Home Gaming Watch Dogs – 900p on PS4, 792p on Xbox One

Watch Dogs – 900p on PS4, 792p on Xbox One

2 min read
81

PC's the one in the middle. It has more p's.

There’s been quite a bit of consternation over whether or not the PlayStation 4 version of Watch Dogs would run at 60fps, rendered at 1080p. The confusion came from Sony itself, who claimed as much on its Watch Dogs page. That was since redacted, but further reports claimed Ubisoft had confirmed the resolution and framerate. Now, we have confirmation from the developer that it’s just not happening…and it’s even worse on Xbox One.

In a new blog post, Watch Dogs’ creative lead Jonathan Morin confirmed that the PlayStation 4 version of the game will run at 900p, the same resolution that Battlefield 4 on the PlayStation 4 runs at. He’s also confirmed that the Xbox One version will be rendered at 792p, the same resolution as Titanfall.

Both console versions will run at 30fps, but whether it’s frame-locked to be constant or whether it fluctuates from that is still unknown. Interestingly, Morin is bandying about the same rhetoric as the Witcher 3 developers; resolution and frame rate are just numbers, and they don’t really matter.

“Resolution is a number, just like framerate is a number,” Creative Director Jonathan Morin said  “All those numbers are valid aspects of making games, but you make choices about the experience you want to deliver.

“In our case, dynamism is everything. Exploration and expression are everything. You want to have a steady framerate, but you want to have dynamism at the core of the experience. The same goes with resolution.

“People tend to look at corridor shooters, for example, where there’s a corridor and all the effects are on and it’s unbelievable, and they forget that if you apply those same global effects to an open city with people around and potential car crashes and guys in multiplayer showing up without warning, the same effect is applied to a lot of dynamic elements that are happening in every frame.

“So it becomes magnified in cost.”

It makes sense, and I’d certainly sacrifice a few lines of pixels for a dynamic, believable open world. Or I could just play the game on PC, as Lord Gaben intended.

Watch Dogs is coming on May 27th to all of the current home consoles, and PC. A Wii U version is coming later. We’re still pretty damned excited for Watch Dogs. Here’s its latest trailer.

Last Updated: May 14, 2014

81 Comments

  1. Admiral Chief in Space

    May 14, 2014 at 07:52

    Watch Dogs can go suck eggs for all I care. At least for a year

    Reply

    • FoxOneZA

      May 14, 2014 at 09:44

      The only thing that go the hype going for this game was the announcement of the PS4. Ever since the delay, it’s just gotten worse and I’m already per-empting game breaking patches incoming.

      Reply

      • oVg Errorist

        May 14, 2014 at 09:54

        So was Diabllo 3 lol

        Reply

    • oVg Errorist

      May 14, 2014 at 09:53

      Until the super duper dodecahedron edition is released.

      Reply

  2. Alien Emperor Trevor

    May 14, 2014 at 07:53

    But without the Kinect won’t the Xbone version just be called “Dogs”?

    Reply

    • Umar Returns

      May 14, 2014 at 07:54

      lol hee hee

      Reply

    • Admiral Chief in Space

      May 14, 2014 at 08:00

      Hahaha, good one!

      Reply

    • RinceBroken

      May 14, 2014 at 08:17

      Haha! Trying too hard, but not bad 😉

      Reply

      • Alien Emperor Trevor

        May 14, 2014 at 08:18

        That’s what she said! Wait… :/

        Reply

        • RinceBroken

          May 14, 2014 at 08:18

          OVG better jump in or he’ll miss out on being on top this week 0-O WAIT?

          Reply

          • Alien Emperor Trevor

            May 14, 2014 at 08:26

          • RinceBroken

            May 14, 2014 at 08:27

            HAHAHA! Oh man, I remember this ad 🙂

    • Hammersteyn

      May 14, 2014 at 08:27

      hahaha

      Reply

    • oVg Errorist

      May 14, 2014 at 09:20

      Guide dogs.

      Reply

      • RinceBroken

        May 14, 2014 at 09:26

        Backward Dogs? 180

        Reply

        • oVg Errorist

          May 14, 2014 at 09:35

          no

          Reply

  3. Umar Returns

    May 14, 2014 at 07:58

    All over the internet, gamers complain about 60fps and 1080p, followed by gamers on the other end of the spectrum complaining about the gamers complaining about 60fps and 1080p….Thing is right, sure it’s not the most important thing. But seriously, this is supposed to be next gen…We can’t achieve 60fps and 1080p games on next gen consoles?…..I don’t see any effing problem with people complaining…..

