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

[Kamina]

30 FPS for a racing game is terrible.

[Sauron]

Games should have a cinematic experience to better increase the integration aspect of gaming.

 

Now are you going to make yourself a lier, or are you going to pay me?

 

lol

[Sauron]

I wasn't being serious. Given their excuses they should just use 29.97 because why the hell not.

 

27.81i fps

[AlwaysFSX]

27.81i fps

Cause interlacing!

[LAwLz]

It's an age old ntsc standard. The reason that content that is at the rate looks better is because it's still usually produced that way. 

Another example is 24 fps is usually actually 23.967

I don't know exactly why, something about broadcast blah blah cameras something something. 

Someone in the know there would have to explain it. 

Ahh yes...

TV is awful in terms of standards. Sadly, backwards compatibility has always been very important in broadcasting, so what we currently use is a huge pile of standards still being followed, some of which are something like 60 years old! Up until quite recently, you could literally take one of the first black and white TV sets, plug it in and thanks to all the backwards compatibility hacks it would still have worked (again, up until fairly recently).

 

Anyway, the reason we use 23.976 FPS is because of a decision made back when we were changing from black and white broadcasts, to color broadcasts.

It used to be 60Hz for black and white content, but when color started being encoded into the video they had to shift the frequency slightly. They did so in order to avoid interference between the audio and video signal. They had the choice between raising the frequency for the audio carrying signal, or lowering the frequency for the video carrying signal. Old black/white TVs would tolerate a small change in the video signal better than they would tolerate a change in the audio signal. So the choice was to either keep the frame rate at 24 FPS and some old black and white TV sets would not be able to get proper audio, or change the refresh rate to something slightly lower. Sadly for us, they went with the lower refresh rate.

There is a bunch of math to explain they we got such an odd number and there is a ton of info about exactly why it would cause interference and such but I don't really understand it well enough to explain it.

You can read more about it on Wikipedia if you're interested.

 

 

Basically, TV broadcasts is a huge mess and we would all benefit from completely scraping everything and starting over.

Actually, that's kind of what we are doing with stuff like IPTV, and it's fantastic!

Come to think of it, a lot of things would greatly benefit from being completely scrapped and redone (I am looking at you MP3, we already have far superior formats than you and you still won't die!).

[AllstaRawR]

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

 

I was quoting the person with a 6530D. I was ONLY talking about him.

[Heisenbleurgh]

It's funny how gaming developers can get away with this. I hope the truly angered people don't buy the game to send a message. In web development you usually have to cover a certain number of browsers, and of course Internet Explorer can't really handle all the things Firefox and Chrome can, so we end up having to add specific code for IE to at least try and emulate the desired results. We don't just downgrade the Chrome and Firefox experience to whatever works on IE or we'd end up with crappy results all around.

[fwdkiller]

Nothing wrong with 30fps I run gt6600 agp and I get 15 fps on most games at times are playable so quit your whinning . 30fps is playable people I swear PC guys are more becoming more annoying than console gamers lol. Xbox master race.

[Syntaxvgm]

Nothing wrong with 30fps I run gt6600 agp and I get 15 fps on most games at times are playable so quit your whinning . 30fps is playable people I swear PC guys are more becoming more annoying than console gamers lol. Xbox master race.

Your eyes literally process 15fps, especially without camera motion blur, as still pictures.

We whine becuase we actually want to enjoy games on console, and don't want console gamers to be slighted by bad development decisions, nor do we want console to hold pc back.

[Akolyte]

NOOOOO! Why is everyone doing this!?!!

 

[fwdkiller]

Guys just the play the games who cares about 30 or 60 fps like it meant for.if you don't like 30fps go play facebook games you will be happy there.

[Syntaxvgm]

Guys just the play the games who cares about 30 or 60 fps like it meant for.if you don't like 30fps go play facebook games you will be happy there.

30fps is not okay for driving games.

