Reality Check - Do we need 60 FPS on PS4 and Xbox One?

Gamespot investigates frame rates and wonders if the next generation truly needs 60 fps.

[GarrusVakarian]

Need? No.

Some games will benefit from it (shooters/fighters/racers).

Others aren't as important, it becomes more of an unnecessary luxury in my opinion. I'm fine with a solid 30fps and 1080p for most games.

[Abash]

I honestly dont think games like Uncharted and Kingdom Hearts on PS4 need 60fps,the idea of playing it at that frame rate is pretty weird to me.

But other games like Sonic, Tekken, Gran Turismo, etc. should really be 60fps.

Basically if the series has been 60fps in the past that's only when it's necessary, no need to try to sacrifice visuals and other areas just to make it hit 60fps

[HelpfulGamer]

Traditional Cinematic Experience is 24 fps.

I prefer the hardware power spend more on Physics, lots of Physics, open world physics and detail Character Physics.

[pedrof93]

I totally agree.

But the point is, that even a 30 hertz is good (at the moment that is locked and it doesn't drop ).

[M-M]

I know for a fact that Kingdom Hearts 3 will be 1080p 60FPS, but I'm not so sure about Uncharted since they go for graphics and gameplay over framerate.

[Pandamobile]

@M-M, framerate is gameplay.

[AlexanderNevermind]

Good video from G.S. Personally I want them as close to 60 FPS as possible.

[Eonjay]

I need high definition smooth content for my TV. I was looking into getting another TV. One has a refresh of 480Hz. I'm like, whats the point if games are still running 30FPS and less than 1080p in other cases.

[sweendog]

@eonjay a tv with a higher refresh rate is its ability to refresh the image quicker in turn deleting the old image quicker to reduce blur. It is handy for a plasma tv for watching football or tennis as the ball wont leave a trail. I have a plasma at 600hz and movies at 24fps appear more sharp

[Kaze88]

Agreed but i wouldnt mind if Uncharted was 60 frames, but its mostly sp game and it run solid 30 fps so i didnt mind so much. Still felt maybe a bit sluggish, but not nearly as sluggish as BF3 does on consoles.

I just dont get that everything should be full hd 1080p, you really wont notice the differences unless you have crazy big led tv or if you sit 0,5m away from your tv/screen. I would rather take 60fps 720p or 900p than 30fps 1080p (ofc depends on the game type tough, for example mp Shooter i would prefer this).

[Army_of_Darkness]

If for example uncharted 2 got an enhanced version of 1080p, 60fps on the ps4, do you know how even more amazing it will look and play in motion??! Omg. 60fps @1080p will definitely show visual progress for next gen.

[Anon1974]

I had heard years ago that some developer was looking at creating an engine that simulated motion blur properly. If that were the case, we could have fluid motion as we see in film and TV without having to tax the graphical processors by "needing" to churn out anything higher than 24 fps or so.

Obviously we never saw this become a reality. I wonder what happened?

[Kleptic]

helpfulgamer...the 24fps film thing doesn't directly apply, because you don't have any input on it...plus, even just watching 24fps, you notice the 'judder'...however, that is something a lot of people prefer about film...as it gives a particular 'feel'...

just saying...play any game at a locked 24fps...and it won't feel particularly awesome, and the input latency associated with it will just be a headache...

in either case...objectively in video game rendering...60fps is ALWAYS superior to 30fps...if two games are otherwise equal, there is absolutely no objective reason to prefer the lower frame rate version...input latency and rendered frame rate are married to one another for the most part...taking a 60fps game, and changing only the framerate to 30fps, will not feel the same way as it did before...no way around that...

however...if the sacrifice from 60fps involves additional effects being added, and other stuff like that which take advantage of the free'd up resources...then you're getting into a subjective discussion...which, we all know, should be avoided at all costs within the gaming community...

[DAS692]

If we can see past 60FPS (and beyond) Shouldn't we strive to create the most REALISTIC experience by making games capable of rendering at AT LEAST 60FPS? I think people should get used to the idea. 60FPS isn't a BAD thing.

[ShinMaster]

^ No. Who said all games had to be realistic?

Mostly faster paced and competitive games like FPS, racing and fighting games benefit from 60fps.

What developers need to focus on, is consistent frame rate.

@Pandamobile

No it's not. Choose your words better.

[mcstorm]

For me it depends if the developers can pull off 30fps in there game. Horizon for me worked very well in 30fps considering Forza is a 60fps game.

Some games should have it thought and some games don't need it. I think we will see alot more fps games running at 60fps this new gen though.

[Ju]

The problem what we are having right now is, that high profile games on current consoles dip below 30fps quite often. This will not be the case on the PS4.

Now, sure, CoD and friends need the higher refresh rate, I can see that. But an UC like game, which at a minimum (!) drops to 30 is just fine - as long as it never drops a single frame below. We'll see. I don't want to see 18 or 24 or even 28 next gen, so much I agree and if possible 60.

But if this is only achievable by lowering resolution and detail, I rather prefer a solid 30+.

