Sections

Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition PS4 & Xbox One each had different developer

Friday, 24th January 2014 10:05 GMT By Dave Cook

Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition’s PS4 and Xbox One versions were developed by different studios, one of the company’s has revealed.

It follows a statement given to VG247 by Square, that addresses recent Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition frame rate discussions. Hit the link to see what it said.

NeoGAF members noticed that developer Nixxes revealed itself as developer of the PS4 version on its site, and confirmed Sleeping Dogs studio United Front Games as developer of the Xbox One edition.

The post added, “In addition to converting the game to PlayStation 4, Nixxes Software provided support to United Front Games, the developer responsible for the Xbox Oneversion of the game.”

There’s still no confirmation of the Xbox One version’s frame rate.

Both versions are out January 28

Via Videogamer.

Latest

22 Comments

  1. Xbone

    “There’s still no confirmation of the Xbox One version’s frame rate.”

    I think if the Xbone version is 60fps, Microsoft would already say something about this.

    #1 8 months ago
  2. Dave Cook

    @1 All reports point to 30FPS

    #2 8 months ago
  3. Legendaryboss

    Different developers? Why do Square Enix always give the impression they are developing the ports themselves and then tells us the developers behind it shortly before launch.

    #3 8 months ago
  4. KineticCalvaria

    Nixxes did a great job with the PC version.

    #4 8 months ago
  5. raftos

    United Front did an excelent job with Sleeping Dogs, specially with the PC version. Any problem with Tomb Raider on X1 must be microsoft’s fault because of the unfinished tools needed to work with the console.

    #5 8 months ago
  6. pablo2008jedi

    Well it looks good, but I’m not paying full price for an upgrade…

    #6 8 months ago
  7. OmegaSlayer

    So, a developer that is a bit obscure and less known did a better job than a reknown developer.
    Just to add fuel to the fire ^___^

    #7 8 months ago
  8. Sylrissa

    @7 It does make you think huh, though I’d be more likely to blame the limitations of the X1 then it being some fault of United Front Games.

    #8 8 months ago
  9. Moonwalker1982

    Good news. This should mean Crystal Dynamics has been working on a real new Tomb Raider then.

    #9 8 months ago
  10. tezzer1985

    @5 are you a developer? Do you work for Microsoft?

    How do you know the tools are unfinished, actually can you explain what type of tools you are talking about, and how these tools effect Tomb Raider?

    #10 8 months ago
  11. fihar

    @7
    Hey, Bluepoint isn’t particularly well known but they already have a reputation as the go-to guy for HD makeovers.

    Remember, developing a port is a far cry from designing a game from the ground-up.

    Anyway, isn’t it rather odd to have two different companies doing this?
    The architecture between the two platforms are almost the same, isn’t it?

    #11 8 months ago
  12. boiled lobster

    @6

    I agree. Paying full price for a narrative I already own is ridiculous. Buying the same narrative at the same price, however, is insane. In this scenario, consumer and producer are both crazy.

    I still have Tomb Raider and current gen hardware. All I need is an incentive to migrate the same experience to my next gen console.

    Mindshare is a terrible thing to waste.

    #12 8 months ago
  13. OmegaSlayer

    @8 and 11
    You know where I come from ;)
    For me it spells that the difference in architecture (mainly the GDDR5 against the ESRAM) makes development simplier avoiding a bottleneck of 32 MB.
    So a less accomplished developer has an easier work than a famous accomplished one.
    This spells a lot of big things that we’ll witness in the future that are already moving.
    That means that small and mid sized developers (I speak about workforce and development hours) will be able to get better results with their works, meaning that we POTENTIALLY could have developers that would average turning into good ones and good developers could become great developers.
    Often there have been good ideas in games, especially out of the AAA sector, that have problems because of optimization, and lack of time/workforce.
    Exciting times ahead, since indie developing is becoming big ^____^

    #13 8 months ago
  14. raftos

    @10 Calm down, fanboy!

    Just take a look at the internet. Developers were complaining about the SDK. It was incomplete and MS was late in development. It’s a fact that development for Xbox One is more complicated AT THE MOMENT”

    Look at this: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-resolutiongate-the-fallout

    #14 8 months ago
  15. Spinergy02

    So..the game is out now, and having actually played it on Xbox One, the framerate is waaaaaay closer to 60fps than 30. Thanks for all the previous speculation, though!

    #15 8 months ago
  16. boiled lobster

    @15

    Playing PC, Ps4, and Xbox One versions, Kirk Hamilton at Kotaku said of the latter:

    It still looked great, still had all the visual bells and whistles I’d seen on the PS4 version… but it was not running at 60fps. It was noticeably more sluggish, closer to 30fps.
    Kotaku

    And it makes sense. XO was designed to run more than one app simultaneously, any two of which can be displayed, with each taking up half the screen. For compatibility reasons I think the OS makes all apps run at 30fps. So if you have, say, a movie playing on one side of the screen and a game on the other, neither will appear out of place.

    #16 8 months ago
  17. mongbatstar

    @15 You were doing so well, until you decided to just make stuff up.

    Your assertion fails the most basic level of scrutiny.

    #17 8 months ago
  18. The_Red

    @15
    You do realize that gameplay comparisons and vids are out it is nowhere near 60? NOTHING on the Xbox One versions goes above 45. It is usually locked at 35 with some spikes to 40 during empty parts and long dips to 25?

    That is of course you played the PS4 version and mistook it for XB1.

    #18 8 months ago
  19. X14EVR

    i have both versions now one for me on xbox and one for my baby brother on his babystation 4 i put them on side by side and yes the ps4 has more frames but it makes it to smooth and ruins the experience a bit since the camera floats everywhere so wasted effort really and the xbox looks way better so thats probably why the xbox only has 30 frames because it actually looks better than the ps4 version and its noticeable so in the end the xbox has came out on top AGAIN the ps4 is just coded horribly and so was the people who made the game for it they couldnt code they made it to smooth thats its pretty much unplayble

    #19 8 months ago
  20. Spinergy02

    @17

    You do realize that was my first comment, right?

    @18

    Please share these comparison videos you have found. All I have to go off of at the moment is personal experience with the Xbox One gameplay.

    @19

    Probably along the same lines of how they blurred the crap out of everything in BF4 for PS4.

    #20 8 months ago
  21. Hcw87

    @19
    How can it be ”too smooth”? The more frames, the better.

    #21 8 months ago
  22. Spinergy02

    @21

    Some objects are meant to have sharp edges. When you post-process images too much you end up smoothing objects that shouldn’t be.

    #22 8 months ago

Comments are now closed on this article.