We are mad becuase the excuses they make are bullshit and factually wrong.

this all started with watchdogs being at 30 fps for "filmic" effect.

If you signed up to this forum to troll, fuck off.

[fwdkiller]

30fps is not okay for driving games.

We are mad becuase the excuses they make are bullshit and factually wrong.

this all started with watchdogs being at 30 fps for "filmic" effect.

If you signed up to this forum to troll, fuck off.

I don't troll lol I'm just typing typing the truth man just saying. I play watch dogs at 17 fps everything on low but it don't bother me.

[Syntaxvgm]

I don't troll lol I'm just typing typing the truth man just saying. I play watch dogs at 17 fps everything on low but it don't bother me.

that's you and that's suprising.

30 fps is acceptable. Not if you can change other things to make 60fps possible, which is the case most of the time.

Not only that, but most 30 fps games don't keep it stable or locked.

30 fps is okay for watchdogs, but if they just said "It was a compromise we had to make to get better graphics" even that would have been better. We don't like to be lied to.

Driving game are a whole different story though. I loved forza 4 and hated forza 5 the first time I tried it.

How the hell are last gen games that ran at 60fps now having sequels that ran at 30 for current gen?

I would admit that some people are much less sensitive to unstable frame rates or low frame rate. It almost makes me sick though.

[fwdkiller]

that's you and that's suprising.

30 fps is acceptable. Not if you can change other things to make 60fps possible, which is the case most of the time.

Not only that, but most 30 fps games don't keep it stable or locked.

30 fps is okay for watchdogs, but if they just said "It was a compromise we had to make to get better graphics" even that would have been better. We don't like to be lied to.

Driving game are a whole different story though. I loved forza 4 and hated forza 5 the first time I tried it.

How the hell are last gen games that ran at 60fps now having sequels that ran at 30 for current gen?

I would admit that some people are much less sensitive to unstable frame rates or low frame rate. It almost makes me sick though.

I think due to new engines and development SDK kits maybe they are too new to them. Or the ps4 isn't the power they hope for.

[Syntaxvgm]

I think due to new engines and development SDK kits maybe they are too new to them. Or the ps4 isn't the power they hope for.

that would make sense.

A lot argue that they should already be optimized for x86, but I argue it's about knowing your boundaries performance wise and finding creative ways to work around them.

[fwdkiller]

that would make sense.

A lot argue that they should already be optimized for x86, but I argue it's about knowing your boundaries performance wise and finding creative ways to work around them.

they will find a patch later just like assassins creed with 1080p but that didn't do anything for it. Ps4 was overhyped but they sold a lot of consoles the owners had no games for them play.they don't care about 60 fps anymore they want your wallet and if you didn't realize Sony is 90% broke they are trying really hard for that comeback watch Microsoft take that competition in a big storm.

[Syntaxvgm]

they will find a patch later just like assassins creed with 1080p but that didn't do anything for it. Ps4 was overhyped but they sold a lot of consoles the owners had no games for them play.they don't care about 60 fps anymore they want your wallet and if you didn't realize Sony is 90% broke they are trying really hard for that comeback watch Microsoft take that competition in a big storm.

I don't expect ms to have any bug victories either...

[Opsilon]

you are wrong CONSOLE CPUs do not have BOOST!!! http://www.vg247.com/2013/09/04/xbox-one-cpu-boosted-console-now-in-full-production/   xbone has 1.75 GHZ and PS4 has up to 2 GHZ thats it. they increased speeds. on xbone they also increased GPU wich was at 800 MHZ and now is at 853 MHZ 

 

if CPU is not bottleneck then can you explain if xbone has 7790 equivalent GPU and PS4 has 7870 equivalent. why the fuck are next gen games locked at 30 FPS and some of them are at 720 p 900p and so on.   

