Is The Game Industry Dropping The 60 FPS Standard?
Last response: in News comments
exfileme
October 9, 2014 11:19:36 AM
Nicolas Guérin talks about developing a game running 30 frames per second.
Is The Game Industry Dropping The 60 FPS Standard? : Read more
Is The Game Industry Dropping The 60 FPS Standard? : Read more
More about : game industry dropping fps standard
-
Reply to exfileme
red77star
October 9, 2014 11:28:22 AM
Obviously two cancers of gaming industry called XBOX One and PS4 can't push a **** as far as games goes beyond 30FPS therefore I understand ******* this guys speaks of. At the same time PC Industry is going toward 4K on 60+ FPS which will not be achievable by ***** consoles in at least 4-5 years. 30FPS is unplayable no matter what type of game we speak of. I think Ubisoft finds themselves in a bigger problem and that is that PC game sale decimates Console sales but since they are committed to companies who made two **** boxes (XBOX, Play Station) they are worried to lose so much money having people not buy port **** running 30FPS. It would be costly for them to develop a game they it should be on PC Gaming and then redevelop same thing for **** cans which cannot push anything beyond 30FPS at 1080p. - message edited by mod, OP please watch the language.
-
Reply to red77star
m
65
l
Armisael
October 9, 2014 11:32:53 AM
Related resources
- Dropping below 60 fps frequently in Just Cause 2, Forced, and Borderlands 2 on highish end gaming rig (gtx 770) - Tech Support
- Games drop to to 15 fps for atleast 4-5minutes then come back to 60fps - Tech Support
- My PC plays games at around 60+ FPS but then drops to 20 FPS. - Tech Support
- Battlefield 4 + Other games getting what feels like large fps drops with solid 60fps. (Frame Skipping?) - Tech Support
- a new game i want is "capped" AT 60 FPS ...does that mean if i..... - Tech Support
Silent Ricochet
October 9, 2014 11:33:16 AM
So basically, developers want to stop trying to achieve 60fps because of consoles. Am I getting this right? Because 30 fps in pretty much every game I play is the bare minimum of smooth gameplay. Battlefield at 30 fps? Horrible. Company of Heroes at 30 fps? Horrible. Films have motion blur, video games have stupid fake motion blur that detracts from the game. When I play a video game I want to feel like I'm a part of it, not like I'm watching a movie. Why have monitors and televisions that refresh at 60, 120, 144 and 240hz when these idiots want to limit their AAA titles to 30 fps? This just seems like an excuse so they can have an even, albeit worse, image quality and frame rate across all platforms.
-
Reply to Silent Ricochet
m
37
l
icemunk
October 9, 2014 11:34:33 AM
rawoysters
October 9, 2014 11:36:32 AM
"At Ubisoft, for a long time we wanted to push 60 fps," Guérin admitted. "I don't think it was a good idea because you don't gain that much from 60 fps and it doesn't look like the real thing" .
Give me a break. You are catering to the console market, plain and simple. It's much easier to develop for and that's where the money is. They will try everything they can to spin this another way.
Give me a break. You are catering to the console market, plain and simple. It's much easier to develop for and that's where the money is. They will try everything they can to spin this another way.
-
Reply to rawoysters
m
63
l
vmem
October 9, 2014 11:37:14 AM
if they drop back to 30fps because they want to have more detailed textures and push for 4K as a standard, then I don't mind (too much)
but this is obviously to save the Xbox One and PS4 from getting dumped to the roadside so yeah... curse you consoles!!! worse part is these consoles supposedly won't be refreshed for like 10 years
but this is obviously to save the Xbox One and PS4 from getting dumped to the roadside so yeah... curse you consoles!!! worse part is these consoles supposedly won't be refreshed for like 10 years
-
Reply to vmem
m
6
l
usertests
October 9, 2014 11:38:47 AM
anneoneamouse
October 9, 2014 11:38:48 AM
dwatterworth
October 9, 2014 11:40:32 AM
Someone better get over to AMD and Nvidia super quick and tell them to not waste any more money on GPU development...
