The Division Developers Aiming For 30FPS On Xbox One and PlayStation 4

A desolate New York, a struggle for survival, and one hell of a hype train is what makes The Division so exciting. But what some might find not so exciting is a 30FPS frame rate and an unconfirmed resolution for Massive Entertainment’s open world survival game on the Xbox One and PlayStation 4.

Managing director David Polfeldt told GameSpot in an interview during E3 that the studio landed on 30FPS as the ideal choice for a title with a massive and highly detailed open world like The Division.

“I think we’re shooting for 30fps because it’s a trade-off, right?” Polfeldt said. “Graphical fidelity and immersion are more important to us than the frame rate, if we go for [60fps], we’ll have to make a trade-off on fidelity and other things”. 

“But because we want to have very, very complex destruction and extremely detailed environments; a complete weather system, full day/night cycle…at some point you have to make up your mind: where do you invest? And for us, it’s going to be 30fps.”

While the decision might disappoint some, the trade off appears to justify the design choice, considering that The Division isn’t as much of a competitive multiplayer game as something like Call of Duty might be, a game that demands 60FPS. Also, as we saw in Ubisoft’s E3 2014 presentation, The Division is a great looking game regardless.

What are your thoughts?

  • VEX_VEHIX

    I think it’s a smart choice. Can’t have it all.

    • Daniel

      On console :D

      • VEX_VEHIX

        Yes. Not on our amaZazing PCs. :)

        • MeisseN

          AmazaZazaing PCs with piss poor optimization….

          • Oblivion_Lost667

            So, consoles all with the same hardware with piss poor optimization, and PCs with a plethora of hardware, also with piss poor optimization. Seems like devs just aren’t caring about optimization these days unless they’re Crytek, hell, even DICE, Frostbite runs pretty well on a lot of hardware.

  • NuttyTheSquirrel

    I hope I don’t see comments saying that shooters NEED to be 60fps.

    • Zheka

      Shooters must be atleast 40 fps.

      • NuttyTheSquirrel

        No. FPS maybe. But not shooters in general. Look at GTA V, it’s between 20-30fps in MP and it is still playable.
        Not every game has CoD like gameplay. CoD needs 60fps because it is fast-paced.

        • lukazo

          dude its 2014!!! games still running at 20-30fps is just bad.

          Xbox 360 and ps3 could achieve this when they first came out, the fact it hasn’t changed just shows how bad the so called “Next Gen” consoles are.

          • http://www.facebook.com/datkidfromawendaw Clay Johnson

            Aren’t you a PC gamer? Primarily at least. Not to come come off as ignorant when I ask, why do you care? They said 30 FPS for consoles, not PC.

            • lukazo

              yes i am a PC gamer and i was stating an opinion as @storm_worm5364:disqus said 20-30 fps is playable.

              i as a PC gamer have played games at 30fps and 60 fps and 20-30 isnt playable, its laggy/choppy.

          • Grif

            30 FPS will always be a standard in gaming, I’m not sure how it’s bad.

            • lukazo

              30 fps is bad to put it simply.

              its not a “standard” as if devs set it to that. its because consoles lack the power to provide more.

              go play games at 1080p at 60 fps and then go back to a 30 fps game and you will see it just isnt acceptable in 2014!

            • Grif

              I have no problem playing games in 30 FPS, consoles don’t have the power to push 1080p and 60 FPS on a good looking game. Sometimes games play better in 30 FPS, kinda like how movies look real because there played in 24 FPS. I’ve play both PC and PS4 / PS3, I have no problem switching from 60 to 30 FPS. It’s obvious your an ignorant PC elitist.

            • lukazo

              dude for one, tv and video games are completely different when it comes to frame rates.

              FPS affects the gaming experience in
              two ways: low FPS does not effectively give the illusion of motion and
              affects the user’s capacity to interact with the game, while FPS that
              varies substantially from one second to the next depending on
              computational load produces uneven, “choppy” movement or animation.

              with a film/movie they can have it at 24fps because you are only watching.

              so no, games don’t play better in 30fps, the fact people think it gives a cinematic feel is silly.

              so during cutscenes its fine, your only watching whats going on. but interaction at low fps, all it does it makes the game “choppy” and harder to interact.

              and you siad It’s “obvious your a PC elitist”

              is obvious you know fuck all about frame rates dude.

            • Grif

              Why are you complaining so much about 30 FPS? There will be tons of games that will run at 30 FPS on next-gen consoles. The PS4 is a $400 console, it won’t have the power to have a good looking game in 1080p and in 60 FPS, it’s just how it’s going to work.

            • lukazo

              because you said “30 FPS will always be a standard in gaming, I’m not sure how it’s bad”

              i have questioned what you said and told you why it is bad.

              and because i have questioned what you have said you have came out with nonsense like “Sometimes games play better in 30 FPS, kinda like how movies look real because there played in 24 FPS”

              so i have corrected what you have said.

              you then try the other bullshit of “It’s obvious your a PC elitist”

              which again is kind of summing up you. just because i refuse to accept 30fps being acceptable in 2014 doesn’t make me a “PC elitist”.

              if im a “PC elitist” what does that make you?

              uneducated? ignorant? naive? a kid? a “console peasant” ?

              simply console gaming is holding back the gaming industry, they water down games to an unimaginable amount. where as PC gaming is thriving and getting more popular by the day.

