Watch_Dogs 900p on PS4, 792p on Xbox one, both at 30fps

So for all those interested in hard, cold numbers when it comes to resolution and framerate, Ubisoft confirmed today that Watch_Dogs will run at 900p/30fps on the PS4 and at 792p/30fps on the Xbox One. I was hoping that the PS4 would at least be able to handle 1080p or 60fps but it looks like I'll have to see if my PC can handle that (if the game is any good at all).

Source: http://blog.ubi.com/watch-dogs-next-gen-game-resolution-dynamism/

Why such odd p's? Is this kind of thing common?

I knew I shouldn't have eaten that asparagus.

They've been saying 30fps for some time now on both consoles, right? Or did I dream that?

Shame it's not 1080p on the PS4, but I expected it to be 30fps, or 30-60fps (60fps if you look at the floor!) on both consoles, so no real dissapointments there. Still, not getting those next gen feelings from this release.

I could care less about the p's. I'm in for the gameplay.

You should play Infamous: Second Son, 1080p, absolutely beautiful and 30fps+. It's the bar Watch_Dogs will never reach.

I still think both have a reasonable number of P's. Not enough FPS, though. A year ago I thought Watch Dogs may be the game that got me to buy a PS4, but man. I hope Ubisoft knocks it out of the park at E3.

It's the highest they could push it before the frame rate took too much of a dip. And yes it's very common.

I did play that game and really liked it.

It's possible there might be a patch later to get the PS4 version up to 1080P (this happened with ACIV), but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Oh well! So long as it's a solid 30FPS, I probably wouldn't notice the difference anyway.

It's by no means a deal breaker, but still :(

I'd like to play this on my Ps4, but I might break down and get the Pc version.

@video_game_king: The odd looking numbers is actually really common.

While it's disappointing to hear that the 1080p, 60fps on PS4 claim was a lie, the game could run at 500fps at a 9K resolution and it wouldn't matter any if the game itself is kinda bleh. So long as it's not chuggin' along at 20-25fps...

Even if I'm not particularly excited for it myself, it at the very least looks like its shooting gameplay will be better than GTA V's.

I dont really see much difference between p's and FPS most of the time, Sure sometimes it makes a big difference but TO ME (before some nerd jumps up my ass, im talking personally) it's usually not a big deal.

Since my old TV maxes at 720p, these debates make everyone sound crazy to me.

Wait, what dimensions are we talking about with '900p'? It has to still be 16:9 aspect ratio, right? So which part of the A x B is it and what's on the other side of it? Do they mean 1600x900?

Sony never claimed this.

Yeah they did. Hell, the promo image is in the OP of this very topic.

lol

I believe it was bandied about by Ubisoft several times as their target, but I can't recall a specific moment.

Which was quickly taken down?

what is Wii U resolution

Sold my consoles, they're fucking pathetic.

PC all the way for me.

It was up for a day if Eurogamer's time-stamps are to be believed. Doesn't change the fact that Sony claimed it would run at 1080p at 60fps anyway, regardless as for how long.

It's a little pathetic, but I'm not that bothered. Also, the game looks kinda dull. Here's hoping I am wrong.

4000p and 120FPS

@mooseymcman: If you've ever played a game at 30fps and then switched over to 60fps, the difference is startling. It makes for a much more immerse experience. I did it with Dark Souls 1 and 2 on my 360 vs my pc and the difference was huge.

That's 108 more Ps.

Honestly that really doesn't matter. If one is 1080 and the other 720 then sure, it does matter and it's a noticeable difference.

@j0lter: What I mean is that without any other point of reference, so long as a game's framerate is consistent, I have found in the past that I can't tell if it's 30FPS or 60FPS. And, as someone that will play the PS4 version, and only the PS4 version, so long as it's consistent, I won't really care.

Yeah, I'm sure everything you say is correct, and if I had the opportunity to compare the two, side by side, I could probably tell the difference. That's not my situation, and I'm not going to own a PC that can run Watch_Dogs at any frame rate within the next two weeks.

asking the real questions that i want to know.

transition games never use the full potential of the new system. nothing to see here

An issue that still nags is when developers are coding for so many targets, you have to set the base efficiency lower then you would like unless you want to developing independent, non-shared code to make each game work . My guess is you could push both XbOne and PS4 to 900p @ 60fps but to do so would have mean making the PC, One and PS4 independently of the 360 and PS3 versions - meaning very little code, assents, or systems could have been shared.

Yes, there is a measurable different between PC, PS4 and the One, but it probably was the legacy of PS3/360 that has a share in this issue. You cannot brute force power all issues away, or if you do it has to be PC sized brute force

Well, pc it is then.

It will by no means make me cancel my pre-order, but it's bullshit. We've just started this gen and we're already fucking with sub-native resolutions. Not a deal breaker and while I think the game looks very good, it's not blowing me away, so I'm pretty disappointed.

