Just a teensy confirmation from Watch Dogs: Legion’s live producer Lathieeshe Thillainathan writing as part of a Reddit question and answer: the game will run at 30 frames-per-second in 4K with raytracing enabled on the PlayStation 5. There’s no word on whether the title will have multiple graphical options, such as a 60 frames-per-second mode as well, but that’s the latest for now.
Remember, you’ll be eligible for a free PS4 to PS5 upgrade if you purchase this game on the PlayStation 4, so you’ll benefit from all of the visual bells and whistles on Sony’s next-gen console when you choose to upgrade. We reckon the raytracing is going to look particularly good in this game, as London is famous for its rainy weather.
I'm curious about the DualSense aspect of the game. Probably will wait for the PS5 version just to enjoy the game with some lovely haptics.
Maybe when playing as a granny the triggers will get stiff and I'll be able to feel her knees and joints creaking! <3
I hope there's 1080p mode with 60 fps & RT. I want 60 fps but I don't want to sacrifice RT for it, I rather not have 4K, 1080p resolutions is enough for me.
@Medic_Alert personally I'd prefer miles morales at 60fps for the feel when you're swinging away, but each to their own. This is why options are good so that players can tailor their experience based on what matters most to them with any given title.
That’s a shame, 60 FPS > 4K.
This bodes well for the capabilities of PS5 imo...lot of neckbeards in the media and forums have been suggesting that on multiplatform titles it would be 4K for xbox series x and checkerboard or some other upscale solution for PS5, due to the teraflop discrepancy between the machines.
One to pick up on sale sometime for me, but looking good.
@Medic_Alert you make a good point actually.
@Medic_Alert trust me, after you play it in 60fps on ps5, you dont wanna go back.
Personally I'd rather turn off ray tracing if I get 60fps 4K
They should let us choose what options to select. For example:
4K / 30FPS with RT
4K / 60FPS w/o RT
2K / 60FPS with RT (similar to Demons Soul)
Personally I would go for the second option all the way.
I’d like to have everything but given the option, I’d take 30fps 4K with RT and enjoy every minute. Really can’t wait to play this game.
London needs raytracing(especially as it rains all the time) I will get this for the PS5 next year sometime once I finish my PS4 backlog. I really liked the 2nd one(especially the WARP Records tunes on it like my favourite track ever was on it i.e LFO - LFO)
@GamingFiend that is speculation my friend,neither platform has good optimised games so far.
Until the mid-gen update can do raytracing and 60fps please give me the option to turn off raytracing for better framerates.
1080p, 120 fps
Should be the options for gaming, but only time will tell if its implemented.
@LiamCroft I Agree, I have yet to enjoy my favorites in 60FPS due to a lack of owning a Ps4Pro
Do we know if the Xbox Series X can do 4k at 60fps???
All action games should have a 60fps mode with dynamic res and the option to turn raytracing on or off.
Non action games can have 30fps if it suits the game,
I have no intention of ever playing this watchdogs game for various reasons, but it should become standard to have these options moving forward.
Really depends on the game.
Some games are just fine at 30 FPS.
And this is why you give people options so there's no arguments over 30 vs 60. They just need to have a 1440p or 1080p 60fps option for those of us that prefer smoothness over visuals and then everyone can be happy.
Would prefer 1080p at 60fps
It depends on the implementation. Control gave me a horrible headache due to the frame rate and motion blur. AC3 also gives me a headache because the frame rate is ever so slightly choppy. I think my eyes are pretty sensitive but I’d appreciate options so that I can find settings that make playing the game comfortable.
I would always choose 60fps over 4k 30fps
@TheRedComet Of course they are, but they’d play even better at 60FPS.
@wiiware Same here... I game primarily on a 28inch monitor so 1080p is enough resolution-wise, give me rock solid framerates and super shiny visuals over crunching more pixels than I need
Im hoping there’s a performance mode. Like 1440p at 60fps. I don’t care about ray tracing, but then with the amount it rains in London, them ray tracing reflections will look really nice.
