DriveClub Is 30FPS For The Same Reason Other Games Are, Director Says [Old Thread]

[Mooshi]

I think this is just coverup for shoddy programming where 60FPS literally makes the game run twice as fast so they lock it at 30.

[rambi36]

If I were a console player, I would rather have a higher frame rate than a higher resolution because if you are playing the game on a tv and sitting back on your couch you probably can't see the difference unless you have crazy vision

[kuddlesworth9419]

I wouldn't be sure, some people are so dug in into defending their console that they won't listen to reason. And either way, with the limited hardware of these consoles having 60fps would mean going back to 720p or less. It's still a good compromise for better gameplay, but it still sucks.

That is only because they are naive. It has nothing to do with them being stupid. They simply have never experienced 60-120fps in a game before and actually played with it or seen it in person. If they did it would make things progress much sooner. Although I am sure you would still get a couple of console peasants that still declare 30 fps is better like some devs still say that shit today which is completely beyond me because it is their job to understand frame rate and all the technical aspects of a game. So when a dev says something like 30 fps is cinematic I instantly say they don't understand how to make a good game, hence why every game that is locked to 30 fps is a crap game (south park excluded).

[Sauron]

as a console gamer all my life and pc gamer aswell since 2012, i am not gonna defend my console and totally agree that they should be able to do 60fps, if it is truley hardware limited than fine, but if its just devs being lazy, than they will eventually lose markets!

yeah, I said some people ^^

[Xorbot]

Cars and roads can look REALLY good at 20 FPS.  Also, go down to 10 FPS, and the cars can look awesome!

 

Wait, what's that?  You won't go below 30?  That's your threshold?  So you admit that the framerate is borderline unplayable?  Pick one, developer sir.

[Sauron]

That is only because they are naive. It has nothing to do with them being stupid. They simply have never experienced 60-120fps in a game before and actually played with it or seen it in person. If they did it would make things progress much sooner. Although I am sure you would still get a couple of console peasants that still declare 30 fps is better like some devs still say that shit today which is completely beyond me because it is their job to understand frame rate and all the technical aspects of a game. So when a dev says something like 30 fps is cinematic I instantly say they don't understand how to make a good game, hence why every game that is locked to 30 fps is a crap game (south park excluded).

 

Yeah the "cinematic" bs is really scraping the bottom of the barrel someone who says that isn't a developer I'd give my money to. Spreading misinformation for money is a moronic thing to do.

[AllstaRawR]

I'm tired of playing at less than 60.

 

You can't possibly be getting 60 on anything, ever. So confused.

[jdsb52]

That is only because they are naive. It has nothing to do with them being stupid. They simply have never experienced 60-120fps in a game before and actually played with it or seen it in person. If they did it would make things progress much sooner. Although I am sure you would still get a couple of console peasants that still declare 30 fps is better like some devs still say that shit today which is completely beyond me because it is their job to understand frame rate and all the technical aspects of a game. So when a dev says something like 30 fps is cinematic I instantly say they don't understand how to make a good game, hence why every game that is locked to 30 fps is a crap game (south park excluded).

hahha so true dev's laziness!!, and  most consolers are just casual gamers/kids, play one type of game and stick to it, not knowing that theirs a bigger gaming world out there!

[flibberdipper]

You can't possibly be getting 60 on anything, ever. So confused.

I am willing to play at low resolutions and low detail. And I get 50ish in a lot of stuff.

[Seldszar]

Wow someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed today, are we a bit grumpy, this was a nice debate btw, we are not being delusional, debating that they could be better with more effort and delay form the devs, but you seem to be a pc master race by your little rant! 

Grumpy? Maybe, but if the devs could do it, they would do it. I am talking about right now, of course it will improve over time like any console generation. I just hope you don't expect GTX780 quality from them.

 

I don't think delays are the answer either, people complain about delays too. Some delays can help but if you stretch it too much, you lose the hype, your time frame target to avoid releasing at the same time as another probable Big Hit and lose money. Delay aren't good for anyone if they think the quality won't be improved by much.

 

They have budgets and financial targets to meet even if the devs would like to spend more time on it. They are businesses after all.

[Tacitus]

Every game is 30FPS now(consoles), I mean the Forza series is now 30FPS, and they used to be all for 60FPS. It's just the limited power of the "next gen" consoles. I personally think that consoles should have a 60FPS, 30FPS slider this would resolve the issue. 

 

The real problem is the developers. People watch videos on youtube, they are amazed by the graphics, not the framerate. The drive to make console games with graphics as good as possible has forced developers to sacrifice framerate. Any developer who doesn't is at risk of producing "ugly" games.

