Why do the majority of console games run at 30 FPS?

[Not_Jamie]

So I am a PC user and my brother is an avid console user, he is not delusional in thinking they are superior, but rather, likes what the consoles offer in an easy to use package. I am currently playing through Dead Space and when talking to him a conversation started that I want to get some opinions on.

 

Whenever the 30fps point comes across when talking about consoles inevitably leads to the lack of performance with the hardware. Now I understand this approach wouldn't work with the last gen consoles, as their hardware didn't change for 8 years and we saw massive leaps in graphical fidelity at the release of it. But I started thinking as I was playing through Dead Space, how god damn good the game looks, a game which came out in 2008, sure it has the odd blurry texture but apart from that it is still fully immersive and extremely fun to play.

 

So why do developers insist on using the latest and greatest techniques, I mean surely Dead Space would run on these newer consoles with ease at 60 FPS and also be able to receive a bump in texture size etc. Console gamers are constantly saying graphics don't matter, and although said most times out of spite... To a degree its right.

 

From everything I have seen this shouldn't be impossible, they can manage the resources of a console extremely well being closed systems, so why do they insist on approaching games trying to maximize graphic fidelity even if it comes at the cost of a stable 30fps. The only thing I can come up with (and have no clue about developing) is optimization is an exponential process, meaning if it takes a game company a month to get a new engine/game to run at 30 fairly well it would take even more time to get it running well enough to maintain 60 say 3 months.

 

What do you guys think? Why do they insist on 30 fps and why not have an optional 60 fps mode, my brother tells me The last of us Remastered has such a feature. And he admits it would be cool to have the option because some games struggle way too or are extremely fast past. Even starting from the very beginning of making a game, why do they pursue graphics at the cost of frames.

 

The worst case of this I remember is Bloodborne it really struggles a lot of times to keep a solid 30 fps.

[SPAS-ID]

because the Hardware cant run at 60FPS

[Glenwing]

because the Hardware cant run at 60FPS

 

You should read the post, not just the title.

[Virtual01]

Because pretty graphics sell games. It's been that way forever. Devs and publishers would rather have a game look better and sacrifice framerate in the name of sales (with the exception of shooters and fighting games that need 60fps to be playable)

[Mcmole]

 

Why do the majority of console games run at 30 FPS?

 

Edit:I did read the artical...Just like to troll.

 

Personally I'm a PC gamer, whatever can turn a PC more into a console however (like Steam Controller as an example) I'm all in for.

Edited November 3, 2015 by Mcmole

[You_are_a_cunt]

hardware limitations 

[Andrew Storlie]

Honestly i dont think consoles will go above 30fps, almost ever... with 4k tvs becoming cheaper and more available, consoles will be more pushed for gaming at 4k 30fps rather then 1080p or 4k at 60fps cause console gamers are looking for good fps in the games, rather they are looking for higher res or better graphics.

Next gen consoles will be 4k gaming capable. But not 60fps

[BrightCandle]

At 30 fps you get twice as long to render. If you released a game that looked like it was from 2008 today then you get slammed in the reviews. The customer is expecting an ever improving situation when it comes to graphics fidelity so the industry keeps using all the performance is has to do that. Not to mention the fact that once the gap between PC and console gets large 30 fps is about the only way they could even sell games.

[Not_Jamie]

Because pretty graphics sell games. It's been that way forever. Devs and publishers would rather have a game look better and sacrifice framerate in the name of sales (with the exception of shooters and fighting games that need 60fps to be playable)

 

Yea I thought about this, but long gone are the days of games selling with bullet points on the back with destructible physics etc. I guess the point is I am not disappointed with dead space a game that is over 6 years old, a game from 2010 looks even better. If a new game released today that ran at 60 with this approach i don't think many people would scream out the graphics look dated.

 

I can honestly say while new tittles are nice, I can play games form 6 years ago or more happily on pc.

[Mew]

We all know that the hardware is incapable. Few people actually think of this- consoles benefit from TVs being able to interpolate frames to deliver a smooth like gaming experience. Of course, interpolation isn't perfect and can be weird at times, but if it's able to trick your eyes into thinking it's 60hz, for 120hz, I wouldn't complain too much. 

