Support NeoGAF

[Amiga]

120hz TVs should become standard like 4K TVs in the next few years. this means 40 FPS will be standard. from the R&K demonstration this solves a few big 30fps issues like impute lag and ghosting.

for years the 30FPS limit was forced by TVs. Console game could be 30fps or 60fps and no in-between. so even if a game could hit 45fps comfortably it wouldn't run at that framerate on consoles because of the refresh rate. developers would have to cap it at 30fps or reduce image quality to push it up to 60 fps.

Adding FSR to the mix. QM gives a 30% increase in performance, that is enough to make 30fps games hit 40fps with barley visible downgrades.

40fps+steady frame pacing will make sub 60fps viable for me.

 

[RoadHazard]

I mean, it doesn't SOLVE those issues, but it makes them smaller. About 33% smaller. Which is cool!

Definitely a good option if the game has enough headroom to go that high in Fidelity mode. A lot of 30fps games might hover just above that (and sometimes fall below), and then it's not really an option.

 

[JimboJones]

If vrr is standard it might make any arbitrary refresh rate a viable option.

 

[Armorian]

It's good to have options but unless Sony forces devs to make one in every game only few games will have it...

They should better focus on adding system wide VRR support.

 

[ManaByte]

120hz TVs should become standard like 4K TVs in the next few years. this means 40 FPS will be standard.

No it doesn't.

If anything more games will offer 120fps if the hardware can handle it.

One game having a 40fps mode doesn't make it a standard.

 

[LordOfChaos]

All you need is VRR and you don't have to worry about hitting things like 40fps, just uncap it and let it go as far above 30 as it can and the panel syncs up to the framerate. VRR is going to be standard before more 40fps games come out imo, one is not a trend. FSR is a performance trick regardless of any of this.

 

[JeloSWE]

While 40fps is better than 30 it's still very laggy and choppy compared to the creamy smooth feeling of 60 fps, and that is still not even close to how silky smooth 120+ is. I just whish anything below 60 wouldn't ever be allowed in any title what so ever, 60 should be the absolut bare minimum standard all games should run in.

 

[Andodalf]

If vrr is standard it might make any arbitrary refresh rate a viable option.

This is the answer. Any 120 hz panel that isn’t dogshit has VRR these days

 

[Panajev2001a]

All you need is VRR and you don't have to worry about hitting things like 40fps, just uncap it and let it go as far above 30 as it can and the panel syncs up to the framerate. VRR is going to be standard before more 40fps games come out imo, one is not a trend. FSR is a performance trick regardless of any of this.

Dynamic framerate without stuttering or tearing with VRR does not mean that a game oscillating like crazy between 40 and 120 FPS will not fee odd. Imagine someone driving smoothly but accelerating and slowing down over and over.

I prefer a locked framerate to a fluctuating one.

 

[LordOfChaos]

Dynamic framerate without stuttering or tearing with VRR does not mean that a game oscillating like crazy between 40 and 120 FPS will not fee odd. Imagine someone driving smoothly but accelerating and slowing down over and over.

I prefer a locked framerate to a fluctuating one.

Well sure, ideally the developer stabilizes it around what it can do regularly. But the idea of locking it to 40fps because panels are going to 120 becomes moot with VRR, if it can feel faster than 40fps, let it. And ideally 60+ is still the target.

 

[JimboJones]

Dynamic framerate without stuttering or tearing with VRR does not mean that a game oscillating like crazy between 40 and 120 FPS will not fee odd. Imagine someone driving smoothly but accelerating and slowing down over and over.

I prefer a locked framerate to a fluctuating one.

A framerate target window might be a viable option for devs going forward similar to dynamic resolution.
Instead of aiming for just 60 a 20fps range between 55 - 75 can feel pretty good.
Too large of a window I agree feels bad, especially if the drop or increase is very sudden.

 

[prinz_valium]

120hz TVs will have VRR, so it makes no sense to go to 40.
Just use VRR and non capped frame rates.

 

[Jibran#one]

We wanted the jump from 30 to 60 not 30 to 40

 

[LostDonkey]

What's the deal with PS5 not supporting Freesync though.

My series X supports it on my monitor so I can play 1440p 120hz with freesync engaged, but the PS5 drops down to 1080p, doesn't support 1440p or freesync.

Wtf. They're using the same bloody chips aren't they what is that about?

 

[LordOfChaos]

What's the deal with PS5 not supporting Freesync though.

My series X supports it on my monitor so I can play 1440p 120hz with freesync engaged, but the PS5 drops down to 1080p, doesn't support 1440p or freesync.

Wtf. They're using the same bloody chips aren't they what is that about?

I definitely want them to add freesync and 1440p support. Sucks having a nearly 1K 1440p ultrawide monitor and not being able to use the PS5 on it well, even if it didn't get 21:9 support the freesync and 1440p would go a long way.

 

[Werewolfgrandma]

What's the deal with PS5 not supporting Freesync though.

My series X supports it on my monitor so I can play 1440p 120hz with freesync engaged, but the PS5 drops down to 1080p, doesn't support 1440p or freesync.

Wtf. They're using the same bloody chips aren't they what is that about?

People say Sony is waiting for their TVs to have vrr. To me it makes sense but it's way shitty and greasy.

 

[Velius]

I think the biggest issue is consistency.

60 should be the standard for pretty much anything that isn't a turn based game or otherwise paced strategy. 40 for other stuff would be fine if it stayed 40.

 

[LordOfChaos]

People say Sony is waiting for their TVs to have vrr. To me it makes sense but it's way shitty and greasy.

But apart from that, they've only said VRR. Freesync existed before VRR and before HDMI 2.1, it would be nice to support both, they're not the same thing as many slightly older monitors only have Freesync on HDMI 1.4.

 

[hououinkyouma00]

It's only a plus for the people with 120hz displays. I don't really see any major downsides as long as they continue to stick to the trend of performance and fidelity modes then I'm perfectly okay with it.

You know what we need instead of 120hz TVs? SED

 

[Javthusiast]

 

[Nickolaidas]

Honestly, I want all PS5/XSX games to have the performance/fidelity option.

 

[SpokkX]

Sure, but VRR is just plain better in every single way

more likely VRR will become the standard - it is pretty much NEEDED for 120 fps (consoles cant usually lock to 120 100% of the time and VRR makes drops not noticable)

 

[TGO]

Remember when a game didn't hit it's 60fps target and was more 40fps and was considered bad.
Interesting how that works.
But if it's locked it should be fine.

 

[funking giblet]

VRR works like shit ~40fps, In fact, anything below 60fps kinda sucks too. The sweet spot is around 60-120hz on a 120hz display, otherwise you notice the input lag.

 

[8BiTw0LF]

As long 30fps doesn't become standard again, everything will be fine. 60fps is the goal for this console gen. 40fps will only be an option in some games - and that's nice, but I'll prefer 60fps and above - especially with VRR (come on Sony - don't leave us behind!).

 

[ZywyPL]

VRR is the answer. Why settle for just 40 when you can go even higher?

 

[grfunkulus]

120hz TVs should become standard like 4K TVs in the next few years. this means 40 FPS will be standard. from the R&K demonstration this solves a few big 30fps issues like impute lag and ghosting.

for years the 30FPS limit was forced by TVs. Console game could be 30fps or 60fps and no in-between. so even if a game could hit 45fps comfortably it wouldn't run at that framerate on consoles because of the refresh rate. developers would have to cap it at 30fps or reduce image quality to push it up to 60 fps.

Adding FSR to the mix. QM gives a 30% increase in performance, that is enough to make 30fps games hit 40fps with barley visible downgrades.

40fps+steady frame pacing will make sub 60fps viable for me.

One game is "becoming" a category Yes, it makes logical sense that things would head this way but it's more than a little bit of getting ahead of yourself to assert a trend off of one game that was patched this week...sure, if you want to be technical, it's a category. A game in a category unto itself LOL

 

[Can't decide]

40fps is still a bit too low, despite how much better it looks and feels over 30 fps.

50fps would be absolutely fine for many games, it's enough to seem quite smooth and responsive but at that point you might as well target 60.

 

[RoadHazard]

But apart from that, they've only said VRR. Freesync existed before VRR and before HDMI 2.1, it would be nice to support both, they're not the same thing as many slightly older monitors only have Freesync on HDMI 1.4.

Sony has never really given a shit about supporting PC monitor standards, they expect you to play on a TV. So it seems unlikely that 1440p or FreeSync will ever happen. I do hope VRR support comes sooner rather than later though...

 

[LordOfChaos]

Sony has never really given a shit about supporting PC monitor standards, they expect you to play on a TV. So it seems unlikely that 1440p or FreeSync will ever happen. I do hope VRR support comes sooner rather than later though...

They said they'd consider 1440p support if enough people were interested...But how do we show we're interested? What's the official feedback mechanism?

 

[Esppiral]

One game offers a 40 FPS mode and it is becoming a standard? Wow just wow.

 

[MarkMe2525]

I agree with other posters in that as vrr becomes adopted at higher rates, the ideal solution would be unlocked framerates at 45+. No need to focus on locking at 40 fps as most 120hz televisions coming out now have vrr capabilities.

 

[RoadHazard]

They said they'd consider 1440p support if enough people were interested...But how do we show we're interested? What's the official feedback mechanism?

Yeah... Also, define "enough people". I think the number of people hooking their PS5 up to a 1440p monitor rather than a 1080p or 4K TV is very, very small. So I don't think Sony will ever bother.

 

[Shelookdlvl18]

VRR has really negated much of the fps issues. I can't see 40fps being anything significant seeing as VRR is pretty widespread these days.

Consequently, this makes just about every comparison thread on Gaf absolutely hysterical. Seeing comparison after comparison with the Series X running a significantly higher resolution, while sometimes dropping anywhere from 1-4 frames vs the PS5. Watching all those people throwing up "another one" gifs, as if they're actually getting the best experience is funny considering they're on the console that doesn't support VRR.

 

[nkarafo]

40fps is better than 30fps but only barely. 60fps is still the minimum for me. Or at worse 50fps (on old PAL TVs).

 

[Hugare]

Used my crystal ball here and came back with some answers:

* 4K is not the standard today, and 120hz tvs wont be for the entirety of this generation (and maybe the next one)

* 30 FPS will still be the norm. We are in the cross gen phase. When games start pushing consoles further, we will get 1080p reconstructed to 4K, so chopping down resolution to achieve 60 fps wont be viable anymore.

We wont have Performance/Fidelity options for the whole generation.

You guys are delusional

 

[AGeraltFellFromRoof]

40 FPS is below VRR window for many VRR supported displays, so it would not work at all for many people. 50 FPS is fine tho.

My monitor supports VRR between 20 and 144 hz so I’m totally fine with it.

 

[Amiga]

Remember when a game didn't hit it's 60fps target and was more 40fps and was considered bad.
Interesting how that works.
But if it's locked it should be fine.

TVs didn't have 120hz until recently. so 40fps was useless back then.

* 4K is not the standard today, and 120hz tvs wont be for the entirety of this generation (and maybe the next one)

people who don't have 4k TVs are probably still on PS3/360.

40fps is still a bit too low, despite how much better it looks and feels over 30 fps.

50fps would be absolutely fine for many games, it's enough to seem quite smooth and responsive but at that point you might as well target 60.

40fps is for image quality. it's easier to get an extra 10 frames than a whole 30. when they do a native PS5/SX version of Cyberpunk you would want the most image effects possible and 60fps would be too much.

