60 frames per second (FPS) is something that every console gamer have been asking for since the release of the PS3 and Xbox 360, and very few games have delivered. Many gamers have made up excuses as to why we still haven’t made 60 FPS the standard, the most common one being that current generation hardware simply isn’t capable of a solid 60 FPS. This is far from the truth. Making 60 FPS a standard isn’t a hardware limitation; rather it’s a developer limitation.
Before we try to understand why 60 FPS isn’t the standard, we must first understand why it is such a wanted feature. The main benefit is the pure smoothness and responsiveness of a game that runs at 60 FPS. Many cite 60 FPS as being a “smoother, more fluid experience.” Beyond simple responsiveness, making 60 FPS the standard would solve many performance issues within the game. For example, 30 FPS is currently said to be the minimum for smoothness to a game (the “smoothness threshold”). While many games run at 30 FPS, some games struggle to maintain a locked frame rate and in extreme cases can dip down to 20-25. Killzone 2 comes in mind, with many graphic heavy parts of the campaign dropping the system frame rate to a noticeable 20. However, if every game was running at 60 FPS, even with some minor fluctuations in frame rate, games should never drop below the smoothness threshold.
It’s clear that there are a few advantages to having higher frame rate, mostly coming down too the all-around smoothness of the game. So then why is 60 FPS such a bad idea if it offers some great benefits? It’s not a hardware limitation, rather it’s a limitation put onto the developers by gamers who have high standards for the visual fidelity and scope of the game. Simply put, when a developer doubles the frame rate, they also double the required resources and power. This essentially cuts the amount of visual fidelity and the scale of the game in half. If someone releases their game at 60 FPS, they are essentially using twice the amount of resources for the sake of a slightly smoother experience. While some developers are willing to work around this constraint, many won’t, and that’s the largest problem.
Killzone struggles to maintain 30 FPS in some cases
The real issue with using more resources to double the frame rate is not every developer will do it. If developer X releases game Y at 30 FPS, then gamers are going to expect developer A’s game to have similar visual fidelity as developer X’s game, meaning that developer A also needs to release their game at 30 FPS or risk releasing a game that is visually not up to gamers standards. One great example of this is the Call of Duty games, which have always received a lot of flak over their lackluster visuals, despite the game trying to run at a buttery smoother frame rate. Many gamers don’t realize it’s unfair to compare games running at different frame rates and we shouldn’t expect a game running at a higher frame rate to look as good as others running at a lower frame rate. (Gran Turismo being the only exception to this rule).
So in reality, the only way for 60 FPS to become the standard is if the console manufacture makes it a requirement for all games. Unfortunately, if a console makes the higher frame rate a requirement, they risk limiting developers and hurting their games much more than the potential benefits. In an extreme case, if Microsoft were to release their next Xbox with similar specs to the Playstation 4, but decided to make 60 FPS a requirement, they risk having their games being smaller in scope and graphically inferior to the PS4. The only way for this system to work is if every game publisher and manufacture made this the standard, and that is unlikely to happen.
Should we expect all games to have amazing visuals?
That’s not to say that we won’t see 60 FPS become more common. The PS4 is shown to be an extremely power piece of hardware with plenty of system memory and graphical headroom for developers to work with. This will make achieving a higher frame rate much easier. Developers have it pretty lucky this generation, getting the ability to work with fairly easy hardware, which should lead to smoother games. Unfortunately, gamer’s high standards will still hold some developers back. I expect that going into this generation we will see less than half the games released at 60 FPS with a majority still favoring the30 FPS frame rate.
-Jidery
Comments on: "Why 60 Frames per Second Won’t Be The Standard For the Next Generation" (5)
You wont see 60 fps because that’s how consoles are, they try to push graphics as much as they can. If they can get great graphics at 30 fps why do it 60 and lower the graphics? You wont need 60 fps on a console anyway since everyhing is designed around slow gameplay, oversized crosshairs and autoaim, unlike say unreal or quake you wont need to move fast or dodge bullets.
It is not a matter of “power” it is a matter of graphics. The next consoles will be able to play current games on 60 fps but as graphics advance, they gonna go to 30 for better visuals.
The 1080p is also irrelevant, you can take a game with unimpressive visuals and run it on 1080p but as time goes by for games with better graphics, you need to lower to 720p even 480p.
The “why not 45 fps” is also pointless, it is either 30 or 60 because they are smooth, 30 fps is smoother than 45 fps, it is a matter of smoothness not speed.
