Poll: How Much Do You Care About 60fps on PS5?

As long as the game plays well, why the hell are we becoming so obsessed with Frame rates.

Play the game and then decide.

If PS 1st party does 60fps with ease then.......

As long as framerate is consistent, I don't care.

Locked framerates at 30/40 (if supported)/60 should be a mandate, though! VRR should only be used for framerates higher than 60fps.

Consistency is king for me

I personally don’t overly mind. I prefer 60 for fast paced stuff, but I can play fine at 30 for many.

But I do think that it should be an option on all games.

The advancement of TV screens has caused this issue for many, some who are more susceptible to it. So I fully understand their viewpoint.

So yeah I believe choices in games are a must.

As long as they're consistent — a juddery, inconsistent frame rate can be nausea-inducing.

I don't personally care very much. But I'd be lying if I said that because that was one of the draws for this generation, it's weird that we're not consistently there yet.

I can't stomach 30fps anymore unless it's something very slow paced. 40fps is a good trade off, if the game supports it. Otherwise 60 all the way.

Some games are ok at 30fps, but almost everything is improved by being 60. As an ex PC gamer, 60fps was standard in the 90s if you had a good enough machine. The reason to avoid consoles back then was the dreadful performance. Now that higher frame rates are a thing on consoles, they should really be the standard.

I have to be perfectly honest, I always played games in fidelity 30fps mode and was strong about that choice but since trying a higher frame rate I can't go back

Just give me 1080p 60hz at this point for consoles because they all brag about 4k and yet it's all 30fps via quality mode or performance mode. Hell I've said to this day even on PC 1440p should be the new 1080p years ago but now GPU manufacturers last 2 GPU cycles haven't really been that exciting because price has been ridiculous.

And no matter how much you want the best FPS game optimization is currently on a wobbly hill right now

Every game should have a 60fps option now. I don't care if it dips slightly to 55 or whatever, but it should be the target in my opinion. I also care less and less about graphics as I get older

I prefer 60fps but if the 30fps holds and the visual difference is big i might go with the 30fps option like i have with FF7 Rebirth.

We should talk and insist more on 40 fps modes.
It offers a great balance of quality/performance, and a lot of TVs support 120hz now.

All games should at least target 60fps, but for a lot of genres it isnt a dealbreaker.

Fighting games, rhythm games, Platformers, Racing games, Shooters, Action games have no right to be 30fps, when input delays can seriously ruin the game experience.

outside of these, 30fps is fine.

As an oled tv owner 30fps games are very hard to enjoy..40 fps is a sweet spot though if i can't get 60.

Prefer it, and I think ps5 games should target it. But Zelda TOTK was my favourite game last year, so I can't be that bothered.

You should've seen my first play through of half life 2 back in the day, on my bag-o-bollocks PC.

I used to not care at all, but how I've gotten used to how smooth 60fps games play then 30 is quite noticeable to me and feels a lot more choppy.

I prefer 60 but am playing FFVII Rebirth at 30 as it looks awful in performance mode. I do feel developers should be aiming for 60fps on these consoles and in general I'll just buy a game on PC if console performance isn't good

I never played on PC (used my Mac for work and had consoles for play) and so never really understood what the fuss was all about… until I tried it on the PS5 And sure, I still enjoyed my recent Bloodborne playthrough but I'll take 60 fps anytime, it really does make a difference to me. "Improved" (=even more insane) graphics come a distant second.

I'm divided between prefer and don't care, I prefer 60FPS over 30, but for most games I pick quality mode over performance.
There are exceptions like Helldivers 2 though.

@zebric21 If a game has pixel perfect frame pacing, it's fine for me on OLED as well. unfortunately, that seems to be a rarity.

@dschons some times motion blur can also help but not much.

60fps all the way. The difference between quality mode and performance is so small visually that I barely can tell a difference. However give me a controller on something running 30fps and it's a deal breaker. Need to be 60fps and there's no excuses for games to not run at 60 anymore.

It completely depends on the game for me. Shooters and anything first person or competitive should hold a stable 60fps. Outside of that, I’m not generally bothered by a stable 30fps. Both new God of Wars, Final Fantasy XVI and Alan Wake II are recent games that I played entirely in quality mode. They look amazing.

PS5 offers what made gaming on SNES made so great for me: fluid 60 fps gaming (okay, 50 fps PAL back then) and minimal loading times. And developers embraced that! Practically every TV in the world supports 60 fps. Why going back to the inferior 30 fps?

It depends on the game, and it’s not just frame rate. It’s frame pacing and consistency too. I notice it mostly when turning in a game, not moving straight forward, it it’s low, I end up with eye strain and a headache (Gravity Rush 2), if it’s good (GT7 for the most part), I’m fine. Definitely seems to effect some people more than others

It always depends. Every single Sony first party game should aim for 60fps, without question. No game needs greater graphical fidelity than GoW Ragnarok or Uncharted 4 or Last of Us 2. I don’t want to play Ghost of Tsushima 2 or Wolverine at 30fps cuz they wanted to increase the polygon count of petals on a small flower.

3rd party is tricky. A lot of my favorite games of all time have “unstable” framerates or 30fps (P5R on PS4, Ghost of Tsushima on PS4, the Switch Zelda games). I’m down to play a 30fps game like Dragon’s Dogma. But developers should always stride to give people options to increase performance, and also try to prioritize stable framerates over fluctuating even if it means capping at 30.

Interesting how the votes don't back up the comments, seems if you don't mind 30fps you're more inclined to tell everyone too.

60 FPS is notably smoother and definitely preferable. But my eyes will adjust to 30 FPS after about a minute and then I don't notice it. However, if the big companies promise 60 FPS and then fail to deliver, that's a problem.

@mkr Well, I voted that I prefer 60, but can deal with 30.

I never cared about framerates until I got the PS5 and had a consistent 60 fps across many titles. It's ruined me. I know people say that ironically but it has literally ruined 30 fps for me. It looks like trash.

As others have said, it depends on the game for me. A higher frame rate is helpful for anything with fast-paced combat like your Bloodbornes and your God of Wars. However I'm not going to be freaking out about playing Dear Esther at 30fps

Graphics maximalism is really hurting gaming. Devs are paying for Sony's (and other tech companies) scheme of incremental innovation, to promote something which is only partially possible, people become accustomed to it and demand it and there Sony comes with the next slightly better iteration. Not sure if 8k will work out for them, but I assume the next "standard" will be the false promise of 120 FPS and RT in every game.

2 words: a lot.

I'm very sensitive to frame rate.

Considering I’m playing Rebirth in performance mode I guess is your answer. I prefer the smoothness over high fidelity but appreciate the developers giving me the option to swap.

Having said that it’s disappointing we’re still talking about this in the PS5 generation.

I think ray tracing hasn’t helped in this generation. Devs (actually probably more Marketing) will always want to make a game as stunning as possible. They seem to have cracked it with Stellar Blade though

60 should absolutely be the target generally speaking. However there are exceptions. It recently came out that Hellblade 2 on Xbox (Although I expect it will end up on PS5 eventually) runs at 30 fps. To me this is fine since the primary draw of the game is in its cinematic quality.

Action, shooters, and fighting games however are a must at 60. I can still play games at 30 if there is no choice but it certainly isn't preferred.

I'm tired of feeling like I've been played. If devs can't get 60fps, why is Sony marketing it's machine with 120fps on the box? I don't mind playing in 1080p (don't have 4K TV). But the fact that even my old ass tv has 60 fps frame rate and the PS5 has been heavily marketed on being next gen machine with 4K and 60 FPS (plus everything getting so much more expensive) makes me quite frustrated with where we are at, to be honest.

I'll sacrifice a considerable amount of graphical fidelity to achieve smoother performance in my games, so it's important to me on stationary platforms.

That said, I've never passed up a game for performance reasons, and I don't plan to start now.

Some people's eyes can't see the difference or hardly any. They might care less. I always notice it as it's very obvious to me and much prefer 60fps. Cinematic experience is for films. I want to play a smooth game.

Depends. I feel zero difference after a few seconds of play. The only reason I usually use it is because I’m very sensitive to motion blur and more fps can reduce it significantly depending on the game.

I don't give a damn, but developers should aim for it for those that do this generation. And for sports games without too much going on outside of the pitch area they should be aiming for 120 too.

For me it's just on a game by game basis though, and some games genuinely feel weird and floaty in 60fps, so I will always try out all the settings myself and use what suits my own eyes best, as should everyone.

