Why are the majority of console players okay with 30 FPS?

[Big Thanks]

Really good video on the topic
Im so bad at noticing FPS i dont notice the difference between 30 and 60 FPS

[Low Hanging Fruit]

Remember when the hype tubers with dope click bait screen caps were calling these things PC killers.

[devilzxlin]

pc is more expensive than console,there are many good games in console xbox or ps5, like fifa ultimate team,elder scroll online,runescape etc. there are more and more player trade fifa coins on player to player trade platform.

[VooDsXo]

So Assassin's Creed: Valhalla reportedly plays at 4k/30 FPS on the Xbox Series X.

No matter how you twist and turn it, there is not a single advantage 30 FPS has over 60 except for giving the developer's the resources to put in more graphical fidelity into their games.

Why are the majority of console gamers so timid about it? Why aren't they demanding 60 FPS as the absolute standard bare minimum for games?

I do play consoles, but that's because of the exclusives. I love Bloodborne, but what a slide show it is at times. Imagine it at fluid 60 FPS instead.

Why does a PC from the same year as a Ps4 that costs $400 or less struggle to hold 60 FPS in modern games?

If your question was serious, educate yourself about how crappy nearly 10 year old hardware is compared to what we have today. Then ask yourself why Ps5 is faster than any consumer PC you can build right now?

[Queen of Hamsters]

Because 30 fps in a great game makes me happier than 60 fps in a bad one.

If I enjoy the game at a stable 30 FPS, I'm not gonna sit around moping that they didn't make it 60...

[Melchior]

Then ask yourself why Ps5 is faster than any consumer PC you can build right now?

It's not though.

The only component that is better than what you can buy for PC today is the SSD, which will basically be a custom built Samsung 980 EVO (TLC) or even QVO (QLC), and by then we will also have that full line, including the superior 980 PRO (MLC) available for PC only.

The CPU is an 8-core Zen2 processor at 3.5Ghz, which you can buy today (and at much better clock speeds). Heck, you can even buy 32-core processors with better clock speeds for the PC.

The GPU has 10.3 teraflops FP32 which is on par with the 2080, but weaker than the 2080 SUPER and quite a bit weaker than the 2080Ti, and that card has been available since 2018.

It's definitely a massive upgrade from the considerably weaker PS4, but it's not better than a high end PC at the moment, I'm sorry. PC components also keep coming out, whereas the PS5 will be stuck in time.

[Temp name]

The GPU has 10.3 teraflops FP32 which is on par with the 2080, but weaker than the 2080 SUPER and quite a bit weaker than the 2080Ti, and that card has been available since 2018.

Just to add on this, 10.3 teraflops is just barely better than AMD's own 5700xt 50th anniversary edition (10.1). Or hell, it's WORSE than the Radeon VII (which did 11.1 or 13.8 depending on which node it was made on).

FLOPS are just a terrible way to measure GPU performance, because the 5700xt roughly matches the Radeon VII in gaming despite having somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1-4 less teraflops.

And as for this:

The only component that is better than what you can buy for PC today is the SSD, which will basically be a custom built Samsung 980 EVO (TLC) or even QVO (QLC), and by then we will also have that full line, including the superior 980 PRO (MLC) available for PC only.

... Sata SSDs are entirely fine for gaming. You will not notice a performance gain going to something better. There's no reason to spend that much on a storage solution for consumer hardware.

[Tech614]

... Sata SSDs are entirely fine for gaming. You will not notice a performance gain going to something better. There's no reason to spend that much on a storage solution for consumer hardware.

And you say this because you played games that where made with mechanical HDDs in mind on them? Literally all game worlds are currently built so then can stream in seemlessly on 5400 RPM HDDs in base consoles. No fucking shit sata SSDs run those fine. Good luck running games on a sata SSD when the new consoles make nvme speeds the baseline for the world streaming in a few years once they abandon last gen hardware.

[MORGATH99]

they havent been touched by the MASTER RACE hand yet . they arent worthy

[Scottyjscizzle]

Honestly 30fps is perfectly playable, and when you’re in the middle of it the last thing you’re thinking about (at least for me), is oh my god what is my fps? I never base my gaming experience on frame rates.

Exactly. Would I prefer 60fps? absolutely, but overall if it makes such little difference in 99% of gameplay that I don't notice or care when playing.

[Maquegyver]

They accept 30 FPS, frame drops, motion blur, and other nonsense because they are don't know and don't want to know better. The canned soup of the video game world. Is it edible and cheap? Sure. Is it good? No. Applications and exclusives are the only thing keeping consoles afloat. Heck I'd argue without applications and streaming in general consoles would have suffered majorly this generation. It somewhat excuses the shit exclusives and quality of product put forward on consoles.

If I could take back buying my PS4 on release I would. Its an overpriced and loud amazon fire stick. The last brand new game I bought I think was diablo 3?

[Ealyssa]

there is not a single advantage 30 FPS has over 60 except for giving the developer's the resources to put in more graphical fidelity into their games.

So there is an advantage then ? AND it's also the answer to your question ?