          • NuttyTheSquirrel

            Maybe if people wanted to pay fucking 700 bucks there would be no problem.

            Sony and MS need to make money, not lose.

            • lukazo

              who said you have to pay 700bucks?

              im sure someone who actually is a pc gamer would know that you can, for the sam price as a console, buy a gaming pc that runs games much better.

            • NuttyTheSquirrel

              I’m a PC Gamer…
              http://imgur.com/a/KoDXQ

              And yes, you can build a “better than next-gen” PC, that is true, but it’s also kind of bullshit.

              Many PC games/ports (triple AAA even) are unoptimized as fuck, (compared to consoles) unfortunately.

            • lukazo

              despite the dispute/argument/discussion we have had i do love your PC! nicely done! :D

              and yeh the porting bullshit is probably the only bad thing about PC gaming, which isnt PC gamers faults its shitty devs.

            • NuttyTheSquirrel

              Ye. And I’m not saying that 30 is the same as 60 fps. It’s far FAR better (60fps). All I’m saying is that there are game where 30fps are acceptable. CoD and Battlefield CANNOT have those frame-rates. But games like GTA, The Last of Us and single-player it’s no problem, really.

            • lukazo

              i fully understand where you are coming from, no denying that. but we both clearly have different opinions.

              when i played xbox360, 30 fps was fine, but now i know the true difference between them, i see 30fps now and its very choppy to me :/

            • NuttyTheSquirrel

              I can also noticed the difference. But the best example I can give to you is The Last of Us. It feels fluid (not 60fps) and it is totally playable. I can notice difference between 144Hz and 60Hz easily.

        • Spectre01N7

          Shooters need to be a minimum of 60fps if not higher. Even on console.

          • NuttyTheSquirrel

            No, FPS games need to. Games like Arma, DayZ, H1Z1,The Division, etc (slower paced games) don’t need to be 60fps.

            • lukazo

              dude have you even played Arma? or Dayz?

              and i know you haven’t played H1Z1 or the division there not even out yet!?

              why im questioning you on have you even played Arma or Dayz is because Dayz is an unoptimized mess and you can normally only play between 20-30fps and its laggy and choppy, the majority of people who play it want it optimized because of how unplayable it can get due to such low fps.

              so your wrong there.

              and same with arma3 you tried playing altis life at 20-30fps? its unplayable.

            • NuttyTheSquirrel

              Idiot. Did I ever mention Optimization? Just because YOU can’t play above 30fps, doens’t mean I can’t.
              I play it at 100fps most of the time, dropping to MAX 30+fps in Cherno.

              They’re unoptimized because their engine sucks. Virtual Reality is clunky as hell and only uses DX9.

              I’ve played probably around 500-800 hours on Arma 2/DayZ MOD.

              Around 100h on SA and around 150h on Arma 3.
              I get stable FPS on Arma 3, usually around 150-60fps. It usually never drops below 40, even when there’s a war taking place.

              H1Z1, The Division, Arma and DayZ are all slow-paced games (The Division being between slow- and fast-paced).
              You don’t need 60fps when you’re not playing a “competitive” shooter. I could give to shits in DayZ if I have 100fps or 30-40fps. It’s pretty much the same, since you don’t need that responsiveness you need in game like CoD or Battlefield.

            • lukazo

              i do know what optimization is you know so you don’t need to explain why its unoptimized.

              and i dont think you understand the point i have been making. and yours makes less sense.

              arma 3 is a military simulation, so they want it as close to real life as possible.

              they dont want a 30fps game thats choppy and slow. because that isnt simulating real life.

              just because of the pace of a game doesn’t mean you adjust fps accordingly.

              hear is where your whole, 30 fps for slow games 60 for fast falls apart.

              if im playing a game at 30fps that means my ability to react is slower. so if a game, regardless of genre is 30 fps that automatically means slower reaction times.

              now if every game is in 60fps then your reaction times are much more quicker and accurate.

              so when i say 60fps should be todays standard this is why.

              so any genre at 30fps means less accurate,slower reaction times.

              any genre at 60fps+ means more accurate,faster reaction times.

              so……. you tell me why you think 30 fps should be acceptable for a game?

        • Lee D

          20-30fps is still playable?

          Lol okay. I own a PS4 and a PC and I still want to call you a console peasant.

          • NuttyTheSquirrel

            http://imgur.com/a/KoDXQ

            Yes, I AM indeed a console peasant.

            • DanDustEmOff

              Nice rig kind of wasted on that monitor though. Why did you choose that AIO water cooler over the h100i? The h100i just looks so much better in a high end rig. Still good job.