What I will certainly say though is that this game better not drop a single fucking frame.

I don't quite "get" TV resolutions that aren't 720/ 1080? Are these standards supported by some TVs? Seems like most TVs would have to upscale or downscale regardless of console.

Both consoles do upscale everything to 1080P, unless you have it set to a lower resolution. That's why, if you push the "what resolution is this" button on your TV remote, it'll say 1080P, regardless of what resolution the game is being rendered at.

Well if my PC can handle it at 1080 then I might go that route...or just get the PS4 version so I can play a game on my PS4.

Although it's a small difference, the PS4 is cheaper then the Xbone as well...

I get that its shitty that sony claimed 1080, but in general I just don't care about slightly slower resolutions. I actually think is a good thing that games aren't forced to run at a higher rez and sacrifice in other ways. the devs should be able to optimize their game how ever they see fit.

@bigjeffrey: 576 blocks.

@trafalgarlaw: To be fair, Infamous does absolutely nothing with it's open world. It's almost completely uninteractive and lifeless.

PC games have spoiled me and I can no longer handle anything less than 60fps. It's just so slow. I mean, a solid 30 isn't horribly bad, but if it starts to dip and chug it just becomes unplayable at a certain point. Personally I'd rather take a cut in resolution before I'd be willing to cut frames. 720p at a solid 60 is a hell of a lot better than <1080p at 30. I don't care about how pretty the game looks if it runs like shit, and from what the last few Watch Dogs trailers have looked like it seems that it ain't that good looking either. Kind of a double whammy.

I REALLY hope it's good though. That would be a huge bummer if it isn't.

@clonedzero: There's really no need to call people who do see the differences nerds

900p is actually 29% a larger resolution than 792p. Which is more than noticeable.

And 1080p is 44% larger than 900p; or 86% larger than 792p.

Seems like a lot of games have crazy vertical resolutions these days. Yes, it's fairly common for consoles to render games in weird resolutions and then scale them to whatever resolution you're actually going to see.

...and I don't care about the p's, but the framerate is disappointing. I always knew that the next generation was going to play most games at 30FPS, but some part of me was hoping that 60FPS on every game would be a reality. Ah, well. If most games this generation maintain an average 30 instead of a maximum of 30 that is occasionally hit, then I'll be happy.

Isn't one of the major arguments for console gaming that "it just works"? Part of "it just works" is letting the developer do what they believe is in the best interest of their product on a given platform.

If you guys want every game to run at 1080p @60fps, you gotta give before you can take. Higher quality textures, higher poly models, lighting, that stuff is what makes games look good to your average gamer. A lower resolution means aliasing, which motion blur can hide. You can lower game FOV's even more, but I'm sure studies have been done to find the optimal lowest FOV that can be used before couch gamers start to feel ill.

It depends. 900p just means 900 lines of vertical resolution. I sure as hell hope that at this day and age, 900p does mean 1600x900, and that 1080p means 1920x1080. However, a resolution such as 1280x1080 is still 1080p. That image can then be stretched out horizontally to fill the 16:9 ratio.

Guess I'll get it for PC - although Ubisofts track record for PC ports has been lukewarm on my end as of late. I was hoping this was gonna be like a game that would tide me over in buying the PS4 but guess not.

Ever since it came out that this game is running on a heavily re-purposed racing game engine, I've been skeptical of the initial hype. I hope it turns out alright, but I've lowered my expectations to a 'wait and see' level.

Also, to the people saying "guess pc is the way to go" remember that this game has ridiculous system requirements. Ubisoft isn't big on properly optimizing their games for pc, and would rather you spend a shit load of money on your rig to brute force performance.

I wonder if this trend of really weird resolutions is gonna continue. I'd rather they just keep it at 720p and 60FPS.

But what do I know, maybe it can't run at 60 even at 720p. I dunno, I just could not care less what resolution my console games run at. I'm not sure anyone really cares. Kinda just seems like people use resolutions as dumb little console war weapons now.

I'm sorry, 30+ fps? Not a solid 60? The first big game on the new SONY console?

Damn, dude. Nothing about this new generation is pulling me away from my PC, and these lacking resolution and FPS numbers, at the very beginning of the generation no less, are even more discouraging.

How did Far Cry 3 run for you? Stick of Truth? AC Black Flag? Blacklist? Rayman games? Future Soldier? Driver San Francisco? Because ever since From Dust, these games have run pretty excellent on my 4 year old rig. I'm just wondering which ones have been lukewarm in your experience.

@singingmenstrual: Black Flag, Blacklist and to a certain degree Trials Fusion all had some sort of issues and I have a pretty good PC.

Just in case: yah I did update my drivers.

Fusion especially shouldn't be having weird loading issues, not on an SSD anyway. Comparatively other games have ran fine. Lords of Shadow 2 ran silky smooth.

They didn't run awful, but certainly not as well as they've been.