60 FPS should be Standard in Next Gen Consoles

Why are we still stuck at 30fps ? Why ? Next Gen consoles are just around the corner and we still don’t know one single game that is targeting 60 fps. Eidos Montreal producer Stephane Roy already told VideoGamer that he would “prefer to have better physics” in PS4 Thief than a smoother “60 frames per second frame rate”. Another PS4 game Killzone : Shadow Fall is also targeting 30 fps. Industry Veteran John Carmack has already predicted that Next Gen games will still target 30 fps

[SignifiedSix91]

It would be nice, but i doubt we'll get it most of the time.

[decrypt]

"Why are we still stuck at 30fps ? Why ? Next Gen consoles are just around the corner and we still don’t know one single game that is targeting 60 fps."

The reasons are quite simple. The specs are pretty much equal to Low to Mid range PCs. Why should you be getting 60fps with that hardware?

There is only so much they can really optimize for console. Its not like console optimization will magically transform Low - Mid range hardware into high end. Doesnt work that no matter how the console makers market their hardware.

On another note developers want to be pushing their games and show better graphics. Most console gamers dont have a clue what frame rate is, hence devs dont want to be using resources on increasing FPS (which would mean compromising graphics quality). Also FPS cant be shown on screen shots graphics can. Hence Devs choose to do what will sell their games.

Bottom line on consoles its the devs choose whats best for you (that equals to what is best for their business), as a console gamer you have no say in how the game should be.

PC is the only place where you dictate how you would like to game. So yea if choice between graphics settings is so important just get a PC. Otherwise stick to console and have the dev choose for you.

[reynod]

Well thats what happens with hardware designed for "one size fits all".

Its the nature of consoles, to cut and save where possible. This is what developers call optimization. There are various places where they may cut ie:

-framerate
-textures
-AA
-AF
-Tessellation
-DOF
-RES
-Physx

Devs on console tend to do this. Last gen was all about cutting down on all of these things and calling that optimization.

On PC people tend to do the same thing themselves expect its their choice on what they would like to cut down on.

Since console hardware is generally much weaker much of the stuff tends to get cut down.

[r21]

Damn, thats pretty much explains alot of things to me. Bubs up for you dude.

[Kleptic]

Been around this website nearly since it went live...and i still can't believe that non-tech enthusiasts still act as if they understand complex hardware...

so once again...you CAN NOT say how an unreleased ps4 or xbox 3 compares to any form of PC...its not that simple.

The absolute key difference being the operating system...of which we know nothing about, yet. A ps3 with 512 Mb of ram, vs a PC running any version of windows with 512Mb of ram are FAR from the same thing. The Ps3 can and did render some impressive games; where a PC with those specs would just fry itself from windows update...

so saying the ps4 is 'low to mid' hardware...gtfo...nearly ALL of that 'low to mid' hardware is going to be dedicated to rendering a game (especially considering the ps4 has separate resources for OS processing)...PC is the absolute king of zero optimization; nearly any pc operating system is so poor at resource management, not even half of the hardware is used for a single process (such as..a...game)...

while yeah, you can single out a cpu or a gpu to some degree, but it still doesn't paint the whole picture...a console will do 5x more with lower hardware than a pc ever will...its not like 1080p at 60fps is that crazy of a requirement...its not even worth arguing that though, as you clearly aren't a credible source when saying 'console gamers don't even know what a framerate is, so bla bla bla'...

[Mykky]

The head of DICE previously stated BF 4 would run in 1080p at 60fps on the PS4. Sources can be found if needed.

[Neonridr]

The reason why 1080p at 60fps is not logical is because the graphics card on the PS4 cannot do it properly, at least not to the level of PC games.

I'm currently playing Bioshock Infinite, and I have it set to 1080p with everything set to Ultra and I am getting approx 50 fps average (according to the included benchmarking tool with the game).

I have a Radeon 7870 which puts out approx 2.56 TFLOPS. The PS4's gfx card supposedly puts out around 1.75.

High end PC's don't always do 1080p/60fps so I don't see why we should expect consoles to do it either. Unless we are talking about cutting some corners to achieve an "illusioned" 60fps with lower settings, I can't see the PS4 attaining these numbers, not with complex games like Battlefield 4 or Killzone.

as long as we are dealing with 720p/60fps MINIMUM, then that I would say is a huge step up.

I am sure we will see some games opt for 1080p/30fps if it's not a game that may require the quick framerates, however I would still rather play at 720p if it's going to be a locked 60fps.

[zebramocha]

@decryt nice troll post,why would it be a bad thing if there was a standard on pc games? It would insure everybody had the same looking game.

@reynod tessellation has been on pc for a while before becoming feature for dx11,consoles are fixed hardware so their limits are based of what tech they have at the time of release,where on PC's this not a problem and similar for texture,aa,af,do,resolution and physx do much for pc games because it proprietary to nvidia,its implementation,while nice doesn't change in a significant way.

