• Welcome to DestroyRepeat - The #1 place to talk about Video Games. Why not take a minute to register for your own free account now? Registration is completely free and will enable the use of all site features including the ability to join in or create your own discussions.

Sony and Microsoft Pressuring Devs to makes games at 30FPS on PC???

Welcome to Destroy Repeat

We are the gaming and tech community for you

Terramax

Well-Known Member
Yeah, this is terrible, but not surprising.

Thankfully, as the link you mention states, it's highly likely that upon the game's release, independent modders will set about forcing it into 60fps themselves.

It's funny, the two newest current gen consoles aren't even a year old yet, and already they're showing their inability to keep up with standard PCs. I mean, that doesn't mean much to me, because I'm no graphics whore anyway, but it really reflects how futile consoles chasing the best specs really is in this day and age.
 

akhi216

I ain't sign up for that
Fuck $ony and M$ if this is true. Coporate strongarm tactics at the expense of gamers is unacceptable. I wish bribes like this would stay out of gaming.
 

Techup

Well-Known Member
If our eyes didn't see past 24fps anyways, then why would people be bitching about something that is clearly slower than it should be....

Locking a game on 30fps to secure its stability is one thing, but doing it across all platforms, especially on platforms like a PC which can have specs that can run it on 3x that FPS just fine is dumb.

Just to throw it out there. I think I remember reading an article about the human eye and frames per second. I don't remember the examples they used or the numbers, but I do remember the highest one they showed was a hockey player seeing something like 130 frames per second (possibly more, like I said, I don't remember the numbers), so that guy saying 24fps is all the human eye can see can go eat a turd.

Yeah, this is terrible, but not surprising.

Thankfully, as the link you mention states, it's highly likely that upon the game's release, independent modders will set about forcing it into 60fps themselves.

It's funny, the two newest current gen consoles aren't even a year old yet, and already they're showing their inability to keep up with standard PCs. I mean, that doesn't mean much to me, because I'm no graphics whore anyway, but it really reflects how futile consoles chasing the best specs really is in this day and age.
Consoles to me were never really about supplying people with the best new graphics and highest frames etc. I see consoles as an entry into gaming that puts everyone in the same boat/equal footing. When it comes to PC's, generally no 2 people are running the same thing and getting the same results. One person may be running on maxed graphics with 60+ fps while the other struggles to get 30 on lowest settings. Consoles sort of solve this issue by giving everyone the same experience. That's just how I see consoles anyways. They should never try competing with a PC, otherwise they'll need to be updating their systems hardware every year or two.
 

Shampoo XIII

Well-Known Member
Apparently the eye can see up to 60FPS which limit comes from the fact that most PC monitors have a maximum refresh rate of 60hz.
 

RhonnyK

Active Member
Consoles to me were never really about supplying people with the best new graphics and highest frames etc. I see consoles as an entry into gaming that puts everyone in the same boat/equal footing. When it comes to PC's, generally no 2 people are running the same thing and getting the same results. One person may be running on maxed graphics with 60+ fps while the other struggles to get 30 on lowest settings. Consoles sort of solve this issue by giving everyone the same experience. That's just how I see consoles anyways. They should never try competing with a PC, otherwise they'll need to be updating their systems hardware every year or two.

Dude, for me, you say it all.

I was always a PC gamer, and keept wasting my money on a new little piece which is 5% better than mine. Or uploading a fucking video card because the new one got 0.1 advanced setting or something like that.

The main reason for me in changing to console plataform was the 'durability' of the system, i mean, my PS3 is 4 y/o and never ever had to replace a single part of it to keep playing. This way i can invest in games, the reason of gaming right?

ALSO, i realy don't care for outstanding graphics. Gameplay was always my thing. For example, when Uncharted 3 came out, i was really impressed with the graphics, but the gameplay was what got me addicted to the game.
 