So games that 30 fps is acceptable on a supposed 'premium machine'; strategy, turn based games, solitaire.
I take that back on solitaire, those cards and pixel fireworks shoot out faster than 30 fps and sure do look nice and smooth at high framerates.
What a crock. Now that the new consoles are essentially PC's, shouldn't it be incredibly easy to develop the game to as high a quality as possible and then adjust the frame rates to match the hardware (in case of fixed hardware consoles).
Saying 30 fps lets you get the most detail in as possible doesn't make sense. It clearly would allow for more detail and effects on lower power hardware but it's not like the texture files, light maps etc will change other than being refreshed/rerendered more often when the frame rate goes up.
People don't want to game on a zoetrope.
So games that 30 fps is acceptable on a supposed 'premium machine'; strategy, turn based games, solitaire.
I take that back on solitaire, those cards and pixel fireworks shoot out faster than 30 fps and sure do look nice and smooth at high framerates.
What a crock. Now that the new consoles are essentially PC's, shouldn't it be incredibly easy to develop the game to as high a quality as possible and then adjust the frame rates to match the hardware (in case of fixed hardware consoles).
Saying 30 fps lets you get the most detail in as possible doesn't make sense. It clearly would allow for more detail and effects on lower power hardware but it's not like the texture files, light maps etc will change other than being refreshed/rerendered more often when the frame rate goes up.
People don't want to game on a zoetrope.
-
Reply to dwatterworth
m
20
l
zanny
October 9, 2014 11:42:14 AM
Quote:
because 4K displays are becoming more and more common4k is not even on developers radar. They are targeting toaster machines under a TV that cannot handle 2006 visuals at 1080/60. The reason for this propaganda barrage involving false claims about 30 fps being anything probably because MS and Sony are bribing them to. They built low end computers and sold them as next gen and wondered why in order to make graphics look even comparable to modern PC titles the devs had to ruin the framerates and resolutions.
But 4k won't even be a thing next console gen in all likelihood. In the same way 1080p displays were out during the PS2 era, and then the 360 / PS3 were incapable of targeting that resolution, I expect the Xbox Zero and PS5 to be incapable of rendering to 4k as well, because even in four years it will be expensive to supply graphics hardware that will be able to handle it.
-
Reply to zanny
m
17
l
Sassysaurus
October 9, 2014 11:49:03 AM
Not regarding the few exceptions, current consoles can't even push 1080P at 30 FPS, so I can't imagine them getting to 4K by the time they get refreshed. And I don't even understand Amancio's comment about pixel density. Sure having detailed textures is nice, but you can only go so far with that without increasing your pixel density to allow for more detail. They're back pedaling on every single hot topic that the consoles are failing at and trying to justify them as the new standard for the industry while my computer that is 4 years old is running Shadow of Mordor on high at over 60 FPS just fine. Way to set the bar high for yourselves there Ubi.
-
Reply to Sassysaurus
m
15
l
rad666
October 9, 2014 11:49:44 AM
gggplaya
October 9, 2014 11:54:46 AM
I don't know what crack people are smoking. My first gaming video card was a 3DFX voodoo with 6MB of ram. Back then and up until only a few years ago, PC gamers struggled to get at least 30fps. If you got 30fps, it was very smooth cinematic like gameplay.
People have to realize that 30fps or 24fps is what movies are played at. All those bluerays, and dvds you watch are at 30fps.
60fps buys you absolutely nothing on slower moving games, like assassins creed which is in third person. Any detail lost is extremely indescernible.
Now first person shooters do see a slight advantage during intense action. But most people wouldn't even notice. So i actually agree with what Ubisoft is saying.
People have to realize that 30fps or 24fps is what movies are played at. All those bluerays, and dvds you watch are at 30fps.
60fps buys you absolutely nothing on slower moving games, like assassins creed which is in third person. Any detail lost is extremely indescernible.
Now first person shooters do see a slight advantage during intense action. But most people wouldn't even notice. So i actually agree with what Ubisoft is saying.