@GamingFiend Teraflops are and have been a bad measure of graphical performance for a long time. AMD released a card that was 22tf a few years ago. It ended up being a terrible gpu, but was a great crypto-miner. Also, not great for AI purposes either. Basically, it was an expensive brick.
Also, AI upscaling is standard now. The 3080 is to the XSX what the 2080 Super was to the One X. And despite the massive raw horsepower jump in performance, the improvement in ai upscaling wins the day. EVERYONE in gaming is spending a fortune on it, including MS. Both MS and Sony had no interest in AMDs, so developed their own. Or in MS's case, bought a company to further and faster develop an existing version.
Doesn't Valhalla run at 60 on PS5? I'm sure there'd be a similar performance option for this.
London actually has relatively low rainfall.
The difference is that in London it always feels like it's about to rain.
If ray-tracing is good at capturing dull overcast skies then we're good.
Would prefer 60fps over ray tracing but that's the problem with cross gen releases, developers are just gonna do the bare minimum for the most part
Stupid question, but if I just bought the PS4 version with no intention of playing it on a PS4, would you be presumably getting the same game for the PS5 but for a bit cheaper?
Still don't have a 4k monitor so give me 1080P 60FPS please.
It's early days as developers get more used to the available options the ps5 offers you will see major improvements in performance in the near future!
@LiamCroft Honestly I would even say 1080p 60fps > 8k 30fps if it was possible 🤷
@I_Like_It it does the same 4k 30fps RT on xbox series x/ ps5 but on series s its as xbox fanboys call FAKE 4k checkerboard
4K in gaming is overrated. Give me 1440p with 60fps and Ray Tracing instead.
I have this game pre ordered for Series S, but I am now rather doubtful that it will have any form or raytracing and might not even hit 60fps, so I may get this on PS5 instead. Raytracing is one of the features I am excited for as I am not a PC gamer
I'd rather have 1080p/60fps and let the TV upscale to 4K, otherwise I have to turn on the motion smoothing
so all that talk about [email protected] with ray tracing was one huge lie eh?
@2cents No it won't.
Apparently, the technological leap won't be as great as initially thought. A PS5 should load faster than the previous generation, but no 4k/120fps RT, or 8k/60fps. Hopefully, better games are on the way.
Tbh I’m disappointed. I was hoping there’d be some sort of upscaling tech like NVidia’s DLSS 2.0 developed by Sony and AMD for the console. With all the hype talk about the groundbreaking architecture and all, these games can still only do 4K 30FPS. What a shame.
I think, this so-called “next-gen” is going to be rather a step forward & and a step back...the ps4pro gave us somewhat alike 4K games @30fps or 1080p @60fps. The PS5 will be able to give us the dream 4K @60fps gaming, though adding the ray-tracing to the equation, means the frame rate goes back to 30....
@wiiware Same here for me! Though in a perfect world, we could have games made to handle 4K/8K, 120-240 fps, and RT enabled all at the same time.
@Medic_Alert exactly. Nail on head. We have hardly been saying the games in the last 12 months and longer - look ugly or need to be smoother.... its why without true exclusives the next gen is a hard sell.. especially on the Xbox side...until it has a few exclusives we can’t play current gen
@Medic_Alert I’m the same. Own both this gen and not rushing right now to buy either. Have the death stranding pro and love it. I think it’ll be a new year ps5 for me. The couple of games that interest me I can get on ps4 so I’ll wait for a must have title. Shame coz I wanna be properly excited about console launch but this is the first gen I’m not leaping on day one
Most games will allow a variety of performance options. Pick what suits your game. 60FPS for something like Xcom is probably not much use, but in devil may cry it could be a game changer.
I did have this as a day 1 purchase. This generation should be about choice, PC style. If I want to turn down resolution to add frames, that should be an option. I don't see how up-scaled checkerboard 4k with 60fps would not be possible. Ubisoft, make it happen. Seriously considering not buying this game if they don't sort it out.
It's quite nice to have a gaming article about the upcoming consoles that hasn't descended into a flaming war!
@LiamCroft what wrong with 30 fps ?