@neon your comment makes no sense.

[FanMan]

i think comparing it to low end isnt doing it justice. i have a radeon 5770, now thats a low end. isnt the gpu said to be comparable to the 7000 series. which is mid to high imo. i consider the ps3 to be mid to high although closer to mid.

[cayleee]

@Kleptic

1. With reference to the 512mb comment. You are comparing a OS that is ment to do alot of things, with a console OS that does almost nothing, not even cross game chat.

2. Console optimzation is blown out of proportion, 8800GTX released during the time of the consoles. Its about 2.5x the power of consoles. In the real world Consoles run most of their games in 720p while 8800GTX runs games at 1080p. So the difference is 2x. So where is the console optimization?

Console optimzation at best is sacrificing AA, Frame rate, resolution etc.

If the optimization really was so good, there would be no reason why current consoles cant beat 8800GTX after 7 years on the market, thats alot of time for consoles to get fully optimized. Yet in the real world 8800GTX constantly outperforms consoles even today.

So yea take the optimization myth is at best created by console makers to fool the public when they release Low to mid range hardware.

@FANMAN

5770 was Low end 2 years back, not today. GPU power doubles every 1.5 years.

[Neonridr]

@zebramocha, sorry I don't know what you don't understand about my post. All I said was that my gfx card can push out more numbers than the PS4's, and with all the settings on Ultra, I wasn't even getting 60 fps, so I don't see how the PS4 is going to achieve that unless some serious corners are going to be cut to the level of details.

I then went on to say as long as we are dealing with 720p/60fps on the PS4 to start out with, then that will at least be acceptable, and we may see better results later on as devs learn the ins and outs. Some games we may see 1080p/30fps on PS4 if the game doesn't require the quick reflexes that 60fps provides...

[FanMan]

@cayleee
well actually according to this
http://www.videocardbenchma... the 5770 is technically in the high end. although its near the middle of the list. the 7000 series is also in this list. i dont find it a stretch to believe the ps4 gpu will be comparable with at least some of the gpus on this list.

also in my original post i meant ps4, not ps3.

[zebramocha]

@neon I'm saying your comment makes no sense because you equate a problem that zaps performance from PC's gups to why the ps4 can't do 1080p 60 fps.

@caylee I think when they optimization for consoles,I think this means they get software run better the console and you can't compare the architectural differences of a release product to one that's ever evolving.

[AliTheSnake1]

Stable 30 fps is not bad at all.
Look at Red dead redemption
Uncharted 3
Gow 3
60 fps is too much and not needed .
I hope 2014-13 ps4 games won't run at high fps. because then 2015 games will ran at lower fps because graphics and details will advance . And we would be already spoiled by the high fps games .

[papashango]

RDR great game. Very jaggy very low res. Would have shined with at least 2x AA and 60fps.

Uncharted 3. Linear gameplay static backgrounds. very little AA. Technically I think RDR beats it.

GOW 3. An on rails interactive movie. You don't control the angle. Outside of Kratos its very blurry. Extremely Linear. All smoke and mirrors here but that's not a bad thing. Santa Monica sold a great story.

[AliTheSnake1]

@papashango
Everything at 60 fps would have shined.
Red dead has already shined with its stable 30 fps. Uncharted 3 had very little jaggies, rdr had 100 times more jaggies than U3.and Looked great /watch?v=9ph3gNqewp0
Technically it beats rdr by miles and miles.
GOW3,"outside kratos it's very blurry" .
I don't know wth you are talking about. Nothing is blurry and graphics are pretty detailed and huge environments and it ran avg 37 fps.

[1nsaint]

I rather have native 1080p then 60fps

[urwifeminder]

Only a few arcade games are likely to be that fast, funny how its not an issue now a few months ago people were raving about consoles at 1080p 60fps..

[solidt12]

Because devs can make a game look even greater at 30fps and the game still runs great a 30fps.

[No FanS Land]

What I find even funnier, is that people will defend story oriented games or gameplay before graphics. Then When some see that "apparently" some next-gen games will not run 60fps, they're up in arms against the move.

it's not the tool that makes the artist.

Stop whining about technical issues and worry about actual games that aren't forgettable.

[mcstorm]

I agree. One example is GT5. PD really messed up this game by trying to do to much with it and compared with Forza 4 it was no match as this games runs 60fps without any issues where the frame rate was all over the place with GT5.

Then at the other end of the Scale. PG used Turn 10s engine and decided to add more into the game and run it at 30fps and the game still looked amazing and ran amazing to. I did not notice the difference in terms of speed when racing between the two.

Before any one thinks im hating on GT im not I just expected more from the game as I loved 1 to 4 but 5 just did not do it for me.

