What framerate will next-gen target? *spawn

[Scott_Arm]

Nowhere did I say all games MUST be 60 fps. It is most definitely preferable and objectively better.

I'm not sure how it's controversial, or subjective, to say:
-60 fps has less input lag, which leads to more responsive controls
-60 fps has less motion blur from retinal blur on a sample and hold display, and less perceived motion blur overall, leading to sharper image quality
-60 fps provides smoother animation
-60 fps has less judder when panning
-the lessened motion blur, judder and faster display updates allow players to identify and react to visual changes more quickly

To me, these are objective truths about frame rate, quantifiable improvements that can be had. I can't even understand why anyone would argue against them. Subjectively, people may say they don't care, and would trade any of those things for other visual differences, but 60fps is objectively better than 30fps.

You didn't. You just listed areas 60 fps was better as if a list of objective reasons why 60 fps is always the right choice, and ignored all the ways 30 fps can be better. I listed reasons why 30 fps can be better. That makes be disingenuous??

Once again you're ignoring all the other aspects! Why is it objective to talk about responsiveness but not shader quality? Why is it objective to talk about motion clarity but not lighting realism or anisotropic filtering? Why would Quantum Break be objectively better at 60 fps with simpler visuals? It can only ever be subjectively better. You would prefer Quantum Break with simpler visuals at a higher framerate. Others would prefer QB as it is now. There's nothing objective about it! For every aspect 60 fps brings a benefit, it also brings a cost in another aspect.

I listed all of the ways 60fps is objectively better, and then recognized that subjectively people may accept the compromises of 30fps for other things. So if you want to trade 60fps for a gi solution like Quantum Break, then fine. I actually like that game. Is 60fps Quantum Break better than 30fps Quantum Break, all things being equal? Absolutely. Is 60 fps Quantum Break with compromises to gi better? I have no idea. It doesn't exist, so I can't subjectively compare them.

Let me add this. 4k is better than 1080p, period. Do games trade resolution for other things? yes. Real-time ray-tracing is better for realism, period. It would be a terrible choice on Xbox One. But real-time ray-tracing is still better than rasterization. These things are independent of the platform, but developers make subjective decisions about how they're going to use the platform.

 

[Recop]

So we shouldn't care about the quality of the products because the developers are making money. OK.

And if they make money, it's because their products are appealing to the mass market.

The first 3D games aged badly, but their were very attrative for gamers at their time.

Once again, a product needs to have a high value during its release. What happens later doesn't interest anyone...

The industry seems to disagree with me but not really, they know 60fps is better but they withold it for the "remastered" version so people have to buy the game twice.

This argument is completely pointless... they can run the same game without compromises on a stronger hardware...

Yeah the industry disagrees with you because the best selling game is a 30fps game. Case closed.

Everyone said 4K60 wasn't possible on X1X, and we're just seeing more evidence of it with Gears 5, Forza 7, FH4, and other titles possibly. We've seen some 3P titles get really close as well.

There's no surprise for Forza since it runs at 1080/60fps on XB1... however, i don't think that FH4 and Gears will run at 4k/60fps on XBX unless developers are ready to have much lower graphic settings than on XB1...

The XBX will not be magically able to push 8 times more pixel than the XB1, not matter what the developers do. Let's use our logic... every data we have so far show us it's impossible...

 

[iroboto]

And if they make money, it's because their products are appealing to the mass market.

The first 3D games aged badly, but their were very attrative for gamers at their time.

Once again, a product needs to have a high value during its release. What happens later doesn't interest anyone...



This argument is completely pointless... they can run the same game without compromises on a stronger hardware...

Yeah the industry disagrees with you because the best selling game is a 30fps game. Case closed.



There's no surprise for Forza since it runs at 1080/60fps on XB1... however, i don't think that FH4 and Gears will run at 4k/60fps on XBX unless developers are ready to have much lower graphic settings than on XB1...

The XBX will not be magically able to push 8 times more pixel than the XB1, not matter what the developers do. Let's use our logic... every data we have so far show us it's impossible...

forza 7 is 4k60 and has higher graphical settings than xbox one.

So... no I disagree with your thought process. Wait until the product is out before you say it's impossible. It won't look at good as 4K30, but that's doesn't mean it can't beat out Xbox One. And it doesn't mean it needs to be native, you guys need to stop with this rhetoric.

 

[Recop]

forza 7 is 4k60 and has higher graphical settings than xbox one.

Because the XBX is slightly more powerful than that. We're still very far from something like 8 times more powerful.

