Support NeoGAF

[PlayerPurple]

Then let me rephrase it:
The difference between 30 and 60fps is not important enough for the average consumer to have an impact on their buying decision.

Sorry, but that's still conjecturing at best.

You don't know how much framerate affects a consumer's decision because there's no data on it. Unless you can show me an example of a game that released 2 SKU's, with the only difference between the two being one running at 30hz and the other at 60hz (price, platform, release date etc. are all constant)?

If 60fps would significantly increase sales numbers, we would have gotten a lot more 60fps games. Companies want to make as much money as possible. And most of the time, they decide to go full on CG trailer and as many visual effects as possible.

I'm not sure if you realize the logical fallacy you just made. The industry not being flooded with 60fps games doesn't prove that they don't sell more (especially when, yet again, most best-selling games are 60fps.)

Publishers pour money into pretty visuals because they know that pretty visuals sell (from previous data on films/advertisements), which can take a hit to framerate. However, that doesn't mean pretty visuals sell more than high framerate in games (see Minecraft), or that a happy medium between the two can't sell even more (see Call of Duty).

The consumers may prefer fps to resolution, but what about other visual effects that would need to be cut down as well to achieve 60fps?
Also I would argue that the majority of people who buy the likes of GTA and Assassin's Creed, don't even know or care about framerates. They just want to play the newest good looking shit.

You keep throwing around the word "care" without realizing how self-defeating it is to your argument.

If Assassin's Creed players didn't "care" about framerate, why would Ubisoft even bother advertising Valhalla's 60fps at all? I'm willing to bet framerate will be a big part of GTA V's advertising on PS5 (as it was for the PC version)...but according to you, Rockstar shouldn't even bother?

There's a difference between caring about something you perceive and actually knowing the technical term for it. Plenty of people who saw The Hobbit Films at 48fps in theaters had strong reactions to them, even if they'd never once heard the term "framerate."

 

[regawdless]

Sorry, but that's still conjecturing at best.

You don't know how much framerate affects a consumer's decision because there's no data on it. Unless you can show me an example of a game that released 2 SKU's, with the only difference between the two being one running at 30hz and the other at 60hz (price, platform, release date etc. are all constant)?



I'm not sure if you realize the logical fallacy you just made. The industry not being flooded with 60fps games doesn't prove that they don't sell more (especially when, yet again, most best-selling games are 60fps.)

Publishers pour money into pretty visuals because they know that pretty visuals sell (from previous data on films/advertisements), which can take a hit to framerate. However, that doesn't mean pretty visuals sell more than high framerate in games (see Minecraft), or that a happy medium between the two can't sell even more (see Call of Duty).


You keep throwing around the word "care" without realizing how self-defeating it is to your argument.

If Assassin's Creed players didn't "care" about framerate, why would Ubisoft even bother advertising Valhalla's 60fps at all? I'm willing to bet framerate will be a big part of GTA V's advertising on PS5 (as it was for the PC version)...but according to you, Rockstar shouldn't even bother?

There's a difference between caring about something you perceive and actually knowing the technical term for it. Plenty of people who saw The Hobbit Films at 48fps in theaters had strong reactions to them, even if they'd never once heard the term "framerate."

To sum it up, I have no data at hand to support my claims, neither do you. Great.

Citing the best selling games of all time to prove your point makes no sense because of the multitude of different consoles from different eras.
Actually taking the list for best selling games of this generation shows a clear dominance of 30fps games with occasional 60fps Nintendo games. For PS4 and XOne, it's basically just CoD.
Citing Minecraft... do you really think that the very young demographic for that game actually even thinks of 30 or 60fps? The tech is not what makes that game popular so that example is not supporting your point at all. Neither is GTA V. It will be another port to a more powerful platform and of course the focus here is on the technical advancements, because everybody and their moms have already played that game.

Keep in mind, when did all that talk of performance modes and 60fps started this gen. It was when the mid-gen refreshs happened, which were targeted at more tech savvy consumers, hence "Pro" for example. These people obviously value performance more and this - in combination with comparisons by DF and the likes - caused the rise of offering options. This was a push made by enthusiasts, who are in the minority, see the way lower PS4 Pro sales compared to the amateur version.

This makes me come to the conclusion, again, that most consumers do not value 30 or 60 fps enough for it to impact their buying decision. It's about the game itself, not the refresh rate. Hell, even on enthusiast forums there are a lot of people preferring 30fps with eye candy instead of 60fps.

I don't believe that GTA 6 would sell more or less depending on it being 30 or 60fps.
Which of course is just me making conclusions without any data to support it, so I can be wrong.

The push for 60fps in some cases is a trend that I appreciate. But I see 30 or 60 or 120 fps as trends and marketing points.

With my limited knowledge and data reference points, I believe that the majority of consumers will buy a game independently of it's framerate because they just - you're gonna love it - don't care enough about this very small part of the product they're buying. I think there are way more important factors that actually influence the buying decision than framerate.

If you have any reliable data that contradicts my assumptions, I'm always happy to be proven wrong in the pursuit of truth.

 

[PlayerPurple]

To sum it up, I have no data at hand to support my claims, neither do you. Great.

Not quite. You're welcome to actually click the link I provided earlier to the study on framerate.

Citing the best selling games of all time to prove your point makes no sense because of the multitude of different consoles from different eras.
Actually taking the list for best selling games of this generation shows a clear dominance of 30fps games with occasional 60fps Nintendo games. For PS4 and XOne, it's basically just CoD.

Wrong again. Overwatch, DOOM, FIFA, Madden, 2K, Gran Turismo, and fighting games are all 60fps best sellers, in addition to "just COD" and Nintendo.

Just look at the list of best-selling games of last year. Quite a bit more 60fps games than "just COD."

And keep in mind, you're the one making the argument that 30 fps "sells more" than 60, proving that people "don't care" about 60. I'm only arguing that 60fps games are equally capable of selling well (if not more), proving that "people don't care about 60fps" is nonsense.

Citing Minecraft... do you really think that the very young demographic for that game actually even thinks of 30 or 60fps? The tech is not what makes that game popular so that example is not supporting your point at all. Neither is GTA V. It will be another port to a more powerful platform and of course the focus here is on the technical advancements, because everybody and their moms have already played that game.

What's your actual argument here?

Keep in mind, when did all that talk of performance modes and 60fps started this gen. It was when the mid-gen refreshs happened, which were targeted at more tech savvy consumers, hence "Pro" for example. These people obviously value performance more and this - in combination with comparisons by DF and the likes - caused the rise of offering options. This was a push made by enthusiasts, who are in the minority, see the way lower PS4 Pro sales compared to the amateur version.

Maybe for you. I clearly recall Naughty Dog discussing framerate as early as Jak and Daxter on PS2, or id discussing framerate on RAGE last gen.

Are you maybe just really young?

This makes me come to the conclusion, again, that most consumers do not value 30 or 60 fps enough for it to impact their buying decision. It's about the game itself, not the refresh rate. Hell, even on enthusiast forums there are a lot of people preferring 30fps with eye candy instead of 60fps.

It's strange (and slightly amusing) for you to repeat this argument after admitting you have no data to support it...

I don't believe that GTA 6 would sell more or less depending on it being 30 or 60fps.
Which of course is just me making conclusions without any data to support it, so I can be wrong.

You seem to enjoy that.

With my limited knowledge and data reference points, I believe that the majority of consumers will buy a game independently of it's framerate because they just - you're gonna love it - don't care enough about this very small part of the product they're buying. I think there are way more important factors that actually influence the buying decision than framerate.

You can repeat your flawed points as often as you'd like. That won't make them more valid (if that's even your goal).

If you have any reliable data that contradicts my assumptions, I'm always happy to be proven wrong in the pursuit of truth.

Considering you've ignored all links I've posted thus far, I highly doubt that.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

This whole discussion still ignores the fact that there is no good reason for a game running at 4K30 to not be able to run at 1440p60. The only good reason would be a CPU limitation, but we know that's not the case here because Watch Dogs Legion is a cross-gen game and runs at 30 fps on a shitty tablet CPU from 2013.

 

[regawdless]

Not quite. You're welcome to actually click the link I provided earlier to the study on framerate.



Wrong again. Overwatch, DOOM, FIFA, Madden, 2K, Gran Turismo, and fighting games are all 60fps best sellers, in addition to "just COD" and Nintendo.

Just look at the list of best-selling games of last year. Quite a bit more 60fps games than "just COD."

And keep in mind, you're the one making the argument that 30 fps "sells more" than 60, proving that people "don't care" about 60. I'm only arguing that 60fps games are equally capable of selling well (if not more), proving that "people don't care about 60fps" is nonsense.




What's your actual argument here?



Maybe for you. I clearly recall Naughty Dog discussing framerate as early as Jak and Daxter on PS2, or id discussing framerate on RAGE last gen.

Are you maybe just really young?



It's strange (and slightly amusing) for you to repeat this argument after admitting you have no data to support it...



