• Now's your chance win big! Join our community and get entered to win a RTX 2060 GPU, plus more! Join here.

    Meet Stan Dmitriev of SurrogateTV on the Pi Cast TODAY! The show is live August 11th at 2:30 pm ET (7:30 PM BST). Watch live right here!

    Professional PC modder Mike Petereyns joins Scharon on the Tom's Hardware Show live on Thursday, August 13th at 3:00 pm ET (8:00 PM BST). Click here!

Is The Game Industry Dropping The 60 FPS Standard?

Status
Not open for further replies.

red77star

Honorable
Oct 16, 2013
230
0
10,680
0
Obviously two cancers of gaming industry called XBOX One and PS4 can't push a **** as far as games goes beyond 30FPS therefore I understand ******* this guys speaks of. At the same time PC Industry is going toward 4K on 60+ FPS which will not be achievable by ***** consoles in at least 4-5 years. 30FPS is unplayable no matter what type of game we speak of. I think Ubisoft finds themselves in a bigger problem and that is that PC game sale decimates Console sales but since they are committed to companies who made two **** boxes (XBOX, Play Station) they are worried to lose so much money having people not buy port **** running 30FPS. It would be costly for them to develop a game they it should be on PC Gaming and then redevelop same thing for **** cans which cannot push anything beyond 30FPS at 1080p. - message edited by mod, OP please watch the language.
 

Silent Ricochet

Distinguished
Jan 9, 2009
22
0
18,510
0
So basically, developers want to stop trying to achieve 60fps because of consoles. Am I getting this right? Because 30 fps in pretty much every game I play is the bare minimum of smooth gameplay. Battlefield at 30 fps? Horrible. Company of Heroes at 30 fps? Horrible. Films have motion blur, video games have stupid fake motion blur that detracts from the game. When I play a video game I want to feel like I'm a part of it, not like I'm watching a movie. Why have monitors and televisions that refresh at 60, 120, 144 and 240hz when these idiots want to limit their AAA titles to 30 fps? This just seems like an excuse so they can have an even, albeit worse, image quality and frame rate across all platforms.
 

icemunk

Distinguished
Aug 1, 2009
628
0
18,990
2
They're trying to set the bar lower, because 4K displays are becoming more and more common; but we don't quite have the horsepower needed with current mid-range GPUs, so if you can cut the frames in half and set that as a new standard, voila! Problem solved? (not really)
 

rawoysters

Distinguished
Jun 12, 2009
175
0
18,690
3
"At Ubisoft, for a long time we wanted to push 60 fps," Guérin admitted. "I don't think it was a good idea because you don't gain that much from 60 fps and it doesn't look like the real thing" .
Give me a break. You are catering to the console market, plain and simple. It's much easier to develop for and that's where the money is. They will try everything they can to spin this another way.
 

vmem

Splendid
if they drop back to 30fps because they want to have more detailed textures and push for 4K as a standard, then I don't mind (too much)

but this is obviously to save the Xbox One and PS4 from getting dumped to the roadside so yeah... curse you consoles!!! worse part is these consoles supposedly won't be refreshed for like 10 years
 

usertests

Honorable
Mar 8, 2013
31
0
10,530
0
I'm sorry but 30 FPS is too much. All video games should be framerate locked at 24 FPS to provide a cinematic quality experience.
 

anneoneamouse

Distinguished
Sep 5, 2011
18
0
18,520
1
Game performance comments from a level design director and a creative director? I'll bet Enzo Ferrari never once asked his paint-maker how fast a car needed to go.

AoN
 

dwatterworth

Honorable
Dec 5, 2012
1,535
0
12,460
341
Someone better get over to AMD and Nvidia super quick and tell them to not waste any more money on GPU development...

So games that 30 fps is acceptable on a supposed 'premium machine'; strategy, turn based games, solitaire.

I take that back on solitaire, those cards and pixel fireworks shoot out faster than 30 fps and sure do look nice and smooth at high framerates.

What a crock. Now that the new consoles are essentially PC's, shouldn't it be incredibly easy to develop the game to as high a quality as possible and then adjust the frame rates to match the hardware (in case of fixed hardware consoles).

Saying 30 fps lets you get the most detail in as possible doesn't make sense. It clearly would allow for more detail and effects on lower power hardware but it's not like the texture files, light maps etc will change other than being refreshed/rerendered more often when the frame rate goes up.

People don't want to game on a zoetrope.
 

zanny

Distinguished
Jul 18, 2008
214
0
18,680
0
because 4K displays are becoming more and more common
4k is not even on developers radar. They are targeting toaster machines under a TV that cannot handle 2006 visuals at 1080/60. The reason for this propaganda barrage involving false claims about 30 fps being anything probably because MS and Sony are bribing them to. They built low end computers and sold them as next gen and wondered why in order to make graphics look even comparable to modern PC titles the devs had to ruin the framerates and resolutions.

But 4k won't even be a thing next console gen in all likelihood. In the same way 1080p displays were out during the PS2 era, and then the 360 / PS3 were incapable of targeting that resolution, I expect the Xbox Zero and PS5 to be incapable of rendering to 4k as well, because even in four years it will be expensive to supply graphics hardware that will be able to handle it.
 

