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

[SirCowdog]

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.

Regardless, the point was to illustrate that just because some people can't tell the difference, or don't care about it, doesn't mean that there ISN'T a difference between 30 and 60fps.

[Big Thanks]

Regardless, the point was to illustrate that just because some people can't tell the difference, or don't care about it, doesn't mean that there ISN'T a difference between 30 and 60fps.

Oh but ofcourse!

Tekken has this kind of "infamous moves" which are "lows that lead to combo" and they have 29 frames of startup.
This moves ARE reactable to the good players...i can react to them (majority of times )
But this is the threshold where the people with less reaction time get frustrated with the game. Because they cant react to 29 frame moves and insta lose the game.

A 60 frame move would be so slow...insanely slow to the point of almost anyone on the planet can see it

[Temp name]

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.

It also works like that on PC exclusive games. And besides, it's just common sense.

PS5 games aren't going to be streaming game data at 9GB/s constantly. Or ever. What's the biggest game you can think of? I it's RDR2 at 150GB. Let's make it 180GB for easier math. The PS5's SSD can stream that entire game into RAM in 20 seconds. They won't need to though. Because that includes all the cutscenes and audio and all the shit that no one will ever need to see. Ain't happening. It also includes all the textures at max resolution, which, again, you'll NEVER load all of those in at max res. That would kill the GPU.

And that's not including that the RAM on the system is only 16GB, so you'd get at most ~2 seconds of full speed before you'd have to spend A LOT of CPU time deleting old RAM data, and cripple your performance.

It's also not counting that you'll never see 9GB/s on random performance, which is what games are. It's going to be miniscule compared to that. The only way you can get it to the 9GB/s is for large files. Look up current SSD reviews and look for the random I/O performance, it's fucking trash compared to what the SSDs are marketed at being able to do, since it's a controller bottleneck. There is no way the PS5 has found a controller able to do 9GB/s of random performance, because if they had, whoever made it would've put it on the market already and made every other data centre SSD obsolete over night

[Kimina]

It also works like that on PC exclusive games. And besides, it's just common sense.

PS5 games aren't going to be streaming game data at 9GB/s constantly. Or ever. What's the biggest game you can think of? I it's RDR2 at 150GB. Let's make it 180GB for easier math. The PS5's SSD can stream that entire game into RAM in 20 seconds. They won't need to though. Because that includes all the cutscenes and audio and all the shit that no one will ever need to see. Ain't happening. It also includes all the textures at max resolution, which, again, you'll NEVER load all of those in at max res. That would kill the GPU.

And that's not including that the RAM on the system is only 16GB, so you'd get at most ~2 seconds of full speed before you'd have to spend A LOT of CPU time deleting old RAM data, and cripple your performance.

It's also not counting that you'll never see 9GB/s on random performance, which is what games are. It's going to be miniscule compared to that. The only way you can get it to the 9GB/s is for large files. Look up current SSD reviews and look for the random I/O performance, it's fucking trash compared to what the SSDs are marketed at being able to do, since it's a controller bottleneck. There is no way the PS5 has found a controller able to do 9GB/s of random performance, because if they had, whoever made it would've put it on the market already and made every other data centre SSD obsolete over night

Someone else (with more knowledge on the subject than me) was explaining it to me kinda like this the other day and it really made me realize just how much smoke Sony is blowing up people's asses about their SSD. I keep seeing random tards on the internet saying Sony's SSD will make all the difference in the world and how it alone will blow anything the Series X has out of the water and I'm just sitting here like "Umm, probably not?"

[Tech614]

It also works like that on PC exclusive games. And besides, it's just common sense.

PS5 games aren't going to be streaming game data at 9GB/s constantly. Or ever. What's the biggest game you can think of? I it's RDR2 at 150GB. Let's make it 180GB for easier math. The PS5's SSD can stream that entire game into RAM in 20 seconds. They won't need to though. Because that includes all the cutscenes and audio and all the shit that no one will ever need to see. Ain't happening. It also includes all the textures at max resolution, which, again, you'll NEVER load all of those in at max res. That would kill the GPU.

And that's not including that the RAM on the system is only 16GB, so you'd get at most ~2 seconds of full speed before you'd have to spend A LOT of CPU time deleting old RAM data, and cripple your performance.

It's also not counting that you'll never see 9GB/s on random performance, which is what games are. It's going to be miniscule compared to that. The only way you can get it to the 9GB/s is for large files. Look up current SSD reviews and look for the random I/O performance, it's fucking trash compared to what the SSDs are marketed at being able to do, since it's a controller bottleneck. There is no way the PS5 has found a controller able to do 9GB/s of random performance, because if they had, whoever made it would've put it on the market already and made every other data centre SSD obsolete over night

"I'm gonna compare a game made to run on a 5400 RPM mechanical drive to make my point about why the SSD doesn't matter".

You still don't get it apparently. Call me when you actually have a game made to run on this drive to talk about. It's honestly hilarious that you think you know better then actual game devs, and no it's not just Sony first party devs talking about this either.

[Heavens Night]

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.

Because they don't know any better and have probably never seen any better. I mean, you don't buy a console if you care about games playing or looking the best do you? I would think a lot of people just buy them to play an exclusive here or there and for convenience.

[Aliven]

Because they don't know any better and have probably never seen any better. I mean, you don't buy a console if you care about games playing or looking the best do you? I would think a lot of people just buy them to play an exclusive here or there and for convenience.

Or, and this could blow your mind, they dont give a fuck?

[kenn9530]

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.

The current gen of consoles is not powerful enough to handle 4k gaming at 60 fps, even the ps4 pro stuggles at 1080p past 30 fps. How can console players demand something just not possible.

