What framerate will next-gen target? *spawn

[OCASM]

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...

2) Yes, the TLoU remaster came out 40 years after the original...

3) Semi-prettier graphics, since in order to push the envelope on some things they have to sacrifice others such as framerate.

4) Did I say 60fps cause better sales? Don't remember that.

5) All it shows is that people are willing to buy 30fps games, not that 30fps per se cause higher sales.

 

[Scott_Arm]

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

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.

60 fps is objectively better. It is preferable to me.That's not to say it's the right choice every time for every person.

You can't evaluate a game by one feature in isolation. You have to evaluate it as a sum of its parts.

 

[Recop]

2) Yes, the TLoU remaster came out 40 years after the original...

And ? They sold a lot of games with the PS3 version and the PS4 one = double win for ND...

The PS3 version was highly relevant when it was released. Same for the PS4 version.

Your computer and your phone will be completely outdated in some years, yet you enjoy them because they are relevant in 2018.

Nobody cares if Uncharted 4 will age badly as long as it was relevant during its time.

I mean it's a simple concept to understand...

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?

I speak about GTA5. Do you really think that RG thinks they made a mistake with their 30fps target ?

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.

Which means more work from developers. Sure, we can want about anything but those things have a cost...

 

[Pixel]

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

I have a novel idea!!!
Sony & MS could have the OS track the framerate of games, and after a certain quantity of infractions occur (moments it dips to 58fps or lower) the OS terminates the app and the Sony/MS networks is automatically email the publisher with a cease and desist warning!

 

[milk]

I have a novel idea!!!
Sony & MS could have the OS track the framerate of games, and after a certain quantity of infractions occur (moments it dips to 58fps or lower) the OS terminates the app and the Sony/MS networks is automatically email the publisher with a cease and desist warning!

The console should explode and the lazy devs excuted.

 

[Recop]

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

It's only the USA numbers... In reality, you don't have the whole picture to make this comment.

Not to mention that the competition is stronger with the Switch.

So the situation is not even comparable to previous years.

 

[zed]

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

Sorry my mistake, I saw FPS and for some reason thought of first person shooter, so was only considering the shooters. A brain fart on my part

Best Selling games of 2018 (bold is 30fps, looks like this year ppl are tiring of 60fps and are moving over 30fps, (thats a joke btw) )

1. Far Cry 5
2. God of War 2018
3. Monster Hunter: World
4. Call of Duty: WWII
5. Dragon Ball: Fighterz
6. Grand Theft Auto V
7. NBA 2K18
8. MLB 18: The Show
9. Mario Kart 8*
10. PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds**

** will hit single digit framerate in places

 

[OCASM]

And ? They sold a lot of games with the PS3 version and the PS4 one = double win for ND...

The PS3 version was highly relevant when it was released. Same for the PS4 version.

Your computer and your phone will be completely outdated in some years, yet you enjoy them because they are relevant in 2018.

Nobody cares if Uncharted 4 will age badly as long as it was relevant during its time.

I mean it's a simple concept to understand...

Yes, the anti-consumer practice of holding back the good stuff for a re-release so the fans buy the game twice is very effective.

Also, you keep saying "nobody" but in reality it's just you. Good games are fun even decades after they are released and many people want and enjoy playing them.

 

[Shortbread]

We're going to see more 60fps games with the next-generation systems, which is to be expected. But not at the level which 30fps will still dominate the majority of titles. And given that real-time raytracing will be a thing at the hardware level, and a nice bullet-point for those top-tier triple-A developers to brag about, I don't see 60fps being their top priority. Specifically those developers targeting open-world games and some first-person shooters, for maximum eye-candy.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Sorry my mistake, I saw FPS and for some reason thought of first person shooter, so was only considering the shooters. A brain fart on my part

Best Selling games of 2018 (bold is 30fps, looks like this year ppl are tiring of 60fps and are moving over 30fps, (thats a joke btw) )

