What framerate will next-gen target? *spawn

[Scott_Arm]

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?

I'm not an expert on pc profiling, but there is a balance between cpu and gpu. You don't pair a 1080ti with an i3 cpu. You'll be cpu-limited in a lot of games, and it'll limit your frame rate. In terms of a console, there's no answer I can give you, but it's not a special technology. It's more cores, more clock, more ipc, or maybe more cache. There are games on X1X an PS4 Pro that I believe are cpu-limited and fail to maintain 60fps in their performance modes. The design would have to be based on projections. You'd have to profile a lot of games, and get feedback from developers, to get an idea of what they would need to be able to get their games up to 60Hz and have headroom for generational improvements. It'll probably require a little more focus on CPU power, removing cpu overhead (API), or maybe other bottlenecks that doubling framerate could cause (geometry processing and culling?).

Next-gen is going to be the first console where resolution has diminishing returns, where resolution can be varied as a smaller compromise than in previous generations. You can have resolution in ranges anywhere between 1080p and 4k dynamically with reconstruction. There's room for performance modes that sacrifice resolution or other visual quality to offer modes with higher frame rates. That was less true this gen, as 900p pixels are quite large on bigger tv screens. It was even more true in the PS360 gen, as there was a very stark difference between 720p and some of the games that were closer to SD.

 

[iroboto]

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?

I guess assumption is that the next generation will be about more CPU and what that could enable. If developers are going to make harder and more complex scenes, it's needs even more CPU to get you to 60.

'we think'.

the other way to look at it , is more CPU so that more developers who aren't as talented can get up to 60fps.

and i don't know what is the lowest required CPU to make next gen gaming. I've been tossing with this idea several times about optimizations, but some things, like loading times and applications, or running multiple applications with your games, could use more CPU and has nothing to do with render() optimization.

 

[AlNom]

So we need a dedicated Unity/Unreal Engine accelerator. :V

 

[iroboto]

So we need a dedicated Unity/Unreal Engine accelerator. :V

lol honestly i dunno. everyone talks about what huge CPU could do for next gen gaming. I honestly no clue what it looks like.
everything I saw at e32018 seemed pretty next gen cpu like to me, so aside from running those things at 60fps, it seems already like a big improvement.
I would love to be proven wrong. But when I think about a game that would force a ryzen to 30fps (assuming rendering the graphics is a small subset of hte CPU), I couldn't put together what that game would look or feel like. Having CPU just for graphics... seems inefficient as though there were a better way to do it.

 

[AlNom]

But when I think about a game that would force a ryzen to 30fps (assuming rendering the graphics is a small subset of hte CPU), I couldn't put together what that game would look or feel like. Having CPU just for graphics... seems inefficient as though there were a better way to do it.

DOA BR!

 

[eloic]

It's more cores, more clock, more ipc, or maybe more cache.

More money. It's a compromise. People won't ever spend the amount of money needed to buy a console with the most powerful components.

Next-gen is going to be the first console where resolution has diminishing returns, where resolution can be varied as a smaller compromise than in previous generations. You can have resolution in ranges anywhere between 1080p and 4k dynamically with reconstruction. There's room for performance modes that sacrifice resolution or other visual quality to offer modes with higher frame rates. That was less true this gen, as 900p pixels are quite large on bigger tv screens. It was even more true in the PS360 gen, as there was a very stark difference between 720p and some of the games that were closer to SD.

That's true. Once 4K is the top, maybe developers will focus more both in graphical quality and a fps rate higher than 30 for more games than just multiplayer, sports and racing.

 

[Recop]

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.

It's pure nonsense... they made the game they wanted on PS3 and they needed to run it at 30fps. As simple as that.

They already downgraded the AI and you expected 60fps at the same time ?

So, with Zelda Ocarina of Time on N64, Nintento had an anti-consumer mind ? Please, it's getting ridiculous...

