PS5 Former Principal Software Engineer Implies Next-Gen Games FPS Could Be Constrained By HDR & TVs

PlayStation 5 former principal software engineer recently commented on next-gen games running at 30 FPS and the reasons behind it

[timotim]

ANY studios that dont provide at least a 60FPS option for their next gen games has failed...period. With the CPUs in these next-gen systems we finally have a chance to make 60FPS a standard. Going 30FPS only for next gen games would be the ultimate in "holding back" the generation.

[DrDeath]

Not gunna happen. Cause graphics. Nor does it need to necessarily imo.. Some games don't need more than 30 and some should be standard at 30. Driveclub is a good example of a 30fps game that had a better sense of speed than any 60 fps racer around. Poor animations on 30 fps can be terrible but smooth animations at 30 can look better than rough animation at 60

[Minute Man 721]

But you can tell the difference between 30 n 60

[timotim]

No excuse anymore. 60 needs to be the standard next gen. The CPU and SSDs ensure this. Devs can provide a 30FPS option all they want...but if they dont provide a 60FPS option along with that, they have failed...period.

Driveclub pushed as much visual flair as they could at the expense of frames. Its a track racer at the end of the day that doesnt run at 60FPS...that in itself is grounds for embarrassment. Every game deserves 60FPS...skipping half the frames will never be needed next-gen regardless of the game or genre...period.

[Babadook7]

For PS1, devs could choose between 30 and 60. Every gen since then has been the same. Its always going to be a mix of FPS when developers have a choice as they do with PS5. Whatever you can do in 60 FPS you can do twice as much in 30 (no matter how strong the system is). Therefore the choice will be there until a platform requires 60 at minimum.

[UnSelf]

You’re never ever going to get 60 FPS standard for all games for a very simple reason. Fps is used as a STORYTELLING DEVICE and not just for performance.

This is why movies are shot at 24, some are shot 30 and soap operas are shot at 60

[MWH]

"Some games don't need more than 30 and some should be standard at 30."

That's out-of-ass talk. There is a significant difference between 30fps and 60fps resulting a much better gaming experience and healthier too for some gamers.

Compare any game in 30fps and in 60fps and if you still prefer 30 then you're definitely in a minority to say the least.

[LOGICWINS]

"Fps is used as a STORYTELLING DEVICE and not just for performance."

That's like saying you prefer to cut your steak with a Swiss army knife because it has sentimental value to you....despite the fact that its clearly less efficient than using an actual steak knife.

Movies and TV shows are shot at a low FPS as more frames means more reels...which makes the filming process more expensive.

For gaming purposes, there's no excuse for the PS5 and Series X.

[Shane Kim]

There is no issue in a locked 30 fps game. If it drops below then ok. But a locked 30fps experience is perfectly playable.

[BenRC01]

Utter, utter nonsense

[TekoIie]

@UnSelf

Was TLoU's story ruined by 60fps on PS4? Was Quantum Dreams games ruined by 60 fps on PC? How about Alan Wake on PC? What percentage of games on PC have been ruined by allowing 60fps? Don't talk about the framerate used for movies when we're talking about video games.

[Imalwaysright]

UnSelf

Devs will do it because graphical fidelity sells. Insomniac was one the last AAA studios to make 60 fps games and they stopped making them because according to a research they made graphics were directly linked with better reviews and sales. Sales is the reason why devs will push for better graphical fidelity and they will do it at the expense of FPS and physics systems.

[starchild]

I have mixed feelings on this issue. On one hand, I love higher framerates and think it makes a big difference to the visual clarity in motion and the responsiveness of controls. On the other, I understand why developers target 30fps on consoles. Targeting 60fps in games instead of 30fps is literally like cutting the power of the console in half. Most devs will always choose to push graphics and other aspects over framerate.

And the PC is always there for people who care about framerate. If that option wasn't available I'd probably be advocating a 60fps minimum on consoles.

[Unspoken]

Don't need more than 30fps? The human eye cant see past 24?

Alright, 60 fps and 120 fps provide such a fluid motion to games that not only do they provide more information to you to interact with, it immerses you in the game much further. I tried a 30 fps game on my friends console and could not play it. It felt like I was moving in molasses and game me a headache.

As far as the article. The cheaper TV's that are unable to display full 4:4:4 color can always have HDR turned off as the TV will unlikely be able to have high enough nits to make a difference. FPS should not be sacrificed when there are so many other options to take to have near picture quality AND high FPS.

[Boxing1985]

You can always do more with 30fps regardless of how powerful consoles get. outside online competitive, i rather have 30fps with better game mechanics and interactivity than 60fps. its not about graphics v frame rate.