-
Reply to gggplaya
m
-44
l
TechyInAZ
October 9, 2014 11:56:49 AM
apertotes
October 9, 2014 11:57:12 AM
Neve12ende12
October 9, 2014 11:58:28 AM
skit75
October 9, 2014 12:00:50 PM
Has there ever been such a thing as a "60Hz standard?" AFAIK, most games have two basic options as far as "frame standard" goes: whatever vsync for the attached output monitor(s) is or no sync where the game simply renders as many frames per second as the CPU/GPU will allow.
The closest thing to a new standard is freesync/g-sync which are the best of both worlds and have no specific update rate aside from the monitor's absolute maximum.
The closest thing to a new standard is freesync/g-sync which are the best of both worlds and have no specific update rate aside from the monitor's absolute maximum.
-
Reply to InvalidError
m
1
l
qlum
October 9, 2014 12:05:32 PM
I think the whole vsync standards may just go away next generation on console as the adaptive syncing amd pushed to a standard is probably also going into hdmi which in turn will mean consoles will get it. When that happens you may be seeing a standard of 45fps average our something along those lines. Personally on pc I never had too much trouble with screen tearing. and think 45fps is a nice sweetspot for less precise games.
-
Reply to qlum
m
-4
l
Lmah
October 9, 2014 12:07:33 PM
jimhood82
October 9, 2014 12:15:12 PM
@gggplaya - Even on my 3dFX Voodoo 3 3000, I got more than 30fps in most games. In Quake 3, it was good for 45fps (1024x768) to 60fps (800x600). With a bit of an overclock, it did even better. Half life was an easy 60fps @ 1024x768.
The games were there, the hardware was there. We have been gaming at 60fps for so long it feels like an insult to hear that game companies want to lock us to 30fps. Worse yet, this is also going to negatively affect the gaming accessories market. Why bother getting better gear, when they game simply cannot respond fast enough to keep up with it?
People are right - this is an attempt to cater to consoles, and find a way to get 1080P content on the next-gen boxes. Honestly, what I would do in their position, is continue back-porting to the old consoles, and make the games better on PC. Quit letting the consoles hold them back, make the same so UN-imaginably better on PC that MS and Sony have to re-think their strategy.
The games were there, the hardware was there. We have been gaming at 60fps for so long it feels like an insult to hear that game companies want to lock us to 30fps. Worse yet, this is also going to negatively affect the gaming accessories market. Why bother getting better gear, when they game simply cannot respond fast enough to keep up with it?
People are right - this is an attempt to cater to consoles, and find a way to get 1080P content on the next-gen boxes. Honestly, what I would do in their position, is continue back-porting to the old consoles, and make the games better on PC. Quit letting the consoles hold them back, make the same so UN-imaginably better on PC that MS and Sony have to re-think their strategy.
-
Reply to jimhood82
m
12
l
ezmo85
October 9, 2014 12:16:35 PM
Innocent_Bystander
October 9, 2014 12:24:59 PM
Modern hardware will run everything at 60FPS anyway. Those games that are locked to 30 will be hacked to run @ 60... I'm not sure why you guys are all up in arms. His comments apply to consoles.
Wenever I play my PS4 (or even my PS3 which isn't even able to push 720/30 most of the time) I don't really feel like I'm missing out because the controller is not a twitch-input device anyway.
Ultimately I agree with the guy as long as they make sure not to force a 30 cap on PC versions of their games.
Wenever I play my PS4 (or even my PS3 which isn't even able to push 720/30 most of the time) I don't really feel like I'm missing out because the controller is not a twitch-input device anyway.
Ultimately I agree with the guy as long as they make sure not to force a 30 cap on PC versions of their games.
-
Reply to Innocent_Bystander
m
0
l
chaospower
October 9, 2014 12:35:02 PM
Like some said before me, what he's saying refers to consoles and I can only hope it won't affect the PC versions of their games.
