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

[Dalinos]

You know you can LAN on PC too? Like really easily, with a single screen and controllers if you wanted.

While that is true, it requires alot of extra effort. Firstly, you NEED the 2 controllers (which are a console thing, not a computer thing, computer uses Mouse + Keyboard, which is much better for some genres of games, like FPS or RTS). Secondly, you need a big enough monitor and a big enough desk to accompany two people sitting together, whereas for Console, your TV is already a decent size, and your bed/couch/armchairs serve as your PC chairs. Also, notice how you need Console things (controller, big monitor) to ADAPT your PC to the Console version of physical LAN gaming on the same machine. Whereas in Console these features are built-in, not extras. You see the point I'm trying to make?

[Itisamuh]

That's because many console players have never truly experienced what "feels good to play". I mean, if you've only ever driven a honda civic, you have no idea what it's like to drive a tesla. That's the difference. You just really TRULY don't know any better. And that's not meant as an insult.

And don't confuse the issue further. For some game types, FPS and resolution really just don't matter. I put Final Fantasy Tactics as one of the best games to ever exist, but it was a PS1 game that I played on a CRT TV. But when you start getting into genres where FPS and resolution are important, like shooters or action RPGs that require timing and precision, then yes, there is absolutely a difference that performance makes.

It's sort of like the age old argument that Controllers aren't objectively worse than Mouse + Keyboard. Sure, there are some games where it doesn't matter. But for a shooter it does. And claiming that the controller "feels good to play" is fine for you. But you really are choosing to have a less detailed experience.

Well I play both console and PC plenty, so clearly this is not at all a case of not knowing any better. Believe it or not, some people simply have different opinions and priorities. Of course PC is more cutting edge if you pay enough for it, but like I said, it means absolutely nothing to me. And console games are designed with exactly that console in mind, so unlike trying to play a high end PC game on a crappy system, it will be smooth by default, unless the game just sucks. I can honestly say I have never felt like I chugged due to lower FPS or resolution on any console.

I also like the simplicity of everyone basically having the same hardware, with no inherent advantages or disadvantages. And as a long time Halo fanatic, I have absolutely no preference for FPS games on PC over controller, provided there is no cross platform multiplayer. I also enjoy Diablo more on Xbox than PC, though that is admittedly because I hate click or drag to move gameplay. There is no question that the PC version deals with stat details and targeting better.

The only time I outright prefer PC is for games that would simply not be possible to have a good console port, or ones that have cross platform multiplayer, putting the controller at a massive disadvantage. Honestly, I can understand why some people prefer PC, but their inability to understand that others can and do feel differently without being objectively wrong is my issue with them.

[Acelius]

Maybe they don't know any better?

Also while on the subject, I don't understand why some developers decide to make a game 4K/30fps instead of 1080/60fps. I'd take 1080/60fps every day.

I can understand it for consoles. If you're at home on a 4K, 50" tv, 1080p is gonna look more like crap than it already does.

[Dalinos]

Well I play both console and PC plenty, so clearly this is not at all a case of not knowing any better. Believe it or not, some people simply have different opinions and priorities. Of course PC is more cutting edge if you pay enough for it, but like I said, it means absolutely nothing to me. And console games are designed with exactly that console in mind, so unlike trying to play a high end PC game on a crappy system, it will be smooth by default, unless the game just sucks. I can honestly say I have never felt like I chugged due to lower FPS or resolution on any console.

I also like the simplicity of everyone basically having the same hardware, with no inherent advantages or disadvantages. And as a long time Halo fanatic, I have absolutely no preference for FPS games on PC over controller, provided there is no cross platform multiplayer. I also enjoy Diablo more on Xbox than PC, though that is admittedly because I hate click or drag to move gameplay. There is no question that the PC version deals with stat details and targeting better.

The only time I outright prefer PC is for games that would simply not be possible to have a good console port, or ones that have cross platform multiplayer, putting the controller at a massive disadvantage. Honestly, I can understand why some people prefer PC, but their inability to understand that others can and do feel differently without being objectively wrong is my issue with them.

The explanation I personally have is that these die-hard PC fanatics have never experienced true, split-screen physical LAN gaming with a group of mates, in the same room, on the same machine. You mentioned you're a HALO fan - I'm positive you've had mates over (or gone over to your mates) to have LAN HALO sessions on your Xboxes. Or am I wrong?

[SirCowdog]

Mate, all this is fine and dandy, but you're missing out the key concept here.

A PC + Monitor setup is for SOLO-GAMING.
A Console + TV setup is for GROUP GAMING.

What's more fun? Playing the Mortal Kombat campaign at 1080p/60FPS on your PC, alone, or playing Mortal Kombat LAN on your PS4 with your mates who are PHYSICALLY NEXT TO YOU? That is the main difference. Not performance, not graphics, not FPS, not sound. It is simply the fact you can punch your mate on the shoulder when he picks Scorpion for the 195th time and gets a Flawless Victory on your ass with a Brutality at the end to top it all off. A PC will NEVER, EVER manage to achieve that, because they are NOT built for physical LAN gaming - they are built for separate LAN gaming/Online gaming, where everyone is sitting at his own machine.

You keep harping on about performance, specs etc and you're forgetting 1 key thing. What are the origins of video-gaming? After DOS gaming we had Arcades. I'm juuuuuuuuust old enough to have experienced Arcades (I was like, 4-5 yrs old? at the time?). They were the epitome of LAN gaming. You drop your 50 drachma coin, you have a go, try to get a highscore, you die. Your mate next to you drops his 50 drachma coin, he has his go, he beats your highscore, rinse & repeat. It was always about the fun competitiveness of playing with others, and beating each other. Neighbourhood legends appeared, like that one dude who held the Pacman record in my neighbourhood for like a year. That's what gaming is all about. Not 1080p VS 720p or 30 FPS vs 60 FPS. Noone gives a flying fuck about that shit. I'd rather play Tekken 3 with my mates on the Ps1 at 800x640 resolution than play AC:Odyssey on a NASA super-computer, alone.

You do make some important points.

I'll just say that LAN parties are still a thing(not currently due to quarantine, of course). People bringing their laptops all to one place and playing together. And keep in mind that the original context of the thread was about FPS. Of course there are other factors to gaming in a general sense. But that's not really within the scope of the discussion.

- - - Updated - - -

And console games are designed with exactly that console in mind, so unlike trying to play a high end PC game on a crappy system, it will be smooth by default, unless the game just sucks.

That's not entirely true all of the time. Often early versions of a game still in development will be made to run at higher specs, then have to be downgraded and cut in order to fit the console hardware and architecture.

The only time I outright prefer PC is for games that would simply not be possible to have a good console port, or ones that have cross platform multiplayer, putting the controller at a massive disadvantage. Honestly, I can understand why some people prefer PC, but their inability to understand that others can and do feel differently without being objectively wrong is my issue with them.

Don't get me wrong here. I completely understand that for some games the controller is preferable. When I'm playing an RTS, or a FPS, or an MMO, I'll use my mouse and Keyboard. But if I'm playing Darksouls style games, or platformers like Hollow Knight/Ori/Deadcells, I'll go to the controller.

This isn't really a discussion of what people prefer to use for their input. The OP was making the point that, given a choice, would you PREFER to play a game at 30 FPS if a higher setting was available? I point to the example I linked before about Bloodborne. Anyone who's played that knows that there's SEVERE frame drops, skipping, motion blur, etc. And it runs at 1080p 30fps. But if you watch the video of the guy playing at 720p / 60 fps, you can absolutely see how much more clean and responsive it is.

Given that Bloodborn is a game that HEAVILY relies upon gameplay and the player's ability to react and respond, the 60 FPS version is how the game SHOULD have launched with had the hardware been available to make it so at the time.

But more to the point, given that next gen consoles will be more PC-like than ever before, I absolutely advocate for the ability to change the settings based on what you prefer. If you don't care about FPS, then you should be able to crank up the graphics and resolution and play at 15 FPS if you prefer a pretty slideshow instead of a smooth game.

[Lex Icon]

unlike a lot of these pc snobs i don't care about fps. the only reason i play mostly on the pc is because i prefer the setup of keyboard and mouse over controller and i play mostly mmo's.

but seeing as even xbox seem to be supporting keyboard and mouse now and consoles are becoming more like pc's i might not even get a new pc in the future.

[SirCowdog]

The logic is, that in the most demanding scene in your game, your FPS should be 60. Everywhere else that isnt as demanding, their FPS can go wild. 100, 200, whatever. But your most demanding scene should be designed so that someone with the hardware you are targetting gets 60fps.

Essentially, sure you can notice 144 fps over 60, I know that of course, but 60 is the minimum that is acceptable before you start to get kinda pissed at how jerky it is. You also cant notice the difference between 1440p and 4k in the vasty majority of cases. Or at least, the difference to 99% of people is minor. The difference between 1080p and 1440p however is massive. (This all changes depending on your display size).

They will aim for 60fps im sure of it, they might just run it at 1440p then do some upscale magic to get '4k' even though its not actually 4k. Dont take these clickbait bullshit gaming articles as truth, they will write whatever they have to, to get those clicks.

Given the additional power of next gen consoles, it would really surprise me that future games would settle for lower than 60 FPS. However....

AC: Valhalla is being released on Xbox One and PS4. That's concerning, considering how old those consoles are. I don't know if there will be some sort of lower setting for the previous generation of consoles, and higher for the PS5 and XBox SX, but I can't help but see this game suffering the same sort of corner-cutting that plagues most console titles.

Regardless, it'll be interesting to see how the overlap between console generations gets handled.

[Beefhammer]

As both a console PC and console game FPS doesn't really other me until it get to a stuttering point. Usually that's under 20FPS. I can see a difference between 60 and 30 but I have o issues with 30. I barely notice a difference between 60 and 120 and see no differences above 120.

So, for me, and I suppose others who are not complaining or demanding higher FPS, it just doesn't matter.

[Pendou]

Because i just dont care. I will sit down in front of TV take the controller and play my game while having a drink and after few hours i just turn on the netflix while i am still on the couch.

[Hellobolis]

games need to look better constantly, but console hardware only changes once a decade.

you can do a lot of tricks with the graphics to get more out of the hardware. less detail in the corners of the screen and stuff like that.

i don't think nearly as many of those types of tricks exist for framerate.

[slickwilly]

Your eyes cant tell the difference between 30 and 60 fps. THose who say they can are full of it. The only reason monitors are being made at 144 hz is because there's a sucker born every minute.

[Lahis]

Given the additional power of next gen consoles, it would really surprise me that future games would settle for lower than 60 FPS. However....

AC: Valhalla is being released on Xbox One and PS4. That's concerning, considering how old those consoles are. I don't know if there will be some sort of lower setting for the previous generation of consoles, and higher for the PS5 and XBox SX, but I can't help but see this game suffering the same sort of corner-cutting that plagues most console titles.

Regardless, it'll be interesting to see how the overlap between console generations gets handled.

They'll bump the resolution to 4K to keep struggling to maintain 30 FPS.

[SirCowdog]

Your eyes cant tell the difference between 30 and 60 fps. THose who say they can are full of it. The only reason monitors are being made at 144 hz is because there's a sucker born every minute.

You're only partially correct.

No, I couldn't point at two screens and tell you the exact FPS of each. But I absolutely could easily tell you that one was running better and more smoothly than another.

There's a distinct difference between 30 fps and 60, and between 60 and 144.

Your average person off the street probably won't notice. The gamer who's been training their eyes and brain with decades of videogames, however, would.

Also. Watch the video on page 1. Then tell me you honestly don't see a difference between the smoothness of the oeiginal bloodborne at 30 fps and the smoother 60 fps at 720p.

[Ghostpanther]

May be for the same reason I am ok with 30 fps playing a game on my computer. Really do not notice that much difference compared to 60 fps. It has to drop down to around 20 fps for me to notice the difference. I know some people say they can see the difference when it drops down below 60 fps. But not I.

Or I could put it this way.....I would much prefer playing a game with ultra settings, in 1080 at 30 fps, then playing it with medium settings, in 720 and get 60 fps.

[Stormwolf64]

Not knowing better is one reason

[Ghostpanther]

You're only partially correct.

No, I couldn't point at two screens and tell you the exact FPS of each. But I absolutely could easily tell you that one was running better and more smoothly than another.

There's a distinct difference between 30 fps and 60, and between 60 and 144.

Your average person off the street probably won't notice. The gamer who's been training their eyes and brain with decades of videogames, however, would.

Also. Watch the video on page 1. Then tell me you honestly don't see a difference between the smoothness of the oeiginal bloodborne at 30 fps and the smoother 60 fps at 720p.

I can honestly tell you I do not notice any difference. lol! Now there is a big difference between 720 and 1080 in visual quality of course. And maybe I would notice the difference between a 144hz and 60hz monitor. I do know, I see no difference between 60hz and 75hz. In any game I play, I always set vertical sync to on. I can easily notice the tearing in a game without it on.

[SirCowdog]

I can honestly tell you I do not notice any difference. lol!

Then, with no insult or slight intended, your eyes are not as good as other people's. Granted, some of what you're seeing is a result of youtube, but I can see obvious frame drops and stuttering on the 30 fps example, and the lack of smoothness. It's especially noticeable when the camera angel rotates.

Start at 2:30 and both watch and listen to what the commentators are saying until about the 6:00 mark. Then watch the gameplay again and see if you can notice the difference based on what they're describing. If you still can't, then I don't know what to tell you. Some people's senses are just different. Some people can tell the difference between high thread-count sheets and silk, some can't. Some people can smell things with greater detail than others.

There's no shame or anything. It's just different people are different. If you can't tell the difference, then I guess it doesn't make a difference for you. Which is, in a way, kind of good. My experience with Bloodborne was SEVERELY impacted by the lower graphical quality. But if none of that framerate crap bothers you, I guess you probably would have a better time. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Deathknightish]

https://www.testufo.com/
https://frames-per-second.appspot.com/

Watch these, the difference between 30 and 60 FPS is clear as night and day.

[Lahis]

Your eyes cant tell the difference between 30 and 60 fps. THose who say they can are full of it. The only reason monitors are being made at 144 hz is because there's a sucker born every minute.

You can see differences in FPS way above 60 FPS.

[Mirishka]

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.

Some of the best games I've ever played were 30 FPS and it didn't take away from the immersion/enjoyment etc at all. I didn't sit there thinking 'this is good but gosh it would be GREAT at 60 FPS!'

- - - Updated - - -

That's because many console players have never truly experienced what "feels good to play". I mean, if you've only ever driven a honda civic, you have no idea what it's like to drive a tesla.

The condescension is real.