There is an ongoing study on the variations in the amount of images people's eyes can process and how that relates to sports and gaming etc in relation to users natural reactions and performance, and it does vary from around 30/35 images per second to around 50+, I think. But obviously the more frames available in a game will still mean the better response times whatever the capability of the eye veiwing it.

But I think that purely on visuals it is always going to depend on the individuals eye and the game itself more than anyones specific tastes, as such. We have different eyes, so of course we are going to see and percieve things differently, and only we can see what works best in each game for us.

I don't believe that one thing can be considered right though, so the more options the better! Even though I sometimes like to try and poke at the people that say things like "60fps or death" 😁😁

Dragon’s Dogma 2 is absolutely fantastic and the framerate has not bothered me (at least on Series X and VRR). It’s a GoTY candidate and I feel sorry for those ignoring it just because of the frame rate.

As long as it holds steady and is well paced, I really don't care what the frame rate is. I mean, if there's an option for 60 I will likely play that depending on the game. Although I'm more than happy to pick quality mode in other games. I have been enjoying the 40 fps option in games that have it.

As an aside, I have an OLED and all this 30fps is unplayable on OLED just baffles me. Literally see zero issues with it. Opinions though, we all got one.

I just care about consistent frame pacing.

I'm quite surprised the top choice of not excuse for all games not being 60fps is leading. With the caviot of me knowing nothing in the development of making a game, my opinion is that it must be very hard to get great graphics, steady framerate and high framerate. If it was easy, you would think even less talented developers would be doing it, but mostly all are not hitting that sweet spot including the AAA developers. My guess is most games will get there by next Gen not this one. Either way if the game play is good, im in.

@somnambulance I mean, you don't play cinema, you watch it (also cinema is 24fps sooooo). It's not just how it looks, but how it FEELS, and a juddery, poorly frame-paced 30fps on today's OLED screens is miserable experience. 60fps all the way babyyyy!

Performance mode over graphics mode every time.

Don't really care about 60fps, if I have the option I always pick the visual mode over performance mode in my games. Maybe it's because I'm also a big switch gamer so I'm used to 30fps, and I don't really see the difference when playing at 60fps. Better visuals and possible ray tracing is worth the trade off.

@Weebleman this one always gets me too. OLED has done nothing but improve everything on every level for me. I can perceive the improvements immensely, and am not getting any negatives even when running 30fps or unlocked/variable.

I guess we have eyes that are in some sort of ideal gaming sweet spot 🍻

I mean, surely it depends on the game. In a fight game, racing game or similar, fast, lofty frame-rates and can have a beneficial effect on player interaction and response times.

But, there are plenty of games, visual novels, turn-based RPGs, etc. where frames-per-second is just not important. Also, as an aside, cinema movies run at 24fps and nobody complains about judder in those.

Usually, a consistent frame-rate with no major dips can keep me engaged. Insane frame-rates are only ever essential in PSVR for me. And that's only so I don't vomit on the new carpet.

If it's a combat heavy game, like GOW, I will do frame rate over graphics every time. However, I do love if both are an option.

I don't personally mind 30fps, but I do think that there should be options for consumers when it comes to visuals and frame rate.

All ps5 games should be 60fps.but come on dog its not happening.30fps is fine by me.if its playable.its all good.word up son

Framerate isn't a deal breaker for me, but I can't help but wonder if we'd even be having this discussion right now if a certain giant publisher didn't kneecap this generation before it even started with a certain stupid white box.

30 fps is a deal breaker e especially if the game is in 4k. Give me 1080 p and 60 fps

@Enuo this. The games we're frustrated tp am extent about also appear on that box. Games that aren't on that box are hitting. 60 fps

I prefer 60, but Dragons Dogma 2 has taught me, it's not everything, it's the game that matters. If the game is dog sh1+ but runs at 120fps, you gonna play it? That being said I have a 240hz monitor, HDMI 2.1 and it is a real treat when games run at 120fps, but the only game that has is COD!

We went through the false PS4 Pro era (let's be honest the PS4 Pro was designed to sell 4k TV's) where we had a choice of performance or quality modes in a small number of games. On reflection very little came of what the PS4 Pro brought to gaming, other than a quiter fan (well the first two years). On paper the hardware spec of the PS5 should run well at 60fps, but yet again the entitlement of some sections of the gaming community demand higher and higher resolutions or more detailed 3D environments. As an old school gamer from the 80's to the PC 1990/2000's boom era, framerates will always be key. Make that the standard before you start pushing resolutions. When you become accustomed to high framerates on a daily basis, dropping into choppy frames, no amount of resolution or fluff will suffice. If the PS5 Pro cannot achieve 60fps as a standard. This could be the last generation of console gaming for me. Where less than 60fps hits you, isn't moving into the screen, but panning the camera left a d right. It's becoming more and more noticeable after becoming accustomed to playing a handful of games on PS5 that do run at 60fps.

I play every ps5 game on performance mode

I choose "I prefer 60fps, but 30 isn't a dealbreaker". The majority of the PS5 games I play in 60fps, but there are some I choose 30. It dependes of the game, and it's not a must have to me.

Don't care at all. As long as it's smooth and consistent, it doesn't spoil my enjoyment of a game in the slightest.

I'd rather have a locked 30fps than something that varies between 40 and 60 when it gets busy. I game on both console and PC, and I just don't get the snobbery around something so trivial.

In fact, when it comes to PC, I think online competitive games should have locked frame rates, so that nobody gets an advantage based on better hardware. 🤷🏻‍♂️

Thank goodness the poll finally clarifies. 60 FPS makes a difference and most of us want it. To anyone thinking it doesn't make a difference to anyone, it doesn't to you.

I definitely prefer the 60 FPS option. It’s hard to go back to 30 FPS after experiencing the smoother game play. So I will always be in favor of 60 FPS with whatever technique they need to use to make it look presentable.

As someone with both a Series X and PS5 and soon to be a PS5 Pro i do care about performance. I ain’t going to say a target frame rate for all games. But for shooters i do prefer as much frames per second as i can have. It’s not a game to stop and look at the attention to details. As for a game like FF16, which i am really enjoying. I hope it get’s a 60fps patch and updates with the Pro. Performance matters. So much so if MS or Sony made a $800-$1000 dollar PC like console i would buy it. This Gen has just been so slow and behind on promises that i am looking forward to next gen or maybe taking a plunge into PC gaming. Which as a near 20 year Apple user, i am not happy to have to run windows for anything outside of work.

A consistent 30 isn’t a dealbreaker for me, but yeah… I will always prefer 60. A bit disappointing that we’re still having to talk about this after the big talk Sony gave us when it launched the PS5. 🫤

@Cloud39472 Most of us at Push Square. I'm criticising people here that think that because it doesn't matter to them, it doesn't matter to anyone.

Let's Be honest here, dragons Dogma as a thumbnail is a bit of a joke, as even after patch it's an unstable mess. This isn't a matter of developer targets. What we are seeing so frequently is a lack of optomization and polish in favor of meeting a release target.

Using fans as glorified beta testers. Pay to beta test. It's bs and we need to start reviewing these titles considering such deliberate garbage.

I need the 60 fps option in every game, I've been spoiled and can't go back. At least Sony still cares about giving us the option of 60, Microsoft has thrown in the towel and most of their exclusives only target 30fps.

@Cloud39472 I'm guessing you just missed the zero, but that number is over 50 million.

I agree though, none of these polls mean anything, particularly when they can be influenced by trolls. It also feels like certain people are currently working overtime to downplay the importance of framerate because of a certain upcoming 30fps game.

I notice the difference if others point it out but it's not high on my priority list. If a game offers both and I swap between the two I can tell the difference easily. As long as it's a stable framerate I'm more than happy.

I like the VRR 40 frames fidelity modes where the frame rates adjust

Look we all have the same ps5, but we all have different displays, so really I understand that people’s opinion might vary. I like my games to be fun to play, graphics come second. BUT, if you are playing on a relatively large oled screen, anything below 60 feels like a PowerPoint. That’s why I don’t buy any game without 60fps and even then stutters to 40’s, 50’s are incredibly annoying on my display. Again, this might be different for you, but in my setup 60fps is a must!

30fps. If it's a game we don't care about, we'll complain about it. It it's a game we love, we'll defend it.

60fps should be the target and well optimized. I have yet to play ANYTHING on PS5 in 30fps. I tried the 30 fps mode in the Stellar Blade demo and it was like bullet time it was so slow.

Having an OLED / VRR TV, 60 fps over 30 very much makes a difference! Graphics dont make a difference if a game feels like crap to play

I don’t give a damn about frame rates and I don’t know why am I here lol

Target 60 but not essential for some games.

