Tomb Raider: PS4 60fps vs Xbox One potentially 30fps

[gothamhunter]

http://www.joystiq.com/2014/01/25/next-gen-tomb-raider-framerate-differs-microsoft-defends-xbox-o/

Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition has gone digging in the not-so-ancient ruins of next-gen gaming consoles and come back with a shiny debate over framerate differences. While the PlayStation 4 version of the game has been confirmed to run at 60 frames per second, the Xbox One version's framerate is, as of writing, unconfirmed.

A Square Enix rep weighed in on the issue to VideoGamer.com, stating that, "Delivering the core Tomb Raider gameplay at native 1080p and running at 30fps was always our primary goal given the type of experience Tomb Raider is and the exploration we want players to do. Anything beyond 30fps for this version is gravy."

Microsoft Senior Director of Product Management Albert Penello told Gamertag Radio that the differences between the two versions were minor, and defended the Xbox One version by reminding listeners that we've only just begun the new generation of consoles. "Everybody wants to focus on, you know, there's a framerate thing going on in Tomb Raider, there is a resolution thing going on and okay, there's a lot of reasons why that could be true, but we're weeks in. We just shipped, it's a long generation."

"I believe that the difference in the [PS4 and Xbox One] is not that great and I know what's going on behind the scenes and I probably have access to more information about some of this thing than a lot of people. Sometimes I think people tend to neglect the points that are in my favor and they like to highlight the points that tell me that I am wrong," Panello said. "I think these little things get way overblown versus like the quality of the games and the real differences in the two experiences which are pretty minor."

Though it's hard to say exactly what would cause a difference in performance, a post on developer Nixxes' site spotted by NeoGAF user "artist" notes that the PS4 and Xbox One versions were developed separately, by different teams. Sleeping Dogs developer United Front Games was tasked with bringing Lara's adventure to Xbox One, while Nixxes worked to unearth a PS4 version. Nixxes was responsible for getting the original (well, the original 2013 reboot) version of Tomb Raider up and running on PC and PS3 as well, while UFG has decidedly less experience with the game.

Of course, we're all ignoring the real, dare we say ... definitive difference between the PS4 and Xbox One versions of the game, here. On the PS4, the DualShock 4 turns red and orange while using the torch, and on Xbox One, players can use their hands to inspect in-game relics thanks to Kinect. Would-be buyers: go forth and be informed.

 

[Doppel]

On the PS4, the DualShock 4 turns red and orange while using the torch

Worthless gimmick.

and on Xbox One, players can use their hands to inspect in-game relics thanks to Kinect.

Worthless gimmick.

I didn't see them say that the xb1 was at 30, though, just that more was gravy...

 

[cmdrdredd]

I think the real difference will be the bugs that pop up between each team. Two different devs doing one game and one of them wrote the original game.

 

[mmntech]

Hmm... :hmm:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1079?vs=1076

The PS4 just has more raw power than the Xbox One, so it can push higher frame rates with all else being equal. Does it matter? Yes and no. Depends on the game really. I think this is something that would bother PC gamers more than anything else. For a game like Tomb Raider, 30fps is acceptable and perfectly playable. It's a cinematic game that doesn't rely on hair trigger reactions. Racing games and competitive online shooters, that's a different story.

 

[purbeast0]

welp if that is true and i do get the game, ps4 it will be for sure. even though i prefer the x1 controller for these types of games, that is pretty significant, especially considering i played it on 30fps on the 360.

EDIT:

stolen from Wingnutz post in the x1 thread.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/01/25/tomb-raider-definitive-edition-review

looks like it doesn't stay at 60fps consistently.

 

[blurredvision]

I guess we are going to have threads like this for the next few years.

 

[KaOTiK]

Not surprsing, I read the info a few days ago. While neither is constant at their frame rate because they aren't locked, the PS4 will is still significantly higher then the Xbone's and no one should be surprised. At least for a game like this, 30fps is acceptable, but a higher frame rate is always welcomed.

I really wish they didn't change Lara's face in this one, oh and the $60 price tag is truly lol worthy. At least it is a Squareenix game so in 2 months it will be $30 or under probably. The gimmicks for both are pretty lol too, I saw a gif of the dualshock 4 lightbar flickering, while a "neat" idea, it is rather silly and I don't know how other people hold their controllers, but I almost never see the lightbar on mine since it is angled downwards to start with.

I guess we are going to have threads like this for the next few years.

Considering threads were made for PS3 and 360 comparisons which were minor in comparison in most cases to these PS4/Xbone differences, yeah, you will be seeing threads like this pop up for quite awhile.

 

[Lil Frier]

Microsoft's going to have to hurry up with decreasing the footprint of the Kinect and OS, it seems. What was it, 10% of the GPU that gets taken away? When they're starting with a weaker GPU than the competition, shaving 10% off of that just makes it worse, of course.

Personally, I care little about 30 FPS vs. 60 FPS or 720p vs. 1080p. I care more that people are getting conned into spending $60 on bug-riddled titles like BF4 and utter rehash nonsense like this Tomb Raider joke.

 

[purbeast0]

lol @ "conned" into buying things. i don't think you know what that word means.

 

[Tweak155]

lol @ "conned" into buying things. i don't think you know what that word means.

It could be valid if the user is expecting a bug free experience. You aren't exactly getting what is advertised.

But yeah, you would think most buyers would know by now.

EDIT:

Referring to BF4. Rehash stuff is definitely not a con.

 

[sze5003]

Too bad I finished the game on computer a while ago. This version looks pretty good for consoles.

 

[Arkaign]

I'd imagine for the vast majority of people outside of AT or other PC gaming communities that the console versions would be better for sure. The new assets and enabled effects of that were added to make this Tomb Raider 1.5 definitely help as well. It's easy money for them to port the enhancements over to the PC version eventually to grab some more cash from this release, as that stuff is dirt cheap compared to starting a game from scratch.

It does seem that with multiplatform releases, PC notwithstanding, that the PS4 will be the go-to buy for people with both systems. Personally, the people that I've known that are the most hardcore gamers (eg; the people who buy several games a month) almost always have at least two current consoles if not all of them, so this may become more and more of a problem down the line for MS.

Fact : there will be fantastic exclusives for XB1 and PS4 over the course of their current-gen status.

Fact : most of the time the PS4 version will be flat-out superior, while at other times they will merely be the same.

Fact : for someone who only has an XB1, they will have just as much fun imho playing the 'weaker' version.

Fact : owners of both systems will have few reasons to buy XB1 versions of multiplat games (exceptions being those who want to play MP with XBL friends, want it for Kinect-enabled features, or if Microsoft pays for temporary exclusivity/added features).

If you look at PS3 vs 360, years 3 through 6 were dramatically more successful than years zero through 3, because the price drops generated massive install bases (and people getting the 'other' system to play awesome exclusives they would have otherwise missed). I hypothesize that this will be the larger problem for MS in the long run. By 2016-2017 timeframe these consoles will be at or below $299 easily, and there will be a ton of people running both.

 

[clok1966]

Hmm... :hmm:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1079?vs=1076

The PS4 just has more raw power than the Xbox One, so it can push higher frame rates with all else being equal. Does it matter? Yes and no. Depends on the game really. I think this is something that would bother PC gamers more than anything else. For a game like Tomb Raider, 30fps is acceptable and perfectly playable. It's a cinematic game that doesn't rely on hair trigger reactions. Racing games and competitive online shooters, that's a different story.

totally agree with this statement.. but its been pounded so hard (last gen) when they where almost a wash that that extra haze, extra 2 FPS mattered. Now when the tables are turned (and its far more then a few FPS difference) all the sudden its brushed under the rug? that i don't agree with, if it made everybody Butthurt last gen, it sure should this gen too..

 

[American Gunner]

Fact : owners of both systems will have few reasons to buy XB1 versions of multiplat games (exceptions being those who want to play MP with XBL friends, want it for Kinect-enabled features, or if Microsoft pays for temporary exclusivity/added features).

One more draw for the Xbox version of multiplatform games is that a lot of people on Xbox like to party up with friends while they play other things. I know the PS4 has a party system, but for some people that own both consoles, they may settle for the weaker versions so that they can still chat with their friends while they are playing them. This used to be me, but then I started getting irritated by everyone talking over eachother while I was trying to listen to the cut scene and in game dialogue. So now, I stay out of parties when I play single player campaigns so I can get pulled in to the story.

 

[smackababy]

So, can you guys make a thread for every single game that has differences where the Xbox One versions is "inferior". I sure am glad I don't sit around watching my TV crying about how "awful" it is for only being 24FPS. And then go to watch certain movies by Peter Jackson and cry how awful it looks at 48FPS or whatever.

If the game runs smoothly and plays just fine, who gives a crap.

 

[purbeast0]

So, can you guys make a thread for every single game that has differences where the Xbox One versions is "inferior". I sure am glad I don't sit around watching my TV crying about how "awful" it is for only being 24FPS. And then go to watch certain movies by Peter Jackson and cry how awful it looks at 48FPS or whatever.

If the game runs smoothly and plays just fine, who gives a crap.

the internet does, duh.

though to be fair, to me, a consistent frame rate is more important than a higher frame rate.

i'd rather play a game locked at 30fps with no fps dips, then play a game locked at 60fps that constantly dips.

as someone who doesn't know much about framerates in general, why is it that games have to either be 30 or 60? how come games cant be locked at like 50fps or something? is it just because it will cause some kind of flicker/issue with the way tvs display the content?

