http://www.videogamer.com/xboxone/watch_dogs/news/watch_dogs_is_30fps_on_ps4_and_xbox_one.html

"Despite confirming the frame rate, though, Morin could not confirm the game's native resolution on next-gen platforms, claiming that he didn't know whether the game would run at 720p or 1080p."

If they can't get this game running at 1080p on AT LEAST the PS4, that is just grotesque incompetence by Ubisoft. I will be holding off on picking this up on PS4 until its confirmed. Pretty ridiculous that we're a couple of months out from launch and they still don't know.

I hope it's just that one guy that doesn't know, and this isn't a case where the game is completely on fire and they don't know.

Also, I'm usually not a stickler for this type of thing, but I think it's pretty cruddy that 1080P isn't a requirement for next gen consoles. I mean, come on! Eh, whatever, must be harder to do than I think.

I'm picking this up on the PS4 and I'm hoping it's 1080p, if not, I'm gonna be upset that I just didn't get the game on my PC!

Ehhhh I'm sure they're making the game look as good as it can and if that means sacrificing resolution for some other cool effects and little tricks then so be it

People are speculating this is all the doing of third party politics. They can get it running at 1080 on PS4 but only 720 on XB1 and MS don't want to have their pants pulled down. If that's true, then yet again the gamers have to pay for Microsofts stupidity.

All i want is a stable frame rate with all next gen games weather it be a solid 30FPS at 1080p or 60FPS at 720p

In this case, it might be "locked" 30fps at 720 which is no better than current gen.

they need to do 1080p for these new games

I don't care about the resolution. 1080p is nice but I'm not bugged by 720p.

What I'm bugged by is the 30FPS. Why do we have to stick with 30 when these new consoles could easily pull 60 on everything? If anything, Call of Duty has proven that the best-running, not the best-looking, game can sell more, so why don't developers go for the smoother experience? Isn't that just plain better? And this is supposed to be coming out for the 360 and PS3, too. If the next generation consoles can't pull 60 on a game that's supposed to run on the current gen consoles, how can we expect the 360 and PS3 to even keep a stable 30?

'Course, at this point Ubisoft isn't known for their smooth framerates on consoles, so maybe Watch Dogs on current gen will run at like 15 - 20 frames per second on current gen consoles.

There is always a compromise to be made with graphics. You can either increase the resolution, or cram more stuff (Pixels, shaders etc.) onto the screen at once. Many average users won't notice a resolution increase, and if someone tells them it has 1080 P's rather than 720 P's, they won't know or care what that means. But they will notice the massive explosion that was twice as detailed as they're used to. Or the dozens and dozens of high quality enemies coming at them. Or an extremely realistic water texture. They may be able to achieve these things at 720 whilst at 1080 they'd have to scale down their ambitions for some of those things.

Current gen consoles can run games at 1080p, but it would come at the detriment of other graphical elements. That's a compromise they chose to make. There will be similar decisions to be made next gen where developers have to chose between resolution and other graphical things. Its never that they "can't get the game running at 1080p", it's that they chose to prioritise other things over the resolution.

what about 1440p it excist aparently

Man, I thought 60fps had been confirmed, what a bummer.

30fps alone makes me lean hard toward the PC version, but if they can't even get 1080p I'm definitely getting it on PC (assuming the game is worth getting).

pc version for all ubisoft games it is.

They should probably figure that out.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

Well guess I'll be getting this on PC.

It's not a fighting game, driving game, or FPS so a stable 30 fps is fine. 1080p is nice but there are a ton of more important graphical options that makes games look better. I'd much rather it runs in 720p instead of making concessions elsewhere. Resolution is way down the list of what makes a game look great and the only important thing about framerate is that it's stable.

Relax.

blunder of the century

err

All the Pixels.

But yea I would expect them to run at 1080P, a solid 30fps is fine as long as its solid.

Wut.

@greggd: Matty likely meant Pixelshaders/shadows/etc.

I'd rather have 1080p with graphical stuff turned down.

It could just be that I'm a PC gamer first, but games on the PC that default at 1280x720 look real nasty on my 1920x1200 display. It could just be a scaling issue, but resolution is the last thing I'd touch to get more performance on the PC. If I turn things like SAO and tesselation off within the first half-hour of gameplay, I'd forget what the game looked like with it on and would be quite happy with the gaming experience. Sub native resolution looks muddy; like watching a DVD on an HDTV.

I'm sure this is more of a political statement. If they need to drop resolution to sub-1080p during heavy action scenes (Like Wipeout on the PS3.) to maintain 30fps, you'd have articles saying "Console X can't do 1080p as promised!"

Gonna be one of two people buying this on Wii U.

If the ps4 can't, reliably, push out 1080p, then I might just be done with consoles... Probably will try to save up for a decent PC at that point...

This is exactly why I'm getting the PC version, at least I'll be guaranteed 1080p 60fps.

Eh 1080p? Back in my day we were happy with 480i! Who needs resolution!? Let's knock it down to 240p like the PSP while we're at it! As long as the effects look nicer. What does fidelity have to do with comprehension anyhoo? Framerate BS is also totally lame! I can't tell the difference between 30 and 60 so neither should you!

