Support NeoGAF

[HI. BILLY MAYS HERE]

"At a German Ubisoft event, Golem.de said that Ubisoft talked openly about the fact that Watch Dogs would be 1080p/60fps on PS4."

Who to believe is the question. I think it's obviously not 60fps on PS4, as otherwise Ubisoft would just come out and confirm that it is.

So ubisoft says it's 60 FPS at ubisoft event and you still don't believe ?

 

[fasTRapid]

For the new page:

Full quote on graphics:

The slightly blurred textures (2d leaves!) lack depth and in the distance anisotropic filtering, dynamic soft shadows could use a higher resolution. In turn the character models are highly detailed, though not reaching Crysis 3, which is also due to the limited facial expressions that do not consistently convey emotions. This is a shame, because their voice overs are convincing.

At night you see it due to the low contrast barely, during the day it's more obvious that the ambient light occlusion in the PS4 version is either missing or turned down to a minimum. That leads to many objects seemly floating in the air, especially since not every thing casts a shadow.

Despite these points of criticism Watch Dogs is by no means an ugly game, though the version we played was graphically underwhelming - not really surprising considering the developers have to make it work on last-gen consoles as well. Ubisoft talked holeheartedly about 1080p at 60 fps for the Playstation 4 and in fact the game had subjectively barely any frame rate dips. On the other hand, we would have preferred it to be 30 fps and prettier, but perhaps Ubisoft couldn't do it without having to make too many compromises in the Xbox One version of the game.

http://www.golem.de/news/watch-dogs...laystation-4-sind-zu-wenig-1405-106406-3.html

 

[Confused Cheeseburger]

Morin needs to just come out of his bunker and clarify this already, it's getting a bit ridiculous.

^

 

[Always-honest]

So ubisoft says it's 60 FPS at ubisoft event and you still don't believe ?

Well, it's reasonable to doubt things. But i also think it's weird people will flatout, without a shadow of a doubt, say it's 30 fps. It's not like we really know. We're just guessing and hoping.

 

[Triggerhappytel]

So ubisoft says it's 60 FPS at ubisoft event and you still don't believe ?

I certainly don't think it will be stable 60fps, no. We're probably looking at an Infamous or Titanfall situation where it's aiming high but fluctuates a lot. Many Ubisoft games are ambitious admittedly, but also a technical mess.

 

[Paracelsus]

For the new page:

Full quote on graphics:

This is not clear, are they nerfing PS4 graphics to get 60fps or the game simply looks like ass period?

 

[Coulomb_Barrier]

60 fps in an open-world game is a luxury.

That said, it would be funny if it is 60 fps, and then everyone moans the graphics aren't too special. It must feel like you can't win for the devs of the game.

But you can appease everyone if the devs are absolute wizards, and build a game that takes full advantage of the PS4. I suspect this game looks so underwhelming because it's cross-gen. Obviously. And the less we see of that the better.

 

[Always-honest]

This is not clear, are they nerfing PS4 graphics to get 60fps or the game simply looks like ass period?

Nope, nobody said or implied that it looks like ass. But yes, Ubi can't win. They'll be thrown in the pit of shit anyway by GAF.

 

[B4D1E]

Nobody thought that maybe Ubi has contacted Sony to tell them that 1080p/60fps is not only on PS4, but on Xbox One as well. Hence the deleting on the Sony website.

Spoiler

Who am I kidding lol

 

[Triggerhappytel]

I still find the notion that there's this city-wide Operating System which allows users to control whether pipes overload and then blow up to be utterly hilariously fucking stupid. What sort of madman designed this OS?! What practical use is there to allow underground equipment to explode?!!

 

[Confused Cheeseburger]

Well, it's reasonable to doubt things. But i also think it's weird people will flatout, without a shadow of a doubt, say it's 30 fps. It's not like we really know. We're just guessing and hoping.

This ride almost has no definite destination at this point:
-Sony boasts 1080/60
-the likes of tidux say the PS4 is the best console experience
-Sony changes wording entirely
-ubisoft says absolutely nothing
-a technically-adept german game site claims to see it running at 60 fps on top of
Ubi claiming it is 60fps.
-ubisoft says absolutely nothing

Between Watch Dogs and Destiny, we need PR culture to either adapt to the demand for transparency or razed to the ground completely.

 

[Brick]

I still find the notion that there's this city-wide Operating System which allows users to control whether pipes overload and then blow up to be utterly hilariously fucking stupid. What sort of madman designed this OS?! What practical use is there to allow underground equipment to explode?!!

 

[flipswitch]

So AO has been turned down or missing, AF issues and framerate supposedly at 60fps with very few dips. What a ride we've been on.

 

[BRocknRolla]

Between Watch Dogs and Destiny, we need PR culture to either adapt to the demand for transparency or razed to the ground completely.

Count me in the "raze" column.

 

[Nzyme32]

Full quote on graphics:


How you can say that after both Sony and Ubisoft have confirmed it, is beyond me.

For the PS4's spec, those seem like perfectly reasonable compromises, especially if they are reaching 1080/60. It seems important to remind people that at the events where people have had the opportunity to compare directly with a maxed PC, of course they will discuss the visual discrepancies they see as there is a noticeable difference. But if you are playing the game on the system without a comparison, I'm certain people will have no complaints.

 

[Confused Cheeseburger]

I'm gonna go play child of light until more news comes in.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

How you can say that after both Sony and Ubisoft have confirmed it, is beyond me.

Because I live in reality. We are talking about a company that spent an entire generation putting out games at horrendous frame rates on consoles, always sub 30. A company that does not care about how well it's games run in that regard. We are also talking about an open world game, that while not the prettiest thing I've ever seen, does not look last gen. People expecting this to be true are expecting the impossible. If I am wrong, I'll gladly eat my hat full of shame, but it just isn't going to happen.

 

[GribbleGrunger]

Because I live in reality. We are talking about a company that spent an entire generation putting out games at horrendous frame rates on consoles, always sub 30. A company that does not care about how well it's games run in that regard. We are also talking about an open world game, that while not the prettiest thing I've ever seen, does not look last gen. People expecting this to be true are expecting the impossible. If I am wrong, I'll gladly eat my hat full of shame, but it just isn't going to happen.

But in terms of belief or disbelief, you would have to favour belief in this instance because of verification from both Sony and Ubisoft. I'm not saying a swing the other way isn't possible, I'm simply saying that a stance of disbelief with this magnitude of evidence is 'cynical' when you should be assessing the situation 'logically'.

I can respect a position of 'mistrust' though, or even 'doubt' because neither lead to a statement of absolute disagreement.

If I am wrong, I'll gladly eat my hat full of shame, but it just isn't going to happen.

 

[Always-honest]

Because I live in reality. We are talking about a company that spent an entire generation putting out games at horrendous frame rates on consoles, always sub 30. A company that does not care about how well it's games run in that regard. We are also talking about an open world game, that while not the prettiest thing I've ever seen, does not look last gen. People expecting this to be true are expecting the impossible. If I am wrong, I'll gladly eat my hat full of shame, but it just isn't going to happen.

It is likely that it might not happen, true. Still, you're not 100% sure. Why is this concept so hard to grasp for people? Did someone tell you it's more manly to always act like you know for sure? I'm expecting a lot of "told you so" comments when the final resolution is known, while all the time it has been guessing. Even if your guess is probably the correct answer, it's still a guess. No shame in guessing wrong. A lot of shame in stating things as fact, while not being in the position to answer with a 100% certainty.

My guess: it will probably be 30 fps. Based on the same historical experiences as you mentioned.
I wouldn't even mind in this game. I rather see them making the game extra pretty at a solid 30 fps. Bit of AA, etc. It's a slow ass game anyway, except for pursuits..

 

[Betta Lines]

Because I live in reality. We are talking about a company that spent an entire generation putting out games at horrendous frame rates on consoles, always sub 30. A company that does not care about how well it's games run in that regard. We are also talking about an open world game, that while not the prettiest thing I've ever seen, does not look last gen. People expecting this to be true are expecting the impossible. If I am wrong, I'll gladly eat my hat full of shame, but it just isn't going to happen.

All of the off-screen footage I've seen of Watch Dogs running on PS4 has looked very smooth, smoother than the direct-feed stuff. The footage has all been 30fps, but if the off-screen stuff seems smoother, that could be for a few reasons - just the camera being flattering, the TV having some kind of motion-blending mode turned on, or... it's actually a 60fps game, or at least, well over 30. I've not seen anything but smooth motion in all the off-screen stuff, no indication of the game chugging. If it ends up being 30, I'm expecting it to be rock solid, and it wouldn't surprise me if it was 60. After all, this game runs on 360/PS3 too...

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

Because I live in reality. We are talking about a company that spent an entire generation putting out games at horrendous frame rates on consoles, always sub 30. A company that does not care about how well it's games run in that regard. We are also talking about an open world game, that while not the prettiest thing I've ever seen, does not look last gen. People expecting this to be true are expecting the impossible. If I am wrong, I'll gladly eat my hat full of shame, but it just isn't going to happen.

It would go against all evidence that points to the contrary- publishers want 30fps and screenshots that will sell games. It would be utterly amazing if Ubisoft cut back on the graphics to achieve 60fps. It would be a game changer.

If it were true, then Ubi would be shouting from the rooftops about it, because it would be a significant shift in priorities internally and the decision obviously wouldn't have been made lightly- graphics were sacrificed for it- so they would want to get everyone's attention.

 

[DrBo42]

Please excuse me while I speculate the validity of the current speculation. Jokes aside I constantly find myself surprised how often publishers and developers let things like this build up. Could save yourself so much headache with better and proactive PR people, assuming this falls into their wheelhouse.

 

[Green Yoshi]

What's German for "avarage"? They just wanted cut the framerate in half and improve the graphics. I'm reading nothing about "avarage", though you could choose to read that. It could even be true.

They address several flaws and then say that it doesn't look ugly, but they are disappointed about the graphics. So it's my educated guess that they think that is has average graphics for a PS4 game.

You have to keep in mind that's a cross-gen title.

 

[ShinMaruku]

It's Ubi so no. They don't have the talent nor the ambition for 60fps. It's 26 fps.

See I was right.

 

[RoboPlato]

What the hell? This is too much. I guess I'll know when I have the game in my hands.

 

[Always-honest]

They address several flaws and then say that it doesn't look ugly, but they are disappointed about the graphics. So it's my educated guess that they think that is has average graphics for a PS4 game.

You have to keep in mind that's a cross-gen title.

Sure, it would look better if it was a PS4 exclusive. No doubt. But i don't read anywhere that they think the game looks avarage. That's an interpretation of the text.

 

[Draft]

Probably removed so they could reveal it on stage at e3!

 

[Admiral Woofington]

Probably removed so they could reveal it on stage at e3!

Except the game comes out before e3.....

 

[_hekk05]

I still find the notion that there's this city-wide Operating System which allows users to control whether pipes overload and then blow up to be utterly hilariously fucking stupid. What sort of madman designed this OS?! What practical use is there to allow underground equipment to explode?!!

There are equipment that prevent underground pipes from exploding. Calibrate/operate them wrongly and stuff explodes.

Its not that hard

 

[blastprocessor]

Probably removed so they could reveal it on stage at e3!

IMHO probably because of Ubisoft to avoid any potential backlash on the XOne version.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

IMHO probably because of Ubisoft to avoid any potential backlash on the XOne version.

If it is indeed 60 fps on PS4, this would be the actual reason they'd want Sony to remove it.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

But in terms of belief or disbelief, you would have to favour belief in this instance because of verification from both Sony and Ubisoft. I'm not saying a swing the other way isn't possible, I'm simply saying that a stance of disbelief with this magnitude of evidence is 'cynical' when you should be assessing the situation 'logically'.

I can respect a position of 'mistrust' though, or even 'doubt' because neither lead to a statement of absolute disagreement.

That verification is nulled for me by the removal of the text from the site. There is the possibility it is true, and that they cannot talk about it, which I feel is again voided by the thought that if it was restricted information, it would not have been given to the playstation blog lol. Because that would be just stupid beyond reckoning. I am 99% certain then, it cannot be true.

It is likely that it might not happen, true. Still, you're not 100% sure. Why is this concept so hard to grasp for people? Did someone tell you it's more manly to always act like you know for sure? I'm expecting a lot of "told you so" comments when the final resolution is known, while all the time it has been guessing. Even if your guess is probably the correct answer, it's still a guess. No shame in guessing wrong. A lot of shame in stating things as fact, while not being in the position to answer with a 100% certainty.

My guess: it will probably be 30 fps. Based on the same historical experiences as you mentioned.
I wouldn't even mind in this game. I rather see them making the game extra pretty at a solid 30 fps. Bit of AA, etc. It's a slow ass game anyway, except for pursuits..

Yes, I definitely cannot state with fact it will be 30fps. But every part of logical thought in my mind, tells me it cannot be 60fps, even though I would love it to be.

All of the off-screen footage I've seen of Watch Dogs running on PS4 has looked very smooth, smoother than the direct-feed stuff. The footage has all been 30fps, but if the off-screen stuff seems smoother, that could be for a few reasons - just the camera being flattering, the TV having some kind of motion-blending mode turned on, or... it's actually a 60fps game, or at least, well over 30. I've not seen anything but smooth motion in all the off-screen stuff, no indication of the game chugging. If it ends up being 30, I'm expecting it to be rock solid, and it wouldn't surprise me if it was 60. After all, this game runs on 360/PS3 too...

I hope to be wrong, I hope it is 60fps. But Ubisoft? A company literally renowned for not giving the slightest, smallest atom of fuck about how smoothly it's games perform on consoles? In an open world game? on new hardware? I just can't.

It would go against all evidence that points to the contrary- publishers want 30fps and screenshots that will sell games. It would be utterly amazing if Ubisoft cut back on the graphics to achieve 60fps. It would be a game changer.

If it were true, then Ubi would be shouting from the rooftops about it, because it would be a significant shift in priorities internally and the decision obviously wouldn't have been made lightly- graphics were sacrificed for it- so they would want to get everyone's attention.

There are reasons they may not be, or may not be allowed to do such a thing, but I tend to agree, and think if that was the case, it wouldn't have been so casually given to those that reported it.


Jesus guys, that was a lot of quotes!

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

IMHO probably because of Ubisoft to avoid any potential backlash on the XOne version.

I don't think they can avoid that.
The XboxOne version is probably going to be inferior, either in terms of resolution or in terms of framerate or both. But thats nothing new, we've seen that with countless multiplatform releases.
I don't think this affects sales. If you only have an XboxOne, why would you care that game xy runs or looks a bit better on Ps4? If you want to play it you buy it on whatever plattform you have.
If people really care that much about resolution or framerate they should've gone with Ps4 or PC in the first place.

 

[RealityPales]

Except the game comes out before e3.....

"You've been playing it at 1080p / 60fps this whole time! Surprise!"

 

[Always-honest]

Yes, I definitely cannot state with fact it will be 30fps. But every part of logical thought in my mind, tells me it cannot be 60fps, even though I would love it to be.


!

Sure. You have every reason to think that.

 

[Betta Lines]

I hope to be wrong, I hope it is 60fps. But Ubisoft? A company literally renowned for not giving the slightest, smallest atom of fuck about how smoothly it's games perform on consoles? In an open world game? on new hardware? I just can't.

Well there's certainly some variable framerates going on today's 101 trailer so you could be right.

 

[Dust-by-Monday]

Gotta agree with this. I saved up for ages for a rather good gaming PC. Then when GTA V came out it literally hurt my eyes to play due to that poor 20fps that my ps3 was pushing out. I found it really hard to play due to enjoying such smooth frame rates in games.

Your PS3 must be broken or something's wrong with your hard drive because GTA V is always smooth on mine. However, I don't play online with it, just single player. I hardly ever see frames drop in GTA V. It's much better than GTA IV.

 

[Admiral Woofington]

Your PS3 must be broken or something's wrong with your hard drive because GTA V is always smooth on mine. However, I don't play online with it, just single player. I hardly ever see frames drop in GTA V. It's much better than GTA IV.

GTAV on consoles runs like ass in many instances, nothing wrong with his console.

 

[Saganator]

Surprised so many people expect this game to run at 60fps. I enjoy 60fps as much as the next guy, and can definitely tell the difference, but expecting 60fps in an open world game on very new hardware is a bit naive. I was actually disappointed to see the 60fps advertisement, to me that says its probably just an unlocked frame rate and it jumps all over the place, which, is worse than a nice steady 30-35fps. I hope publishers don't get in a habit of advertising 60fps if it can't stay locked between 50-60fps 90% of the time.

 

[RoadHazard]

Your PS3 must be broken or something's wrong with your hard drive because GTA V is always smooth on mine. However, I don't play online with it, just single player. I hardly ever see frames drop in GTA V. It's much better than GTA IV.

Eh, GTA V is certainly much smoother than IV on average, reaching 30 fps more frequently, but it still has some pretty awful drops. While driving through LS it will often plunge to around 20 fps. If you think the game is "always smooth" you're just not very sensitive to it, I guess.

 

[antitrop]

Your PS3 must be broken or something's wrong with your hard drive because GTA V is always smooth on mine. However, I don't play online with it, just single player. I hardly ever see frames drop in GTA V. It's much better than GTA IV.

Let's just put this whole "always smooth on mine" thing to rest right fucking now.

 

[border]

If there is a version of the game that runs at 60fps, why has it never been shown in any marketing materials?

 

[Windom Earle]

lol

 

[Kssio_Aug]

Wow, theres new stuff about 60fps?
Thats intetesting. If they prioritize 60fps above more graphical quality, its certainly to not look a generation above the Xone version.

Im ok with both choices tbh.

 

[codhand]

lol

.

 

[boeso]

Spoiler

Sorry couldn't resist

 

[Klendathu]

From http://blog.ubi.com/watch-dogs-next-gen-game-resolution-dynamism/ - posted recently.

30fps at 900p on PS4. One at 792p.

 

[bishoptl]

lol no