It's impossible unless they use much lower graphic settings than on XB1.

SOT runs at 4k on XBX and has worse framerate than on XB1 (900p) and you expect the XBX running games at 8 times the resolution of the XB1 with the same quality ? Let's be serious...

So... no I disagree with your thought process. Wait until the product is out before you say it's impossible. It won't look at good as 4K30, but that's doesn't mean it can't beat out Xbox One. And it doesn't mean it needs to be native, you guys need to stop with this rhetoric.

Because only native 4k/60fps is impossible if the game runs at 30fps on XB1 (without a major downgrade).

 

[iroboto]

Because the XBX is slightly more powerful than that. We're still very far from something like 8 times more powerful.

It's impossible unless they use much lower graphic settings than on XB1.

SOT runs at 4k on XBX and has worse framerate than on XB1 (900p) and you expect the XBX running games at 8 times the resolution of the XB1 with the same quality ? Let's be serious...



Because only native 4k/60fps is impossible if the game runs at 30fps on XB1 (without a major downgrade).

SOT is solved on X1X. Patches resolved that issue.

Who said it needs to be 4K native? Where in any marketing material, ever, indicate that all 4K games on Xbox must be 4K native?
Why do people feel the need to hold the X1X to this 4K native standard? It's perfectly capable of reconstruction and checker boarding. Are you saying that if graphical engineers want to push the envelope, that they wouldn't reconstruct or checkerboard? MS doesn't hold them to native. Why would you?

 

[Recop]

SOT is solved on X1X. Patches resolved that issue.

I would like to see the proof on DF.

Who said it needs to be 4K native? Where in any marketing material, ever, indicate that all 4K games on Xbox must be 4K native?

Because you said that people were saying it was impossible... they never said that for reconstruction techniques... only for native resolution.

 

[iroboto]

I would like to see the proof on DF.



Because you said that people were saying it was impossible... they never said that for reconstruction techniques... only for native resolution.

People said it was impossible for them to hit 4K60 native. And many people have also said it couldn't hit 4K30 native either.
That was what people were saying, I'm responding to those original claims that were proven wrong.

When MS uses the language of 4K, it can mean, native, reconstructed or dynamic. We've been through this before many times.

 

[OCASM]

And if they make money, it's because their products are appealing to the mass market.

The first 3D games aged badly, but their were very attrative for gamers at their time.

Once again, a product needs to have a high value during its release. What happens later doesn't interest anyone...

This argument is completely pointless... they can run the same game without compromises on a stronger hardware...

Yeah the industry disagrees with you because the best selling game is a 30fps game. Case closed.

1. 60fps games have mass market appeal.

2. You, not everyone, don't care about games having lasting value.

3. The compromises are the result of the decisions the devs made. They could have chosen reduced detailed in exchange for a higher framerate and minimal visual artifacts right from the get go. The reason why we still have pop ups, no shadows at a distance and so on is purely due to dev decisions, not hardware constraints.

4. And you have no proof that framerate has anything to do with those numbers.

 

[Recop]

1. 60fps games have mass market appeal.

2. You, not everyone, don't care about games having lasting value.

3. The compromises are the result of the decisions the devs made. They could have chosen reduced detailed in exchange for a higher framerate and minimal visual artifacts right from the get go. The reason why we still have pop ups, no shadows at a distance and so on is purely due to dev decisions, not hardware constraints.

4. And you have no proof that framerate has anything to do with those numbers.

2) So, you want to play GTA5 in 2050 ? Once again, when a product becomes irrelevant, nobody cares about its value. And if people still care, then you just have to make a remaster and you win again. See what happened with TLOU1...

3) Yeah and developers choose what allow them to hit their goals... if they want prettier graphics, guess what, that's their choice...

4) I don't care, it's not my point. You have no proof either that 60fps allows for better sales. What i know for certain is that 30fps didn't stop GTA5 to beat every other games...

5) When something doesn't work in a capitalist society, companies stop to sell it. If we still get 30fps games it's because people still buy those games. As simple as that. For the last time, your opinion is refuted by factual data. If you're not happy with 30fps games, then go on PC...

 

[phoenix_chipset]

Yeah honestly I kinda want to say if you *prefer* 30fps you might as well look at some artwork or watch movies. I care about the strengths of gaming inherent to the medium.

