Would you accept 30fps games on the PS5?

[Eyjabria]

Sure. Why not. It's not like 30 fps is unplayable. By the time PS5 comes out I'll probably still be playing Nintendo 3DS - great games don't require high resolution or high processing power.

[Paleblood]

22 minutes ago, Dreakon13 said:

 

The PS5 is still several years away, or more.  There's no reason to believe 4K won't be more standardized by then... considering even today you can't buy a new television in stores without it... and like the PS2->PS3 (480P to 720P) and PS3->PS4 (720P to 1080P) before it, the next jump will likely be 1080P to native 4K.  It's always taken priority over framerate.  Developers that want to utilize 60fps will scale their games appropriately.

 

It's not that far away though. We will get it 2020 at the very latest, I even think 2019 isn't that unrealistically.

The PS4 is out since 2013, that's 5 years. Console generations have always lasted for about 5-7 years, that is the normal lifecycle. Sony even said they don't want an overly long generation if they can avoid it. But that was years ago, maybe they meant the PS4 Pro with that statement.

[Meachamp-]

I personally would accept anything if the game was well done. 

 

Gameplay > anything else.

[PooPooBlast]

The way I see is it depends on the scenario. Give the devs a lot of power in the hardware and let them choose:

 

1) if the game is an fps like COD, BF, Mirror's edge, etc or any game that needs quick reflexes, 60 fps would help immensely. I was sooo excited when mirrors egde catalyst was 60 fps albeit 900p but it still felt much smoother than the original because of that

 

2) if the game is 3rd person with emphasis on exploration than heck yeah, bump up the graphics but maintain a solid 30 fps cap.

 

Ultimately and ideally, there should be options to choose from and I understand it's more work for the devs but it would be nice to always have a choice

 

Edited April 24, 2018 by PooPooBlast

[Dreakon13]

19 minutes ago, Schwifty Swifty said:

 

It's not that far away though. We will get it 2020 at the very latest, I even think 2019 isn't that unrealistically.

The PS4 is out since 2013, that's 5 years. Console generations have always lasted for about 5-7 years, that is the normal lifecycle. Sony even said they don't want an overly long generation if they can avoid it. But that was years ago, maybe they meant the PS4 Pro with that statement.

 

It's all speculation at this point, but I think the mid-generation upgrades (PS4 Pro, Xbox One X) will extend the overall life of the PS4 a bit longer than the norm.  By the normal rules, I'd say late 2019 to early 2020 would be realistic.  In these circumstances, I could see this generation dragging on into 2021.  Personally.  EDIT: If not only to appease their PS4 Pro/Xbox One X users who just dropped $400+ on their fancy new console less than two years ago.

 

Either way, it's plenty of time for people to adopt 4K televisions.  Like I said, you have to try hard to find a <4K television to buy in stores even today... no less years from now.  And the basic 4K TV's will only get cheaper as time goes on.

Edited April 24, 2018 by Dreakon13

[Terra]

As long as the game runs decently and isn't slow or choppy I really don't care.

[Paleblood]

9 minutes ago, Dreakon13 said:

 

It's all speculation at this point, but I think the mid-generation upgrades (PS4 Pro, Xbox One X) will extend the overall life of the PS4 a bit longer than the norm.  By the normal rules, I'd say late 2019 to early 2020 would be realistic.  In these circumstances, I could see this generation dragging on into 2021.  Personally.

 

Either way, it's plenty of time for people to adopt 4K televisions.  Like I said, you have to try hard to find a <4K television to buy in stores even today... no less two years from now.  And the basic 4K TV's will only get cheaper as time goes on.

 

Fair enough. I still think 2020 seems a bit more realistic.

 

But you are completely right with TV's. I tried to find a cheap but good Full HD TV for a friend last week. It's just way easier to get a 4K one. They aren't even expensive anymore.

[soniq]

3 hours ago, jrdemr said:

I personally can't see how they can possibly improve graphics on the PS5, the PS4 already looks damn near photorealistic*

Look at the recently released raytracing demos. There is always room for improvement in graphical quality but we're probably going to have to wait a little longer than for PS5 to see that in realtime.

 

 

Edited April 24, 2018 by soniq

[Dreakon13]

7 minutes ago, soniq said:

Look at the recently released raytracing demos. There is always room for improvement in graphical quality but we're probably going to have to wait a little longer than for PS5 to see that in realtime.

 

 

Truth.  How many generations pass where we say "things can't possibly get better than this" before we realize it always can.

 

Even the games that don't look "photorealistic" still can/do use these graphical features in creative ways.  And it still takes resources to pull it off.  And 4K can only make it look cleaner and smoother.  There's room for enhancement outside of framerate.