Sassysaurus

Reputable
Oct 9, 2014
1
0
4,510
0
Not regarding the few exceptions, current consoles can't even push 1080P at 30 FPS, so I can't imagine them getting to 4K by the time they get refreshed. And I don't even understand Amancio's comment about pixel density. Sure having detailed textures is nice, but you can only go so far with that without increasing your pixel density to allow for more detail. They're back pedaling on every single hot topic that the consoles are failing at and trying to justify them as the new standard for the industry while my computer that is 4 years old is running Shadow of Mordor on high at over 60 FPS just fine. Way to set the bar high for yourselves there Ubi.
 

gggplaya

Distinguished
Jan 27, 2011
963
70
19,090
16
I don't know what crack people are smoking. My first gaming video card was a 3DFX voodoo with 6MB of ram. Back then and up until only a few years ago, PC gamers struggled to get at least 30fps. If you got 30fps, it was very smooth cinematic like gameplay.

People have to realize that 30fps or 24fps is what movies are played at. All those bluerays, and dvds you watch are at 30fps.

60fps buys you absolutely nothing on slower moving games, like assassins creed which is in third person. Any detail lost is extremely indescernible.

Now first person shooters do see a slight advantage during intense action. But most people wouldn't even notice. So i actually agree with what Ubisoft is saying.
 

Neve12ende12

Honorable
Sep 24, 2012
31
0
10,530
0
Because as long as my Angry Birds is running at 1080P, 60FPS, it is clearly a way better and superior game when compared to AC: Unity.
 

skit75

Splendid
Are you saying you are bringing back game-play & replay-ability at the expense of eyecandy/graphics because that is not what I heard.

That spin was so hard, I feel like the guy in Spaceballs.... " how come nobody told me my ass was so big?"
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
Has there ever been such a thing as a "60Hz standard?" AFAIK, most games have two basic options as far as "frame standard" goes: whatever vsync for the attached output monitor(s) is or no sync where the game simply renders as many frames per second as the CPU/GPU will allow.

The closest thing to a new standard is freesync/g-sync which are the best of both worlds and have no specific update rate aside from the monitor's absolute maximum.
 

qlum

Honorable
Aug 13, 2013
195
0
10,690
1
I think the whole vsync standards may just go away next generation on console as the adaptive syncing amd pushed to a standard is probably also going into hdmi which in turn will mean consoles will get it. When that happens you may be seeing a standard of 45fps average our something along those lines. Personally on pc I never had too much trouble with screen tearing. and think 45fps is a nice sweetspot for less precise games.
 

Lmah

Honorable
May 3, 2013
472
0
10,960
87
Ubisoft is digging their own grave once again. I really wish PC gamers would stop supporting them one of these days since all they care about is console game sales.
 

jimhood82

Distinguished
Aug 23, 2009
37
0
18,560
8
@gggplaya - Even on my 3dFX Voodoo 3 3000, I got more than 30fps in most games. In Quake 3, it was good for 45fps (1024x768) to 60fps (800x600). With a bit of an overclock, it did even better. Half life was an easy 60fps @ 1024x768.

The games were there, the hardware was there. We have been gaming at 60fps for so long it feels like an insult to hear that game companies want to lock us to 30fps. Worse yet, this is also going to negatively affect the gaming accessories market. Why bother getting better gear, when they game simply cannot respond fast enough to keep up with it?

People are right - this is an attempt to cater to consoles, and find a way to get 1080P content on the next-gen boxes. Honestly, what I would do in their position, is continue back-porting to the old consoles, and make the games better on PC. Quit letting the consoles hold them back, make the same so UN-imaginably better on PC that MS and Sony have to re-think their strategy.
 

ezmo85

Distinguished
May 3, 2008
11
0
18,510
0
*Picard Facepalm* This is so frustrating... The sad thing is there are too many uninformed people who will buy into this garbage. *obligatory 30vs60.com plug*
 

Innocent_Bystander

Honorable
May 2, 2013
76
0
10,640
2
Modern hardware will run everything at 60FPS anyway. Those games that are locked to 30 will be hacked to run @ 60... I'm not sure why you guys are all up in arms. His comments apply to consoles.

Wenever I play my PS4 (or even my PS3 which isn't even able to push 720/30 most of the time) I don't really feel like I'm missing out because the controller is not a twitch-input device anyway.

Ultimately I agree with the guy as long as they make sure not to force a 30 cap on PC versions of their games.
 

chaospower

Honorable
Mar 8, 2013
66
0
10,640
1
Like some said before me, what he's saying refers to consoles and I can only hope it won't affect the PC versions of their games.
Basically what he says translates to "The consoles are too weak for us to have both 60fps and good looking games in high resolution, it's one way or the other, and we prefer good graphics rather than a smooth frame rate" so now they aim for 30fps instead of 60fps. I agree that in third person type action adventure games, 30fps doesn't bother me as much as it does in FPS games, so I for one agree with this decision.
That said, I obviously don't want my PC games locked on 30fps when my PC can do more.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS