DSOGaming writes: "Back in May, we informed you about John Carmack's beliefs regarding next-generation consoles. As Carmack said back then, a lot of games that will be released on next-generation consoles will still run at 30fps and not at 60s. Today, Carmack reconfirmed those beliefs, despite the recent rumors about the hardware that will power both X720 and PS4."
20°
10°
30°
10°
Ad 
10°
I think next gen consoles can handle doing that, if they can't, well... I'll just stick to PC gaming in that case for a majority of titles.
RPG's, Open World, Sandbox, and other games would be fine at a solid 30fps considering the type of game.
/s
People will ve disappointed uf they think most games will ve 1080p60 next gen. But hopefully more will be able to
Developers will choose 30 frames because they have been more and more. That is now pretty much irreversible. Graphics are seen as more important than framerate.
Poor graphics are heavily criticised, tearing and framerate less so. Nobody even dare mention the fact Far Cry 3 on console has a wobbly framerate and teary visuals, because it is supposed to be quite good looking.
Nobody on here says yeah but, Game X graphics aren't as good, but at least its framerate and controls are smoother and it doesn't have screentear. No.
All you ever hear is: Game X has teh best grafix!
http://www.1up.com/news/lat...
Next gen will be like this gen, mostly 30FPS, or at least, trying to reach 30FPS in a lot of cases. 60FPS will die out more.
That said, I think a consistent frame-rate is even more important. To explain, I would take a rock solid 30fps with consistent frame-rendering times over an inconsistent 60fps frame-rate with variable frame rendering times.
For consoles, I think that developers would be wise to target a rock solid framerate, full v-sync, and high-quality anti-aliasing before they attempt to push other graphical elements.
I think most of us prefer stable, clear, high-fidelity image quality over graphics that may have more technical bells and whistles but that are ruined by choppiness, screen tearing, and image-destroying jaggies.
A locked framerate is very key. 30 FPS as long as it does not dip, results in a great experience. 60 FPS is of course preferable, but I do not mind at all if a developer chooses to push graphical capabilities whilst maintaining that steady framerate goodness.
Balance is important, and optimized coding is important. Screen tearing sucks and framerate dips suck.
I do believe alot of games will be at 30fps, but there will be many at 60 fps as well since some say this current level of graphics is more than sufficient way to build a game.
Any super powerful game engine though you will see 30 fps games. Unless somehow Microsoft and Sony aim for 4 Tflops or so and give us something that can almost play 4K games at 20 fps.
If you want super powerfull graphics and nothing else , buy a Powerfull gaming PC...
If you want exclusives , Innovation and just generally want a console. Get a console..
@bozebo - I mean good exclusives and good innovation. Sony and Nintendo then....
... PC then.
That's just the Wii U.
"If you want exclusives , Innovation and just generally want a console. Get a console..."
If you want exclusives , Innovation and amazing graphics and butter smooth gameplay and don't want to miss amazing quality titles get a PC AND consoles....I know it's expensive, but think of it like this
Some guys I know...(I'm in my late 20's) spend $2000 a year on hunting or fishing or going on rock climbing trips, or going to disneyland..ect...ect...ect... .
personally, I go hiking for almost free at state parks when I'm feeling outdoorsey....I go on vacation every few years, not every year...and I get my killing fix in video games, not killing deer (not against it at all, hunting is kinda cool, thats how we used to get food)
BUT....I spend probably over $1000 a year on video games, I have a PS3, 360, psp, ds, wii, gba, ps2 and a BADASS (imo) pc (gtx680, 12gb ddr3, i7-2600k) and over 1000 (literally) video games for all those platforms
I freaking love gaming, I'm not going to miss an amazing title because of fanboyism or loyalty to some company who does not give a single crap about me...
next gen, I will buy a ps4, nextbox and wii u as soon as each respective platform has 5 or so games that i must have...gaming is my hobby, its what i love
my wife loves games as much as i do, same with my brother and both of my best freinds are hardcore into games...
so don't fool yourself into thinking one platform is superior to all the rest, they all have their merits and, its usually people speaking out of jelousy, hating on another system because they don't have it
cut down on the donuts, stop buying $6 coffees, get a second part time job, learn a trade and do side jobs, trade with your trusted friends
if your a gamer, be a gamer, play every good game you can!
