What framerate will next-gen target? *spawn

[milk]

My prediction is the PS5 Pro will focus on 60fps rather than resolution. But that is still.many years away from us.

Mod: for the purposes of effective, efficient communication and the subject of computer graphics, the following convention is adopted in this thread.

There are three aspect to game visuals referred to each with a single defined name -

resolution - the 2D array of pixel values that make up the output framebuffer
framerate - the rate at which this framebuffer is changed
graphics - the content that makes up that framebuffer as drawn pixels, where 'better graphics' means more complex and time-consuming pixel generation​

 

[Shifty Geezer]

How does a console (hardware) focus on a framerate (software decision)?

 

[milk]

the same way ps4 pro focused on resolution. By making it the main marketing selling point.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

However PS5 is marketed doesn't really factor into a discussion about its tech and design.

 

[eloic]

Are we already thinking that there will be a PS5 Pro and that we will need it because base PS5 won't be "focused enough" on whatever graphical aspect (framerate, resolution, etc.)?

 

[zed]

How does a console (hardware) focus on a framerate (software decision)?

perhaps limiting it only output 1080p max
0% this will happen though

 

[Gemüsepizza]

If there is a push for 60fps with next-gen, it has to be at the beginning of the generation, for base consoles.

Optimizing for a specific framerate is a lot of work, one of the reasons is that you don't have as much freedom as with resolution: When something isn't native 4K it's not that noticeable. But when something isn't 60fps, it's very noticeable.

To get this right, developers need to invest lots of resources for patches, and that's just not going to happen for the few people who buy those mid-gen consoles. We have seen it already this gen, developers often don't even want to spend the resources to create a patch to increase the resolution, which isn't that hard.

It makes much more sense to target 60fps from the beginning, so that every console owner can experience 60fps. Especially considering that there will probably be many people who don't own a 4K TV (yet), but everyone owns a TV which can output 60fps.

I think that patches for mid-gen consoles might even be going away completely. I could see games having a 4K/30fps mode and a 1080p/60fps mode, but with dynamic resolution. So that on PS5, a game could run at 1080p/60fps, and on PS5 Pro with 4K/60fps.

But I also think that many/most cross-gen games will already target 4K_CB/60fps... so who knows what's going to happen. Maybe PS5 games for the first 3 years will target 4K_CB/60fps, and when PS5 Pro comes out, new PS5 games will run at a lower resolution on base consoles, while PS5 Pro will be native 4K/60fps.

 

[OCASM]

Remember when ND was singing the praises of 60fps? Yeah, that didn't last. You're gonna get 30fps, just accept it.

EDIT: Just rubbing some salt on the wound:

 

[phoenix_chipset]

I wouldn't be so quick to rule out 60fps sony studio games next gen. Imagine the detail possible in a 1440p60 temporal injection uncharted on the ps5. No one on this forum can sit here and tell me they expected sotc to look like it does and run at a solid 60fps.

2 things current gen didn't have at the start : widespread resolution tricks and good cpus. We can all thank insomniac for being pioneers of the former ; going all the way back to ratchet on ps3.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

perhaps limiting it only output 1080p max
0% this will happen though

Is that even possible on a hardware level? Limit to HDMI 1.4?!

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I wouldn't be so quick to rule out 60fps sony studio games next gen. Imagine the detail possible in a 1440p60 temporal injection uncharted on the ps5. No one on this forum can sit here and tell me they expected sotc to look like it does and run at a solid 60fps.

2 things current gen didn't have at the start : widespread resolution tricks and good cpus. We can all thank insomniac for being pioneers of the former ; going all the way back to ratchet on ps3.

Reconstruction techniques work just as well for allowing more work per pixel as they do more pixels per frame. You could create a photorealistic game that crawls at 10 fps and reconstruct up to 24 for that cinematic experience.

I'd also say that VRR means more chance of lower than 60 fps, because we finally have hardware solution for drawing non-factors-of-60 framerates, so devs near 60 fps won't be afraid of judder which they might now and work to get the framerate up to a stable 60.

 

[Gemüsepizza]

I don't really believe in VRR. It sounds good in theory, but the reality is, that there are no TVs that support VRR. Sure, future TVs will support it, but how many people will own such a TV? How many people will buy a new TV specifically because of VRR? And will all new TVs have this feature, or only mid-range and up? This just isn't something developers can rely on, imo.

