Mixed FPS in Console Games *Spawn*

[Jay]

From neogaf

hmmmmm really now....
this should be interesting.

what's peoples thoughts on here about mixed fps in console multiplayer games

edit: Interesting as in x1 30fps compared to Scorpio 60fps discussions, not relating to ps4 or 4pro.

 

[KirkSi]

hmmmmm really now....
this should be interesting.

what's peoples thoughts on here about mixed fps in console multiplayer games

edit: Interesting as in x1 30fps compared to Scorpio 60fps discussions, not relating to ps4 or 4pro.

As a life long console player I don't have a problem with it. PC have unlocked frame rates so you can get some rigs that can struggle to get 50fps while others that have monster rigs will be getting over 120fps. There are lots of other things on console that can give an advantage, elite controller, input lag on TV, whether you've changed to a gaming profile with your isp. People like to think that console is a level playing field but it already isn't. In not shackling the Scorpio to the XB1's frame rate they've just given people a bigger reason to upgrade over shinier graphics.

 

[turkey]

hmmmmm really now....
this should be interesting.

what's peoples thoughts on here about mixed fps in console multiplayer games

edit: Interesting as in x1 30fps compared to Scorpio 60fps discussions, not relating to ps4 or 4pro.

GOW4 pits you against 120fps players with mice and keyboards as far as I am aware.

Edit: and to sort of add to KirkSi , the game server tick rate is unlikely to change and almost certainly the slowest part of the equation so I do wonder just how much advantage you have at 60fps over 30 if say the server tick rate is 10fps.

 

[Jay]

GOW4 pits you against 120fps players with mice and keyboards as far as I am aware

I thought that was only in certain modes, like in ranked/social modes?
don't think it does xplay with competitive modes as far as I'm aware.

full disclosure - I'm not actually against it, but I know some are, they see it as removing one of the benefits of console gaming.

wonder if any studio would actually do it?

 

[Pixel]

For the gamers waiting in anticipation of the majority of games having a performance mode option that will allow Scorpio to run at a solid 60fps (at 1080 or higher resolution) rather than 4K gaming there'll be some ignorant finger pointing and backlash against 3rd party devs for being "lazy" (when in reality devs are not) when some games can't maintain a solid 60fps (at 1080p oir higher res), due to the limitations of the cpu and their game engines and developers not taking full advantage of DX12 and the customized command processor to mitigate those limitations.

Just looking at posts and comments there is an echo chamber of hype around the cpu customizations and the command processor customizations where they are expecting the majority of games will run at 60fps easily (at 1080p res or better)

 

[dobwal]

For the gamers waiting in anticipation of the majority of games having a performance mode option that will allow Scorpio to run at a solid 60fps (at 1080 or higher resolution) rather than 4K gaming there'll be some ignorant finger pointing and backlash against 3rd party devs for being "lazy" (when in reality devs are not) when some games can't maintain a solid 60fps (at 1080p oir higher res), due to the limitations of the cpu and their game engines and developers not taking full advantage of DX12 and the customized command processor to mitigate those limitations.

Just looking at posts and comments there is an echo chamber of hype around the cpu customizations and the command processor customizations where they are expecting the majority of games will run at 60fps easily (at 1080p res or better)

Whose thinking that every Scorpio game is going to have some 1080p 60fps performance mode? Some games like The Surge have a 1080p 60fps performance mode on the PS4 Pro. So there is a legitimate concern when it comes to multiplayer and possible performance modes that offer higher frame rates on these mid gen upgrades.

Heck with VRR, 1080p modes with unlocked framerates may end up being problematic.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Whose thinking that every Scorpio game is going to have some 1080p 60fps performance mode? Some games like The Surge have a 1080p 60fps performance mode on the PS4 Pro. So there is a legitimate concern when it comes to multiplayer and possible performance modes that offer higher frame rates on these mid gen upgrades.

Heck with VRR, 1080p modes with unlocked framerates may end up being problematic.

To whit MS (and Sony) can respond 'tough shit'. It's a (sad, depending on personal values) truth in life that those with more money to spend get a competitive advantage by using the latest, greatest gear. There's no reason for consoles to offer an altruistic environment of equality when nowhere else in the world does and where there's better business sense in offering a premium experience that can extract more money from the same audience.

Since the invention of money, society has always been "Pay to win" - DLC and elite consoles with elite controllers is just the console industry finally catching up to the status quo.

 

[turkey]

I thought that was only in certain modes, like in ranked/social modes?
don't think it does xplay with competitive modes as far as I'm aware.

I believe you are right there are some large caveats, I think you only meet in social not ranked games, but you do meet in versus and whilst not ranked is competitive as opposed to cooperative.

 

[iroboto]

To whit MS (and Sony) can respond 'tough shit'. It's a (sad, depending on personal values) truth in life that those with more money to spend get a competitive advantage by using the latest, greatest gear. There's no reason for consoles to offer an altruistic environment of equality when nowhere else in the world does and where there's better business sense in offering a premium experience that can extract more money from the same audience.

Since the invention of money, society has always been "Pay to win" - DLC and elite consoles with elite controllers is just the console industry finally catching up to the status quo.

foe the most part I agree. The counter argument I can see someone bringing up is that games can be made equal. IE Chess, any abstract boardgame does not have pay to win. In fact no board game does. Once physical factors are involved all of a sudden that's thrown out the window.

The purpose of this gear is to assist performance, ultimately if there was no limit on performance increases from gear, then take the limit to infinity and this would remove performance out of the equation and you are just left with strategy.

 

[Jay]

I believe you are right there are some large caveats, I think you only meet in social not ranked games, but you do meet in versus and whilst not ranked is competitive as opposed to cooperative.

yep, i actually meant unranked.

i also don't understand why its so hard to differentiate between controller and KB/M, allow playlists so people on console can choose preferred input method. But ms hasn't allowed it yet, I'm assuming due to how it will look to the hardcore console gamer, which is the most vocal

 

[Shifty Geezer]

foe the most part I agree. The counter argument I can see someone bringing up is that games can be made equal. IE Chess, any abstract boardgame does not have pay to win. In fact no board game does.

Only because there's no means to. If chess pieces made out of different materials made you better at playing, the best players would use the most expensive pieces. The Free Market means people who can pay more for an advantage will pay more, and there'll be those who satisfy that demand, and those who see the opportunity to exploit/create such opportunities as in the case of pay-to-win DLC. Just like in-game 'consumables' with a fictional shortage created just for the purpose of generating on-going revenue. These didn't exist when there was no mechanism to supply them, but the invention of a means to charge for such a supply shortage meant it was created and exploited.

You literally cannot stop 'professional' advantages being offered to gamers, and it'd be financial daft for any company to offer some egalitarian ecosystem unless they could leverage that to generate more sales and revenue. Well, that's really not possible with mid-gen upgrades where the higher tier is going to get better resolution and/or framerate, both being advantageous in competitive gaming. Capping online modes to the lowest common denominator would cripple appeal.

 

[turkey]

yep, i actually meant unranked.

i also don't understand why its so hard to differentiate between controller and KB/M, allow playlists so people on console can choose preferred input method. But ms hasn't allowed it yet, I'm assuming due to how it will look to the hardcore console gamer, which is the most vocal

This is true, on pc folks can switch input at will and that would side step that, also you have xim console users already playing with mouse or keyboard unregulated.

Is there a need if ranked or competitive games now use skill based matchmaking, you may have an advantage but it just means you are promoted to a tougher set of opponents?

I am not sure what the solution is but I think first we need the problem to arrise and then a good solution may be found/agreed. Simply not doing it or holding the "feature" of 60fps gameplay back does not sound like a good solution long term.

 

[Tkumpathenurple]

Only because there's no means to. If chess pieces made out of different materials made you better at playing, the best players would use the most expensive pieces. The Free Market means people who can pay more for an advantage will pay more, and there'll be those who satisfy that demand, and those who see the opportunity to exploit/create such opportunities as in the case of pay-to-win DLC. Just like in-game 'consumables' with a fictional shortage created just for the purpose of generating on-going revenue. These didn't exist when there was no mechanism to supply them, but the invention of a means to charge for such a supply shortage meant it was created and exploited.

Then the game would no longer be chess. It would be a modified version that would almost always be won by the richest player and be quite boring to observe. In the age of e-sports, I can see why keeping the playerbase as large as possible could be perceived as beneficial, and why framerate would be focused on due to its effect on reaction times.

You literally cannot stop 'professional' advantages being offered to gamers, and it'd be financial daft for any company to offer some egalitarian ecosystem unless they could leverage that to generate more sales and revenue. Well, that's really not possible with mid-gen upgrades where the higher tier is going to get better resolution and/or framerate, both being advantageous in competitive gaming. Capping online modes to the lowest common denominator would cripple appeal.

You literally can stop some professional advantages as PS4Pro guidelines illustrate.

I agree that it would be financially daft to offer an egalitarian ecosystem that can't be financially leveraged, but it's also true that it would be financially daft to leave a portion of the playerbase behind when simple stipulations to developers can prevent that.

I keep coming back to wondering how much it really matters. I genuinely don't know as I'm not really one for multiplayer games - if I play them, I play them for fun.

So there's that: how much difference does framerate make in a competitive sense?

There's also the matter of whether it should be up to the platform holder or the developer/publisher? I generally think that it should be the latter, even if limiting the framerate across the ecosystem would be wise.

The financial counterpoint to that is that you never know which competitive multiplayer game is going to explode in popularity and, by limiting factors which are deemed necessary to have a level enough playing field that it makes for engaging spectatorship, you have a much larger playerbase from which you may draw. Then you have more competition, more spectators and the cycle feeds itself.

Dunno. My gut tells me that Sony are taking the wiser approach, but that depends on the difference that framerate makes.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

What are the stipulations Sony make that limits competitive advantage?