[Not_Jamie]

 

Edit:I did read the artical...Just like to troll.

 

Personally I'm a PC gamer, whatever can turn a PC more into a console however (like Steam Controller as an example) I'm all in for.

 

Yea i am all for it too, I love my xbox controller for games like the witcher 3 etc but I love my KB&M for more fitting games. Best of both worlds I say.

[JebKerman]

It is still predominantly a hardware thing but (iirc):

30 FPS on a television (what consoles are generally plugged into) looks a lot smoother than 30 FPS on a monitor.

flawlessly stable 30 looks a darn sight better than janky 30-60 FPS

It's probably also to keep the game as small as possible rather than 3+ different sets of textures and models

 

I do think that many console games should probably come with 2 graphical presets though. one being for stable 30, one for stable 60. that would be interesting.

[Grrizz]

Because when you're looking at screenshots and 30fps video on YouTube (or 60fps video recorded on a PC passed off as console footage) in reviews fidelity is all that matters, once you buy the game and the practical effect of 60fps actually matters its too late

Sex sells...

[Mujteba]

We all know that the hardware is incapable. Few people actually think of this- consoles benefit from TVs being able to interpolate frames to deliver a smooth like gaming experience. Of course, interpolation isn't perfect and can be weird at times, but if it's able to trick your eyes into thinking it's 60hz, for 120hz, I wouldn't complain too much. 

Interpolation works good on films and tv shows where there is no user input, however, in a game it leads to a very heavily stuttery gameplay because the interpolation can't keep up with the unpredictable movements of the user's interaction with the device. Not to mention the input lag it introduces as well.

[Virtual01]

Yea I thought about this, but long gone are the days of games selling with bullet points on the back with destructible physics etc. I guess the point is I am not disappointed with dead space a game that is over 6 years old, a game from 2010 looks even better. If a new game released today that ran at 60 with this approach i don't think many people would scream out the graphics look dated.

 

I can honestly say while new tittles are nice, I can play games form 6 years ago or more happily on pc.

 

Remember a game called Fallout 4? People commented that the graphics on it look dated as soon as the trailer came out. And the game isn't even out yet. Old looking/bad graphics cause huge outcries.

 

I think it also has to do with the fact that the graphical upgrade between this gen and last was minimal. Absolutely nothing compared to the jumps from all previous generations. If consumers don't get the pretty "next-gen" graphics they were promised, they will be unhappy with their purchase which can lead to all kinds of negative things for a company.

[Nexxus]

You can sell with pretty graphics on a box/ad you cant really do that with an fps

[Constantin]

You should read the post, not just the title.

This guy @SPAS-ID is a real troll, this is what he constantly do, he jump in to threads w/o reading the content and in most of the cases w/o any decent knowledge and write literally what ever pop up in his head.......

[GoodBytes]

It isn't hardware limitation. The hardware doesn't limits fps.

The WiiU has a great number of games running at 1080p 60fps despite being the weakest performing console.

 

The problem are 2 things:

 1- Pretty graphics pushes sales, as mentioned above by others. It doesn't make the game good, but it builds hype, and pushes sales. Nicer graphics are also pushed console sales as well, and that is why console manufacture are encourages devs to deliver on nicer looking games (except for Nintendo), all so that hey can say: "Look on how MY console is better than the other, but MY console!". While silly, it does work.

 

 2- Beat the previous gen. Sadly, computer graphics is a diminishing return. As they need to push graphics that looks much better than the previous console gen, to justify "next gen" (and not understanding that graphics is not what anything "next gen", but rather new possibilities like better AI, more of them, more interactive world, etc), they need to to push visuals that much more, as they were pretty good late last console gen as devs knew how to deeply optimize of the console.

 

So, if trend continues, as we move forward in each console gen, expect less and less games running at 60fps, and more at 720p 30fps. Who knows, maybe 24fps might be a thing as well.

 

The WiiU is able to deliver 1080p 60fps on most of its games, because it doesn't try to compete graphically. It knows it's hardware is weak, so it focuses on providing the best gaming experience, which is sadly not valued by most gamers (PC and console gamers).