Basically what he says translates to "The consoles are too weak for us to have both 60fps and good looking games in high resolution, it's one way or the other, and we prefer good graphics rather than a smooth frame rate" so now they aim for 30fps instead of 60fps. I agree that in third person type action adventure games, 30fps doesn't bother me as much as it does in FPS games, so I for one agree with this decision.
That said, I obviously don't want my PC games locked on 30fps when my PC can do more.
Basically what he says translates to "The consoles are too weak for us to have both 60fps and good looking games in high resolution, it's one way or the other, and we prefer good graphics rather than a smooth frame rate" so now they aim for 30fps instead of 60fps. I agree that in third person type action adventure games, 30fps doesn't bother me as much as it does in FPS games, so I for one agree with this decision.
That said, I obviously don't want my PC games locked on 30fps when my PC can do more.
-
Reply to chaospower
m
3
l
drapacioli
October 9, 2014 12:37:18 PM
Well, as long as physics are rendered at 60fps when it matters, I don't care if the actual graphics display at 30fps. 30 is enough to provide smooth animation without seeming too artificial. The only time I would say you need 60fps is on really high precision games like fps's and fast-paced sims (like racing games, for example). Otherwise if precision control isn't necessary there's no absolute need to render more than that.
-
Reply to drapacioli
m
-9
l
Anonymous
October 9, 2014 12:38:11 PM
No need to get mad at Ubisoft. They're forced to either make graphical cuts to their game which would affect their artistic vision, or cap it at a lower fps so consoles can run it. The problem's in the hardware not the software. Saying more than 30 fps looks bad allows them to maintain a stance that asserts graphical competency without saying anything negative against the console gaming industry.
-
Reply to Anonymous
m
-5
l
Nesterowicz
October 9, 2014 12:47:19 PM
30fps..... is enough... ohh yea, so what happens when the overhead is maxed out on that hardware? 15 fps? 10 fps results....
They are afriad that PC is to dominant , and wants to even out the differences.. terrible...! There is a reason why i dont use my PS3..... i have a PC! and i actually buy games via steam & origin.
They are afriad that PC is to dominant , and wants to even out the differences.. terrible...! There is a reason why i dont use my PS3..... i have a PC! and i actually buy games via steam & origin.
-
Reply to Nesterowicz
m
6
l
maddogfargo
October 9, 2014 12:50:17 PM
Joseph DeGarmo
October 9, 2014 12:51:28 PM
-
Reply to Joseph DeGarmo
m
10
l
ezmo85
October 9, 2014 1:02:34 PM
While there are those who have the opinion that 60fps is only necessary for FPS, I for one prefer it everywhere. I finally played Dark Souls this year, and after playing it for a while at 30fps, I found the 60fps unlock in DSFix. To me it was such a blatantly smoother experience at that point, even though it is a purposefully slower, 3rd person RPG. Seriously, 60fps is such a better experience in every situation I've encountered, it should be the gold standard. And just because we own PCs doesn't mean we won't be included in this trend to lock the games at 30fps. There have already been multiple examples including one of the recent Need for Speed games, Dead Rising 3, as well as the upcoming The Crew and The Evil Within. And I'm sorry, but having to edit config files or use hacks to unlock the framerate is unacceptable in this day and age.
-
Reply to ezmo85
m
13
l
nikoli707
October 9, 2014 1:05:00 PM
i have seen 96fps 1080p film on a 120hz screen… i thought it was beautiful. the hobbit was 48hz i believe which is half that. i understand hdtv will not be able to sustain 96hz/96fps at 4k for quite a long time, let alone 1080p. but i do think if people give bluray quality filmed 96 frames a second a change, they would get used to it and realize this whole "film look" thing is a bunch of crap.
as for pc games like battlefield dropping to 30fps, it will never ever happen. if anything 240 frames per second at 4k will be the next standard in about 7 years.
as for pc games like battlefield dropping to 30fps, it will never ever happen. if anything 240 frames per second at 4k will be the next standard in about 7 years.