You seem to enjoy that.



You can repeat your flawed points as often as you'd like. That won't make them more valid (if that's even your goal).



Considering you've ignored all links I've posted thus far, I highly doubt that.

I think I'll make it clearer and shorter.

My claims:
- 30 or 60 fps don't impact the buying decision of most consumers. 60fps won't sell more copies (unless it becomes a trend and pushed by TV companies).

- Therefore it makes sense for devs to target 30fps and add visual effects for marketing purposes.

- There are other factors like visuals, art, genre, marketing, hype, gameplay, story etc. That have way bigger impact on the consumer and his purchase decision.

Your "sources" don't prove anything different.
The study just says that people participating in it had more positive reactions to increasing framerate up to 60fps compared to increasing resolution.
And that stable 30fps important. Duh.

The best selling games lists are - as you've corrected me - mixed regarding 30 and 60fps. Which supports my claim that it's not making a difference and most consumers don't care enough about framerates.

 

[PlayerPurple]

I think I'll make it clearer and shorter.

My claims:
- 30 or 60 fps don't impact the buying decision of most consumers. 60fps won't sell more copies (unless it becomes a trend and pushed by TV companies).

And we've established that you have no data to prove that. Moving on.

- Therefore it makes sense for devs to target 30fps and add visual effects for marketing purposes.

I've already addressed this. It's proven that VFX do sell, and pushing VFX means framerate is sacrificed.

That doesn't mean framerate is proven not to sell; only that it's risky. Because pushing it means sacrificing a proven seller (VFX) for an unproven one that may or may not sell. 30fps with tons of VFX is a safer investment, yes. That does not prove that consumers prefer it.

- There are other factors like visuals, art, genre, marketing, hype, gameplay, story etc. That have way bigger impact on the consumer and his purchase decision.

Because consumers are influenced largely by what's marketed to them: most buyers (and especially enthusiasts) had no desire for 4K until TV manufacturers started pushing 4K marketing.

Up until recently, it's been difficult to market framerate to consumers, so publishers largely haven't. Now that we have 60fps YouTube/Twitch/FaceBook and TV's pushing 120Hz and VRR, that's about to change.

Your "sources" don't prove anything different.
The study just says that people participating in it had more positive reactions to increasing framerate up to 60fps compared to increasing resolution.
And that stable 30fps important. Duh.

The study I linked makes no mention of "stable 30fps," which you'd know if you actually read it.

It also confirms that subjects not only perceived higher framerate games as having higher quality, but also performed better at higher fps compared to higher resolution. This means the rise of eSports will also provide more free marketing for 60fps since most, if not all competitive games run at 60.

Though if you have a problem with my "sources," feel free to link some yourself.

The best selling games lists are - as you've corrected me - mixed regarding 30 and 60fps. Which supports my claim that it's not making a difference and most consumers don't care enough about framerates.

No, it absolutely doesn't. Please read that logic link I posted earlier so you can learn to correct yours.

The only thing that proves is that both 30 and 60fps games are capable of selling well. That's it. It says absolutely nothing about why those games sell, because as we've repeated several times, there's little/no data for how framerate influences purchase decisions.

 

[regawdless]

And we've established that you have no data to prove that. Moving on.



I've already addressed this. It's proven that VFX do sell, and pushing VFX means framerate is sacrificed.

That doesn't mean framerate is proven not to sell; only that it's risky. Because pushing it means sacrificing a proven seller (VFX) for an unproven one that may or may not sell. 30fps with tons of VFX is a safer investment, yes. That does not prove that consumers prefer it.



Because consumers are influenced largely by what's marketed to them: most buyers (and especially enthusiasts) had no desire for 4K until TV manufacturers started pushing 4K marketing.

Up until recently, it's been difficult to market framerate to consumers, so publishers largely haven't. Now that we have 60fps YouTube/Twitch/FaceBook and TV's pushing 120Hz and VRR, that's about to change.



The study I linked makes no mention of "stable 30fps," which you'd know if you actually read it.

It also confirms that subjects not only perceived higher framerate games as having higher quality, but also performed better at higher fps compared to higher resolution. This means the rise of eSports will also provide more free marketing for 60fps since most, if not all competitive games run at 60.

Though if you have a problem with my "sources," feel free to link some yourself.



No, it absolutely doesn't. Please read that logic link I posted earlier so you can learn to correct yours.

The only thing that proves is that both 30 and 60fps games are capable of selling well. That's it. It says absolutely nothing about why those games sell, because as we've repeated several times, there's little/no data for how framerate influences purchase decisions.