DuhWhitePanda

Gaming illumiNaughty
If you care about gameplay, you'd want 60fps over 30. Graphics have nothing to do with frames per second. Frames per second is all about your game not being choppy, sluggish, or having input lag. Most PC gamers optimize their games, not to have the best graphics possible but, to have the best graphics possible at 60 frames per second.
 

RhonnyK

Active Member
As gameplay i mean the mechanics of the game, the way i play the game and not how i see it. Is that what makes me like or dislike a game
 

Terramax

Well-Known Member
Consoles to me were never really about supplying people with the best new graphics and highest frames etc. I see consoles as an entry into gaming that puts everyone in the same boat/equal footing.

Back during the Dreamcast era, graphics were definitely a factor. They didn't call it the 'bit wars' for nothing.

Sure, PCs could still be miles more powerful, but so many of the best games weren't coming to PC. PC was for FPS, adventure games, RTS. Consoles were for just about everything else. Not only that, but some consoles like the Dreamcast and Xbox classic didn't lag that far behind from the most powerful PCs to begin with. But remember, before the Dreamcast, PCs weren't where it was at for powerful gaming - arcades were. If you wanted to see the latest tech, you bought the gaming magazines and saw the screenshots of the latest Japanese arcade machines. CVG magazine used to dedicate and entire section of their magazines in the 90s for arcades alone.

However, since later that gen and onwards I see things the way you do - consoles being more of a steamlined way to play games as opposed to PC. However, it would appear that PCs are now becoming a lot more approachable than they once were, considering that everyone and their grandma are playing games on mobile phones, or fiddling about with tablets and laptops. Not only that, now that you have to download updates for console games, just like their PC counterparts, it does make you wonder if consoles are even any more streamlined now.
 

Techup

Well-Known Member
Back during the Dreamcast era, graphics were definitely a factor. They didn't call it the 'bit wars' for nothing.

Sure, PCs could still be miles more powerful, but so many of the best games weren't coming to PC. PC was for FPS, adventure games, RTS. Consoles were for just about everything else. Not only that, but some consoles like the Dreamcast and Xbox classic didn't lag that far behind from the most powerful PCs to begin with. But remember, before the Dreamcast, PCs weren't where it was at for powerful gaming - arcades were. If you wanted to see the latest tech, you bought the gaming magazines and saw the screenshots of the latest Japanese arcade machines. CVG magazine used to dedicate and entire section of their magazines in the 90s for arcades alone.

However, since later that gen and onwards I see things the way you do - consoles being more of a steamlined way to play games as opposed to PC. However, it would appear that PCs are now becoming a lot more approachable than they once were, considering that everyone and their grandma are playing games on mobile phones, or fiddling about with tablets and laptops. Not only that, now that you have to download updates for console games, just like their PC counterparts, it does make you wonder if consoles are even any more streamlined now.
That makes sense. I never really thought about the old gen consoles. I do remember when I first saw Playstation 1 graphics they had that "wow" factor to them. There was also another system, I forget what it was called, I think around the time of the Playstation. The controller looked like a remote control for a TV or something with a single analog on it. The graphics in that game were just amazing to me.
 

CUD

Well-Known Member
I'm not too concerned. If the devs are too lazy and/or moronic to uncap the framerate for PC users then modders will find a work around, usually these framerate caps aren't too difficult to undo anyway.

Somehow poor performance being seen as more cinematic these days is just absurd and Ubisoft's justification for 900p/30fps AC: Unity on PS4 and Xbox One being "to avoid power debates" is some bullshit at its finest.
 

Sasha_Je

Well-Known Member
Consoles have never been able to keep up with a PC, why are people so surprised? Did we discover this now? By the time a new console gets into the fabrication stage a couple of video cards have been released, some better processor is on the pipe and so on. Nobody can keep up with that!!
The real difference is that 10 years from now people who invested only £300-£400 in a console can still play gorgeous looking games without being forced to visit the TechShop not even once.
 

Like DestroyRepeat!

Advertisements

Top