1. Far Cry 5
2. God of War 2018
3. Monster Hunter: World
4. Call of Duty: WWII
5. Dragon Ball: Fighterz
6. Grand Theft Auto V
7. NBA 2K18
8. MLB 18: The Show
9. Mario Kart 8*
10. PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds**

** will hit single digit framerate in places

Yes, for a 5 month period that's more likely to happen. We all know that 60 FPS games are released more infrequently than 30 FPS games. Unless you happen to catch the release of a good 60 FPS title, then 60 FPS games won't be represented well. As there are more 30 FPS releases in general, there will also be a more consistent release of good 30 FPS titles.

Hence I used a Top 10 that includes releases for an entire 12 month period. When that happens even though 60 FPS games are in the minority they start to float to the top of the best sellers for a given 12 month period.

If we look at the NPD top 10 for 2017 list (a 12 month period that is fully encompassed in a calendar year).

1. Call of Duty: WWII
2. NBA 2K18
3. Destiny 2*
4. Madden NFL 18
5. The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild**
6. Grand Theft Auto V
7. Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon: Wildlands
8. Star Wars: Battlefront II 2017*
9. Super Mario Odyssey**
10. Mario Kart 8**

You'll see the list is again full of 60 FPS titles. 3 of the top 5 and 6 of the top 10 are 60 FPS titles. Yes Nintendo skews things a bit with 2 60 FPS titles, but that balances out a bit with a 30 FPS Nintendo title.

One key thing to take away from the Top 10 for 2018 list that is important to this discussion as well is that at least 2 of the 30 FPS titles also offer a high performance mode as those developers are cognizant that there is a sizable number of fans of their games that want better performance than 30 FPS. They may still not hit 60 FPS in high performance mode, but the developers are aware of a desire for higher performance and took the time to attempt to provide it.

However, as I noted before, analysis is complex and incomplete as the titles are all from different genres.

It's mostly to show that blanket statements that say 30 FPS games sell better than 60 FPS games isn't necessarily true.

So the situation is not even comparable to previous years.

​

I just posted 2017 numbers (the previous year).

And while other people are posting claims without anything to back them up, at least I'm trying to provide some context even if it's primarily for just one of the regions, albeit the largest market for the majority of game publishers.

Regards,
SB

 

[Xbat]

You can do twice as much graphically with a 30 fps game. 60fps is better all things equal. Devs releasing 30fps games with better graphics proves that they sell better in those specific genre's.

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.

You do realize a big proportion of the customers for who exclusives matter have already bought the console this late in the gen.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

60 fps is objectively better. It is preferable to me.That's not to say it's the right choice every time for every person.
You can't evaluate a game by one feature in isolation. You have to evaluate it as a sum of its parts.

Another non-sequitor response that makes no sense.

You say you never said 60 Hz is objectively a better choice.
I quote you previously saying it's an objectively better choice showing you had.
You reply with the same message. No acknowledgement that you did say 60 Hz was better. No explanation what you meant by the line I quoted if it wasn't what I interpreted it as. Just a permanently looping recording of "60 fps is objectively better."

This is real politician stuff now.

Politician - "I never said that. "
Journalist - "Yes you did. Here's the quote."
Politician - "(Ignoring the quote) Here's my opinion again."

 

[Shifty Geezer]

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.

Actual numbers! (Where is this list?) That's a good point. Of course, they can be well argued as genre, longevity, blah blah. So not clear cut. But at least there's some decent evidence about the value to the market of 60 fps games.

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

Precisely. No-one chooses 30 fps because they prefer the judder, but because they prefer the better visuals or game content that comes with that sacrifice.

..., 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.

Indeed. So the guesswork has to be made based on market appeal and feedback. Ultragpu's remark was that 30 fps games have more eye candy which generates more interest which generates better sales. It's a certainty that eye-candy generates interest and coverage.

The converse of that probably relies more on word of mouth, although streaming benefits for showcasing action games. Much like sports, really.

