Mixed FPS in Console Games *Spawn*

[Jay]

I would guess that developers are limiting this option to single player game modes to avoid backlash from their customers.

I agree with what you've said.
I think the backlash is different dependant on the order of events in this circumstances though.

If they had just released it with a 30, 60 split the backlash would've been as you're implying, it being unfair, never happened before in console, etc.

Now the backlash is, it's being seen as holding back the Scorpio, regardless if we know for sure if it could do it or not.

Due to the way it's happened the reporting has been different. Which could impact the overall view of the general gamer. Most reports/articles seem to be implying it's a bad thing.

 

[sebbbi]

Due to the way it's happened the reporting has been different. Which could impact the overall view of the general gamer. Most reports/articles seem to be implying it's a bad thing.

In my opinion both Sony and Microsoft have been pretty clear that their console refreshes are 100% backwards compatible and the refresh version focus is improved visuals at 4K + HDR. They have been talking about being able to play against each other in the same multiplayer games, etc. Everybody knows that these are mid-life refreshes of the current console generation. True next gen consoles have always been at least 8x faster (GPU) + big jumps on CPU tech. I think the marketing has been pretty clear about this. Their main purpose is to bring the Xbox One and PS4 game libraries to customers who have 4K + HDR displays.

Of course if you want a brand new console with brand new game experiences, then these console refreshes are not going to bring you that. Similarly upgrading your old Radeon HD 7970 to a brand new 700$ Geforce GTX 1080 isn't going to change the gameplay at all. Only visuals get better. This half generation upgrade is similar.

 

[Jay]

In my opinion both Sony and Microsoft have been pretty clear that their console refreshes are 100% backwards compatible and the refresh version focus is improved visuals at 4K + HDR.

MS has also said with best framerates, but thats besides the point really.
Also they pivoted pretty quickly to clarify that it's not just 4k, but devs can push 1080p also.
Seeing as many games are 4k30 (however it's achieved), 1080p60 performance modes, this is becoming an expectation prior to the release of Scorpio now.
So your example of upgrading graphics cards just for more fidelity doesn't really hold up, even in pc space, you could upgrade gpu and opt for higher frame rate instead.

So initial reveal was all about 4k, hdr, but that was a year ago, and many things have changed since then, including their message.

The difference here is in MP though, and if it's possible should a premium console be able to run a multiplayer game at 60, when the base console doesn't.
Bungee will probably just say it wasn't possible, that would be the easiest thing for them regardless if that's the case or not. Then no backlash from either side. :smile:

 

[sebbbi]

PS4 Pro vs PS4: CPU received only a minor boost, while the GPU is over 2x faster. Clearly the hardware was designed for improved visuals / improved resolution, not for increased frame rate or totally new game play. Scorpio CPU:GPU ratio is even higher vs the original Xbox One. GPU is over 4x faster, but CPU is only slightly faster. Nobody should expect these upgraded consoles to double the frame rate from 30 -> 60. You need much faster CPU for that.

 

[Jay]

I don't think anybody is expecting a blanket 30 to 60fps in games though.
Although in the last year there have been games that are 4k30 and 1080p60 on the 4pro. So it's obviously not out of the question and there are many different reasons why it's possible in one game and not another.

The question here is, when it is possible should it be done in multiplayer games and what are the ramifications and fall out of such a move.
Or to put it another way, if a game is gpu limited and that's the reasons for a 30fps on the base console, should it run at 60 on the upgrade in MP mode.

 

[sebbbi]

I don't think anybody is expecting a blanket 30 to 60fps in games though.
Although in the last year there have been games that are 4k30 and 1080p60 on the 4pro. So it's obviously not out of the question and there are many different reasons why it's possible in one game and not another.

Yes. Different games and engines have different bottlenecks. Some games can scale to 60 fps with current gen Jaguar CPUs, some can't.

This presentation is a good starting point when discussing CPU bottlenecks on current gen consoles:
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1022186/Parallelizing-the-Naughty-Dog-Engine

This is an old PS3 game ported to current gen, and it is already using almost 100% of the CPU time. It's however worth noting that rendering (including culling, animation and setup) takes around 50% of total CPU time.

Modern GPUs (compute shaders) allow you to push most of these culling and rendering setup tasks to GPU. However refactoring a traditional rendering engine to be GPU-based is a huge change. You need to basically tear down most of your existing C/C++ rendering code and port it to compute shaders. Data also needs to be moved to GPU accessible memory. This is a huge saving for CPU cost. If we assume TLoU is a good indicator of common AAA game, we will save 50% of CPU cost by using GPU-driven rendering. This might explain why some games can reach 60 fps while some can't.

Our SIGGRAPH 2015 GPU-driven rendering presentation:
http://advances.realtimerendering.c...siggraph2015_combined_final_footer_220dpi.pdf

Optimizing Frostibe with compute (GDC 2016):
http://www.frostbite.com/2016/03/optimizing-the-graphics-pipeline-with-compute/

Many engines are going this way. But many renderers are still mostly CPU-based. I haven't done enough research to find out whether most of the 60 fps games are using GPU-driven rendering, or whether they do something else to make them light on the CPU. Could be simply better multithreading architecture as well. Not all engines are as well multithreaded as TLoU. There are still many engines that have mostly one thread per task (render thread, physics thread, game logic thread, UI thread, etc).

 

[Jay]

Yea, I'm also thinking about going forward, but didn't want to pollute thread with it.
If MS, next Xbox is in same ecosystem and is BC, or iterative rolling approach etc.
Xbox Two could have a big leap in CPU as well as gpu, in comparison to Scorpio.

Then a game could possibly run at 1080p30 on Scorpio (maybe 900p30 MP), and 4k60 on xbox two.
Would the multiplayer be limited to 30 due to Scorpio.

Most MP games are 60 now, but would a dev make the compromise to 30 to hit a wider audience.
The people playing on the lower tier hardware may not be getting the best experience, but they do still get to play the game if they don't want to upgrade.
I know for you @sebbbi your give me 60 or give me death for your games though.

Mixed fps is just a fact of life in the PC space in MP, should it, could it also happen in console space.

Edit: And could let matchmaking sort out the differences (as someone mentioned in a previous post)

 

[Jay]

another thought.
would VRR be available in MP in the future as Scorpio supports it?
that could help for the people with supported displays for cross gen games, but what about people without the displays?

or game is 60, but with VRR may be able to run it at a higher fps in MP. Would people with supported displays be out of luck?

 

[Silent_Buddha]

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.

I don't get what you are saying.

Assuming 2 players of equal skill or even the same player.

• Better controller (driving wheel versus pad, fighting stick versus pad, for example) = advantage no matter what.
• Better framerate = maybe advantage.
• Better resolution = maybe advantage. Generally only in shooters when trying to hit distant enemies.

That's assuming equal skill. If we assume unequal skill

• Better controller = Need a very large skill gap to overcome controller advantage.
• Better framerate = less skill advantage needed to overcome framerate advantage.
• Better resolution = almost any skill advantage would be able to overcome this, unless we're talking about something like 240p versus 1080p. 1080p vs. 2160p? Not much difference. Hell playing on a 30" TV versus a 60" TV would give a larger advantage than 1080p vs 2160p in shooters.

In almost all cases just having a controller suited to the game type you are playing is going to offer a massively larger advantage. And is more capable of wiping out a skill advantage than something like framerate or resolution.

Likewise, TV input lag or Internet lag (slow or fast but variable) also generally have a larger impact than framerate or resolution.

So basically you are arguing that anyone using anything other than the default controller that comes with the console should be put into a separate competitive category as that offers a significantly larger competitive advantage than framerate or resolution. So much that it can and does completely wipe out any skill advantage most players will have over another. This is absolutely not subject to skill as you claim.

Oh and people with better internet connections should also be put into a separate competitive category as they also potentially have a larger advantage than someone with better framerate or resolution.

Regards,
SB

 

[sebbbi]

• Better controller (driving wheel versus pad, fighting stick versus pad, for example) = advantage no matter what.
• Better framerate = maybe advantage.
• Better resolution = maybe advantage. Generally only in shooters when trying to hit distant enemies.

I agree that controller is a huge advantage in some games. But close to zero advantage in others. Simple controller changes such as stick extensions (http://me.ign.com/en/ps4/76442/review/kontrolfreek-for-dualshock-4-review) can provide noticeable gains when you need both aim precision and fast turning at the same time. A longer stick provides more precision near the deadzone, so you can increase controller sensitivity but still maintain precision. Very important in games such as Overwatch, where you have characters that need both perfect long distance aim and fast turning in close quarters combat (McCree, Roadhog, etc).

I'd say that better frame rate matters in almost all games. If you need to react to something, then better frame rate is always a win (as it reduces latency). Fighting games, sports, first person shooters (pros play at 144 Hz on PC), anything with realistic physics, etc. Strategy games (including card games) and adventure games are practically the only genres where reaction time plays no role in success. Counter Strike is the extreme example. Most 1:1 encounters are won by the player who reacts first (react -> aim -> shoot).

Resolution is a much smaller advantage, and very much depends on the game. And it practically only matters when you are a very highly skilled player (doing long range headshots without scoping). 30 fps at 4K is never better than 60 fps at 1080p. Not even close. Resolution and display size matters more in some strategy games with very long distances and huge amount of units. Supreme Commander is a good example. Large 4K monitor is definitely an advantage over small 1080p monitor in these games.

Some graphics effects, such as shadows and AO are much more important than resolution. Good contact shadows are very important clue for human brain to determine the location of an object. Its one of the most important sources of depth information (assuming most games are played without stereo view). If the game relies on fast reaction time, it is important that the brain understands the situation quickly. Wrong visual clues, like low res shadows that make objects look like they float in air (peter panning) or lack of dynamic AO or specular occlusion (object doesn't feel grounded) can lead to mistakes and/or hesitation -> longer reaction times. Thus higher quality shadow settings and high quality AO + specular occlusion give a player advantage over another. Good stereo 3d is also a big advantage. I did some stereo 3d tests during the Trials Evolution project, and stereo 3d clearly improved my ability to estimate relative distances between objects better (can I make the jump or not?).

100% even playing field is impossible unless the visual output is identical between all players. I'd say that increasing the resolution from 1080p -> 4K with no major increase in the quality of effects (or draw distance) is the most fair option. Most console multiplayer games seem to have taken this path. I still play Overwatch with base PS4 (don't have a PS4 Pro at home). Pro owners get anisotropic filtering and slight resolution advantage (dynamic resolution never drops below 1080p). Both versions are practically always locked at 60 fps. Not a big difference in this game.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I agree that controller is a huge advantage in some games. But close to zero advantage in others.

Yes, but that applies to frame rate as well. Some games types as you mentioned later just don't benefit from increased frame rate or better controllers (like the competitive card games or turn based strategy games).

While increased framerate will benefit you in some games to a greater degree than better controllers, it doesn't benefit a person as drastically as controllers can in certain game types. So, my examples of driving games and fighting games will have a much larger benefit from using a different controller than increased framerate. Any really competitive fighting game is going to be 60 FPS anyway, and many driving games are 60 FPS already as well. The ones that aren't could certainly do with a boost to 60 FPS, IMO, to make them more enjoyable. And while moving from 30-60 FPS would is a large advantage in a driving games, it's still not nearly as large an advantage as using a good driving wheel with pedals.

And while premium controllers (like the MS Elite Controller) or controller mods that offer some of those benefits that you mentioned (adjustable stick height, etc.) don't offer as much of an advantage in say a shooter as an increase in FPS, for a skilled player it would offer a marked and significant advantage over another similarly skilled player just like greater FPS. Being able to adjust not just the stick height and trigger pull, but also being able to adjust the analog stick response curve provides some pretty significant advantages. Likewise with being able to reposition some of the buttons to non-traditional places (under body flippers) to make them accessible without having to lift a finger off either analog stick, offers some rather large advantages in fast actions games to a similar, but different, degree as increasing FPS from 30 to 60.

In all cases, you pay extra for advantages that other players do not have unless they also pay. Some are cheaper than others. Like analog stick extenders. But they are also less effective than more expensive solutions, like premium configurable controllers (adjustable trigger stops, adjustable analog stick height, analog stick response curve adjustments, underbody flippers to allow use of buttons without removing a finger from an analog stick, etc.)

Overall, I agree with everything you said.

Regards,
SB

 

[sebbbi]

So, my examples of driving games and fighting games will have a much larger benefit from using a different controller than increased framerate. Any really competitive fighting game is going to be 60 FPS anyway

The fact that all fighting games are locked 60 fps already implies that frame rate is highly important for this genre.

If the next Tekken or Street Fighter would be 30 fps on base PS4 and 60 fps on PS4 Pro, there would be a HUGE outcry. 30 fps players would be in a big disadvantage as these games have some single frame (1/60 sec) windows for specific setups. I would personally say that fighting games are the genre where frame rate matters the most. That's why they are all locked 60 fps (as that's always been the highest fps supported by consoles).

 

[Jay]

Destiny 2 is also using p2p not dedicated servers. How much difference does that make, compared to the other things that have been outlined?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The fact that all fighting games are locked 60 fps already implies that frame rate is highly important for this genre.

If the next Tekken or Street Fighter would be 30 fps on base PS4 and 60 fps on PS4 Pro, there would be a HUGE outcry. 30 fps players would be in a big disadvantage as these games have some single frame (1/60 sec) windows for specific setups. I would personally say that fighting games are the genre where frame rate matters the most. That's why they are all locked 60 fps (as that's always been the highest fps supported by consoles).

Surely competition is on the same machine. Over the network, framerate is immaterial next to network connection.

 

[BadTB25]

Controllers like the Elite or SCUF controllers can be a big advantage in games like Halo where the added paddles allows you to pull of moves without ever taking your thumbs of the stick. To me that's not a slight advantage and can be the difference in a lot of 1v1 encounters.

 

[JPT]

IMO this has less with the objective differences/advantages, but more about what Joe public perceives. Pro and enthusiast gamers always maximises any advantage they can.

 

[BadTB25]

We're all pros in our hearts. haha

 

[AlNom]

Make a literal Pro playlist?

Pay to play with @RobertR1. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Silent_Buddha]

The fact that all fighting games are locked 60 fps already implies that frame rate is highly important for this genre.

If the next Tekken or Street Fighter would be 30 fps on base PS4 and 60 fps on PS4 Pro, there would be a HUGE outcry. 30 fps players would be in a big disadvantage as these games have some single frame (1/60 sec) windows for specific setups. I would personally say that fighting games are the genre where frame rate matters the most. That's why they are all locked 60 fps (as that's always been the highest fps supported by consoles).

Of course, but the fact that a 30 FPS fighter is just plain horrible means it's highly unlikely to happen. And if it does people are going to be complaining about the 30 FPS version and not that there is a 60 FPS version available.

IE - huge outcry that they made a 30 FPS version in the first place. Not that there's a 60 FPS version.

So yes, it's certainly important (important enough that developers are reluctant to make a non-60 FPS fighter), but with the reality of fighting games on console where 60 FPS is the norm, controllers remain the main differentiator in whether you can be one of the top players. While having a high skill level will overcome that to some extent, it won't allow you to overcome someone with slightly less skill but using a stick compared to a pad.

So, I find it highly doubtful that a developer would make a 60 FPS fighter on PS4-P or Project Scorpio but then turn around and make the base PS4/XBO version 30 FPS. The reality is that they base PS4/XBO version would be 60 FPS and then an enhanced version released for more powerful systems.

The fact that developers continue to shaft console players by releasing 30 FPS shooters means that they feel that framerate is of relatively less importance for a shooter. And console players buy into that. Where a console player would rage if a 30 FPS fighter was released they are more than happy to play a 30 FPS shooter. While framerate isn't as critical for a shooter as it is for a fighter, it's still important. But similarly while the difference is less marked still significant for framerate in a shooter, differences in controllers are also less marked but still significant.

I think part of why 30 FPS is acceptable on console for a shooter is that they have such a horrible controller for shooters in the first place. It's not like on PC where a professional player is used to being able to do 360 degree turns in 1/60 (not relevant to actual play) of a second while still maintaining the ability to do any fraction of that in 1/60th of a second (very relevant to being competitive at the highest levels). Hence, the higher the framerate the more control a player has over view rotation and being able to quickly get the view exactly where they want it to be. Console controllers at their best will be relatively imprecise by comparison thus limiting many of the advantages that come with higher framerates.

That said, even at 30 FPS a keyboard and mouse would be far superior to console controller at 60 FPS competitively. Meaning that having superior controls does offer a much greater advantage over superior framerate. But since keyboard and mouse aren't really supported in shooters on consoles means that framerate has relatively more importance. But similarly better and more customizable console controllers also increase in relative importance.

Regards,
SB