-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Does some people still believe that 60 is not mandatory for next gen consoles?
- Thread starter Cloud-Strife
- Start date
Its just a tool for developers to use. I don't expect it to be fully utilised like on the PC.
Your statement was "Show me a £300 GPU that can play 4K games with Ray Tracing..."
If you're backing down on that now and not saying the ray tracing will be 4k quality then I'd say the RTX 2060 Super is already going for well under £400 on amazon.co.uk and the refresh next year should have something of comparable performance for under 300. This has ray tracing and is significantly faster than a 5700 even without counting next year's models.
A lot has changed since then. Back then 30FPS multiplayer was acceptable. Today it isn't. Back then single player story driven games didn't have 30/60FPS modes. Today many of them do. You have to be blind not to see that gaming industry is strongly heading towards higher frame rates and next gen consoles without CPU bottleneck will finally be that missing piece to make it happen.
Because the pro and x have sort of standardized giving the choice of an iq vs a performance setting I do think we will see a lot of devs continue that trend. So basically a 4k/30 target option and a 1080p/60 target option.
also given how good the scalers are in a lot of sets you really don't lose much going with the 1080option.
also given how good the scalers are in a lot of sets you really don't lose much going with the 1080option.
That's both bullshit and a bullshit response. I'm not asking for 8K and 144 fps. Just 60 fps at 1080p at the very least.
In a perfect world, yes I'd want that to be a mandate for certification. But I know that isn't fair. I'm just asking for devs to consider a (locked) 60 fps option.
It isn't a matter of it being an option as if it's something they hadn't considered. It's a matter of developers having the resources available (whether it be time, money, or manpower) to implement that. Why would that change now?
This has been a curious discussion, and some people have talked about the dilemma of having interest with newer consoles when they already have gaming PCs. I figure that along with resources available for developers, consumer interests and the continued existence of PCs, it likely won't be come the standard.
I am not sure why they don't prioritise 60fps. DMC 5 was 60fps and looked fantastic — but I know that's a linear game. My point is graphics are good enough where performance won't necessarily impact the game's looks to such an extent that people will discern the difference if the game had been 30fps.
It's not mandatory because most people don't care. Just like most people don't care about motion interpolation on TVs.
Depends on the game...
30FPS = double the processing power available compared to 60FPS.
So, unless it's DMC6, a Fighting game, or an FPS,
I'd rather see how the additional CPU power can be used.
(I'm probably in the minority though, since I almost always go for resolution over framerate in PS4 Pro games.)
30FPS = double the processing power available compared to 60FPS.
So, unless it's DMC6, a Fighting game, or an FPS,
I'd rather see how the additional CPU power can be used.
(I'm probably in the minority though, since I almost always go for resolution over framerate in PS4 Pro games.)
Not going to happen. AAA will still push 30fps unless it's a fast paced game. That's just something you'll have to accept or or move on to the PC.
Yeah. It's hard reading some posts with "60 fps or I'm out". People are clueless.
Being someone I never notice the difference between 30 and 60 fps, I don't care?.
Developers will always prioritize graphics, since it's better to sell something that looks pretty, than something that some (many? few?) people don't notice.
Developers will always prioritize graphics, since it's better to sell something that looks pretty, than something that some (many? few?) people don't notice.
People are not saying they want 4K native games with ray tracing at 60 FPS.
They're saying that 60 FPS is more important than any of that.
30fps is perfectly fine for a wide variety of games, though some devs have been finding even that tough to achieve.
Assuming most games aren't cpu bottlenecked when they're running at 30fps, I don't see why developers won't include graphics presets that'll let people choose 60 for lower IQ. All their trailers and marketing will still be the high IQ version so they won't lose anything.
Exception being games that make gameplay use out of real-time RT, e.g. for puzzles. But AAA devs are so bad at making puzzles I doubt they're gonna touch that.
Exception being games that make gameplay use out of real-time RT, e.g. for puzzles. But AAA devs are so bad at making puzzles I doubt they're gonna touch that.
As much as I would love a 60fps standard, I really don't see it happening.
30fps is "good enough" for the far majority of people and genres (outside of a few exceptions like fighting games and character action games). As a result it will continue to be the standard. Simple as that.
30fps is "good enough" for the far majority of people and genres (outside of a few exceptions like fighting games and character action games). As a result it will continue to be the standard. Simple as that.
Exactly. That's why the year's biggest game (also one of the better looking ones) COD:MW targets 60fps on all platforms
wait..
Nice strawman. Multiplayer focused fast paced games will, most of the time, focus on 60fps.
I'm firmly in camp ''let devs choose what they think is best''
And tbh if I expect 60fps in every console game, I wouldn't play on console (applies to next gen).
I definitely appreciate 60fps more but I have no problem playing at solid 30.
And tbh if I expect 60fps in every console game, I wouldn't play on console (applies to next gen).
I definitely appreciate 60fps more but I have no problem playing at solid 30.
Nice goalpost moving. So COD is not AAA? It doesn't have a SP campaign that's also 60fps?
Lots of non FPS games already have options to choose "performance" aka 60fps over "visuals" aka pointless native 4k. I expect many developers next gen to continue that.
What the fuck even is this post lmfao. Devs "vision" isn't a fucking thing. It's hardware dictated. Are you saying I'm going against Bungie's "vision" by playing Destiny in 120fps? 30fps is not acceptable on Zen 2 processors. If they don't have performance modes then good luck getting a dime from me.
You are complaining about not wanting to waste time in settings menus? Don't fucking do it then. Play the game out of the box. It doesn't waste any time at all adding performance modes. Jesus christ people are clueless and then spread this bullshit around.
Sorry, that's not how this works. Devs will focus on what they think it's better for their games, whether is fps or graphics. You can keep crying all you want, but they'll target 30fps when needed and you can play on PC if it's so important to you. Consoles are clearly not for you if you can't deal with the developers setting for that platform. Also, please, lower your tone, you can't talk to me like this.
Last edited:
Currentgen is too weak to deliver stable 60fps in most games even when graphics are turned down so performance modes are more hit than miss but I expect being able to choose and actually get 60 to become the norm eventually. It's fine if 30fps are fine for you, I'm not judging, but they aren't for me.
You set the tone by calling being focused on framerate an obsession and not healthy and generally acting like an ass trying to shut people down for wanting options that won't affect you. Which is exactly how it should work from now on with more and more games offering them. The whole talk about devs knowing what's best for everyone has always been bullshit, people need to stop being scared of choice, that's not healthy. And while PC is getting almost everything I'm interested in there are still some games for which consoles are the only option, would be cool to not having to deal with shitty 30fps.
You set the tone by calling being focused on framerate an obsession and not healthy and generally acting like an ass trying to shut people down for wanting options that won't affect you. Which is exactly how it should work from now on with more and more games offering them. The whole talk about devs knowing what's best for everyone has always been bullshit, people need to stop being scared of choice, that's not healthy. And while PC is getting almost everything I'm interested in there are still some games for which consoles are the only option, would be cool to not having to deal with shitty 30fps.
Yeah, 60FPS is better but solid 30 is fine. If devs decided to go solid 30 for better effects why not. I don't see this as "mandatory", it sounds like old PS games where every games has to be 3D.
I said what is better for the game, not for everyone. Please do not put words on my mouth.