 

[Silent_Buddha]

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.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I posted a list of sales rankings and not absolute sales numbers. While there are no absolute sales numbers, at least in NPD, it shows quite clearly at that worst 60 FPS games don't sell worse than 30 FPS, and the argument could be made that 60 FPS games sell better than 30 FPS games.

However, that's a simplistic analysis that doesn't mean much on it's own.

Again I mainly posted that to disprove the blanket statement some people are making that 30 FPS games sell better than 60 FPS games.

Now, if they were more specific like 30 FPS heavily story driven games sell better than 60 FPS heavily story driven games, they'd have a point. But only because there aren't many heavily story based games on console that are 60 FPS (as opposed to PC where any game can be 60 FPS if you want it to be), and not necessarily because 30 FPS games of that genre would sell better than 60 FPS games of that genre.

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.
Indeed.

The problem is that there is no choice. They can't choose to play that game at anything other than 30 FPS. If someone wants to play Bloodborne, they have no choice but to play it at 30 FPS. They can't choose to play it at 60 FPS with lower graphics if that's what they desire because that just doesn't exist. And the closest games to Bloodborne on console? Dark Souls games, which are also 30 FPS. So it's not like they can choose to play something similar at 60 FPS.

In other words, no-one choses 30 FPS games for graphics, judder, or anything else, because they don't have a choice if they want to play that game.

Hence they tolerate 30 FPS because the game is still great, not necessarily because they want to play at 30 FPS in order to have better graphics. BTW - for people reading this that isn't a blanket statement, there are of course people that would also choose 30 with slightly better graphics versus 60 with slightly worse graphics.

Unlike say sports games (racing, soccer, American football, whatever.) where one game is going to be very similar to another game of the same sport. It's easy to drop one franchise for another. And when it's easy to do that, franchises that stayed at 30 FPS basically died because no one wanted to play them. Basically as games are so similar users could easily abandon 30 FPS franchises in favor of 60 FPS franchises.

Story heavy games you can't do that. You either play the game or you don't. And while there are some people that won't play a game at 30 FPS, far more people will be willing to tolerate having to play at 30 FPS in order to play said game. The fact that they play it at 30 FPS doesn't necessarily meant they like or prefer to play it at 30 FPS for what some might consider better graphics. It just means they want to play that game.

Regards,
SB

 

[Silent_Buddha]

It's pure nonsense... they made the game they wanted on PS3 and they needed to run it at 30fps. As simple as that.

They already downgraded the AI and you expected 60fps at the same time ?

So, with Zelda Ocarina of Time on N64, Nintento had an anti-consumer mind ? Please, it's getting ridiculous...

Erm, I never said the quote you attributed to me. I have no idea who said that or why you are attributing it to me.

I even clicked on the link to double check that I wasn't suffering from amnesia or something.

Regards,
SB

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The problem is that there is no choice.

That's where PC user choice would be a great reference. PC players can choose framerate and visual quality. I'm shocked there's really not more info on this! Seems a no-brainer to want to acquire user info and metrics are absolutely everywhere in games these days.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The problem I see with the better CPU == more 60fps argument is that it assumes complexity of the games won't increase. So we have the same game worlds we have now, with twice the CPU performance, for twice the framerate. That's the same suggestion as having PS1 level games in terms of complexity but running them at 60 fps on PS2, etc. Every generation has had the option to play the previous generation level games but at smoother framerates, and instead devs have made the games do more in that same 1/30th second slice.

A lot comes down to which genres are bottlenecked where and where those bottlenecks can be alleviated. Some games may well get a huge lift from compute-based rendering, but I think a lot of the 'big hitters' are still going to target 30 fps. Uncharted 5 is going not going to take Uncharted 4's level of market scene animation and people simulation and run it at 60 fps - it's going to implement a more realistic simulator with more realistic people and interactions and run it at 30 fps, and it's that next-gen realism that'll get people gasping and talking. If the choice was current-gen quality at 60 fps, people would prbobaly just say it's no different and be disappointed they seeing an advance, because the nature of new-stuff is different to old-stuff-in-higher-framerate. If that makes any sense.