            • NuttyTheSquirrel

              Ye, I didn’t knew the h100i’s Corsair logo glowed before I bought the h110 :(

              Both monitors were given to me (I have a friend that works in a Hospital, and they usually throw really good stuff away (monitors, HDD, etc). He gave me the Acer monitor since my other one is broken. I’m gonna buy the Asus VG248QE though, later on. As well as buying another GTX 780ti and then I might do a full custom water-cooling loop. :D

            • DanDustEmOff

              I’ve had my eye on the upcoming Asus PG278Q, are you interested in G Sync? It’s a brave move water cooling 2, 780 ti’s especially the Asus DC2. Keep me updated, I would enjoy seeing it once you’re done.

            • NuttyTheSquirrel

              Nah, I couldn’t care less about the G-sync. I know it’s an amazing technology, but most games don’t have that much tearing. And I’ll keep you updated ;)

            • DanDustEmOff

              G Sync does more than just eliminate tearing. It gives you a true frame rate, if your gpu gives you 86 fps then you get 86 fps. A 60 htz dispay will only let you achieve 60 fps. Any frames produced inbetween are simply disregarded by the dispay or cause a tear.

            • NuttyTheSquirrel

              Ye, but I’d rather not wait.
              BTW Today I bought a new monitor. BenQ XL2411T.

              I’d rather have bought the ASUS VG248QE but where I usually buy my components, peripherals, etc they didn’t have it. I couldn’t wait xD.

            • DanDustEmOff

              On what your new monitor?

            • NuttyTheSquirrel

              Huh?

              If you’re talking about what type of cable I’m using, I’m using a DVI-D cable.

              I’ve messed around with the NVIDIA panel colors and the monitor settings (Brightness at 55, contrast at 50. Using the sRGB picture mode) I get way better colors.

              I love this monitor. It’s fluid (144Hz) and it has some kind of sharpness build into it. I’ve been enjoying games quite alot more than I usually enjoyed (from the EyeCandy standpoint).

              I recommend these settings.

            • DanDustEmOff

              No, you said the colours were bad. I was asking if you were talking about your new display.

            • NuttyTheSquirrel

              Aham, Ye, I didn’t understand because you didn’t put a comma after the “what”… xD

              Yes, I already knew that BenQ monitors weren’t strong on the color side, but damn, I didn’t expect that.

              After I messed around with those settings, the colors are pretty good. I’m loving the new monitor, since now I can use my other monitor (the ACER one) as a 2nd monitor, which is amazing since I do 3D Modelling, animations and work on Unreal Engine 4. So having a 2nd monitor that’s (almost) full HD to use other perspectives on those programs is amazing.

              + The fluidity of those 144Hz when playing games is also really “gamer-heart” warming. It makes love to my eyes. :D

            • DanDustEmOff

              I use Solid Works and Auto CAD, so having 2 or monitors is a must. I have 120 htz tn and a 60 htz IPS. Couldn’t go back to having just one display.

            • NuttyTheSquirrel

              Ye, my father once asked me if he could borrow the second monitor/TV (the one I had before I bought this monitor) and I just couldn’t get used to only 1 monitor. Even not having that brightness/light hitting my face made me feel weird. It was strange as hell. xD

              Well, it’s kinda classified since I think there are some really amazing ideas that I’m implementing on the game (or AT LEAST try).
              I fucking hate the guts of 3DS MAX, the controls are so bad, and sometimes the X,Y and Z axis (move) just don’t want to work properly.
              Yesterday I made my “first” model (http://i.imgur.com/zTOp1tb.png). It looks bad because I was working on it at the time and it isn’t a rendered image.

              Here’s a patch os grass I made, which was my first model ever. http://i.imgur.com/YugWQ3c.jpg

              I’m trying to get a really good visual-fidelity, without destroying PC’s. I’m aiming for a Multiplayer focused game, but I will also try to implement a Co-Op mode, which will benefit you on Multiplayer as well. I’m also going to implement dynamic weather on the game but if I can’t I will just do different variants of the same map, so “seasons” will be in the game.

              I’m aiming for a 3rd person perpective “survival” game, much like TLOU’s multiplayer. But the game’s gonna take awhile, since I want the game to be top notch, specially the animations, which are one of the hardest things if not the hardest thing (imo) to do. Realistic movement is really hard to do, but I’m gonna try and find some kind of motion-capture center in the country I’m living, because it will buy me some time.

              I can’t go into much more detail, I gave you way more detail than I should, but there you go :D.

              Also every weapon, apart from most guns, won’t look professional, they’re gonna have a “improvised” look to them, much like that knife.

              EDIT: The red stuff around the knife is realistic Cloth, I had to use Cloth Simulation so that I could make the “duct-tape/rag” around the knife’s handle realistic. It took me the entire day and when I was going to export it to Unreal, it said it had to many polygons xD…

            • DanDustEmOff

              Nice, kind of looks like an improvised shiv. Thanks for sharing.

            • NuttyTheSquirrel

              It is an improvised Shiv. Every knife and weapon that’s not that’s not normal to see will have that improvised look :D.
              Bombs, molotovs, and distraction bombs will all have the improvised look. It’s gonna be challenging :D

            • DanDustEmOff

              Sounds interesting, good luck.