[XB1_PS4]

A buddy of mine has Far Cry 3 on 360, I played it after beating it on my PC. The difference was noticeable. On the other hand, GTA V was no problem to me, as I had no outside context reference.

I don't think it's necessary, but it's nice.

[SnakeCQC]

Well look at nvidias g sync tech where everything is buttery smooth but at lower frames. Quite alot of console devs have frame syncing down. To me resolution is a bigger concern i want everything in 1080p and older games(ps3/360 gen and before) ported over but well.

[dantesparda]

I'll take a constant 1080/30fps with higher quality graphics/settings and motion blur, over 1080/60fps with lower quality graphics/settings. Although some games will be better off with 1080/60fps lower quality settings (like cartoony looking games)

[badz149]

"NEED"? more like "WANT" 60fps!

[Irishguy95]

I'm fine with 30FPS in games that don't really benefit from it. However in games that do(as you say Shooters, fighters, racers etc), it's kinda disgraceful not to have it at this point. For those games, 720p and 60FPS > 1080p and 30FPS. Unless you are a graphics whore and don't care much about gameplay.

Anyone who has been regularly gaming in 60FPS knows exactly what i'm talking about, as soon as you go back to 30FPS the drop in quality is just astonishing. It's the same as playing FPS's with a Mouse and Keypad and then going back to a joypad, the loss of control with the aiming is just harsh. I would prefer devs to either aim for 1080p and 60fps with some graphical options turned down than 30FPS or 720p myself. Some Devs just NEED to make there game as good looking as possible over gameplay experience.

Again, it depends on the genre.

edit-
@ Abash, TPS's DO benefit from 60FPS, I learned this with Mass effect(This actually amazed me and thought me how much better the FPS is, and how much better a mouse is for TPS) and Tomb Raider. It's almost equal to the change FPS gets from the FPS jump to 60. I think all shooters should aim for 60 on PS4. Shadowfall is doing it for multi so I don't mind it not doing for single player.

What console devs now have is the option to make good looking games AND have the 60FPS. Imo they should take that option over pushing how the game looks.

I think anyone that has been sticking to console is in for a shocker when so many games shooters start coming out at 60FPS and then this one game that went for graphics over Frame rate comes along and you'll notice immediately something is fundamentally wrong with it.

[snipab8t]

Most console gamers only play games at 30fps so only PC gamers making the transition to consoles really care.

BTW you pretty much said every genre needs it.

[FriedGoat]

I've been a pc gamer since the early 90's, I quite like 30 fps on certain games. 60FPS can look too smooth sometimes, it's like the "sitcom" effect.

Resolution is more important, no doubt.

[LiQuiZoN]

Like many I have a powerful pc and the play difference between a console and pc is night and day. The buttery smoothness impacts your sensors in a good way. At first it may almost feel "too fast" but it's simply your perception from coming from something that played the content back "too slow".

High fps is always preferable. I think many of you consol only gamers will understand why this generation. Your actions will directly translate into virtual space much quicker making it almost near seamless.

[Moncole]

Platformers should also be 60fps. 60FPS will always be before 1080p for me

[triforce79]

60fps is what 99% of Nintendo games run at since way bk,Sony has historically aimed at 25/30fps to be honest if ur using insane physics then a locked 30fps is good....

[StoutBEER]

No we don't. And frankly, we don't deserve it either if we act like children and bitch about everything. But yes i wan't it.

[3-4-5]

Movies only run at 24 FPS.

We seem to be fine with that year after year.

[WeedyOne]

You don't play/control things inside movies though. If a game dips below 30 FPS you start to feel it in the controls.

[Sprudling]

Movies have natural motion blur due to being filmed with a camera.

Or in the case of rendered movies, high quality motion blur which no computer yet is even close to do in real time.

24 fps without motion blur makes my eyes bleed.

The crappy "motion blur" you see in some games is not a good approximation to natural motion blur and does next to nothing to create the illusion of a smooth video.

[Ju]

But that's the thing. Input != refresh rate.

Why this is, is because of various synchronization issues on current machines which goes into thread switching and spin lock latency. That's why input often runs synchronous to the render system to avoid those things. Lately this is more and more decoupled and in fact response time can be measured in ms and not fps/Hz.

As long as a modern engine can react to input with lets say below 100ms (which is quite fast today) and it does not impact refresh rate - that is, 30fps can really react on a per frame basis to that input, you cannot feel the difference between 30 and 60fps.

Next gen consoles have a massive parallel architecture. With that said, it should be possible to solve these problems which will result in a steady and fluid animation and fast response times. Locks in parallel systems are and will remain a problem, but in the long run, there is no way around finding solutions to it.

[Magicite]

30fps on 120hz TV is not that good

[1OddWorld]

You never want you fps to exceed your hz otherwise the extra frames are lost. The higher the hz the smoother the image will be.

So 30fps on a 120hz tv is fine you have 4x the refresh rate of bare minimum.

[Guwapo77]

What stupid question...

Do I NEED to upgrade to a PS4/Xbox One? No, but I WANT to.

[CarlosX360]

I say we do.

[tuglu_pati]

yes we do.

