AC Dev: We're dropping 60 fps. Because it's hard

It's easier for pc to reach it, because of the hardware limitation. It's not that surprising that they can't achieve 60 fps. Some games are just too hard to achieve 60fps for console. Why is that such a big deal? But there will still be games that reach 60fps, i think he's wrong there

Lol cheapskate hermits, console gamers is used with $60price tag :P

He is right. 60fps can never be standard on console. Not if you want games to improve visually over the course of a generation. Some of you are just clueless about game development. You play on console, be happy with what ever performance they can squeeze out of your budget devices and be quiet. If you want to hit performance benchmarks like 60fps and 1080p consistently then buy or build a pc. Also I predicted this last summer. But I can't take full credit. Every other knowledgeable poster here did as well.

£49.99 is $80.65 in your weak currency, still think I'm being cheap?

Everytime I'm about to get a ps4... News like this always tend to stray me away.

It's a good thing Ass Creed Unity has 4 playable characters. They can fit 8 feet into their mouths.

1080p/60fps is not about console power, it's about design. Even if the consoles were more powerful that doesn't guarantees that every game was gonna be 1080p/60fps either.

Imagine this 100% are your resources. Now at this point you realize that at the very least you need 35% just for the game to be 60fps. But if we run at 30fps we can reduce the resource usage to a mere 17% and use the rest on other stuff. But frame-rate will always take a huge toll on the HW because the prettier the game is and the more advanced the AI the more expensive each frame becomes. But then there's another problem, and that is that to lock the frame-rate you need to make the game run at a much higher framerate than intended. Like, if you want the game locked at 60 then you want the game to run at least 70-80 frames on the HW. Thus more resources wasted. And this has to be done because games are rendered in real-time.

Now when it comes to PC is different because few are the developers that make PC games with high-end as the target. So all that unused power on a high-end machine the user can configure it to use maybe better AA, higher frame-rate or something else.

At this point you have to accept the consoles for what they are, they are not powerful machines. The have laptop quality hardware and quickly they are going from low mid tier to low tier in power, and we are only a year in. Achieving 1080p and 60 with demanding games isn't as easy as PC gamers make it out to be (unless you rock high end stuff), you couldn't run Crysis or World in Conflict on a 8800GTX (top of the range) in 2007/8 and expect 1080/60 plus ultra settings. My 460gtx is lucky to hit 40 with Crysis on ultra settings and that came 3 years later.

The consoles aren't even packing what the 8800gtx was in 2007, they are lucky to be compared to what the 8800gt was back then and that is being extremely generous.

I would accept 30 (without any frame dips) and 720p for most games as long as they push the envelope with everything else. I can see the future being 1080/30 or 900/30 for PS4 and 900/30 and 720/30 for Xbox with a few undemanding games like FIFA hitting 1080/60 on both and really demanding games such as whatever the new Crysis of this gen graphically turns out to be will be 720/30.

This is still an improvement on last gen that struggled with 720/30 on demanding games, demanding games took resolution and framerate hits.

It's time to take a cinematic shit on Ubisoft.

I hope they're not looking to forwardd to those future pc sales, because I know a lot of people who won't be purchasing their games anymore if they try this there.

Crysis is also cpu bound which does limit newer stronger gpu's performance. Those old consoles are not even in the same league as what the GTX 8800 or 8800GT were back then Those gpu's were 2-3x faster. This time around these new consoles are not even in the same ratio of performance as they were in 2005/2006.

The PS4 has the GPU equivalent of a 7850

The XBone has the GPU equivalent of a 7770

And people are surprised and pissed off that they can't run new releases and future titles at a constant 60 fps at 1080p?

If it pisses you off that much, the solution is simple...build a gaming PC.

If Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo released a console comparable to a high end gaming rig, they'd have to charge at least $1000-1200 for the fucking thing. And hardly anyone would buy it.

Couldn't have been stated much better! xD

i said it before i'll say it again. Console CPU's are to weak especially when comes to open world games with lots of A.I i highly doubt they will ever hit 60fps

30 fps will always be the standard with fixed hardware unless manufacturer of the consoles require 60 fps for all games.