[Snowfunk]

Because they are all complete sheeps.

[ohiostate124]

Because 99% of gamers aren’t going to notice the difference.

[Ragnarohk]

Because they are all complete sheeps.

Sure, let me use my PC on my 1 hour subway commute to my job so I can play the witcher. I mean, the nintendo switch has worse graphics, why would I ever touch that?

[Heavens Night]

Or, and this could blow your mind, they dont give a fuck?

I think you made my point exactly.

[Witchblade77]

I think you made my point exactly.

there is a world of difference between "don't know any better" and "don't give a fuck"

consider for a moment, just try... that not everyone has the same preferences when it comes to gaming?

no, seriously.

I have a PC and I have ps4. my PC is good enough to run pretty much every game I have at 60fps on high settings. do you think I GAF about not having 60fps when I play anything on my ps4? (and some of the games I have and played both on ps4 and pc) the answer is no. I absolutely positively do NOT GAF. the fact that PC lets me play with a keyboard and mouse and with PS4, I'm pretty much bound to controller makes far FAR more of a difference to me personaly.

[Kathranis]

It's not that I don't notice it, it's just that for most games it doesn't negatively impact my enjoyment of the experience. The only real exceptions are where frame perfect timings may be important, like in shooters or fighting games. If it's more of a typical modern cinematic action or roleplaying game, I'm not going to be bothered.

And I'm not really a console player, but when it comes to console games, the tradeoff is that you can just put in whatever game and know it's going to work as intended without having to fiddle with things. Ease of use and portability are valuable.

Of course, I also spent many years playing PC games at sub-30 FPS because it was the best I could afford, so maybe necessity trained me to not be picky.

[Temp name]

"I'm gonna compare a game made to run on a 5400 RPM mechanical drive to make my point about why the SSD doesn't matter".

You still don't get it apparently. Call me when you actually have a game made to run on this drive to talk about. It's honestly hilarious that you think you know better then actual game devs, and no it's not just Sony first party devs talking about this either.

You've still yet to say how it will make a difference. I've explained, thoroughly, why it will not. You have just said that it will with no proof or context other than Sony telling you that it will.

What part of what I said was wrong?

You won't load an entire game into RAM, because you don't have that much RAM, and having to use max res textures for everything will kill GPU performance
You also will not get the max performance from the SSD because games aren't singular files, so the controller will need to find the correct files instead of just loading everything.

And that's also ignoring that everything isn't made for the PS5, so devs will make their games for the weaker link, and then port it to the others, meaning that for at least the next 2 years we'll get games made for the PS4/Xbone and then ported forward to the next-gen consoles, and after that they'll be made for the Xbone's storage solution first, and then ported to the PS5's.
and also ignoring that PC games have been made with SSD performance in mind for several years, and haven't had some magic bump in whatever performance you think they will get outside of loading.

And as for this part:

and no it's not just Sony first party devs talking about this either.

What dev that isn't Epic has said anything about it? Because epic is lying out their asses

[Kaykay]

they dont know better. same with 60hz pc plebs who have never experienced 100-120-144hz

[TheWorkingTitle]

they dont know better. same with 60hz pc plebs who have never experienced 100-120-144hz

And I bet the 244 hz overlords say the same thing about us 144 hz plebs.

[Heavens Night]

there is a world of difference between "don't know any better" and "don't give a fuck"

consider for a moment, just try... that not everyone has the same preferences when it comes to gaming?

no, seriously.

I have a PC and I have ps4. my PC is good enough to run pretty much every game I have at 60fps on high settings. do you think I GAF about not having 60fps when I play anything on my ps4? (and some of the games I have and played both on ps4 and pc) the answer is no. I absolutely positively do NOT GAF. the fact that PC lets me play with a keyboard and mouse and with PS4, I'm pretty much bound to controller makes far FAR more of a difference to me personaly.

Ofc not everyone has the same preferences. I made those suggestions in my original post.

How you feel when you play PS4 games, is of no interest to me. If you have a PC as you say that can play "pretty much every game" at 60 fps on high, good for you, great, well done.

But if you're seriously telling me you then don't notice the drop of 30 frames or more when you switch to PS4 and think that's fine, and would BE fine for next gen consoles, then I think you're telling some white lies there.

People do seem to get rather defensive about this, as I can see you have. There's no need to.

- - - Updated - - -

they dont know better. same with 60hz pc plebs who have never experienced 100-120-144hz

I made this point.

Console peasants got annoyed.
(tongue in cheek) before more defensive ranting.

[Witchblade77]

Ofc not everyone has the same preferences. I made those suggestions in my original post.

How you feel when you play PS4 games, is of no interest to me. If you have a PC as you say that can play "pretty much every game" at 60 fps on high, good for you, great, well done.

But if you're seriously telling me you then don't notice the drop of 30 frames or more when you switch to PS4 and think that's fine, and would BE fine for next gen consoles, then I think you're telling some white lies there.

People do seem to get rather defensive about this, as I can see you have. There's no need to.

- - - Updated - - -



I made this point.

Console peasants got annoyed.
(tongue in cheek) before more defensive ranting.

the only people getting defensive here are the ones calling others "console peasants who do not know any better"

and yes, I do not notice it enough to care. it doesn't make any sort of significant difference for me. (and as other poster pointed out, possibly because I've been playing video games long enough to have started back when higher framerates were NOT a thing. doesn't affect enjoyment of old faves for me either)

[Unholyground]

I play where the games I want are, simple as that and if I have to take an FPS hit I will do so right after my bong hit.

I also have a PC that is pretty decent so that argument is gone out the window.