"Halo is for everyone. We can confirm #HaloInfinite multiplayer will be free-to-play and will support 120FPS on Xbox Series X. More details will be shared later!"
Ok this is awesome. 120fps on console is gonna be insane.
I rather have stunningly gorgeous graphics and effects instead of sacrificing good stuff just so they can hit 120fps ...
To each their own. I would rather lower resolution and higher fps in a shooter especially for multiplayer.
If you have a setup that supports it then it’s a good trade off, I’m set on my PC but I haven’t looked into how many TVs support higher frame rates, hopefully they include some options for higher fidelity on console for those with 60hz panels.
Because 120fps isn't "good stuff" Have fun at 30fps then, as blurry as it is.
The game will have different graphical options to choose from. I'm sure they are well aware not everyone has the right tv for 120fps.
120fps waste of resources and bad prioritizing.. Focus on 4k 60fps and good graphics.. Free to play will hurt the franchise imo
@Marquinho "This will attract hordes of PC gamers to Halo." It's already coming to PC, and PC gamers don't have a framerate cap, lol..
@Yi... well in the case of this game, you get both. 4k 60fps for SP and 4k 120fps for MP. And yes i do mean what I say. People dont really think the game is going to ship just like the demo do they???
They didn't say, but they'll probably have different settings is my guess
Clearly you don’t play alot of shooter if you prioritize graphic over fps.
@bouzebbal Go listen to the ps4 fanboys crying not to be matched with pc players on call of duty with 120 fps lol. They are crying its not fair they have faster response times lock them to 90 fps they are crying on the forums about it lol. So they got activison to let them turn it off.
for competitive FPS graphic isn't very important take CS as an example
We have had two generations now where devs went graphics over performance and I'm over of it. Tired of the sluggish console games. Make 120fps the standard.
You will have to wait and see what the difference is. I think you would notice more in single player because you have more time to take in the scenery. In a multi player it's more fast pace because you are trying to avoid getting killed by other players.
I’m assuming this is for multiplayer only. That’s how I read the quote: “multiplayer will be free-to-play and will support 120FPS ” Still a nice feature.
You will never have stunningly gorgeous graphics in competitive multiplayer, you need frame rate over anything else.
The only thing ps5 has is a tech demo and we havent forgot the so call toy story graphics of ps 3 tech demo that never happened lol
Nothing is without tradeoffs
The only issue I see with this is that the vast majority of 4KTVs don’t even support 120Hz. Great for those gaming on a monitor or capable TV.
Also higher frame rate give a huge advantage in multiplayer as per Linus Tech tips video.
Most of the Samsung QLEDs all have 120Hz panels, this is also the case for LG OLED and Sony OLED TVs as well. Granted these are higher end TV's, but they also aren't in insane price ranges where it can't be a purchase this holiday
I think it is getting more popular. I bought a Vizio P55 F1 almost three years ago and it has 120fps support on one of the hdmi.
@Bruh there is a large number of 120hz panels yes. The problem is unless you specifically bought a 120hz TV in the past 18 months or so with HDMI 2.1 features then they will only supports 120fps up to 1080p, not 4K.
I went back to 60fps and i got motion sick from how slow and unsmooth it was compared to 165+ screens and i dont get motion sick, you cant go back once you see it.
@edwardmde many tv's do not have native 120hz and also as you mentioned, specially not in 4K. Only if you have bought highend tv past two years you are good. If no, then you would need to buy a new one.
Problem with this is that a lot of console owners play on TV. And a lot of them at 60-90hz. So they are taking a hot graphically for a group that really won't get to utilize the FPS. Also I feel bad for the 60 fps players when they go head to head with the 120 fps players.
It won’t be that bad, 60 vs 120 isn’t nearly as big a difference than 30 to 60. At that point the only main difference is the slight input advantage. Considering halo isn’t an esports style shooter where literally every frame can make a difference (for the pros), I think it’ll work out just fine
It’s funny cuz everyvery one was complaining that people should focus more on getting FPS up rather than just improving the graphics and then someone finally makes that possible with still improved graphics (might not be pushing the generation graphically but still an upgrade) people are saying to focus more on graphics and not FPS... I think this is great news, it’ll be so buttery smooth
It's a continuous flip flop narrative.
I'm more curious at what point enough is high enough. I see mention of 8k from time to time, and while that may be desirable my new 86" screen, it would be overkill on anything 65" or lower....which will be the vast majority of screens. 4k on .y screen looks great at that size, and 1080 content looks perfectly fine with the tvs upscaling. Computer graphics tend to be sharper than tv or movies though. For a while now I've been listening to 60fps being where frame rate should be at or else the game is unplayable. Now I see some people saying that 120fps is better, and that's worth striving for. The last part is fine, but there would be a lot of sacrifice to the graphics in that case. While for online games that may not be as important, quality graphics do make seeing things easier than what gain youd get from going from 60 to 120. Just seems that the demands for what should be the expected are wildly varying and almost changing daily, with lots of excuses should things not meet those expectations.
360 graphics in 120 fps isn't that impressive.
