News Article

Rumour: PS4's Power Will Slide to Unlock 60FPS in Watch Dogs

Posted by Sammy Barker

Phoning for frames

Sony’s certainly not beating around the bush with its official profile page for Watch Dogs on the PlayStation 4. Realising that its system has a serious visual advantage over other machines on the market, the platform holder has proudly boasted that Ubisoft’s hack happy escapade will feature “the best graphics on any console” courtesy of its recently released device. According to the manufacturer, this, in addition to the title’s previously announced exclusive missions, will make the PS4 version of the sandbox escapade the “true experience”.

There’s more, however. According to the short description, the game will run in 1080p at 60 frames-per-second on its freshest format, which is a technical specification that’s yet to be officially announced. The developer has hinted in the past that the game will display in full high-definition on the Japanese giant’s super system, but it’s always been assumed that the release will run at the more manageable 30FPS like Assassin’s Creed IV: Black Flag. If this information’s accurate, that’s an interesting optimisation.

It’s not impossible, of course, as despite boasting best-in-class visuals, inFAMOUS: Second Son managed to reach highs of 50FPS at times. Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition was another stunning next-gen release that ran around 60FPS on the PS4, so the precedent’s certainly there. We’ll try to get confirmation from the French publisher, but don’t expect any clarifications until next week.


Game Screenshots

User Comments (57)



Cyrso said:

Has to be a mistake. There's no way the the PS4 can render that high quality level of graphics in an open-world game at 60 fps.



lorelai said:

i totally agree with Cyrso...there must be mistake
i wish its true though im getting it on PS4 fer sure




@Cyrso why?

Have you played Second Son? As Sammy said, it wasn't far off [email protected] Take that, strip away the majority of the particle effects and the speed at which you can traverse the city, and sure there's room to optimise.



Crimson_Ridley said:

@Cyrso the PS4 should be able to achieve this kind of stuff, or what the hell can we expect from next-gen? The standard should be 60fps at 1080p, as without it there isn't a big leap from last-gen.



THEundying27 said:

If this is true then I believe watch dogs will have an unlocked frame rate, it wouldn't be a full 60 all the time.

@BrB I'm not seeing anything on the pre order page that suggests anything about the frame rate rumor, unless you were directing us to the page for something else.

EDIT: never mind I was looking at the sony page on my phone and it didn't show the entire thing. It does say 60fps.



imtom2002 said:

Is the difference between 30 and 60 that big? I looked at some videos on youtube and I honestly couldnt really tell the difference.




@imtom2002 And, it can be. Wouldn't make too much difference in a game like this I wouldn't have thought...but play WipEout HD then play any other WipEout game. [email protected] certainly isn't essential, but it's very nice.



charlesnarles said:

@KALofKRYPTON there's "high-octane driving" so I'd be really disappointed with 30fps. i:SS has a much higher "ceiling" than W_D will need (if there aren't jetpacks) so that'll free up some cycles if needed. I feel like everyone's underestimating the game and system (or I'm just giving them both too much credit but I hope not lol). 1080p @ 60f/s was all but promised to us as standard



Midzark said:

Hope this is true!, like others say this should be the norm for next gen gaming really!!



get2sammyb said:

@imtom2002 I think another good example is Call of Duty. If you've ever wondered why that looks slicker than most other shooters, it's because it's 60FPS.




@charlesnarles Need For Speed: Rivals ran at 30fps on PS4. And it was stunning, and fun, and I honestly can't say that I once thought that being at 30fps hindered the game, or my enjoyment of it.

I've nothing at all against [email protected], or any game targeting it. As I said WipEout HD is still a joy to behold. But I doubt it's going to be a reason for me to not buy a game.




@THEundying27 That's not a resource cost, they're crap across the board, on the mightiest PC the game still looks essentially the same. I'd bet you could get half way between Ghosts and Killzone Shadow Fall in the graphics stakes and still maintain 60fps.



imtom2002 said:

@get2sammyb call of duty is smooth I just always thought it was the controls though. Others shooters seem slugish but thats the 30-60fps difference and I just didnt know it then?



Cyrso said:


  • The graphics look very good imo. Also means it's taxing for the hardware
  • Open-world game, lots of detail and lots of stuff has too be calculated and rendered at once so overall there's a lot of stuff going on.
  • 1080p
  • All of the above at 60 fps would be unique for an open-world on any console. Even on PC that would require a quite powerful PC. So I think, if it would really be 60 fps on PS4 then I think Ubisoft would already have revealed that since it's a pretty important selling point.

The game's director also already made a comment on the framerate of the PS4 version of Watch Dogs and said it was 'stable' ( ). Again, you would think he would have said it's 60 fps if it was 60 fps, because 'stable' alone doesn't really say much.

