Carmack: There'll be "lots of 30hz games" in next-gen

[BoyBettaKnow]

I don't use V-Sync (i feel it adds a little bit of lag but i can't work out if it's all in my mind) but yeah, there is a lot less tearing that i've noticed since having it

[keefy]

Thats good to hear I hate tearing but i hate input lag more.
ITs nto in your mind its a fact that Vsync does create input lag when enabled.

[Varsh]

Gaming at 120Hz is jaw dropping, but tearing comes about when your framerate exceeds the possible output of the monitor/TV, so if 60FPS PS3 games had no VSync then you can bet they'll be hitting well above 60FPS and on any TVs that cap at 60Hz, you'll see screen tearing on them.

[itachi73378]

I think 1080p will be the standard next gen because most people already have the HD TVs and some console games already used 1080p albeit small psn games.

I'm all for higher framrates but some games don't need it as much as others. 60fps in a game like Civ V will be idiotic if it takes up too much precious resources.

[Varsh]

Well there will always be games where an FPS count will have the benefit of a doubt, turn based strategy games are one genre where an FPS count isn't needed, having an FPS smooth enough to traverse the map is all that's needed. Genres like Racing, FPS, and anything competitive is a must to have as high and FPS as possible. The differences is huge and can mean the difference between seeing the person come around the corner and you being shot by someone behind the corner as the screen had not updated.

I this is why pro PC FPS and Racing gamers compete on 120Hz monitors.

[keefy]

Gaming at 120Hz is jaw dropping, but tearing comes about when your framerate exceeds the possible output of the monitor/TV, so if 60FPS PS3 games had no VSync then you can bet they'll be hitting well above 60FPS and on any TVs that cap at 60Hz, you'll see screen tearing on them.

I would not ay that is strictly speaking true in all cases, there comes a point when the FPS is rendered so fast that tearing doesnt happen or at the very least is negligible.
If the FPS is 60-70 then yes it could be seen but after that it starts to lessen the higher you go. Anyone tht has played CS 1.6 or even source or quake will agree.

I base my findings on a 60Hz monitor.

[Varsh]

It doesn't matter whether there are more frames or not past the refresh rate of the device, the fact is that if the graphics card or rendering device outputs faster than the display device can output then you will always get tearing, no ifs or buts. In order to prevent tearing of any kind then you need to sync both the device output and the display device together to have a consistent rate. This is the whole point of VSync, to delay the device output until it has a full picture ready to throw at the display output (similar to progressive scanning as opposed to interlaced scanning). Having triple the framerate to a monitor's refreshrate actually cause a lot more tears due to the graphics card trying to display 3 frames at the same time of which the monitor was built to only display only 1 within that time, so you will have an image split in 3.

[keefy]

I play Quake live with 125FPS and Quake with 800FPS tear free along with any other game my computer can achieve 100+ FPS.
Like I said I only go by my expereinces of a 60Hz monitor.
I do not notice any tearing yet I can notice difference between 30 and 60FPS unlike the majority (so some say) of gamers.

My experience is higher the FPS the less the tearing is noticable.

cap a agme exactly at 60FPS on 60Hz monitor and the tearing is horrendous but cap at maybe 90FPS it is barely noticable, I say barely because I cannot notice it but maybe others can.

[Sufi]

I think 1080p will be the standard next gen because most people already have the HD TVs and some console games already used 1080p albeit small psn games.

You can say the same thing about 720p TVs...most people have them. Is 720p the standard this generation?

And just like 720p took a long time to catch on...so will true 1080p.

Which is why we will not see 1080p as the standard. Maybe we will in the beginning to entice people into buying the next-gen consoles (which is sorta what happened with PS3) but we all know that we were lucky to get a true 720p game later on in the life cycle.

One of the reasons are because when you're on a closed box system, and you're during the second stage (where people have already come out with their first games and are now waiting for sequels), you're pressured into showing more details and bigger maps/levels in your sequels.

So the easiest way to compensate for that is frame rate and resolution. Which is why you'll see most games at 30fps later in the life cycle of a console and that's part of the reason why they can push the consoles to their limits even more.

I mean, at one point, we were even lead to believe that 720p wasn't even that big of a deal...as long as games were fun and looked good. I think both Sony and MS implied that at one point or another or at least some of the devs did.

We will see 1080p as a standard if people started to want it more than details and bigger worlds. Do you think the average person even knows what resolution is?

I think consoles are going to fight this battle for a long time because the developer decides these things for us so whatever people want, is what we will see.

[Blacksite]

Haven't most games been running at a 720p resolution? The only game I've heard that might be running lower than that was Grand Theft Auto IV. It was something like 640p, if I remember correctly.

[itachi73378]

Haven't most games been running at a 720p resolution? The only game I've heard that might be running lower than that was Grand Theft Auto IV. It was something like 640p, if I remember correctly.

Call of duty black ops
final fantasy xiii (xbox version)
Crysis 2
wipeout (this one switched resolution dynamically I think)
Resistance 3

Just to name a few
I'm perfectly fine with the current standards of console gaming i.e both resolution and framerate. I only wanted 1080p because larger resolutions reduce aliasing and increase detail

[Sufi]

Haven't most games been running at a 720p resolution? The only game I've heard that might be running lower than that was Grand Theft Auto IV. It was something like 640p, if I remember correctly.

Most games are 720p but generally they're also not resource-hogs. The resolution generally gets a hit in big hitters such as BF3, Crysis 2, MS: Pacific/Apocolypse, RE5, Halo: Reach, FFXIII, Alan Wake whereas other games like ME3, Batman AC, GT5, UC1/2/3, Forza 2/3/4 do not.

On games that don't require so much resources is where 720p is generally the standard, otherwise it's pretty much split up if you count all the AAA games.

Though looking at the list of game resolutions...I think I was expecting devs to increase the fps before resolution but it seems like it's easier to raise the resolution than the fps so I think we will likely see a higher % of 1080p games with varied resolution (good to bad) rather than 60fps games with varied resolution.

[Sufi]

I'm perfectly fine with the current standards of console gaming i.e both resolution and framerate. I only wanted 1080p because larger resolutions reduce aliasing and increase detail

It does reduce aliasing but it doesn't increase detail, it sharpens whatever detail there is.

You'll likely get less details from the developer for a higher resolution so there'll be less to see but in a case where there's a talented dev, and he can still keep the details up to standard with the best-looking games out there then 1080p is an icing on the cake.

If you have to get rid of detail to get the higher resolution then it's really dependent on the user what he/she prefers. More details or less details that are sharper (given that you have a true 1080p TV with the right cable hookups).

[Vulgotha]

I play lots of 30fps and 60fps games.. And while the difference is noticeable, I find that it is only especially noticeable when you are switching from one to the other on the same game.


Like me playing BF3 on PC then switching to 360. But that's not an overly common occurrence.

On an embedded system, I'm not sure I agree with Carmack here. I'd rather have a more stable, nicer looking title than full 60fps. Doubling the frame rate comes with a steep cost.

[itachi73378]

It does reduce aliasing but it doesn't increase detail, it sharpens whatever detail there is.
.

Thats what I meant, and if the sharpness allows you to see clearer textures and an overall enhanced image, then you would say the 'detail' has increased. Ofcourse we must set a definition for detail beforehand.

I play lots of 30fps and 60fps games.. And while the difference is noticeable, I find that it is only especially noticeable when you are switching from one to the other on the same game.


Like me playing BF3 on PC then switching to 360. But that's not an overly common occurrence.

On an embedded system, I'm not sure I agree with Carmack here. I'd rather have a more stable, nicer looking title than full 60fps. Doubling the frame rate comes with a steep cost.

so true. I was one of those who previously couldn't see the difference between 30fps and 60fps, but while playing minecraft I was clearly able to 'feel' a difference between the two.

[Sufi]

Thats what I meant, and if the sharpness allows you to see clearer textures and an overall enhanced image, than you would say the 'detail' has increased. Ofcourse we must set a definition for detail beforehand.

Well in simple terms, it becomes more detailed because you can see it better now.

I play lots of 30fps and 60fps games.. And while the difference is noticeable, I find that it is only especially noticeable when you are switching from one to the other on the same game.


Like me playing BF3 on PC then switching to 360. But that's not an overly common occurrence.

On an embedded system, I'm not sure I agree with Carmack here. I'd rather have a more stable, nicer looking title than full 60fps. Doubling the frame rate comes with a steep cost.

Regardless of it being noticeable or not, I think one of the primary reasons why COD is so popular is due to its fps...because you can act quickly if it's higher.

Thus removing the input lag. I do notice it, in BF3 especially, it's pretty horrible but I play it still because it's horrible for everyone so it's a leveled playing field.