60 fps = double the amount of rendering needed to achieve thus nearly double the performance from the hardware needed. When it comes down to it, the majority of consumers don't care about 30 fps, they just want to play the newest games with the best looking image quality. They are won over much more easily by higher fidelity rendering than frame rate. If you have fixed hardware you have to make a compromise between performance and fidelity. Devs could always have some in-game option for 30 fps with higher fidelity rendering or 60 fps with lower fidelity rendering, but because most people don't care devs aren't going to spend the time optimizing their game around 2 set framerates.

While some devs will push for 60 fps, since most consumers don't care and would rather just have better looking games, most devs will just fall back to 30 fps which is far easier to hit and maintain while keeping fidelity high.

I think 1080p or resolutions close (like 900p) will be the standard this gen though. The image quality difference between 720p and 1080p is quite noticeable and a lot of graphic effects that truly increase visual fidelity wouldn't come out as well at 720p so. 60 fps however, is just a pipe dream on fixed hardware.

Remember on the PC the standard is 60 fps more because a mouse input requires 60 fps to not feel sluggish. Also devs of PC games can just tell people to upgrade their PCs if they can't hit 60 fps. Can't do that with a console.

“At Ubisoft for a long time we wanted to push 60 fps. I don’t think it was a good idea because you don’t gain that much from 60 fps and it doesn’t look like the real thing,” Guérin told TechRadar. ”It’s a bit like The Hobbit movie, it looked really weird.”

“And in other games it’s the same – like the Rachet and Clank series [where it was dropped]. So I think collectively in the video game industry we’re dropping that standard because it’s hard to achieve, it’s twice as hard as 30fps, and its not really that great in terms of rendering quality of the picture and the image.”

Spoken like a true console clown and the kids will all believe it because Ubisoft said so.

Of course cows suddenly don't care about 60FPS. They only care when a PS4 game has 60FPS and an X1 game has 30FPS. The hypocrisy of cows is nothing new.

And of course some hiding behind PC thrown in there, good job!

60 fps is harder to hit when you're also trying to up fidelity on a fixed hardware platform. That problem doesn't exist on the PC at all.

Now the whole quip about 60 fps not looking like the real thing is complete horseshit.

There are more demanding games that run better.

Well they already screwed up talking about resolution, they may as well shoot their foot more.

@TigerSuperman: how do you know a game is more demanding when this game isn't even out yet? I'll answer, you don't.

I've PC gamed longer than anything, so I guess just refer to me a hermit.

Ubisoft is the joke of the industry.

30 fps allows them to push graphics for trailers and screenshots. 60 fps allows for better gameplay. Calling it "cinematic" is straight up lying - it is not film footage and doesn't have any relationship with it.

That said, what was far more disturbing about that article was learning that Ratchet and Clank had abandoned 60 fps, and their reasons for doing so (reviewers don't use it for reviewing).

I loaded up Into the Nexus for the first time, and, yup, it is definitely running at 30 fps or less. And, yup, the gamespot review seems to make no mention of this whatsoever. Neither does the ign review. Yet it is painfully obvious anytime to try to move the camera, or brake some crates (you break crates a lot in Ratchet and Clank).

The problem isn't whether the game runs at 30 or 60 fps on consoles; it's that console gamers don't get to choose whether or not they play at 30 fps with shinier graphics, or tune down the graphics and play at 60 fps.

Why do ignorant people lump framerate with being a graphics whore?

Framerate impacts gameplay, a lot. The game will be smoother, more precise, more response, and overall feel better at 60 frames. Regardless of genre.

Lol he's not wrong. On a console the devs have to choose and compromise one over the other, on a PC you are capable of doing both.

This

Console gamers are also used to getting bent over by Sony and MS.

I give up *throws hands up in air*

Can we atleast keep it at a steady 30 fps without all the dips that plagued 7th gen consoles?

Translation. Consoles can't achieve 60 fps.

@Wasdie: 60fps locked should be standardized for some game types though. Like Call of Duty. A game like that I would much rather see a sacrifice in graphics and a bump in fps.

What the industry really needs is to move away from the idea that graphics make a game. That's the one thing plaguing the games industry right now.

Mobile isn't tied down to this stupid belief, just consoles for some reason. In fact a lot of the best looking cell phone or hand held games often are not the best sales by any stretch of the word. Hell, on cell phones they hardly ever get any acknowledgment.