[Good_Guy_Jamal]

What I find funnier still is how most people said they'd be happy with 1080p and 60fps come next gen. Then when they find out that a certain games won't support that then suddenly it's okay and unnecessary.

[hesido]

You can target 60fps with a PS2, you can target 60fps with a Wii (Nintendo is committed to 60fps for good reasons), you can damn well target 60fps on a PS4. Console power is only indirectly related to this dilemma. The fact of the matter is, you will ALWAYS be able to cram more into 33 ms (30fps) compared to 16ms (60fps), regardless of how much power you have.

It's the sad truth, screenshots do not reflect fps. That's why, most devs will go for prettier still shots, instead of fluid and smooth motion with more responsive controls (Which I like more than eye candy on still shots.).

[bluetoto]

The one post that hits it square on the head without trolling or without berating the nature of console gamers.

It doesn't matter how much power devs are given they will ALWAYS choose to spend that extra power making the game "prettier" at the expense of gameplay.

All these idiots are looking forward to games that will play the EXACT same as this gen but with better graphics. These people should be gaming on pc but most likely lack the know how to get what they want so the rest of us gamers have to suffer for their obsession with pixels.

Cod has moderate graphics but plays at 60fps which is why it crushes bf in sales, because a lot of gamers love a quick responsive game whereas bf gamers love to talk about how great it looks but feels slow and clunky.

It's only at the end of a console gen that devs stop relying on graphics to sell their games and put actual effort into the gameplay.

It will be at least 3 or 4 years at least into next gen that games gameplay will improve.

[CyrusLemont]

The only way this would happen is if Sony made it a rule or something to have 60fps on all games developed. However, developers aren't willing to sacrifice visuals for fps unless it's like racing or fighting games. Besides, I'd rather look at a gorgeous 30fps world than a 60. If you want both, get a PC.

[JackVagina]

60fps = sacrificing graphics

[koehler83]

Performance > Graphics.

Form never trumps function.

[wishingW3L]

word!

60 frames should be a priority and then built the rest of the games around it. But not every game benefits from high-frames though, it depends on the genre. Fighting games, racing games, first person games, platformers, hack & slash, etc. they all benefit from the high frame-rate greatly.

But slower paced games like RPGs, RTS, stealth games, etc. there is no difference if it runs at high or lower frames-rates. 60 frames might look cooler but really, there is no point for those genres to run at high frame-rate since they don't require that much precision.

[papashango]

contrary to popular belief PC gamers at least on the competitive multiplayer side have always put FPS before anything.

Low FPS gets you killed more often than not. Those with higher fps tend to have more accurate aim. I believe a function of this transferred over to cod on console which is why so many people play it. I truly believe about 90% of cod console gamers don't even realize they prefer the higher fps. All they ever say is "it feels faster"

Activision has a major ace up their sleeve because I think they figured it out.

I try to play anywhere between 75 and 100fps though I can go up to 120fps if the game isn't demanding.

[Fishy Fingers]

It won't be and frankly after the BS excuses I've read about how 'X game' doesn't need to be 60fps it would be amusing to see people backtrack.

Studios will favour visuals (like resolution or AA) over frame rates.

[wishingW3L]

is not the studios fault, it the people's fault. Beside COD and some other very few games people have hardly experienced 60 frames (outside PC gamers). So when it comes to surveys and stuff that these companies do to their customers they all say that they don't care about high frame-rate. But is not that they don't care, it's that they haven't experienced it and they really have no idea what exactly it is nor how awesome it is.

Between resolution and frame-rate when it comes to gaming?

frame-rate > resolution. Always.

[jon1234]

i want 75 fps, 60 just isnt doing it for me anymore........

[josh14399]

I'm happy enough with 30 as long as it doesn't drop below.

[gazgriff2k12]

no it should not and most games dont need it

[Tapani]

Stop stop stop already!

Gameplay is not affected by the fps, only the way the game is designed.

Personally, I would stick to true 720p with aa 4x and af 16x and 30FPS. This would give the developers the perfect tools to create excellent CG quality graphics.

I mean come on! If you watch Finding Nemo at really good 720p 30-65" tv with really good pure 720p source it can look as good as an average 1080p source. Same with God of War 3, it looks just as stunning in the 30fps scenes and 60fps scenes.

I would rather have developers use all the extra energy to revolutionize the gaming as an art form instead of trying to squeeze resolution and frames/per second to appeal this minority graphic intensive audience.

I mean how much more do you need after games like Final Fantasy XIII and Uncharted 3? Not much. Imagine now those games, but with an open living and breathing world. Online aspects and huge areas to explore, revolutionary AI and varied controls. Surely coupled with some extra detail and overall smooth gameplay experience graphically as well.

I find myself playing a lot of old games nowadays, PSX era rpgs mostly or PC classics. It seems games peaked in the late 90s and it's been an uphill transformation to this controversial mass entertainment where the core gamers are talking about frames per second and resolution instead of the content and it's value or importance.

[ATi_Elite]

Well with the Rah Rah how Next Gen Consoles will cure Cancer it's funny how NO FULL GPU SPECS have been issued.

But you got Devs stating 30 fps which lets me know that those Cancer Curing Next Gen consoles are really juts Low End PC's.

1080p 60 fps with post processing requires Muscle and the fact that Dice had to go down to 720p to get 60 fps for BF4 shows that the Next Gen machines still lack Muscles.

60 fps is butter smooth gaming. sure it's So Easy to say "It' Doesn't matter" when your machine can't achieve it or you never have experienced it but let me make it clear.

1080p 60 fps makes everything look just awesome and 60 fps is needed for rock solid MP gameplay. Dropping frames at 30 fps will get you KILLED.

SO i'm sure Devs will sacrifice to get 60fps in MP games but stick to 1080p 30 fps for SP mode.

[Whitey2k]

Dont forget ps4 has low-level access and considering how good killzone looks its fantastic which is only 1.5gig of ram

[linkenski]

It should've been the standard in this gen, but obviously developers want to push envelopes, so we'll likely see most games running 30fps again.

[Tundra]

Just give people a choice. Lower level graphical quality for a higher frame rate and vice versa. That way, no one complains and everyone is happy.

[cayleee]

They do give that choice, just that its limited to the PC.

Consoles are ment to be one size fits all remember, so no choice.

[delboy]

Why no 60fps for the next generation.
I could go and try to explain, but why bother.
Gamers are uneducated and won't get it, just look at the users here on n4g.
And we could call them the hard core gamers, but even they don't get it, and they don't know how or why.
So why should developers care when the majority doesn't see or know the difference.
Hell even the majority of the CoD players don't know anything about fps, and can't explain why they prefer cod over bf.

Dose of us that know and see the difference between 30/60fps will always prefer and will go for 60fps over 30fps.

And for those that want to reply, don't, if you don't know what you are taking about.

[Skynetone]

Gamers are uneducated and won't get it

Your a gamer and you get it

if i asked a thousand pc users and asked them the speed of there hard drive, the refresh rate of there monitor, there speed of there cpu, what gpu you have, the speed of there ram, how much ram do you have

common sense, would tell me they wouldn't have a clue

do you honestly believe every console gamer should know this, when in fact console gamers have never had the option on any game to change the fps

[koehler83]

I agree.

1920 x 1080 at 60Hz AND NO DAMNED EXCEPTIONS!

Performance is a hallmark of quality in software development. If you are compromising on the pixels or the frames, you are compromising your product. Change the scope or optimize the code. There are no more excuses.

[worldwidegaming]

In the end we need to take what we can get without complaining like a good little addicted gamer. I mean its not like we have any other choice. insert underhanded insult "Dealwithit"

[ufo8mycat]

60fps and 1080p for videogames is MASSIVELY OVERRATED. It really is not needed.

I've played games in both 60fps and 30fps and yes, 60fps is 'smoother', 30fps is smooth enough and when you are focused on the game, the difference is not big at all.

Completely overrated and is not needed at all. 60fps or 30fps makes no difference for me what so ever, which is obviously a good thing.

[lovegames718]

Alot of ppl here are ignorant as hell. There is no reason that 1080p at 60fps isnt possible on the ps4 so please take that bs notion elsewhere. That lies in the hands of the devs. Dont worry youll be getting some 1080p 60fps where first party devs see fit. Imo i like my killzone a little slower than COD it feels better to me.

[isarai]

If people keep bringing this up(in a respectable and educated way, not just whining like a little bitch), and complain about THIS rather than graphics, then you might get your wish, your voice has got to be heard for them to listen to it

[BlaqMagiq24]

I think 1080p should be a standard next gen but I don't expect 60fps to be. Most games still run smoothly even at native 30fps. 60fps would be a nice touch to any game but it's not a necessity.

[PersonMan]

30fps for consoles
60fps for PCs

You can pack more visuals into a game that runs 30fps.

When you're on a PC, you can lower the visuals or upgrade to better equipment until you reach the graphical level and framerate of your dreams.

Console developers have to pick and choose what's important. If controller response and silky smooth frame rates are their goals, then they can't have the best physics, lighting, textures, tessellation etc. If they want better graphics they'll stick to 30fps because 30fps gives them essentially twice the amount of time to render each frame. More time to render frames, means the better the graphics can be.

[Plagasx]

It's okay though. I'd much rather have better Physics, AI and bigger and more interactive worlds than 60fps.

[BitbyDeath]

Why not just let the developer decide if their game should be 30fps or 60fps.

You do not tell the artist how to draw.

[LAWSON72]

Fps does not sell because many have not experienced it and graphics are more easy to hype and show off