Well done Einstein...

[kenn9530]

Why does a PC from the same year as a Ps4 that costs $400 or less struggle to hold 60 FPS in modern games?

If your question was serious, educate yourself about how crappy nearly 10 year old hardware is compared to what we have today. Then ask yourself why Ps5 is faster than any consumer PC you can build right now?

my 5 year old PC is more powerful than the PS5, the only slight advantage it has will be SSD load times and that will be only a few secs better at most, PC will get better SSDs soon enough anyway.

[SirCowdog]

Exactly. Would I prefer 60fps? absolutely, but overall if it makes such little difference in 99% of gameplay that I don't notice or care when playing.

I think a lot of that depends on the game.

I used the example earlier in the thread of Dead Cells on the switch vs Dead Cells on my PC. I can ABSOLUTELY feel and see the difference between 30 FPS, and the responsive, crisp animation and performance of 60+ FPS. It literally makes a discernible difference for the gameplay in terms of reaction time and response to all of the visual feedback you get in that game.

Another good example is fighting games. Not my cup of tea, personally, but I know that hardcore fighting game players can and do measure their moves and reactions down to individual frames. There was a story I read about recently about Mortal Kombat 11, where Raiden had a move that was 4 frames. Literally the fastest move in the game, and it was pushing the meta. The devs had to change it because it was so strong, and the new move took 6 frames. THAT'S the level of detail and discernment that FPS can make on a game.

I get that some people just don't care. But I hope that they can understand that the 30 vs 60 fps thing is a real issue. It does matter in many cases.

[Big Thanks]

I think a lot of that depends on the game.

I used the example earlier in the thread of Dead Cells on the switch vs Dead Cells on my PC. I can ABSOLUTELY feel and see the difference between 30 FPS, and the responsive, crisp animation and performance of 60+ FPS. It literally makes a discernible difference for the gameplay in terms of reaction time and response to all of the visual feedback you get in that game.

Another good example is fighting games. Not my cup of tea, personally, but I know that hardcore fighting game players can and do measure their moves and reactions down to individual frames. There was a story I read about recently about Mortal Kombat 11, where Raiden had a move that was 4 frames. Literally the fastest move in the game, and it was pushing the meta. The devs had to change it because it was so strong, and the new move took 6 frames. THAT'S the level of detail and discernment that FPS can make on a game.

I get that some people just don't care. But I hope that they can understand that the 30 vs 60 fps thing is a real issue. It does matter in many cases.

Sorry to tell you Sircowdog, but im a fighting game maniac...and im 100% sure a 6 frame move is NOT reactable....NEVER...is impossible.
Completely impossible.

They changed it probably because it lead to "mixups" and unavoidable crap.

[devilzxlin]

Consoles have pushed "graphics" as the be-all and end all, so that's what drives sales harder than framerate.

[Big Thanks]

Consoles have pushed "graphics" as the be-all and end all, so that's what drives sales harder than framerate.

Thank Heavens...im glad this is the case

[SirCowdog]

Sorry to tell you Sircowdog, but im a fighting game maniac...and im 100% sure a 6 frame move is NOT reactable....NEVER...is impossible.
Completely impossible.

For you maybe.

Are you playing at the level those professionals do? If not, then my point stands.

[Big Thanks]

For you maybe.

Are you playing at the level those professionals do? If not, then my point stands.

Is impossible...it cant be...it would be superhuman.

For context, a jab (the fastest move in Tekken) is 9 or 10 frames...and is commonly accepted by the community no one is able to react to a jab.

[talwynn]

I do both. I have a decent enough computer and a PS4, and I plan to buy a PS5 and probably build a new computer once the new hardware comes out. Plus there are games on consoles I absolutely cannot play for pc. Some of the very best games are on console. PS4 Spider-Man, God of War, Breath of the Wild, the Last of Us and on and on. I don’t use a PS4 pro or 4K tv, and guess what, some days I just want to sit on my couch and enjoy a game. I spend most of my days in front of computers, so I like the option of both.

my 5 year old PC is more powerful than the PS5, the only slight advantage it has will be SSD load times and that will be only a few secs better at most, PC will get better SSDs soon enough anyway.

Going off of the claims from Sony and what Epic has said during their recent Unreal 5 reveal, the PS5 load times are not just a few seconds faster. On a PS4 pro, to launch Spider-Man, it took 8.1 seconds. They did a demo with the same game using the PS5 tech and it launched in 0.8 seconds. This was a game that was not optimized for that tech, and it took off 7 seconds. And before you say “that is a few seconds”, consider a game like Skyrim, where you are loading into almost everything, and completely remove load times. They are talking about games with zero load times, not only from launch in the menu, but throughout the entire game. I am running games off of an nvme drive, and I still have considerable load times. My understanding is it’s going to take a change within the OS and the hardware to get the speeds PS5 is capable of, because Sony is controlling the OS and optimizing communication between the storage, memory, CPU and GPU. There are too many differences in computers right now that manufacturers will need to play catch up for a bit. Will it happen? Yes of course, but I would wager not for a few more years.