It's possible that they're saving the framerate announcement closer to the release or something, but I doubt it. Or maybe it's lower framerate on the Xbox One version and they don't want to harm the PR for the Xbox One version of the game and the 3rd party relationship with Microsoft.



get2sammyb said:

@Cyrso Thanks for the information. The other possibility is that this could just be Sony making an error. It seems like a very specific comment, though. I mean they could have easily said all the "best looking version" guff without needing to go into details.




@Cyrso The graphics do look good. I'm yet to see any gameplay that looks as good as Infamous Second Son though. And as stated before, that was close to 60.

I think we're all.aware now that XB1 simply cannot achieve parity with PS4 when it comes to raw power and available bandwidth. So if this is true, then MS are probably doing all they can to keep Ubi quiet about it.



MadchesterManc said:

No doubt it'll be up to 60fps, Which I have no problem with if it ends up being as relatively smooth as Tomb Raider was on Ps4. To be honest I wouldn't even care if it was a locked 30fps as that's smooth enough and I'm not asinine enough to demand 60fps for a game that will show little benefit from it



MitchVogel said:

I still find it amusing how the Wii U, with its inferior specs, still manages to have more 60 FPS 1080p games than PS4 or Xbone. I love my PS4 to death, but seriously guys, if Nintendo can do it so effortlessly on their weaker machine, than what's the problem here?



memoryman3 said:

@EvisceratorX Watch_Dogs Wii U= 720p sub-30fps guaranteed.

Plus, Wii U only has ONE retail game that is 1080p and 60fps and that is Rayman. Mario Kart is GUARANTEED to be 720p with no AA and 4x AF if screenshots are to go by....

It's like Ubisoft REALLY want me to get Watch_Dogs on PS4. I will persevere to get the Wii U version unless it is broken



Cyrso said:


I don't think that's true. The only Wii U game that is running at 1080p 60 fps is Rayman Legends, but that isn't too special since it's a 2D game mostly made up of 2D artwork and it also ran at that resolution and framerate on X360/PS3.


Besides, you have to look at more than just the framerate and resolution. Games like Watch Dogs and inFAMOUS Second Son are first of all open-world meaning a lot of assets have to be rendered all at once and both games also have very advanced lighting and rendering techniques so they're going to be pushing the hardware much more than Super Mario 3D World or Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze. Or like Ryse: Son of Rome it runs at 900p and 30 fps, but it's still one of the most impressive looking games, graphically and it's going to be much more taxing for the hardware than a game that is much more simple in its design and graphics like Super Mario 3D World, even if the latter would be running at 1080p 60 fps.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not hating on Super Mario 3D World and Donkey Kong Country TF here, I don't have a Wii U, but I loved the previous games (DKCR and Super Mario Galaxy 1&2), I'm just saying that those games are graphically much more simple and thus are going to more easily achieve 720p or 1080p 60 fps.



THEundying27 said:

@EvisceratorX I find it amusing that people think the wii u is superior because its first party games run at 60 frames. Those games don't require a lot horsepower from the hardware which is why the wii u can run it without any problems.

3rd party is a different story. I've seen the wii u running call of duty games with nasty frame rate dips to the 30s. So yes compared to xbox one and ps4, the wii u is less powerful. You can't take a game like donkey kong or the 10 millionth mario game that run at 60 and put it up against a 30fps game like need for speed rivals and say, "Well if the wii u can do it there's no reason why the ps4 can't". Sounds very silly.

@KALofKRYPTON true true, ill give you that



hardrockr79 said:

I have a really good idea. Let's wait and see if it runs at 1080p 60fps before talking a bunch of ****, and assuming to already know. I have one more thing, who cares? Its gonna be good even if fps dip below 60.




@hardrockr79. Actually, DX12 should do great things for XB1. The hardware issues will still be there, but the threading optimisations aught to help quite a lot.
I must admit though, I'm more than happy that the big studios don't seem to having much of an issue with the idea of ignoring total parity this gen.

As for the Wii U, well. It's not really 'this gen' is it. As more and more third parties ignore it in the power race - Ninty are yet more reliant on their first party staples. Of which, Mario Kart 8 is the closest I've ever come to wanting one.



hardrockr79 said:

@KALofKRYPTON Its just funny to me, X1 fans defending something that is litterally more than a year away.

I agree on the MarioKart 8, I too have been looking for a reason to get a WiiU, for my kids of course:)

I also think Second Son was pure magic; can't wait to see what the future holds for my PS4!!



Ginkgo said:

If true, then 1080p/60fps is awesome. If not true, I don't really care. Either way I will be buying this game on ps4 day one.



thedevilsjester said:

@THEundying27 This. I see the stupid "but WiiU does 1080p!" Argument all the time and it just shows the arguer has no idea and is baselessly (and needlessly) trying to justify their purchase.



