Next-gen has to mass-transition to 60fps

I would say the iterative consoles took a step towards this. Devs adding options to play the game, usually labeled as performance mode or resolution mode, is the best thing about these consoles. Let’s hope next gen keeps supporting the idea that gamers would like to have a choice in the matter if you’re targeting 30fps for your game.
 
I don't even mind 30fps if it's actually locked to a solid 30fps. The worst shit ever for me is when a game is just bouncing endlessly between like 20fps and 40fps, which is a shitload of console games. Bloodborne's core gameplay is based around fast-paced parrying, and despite being on exactly 1 hardware configuration it felt totally unstable.
 
I actually do want 60 FPS for my games. Even if devs using 30 FPS as the norm due to wanting that filmic look.

It's definitely possible to achieve that with 60 FPS but I guess nobody wants to experiment that much. However, I'm with you OP we'll absolutely see a full transition to it.
 
*Yawn* This tired thing again.

The vast majority of people aren't used to having a choice.
The vast majority of games won't give you a choice. Most developpers choose IQ over FPS. It has been like that since 3D games exist and frankly I don't see why this would change.

It's good to have hope, don't get me wrong, but realistically you should be prepared for yet another round of 30 fps games.
 
I think some people are assuming that devs could always hit 60, but choose not to just because, for no reason at all.

It's a trade off. It has been like this since the earliest consoles and arcades since the 80s, and will continue.
 
IMHO; not every game needs to be 60fps. There’s a certain aesthetic to a 30fps game. That filmic look and feel. It’s purely cinematic. With 60fps; it looks like you’re looking at something live and I wouldn’t want that in every game. Not every game needs that! Don’t get me wrong, if the option was there it would be nice to cater to our preferences.
 
I would settle for stable 30fps at the least.

And you know this based on...what exactly?
IIRC, Insomniac games in an interview stated that in their findings from the sales of R&C Tools of Destruction (which ran at 60fps) that 60fps does not net additional sales over 30fps counterparts and that people tend to gravitate towards richer visuals. Of course, personally, speaking I would prefer 60fps but having played games with HQ motion blur running at 30 fps (Horizon, Mad Max, TO1886, Uncharted 4 and LL etc) makes a marked difference in perception.
 
Isn't this really a 1st party discussion, mainly Sony and Nintendo and the odd 3rd party console exclusive? What I find odd is Nintendo actually has quite a few and their hardware is usually the weakest.

Most marketing comes from console games and graphics are easier to advertise. So the answer is the same old same old for next gen.
 
Every gen... no, it won’t happen. If you want that frame rate constantly, play on PC. Consoles will always have tradeoffs and people will usually rather go with prettier visuals.
 
You can't honestly think most gamers care about the framerate, do you?
Show people COD, LoL, BF, FIFA and fortnite at 30 FPS and they will instantly realize something is wrong.

Because thats what most people play.

At least most MP games Made the jump to 60FPS. Nos we just need to wait for SP. Hoping "performance mode" become a standar.
 
* Yawn *

No, the vast majority of people truly don't give a shit. If given the choice of 60fps or better graphics I am willing to bet money that most will pick better graphics.
The vast majority of games won't give you a choice. Most developpers choose IQ over FPS. It has been like that since 3D games exist and frankly I don't see why this would change.

It's good to have hope, don't get me wrong, but realistically you should be prepared for yet another round of 30 fps games.
I think some people are assuming that devs could always hit 60, but choose not to just because, for no reason at all.

It's a trade off. It has been like this since the earliest consoles and arcades since the 80s, and will continue.
Please read the OP before replying to the thread. If you don’t understand the topic ask others questions.

The OP explains that technology and the realities of game development are alligning in such a way that we are on the brink of 60fps becoming the norm next gen.

This current generation has already seen a shift in this direction. Halo, Battlefield, Gears of War and Uncharted multiplayer, Resident Evil, MGS5, all Codemasters racing games. They’ve all gone 60fps this gen despite being 30 in the prior generation. This trend is going to accelerate next gen.

This isn’t a debate as much as a simple statement of fact.
 
I would settle for stable 30fps at the least.



IIRC, Insomniac games in an interview stated that in their findings from the sales of R&C Tools of Destruction (which ran at 60fps) that 60fps does not net additional sales over 30fps counterparts and that people tend to gravitate towards richer visuals. Of course, personally, speaking I would prefer 60fps but having played games with HQ motion blur running at 30 fps (Horizon, Mad Max, TO1886, Uncharted 4 and LL etc) makes a marked difference in perception.
Yes, I’m familiar with that Insomniac ‘study,’ which was just a poorly executed Internet survey with a bad case of selection bias.

If there were a study of people being presented a game at both 30fps and 60fps, only for most to say they prefer 30, then that would be something.

Without that, the tired “nobody cares about framerate’ line is both ignorant and (frankly) idiotic.
 
Nobody cares about 60 frames per second. The folks who are complaining about it constantly are the super, ultra minority. Nobody cares. Play games. Have fun.
 