-end rant :)
If you aren't happy with the leap stick with PC. Microsoft and Sony's new systems won't be the type of leap we have had in the past. Eventually you need to put profit above power. It benefits nobody but Epic and Crytek to have super powerful systems. Microsoft and Sony themselves will be selling at losses on the hardware if its still kept on par to Epic/Crytek's "demands".
But they aren't in a business to serve a bunch of power lovers. They are in it to make money. The more this goes on the harder it will become to compete over power.
Slowdown from 60 to *30*.
How times have changed
Somebody tell John Carmack to just STFU!
instead of running your mouth and making silly guarantees how about you go make a BETTER GAME that doesn't run like crap on the PS3 and PC!
screen tear and horrible pop ins is a MESS at any frame rate just like in RAGE that trash of a game you made Carmack!
That's like saying you can't judge corrupt politicians unless you ARE a politician.
I can understand that it's hard to make a game, but when I put down $60 I expect them to have done their job, not whine about how hard it is. The fact that others can do much better with the same tech is obvious proof that it being 'hard' is no excuse for today's developers...
Are you sane? John Carmack didn't make Rage, he made the engine, Id Tech 5.
The game wasn't that bad, it was just too ambitous for current gen consoles. Like to see anyone else try and run something that good looking at 60FPS. I don't even like Rage, but I give credit where it is due.\
Plus, I'd take the word of a man who is highly regarded and respected among developers (you know, the people who KNOW what they are talking about) rather than an angry little teenage/immature fanboy.
God help me, if you say you aren't a teenager ANYMORE, I will facepalm myself, as no adult should be thinking so close-minded and idiotically.
How powerful the next gen hardware may be, if it can run a game at 60 FPS with very good graphics, it still means that it will be able to sacrifice half of its frame-rate to pump out even more GFX.
I myself far prefer Battlefield 3 overall as my shooter of choice, but when I play some BF3 right after a play a little bit of COD, it almost feels like I'm playing in slow motion, with micro-stuttering and screen tearing abound, along with less responsive controls.
CoD is much faster than BF3..its like comparing a turtle to a cheater. Im sure in PC, the graphics of BF3 is superier but on consoles, COD has better graphics and overall better shooter.
Run and Gun, teamdeath match type of game is what the masses prefer over a shooter that is objective and territory based that BF.
Hell BF3 is no longer in top 10 most played game of XBOX Live lol. COD is the fastest, most fluid game on consoles.
That's why i bought a 27" 1920 x 1080 120hz screen earlier this year, as long as i buy the single best vid card every 2-3 years i will maintain a nice smooth framerate.
FPS really does matter, for the people who say it doesn't, try playing a first person shooter and limit the FPS to 30 then unrestrict it,big difference.I personally can't play any games when they run that slow. Just not enjoyable.
I'm not bashing it but it's very hard to go back after your eyes get used to 60fps for HUNDREDS of hours.
A technology and quality expectation increase it seems to get harder for non upgrade-able entertainment systems.
If we want 1080p 60fps devs will have to be willing to not take advantage of extra power.
as console tend to get old and we have a standard of 1080p 60fps devs might want to go back to 30fps.
just saying it seems like they have to really plan more than ever how to use resources form day 1 and years to come. So if steambox is upgrade able then they will have that unique offering compared to other consoles.
I would be willing to buy a $250 - $300 console ever 5 years if it meant keeping up with technology.
^ That's how I see it next-gen.
In my opinion it just starts with the type of games we are talking about. With sports games, I suspect 1080p60. Fast paced FPS games, 720p60. 720p30 for games like say Uncharted or Gears where they are more known for they high quality characters, environments, and intricate texture detail.
Rage was one of the biggest disappointments, and the ending felt like they ran out of budget and said ok that's it
on to the point, i believe both next xbox and ps will do full 1080P 60FPS, it also comes down to a developer willing to take advantage of the systems.
what do i know i am just a gamer and he is a gaming legend but sony and ms have to look at future more than present, if sony and ms should learn from xbox360 and ps3 its that in a longer than usual gens, the consoles need to be a little better future proof/
so its not what ps3 and xbox720 can do in fall 2013 but what and how they will perform in 2017-2018. people complain about ps3 and xbox360 because its way old tech so time for an update. and if both companies are panning for another 6-8 years cycle than prepare better
"I think next gen consoles can handle doing that, if they can't"
Well if they cant, then why should we even consider going to next gen? Next gen should not only be about graphics but also game play mechanics.
current gen XBOX and PS are suited to 30fps to some 60fps.