    Reply

    • Skyblue

      May 14, 2014 at 08:51

      Come to the dark side peasant, 4k gaming.

      Reply

      • Umar Returns

        May 14, 2014 at 08:52

        LOOL, 1080p and 60 fps are great to have, but until PC get’s the games I like, I will never switch

        Reply

        • Skyblue

          May 14, 2014 at 08:57

          yeah I’m going to have to get a new console when the new UFC game gets released but there’s nothing else I want yet.

          Reply

          • Umar Returns

            May 14, 2014 at 09:00

            Consoles has 80 percent of all the games I love, so can’t see myself going PC. It’s still my indie platform lol and wonder why no UFC for PC

    • oVg Errorist

      May 14, 2014 at 09:06

      Its been 7 years. I do not not blame them because 1080p and 60fps is actually OLD gen.
      Why are they selling these consoles at such expensive prices if the games cant match RIIIIIIIIIDGE RACER 2007. 😛

      Reply

      • Umar Returns

        May 14, 2014 at 09:20

        Exactly lol…….It’s not everything, doesn’t mean it’s not important. PC gamers are laughing at us. Well at least all they have is Goat simulator

        Reply

  4. iAmWeasel

    May 14, 2014 at 07:58

    Yes everyone knows that the “numbers” don’t actually matter, but that doesn’t mean we can’t appreciate it when the numbers are stacked in a game’s favor.

    Reply

  5. illsystem

    May 14, 2014 at 08:00

    I honestly don’t care about framerates and resolution… this is an archaic mindset set by PC gamers. It honestly doesn’t affect your gameplay experience. If a game plays well, and you have fun playing it, then that’s all that matters. Hell, I’ve got a 65″ UHD screen, and I couldn’t be arsed about the resolution of a game…. I still enjoy playing my 360 on my screen as much as my PS4. Yes, my PS4 does look better, not as good as my PC, but if a game rocks, it rocks period!
    I am looking for new gameplay experiences, and that’s what appeals to me about Watch Dogs.
    That’s all that should matter.
    Oh, Lazygamer, when are you going to do a price comparison on where I should pre-order Watch Dogs from? I’m too lazy to visit all the sites…lol

    Reply

    • Jonah Cash

      May 14, 2014 at 08:02

      We just said exactly the same thing at the same time!! So yeah jinx!! No more talking for the rest of the day!! Hahahaha

      Reply

    • oVg Errorist

      May 14, 2014 at 08:49

      The difference between COD and BF is massive. As much as I hate COD at least it feels as smooth as silk.

      Reply

  6. Jonah Cash

    May 14, 2014 at 08:01

    I am just happy that the game is almost here!!! As long as it is as brilliant as I hope I don’t care about graphics!! Give me a good story with good gameplay and I’m happy!! The sniper games have pretty dodgy graphics but they are a hell of a lot of fun to play!!

    Reply

  7. iAmWeasel

    May 14, 2014 at 08:09

    People are missing the point of why resolutions and FPS have made people sit up and take notice for this generation. The reason is that contrary to the previous generation, the PS console is actually decidedly better performing. It isn’t a big scandal about every single game having to hit a magical elusive 1080p mark.

    Reply

  8. Alien Emperor Trevor

    May 14, 2014 at 08:16

    If the PC is the pod in the middle I’m guessing the Xbox is the one on the right because it doesn’t have the power to render water properly.

    Reply

    • Hammersteyn

      May 14, 2014 at 08:26

      LOL

      Reply

  9. Hammersteyn

    May 14, 2014 at 08:27

    It’s a wonder they didn’t cut some of the resolution and resold it as DLC

    Reply

    • DARK_SETH

      May 14, 2014 at 11:34

      Whahaha. That would be funny!

      Reply

  10. RinceBroken

    May 14, 2014 at 08:28

    A Wii U version is coming later? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Man that is funny.

    Reply

    • oVg Errorist

      May 14, 2014 at 08:50

      What is a Wii U?

      Reply

      • RinceBroken

        May 14, 2014 at 08:52

        It’s like a Kinect, fucking useless.

        Reply

        • oVg Errorist

          May 14, 2014 at 09:40

          A kiddie tablet.

          Reply

    • Weanerdog

      May 14, 2014 at 09:21

      That’s because it comes in at 720p at 30 fps and makes a mockery of the prices of the other consoles. Oh and only 5 people bought them.

      Reply

      • RinceBroken

        May 14, 2014 at 09:22

        LOL

        Reply

      • platomaker

        May 14, 2014 at 12:32

        Yeah, I also hope it comes at 1080p and 60fps.