I'd rather have 60fps shooters but that's just me. COD's controls are smoother probably a good amount due to its frame rate.

[*goo]

I was massively impressed with how good Rage looks and how well it runs (consistent 60FPS) on PS3 - probably the smoothest experience I've had yet. Given the choice, I'd want much more of that.

Having games still at 30FPS next generation won't stop my buying them but given how far technology has come, I'd have hoped for more. However, that's back to the result of console consumers being unwilling to pay for bleeding edge hardware.

[Sufi]

I was massively impressed with how good Rage looks and how well it runs (consistent 60FPS) on PS3 - probably the smoothest experience I've had yet. Given the choice, I'd want much more of that.

Having games still at 30FPS next generation won't stop my buying them but given how far technology has come, I'd have hoped for more. However, that's back to the result of console consumers being unwilling to pay for bleeding edge hardware.

Rage was decent-looking though. It looked good in some ways but some textures were down-right ugly. I donno if I'd care for 60fps in a single player game like that...maybe if it was a multiplayer game.

I want a stable frame rate with eye candy...not to mention the game didn't have destruction...so I donno what why they couldn't make it prettier.

I'd much rather prefer the visual/fps balance of Bioshock: Infinite than Rage's.

The best way to describe the game is that they made it for the PC and then sorta threw it on the consoles by lowering settings and such. Of course they would've done a better job if they made it just for the PC but that's still applicable.

[Bigdoggy]

Consoles main lacking of power is the RAM, the GPU's are fine in this case. Games on the PS3 look really good, it's the RAM factor that is bottle necking the entire console. When the PS3 got released, Sony wanted to focus on online gaming. Sony couldn't focus as much on online gaming as they originally wanted because they were trying to push out the bluray format. When blu-ray first came out, it was actually cheaper then when the DVD format first came out.

add the $500 cost to a console system, add an extra $100 so your at $600 and you see sony losing a bit over $100 per unit on it's release day just because of the bluray player. Technically when you bought a PS3, you bought a $100 video game console and a $500 blu-ray player. o.O

so was there strategy to take a loss on this gen of consoles then once the bluray player goes down in cost by the time the next consoles hit, they will be able to make money on there next console even if they fill it up with ram.

512mb of RAM in 2005 was pretty expensive, if they started making the PS3 in 2004 then 512MB was even more. if it was customed to the PS3 then it would cost double or triple just because of the custom factor in the RAM. So if they make the PS4 with a newer cell or lets say an AMD CPU and load in at the very least 8GB of RAM with either a 2.5" or 3.5" HDD, they will either make tiny profit on the first year or break even on the first year. granted they will use the same controllers so that right there is dirt cheap.

making a PS4 with both AMD cpu and ATI since AMD owns ATI, they would get a 100x better deal. The reason for that deal Vs. Nvidia is because Intel nor IBM owns Nvidia so there isn't a package deal. Also Nvidia is getting way to big for there own good, they are so expensive that you are better off support AMD right now. Nvidia will force the PS4 to cost A LOT more Vs. AMD/ATI as well as IBM CPU's with Nvidia. it's such a waste of money that I hope they don't stick with IBM and Nvidia.

if the PS4 comes out with only 1GB of RAM or 4GB of ram with a better GPU, they just bottlenecked the PS4 and I will not buy it because it will run no different then the PS3 in that case.

the next Playstation console as to run 1080p at 60fps, they are pushing for that, plus it should be able to run MMORPG's with thousands of players per server. 4GB I will laugh and call PS4 a failure.

The PS Vita already outshines the PS3 in the RAM department and I find it pretty disappointing that the ram in the vita is twice as much as in the PS3 o.O

[Sufi]

wtf, AMD owns ATI? O_O when did that happen?

[Fijiandoce]

the company hasn't existed for years now....or so i recall
branding was taken down a couple of years ago

Consoles main lacking of power is the RAM, the GPU's are fine in this case. Games on the PS3 look really good, it's the RAM factor that is bottle necking the entire console. When the PS3 got released, Sony wanted to focus on online gaming. Sony couldn't focus as much on online gaming as they originally wanted because they were trying to push out the bluray format. When blu-ray first came out, it was actually cheaper then when the DVD format first came out.

add the $500 cost to a console system, add an extra $100 so your at $600 and you see sony losing a bit over $100 per unit on it's release day just because of the bluray player. Technically when you bought a PS3, you bought a $100 video game console and a $500 blu-ray player. o.O

so was there strategy to take a loss on this gen of consoles then once the bluray player goes down in cost by the time the next consoles hit, they will be able to make money on there next console even if they fill it up with ram.

512mb of RAM in 2005 was pretty expensive, if they started making the PS3 in 2004 then 512MB was even more. if it was customed to the PS3 then it would cost double or triple just because of the custom factor in the RAM. So if they make the PS4 with a newer cell or lets say an AMD CPU and load in at the very least 8GB of RAM with either a 2.5" or 3.5" HDD, they will either make tiny profit on the first year or break even on the first year. granted they will use the same controllers so that right there is dirt cheap.

making a PS4 with both AMD cpu and ATI since AMD owns ATI, they would get a 100x better deal. The reason for that deal Vs. Nvidia is because Intel nor IBM owns Nvidia so there isn't a package deal. Also Nvidia is getting way to big for there own good, they are so expensive that you are better off support AMD right now. Nvidia will force the PS4 to cost A LOT more Vs. AMD/ATI as well as IBM CPU's with Nvidia. it's such a waste of money that I hope they don't stick with IBM and Nvidia.

if the PS4 comes out with only 1GB of RAM or 4GB of ram with a better GPU, they just bottlenecked the PS4 and I will not buy it because it will run no different then the PS3 in that case.

the next Playstation console as to run 1080p at 60fps, they are pushing for that, plus it should be able to run MMORPG's with thousands of players per server. 4GB I will laugh and call PS4 a failure.

The PS Vita already outshines the PS3 in the RAM department and I find it pretty disappointing that the ram in the vita is twice as much as in the PS3 o.O

are we talking system RAM or Video RAM?
i'd assume 4GB system ram would be more than enough for a console.....this thing only games (more or less)

[Bigdoggy]

I thought AMD owned ATI o.O

oh wait, sorry. ROFL AMD + Radeon. O.O

bah nevermind. All I know is AMD owns the radeon brand but intel doesn't own Nvidia. AMD retired the ATI brand name a few years ago.

[Sufi]

Well I wouldn't know but I never heard of it before.

[MATRIX 2]

If that is the case then I will be very disappointed. My day one purchase of both the new consoles could change to a no buy, if his guess is true.


BBK. Tapatalking.

I wouldn't expect to see that happen with most games at launch.

It will take some time for developers to optimize their programming methods to leverage the benefits of the new consoles.

Plus it depends on what popular 3rd party game engines (like UE4) can offer developers.

Also, when a lion kills a prey, do you really think he has a "conscience" that tells him it's wrong?

Most games have trouble even hitting 720p this generation.

Many run at ~1280 X 640 (some even lower than that) and are upscaled to 720p.

I predict in first few years at least, developers will be able to choose to run their games at 720p at 60 fps, or 1080p at 30 fps steadily with the consoles being able to handle that with minimal issues.

later on you will likely see more 1080p 60fps games that don't need to make various graphical sacrifices to run at those settings.

[Sufi]

I wouldn't expect to see that happen with most games at launch.

It will take some time for developers to optimize their programming methods to leverage the benefits of the new consoles.

Plus it depends on what popular 3rd party game engines (like UE4) can offer developers.



Most games have trouble even hitting 720p this generation.

Many run at ~1280 X 640 (some even lower than that) and are upscaled to 720p.

I predict in first few years at least, developers will be able to choose to run their games at 720p at 60 fps, or 1080p at 30 fps steadily with the consoles being able to handle that with minimal issues.

later on you will likely see more 1080p 60fps games that don't need to make various graphical sacrifices to run at those settings.

I was thinking that at first too but looking at the list of games and their resolutions.

Developers prefer resolution over frame rate and processing (AA/AF etc.) so we might see a good amount of games with 1080p but varying in their frame rate.

A lot of games don't really use up the resources so it seems like it's not hard to hit 720p if you take out the extra bells and whistles.

Now if we're talking about the best-lookers then you're correct, we might see some 720p games with insane graphics but I think people will push for 1080p more and we will likely see a bigger push towards resolution this generation than the previous one (since a lot of 720p TVs can do 1080p, if we count the upscaled ones).

So people's perception would be, "Give me 1080p, my TV can do it." Whether their TV can or can't.

We might still not see a lot of 60fps games...people generally don't care about that.