The truth is so sadly depressing. I would certainly trade half the visual fidelity in most games in exchange for 60FPS.
Wipeout is known for it’s fluidity, but even Wipeout 2048 suffered for this, which I’m sure is just because Sony wanted to show off the best graphical capabilities of the Vita at launch in static screenshots and limited framerate trailers at the expense of the actual gameplay experience.
Racing games are especially painful in 30FPS and it often kills my interest in a game. I was so excited for Need For Speed: Most Wanted on the strength of Criterion’s previous ultra fluid Burnout Paradise, but as soon as I played the demo, I immediately decided I would not buy the game.
This also makes me wonder if 30FPS 3D-enabled games would be capable of 60FPS in 2D, since the 3D mode requires two images per frame which technically becomes 60FPS. Could Uncharted 3 have been run in 2D at 60FPS? Even if it were possible, they’re unlikely to risk the complaints they would get from players who would perceive the lower 30FPS framerate in the 3D version as a “problem” compared to the 60FPS 2D version.
Then again, it’s not really that clear cut, since 3D support only doubles the rendering per cycle, but does require doubling the number of update cycle that 60FPS would require.
ge”60 frames per second (FPS) is something that every console gamer have been asking for since the release of the PS3 and Xbox 360″
First off you are trying to frame your whole argument in a logical fallacy.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon
Saying that everyone wants this feature is presumptuous and requires data you can’t cite because you don’t have it.
Largely it is the PC crowd who is concerned about refresh rates. You can find a nearly endless catalog of discussions about this on PC forums. You just don’t find tons of discussions like that on console forums, suggesting they don’t really care. The fact is most console players don’t want to fuss with settings, drivers, optimizations, etc. and want a turn key solution.
__________
“the most common one being that current generation hardware simply isn’t capable of a solid 60 FPS. This is far from the truth. Making 60 FPS a standard isn’t a hardware limitation; rather it’s a developer limitation.”
Your wording here is troublesome. The fact is that these are developer CHOICES not limitations, the limitations are the imagination vs. the hardware. They only have so much memory, CPU and hardware to go around. 30 frames per second allows them to do much more than they could with a game running 60 frames per second.
You are basically saying that all developers only use 30 frames per second because of graphics. Games like Skyrim or even Dragons Dogma (which letterboxed the game) completely blow that argument out of the water. They could had achieved 60 frames per second with any number of concessions that were not graphics related.
The vision that developers have rapidly outgrew the hardware this generation (mainly in memory).
__________
“Many cite 60 FPS as being a “smoother, more fluid experience.” Beyond simple responsiveness, making 60 FPS the standard would solve many performance issues within the game. For example, 30 FPS is currently said to be the minimum for smoothness to a game (the “smoothness threshold”).”
Many cite? That is another appeal to a bandwagon.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon
The fact is this smoothness threshold is all subjective to the game and the player. For one Battlefield would be weird if everyone moved like they did in Call of Duty. I like that games look and feel different from each other. Killzone 2 and Battlefield BC2 and 3 have weighty controls, I don’t think 60FPS will change that.
__________
“In an extreme case, if Microsoft were to release their next Xbox with similar specs to the Playstation 4, but decided to make 60 FPS a requirement, they risk having their games being smaller in scope and graphically inferior to the PS4. The only way for this system to work is if every game publisher and manufacture made this the standard, and that is unlikely to happen.”
First off it’s PlayStation not Playstation. As a video game author you should know your brands and trademarks!
Why don’t we require that all developers use Quake III like COD so they call all run at 60 FPS?
Shouldn’t developer work within the confines they set for themselves and not have more limitations on them provided by the platform providers?
Well not everyone has the money to be able to afford a rig that can handle the developer ambitions as well as a 60 frames per second graphical prowess. The real benefit to consoles is developers have an exact set of specifications to work within and can take advantage of that power in a more long term scope. This isn’t done as often on PCs because of the rapid deployment of new video processors. The level of maturity in the PS3 and Xbox 360 middleware is much higher than PC because of that. Without that maturity this console generation would had been done long ago and we would not have had great software like Uncharted 2 or Halo 3, at least not in the form we saw them.
You are making a lot of assumptions here and your entire argument is based on a logical fallacy.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon
Developers make choices they don’t set limitations, the limitation is always imagination vs. hardware.
Games like Skyrim or Dragons Dogma could had made concessions in any number of ways that didn’t have to affect the graphics.
Oh look it’s Dorkdicker with his PS BS again. Get a f-ing life, lowlife!