@jg4xchamp: or the Wii u the next gen king of 1080p 60fps.

No, he was specifically saying consoles couldnt handle 60fps not that they compromise. 60fps is a bonus, nothing more. If devs wanted their games at 60fps with slightly less graphics, they would do it. Hell, plenty of games this gen are already 60fps on consoles (Battlefield 4, Diablo 3, Blacklight Retribution, COD Ghosts, MGS V: Ground Zeroes, Outlast, Sniper Elite 3, Metro Redux, etc, etc) and soon plenty more to come such as CoD: AW, Dying Light, Battlefield Hardline, Halo 5, Uncharted 4, etc, etc). These games mentioned run at 60fps and dont come and tell me they look ugly. Devs just opt to focus on better resolution, textures, etc intead of framerate when most of the cases 60 and 30 are barely noticeable. I only notice the 60fps difference on action heavy games such as FPS or Hack'n'Slash. Everything else, I can live without it

Source

Well..60FPS is twice as hard to achieve as 30 FPS actually. And this gen's consoles are indeed to weak.Very few advanced games already keep 1080/60 and it will only get worse as the gen progresses. At least last gen devs could make big improvements by learning the hardware and discovering it's unique advantages. But this gen both consoles are bassicaly PCs repackaged into nice small boxes. There's nothing to discover there, devs already know almost everything those machines are capable of. From now till the end of the gen the improvements won't be huge.

$600 would have been fine and they would have had 2-3x the performance. Could easily squeeze in a much better gpu & cpu for an extra $200.

Kiddies need to stop complaining, either pay for it or deal with 900p 30fps. I've got a 7850, it's a decent card but it's barely starting to cut it anymore at 1080p/60 fps. I've also got a 4670k cpu which is alot better & isn't bottlenecking it like the crappy amd cpu's in the consoles.

That's why I got an xbone for exclusives + playing with buddies. PC for exclusives and multiplats.

I am perfectly fine with 1080p at 30 fps if the visuals are top notch. What I find hilarious is that most pc gamers wont even be able to run state of the art exclusive PC games at 1080p @ 60 fps unless they have 2 of the highest end graphics cards in SLI/Crossfire. I honestly can't remember a game known for it's insane graphics that demolished everything else at the time that ran well on average computer gaming hardware at the time of release.

BTW I am a PC gamer and although I love 60 fps I definitely wouldn't mind a stable 30 fps if the graphics were impressive.

I would have been happy had this "next-gen" we are stuck with now had merely taken what was achieved last gen, applied MSAA and Anisotropic Filtering and rendered every game at 1080p at a solid, locked 60 fps that never dropped below 60.

This whole endeavour to achieve the maximum quality rendering possibility on such limited hardware (when compared to PC) is just going to kill gaming. We don't need pretty games. We need long-lasting, fulfilling experiences that don't end in 6 hours and get sent back to the store.

Depends on the game. 60fps matters most in high response games, such as online fps and similar.

Yay.... More "Aesthetic Design Choices"

You know what would be a great life experience? Give this man a pair of camera goggles playing in 30 fps and make him experience everyday life in 30 fps.

So...Naughty Dog is shitty because TLOU Remastered can't maintain 60 fps on the PS4? What about DICE, Bungie, Sucker Punch, Monolith, Criterion, and Ready At Dawn? They all put out 30 fps games on the PS4. Must be shitty developers.

@mikhail: The Last of Us is still at 1080p and mostly 60. BF 4 is a shitty launch port and still manages around 60fps. The Order 1886 and infamous SS are some of the best looking games around. AC unity would be the ONLY game that targets both 900p and 30fps. Out side of another Ubi title which is Watchdogs.

All I'm seeing is a lot of excuses, which is all console gamers really have anymore. Keep on apologizing for that underpowered hardware.

@mikhail: And all I'm seeing is a uneducated response from a butthurt hermit. If you think something like infamous SS would have no problem maintaining 30 fps on a 7850 lvl GPU you are fucking delusional. You wanna talk about excuses? Let's talk about how AC unity is having complete parity with a console that has 30% to 50% less power. I'm not saying it would or should run at 60fps on PS4 but there's no excuse it shouldn't be in 1080p .