No I wouldn't want to play GTA V, Detroit or last of us 30 years from now because it's blockbuster crap that will inevitably be dated. I might want to play bayonetta, Mario Odyssey or Nier 30 years from now.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I listed all of the ways 60fps is objectively better, and then recognized that subjectively people may accept the compromises of 30fps for other things. So if you want to trade 60fps for a gi solution like Quantum Break, then fine. I actually like that game. Is 60fps Quantum Break better than 30fps Quantum Break, all things being equal? Absolutely.

Yes, the same game at 60 fps is better than the same game at 60 fps, but that's not a realistic situation as we cannot have everything a 30fps and have it at 60 fps. On the flip side, is a 60 fps with realtime GI and AF objectively better than a 60 fps without those features? Yes. GI is objectively better than no GI. AF is objectively better than no AF. But devs are faced with a choice what compromises to make, and your language suggests to me that you don't consider them objective; as if the choice to go 30 fps is based on sentiment or irrationality or something.

Is 60 fps Quantum Break with compromises to gi better? I have no idea. It doesn't exist, so I can't subjectively compare them.

I don't understand your use of objective at all. 'Objective' means meeting goals and making choices in a technical and unbiased fashion. In graphics, it means communicating a message in the best way. For Overwatch, that means communicating the state of play as quickly and accurately as possible. 60 fps is objectively better in that case, and the graphics were decided upon around that objective. For Dad of War, the developers wanted to convey the feelings, the magic, the environment, the gore, the scale, etc. For that, they had to make decision about what compromises to make. One of them was to use a 30 fps target to allow better shading complexity and everything else. That's an objective, decided upon presumably objectively. When Insomniac were looking at making the most money, they used data to objectively change to 30fps games. Sentimentally they preferred 60 fps, but the data they had suggested games didn't sell as well at 60 fps.

So, again, why isn't improving shader quality an objective decision? Or increasing resolution? Or animation quality? Why is it that out of all the choices a dev has to make, the only objective choice is higher framerate? To me, you're saying every 30 fps out there has had its framerate settled on not because of any logical reasoning by the developers, but a load of gut reaction and sentimentality or brainwashing.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Yes, the same game at 60 fps is better than the same game at 60 fps, but that's not a realistic situation as we cannot have everything a 30fps and have it at 60 fps. On the flip side, is a 60 fps with realtime GI and AF objectively better than a 60 fps without those features? Yes. GI is objectively better than no GI. AF is objectively better than no AF. But devs are faced with a choice what compromises to make, and your language suggests to me that you don't consider them objective; as if the choice to go 30 fps is based on sentiment or irrationality or something.

Yes, AF is objectively better than no AF. Yes, I'd agree GI is objectively better than no GI. But when you start picking between them, that's going to be entirely based on personal feeling, likes and dislikes. What's better, 60fps or GI? There is no objective way to answer that question. There's no way to measure or empirically decide between the two. Devs have to decide on an art direction and then they're going to have to decide what compromises they're willing to make to get what they feel is the best result.

I have literally never suggested that it is irrational to pick 30Hz. I have no idea where you're getting this from.

I don't understand your use of objective at all. 'Objective' means meeting goals and making choices in a technical and unbiased fashion. In graphics, it means communicating a message in the best way. For Overwatch, that means communicating the state of play as quickly and accurately as possible. 60 fps is objectively better in that case, and the graphics were decided upon around that objective. For Dad of War, the developers wanted to convey the feelings, the magic, the environment, the gore, the scale, etc. For that, they had to make decision about what compromises to make. One of them was to use a 30 fps target to allow better shading complexity and everything else. That's an objective, decided upon presumably objectively. When Insomniac were looking at making the most money, they used data to objectively change to 30fps games. Sentimentally they preferred 60 fps, but the data they had suggested games didn't sell as well at 60 fps.

Game devs make decisions about what they think is best for their games, to make them look the best, and to make them play the best. When the game gets into the hands of a gamer, they may not agree. They may not like the art direction, they may feel a game should have made compromises to be native res, they may feel a game should have made compromises to include AF, they may feel it should have been 30fps instead of 60fps, or vice versa. In the end, all of the choices that are made are going to come down to subjective feelings based decision making. There is no way for anyone to objectively weigh 60fps vs global illumination. That's entirely a feelings-based preferential decision. One may better suit their art direction, which means their entire decision making process is rooted in subjectivity.

So, again, why isn't improving shader quality an objective decision? Or increasing resolution? Or animation quality? Why is it that out of all the choices a dev has to make, the only objective choice is higher framerate? To me, you're saying every 30 fps out there has had its framerate settled on not because of any logical reasoning by the developers, but a load of gut reaction and sentimentality or brainwashing.