            • NuttyTheSquirrel

              Thanks :D

        • MeisseN

          GTA V is not a shooter anyways……

          • NuttyTheSquirrel

            What? Are you serious right now?

            • MeisseN

              Urgh.. I guess I’m being over-serious lol

      • Tank Buster

        59 fps or else!

    • awkenney

      Ubisoft has determined for me that I’ll be playing the game on PC. I want the responsiveness that 60Hz provides. Again – 60fps isn’t required. I just prefer it for the sake of how the controls interact with what is rendered on-screen.
      The developers aren’t really doing what I would have liked them to do with the hardware, no. I would have preferred better frame rate over more effects.

    • Ally

      Happy Tree Friends!

  • Trevor Squires

    Destiny and The Division being in 30FPS for me is fine. Both games are visually amazing and I wouldn’t want resolution to ruin the experience so I don’t mind 30FPS with higher resolutions. Destiny will be fine too Halo is one of my favorite franchises and it was always in 30FPS and was still amazing.

    • dieger

      Normally i would be OK with games being 30FPS but seeing as this is gonna be PVP…kinda disappointing

    • Primey_

      I’ll never understand how people are fine with 30fps for a first person shooter

      • Green117

        30 frames per second should have remained as a reminder to the previous generation of consoles, and not something that devs are now proud of achieving on the current generation.

        The developer talks about immersion being far more important than frame rate; there is nothing immersive about 30fps.

        • DanDustEmOff

          You can’t expect these systems to push 1080p in an open world environment at 60 fps. It’s incredibly difficult to do, things like draw distance, texture quality and AI density, would all have to be sacrificed to hit that target.

          That would be far more detrimental to immersion than halving the frame rate from 60 to 30 fps. The hardware MS and Sony have put out simply isn’t up to the job of running this type of game at full HD at 60 fps.

          • Green117

            I disagree, And if people are happy with their current consoles, enjoy another five years of 30fps and hope that maybe, just maybe, when the next batch are out in 2020, you’ll be finally gaming with a smooth frame rate. Sad really ;)

            I think devs and many gamers are looking at this all wrong. Cut backs are important. I have to take many graphics features off or turn them down when I’m away and only have my Mac to game on, simply because I’d rather have a smoother experience than one with OTT eye catching visuals. Because really, when the &*%^ hits the fan in an FPS, you notice the frame rate far more than you notice texture quality.

            Its scary to think if consoles are struggling now, the next few years are going to be even more telling.

            • DanDustEmOff

              That’s the beauty of Mac and PC gaming we have more powerful systems so we can choose our preferences. Consoles are performance optimised for one graphical setting on a lower powered hardware set.

              These systems can and do hit 1080p 60fps on fps titles but open world games have much higher draw distances. Simply changing from a first to third person perspective raises the camera height and increases the viewable distance.

              Games have overcome this in the past by adding fog or rain to obscure the view, which wasn’t popular. “In an FPS, you notice the frame rate far more than you notice the texture quality.” Indeed you do but this is an open world TPS we are talking about not an FPS.

            • SiftBlade

              If it bothers you that much, play on PC. Because PS4 is struggling now doesn’t mean it will struggle more in the future. Look at the gap from PS3′s launch games to the games that were released near the end of it’s life. It’s a massive leap and PS3 handled way more than anyone ever thought possible. PS4 and XBOX One will do the same.

            • DanDustEmOff

              The PS4 isn’t struggling because of sofware, the software for the PS4 is excellent according to developers. It’s a matter of design choice. They could have dropped their resolution or texture quality or scaled back AI or any number of things and bumped the frame rate.

              In that situation though the game would look like a last gen game running at a higher frame rate. The game would be slated and the investment wasted. Nobody would buy it and Massive would likely fold and cease to exist along with the Snow Drop engine.

              The last gen systems did improve over time but nothing ground breaking. BF3 ran at 30fps to gain a resolution buff, BO2 suffered from frame rate drops to improve its texture quality and GTA V sacrificed everything just to run. Optimisation is often a double edged sword, they borrow from Pete to pay Paul.

            • SiftBlade

              Nothing ground breaking? Did you ever think, back in 2005, anything like GTA 5, Skyrim, The Last of Us, Far Cry, or Assassin’s Creed will ever not only look this good, but have so many features, compelling story, immense gameplay, and a world of unlimited possibilities where you can do whatever you want, how you want it, with all of your friends? The short answer is no. I have never thought any of that would have been possible when the PS3 launched, and now look at PS3 games. When you see PS4 games now, imagine what they would be like in 7 years. You can’t, we don’t know how far technology will come.

            • DanDustEmOff

              Every game you mentioned runs at 30 fps proving my point entirely.

            • SiftBlade

              Jesus christ, you’re so ignorant.

            • DanDustEmOff

              I’m not ignorant at all. The easiest and most effective way to improve the graphical power of a console is to target a lower frame rate. Taking a game running at 30 fps and getting it to run at 60 fps would require the system to be doubled in power.

              Eeking a little more performance out to improve texture quality is more than achievable but no amount of tweaking the code can radically make a high res 30 fps game run at 60 without altering quality settings.

