Login | Signup

Here we go again: Tomb Raider Definitive Edition runs at 60FPS on PS4, half that on Xbox One

Jonathan Lester
Crystal Dynamics, Nixxes, PS4, PS4 games, Square Enix, Xbox One, Xbox One Games

Different Developers Involved

Right. Well then.

Just when the bickering surrounding the disparity between PS4 and Xbox One performance (called Resolutiongate by idiots with no imagination) was starting to subside, another major third party release has revealed markedly superior numbers on Sony's machine. Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition's PS4 version has been confirmed to run at double the frame rate of the Xbox One port, and more interestingly, both versions appear to have been developed by different studios.

The original aim of the pretty port was to bring Lara's excellent 2013 adventure onto the next-gen consoles with a new lick of paint, running at 1080p and 30 frames per second. The Xbox One version reportedly hits that target perfectly, but as Rocket Chainsaw explains, Square Enix unlocked the frame rate, allowing it to climb to 45FPS during simple cutscenes.

Here we go again: Tomb Raider Definitive Edition runs at 60FPS on PS4, half that on Xbox One

By the same token, the PS4 version has now been confirmed as running at an average 60FPS, double the original target, thus providing a smoother and more natural gameplay experience. I'm not trolling here - check this out. The difference is profound.

"Both platforms offer the same outstanding Tomb Raider experience," a Squeenix spokesperson told EG. "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."

So why the disparity? It's tempting to say that the PS4's simply a more powerful machine -- because it is -- but to cover all our basis, it now appears that two separate companies were involved with the ports. The PS4 version was handled by Nixxes -- who previously worked on Killzone: Shadow Fall's UI and optimisation -- while United Front Games (Sleeping Dogs) dealt with the Xbox One port. Just so you know. I doubt this has much to do with anything, mind, seeing as UFG delivered a competent version of Sleeping Dogs on all platforms.

A more interesting question might be: so does this actually matter in the grand scheme of things? Personally, I'm not particularly bothered [EDIT: since I own the game on PC], but it's easy to understand why many gamers are irked at shelling out hundreds of Pounds for a console that doesn't offer sweeping performance improvements. I'll extol the virtues of gameplay over graphics until the 4K cows come home, but it's still annoying and a worrying first salvo from the big black box. I suspect that we'll see Xbox One frame rates increasing as developers become more familiar with the console's extra embedded memory (ESRAM).

Also, do we actually even need this revamp of a year-old game? Brendan reckons that developers have to work hard to earn our money... twice. This isn't a rhetorical question, so be sure to get involved in the comments - will you be picking up the Definitive Edition?

Add a comment9 comments
t4v  Jan. 24, 2014 at 12:28

Maybe ESRAM is to the XB1 as the Cell was to the PS3, powerful but fiddly. By the time they're got round to using it right what will they have unlocked on the PS4?

FinnTheHuman  Jan. 24, 2014 at 12:33

Could you rewrite the article with a little less bias please? You just sound totally butthurt over the fact that the PS4 has yet again outperformed the XBONE

Who gives a **** if you don't think the reboot isn't necessary, the point, and the FACT of this article is that there is currently a game for the PS4 that runs at 60fps - it doesn't matter whether or not it's a reboot.

All the crap about "does it matter in the grand scheme of things" and then immediately contradicting yourself by saying XBOX One should be following suite with higher frame rate.

Seriously, how much are Microsoft paying you to write this ****?

imdurc  Jan. 24, 2014 at 12:40

What the hell did they do to her face??

JonLester  Jan. 24, 2014 at 12:46

@t4v: yes, I reckon you're right on the money. Microsoft have introduced an extra hurdle that developers need to vault over, while Sony have made it easy.

@FinnTheHuman: ...eh?

I'm not sure where to start with that, so I won't - save pointing out that you've grabbed the wrong end of the stick and hard.

@imdurc: This!

Last edited by JonLester, Jan. 24, 2014 at 12:50
DivideByZero  Jan. 24, 2014 at 12:57

60FPS is so much better than 30FPS... but I guess it's like the difference between 720p and 1080p in that not everyone notices it.

But if like me, you do notice it, you will be bothered by how substandard the lower one is.

Personally I game at 120FPS on my PC and find it quite noticeable when the settings get nerfed to 60fps and hate it now, especially in fast paces FPS games where you are flying about all over the shop.

The XO is known to be below the power of the PS4, we are going to see a lot more articles like this in the future. But don't worry... Microsoft themselves have said that they have one up on Sony by harnessing the power of "The Cloud".

Yeah, that'll work.

As for do we need a revamp of a year old game... not if you played it on the PC. I will see if I can get a screeny of the Old Lara / New Lara pic from my PC (if I remember) tonight.

JonLester  Jan. 24, 2014 at 13:06

@/0: I personally notice frame rate much more than the resolution TBH; any chugging or slowdown really annoys me. TBH I'd prefer devs to prioritise it over resolution.

Both is nice, mind.

WhereDidWeParktheTitan  Jan. 24, 2014 at 14:18

They updated their article: Further information from our sources points to the actual “average” of the PS4 build to be around 55fps (fluctuating between 50-60fps), while the XB1 build should “average” around 40fps (fluctuating between 30-45fps).

As the PS3/XB360 versions are availbale for £12-15 and it was about £6 on steam last week, if you have an "old" console hooked up or a decent PC I don't think that its worth paying the extra £20-30 for the PS4/XB1 version.

The single player game was really good, but I've not had any interest in replaying it and the dlc was all pretty shoddy from what I remember. Now if they make a sequel with some tombs bigger than a small lounge in, count me in.

DivideByZero  Jan. 24, 2014 at 14:53

Jon: yeah, I agree, framerate first.

Titan: I agree with it not being worth rebuying it if you already played it - but if you have not, I do think it is a good thing that they have improved it to be next-gen for the new consoles. Had they have just ported it straight from one gen to the next there would be all sorts of bad noise on the internet about that.

That said, having played it on a kickarse PC, I expect the PS4 version would be about the same at best.

Breadster  Jan. 24, 2014 at 15:18

I also agree with framerate > resolution. I don't really care how detailed it looks if it's chugging along at a low frame rate. 60fps should be a standard on this generation, it makes a massive difference in how nice the game feels and looks. Saying that, I don't expect a reboot like this to run at 60fps but it's nice if it does.

Also, why does she actually look different, not just better, it's really weird.

Last edited by Breadster, Jan. 24, 2014 at 15:19

Email Address:

You don't need an account to comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.