60fps is measurably better than 30fps. You can actually measure input lag, judder and panel-based motion blur from persistence. It allows for smoother playback of animation. There is all kinds of data and research about user response times, motion blur etc.

Developers use tons of objective data to optimize their games. They may use measured data about user input, or performance profiling. They make changes and repeat. They also have understanding of the costs of their decisions, at least the good ones do. You could take material systems as an example, and there are all kinds of whitepapers about different models. An expert could probably objectively weigh the benefits and drawbacks of each one, and then make a cost based decision about which one their going to use. But ultimately they've decided that one is worth the performance cost over another, or one is good enough to save performance for something else. That will ultimately be a subjective choice. What's good enough for one person may not be good enough for someone else. I'm sure programmers and art directors bump heads all the time, and I'm sure that within a group of developers and within a group of art directors on the same project, you probably wouldn't find 100% agreement about the choices that were made.

And no, I've never said 60Hz is an objectively better choice. 60Hz is better than 30Hz. Is it the better choice for a particular game? Purely subjective, which is why you and I are having this disagreement right now. I prefer 60Hz for the vast majority of games and find 30Hz disappointing. You obviously do not. Who is right? Neither of us.

 

[phoenix_chipset]

Gi is not always better than no Gi. With fully realistic global illumination the artist loses control over how things look which may not be to the games benefit.

See the problem is there's a difference between more taxing and just a better looking game. A 60fps game may look better just because there's no processing resources leftover for the chromatic abberation flares of eye adaptations with a super expensive pass of blur they wanted to put in lol.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I have literally never suggested that it is irrational to pick 30Hz. I have no idea where you're getting this from.
...
And no, I've never said 60Hz is an objectively better choice.

You said...(https://forum.beyond3d.com/posts/2035415/)

Nowhere did I say all games MUST be 60 fps. It is most definitely preferable and objectively better.

It is the objectively better choice to go with 60 fps than not. You then list reasons why it's objectively the right choice to go 60 fps instead of 30 fps.

 

[vipa899]

Yeah the industry disagrees with you because the best selling game is a 30fps game.

What game you mean with that? In case of God of War PS4, you think it would have sold less if it was a 60fps title with less details? Do people really buy these games for the graphics or mostly cause its a excellent game? Most people i know that play the god of war series dont care at all for its graphics. Personally i would prefer maxed graphics at 30fps but most people that own a PS4?

What doesnt Sony bring those AAA games to PC at a later date, what has Sony to loose on that, isnt that only extra sales, even if not many? That way people can have their 60fps native 4k with maxed settings for those that want that and have the system for it. Is the pc even a competitive platform against the PS4?

 

[zed]

And to throw gasoline on the fire. The Top 10 games in sales of the past 12 months in the US is dominated by 60 FPS games.

Which fails to ignite
Far Cry 5 and Destiny 2 are both 30fps, see digital foundry for proof

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Which fails to ignite
Far Cry 5 and Destiny 2 are both 30fps, see digital foundry for proof

Sure, but at least 6 of the top 10 of the past 12 months are 60 FPS games. 4 out of the top 5 games of the past 12 months are 60 FPS games.

Does this mean that people don't tolerate 30 FPS games? No, but being 60 FPS at the very least doesn't hurt game sales, and could potentially increase game sales.

I hear from both camps that wish either a 30 FPS game was 60 FPS or a 60 FPS game was 30 FPS. But I hear far more people complain about 30 FPS games and how they wish it was 60 FPS (while playing the game) than I do people complaining about a 60 FPS game not being 30 FPS (while playing the game).

For me this was especially relevant with the 30 FPS Yakuza games when I was considering getting a PS4 to play it. Most of the people I watched play the game often commented that while it was one of their favorite games on PS4, the 30 FPS hurts the game and how it'd have been so much better at 60 FPS. Especially during the frequent fights that the protagonist gets into.

Regards,
SB

 

[Silent_Buddha]

And the biggest selling titles of the year are 30 fps. So at least he's presenting actual data and correlation unlike you who's just dismissing that data like it doesn't exist.

Looking at the latest NPD, at least for the US, that correlation doesn't hold true on a revolving 12 month ranking (1 full year) basis. 60 FPS games in the latest NPD hold 6 of the top 10 spots and 4 of the top 5 spots for a full year (12 month) period.

I imagine once we get full year data for 2018, then the top 10 for 2018 may also reflect a similar inclination towards 60 FPS games.

However, analysis is complex as they all represent different genres.

