Current in-game options force console players to pick between quality or performance when they want both. The next high-end hardware could finally change that.
Just give me the option for 60fps and I’ll be fine. Can’t stand 30fps with sluggish controls. The controller input is twice as responsive which to me is much more important than eye candy. And that’s coming from someone who craves graphics.
Was about to say the same. Devs just need to give us the option and most gamers will prefer the higher framerate option. But there are still those that will prefer the better gfx/res option too.
And those people would change their minds if they saw high refresh rates with a lower resolution. 1440p at 140hz with high time mid range settings not only plays better but looks better than 4k at 30 to 60 fps. Games move.. that is literally the trick to gaming... and how much clearer that image is will be due more to how fast it moves Vs resolution. Resolution is image size more than clarity.
@rude-ro no TV is gonna be native 140hz. Most aren't even 120.
Resolution and visuals over frame rate has always been a strange choice for me. I tried Ni-Oh at 30fps for like, 2 minutes, and switched back immediately. Did the same for The Last of Us Remastered. I will never understand that preference frankly, but hey, some people would rather a lower frame rate if it means they get more shadows.
Hardware limitations, parity between console versions, and most console users accustomed to 30 fps vs increased graphics setting, not including resolution, seem to have been the reasons for this lack of increase in visual information and much more fluid and better looking gameplay. Without the ability to experience 60fps+ some console users will continue to be ok with 30 fps. 343 did a great job of focusing on frame rate over resolution making the gameplay feel immensely satisfying in an fps.
As long as developers keep chasing photo-realism, 30fps games will exist. I would love a 60fps minimum standard, but I don't see it happening unfortunately.
Photo-realism is so over rated.
Lol, 60fps... Your standards are low as usual.
60fps is industry standard for TVs. Some TVs go as high as 120 fps, but not many. Framerates higher than 60 is pretty much a PC exclusive gaming perk. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see 120fps become the industry standard for TVs and consoles but the industry is weirdly obsessed with pixel counts at the moment.
@NapalmSanctuary Actually, in modern TV's the 120hz is the most common while the more expensive models have 240hz. 60FPS is garbage and not a framerate anyone should be 'fine' with regardless of resulution. I'll take rock solid 1440p @120fps++ any day over 4K or 8K. But yeah you're right about the industry being annoyingly obsessed with pixel counts. It's much easier to sell to clueless casuals which unfortunately means the majority of people out there.
This poor guy has a ton of down votes and he's speaking the truth.... Gameplay response will always be more important than graphics. It's not even a comparison.
Not sure why you're getting downvoted, everything you said is true. I can't imagine willingly choosing resolution over 60fps.
As long as a game controls well and feels good to play, I can do with both 30 or 60. It's about the game and its content, and while 60 is better, 30 certainly isn't a deal breaker. Most of the best games I've played this gen I've played at 30. Still, it depends on the game. For God of War, I wanted that crispness of the checkerboard 4K over the smoothness of 60 at a lower resolution.
Sony AAA games this gen have been 30fps or lower 80%+ of the times.
They should but will they? I would like to believe that Devs/publisher can finally push 60frames because games already look pretty especially with the upcoming hardware upgrade.
30fps isn't that bad with certain games
I agree with you, but even in those cases the games would still benefit from 60fps anyways. Performance has always been neglected in favor of graphical improvements generation after generation. It's high time we start seeing performance upgrades across the board now, in my opinion of course.
If you are playing sone thing like a turn based rpg or any thing that doesn’t require fast movement 30fps isn’t a big deal but FPS,TPS, Action games, Sports games or pretty much any thing else a higher refresh rate is better
Would benefit from 60fps of course but the reason you are getting 30 is because the graphics are bumped way up
Yeah, it's perfectly serviceable for a VN. FPS though? You want 60FPS if at all possible. On a side note, it just occurred to me that putting certain gamer acronyms side-by-side is a terrible idea. Regardless, you do not want to play a FPS at 30FPS if you have a choice.
problem is I don't think 60fps will be a standard for all titles at 4K resolutions. So that 4K/30 option is going to remain.
