Skip to main content

Rage 2's Xbox One X resolution and frame rate clock in at 1080p 60 FPS

Rage 2
Rage 2 (Image credit: Bethesda)

Rage 2 is a first-person shooter which takes place in a post-apocalyptic future. Following a catastrophic asteroid impact, Earth is in ruin and numerous individuals are put into underground hibernation. Unfortunately, events don't go according to plan and the surface is overrun by mutants and an oppressive organization known as "The Authority." It's up to you to liberate everyone and dismantle the oppressive regime once and for all.

See Rage 2 at Amazon (opens in new tab)

Recently, Hardcore Gamer sat down with id Software Studio Director Tim Willits to discuss post-launch plans for Rage 2 and performance on Xbox One X and PlayStation 4 Pro. Instead of focusing on a 4K 30 FPS mode, the team decided to improve the frame rate. Willits said the following.

To make it simple, on the enhanced consoles, it runs at 1080p 60 FPS. On base hardware, it runs at 30 FPS. On PC, it's uncapped. We went for speed over 4K for the enhanced consoles.

While a lot of individuals will be disappointed because 1080p games look somewhat blurry on modern 4K displays, it's still great to know that the frame rate has been improved. Hopefully the game will be a locked 60 FPS on Xbox One X.

The Deluxe Edition of Rage 2 comes with access to an expansion planned for Summer 2019, but it looks like that's not where the content ends. Willits said that the company is planning more paid and free content down the line. It seems like it'll depend on what gamers want. You can read another except from Willits below.

We do have some plans for paid and free content. It is a single player game and we do have some community pushes we'll talk about in the future. The way our technology works, does allow us to integrate and change the world easier than other games.

Hopefully Rage 2 will be a polished experience when it launches on May 14. Bethesda hasn't had a lot of luck recently with the post-apocalyptic genre, so maybe this will change its fortunes.

See Xbox One X at Amazon (opens in new tab)

Asher Madan handles gaming news for Windows Central. Before joining Windows Central in 2017, Asher worked for a number of different gaming outlets. He has a background in medical science and is passionate about all forms of entertainment, cooking, and antiquing.