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 agree with that. Options allow people to pick their subjective preference. As we all lament, where's the data from the current games that do provide options?! It shouldn't be hard for a platform owner, or even a game dev, to be able to tell us what proportion of mid-gen console owners are choosing HFR over eye-candy.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Another non-sequitor response that makes no sense.

You say you never said 60 Hz is objectively a better choice.
I quote you previously saying it's an objectively better choice showing you had.
You reply with the same message. No acknowledgement that you did say 60 Hz was better. No explanation what you meant by the line I quoted if it wasn't what I interpreted it as. Just a permanently looping recording of "60 fps is objectively better."

This is real politician stuff now.

Politician - "I never said that. "
Journalist - "Yes you did. Here's the quote."
Politician - "(Ignoring the quote) Here's my opinion again."

Ok. 60Hz and 4K are objectively better than 30Hz and 1440p, respectively. I don't think that's really debatable. But if your platform is Xbox One X, or PS4 Pro, you probably can't do both without making huge sacrifices in other areas. So while 60 fps is better than 30, and 4k is better than 1440p, doing both may not be a better choice for your game. So you might choose 60fps, or you might choose 1440p. If I choose 60fps and lower resolution to 4k, is that an objective choice? No. There's no way to compare them. I can say 60fps is better than 30fps, because you can measure the difference. But how do I compare two different things in an objective way? Are apples objectively better than oranges? The choice between 60fps and 4k is not objective, like the choice between apples and oranges is not objective. It's going to come down to personal preference.

So yes, personally I feel like 30 fps is not good enough. That is my personal subjective opinion. But is 60fps objectively (measurably) better than 30fps. Absolutely. How people feel about the difference between 60 and 30, and what's good enough for gameplay and visual quality is different than what you can actually measure.

Another example. I have been collecting vinyl records for probably almost 25 years. I like them. Sound quality-wise, they are objectively worse than CDs, but I buy them anyway. Some people will try to argue that they sound better, but they are measurably worse. Knowing that, I still buy them anyway. For me, they're the right choice. There's something about them I just like. You can't skip songs, you have to flip them over. They take up WAY more space. So is my choice to listen to records objectively wrong? No. That would be a strange philosophical question about whether we have an obligation to always pick the superior option, or something.

 

[iroboto]

Indeed. So the guesswork has to be made based on market appeal and feedback. Ultragpu's remark was that 30 fps games have more eye candy which generates more interest which generates better sales. It's a certainty that eye-candy generates interest and coverage.

ahhh.. i dunno about that. I mean sure it's a factor. But there are a lot of factors here in play. Correlation doesn't not imply causation is certainly going to be an aspect here.

Minecraft is selling mad gang busters for a long time now, fortnite etc. I wouldn't look at anything on Playstation exclusive list and say yea, this is the way to make long term profits off a game. It's clear that games like Counterstrike, PUBG, Fortnite, Minecraft, GTAV, DOTA, LoL, Overwatch, *insert long lasting games that people love to play at above 60fps* they probably have a better overall setup to generate more sales.

1P exclusives at least in the way everyone describes them in Sony land, are built to be loss leaders to sell the ecosystem. 1 shot narrative experiences that people love and miss and want more of. They're not designed to hit the revenue targets that gameplay based games do. If they do, that's great, but they're not designed to be. 2-5 million units for an exclusive is amazing. Even more so when it hits magical numbers like 17million. But these adventure titles from Sony, they'll all be 30fps because they're meant to sell the system. So graphics and narrative storylines are a big part of the marketing there. But these games don't get nearly the play time to be monetized over the long run like other games do. Which is why we see a focus on 30fps vs 60fps+ games. Games that are meant to have long lasting play time, need that 60fps+ to keep players around. Destiny and GTAV are about the only exceptions to the rule that i see, giving how quickly destiny has died off comparatively to the rest, perhaps that should be removed from the list as well. Anyway, I don't think we should be basing our discussion around exceptions. 60fps is signficantly better for gameplay, and games that need players around for a long time, will naturally prioritize there.

