lack Anistropic Filtering, which is something we already saw in other multiplatform games."

I don't know if Golem are a reputable site, but these observations are pretty disappointing if true. jaggies and blurry textures do more harm than a 30fps frame rate would (not that the trade is necessarily that simple).

Didn't Thief lack Anistropic filtering on the PS4 as well? That's a strange ommision as it isn't particularly demanding.

One thing I know: Digital Foundry are going to have a hot topic on their hands with this one.

Neonridr1311d ago

@argumentum - 679p?

lol, did you just pull that number out of a hat?

Omegasyde1311d ago

Depends on the game.

I think racers,shooters, and fighters should go more for frames per second.

With a high fps for races, there is more sense of speed.

With a high fps for fights, there is more motion and more animations

With a high fps for first person shooters, there is more motion, and the game feels more responsive.

Everything else including 3d platformers/action games are fine at 30. Angrybirds does not need to be 60 frames per second.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 1311d ago
Magicite1311d ago

Ladies and gentleman, worlds most powerful console!

shadyiswin1311d ago

with no games to show it.

SniperControl1311d ago


Right, like the x1 is heaving with a ton of games........ Oh wait

Braid1311d ago (Edited 1311d ago )

Here's a rough translation of the related part from the original article as far as I could understand with my German from high school:

"Ubisofts speaks highly of Playstation 4's 1080p with 60 fps, and in fact showed the game at those settings with no frame-rate dips. In any case, we think 30 frames per second with higher rendering quality would be a better option, and perhaps Ubisoft could do that but then they would have to make too many compromises for the Xbox One version."

3-4-51311d ago

What really matters though:

Is the game fun ?

killzone6191311d ago (Edited 1311d ago )

typical PC gamer. mad because the ps4 is attempting to make 1080/60fps the standard.

you feel threatened? lmao

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 1310d ago
DarkLordMalik1311d ago

I honestly don't believe it. If this was true, Sony wouldn't have removed the listing.

Abriael1311d ago (Edited 1311d ago )

Considering the Killzone mishap, if the framerate is not locked at 60 fps and there are some drops (which I bet my pants there are), I would have removed it too.

Better boast less and not being called a liar later, especially considering how fast some are to call "they lied!"

sam_job1311d ago

i think the truth will only come out via Digital Foudary

OrangePowerz1311d ago

Another possibility is that it's marketing text written by Ubi and for some reason they changed it. Maybe MS didn't like it that it sounded like the X1 version is the inferior version. Or to avoid backlash because of some areas that don't run at 60fps constantly and have some dips.

Bundi1310d ago

How wrong were you blaming MS for Sony lies?

OrangePowerz1310d ago

Sony gets the information from UbiSoft, if they don't know what resokution and framerate their game has it's their problem having bad internal communication.

Bundi1310d ago

All that didn't stop you from trying to blame Microsoft for whatever massive fail caused all this at Sony.

GarrusVakarian1311d ago (Edited 1311d ago )

No they haven't. I know what article you are talking about, and trust me, they haven't.

People really need to start reading past the titles of articles.

TheNotoriousNiceGuy1311d ago (Edited 1311d ago )

Lmao at the people who thought it was 30 fps, they were having orgasms.

Edited: so what happened on the website then

Abriael1311d ago

It's called playing it safe IMHO. Sony probably noticed that it was receiving a ton of attention and removed it to make sure they aren't called liars if the framerate isn't 100% stable.

Bundi1310d ago

Looks like they lied about more than frame rate.

mhunterjr1311d ago (Edited 1311d ago )

I don't know. I can't see this game running at 1080p 60fps without some serious trade-offs in other areas... Trade offs that wouldn't be worth it IMO. Hopefully I'm wrong and they pull it off without adversely affecting pixel quality... Or they just leave it at 1080p30fps.

According to this article, the framerate comes at a cost to the image quality. Hopefully this type of decision isn't a by-product of the rampant pixel counting coming from fanatics.

Volkama1311d ago (Edited 1311d ago )

Well it's a 360 and PS3 game too, perhaps they opted for 60fps first and just held back a bit when prettying it up to keep that target. Certainly an interesting choice after all the "downgrade" controversy around the game.

Personally I'd rather see them push the textures/shaders/lighting harder over hitting 60fps, but c'est la vie.

It's on my "maybe purchase" list for now, but my decision certainly doesn't depend on the framerate. If it falls short of expectations it'll just be another reminder that old gen is holding things back.

mhunterjr1311d ago

Perhaps... But it think that would make for a strange design choice for this type of game. I'm sure the majority of the fans of this genre would take the visuals over the framerate.

MrSwankSinatra1311d ago

Until i actually see the game running for myself, i'm not believing any of these whole back and forth reports.