Some slower paced games play perfectly fine at 30. Racing games and shooters HAVE to be 60.

Oddly enough FF7 Rebirth, for a fast paced game plays brilliantly at 30. So much so that I've sacrificed the framerate for the higher res.

We were just talking about this on another thread, that the result of 30fps is very display dependent. I once argued over someone about Forza Horizon 4 being preferable on X1X in graphics mode at 4k because the aliased foliage looked like SNES sprites in performance mode while everyone else raved about 60fps for racing. Then I got a different, much faster response display and the same game was horrendous in graphics mode with judder and flicker abound at the 30fps rate.

At the start of FFXVI I tried the graphics mode and found it deplorable. It's a very fast paced game, and the terrible frame pacing of the Luminous based engines (16, 15 in 4k mode), Forspoken just reacts extremely badly on my display and I find it basically unplayable. The performance hit softens the image, and it STILL can't hit a stable 60. But it's way better.

Meanwhile I played Hogwarts at 45fps compromise and it was rock solid and great. Replayed a bit at 30 and it was ok, not as bad as the Luminous games.

I think whether 30fps is acceptable or not depends on the genre. Anything with fast action, anything where the camera spins rapidly 30fps just doesn't work. Something slow and plodding, without fast camera spins can work fine. With fast movement at 30fps objects jump quite a distance between each screen redraw. It's like watching a rotoscope in slowed motion.

When this generation started it was largely sold on "basically PS4 games but now at proper performance level it should have had last gen" but, of course devs/marketeers turned int into "more shinier graphics at even worse of a crawl!" They always do. This isn't a still media and we're not making 90's PC "bullshots" on our PS5s. Modern games should run smooth. Like they did 30-40-freaking years ago on Atari's, Segas, and Nintendo's on CRTs (in NTSC regions. Sorry PAL plebs. It's not your fault.) It was the limitations of the early 3D consoles (PS1, N64) that forced us to adapt to 30 or below fps. Instead of taking the temporary setback and making tech better, the industry resulted to pushing more marketable stills and then marketable streams instead of pushing smooth, responsive gameplay. Or worse, unoptimized engines that look almost-smooth and ugly, or pretty and juddery, and the only way to fix it os to buy >$1000 PC GPUs and brute force it.

If it's like racing games, then yes, otherwise not so bothered

It makes me laugh that people seem to think Sony promised 4k@60fps. They never did. I prefer playing in performance mode with 60fps but I'm not bothered if a game runs in 4k@30fps either. It's just not the deal breaker it used to be. Maybe it's my new TV I don't know. I don't think it's the hardware either as some devs seem to be able to do things others struggle with.

I don't care fps while the game is fun. I rather care I can switch off artificial effects like motion blur, chromatic aberration or ray tracing.

I don't know how anyone can watch 30fps and say it's fine compared to 60fps. Maybe it's my OLED tv. Pixel response is so fast, it makes 30fps stutter. I can't even play older games now that I'm used to 60.

@Dodoo Same here, the smooth combat tips the scales for me over bettert visuals in Rebirth.

I adored the Dreamcast as it was the first European console to have a dedicated 60hz mode for TVs that could handle it. I know 60hz isn't 60fps, but games were smooth as butter and it was in effect 60fps. So modern games where they jolt about unnerve me and make me think we have gone backwards.
I have eyes which can really detect the difference between 30 40 60 fps so for me it's vitally important.
Not everyone wants this so I'm not disagreeing with people's comments at all, each to their own. But for a console that advertised itself as ray tracing and 60fps which turns out only the pro might do - this isn't quite what was advertised.

Screw 60fps.
I bought a TV that does 120hz.. make all games 120fps!!

@NEStalgia "I think whether 30fps is acceptable or not depends on the genre."

For some maybe, I personally can't enjoy a game at 30 anymore regardless of the genre.

I think the more pertinent question is, if the hardware is capable of doing so, is it acceptable to not provide a choice.

Edit - Just to add, I think you're spot on about display being a factor. I play on a LG C2 and 30 is indeed horrendous.

If there's an option I'll always choose 60fps but i can play at 30 no problem as long as it's a locked solid 30fps and not all over the place.

i care about it a lot. it literally not only affects the gameplay , but my own game play ,

I couldn't care less about frame rates.

But I'm pretty sure I'm brain damaged or something because I can't see any difference until it gets down to 15 anyway. I'm happy to live in ignorance, because everyone seems to lose their mind about frame rates and I'm able to just enjoy the games.

@Intr1n5ic Yeah, I really agree, overall, actually.

I can enjoy a game at 30, grudgingly, but only certain games, and I really have to adapt to it to do it. My most recent examples of tolerating 30 were playing through Kiwami 2 and Yakuza 6 where the dragon engine is 30fps only. I was very unhappy at first, I messed with the display settings like crazy trying to find a "less bad" setting that hid the problem. After playing a while I did happen to adapt to it and it wasn't bothering me the rest of the game. But a Yakuza game outside the button mashy battles isn't that fast paced and you're not usually swinging the camera about. XVI? I can not do it at all. It's gross and nauseating. Heck I mentioned in the SMTV thread this morning I never even made it to Tokyo Tower due in large part to the low fps and shimmery visuals on Switch. And that's far from fast paced.

My old display (last gen) I think had such a slow response time that it naturally smeared the image together so it didn't actually feel choppy. I'm betting that most people that say "I'm fine with 30fps" have displays with really slow response time creating a natural blur effect smoothing it over, or are in a mode that does something similar with the internal processing.

I definitely agree, there no excuse for a current gen game to not offer a performance option. And I also think there's no excuse for that performance option to either fall short of the performance target or make the game look like it's running on ancient hardware to do it. It just screams of "well our dev machines were all running 4080's and it worked fine before the console port."

Since I game on ps5, I only played Bloodborne on 30fps because there is no other choice. However I refuse to accept 30fps only on native ps5 games and will avoid such ps5 games. As my TV supports 120hz, I would appreciate if there are more games at least with 40fps mode like many Sony 1st party ones provide

@mcdreamer really well said 👍🏻

Higher the frame rate fair better visuals for me.
There is less smudge and smear as you pan around in a game, say like HFW. It’s also smoother and far better just to look at.

As well as 60fps, I must say the 40fps on a 120hz tv is also good.

I have begun really not to like bog standard 30fps and think it looks absolutely rubbish.

They're not reaching 60fps for the same reason modern gen consoles are apparently incapable of 4-player splitscreen; graphical fidelity takes priority at the expense of everything.

A rock solid 30fps is better than a 60fps dipping when things get busy on screen.

Also, depends on the game - I can get the clamour for 60fps on a manic shooter or similar but even something like Baldur's Gate 3 running at 30fps, would it make that much difference? (I have no idea what fps it runs at)

Missing options:

60 over raytracing almost anyday.
30 for turn based or slower games is fine.
I want 60 for twitchy.
40 is great! Balanced mode!

I don't have much of a problem playing at 30fps, depending on the game/genre.
I wouldn't go for the graphics mode in Helldivers but I did in Final Fantasy.
Also, I need more games to run at 40!

TVs appear to the recurring theme here and other frame rate debates, I personally am not that bothered, I appreciate a console has only so much power, something's got to go sometimes if you are making a game that is more ambitious in other areas, graphics, ai etc.
That said, Im using a fairly old TV that wasn't even that expensive in the first place.

@sanderson72 how is 60fps dipping not better than 30 frames, but you also said you cant notice the difference with baldurs gate 3? 60 dipping is better than 30 dipping or 30fps at all. im genuinely asking, because its wild to me how 30fps is still acceptable.

It's essential. 60fps has been basic industry standard for a decade, if a game can't achieve it, or the performance mode is extremely ugly and compromised, I'm extremely disappointed. That said, this generation has been an underwhelming letdown in system ability terms.

@Terra_Custodes "'this generation has been an underwhelming letdown in system ability terms."

couldnt agree more. but yet people were in an uproar when the ps3 was $499-599, and yet it had ALOT more to show for it than the ps5 ever has despite being around the same price. the only "next gen" thing about the ps5 is its controller gimmicks and even thats subjective

a consistently paced 30 is always preferable to a choppy 60.

60 would be the ideal, but if you cant lock it down tight then don't bother - get 30 down pat and use any extra processing juice to gussy the game up.

@nomither6 @Mintie therein lies another issue, frame pacing is off on SO MANY games, it sucks.

And yeah, I'm disappointed in general of this generation. I'm not shelling out money on a pro either when they released a shoddy console in the first place. I've simply gone back to retro games for the most part and given up on the newer stuff.