Edited April 24, 2018 by Dreakon13

[Remilia Scarlet]

All I care about is stability. Having a game rub at 60fps doesn’t jack shit if thevgame doesn’t run well.

[starcrunch061]

Lots of people have already shared opinions which mirror mine, but here goes.

 

Obviously, I want the PS5 to be the best machine that it can be. 60 FPS would certainly help that. But it's totally useless if the game runs like crap, or if there are large load times in between segments to pay for this "upgraded" performance.

 

I'm far more interested in having games which are in tune with the hardware limitations of the system. Don't bother bringing over a PC title if you can't make it run well on a console.

 

51 minutes ago, Schwifty Swifty said:

The PS4 is out since 2013, that's 5 years. Console generations have always lasted for about 5-7 years, that is the normal lifecycle. Sony even said they don't want an overly long generation if they can avoid it. But that was years ago, maybe they meant the PS4 Pro with that statement.

 

Sony just says whatever is convenient at the moment. Back when the PS3 was doing poorly (and being outsold by the PS2), Sony insisted that 10 years was the new standard for consoles, because of course it gave a specious excuse for their currently underperforming new-gen system.

Edited April 24, 2018 by starcrunch061

[Rhevarr]

I would like it, but I never had a problem with 30 FPS.

[DaivRules]

1 hour ago, Schwifty Swifty said:

 

It's not that far away though. We will get it 2020 at the very latest, I even think 2019 isn't that unrealistically.

 

Are you willing to bet on that? I put out a wager on a status a while ago and I'm still willing to put my money on the line.

 

On Topic: PS5 is still far enough away for significant improvements in hardware and programming efficiency that the next console will be able to take advantage of. Overwhelmingly, while players appreciate 60 fps, when it's done right, requiring it is unnecessary. Games where it's important will just need the developers to make it happen, just like they have on PS4.

 

I'm more interested in what internet providers will be doing with data caps when we finally get PS5. 1 digital game download that uses 10% of your entire monthly allotment? Ouch! A patch that uses another 3%? Wow, okay. Oops, you also tried to stream your third 4k movie in a month, sorry you've exceeded your limit. Please pay another $30 to get enough data to stream half of another 4k movie.

 

4k can't possibly be the future with the archaic limitations of the people controlling internet connections.

5 hours ago, jrdemr said:

 

*comparison clip*

 

It's easy to see when they're compared right after one another. It's another thing to just be shown a single screen and asked "how many frames per second do you see right now?"

[Paleblood]

2 minutes ago, DaivRules said:

 

Are you willing to bet on that? I put out a wager on a status a while ago and I'm still willing to put my money on the line.

 

Actually I think I would.

[Dreakon13]

The funniest thing was when I was more active on Steam, there was one guy on my friend feed who I generally saw eye to eye with a lot of things on... and I watched his transformation over the years into the PC elitist crowd.  One of those points being framerate.  He was always about how 30fps was perfectly fine... he played all manner of game at 30fps and enjoyed it.  Reasonably so, it's far from unplayable.

 

Until he bought a new PC and started playing games at 60fps.  Then the tirades started about how awful and unplayable 30fps is, how it makes him dizzy, etc, etc.  Complete 180, basically overnight.

 

Naturally, this is the same person who begrudgingly bought a PS4 Pro because "he heard so many amazing things about Sony's exclusives", went through extreme buyers remorse after, made several scathing status posts about how disappointed he was that there aren't enough exclusives and how awful the platform is.  Eventually admitting there were roughly 28 exclusives that he counted at the time, but claimed that "he expected a lot more by the way people talked" and "he was only interested in like 2 of them"... OK.  I say he's being a bit irrational, maybe try some of the games before judging (he was a big Souls fan but wrote off Bloodborne for some reason), or maybe he would've been better off with a Switch (by his own admission at one point).  He calls me a Playstation fanboy and unfriends me after years of casually chatting with eachother.  Since the Steam communities I'm in are pretty tight knit, I've seen he's played and loved quite a few PS4 exclusives since then.  Go figure.

 

People are just belligerent and stubborn sometimes.   The "30fps is unplayable" crowd tends to be no exception there.

Edited April 24, 2018 by Dreakon13

[Undead Wolf]

I wouldn't go so far as saying I "wouldn't accept" 30fps. I mean I've had to put up with it in the vast majority of console games up to this point and so long as it doesn't dip below that, I can handle it. I'm kind of surprised to see how many people say they don't care about 60fps, though. It makes such a substantial difference in how a game feels to play - it's like night and day. I think it's rather silly how much developers focus on making something look pretty, often at the expense of the gameplay. Like sure, it makes for good screenshots or gives off that "wow factor" during events, but is that really what video games should be focusing on? There are so many games today that have a built-in photo mode that I couldn't care less about. I'm not playing these games to gawk at the God damn scenery... 

 

I was originally quite critical of the PS4 Pro, but after picking one up myself, I've really enjoyed being able to play games at higher frame rates. A lot of Pro enhanced games have a "4K Mode" and a "Performance Mode", and I'll pick the latter over the former every time - it's a no-brainer. Games this generation already look stunning (I'd argue games from last generation do as well), and I don't look at a 1080p image and think "ugh, this is so blurry!". But Shadow of the Colossus at 60fps? Yes please! It's a far better use of the available resources.

 

Thankfully, I think a locked 30fps is going to be more of a rarity next gen thanks in large part to HDMI 2.1. I do hope more devs go for the full 60fps than they did this generation, though.

[SirPigFace]

with the amount of trash games out for PS4, I would accept any game with good gameplay right now ? the PS4 has been a huge let down in my opinion. 

[DaivRules]

50 minutes ago, Schwifty Swifty said:

 

Actually I think I would.

 

Here's the wager: We do not see a PlayStation 5 released to consumers before December 31st, 2020. If Sony does release a PlayStation 5 before or on December 31st, 2020, I will buy those willing to take the wager a launch console plus two launch games of their choosing. If there is not a Playstation 5 released by December 31st, 2020, a money order on US funds for $500 is to be sent to me at a disclosed address.

 

PM me if you're serious about it. 

[Soufwar]

I a glad people don’t care tbh, it’s refreshing seeing people enjoy games for what they are instead of what they could be. Should we ask more from developers? Absolutely. Should we bitch if a game is already great? No. Some games are horrible with no excuse (Lichdom: Battlemage) but games like God Of War....just enjoy them as they are. 

[Guest]

I guess I can stand 30fps only if its fking stable. I dont want to see no frames jumps!! It has to be 1080p+ !! No more 900p b.s. They should improve the load times first though. 

[dmland12]

5 hours ago, jrdemr said:

comparison video

 

I've seen comparison videos before.  The difference is minor at best, even looking at things side by side and actively looking for the difference.  In real world terms, I'll call that no difference.  For some of these games, I still couldn't see anything different at all even actively looking for it (especially Limbo @4:17).  For those with camera swings (and especially wild camera swings), the 60 looked slightly smoother, but I wouldn't notice it at all if I weren't actively trying to see the difference in a side-by-side comparison.  I really don't think my vision is worse than anyone else's.

 

Also, lol at the comparisons between 60 and 120 in the video that were slowed down.  They cut it 4x, so that's like comparing 15 vs 30.  It's easier to see the difference there.

Edited April 24, 2018 by dmland12

[dmland12]

10 minutes ago, Dreakon13 said:

The funniest thing was when I was more active on Steam, there was one guy on my friend feed who I generally saw eye to eye with a lot of things on... and I watched his transformation over the years into the PC elitist crowd.  One of those points being framerate.  He was always about how 30fps was perfectly fine... he played all manner of game at 30fps and enjoyed it.  Reasonably so, it's far from unplayable.

 

Until he bought a new PC and started playing games at 60fps.  Then the tirades started about how awful and unplayable 30fps is, how it makes him dizzy, etc, etc.  Complete 180, basically overnight.

 

I guess if you buy a high end PC, you feel the need to justify that purchase.  I don't understand these guys, but I am glad they exist (as annoying as they can be).  They're the ones spending lots of money on new computer components and helping push things along for everyone else.

[Dav9834]

47 minutes ago, DaivRules said:

 

Here's the wager: We do not see a PlayStation 5 released to consumers before December 31st, 2020. If Sony does release a PlayStation 5 before or on December 31st, 2020, I will buy those willing to take the wager a launch console plus two launch games of their choosing. If there is not a Playstation 5 released by December 31st, 2020, a money order on US funds for $500 is to be sent to me at a disclosed address.

 

PM me if you're serious about it. 

I'll take that, but there needs to be insurance on your words, escrow 

[DaivRules]

11 minutes ago, Dav9834 said:

I'll take that, but there needs to be insurance on your words, escrow 

 

PM me where you want to escrow through.

[Mog]

Sure, but it depends on the genre of the game. A game that requires precise reaction time will always be better when it's running at 60fps or higher, however a game that is more focused on the story or its "experience" can work fine at a 30fps.

 

At the end of the day it will depend on what the developer wants to do, if the devs want to focus on the graphics, then the fps will take a hit - if the focus is the gameplay, then the graphics will take the hit. Keep in mind that budget is a very important thing when developing games, so sometimes things won't end up being so smooth on both ends, no matter the platform.

 

I do play games on PC and they run at 60+fps (Overwatch's max fps on PC is 300!), but i'm not really elitist about it. Just this week i've been playing RE Revelations 1 on the PS3 and it runs at a 30fps, and it works fine for me since it's a stable 30fps.