            • SiftBlade

              That’s not what I was saying at all. I’m saying that while games may struggle on PS4 now, they will reach unimaginable limits in the future, just like back when PS3 launched to it’s end. I was saying how great of a leap it was from 2005 from now, and how it will be from now to the future, and your ignorance shows when you say it’s not great because they run at 30FPS, even though games like that would have been unimaginable to look that good and run at 30FPS back then.

            • DanDustEmOff

              To you its a great leap from early PS3 to late, being a PC guy the leap wasn’t that great. The system launched sub HD and finished sub HD. For games to get even close to 720p the games had to go from 60 fps to 30. The improvements you keep talking about were possible because of better art design teams. Going from the last PS2 to the PS3 was a substantial hardware improvement, that enabled dev’s over time to create better looking games because the power was there.

              Things are different now, going from 540p and 702p to 1080p more than doubles the amount of pixels the the system needs to push. That’s before you add in textures AI and all the rest.

              Game devs have been used to working with the x86 architecture for some time also. There comes a point of diminished returns from optimisation. Like I have said games will look better but not drastically and improvements will come from capturing techniques and engine changes eeking the odd 2% here and there.

            • SiftBlade

              They had to go from 60FPS to 30FPS for massively improved graphics, cinematics, massive open worlds (that are in HD with great graphics), smart AI, etc. I;m going to look at Skyrim specifically. . It may run at 30FPS, but it looks beautiful with a massive open world, so many interactive things, smart AI, custom character builds, etc. Look at Oblivion, which launched early in PS3′s life, then look at Skyrim. You’re saying that there is no improvement from games like COD 3 to COD BO2/Ghosts/AW because the gameplay is a few frame rates slower? Do you see no improvement between Battlefield 2 and Battlefield 4? Even GTA 4 to GTA 5, which weren’t even too far apart, had a massive graphical difference. No wonder GTA runs @ 30FPS, it has to render in that entire world on a 7 year old console. Also, if you don’t see big difference in PC games from 2005 to now, you have problems. I would sacrifice 60FPS to have the amazing games we have today over games that we had in 2005 with 60FPS. And if you think technology will not advance and games will not look much better than they do today, you are wrong.

            • DanDustEmOff

              I was hoping you weren’t gonna use Skyrim lol. Yes Bethesda did a great job at getting Skyrim to run at 720p on last gen systems. Still though it was only possible because it ran at 30fps.

              I’m not totally against your argument but you can’t really judge this gen by last gen. Last gen used a completely different architecture to it’s predecessor’s meaning dev’s needed to learn how to get the best out of the system.

              Things are different this time dev’s are used to using unified memory and SoC’s. They are already used to the x86 architecture by developing games for PC’s. I fully expect the games to get better graphically over time but it’s a huge ask to get 30 fps games to run at 60 without compromising graphical fidelity. I don’t believe it can be done, but I would still be happy if I was proven wrong.

            • VEX_VEHIX

              So why release a NEW system, only to improve it later?

              This “release early, patch/improve later” bullshit has got to end. As consumers, we need to set the standards. Quality product, or we won’t buy!

              WHO’S WITH ME!?

              *crickets*

            • SiftBlade

              Since technology advances over time, this can’t really work. The PS3 can’t handle all of the new advances, which is why they have to create the PS4.

        • TheShadowReaper

          60fps is the immersion developers are supposed to deliver. what’s the point in achieving something in a half-assed way even if it looks shiny? 60fps is the thing that immerses you and gets you into the game. ask any PC gamer such as myself. they will tell you no different. you console guys are just looking for excuses to make about your 30fps sub-par games.

      • VEX_VEHIX

        Or next Gen for that matter.

      • Weston Konik

        i agree about FPS, but the Division is 3rd person.

        • Primey_

          I never said Division is not 3rd person. The parent comment mentioned Destiny which is a FPS

    • VEX_VEHIX

      But why not push it to the next level? I mean, it is a new Generation. As they say.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mohammad.nassir.92 Moodii Nasir

    So, they are already downgrading it .. can wait for the next downgrade

    • Zacflame

      I bet you’d prefer draw distance or polygon count? 30FPS is totally fine.

      • http://www.facebook.com/mohammad.nassir.92 Moodii Nasir

        with old gen console but not with PC or a next gen console

        • Devin Wolfe

          You assume to much.

        • jj16802

          Now you’re overestimating the hardware.

    • James Mulhall

      They’re downgrading it? Unless they came out before this and said “The Division will be 60FPS”, this isn’t a downgrade, considering there wasn’t anything better before it.

    • Just saying

      I bet if they worked harder on optimizing it for the consoles, it would’ve reached 1080p at 60fps. Who thought that GTA V can deliver all this on last gen consoles? No one. It all comes to optimization. Massive are just taking the easy way now.

      • DanDustEmOff

        GTA V ran at 30fps with massive frame rate drops as low as 20 fps and was sub HD. Never mind those horrible jaggies everywhere.