@Whately86 I feel played too. Especially with a pro releasing after an extremely poor 4 years of this generation, where I've seen almost nothing worthy of being called next gen. Demon's Souls remake still looks better than 90% of games and was a release title. Ray tracing is an unachievable gimmick, 4k or 120fps is a rarity.

@ExarKun it's bad frame pacing - incompetent devs that cause choppy 30

People be obsessing so much over frame rates, they forget to even play the game. Yes, 60FPS are great. There's no denying that... But at this point. If some of you guys care THAT much? You're better off building your own PC.

In this day in age games need to be 60fps. I've done my time with 30 over the years. Bottom line is if PS5 consistently targeted 30 fps, I'd be off to PC exclusively in a shot (I do have a decent PC at present, but just prefer the PS eco system). So, 60fps I'll stay with PS, 30 fps I'll go completely PC.

I want 4k, 60fps with full ray tracing.

Beyond that I don't care. I would look for improvements in realism (depending on the game of course) physics, etc.

Would I prefer a game that's not that fun but looks amazing? Obviously not, but I don't want to have to make such trade offs to begin with.

Honestly wouldn't consider playing a game at below 60fps. Ideally every game would have a 720p @ 120fps option, I'd probably pick that 90% of the time.

To me, at least, there are FAR more important factors in video games than frame rate.

What about the flipside of this question: do 4K, HDR and (mild) Ray Tracing matter to you?

In all honesty, I think we'll always be sitting in this Quality or Performance situation, with no-one being able to push 4K, HDR, Ray Tracing AND 60fps on console.

Console are stuck in a loop where with every new generation we're sold on a great graphical improvement AND performance improvement, and so the devs start working towards the graphical potentials of the console and rapidly learn that things like 4K, HDR and Ray Tracing are only possible at the expense of FPS due to how resource hungry they are. And when the next console generation starts, they'll have more power/resources available, but the expectations for graphical performance would have also increased, so they'll again be stuck with the decision of chasing 8K, HDR with full Ray Tracing and whatever other stuff comes up, at the expense of FPS.

...unless you own a $3k PC.

I don't mind 30 FPS so much. I grew up with PAL screens on 25FPS interlace and could game fine back then too, claiming i suddenly couldn't now would be a bit idiotic.

For some games i do set it to performance mode (e.g. Helldivers, in shooters the extra FPS actually helps) but for most i go with 30FPS quality mode.

The magic number is 120 but 60 should be the absolute minimum

120 should be the norm nowadays

60fps is an absolute minimum requirement for me, 30fps looks so horridly bad on big TV (LCD and OLED), it completely ruins any game with any movement on screen. If I can't even clearly see what is happening in the game due to it being 30fps, then nothing the game has to offer can save it.

120fps looks quite a bit clearer than 60fps, and I wish games would offer 60fps resolution mode and 120fps performance mode. 30fps should be completely dead by now. There are no obstacles to achieving 60fps, other than developer priorities. All I can do is vote with my wallet and hope developers take a note.

I can't do 30 anymore. It looks so choppy.

It feels better in gameplay I like it give me 1080p 60fps anyday

No (or poor) 60fps is the biggest dealbreaker for me. No 60fps = no buy.
Cant tolerate lower frame rates. A few months ago, i played a game in quality 30fps mode just to see if i would adapt to it, and after about 3-4hrs i gave up. I felt sick and had a headache. Played in 60fps the next day and all was good again.
I just wish some people would understand how badly it affects some people - its not even a choice.

Honestly, I just don't see the difference.

It really depends on the type of games.

Action/open-world games have to be 60fps minimum or I'd get motion sickness. It's a real problem.

But turn-based or 2D games, I really don't mind 30fps.

30 FPS should die a horrible death, or at least only be an option for people who enjoy playing slideshows

@chucksneed 720p would be blurry jagfest. 1440p is the lowest I can tolerate these days, I begrudgingly forgive games like FFX/XII for being 1080p though.

@GilgaMax96 thing is 60fps is a basic thing, it is absolutely bog standard baseline acceptability. Not something we should be thankful for but not expect. DD2 being 30 felt like a betrayal to me. "Next gen" console...

@Mortal they need to give us more graphics options and let us decide what's priority. I hope the next gen gets this.

30 fps needs to die. And for anyone who says you can't tell the difference. Pan the camera, once. If you can't tell that one feels like it's juddering and moving through tar you have issues 😂 I wouldn't mind but the 30 fps games don't look any better, in fact they look worse - look at dragons dogma. Forbidden West is still the best looking game I've played and I was getting up to 100 fps. No excuses

@somnambulance Ooh the good old “its more cinematic” argument!

Its as out of place now as it was 10 years ago

@Mortal
Ray tracing does virtually nothing for me - its nice enough when insomniac do it at circa 80fps, but truth be told most other games i just dont notice it that much at all, and dont really miss it. Wheras a game running much less than 60fps or with bad frame pacing etc I cannot tolerate.

Resolution is a more interesting question - with the most technically gifted studios I can not really see much difference between performance and quality modes from the point of resolution only (i do look just for curiosity sake, or to take the odd picture). GOWR, or anything from insomniac - I can barely tell the resolution is different (and at my last eyesight test my sight was near perfect), geometry levels look more different to me. However as games get less technically advanced I can see a bigger and bigger difference from the resolution change - generally the poorer the game is to start with, the bigger difference I can see.

Still it wouldnt change my buying of a game - no/poor 60fps is an automatic no buy, and Im hoping that for PS6 we get rid of this antiquated problem and move to 60fps for quality and 120fps for performance, with 90fps balanced.

60fps is really important to me. As someone who deals with motion sickness from games having a poor frame rate can really mess me up when playing.

1080p 60fps is what is required from me. Everything above is extra.

I actually can't believe some of the comments I'm reading.

Its 2024 frame rates shouldn't even be a talking point.

Every game should be 60fps or above at 4k. This shouldn't even be a question we have to have.

All the people saying about 30fps, being OK is ignoring the problem.

For games 60 or above is always better.

Doesn't matter if you can tolerate 30 or not.

I'm still in disbelieve that I'm in 2024. I built a gaming pc way back at the release of the 1080 graphics card and have been basically playing all those games until recent releases at 4k 60.

How any console isn't reaching these pretty old specs is astonishing.

It really shouldn't be a o well I dont mind 30 because of the amazing graphics on show the frame doesn't matter.

No it should be we are getting amazing graphics and the frame rate is a flawless 60fps.

Why in 2024 that isn't the case is beyond me, esp on console.

We had 30 and 60 fps with checkerboarding 4k on ps4. We shouldn't still be having this debate for ps5.

This in turn is why a ps5 Pro needs to come out we shouldn't have to compromise

"I can't tell the difference - why do people go on about framerates - a good game is still good at 30fps - last gen had a lot of 30fps games" are very poor arguments..
(for those who cant tolerate low/poor framerates) its not that far from "i can walk up a kerb - why do people go on about no dropped kerbs close by - we didnt always have dropped kerbs".
Not as serious in the grand scheme of things, obviously, but the same quality of argument.

@Skyfall @Pranwell exactly . these ppl are happy being scammed an extra $200 for a NINTH gen console that can’t at bare minimum output atleast 60fps, with weak excuses like “jUsT gET a pC” , or straight up irrational assertions just because they’re incapable of visually distinguishing motion from a slideshow. frame rate is literally a technical implementation that directly affects gameplay and performance- something you’d think would be the point of console generations i.e improvements , otherwise, what the hell are they for ?

@Bez87 I refuse to drop another £600 on a pro on principle. I only got my PS5 10 months ago due to the stock problems and it's a very disappointing machine. That being said I'll deal with it until PS6 rather than validate the debacle of this pathetic generation. I'm mostly playing older games anyway (due to the lack of decent newer games, the whole industry is a mess frankly), which are mostly 1440p/4K 60fps on PS5 thankfully.

I do not always play a 60 fps but if new game dose not have option I am not buying them and I do not care ! I may buy later used or deep discount !

I never cared about the difference between 30fps and 69fps before...until I bought my PS5 and (some) games give you the ability to instantly toggle between 30 & 60fps by a simple menu setting without needing to start the game over again from the main menu screen.

Once I could instantly flip between the two I understood what people talked about. I e now become a 60fps snob in some ways. I will choose performance mode over quality all the time because now I can feel the difference.

Visually I don't notice a big difference in quality mode. I don't really notice differences with Ray Tracing either. I don't have a top of the line TV, I just use a moderate TV that claims it's 4K. The better Sony TV is in the bedroom for my wife and I to watch together.

At the end of the day I can tolerate 30fps, but I greatly prefer 60fps every chance it's possible.

Perfectly fine with 30. If a game offers 60, great. If a game offers 120, great. If a game offers 4644644, great. But I’m more than happy with 30.

I've never really notice the difference between 30 and 60, I just notice if the game is great or *****!

All I want is smooth blur free game play. 60fps can eliminate most of the camera motion blur that game makers think we all want but most hate. Thankfully some games on consoles are providing options to turn off camera motion blur. Now they just need to make it a standard like Y axis inversion is standard.

Other standard options should be fov, dof, chromatic aberration, anti aliasing, lens flare, god rays, volumetric atmosphere, grain, and text size options.

Overall regardless of graphics, and any image effect techniques used that degrade the image, 60fps is superior to 30fps because it is smoother.

I gave up using PS5 and moved to PC because newer games were going back to "30fps and good graphics" or "60fps worse graphics" and that's just pathetic in this day and age

It's nice when it's there, but I'll enjoy the game even with lower frame rate.

I played and absolutely loved games in 30fps.

I get that others feel differently, especially PC gamers who are used to better performance.

The poll is missing an option for 40 fps mode, which (for 120Hz TVs) is a great compromise for current gen consoles, and therefore it should ideally be supported in all games. It has a frame time of 25 ms, which is exactly halfway between the frame time for 30 and 60 fps (33.33 ms and 16.67 ms, respectively), and feels mostly stutter-free (unlike 30 fps on OLED TVs), while also running at relatively high resolutions.

yawns

This old debate...

If possible games should be 60fps. It makes a difference when gameplay is as smooth as possible IMO.

What I don't understand is why developers sometimes lower the resolution so much to get a performance mode that we sit with a blurry mess of a game. Rather reduce the overall fidelity and keep the resolution at 4k and the fps solid. The game will look all the better for it. 4k60 should be the target for performance modes (although 1440p has also been fine) and fidelity can take a hit. I must say though.. whatever Shift Up did with Stellar Blade's balanced mode is magic and should be the standard going forward.

I could care less about frame rate. Most games feel better at 30 FPS for me anyways.

I prefer higher frame rates. To be completely honest for high action games they should be aiming for 60fps with the low bar at 40, but more sedentary games can run at 30 all day long for me.

The problem I've noticed is most people I know with a PS5 have them set up so bass ackwards (or hooked up to a naff TV) that if they settled for locked 60fps@1080p they'd actually notice a difference.

I feel that 60fps is just required now we in 2024. We have machines way to capable to achieve this now

60fps for sure...As I got older I can get headaches and eye issue playing in 30fps (a lot of games even fall under 30fps)...
I just dont think that a game console that costs 400-500eur can give you 4k quality resolution in 60fps...
Maybe next ps6, xbox with all this AI stuff that is happening can manage that...

Gameplay is king, 60fps plays better and smoother than 30fps so I always go for performance modes.

I had no choice until last July as until then I didn't have a 4k TV. Now I do I still choose performance modes.

I find lower frame rates are more noticeable than lower resolutions so it's the lesser of 2 evils to me

All games should have the option to reduce the fidelity in order to target higher frame rates.

@NoCode23 Chromatic aberration is the worst graphical effect ever conceived of. I've experimented with every game I've owned that uses it, it causes all detail in the game to become blurry and colours to be deformed. It is horrendous and I cannot understand its purpose or how anyone could like it. Close second is vignetting bleughghgh. Then there's the one that causes a weird fishbowl effect. These are anti fidelity options it's crazy.

Also, lifelong inverted player here - big ups inverties!

Tired of this narrative of "fps doesn't matter" because Xbox is having issues with all their first party games reaching 60fps now.

60fps should absolutely be the standard for these two consoles or the target at least.

Hellblade 2 being 30fps is laughable considering it's a 5 hour long cinematic game and I don't care how pretty it looks.

The industry mocked the PS4 Pro (rightfully so) for having poor framerates compared to the One X and they should be calling this out for these new systems.

I don't care about 4K, but 60 fps is important for me.

@AnVold I wouldn't say no to 4k unless its at the cost of 60fps.

@Terra_Custodes chromatic aberration was used extremely well with arkham knight. i like the effect for aesthetic reasons and use it a lot with editing

@nomither6 I consider it the cancerous herpes-AIDS of effects xD

I have a fairly serviceable PC (RTX 4070 SUPER), yet I have ZERO problems playing 30 FPS games. Hell, I've played through Gears of War trilogy last month and had a blast (the framerate is a mess). A good game is a good game. Really don't understand the gamers that can't play a game due to 30 FPS cap.

I can't play games at 30fps now after enjoying 60fps. If a game doesn't offer it (Dragons Dogma 2) I simply won't play it. I feel the narrative of 30fps is OK is simply because the Xbox exclusives aren't hitting it. There is no excuse for Hellblade 2 not to run at 60fps. Lower the resolution to offer it.

This topic kinda comes along with the whole PS5 PRO discussion..

I hope people that favours 60FPS all the way, are also the ones not surprised or against of the existence of a PS5 pro.. otherwise we are falling into incoherence territory

Of course we have cases where I agree also with @KundaliniRising333 , an absolute utter disgrace of optimization like Dragon's Dogma 2 and this is not relevant or questioning the HW capabilities of the current consoles.

By the way, there is no way this game should deserve much that praise or even being nominated for big awards, given the fact of the absolute joke of its state at launch and continues to be at the moment. More important cases like this should be reflected on the reviews and scored accordingly, otherwise devs/publishers will just continue to repeat these practices as they see themselves or others being succeeded!

In other hand, we need to be realistic and not expecting miracles in future games like the likes of Matrix demo fidelity or other UE5 titles as recently shown, this Marvel 1943: Rise of Hydra (Captain America & Black Panther Game) and expect to have it to run at 60FPS on the current PS5 HW

Perhaps it could be possible, but the visuals will have to be scarified so much (specially the ones with big scope) to be able to run at a solid 60FPS, and people will not be happy with that - again, no miracles - HW limitation.

Probably in future generations, with more and more powerful HW, and graphics having more and more diminishing returns, we could maybe assist a console HW hold higher frame rate targets throughout its whole generation.

As we stand now on the current HW and moving forward we will see more and more 30FPS only games unfortunately.

If people are fine with 30FPS target in future games, then yes, no need to get a pro version, and I believe there is still room to push a bit more fidelity on the current console, BUT at that same 30FPS target! Expecting higher frame rates with that fidelity - there is no way, simply not possible on the current HW

This is where a PRO version comes into play, to help mitigate the degradation on image quality while targeting higher frame rates, with the help of its stronger GPU and proprietary upscaler, specially on GPU bound games.

Probably we will see also unlocked frame rates with some titles already released, to target even higher frame rates and hopefully with a better implementation of VRR. With some luck, to get more often, and more RT effects and keep up those higher frames.

Unfortunately though, existing games that are CPU bound we will still not see a major advantage.. it's also up to the developers to let's say build the game more around utilization of GPU / put less load possible on the CPU. Important to keep still expectations in check with the PS5 PRO, it will also not do miracles in this case when the games are heavily CPU intensive

Anyway for more enthusiastic people or simply gamers that can't stand 30FPS, having more chances that a game will have a 60FPS mode or higher, better image quality and perhaps more often/advanced features like RT, the PS5 pro makes sense.

For players that don't mind 30FPS and not bothered with overall inferior image quality, they will be fine with the base PS5

I'm sensitive to frame rate. While I grew up gaming at 30 fps or lower, I can no longer tolerate it. 30 fps has been jarring to me for quite a while now and I will not buy games that don't have a capable performance mode.

I don’t care about 30fps, as long as it isn’t Pokemon violet frame rates I’m fine. never really got people complaining about it lol

60fps no more, no less.

At 4k in Quality Mode, not Performance with low res graphics!

Trouble is, PS5 can't do that for current games.
Most of the time because devs can't be bothered to optimize their games.
Rest of time, because of it's own technical limitations. 2020 may seem like not too long ago, but in the hardware world, it's ancient times, and it shows.

Dragon's Dogma 2 feels like an outlier?
Y'all forgetting about A Plague Tale - Requiem, that took 7 months after launch to get a 60fps Performance mode? And that game launched in 2022 !!
How about Gotham Knights, The Quarry, etc.

