Gamble was specifically questioned about the performance of Anthem on PlayStation 4 Pro and Xbox One X. The producer was clear and stated that the game will not run at 1080p and 60 fps, as they have given priority to the visual aspect of the title.
Disappointing to hear. Guess I’ll wait for the PS5 version.
Games play better in 30 FPS. I find 60 FPS too real. It's like watching The Hobbit at 48 FPS in the theater. Sony knows this that's why so many of their games are 30 FPS because it feels more natural.
“Games play better in 30 FPS. I find 60 FPS too real.” Games do not play better at 30fps. Not only is the gameplay smoother the controller input is twice as responsive. “Sony knows this that's why so many of their games are 30 FPS because it feels more natural.” A quote from Naughty Dog: Playing The Last of Us at 30fps feels 'broken' after trying PS4 remaster, says Naughty Dog
no, just no. Games are smoother, appear more fluid and perform better at higher framerates.
I'd say sometimes I enjoy 60fps and sometimes I enjoy 30fps better. if its more of a story based game I like having the 30fps, if its an competitive, racing, or heavy action title I like 60 better. Either way I like prioritizing visuals over 60fps if necessary.
I dunno about better. I personally have no problem with either 30 or 60 though. Maintaining a steady frame rate is more appealing to me, as dips can cause noticeable differences, even if it dips from 60 but stays above 30. @Jin The quote from ND is irrelevant, as the issue is completely subjective. Some people swear by 60fps, and say everything else is unacceptable. Others, like Purr here feel 30 is better....assuming he's not lying. I'm indifferent so long as the frame rate is smooth. In the grand scheme of things, if the frame rate is smooth, most customers actually prefer better visuals. But, nowadays, allowing the option for the player to choose is the best way to go.
Lol, 60 fps is objectively better for games. There's less input lag, smoother motion, and more visual information being displayed each second.
Nice troll. Or is it Purrrrfect troll? Guys this guy thinks he is really smart, but i think he is wasting his life. Hey purrrfect, did you know the industry standard in movies is 24fps? The Hobbit was filmed at 48fps. Which is double the frames per second. So, yeah, suck it.
I just died a little from reading that comment
He is a stealth troll, his goal is to piss people off to make PlayStation look bad by pretending to be a arrogant/annoying Playstation fan. He either insults xbox owners, or says something that seems to be in favor of PlayStation but its really not (see example above). Its very disturbing behavior actually.
"Games play better in 30 FPS. I find 60 FPS too real." LMAO nice b8 m8, wud r8 8/10 for maximum dankery.
Not sure if serious.
"I find 60 FPS too real." LOL Aside from better response rate, wouldn't too real mean more immersive? Isn't one of the great points of gaming is to immerse yourself in new worlds and have fun so you won't think of the stresses of the real world? Either someone brainwashed you to think 30fps is better than 60fps or you have rarely played games in 60fps or more. After gaming on PC at consistent 60fps or more, I have never turned back to 30fps and when I see 30fps, it's truly bothersome to the eyes. 60fps should be the standard and hopefully with the Ryzen chips, we'll finally get to see it on consoles much more often soon.
Not to nitpick but how can something be 'too real' and yet less 'natural'. Unless by 'natural' you mean 'what people are used to in visual media', maybe? It's pretty subjective but I've never met anyone in person who prefers 30fps in games, I've only read it online and then it gets downvoted to buggery. I think most people prefer 60 in games and 24 (or whatever) in movies. Also, if it was an objective fact that games are better in 30 then why would developers ever even mention 60? The simple fact is that most game makers, Sony included, rarely make their games in 30fps as such. Rather, they prioritise graphics to the point they can't achieve more than 30fps, which is the absolute minimum before a game starts to increasingly feel too crap/broken to play. It's an important distinction. For example, if some new magical algorithm was discovered in time to be patched in for Anthem's release day, one that allowed allowed 60fps, they'd use it in a heart beat. The only time I've really seen developers sticking to 30fps when they could comfortably run 60 is in cut-scenes, because it feels closer to a movie. 60fps is so smooth, so responsive, games just feel so much better to me and, judging by these comments, most others. Funny thing is, being a pc gamer, I'm surrounded by people telling me to invest in a machine that's capable of 120fps since they feel that it improves game even more. 120fps is cool actually, but it's not such a big difference to me as when I went from 30-60 so I'm not that fussed. I think it's one of those things, once you experience 60fps it really makes you wince once you have to go back to 30. For example, I enjoyed the gameplay in Resident Evil 4 PC and The Last of Us Remastered more than the originals thanks to the 60fps.
Anyone that believes games play better in 30fps is an idiot. Too real? That literally makes no sense.
Sorry Purrfection, but thats just not true! You could say that 30fps doesnt really bother you, but 30fps being better than 60fps in a video game is just false!
People haven't caught on yet lol.
You deserve to get your account deleted
congrats on 100 downvotes bro
You poor sad little man.
You obviously don't know a damn thing what you're talking about
Ask guys that play Destiny on Pc how much better 60fps is. Its night and day especially in a shooter.
has to be the dumbest thing ive ever heard or read. no sony dont think 30 fps is better they just know they can get away with being lazy with the hardware and their fan base will still buy overpriced shit. a $400 custom built PC runs games better than a ps4 pro and can do 1000x more and thats with people paying overinflated consumer prices on RAM and GPU's at the moment
Never heard this one before...
I agree, Purr. At 60 fps the games loose something and look more fake. I have The Last of Us remastered, and I thought it looked worse than the PS3 version until I realized it was running at 60fps. Thank God you can switch it to 30.
No no no. So much judder in 30fps it’s horrible
Haha good one. But seriously, 60fps is better in every kind of game. There's not a single kind of game that I would rather play at 30fps instead of 60fps. 60fps, or higher, gives you more temporal resolution so things remain more detailed and clear in motion. It also just feels so much better and more responsive since latency is cut in half.
Boy u smoking some crazy weed
Yes the Hobbit running at 48fps ruined it's cinematic feel but games and movies cannot be compared. With games framerate is king especially if it's an online shooter as it normally means less input lag.
"Games play better in 30 FPS. I find 60 FPS too real." I literally logged in just to downvote you. This is somehow even worse than "30 fps feels more cinematic".
Have to be trolling, lol. There is zero circumstances where 30fps is better as good as 60, in any way. Not only does it look and play better, it also reduces input lag, improving your actual gameplay.
Games do not play better in 30fps.
Shooters, fighters. action and racers definitely play better in 60 fps.
your eyes must be like your spelling.
-60fps is too real. -30fps feels more natural. What?
Hell no, gtfo.
You are wrong, it's not an opinion, you are just wrong.
Man, where did you hear that from? You got inside detail from Sony about 30fps? Lol
This is one of the worst examples I have ever heard Purr. The Hobbit looked terrible at 48FPS because movies have been shot at 24 fps for AGES. Games have been running at 60FPS for over 25 years. You will always control better when playing at 60 or above because you are experiencing less delay and input lag. I am not a PC master race person, but I have a PC now, and if I decide to play Anthem there is no chance I play on a console. Sony has a lot of their games at 30 because they aren't capable of anything else. Also, some games are fine at 30 FPS because they are "cinematic experiences" gameplay, gunplay aren't the primary features. A game like this though, where movement and shooting will be HUGE, needs a minimum of 60.
Are you broken?
Where on earth did you come up with that theory bud? I'd rather play 720p 60+ fps than 1080-4k 30 fps. After thinking, I'm starting to sense sarcasm? I hope so anyway lol
@Purrfection My brain just hurt with what you just said...
WTF? you for real dude?? go and play last of us on ps4 in 30fps and then60 fps and tell me that same line. 60 vs 30 is a huge differnce for response and fluidity
60 fps hasn't been the standard for games since the 90s for anything other competitive/fast games so I'm confused as to why people are still surprised.
Are you serious? Play a shooter on PC with a high refresh rate monitor and you'd never say that, 90-100fps is quite a lot smoother than 60fps.. And you don't need to be a competitive gamer to see and feel the extra smoothness.
I'd much rather play a shooting, action, or racing game at 60+ fps than 30 any day of the week. One caveat about high refresh rate is that I need the framerate to be locked and consistent, if it's constantly jumping around that can very negatively affect the gameplay responsiveness, especially in a competitive shooter. But once you experience those higher framerates you pretty much can't ever go back lol
On consoles. It hasn't been the standard on consoles.
@imalwaysright That much is implied. This article is only talking about the console versions.
4k 30 fps with better visuals is a deal breaker for you?
This really makes the One X look bad
I don't care because I will not buy anything from greedy EA
2 thumbs UP for this comment
Really hope 60fps is standard for next-gen.
If the devs are working on Ray Tracing like the Gran Turismo team is claiming, then I don't see 60fps being achieved with Ray Tracing.
WTF are you on about? Gran Turismo? that game aims for 60fps
GT games are always 60 fps becose you need high fps to calculate the physics accurately....
Start your home business right now. Spend more time with your family and earn. Start bringing <80$> per hr just on a computer. Very easy way to make your life happy and earning continuously. Start here…....... https://www.Key70.com
60 fps will never be the standard for games on console other than competitive or fast games. Graphics sell games not frames so that will continue to be the priority.
I agree, developers could make most games 60fps this gen if they wanted to by sacrificing visual quality, world complexity, etc.
A lot of console gamers just don't get it. I keep seeing them ask for 60fps to be the standard next gen, but they don't actually seem to realise just how powerful the hardware will need to be to sustain it in EVERY game throughout the WHOLE generation. I have said it tons of times on here now, if you want 60fps throughout the whole generation, then you are going to need a brilliant CPU and GPU, and neither of these things will be cheap, especially if the target is 60fps at 4k! Even the most high end pc's struggle to sustain 60fps at 4k in a lot of the biggest games. If people expect this to be the standard next gen then they are living in a fantasy world. The only way this will happen is if the console's start costing double the amount they cost now, or if they lower the graphics quality by a massive amount. Are console gamers really happy to give up shadows, anti-aliasing, textures and everything else for 60fps? I don't think so. A lot of gamers who keep asking for this need to face reality. You're not getting 60fps in every console game, especially the big AAA games, it's just not realistic.
@segagamer that isnt true at all. a $600 gaming PC can do 1080/60 fps on 90% of games and look better than the console version.
I remember when gameplay used to sell games. Your statement is as forward thinking as Bill Gates statement that you'll never need more than 64K of RAM.
@evilstuie You can't even get the quote right. It was 1981 and 640k not 64k. Furthermore, Gates never said it, no proof he did (no citation from an actual time or place) and he fanatically denies every saying it but, don't let that get in the way of your point. It is similar to how quotes often get associated with people even though there is not any proof it being true or more so actual proof it actually ever did happen. Another famous example Marie Antoinette famously being associated with the quote "Let them eat cake". She never said it and would have been completely out character if she did and ignores the quote was well established years before (1789) when she supposedly did and associated actually with various other monarchs (e.g. a queen of Spain 1660). Point don't always believe something you have heard as a fact. When Gates has been questioned over the years he has always denied saying it. As for example (which is actually citable) from a symposium he answered students questions: QUESTION: "I read in a newspaper that in l981 you said '640K of memory should be enough for anybody.' What did you mean when you said this?" GATES ANSWER: "I've said some stupid things and some wrong things, but not that. No one involved in computers would ever say that a certain amount of memory is enough for all time."
@Shadowraiden Im guessing you missed the part where SegaGamer said "Even the most high end PC's struggle to sustain 60fps at 4K"
I dont know about "never"
144 fps and 2k
@Brett What are you smoking?
He’s right you know. 1920x1080 is 2k. The k is a measurement of horizontal resolution, 1920 rounds up to 2000. So 2k is 1080p. I always crack up when someone asks for ‘2k’ glad someone called you out.
I'm smoking weed. But 2k is still 1080p