 

[Tkumpathenurple]

Only one as far as I remember: the multiplayer framerate on the Pro can't exceed that of the base model.

Of course, it's kind of gone by the by already, seeing as Battlefield 1 had a framerate closer to 60 on the Pro, and something like 45-50 on the base model. I might be off on the exact numbers there, but the result's the same: a noticeably different framerate between both models in multiplayer.

 

[BadTB25]

Even if it doesn't exceed the base model cap, a more stable framerate and higher resolution can make a big difference in competitive/pro play/esports. This holds true especially for fighting games and shooters.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

To whit MS (and Sony) can respond 'tough shit'. It's a (sad, depending on personal values) truth in life that those with more money to spend get a competitive advantage by using the latest, greatest gear. There's no reason for consoles to offer an altruistic environment of equality when nowhere else in the world does and where there's better business sense in offering a premium experience that can extract more money from the same audience.

Since the invention of money, society has always been "Pay to win" - DLC and elite consoles with elite controllers is just the console industry finally catching up to the status quo.

Absolutely, competitive gaming on consoles hasn't been "equal" in a LONG time.

Fighting games? Are games banning the use of fighting stick controllers? Driving games? Are games banning the use of driving wheels and pedals?

Just the simple difference between a console control pad and a fighting stick in a fighting game is going to offer a significantly larger advantage than a difference in resolution or frame rate (for games that offer 30/60 FPS depending on user choice or platform) in games other than fighting games (all fighting games should be 60 FPS anyway, or they are shite).

IMO, complaining about how a more powerful console offering a better framerate is "unfair" is basically staring at a tree while ignoring the forest you are standing in. For the past couple of decades anyone that is gaming on console could spend a hundred or more extra dollars on hardware to gain a competitive advantage.

Hell, going back to even SNES, you could buy controllers with variable auto-fire settings. In SCHMUPs that was a huge competitive advantage compared to a standard controller.

And hell, that doesn't even bring in unfair advantages due to having a better TV/monitor or a better internet connection (or in some cases a worse internet connection is advantageous depending on the game's net code).

Regards,
SB

 

[Jay]

seems like in last couple days, phill, mike and Shannon have all been on twitter about it.

basically it's allowed but they don't expect any dev to do it.

it's probably just as big, if not bigger difference if x1 couldn't maintain frame rate but the Scorpio could in a game.

been pretty interesting the few articles etc I've seen on it.
Scorpio is going to be held back by x1. ms says it's not, it's up to devs.
wonder how it would've been reported if bungee said from start that x1 was 30 and Scorpio was 60.
i think it would've been, bungee giving unfair advantage to Scorpio. Disrispecting x1 owners. the problem with mid gen's.

 

[Nesh]

Absolutely, competitive gaming on consoles hasn't been "equal" in a LONG time.

Fighting games? Are games banning the use of fighting stick controllers? Driving games? Are games banning the use of driving wheels and pedals?

Just the simple difference between a console control pad and a fighting stick in a fighting game is going to offer a significantly larger advantage than a difference in resolution or frame rate (for games that offer 30/60 FPS depending on user choice or platform) in games other than fighting games (all fighting games should be 60 FPS anyway, or they are shite).

IMO, complaining about how a more powerful console offering a better framerate is "unfair" is basically staring at a tree while ignoring the forest you are standing in. For the past couple of decades anyone that is gaming on console could spend a hundred or more extra dollars on hardware to gain a competitive advantage.

Hell, going back to even SNES, you could buy controllers with variable auto-fire settings. In SCHMUPs that was a huge competitive advantage compared to a standard controller.

And hell, that doesn't even bring in unfair advantages due to having a better TV/monitor or a better internet connection (or in some cases a worse internet connection is advantageous depending on the game's net code).

Regards,
SB

I dont get the logic. If some people prefer different controllers to maximize their gaming performance, it doesn't mean we should have games that perform differently themselves in competitive multiplayer. The former is still subject to skill. The latter is not. Thats no excuse.
In competitive play there should be a separate "competitive" mode at least.

 

[sebbbi]

There's already a difference in PS4 vs PS4 Pro multiplayer experience. PS4 Pro players tend to get slightly better frame rate (less dips) and/or slightly better resolution. With sniper rifles the improved resolution is definitely helpful. Small changes, but changes nonetheless. Pro players will obviously pick the console version that gives them an advantage, no matter how small. Same is obviously true with different controllers (with lower latency) and equipment (like stick extensions). More expensive (lower latency) fiber internet connection also helps. Can't really provide identical play experience to everybody.

I don't believe that many studios are going to release multiplayer games where the base version runs at 30 fps and the upgraded version runs at 60 fps. I would guess that developers are limiting this option to single player game modes to avoid backlash from their customers. Also 4K is pretty demanding target, and most developers are aiming for it. I don't believe we see many 60 fps 4K games this gen, especially if the original version was running at 30 fps.