        • Just saying

          I’m talking about the whole package that GTA V delivered. I know it’s not 1080p and not 60fps but no one thought that GTA V trailer was captured on PS3. Even when we played it, we got shocked on how this game is working on a 10 years old console. I expect GTA V to be 1080p @60fps on PS4 with a massive boost in graphics. Although it’s not likely that this will happen but I think R* will shock us again somehow.

          • DanDustEmOff

            I don’t think the frame rate is getting buffed. Just textures, resolution, draw distance and AI denity. 60fps on an open world game is no easy task.

          • RustyFrags

            Keep dreaming. As I’ve said before, you need a beefy rig for 60FPS on open world games.

            • Just saying

              I like how some guys reply to comments as if it’s a personal insult or something. If you read my comment to the last sentence, you should see “it’s not likely that this will happen”. I know that it’s hard to achieve but who knows, maybe a dev team can do it someday.

            • RustyFrags

              It wasn’t taken that way.

    • DanDustEmOff

      Nobody ever said The Division was going to be 60fps.

  • xHDx

    I’m happy, but they haven’t said what the resolution will be right? By the way the text is put, it sounds 1080p. I’m not bothered tbh. As long as it doesn’t drop all of the time, i’m fine with it. Also, those people expecting 1080p/60fps on all games on these ‘Next-Gen’ consoles, it isn’t gonna happen, and I can’t see why you think it would.

    • Eaglejoc .

      Because they don’t see the technical side of things only “i want/It should” side of things

      • xHDx

        That’s what spoils gaming :(

  • VEX_VEHIX

    Needs MOAR FPS! :D

  • Pingback: The Division Developers Aiming For 30FPS On Xbox One and PlayStation 4 - MP1st | Tech reviews()

  • MR_H0RNY

    Why can’t developers aim for both 60FPS and good looking visuals, I thought the “next-gen” consoles were supposed to be miles better than their predecessors.

    • KiLLaMaNiLLa

      They are miles better look at the games that already came out games never looked that good on last gen. And later on they will learn to better optimize the consoles. And Microsoft also has the cloud once they get that up and running to provide the console with backup it needs they will be able to do even more then. But to say the console aren’t much better is just crazy.

    • Just saying

      Developers still not familiar with the “current-gen” consoles and they really don’t wanna pay attention to that 1080p @60fps thing. Look at SOE optimizing PlanetSide 2 in 1080p@60fps on ultra settings. It’s all about how much work is put in the optimization process.

      • ASS4SSIN

        This definitly is correct, if they would put enough efford in the optimizations work ALL games with reasonable grafics could be ran at 60fps. The problem is cross-platform release, PS2 is only comming to the ps4, which means they don’t need to optimize it for two platforms, whereas The Devision comes for three platforms. So the time that’d be there for an exclusive game is now devided into three.
        So from this pov it’s quite understandable to aim at 30fps. Don’t forget that.

        • DanDustEmOff

          PS2 ultra settings are not that impressive it’s also a FPS in a closed map with no AI. The Division is an open world TPS with lots of AI. No amount of optimisation could effectively double the power of the current consoles, which is what would be needed to double the frame rate.

          • ASS4SSIN

            An Open World Game also has a closed map, I think you don’t know much about PS2, all maps are at minimum equal the size of GTA V maybe even bigger. Yes AI controlled objects need CPU power to run but the amount is so low(espacially for scripted open world ai), that that isn’t a big hit performancewise. Computing power is just an amount of possible calculations per second/minutes etc. , if a code is well enough optimised, more calculations can be done in one cycle, thus resulting in a higher framerate or better looking grafical effects.

            • DanDustEmOff

              Lol no they aren’t, not even close. Sure the maps are big but that’s ridiculous to suggest they are the same size let alone bigger. I played PS2 on the PC over a year ago and it’s not even that good. I think theres like 5 servers in the world running that game and most of them are half full.

              A CPU’s clock speed is how many calcuations per second it can perform. So no It can’t perform calculations quicker no matter how well the code is optimised. You sound like you have never played PS2 or you haven’t played GTA V (the largest open world map ever made). Either way you’re living in cloud cu cu land to belive that the PS4 can render an open world environment at 60 fps at 1080p looking as good as The Division does. No amount of optimisation can effectively double the performance to achieve that.

            • ASS4SSIN

              -.- You haven’t correctly read what I wrote, I didn’t say that a cpu is going to be faster just because a game is optimised :D
              Please learn to read, I wrote that MORE calculations could be done if unnessesary steps in the code that would otherwise make multi-platform ports easier(such as non low-end-api’s), would be replaced with code more compatible for that system. That even beginns with easy Javascript programming, either you could write a line for each object in an array to be read OR you could just use 3 lines for a loop.
              There are only 5 servers on PS2 because you have not just one character for every server, you have one for each server.But nonetheless in PS2 are more air vehicles flying around and more weapon fire which needs to be calculated as in GTA V.

            • DanDustEmOff

              There are only 5 servers because nobody plays it. If it was popular the game would need more than 5 servers. There were more but they shut them down due to a lack of activity.

              I can read I just couldn’t get over your ridiculous claims. So I may have skimmed over that last part. Still more cps can not be done, the cps is the clock speed a 1.6 GHZ cpu performs 1.6 billion instructions per second. That’s still something that can only modified by over clocking the cpu.

