Remember last week when Ubisoft told us that 60 FPS looks weird and claimed that 30 FPS is more than suitable for all gamers? This was all uncovered during a visit to a school where the students asked some hard questions, including “What the hell happened with Watch Dogs”. How did Ubisoft respond after the 30 FPS fact? Interestingly is the answer.
Well, they’ve kind of passed the blame along – claiming that console manufacturers are pressuring them into the 30 FPS game play, not by their own choice. Apparently a Ubisoft Game Architect was quoted stating that 60 FPS is the companies aim, but “limitations” have been seeing them settle for a 30 FPS benchmark. This representative went on to state that console manufacturers are pressuring them to replicate the same 30 FPS limitations on their finished PC products. He also made a mention that Ubisoft liked to reuse as much code as possible (most likely due to time and money savings), which is why many of their games have certain similarities.
Another hard-hitting student queried if Ubisoft was “aware of the negative responses of the recent decision to lock your games into 30FPS. If so, what do you think about that?”. They replied that due to console hardware limitations, they’ve been forced to choose between graphic quality and smoothness (frame rate).
Reddit user ‘timois’ was the original creator of this information thread, who also made sure to point out that Ubisoft implied that Microsoft is making them lock the frame rate on PC too.
Coming from a personal PC gamer standpoint, it’s pretty eye-bleedingly obvious when your gaming is running as low as 30 Frames Per Second. So much so that it generally incites a PC restart from myself and constant pondering if my system is trying to overheat itself again. It’s also made more obvious through shooter type games, like CS:GO which I’ve been dabbling in lately running at 200+ FPS and 144hz. What’s Ubisoft’s response to this question however? – “60FPS looks weird”.
I’m not here to preach the “PC Gaming Master Race” stereotype that is seen across social media ever so often in this day and age, but if the consoles are limited to 30 FPS and the consumers are happy – let them be. But please, don’t subject me to the same limitations.
To their credit, Ubisoft has made and will make some incredible games – but we’d love for them to look incredible too. Otherwise, we’re going to see a progression similar to this.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEzhxP-pdos[/youtube]
Image courtesy of eTeknix
Personally, I have no issues at all running games at 30fps, sure it’s not as smooth, heck, I would play a game at 24fps, as awful as it would be and I’m a PC gamer too.
But I agree with the statement “don’t subject me to the same limitations”, it’s completely stupid that it would be limited on PC especially since a high-end, even medium-end is much more powerful than a console, even with all the Windows fluff running in the background.
“Personally I have no issues in eating my own shit, sure not as tasty as real food, heck, I would even add some piss for some flavor…” what the fuck ryan, you’re as much of a PC gamer as my grandmother, and she’s blind.
Who’re you to dictate what constitutes what a PC gamer is?
In the end it’s personal preference, and I’m fine with 30fps.
Also, I don’t really play too many competitive games on PC, so I don’t really have a need for super high frame rate.
30 fps is like a hand job: yeah, it’s good enough, but you know what I really want.
XD That made me laugh, but yeah, I know what you mean, just saying that if a game runs at 30fps, so be it, I won’t complain, but don’t ‘force’ limitations on me, be it frame rate or visual fidelity.
Maybe Xbox HW limitations…
They may be forced to lift the 30 FPS embargo, pressure is bound to come from nVidia, AMD and others, it doesn’t portray their hardware in a good light and it’s not their fault console makers under specced their platforms so badly.
Although the consoles use AMD parts, AMD are not to blame here, they simply make and supply what they’re told.
That said I don’t believe a word UBI says anyway, I know they’re lying because their lips are moving.
I guess, GTX980/AC5 bundle is in order.. LOL
Whenever I get frame rates under 60 FPS I reboot too and start to wonder what’s wrong with my system. If I wanted to run a game at 30 FPS, I wouldn’t have a $2000 gaming PC.
Obiously, consoles have are inferior when it comes to their power, and so they will not manage anything else more than 30 FPS. That is not a boad part, the bad part is that game developers give in to two manufacturers’ demands.
A few weeks ago I overclocked my graphics card rather aggressively and my display driver crashed in CS:GO. When I relaunched the game, it defaulted to 60hz instead of 120hz. I thought I broke my graphics card, but the driver just hadn’t initialized the right refresh rate. I can only imagine how terrible it would have been at 30.
You built shitty consoles that were underpowered even to NVIDIA’s GTX 600 series entry level cards. Ofcourse you wont be able to push 60 fps on the PS4 and XBOX One. You are using integrated gpu’s. And NO!!! Games look like shit at anything less than 60 fps.
Why do you think some of the most competitive games require every frame possible? That people playing CS GO, or LoL are buying cards wayyyy over the requirement because they want to ensure that under any amount of workload the game throws at their system that they will get every single frame on their screen as humanly possible.
I sent my GTX 660ti in for service due to it just dieing out and played the new Tomb Raider on my i5 2500k’s internal gpu. I had to throw it all down to the lowest and was hovering in the 40’s. I could barely hack it but i still beat the game before I gpu was sent for RMA and got a new 760. Tried it again and beat the game in half time because I had the response times (from higher fps). What they are trying to do as well is since your general ability to respond to stimulus’ in the game at a different rate than others – this thresholds the ability for people who respond faster, giving slower (or dumber) players that teeny tiny bit of response time they need… handicapping games like Halo.
NEVER SETTLE FOR LESS THAN 60 FPS!!
The GPU of a PS4 is similar to a Radeon HD7790, which is even better than a GTX 650Ti.
You can compare the PS4 to any GTX x50 card, they are not powerfull cards. Those are entry level cards and don’t push much.
The GTX 700 series cards are now discontinued, by the way. So there is no “current” card in the market that the new consoles can compare to.
I agree with you, the 650 cards from nvidia are entry level. The 650Ti are more powerful. Almost midrange, well whatever they are, they are more powerful than the 650.
That being said, we both agree the 650 and 650Ti are entry level cards. The AMD HD7790 is more powerful than the 650Ti and is a typical midrange card.
So. I don’t know about the XBOX specs and performance
The PS4 at least, was is not underpowered compared to nvidias entry level cards in the 600 series. In fact the PS4 has considerably more GPU power and flexibility than anything in the entry level of the nvidia 600 series.
So your claim in the first sentence is just not correct.
The only reason I compared the consoles to the nvidia 600 series, is because you did.
I’d compare the consoles to the AMD HD7000 series, because that’s what they’re built on.
ok but the only thing you can compare it to is a 650, thats it.