• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Ubisoft: Watch_Dogs will run at 900p on PS4 and 792p on XB1, both at 30fps

Dr Dogg

Member

Very well said. Crytek were on the ball with Crysis naming the top settings Enthusiast to get away from the High or Ultra stigma that some people feel they have to turn their system up to regardless if it's capable of giving the required performance. But here we go again with Watch_Dogs touting Ultra settings and some people won't settle for less than Ultra :/

Seriously preset names on settings need to have more thought put into them or divided up predefined profiles. GeForce Experience is making headway but some people do have a few issues apparently. There really needs to be more education in the community as to the performance impact each setting has as what range of hardware is required.
 

Qassim

Member
And if you're gaming on PC with any setting lower than high/ultra and resolution lower than 1080p/60fps, then you don't need to game on a PC at all.

Uh, that's an unbelievably silly thing to say. I don't primarily play my games on PC just because of better graphics and performance, I play my games primarily on PC for that plus a MULTITUDE of other reasons.

Even if, for whatever reason, the PC version of the game was capped at console settings (entirely), I'd still probably primarily play on PC.

Check this thread, PC gamers don't talk lower than 1080p/60fps with all settings maxed out.

Except that guy you responded wasn't talking like that. Good job.
 

Eusis

Member
Didn't Assassin's Creed start off at 900p for PS4 and then got a 1080p update?
Rushed launch title, so I think the chances of a repeat are slim here especially as Watch Dogs itself was meant to be a launch title.

I don't really care so long as we don't get into a ridiculous scenario like 792p/30fps locked on both consoles for the sake of parity, but "it's just a number" is a really dumb thing to say. Especially for FPS, I had no hopes of 60 for an open world game but it does make the experience feel markedly different.
 
Seriously, what happened with this thread?

If anything, we should be blaming Ubisoft for their incompetence. Their desire to release the game on every freaking system has only led them astray. They couldn't even make a decent port on the current generation consoles, and somehow people are using this as a point place the blame on the hardware.

Can we atleast agree to this point that Ubisoft don't deserve to get away with this shit. The crap that they pulled on us shouldn't be taken lightly. While we don't know yet, I honestly don't expect them to deliver a solid port on the PC as well, especially if we consider the specs for the PC version, which are ridiculous to begin with.

I was going to get this game Day 1 but now I will wait and see the reviews, the overall reception of how well the game plays, before i take the plunge.
 

10101

Gold Member
This is, like, the only or one of the first sub1080p games on PS4. Don't blame the consoles or at least PS4 for this. It can run inFamous in 1080p and often well over 30 frames per second AND it looks much better than Watch_Dogs. It's Ubisoft who are to blame.
Good point, final fantasy has some insane shit going on too with loads of characters on screen. Dunno what's going on with this one, dev hell maybe?
 
Yeah... better believe we're in here

1291664255_obama-kiks-door-open.gif

where is this from?
 

Ploid 3.0

Member
Super cheap PC version.

Costs an arm, a leg, one kidney, 2 pints of blood to build a PC to run at the ultra settings.

People don't usually run PC games at ultra at launch. Only the people that bought expensive parts and supersample games that their monster hardware chew bubblegum while clicking every setting to full.
 

Phil4000

Member
Watch the PC version be an unoptimized piece of shit.

Then the PC players will complain as well

ACIV runs fine now after 3 game patches and 2 driver updates, you just need make sure to turn off the buggy in-game v-sync and force v-sync in the hardware driver control panel.

And I seriously don't understand all UPlay hate on PC, it really isn't that terrible to work with.
Sure we would all love if Ubi games were integrated completely into Steam, but its better than the alternative (games only available through separate store like EA did with Origin)
 

Qassim

Member
While we don't know yet, I honestly don't expect them to deliver a solid port on the PC as well, especially if we consider the specs for the PC version, which are ridiculous to begin with.

Are they?

OS: Windows Vista (SP2), Windows 7 (SP1) or Windows 8 (Please note that we only support 64 bit OSs.)
Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad Q8400 @ 2.66Ghz or AMD Phenom II X4 940 @ 3.0Ghz
Memory: 6 GB RAM
Graphics: DirectX 11 graphics card with 1 GB Video RAM - Nvidia Geforce GTX 460 or AMD Radeon HD 5770
DirectX: Version 11
Hard Drive: 25 GB available space
Sound Card: DirectX 9.0c Compatible Sound Card with Latest Drivers
Additional Notes: Broadband connection and service required for multiplayer mode. Supported Video Cards at Time of Release: nVidia GeForce GTX460 or better, GT500, GT600, GT700 series; AMD Radeon HD5850 or better, HD6000, HD7000, R7 and R9 series Intel® Iris™ Pro HD 5200

(Friendly reminder: recommended != required - recommended = recommended for the best experience, which on PC is a wide spectrum.)
 
rockstar in particular always mentioned ram being the biggest problem with their games last gen, why is that?

thats a slightly different problem that was universal for all devs last gen. ~5gb of gddr5 memory on ps4 is way better vs the split 256 video memory of cell xdr and 256 gddr3 256 mb at way lower read/write speeds.

a publicized example is that ME3 had to remove the ability to holster weapons which was in ME2 for other stuff.


current gen only games should in theory offer way more for devs due to the memory available, so expect higher fidelity in animations, more variety, less clipping, at the minimum.
 
Uh, that's an unbelievably silly thing to say. I don't primarily play my games on PC just because of better graphics and performance, I play my games primarily on PC for that plus a MULTITUDE of other reasons.

Even if, for whatever reason, the PC version of the game was capped at console settings (entirely), I'd still probably primarily play on PC.



Except that guy you responded wasn't talking like that. Good job.

I have a laptop with good enough specs to run games at 900p resolution and I also game on PC occasionally 'for a multitude of reasons'. But if there is no optimization on PC then what's the use?
 

KKRT00

Member
This is, like, the only or one of the first sub1080p games on PS4. Don't blame the consoles or at least PS4 for this. It can run inFamous in 1080p and often well over 30 frames per second AND it looks much better than Watch_Dogs. It's Ubisoft who are to blame.

Just because tech and art is smarter in Infamous, doesnt mean that it Watch Dogs doesnt require more performance.

Could Watch Dogs be 1080p? Sure. Is everything optimized as it should be? Probably not, but please dont treat game like it uses only 50% of available resources.

Going by Watch Dogs gameplays, it renders more casting light sources and more objects, it also has volumetric lighting for some lights [like helicopter ones], it has more light souces visible, water tessellation with physics. It seems to simulate much more too from whole citizen subsystem to wind simulation going through the city. Maybe post-processing is more expensive, because they are using twice as many taps as Infamous for Bokeh or Motion Blur? Maybe they are using less quality LoD transitions on dynamic objects? Etc.
People, when looking at the game from tech perspective, should stop noticing only textures or main character geometry. Its about all trade offs, not selected ones.
 
Are they?

OS: Windows Vista (SP2), Windows 7 (SP1) or Windows 8 (Please note that we only support 64 bit OSs.)
Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad Q8400 @ 2.66Ghz or AMD Phenom II X4 940 @ 3.0Ghz
Memory: 6 GB RAM
Graphics: DirectX 11 graphics card with 1 GB Video RAM - Nvidia Geforce GTX 460 or AMD Radeon HD 5770
DirectX: Version 11
Hard Drive: 25 GB available space
Sound Card: DirectX 9.0c Compatible Sound Card with Latest Drivers
Additional Notes: Broadband connection and service required for multiplayer mode. Supported Video Cards at Time of Release: nVidia GeForce GTX460 or better, GT500, GT600, GT700 series; AMD Radeon HD5850 or better, HD6000, HD7000, R7 and R9 series Intel® Iris™ Pro HD 5200

(Friendly reminder: recommended != required - recommended = recommended for the best experience, which on PC is a wide spectrum.)
Will this run the game at 1080p and 60 fps? I doubt it.

Assassin's Creed IV wasn't a good port, from what I recall. I have no idea why PC folks are expecting anything better from Ubisoft considering their last few releases(AC 3-IV and FC 3).
 

JimmyRustler

Gold Member
This strikes me as a sad state of affairs. I though people bought games because they are good/fun to play.
One has to have principles. A new gen game that is not 1080p is a joke at this point. We need to keep moving forward, not backwards. Higher resolution makes a huge difference and we should enforce that new gen games stay at 1080p.
 
Just because tech and art is smarter in Infamous, doesnt mean that it Watch Dogs doesnt require more performance.

Could Watch Dogs be 1080p? Sure. Is everything optimized as it should be? Probably not, but please dont treat game like it uses only 50% of available resources.

Going by Watch Dogs gameplays, it renders more casting light sources and more objects, it also has volumetric lighting for some lights [like helicopter ones], it has more light souces visible, water tessellation with physics. It seems to simulate much more too from whole citizen subsystem to wind simulation going through the city. Maybe post-processing is more expensive, because they are using twice as many taps as Infamous for Bokeh or Motion Blur? Maybe they are using less quality LoD transitions on dynamic objects? Etc.
People, when looking at the game from tech perspective, should stop noticing only textures or main character geometry. Its all about trade offs.
And however it still looks like ass and Infamous SS stellar.
 

orioto

Good Art™
What does that even mean? From where I'm sitting, Second Son looks like a much more tech heavy game. If that can run between 30 and 60 fps at 1080p, how can Watch Dogs not?

Hm ok that's ridiculous now...
I don't really give a shit about this game, but i can't stand everyone saying with their specialist eyes that it should run better than other games that are "more tech heavy" or more beautiful.. when they don't have the least fucking clue about what's going on in the game, how it's done, the complexity of it.. Not every game is the same. You don't judge the tech complexity of a game by the numbers of polys on its character..

if anything, i could rather imagine that Ubi went too far and pretentious with their dynamic things and killed the performance. Maybe it won't even make the game fun to play, i don't know.. Maybe it IS actually really badly optimized... BUT how the fuck does any of us, here, know anything about what's going on behind the code of the game and how it should run, please...
 

Eusis

Member
I think Rockstar would put these guys to shame if they announce GTA5 Remaster for PS4/XB1 @1080P/30FPS+.
If that actually works out it'll be because it was made only for last gen systems and not trying to be properly next gen at all, similar to Tomb Raider. I'd expect 1080p and a more stable 30 FPS at best really.
Congratulations, you win the stupid post of the week award.
Seriously. I bet he either forgot about the Witcher series or hasn't played/seen them too.
 

BennyBlanco

aka IMurRIVAL69
Crossgen games unable to hit 1080p 30fps on either console. Not looking for either one IMO. Mid range PC tech will be absolutely blowing the doors off these consoles in a few years. Hope this gen doesn't drag on and on like last one and hold back everything again.
 

Ysiadmihi

Banned
I have a laptop with good enough specs to run games at 900p resolution and I also game on PC occasionally 'for a multitude of reasons'. But if there is no optimization on PC then what's the use?

An unoptimized PC version of a game is still going to do better than 900p/30fps, for starters.
 

Qassim

Member
I have a laptop with good enough specs to run games at 900p resolution and I also game on PC occasionally 'for a multitude of reasons'. But if there is no optimization on PC then what's the use?

Are you talking about actual reality here or a hypothetical scenario where there is "no optimisation"?

It's weird that you acknowledged the "multiple of reasons" outside of graphics and performance but then asked why I would still buy it for PC. Why wouldn't i buy it for PC? Equally so, why would I buy it for console?
 
Just something I found on the web and thought it was applicable here... still hope the PS4 can seriously impress us eventually but so far that entire marketing campaign/slogan seems to be nothing but marketing fluff.
Can't wait to see what Sony Santa Monica, Naughty Dog and Quantic Dream are up to...

I mean, Im not going to sit here and say that I can describe all of the nuances that go into making a game look technically great. I am fortunate enough to have a good gaming PC, and a PS4. So, I've experienced a lot of PC games at maxed out settings. Then I went to Second Son and MGS Grounds Zero. From my perspective, the exclusives (be it console or platform exclusive) has looked top notch. Im sure we could talk about all kinds of techniques that those games arent using, or that are only on gaming PCs. Perhaps, on paper ( or to a better eye than mine) those differences makes a significant difference. But I personally think that the PS4 already has a good baseline that its starting from.

But yeah, at a certain point Sony is a big business, and big businesses only care about the bottom line. Im sure they will do something to challenge my trust. Im sure that when they were looking at the PS4 they made decisions based around cost more than how powerful the hardware is. It is a 100% guarantee that they weren't thinking something like, " Lets advance this medium despite money or share holder opinion." I will say this though, they have made some fairly consumer friendly choices. Free to play games dont require PS+, they pushed real big into the indie scene and are helping developers that the people like us really like, they didnt start this gen with apps behind a payed wall. Your right, a lot is marketing fluff, they didnt develop the console soley for us, and they will make choices that upset us down the line, Im sure of it.

As for Watch Dogs, I said this in an early post, but I think the problem is more with Ubisoft. AC Black Flag wasnt very well optimized, and that kinda told me a few things. It first told me not to expect launch titles to be indicative of what consoles (or my own PC) can really do. The scheduling on a multiplatform launch title had have horrific. Watch Dogs has had a interesting development, it started off being one of those multiplatform launch titles. Im sure the damage that particular situation did to it, cant be reversed in the aloted time that the devs had. Even with the extra time, Im sure at a certain point you can only mitagate so much.

Im exicited for Watch Dogs, Im exicited to see the story of this game's development come to a close. Its not going to be a tech masterpiece, and perhaps the other things that go into making a good game wont be so good in this one. Im willing to look at the gameplay videos and read the reviews to find out for myself though.
 

artist

Banned
COD GHOSTS
PS4 = 1080p
Xbone = 720p
PS4 with a 360 pee advantage

BF4
PS4 = 900p
Xbone = 720p
PS4 with a 180 pee advantage

Watch_Dogs
PS4 = 900p
Xbone = 792p
PS4 with a 108 pee advantage

The Xbone is definitely catching up. That day isnt far when the the Xbone leapfrogs the PS4.

#TeamPenello
#TeamMisterX
#TeamAGIES
 

Phil4000

Member
This news in all honesty really isn't that surprising, compromises need to made somewhere and lowering the resolution and framerate are the best ways of maintaining impressive visuals (although more blurry and less refined)

I am expecting that same from The Witcher 3, The Division and maybe even Assassins Creed Unity...
 

"D"

I'm extremely insecure with how much f2p mobile games are encroaching on Nintendo
I'm a little surprised that its 900 instead of 1080p but I had a gut feeling and was pretty much certain that this game wasn't gonna tag 60fps on the console version with all that it has that can happen on screen and the size of the game/world. Unlocked or not.

Still got my Collector's Edition pre-ordered but unless the reviews come out early and its a dud, then I'm still getting the game. The 101 trailer impressed me to keep a optimistic stance on it.
 
Top Bottom