Watch Dogs: Legion runs at 4K 30fps with ray tracing on XBX/PS5

[HEXUS]

And Ubisoft updated the recommended 4K PC raytracing sys-req to a GeForce RTX 3080.

Read more.

[Yoyoyo69]

Sounds as though they're actually proud of underperforming, again.

[BigBANGerZ]

Im quite looking forward to Legions, Watchdogs 2 was a good improvement over Watchdogs so its clearly evolving. I hope they put proper support into force feedback steering wheels this time its such a waste of good hardware to not have that support built in.

[EvilCycle]

The last two games looked like good but were terrible, awful, shining examples of ubisoft's worst performing titles, and looking at those system specs it seems they are at it again, no way am I paying for that.

[darcotech]

Do not forget, it is running ray tracing on an AMD GPU (in case of consoles).

[Otherhand]

Sounds as though they're actually proud of underperforming, again.

That's 4k with raytracing on a system that can't do DLSS, in a very complex open world with dense crowds, driving and flying vehicles. You'd be hard pressed to find someone who's had to work on a similar game looking at Legion and these figures and thinking it wasn't impressive.

[Moonister]

"Watch Dogs: Legion runs at 4K 30fps with ray tracing on XBX/PS5"

Is that good or bad or a click bait?

[Dashers]

I know that console gamers have pathetically low standards, but 30fps is dire. Dropping below ~72fps is bad enough, but 30fps is solidly in the camp of "will not run" imo. The headline should be "Watch Dogs: Legion unable to run sufficiently at 4K with ray tracing on XBX/PS5".

[Iota]

I know that console gamers have pathetically low standards, but 30fps is dire.

Console / 4K / Raytracing / 30FPS.

Actually that sounds like an improvement when you stop and think about it. 30FPS is woeful though, I wonder what it would be like without raytracing on.

[Syphadeus]

I know that console gamers have pathetically low standards, but 30fps is dire. Dropping below ~72fps is bad enough, but 30fps is solidly in the camp of "will not run" imo. The headline should be "Watch Dogs: Legion unable to run sufficiently at 4K with ray tracing on XBX/PS5".

Except that would ignore the fact that your "standards" are elevated and completely unreasonable. Akin, I would say, to "Michelin star chef visits a Harvester and declares food unfit for dogs!".

I'm not saying that your standards are unreasonable for you. They're up to you. But applying them to everyone else out of any context is just stupid.

You have to keep in mind the majority consumer when you are discussing a consumer product. You can plough along with you elitist PC BS all you like and term it the lowest common denominator. I don't care. For the record I game primarily on PC using a system I built and a 1080Ti. But I recognise that MOST WD Legion players are:

• Playing the console version
• Playing on a TV
• A TV which is not 4K or capable of >60Hz
• Using hardware that costs less than £500

They don't have pathetically low standards, they have realistic standards taking those points into account. If they enjoy the experience in spite of those standards and it does not affect your ability to spend thousands on a setup and play at ultra res, with super fast framerate, then why exactly do you care?

The only thing that's pathetic is your statement.

[globalwarning]

Ah... but is this even true 4K or some kind of upscaled version?

[Dashers]

Except that would ignore the fact that your "standards" are elevated and completely unreasonable. Akin, I would say, to "Michelin star chef visits a Harvester and declares food unfit for dogs!".

I'm not saying that your standards are unreasonable for you. They're up to you. But applying them to everyone else out of any context is just stupid

I get the point you're trying to make, albeit in a not especially polite way. But I disagree, your example is quite subjective, but 30fps is objectively bad for most modern gaming.
- Film is 24fps because it's double the bare minimum for motion to no longer be perceived (this saves on the cost of film).
- America operated their TVs etc at 60Hz (due to their mains frequency),
- 72Hz has for a long time been considered (see wookipedia) where motion becomes fluid (although far higher than that for high contrast scenes)

Objectively speaking, 30fps is appalling for motion. I'd agree with your sentiments if I were stating that 144Hz is the minimum, but I'm not, I'm saying that 30Hz is woefully bad for gaming.

The effect is easy to demonstrate yourself if you have a high-refresh rate screen available. Simply wiggle your mouse cursor around at different refresh rates, the gaps between the cursor is where your screen isn't refreshing and movement is happening. Your brain is guessing and trying to fill in the difference.

You can also see it with film at the cinema, even though film is a little more resilient due to technology involved in projection. LOTR is a great example, watch the dark riders on the plains and you cannot resolve detail as it's a panning shot and the information just isn't there.

[Terbinator]

I know that console gamers have pathetically low standards, but 30fps is dire. Dropping below ~72fps is bad enough, but 30fps is solidly in the camp of "will not run" imo. The headline should be "Watch Dogs: Legion unable to run sufficiently at 4K with ray tracing on XBX/PS5".

What even is this level of discourse.

FWIW it doesn't look like anyone will be running it at 4K60FPS and RT without DLSS on it's fastest setting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fH5d...ture=emb_title You can chop and change various setting levels to get around that, of course.

[swood]

cool

[Jonj1611]

cool

Whats cool exactly?