/thread

[Razputin]

"it becomes more of an unnecessary luxury in my opinion. I'm fine with a solid 30fps and 1080p for most games."

Luxury is 120FPS. Mandatory should be 60FPS.

Just look at PC gaming, look at how crazy some people went when some games were locked at 30FPS. The notice is huge, believe me.

[ape007]

it's too difficult to run high demanding ps4/X1 games at 60FPS/1080p

[Razputin]

Really Ape. When I've been doing it for years on my PC.

This is what I was expecting from Consoles in this day and age. We got some pretty amazing things on the PS3 end -- in my opinion it had some amazing looking games. To this date, I don't think anything can touch how awed I was with Heavenly Sword, Lair, and Uncharted.

I was expecting a lot more with this new gen consoles. But, seriously they can't even maintain 60FPS, 1080p.

Maybe if they went the nVidia route, who knows. But then again lets wait a year or two, and it will probably be the standard with more experience.

[Khajiit86]

I agree. It would be nice but I would rather have a game that plays and runs great.

[Razputin]

To have a game that runs and plays great requires a good frame rate.

Believe when I was younger I didn't have the luxury of upgrading my equipment.

Even on lowest settings a lot of my games ran around 30FPS and it is very noticeable.

Especially with shooters how the video states.

For example Dark Souls was locked at 30FPS the hack to run it at 60FPS made it tons better, it looked and ran a lot smoother.

Also, any game you take, bring it up to 60+ FPS and you will notice better visual fidelity.

[Khajiit86]

They should focus on gameplay more than anything is what I meant. 60 fps will be standard soon enough.

[deecee33]

Once you've experienced 60fps and high detail, it's hard to go back to playing games that perform below that level. A consistently high framerate is definitely less fatiguing to the eyes over time, for me anyhow. A game with no framerate dips and responsive, lag free controls is a better experience IMO.

[wishingW3L]

BTW, Gamespot's video player is one of the few that can handle 60fps perfectly but you still need a decent PC for it to run it smoothly at HD.

[1OddWorld]

and a decent internet connection other wise the cloud will cach/buffer you to death.

[Stsonic]

Yes we should have it for all games. 30fps is blurry, the higher frame rate the crisper the image the smoother game play. in 8 years time we will read articles saying do we really need 120fps.

I don't know how many times this subject is brought up and it's all just damage control incase a game can't hit 60fps.

Smooth image vs blurry image compare 60 to 30 http://frames-per-second.ap...

[GarrusVakarian]

"I don't know how many times this subject is brought up and it's all just damage control incase a game can't hit 60fps."

Typical PC elitist way of looking at things. This article asks if we NEED it, nothing about damage control. Get off your high horse.

[Shnooze]

I've been seeing you around N4G and I've noticed a pattern with your comments, being that you seem to like calling people out on being "PC Elitists" or implying that they are one, which often times doesn't really add up when looking into their comment history, for me at least. What's your deal? I mean I agree the damage control thing is irrelevant but it doesn't really mean he has anything to do with being a PC Elitist of any sort. He could be, he couldn't be, but you seem pretty darn sure he is.

[Stsonic]

I said nothing about PC.

[kingduqc]

ITT:
Consoles are buthurt they won't be getting 60 fps yet another gen because of the shitty hardware they play on.

LOL, suck to be stuck in 1995 really.

[isarai]

one issue with that, it has added motion blur, which most games do not have, and none have it to that extent. turn it off in the little settings and both provide clear images one is just not as smooth. Things do not move that fast across the screen in games unless it is an action game, which supports what everyone's saying here, for fast paced action games yes, but for something more slow paced no. Something like Ninja Gaiden NEEDS it, something like The Witness or RIME DOES NOT NEED IT, but of course it would be a plus, just not at a sacrifice of the games visual style/design

[Stsonic]

It's still blurry and jittery without motion blur it's just a different effect. Without motion blur you can literally see the frames skip.

I do agree with you some games benefit more than other with a higher frame rate but as you say all games benefit so it would be nice for 60fps to be the standard.

[isarai]

Some games would get more benefit from NOT having 60fps though. Some slow paces puzzle adventure game or point and click adventure game should have great visuals to keep the player enthralled with the world, i would rather the game focus on that and not have to sacrifice things to get it to 60fps.

[sweendog]

@Stsonic
I get what you are saying. but if you watch the video the guy said that movies have blur due to the nature of cameras. So wouldnt games like TLOU look more like a game than a film at 60fps? The complete oposite effect they are going for. Yeah you could add motion blur but why bother when you can have better textures/effects and motion blur by default at 30fps

[WeedyOne]

I never understood why people think FPS has anything to do with image clarity. You get the same textures at 2 FPS as you do at 60 FPS don't you? FPS just dictates how smooth the game controls not how good it looks.

[aquamala]

people only want to argue because now that neither "next gen" consoles are capable of 1080p 60fps for all games

it's only a year ago on n4g people here want to argue they can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p .

[Eonjay]

Yes we do need it.

[lifeisgamesok]

No we don't need 60 frames the Killzone and Ryse campaigns are 30 frames and they are fine

[webeblazing]

so youre saying no because games you want is 30 fps instead of better performance at 60 fps

[lifeisgamesok]

I'm saying it's not a necessity

[Back-to-Back]

Console only gamer mentality sigh.

[Rageanitus]

PSSH there are many things in our CONSUMING market we dont need but it is desired, and basically a need when you've experienced the difference. It is part of the experience as a consumer!

do we really need a high dpi mouse when PC gaming?
do we needle rumble in our joypads?
do we need surround sound in a theatre?
do we need cars above 200 HP?
do we need blu-ray vs VHS?

The list keeps going on!

I moved my xbox away from my living room and started playing gears of war judgement on the same monitor on my PC 27 inch. Even at that size I cringe when i switch back and forth in real time between PC output and xbox output. The FPS and resolution HURTS but still maneagble to play.

[elhebbo16]

ones you go 60fps you never go back.

[isarai]

not really, i go 60fps all the time, i still fail to see how it's needed on EVERY game. just seems like a luxury people got spoiled by and refuse to go without even though it's unnecessary in anything but an action game.

[Blackdeath_663]

i can't believe people are actually debating this 60 FPS should be standard going into next gen i am lost for words.

[razorpakk]

I agree.

Do you want something better?

Oh no don't worry, average will be just fine!

The reason it's not a standard is that they know the typical console player mentality "mine has to be better than yours, well, because I spent money on it, so..."

[Rageanitus]

because it is damage control. I am SURE the first multiplatform games on both the Xone and PS4 will run FINE, but just give it 1 year and we will start seeing the true color of consoles again (FIXED SPECS) do not guarantee you will get improved visuals at HIGH FPS and res.

[csreynolds]

Not needed. Traditional cinema is capped at 24fps and it's perfectly enjoyable. Besides, I'd rather have native 1080p than 60fps...

And for those saying 60fps is absolutely necessary for shooters, I disagree. Battlefield 3, Killzone, Crysis and others all play perfectly well at 30fps. It's only Call of Duty's overselling of 60fps that has everyone screaming "ALL FPS games should run at 60fps".

60fps is a plus, not a necessity.

[someoneagain]

Absolutely *no one* on PC prefers 30fps over 60fps. You have Stockholm syndrome.

[csreynolds]

No, I have a console. And, if you read the comment I just added, you'll see my view has changed...

[isarai]

i do on certain games so i can crank the visuals up instead. Don't see the need in sacrificing visuals for frames when it's a slow paced games as long as it's at least 30fps

[someoneagain]

"I stand by my comment about 30fps"

Your view hasn't changed. My point is that no one with the PC version of your multi-platform games prefers 30fps over 60fps. No one who can max out BF3 at 60fps would willingly turn on 32x anti-aliasing and play at 30fps.

[csreynolds]

I've just had time to watch the video in full, and I'm prepared to alter my original point slightly. I stand by my comment about 30fps; BF3 is my favourite FPS right now, and I have no issue with it being half as 'smooth' as Call of Duty. It doesn't matter to me at all.

That said, I was wrong about the cinema point (the 24fps theory doesn't apply to gaming, I've learned) and I do now understand the pros for 60fps next gen.

So, is 60fps important? For gaming, yes, it would seem so. Having educated myself better, I now feel that next gen consoles should be aiming for 60fps - providing of course games can maintain it satisfactorily.

[Back-to-Back]

"Besides, I'd rather have native 1080p than 60fps..."

what? Are you crazy? I must ask what games do you play? If any of the games are considered competitive and your prefer 30fps you're a fool.

[csreynolds]

Games I currently play competitively that don't run at 60fps: KZ, TLoU, Uncharted, NFS, BF3, GTA V... the list goes on.

With reference to "you're a fool" comment, I'd urge you to look into how many PS3 games do run at 60fps, because if I'm not mistaken I'm pretty sure most do not. I will stress again, as you clearly missed it, I am not a PC player - I don't miss what I've never had, so consider that before riding into the sunset on your high horse...

I also draw your attention to the fact that I revised my original comment after getting a better understanding of the differences. I'm guessing you missed that too?

[csreynolds]

@someoneagain:

"Your view hasn't changed"

Really? Because I'm pretty sure I said in second comment that my initial understanding about the topic was wrong, and that 60fps should be the benchmark for next gen. That's a change.

As for where I said "I stand by my comment about 30fps", I do; BF3, Killzone, Crysis and others DO play perfectly well at 30fps. If they didn't, they wouldn't have sold, and online servers would be empty - which they aren't.

Back to your bridge, troll.

[creepjack]

All of you people saying it's not necessary obviously have never played on a real pc gaming rig. Try it, then you'll know why pc gamers are "elitist".

If next gen isnt doing 60 fps, then it isnt next gen, it;s a slightly prettier current gen, which is what this "next gen" is starting to look like.

[GarrusVakarian]

As a matter of fact 2 of my closest friends have PC's capable of maxing out every game currently released. Ive played games at 60fps on both of their PC's and i still don't think it HAS to be implemented in all games. Skyrim was just damn weird in 60fps, hated it. It was too smooth and didn't have the same cinematic feel when a dragon swooped down.