I've read the study and it shows that the "quality" increase is the highest up to around 30fps and flattens from 30 to 60. Same for performance, though there is a slightly bigger performance increase from 30 to 60 compared to quality. Taking into account how current TV refresh rates work, it lead to my comment about stable 30fps being important.

Seeing the improvements in both quality and performance being very significant from 0 - 30 while 30 - 60 fps offers way smaller improvements, doesn't it support the argument that 30fps is necessary while 60fps is more of a nice to have?
Correct me if I'm wrong here.

In the end, do we agree that games (if the quality is right) will sell either way, not depending on the fps? While 60 or 120 fps have the potential to have a more significant effect if advertised in the right way?

I feel like we're creating a lot of walls of texts while not really saying much different things.

 

[Polygonal_Sprite]

This whole discussion still ignores the fact that there is no good reason for a game running at 4K30 to not be able to run at 1440p60. The only good reason would be a CPU limitation, but we know that's not the case here because Watch Dogs Legion is a cross-gen game and runs at 30 fps on a shitty tablet CPU from 2013.

This. Valhalla has a 60fps mode and it’s pushing a large World, crowds of people and a fuckton of foliage on top. No reason there shouldn’t be a lower res / no RT 60fps mode for Legion too.

 

[Shmunter]

This. Valhalla has a 60fps mode and it’s pushing a large World, crowds of people and a fuckton of foliage on top. No reason there shouldn’t be a lower res / no RT 60fps mode for Legion too.

PC fans can officially continue poking console fans over this one. 30fps ToyBox etc.

 

[PlayerPurple]

I've read the study and it shows that the "quality" increase is the highest up to around 30fps and flattens from 30 to 60. Same for performance, though there is a slightly bigger performance increase from 30 to 60 compared to quality. Taking into account how current TV refresh rates work, it lead to my comment about stable 30fps being important.

I think you're misinterpreting what the Figure 7 graphs are trying to show. "Stability" wasn't a variable being measured at all in this experiment, because the subjects were playing at fixed framerates of 3, 7, 15, 30 and 60, and nowhere else in between.

Seeing the improvements in both quality and performance being very significant from 0 - 30 while 30 - 60 fps offers way smaller improvements, doesn't it support the argument that 30fps is necessary while 60fps is more of a nice to have?
Correct me if I'm wrong here.

That isn't the point being argued here. This discussion was never about whether 30fps is playable or how "necessary" 60fps is. From the beginning, it was about whether framerate had any effect on sales.

You made the bold claim that the average consumer "doesn't notice or care" about framerate, and then tried to cite high sales of 30fps games as "proof" of this. I disagree with that claim and am trying to explain why that logic is so flawed: it's akin to saying that people in the 1940's "didn't care" about the few technicolor films available, like The Wizard of Oz, just because widely available black & white films continued to sell well.

In the end, do we agree that games (if the quality is right) will sell either way, not depending on the fps? While 60 or 120 fps have the potential to have a more significant effect if advertised in the right way?

I feel like we're creating a lot of walls of texts while not really saying much different things.

Really? I think we're saying incredibly different things. You seem to think framerate has little/no affect on the average gamer, while I think it does.

Furthermore, I'm acknowledging that there's little/no public research on this specific topic, so there's no definitive answer yet. However, you seem to think it's already been proven that the average person "doesn't care," which is completely false.

 

[Astral Dog]

Who needs 60fps when you can have glorious Ray Tracing

 

[UltimateUnknown]

What is Ubisoft's obsession with 30 FPS? Weren't they the ones saying 30 FPS provided a more "cinematic" gaming experience, or some BS?

Just give everyone a 60FPS option at least. Shouldn't be that hard to do for next gen.

 

[regawdless]

I think you're misinterpreting what the Figure 7 graphs are trying to show. "Stability" wasn't a variable being measured at all in this experiment, because the subjects were playing at fixed framerates of 3, 7, 15, 30 and 60, and nowhere else in between.



That isn't the point being argued here. This discussion was never about whether 30fps is playable or how "necessary" 60fps is. From the beginning, it was about whether framerate had any effect on sales.

You made the bold claim that the average consumer "doesn't notice or care" about framerate, and then tried to cite high sales of 30fps games as "proof" of this. I disagree with that claim and am trying to explain why that logic is so flawed: it's akin to saying that people in the 1940's "didn't care" about the few technicolor films available, like The Wizard of Oz, just because widely available black & white films continued to sell well.