However. While I have heard plenty of people wishing say God of War (2018) or GTA V was 60 FPS, I haven't heard many, if any, people wishing Super Mario Odyssey was 30 FPS.

Similarly, while I've heard a lot of complaints from people that wish more Switch games were 60 FPS (but in the end accept it as it's a portable device) I haven't conversely seen many if any people complaining that 60 FPS games on Switch would be better if they were 30 FPS and more GPU/CPU budget spent on graphics.

Granted this is all highly anecdotal, but when Legend of Zelda came out I heard far more complaints about the game not being 60 FPS than complaints that they wish the game looked better. Regardless of that, they still bought and played the game though as they had no choice.

I'd argue that games that sell well at 30 FPS sell well despite being 30 FPS, and not that people find it preferable to play the game at 30 FPS. Yes, the argument can be made that it has to be 30 FPS because of the graphics, but we don't generally know is whether the game would do just as well at lower graphics settings and 60 FPS or as it is at 30 FPS.

However, I think it'd be safe to say that the game would at the very least not sell worse and would likely sell better if users had the option between playing it at 30 FPS or 60 FPS with lower settings (which are sometimes virtually unnoticeable from higher settings for most people).

I think it'd also be safe to say that even if sales didn't increase, a lot more people would be happy with the game if it had a 60 FPS option in addition to the existing 30 FPS mode.

Regards,
SB

 

[Rangers]

Yeah but sports games which are default 60 FPS kinda skew things. And aren't Nintendo 1st party games automatically 60 FPS too?

Also the 2018 list has more 30 FPS than last 12 months list. On 2018 every non-Nintendo non sports is 30 FPS (PUBG, Far Cry, GTA V, Monster Hunter (I think).

You could say most best selling non-Nintendo non sports/racing games show a decided bias to 30 FPS

Breaking it down further you have these genres which are almost always 60: Fighters, sports, racers (except some racers EG Drive Club, Horizon), Nintendo 1st party AFAIK. COD/BF (not sure about BF, is it more like 45-60 FPS? Battlefront too?). Since these are kind of arcady MP games first.

But then intense 3D open world games, single player games, and anything not restricted tend to be 30.

Pointless debate I guess.

Anyways surprised Stat of Decay 2 got 1st. Good thing they count digital sales I'm guessing or it would have had no chance. Probably was very slow month.

Also not to beat my personal points, but we still see god of war probably did not affect hardware sales that much. IIRC PS4 was up 125k YoY last month, if we attribute all that to gow. And that was an unusual, very strong effect for a title. This month we see PS4 was up 36k YoY, so if you add that you're at +160k. A blip for a console that's sold ~25 million in USA so far.

Of course it's completely impossible to suss out a particular title's effect, and you could make the argument it's PS4 (or insert console here) entire pantheon of exclusive titles that keeps it the best selling console (although then I'd point to all important years 1-3, where it's library was less and it won the gen) and there would probably be some merit there, but anyways if you are strict about it like that...

You could also say SOD2 took top spot for MS and didn't bump Xbox sales much too (which is the norm). I'm just looking more at gow since it was such a juggernaut.

But to make a specific point, already one month later whatever effect gow had on hardware sales has apparently largely faded. Hardware>software.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Also the 2018 list has more 30 FPS than last 12 months list. On 2018 every non-Nintendo non sports is 30 FPS (PUBG, Far Cry, GTA V, Monster Hunter (I think).

Dedicated 60 FPS games are released more infrequently then 30 FPS games, so the 2018 list skews towards 30 FPS games because more of them have been released so far this year. By the end of 2018, it'll likely revert and look more like the revolving 12 month list.

Yes, many of the top 60 FPS games are those that have abandoned 30 FPS due to competing 30 FPS titles performing poorly versus them. Battlefront II (60 FPS) is doing better than past DICE games that used to target 30 FPS. Part of that is the Star Wars brand but part of it is also that it's now 60 FPS instead of 30 FPS.

Also interesting to note that both GOW (2018) and MHW offer high performance modes. An interesting question heading into the next generation, if one or both console makers drops compatibility with the previous console (PS4-P and XBO-X) is whether a studio like Sony Santa Monica will continue to offer its players a high performance mode in addition to a 30 FPS mode. Now that they have some experience with offering differing performance and quality modes, will they discard that experience? Offering both options is the best of both worlds both for them and their players.

Sony Santa Monica could have just offered a higher graphical fidelity 30 FPS mode for the PS4-P and be done with it if that was all that mattered. However, they felt there were enough people wanting higher performance that they made the effort to offer a higher performance mode for those players.

Regards,
SB