Thus why I see PUBG dying off on console land, it's just getting its lunch eaten by better performing battle royale games.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Ok. 60Hz and 4K are objectively better than 30Hz and 1440p, respectively. I don't think that's really debatable...

So yes, personally I feel like 30 fps is not good enough. That is my personal subjective opinion. But is 60fps objectively (measurably) better than 30fps. Absolutely.

What you say about 60 fps being objectively better is only true if nothing else changes. However, to hit 60 fps, compromises have to be made elsewhere. Thus the assertion 60 fps is objectively better than 30 fps is either moot or redundant. AF is objectively better than no AF, and you'd always choose to include if it nothing else is compromised. However, if that means a hit in framerate, it may not be the right choice.

I guess I don't disagree with you, but I don't understand why you'd express it that way. Better shaders are obejctively better than worse shaders. AA is objectively better than no AA. Higher resolutions are objectively better than lower. More detailed and varied character animations are objectively better than simpler, more robotic animations. The discussion has always been about the compromises and which people prefer, with plenty of people preferring the higher-quality-per-pixel that lower framerates afford, certainly for a set of game genres.

 

[Scott_Arm]

@Shifty Geezer The only reason I argued is because I think 60fps is a massively overlooked aspect of image quality and gameplay. From the start, I never suggested that 60fps should be mandated, or that 60fps came without compromise. I was just making a case for why it is important, and why I feel there should be a little more focus on engineering the next-gen to have options for 60fps and higher. That might mean a higher percentage of silicon dedicated to the cpu, or maybe faster geometry processing and culling.

 

[eloic]

@Shifty Geezer The only reason I argued is because I think 60fps is a massively overlooked aspect of image quality and gameplay. From the start, I never suggested that 60fps should be mandated, or that 60fps came without compromise. I was just making a case for why it is important, and why I feel there should be a little more focus on engineering the next-gen to have options for 60fps and higher. That might mean a higher percentage of silicon dedicated to the cpu, or maybe faster geometry processing and culling.

We all know that more fps are better than less fps, but it's not a matter of technology, it's a matter of resource allocation. It's been like this and it will always be.

Current consoles can reach 60 fps. Next gen consoles will reach those same fps while showing a better image (more resolution, better shaders, better geometry density, etc.). But as long as tech is the way it is, there will always be developers who will focus more on delivering a better graphical experience at a lower framerate. Why? Because, clearly, more people prefer prettier graphics at (hopefully) solid 30 fps than simpler graphics at 60 fps, except for multiplayer and a few more cases.

So, even though next gen consoles may be able to reach 60 fps and a high graphical fidelity, many developers will choose to create better graphics at a lower fps rate.

 

[iroboto]

We all know that more fps are better than less fps, but it's not a matter of technology, it's a matter of resource allocation. It's been like this and it will always be.

Current consoles can reach 60 fps. Next gen consoles will reach those same fps while showing a better image (more resolution, better shaders, better geometry density, etc.). But as long as tech is the way it is, there will always be developers who will focus more on delivering a better graphical experience at a lower framerate. Why? Because, clearly, more people prefer prettier graphics at (hopefully) solid 30 fps than simpler graphics at 60 fps, except for multiplayer and a few more cases.

So, even though next gen consoles may be able to reach 60 fps and a high graphical fidelity, many developers will choose to create better graphics at a lower fps rate.

but if you don't put the hardware there to run games at 60fps for next gen, then we're going to see a lot more 30fps titles without 60fps options. That is the crux of his argument. He wants next gen to be about enabling higher FPS modes in the games.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

What is hardware that enables 60 fps, and why wasn't it a feature of past consoles? Is there a CPU : GPU ratio above which 60 fps becomes more reliable? Couldn't PS2 or OXB or PS3 reach that ratio?