 

HD 7870 itself can play 8-9 out of 10 games on console level graphics at 60 FPS 1080p

 

you said there is special API and all that optimization for console games better ten PC and all that stuff and games are still locked at 30 FPS with shitty resolution

 

developers only have access to 6 out of the 8 cores on PS4 and i am sure that CPU 6 core 2 GHZ is much slower then core i3

 

I told it's all because of CPU bottleneck!!!

http://vr-zone.com/articles/sony-reveals-ps4s-cpu-clock-frequency-runs-8-x-1-6-ghz-43-times-powerful-ps2/73617.html?no_redirect=true

http://gearnuke.com/playstation-4-sony-confirms-1-6ghz-cpu-clock-speed-43x-faster-playstation-2/

whis should be the proof of a boost, at least for PS 4, the 100% CPU boost is not known on any of the platforms.

 

Every machine has  bottleneck on one place or the another, the 7850 in the ps4 and the 7790 in the xbone are not that, it's the 7850 performance, not 7870, keep that in mind.

 

Now for the last issue of the API... Dude do you even read comments before you reply? I said already, they made that on purpose, since the 1080p games on the consoles are up scaled 720+ and 900p. The developers and publishers are pushing as many games as they can to the new platforms. They cash in on ignorant console users, the comments defending 30 fps are hilarious, the api is designed to keep the performance up for the weaker platform, of course the consoles are weaker than our PC-s, both your and mine can run circles around them multiple times.

 

http://www.ign.com/wikis/xbox-one/PS4_vs._Xbox_One_Native_Resolutions_and_Framerates

 

This is the incomplete list of native resolutions and framerates ( not all of them can do 60 fps, but still, there is a way to do it ) The best example is the new wolfenstein game.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-wolfenstein-new-order-performance-analysis

 

This is proof that if done right the games can run better on both platforms ( the xbone is weaker, that is true, but still, they can develop the game to compensate for this by lowering graphic settings ).

The real problem is in multi platform games, compare the last tomb raider on both consoles and you will see, PS4 has a variable FPS over 30, xbone has a constant 30 fps. consoles like ps 1, 2 and xbox, had different visuals over the lifespan of the consoles, and they had pathetic hardware as well.

 

The consoles are weak, but the lack of FPS is the developers problem, they force the hardware to give visuals compared to 3x costing PC-s, that is not a console's job anymore, it was in 2000, but not today.

 

We have gone off topic, the problem here is 60 fps in a fking racing game, they are usually much easier to run, than FPS games, so i see no reason not to have a 60 fps game if wolfenstein has that as well.

 

 

I would like a source on that. We know that it can download itself, but I have not heard anything about turbo.

 

Yes and that's bad. Another thing that is bad is that it's crappy Jaguar cores. It's far worse than the 8350 in more ways than just the frequency. Each MHz is also weaker.

 

Depends on the game and settings used. Like I said before, an 8350 at 2GHz will actually be far more powerful than the 1.75GHz CPU in the Xbone. I wouldn't be surprised if the FX at 2GHz is twice as powerful.

It's not just about FPS either. If they had used more powerful CPUs then Microsoft might have been able to maintain backwards compatibility through emulation. You can't emulate 3 powerful cores on 8 crappy cores though.

 

[Citation needed] on "Mantle makes AMD multicore CPUs work like a charm".

I would also argue that it's the i5 is a far better "all around/all purpose CPU" since the vast majority of applications can't take advantage of more than 2 cores, let along more than 4. There is a difference between having multiple threads and actually scaling properly to multiple cores. Most programs has a ton of threads, but because of synchronization issues you can't run all threads in parallel. It is very, very hard to make proper use of additional cores, which is why so few programs actually has it.

 

You can't hide behind "but the 8350 is 2 years old!" by the way, since that is what AMD currently has to offer. You can't just say "the gap is not nearly enough as people believe because the AMD CPU is old and therefore you can't count the newer Intel stuff!". You compare what is currently available.

 

The Xbone is slightly less powerful as a 7770, correct? That card costs about 100 dollars.

At that price you can get a 740/750. The 740 will perform about the same or slightly worse, and the 750 will perform quite a lot better (for like 10 dollars more).

I don't think the whole "AMD is better for budget" argument holds up that well anymore. It was true back in the 400 series days (until the 460 was released) and it was true back when you could unlock cores in the Athlon CPUs, but today each manufacturer has pretty similar price:performance at pretty much all price brackets.

 

You're right that it would cook inside the consoles though (unless they added better cooling). The CPU part in the consoles only uses about 30 watts at load which is far less than a full blown desktop i5. It would be possible to bring an i5 down to that level, and you would probably get better performance as well, but it would be a very cost inefficient.

The alternative from Intel would be some Atom based chip but then you would still lack having the CPU and GPU on the same die. You could just do like the previous generation and not have them on the same die though.

 

1. look at the link i just posted

 

2. ofc the 8350 is faster than jaguar, not to mention l3 cache helps a lot, but the internal gpu on the APU is needed for the consoles.

 

3. it is debatable if you can emulate ps3 and xb360 games even on higher end PC-s, not to mention the consoles would cost more, one reason for ps3 being so expensive on launch was the ability to run old playstation games, removing that reduced the price, it was not a software thing, but hardware for the ps 2 and was able to run some games form ps1 that were ported to the playstation store, so software

 

4. AMD vs Intel debate not needed, so i will ignore this, there are numerous mantle benchmarks ( not perfect but it helps quite a bit ), not to mention 8350 benchmarks, i am really tired of this debate, same as the i7 vs i5...

 

5. if you are referring to the gtx 750/750ti check the release date of the consoles, and the 750 cards, you will see why didn't they take them , the consoles have been in the development for a few years, and they worked with the hardware available at the time...

 

6 They made the GPU/CPU on the same die because of the cost, AMD is still cheaper as a combo, and was cheaper in the development stage of the consoles, we can't really compare the current prices... i5 + intel on-board graphics would do much worse in this scenario, not to mention i5 + any gpu chip that had some juice would be a lot more expensive.

 

The bottom line is as i have already stated, the 60 FPS is doable, but it isn't possible in all games, since the consoles are weak, 1st party games will have an easier time with this, but there is no way that they can't make a racing game 60 fps, i call it bs. A fast cash-in since the consoles are sold for less money that they cost to produce.

[deviant88]

 

1440p @ 30fps

 

 

1440p on console...

 

[garyjpaterson]

Now that YouTube will be supporting 60fps I would imagine console gamers will start to demand 60fps gameplay when they watch their favorite commentator play on a PC at 60fps. 

 

Honestly im not so sure, i mean when for me, when im watching youtube gameplay, i couldnt care less if its 30fps (anything less isnt great). It looks fine to me.

 

HOWEVER, i do much prefer playing at 60fps, its so much more fluid.

 

The difference for me i think is whether im in control, if i am i want 60fps, but if im just watching it i really couldnt care less providing its at least 30fps.

[fwdkiller]

I don't need 60 fps I'm happy with my 10+year old computer .p4 2.8ghz with ago gt6600 see this what I use everyday and it'll beat you 2000$ PC lol.

[kuddlesworth9419]

Honestly im not so sure, i mean when for me, when im watching youtube gameplay, i couldnt care less if its 30fps (anything less isnt great). It looks fine to me.

 

HOWEVER, i do much prefer playing at 60fps, its so much more fluid.

 

The difference for me i think is whether im in control, if i am i want 60fps, but if im just watching it i really couldnt care less providing its at least 30fps.

Yea but wouldn't you prefer to watch it at 60fps also. It would feel as smooth as playing  it.

[kuddlesworth9419]

I don't need 60 fps I'm happy with my 10+year old computer .p4 2.8ghz with ago gt6600 see this what I use everyday and it'll beat you 2000$ PC lol.

If that is your PC I feel sorry for you. Still better than a console though.

[PhantomChevron]

<-------------

Such an appropriate member's title