              Taking out lines of code doesn’t enable the cpu to process more code it only enables it to process code that is deemed to be essential. That can be risky if the guy removing code isn’t a genius. Optimisation of these systems will not double the amount of power these systems produce which is exactly whats needed to double the fps without downgrading the graphical settings.

    • DanDustEmOff

      Open world games are typically a lot harder to run. GTA IV only just runs at 60 fps on my PC when everything is maxed out whereas I can get 100 plus on BF3.

      • Brandon DeBoer

        This seems like an awful lot of excuses, none of which are addressing the fact that the hardware on the new consoles just isn’t that impressive.

        The hype train blasts “next gen” into every sentence they can, when in reality the difference between the ps3/ps4 and 360/x1 is the equivalent of a fairly minor PC upgrade. The hardware simply cannot support high framerates and high fidelity, no matter how hard you try to optimize it. In even a midrange PC, a typical GPU will draw 200 watts. That’s not counting the other components, just the gpu alone. The PS4 draws ~130 during gameplay and the X1 is around 115. At a certain point you’re just optimizing a bicycle, you can wear skintight pants, oil the gears, whatever people who ride bicycles do, but it will never go as fast as a bullet train.

        • DanDustEmOff

          I’m not making excuses for MS and Sony. But Massive can only do what they can with the hardware they have got. I completely agree with you both systems are a poor effort at a ‘next gen’ console. I would like to see how the Alienware Alpha will stack up against these systems, when it launches.

        • Tank Buster

          Not sure why but the Xbox One actually shipped with a 240 watt power supply and only currently drawing half its capability.

          • Jonah Thrillz

            Really? It’s been shown the XBone has the highest power consumption of all next-gen consoles.

            Facts: http://www.nrdc.org/energy/game-consoles/

            • Tank Buster

              Thanks for the link, but I didn’t see the author actually list the consoles watt usuage anywhere unless I missed it. I’m sure the kinect & snap feature when activated use some juice but to my knowledge Xbone is not currently getting close to using the 240 watts its capable of.

            • Jonah Thrillz
            • Tank Buster

              That would make sense, the Xbone PSU has 43% more output capability than the PS4 PSU. I have no answer why the Xbone power supply being so out of the ordinary large or a 28nm SoC’ed system.

  • http://Www.pselectronicsrepair.com/ Lrishjake

    My eyes can barely tell the difference between 30 and higher when its not in really fast paced FPS online games. But in games like BF4, etc. the 60fps does make a difference in how smooth the game feels. Smoothness seems to be the only real advantage for me. Its not like I do better stats wise if Im at 60fps vs. 30fps so its sort of a non-point. I’ll take 1080p and pretty over full 60fps anytime.

    • MeisseN

      You won’t feel graphics lag @ 30 FPS but if, say, the framerate increases to 60 you will definitely feel that the game runs smoother at the moment

  • https://www.youtube.com/user/WildChildTactics WildChildTactics

    I don’t really care if is 30,40,50,60 FPS I’ll be playing this game regardless those numbers

    • Samson

      Ignorance is bliss.

    • Julien Fernandez

      bet you’ll care at 10fps

  • Luis Mitis

    AND FINALLY ! the disappointment of this game, came earlier than i thought it would.

  • Tank Buster

    So no cloud powah for 60 fps?

  • jaskdavis

    That’s fine… If it’s at least 1080p on PS4 and 900p+ on X1!

    Edit: or 1080p on X1 forgot about the GPU 10% thingy

    • SubXero

      In most cases that extra 10% isn’t going to be enough to really matter.

      • http://www.facebook.com/datkidfromawendaw Clay Johnson

        Probably, but for a number of games, the gain is enough. Destiny was announced by Bungie to run 1600×900 resolution and now it’s 1080p. Battlefield (4): Hardline is announced 1080p/60 for Xbox one. Im sure Sunset Overdrive would be 1080p as well but they are using the 10% for other things to make the game better. I mean some people want to say “well its because this that and the third,” when the reality is that its way too early to deem what can and cannot be accomplished. I’m still wanting to see if Yusuf’s rather big claim of 4K for games holds true in the future. If I didn’t know any better I’d be some silly Xbot eating it up, but im curiously optimistic at best

    • Just saying

      Sadly PS4 still has more power than Xbox One even after this 10%. I’m a PS4 user but I wish that both consoles had the same power.

  • Rob Machado

    Fine by me…still gonna be awesome game.

  • Spectre01N7

    30FPS is needed minimum.

  • Jonah Thrillz

    Looks like the rumors of the devs using the XBone as the lead development platform is true. This is just disappointing and they’re aiming for parity across all systems instead of playing to the strengths of each console. The PS4 version could’ve played spectacularly.

    Definitely won’t be picking this game up.

    • DanDustEmOff

      http://www.gamepur.com/news/14666-ps4-lead-platform-tom-clancys-division-most-powerful-hardware-snowdrop-engi.html

      No the lead platform is the PS4. It’s an open world game did you honestly believe the PS4 would run it at 60 fps?

