PlayStation website claims 'Watch Dogs' runs best on the PS4 [Update]

There is no disputing the hardware differences between Microsoft's Xbox One, and Sony's PlayStation 4. On both sides we have 8GB of RAM, 500GB of hard disk storage space and similar GPU architectures. Despite the fact that both systems are utilizing AMD technology in their chips, the PS4 outperforms the Xbox One.

The PlayStation 4 comes with a Radeon-based GPU with 1152 cores clocked at 800MHz. The Xbox One also includes a Radeon-based graphics processor but with only 768 shader cores clocked at 853MHz. Even though the Xbox One tries to trounce its shortcomings by using 32MB of SRAM as a buffer, it still does not perform as well as Sony's newest gaming console. Due to this fact, Sony is claiming that "Watch Dogs" will run best on the PlayStation 4.

PlayStation's "Watch Dogs" page claims the PS4 will be the only system to run the title in full 1080p at 60FPS, although this has yet to be confirmed by UbiSoft. This claim may have been made due to the Xbox One suffering a loss in resolution in games such as "Battlefield 4" compared the PlayStation 4 version.

It is still too early to determine which system will run the game best due to fact that many developers are still transitioning to the new hardware, however it is certain that "Watch Dogs" will create a huge fan base on both the Xbox One as well as the PlayStation 4 regardless of the resolution.

Update: Sony has recently taken down these claims on PlayStation's "Watch Dogs" website. Sony may be attempting to cease the information from spreading, or the settings that the title runs at is still to be determined. It is unconfirmed if the game will run at 1080p at 60 frames per second.

Source: PlayStation via UberGizmo | Image via Ubisoft

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

NVIDIA launches 'Portal,' 'Half-Life 2' for its Shield handheld

Next Story

Microsoft may offer OneDrive cloud storage for Xbox Music users

58 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Which still confirms that it runs best on PS4 if that's the case. Why the low res on Xbox One?? It has inferior specs but it's not that much worse off hardware-wise.

Well the biggest problem is having a new console in 2014 and the need of bragging to run anything in a standard today resolution. I would be amazed if they could run It in 4K .. that would be a proper next generation console.

I went Xbox, admittedly despite the fact I'd rather have gotten a PS4 as I do think it's a better console. Most of my family and friends who are gamers are all hardcore Xbox fans, and it would have meant I only had 2 or 3 friends to play online with. But at the same time, I don't regret it; I love Titanfall and Killer Instinct, and even if the PS4 is a more powerful console, the Xbox One games still look great and run perfectly fine. Call me a casual gamer or whatever, but I think the whole console war is way over-exaggerated and if the game you want runs just as you like, then who cares what console it is?

I can't wait to see the comparisons of still screen shots, because that's totally how we see games when we play them. One frame at a time.

Who cares about this stuff anymore. It's well documented.

I no longer expect parity on resolution and I'm pretty ok about that. I can't tell the difference personally and although I was disappointed at first the rest of the package has enhanced my living room enough that I couldn't care less about resolution any more.
I have a high performance PC and I chose to trade convenience and functionality for Xbox as primary entertainment device and when I think about going back it's a non starter. Definitely got my value for money. I would have paid more.

Please, don't site that as a source as that site is full of nonsense.
As someone with access to an Xbox One devkit I can personally tell you that it's complete BS what is on that site.

Thief000 said,
Please, don't site that as a source as that site is full of nonsense.
As someone with access to an Xbox One devkit I can personally tell you that it's complete BS what is on that site.
Holly smoke that website is pretty interesting. Makes me wonder how much time he spent finding all of these documents. Anyway, would it be possible that MS is not yet ready to reveal all the features? For a period of time, most people thought that XB1 has no support for DX12. And then MS announces that XB1 has full support for DX12 including the hardware-specific to this version.

Well, let me tell you this. IF there's any truth to it, then MS did a hell of a good job keeping all of those features away from developers in their SDKs.
Full support of DX12 will depend on when the DX12 spec gets finalized. There's actually a couple of things that developers would like to see implemented and DO require new hardware (especially on nVidia's side), so that would mean no full support of DX12 on the Xbox One if that were to happen.

Looking the best and running the best are two different things. It could look great at 1080p on the PS4 and still suffer frequent frame rate problems. And it could look inferior at 720p on the Xbox One but still run as smooth as silk.

Most people can't tell the difference because the difference is so small. The PS3 had many lower resolution games than Xbox 360 and nobody cared. Nobody buys into this system war garbage except fanboys. If there is a sizeable difference in visual quality then it should be easy to show in a side by side comparison, but we never get those. All we ever hear are tech specs and that's it. If it was a big difference you could show people and the specs wouldn't matter.

I find it hard to believe that watch dogs can achieve 1080p/60fps on PS4. It's just way over the top if it turns out to be true because that's huge difference not just in resolution anymore unless they lower the graphic to medium instead of high to make it possible at this level of performance. Nevertheless, it will be another testament of how the console will outperform each other.

It's probably true, but at this point it's just marketing hype, not real information. And even if it was, it'd only confirm a trend that has applied to most cross-platform titles so far.

thatguyandrew1992 said,
The eyes can't even see anything about 720p and 30 fps. ;)

Depends on the size of the display. I'm sure I would be able to notice a difference between 720p and 1080p on a wall projection. It's all about scale ;)

FPS, I guess you could be right, I don't know.

thatguyandrew1992 said,
I thought the face implied sarcasm. I was just joking. The difference between 720p @ 30 fps and 1080p @ 60 (and above) is VERY noticeable.

Goddamn text! Misinterpreted again! haha

DaveGreen93 said,

Depends on the size of the display. I'm sure I would be able to notice a difference between 720p and 1080p on a wall projection. It's all about scale ;)

FPS, I guess you could be right, I don't know.

I would be willing to take a drop to 720p if it meant improved quality overall.

Sony hyping up its own console and trashing the competition.. shocker.

That said, as a PC gamer, all I can say is "1080 at 60FPS... that's cute."

truthfully i dont really care about resolution but i think if your going to be bragging about it then you SHOULD be compared to PCs and realize 1080p is not that special and put back in your place. The difference between XO and PS4 is nothing but PS4 to PC is pretty noticable

Thief000 said,
People hyping this up aren't real gamers.
If they only care about graphics, they wouldn't buy a PS4 in the first place.

The irony is that, back in the late 90s, people who gushed about graphics were looked down on as trash--the scum of the earth responsible for encouraging the market to move away from gameplay/story/replayability/etc in favor of graphics-uber-alles.

Now those gutter dwellers are at the helm of the console wars, arguing about frame rates and resolution, while the games they're squinting at have cookie-cutter gameplay and plots that are praised for being "as good as" something Hollywood would puke up.

Joshie said,
The irony is that, back in the late 90s, people who gushed about graphics were looked down on as trash--the scum of the earth responsible for encouraging the market to move away from gameplay/story/replayability/etc in favor of graphics-uber-alles.

No, they really weren't. Graphics have always been a major factor in video gaming, even back in the days of Wolfenstein 3D. People didn't criticise Unreal Tournament, Quake 3, Half-Life or Final Fantasy VII because they had great graphics - they praised them for moving the industry forward. Most of the critically acclaimed games of that period pushed the envelope when it came to graphics.

Joshie said,

The irony is that, back in the late 90s, people who gushed about graphics were looked down on as trash--the scum of the earth responsible for encouraging the market to move away from gameplay/story/replayability/etc in favor of graphics-uber-alles.

Now those gutter dwellers are at the helm of the console wars, arguing about frame rates and resolution, while the games they're squinting at have cookie-cutter gameplay and plots that are praised for being "as good as" something Hollywood would puke up.

So true and they still are, no matter how graphics advance, good graphics don't equal good gameplay and fun. It's actucally pretty pathetic, but thank god there's only a few of them here on this site when there's desperate communities full of them bickering about nothing else than a few extra fps or lines of resolution.

Max Norris said,
Sony hyping up its own console and trashing the competition.. shocker.

That said, as a PC gamer, all I can say is "1080 at 60FPS... that's cute."


Or 2160p at 100fps. That's what you can do with PC as well)

Houtei said,
truthfully i dont really care about resolution but i think if your going to be bragging about it then you SHOULD be compared to PCs and realize 1080p is not that special and put back in your place. The difference between XO and PS4 is nothing but PS4 to PC is pretty noticable

A GPU alone to outperform the XBO or PS4 is half the price of the console.

theyarecomingforyou said,

No, they really weren't. Graphics have always been a major factor in video gaming, even back in the days of Wolfenstein 3D. People didn't criticise Unreal Tournament, Quake 3, Half-Life or Final Fantasy VII because they had great graphics - they praised them for moving the industry forward. Most of the critically acclaimed games of that period pushed the envelope when it came to graphics.

If you seriously don't remember all the griping about FF7's sudden explosion of FMVs, cut scenes, and summons (KOTR anyone?), then you weren't actually paying attention back then.

So, what was it, you read an article in 2008 about most influential video games from the 90s or something?

Joshie said,
If you seriously don't remember all the griping about FF7's sudden explosion of FMVs, cut scenes, and summons (KOTR anyone?), then you weren't actually paying attention back then.
If you want to pretend that the best regarded game in the franchise was considered terrible at the time then you're just not being reasonable. The only game in the franchise you ever hear people wanting to be remade is Final Fantasy VII.

You also ignored all the other games that advanced graphics and were critically acclaimed.

Joshie said,
So, what was it, you read an article in 2008 about most influential video games from the 90s or something?

There's no need to be so condescending. I played them all when they first came out and enjoyed them all.

Ouch. I don't know how the Xbox sells at all to be honest. It has inferior specs and it's more expensive. The only possible explanation is ignorance. That is to say, the people who buy it don't realise that it's more expensive and technically inferior. I suppose it has parallels to the IE vs Chrome/Firefox debate.

simplezz said,
Ouch. I don't know how the Xbox sells at all to be honest. It has inferior specs and it's more expensive. The only possible explanation is ignorance. That is to say, the people who buy it don't realise that it's more expensive and technically inferior. I suppose it has parallels to the IE vs Chrome/Firefox debate.

Nah, most gamers (that would be casual gamers) don't know the difference, and don't know what a "resolution or a fps" is. They just see a fun game and buy it. The casual gamers buy the PS4 or the Xbox One because their friends or family have it, not because one has a slightly more powerful GPU, or because one has ESRAM. They have no idea what that is. They just see...oh, the new Halo will be on this, and I want to play Halo. Or the new Killzone will be on that, and I want to play Killzone...so they buy the respective console that aligns with their game. So many people just want to play with friends and family....so if their friends and family have an Xbox One, they will get Watchdogs on Xbox One. The important thing is, they are having fun. I have an Xbox One and a PS4, but I will be getting Watch Dogs for the X1 because all of my friends and family have Xbox Ones and we can all play together. None of us are bothered by X more pixels. The game should be fun.

Not surprised by your comment, but I'd say XB1 provides a great experience. Everything is integrated in one place and to be honest, most people won't see much difference when they're sitting 6 feet away from their TV screens. As long as the frame rate is fine, there's not much of an issue.

It's only an issue to people who want to count it as a strike against the Xbox now like resolution matters all of a sudden.

The games I have played on Xbox One look good, play smooth, are fun, and have a great multiplayer experience. I think that matters a lot more than 900p vs 1080p, etc. (not like all PS4 games run at 1080p either).

simplezz said,
Ouch. I don't know how the Xbox sells at all to be honest. It has inferior specs and it's more expensive. The only possible explanation is ignorance. That is to say, the people who buy it don't realise that it's more expensive and technically inferior. I suppose it has parallels to the IE vs Chrome/Firefox debate.

Both of these consoles have inferior specs.

Same.. it's the titles for me.. If I were going solely on specs of the hardware or number of titles I wouldn't even buy a console to begin with. Same reason why the original Wii sold a crapton even though it was grossly underpowered compared to the competition. People having a preference of titles has nothing to do with ignorance.

Enron said,
Not surprised by your comment, but I'd say XB1 provides a great experience. Everything is integrated in one place and to be honest, most people won't see much difference when they're sitting 6 feet away from their TV screens. As long as the frame rate is fine, there's not much of an issue.

It's only an issue to people who want to count it as a strike against the Xbox now like resolution matters all of a sudden.

The games I have played on Xbox One look good, play smooth, are fun, and have a great multiplayer experience. I think that matters a lot more than 900p vs 1080p, etc. (not like all PS4 games run at 1080p either).

Agreed. I have hundreds of hours in my X1, where as I have about 10 hours in my PS4 of use. The Xbox One value has been substantially better in my experience. I will boot up my PS4 again in October once DriveClub comes out.

mrdeezus said,

Both of these consoles have inferior specs.

To a PC, that will always be true. But the guy was surprised anyone bought an Xbox One at all. So I guess by that logic everyone would be playing on a PC instead, since you can build a cheap gaming PC with better specs for less than the consoles?

Then again, when you think about it, last generation, X360 multi platform games were generally better than the PS3 counterparts, but the PS3 still sold very well - on par and maybe slightly more than the 360. Why is that? Probably because most people don't really care if one version has slightly better shadows or crisper textures than the other. They just want to enjoy their game instead of holding a magnifying glass up to their screen.

Enron said,

To a PC, that will always be true. But the guy was surprised anyone bought an Xbox One at all. So I guess by that logic everyone would be playing on a PC instead, since you can build a cheap gaming PC with better specs for less than the consoles?

Then again, when you think about it, last generation, X360 multi platform games were generally better than the PS3 counterparts, but the PS3 still sold very well - on par and maybe slightly more than the 360. Why is that? Probably because most people don't really care if one version has slightly better shadows or crisper textures than the other. They just want to enjoy their game instead of holding a magnifying glass up to their screen.