240i 15 fps 4 life!

Snarkasm aside it worries me that we may go into a generation without beefing these thing up. Are we really going to get another seven years of 720p 30fps as the standard? Meanwhile I'm looking at picking up another video card and a monitor for 2560x1440. A $300~ video solution can handle 1440p60 just fine these days. Why are game developers struggling with $400-500 consoles that aren't even out yet?

All I want out of this new gen of consoles is 60fps locked at 1080. If they can't manage that then my pc's gonna get a lot of use.

I do hope the next generation of consoles will be able to put out it's biggest games in a resolution that was new and cool in 2005.

@capsicum_homie: I couldn't agree with this more. My PS4 pre-order bundle was with watch dogs. When I found out today that the game is locked at 30 fps I canceled my PS4 preorder. If that hardware can't even push launch games at 60 fps it ain't beefy enough for me.

Errrr wat?

How about 900p, Ryse looks great even with 900p. Seems a good middle ground if you cant hit 1080p. You don't have to go all the way down to 720p, that would be disappointing.

@kpaadet: Ryse says hi.

Well yeah, texture quality, lighting, post-processing and modeling all contribute way more to a game's look than resolution. If the game's graphics suck, it doesn't matter what resolution you're pumping out, the graphics will still suck. They'll just be sharper.

Yeah and if the resolution is 480i what does it matter what kind of effects you have? Unless you play in on a 18" SD tv it will look like shit. Resolution is not way down the list of things that makes games look pretty like the guy I quoted said, but sure if the "list" only contains "resolution vs every single effect in a game" but I assumed we were talking about resolution vs lighting or vs textures etc.

@the_laughing_man: Ryse runs in 900p I don't know about you but that seems higher than 720p. Also hi Ryse! I can't believe you are actually talking to me, all this time I was told you were just a video game.

lol

I've found in the past playing on a television with Assassins creed brotherhood for example, medium settings at 1080p > highest settings at 720p

It may just be preference, but resolution makes a pretty big overall difference.

You people are crazy; I'm just going to play the CGA version of the game:

I can tell the difference but it isn't that big of a deal to me. The game looks fun and interesting, that is why I'm getting it.

"I don't know" = "720, but I can't just come out and say that and hurt our sales"

Come on. Do you think marketing for one of their most high-profile games actually doesn't know? THAT would be gross incompetence. A straight answer just doesn't suit their needs.

Best on WiiU

Technically it could still have way better graphical settings and anti-aliasing, but it does seem hard to believe that wouldn't be possible already and at 1080.

There is absolutely no reason why we can't get a solid 30FPS at 1080p. If they can't do that with the new consoles, then somebody is seriously fucking up, especially if they can't do a solid 60FPS at 720p.

Anything less is unacceptable.

Not to get into the whole "PC vs Console" thing, but PC's have been able to do solid 60FPS at 1080p for a few years now. I find it really hard to believe that next-gen consoles might not be able to do that. If the new consoles can't handle that, then the new consoles are in a lot of trouble.

I'll take smooth performance at 60FPS over better graphics any day of the week, especially in a shooter where frame rate matters more than anything.

grotesque incompetence

Dosen't jsut about every resolution exist? it jsut needs to be scaled, wich is something consoles do.

Devs doesent have to chouse specifically btween 720 and 1080 theres also everything inbetween (as far as the relative math works out)

@andrewb: have you forgotten about more lighting? Shaders? All that stuff? Aspect ratio is not everything.

I wish platform holders would set a format standard, 1080p 60fps so every game would be dimensioned for the platforms it's on to meet those requirements.

Instead of developers cramming as much effects/particles/reflections/whateversystemintensivethingamabob as the top platform will handle and then gimp the game for all the other platforms.

Garbled typing aside, this man is on the money. Many current-gen games fiddle with resolutions and framebuffers, sometimes well below 720p. Render resolutions for console games have been a more complex issue than just pixel count for a while.

What I'm guessing the guy was going for, assuming he was making any kind of statement, is that they can't confirm 1080p yet because they may end up cutting some lines to hit a steady 30 fps, the way Ryse is doing. I wouldn't be surprised if that happened. I would be totally shocked if the game ended up at 720p30, though, nice as it looks. And I don't mean that as a complaint or a fear, I'm saying I don't believe that will be the case at all.

@believer258: In this case with it being an open world game, I'm guessing that trying to go 60 FPS would also make everything else suffer and I'm guessing that the other added consequence would be horizontal screen tearing as well. Considering the specs of the next-gen hardware being the equivalent of lower mid tier video cards, it didn't surprise me that they're locking it at 30 FPS considering the number of details they would have to render in this game. If the game wasn't open world OR they would just tone down the textures, lighting, shadows, etc. I can see the game hitting sitting a constant 60. Realistically they probably could lock it above 30 FPS but they probably found locking at 30 to be the safest in terms of the game not having to take a hit performance-wise.