Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition

Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition News for PS4

On: PS4Xbox One
Review Verdict Read Review
8Out of 10
Back to game info
Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition screenshot
Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition screenshot

The PlayStation 4 and Xbox One versions of Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition were both developed by different studios, it's been revealed, which may go some way to explaining the performance differences between the two versions.

The news was tucked away in a note on Nixxes' website (highlighted by NeoGAF), which appears to have been published soon after the game's announcement last month.

"Nixxes Software is proud to announce that it has been working on the Playstation 4 version for the recent announced Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition," the developer wrote.

"In addition to converting the game to Playstation 4, Nixxes Software provided support to United Front Games, the developer responsible for the Xbox ONE version of the game."

Nixxes has plenty of experience in porting Square Enix's console titles to PC, having previously developed the PC versions of Tomb Raider, Hitman Absolution and Deus Ex: Human Revolution.

United Front Games, however, has less porting experience, with its development history limited to original titles. Before developing Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition, the developer created ModNation Racers, Sleeping Dogs and LittleBigPlanet Karting.

It was revealed yesterday that the PS4 version of Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition runs at 60fps, with the Xbox One reportedly rendering at just 30fps.

According to Square, though, "anything beyond 30fps for [Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition] is gravy".


New stuff to check out

To add your comment, please login or register

User Comments

justerthought's Avatar


Yes multiplats looked better on xbox 360 because PS3 was fatally flawed. It was potentially more powerful if the CELL CPU was fully utilised, but it was too hard to programme. Sony also made the GPU less powerful hoping devs would do some of the graphics work on powerful CELL by hand, but it was a big ask and obviously never happened. In the end CELL was a liability. They both didn't have enough RAM but PS3 made it worse by badly distributing it (resulting in screen tear or poor frame rates, and Skyrim Rimlag).

Luckily Sony had excellent 1st party studios to really push the CELL and fully utilise what it could do, so the likes of Uncharted and The Last Of Us were way beyond anything the xbox 360 could do. RAM was less of an issue because they were not open world. It was all small maps and graphical tunnels, but awesome quality. Sony then wisely distributed all that information to the 3rd parties to help them get the most out of the multiplats, but the 360 still ruled the multiplats and PS3 still suffered with open world games.

All that changed for PS4. Sony learned the lesson. PS4 is easy to programme, has lots of fast RAM that is efficiently distributed and has a very powerful GPU. Problem sorted. PS4 is perfectly suited for open world games that require lots of high res assets to be rapidly streamed in real time to the RAM so the GPU can draw the frames without having to wait for data. Great games can be created very easily and the machine is a beast, plus it's cheap to buy. All the xbox fanboys stayed loyal expecting history to repeat itself but Sony had it covered.

In fact history has repeated itself, but the role has reversed. It is the XB1 that is now the hardest to programme due to the fast ESRAM 32mb cache and cloud processing, it has slow main RAM that isn't set up as versatile as PS4's hUMA implementation, and the GPU is under powered because MS had to reduce its size in order to fit the ESRAM and move engines onto the APU with the CPU and GPU (12 compute units instead of 60 on PS4). Sony cleverly wrong footed MS spinning them around so they were left them wondering what happened.

What's for sure, lessons have been learned in hindsight on both sides now, so the console gen following PS4 and XB1 will follow the PS4 route. Sony nailed it.
Posted 16:53 on 25 January 2014
WhatISayGoes's Avatar

WhatISayGoes@ justerthought

Amen brother, some people just cannot accept the playstation domination when they have been loyal to the Xbox brand all last gen. Multiplats looked better on xbox360 last gen and I gamed on an xbox360. Now the kings of console gaming have come back with a vengeance and the playstation domination of the country from the obese nation has begun. PS3 v.s xbox360 was a level generation pretty much with xbox live and better looking multiplats edging it for the 360. THIS GENERATION SONY ARE DESTROYING THE XBOX, AND NAUGHTY DOG WILL DESTROY XBOX EXCLUSIVES.
Posted 12:16 on 25 January 2014
justerthought's Avatar

justerthought@ Techguy

You wrote a lot of text there and I'm still unsure what you're on about. You appear to be trying to say anything better than what you have got is a waste of time. Is that damage limitation or some form of resignation to give you peace if mind.

Yes movies have smooth motion at 24fps because directors don't pan too fast or you get judder. Games are different. The player pans violently when under attack from all directions and needs split second reaction times due to the interaction of firing guns or grabbing ledges, so a higher frame rate is needed. The higher the better.

It does not matter whether 1080p or 60fps is standard. What does matter is that a game shoul push whatever it can and the higher it reaches the better the gaming experience for the player.

Some games are heavy on the graphics so devs have to aim lower but those that can go flat out is good. Forza can run 1080p 60fps because it is a linear graphical tunnel racer with limited rendering. Gran Turismo 5 on PS3 ran 1080p 60fps for that same reason and that's current gen. The opposite to a graphical tunnel is an open world game where the game has to render everything on the fly in realtime wherever the player goes. XB1 will struggle with open world due to slow RAM.

PS4 has the power to run more games at 1080p 60fps, not just racers. But even if it is running at lower settings the game will be totally consistent with no screen tear or meandering frame rates. A game running 30fps all the time is far smoother than a game hitting 30fps every now and again with drops to 10fps. The higher the frame rate, the less the fluctuations are noticed. A drop from 60fps to 50fps will go unnoticed, but a drop from 30fps to 20fps will be noticed.

PS4 is perfectly designed to run huge complex open world games without even breaking a sweat. XB1 lacks the power and has to compromise. That matters if you want the best. Assassins Creed 4 on PS4 is a totally stable image in high resolution with no shimmering distant details. The XB1 version is lower res and shimmers just like current gen games. That's because it runs 1080p instead of 900p so it matters.

Tomb Raider running at 1080p 30fps matters and has nothing to do with dev inexperience. It's all about the GPU not getting data fast enough from the slow RAM and having to wait before it can draw the frames, so it has to target a slower frame rate. Whichever dev has the porting job has the same problem, an under powered GPU without access to lots of fast GDDR5 to stream HD assets to the GPU. The dev had two options, 720p 60fps or 1080p 30fps. Crystal dynamics wanted the detail to have priority so the frame rate took the hit. The PS4 version will be far more responsive and immersive at 60fps because when you pan around it will be perfectly smooth making you feel you are inside a real space.

The blame lands squarely at the feet of Microsoft for delivering a lame console. Both consoles will improve as devs learn more tricks, but the disparity will remain. It may even get wider once Naughty Dog start using hUMA and all the other hardware goodies. PS4 has lots more hardware options to improve. XB1 can only improve the ESRAM performance or add cloud processing functions but devs just won't bother because it's too much work for just one console. They build a generic scaleable game engine and then just optimise it with the various dev machines. Same amount of work for each platform. XB1 will just get lame ports.
Posted 03:12 on 25 January 2014
plat0nic's Avatar

plat0nic@ Neon-Soldier32

Oh it's positive all right!
Posted 23:53 on 24 January 2014
WhatISayGoes's Avatar

WhatISayGoes@ tonyxb0x

Nice name ;)
Playstation domination when it comes to what counts. GAMES. My HD terrabyte skybox works fine for t.v thankyou very very very very much.
Posted 23:37 on 24 January 2014
tonyxb0x's Avatar

tonyxb0x@ Mike11585

Exactly. Like when you build a phone for pure phone calls it will outperform a smartphone in the phone call quality. PS4 is a phone. Xbox One is a smartphone. I'll take a smartphone over a phone any day.
Posted 22:17 on 24 January 2014
Techguy's Avatar


Xbox one is very capable hardware they have the port to a developer with very little experience on next gen hardware and porting games on general so there is the result of Square Enix choice on how to make these next gen versions.
Fact :
1.Television is broadcast in 1080I maximum resolution not 1080p yet jaded game nerds scream 1080p when ironically they watch tv in 1080I =720p one interlaced the other progressive.

2. Every movie and television program and live sports and events are broadcast at 24pfs for the last few decades so 30fps on Xbox is above standard hd viewing frames 60fps no one has ever broadcast at 60fps

3. Xbox will just announced it will stream live football at 60fps using software technology by Nuelion on Xbox one ..means the console is very capable this has never been done before on any console.

Forza 5 is 1080p 60fps
Killzone Ps4 1080p 30fps single player
Need for Speed Rivals 1080p 30fps on Ps4 and Xbox one
Assassin's creed 4 1080p 30 30fps Ps4 with update Xbox One 900p 30fps no update ..both 30fps

Killzone couldn't do 60fps without losing detail on single player multiplayer does not require scripted events or in game story so they hit 60fps but Killzone single player couldn't hit 60fps

Need for speed Rivals does 1080p @ 30fps because they did not compromise detail on ps4 or xbox one.

These arguments are futile a waste of time the 1080p resolution isn't standard and 60fps is not either these games are developed on a tight schedule and budget and it comes down to who can organ more efficiently than another in the given amount of time..not these two consoles that are based on similar hardware
There will be advantages on a machine with more memory or faster but just like PC consoles with similar hardware specs and slight differences not by much as proven by Killzone single player and Need for speed , even Assassins creed 4 on Ps4 is 30fps didn't mean it's worse or better than Xbox

It all comes down to Budget time and talent of developers hardware in the case of Ps4 and Xbox one its like twins one runs fast the other can do more things at once both even out at the end stop the console war nonsense
Posted 21:36 on 24 January 2014
Mike11585's Avatar


This is a hardware issue not developer.When you build a console for pure gaming you can damn well expect that console to outperform one that it's going for a all in one box.
Posted 18:27 on 24 January 2014
f00man's Avatar


Haha...I wonder how much Microsoft paying for this information to go out to media outlets. Oh yea, it's not that the PS4 outperforms the XBO with Tomb Raider, it's just that it was different developer.

Um, what about CoD:Ghosts? Assassin's Creed 4? Battlefield 4? They all perform better on the PS4, so were each console version developed by difference developers? No.
Posted 17:38 on 24 January 2014
WhatISayGoes's Avatar

WhatISayGoes@ Neon-Soldier32

There is for ps4 owners ;)
Posted 13:02 on 24 January 2014
WhatISayGoes's Avatar


Playstation Domination :)
Posted 13:02 on 24 January 2014
essex1212's Avatar


its gearbox all over again...
Posted 12:16 on 24 January 2014


Depends. If they were straight ports with just an increase in resolution, then 60fps -should- be a given (although look at Shadow of the Colossus HD. If you play that in 1080p, it still has some performance issues compared to 720p and is only 30fps to start with).

But devs aren't doing that. Tomb Raider has had more (and better quality) particle effects added, more detailed character models, etc. That's taking away resources that could have gone to framerate.

Plus, we can't just ignore that it could be a combination of hardware + developer. If the porting process was that simple, they wouldn't have had different teams working on them to meet deadlines.
Though surely the NG consoles are getting a port of the PC version which, having already done the work on that, Nixxes would surely be in a much stronger position.

The same could apply to GTAV.
If the leaked internal testing documents related to bugs that mention PC/Next gen are fully accurate, they'll be adding DirectX 11 features, probably an increase in draw distance and the LOD algorithms...
If there is a big jump in visual quality, then its less likely the framerate will be 60fps.
Posted 12:11 on 24 January 2014
BritishWolf's Avatar


I think hardware is largely to blame but surely a last gen game can run at 60fps. Same goes for a GTAV port if it happens. It has some pretty unstable framerates so if it isnt a smooth 60fps on next gen, I'll be disappointed
Posted 11:15 on 24 January 2014
infinite's Avatar


its so much easier to blame the different developer, than to blame the hardware… time will tell if its the devs fault or the hardware when/if more titles have same problem or not… just saying…
Posted 10:54 on 24 January 2014

Game Stats

Release Date: 31/01/2014
Developer: Crystal Dynamics
Publisher: Square Enix
Genre: Action
Rating: PEGI 18+
Site Rank: 844 66
View Full Site