        Reply

        • Weanerdog

          May 14, 2014 at 12:48

          That would be awesome, especially if they can really integrate that controller to being a real game changing experience.

          Reply

  11. Wyzak

    May 14, 2014 at 08:35

    900p and 30fps, can you say fail?

    Reply

    • FoxOneZA

      May 14, 2014 at 09:48

      Ubi-fail, epic fail?

      Reply

      • Wyzak

        May 14, 2014 at 09:58

        No, Ubisoft wasn’t the one advertising 1080p 60fps on their website.

        Reply

    • oVg Errorist

      May 14, 2014 at 09:55

      Ridge Racer 7 beats that.

      Reply

  12. oVg Errorist

    May 14, 2014 at 08:47

    Ubisoft lol has some of the worste frame rates out there. No chance in hell they will tune it to 60fps

    Reply

    • iAmWeasel

      May 14, 2014 at 08:52

      You understand that Ubisoft are publishers, right?

      Reply

      • Viking Of Science

        May 14, 2014 at 08:55

        Ubisoft is also a developer, the studios are all under the Ubisoft name. a la “Ubisoft Montreal” and “Ubisoft Shanghai”

        Reply

      • RinceBroken

        May 14, 2014 at 08:58

        Ever heard of Ubisoft Montreal? They are also developers.

        Reply

        • iAmWeasel

          May 14, 2014 at 09:02

          Separate entities. Just like how Naughty Dog isn’t SCE. If he said that Ubisoft Montreal never have good FPS in their games, then fair enough.

          Reply

          • RinceBroken

            May 14, 2014 at 09:05

            Ubisoft Montreal (French: Ubisoft Montréal) is the Canadian subsidiary of the French video game developer Ubisoft, located in Montreal, Quebec. They are a subsidiary, not a separate entity.

          • Weanerdog

            May 14, 2014 at 09:22

            Subsidiaries are by definition separate entities. That are owned by the parent.

          • RinceBroken

            May 14, 2014 at 09:30

            In the case of Naughty Dog and SCE I believe this is true, but in the case of Ubisoft I believe otherwise.

          • FoxOneZA

            May 14, 2014 at 09:50

            Ok Donald Trump, can you return Rince from the dark side?

          • RinceBroken

            May 14, 2014 at 09:54

            lol

          • Weanerdog

            May 14, 2014 at 10:09

            No they are separate companies, Ubisoft probably owns all the shares and controls the board but they are still separate companies and by definition separate entities, otherwise it would merely be a branch.

          • oVg Errorist

            May 14, 2014 at 09:11

            Even if they are only the publisher I am sure they have say in production costs. Knowing how bad the frame rate is in POP, Far Cry 3, Ass Crack 4 and South Park I am sure their bank roll had something to do with it.

          • iAmWeasel

            May 14, 2014 at 09:17

            You may be right in that as publishers they may might pushing a view that FPS is lower priority vs other ways of improving their games.

          • oVg Errorist

            May 14, 2014 at 09:38

            After the huge success of Far cry 3 with its 25fps there is no need to spend extra money on upping the frame rate. They know that.
            Oh well, one can only hope that the term NEXT GEN means just that 🙂

    • wefawf

      May 15, 2014 at 15:58

      Are you fucking stupid, ” next gen ” consoles are just weak as shit. They will never run at a high resolution and frame rate.

      Reply

      • oVg Errorist

        May 15, 2014 at 16:20

        good point
        console = Fisher Price PC for kids 😛

        Reply

  13. CypherGate

    May 14, 2014 at 08:56

    So it took both companies close to 10 years to develop consoles that still can’t run at 1080p/60fps. I like the new consoles, but I just feel that lots of people were kind of robbed with the sense that next gen would bring that step up to console gaming cause uhmmmm… 10 years is a long time to wait for next gen. If this is possibly suppose to be the last of the new consoles then they should have gone out with a bang and pull out the stops. I’m a pc and console gamer and don’t mind these resolutions, but if you look at what i said at first, this generation took 10 years to get here and it should have been better.

    Reply

    • iAmWeasel

      May 14, 2014 at 09:00

      How many people would buy a console if it costs the same as a high end PC? These things already cost in excess of R6000, and profit margins are low. Obviously there is a balancing act that they have to achieve to make it a viable business.

      Reply

      • CypherGate

        May 14, 2014 at 09:13

        That is true, but then again production costs for tech have come down quite a bit though compared to say 5 years ago. R6k – R8k is around the high end pc side of life indeed and I cant even afford to buy a new pc let alone a new console lol so for now im playing the waiting game.

