Top
140°

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

Read Full Story >>
techtandoori.com
The story is too old to be commented.
SignifiedSix911208d ago

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

decrypt1208d ago (Edited 1208d ago )

"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.

reynod1208d ago

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.

r211208d ago

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

Kleptic1208d ago

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'...

Mykky1208d ago

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

Neonridr1208d ago (Edited 1208d ago )

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.

zebramocha1208d ago (Edited 1208d ago )

@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.

FanMan1208d ago

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.

cayleee1208d ago (Edited 1208d ago )

@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.

Neonridr1208d ago

@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...

FanMan1208d ago

@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.

zebramocha1208d ago

@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.

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 1208d ago
AliTheSnake11208d ago

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 .

papashango1208d ago

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.

AliTheSnake11208d ago

@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.

1nsaint1208d ago

I rather have native 1080p then 60fps

urwifeminder1208d ago (Edited 1208d ago )

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..

solidt121208d ago

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

No FanS Land1208d ago

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.

mcstorm1208d ago

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_Jamal1208d ago

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.

hesido1208d ago (Edited 1208d ago )

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.).

bluetoto1208d ago (Edited 1208d ago )

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.

Show all comments (52)
The story is too old to be commented.