2x, no?
What framerate will next-gen target? *spawn
- Thread starter milk
- Start date
- Status
2x, no?
No, with its multiplayer graphics.
Tkumpathenurpahl
Veteran
I think that was once the case, but I vaguely, sort of, slightly remember reading that AMD and Nvidia have implemented technology to aid with stereoscopy, so it's some amount less costly than 2x.
But if it is 2x, or as good as, that raises the question of: is stereoscopy possible at 30fps native output? Because, if 60fps and stereoscopy both require double the power of 2D at 30fps, that might make for user and dev friendly options:
- 30fps with all bells and whistles
- 60fps with graphical compromises
- 30fps 3D with the same graphical compromises as 60fps
Personally, I would love to see that as an enforced standard at the system level, although I could see that being an issue for smaller devs, so maybe limit it to first parties?
Edit: that was a response to BRiT btw
But if it is 2x, or as good as, that raises the question of: is stereoscopy possible at 30fps native output? Because, if 60fps and stereoscopy both require double the power of 2D at 30fps, that might make for user and dev friendly options:
- 30fps with all bells and whistles
- 60fps with graphical compromises
- 30fps 3D with the same graphical compromises as 60fps
Personally, I would love to see that as an enforced standard at the system level, although I could see that being an issue for smaller devs, so maybe limit it to first parties?
Edit: that was a response to BRiT btw
It is indeed the best option, but added cost for the devs. Either one of the game modes will be modified from the other rather than optimally created, or the dev is being wonderfully magnanimous. For cross-platform titles, I expect the modes will just be varieties of PC settings, which is a somewhat different concept to the idea of console games designed around a dedicated framerate.
Until i saw a comparable game running at 60fps, i won't believe you. Something like Rise of The Tomb Raider for instance.
There's no 60fps mode on the Pro for a reason.
It's a good option, but it's not possible in all games. See the last God of War for instance that can only produce a very unstable framerate in its performance mode.
Some games are easier to run at 60fps than others.
Last edited:
GoW runs at 60 at least 50% of the game, and even when it drops into the 50s it's still vastly superior experience to the 30fps mode. I have a 4k OLED and I really wanted to like the 30fps mode, every time I tried it I went back in a couple of minutes. It's not even close.
It can drop even further than 40 fps in some instances. I don't know if they improved performances in the most recent patches. But ultimately, it depends of your sensibility.
Personally, i prefer a framerate that has minimum variations. Going from 60 to 45 is too much for me...
Last edited:
Tkumpathenurpahl
Veteran
I've played a couple of other games with unlocked framerates, and found them to be insufferable, but God of War's a different beast.
I don't know what they've done - whether it's just the case that the framerate is always quite high, or if they've hand tuned it within certain areas - but its framerate never feels jarring. I have motion blur turned half way up too btw.
I don't know what they've done - whether it's just the case that the framerate is always quite high, or if they've hand tuned it within certain areas - but its framerate never feels jarring. I have motion blur turned half way up too btw.
cheapchips
Veteran
I'm not sure if you're pushing for all games played through a virtual cinema to be have stereoscopic output or confusing how it'll be rendered?
A none stereoscopic game at <90 FPS can be pushed to a screen in a virtual environment. It works like any other 2d video playback in VR.
VR cinema will be a trivial thing for next gen consoles to render, so should be able to offer that mode to all games. Hopefully next-gen HMDs are high enough resolution to make it a worthwhile experience.
Last edited:
Tkumpathenurpahl
Veteran
I mean for all first party games to render in stereoscope, in order to add greater value to the virtual theatre. Playing a 3D game on a virtual IMAX screen would be fucking phenomenal!
So you're suggesting all games are 3D like old-school, no-longer-cared about 3DTV, so they can be shown on a virtual 2D 3D TV inside VR? A virtual 3D environment with a 2D display showing 3D content. Sounds like a niche within a niche. I could understand if 3DTV was still a thing, but it's not, so investing in making a game stereoscopic for a total install base a fraction of the size of the already worthless 3DTV market makes little sense. I can't see it being a design consideration for any console.
cheapchips
Veteran
The 3d bit is niche. The IMAX size / quality * screen in HMDs isn't, I don't think. Bit OT now though.
* We don't really know what the quality is going to be like on 1000ppi+ displays though. It might still be too poor for virtual cinema.
* We don't really know what the quality is going to be like on 1000ppi+ displays though. It might still be too poor for virtual cinema.
Tkumpathenurpahl
Veteran
That's why I say to perhaps limit it to first parties: so Sony's own software provides added value to owners of Sony's own headset. It can also lay the groundwork for tools and techniques that Sony can share with their third parties in order to make stereoscopy easier for them too.
So I don't think it's really a niche within a niche. At most, it's for the niche that is PSVR owners, which is a niche Sony wants to grow.
Last edited:
Right. A niche (those who want to experience 3DTV) within a niche (those who own PSVR). Are people really going to buy PSVR to play a virtual 3DTV, when those people didn't care for 3DTV when it was a thing? Is the investment going to be worth it?
Maybe, long shot, the things that turned people off 3DTV wouldn't apply to the same in VR and the experience of 3D on 2D would be welcome, but it's not anything you'd based hardware designs on as there's absolutely no reason to think it'd add meaningful value.
Tkumpathenurpahl
Veteran
My suggestion isn't intended to push people into buying PSVR/PSVR2 solely on the basis of first party content being playable on a 3DTV, virtual or real - actual VR content should be reason enough for that - but rather to add value to the headset and keep people engaged with it.
Rendering in stereoscope would take an existing project, which can target every PS5 owner, but give every PSVR owner, in effect, PSVR content. That's why I think this would be such a great thing to do: it's the most cost effective way of getting triple A games on PSVR without being limited only to the install base of that accessory.
But I'm not suggesting they build hardware around it, I'm suggesting they build their development policy around it. The hardware will be built to further advance PSVR/PSVR2, so it's not like any hardware alterations will be made to accommodate this.
I'm of the opinion that, after they tried to push 3D content with the PS3, they should have continued that push with the PS4, given that the hardware was finally capable. Imagine if they'd insisted on a stereoscopic mode for every first party game. Then imagine how beneficial that would have been for the launch of the current PSVR: Infamous Second Son, Bloodborne, Uncharted 4, and Horizon Zero Dawn in perfect 3D.
I think that would've been quite lovely, and quite enticing. No substitute for exclusively VR content, but still appealing, and still adds to the total value in the way that first party content ought to. Agree or disagree?
I agree it's a nice idea. I agree it's a value add. I doubt devs care and I think they'd be annoyed to have to create and test a rarely used 3D mode. Sony didn't mandate 3DTV support when they were selling 3DTVs. I can't see them changing to mandate virtual cinema modes for the VR niche.
I'm casting my vote for 60/120, not because I believe that it'll happen, but because I think it should happen. 30Hz trash should have a place in the future of gaming.
Also, Xbox supports 120Hz, gaming displays that are 120Hz+ are very common, tvs are almost all going to be native 120Hz from this point forward, and Phil Spencer said in his interview with Giant Bomb that consoles can do more to support higher framerate (better CPUl
Also, Xbox supports 120Hz, gaming displays that are 120Hz+ are very common, tvs are almost all going to be native 120Hz from this point forward, and Phil Spencer said in his interview with Giant Bomb that consoles can do more to support higher framerate (better CPUl
- Status