        Reply

      • Kromas

        May 14, 2014 at 09:16

        Let us say I buy 1 game a month. (I do slightly more than that though).
        Now lets use CoD:Ghosts as a comparison.PC – R299 PS4 – R729. Thats a
        R430 difference x 12 = R5160. So I can buy a basic pc for about R7000
        (Damn near PS4 price) and every year upgrade it to make it better for
        R5160.

        PC wins … PC gamers win … Console peasants lose. 😛
        Also I used CoD in a comparison … omg this week is epic fail week for me.

        Reply

        • iAmWeasel

          May 14, 2014 at 09:24

          I guess on console you pay a premium on the games in exchange for various other benefits such as better support, stability, and convenience – whether all those benefits are worth it can be debated.

          Reply

          • Kromas

            May 14, 2014 at 09:25

            I beg to differ. EA games are horrible no matter the platform. As well as Ubisoft games. Rest are on a per game basis.

          • iAmWeasel

            May 14, 2014 at 09:28

            Ya not saying they ARE better.. that is just the principle of it in theory.

          • Kromas

            May 14, 2014 at 09:29

            I hate theory.

    • oVg Errorist

      May 14, 2014 at 09:59

      They have been able to kick out 1080p and 60fps for 7 years now. Its just that gamers vote with their wallets. With the success of games like Far Cry 3 at 25fps compared to GT4 and Ridge Racer 7 why would they bother.

      Reply

  14. Viking Of Science

    May 14, 2014 at 09:04

    I’m getting pretty tired of Resolutiongate…. Does it really matter? As long as the games run smoothly, what’s the issue? Besides, Studios haven’t been developing for the new generation long enough to really get the most out of the consoles… Give it a year or so, and most games will be at full 1080p, 60fps… (obligatory PC master race ftw addendum)

    Reply

    • geelslang

      May 14, 2014 at 10:19

      Eh, not really, this is not the PS3, the hardware of the PS4 is pretty simple, it will get better but I doubt much. The simple fact is that the new consoles are underpowered. That at least is clear.

      Reply

  15. Ryanza

    May 14, 2014 at 09:38

    Most of these sand-box open world games get the driving vehicles wrong. Saints Row has bad driving and it looks like Watch Dogs will be the same.
    I think for that reason alone, is why I’ve just never really been interested in this game. Oh yes Uplay. Fuck Uplay.

    Don’t support DRM

    Reply

  16. DrKiller

    May 14, 2014 at 09:43

    How will this run on the Xbox 360 then?

    Reply

    • oVg Errorist

      May 14, 2014 at 09:57

      The same as the Wii Us Wind Waker. Better.

      Reply

  17. Ryanza

    May 14, 2014 at 09:52

    Xbox 360, PS3 was suppose to be the 1080p generation
    Xbox One, PS4 is suppose to be the 1080p 60fps generation

    so it looks like nothing has changed.

    Reply

  18. ElimiNathan

    May 14, 2014 at 10:19

    This is why I think the current gen consoles should have be AT LEAST double as poweful as they are

    Reply

    • Ryanza

      May 14, 2014 at 10:30

      3.5 ghz cpu, 7970 gpu, 8gb ddr 5 ram, would have made a nice 5 year console.

      Reply

      • ElimiNathan

        May 14, 2014 at 10:33

        Push the Ram to 16gigs. But ye that would be much better

        Reply

  19. InsanityFlea

    May 14, 2014 at 15:50

    Watch Dogs: 1440p on PC /troll

    Reply

  20. justerthought

    May 21, 2014 at 20:10

    The ingame footage leaked so far clearly shows PS4 is far superior with the XB1 looking very rough and ugly. If you look at the resolution numbers you can see the PS4 is running the game with a 22.56% power advantage.

    PS4 = 1600 X 900P = 1440000 pixels per frame

    XB1 = 1408 X 792P = 1115136 pixels per frame

    1115136/1440000 * 100 = 77.44%

    100%-77.44% = 22.56% more power needed to render the extra PS4 pixels.

    And that’s just the final pixel render. Looking at the leaked videos, the PS4 is doing more inside the game that is being rendered to those pixels. PS4 trees are more detailed and individual leaves are being animated in the wind. The XB1 has simpler trees and is animating them as larger branch clusters. The overall image quality on the XB1 version is coarse with ugly jaggy edges that shimmer. The frame rate stutters during movement and panning on the XB1. The PS4 is smooth and fluid with a much cleaner polished appearance.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Check Also

Watch Dogs: Legion’s online multiplayer mode launches on March 9

Ubisoft’s looking to get the spotlight back on Watch Dogs Legion, and it reckons that addi…