Dying Light PS4 Is 1080p/30fps

[UPDATE] Techland releases statement, says "things can still change."

428 Comments
No Caption Provided

[UPDATE] Following the publication of this story, a Techland representative provided a statement to GameSpot on Dying Light's resolution and frame rate for PS4.

"1080p/30 fps is what we have right now, it is what is constant, and what we're sure we can deliver in the final product," the representative said. "But the work is still ongoing, and even though we have no more than two weeks left, things can still change.":

"So even though the answer is accurate I would change the question--it's not what we target, it is what we will deliver 100 percent."

As for whether or not 1080p/30fps can be achieved across both PS4 and Xbox One, the Techland representative added: "It's too early to tell, but we're trying to squeeze as much as we can from both consoles. Please stay tuned."

The original story is below.

The PlayStation 4 version of Dying Light will run in 1080p at 30fps, developer Techland (Dead Island) has confirmed. Lead designer Maciej Binkowski revealed the figure in response to a fan question on Ask.fm.

Resolution and frame rate details were not provided for the Xbox One edition of the game. We've followed up with Techland to find out what kind of graphical benchmarks Xbox fans can expect.

No Caption Provided

Back in 2013, Techland said it was hoping Dying Light would run in 1080p/60fps across PS4 and Xbox One. Game development is a fluid, ongoing process, so it's not entirely surprising to see the frame rate drop, at least on PS4, to 30fps for the final version of the game.

That said, Techland has not yet explained why it wasn't able to reach its original frame rate target for the open-world zombie game. We'll update this post with anything we hear back from Techland.

Dying Light's release date is January 27, 2015 for PS4, Xbox One, and PC. The game was originally expected to also come to PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360, but those versions were recently canceled.

Got a news tip or want to contact us directly? Email news@gamespot.com

Join the conversation
There are 428 comments about this story
428 Comments  RefreshSorted By 
GameSpot has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to toxic conduct in comments. Any abusive, racist, sexist, threatening, bullying, vulgar, and otherwise objectionable behavior will result in moderation and/or account termination. Please keep your discussion civil.

Avatar image for hermitkiller
HermitKiller

So what? PC version is more likely to run in 720p 30fps.

Console master race ftw!!!

Avatar image for conm3
Conm3

<< LINK REMOVED >> Dude what planet are you on? My Pc runs this on ultra at 1440 with g-sync and my average is 80 fps. Sure couple drops to 50 then over 110 but 80 is average. Drop to high setting and is 140fps which still beats consoles. Beauty being no screen tear, g-sync is awesome and consoles are most certainly not the master race lol.

Avatar image for ethario
Ethario

2015 => 30 fps :')

Avatar image for snowex
Snowex

To all those saying "If it's not 1080p/60fps i'm not buying it," big whoop. Don't freaking buy it, lmao. This game looks solid as hell, i'm definitely buying, and i'll make sure to tell you guys how awesome it is when I do play it :)

Avatar image for wookiegr
wookiegr

We all know that the better the graphics the worse the game will be. Since gamers agree (on this site anyways) that you can't have both a good game and good graphics this game is already doomed.

Avatar image for Greyfox-101
Greyfox-101

I can't tell if that's sarcasm or not.

Avatar image for wookiegr
wookiegr

This is what Gamespots twitter feed posted with a link to this article: "Dying Light is 1080p/60fps on the PS4"


Details people... details...

Avatar image for itchyflop
itchyflop

up to 60 frames would be nicer :)


Avatar image for athasin
Athasin

<< LINK REMOVED >> 30 stable is better than 60 choppy, just look at Unity.

Avatar image for humdingermarkie
HumdingerMarkie

State of Decay: Year One Survival Edition on Xbox One will be the zombie game of 2015.

Avatar image for mattress805
mattress805

That's all x.bone has until fall of 2015. Lol

Avatar image for LordCrash88
LordCrash88

<< LINK REMOVED >> State of Decay is incredibly boring imo...

Games like Dead Island or Dying Like are a blast in co-op.

Avatar image for hystavito
hystavito

<< LINK REMOVED >> I just can't agree, I'm sorry :). I followed SoD closely and had high hopes, but well before release I could see it wasn't really going to be the THE zombie game for me. It just ended up too, sort of shallow, like very arcade-y with typical third person action combat, no actual direct character survival elements. Managing the base and your people was kinda cool, but not enough, and it felt too disconnected because there was no direct survival gameplay. It was too much a typical game-y game for me I guess, too "artificial" like uh-oh you triggered this or that event, or you have a perimeter but we're gonna throw some zombies at it that can climb over, you know what I mean?


I think what SoD did well was find the balance between a survival game and an action game, but it was too far towards the action game side for me. I think that is why it was so successful, but also why it ultimately failed to appeal to the more hardcore and purist zombie fans.


Actually maybe I do agree, for most people anyway just not me and that smaller group. I think I was just disappointed because as transparent and honest as Undead Labs were, they still kept teasing that smaller group that the game would be for them when they really knew they were going for a big seller not a niche zombie game. I remember when the combat videos started to come out, that was when it was kinda confirmed. In the forums people were like umm the player is dancing on zombies heads and doing like fancy combo-style attacks and stuff, that's kinda not what we wanted :).

Avatar image for sonicblast19
sonicblast19

YAY Eddie still making shit news.

Avatar image for niccodemarini
niccodemarini

30fps is not that bad when it doesnt dip below that number EVER. But its extremely lame in games like gta5 when you go through a innersection and everything turns into a slide show. I just feel like 30fps really means 20fps to 30fps. And that is when they should release a game at 900p instead of 1080p. The ps4 and xbox one really arent that different. Lol anybody ever notice how fps is never brought up when talking about the wii. If you want 60fps in all games at 1080p or 1440p go get a pc and stop bitching about consoles being under powered.

Avatar image for justerthought
justerthought

1080p 30fps is not surprising for a PS4 open world game. That seems to be the hardware comfort zone right now until devs learn how to push it further later on. The big questions is whether the dev can pull that off on the weaker XB1.

My guess is the XB1 will be 900p 30fps or use the anamorphic horizontal compression trick (1440x1080 resolution upscaled to 1920x1080) running at 30fps. Horizontal upscaling is less noticeable than vertical upscaling. COD and Far Cry 4 on XB1 use that technique. PS4 is definitely the place to play these games because the XB1 port always has to compromise something.

The even bigger question. Will the game be any good. There are too many zombies games right now so it will have to be doing something really special to compete against those and the open world games (Far Cry 4 and GTAV.)

Avatar image for ooblah
ooblah

It's funny you mention PS4 is the place to play those games, when multiplats have been performing better on X1 pretty much since the beginning. Sure there may be more bushes, or better AO, or whatever other graphical term on PS4, but less stutters and all around better FPS's on X1. "Better place to play" is a sentiment best kept in the IMO category.

Avatar image for justbefahad
JustBeFahad

<< LINK REMOVED >> XB1 hasn't gotten games with less stutter and better framerate until recently, and that's Cod AW and AC Unity I'm talking about, both had bundles with XB1 so you know where the optimization went.

Avatar image for ooblah
ooblah

So basically what you're saying is that developers pick and choose which version will be the better version? That's basically what you're saying. So we can blame the devs for poor optimization on most of the third party XB1 games then, and not "weaker hardware"? I can't seem to figure you guys out. When a game runs better on XB1 it's all "Microsoft paid the devs to make the PS4 version worse, parity parity, blah blah blah", but when it looks and performs marginally better on PS4 it's "because the PS4 is a thousand times more powerful than XBONER". I'm paraphrasing a bit here, and don't mean to make you sound like the worst fan boy ever, but this is what a large vocal majority of PlayStation fans sound like -- the stupid trolley ones anyway. I'm no fan boy FYI, I'm a games enthusiast. I've got an XBOX ONE, and I can't wait to pick up a PS4 in a couple weeks, but I'm just so tired of this whole "PS4" or "XBOX ONE" is the better place to play -- as if there was a definitive answer. As if ithat choice wasn't based on a variety of choices. As if owning both (if you can afford to) wouldn't be the more desirable choice. Anyways, stay classy internet.

Avatar image for mrbig120
mrbig120

all that matters that the game is good and not rubbish

Avatar image for conm3
Conm3

<< LINK REMOVED >> agreed and if a console only gamer then 30fps is mostly the norm for shiny looking games so should be used to it.

Avatar image for JethroC773
JethroC773

Gamespot. Make a game show were contestants guess on game video specs "Is it 720? or 1080?" 2nd Question "Can you guess the Frame rate?" and the Final Q "Is it Xbox or PS?".


Avatar image for mrcardio79
mrcardio79

The graphical / game play differences between XB1 & PS4 will be negligible as usual but you can guarantee the Fan Boys will try to make a big stink out of one perhaps running 900 v. 1080p.

But yeah better it be at say 720-900p & 45-60fps but because of delusional Fan Boys the negligible graphics differences need to somehow be a big deal because of ego and all.

Avatar image for justerthought
justerthought

<< LINK REMOVED >>

Just answer me one question. Why do you settle for less. You go into a pub and buy a pint of beer. They give you a full pint of beer. You then go into another pub and they give you a pint with 3/4 froth for the same price. Do you complain, do you only drink in the pub that gives you a full pint or do you suffer the 3/4 froth because all your mates drink in that pub.

Is that making a big stink. Is that being a fanboy. I don't think so. I say praise the praise worthy and criticise those at fault. No way will the XB1 be above 30fps. It will struggle to hit 900p 30p in a game that is stressing the PS4 at 1080p 30fps.

Avatar image for itchyflop
itchyflop

<< LINK REMOVED >><< LINK REMOVED >> nice i like that analogy and true

Avatar image for mrcardio79
mrcardio79

You are vastly over stating the differences in graphics and game play performance between the XB1 & PS4.

Do you know what the term "negligible" means? Apparently you don't so let me help you out.

*Negligible means that the differences are so tiny as to not even warrant a debate.

If the past is ANY indication how the XB1 will perform vs. the PS4 the term "negligible" will be the story yet again.

Myself and many others believe or not have both an XB1 & PS4 and know that the "debate" over which is superior is frankly silly.

There is no more "fun" to be had playing a game running at 1080 v. 900p because the difference is "negligible" again meaning so tiny as to not even be noticeable.

Regardless, as far as frame rates the XB1 actually has a history of performing better than the PS4 in this regard. However, again "negligible" meaning it does not matter one way or the other.

What system somebody should choose here should come down to what exclusive games you like to play the most.

If I could personally only afford one or the other system I'd go with the XB1 w/Kinect because it offers more features and the games are better IMO.

Avatar image for conm3
Conm3

<< LINK REMOVED >> Each to their own whilst I mainly use Pc now I took Ps4 over xb1 cos did not need all the added social rubbish with Kinect. That being said if xb1 is at 900p ofc it will be less laggy then Ps4.

Avatar image for ipitythefool_t
iPITYtheFOOL_T

<< LINK REMOVED >> Negligible? Xbot fanboys ragged on PS3 all gen for nothing while PS4/Xbone there actually is a difference. I love how the tables have turned. Keep lying to yourself kid. It's not like PS3 was 480 while 360 was 720. Both were 720 or 1080 depending on the title. But now we have a real difference. PS4 hitting 1080 most the time with more solid frame rate and overall more stability. PS4 will also have longer legs at the end of the gen and once again better looking exclusives.

Avatar image for atopp399
atopp399

As long as it never dips below 30 I am ok with it.

Avatar image for m_nay2008
m_nay2008

If a PS4 with 8gb ram can run it at 1080p/30fps why does it need 16gb ram on PC

Avatar image for m_nay2008
m_nay2008

sorry these were old specs now it only needs 8gb ram as recommended

Avatar image for djcyrax
djcyrax

<< LINK REMOVED >> It doesn't it needs 4GB minimum, 8GB recommended.

Avatar image for m_nay2008
m_nay2008

<< LINK REMOVED >><< LINK REMOVED >> they updated their specs now but it was 16gb a week ago and that was a surprise for me

Avatar image for ceaseless
ceaseless

<< LINK REMOVED >> Those aren't the final requirements.

Avatar image for m_nay2008
m_nay2008

<< LINK REMOVED >><< LINK REMOVED >> that's what I think too

Avatar image for ipitythefool_t
iPITYtheFOOL_T

<< LINK REMOVED >> The same reason why The Last of Us on PS3 with only 500mb of ram could produce a game that beautiful. Optimization.


You can't optimize for a PC since there are literally a million different combinations out there. A console you can guarantee that everyone playing the game is using the exact same hardware. A PC has to throw a ton of extra power to get things to run smooth.


I love my PC but it's been a long time since PC has actually been better than a console for me. Back in the PS2 days and before PC had amazing exclusives and was the only place to truly enjoy a FPS. But now I only use my PC for a couple of it's exclusives like Sim City and Civ V. Everything else is on console and is headache free and better for the living room.

Avatar image for m_nay2008
m_nay2008

<< LINK REMOVED >><< LINK REMOVED >> sometimes I think consoles are better because as you said they make you headache free and have better optimization,other times I think PCs are better because they mostly have better graphics

and so I have to choose between better graphics and good optimization

for this generation I chose PC and bought a good rig

hopefully it's a good choice

Avatar image for conm3
Conm3

<< LINK REMOVED >><< LINK REMOVED >> it's a good choice for sure plus its always upgradable and whilst from time to time you gotta do a few reboots and play with settings it helps us learn.

Avatar image for jhcho2
jhcho2

<< LINK REMOVED >>

Because the PC version is unoptimized duh...

Didn't you get the memo that PCs are like Ferraris and consoles are like Toyotas? Fuel efficiency isn't quite the issue for the former.

Avatar image for conm3
Conm3

<< LINK REMOVED >><< LINK REMOVED >> Its not that its un-optimized its just due to the new gen consoles have 8gb of ram the developers wont spend more trying to optimize that for the Pc. Its upgrade time for Pcs to step up also and soon the move to 1440 which will be the norm for Pc very soon.

Avatar image for m_nay2008
m_nay2008

<< LINK REMOVED >><< LINK REMOVED >> I hate that truth