-
Reply to nikoli707
m
11
l
ilhazard
October 9, 2014 1:06:02 PM
Happhazzard
October 9, 2014 1:15:47 PM
leeb2013
October 9, 2014 1:16:01 PM
This generation of consoles with low end hardware has done more damage to the pc game market than ever before. First it's the graphics quality which is artificially limited to be no better than console, now it's the frame rate. Add in some games which can't run on 3 monitors and horrendously optimized console ports and developers are basically making it pointless having a gaming pc. Clearly they have been paid princely sums of money by ms and Sony to do this.
What's the point in having amazing new gpus from nvidia and amd when new games need such weak gpus. This is nothing to do with improving graphics on pcs, we already have the hardware waiting. They just want to ensure consoles look as good as pcs. Why the hell can't we decide what graphics settings and fps we want, rather than forcing us down to console level.
What's the point in having amazing new gpus from nvidia and amd when new games need such weak gpus. This is nothing to do with improving graphics on pcs, we already have the hardware waiting. They just want to ensure consoles look as good as pcs. Why the hell can't we decide what graphics settings and fps we want, rather than forcing us down to console level.
-
Reply to leeb2013
m
7
l
dragonsqrrl
October 9, 2014 1:16:37 PM
-
Reply to dragonsqrrl
m
6
l
aule10
October 9, 2014 1:23:37 PM
waethorn
October 9, 2014 1:39:11 PM
texasrangerkilla
October 9, 2014 1:43:12 PM
jscynder
October 9, 2014 2:03:47 PM
soccerplayer88
October 9, 2014 2:04:41 PM
skit75
October 9, 2014 2:37:36 PM
waethorn said:
If they could do motion blur properly, 24FPS would be all you would need.Probably true for movies. No need to downvote him for that. Bluray is delivered in 1920x1080p @ 24FPS.
This is very acceptable to our eyes for movies and HFR(48FPS) almost appears too life-like. In video games however, I would agree with another poster in saying we don't to feel like we're in a movie while playing a game.
There are a few games I would allow exception for..... games made from movies and games like Max Payne where a cinematic effect IS the game. Other than that, let the hardware be the limitation.
-
Reply to skit75
m
-4
l
The_Icon
October 9, 2014 2:50:32 PM
coolitic
October 9, 2014 2:50:33 PM
Priox
October 9, 2014 2:50:53 PM
I can't be the only one who sees how great this is. Sure this is probably because of consoles, but it's only consoles that are going to suffer for it. If what this guy says is true then game makers are going to pour on the textures, the particle effects, the lighting, etc. in all their games. Consoles will only be able to render at 30fps or less and the devs will say, "Meh, it's the new standard." But on PC, suddenly your 3-way SLI GTX 980's will have something to sink their teeth into.
PC gamers will get all the extra graphical goodies brought by the sacrifice of console framerate, and will still be able to hit 60fps+.
PC gamers will get all the extra graphical goodies brought by the sacrifice of console framerate, and will still be able to hit 60fps+.
-
Reply to Priox
m
2
l
The_Icon
October 9, 2014 2:53:00 PM
turkey3_scratch
October 9, 2014 2:54:57 PM
Sassysaurus said:
Not regarding the few exceptions, current consoles can't even push 1080P at 30 FPS, so I can't imagine them getting to 4K by the time they get refreshed. And I don't even understand Amancio's comment about pixel density. Sure having detailed textures is nice, but you can only go so far with that without increasing your pixel density to allow for more detail. They're back pedaling on every single hot topic that the consoles are failing at and trying to justify them as the new standard for the industry while my computer that is 4 years old is running Shadow of Mordor on high at over 60 FPS just fine. Way to set the bar high for yourselves there Ubi.Actually, you probably will not believe me but Mario Kart 8 on the Wii U achieves a constant 60FPS at 1080p on a $300 console.
-
Reply to turkey3_scratch
m
-2
l
The_Icon
October 9, 2014 2:56:46 PM
gggplaya said:
I don't know what crack people are smoking. My first gaming video card was a 3DFX voodoo with 6MB of ram. Back then and up until only a few years ago, PC gamers struggled to get at least 30fps. If you got 30fps, it was very smooth cinematic like gameplay. People have to realize that 30fps or 24fps is what movies are played at. All those bluerays, and dvds you watch are at 30fps.
60fps buys you absolutely nothing on slower moving games, like assassins creed which is in third person. Any detail lost is extremely indescernible.
Now first person shooters do see a slight advantage during intense action. But most people wouldn't even notice. So i actually agree with what Ubisoft is saying.
Seriously, who is this guy ?Talking nonsense, comparing the requirements of a passive medium like film to that of an active medium like a game.
-
Reply to The_Icon
m
3
l
turkey3_scratch
October 9, 2014 2:59:13 PM
The_Icon said:
gggplaya said:
I don't know what crack people are smoking. My first gaming video card was a 3DFX voodoo with 6MB of ram. Back then and up until only a few years ago, PC gamers struggled to get at least 30fps. If you got 30fps, it was very smooth cinematic like gameplay. People have to realize that 30fps or 24fps is what movies are played at. All those bluerays, and dvds you watch are at 30fps.
60fps buys you absolutely nothing on slower moving games, like assassins creed which is in third person. Any detail lost is extremely indescernible.
Now first person shooters do see a slight advantage during intense action. But most people wouldn't even notice. So i actually agree with what Ubisoft is saying.
Seriously, who is this guy ?Talking nonsense, comparing the requirements of a passive medium like film to that of an active medium like a game.
I gotta go with gggplaya on this one. I would rather risk framerate for the possibility of achieving much better graphics.
-
Reply to turkey3_scratch
m
1
l
The_Icon
October 9, 2014 3:01:35 PM
turkey3_scratch said:
The_Icon said:
gggplaya said:
I don't know what crack people are smoking. My first gaming video card was a 3DFX voodoo with 6MB of ram. Back then and up until only a few years ago, PC gamers struggled to get at least 30fps. If you got 30fps, it was very smooth cinematic like gameplay. People have to realize that 30fps or 24fps is what movies are played at. All those bluerays, and dvds you watch are at 30fps.
60fps buys you absolutely nothing on slower moving games, like assassins creed which is in third person. Any detail lost is extremely indescernible.
Now first person shooters do see a slight advantage during intense action. But most people wouldn't even notice. So i actually agree with what Ubisoft is saying.
Seriously, who is this guy ?Talking nonsense, comparing the requirements of a passive medium like film to that of an active medium like a game.
I gotta go with gggplaya on this one. I would rather risk framerate for the possibility of achieving much better graphics.
WE HAVE BETTER HARDWARE, constantly CHANGING HARDWARE. We can push details, more pixels, more fps with little compromises unlike those potatoes.
-
Reply to The_Icon
m
1
l
Related resources
- Solvedwhen i move in game it is 50 fps but when is stop moving it becomes 60 fps why ? solution
- Random major fps drop (from60 to 20) in games Forum
- SolvedWould this be able to game ultra at 40-60fps? solution
- SolvedGaming PC at 1920x1080(1080p) Max Settings 60FPS Minimum ANY GAME? solution
- SolvedDrops from 1000fps to 60ps WHILE RECORDING(then drops down to 10 again a few times every 30 seconds then goes up) solution
- SolvedWould this pc be able to game maxed out at 60fps solution
- SolvedI want to stream League of Legends. When I play normally I get a stable 60 fps. When I stream it drops to 30. Is it my graphic solution
- SolvedBuilding a New System for 1440P 60FPS Gaming on Modern Games solution
- SolvedFPS Dropping in Games, GPU Usage Fluctuating solution
- SolvedBare minimum GPU and CPU to play high-end games at a low graphics settings at 60+FPS? solution
- SolvedGames Dropping FPS solution
- SolvedGood Rig for 1080p 60FPS MAX all AAA games? solution
- Graphics card that will max out any game at 1080p 60fps, while not being overkill? solution
- Solvedpossible to lock game's FPS to 60 to match monitor's 60Hz refresh? dynamically adjust quality settings? solution
- Solved$500 budget gaming pc that can run games at 60 fps on medium - high settings? solution
- More resources
!