@LiamCroft I see a lot of people giving opinions on 60 FPS > 4k (or vise versa) but to be entirely honest, the only way I can tell the difference between 30 and 60 FPS or between 1080p and 4k, is by stopping and slowly analyzing the game (and even then, its extremely subtle). I think anything above 1080p @ 30 is just going off a cliff of dramatically diminishing returns and I would much prefer that they use that extra oomph to add world detail and better physics, than a higher frame rate or resolution.
@JimmyRiddle They are both $59.99 (USD). It really depends on if you are getting it physically, or digitally. If you are all digital, the difference is negligible or non-existent. If you are getting a physical copy the difference is a bit bigger.
For physical editions, there are a few things to consider.
1. The PS4 version will allow you to share it with friends that don't have PS5s.
2. The PS5 version will allow you to play (the PS5 version) without requiring a large download/update. (One of the big benefits of physical editions) [Of course, you might still have optional day-one patches to install for the best experience]
3. The PS5 version will add to your collection for your new system, rather than for your old.
If none of these matter to you in the least bit, then its six in one hand, half a dozen in the other.
@MichaelHawj It isn't 60 fps.
@TheRedComet Yeah, well, Streets of Rage 1 is a godamn masterpiece but Streets of Rage 2 bumps from 30 to 60fps and feels incredibly better.
I had great fun this week-end playing Mario Kart 8 with 3 friends on couch, so at 30fps. But I did miss the 60fps smoothness from the 1-2 player mode.
My point is that a masterpiece can be 30fps and be very enjoyable. But it will always feel better at 60
I'm in the not bothered about 4K camp. Framerate is king and games just don't feel anywhere near as good at 30fps. In the PC would 30fps is generally considered unplayable. I'm hoping for a 1080 or Dynamic res 60fps with Raytracing option.
@orson @orson i has no problem with 30 fps at all
Should have a 60fps mode that's why we want next gen. Yeah it will look better,
but im not paying for abit of spit and polish. Unless it does have a boost mode.
I hope they plan to also offer 4K @ 60 fps with RTX off and 1080p @ 60 fps with RTX on.
Game set and match to Nvidia then.
Consoles left behind before they are even out.
think i'll keep my pro and play mulitplats on my 3080
@JimmyRiddle Yes, this is what I'm hoping. And I've seen it for £45 including shipping on PS4. I'm just wondering how the resolution/frame-rates will be on PS4 PRO. And how a non-SSD will affect the open world aspects of it, like if the maps will need a traditional load screen between some sections of the city or not (because that would suck!). A bit of speculation here, but I wonder whether the PS4 and PS5 disc will just contain the PS4 base game data and authentications for both versions, since at the end of the day, disc games have to install/get patched to HDD(PS4)/SSD(PS5) to run in any case. Games don't run off the actual disc, the disc is for authentication mainly, so I've read.
@KidBoruto No console games have RTX as they are AMD based consoles. RTX is not short for raytracing. It's proprietary nvidia tech using nvidia exclusive hardware.
There are some games where 60FPS is a must. Mainly fighting games. A fighting game that doesn’t run at a locked 60FPS is just... horrible.
Most single player big budget games are fine at 30FPS and for those I’ll take 4K and Ray tracing effects to improve the visuals.
But for multiplayer focused games, especially shooters, racing titles, and most importantly fighting games, I want 60FPS. I’ll gladly trade resolution and RT to hit a locked 60FPS in those games.
I get that and I agree with most others here that developers should offer a choice. Fidelity mode with 4K and RT enabled with a locked 30FPS, Performance mode at 1440p with a locked 60FPS (there’s no excuse; every game should be able to manage that), and maybe an ultra performance mode at 1080p with 120FPS for supported televisions.
@TheRedComet I hear people say that, but I don't buy it. Never once have I noticed frame rate (except when it suddenly drops) even in fighting games. I have played them on almost every platform from SNES to Arcades. Of course I am not world championship level at these games, so I don't need frame level timing; but neither are most of the others that claim it makes a difference.
I’m not a pro by any means but I definitely noticed it when I replayed some old SNES fighting games. When I was a kid, I probably didn’t care or notice. But going back to older console conversions that ran at slower frame rates it just felt off to me.
But you are correct that a frame rate being locked is ultimately more important than the running frame rate.
What’s interesting about owning a Switch is seeing developers make choices about how the game should run at certain times. DragonBall Fighterz is a great example. I’ve owned the PS4 and Switch versions and put a lot of time into both. The PS4 is locked at 60, never seen a drop. Under normal gameplay the Switch version is locked at 60, too. But during certain Level 3 Supers (Gogeta’s comes to mind) you will see the frame rate drop. But it doesn’t really affect you because it’s a super move and you’re just watching a scene. The developers made a choice to keep all of the graphical effects during supers despite the performance drop but lowered quality elsewhere so the game normally is locked at 60.
@TheRedComet I wonder if (regularly) playing games from older generations (where sub-30 was a normal frame rate), and especially growing up during those generations, makes (modern) frame rate less impactful than those who mostly play (or grew up playing) more modern games?
@Menchi My deepest apologies, I truly didn't know that "RTX" was solely owned by Nvidia.
Do you know what the name is for AMD's version of Ray Tracing?
@KidBoruto They don't have one yet since this is their 1st line that can ever do it. Their new GPU conference is next week, but it could also just be support for generic raytracing rather than an AMD specific one.
@Menchi What is the difference between generic ray tracing and one custom built for a specific card?
@KidBoruto Generic raytracing is a feature of the game engine and is a "catch all" that can be done by lots of different cards, and is usually lower quality and less accurate because it has to factor in lots of different card types and architectures and how they run/handle it, without spending a million hours to custom tune ever single card (there are LOTS of them). It is also controlled completely by software with no dedicated portion of the cards to support just the raytracing.
RTX on the Nvidia cards has dedicated hardware on the cards (called Tensor cores) to specifically handle the raytracing. It is more finely tuned for both only a very select amount of cards and the dedicated hardware/software to go with it.
TL;DR, generic can be done by most things, but to varying degrees of quality. RTX is finely tuned and optimised highly for the smaller selection of cards and games that support it. RTX is also exclusive to Nvidia products (consoles use AMD hardware)
@Menchi Thanks for the detailed explanation!
@TheRedComet Totally agree with you.
It doesn't work though on games programmed with the feet, like PlayerUnknown's Battleground 😅
@thedevilsjester from what i remember space harrier was running at 60hertz refresh rate in 1985. Daytona usa was running the same in 1994. Soul calibur all the same on dreamcast in 1999. To be honest ive played more 60 "fps" games in my life during the 32bit era or even the 8-16 bit era. I see the diffference and its really bad. Its about time dev get their things right and focus on giving us a good framerate without forcing raytracing and 4k down our throat too much. Many people still have 1080p display and for myself i just bought a hdmi 2.1 120 hertz tv but whats the point of promoting thoses tv if we still get 30 fps games ?
@BrbImCarrying I have played many (modern) games at 30, 60, and some at 120 (on a supported display of course) and I cannot honestly tell the difference between 30 and 120 let alone 30 and 60.
That being said, I am not a visuals junkie either. While I can appreciate the effort the goes in to the visuals (details, not resolution) I am just as happy playing a retro 8 bit looking title as I am the latest 4k ray tracing title; so I trust the developer to make the choices that make the most sense for their game.
@thedevilsjester yeah i respect your opinion. I have a friend and we often play side by side. He use a standard xboxone and i use a gaming laptop hooked on a tv. He gets 30 fps in gears of war 5 and phantasy star online 2 while on my side i run them in 60 fps. I swear he cannot tell the difference beetween both (no offense) and we are side by side. I just think performance and quality mode should be a standard in next-gen games for everyone to be happy ;p
Edit: in fact he often reply to me that it just look more "clear" as if the brightness was increased which always brings a good laugh to me !
60fps ended with the dreamcast and ps2 20 years ago. Young generation of gamer dont know/feel it now unless they have a gaming pc.
Tap here to load 74 comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...