 

[Recop]

Erm, I never said the quote you attributed to me. I have no idea who said that or why you are attributing it to me.

I even clicked on the link to double check that I wasn't suffering from amnesia or something.

Regards,
SB

Oh, i'm sorry, i wanted to quote OCASM. I had OCASM in mind.

 

[OCASM]

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.

Not better graphics but rather more detailed graphics since framerate after all is part of the graphical experience. Then again, a lower framerate means less motion resolution which means less perceived detail...

It's pure nonsense... they made the game they wanted on PS3 and they needed to run it at 30fps. As simple as that.

They already downgraded the AI and you expected 60fps at the same time ?

So, with Zelda Ocarina of Time on N64, Nintento had an anti-consumer mind ? Please, it's getting ridiculous...

Downgraded the AI, assuming the first showing was even real AI and not pure scripted bullshit...

Considering the graphical quality of the 60fps N64 games (barely 3D) Nintendo made the right choice at the time. With today's hardware, choosing 60fps doesn't carry the same extreme penalty.

Then again maybe Nintendo IS indeed anti-consumer and wants the fans to buy the game more than twice since even its remasters don't run at 60fps.

What could have been...

Uncharted 5 is going not going to take Uncharted 4's level of market scene animation and people simulation and run it at 60 fps - it's going to implement a more realistic simulator with more realistic people and interactions and run it at 30 fps, and it's that next-gen realism that'll get people gasping and talking. If the choice was current-gen quality at 60 fps, people would prbobaly just say it's no different and be disappointed they seeing an advance, because the nature of new-stuff is different to old-stuff-in-higher-framerate. If that makes any sense.

30fps is less realistic than 60fps, specially regarding animation. Also, it's not like a AAA 60fps current-gen games look just like past gen 30fps titles, come on.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

That's where PC user choice would be a great reference. PC players can choose framerate and visual quality. I'm shocked there's really not more info on this! Seems a no-brainer to want to acquire user info and metrics are absolutely everywhere in games these days.

With the PS4-P and XBO-X we're at least seeing some rudimentary efforts at giving the player choice. I'd be extremely interested to see what data Sony and MS have WRT how owners of those machines are choosing to play those games.

Personally, I think that now that more console studios are gaining experience with offering multiple modes, they'll build on that going into the next consoles and offer users a choice.

Then again I may be hopelessly optimistic.

While I'm staunchly for 60 FPS, I've always liked it more when the games offered a choice to the user in how they want their game to look and play. For example, I hate DOF and think it's the devils work (a bit of exaggeration) but I wouldn't dream of asking developers to take it out because I know other people like the effect. So, thank goodness for options. Well at least on my platform of choice.

Regards,
SB

 

[eloic]

Not better graphics but rather more detailed graphics since framerate after all is part of the graphical experience. Then again, a lower framerate means less motion resolution which means less perceived detail...

Not everyone agrees on what's better, then. To me it's definitely better to have better shadowing, models, shaders, post-processing effects and AA. It's not that we're talking about 480p/30 FPS vs 4K/60 FPS, you see. High definition resolutions are pretty good at showing a fair amount of detail. I can perceive a lot of detail in 30 FPS games, as well as so many gamers who are amazed at how pretty some 30 FPS games graphics look.

 

[OCASM]

Not everyone agrees on what's better, then. To me it's definitely better to have better shadowing, models, shaders, post-processing effects and AA. It's not that we're talking about 480p/30 FPS vs 4K/60 FPS, you see. High definition resolutions are pretty good at showing a fair amount of detail. I can perceive a lot of detail in 30 FPS games, as well as so many gamers who are amazed at how pretty some 30 FPS games graphics look.

