Is The Game Industry Dropping The 60 FPS Standard?

[drapacioli]

Well, as long as physics are rendered at 60fps when it matters, I don't care if the actual graphics display at 30fps. 30 is enough to provide smooth animation without seeming too artificial. The only time I would say you need 60fps is on really high precision games like fps's and fast-paced sims (like racing games, for example). Otherwise if precision control isn't necessary there's no absolute need to render more than that.

 

[Guest]

No need to get mad at Ubisoft. They're forced to either make graphical cuts to their game which would affect their artistic vision, or cap it at a lower fps so consoles can run it. The problem's in the hardware not the software. Saying more than 30 fps looks bad allows them to maintain a stance that asserts graphical competency without saying anything negative against the console gaming industry.

 

[Nesterowicz]

30fps..... is enough... ohh yea, so what happens when the overhead is maxed out on that hardware? 15 fps? 10 fps results....

They are afriad that PC is to dominant , and wants to even out the differences.. terrible...! There is a reason why i dont use my PS3..... i have a PC! and i actually buy games via steam & origin.

 

[maddogfargo]

No, I want 60-75 FPS in all my titles.

 

[Joseph DeGarmo]

In games like this, we rather have the lifelike 60-120 fps motion in games to make them look more realistic with the highest graphical fidelity in upcoming games like Batman Arkham Knight and Battlefield Hardline. *pets his GTX 970* There, there, your time will come to shine.

 

[ezmo85]

While there are those who have the opinion that 60fps is only necessary for FPS, I for one prefer it everywhere. I finally played Dark Souls this year, and after playing it for a while at 30fps, I found the 60fps unlock in DSFix. To me it was such a blatantly smoother experience at that point, even though it is a purposefully slower, 3rd person RPG. Seriously, 60fps is such a better experience in every situation I've encountered, it should be the gold standard. And just because we own PCs doesn't mean we won't be included in this trend to lock the games at 30fps. There have already been multiple examples including one of the recent Need for Speed games, Dead Rising 3, as well as the upcoming The Crew and The Evil Within. And I'm sorry, but having to edit config files or use hacks to unlock the framerate is unacceptable in this day and age.

 

[nikoli707]

i have seen 96fps 1080p film on a 120hz screen… i thought it was beautiful. the hobbit was 48hz i believe which is half that. i understand hdtv will not be able to sustain 96hz/96fps at 4k for quite a long time, let alone 1080p. but i do think if people give bluray quality filmed 96 frames a second a change, they would get used to it and realize this whole "film look" thing is a bunch of crap.

as for pc games like battlefield dropping to 30fps, it will never ever happen. if anything 240 frames per second at 4k will be the next standard in about 7 years.

 

[ilhazard]

They aught to push in-game graphics, AI, and other in-game assets to the point that PS4 can just barely render it at 480p, 30fps. Then, PC gamers can reap the benefits of the increased game quality, but render it at 2160p, 120fps using near-future hardware advances.

 

[Happhazzard]

I payed over $700 for a graphics card to squeeze out every last fps I can.
Not "all 30"!

 

[leeb2013]

This generation of consoles with low end hardware has done more damage to the pc game market than ever before. First it's the graphics quality which is artificially limited to be no better than console, now it's the frame rate. Add in some games which can't run on 3 monitors and horrendously optimized console ports and developers are basically making it pointless having a gaming pc. Clearly they have been paid princely sums of money by ms and Sony to do this.

What's the point in having amazing new gpus from nvidia and amd when new games need such weak gpus. This is nothing to do with improving graphics on pcs, we already have the hardware waiting. They just want to ensure consoles look as good as pcs. Why the hell can't we decide what graphics settings and fps we want, rather than forcing us down to console level.

 

[dragonsqrrl]

Wow they're still trying to say this? I thought Ubisoft backpedaled on this argument after practically every member of the PC master race completely dismantled it. I guess they chose to just disregard all that.

To paraphrase Ubisoft's whole argument: 'resolution is just a number' ... lol.

 

[aule10]

Sad, Oh well as long they don't limit the FPS for computers. they can handle high FPS and give the same feel. Console OFC. Can not.

 

[waethorn]

If they could do motion blur properly, 24FPS would be all you would need.

 

[jscynder]

60 or higher should be maintained so people with slightly older systems, like my wife, can still play the game without it turning into a slide show.

 

[soccerplayer88]

Damn and this is coming from Ubisoft.

Consider my hype level for The Division lowered...

 

[skit75]

If they could do motion blur properly, 24FPS would be all you would need.

Probably true for movies. No need to downvote him for that. Bluray is delivered in 1920x1080p @ 24FPS.

This is very acceptable to our eyes for movies and HFR(48FPS) almost appears too life-like. In video games however, I would agree with another poster in saying we don't to feel like we're in a movie while playing a game.

There are a few games I would allow exception for..... games made from movies and games like Max Payne where a cinematic effect IS the game. Other than that, let the hardware be the limitation.

 

[The_Icon]

I have read this and been raging all day about this. I mean, even the deepest of trolls can't be this stupid? I wish these guys get fired for attitudes like this.

 

[coolitic]

A better motion blur can make it look cinematic without forcing us to use crappy 30 fps.

We should all be moving to 120hz/144hz when we can.

 

[Priox]

I can't be the only one who sees how great this is. Sure this is probably because of consoles, but it's only consoles that are going to suffer for it. If what this guy says is true then game makers are going to pour on the textures, the particle effects, the lighting, etc. in all their games. Consoles will only be able to render at 30fps or less and the devs will say, "Meh, it's the new standard." But on PC, suddenly your 3-way SLI GTX 980's will have something to sink their teeth into.

PC gamers will get all the extra graphical goodies brought by the sacrifice of console framerate, and will still be able to hit 60fps+.

 

[The_Icon]

How stupid do they think we are? I mean console gamers can swallow it, but how on earth can they make us PC Gamers deal with it? The nerve...

 

[turkey3_scratch]

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.

Actually, you probably will not believe me but Mario Kart 8 on the Wii U achieves a constant 60FPS at 1080p on a $300 console.

 

[The_Icon]

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.

Seriously, who is this guy ?Talking nonsense, comparing the requirements of a passive medium like film to that of an active medium like a game.

 

[turkey3_scratch]

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.

Seriously, who is this guy ?Talking nonsense, comparing the requirements of a passive medium like film to that of an active medium like a game.

I gotta go with gggplaya on this one. I would rather risk framerate for the possibility of achieving much better graphics.

 

[The_Icon]

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.

Seriously, who is this guy ?Talking nonsense, comparing the requirements of a passive medium like film to that of an active medium like a game.

I gotta go with gggplaya on this one. I would rather risk framerate for the possibility of achieving much better graphics.

WE HAVE BETTER HARDWARE, constantly CHANGING HARDWARE. We can push details, more pixels, more fps with little compromises unlike those potatoes.

 

[Christopher1]

Personally, I see the difference between 30fps and 60fps on that one website. Is the difference enough that I would pay 2 times what my current gaming class PC costs to get that? Fuck no.