What matters to me when buying a console isnt the resolution or the fps but it comes down to the exclusives. While I dont think much of Xbox exclusive I do like PS4s.

Ive been a PC gamer for most of my life but I also have an PS3 just only for Last of us and such games. I dont mock consoles for their hardware, why should I? PS players can mock us for the lack of the games they got any day.

I got GTA5 on the day it got out, how long would I have needed to wait for it to show up on PC? Looooong time. And guess what, I played it on a 12GB PS3, inferior specs to any PC but...I got to play it.

simplezz said,
Ouch. I don't know how the Xbox sells at all to be honest. It has inferior specs and it's more expensive. The only possible explanation is ignorance. That is to say, the people who buy it don't realise that it's more expensive and technically inferior. I suppose it has parallels to the IE vs Chrome/Firefox debate.

In the end I could care less. As long as the game looks good to me and plays well I'm fine with it. On that note I opted to buy Watch_Dogs on PC due to price availability. I managed to pick it up for $40 pre-ordered Day One edition.

X1 is much more than just gaming. PS4 may have better specs, but not a better overall experience. It is and has the foundation to be much more than a gaming concole. Whatever little edge the PS4 has over it in terms of pixels, fps whatever .. few care about these things. It's the experience. If your looking at purely muscle, PC had them both beat before they even got announced.

simplezz said,
Ouch. I don't know how the Xbox sells at all to be honest. It has inferior specs and it's more expensive. The only possible explanation is ignorance. That is to say, the people who buy it don't realise that it's more expensive and technically inferior. I suppose it has parallels to the IE vs Chrome/Firefox debate.

I donno about inferior part. Kinect stuff is fun, I play zoo tycoon with my family and we all enjoy it. Playstation is more for hardcore gamers (Correction: hard core gamers are PC gamers anyway) , they don't have as many variety of features as XBOX has. so if you ask me I prefer XBOX all the time.

My XO is on just about 24/7 and in use but I havent touched my ps4 since i beat infamous within the first week of release. I was useing it for some blurays which i dunno about others but my ps4 is SO loud. The fans in that thing when you do anything major are like a jet taking off and it keeps going. Not to mention I had it on the shelf below my directv which had about 8" from the top of it to the glass shelf the directv was sitting on and after 3 hours of infamous my directv rebooted into a safe mode cause it was too hot and had to cool down. When i stuck my hand around the ps4 omg was it hot as crap in there. I had to move the ps4 to place away from everything else cause it was making everything else hot.

I never hear a sound from my XO

simplezz said,
Ouch. I don't know how the Xbox sells at all to be honest. It has inferior specs and it's more expensive. The only possible explanation is ignorance. That is to say, the people who buy it don't realise that it's more expensive and technically inferior. I suppose it has parallels to the IE vs Chrome/Firefox debate.

kinect, services, exclusive games, apps, MS ecosystem ... not everyone play only for graphics, in that case buy a PC not a PS4

puma1 said,
X1 is much more than just gaming. PS4 may have better specs, but not a better overall experience. It is and has the foundation to be much more than a gaming concole. Whatever little edge the PS4 has over it in terms of pixels, fps whatever .. few care about these things. It's the experience. If your looking at purely muscle, PC had them both beat before they even got announced.

Thankyou and not to mention next year most PCs will be equipped with Graphic card capable of running 4K resolution where neither XB1 or PS4 will support it.

trojan_market said,

Thankyou and not to mention next year most PCs will be equipped with Graphic card capable of running 4K resolution where neither XB1 or PS4 will support it.

Even though I play a lot of games on console, my argument for the PC is the number of mods available. For example, after playing Skyrim with the Steve Ballmer shout pack installed, I was blown away.

Not sure if overal experience matters here much, most people around me got PS3/4's cause of the specs and because everyone has them. Xbox360 dominated when people could bypass its copy protections and play illegal games. The moment MS started banning the consoles, a lot switched to Sony, and this gen seem to be sticking by it plus the addition because MS made some stupid decisions and does not offer all their XBO services here in NL and won't for a while.
Here our cable providers give us digital TV with media playback/recording/pausing and all the goodies, a console with these features servers little extra purpose. I know few people who use their console for TV watching. Most modern TV's in the last few years come with a Netflix app or the cable provider provided setup box, or they watch it on a laptop/pc hooked to a TV so they can bypass the restrictions and use US Netflix(average joe has no clue what a DNS setting is and isnt to happy about changing it around constantly).
For most people to me it seems, a console is a console. And the spec's do matter (not very much, the games matter more). The extra stuff, is just that. Extra stuff.