84 Comments
  • I’m surprised there isn’t a 4K 30 FPS mode. The game already looks quite blurry so I’m not sure if this is the way to go to be honest. A lot of gamers won’t be happy.
  • After playing so many gorgeous 4K games with my Xbox One X and 58” 4K TV . . . 1080P doesn’t get my money anymore.
  • That seems rather odd way to determine if you buy a game or not. Maybe if it's that important, you should get a pc. If you can afford a x1x, then you should be more than capable of building a 4k gaming pc.
  • Honestly all these comments are ridiculous. It's as if resolution is the only thing that matter ever since XB1x came around.
    For me, what's important in a game is gameplay, how fun it is, story, soundtrack...
    Resolution is not something that will stop me from buying a game. Suddenly resolution became a feature for console users, first it was the PS fanboys who were hyping resolution, while the XB fanboys where damage controlling it. Then since XB1x it's the MS/XB fanboys (the same who used to not care about resolution) that hypes resolution and will not buy a game if it's not at a certain resolution... It's really crazy how fanboys can change their priority just depending on the strategy of the company they worship... If resolution is the priority then these people should have been on PC from the start.
    History has shown us that console gamers usually prefer the weaker console. Here these fake gamers always prefer the console that the company they worship makes. Whether it's the weaker XB1/XB1s or the more powerful XB1x. LOL
  • Tbh it's been around alot longer than xbox vs ps. I remember Nintendo fans talking about it when it was psx vs n64. The swing to xbox vs ps2 then ps3 vs xbox and the ps4 vs xone now xonex vs ps4 Pro. It's just a daft argument where people try and get one up on another. I've been an xbox fan since the Xbox came out and for some reason could not get into the ps2 and the rest but now microsoft are putting pc I to the mix I've moved away from consoles, part due to now having a family but also because I have a powerful pc that plays all my games as good if not beeter than the consoles.
  • The huge difference is that PS fans were making a big deal about 900p vs 1080p. That's not a big difference at all. Honestly you wouldn't even know the difference unless you had two screens side by side, and even then it's a minimum difference. The X1X does native 4k on more games then it doesn't, and 1080p vs 4K is a huge difference. It's 8 million pixels more of a difference, not 180 pixels, again 8 million. Then when you add HDR to the mix as well, it's night and day. It's not just about the games either, whether it's movies or whatever media, 4k is the truth and it is hard to go back to watching a 1080p show/movie, or playing a game in 1080p when your use to 4k. If you ask me the real problem is the fact that the Pro is 1080p 60 as well. If the Pro can do that, the X can do more. It's much more powerful then the Pro in every way. Hopefully it has better draw distances, shadows, ambient occlusion, etc, ( the X version ) because if it doesn't then they didn't use the power of that system. Or at least 1440p 60.
  • "The huge difference is that PS fans were making a big deal about 900p vs 1080p. That's not a big difference at all. Honestly you wouldn't even know the difference unless you had two screens side by side, and even then it's a minimum difference.
    The X1X does native 4k on more games then it doesn't, and 1080p vs 4K is a huge difference. It's 8 million pixels more of a difference, not 180 pixels, again 8 million. Then when you add HDR to the mix as well, it's night and day."
    Wait what?? The difference between 900p and 1080p is 180 pixels? What?? 8 million difference What?? Can I ask you a question? Are you a console gamer? Did you start looking at resolution recently say since 2017? Next you talk about 1080p v 4k, I'm assuming you're talking about this game because most of the games on the pro isn't 1080p. Same thing with HDR, I hope you know that PS4 does HDR. Also more the number of pixels the more difficult it is for an human eye to see the difference. That's why the difference between generations is less impressive as consoles upgrades... "The huge difference is that PS fans..."
    Nah, it's exactly the same. I'm not going to defend one set of fanboys over the other, they are the same. In this case the same fanboys who used to say performance didn't matter for years. They all worship the same Spencer who said resolution is just a number, "Play the games, not the resolution" or "Power is a subjective term.". The same who were on a weaker console and downplaying power for years are now hyping it. It's hypocritical, it's stupid, it's just plain fanboyism.
  • Actually the difference between the One and PS4 was very noticeable, I had both and there were a lot of games that looked significantly less sharp on the One. Also the first sentence of your second paragraph is absolutely laughable. You use the difference in the horizontal resolution to talk about the resolution between the One and the PS4 then you use the actual pixel count when discussing between 1080p and 4K, get your figures right.
  • Wanting a non-blurry experience on your 4K display isn’t wrong. Try not to blow this out of proportion.
  • I bought a One X to play games in 4K NOT 1080p, well 900p and yes that's sub OG Xbox One resolution on the One X. If I wanted to play RAGE 2 in 1080p then I would just play it on my PC instead. Ironically the PC version can be played in 4K, sounds like laziness on the devs part IMHO.
  • Just FYI. Just 'cause you can afford a x1x doesn't mean that you're "more than capable" of building a 4k gaming PC. It obviously costs a lot more.. And if we're talking 4K 60fps, then the cost skyrocket.
  • The thing about PC gaming is that it is not about "buying a whole new PC every 4 years". It's about upgrading parts. You don't need to change your mouse/kb/controller, OS, hard drive... every now and then.
    And that's not even talking about the 60 bucks per year that is not put into playing online. That's what? 300-360 bucks since the start of the generation? I can sell my current GPU and get a 1070/1070ti for a lot less than $500 and my PC will have better specs than the x.
    But I won't do it, because power didn't suddenly became my priority... :)
  • Depends how long you leave it before upgrading a PC, personally an Xbox One X is far cheaper than upgrading a PC just to play in 4K.
  • The Xbox One X is $400 and you can easily buy it online. How can you be so sure he knows how to build a 4K PC? Plus, multiple outlets have confirmed you have to spend $1000 to $1300 on that.
  • Not really, I can afford an Xbox One X but with a mortgage and bills I simply don't have enough to afford the £1.5-2k it would cost me to upgrade my PC to play games in 4K.
  • I am surprised there isn't both options. Seems like lazy developers considering what other devs are doing lately. Like Dirt 2.0, Red Dead 2 among others. Here's hoping the One X at least uses all the extra power over the pro for more fidelity at least.
  • "Here's hoping the One X at least uses all the extra power over the pro"
    ofc that would be great ammunition for your on-going fanboy war.
    I mean how much does a real gamer of a console care about the performance that another gamer gets on another console? Does it really bother him if it's the same or less performance? It doesn't...
  • From my understanding the Xbox One X version will have better effects, aside from the 60 FPS. I'll keep you posted as soon as I know more. Bethesda will probably reply on Monday.
  • What a silly statement. Why would someone not want all that extra power to be used when other developers have been doing a great job using the extra power? Got nothing to do with your fanboy wars. I couldn't care about that. We have loads of extra power. It's normal now to see devs use it. So yes let's hope it does have extra fidelity if they arent bothering with a 4K mode. It can clearly handle more.
  • The thing that is funny is that you'll be fine as long as it's more than what pro does. It looks like it doesn't matter what you get as long as it's more than the pro.
    Honestly it was your comment that was silly.
    This is like someone saying I don't mind what salary I get as long as I'm paid more than this colleague. Just be happy or not about what you get...
  • Interesting because when PC gamers buy a rx590 they darn well expect better performance than a rx470. But now folks are wrong for expecting more performance when they have a more capable product. I suppose you dont expect more performance from a more capable product.. easy to please, cant go wrong with a consumer like that. Give him 340p 60fps bethesda. #those_frames
  • The thing with XB "fans" is that they aren't comparing their performance to previous version as in the XB1s, but they are comparing it to the rival company.
    Let's not be naive here. Early in the generation the PS fanboys were all 900p vs 1080p...
    And now it's the XB/MS fanboys doing the same. The guy is not saying I want 4k 60fps or anything like that. He just says he wants more than what PS4 owners get.
    By that logic, he'll be happy with 340p 60fps as long as the competition does 340p 30fps.
    Quite ridiculous if you ask me...
  • Yes, if I buy an $800 graphics card, I want it to perform better than a $200 card. The same logic applies to consoles. Your fanboy comments are ridiculous.
  • So your opinion and your satisfaction is based on what the resolution that can manage the competition of the company you worship. LOL
    So if the XB1x manages 480p 30fps it's fine as long as it's little worse on PS4. LOL Your logic is so ridiculous it's funny. :)
  • Actually, if you understood anything about these supposed "wars" you love to admonish everyone on here for, you would know that these "wars" have been going on since the C64/Atari days. Better performance, better graphics, quicker load times and such have all been arguments about which platform is better since the first consoles were released. The PS versus Xbox is nothing more than the latest iteration. But then, your comments never include logic just your arguments to be a contrarian on this site.
  • Few things here. First there wasn't really as much as a console war at that time as there is now. Or at least it was at a much smaller scale. At that time we didn't have social network or comment section and a lot less company fanboys. At the most we wanted the console that we want to be successful but people never worshipped company or hated companies like the fanboys these days, it was all mostly about games.
    And what I believe is that it's still the priority for real console gamers till now.
    At the end of the day, you'll need to look at the most popular consoles in every generations are not the most powerful console but mostly the ones with the bigger number of games. If people want to worship company, free for them to do what they want but they should really talk bs or be hypocrites. When you see a guy in this very topic trying to say that the difference between 1080p and 900p is 180 pixels... Guys that don't have a clue about what they are talking about. Those who don't really care about resolution but hype it like crazy just because they worship a company who promotes a resolution.
    You want to talk about logic? Well, downplaying resolution/power for years and then hyping it like crazy just depending on which company has the more powerful console is absolutely stupid and hypocritical.
    You may try to defent it but there is hardly any logic in fanboyism...
  • Uh, actually fanboying was pretty massive back then, I don't know about C64 vs Atari but from NES/Master System onwards it was always heated.
  • As much as today? I think Sega and Nintendo fought that war hard but I wouldn't say consumers were fanboys like they are now.
    Maybe the experience is different for individual cases. I mean I never use to debate with people about which console was better and for me game library was really important. Maybe you had more heated discussions with people.
    But the thing is the gaming community didn't have this facility of communicating and debating over video games.
  • Oh, they definitely were, but obviously without social media all the fights were localised, it couldn't span the globe like it does now. People still had their vehement opinions on who was best though and would not listen to reason on the contrary.
  • Consumers were fanboys. They just didnt have the internet to fight on. But in the Playground it was every bit the same.
  • Again it depends on what your experience was. I never fought about video games in the playground. The thing is that at the time I liked that my friends had other system or games. For me it just meant that I could borrow or go to their place and play. The discussions about "best console" was primarily about game catalogue? And even though I was mostly on Sega I wasn't afraid to say that Nintendo had more games.
    But we would never talk about technical stuff like power...
  • Agreed, it was never about power, always the games. But this is nothing new, I mean look at Star Wars v Star Trek, or Marvel v DC, these "fights" have existed for incredibly long times.
  • Your analogy isn't the same at all. Because we already have the extra power available. We are already happy with what we have. We would like the developer to not be lazy and utilize that power advantage to improve the game's visual fidelity. Like other developers have been doing. Of course we all want more than the Pro. Otherwise we wouldn't have bought that extra power. We would have bought a pro instead. So yes I fully expect the extra 4gb ram, extra Ram speed, extra GPU power and CPU power to all be put to use. Nothing more, nothing less. That's not fanboyish. That's fact. We want the extra power we bought used.
  • So I take it you don't play retro styled games then. And you wouldn't bother touching backwards compatibility, right?
  • That really doesn't make sense as "retro styled games" are designed to look the way they do. Something like RAGE 2 isn't a retro styled game in any way so there's no excuse for a 2019 game to be in sub Xbox 360 resolution!!!!
  • True but on the One X it runs in sub Xbox 360 resolution, 900p to be exact, so can you see why One X owners aren't exactly happy!!!?!
  • I suspect that given the style of game their thoughts were the game doesn't play as well at 30 frames.
  • I'm actually fine with that. What I expect though then if the resolution is the same on Pro, then the X can easily handle more stuff like better lighting, better textures, better shadows, better AA, etc. Don't leave headroom in the X version by just making parity with the Pro version. Dirt Rally 2.0 is a prime example recently of a developer utilizing all the extra power in X over Pro.
  • Why does it have to? If the game looks exceptional on both systems, and it is the look the developer is going for, why do they have to change that look because a system can do it?
  • They don't have to change the look. I'm not talking about Art style. There is a PC version also. There are higher assets and lighting and shadows etc. Quite easily they can use higher assets on the X version. From what I'm reading now that is the case. So that is great news. It appears the One X version has some substantial Fidelity increases over other console versions. More in line with the PC version according to DF. So that fantastic news.
  • Wanting a game to take full advantage of the capabilities of a console you purchased is not being a fanboy. You sound ridiculous.
  • Exactly, it's actually embarrassing that the One X version is running in sub Xbox 360 resolution no matter what fancy pants extra effects they added over the PS4 Pro version.
  • "to make it simple". This seems like the devs cut the corners on this one. Most probably the PS4 Pro can't do 4K @ 30fps, so they aligned the Xbox One X to its lesser concurrent.
    Hopefully they will provide an update in the future because once you've played games in 4K, you can't go back to 1080p.
  • 30fps? Talk about unplayable. Reduced graphics settings, 2k upscaled to 4k, just no thanks.
  • If there isn't a 4K mode available upon release I would be shocked if they didn't put out an update.
  • All these comments are just funny, any gamer should always value framerate over resolution. Framerate actually makes the game more responsive and immersive and just feel better. Resolution just makes stuff a little more prettier. People have just gotten so used to playing at 30 that they don't realize how important 60 really is. Im glad these deves got their priorities straight and wish more would follow suite.
  • Thank you! I'm so glad somebody said it, I was scrolling through these comments and I thought I was in the Twilight Zone for second. I read this article as great news. More action/twitch-based game developers should value frame rate over resolution.
  • Well, I guess for many of these people resolution became a priority when MS starting hyping 4K with XB1x.
  • No. Resolution is always important. Better is always going to be better. It's not just resolution though. Often shadows, lighting, texture detail is better than all as well. Sure these things can be way lower on the importance list for some people. But it doesn't change the fact that better is always going to be better. And different people have different priorities. Even Nintendo fans in the 90s were all graphics heads. Snes and N64 were at the graphics for front of tech on console. Nintendo fans loved it. The better resolution provided by the add on to N64 with the expansion pack. Running games in 640x480. Where PS1 was stuck doing 240p. Occasionally you would get 480p on some 2d platforms for PS1. But visually Nintendo was always king. People have always been drawn to better fidelity. Throughout the whole console lifetime. Resolution and image quality is not a new thing. It's been a thing since the very first consoles.
  • Yet it was not a big deal at the start of the generation for XB "fans".
    Weaker consoles have mostly been the more popular consoles throughout console history.
    You can try to type whatever you want but you can't rewrite history.
  • So that's why you originally bought a PS4 over the Xbox One, right?
  • I guess I'm not the gamer I thought I was then. I pick the 4k 30 option every time when given a choice. Sure 60 feels cool, but 30 is fast enough to play and enjoy the SP games I love.
  • Especially for a twitch shooter like Rage. 30 frames would be laughable in this game, that's like playing a racing game at 30 frames.
  • 4k+locked60fps is def an abs winner (this gen), but anything lower that e.g. 1080+locked60, 4k+locked30, scale+locked60, which ever... cannot be resolved with logic. Different people prefer different tea. For me, 30fps, 60fps whichever in between, will work fine as long as it's stable. Although locked 4k is preferred, scale is fine too, as long as it makes the framerate stable. Jumpy fps == hard to control/predict. That being said, I'm not againsting 1080p (locked) 60 FPS games, Rage2 look fun and I'll get it day1.
  • 60fps is Only needed for online.
    This Game have online? If not, this decisión is for easy cry babies about every tiny detail.
  • 1080p 60 is cool. But to keep it 100 even in forza horizon 4 I switched back to 4k 30. I got motion interpolation to give me a smoother experience. It may not be as good as a locked 60 frames but it's good enough. If you're using a monitor than 1080p 60 all the way. But with a high end TV on hand I'll go for interpolation everyday with better resolution and effects.
  • xb1x the 1080p console...?
    why wouldn't they at least put the 4k 30 option in there?
  • Maybe the developers thought that 30fps wouldn't do their game justice.
  • Because 30FPS is worse
  • It's not if it's stable. Maxed 60 but jumpy is bad.
  • Only if you're using a PC because the framerate is locked on consoles. They could have used a dynamic resolution with a locked framerate to achieve the same effect in 4K.
  • My main concern is that I don’t believe it’ll be a locked 60 FPS. So basically you’ll still have to lock the game to 1080p 30 FPS. If you’re going to do that, at least give a 4K toggle! Avalanche is known for horrendous performance issues.
  • Framerate > Resolution So many people say "but my 55inch 4k TV!!!"... I hardly believe so many of you have one or can see the difference. If you really want 4K gaming, PC is currently the only way.
  • Apex has issues with some CPUs. $700 GPU might not work for some. 3rd party SW might break system SW. Too many cooks can spoil the broth.
    PC gaming (esp custom built ones) is never and will never be smooth. Lab QA with controlled factors != real life environment. Not everyone wants to tolerate with hassles, but they might still want the best tech can offer. In life, sometimes you just cannot have both, so you pick a side. Gaming market share In US: console (digital > package) > mobile > PC.
    In EU: console (package > digital very slightly) > PC > mobile.
    In Asia: mobile > PC > dying console (package > digital)
  • @Hirox
    Do you have a link for that or are you just making it up?
  • @dustojnik
    Agreed. There are so many people who talk about 4K this and 4K that but the human eye can't really see the difference between 4k and 1080p unless the person sits really close to the TV.
  • That’s not true at all. It all depends on the person and their eyesight.
  • Different eyesight doesn't change the fact that you need to be at a certain distance to see a difference. Why do you think there are zoom of 300% in comparison videos?
    Like I said elsewhere the higher the resolution the more difficult it is for the human eye to see a difference.
  • Yeah, Asher is kind of right on this, it's literally the idea behind 20/20 vision (I think you lot call it 6/6 vision or something bizarre like that), there are different grades to that. Yes you are correct in that certain distances are required to see an effect, but you claimed that "the human eye can't really see the difference between 4k and 1080p unless the person sits really close to the TV." And that is just flat out false (obviously "really close" is entirely subjective and I get that).
  • Yes, obviously "really close" is subjective as Asher Madan may think 50 cm away from the screen is far. But the point is there are many factors that comes into play. Size of the screen, vision of the person but one of the most important factor is distance.
    Here is an article that talks about it and of the "optimal viewing distance". This was done for people with 20/20, so obviously if you have vision problems than the distance may be even smaller. Look at the case of Asher Madan (10' away from the 50" TV) he is far from optimal unless he has 20/10 vision but that's rarer in a population.
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinmurnane/2017/10/26/upgrading-to-4k-hdr...
  • Digital Foundry hardly zooms in anymore. The difference is night and day. I play on a 28" monitor and a 50" TV. And in both instances I can tell the difference. I sit roughly 10' away from the 50" TV and 4' away from the 28" monitor. So it all depends on the person. If you're used to seeing a 4K image and then go back to 1080p, you know. The same goes for 4K movies on Netflix compared to normal content.
  • it depends on the graphics. you have 4k of relatively blocky graphics, that won't look much different. but high resolution of everything really detailed absolutely looks better. obviously you don't want like 10fps making everything mushy or stuttery. but you also don't want 120fps at 500p.
  • Yet you can tell the difference between 60fps and 120fps then?
  • The human eye can't see the difference between 60 and over 9000 fps either so your point is?
  • The issue is that it might not actually be locked 60 FPS. It may really be one that goes from 30 FPS to 60 FPS, but in reality is like 45 FPS.
  • I find it unlikely, but that will be really disappointing if its the case.
  • I don't know man, this is the same team behind Just Cause. Just remember that. Even Generation Zero doesn't run that well.
  • the absolute state of consoles..
    its 2019 and 1080p 60fps is newsworthy...
    And there I was, in 1999, when 480p 60fps was one of the selling points of the Dreamcast.
    Console kiddies settle for anything eh? To the point where they impede progress. Sad!
  • Better than being part of the arrogant PC master race though!!!!!!!
  • I am very happy I read this article. Thank you Asher Madan for writting about this as I had no idea. You just saved me $60.00. I did not purchase an Xbox One X nor a PSPRO to play games in 1080p. They have lost two sales from me as my fiance is also a die hard gamer. I will be cancelling my preorder tomorrow. It is a shame that the devs decided to make such an idiotic decision.
  • Exactly my point, all the devs needed to do was optimise the game and use dynamic resolution scaling when needed.
  • Doesn't look terribly well optimised on PC either TBH, plenty of screen tearing and stuttering!!!!
  • Having looked into this Bethesda have a couple of games that use dynamic resolution, Doom and Wolfenstein and they hold a near constant 60fps on Xbox One X at close to 4K. Not sure if the Apex engine can't handle dynamic resolution or not, might be the reason why it's 1080p60 rather than 4K60 with dynamic resolution.
  • One small correction, it's Wolfenstein 2 not Wolfenstein