All I'm saying is that "better graphics" and framerate aren't mutually exclusive from each other.

 

[eloic]

All I'm saying is that "better graphics" and framerate aren't mutually exclusive from each other.

In practice, not true. Let's say we take full advantage of the same hardware: more things can be done at 30 FPS than at 60. Some people will find that a higher framerate is better even though the graphics are less... complex, but some people will prefer an overall better graphical product in all departments but framerate.

 

[OCASM]

In practice, not true. Let's say we take full advantage of the same hardware: more things can be done at 30 FPS than at 60. Some people will find that a higher framerate is better even though the graphics are less... complex, but some people will prefer an overall better graphical product in all departments but framerate.

Yes, trade-offs and personal preferences are a thing. Doesn't mean framerate is not another component of graphics.

It's pure nonsense... they made the game they wanted on PS3 and they needed to run it at 30fps. As simple as that.

But that's only because they hadn't seen the light. After they did, however, this is what they had to say:

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/the-last-of-us-remastered-devs-discuss-making-60fp/1100-6421147/

Why is 60fps important?

"It was a toss-up before; people were saying that you lose quality and graphics and what not," Gregory said when asked why Naughty Dog feels that it's such an important component for the game. "But being able to compare apples to apples like we have now with The Last of Us, going back and playing the 30 Hz version feels, to quote some people in the office, 'broken.' There's something that can't be captured in screenshots and playing an adventure game where you just walk around and experience the world at the smooth 60 Hz. [Editor's note: throughout the interview, the Naughty Dog team used fps and hertz interchangeably] You really just have to feel it."

"There was an internal debate just over the artistic-ness of going 30 or 60, and whether or not it would feel weird. Pretty much every person who had said, 'I'm a 30 Hz person, I don't know if I could play it at 60.' When they finally saw it, they said, 'Nevermind, I'm convinced.' We do so much with the animations of the character to convey emotion to the player so when you talk about what's going on with Joel and getting the player to empathize with him. At 60 frames, seeing his breathing change, or when a Clicker shows up and you hear that sound and the way he moves changes, because all the animations are that much more fluid, I think that comes across even more now. That's going to change the play experience just a little bit in the way the players experience that."

You'll be able to see the difference yourself soon enough. In addition to the stream of comparison videos we'll be putting together, Naughty Dog director Neil Druckmann mentioned on Twitter, "Since some people asked for it, we added an optional 30fps mode (gameplay & cinematics). My pref is 60fps all the way."

Will 60fps become the new standard in games?
"We hope so," Gregory said. "It used to just be that first-person shooters were 60 by default, but a lot of other games didn't feel the need for it. I think we're showing that it does make a difference even in a non-FPS type game. And one question that's been fielded on Twitter as a follow-up to the 60 Hz, is whether or not we're always at 1080p. Some games have been doing the whole adaptive resolution where they change the resolution based on what's going on. We are always at 1080p."

Clearly TLoU2 would benefit tremendously from 60fps but sadly that won't happen until PS5...

 

[Silent_Buddha]

In practice, not true. Let's say we take full advantage of the same hardware: more things can be done at 30 FPS than at 60. Some people will find that a higher framerate is better even though the graphics are less... complex, but some people will prefer an overall better graphical product in all departments but framerate.

Many people also find it visually superior when in motion as you lose far less temporal data. All that effort put into relatively small added graphical details in 30 FPS is often immediately lost visually once the camera is moved.

It's certainly unarguable that 30 FPS still images will look better than 60 FPS still images. But once you start moving around a scene or looking around the scene with a camera, much of the added detail perceptually disappears. It's still there obviously if you were to take a screenshot, but when viewing it in motion, so much detail is lost at 30 FPS.

Regards,
SB

 

[OCASM]

I mentioned before that an option for developers would be 60fps gameplay and photomode for pretty screenshots at higher fidelity. Well that's exactly how it works in the case of Super Mario Odyssey: