Watch Dogs runs at 30fps on Xbox One, PS4

Creative director Jonathan Morin says "there's always a balance, especially for open-world, between the simulation and the rest."

Ubisoft's open-world action game Watch Dogs will run at 30 frames-per-second on Xbox One and PlayStation 4, the game's creative director Jonathan Morin told Videogamer today.

"Right now the frame-rate we're focusing on [is] a steady 30[FPS]," Morin said. "There's always a balance, especially for open-world, between the simulation and the rest."

"I think for where we are, the most important thing is the steadiness and [ensuring] that it's always capped the same so when you play it it feels right," he added.

Although he did confirm the frame rate, Morin said he is not sure if the game's native resolution on Xbox One and PS4 is 720p or 1080p.

Watch Dogs launches for the Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, Wii U, and PC onNovember 19. The Xbox One and PS4 versions will be released as launch titles for those platforms.

Ubisoft expects the game to sell more than 6.2 million units. For more, check out GameSpot's previous coverage of Watch Dogs.

Written By

Eddie Makuch is a news editor at GameSpot, and would like to see the Whalers return to Hartford.

Want the latest news about Watch Dogs?

Watch Dogs

Watch Dogs

Follow

Discussion

3240 comments
frigginjoe
frigginjoe

I expect 30fps to be the common target.

720p, though, really starting to look old.

Lapwner
Lapwner

For some reason, 30FPS for an open world game is fine for me. The frame-rate only really starts to show for FPS's in my opinion, where 60FPS is a lot smoother. For 3rd person open world though, I can barely tell the difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS. Either way, as long as the graphics are nice and game is good, I could care less about the frame-rate.

murph85
murph85

30fps for a game that is more of a single player experience is just fine. Killzone, Battlefield 4 and Call of Duty will all be running at 60fps which would make sense for games with a competitive multiplayer aspect.

Daygoman8
Daygoman8

I highly doubt the new xbox and ps4 are not capable of running watch dogs at 60fps , when the architecture of the systems is on par or better than the best computer on the market for now ! ( i understand give it a few months when they come out and you already have a better pc ) However with that being said .. you cant blame xbox or ps4 if a game comes out and its not running at 60fps and is not 1080p , that is the develpers fault for not trying to utilize everything the system offers that supports that ! They know very well they have the resources available to make that game run flawlessly , but they are not going to take the time , all they care about is rushing out a product because they already spent the time working it out for 360 and ps3 , and they dont want to spend the extra money to fully take advantage of next gen , so they can get away with spending less time on the game to get it out for the holiday like alot of develpors are doing instead of waiting ! 

MonstaTruk
MonstaTruk

"Not sure" on resolution, huh?  Pshyeah...lol.

wookiegr
wookiegr

I hooked up my retired X360 last night to see how it looked on my new 125" screen. Flipping through the games on demand and demos I saw nearly all the 360 games ran at 720p with only a smallest handful at 1080p, those being mostly side scrollers and fighters. Needless to say 720p looks like shit at that size and I am afraid the next generation of gaming is going to be a huge let down. My PC running at 1080p with all settings on Ultra is so beautiful and detailed I hate to think all this hype over which console is better will be nothing but a joke when we get to see them perform poorly side by side with even a modest PC configuration. I pre-ordered 2 PS4's and a shit load of games so I hope I am wrong!

retsmot
retsmot

i am dissapointed by this annoucement. i am expecting my 'next gen' system to run 1080p and 60 fps.

720p and 30fps? my ps3 can do that. maybe the fps can be 30, but come on guys, 1080p please. 720p is so current gen.

liamb2013
liamb2013

What i find funny is the fact these titles are always 720p and 30FPS on PS4 and XB1...Just goes to show in reality the specs of both consoles isnt that different despite what the PS fanboys believe. Fact the difference in graphics card is about $40...anyway it is a shame these games arent as graphically powerful as we originally thought but developers will get better at pushing them to there limits, ive got a feeling although watchdogs looks pretty good that may be like all other GTA rip offs and be a bit of a dissapointment eg Saints Row, Sleeping dogs etc. We naturally compare these games to GTA because they put a lot into the plot, graphics and especially the handling of the cars etc... then when we play these types of games they just seem to lack that and its all we can focus on

ecurl143
ecurl143

30 frames on a next gen console? - I was expecting more than that for some reason.

My gut feeling is, the game only just runs at 30 fps and there will almost certainly be slowdown.

I thought this would be a thing of the past but I guess not.

Rushaoz
Rushaoz

I'm a PC gamer and I cap ALL of my games at 30 FPS. Allows me to turn up the eye candy to the max while not overworking the GPU. I even play all my FPS' @30 FPS. 

As long as it's a STABLE constant 30 FPS. Any drops and it ruins the experience. 

I would have preferred BF4 to run at 30FPS @1080p on next gen, but DICE decided to cop out to 60 FPS to try and draw ignorant CoD fans in that think 60 FPS actually matters.


Fallenlords69
Fallenlords69

Stability surely has to be the main concern with an open-world game, a solid 30fps capped should be fine. 

willzihang
willzihang

To those who like to say there's no difference between 30 and 60fps, and try and make a comparison to films running at 24fps-- have none of you seen The Hobbit 48fps? Though if you continue to think there is no difference between the 24 to 48fps version then you frankly don't know what you're looking at.


Also watch this: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-watch-bf4-at-60fps

Gretnablue
Gretnablue

Question, was this game a 7th Gen upgraded to 8th or vice versa. Either way it is still pretty low but I won't make this stop me buying a PS4. I'm sure this is just an exception like most launch titles and the true next gen games work better... I hope.

zinten
zinten

Wow isnt this game supposed to be released on ps3 and xbox 360 too?

If those next gen consoles are really 10x more powerful than current gen how well is this game going to run on them without cutting out too many stuff?

emerin76
emerin76

I think it's funny. film is recorded at 24/25 fps, but gamers want 60.  30 sounds about right to me.  maybe i'm just easy to please.  well I did play Galaxian back in the day

flamingboard
flamingboard

PC master race chuckles quietly to itself.

EverestMan
EverestMan

I wonder if they'll do what BF4 is doing and just upscale 720p native to 1080p.

McStrongfast
McStrongfast

30 FPS at 720p would be pretty pathetic.
It'll probably be 1080p.


I mean, you gotta improve at least one of those. It's like an unwritten rule.

aronaouran
aronaouran

I bet the better pc version will run it at 60fps

SuperDutchy
SuperDutchy

30 fps is more than fast enough. I'd bet that they're planning on going 30 fps with 1080p. Faster fps doesn't make a game look better, just run smoother, whereas a higher resolution (1080p vs 720p) does make a significant difference in the visuals of a game. 30 fps is a very smooth framerate. 60 fps is excessive and is simple a bulletpoint on the back of a box and gives a developer something to brag about.

19James89
19James89

@retsmot This only serves to reinforce my point that the next generation is being rushed out too quickly. 

I reckon it will be a year and a half before real improvements are made to games that are noticeable which is why if I was going to purchase a PS4/Xbox One, I'd wait until the summer of 2015 before buying one.

lurkyuk
lurkyuk

@ecurl143 If the game run between 30 and 60fps it makes sense to limit it to 30 so there isn't slowdown and it runs smooth . Just because it's limited to 30 doesn't mean there will "certainly be slowdown".

Daygoman8
Daygoman8

@Rushaoz it does matter when you are playing a game that runs at 30fs compared to a game that runs at 60fs ... you can clearly see a visual difference as in how smooth the game is running .. and for a first person shooter 60fps is key when it comes to the experiance compared to 30fs


jZangetsu21
jZangetsu21

@willzihang I found The Hobbit at 48fps to be very straining on my eyes. Movie and game FPS work a bit different on the human eye. I can easily play games at 60fps but when it comes to movies, I prefer 24fps.

Rushaoz
Rushaoz

@willzihang There is a difference. I just saw it the other day. Still, I prefer 24fps. It's what the source material was recorded at. All these 120Hz, 240Hz tv's are a gimmick unless the source can natively push out those FPS'. 


Still, 30 FPS is just fine as long as it's a constant 30 FPS. I'd rather have more eye candy than FPS. If they decided to make Watch Dogs run at 60 FPS it wouldn't look half as good as it does. Considering that Ubisoft also has to also release the same game on the much weaker XBone, this move makes complete sense. 

Sorry for the long post :D

murph85
murph85

@Gretnablue My guess is that it was originally a current gen title that is being ported to the next gen systems. Visuals alone you can tell a difference between the PS 3 and PS 4 versions of the game.

liamb2013
liamb2013

@zinten yeah i cannot imagine how bad itll look on the 360 or PS3 but to be honest 10 times more powerful than the 360 and PS3 still isnt anything special

jZangetsu21
jZangetsu21

@emerin76 They want 60fps so they can gloat. Sadly, that's what the gaming community has become mostly. "Mine is bigger than yours" Mine runs better than yours" instead of just enjoying the games.

I'm happy with 30fps as long as it's locked so we don't get dips.

jZangetsu21
jZangetsu21

@flamingboard And also cries deep inside because the "master race" has to constantly show off with BIG hardware to compensate for other things lacking in size.

rarson
rarson

@SuperDutchy  

Uh, 60 fps is noticeably smoother than 30 fps. I'd much rather have smooth graphics than a slight resolution bump.

Total_mischief
Total_mischief

@SuperDutchy 45-60 is a good thing for realllly fast paced games, but as long as the fps never drops below 30 it's just fine.

DAOWAce
DAOWAce

@SuperDutchy You will not find anyone who plays games at 60FPS (hint, PCs) that agrees with you.

Course, you could just be a troll, in which case I'll just flag this comment.

grove12345
grove12345

@19James89 @retsmot im waiting a bit past launch as well. But only b/c i truly want to see Sony and MS evolve their systems. Launch titles and services are always crap at launch. 

But ya disappointing numbers. Still never understood the fascination of anything past 30fps. Double or triple the numbers and it doesnt really improve visuals IMO. Ya i see it. But I dont care about it one bit. 

willzihang
willzihang

@Rushaoz @willzihang Source material? What are you talking about? The Hobbit was recorded at 48fps, that's the source-- 24fps wasn't the source but obviously half of 48 is 24 so it's a simple halving of frames job.

I don't know why you brought up 120hz, I never mentioned that.

 Reality obviously doesn't have a framerate, so the smoother you can get FPS on media/games, the more realistic it looks. I'm afraid this isn't a matter of opinion, this is an indisputable fact.

 The gameplay is also smoother at 60fps, again, this isn't an opinion; when fine aiming is required high framerates mean there is smoother motion, ergo more precise aiming is far more easy to accomplish-- though granted with auto aim on consoles it will be less of an issue.

 Yes, I understand that capping at 30 means more graphics detail can be achieved owing to lower fps targets, but that isn't my argument-- though it can be said that fluid gameplay is also a factor of good graphics.

I just want to point out that as I see it it isn't a matter of preference 30fps or 60fps, the latter is simply superior. Frankly the people that didn't like the high-frames Hobbit are simply unused to seeing video in such smooth motion, so they simply dismiss it as 'weird'.


SuperDutchy
SuperDutchy

@DAOWAce Just because people believe it's better does not make it so.  Once again a case of people thinking bigger numbers means better.  Believe what you like.  I personally think Ubisoft is doing the right thing.  Also, this has nothing to do with PC's. This article is referring to PS4 and Xbox One. Who's trolling now. 

SuperDutchy
SuperDutchy

@GRADERBLADE13  Perhaps not excessive, but unnecessary.  A game running at 30 fps @ 1080p will look better than a game running 60 fps @ 720p. People think 60 fps is better just because it's a higher number.  30 fps is fluid motion to the human eye.  

willzihang
willzihang

@Rushaoz @willzihang Yes, it looks strange to your eyes because you are so used to watching film at 24 speed. Ask yourself how can it possibly be in fast motion (why it appears to be), it's just an illusion, because it is just smoother, not faster as if people move around quicker-- reality isn't 'capped', so the smoother you get, the more life-like you get-- it's that simple. You don't get that 'life-like' blur in 30/24 either, it just shudders instead.

I've read all the 'arguments' as to why 48 frames is worse... it's just because people don't want to adjust to something new, it looks unusual (not strange, literally unusual)  to them so they simply dismiss it.

Think about how it works on a screen: when objects move quickly you notice them jerk across the screen (this is apparent in cinemas where 24fps is shown true)-- just watch any pan and see the hideous shudder-fest, it's very apparent when watching a blu-ray, as you have full frames instead of interlaced cover-ups on SD (though that also presents it's own problems. It appears jerky because when something leaps across many pixels as 30fps isn't enough to render it smoothly to the eye - changing position every 30th of a second, it skips past too many pixels, and too far across the screen without intermittent frames.

Remember 24fps has been standard for over 100 years, people are just completely used to how it looks. If you look at many of the arguments against 48fps, they actually say it 'looks too real."

With that in mind you get 'more pixels to play with' so to speak, when you move your reticule around quickly, so you have more positions to aim at. This is just a fact.

Rushaoz
Rushaoz

@willzihang @Rushaoz I don't agree with the accuracy statement. Like I said I play at 30 FPS and my best weapon in BF3 has a 40% accuracy rating. 

What I do agree with is that it is all subjective. 

Also you're correct, The Hobbit was recorded at 48Hz, but it looks terrible. Almost like everything is in slight fast forward.

http://gizmodo.com/5969817/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-masterclass-in-why-48-fps-fails

24Hz or 30Hz is much more natural to me. You don't see life at 60 FPS through your eyes. Which is why things become out of focus and blurry as soon as you move your eyes or turn your head.

Anywho cool debate, it's just preference in the end as always. 

GRADERBLADE13
GRADERBLADE13

@SuperDutchy @GRADERBLADE13 People don't think 60 fps is better simply because it's higher (unless they're brainless idiots). When I started pc gaming, I had a relatively low-end rig that could play games in 1080p with lower fps (around 30) but when I tuned it down to 720, the games played so buttery smooth that I just couldn't go back. 

Vegamyster
Vegamyster

@SuperDutchy "People think 60 fps is better just because it's a higher number.  30 fps is fluid motion to the human eye."

People don't think its better because its a higher number,  60fps makes the games controls more responsive and accurate. Play a game locked at 60 fps then immediately play one at 30fps, the difference is bigger then you think.