No, Dragon's Dogma 2 is no exception, it's just foreshadowing....
PS5 needs a proper and very efficient upscaling tech to reach a stable 4k@60fps in Quality mode, that only another hardware revision can provide - that's (hopefully) what PS5 Pro with PSSR will provide... otherwise it's gonna be a very hard ~4 years for the PS ecosystem until PS6 comes around.

On top of all this, we need AAA PS studios made PS5 exclusive games !
For many of us that was the main reason we bought the console... and mostly we've got Remakes and Remasters of existing titles... even of already Remastered games!
Make the games shorter, 15-20h is enough! We don't need 50+ hours...
Keep the current graphics for a few years more, and shorten the time between releases.

There's no excuse for next gen games to run under 60fps, 30fps needs to become a thing of the past with 60 being the norm and 120fps being the new gold standard.

I refuse to buy or play games if they're locked to 30 fps. Especially since I bought an OLED and experienced 120 fps. 30 fps is unplayable on OLED screens. It's truly horrible

@NoCode23
Yes, motion blur is headache inducing too, particularly over long gaming sessions - same as blurring elements at distance outside of cutscenes (your eyes, providing you have no sight issues, in real life will focus in on elements in the distance as you look around so its not even realistic).
I think some developers use them as crutches for poor framerates - thankfully better developers give you the option to remove, but all developers need to learn to add these options before launch.

Anything less then 60fps is a no pay. Jeez its 2024, PCs haven't entertained anything less than 60 for over 10 years. It is, imho, ridiculous that the question even has to be asked.

For anyone on the fence, try playing Control at 30fps; its a joke and will tell you all you need to know as to why its an insult to those spending almost £500 that they are served such nonsense.

I can't go back to 30fps now and won't buy a game if it isn't 60fps.

@Jeaz @Resurrected-X460
I quite agree that to some 30fps is good enough and i know there are people that genuinely cant tell the difference. You also have people who prefer 60 but can manage 30 (sometimes with a caveat to the type of game).
However my own experience and clearly a lot of others, looking at this poll and the comments and having spoken to friends, find 30fps to be intolerable.
Ive said it before and im sure i will say it again - a game could have the best gameplay imaginable, the best ever, and be amazing in every other regard, be 4k with incredible fidelity, but to me and clearly others, it will be unplayable (and i do mean unplayable) if its framerate is not 60fps. I would not buy this game. I would much rather buy a decent but average game with 60fps that i could play and enjoy.

Looking at this again after a day to see what the stats are and 80% of responses say they at least prefer 60fps.

@Fatewalker
I may have already agreed with you on a similar comment on another thread, but I cant disagree with a lot of what you have said.
I will either get PRO, or move completely to PC (and probably never touch console again) within the next year or so (obviously depending on when PRO launches!).
Developers need to make sure games are designed to run at 60fps on PRO and higher(ish) end PC, ideally base PS5 with a loss to fidelity - I would actually support a system where Sony limits game footage to only that running at 60fps.
Other than what is possible at 60fps, I really wouldnt care if fidelity stood still for the rest of the generation.

It's no longer the late 90ies where you had to buy and install a new memory chip to play the last game. Now the hardware is democratized and has demonstrated its capabilities, so a game running less than 60fps just show the laziness of its developers, and it's a red flag on the quality of the product.

I primarily game on the switch, so 30 fps isn’t bad, but if Sony is gonna brag about their performance, they ought to target 60 fps. That said, if given the option, I’ll usually choose something in between. I played FF16 on 40 fps, which was my sweet spot. 60 sometimes gives me motion sickness while anything above it definitely gives me motion sickness.

I can’t play on less than 60fps anymore, I can literally see the individual frames at points now. I’ll even take1080p so long as it’s 60 frames per second.

I still play PS3 games, so I obviously don't care too much. 🤷‍♂️

Given the option, I prefer 60fps with dynamic resolution every time. However, 30fps is fine for most game genres, such as our typical Action RPGs, as long as it's consistent.

At the end of the day, consistency is the biggest deal.

@B0udoir I wouldn't call it laziness, but rather lower priority. It's always a trade-off to achieve 60fps unless you have excellent optimization experts and a huge budget, so if it's not prioritized from the start over graphics and animations, it's harder to optimize later.

60fps is everything to my experience now. It keeps me immersed in the game.

I chose "All PS5 games should hit 60fps, there's no excuse" - there is no amount of fidelity to me (at least in terms of what exists today) that is worth it for me to sacrifice performance. If a game is capped at 30 fps on consoles, I'll play it on PC. I'd rather have it on low settings at 60 fps or above on my PC than 4k on a console at 30 (unless it is a turn based game I guess).

@Rich33 PCMR maaate, the way to go

Jokes aside, I always loved consoles and specially got a lot of affinity with PlayStation since PS1. But few years back I decided to get into PC gaming as well and started to play across PC and PS5. It turned out that PC became automatically my main platform. Lately I have the PS5 sitting there on the dust and just using it to play some exclusives that I'm interested and all the rest pretty much I play on PC.

It was really confirmed from the end of the year statistics provided by Sony, where I could see less and less hours played year upon year

On PC automatically all Xbox/MS exclusives are available, you can also sub to Gamepass if you want, more and more games from Sony also coming to PC and there are many games that are PC exclusives, games in early access that are very rare to be present on consoles, and many indies..

It's a free platform where you generally have much more flexibility to tweak the game visuals to achieve certain desired frame rate target. You choose what resolution you play at etc etc.. the access to mods sometimes bring really improvements to the game, or add features or do the job that devs don't do, or long before they implement - upscaler, + frame gen and other quality of life improvements, was enormous on Starfield for example. I would not want to play the game without the mods after I got used to them

Games are usually a bit cheaper on PC and you can buy games at a reduced price in other retailers, there is no need to pay to play online and have access to cloud saves - this is atrocious on consoles. You have also access to emulation to play games from older systems if you wish.

So yeah owning a PC is great, specially from the freedom aspect and its multifunctionality, not only gaming. It's a bigger investment but also provides more quality, flexibility and possibility to save in longer term, not having to sub to have some basic services, and access to games is generally cheaper.

At the same time, is still nice have the PS5 for exclusives as some will not be releasing day n day with PC, or other situations like cough gaming / local multiplayer with family / friends.

We learned that Sony is aiming to be more aggressive on multiplatform, so I won't be surprise in the future we will be seeing more and more games releasing day n day with PC or at least less time to make their way to PC. It's all about money, so we shall see..

But honestly now in 2024 and onwards, if I could only have one and had to choose, I would go for PC.

30fps gives me a headache so it’s either 60 or nothing for me. I don’t care about 4k so I’d take a 60fps 1080p mode every time.

60 FPS is a must. I'll cut resolution to 1080p to hit it if needed. Yes, in my childhood I played with much lower frame rates and had a great time. But that was until I higher frame rates became possible. And after experiencing this I there was no going back.

Same game at 30FPS and 60FPS are two different experiences.

@Fatewalker
Yeah, its not something I have looked into too much yet (and I assume that all new decent PCs will connect just fine to an HDMI 2.1 4k TV??), but as we start to see trade off on framerates again on console my interest is increasing.

I will say that Sony has completely had my vote over a lot of years because of their exclusives - but as we start to see less, and PC versions come sooner....
I also thought given the games Sony have launched this generation so far - most of which (with 120hz VRR) have had framerates well, well in excess of 60 - that the PRO would look more like it had been built for higher framerates - though, this may be a bit unfair until we know a bit more about it and the new hardware upscaler which I keep forgetting the name of. They may have made a big mistake here because from polls, comments, talking to people I know, the main reason people are interested in PRO is higher framerates or increased fidelity at already high framerates... time will tell.

In answer to just one of your well put points, I certainly do watch digital foundry reports with envy at the now normal options available to PC to optimise games - e.g. reduce shadow quality to get extra xfps, turn off ray tracing, turn off this that and the other blurring option, and of course the option to turn off frame cap and use 120hz VRR. Lol I dont even need a frame counter to see the difference, I can see it.
Why on earth we cant have this on console I will never know - have preset quality and framerate modes fine - then allow us to tweak as we want. It might have solved Jedi survivor earlier where PC got the option to turn off ray tracing but console had to wait 6 months!

@Terra_Custodes it still looked good in arkham knight though. the games aged like fine wine and can still graphically compete with games today (at least the PC version). it was done horribly in spiderman 2

Every time this debate comes up, I read the comments, and immediately feel the need to go to my games that offer both to try to make out this magical game changing difference between 60 and 30. It always makes me feel like I’m missing out on something because I can’t tell the difference at all in terms of “feel”.
I’m some games 60fps eliminates that horrendous motion blur (which I assume is implemented to mask judder at 30fps, but when I turn it off I can never feel more delay or judder), and for this reason alone I’ll switch to 60fps to see if it helps in that respect.

Console players suddenly becoming frame rate elitist this gen is so corny. Yeah it's great we have so many 60fps games now, and even a selection of them targeting 120fps, but refusing to play a game because it runs at 30fps is silly. If the game is good and it pushes the hardware to where it can't be 60, so be it. A high framerate doesn't equate to a quality game. It can make a good game feel better, but there's a lot of crap out there that runs at 60fps too.

This generation I cared most about loading times and they knocked that out of the park. Wish we could get consistent 60 fps, as well, but that was secondary to having my time wasted by slow loading.

@somnambulance LOL

@nomither6 true, that is a beautiful game

@Rich33 HDMI 2.1 I believe is supported on all GPUs from Nvidia 30 Series / AMD 6000 series onwards. But you can see always the spec details of the GPU you are going to get. Display Port is commonly used on PC (using PC monitors) and usually preferred.

Regarding tweaking the graphical settings on Consoles, I definitely agree that if RT is available on a game, there should be an option to toggle on/off or at least not force it in all graphical modes..

Consoles being a locked box, naturally there is only one set of HW, devs just need to optimize for that same HW, hence no need to have many settings to tweak. Consoles have been always designed to offer a more of plug and play form to access the games, and the user typically don't care much, just wants to press a button, grab the controller, sit and play. But we are seeing just now that this is changing, many console gamers got used to 60FPS and other certain features this gen and now it's hard to go back and they are now demanding more

On PC as there are a ton of possible different setups, it's really necessary more options to tweak the graphics, in order to be able to accommodate as much as possible each different hardware configurations out there.

To me 60fps should be the standard. Having said that, I don't blame entirely on Sony.
HFW, GoW, GOT...all the main first party titles are smooth and look quite amazing even in performance.

I wonder how much pressure can Sony inject into the 3rd party developers though to hit optimal 60 fps without graphical detriment, and perhaps that's why the inconsistency across the board. Not excusing Sony, yet I am trying to understand the reasoning behind why some games run butter smooth, while others literally show extreme limitations.

After reading all the comments i’m beginning to think there is something wrong with me. When i look at a game like Ghost Recon Wildlands in 30fps on my PS5 it judders so much that i’m wondering if it was this bad on my PS4 pro? I’m not playing my PS4 games anymore because of this. Are my eyes giving up?

When choosing if to play a game or not , 60 FPS is an entry condition. PS5 has a good hardware, if a game can't run on it in 60 FPS, it means it's poorly optimized. Better framerates are the reason I'm looking forward to PS5 Pro.

I can play games in either 30 or 60 fps. Sure, I prefer 60 over 30, but the biggest thing I want is a stable 60.

I've said this for years here on the site but when a game can't keep a stable framerate, it detracts from the experience of any game.

I’m also playing on my PC recently and it’s 120-170 fps as capped by my screen. I have to admin I can’t see any difference within that range, but when it goes below 120 it starts to be visible. So when I can see games drop it below 60 on PS5, which usually happens in the quality mode, it’s a disaster. So yeah, I believe 60fps is a must nova days.

@Terra_Custodes I agree with your statement.

Thats why I said we shouldn't even be having this debate and why I said about seeing comments about 30fps is fine.

It shouldn't be fine.

Every game is always better in a higher frame rate.
Thats not an opinion its a fact. Whether you are fine with 30 or not that doesn't effect that games should all be 60fps or above in this day and age.

4k gaming has been around now for nearly a decade.
My 1080 gpu at launch was and is capable of running games at 4k at above 30fps, it may struggle now with the newer games on pc but it still holds up. That was 2016, the ti which could truly handle 4k was only the year later.

So the ps5 releasing at the end of 2020 can't put out these games in 4k at 60fps is pretty bad.

1440p is fine but the fact remains that we are mostly playing on 4k tvs. So your not even getting the benefits of 1440p properly because its always being upscaled to 4k by your tv or they are still using checkerboarding.

I guess its not to bad but then you consider that so many games are still having technical problems. But I guess thats the developers fault.

But still a console releasing in 2020 which states 8k on the box, which can't even do true 4k gaming is beyond a joke.

Not like xbox is any better either, they both went the cheaper option.

@Bez87 well said. It seems many of us are pretty aware of how bad this generation is, not just technically either, and we aren't pleased.

For the PS5 cartoonish games like Moving Out, Overcooked, Story of Seasons, Harvest Moon, Paleo Pines, etc , I really want 60 fps as it looks cute and pretty with smooth 60 fps.

@Hypoman some games do run worse on PS5 than the 4 like that, it's a recognised issue. Also 4K 120hz TV's will not tolerate 30fps with unoptimised frame pacing. FFXV in quality mode looks like it's running at 15fps due to this.

@Frmknst I'm sorry but that is utter nonsense. You absolutely can tell the difference between 50-60 fps, and I find it astonishing that you could say there's no discernible difference between 1080p upscaled, and native 4K. I own a flagship top end TV, and consider myself an educated technophile, and this take offends me quite frankly lol. I can't bear to watch films in HD anymore, the difference between it and 4K with HDR is VAST.

I just got Dragon’s Dogma 2 today. I tried all the graphics modes and settled on Performance mode RT off and Motion Blur On. I can tell it is not hitting 60FPS and fluctuates but I think it looks great and runs smooth enough. 30FPS is to juttery so maybe all I need is 40FPS.

It’s literally only important with games that feature fast action. Racing games and games like Nioh or Dark Souls or First Person shooters all spring to mind. However I truly believe that the average 60 fps whiners would never be able to tell the difference. It’s just become a buzzword.

@nomither6 I'd rather have a rock solid, consistent 30fps than a wildly varying thing that targets 60 fps but sometimes drops below 30fps, that's all.

@Hypoman @Terra_Custodes I've kept my PS4 Pro for that exact same reason - some games do not work as well on the 5 as they do on the actual hardware, from graphics to controller feedback. Plus, I can enjoy the much nicer UI too!

Most people moaning about 30fps seem to be those with very expensive TVs that are expecting 4K at 120hz and the TV is struggling to interpolate that many additional frames. I've got a peasant spec 4K 60Hz TV so maybe I don't notice? Some of it also comes down to the software inside the panel - our old 10 year old 1080 Sony Bravia picture quality is about as good as our 2023 LG 4K TV.

@Terra_Custodes
I didn’t know this! Man, that is pretty bad! I bought a new 4k 144hrz tv for the PS5. Djeez, if i knew this beforehand…….

I prefer 60fps in most all cases, but a good game is a good game. If we are talking N64 performance though, I want to see why on the screen. Even better, let me turn off all of the noise that's tanking the framerate.

@Arnna Working Girl is a great film. It would look awful at 48fps, like the Hobbit movies (or soap operas). And almost no one would mistake 30 fps for 60, don't be silly.
Funny that this has been an issue so long that we are now in the reaction to the reaction against the reaction period though. "60 fps better!" "You probably can't tell the difference!" "Yes they can too, betcha!" Man, it's all so predictable.

@Hypoman to be clear, 30fps with correct frame pacing runs as smoothly as 30 can be. It's certain games which were made poorly that have the problem. It's always best to have a good TV

@sanderson72 it's only when the frame pacing is off, but when it is, it's more noticeable than on a lesser TV

@Arnna If a game has animation, any game, then it wins by having this animation run more smoothly.

Used to be a non believer now i dont understand how anybody could possibly chose graphics mode over performance

Am I a weird outlier that can tell the difference between 30 and 60 straight away? Smoother camera pans, overall better movement and more responsive but If I go back to 30 my eyes and brain adjust after about 60 seconds and no longer see the "judder" until I switch back or play another game at 60? Maybe my brain just has to much processing power lol 😆

For a long time I’ve not cared, and I can’t say I care too much now either, but I feel that graphics have gotten so good I’ll always opt for performance now as the difference seems negligible to me.

60fps just feels so much better.

For me the camera movement is just too jerky at 30fps in every game.

Don't give a damn tbh, as long as the stability's present

60 is a must. I think the over-focus on graphics is harming the industry. Particularly when there’s so many diminishing returns now.

All games should be 60 these days. That being said, if I want to play something smoothly and with solid performance, I might just end up playing it on PC anyway.

@Savage_Joe implying that 30fps cant be unstable..

I won’t spend time reading all the comments, but it is validating to see that I’m at least not alone in being okay with lower frame rates. The very vocal 35% minority (or if you add the second category in the poll, then roughly 60% small majority) has been gaslighting me into thinking that there is something wrong with me and perhaps my enjoyment of playing at 30fps is somehow a delusion.

@Th3solution
I dont think there is anything wrong with you - some people are unable to tell any real difference, others can tell the difference (and maybe dont like 30fps) but are able to adapt after a while, perhaps dependant on the game type. Others like myself are able to see small differences and cant tolerate anything much below 60fps, and cant adapt - I generally can tell the fps of a game within about 5fps until about 80fps, and can still tell there is a difference up until 120fps.

The only people there is something wrong with is those that try to tell you, you are wrong, or those that say 30fps is good enough for everyone (as you say 60% ish of people have indicated 60fps is a must) and developers who think this are alienating part of their audience.

I get fed up with people who think 30fps is playable by everyone - it isnt, or who think others cant tell the difference just because they cant, and some people need to learn this.
However others need to learn that some people cannot tell any real difference.
People are different, and that is perfectly normal.

@Rich33 Yes, I think you’re probably right

I do wonder though, and I don’t intend this to be antagonistic but rather is an honest question — did you have problems with the lower frame rates on prior generations? I’m not saying we should settle for older technological standards, but I honestly wonder what people who can’t tolerate sub 60 fps did for the last 20 years. Did you not play games until the PS4 Pro, or did you just live with the headaches or nausea or whatever symptoms that 30 fps causes that make them unplayable? Again, not intending to be rude, just trying to understand and am legitimately curious and fascinated by this notion.

@Th3solution
Its a fair question, which I dont take to be antagonistic given how you have asked it, and I will try to give a coherent answer (just finished watching Wrestlemania as we started watching it a bit late).

To be honest I have had problems with framerates for a long time - since at least 2016. Performance modes on PS4 Pro could help, but there were a couple of years I started playing games much less around then.
One thing I will say is that whilst i knew i had an issue with games and i learned performance modes could help, to start with i didnt know that it was framerates that were responsible (I have always been console rather than PC), and wasnt really educated to what they are and how they worked.
Through experience and general education which became much more mainstream, I now know a lot more, including the fact I can see even small changes including positive ones (well) beyond 60 - to be clear I think I have seen them for years, but didnt have the knowledge or experience to know/enumerate what I was seeing.
I suspect what I have said is true (or true in part) for a lot of people.

Over the years I have become more intolerant to framerates much lower than 60, or frame pacing/uneven/fast changing framerates. VRR helps a bit at sub 60 but it isnt a magic wand (unless its in allowing above 60fps).

The main reasons (for my increased intolerance) I think are:
How newer TVs work.
Age
Having had 3 good years of playing games at 60 or higher.

The only game I have bought recently with issues was jedi survivor and i had to leave it until after the patch removing ray tracing, even then i could still see some issues - since then I now look for demos or analysis / detailed enough reviews before I buy/pre-order unless its released by the better Sony studios. Literally, I dont care how good a game is by other metrics - if framerates arent good enough it might as well be a 0 out of 10.

I hope that helps.

@Th3solution
Sorry, i should have said. 1st symptom is an inability to focus on the screen (hard to explain but like you are really tired in the eyes, but you know you arent). Then motion sickness and/or headaches after a while. Talking with people, and reading comments, this seems common-ish in the case of intolerance, but just like when I agreed with you about some people just not being able to see the difference above 30fps, Im sure this will vary person to person.

They should have a 40 frames option for every game it is probably the best of both worlds for graphics and better than 30 frames making it feel smoother

First of all sony promote there new console to run at 60 fps. Which was a lie.
Second 60fps all day long.

Very - 60fps is next gen to me not 4k with 30fps.
1080 to 1440 is fine for me resolution wise but 60fps just makes the games so much nicer to actually play.

I'm done with 30fps in games and honestly done with consoles too - PS5 and Series X will be my last consoles although I am considering just selling them to build a PC now rather than waitin.

@Terra_Custodes
I’ve read some articles about frame pacing! A very interesting read!! Thanks for bringing it up. 👌

@Rich33 I see. Well, here’s hoping things move to a point where all players can get what they want from game visuals. Thanks for the clarification.

For me, the graphical fidelity is the thing that sticks out if it’s low res. Having played many games going back to PS1, I somehow enjoyed very low resolution games for many years, but I have become accustomed to sharper visuals. As an example, when I played Demon’s Souls Remake, I had searched online for videos to help me with some sections of the game and at times the PS3 version walkthroughs would come up and they looked so blurry it was hard to even tell what was going on. 😅 Especially with the very neutral color palette, one could hardly make out the enemies and passages in low lighting situations. Nevertheless, the OG game still is one of the greats.

Or if I were to compare the original FF7 to the new remakes, there’s no comparison graphically. The original FF7 looks like garbage comparatively. But I would still consider it a 10/10 game which is absolutely worth playing on its other merits alone.

But I do think that you are on to something about the way new TV’s work as being a possible reason these issues have come up lately. I’m not an expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I’m playing on OLED and a much larger screen than when I was a lad, and the sheer size and the way these TVs process and display images probably magnifies things like muddy textures and lower frame rates. I don’t know.

I have always been a console player. My middle son built a gaming PC and was always talking about frame rate. I didn’t pay it too much attention.

It wasn’t until I started playing games on the higher frame rate that I noticed the difference. Now, I’m a frame rate snob. I won’t play it unless it’s at 60fps.

I mean, it's 2024. I don't think 60fps is asking too much.

I'd rather have frames and a good style (e.g. Valheim) than ray tracing, ultra photo realism.

I honestly think the issue with 30fps this generation is caused by the increase in people gaming on Oled TV's. I bought an Oled for gaming and honestly though it was broken because games I had played at 30fps without the slightest issues on my Qled were suddenly nauseating. Most were playable but the difference was very profound. I sent that TV back and got another Oled and had exactly The same issue. As a result my Oled has been relegated to the bedroom for movie night which it excels at and i use my Qled for gaming because many all time classic games run at 30fps and being unable to enjoy them wasn't a compromise I was willing to make.

I also played 30fps without issues for the last 20 years or more so it's not exactly new to me. I must admit it confuses me though when people demand 60fps in every single game including waking simulators or horror games where you just walk slowly and other very slow games. In faster paced games I usually go for 60fps but I have zero issues playing at 30fps in slower paced games.

I also understand devs working at small studios making games that sell for far cheaper than AAA games do not have anything close to the immense resources companies like PlayStation Studios have to ensure the greatest optimisation and if it's a slow game I'm fine with 30fps as long as the frame rate is consistent and hopefully locked. 40 fps also makes a huge difference to me and feels much less of a compromise being precisely between 30 and 60fps due to the way frames are paced.

I would be interested to know how many of those saying they simply cannot play at 30fps are on Oled TV's because when I had that exact issue and looked it up there were a hell of a lot of people having the exact same problem. This would certainly explain why so many people suddenly can't do something they could do with issues before and yes it is jarring to go from 60 to 30 in a game but the only time I couldn't readjust after 5 minutes of play was on an Oled and I honestly think it makes anything under 60fps far far more challenging to play.

@Terra_Custodes Exactly. And now we're supposed to blindly embrace PS5 pro so we can actually get 60fps? Or ray tracing? RT was one of the main basic features of "new generation".

I have a base PS5, extra controller, charging base and 2 tb ssd. Wonder what kind of pc I'd have been able to build with this kind of cash. At least I'll know exactly what I'm getting.

Don't get me wrong, I'm 36 and always loved consoles. Played on pc but almost always on console. And now I'm like, why? They lie to us when they don't even need to. I would've bought PS5, everyone would. No one really actually bought exclusively for RT. I'll still play, just don't make me feel Im getting something I'm not.

@Whately86 To be fair if you were expecting 60 fps with Ray Tracing to be a feature in most PS5 games that's on you. Even very powerful PC's struggle to do ray racing at 60fps and you need a far more powerful GPU than you get in a PS5 to make that a reasonable option for most devs. The real issue is people expecting £2500 + PC performance in a £450 box ! As for Sony I don't recall them advertising the PS5 as a 4k 60fps raytracing beast and I think people would have laughed out loud if they did 🤣

@Jett the box has 8K on it tbf lol, that's misleading as hell for casual gamers.

@Jett I don't care much about RT. But the fact we can't get all games to run on 60FPS, that does bother me. My TV is 1080, so I settle for 1080 / 60 fps. But when not all games on the "new" (current) gen hit that mark, it's very, very unsatisfying.