News Watch Dogs misses 1080p target on consoles

Depends entirely on the game in question and whether we are talking target or actual.

GT6 for example targets "1080p" (not 1920x1080 though) @ 60fps. In reality in runs at up to 60fps (IIRC around 50fps average).

GTAV on the other hand runs at 720p (native) @ around 25-30fps. I assume it targets 30fps.

 

Not really sure why this is a surprise, was mostly pc people who were hoping the new consoles would push graphics in the first place.

First real game kinda falls over before it even hits 1080p is funny but predictable.

First party titles from MS and Sony will be the max resolution but that hardly changes much for pc gamers.

 

There's a lot of nonsense in this thread, which is disappointing.

The PS4 can hit 1080p - look at AC4: Black Flag as an example, or Infamous:Second Son as another. However, just like with the PC, if the developers overload on visual fidelity, either the frame rate or resolution takes a hit. Remember when we all struggled to run Crysis smoothly, so much so it became a meme?

Watch_Dogs is exactly this. Ubisoft have released a game where the graphical fidelity has been pitched at a point where resolution has to take a hit. They want to maintain a 30fps framerate to stop it being a jerky mess. Of course, if all they were interested in was OMG 1080P ALWAYS they'd just cut some effects. Unfortunately somebody at Sony messed up and released wrong information for a few days that boasted 1080p60, which was taken down. No need to get all agitated about a mistake, seriously.

I'd also comment that this is still early in console cycles. It takes years before developers really know how to get the most out of a system, so I doubt that Watch_Dogs is really truly pushing the limit - but it's an early game, so that is to be forgiven.

The interesting point is that yet again, the Xbone is running at an even lower resolution.

 

I don't think anyone who has half a clue about gaming and hardware expects a £300 machine to do 1080p in everything, still its surprising about watchdogs performance issues as it doesn't even look that good when I have sat in their demos.

Probably be a better experience on console than PC once uplay is factored in regardless of res

 

You got a point there sandys as Uplay is just a bad piece of crap.

 

Won't do the current round of virtual reality headsets many favours if the current gen of consoles can't guarantee 1080p, kinda suggests VR will be full of watered down games just to make sure they'll run on PS4/XB1 (assuming these consoles are being targeted by VR manufacturers. What do I know?).

 

It's probably too late for the current generation. But I think a reworking on how consoles are managed over a period of years is needed. If the PS4 can't handle full eye-candy + 1080p + 60fps, then it's not up to delivering VR... to a high visual standard and is a non starter for 4K.

Now if Sony released a new PS4 every year, with updated specs then old games will still run on the new hardware at 720p 900p (or whatever) but new games will run at higher res / faster FPS on the new hardware.

This is how things work in the PC, Smart Phone & Tablet space, so why would it be so awful for a console?

Sure it adds in additional configurations but if newer hardware generally means 'faster' then it's not that hard for developers to adjust. They're already doing that on mobile, the game engines can all do it and with known configurations it'll be a lot easier than it is on PC... and a lot of 'A' titles are on PC anyway.

A few generations in and games will be able to support 4K with clean graphics, or easily handle 1080p / VR with near photorealism and high FPS / Low latency VR demands.

Hell, Sony could release a 'Pro' edition of a PS4 with a beefed up GPU / SSD at four times the price of the base unit and it would sell.

It's time to make console gaming as easy as console gaming but with specification tiers to keep pace with progress.

I'm all up for a PS4 Pro MKIII... that's the one to buy for sures.

Hmmm did I just invent the steam box?

 

Consoles are what they are a fixed platform that does not improve over time. Would not get many buyers buying a £400 console once a year. A large part of the target audiance is the young 8-16 year olds. Dout mams or dads around the world would thank Sony or MS for a yearly upgrade cycle all it would do is force them to look at alternatives.

In 3 years you could build a high end gaming pc that would outstrip any console Sony or MS could make with just the money spent replacing the console year to year.

You would also struggle to get backwards compatibility guarenteed as the gpu and cpu change so the code would have to be rewritten to support them. As all games on consoles eventually get coded direct to metal. Which means if the gpu no longer exists it needs something to allow it to talk to the gpu in the system.