      • Jonah Thrillz

        A lot of games on the PS4 run at 60fps. Why would one doubt it?
        I guess you XBone fans are use to lower performance specs doesn’t mean PS4 players should expect it for their system.

        • DanDustEmOff

          How many times have I told you I play on the PC? My system out right destroys a PS4 in every hardware based aspect. You are the one that is used to lower performance systems not I. I keep telling you that the PS4 isn’t that much more powerful than an X1 but you won’t listen.

          Just because some indie games and FPS titles run 1080p at 60 fps, doesn’t mean it can do the same for every type of game. This game has a lot going on from advanced AI to full day and night cycles, dynamic weather etc…

          I would get used to consoles being out gunned if I were you. I would place money on a tablet or phone being more powerful than the PS4 in the next 4 years.

          • http://www.facebook.com/datkidfromawendaw Clay Johnson

            Jonah is the epitome of a trained PS fanboy and I would opt out of successfully making a case againt him…and actuallt I would say maybe in the next two-three years, or at least the gap will be significantly narrowed. High end smart phones and tablets already have more powerful CPUs than the current Xbox and PlayStation and GPUs are not that far behind. Watch NVidia’s Tegra K1 demo on YouTube, if you don’t know what it is already. Soon enough mobile platforms will start receiving full console/PC games soon enough

            • DanDustEmOff

              Thanks dude, but yeah Ive seen the Tegra MS and Sony really pissed NVidia off. I told him that there were better phones but he couldn’t wrap it round his brainwashed skull. I have decided to get him used to it in steps that he can digest.

              If were sharing intel, have you seen the Alienware Alpha?

            • http://www.facebook.com/datkidfromawendaw Clay Johnson

              Nope, I have seen an ad for it on Google+ nd I’m actually just about to watch a video of it on YouTube.

            • DanDustEmOff

              It will be interesting to see what GPU goes in all I can find out is it’s maxwell based 2gb. Linus tech tips has an interview with a rep showing it at e3.

          • Jonah Thrillz

            I couldn’t care about how well a PC does gaming as you guys pay thousands for one so you deserve it. You just can’t get it through your thick head that I’m talking solely about consoles. Yet you keep interrupting the flow of conversation around it.

            BTW; most games are exclusive to consoles and don’t appear at all on PC. Yeah that’s because publishers know where the money’s at.

            • DanDustEmOff

              Is that your response? Seriously… lol.

            • Jonah Thrillz

              It’s a good response as you came up short on your retort.

        • Tank Buster

          Sony has some crappy 1080p

          • Jonah Thrillz

            Too jealous to see beyond your 720p lens?

            No shit….

            • Tank Buster

              lol

    • RustyFrags

      You honestly want to believe this is because of XOne, don’t you? News flash: You need a beefy rig to run open world games (especially one as detailed as The Division) at 60FPS. Stop being such an irrational elitist and get your facts straight. Look at Watch Dogs. That game ran at 30FPS on consoles and PC was the lead platform. The two things simply don’t correlate.

      • Jonah Thrillz

        Listen moron, the games releasing now shows how much time devs had to work with. Add in the fact that Sony’s ICE team is improving development tools every cycle and you’ll get 1080p @ 60fps for your open world games. It’s only been less than a year since the PS4 was released!!

        Take your PC master race bullshit outta here!

        • RustyFrags

          Don’t know what I said that would imply I’m a PC elitist (I don’t even play on PC), and that’s pretty hypocritical from you. I don’t care what other games are 1080p/60FPS, are any of them as detailed as The Division? Didn’t think so.

        • Tank Buster

          Fanboy dreams ^

  • http://thenikhilmishra.blogspot.in/ Nikhil

    Hopefully they won’t decrease the graphics like in Watch Dogs..!

  • http://www.almostaveragegamers.com/ Barry Moore

    If it’s single player 30fps works just fine allocating enough of the engine to support graphical I understand that, but for multiplayer there are always noticeable differences you should always shoot for 60fps at a min for multiplayer, because honestly do you need to see each snow flake or do you really care if the bricks explode into thousands of peices apose to hundreds idk me personally just want a smooth fun gaming experience!

  • Jayy

    I can personally care less if its 60fps or 30fps…. 60+ is cool in all but its not needed all the time!

  • ItsG_Baby

    Wow…..honestly I can careless for framerates. 30FPS or 60FPS don’t matter to me. As long as it looks good and its playable that’s all that counts to me. I own a PC and a PS4. It never bothered me. As long as the game is playable and it looks good.

  • Cycovision

    Then give us an option.
    1080p @ 30
    Or
    720p @ 60.

    I’ll gladly take the latter when playing a game.

  • John Richardson

    There’s no “immersion” when the action starts at 30fps. Xbone is dragging us down. Good on all the developers that shoot for 60fps. People that say they don’t care might start to notice it more when there are a lot more games out there at 60fps. Going back to a 30fps from there is patently obvious. If you can’t tell then you are lucky indeed. It looks like choppy jurky muck for the first few hours of dropping back down there when I do it.

settings

close