All you need is VRR and you don't have to worry about hitting things like 40fps.

VRR is best for 60+ frames. below 60fps frame pacing and locked framerates are important.

 

[Deleted member 471617]

Fuck 40FPS. 60FPS on consoles FTW!!!

 

[rofif]

40fps might be even better than VRR since vrr can flicker or change gamma even on best tvs.
That said. I am fine with 30 so 40 is a great update. I've tried ratched and it feels much better. I can't see drawbacks to 422 chroma

 

[BigTnaples]

120hz TVs will have VRR, so it makes no sense to go to 40.
Just use VRR and non capped frame rates.

Tell that to the Sony A90J and A80J.

 

[LiquidMetal14]

I'm all for little advancements and technical tricks using modern user end HW.

There is absolutely nothing negative with this and as an option, I'm now using this particular mode in Ratchet PS5.

Unless you want to throw some arbitrary goal post to combat what is just another option and not necessarily mandatory but if this is an option for 120hz+ displays from here on out I'll be using this and 60fps modes all the time.

 

[JeloSWE]

Used my crystal ball here and came back with some answers:

* 4K is not the standard today, and 120hz tvs wont be for the entirety of this generation (and maybe the next one)

* 30 FPS will still be the norm. We are in the cross gen phase. When games start pushing consoles further, we will get 1080p reconstructed to 4K, so chopping down resolution to achieve 60 fps wont be viable anymore.

We wont have Performance/Fidelity options for the whole generation.

You guys are delusional

I think you are wrong. One of the biggest reasons many last gen game lacked a performance option is because the imbalance between the weak mobile CPUs used and the stronger GPUs, they simply couldn't handle updating physics and animations at 60 fps for the object density the developers wanted but the GPUs certainly could if they had dropped resolutions. But this gen has some really strong CPUs, well matched to what the GPUs can do. Thus offering a lower res 60fps performance option is not off the table any more. Considering that all first party games and many last gen (patched) now have a 60fps option, I think consumer will be outraged it they launch any future titles with only the shitty 30 fps option available.

 

[JeloSWE]

Tell that to the Sony A90J and A80J.

Sony has really dug them selves into a pit. They keep using that shitty mediatech chip which don't support VRR on their TVs. They've promised this on several modells since 2019 that likely will never see the VRR option patched in. It's becoming quite a farce. It boggles my mind that Sony has the Playstation division but their TV division rarely put any gaming centric fetureas in their TV sets such as 60fp BFI, VRR, or nearest neighbor scaling and they've been slow at reducing input-lag, at lest not in their more expensive sets, they think all games are poor kids and only rich snobby cinephiles will by large expensive TVs.

 

[JeloSWE]

There is absolutely nothing negative with this and as an option, I'm now using this particular mode in Ratchet PS5.

There is a small risk that some developers might target 40 instead of 60 fps which is bad. We should just stop doing 30fps games all together and only aim for 60 as a minimum base line.

 

[rofif]

There is a small risk that some developers might target 40 instead of 60 fps which is bad. We should just stop doing 30fps games all together and only aim for 60 as a minimum base line.

If the only option was 60fps rt 1080p mode in ratched, I would be disapointed.
I preferred and finished the game in fidelity 30fps 4k mode. It looked much sharper.
So no - We should not stop doing 30fps games at all if it means blurry mess

 

[LiquidMetal14]

There is a small risk that some developers might target 40 instead of 60 fps which is bad. We should just stop doing 30fps games all together and only aim for 60 as a minimum base line.

It's way more of a good thing and see zero bad.

I choose to look at it as intended. Another valuable advance that helps those with modern high refresh rate display tech.

 

[TLZ]

Better stick to 60 thanks.

 

[ReBurn]

120hz TVs becoming standard won't make 40 FPS gaming a standard. It'll remain 30 FPS on the low end.

 

[sncvsrtoip]

I hope so as its imho more impactful than 120fps which on console means usually drastic resolution/settings cut