Even if they wanted to could AMD keep up with that level of development as thats who both companies use these days. There All in one System on Chips would have to become alot more powerful than they currently are to allow for full 1080p gaming let alone 4k gaming.

Most phones are heavily subbed in the uk at least, Tablets ( name a tablet not made by apple to sell 7mil + (which is what the ps4 has sold so far most likely closer to 12mil by year end) and cost £300 +. Ill give you a hint there is not one.)

Pc upgrade cycle for most is once every 2 years and thats only the gpu or gpus. You no longer need to buy a new cpu every year. Old gen i7s 920 - 980 ect are more than enough for current games. 580 gpu can still max out most games at the 1080 resolution as well.

Not even alot of 64 bit exe games yet.

As I said earlier some PC gamers are desperate for Consoles to push Graphics development when in reality they should be looking at the developers themselves to push the development. Cryengine is a decent example of what a PC game can look like.

 

MS have sold more xboxones since launch than alienware sold gaming pc`s in 5 years. remember that

 

LAAAAAZZZYYYY LIARS!!

 

+50 for the use of this word. Still have to correct the spelling on any cards I buy for my mother, mum is such a horrible word

 

A lot of people can't afford the cutting edge and so no one would buy the game, remember Crysis, they tried that, people bought it the spent most of the time complaining on the internet they couldn't run it, it did not sell well.

 

Its a matter of choice:

Consoles:
720P = eycandy + steady frame rate
1080P = eyecandy + fluctuating framerate
OR
1080P = no eycandy + steady framerate


OR
Depening on system specs
PC = Much more candy + 60fps


If they want to push cutting edge graphics with acceptable frame rates they should push 720P. Does it really makes a big difference doing a console on a big TV screen between 720P and 1080P? Maybe the 1% of purists out there. Remember the WII. Graphics from the 80's but everyone wanted it. Normal consumers do not give a **** about 720p/1080p, they just want to play that OMG game everybody talks about.

 

The problem is in this fragmented market publishers want to reach as wide an audience as possible, so most of the time developers either have to make games that very scalable, or limit their game to the lowest spec.
Highly scalable is very difficult and costly to do as it can involve different textures, different models, etc, etc.

 

Crysis is in the top 20 highest selling pc games of all time for the record. It's been done before corky, look at bf3 or bf4, medium its a console port. Ultra they both look amazing.

Most mmos are good at this scaling, World of Warcraft looks so old on min. Looks a lot newer on the later settings. Because they have such a wide target audience. With people still running single core CPU systems in some places.

I'd expect star citizen to scale very well as they have a wide target audience.

Watchdogs on pc will likely run on a very minimum spec pc. It should end up been able to scale to some of the early promo vids that were shown.

 

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying it can't be done.

Just that until recently (2-3 years) game engines were not able to scale from the very low, to the very high.
AFAIK a lot of the newer game engines have been designed with scalability very much in mind from the get go,
so i don't see it being as big a problem as it was last generation.

Although saying that It's still down to the develops/publisher to invest the time and money into making it so.

 

Watch Dogs will run admirably on a very humble PC with medium settings I expect, which will be roughly equivalent to console graphics - albeit it a higher (or non-upscaled) resolution on the PC.

I also expect the jump to ultra settings to cripple all but very high end rigs, for a barely tangible visual difference form the next setting down. It's quite often the way nowadays.

Direct to metal coding aside, the consoles really aren't that powerful. They will thrive on exclusives that are effectively coded, but on multi-platform releases they will struggle to perform without massive optimization. Far easier to render fewer pixels than to wrestle with complex code.

 

It never fails to surprise me, even though it really shouldn't at this point, how the graphics part of games always seems to take front and centre, especially with the resurgence of retro and indie games. Yes, this is somewhat newsworthy on account of Sony's "promise", but relevant? Meh.

If you absolutely must have 1080p60+ on all of the latest games with everything on to make your life worth living, then maybe a budget £300 console with a 5-7 year life isn't for you and you should think about setting up an annual £1000+ standing order to your favourite component vendor.

Great games will be great at either 1080p or 720p - and if you're scrutinising the graphics or fidelity it's probably not that great a great game.

Crap games will still be crap at 4k.

Granted, this was more ranty than I intended, but I stand by it

 

Yea but just think of the greater fidelity of that crap

 

You can almost make out the peanuts!