 

[phoenix_chipset]

Reconstruction techniques work just as well for allowing more work per pixel as they do more pixels per frame. You could create a photorealistic game that crawls at 10 fps and reconstruct up to 24 for that cinematic experience.

I'd also say that VRR means more chance of lower than 60 fps, because we finally have hardware solution for drawing non-factors-of-60 framerates, so devs near 60 fps won't be afraid of judder which they might now and work to get the framerate up to a stable 60.

Having seen both checkerboarding and temporal injection on my set i would say the latter is simply superior. No artifacting or inconsistent implementation, plus it's got the aa needs covered. I agree when insomniac says injection is better.

Surely all resolution tricks will improve next gen though.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I don't really believe in VRR. It sounds good in theory, but the reality is, that there are no TVs that support VRR. Sure, future TVs will support it, but how many people will own such a TV? How many people will buy a new TV specifically because of VRR? And will all new TVs have this feature, or only mid-range and up? This just isn't something developers can rely on, imo.

You're right, and I don't believe in it as a widespread tech for the same reasons. I just mention it because in the balance, there are more techs in favour of not targeting 60 fps than aiming for a solid FPS IMO.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Having seen both checkerboarding and temporal injection on my set i would say the latter is simply superior. No artifacting or inconsistent implementation, plus it's got the aa needs covered. I agree when insomniac says injection is better.

What I mean is, you have a game and target 60 fps and it'll look slightly bland. You take the same game, use Temporal Injection (or whatever) to render prettier pixels at 30fps and up-convert to 60fps, it looks prettier. You could then take the same game, render it at 10 fps, and upscale to 24 fps (or whatever) using your reconstruction technique and get even prettier pixels.

There aren't any reconstruction techniques that mean higher framerates without also offering the option of low framerates with better pixels. The existence of a reconstruction tech doesn't intrinsically mean more 60 fps games; it's always a choice of the devs how much to throw into each frame and what framerate to run at.

 

[Karamazov]

i'm sorry but i still want my graphics showcases at a smooth 30fps with good motion blur, like we have today, i don't mind 30fps for games like uncharted of RPGs etc..; Hell i even enjoyed driveclub more than GTS.
but they could do a mandatory 60fps option in every game. Though if they do that, master race people will then tell you that 60fps in not enough and that they should aim for 120fps instead.

 

[phoenix_chipset]

What I mean is, you have a game and target 60 fps and it'll look slightly bland. You take the same game, use Temporal Injection (or whatever) to render prettier pixels at 30fps and up-convert to 60fps, it looks prettier. You could then take the same game, render it at 10 fps, and upscale to 24 fps (or whatever) using your reconstruction technique and get even prettier pixels.

There aren't any reconstruction techniques that mean higher framerates without also offering the option of low framerates with better pixels. The existence of a reconstruction tech doesn't intrinsically mean more 60 fps games; it's always a choice of the devs how much to throw into each frame and what framerate to run at.

I agree, i would take reconstruction over native res any day, there's so much to gain by doing so. I think 1440p looks very good on 4k displays and anything more is just gravy. Assuming there's no temporal AA (with no injection i mean), even 1080p is crisp enough for me. Nier automata at 1080p + 4xMssa looks pretty clean.

I'm not convinced devs next gen will obsess over native 4k.

 

[BRiT]

Poll added, allowing for 2 picks, one for normal games and one for VR/AR games, bexause why not.

Any options missing?

 

[eloic]

Well, I voted for 30 and 60 because I think that many developers will still stick to 30 FPS in order to produce prettier graphics. I hope those 30 FPS are a minimum and rock solid.

60 is arguably a must for some genres.

I would have selected 120 too but just for VR purposes, so I'm not sure.

 

[ultragpu]

I'm sorry but I don't want my next gen titles to look like uprezzed current gen titles at Ultra settings because of the 60 fps limiter. We're not getting 18 TF monsters at launch so enough with the framerate whoring, please. We're not even getting native 4k at this rate neither. I think devs are gonna need every last drop of flop there is just to show a decent generation leap in graphics as it is, we ain't got no time for lavish motion smoothness guys . So yeah devs will still target 30fps first and foremost, but 60fps could be a secondary option at a heavily reduced res and fidelity settings.