Warzone 2.0 cross-play: Are last-gen console players deprived of competition?

With the Warzone 2.0 servers now up for a few weeks, it’s clear that the PS5, Xbox Series X, and Series S are running the game brilliantly at 60fps – or even 120fps. But what about the old consoles, the millions of PS4s and Xboxes that are still in use? And what about the enhanced consoles, PS4 Pro and Xbox One X? To see if any of these last-gen options were competitive with today’s consoles and PC, in frame rate or settings, we went back to the farm for more testing.

Let’s start with the base PS4. This console is surprisingly well optimized for both campaign and 6v6 multiplayer, and is fairly locked to 1080p at 60fps. Warzone 2.0 though? That’s a different story, unfortunately. 60fps is possible, while in the plane or during 2v2 gulag matches, but when you’re out in the world, frame drops are inevitable and a texture pop-up becomes hard to ignore. Frame rates of 40-60fps are common, dropping to 30s for the most intense moments of combat.

This is despite lower resolution on both the horizontal and vertical axes, at 960 x 540 minimum and scaled to 1080p using TAA; In campaign accuracy measure only affected horizontal reach. The lack of definition makes picking out remote players difficult, and ensures that those using a PS4 are at a significant disadvantage.

We’d expect worse results on the Xbox One, as this is the most power-restrictive last-gen console that doesn’t feel like a potential major platform for development efforts. Indeed, we see a 900 pixel lower resolution target, scaled from 800 x 450 minimum, resulting in a muddy image. However, settings such as shadows, textures, and foliage density remain the same as on PS4, indicating no Xbox One settings ‘below low’.

The lower resolution means that glitter on grass and noise on soft texture work are more noticeable, and it also doesn’t prevent texture from appearing somewhat extreme. Oddly, the Xbox One also suffered from audio issues in my testing, with some channels of the mix—music and ambient effects—pausing completely for a few seconds until the world finished loading. Frame rates are also exceptionally weak, averaging around 10fps from the PS4 version, so 30-50fps is the norm, complete with tearing at the top of the screen – something I also spotted on the Xbox One X.

In turn, a lower frame rate has a detrimental effect on input latency. Rotating, firing or picking up weapons happens with a noticeable delay, providing a stark disadvantage against enemies on any other platform. So, playing Warzone 2.0 on Xbox One in the loosest sense of the word is best avoided if you have any alternatives. (In related news, the Series S dropped to around £190 recently, and you’ll save a £1 upgrade over the original Xbox One.)

The two premium consoles, the One X and PS4 Pro, are faring better. The PS4 Pro runs the game at 50-60fps at 1512 dynamic pixel resolution, typically with scaling on the horizontal axis to 1536 x 1512. That’s not a locked 60fps, but it’s surprisingly close. The Xbox One X, on the other hand, aims for a full 4K picture and goes all the way down to 1080p, but that relatively steep target can cause the frame rate to drop below the PS4 Pro and even the PS4 in some heavy scenes.

Launch the comparison tool

Please enable JavaScript to use our comparison tools.

Looking at a four-way comparison, the farm geometry is identical between the last generation consoles, while the shadow detail and grass draw distance are also relatively close. The biggest dividing factor is resolution, with the One X far ahead in image sharpness and the Xbox One lagging far behind. However, the better balanced option is the PS4 Pro which is more likely to deliver 60fps.

One final point has to do with the field of view (FOV) setting in the PS4 version. The default setting of 80 degrees is too narrow, so does the wider setting have a performance penalty? Based on two tests comparing 80-degree and 120-degree settings, yes—but it depends. We spotted a slight 1fps drop in a less challenging scene, but a relatively variable 5fps dip that looked out for creeping gas. For the best frame rate, keeping a narrow default field of view is the way to go, but over-performance consoles can go 120 degrees without major detrimental effects – so this might be a better shout out to today’s consoles and PC.

Please enable JavaScript to use our comparison tools.

Looking at all four Xbox consoles, it’s clear to see the wide range in resolutions at which Warzone 2.0 is shown on Microsoft’s platform. The Series X/S maintains a locked 60 fps, with greater weed density and longer turf pull distances. Interestingly, the picture quality on the S series isn’t quite as sharp as the older One X.

With this test behind us, the IW drive’s scalability is (as ever) hugely impressive. The fact that we see such a range of machines with different specifications producing the same world is really remarkable. But there’s a sense that its true potential rests in the past – especially with the Xbox One trying to keep up with it.

The bottom line? Warzone 2.0 makes no secret of Infinity Ward’s intentions. It’s heavily scripted at under 40fps that lags on the Xbox One and textures pop that plagues even the PS4. It’s a project that veers away from its last-generation focus, in favor of building the optimal experience for PS5 and Series X/S. It also talks about the future of the Call of Duty series, which is rumored to not have a major release in 2023. Warzone 2.0 will drive fans The series, meanwhile, has served as a major cross-platform effort across the generations. after that? Who knows, but I’m unabashedly hopeful that we’ll see the next generation of Call of Duty in 2024.

To view this content, please enable targeting cookies.
Manage your cookie settings