Yes, I’m familiar with that Insomniac ‘study,’ which was just a poorly executed Internet survey with a bad case of selection bias.

If there were a study of people being presented a game at both 30fps and 60fps, only for most to say they prefer 30, then that would be something.

Without that, the tired “nobody cares about framerate’ line is both ignorant and (frankly) idiotic.
Maybe the thing they should have said is that not enough people care about 60 fps for it to be seen as a viable option to sacrifice visuals for stable 60 fps. And with Spider-man being a wildly successful hit running at 30 fps that I have not seen anyone complain about the fps about I can't say they are wrong.
 
Seriously, though. You want 60fps in majority of your games then think about investing in PC gaming. Console gaming will not always retain 60fps in all their games, even when they do the hardware revision. Graphics is top priority.
 
I whole-heartedly agree OP, but it's never going to happen. It's impossible to market FPS.

Nobody cares about 60 frames per second. The folks who are complaining about it constantly are the super, ultra minority. Nobody cares. Play games. Have fun.
Super, ultra minority? Nah. Fighting games and racing games are almost always 60 FPS for a reason. There's a huge portion of gamers that care about FPS.
 
Maybe the thing they should have said is that not enough people care about 60 fps for it to be seen as a viable option to sacrifice visuals for stable 60 fps. And with Spider-man being a wildly successful hit running at 30 fps that I have not seen anyone complain about the fps about I can't say they are wrong.
JStevenson even said recently that that study was old and these days their targets vary on the game and hardware that they are aiming for, mentioning the VR projects in particular.
 
Some games are fine with 30fps and I wouldn't mind trading frames for fidelity. Fast paced games that aren't sports, racing, action, shooterfighting. Like some adventure and board games are perfectly fine at 30fps. What's important aren't at the frames are stable and are locked at 30ps vs 40-60fps jumping every where.

Anyways, devs know better and the pressure for high fidelity is always there. Despite a much better could leap next gen, we will continue to see 30fps, but perhaps less than this gen.
 
I whole-heartedly agree OP, but it's never going to happen. It's impossible to market FPS.



Super, ultra minority? Nah. Fighting games and racing games are almost always 60 FPS for a reason. There's a huge portion of gamers that care about FPS.
The vast majority of gamers don't even know what 60 fps is. Dorks like us who post on video game message boards do. That's it.
 
Personally I'd rather see more effects, more detail, better lighting, better shaders, more objects on screen etc vs a blanket "all games must be 60fps" requirement. Does 60fps look great? Yes. Is it required for me to enjoy a game? No.

It benefits some game types for sure, but there are definitely other things I'd rather devs put the resources behind vs strictly requiring a higher frame rate.
 
After playing 100+ FPS for the past couple of months on PC, I'd be extremely, extremely peeved if Sony (and Microsoft, to a much lesser extent) don't hit a 60 target.

For me, give me all of the effects, lighting, shadows, and detail along with the frames. What a difference it makes!
 
It'll never happen, and should never happen.

What should happen next gen is all games should have Gameplay/Balanced/Graphics options. Everyone wins.

More choices for the consumer are a good thing. Yes the consumer can be stupid but that's not always the case. The Pro and X1X came out and people had no problem deciding the settings in games that allowed it.

60fps reminds me of soap opera effect on TVs. 30fps with proper motion blur ftw.
Does COD feel like a shooting soap opera? :P
 
Seriously, though. You want 60fps in majority of your games then think about investing in PC gaming. Console gaming will not always retain 60fps in all their games, even when they do the hardware revision. Graphics is top priority.
If the console manufacturers decide it would be a key advancement to bank on for next gen, they'll shout about it in all of their marketing and people will start latching onto that. It's very easy for them to sell tech advancements in the lead up to a new console.

Personally I think that more games will give us options for resolution/graphics or performance modes since those options have gone over well on the refreshes.
 
Maybe the thing they should have said is that not enough people care about 60 fps for it to be seen as a viable option to sacrifice visuals for stable 60 fps. And with Spider-man being a wildly successful hit running at 30 fps that I have not seen anyone complain about the fps about I can't say they are wrong.
SpiderMan (or any 30fps game) selling well says nothing about people preferring 30fps over 60fps. The only thing it proves is that people are fine with 30, something we’ve known since the 90’s.

Would a 60fps version would have sold better/worse? Hard to say, but looking at most of today’s best sellers (which target 60fps), I’d say it’s possible.
 
The vast majority of gamers don't even know what 60 fps is. Dorks like us who post on video game message boards do. That's it.
I mean the vast majority of gamers don't know what ray-tracing or multi-sample anti-aliasing is either, but they can visually see a difference and care about the way games look. If the new COD suddenly looked like a Sega Saturn game, there would be an uproar.

That's why it's impossible to market FPS. You have to physically get a controller in someone's hands and have them feel the difference. It's virtually impossible.
 
Top