"!If next gen isnt doing 60 fps, then it isnt next gen, it;s a slightly prettier current gen, which is what this "next gen" is starting to look like."

Ugh, yet another generic PC elitist reply. Ive marked you down for trolling.

@Mohlest

Well i played the game for hundreds of hours at 30fps and had no problem, played it at 60fps and hated it. "The game is meant to be played at a higher FPS" Sigh, no. Its meant to be PLAYED, regardless of its 30 or 60fps.

[duplissi]

Its true, we arent dealing with drastically different resolutions. It is pretty sad that games arent at 60fps accross the board. Thats not to say 30fps is unplayable-it is, but 60fps is just better.

At 60fps everything is smoother, motion is clearer, and there is reduced input lag, these things seriously do go a long way to your enjoyment of the game. Besides all that games have more breathing room when they cannot meet their target fps. 50fps is magnitudes better than 20fps

And that "Cinematic" statement is just what I would expect an apologist would say to do some damage control.

[SnotyTheRocket]

Gens aren't defined by their graphical power. It's when they are released. You're argument is invalid. Please try again.

[duplissi]

... Yes but a new gen is expected to be significantly better technically and graphically.

It is in the early days, so I guess we will see how things improve from here.

[Rageanitus]

true PC gamers are elitist in gaming, cuz they enjoy quality. What boggles me is its just like the car market, yes most ppl don't need high HP cars but once youve experienced it its difficult to turn down something that is that GOOD.

[BigShotSmoov007]

This was a very informative video. I think 30 or 60 fps all depends on the game really. It would be nice to have all games run and 60 but I think we are all just hung up on numbers too much. If the game looks and runs smooth do we really need to know if it's running at 1080p 60 fps? If it looks good then it looks good and enjoy it but thats just my view on it.

[Nerdmaster]

Aking if we need 60fps is like asking if we need HD. "We don't need it, but some games benefit from it". Let's take away the HD graphics and let's see how people react.

I remember when I played Sonic Adventure on Dreamcast. The game was almost always 30fps, but there was a racing minigame in 60fps. My jaw dropped, it was so much smoother than the rest of the game. Now I'm used to play on the PC, so when I try 30fps console games, it seems uglier than it really is because of the framerate. Even when playing on PC, if my graphics card can't handle high framerates, I prefer to sacrifice some effects to get a higher framerate (I wish every console game had the option to turn off some effects to raise the fps, too).

[someoneagain]

The original Super Mario Bros. ran at 60fps. No one currently wishes the game ran at 30fps but with more bushes and blocks. 60fps will always be a smooth experience, but graphical fidelity will wain over time. Opt for the superior experience IMO.

[memots]

Again? i have been barking this non-stop for the past couple of month.

90%+ game out there are 30fps,
I think Native RES at 1080p is something that is more important than fps. Ntive 1080p becomes even more important since more and more people having/buying gigger screen monitor/TV That is when it becomes something important, Dev they should try to reach for native 1080p yes.

60fps on the other is really no important. As long that it doesnt dip below 30fps where you can start noticing slow down then there is no problem. Not sure why this became a hot topic out of a sudden.

I play PC i have high end and yes i am very happy to see my game hit 73fps avg ect... but this requires quite high end Pc, To me, want more details , More object , Better physic , Better lighting before fps.

[Jovanian]

It is 2013, and 'next generation' hardware struggles to maintain something that the PC has been doing for around a decade and a half. 60 FPS is fundamentally tied to gameplay, it completely alters the pacing of the game, where high framerate is almost always preferable for best gameplay experience. The fact that next gen consoles are struggling to maintain 60 fps is pathetic honestly, shows how dated the hardware is despite not even leaving the shelves yet

[svoulis]

Anyone with Bioshock or Bioshock Infinite, go pop the game in and unlock the framerate in options menu. Play for 10 minutes with framerate locked and unlocked, then tell me how you feel.

60FPS is far more responsive, smoother, and you don't get that odd "blur" effect of the game Vsyncing to 30fps. You can literally feel the difference from 30 to 60fps. Go try it.

We do need 60FPS for nextgen.

[Drummerdude41]

I prefer games in 60fps and is one of the reasons i game on a pc cause if i have the money i can purchase the hardware for my preferred settings and experience. That being said i believe devs should shoot for 60fps over higher textures but that isn't my call and if i was gaming on a console wouldn't be complaining about it unless it broke the game.

[Inception]

60 fps, 70 fps, 120 fps, whatever. The important thing is just make it stable / playable. I don't mind a few drop here and there too, as long as the gameplay really good and make me play it over and over and over again :)

[MasterCornholio]

What we actually need are solid framerates and crisp image quality at 1080P.

Nexus 7 2013

[PersonMan]

60fps is so over-rated for consoles. When you're using a controller, 30fps is fine and you'll get more detail with 30fps.

On a PC with a mouse and keyboard, you'll want a faster framerate because the mouse is much more sensitive and cannot have input latency.