[Praesi]

What i think? Simple answer, Consoles are too weak. I would never buy one.

[SkilledRebuilds]

Too many sacrifices to Graphical fidelity (amount of detail/object count and not as dense particle effects) to achieve 60fps.

 

Look at Halo5's technical aspects, the particle effects and blooms are at a FURTHER reduced resolution than what textures are (when zoomed, you can see pixelation on particle effects), as its only on screen for a second or less when produced you hardly see pixelation, if at all, so they sacrificed some quality on these effects and saved resources for other things.. They also dynamically change to lower resolutions on the fly for certain aspects (shadows) to maintain 60fps most of the time if not all the time. Due to Sacrifices made.

 

 

People wouldn't mind the choice of Low res 60fps or higher res 30fps in a basic options menu on consoles...

 

I also agree with the... 4K 30fps is gunna mainstream the next consoles, not 1080p 60fps, maybe then we can get that GFX option for 1080p/60 or 4k/30.

[Lethal Seraph]

I think it's a compromise of hardware capability and pricing. I bet consoles can do 60fps but it sure he'll ain't gonna be $500 for a single unit.

[Sauron]

Because the console gamers who say "graphics don't matter" in a pc vs cnsole discussion are often the same people dissing the xbox one for having worse graphics than the ps4. It's simply not true that they don't care in most cases. They're just stuck with the hardware they got for christmas and need to convince themselves it was a good buy when confronted with a better system. Personally I'd much rather have less graphical fidelity and 60 fps, but I have a different mindset than most. The majority of console gamers want to boast about how much better the grass looks on their new console compared to their less lucky friend's last generation hardware.

[Coaxialgamer]

the thing is the ps4 and xbone where already dated when they came out and where far behind pc hardware at the time.

 

One thing to keep in mind , usually , console makers like soney or M$ lose money when selling consoles , which they earn back by selling games.

The 8th gen was different , in a sense that both manufacturers made a little bit of money selling the consoles.

When the xbox 360 and ps3 came out they were on par with then high end PCs .

[Derpologist]

So I am a PC user and my brother is an avid console user, he is not delusional in thinking they are superior, but rather, likes what the consoles offer in an easy to use package. I am currently playing through Dead Space and when talking to him a conversation started that I want to get some opinions on.

 

Whenever the 30fps point comes across when talking about consoles inevitably leads to the lack of performance with the hardware. Now I understand this approach wouldn't work with the last gen consoles, as their hardware didn't change for 8 years and we saw massive leaps in graphical fidelity at the release of it. But I started thinking as I was playing through Dead Space, how god damn good the game looks, a game which came out in 2008, sure it has the odd blurry texture but apart from that it is still fully immersive and extremely fun to play.

 

So why do developers insist on using the latest and greatest techniques, I mean surely Dead Space would run on these newer consoles with ease at 60 FPS and also be able to receive a bump in texture size etc. Console gamers are constantly saying graphics don't matter, and although said most times out of spite... To a degree its right.

 

From everything I have seen this shouldn't be impossible, they can manage the resources of a console extremely well being closed systems, so why do they insist on approaching games trying to maximize graphic fidelity even if it comes at the cost of a stable 30fps. The only thing I can come up with (and have no clue about developing) is optimization is an exponential process, meaning if it takes a game company a month to get a new engine/game to run at 30 fairly well it would take even more time to get it running well enough to maintain 60 say 3 months.

 

What do you guys think? Why do they insist on 30 fps and why not have an optional 60 fps mode, my brother tells me The last of us Remastered has such a feature. And he admits it would be cool to have the option because some games struggle way too or are extremely fast past. Even starting from the very beginning of making a game, why do they pursue graphics at the cost of frames.

 

The worst case of this I remember is Bloodborne it really struggles a lot of times to keep a solid 30 fps.

Because....they're consoles

[Oberon.Smite]

This isn't exactly related, but this thread should be an example of how a thread should be. He actually explained his question and provided some background info too. Meanwhile some people post a thread with only one word and expect replies.