[Misanthrope]

The same tired arguments "we made it responsive!" well it's not just responsiveness (although that alone goes a long way) but just a different aesthetic altogether, more lifelike and close to reality.

[Misanthrope]

You can't possibly be getting 60 on anything, ever. So confused.

 

Money goes a long way for fancy systems and reasonable resolutions i.e. a 295x2 would play anything, and I truly mean anything at 60FPS minimum on 1080p. If it doesn't it means that it isn't optimized

[Puddleuk]

I'd have thought 60FPS was the minimum for any racing game since your going really fast and need to make quick decisions. Unless the developer thinks gamers will ride really slow and admire all the pretty visuals... You know because gameplay apparently comes second these days......

 

I've made this observation before but I'll try it again. Worded differently this time,

 

Console Gamers at the Start of a generation: "Look at those Graphics!!! And the effects! They look so real. Gameplay? Whats that?"

Console Gamers at mid-generation: "I don't mind how my game looks, its all about the gameplay"

Console Gamers near end of generation: "Its all about the gameplay, but next generation it will look even better and play at [iNSERT RESOLUTION] and [iNSERT FPS], its gonna be awesome!"

[Kingofpants]

Gotta love amd now right? look what they did with their sorry ass hardware, ruined the gaming as we know it.

Anyway consoles are from another gaming world its sad they put pc and consoles in same boat.(iknow this is ps4 exclusive)

I really dont care only stupid buy consoles nowdays,my problem is when the pc versions are locked to 30fps,graphics gimped and controlls feel sluggish and unrefined aka console ports.

Amd coulda put a 270x in their and then everything would run 1080p 60Fps max settings. Hell even a 260x and then things would run 1080p 60Fps medium settings. But Sony and Microsoft decided putting in weak graphics so now console players are stuck with 30Fps. Microsoft putting in the worse of the two.

[LAwLz]

It's a balance, because you can only do so much on any platform*

Exactly

Each platform has their limit.

On PC that limit depends on your hardware but a decent PC should be able to get 60FPS at 1080p in that game.

On the PS4 that limit 30 fps because it is an underpowered console which really shouldn't be called "next gen" (or even "current gen" for that matter).

The Xbone is like the PS4 but even lower resolution because it's even more underpowered...

 

 

So now it's confirmed, the best platform for racing games is currently the Wii U with Mario Kart 8 running at 1920x1080 at 60 FPS. The gameplay is also far superior to other racing games.

 

 

 

Seconded, they should go for a in between, good graphics with 40-45fps maybe 50 at a push! 

40-45 or 50 FPS would create judder since most TVs are 60Hz.

It's either 30 or 60 FPS.

[Waruteru]

Soon current gen consoles will have more 30fps games than the previous generations.

 

BTW, did anyone watch the last gameplay demo from Metal Gear Solid V TPP?

 

Like the Ground Zeroes, Kojima and his fellas showed a 1080 - 60fps gameplay of this much bigger sandbox, BUT (I know that was just a demo) anyone noticed the "Level of Detail at Distance"(Like things that just shows really near, more like 10ft, far than that is just solid colors and plain ground)?

If the final version will be like that, maybe we'll just see that 8GB of DDR5 is really good for lots of textures and effects to make new games very pretty, BUT MAYBE NOT IF the system don't have enough power to render these textures at Res/frames.... "give with one hand take with the other".

[jdsb52]

Grumpy? Maybe, but if the devs could do it, they would do it. I am talking about right now, of course it will improve over time like any console generation. I just hope you don't expect GTX780 quality from them.

 

I don't think delays are the answer either, people complain about delays too. Some delays can help but if you stretch it too much, you lose the hype, your time frame target to avoid releasing at the same time as another probable Big Hit and lose money. Delay aren't good for anyone if they think the quality won't be improved by much.

 

They have budgets and financial targets to meet even if the devs would like to spend more time on it. They are businesses after all.

Lol i dont need to expect quality from them i got a GTX-770 superclocked if i decide i want it, which would be the case of Witcher 3, and yeah over time as code is gotten use to to we should see improvement! Mind you, probs wont in the xboner department, why would you even consider making a games console and decide to put DDR3 in it!

[Opsilon]

This is odd... i remember that on my old sandy bridge i3 i could play crysis at 720p and get 30 fps max, going 600p it started running much better, on occasion even 45 fps, but the input lag was a LOT better.

And now 3 years after this they make a next gen consoles that can't run a racing game at 60 fps. Now i call that bullshit!!