[DoctorJones]

I play games with a controller on pc as well, and the faster framerate is just as much an improvement there with the gameplay as it is with a mouse and keyboard.

[PersonMan]

I play with a controller on PC as well and 30fps is just fine for me. I get to enjoy nicer visuals and I don't have to worry about judder. I cap my games at 30fps even though I can get much higher framerates.

I just like the consistency that 30fps gives.

[isarai]

For fast pace action games yes, for slower paced games no, but it would be a plus, though the sacrifices needed to get to that may not be worth it for something focused on design and adventure. I'd much rather have The Witness stay looking pretty at 30fps than hurt the visuals to get it to 60fps

[OC_MurphysLaw]

I think far more important than 60fps is the need for games to hit steady, constent 30fps+ in all games. I don't want varying frame rates or in bad situations dips below 30fps as those situations look so bad.

[PersonMan]

If Beyond: Two Souls ran at 60fps, it would lose the cinematic look of the game.

[floetry101]

People need to realize that the lifespan of the console won't allow for games to maintain 60 fps after the first two years of life, maybe even less. Fair play to any developer that wishes to make it a target, and I'm sure a huge number of indie games will be a testament to that, but consoles are designed for longevity. Thus, the expectation is a playable framerate of 30 fps.

I'm sure both consoles will crank out impressive visuals for their lives, much like the PS3 did, but they will revert to a 30fps target shortly into the cycle.

[Lucreto]

All games should be 1080p as the minimum but the framerate should be varible as needed in the game.

I would like 1080p@60fps but it may not be possible for all games.

I would like to see a locked 30fps or even meet half way at 45fps.

[Grave]

I agree. No game should ever dip below 40fps, but 45 is a great middle-ground.

[metalgod88]

I think that if it benefits the gameplay, then it's certainly needed. 60 fps is why I love pc gaming so much. Check out games like Borderlands and Dark Souls. Those games running at 60 fps are so much smoother and I find them much more enjoyable on the pc. Dark Souls had a ton of lag in some areas and Borderlands 2 was framelocked on consoles at 30 fps. Racing games should also be held to the 60 fps standard. After playing racing sims for quite a long time, I think it's about time we see some 60 fps racing games next gen.

However, 2d platform games or top down 2d/3d games could be played at 30 fps no problem.

[yarbie1000]

That was a good video

[KontryBoy706]

Yes we need it. I'm tired of people damage controlling this. It's 2013 going into 2014. TVs/Monitors have been having higher refresh rates for 10 years now. Hell, even 1080p is so old it's on crutches now and 1440p/1600p is on the horizon. 60fps is not some great new technology. It's been on PCs forever. To those who haven't tried like BF3/Crysis on PC at 60fps it's a different game all together. These consoles should be able to do it day one no excuses or exceptions or damage control required. If not then they are not so "next gen" as they would want us to believe they are.

[H0RSE]

For shooters and other fast-paced games, I think 60fps should be standard. Having a lot of experience with PC gaming, personally, I think higher framerate is always better, regardless of genre. Why stop at 60? Why not just uncap it and let the hardware produce the highest frames possible?

[PurpHerbison]

I have a feeling that is because next gen hardware is going to be scraping for 1080p/60FPS. I doubt they could get much more than that, as many won't even reach that.

[H0RSE]

which is why I propose (and have for years) that consoles have advanced video options like PC does. I'm sure many players would willingly sacrifice quality for performance, or vice versa.

[PurpHerbison]

Hmmmm... I think that might be able to work with nextnextgen.

[arronax-1]

The PC elitist in you talking?

[PurpHerbison]

That's my logical side.

[H0RSE]

There is nothing elitist about pointing out differences between console and PC. If you are used to eating Filet Mignon and then are served Salisbury steak, is it elitist to point out you prefer the Filet?

The PC elitist moniker has been attributed to virtually any person who reveals they plays PC games, mostly by console players who simply cannot come to terms with the fact that PC offers things console does not.

How is proposing that a good idea/feature that's on PC should be available on console, "elitist?"

[Back-to-Back]

"Why stop at 60? Why not just uncap it and let the hardware produce the highest frames possible?"

This guy must love screen tearing if he think a fully unlocked framerate is good.

[H0RSE]

There's a difference between "loving" screen-tearing as you put it, and simply not minding it. I never enable v-sync on any of my PC games, and the screen tearing issue is negligible.

[Angels3785]

Oh god no...there are not words for how much I hate screen tearing...

[glopez]

8 gigs of ram says "yes its needed". Put up or stfu!

[ambientFLIER]

What does ram have to do with fps?

[PurpHerbison]

Should we have it? Yes, absolutely. But here lies the main problem.. 30 FPS is not that bad if it is a LOCKED 30 FPS.
All these current gen games claiming to be 30FPS probably average around 26-27 FPS with dips as low as 15, probably even worse. It makes 30 FPS seem terrible when it is sort of acceptable if it is constantly 30 FPS.

[H0RSE]

When describing 30fps, words like "not that bad" and "sort of acceptable" aren't really selling it...

30fps vs 60fps isn't a negligible difference, it's like night and day. From a competitive standpoint, no one would willing choose 30fps over 60.

[PurpHerbison]

I realize that nobody would choose 30FPS over 60 when given the choice.. but we aren't that lucky. I wasn't trying to sell it either. All I wanted to do was get people to realize the "30FPS" console games that they play now are not actually 30FPS, but worse. True 30 FPS isn't that bad. Of course 60 is better and it always will be.

[BadlyPackedKeebab]

The difference with live action film, as pointed out well in the video is that because of the frame exposure there is motion blur which helps the brain in "Seeing" the motion. Game frames are rendered perfectly with highly defined edges which means the frame change is more pronounced. There was some work done on a star wars game I believe where they showed that 30FPS with motion blur on the frames was as good as 60fps without from a visual smoothness perspective. IIRC.

[MuhammadJA]

reality check, ps4 and x1 aren't capable of 60fps without sacrificing resolution or aa.

[sackboyhappy]

yess or close to it :)

[rammstein91]

30 fps is playable,60 fps is smooth and enjoyable..

[Redempteur]

This was actually a pretty cool vid.

Me ? i want 60fps in games were my reaction time is important (fighting games in particular )

[saber00005]

I chuckled over this. There's one thing that this video doesn't cover. Why have a higher frames Per Second? It's easier on the eyes, especially if you spend hours playing games, or watching movies. You won't notice the drop, but your eyes will since it's working harder.

[NightStalker33]

Yes, we do.
I don't understand why this is so complicated. You have the hardware, now use it. The last gen had graphics that I can consider to be "good enough", now all I want from next gen are those same visuals at 1080p and 60fps. Nothing more.

But that's just my opinion.

[thawind]

Yea

[strickers]

Does game look good?
Does game play well?
Does anything other than those 2 things matter?

[Gamer666]

Framerate is not a concern. If I had an open world free roaming game where every single object has interactivity as it is in the real world I doubt the game would be 60 FPS.

But, it would probably be an amazing game!

[seantiticombs]

60fps makes the game look more realistic. i think ps4 can deliver 60fps 1080p when it comes to exclusive games but as for multiplatform i think the xbox one hinders that from happening

[GentlemenRUs]

Anything between 45-60fps is fine with me, 30fps worked but I think we are ready for a step up ;)

[Run_bare]

This is a moron of a question, the answer is YES. The only way for the industry going forward is to maximize the use of existing Technology by using it.

Innovation can only prosper if we use the innovation in the first place.

[MontyQ]

considering my PC was hitting 120fps 1080p 5 years ago ya I think its time

[kcuthbertson]

I think that a CONSISTENT framerate is WAYYYY more important than 60 fps. I'm a big PC gamer and I would rather play a game at a locked 30fps any day than a game that goes from 60 to 30 to 45 to 30 and then back to 60.

[mochachino]

I much prefer 60 FPS @ 720P than 30 FPS @ 1080p.

The increased smoothness is much more perceptible to me than the increased sharpness, especially considering that I game on a big screen TV 6-8 feet away.

[grimmweisse]

Short answer: yes
Long answer : yes

The difference when actually playing between 30fps and 60fps is noticeable. It's time to set it as a standard, especially with next-gen on the horizon and PC components becoming excessively powerful at a high rate.

[Foxgod]

i play my games on a projector, so i prefer fullhd over 60 fps, as projectors can output a large image.
Full hd looks a lot sharper at 300inch, then 720p with 60 fps.

[Holeran]

"Reality Check - Do we need 60 FPS on PS4 and Xbox One?"

Umm Yes. Question answered.

[TABSF]

Its a joke when you hear Next Gen and not all games at 60fps 1080p

I play the majority of games at 60 - 120fps, 1080p - 1440p on max settings with 4xAA - 8xAA. Additionally adaptive V-Sync or just V-Sync

When G-Sync monitors come out or mods come out I'll be getting or doing it. The System always the GPU the monitor and modify the refresh rate on the fly so that its always in sync with the GPUs frame rate.

G-Sync if what they're saying is correct will remove; stutter, screen tearing and will make the experience butter smooth on a variable fps / refresh rate.

A lot of people think gaming at 30fps on 120 or 60hz monitor/ tv is acceptable, its just not, I can notice the lag immediately.

[ufo8mycat]

It all depends on individual players sensitivity levels to framerate.

For the majority of gamers, including myself, it really makes very little difference.

Sure it's a bit smoother - but really doesn't impact my game at all.

I can aim with just as much efficiency at 30fps then I can at 60fps.

It really isn't needed imo.

Those who have the 'curse' of being sensitive to these things, can always opt for PC

[Kenshin_BATT0USAI]

Not for everything but for a lot of things yes.

FPS games, Racing games, fighting games and action games IMO REQUIRE 60fps. It just makes the experience that much better.

Other stuff like platformers, or whatever, not really.

[fullmetal297]

Ironic that the video is playing at 60 frames and it makes the difference.

[fullmetal297]

I think 30 frames is good for more campaign or cooperative games like Kingdom Hearts, but makes all the difference in more competitive games. More frames means better response time; better response time means higher survival rate.