I'm willing to bet there are a lot of gamers who would prefer 1080P/60 over 4K/30. I don't see why they can't offer the option to choose either in games.
Yep. I'm one. My PC monitor is 1080p, by choice. 60 fps is not difficult at all at this resolution, with middling PC specs.
Well you lost one bet... I sure as hell didn’t buy a 4k lg oled just to play in 1080p.. I’m willing to bet that those that prefer 1080 is only because your tv is 1080p
Umm, no @XB1ps4. 30 fps is like a slide show compared to 60 fps and for games that require fast response time from me, I'll take 60fps at 1080p over 30fps at 4k any day of the week. And, yes I have a very nice 4k HDTV which shouldn't surprise anyone today.
@Xb1ps4: Speaking of losing bets. I have an LG C9 and I absolutely don't want devs to waste resources on native 4k. To be fair though, I'm not advocating for 1080p either. Reconstruction from 1440p and higher will be sufficient in terms of resolution and will leave a lot more recources for graphical fidelity and frame rate. I wouldn't look at resolution and frame rate as two unrelated issues. Both play a crucial role in how our brains perceive the displayed information. We're not talking about still images here, but an interactive gaming experience. The resolution limits how much information can be displayed in a single frame, while the frame rate limits how often this information gets updated. If we look at it as information/second it becomes clear that both of those factors play an important role. The problem is that we're maxing out on the resolution axis while mostly neglecting the performance axis. On top of that the frame rate also has a direct effect on the button-to-pixel delay, which impacts how responsive a game feels.
@Xb1ps4 - yes but you can still play the game at 1440p or 1800p and it will upconvert nicely and then give you that added framerate. I'd trade off a little fidelity for smoother gameplay. I have a C9 and an E6 as well, so I am a full supporter of LG OLED's as well. Beautiful TV's.
itll all be 4k 60 they ain't dumb least first party
Doubtful, sounds like resolution gate is still a thing.
Yeah....4k 60 is quite demanding......most aaa intensive graphic game will run 4k 30fps pretty sur about that.
30 fps never bothered me tbh. id rather have a stable and consistent 30 instead of up n downs. maybe its cause 60 just looks and feels weird to me. but thats just my opinion. its amazing for first person shooters tho.
It depends on the game. For racing/sports, fighting, competitive first/3rd person shooters, etc I do think 60fps is very important. However anything else, I leave it at the discretion of the developers.
Racing games, fighting games, and fps/tps (not to mention melee action games) is where higher frame rates is most important.
For me dropping 60 to 30 fps is like passing from dolby surround to mono
If I have never played the game at 60 fps, then 30 fps doesn't bother me too much. Once I've played at 60 fps, 30 fps feels like a slideshow. I think for me it is most important to have solid frame rates. I would rather have a solid 30 fps than a 60 fps that occasionally drops down to 30 fps (Link's Awakening, I'm looking at you).
I hope we still get some 30 FPS games because I want to see how far developers can push graphics too 33 ms per frame is a lot more time for graphics processing
60 fps will never be the standard for consoles cause graphics sell games. They'd much rather put that horsepower into graphics, physics, lighting, etc. Of course they'll continue to prioritize 60 fps for competitive and/or fast paced games. And imo thats how it should stay. I don't need super twitchy controls for something like Resident Evil 8 or Tomb Raider. The action in those games range from slow to medium paced and 60 fps would be a waste of bandwidth.
Eventually the limits will be imagination, not so much horsepower.
Never is a strong word
I’d like to have either 60 4K or 144 1080
I really wish they would. At least make stable 60 fps an option for all games at 1080p. There is no reason why they can't do that. Alot of games will greatly benefit with 60 fps. It's such a massive difference compared to 30 fps at 1440p or 4k.
agreed... tho im sometimes ok w/ it for more single player based experiences. it can make things feel more cinematic etc. esp w/ motion blur etc but also - people could just have the option to choose either or.. racing, fps, competitive games etc should all be 60fps... and 4k for gen 9
I don't think that the next gen will be capable enough to support 4k, 60fps and Raytracing at the same time in a game.
The choice alone is worth the admission price of a PC.
we should have the option yes.
There needs to be a standardized set of presets for game quality as well as options for resolutions. Those settings are what dictate FPS.
Just going to laugh at the disagrees from people who have no idea what they are disagreeing with.
Agreed. 60fps needs to become the new standard.
Skyrim Special Edition announced. "Amazing, I bet it'll be 60 fps!" :(
I recently got a 4K TV and if I have to have 30fps games to get 4K then I'm ok with that. Depending on the game of course.
I think we'll get more games with the option to choose between graphics or frame rate.
we should have native 4k and 60fps minimum this time around.
This is why I switched to pc, I have total control over how a game looks and runs. Plus mods.
If these machines can’t handle 60 then they better be $200.
i dont care how many fps it has as long as the game is well made
Higher stable frame rate = performance. Can't exactly call a game well made if it can't perform properly.
You can have a Game well made at 30fps that can perform properly so I dono what ur talking about
Already been used to 100+ FPS on PC, 8ms at 120hz/fps, 16 at 60hz/fps, 33 at 30hz/fps, 6ms at 165hz/fps, 4ms at 240hz/fps and 2ms at 480hz/fps. This is why 240hz+ is dumb IMO. Consoles will need dynamic resolution scaling or ned/lower textures to hold 60fps at 4K. I'll be sticking to 1440p high hz for a while longer til moderately more powerful GPUs can comfortably hold 80/90+fps in newer games at 4K.
I think 1440p and 60+ is the sweet spot right now. If new games can give us that option with freesync 2 I’d be happy for now. 120+ at 1080p and 30+ at 4K seems possible on the Series X and PS5. With Samsung and Microsoft being in bed together now, I’m really hoping the next gen consoles will pair beautifully with the next round of TVs coming out. 1440p and 60+ sounds fair to me.
There's no excuse at this point. They have the GPU power and finally a good CPU. And all this talk about 120hz support will mean nothing if the games still slug along at 30fps. I don't want to hear any crap from anyone about "cinematic" experience. But like I've said repeatedly, stop holding console gamers hands and treating them like kiddies, and just give graphics options in the settings as standard like we have on PC. Then the people who for whatever reason don't care about how the game runs, can turn everything up high, while anyone else can adjust it for better performance.
I don't agree at ALL!!! 30FPS if we're talking Naughty Dog or Insomniac for example ,then go,because it really moves supersmooth, I don't know how they do it but works perfectly for me for what there done so far.......with that said I don't mean that I don't want my games to run at 60FPS,because I do,but I don't agree that 30FPS should be left behind as long as developers CAN make things run smoothly at that framerate. That's my opinion.
Most TVs refresh 60 times per second. That was the case even before HDTV. 30 Hz is *half* the refresh rate, which means each frame is strobed twice (without changing position). This results in jittery motion. 30 fps has *never* been the correct frame rate for video screens. It was a compromise because of primitive gaming hardware. Those days are gone, and 30 fps should have gone with them.
Depends on the design.. I would’ve liked a better resolution for The Order but I wouldn’t have liked it being 60fps+...that cinematic feeling has its own allure if used correctly and can actually add to the immersion.
We're talking games here, not movies.
I have to agree with what is being posted by 90% of the people here. I think graphically we really have in a sense, hit a ceiling. a lot of television sets and systems do upscaling to the point where the difference in native 4K is [almost] negligible, but performance is really the forefront of improvement, and the standard needs to be raised and solidified. I think 60 frames per second should be the benchmark for everybody. The power is going to exist to do it.
Hit a ceiling? What console game did I miss that hit the “ceiling”
You're not going to see 8K this generation, hence the reference to "ceiling" You might see things that will graphically with Ray tracing and a few bells and whistles look somewhat better, but it's not going to be like the jump from HD the 4K, so they should(I think) prioritize performance.