 

Here is why, crysis 3 ran on the PS3 and Xbox 360 at 720 ( upscaled ) the real resolution was 480p, IT RAN AT FKING 30 FPS, 30!! so that means that the same games on those settings should rune faster on the newer hardware. Crisis 3 performance requirements are far above racing games on consoles. 

Both of the "new" consoles have GPU power in between an HD 7700 and 7850 ( 7850 is equivalent to a 6950, that was a high end card ), now all of those cards could play crysis 3 at 20-25 FPS average on maxed out settings with no AA, on medium rendering quality and settings with no AA the FPS went over 50FPS ON 1080P, not 720 or 900, but 1080p.

 

My friend today still has a HD 5850 ( even older high end card ), 1080p monitor and medium settings works like a charm over 30 FPS in modern games.

 

This all 30 FPS is just a fast cash in for the developers and publishers. The new consoles are nothing but PC-s that have PC crossed and written console, and ship with a BS OS.

The consoles today have reasonable CPU cores and capable GPU-s, not to mention a custom API that is more efficient, than DX 11, 30 fps limit even on modern consoles is a lie, they can do 60, but it would take more time to do that, not to mention that 1080p games on a console are upscaled, so even more overhead and those GPU-s should be able to do that. The 60 FPS and 1080p will come later, they will claim that they found a way to do that, but in reality they will just make the game 900p upscaled and mid PC settings equivalent, 30 FPS is just a fast cash in, and we all suffer.

 

The problem is not people buying consoles, the real problem is that the people who buy them as primary gaming machines have no clue about the hardware they are buying, and they don't even care, until they start caring, things will not really change...

[jdsb52]

This is odd... i remember that on my old sandy bridge i3 i could play crysis at 720p and get 30 fps max, going 600p it started running much better, on occasion even 45 fps, but the input lag was a LOT better.

And now 3 years after this they make a next gen consoles that can't run a racing game at 60 fps. Now i call that bullshit!!

 

Here is why, crysis 3 ran on the PS3 and Xbox 360 at 720 ( upscaled ) the real resolution was 480p, IT RAN AT FKING 30 FPS, 30!! so that means that the same games on those settings should rune faster on the newer hardware. Crisis 3 performance requirements are far above racing games on consoles. 

Both of the "new" consoles have GPU power in between an HD 7700 and 7850 ( 7850 is equivalent to a 6950, that was a high end card ), now all of those cards could play crysis 3 at 20-25 FPS average on maxed out settings with no AA, on medium rendering quality and settings with no AA the FPS went over 50FPS ON 1080P, not 720 or 900, but 1080p.

 

My friend today still has a HD 5850 ( even older high end card ), 1080p monitor and medium settings works like a charm over 30 FPS in modern games.

 

This all 30 FPS is just a fast cash in for the developers and publishers. The new consoles are nothing but PC-s that have PC crossed and written console, and ship with a BS OS.

The consoles today have reasonable CPU cores and capable GPU-s, not to mention a custom API that is more efficient, than DX 11, 30 fps limit even on modern consoles is a lie, they can do 60, but it would take more time to do that, not to mention that 1080p games on a console are upscaled, so even more overhead and those GPU-s should be able to do that. The 60 FPS and 1080p will come later, they will claim that they found a way to do that, but in reality they will just make the game 900p upscaled and mid PC settings equivalent, 30 FPS is just a fast cash in, and we all suffer.

 

The problem is not people buying consoles, the real problem is that the people who buy them as primary gaming machines have no clue about the hardware they are buying, and they don't even care, until they start caring, things will not really change...

Never actually played any crisis game on console, only on pc, i remember trying to run 3 on my old gtx 550ti on high settings, needless to say temps were a bit high tho, and i agree some devs are being lazy to get games out quick, hopefully if Kojima keeps doing his thing and The Phantom Pain might be the start of seeing 60fps games, i mean the dude has already stated that he was struggling to fill the Vram for The Phantom Pain, but time will tell, i dont think he will sell himself out like other devs have and we might see the first ps4 and maybe xbone at 1080p with 60fps (dont have too high hope for xbone....DDR3, seriously!!) game!

[ACatWithThumbs]

This is odd... i remember that on my old sandy bridge i3 i could play crysis at 720p and get 30 fps max, going 600p it started running much better, on occasion even 45 fps, but the input lag was a LOT better.

And now 3 years after this they make a next gen consoles that can't run a racing game at 60 fps. Now i call that bullshit!!

 

Here is why, crysis 3 ran on the PS3 and Xbox 360 at 720 ( upscaled ) the real resolution was 480p, IT RAN AT FKING 30 FPS, 30!! so that means that the same games on those settings should rune faster on the newer hardware. Crisis 3 performance requirements are far above racing games on consoles. 