It's why PC will always be superior in that way, You can get 60FPS+ from day 1 :). As Pcs are evolving every day where as consoles get updated once every few years. It could be steams console which bridges this gap.
It's why PC will always be superior in that way, You can get 60FPS+ from day 1 :). As Pcs are evolving every day where as consoles get updated once every few years. It could be steams console which bridges this gap.
Also think Cormacks hinting here at a lack of power in nex gen consoles as he has no doubt had one and been developing for it for a while now.
There were some good things in rage.
But you need to make a modern DOOM game.
Also would love to see a quake5 game, with the movement of quake3.
Mp would be epic.
The only games that need 60fps are racing simulators, fighters and online shooters. I think they should make it so that console shooters run at 30fps with better visuals for the single player campaign and 60fps with more basic visuals online where twitch responsive controls are more essential and visuals don't matter as much.
We shouldn't expect witchcraft.
Many next-gen(graphics)fanboys dream, ps4 and xbox720 incredible visuals and all games run 1080p 60fps.
FPS old master say:
"John Carmack still believes that a lot of next-gen games will run at 30fps.."
Hahaha:D
Also, some games just don't need 60fps - such as strategy and puzzle.
Games could technically run at 60FPS on consoles today, it just means that the graphics would have to be sacrificed big time.
Next gen will be the same. A 30FPS game will always look better than a 60FPS game, so developers will try and get the best looking game, as everyone knows graphics sell, FACT. I wish it were different, but it isn't.
But if the past is any indication, Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo's first party developers will make exclusives that will make those consoles sing and make them worth owning. Exclusives are the main reason to own a console anyway. I grew up on Sony and Nintendo and they haven't let me down yet when it comes to their games so I'm pretty much guaranteed to get a Wii U and a PS4 for exclusives. Will most likely use my PC for multiplats.
After a year or two, developers will know the consoles enough so that they will try to push the envelope graphically, and then we're gonna end up with most games running at 30fps again.
I'm totally fine with it. Sometimes i even think it's annoying when my pc games run at 60fps, because you can see that some animations were meant to be played at a lower framerate.
I'm sure it doesn't work like that.
However, if the game is running 60fps but the animations are only in 30, that's the sign of a half ass developer, not a knock on 60fps.
I love battlefield but if it had much smoother aiming and a boost in framerate, imagine how many more people would have bought it?
But I do understand what Carmack is saying. Because of peoples obsession with better and better graphics, Developers will keep pushing the hardware until the can get the best graphics possible at a minimum of 30 FPS.
As a dev if you had the choice between running something at 30 fps on High to Ultra quality at 720p or 60 fps with medium to low quality at 1080p which would you choose?
Most all the games on the ps3 and xbox right now make that choice by upscaling games from 640p to 1080p. Hell Halo 4 was the first HALO to even run native at 720p which is the reason it struggles to run on split screen when you have friends over.
What I am saying is as a DEV would you be more inclined to do 720p with ULTRA settings with high AA and AF at 30 fps to get your game to look amazing? Or more inclined to make the game run at 1080p at 60 fps on MEDIUM less eye candy options?
Coming from PC and playing consoles I dont see why people think this gen is going to be leaps above last gen.. The gap between ps2 -> ps3 and wii -> 360 / ps3 was huge only because of HD vs SD...We are now looking at HD vs HD and the difference to most isn't going to be huge for the amount of money a console will cost (400 to 500 range)..
I have a really good gaming PC and the difference between (low-medium) or (medium-high) or even(high-ultra) is not very obvious unless you are looking closely.... Yes if you go from (Medium-Ultra) there will be a decent difference...
It will suck for us if all we get with the next gen is more fps at true 720p rather than 1080p with 60 fps with high settings (which I doubt will be the case)
and specially is AI and physics and graphics are better at doing 30fps as a min..
I just believe it is what type of game the developer is making that the decisions to make it 30 or 60 depends on. The more important aspect though is to keeping a more stable framerate & reducing any sort of lag that may come with it.
You're going to buy the new console of your choice regardless.
Just like Call of Duty. It's 60 FPS right now on everything, imagine if it went to 30 FPS? It would feel too slow and unplayable for us now.