Really? I think we're saying incredibly different things. You seem to think framerate has little/no affect on the average gamer, while I think it does.

Furthermore, I'm acknowledging that there's little/no public research on this specific topic, so there's no definitive answer yet. However, you seem to think it's already been proven that the average person "doesn't care," which is completely false.

I've never said stability was part of the study though? I feel like you're spinning my words here.
They used fixed fps, and the improvements in perception were the biggest up to 30fps. Thus my comment about stable 30fps being important. Which I explained to you, reason being the current TV tech with it's refresh rates, it shouldn't be 29 or 31, but 30fps. Thus, stable.

I don't think it's "proven", that fps don't have any influence of the buying decision of the average consumer.

But at least I'm offering some reasons for my claims and explain how my opinion was formed. Which of course can be wrong or illogical as I of course don't have all the input that I need to be objectively right.
I feel like you are trying to pick my reasons apart though, more or less successfully, while having literally nothing at all to back up your claims.

Best selling games show a total mix of fps. The study shows that quality and performance gains are the biggest up to 30fps and while from 30 to 60 we see significantly smaller gains.

I would like to end this discussion, but would also like to know what your reasons are for thinking that consumers actually do care about fps enough that it has an effect on their buying decision.

After that, I thin we can end our derail

 

[PlayerPurple]

I've never said stability was part of the study though? I feel like you're spinning my words here.
They used fixed fps, and the improvements in perception were the biggest up to 30fps. Thus my comment about stable 30fps being important. Which I explained to you, reason being the current TV tech with it's refresh rates, it shouldn't be 29 or 31, but 30fps. Thus, stable.

This is getting silly. Yes, you did say that the study shows that "stable 30fps is important, " when no part of the study supports that claim. The perception improvements were biggest under 30fps because even a constant 3, 7, and 15 fps are perceived as slideshows by our brains, not as any type of motion. It has nothing to do with "stability."

I don't think it's "proven", that fps don't have any influence of the buying decision of the average consumer.

But at least I'm offering some reasons for my claims and explain how my opinion was formed. Which of course can be wrong or illogical as I of course don't have all the input that I need to be objectively right.
I feel like you are trying to pick my reasons apart though, more or less successfully, while having literally nothing at all to back up your claims.

Nothing except the links/studies I've posted that you have trouble reading, of course.

Your constant goalpost moving is getting tiresome.

Best selling games show a total mix of fps. The study shows that quality and performance gains are the biggest up to 30fps and while from 30 to 60 we see significantly smaller gains.

And neither of those things prove that consumers "don't care" about fps. In fact, it suggests the opposite.

I would like to end this discussion, but would also like to know what your reasons are for thinking that consumers actually do care about fps enough that it has an effect on their buying decision.

You're welcome to actually read the links I've posted carefully enough to understand my points. It seems you're just more interested in hearing yourself talk, which I have no interest in.

Thanks for the time-waster, I suppose

 

[regawdless]

This is getting silly. Yes, you did say that the study shows that "stable 30fps is important, " when no part of the study supports that claim. The preception improvements were biggest under 30fps because even a constant 3, 7, and 15 fps are perceived as slideshows by our brains, not as any type of motion. It has nothing to do with "stability."



Nothing except the links/studies I've posted that you have trouble reading, of course.

Your constant goalpost moving is getting tiresome.



And neither of those things prove that consumers "don't care" about fps. In fact, it suggests the opposite.



You're welcome to actually read the links I've posted carefully enough to understand my points. It seems you're just more interested in hearing yourself talk, which I have no interest in.

Thanks for the time-waster, I suppose

Hehe yeah I think we don't have to do more rounds of not actually getting any further.

Won't be a time waster for me, as I'll take this discussion as a learning lesson to hopefully improve articulating myself in english and not running in circles all the time.

 

[InDaGulag]

If you want the option of 60FPS build or buy a gaming PC. Most devs have always gone for visual dazzle over performance and it was naive to expect that to change or for most of them to offer performance modes in games.

First party Microsoft games will probably be the lone big exception to this.

 

[MCplayer]

you sure? it doesn't say 4k 120FPS in the same paragraph, therefore it doesn't mean 4k WITH 120FPS, what it does mean since both are in diferent paragraphs is 4k and 120FPS.
Learn Grammar pls

 

[PlayerPurple]

Hehe yeah I think we don't have to do more rounds of not actually getting any further.

Won't be a time waster for me, as I'll take this discussion as a learning lesson to hopefully improve articulating myself in english and not running in circles all the time.

Glad to hear it.

Looks like you’ve got a long way to go