 

[American Gunner]

If it upsets you that much to see people discuss the issues, why did you even come in the thread? I do find it a little funny that everyone used to trash the ps3's multiplatform titles at first because they were inferior and then people moved on to trashing the long and slow installs on the ps3. Now it seems like the tables have turned because the Xbox has the inferior ports right now and their installs take longer than the PS4's.

 

[smackababy]

the internet does, duh.

though to be fair, to me, a consistent frame rate is more important than a higher frame rate.

i'd rather play a game locked at 30fps with no fps dips, then play a game locked at 60fps that constantly dips.

as someone who doesn't know much about framerates in general, why is it that games have to either be 30 or 60? how come games cant be locked at like 50fps or something? is it just because it will cause some kind of flicker/issue with the way tvs display the content?

A major problem with a locked framerate at say 50FPS is that the refresh rate of a TV (or monitor) is generally 60hz or 120hz. Thus, at 60FPS, the monitor and refresh with a new frame 60 times per second. If it is running at 50FPS, that doesn't work, as there will be refreshers where the monitor doesn't have a new frame to render and there can be some difference. 30FPS works because every 2 refreshes there is a new frame to render, but something like 40 doesn't fit the 60hz cycle.

This contributes to the feeling that a constant 30FPS can look smoother in instances where at constant 40FPS wouldn't. And a variable FPS jumps looks awful most of the time (even if it is bouncing from 40-60, compared to a solid 30FPS). Obviously, in some games this doesn't work (SF for example) and they require a locked 60FPS. Shooters also need that smoothness (which is why the CODs were always upscaled from some silly res).

 

[KaOTiK]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-tomb-raider-definitive-performance-analysis

CUTSCENE
Xbox One
Lowest FPS: 27fps
Highest FPS: 30fps
Average FPS: 29.98fps

PS4
Lowest FPS: 32fps
Highest FPS: 60fps
Average FPS: 53.36fps


GAMEPLAY
Xbox One
Lowest FPS: 18fps
Highest FPS: 30fps
Average FPS: 29.84fps

PS4
Lowest FPS: 33fps
Highest FPS: 60fps
Average FPS: 50.98fps

 

[purbeast0]

A major problem with a locked framerate at say 50FPS is that the refresh rate of a TV (or monitor) is generally 60hz or 120hz. Thus, at 60FPS, the monitor and refresh with a new frame 60 times per second. If it is running at 50FPS, that doesn't work, as there will be refreshers where the monitor doesn't have a new frame to render and there can be some difference. 30FPS works because every 2 refreshes there is a new frame to render, but something like 40 doesn't fit the 60hz cycle.

This contributes to the feeling that a constant 30FPS can look smoother in instances where at constant 40FPS wouldn't. And a variable FPS jumps looks awful most of the time (even if it is bouncing from 40-60, compared to a solid 30FPS). Obviously, in some games this doesn't work (SF for example) and they require a locked 60FPS. Shooters also need that smoothness (which is why the CODs were always upscaled from some silly res).

okay gotcha, that makes sense. i figured it was something like that but never really knew why exactly. thanks.

 

[American Gunner]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-tomb-raider-definitive-performance-analysis


GAMEPLAY
Xbox One
Lowest FPS: 18fps
Highest FPS: 30fps
Average FPS: 29.84fps

PS4
Lowest FPS: 33fps
Highest FPS: 60fps
Average FPS: 50.98fps

That is crazy. How could they be ok with putting this out like that?

 

[KaOTiK]

That is crazy. How could they be ok with putting this out like that?

I dunno, I thought it was pretty horrible that it drops that low, that is like PS360 performance (FPS wise), I guess they really wanted all the same graphical effects/res.

 

[smackababy]

That is crazy. How could they be ok with putting this out like that?

I can't read the article, but I am wondering at what point it hits such lows. Even the PS4's low is a bit over half of the average FPS.

The Xbox's average being within a frame of the max is pretty good though. The PS4 looks like it has more variation.

 

[American Gunner]

I can't read the article, but I am wondering at what point it hits such lows. Even the PS4's low is a bit over half of the average FPS.

The Xbox's average being within a frame of the max is pretty good though. The PS4 looks like it has more variation.

True, but I also think that having the PS4's lowest FPS being higher than the highest XB1's FPS is kind of a big deal. Maybe the team that they put in charge of the XB1 version just didn't do as good a job, but at this point they might want to remove "Definitive Edition" from the title of the Xbox version.

Edit: Also, if you look at the average FPS on the PS4, it is pretty high. That makes me think that when it rarely dips to the 33 fps and when it does it jumps back up quickly.

 

[KaOTiK]

I can't read the article, but I am wondering at what point it hits such lows. Even the PS4's low is a bit over half of the average FPS.

The Xbox's average being within a frame of the max is pretty good though. The PS4 looks like it has more variation.

It looks like neither version is really optimized judging purely from the fps
It's like they just put it on both systems and were like, ok it runs, ship it!