Gamer83 said:

I'm not expecting any massive open world game to ever be able to run 1080p and a consistent 60 frames per second on PS4. Maybe when it's time for GTA VI Rockstar will show it can be done but I doubt it, the PS4, as powerful as it is, obviously has its limitations still.



sackninja said:

Haven't read all the comments but my two year old gaming computer could probably play this at a higher fps. I expect to get 60fps on this.



candyman316 said:

@imtom2002 YouTube videos are compressed and only run at about 30 frames per second no matter what the original source file was. You won't see a difference on YouTube and should never use that to compare graphics



hardrockr79 said:

@get2sammyb No problem. I was talking to all the haters about "60 fps can't be achieved" etc. I appreciate the update, and take them all with a grain of salt. I like to see for myself before predetermining what can/cannot be achieved. I trust the articles and updates until I'm given a reason not to.



eLarkos said:

60fps is not nearly as needed in Watch Dogs as it is in Driveclub. Still, it would be nice. People that complain about people wanting 60fps please understand two things:
1. Your complaints about peoples genuine concerns are worse than the complaints of the ppl you are talking about.
2. The difference between 30 and 60fps is real.



Punished_Boss_84 said:

Yeah, no. Ironically i wouldn't trust the details Sony place on their official site/PlayStation Store etc... Because they for the most part don't turn out true.

If it is, the internet meltdown will occur.



MoleZandor said:

@thedevilsjester it's not a stupid comment. it's a fair point. Just because the games don't look realistic doesn't mean that it doesn't stretch the hardware. They still have lighting effects, physics, shaders, particals, water effects. and beautifully smooth looking rounded edges. Nintendo games are always, "ALWAYS" made with so much care and attention. And I have played my Wii U plenty even since getting my PS4. it's an amazing system. People need to see for themselves rather than blindly following the online naysayers.



thedevilsjester said:

@MoleZandor You misunderstand. The 1080p @ 60 fps metric in a vacuum means nothing. If you take a game that runs in 1080p @ 60 and drop it to, say 720p @ 60, you can fit quite a lot more detail in the world. A bigger, more dynamic world. Better draw distances, higher poly count objects, more objects on the screen, more detailed particle effects, more activity going on at once. Sure all of these games can reduce all of the above, and hit 1080p @ 60 without issue, but they choose a more active and alive (and in some games, realistic) world instead. That the WiiU can do 1080p @ 60 is immaterial, because it CANNOT do 1080p @ 60 with even a fraction of the level of detail and dynamism that the PS4 and Xbox One can do. For example, the PS4 and Xbox One could run any game that the WiiU has at 1080p @ 60 twice over without breaking a sweat.



MoleZandor said:

@thedevilsjester I fully understand. I program games myself, I believe there is more to the wii u than meets the eye, but I agree maybe 2 times more powerful or more, but that guys 10 times over comment just got to me. The wii u is rendering two screens most of the time as well which is gonna take up processing power.



thedevilsjester said:

Look at the actual hardware specs and in some cases (like Memory speed) the PS4 has 13.75 x the speed the WiiU does, in most cases its between 4-6 times what the WiiU has. Saying that the PS4 is only 2x better than the WiiU spec wise is just as much of an under-exaggeration as saying its 10x is an over exaggeration. It averages out more to about 5-6 x faster.
3 Core CPU @ 1.25 GHZ
12.8 GB/s DDR 3
550mhz GPU
5 CUs,
320 ALUs,
16 TMUs,
4.4 GP/s
8.8 GT/s

8 Core CPU @ 1.6 ghz (3.4 x)
8 GB RAM (4 x)
176GB/s GDDR5 (13.75 x)
800mhz GPU, (1.4 x)
18 CUs, (3.6 x)
1152 ALUs, (3.6 x)
32 ROPS, (4 x)
72 TMUs (4.5 x)
1.84 TFLOPS (5.2 x)
25.6 GP/s (5.8 x)
57.6 GT/s (6.5 x)

I provided the "in relation to the WiiU" power in parenthesis on the PS4 details so you could see how each item stacks up.



MoleZandor said:

@thedevilsjester Some pretty good stacks there. Knowing this shows a lot more promise on top of what we have seen from the ps4 so far. Still there is more to it than just numbers, like you said before about the res and fps.



thedevilsjester said:

@MoleZandor Oh I agree completely. I won't get a WiiU because of the controller, because of what the WiiU looks like physically, because it doesn't play BluRay, and because Nintendo has not had a good relationship with third parties in quite awhile. The actual hardware specs themselves only matter to me for MMORPG's where specs are crucial for draw distance, number of models on screen at any one time, etc... Other than that, I would rather play Mario, Zelda, and Metriod than most of the games released on my chosen platform, which is why I always hope that Nintendo will exit the console market and focus on what they do better than any other developer, and thats make amazing games, and leave the hardware to someone else.

Leave A Comment

Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...