[Rageanitus]

I disagree with this, imagine playing a single player at 30FPS on single player and jumping onto a multiplayer game at the same exact game but getting 60FPS . It is a big difference, why would I accept such a drastic difference of FPS on the same exact game.

The basica mechanics are there

[fullmetal297]

There is a completely different mindset when playing a mutiplayer game. Single player games are more focus in presentation and narration where as mulltiplayer is more competition.

In multiplayer you are playing actual people with everyone trying to win the match. The person with the best skills and better frames will always come on top. Why do you think lower their settings or buy better hardware is the norm on PC?

And if frames didn't matter then why would Guerrilla Games have the target from for Campaign 30 frames, and the Multiplayer at 60 frames?

[Auron]

playing pc games at true 1080p and above with 60fps plus all settings maxed, then going back to console games seems like IMAX to vhs. but of course most of all my favorites are on consoles.

[MadMen]

Yes, we do, I can tell the difference, end of story.

[assdan]

No, but it's a lot better...

[Rageanitus]

60 FPS is needed once your USED to it.

You start noticing imperfections more easily. Console only players don't see this, but PC gamers are so used to it its pretty much a very desired.

Just look at COD, although its not liked by many it makes great multiplayer because its CONSTANTLY smooth.

Remember the days of q3a and UT, we all desired HIGH FPS.

This basically goes onto the next TOPIC..... resolution is VERY important also combined with FPS.... I like playing on consoles, but I cringe when I go back and forth between console and PC's.

Im sorry to say this but some ppl are blind, at times I cringe because you can easily tell it is low res for consoles and slow FPS on tv screns above 40 inch. Ironic console players only usually plan on these types of screens.

[BobBelcher]

it's nothing but a pissing contest really. I mean, look at the great indies coming to PS4 that don't need that BS.
More than half the people that spout out about 60fps/1080p don't even know what that crap means, they just use it as some sort of battle cry.

[MAULxx]

I'm definitely in the 60 FPS camp. It makes a huge difference in the feel of the game. Gameplay feels more responsive & snappy as well as just looks better while moving through the world. I generally prefer dialed back graphics with higher FPS.
That said, I'm buying Ac4 at launch & it's running at 30FPS for single player.
I prefer 60 FPS but I'm not going to pass on a 30 FPS game if it's a game I want to play. I understand going in that not all games will be 60 fps on next gen consoles. This is a sacrifice I am knowingly making by choosing to play on a console rather than a PC. I consciously make concessions such as these when I choose to play on a console. This however doesn't change the fact that 60 FPS is better than 30 FPS every time. The gameplay is more responsive. Controlling the ingame camera is smoother & fluid. It's a better experience. After all, you are "playing" a game, not simply watching it. You feel it & you get into a flow. Responsiveness is paramount but like I said, you make concessions to play on the console platform.

[Hitman0769]

hmm, did we need HD? do we need voice chat? did we need online? come on guys... this is dumb

[clouds5]

"Yeah hello Gamespot, this is Microsoft. What? Sony called you already? Good. Yeah we have made a donation to your account and need some damage control on this silly framerate issue. You gonna do a video you say? Great. Pleasure doing business with you"

Just joking :) They had 8 years to come up with a system that does 1080p/60fps. Everyone wanted it, but they didn't do it. So I'm not gonna buy (thats not the only reason of course). Because my PC will do a better job. Everyone can see the difference between 30 and 60fps. I'm not saying that you can't enjoy a 30fps game! But the difference is easy to pick up.

I just wish people could test the difference from a console 30fps peer to peer shooter and 100fps Quake3 on LAN with 0 lag and a gaming mouse. People who grew up with Quake are kinda spoilt. CoD&Co was a HUGE step back in almost all categories in quality...

And it's funny people still discuss this issue :D I remember having the exact same discussion with a friend back in the late 90ies. We always played quake together and he was doing consistently better. So I asked him what his secrets were and he said: I play with lowest settings. I had a bad PC but Quake3 had awesome graphics for the time so I played at highest settings and got like 20-25fps. Once I changed that I improved a lot!

BTW all pro gamers play with low settings and highest possible FPS wether it's shooters or RTS. Now plz don't tell me that fps doesnt matter.

[steve30x]

My five year old Samsung TV is 100Hz

[BABY-JEDI]

I need those 60fps. It's next gen.

[Banok]

60 fps is too low, 120 is where its at. (for competitive games)

And no thats not the distant future, like this video suggests. my PC is mid range 2 years ago, plays cs:go max settings at 200+ frames per second. my 120 hz monitor was only £150.

yes I'm not going to get BF3/4 at 120fps on high settings but competitive games like CS or DOTA, etc. 120 fps is very affordable and useful.

even the cheapest gaming PC could run any 360/ps3 game (720p etc.) at 120+ fps.

PS: anything less than 50 fps I could consider unplayable and turn down my graphics settings. The only reason people think 30 fps is ok is because they don't know better.

[Jamaicangmr]

Yeah 60 is needed mainly for response times.