70% of people in the US dont own a 4k tvTVs didn't have 120hz until recently. so 40fps was useless back then.
people who don't have 4k TVs are probably still on PS3/360.
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.
VRR is best for 60+ frames. below 60fps frame pacing and locked framerates are important.
"Thus offering a lower res 60fps performance option is not off the table"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.
It might happen with a few game here and there but I really hope it doesn't become standard to not offer a 60fps option. The fact that they do right now has been the singular best thing about this generation so far and thus one of the best launches for me, I've enjoyed all the first party tiles at 60fps immensely. If they wouldn't offer 60 anymore then I'd either wait for the PC release as I'll always have a power full PC for those games or I'll simply not buy and play the game at all. 30 fps is like putting sandpaper to you eyes.So giving a lower res option will become impossible. Yeah, even with better CPUs, there will be developers pushing the envelope further and further.
Look at Metro Exodus, where PS5/SX run it at 1080p. At 60 fps, sure, but a more demaning game down the line will run at 1080p/30 ... And then what? They will put a 900p 60 fps option? Unlikely
70% of people in the US dont own a 4k tv
Now imagine the rest of the world.
The cucking for 40fps the past week has been ridiculous. Thought we was all 60fps+ chads.
Oh sure, I expect first party titles (from Sony) to be the ones who will push the hardware to 1080p/30.It might happen with a few game here and there but I really hope it doesn't become standard to not offer a 60fps option. The fact that they do right now has been the singular best thing about this generation so far and thus one of the best launches for me, I've enjoyed all the first party tiles at 60fps immensely. If they wouldn't offer 60 anymore then I'd either wait for the PC release as I'll always have a power full PC for those games or I'll simply not buy and play the game at all. 30 fps is like putting sandpaper to you eyes.
I don't expect 30 to go away but I think it's quite likely performance mode is going to stick around from now on. I work as a graphics/vfx artist, I love high fidelity graphics, art style and tech it's big part of what draws me to a game, but I'll still pick the performance mode every time. 60 just feels fun, 30 feels like walking though mud and it degrades the actual experience.So I doubt that 30 fps will go away for good, even now with better CPUs.
Lol. Even 120fps does not resolve ghosting.this solves a few big 30fps issues like impute lag and ghosting.
With the hardware the new consoles have, I have to agree that 60 should be the new 30.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.
Where do one draw the line, if you desire maximum fidelity at 30 why not get even more at 25fps, or perhaps 20? Where to draw the line? 60 should be the default minimum fps and then we can try an make games look good at that fps, it has been done countless of times, Demons Souls is a great example of an amazing looking game, it was designed to look great at 60 from the start. If more devs had 60 as the target and build their graphics around it, they would look even better than most performance modes currently does, where they've obviously accommodated 30 first.its a good solution, its better than 30. 60 with everything flicked on isn't feasible, then I rather have 40.
Which ones ? Because the MegaDrive/Master System games were 50fps, as well as both Sonic Adventure games (and we had 60Hz option starting from the DC). Only one that must be 25fps or less is Sonic R.I grew up in PAL land playing Sonic games at 25fps...... I can take ANYTHING.
I'm still holding off buying a full HDMI 2.1 TV but I do hope that this is something that becomes standard where it's achievable.Richard Leadbetter:
Considerably better than 30 frames per second, considerably better.
It's something DF has been wanting for some time according to this, they're working on a full video to try and explain why 40fps makes such a difference for the people who don't understand.
I'm still holding off buying a full HDMI 2.1 TV but I do hope that this is something that becomes standard where it's achievable.
And when someone tried it,I’m so down for fidelity at 40fps. Gets rid of that 30fps “judder” and visually looks far closer to 60 than it does 30, regardless of numerical placement.
Need me a Pixar5, yesterday. But I won’t be a part of the problem through scalpers.
Just tried it and I'm really impressed. Feels surprisingly close to 60fps to me, certainly seems to eliminate the slideshow feel, as you say.
Probably the best way to play for me now.
Used my crystal ball here and came back with some answers:
* 30 FPS will still be the norm.
You guys are delusional
I hope it does for fidelity modes. It feels much closer to 60 than it does 30, regardless of numerical placement. Removes the judder and is on the cusp of that "soap opera" effect of 60.I hope this 40fps crap doesn't become a thing. It doesn't really feel anywhere close to as smooth as 60fps.
nice to see 120 hz being used for higher framerate thresholds
30 fps was a common threshold not only because of hardware limitations, but also as a limitation of 60 hz screens... u either do 30/60 half sync, or 60/60 full vsync for tear and judder free gaming. i bet some games like god of war can run locked 36-40 fps even with a base ps4.
120 hz and 144 hz creates opportunistic thresholds that can be utilized!
30/120 perfect 1/4 sync
40/120 perfect 1/3 sync (imsoniac used this, i'm sure)
60/120 perfect half sync
i hope ps5/xbox also adds a 144 hz support in the future. 144 hz has its own multipliers
36/144 = perfect 1/4 sync
48/144 = perfect 1/3 sync
72/144 = perfect half sync
all in all, pleased to see them giving 120 hz players an opportunistic approach to play at locked sync'ed 40 fps instead of 30 fps! this should be each developer's intentions going forward. sometimes they would just lock games to 30 fps bcoz it wouldn't reach 60 fps. but there might be a strong chnace that these games might lock to 48/40/36 fps that can be perfectly sync'ed with high refreshrate displays
of course, VRR is an altogether beast, and if you have LFC with a 120 hz screen, you don't even need any multipliers or sync points, LFC literally covers everything from 30 frames to 120 frames... but this is an alternate good solution and it has its own benefits (steady input lag, maybe less prone to stutters etc.)
---
they also enabled users to let the screen run at 120 hz even with lower framerate modes, which is fantastic! this should be norm, not exception... it is widely known that even if you run at 30 fps, 120 hz will introduce less input lag. some people act as if 30 fps on 120 hz look worse than it looks on 60 hz but that's a myth i've never experienced myself (i've tried...). in actuality, 120 hz makes 30 fps more barable, gives you little bit less input lag.
I hope this 40fps crap doesn't become a thing. It doesn't really feel anywhere close to as smooth as 60fps.
My TV from 2019 has FreeSyncSony 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...
My TV from 2019 has FreeSync
It's something DF has been wanting for some time according to this, they're working on a full video to try and explain why 40fps makes such a difference for the people who don't understand.
I'm still holding off buying a full HDMI 2.1 TV but I do hope that this is something that becomes standard where it's achievable.
The simple reason that I've not decided ona full HDMI 2.1 setup yet is because it's been implemented pretty poorly across the board, there's never ben a new HDMI standard where so many mistakes have been made by so many different companies.Why not wait for hdmi 3.0?
i heard that will be a lot better
What Pal land was this? Sonic would be running at double that even on Pal systemsI grew up in PAL land playing Sonic games at 25fps...... I can take ANYTHING.
I think it's clear to say the PS5 is having issues trying to support VRR if it will ever support it all.120hz TVs will have VRR, so it makes no sense to go to 40.
This seems counterproductive. The people who prefer 30fps modes do so because they feel it allows developers to max out graphical fidelity. Graphics is top priority. They are willing to play at 30fps to get that graphical quality. Raising framerate to 40fps will ofc take some of the rendering budget that could have been used for better fidelity. So, I doubt the "fidelity" people will like this. And ofc people who want 60fps won't settle for 40. So...who exactly is this solution targeting I wonder. Are there a small subset of gamers who think 30fps is too choppy but 60fps is overrated?
I grew up in PAL land playing Sonic games at 25fps...... I can take ANYTHING.