Sadly native 120hz televisions are still very rare. Most claiming the capability do so via 60hz with interpolation.
Can play Minecraft on 120fps why not Halo? Not much gfx difference
this was cute
Will it have Microtransactions though
Its official, all games will look like one s games, one s 1080p, x will run 4k 60/30, series x 4k 120. Thats why all the games looked like ass. Series x is crippled by the one s as I suspected.
So the game will be less than $60? $40 perhaps?
That depends, are single player-only games less than $60?
Depends on the perceived value of the game.
Kept at $60 to incentivise the investment into GamePass more likely
I'm surprised they went F2P for that very reason. MP Halo would be one of those things you could get included with GamePass
LOL considering Halo games tend to have 2-3 times the content of a regular game on average, $60 would be fair for just the campaign. Specially if it's double the size of their last 2 games, as they are claiming. But realistically it's probably going to be more like COD in the sense that one or two modes will be free to play, like COD Warzone, and it's own warzone+forge+custom games+firefight modes will be part of the main package.
60 is applied to a lot of games nowadays regardless of content. Some games with massive amounts of content arent more expensive than games with what may not even be the bare minimum of acceptable content. The halo campaign will probably enough to be considered acceptable though. The series never slouched, and this one is open world with more side stuff to do apparently.
Why should it be less than $60 just because it doesn’t have multiplayer?
I don't know... All the other Halos were $60 and they DID have multiplayer, so...I guess we'll see
It's going to be $60. Even with the multiplayer being f2p, it will have Forge(already confirmed) and at least some other mode like Firefight or Warzone.
120fps is awesome, but it will come with a significant cost to the visuals and most will have to upgrade their TV's (and possibly receivers) to use it. Also I do wonder how much of an advantage the higher frame rate will give to those who can use it, could it be deemed unfair for competitive FPS games in the same way that KB/M is VS controllers often is?
Yeah, and no mention of what resolution it would be running 120fps? I think having better resolution would be more beneficial than having that high of a framerate.
Confirmed 4k 120fps already
@GamerRN Citation needed. Everything I found about it only says 120 fps with no mention of resolution. Their own site will only say 4k/60 for the campaign. https://www.halowaypoint.co...
Its upto 4k, 60fps for single player, means its reconstructed, or checkerboard, whichever name you prefer, that means the multiplayer 100% wont be 4k 120fps. Time to start being realistic.
No thanks in multiplayer give me frame rate over resolution any day of the week.
for online multiplayer frame rate is key unless u dont mind being a step behind in reaction time etc
Can't wait until the gen finally gets going, and most games end up not going to 120fps, and then people stop acting like 60 or now 120 fps is the end all be all of what next gen should be about. I've never seen so many people find so many reasons why a game isn't playable as I have over the past year or two. It's either graphics, resolution, frame rate, or visual quality. It's always something, and people acting like if it doesn't meet some magical target number, it's a fail.
"over the past year or two" 😏 You must be new to gaming
People have always talked about that stuff, but I've never seen so many act like if a game doesnt meet some number they have in their head, that they consider it unplayable. This is mostly seen in fps talk nowadays, but I've lost count of the number of people who say they wont play a game unless its 60fps. I know its BS from a lot of them, because I know they're console gamers, and so few games hit that target it means they wouldnt be playing many games. Unfortunately all these things tend to be disparate between people and groups, and some people go too far to act like what they want is the only thing that matters, and unfairly criticize games that dont meet their requirements.
yeah its called next gen features...if you dont have the TV you wont be playing at 120fps anyway.
What a stupid priority! Make it 60fps and make it look better than a 360 game!
The single player is 60fps, the 120 is only for multiplayer, it really doesnt explain why the campaign looks so bad, it will be used as a defence though, that much you can count on.
Campaign looks like a$$ because the assets are horrible looking
It does, I didnt expect it to look so current gen and have all the load issues so close to launch, but it does and that's that, theres some polish time left but not much, I dont think it will make or break the game to be fair, as long as it's fun for the fans that's all that matters really, some of the excuses for why it looks the way it does do make me scratch my head though, its cross gen, that's the reason lol.
That would imply the MP would look worse. Granted, things like raytracing would go underappreciated in MP where you're more focused on shooting other people.
I mean, it could, and probably will have less particles etc going on, I dont want that to be the case but it cant look any better than the single player if its running at double the frames, no way at all.
Yeah, I mean, anyone who games on PC knows that's the cost:benefit of going from 60fps to 120fps is pretty one sided due to diminishing returns. In other words, 120fps will not outweight the current gen looking graphics. The only people that really care about 120+fps are competitive gamers and pc build enthusiasts. The impact of going from 30fps to 60fps is night and day, 60 to 120 is far smaller.
Not for people that prefer gameplay over graphics, especially if it's multiplayer. You will still be able to play the game at 60fps and the campaign will still run at 60fps.
So Microsoft should listen to you (a random Internet bro) instead of attempting to duplicate the proven success of Fortnite....the biggest and most lucrative video game phenomenon in the past decade...that happens to look like a 360 game?