Both of the "new" consoles have GPU power in between an HD 7700 and 7850 ( 7850 is equivalent to a 6950, that was a high end card ), now all of those cards could play crysis 3 at 20-25 FPS average on maxed out settings with no AA, on medium rendering quality and settings with no AA the FPS went over 50FPS ON 1080P, not 720 or 900, but 1080p.

 

My friend today still has a HD 5850 ( even older high end card ), 1080p monitor and medium settings works like a charm over 30 FPS in modern games.

 

This all 30 FPS is just a fast cash in for the developers and publishers. The new consoles are nothing but PC-s that have PC crossed and written console, and ship with a BS OS.

The consoles today have reasonable CPU cores and capable GPU-s, not to mention a custom API that is more efficient, than DX 11, 30 fps limit even on modern consoles is a lie, they can do 60, but it would take more time to do that, not to mention that 1080p games on a console are upscaled, so even more overhead and those GPU-s should be able to do that. The 60 FPS and 1080p will come later, they will claim that they found a way to do that, but in reality they will just make the game 900p upscaled and mid PC settings equivalent, 30 FPS is just a fast cash in, and we all suffer.

 

The problem is not people buying consoles, the real problem is that the people who buy them as primary gaming machines have no clue about the hardware they are buying, and they don't even care, until they start caring, things will not really change...

I don't think it's a lie.

The XboxOne has the exact same specs as the HD5770 and the Ps4 has the exact specs of the HD7790.(And that paired with a CPU that gets destroyed form an i3)

It's just the limit of the hardware if they want to get 1080p/60fps it just won't look good and they will have to lower player counts ect.

They will try to push graphics as much as they can no matter if it's 25-30fps/620p like on Ps3/Xbox360.(Those were already supposed to be 1080p consoles)

I wouldn't be surprised if Star Wars Battlefront gets less players on console with dumped down graphics just like Battlefield 3 was on ps3/xbox360.

 

[Thorium19]

to quote the jam "the public wants what the public gets."

[Victorious Secret]

The annoying thing is here is how specs suddenly matter so much.

My penis enlarging PC can do pretty much everything on ultra (for now).

Yet my most favourite game so far is Halo 3. That was sub 720p and only 30fps. Hmm. Specs didn't dictates emu enjoyment of that FPS. The quality of the gameplay dictated my enjoyment above all else. That game chewed out more of my time than even counter strike. And that's scary.

Why are all the sides going ducking ballistics on the specs now? Does that really change your enjoyment of games? I know exactly what I get in numbers when I play on my console, and I don't really mind. When I want to make myself feel good I go play a PC and ravage games at Ultra but ultimately I stop after half an hour because most games in general aren't that fun for me.

So I never truly got on board with this higher numbers are better mentality. Not always. You can have a game that looks like Crysis but plays like Colonial Marines. How fun is that?

[AlTech]

They should have put a performance slider like this

 

720p @ 60+fps

 

900p @ 60fps

 

1080p @45fps

 

1440p @ 30fps

 

2160p @15fps

[dmegatool]

The annoying thing is here is how specs suddenly matter so much.

My penis enlarging PC can do pretty much everything on ultra (for now).

Yet my most favourite game so far is Halo 3. That was sub 720p and only 30fps. Hmm. Specs didn't dictates emu enjoyment of that FPS. The quality of the gameplay dictated my enjoyment above all else. That game chewed out more of my time than even counter strike. And that's scary.

Why are all the sides going ducking ballistics on the specs now? Does that really change your enjoyment of games? I know exactly what I get in numbers when I play on my console, and I don't really mind. When I want to make myself feel good I go play a PC and ravage games at Ultra but ultimately I stop after half an hour because most games in general aren't that fun for me.

So I never truly got on board with this higher numbers are better mentality. Not always. You can have a game that looks like Crysis but plays like Colonial Marines. How fun is that?

I don't think that it's just a matter of higer numbers are better. It's probably just people used to it and it's kind of hard going back.

 

I played on a PS3 for the last gen and never really complained about fps (Besides blighttown in Dark Souls... Jesus). Seems like I was used to 30fps. Just last week I installed some mods on skyrim and started playing. It felt soooo lagy I was like "Wtf, I must be like at 1-5, 20fps"... Nope. A good solid 30-35 fps and I just couldn't bare it. I'm too used to 60fps right now. There's no turning back. And I think that's the problem with PC people who experienced it on a regular basis, they're used to it so anything @30fps feel way worst than someone that always play at that rate.