[FlavorLav01]

How do you get more “mechanics and interactivity” out of lower frames? Lower frames is good for higher resolutions. Interactivity feels way more immersive the higher the frame-rate. Play Doom Eternal on Nightmare mode then tell us 30 v 60 isn’t a game changer!

[MWH]

Wow! Since when game mechanics are hindered by higher framerate?

This show's how ignorant some gamers are about technology, and i'm not saying this as an insult but as an honest observation.

I think that some devs are at fault here too as they try to falsely justify fps caps and advertise it with lots of bs while many knows these are but excuses for laziness, poor optimization or simply hardware limitations.

[Obscure_Observer]

@timotim

Totally agreed.

[xX-oldboy-Xx]

So you're not interested in the big 3rd party showcase game ms 'showed' at their terrible 'gameplsy showcase'.

Ubi already come out and said it wouldn't be 60fps on a certain console.

I expect another flippity-flop, par for the course these days.

[MWH]

I absolutely agree, the 30fps offering is unacceptable in this day and age. No matter what some would say it is an undisputed fact that high framerate is a significant game changer and to say otherwise is outright shortsighted.

[LOGICWINS]

Agree wholeheartedly. Any game built from the ground up for next-gen consoles that isn't 60fps won't get my purchase.

If I want to play a 30fps game, I'll play on my Switch...and even THAT can run Bayonetta 2, ARMS, Smash Ultimate, and Mario Odyssey at 60fps.

There's no excuse.

[Imalwaysright]

The same could be said for current gen games or even last gen games. Devs could have given the option but they didn't and I don't see why that would change come next gen.

[timotim]

And it wont change if we dont speak up. If it continues now, its because WE have failed them. And I disagree...the CPUs in both Xbox One and PS4 (X and Pro as well) was already underpowered when the generation STARTED...their was really no way devs could provide "next-gen" visuals gamers expected while going above 30FPS on those weak CPUs in most games. Thats not the case this next-gen however. Devs now have top of the line CPUs and fast SSDs...better than anything out there at the start this time...this is while bringing top of the line GPUs as well. For the first time ever, we console gamers get to have it all. Amazing visuals but with the CPUs and SSDs to get over the 30FPS hump.

We cant say in one sentence how we want "next-gen" only games on a next-generation console that isnt held back by the previous generation, while in next sentence we support old generational framerates. If we gonna go next gen then go all the way. And please understand what Im saying...a game could have a 30FPS option all it wants...it just better be a higher 60FPS option to go along with that or its a fail! Period.

[Imalwaysright]

People are constantly speaking up. They speak with their wallets and those "words" are like sweet nothings for devs/publishers. Yes, CPUs were underpowered and that wouldn't stop them from giving the option if they wanted to. Few did, the majority didn't.

" top of the line CPUs and fast SSDs" wich devs will use to shove as many polygons into their games as they can.

[rainslacker]

These frame rate fanatics are worse than the people who are only attracted to good graphics.

I say let them be all persnikity. If they claim they won't play games at 30fps, let them go next gen without playing good games over something so stupid. I dunno how they managed to go years playing games as they are if it bothers them so much.

Saying we all need to demand 60fps or it won't change, as if all of us should care, or do care about it, when most people actually seem to not care that much, and never have. Graphics always means more to people, and the masses.

I can understand why people like it, and even why they would prefer it, but to say they won't play games because of it...that's just idiotic.

[Kaedro]

I have to agree. We reached a point where 60PFS should be a minimum requirement.

[jznrpg]

I just want good games . If it’s 30fps but an amazing game , fine with me . Devs are going to develop for their vision , and if 60 FPS makes the game lesser in AI/Physics/Detail etc they may choose 30fps . Without dropping frames and tearing etc it’s fine . I’m sure some devs will go for 60fps and achieve it and some will focus on more detail AI etc and may go for 30fps . There has never been a great game that I thought sucked because of 30fps. Now if it drops and lags and tears and you have pop in that’s different . But smooth 30fps is fine for many games

[Hungryalpaca]

lol “the CPU”. Hate to break it to you but unless it’s a high CPU intensive game such as one with a lot of destruction or AI calculations, the CPU barely does anything in terms of FPS.

[Keltech]

First time I agree with you on anything video games lol. I wouldn't go as far to say they've failed, cause you know that's all talk. I'm sure if the next Halo comes out at 30 FPS and you enjoy it, you're going to be eating your words.

[Vigant]

The fact that this comment has so many disagrees shows that console players are clueless.

[medman]

@timotim
Here's my thing...we've arrived at a point where both the ps5 and series x, and the games developed for them, should give the gamer the option. You can choose all the visual bells and whistles with a reduction in framerate, or you can choose to limit some of the effects to achieve maximum framerate. There is no reason in 2020 going forward for their not to be a choice.

[Bobertt]

Yes they have more power in the gpu and cpu but that doesn't mean next gen will provide constant 60fps. That would be true if the devs used the extra power to make games similar to current gen. But devs won't do that they will put that power into better graphics and more complex environments which will run similarly to how it does now 30-60fps. This is just speculation on my part since you cant truly compare the two but the 5700xt is what i think the PS5 gpu is the most similar to but PS5 gpu will be using the next gen RDNA 2 architecture from AMD. If rumors are to be believed the RDNA2 gpus can deliver around a 50% performance boost to RDNA 1. The 5700xt gets anywhere from 40-75fps on 4K games on Ultra settings so assuming a 50% boost we can hope to get 60-112fps. But thats for current gen 4k games not next gen games with ray tracing and all the assets they can include now. Even with console optimization most of those true next gen games would fall under 60fps right away if they were at native 4k with everything turned up. To ensure you could get constant next gen 4k 60fps you would need a gpu that costs probably the same if not more than the price of the consoles.

[Kumakai]

uhhh yeah... and tube tvs can't do hd.....
some older 4k tv's can't do 60fps and most tv's period can't do 120fps.
but consoles last for 7-8 years so pretty sure new tv's will come into ppl's lives during that time if they're clearly interested in upgrading their consoles.

my tv can do 4k/60/hdr/dolby vision already (no 120 fps but im not gonna put a lot of stock in that right now). My One X has performance options on many games already to run them at 60fps or unlocked (Forza MS, Forza Horizon, Gears 5, No Mans Sky blah blah blah

so... not too worried personally.

[JeffGUNZ]

Most new TV's have a refresh rate of 120 - 240 now. Even my old Samsung from like 8 years ago was 120 refresh rate. My newer QLED is 240. They are capable of that, but consoles will never be that strong to push games to that capacity.

[Hungryalpaca]

You need to be careful. A lot of the TVs have simulated higher refresh rates not native.

[JeffGUNZ]

My mistake, typed it too fast and didn't proof read. The TV I have has a 240 motion rate and a 120 native refresh rate. 240 would be insane for a tv at native lol. My bad, thanks for the heads up.

[AuraAbjure]

I highly doubt your 8 year old Samsung TV can do non- interpolated 120 Hz.

[ElementX]

I had a Sony Trinitron widescreen that could do 720p and 1080i back in the days of the OG Xbox. There were even some games that displayed at 720p back then.

[AnnaDea]

I bought a Lg65B9 teve recently for 2 reasons, best panel of 2019 and it has HDMI 2.1.

Here's the thing though.

PS4 Pro can show 4:4:4 4k 30 fps as max because of the max capacity of hdmi 2.0. You can though have 4k 60 fps 4:2:0 which is YUV420 as the options.

Because people having older teves doesn't really make the argument valid considering they can just show their max performence like with the PS4 with RGB and Yuv420.

PS5 should be shipped with hdmi 2.1.

[LightofDarkness]

You can get 4k 60 4:4:4, but not with HDR. No device outputs 4k 10-bit HDR at 4:4:4 yet. Not the biggest deal in the world really, it mostly just affects text aliasing.

[AnnaDea]

You can have 4k 4:4:4 HDR in 30fps, but not 60 fps on Ps4 Pro.

"HDMI 2.0 has a bandwidth of 18.0Gbps.

4K 60 4:4:4 (no HDR) = 17.82Gbps

4K 30 4:4:4 10b-HDR (no 60fps) = 11.14Gbps

4K 60 4:2:2 10b-HDR (no 4:4:4) = 17.82Gbps

4K 60 4:4:4 10b-HDR = 22.28Gbps"

[DaGR8JIBRALTAR]

C9 is the best panel of 2019.

[Jin_Sakai]

Agreed. Both my TVs are LG C9. Amazing sets.

[InLikeFlint]

It sure is. I had to sell a kidney for my 65 C9. I would have gone for a 77 C9 but wasn't prepared to sell my liver, nor commit acts of debauchery. Even in 2020 and beyond, it's no slouch.

It utterly destroys my 2016 Samsung KS8000. Movies & games on the C9 are a sight to behold.

[The-Matrix-has-you]

@Flint

I have a KS8000 too! I was eyeballing the C9 for a next gen upgrade! I’m going to wait a bit and see what Vizio comes out with though. The KS8000 has always had poor motion handling in my opinion. I would love and instant pixel response time like the C9.

[AnnaDea]

B9, c9 and e9 had the same panel.

C9 has 150 more nits in HDR though.

[UltraNova]

Rocking a B7 here still and I couldn't be happier. I'm not about to get a new TV for at least 2-3 years. 8K needs at least a decade before it gets mainstream. So the next logical buy for me will be a top of the line 4K HDR 120fps set, probably 2023's C model from LG. I'll get on the 8K bandwagon when consoles are able to run all games at that resolution without breaking any sweat (ps6 mostly probably).

[FanboysKiller]

The experience is hypothetical, once you see it for yourself you make the choice after that.

[phoenixwing]

M y tv is 4k 60 hdr 10 and I'm not upgrading until like a decade from now

[waverider]

Thats why when people Start talking about 120 frames for racers that 52 gamers got TV''s to play it...

[Jin_Sakai]

Proud to be one of those 52 gamers. Although I’m perfectly fine with 60fps. Can’t wait!

[TeamIcoFan]

Good thing I don't get triggered over 30 fps like some snowflakes on this site do.

[Kabaneri]

People on this site care about frame rates because they know about tech. The average consumer doesn't even know what a frame rate is.

[FlavorLav01]

Why does having a preference make someone a snowflake? A preference that’s obviously notable by enough people to be having these persisting debates. It makes a difference for many. If the power is available, why not have options that cater to large sub-sets of your customers? Do extra options hurt your feelings? Hmm, takes a lot of flakes to make snow....

[JeffGUNZ]

Agreed. I will never play on console, except for anything Naughty Dog makes, again after building a high end PC. Games like Destiny and COD feel like completely different games from console to PC. No way I am ever going back to playing a game at 30FPS with no FOV adjuster when I am playing games at 144FPS, ultra settings, with max FOV.

[rainslacker]

Having a preference is one thing. Going around saying they won't play games that aren't 60fps, or acting like any game that isn't 60fps is less of a game, is what makes them "snowflakes". Although, I'd say just unreasonable and probably just making something out of nothing.

[Fishy Fingers]

Some comments on the site are f***ing ridiculous... LOL Ico. Never grow up...

[JeffGUNZ]

When you play a game like Destiny on console at 30FPS then play it on PC at 144 FPS, you'll understand why people care about it a lot. I much rather game at 1080P 144FPS then 30 FPS on my Xbox One X on my high end Samsung QLED 4K HDR TV. Until you experience the difference first hand, it's hard to really see how mindblowing it is. I felt like I have been gaming for most of my life in the stone age when I was on console.

[silenthillstrangler]

What a crock of shit. These consoles have been designed with the future in mind.

[RamRod88]

60 fps is a nice addition, but I don't personally think it's a deal breaker if a game doesn't have it. Granted, I'm not a complete graphics whore and as long as the games are locked at 30, 60, whatever. I'm okay with it. I will say, if the game has multiplayer, 60 fps is ideal. If it's just single player focused, I'm okay with 30, or if 30 is single player and 60 is multiplayer, I'm cool with that too.

[Veneno]

FPS is a huge deal. 30fps is like " I wish I was in this world".

60fps " I AM in this world"

If you're a From Software fan I encourage you revisit Dark Souls one and two on PS4. They are very different experiences. Or if you like Last of Us do the same comparison. I think people ignore FPS because they don't take the time to compare it. But with all the remasters we got this gen it makes it easier to do these comparisons.

[FlyingFoxy]

Tbh there are advantages even above 60fps, it tapers off when you start passing 120.. but even 80-90 feels and looks smoother.

30fps = 33ms frame time, 60fps = 16ms frame time, 120fps = 8ms frame time. 60 more FPS for half the frame time, after that it starts getting stupid like needing 240fps to hit 4ms frame time.

[RamRod88]

I prefer 60 overall for sure, but certain games don't need it. Hack and slash games are way better in 60 i.e Dark Souls, DMC5 that require timing with combat. Fight games of course need it and First Person Shooters are way better.

[BrainSyphoned]

PC is plugged into my monitor with a display port PS5 will be plugged into it with a HDMI cable. 144hz monitors are cheap and amazing. Better color than you will ever see on a big box store tv.

[Magog]

I played TLOU remastered recently and I found 30fps to be more "real" and less video gamey.

[GOULDYBOBS]

Console gamers have been banging on about 4k 60fps for years. Now after nearly a decade of promises, it's the TVs fault

[LamerTamer]

They should allow a setting for 1080P and 60 FPS. 4K is a waste of resources and it is not as noticeable as a low frame rate from the normal TV viewing distance anyway. 4k looks slightly crisper but checkerboard upscale and 60FPS is a bigger gain.

[Tex4242]

Everyone on here saying if it's only 30 fps they wont get my money. Well I guess you wont be playing many next gen games then. Especially in the first couple years. I unfortunately think most games will still run at 30. I hope im wrong, but we'll see.