I prefer 60 fps. I can live with 30, but 60 seriously is a large difference.

Doesn't really matter to me. Pushing graphics in campaigns is fine, though I do prefer 60FPS.

I would rather have 60fps for both but assuming this is consoles only and not PC... Having 30 fps SP with higher graphics but having 60fps MP with lower graphics but faster response time is a good compromise as long as its not like hack and slash or something.

If its on PC tho, the devs should stop being wankers.

How can it be standard or even minimum standard (lulz) when a PC user can decide for himself if he wants to sacrifice framerate for better visuals? There are a ton of PC players who would rather go for maximum visuals than framerate especially for singleplayer games.

Not even mentioning the huge amount of PC gamers that don't even have a machine that would allow them to play the most recent games at a constant 60FPS.

Certainly no standard.

The Steam statistics tell nothing about the settings the "average PC gamer" choses for their games. Some of them will reduce resolution and postprocessing/effects in favor of fps. Others will sacrifice fps and resolution for the best postprocessing/effects. Others will sacrifice fps and postprocessing/effects to play in higher resolution (native or downsampling). Others will sacrifice fps and postprocessing/effects to play in stereoscopic 3D or super-widescreen (triple monitor setups). Others will make compromises while gaming on their laptop but will set the sliders to the max when they switch to their gaming PC. Others will adjust their setting for every game or genre individual. Others won't care at all about setting and will just play in default settings or the settings chosen by Nvidia Experience.

Different PC gamers play different PC games / genres. Some even favor older games (where maxing out the settings is much easier) or browser games. They play on different formfactors with very different performance differences (netbooks, Windows tablets, laptops, gaming laptops, office PCs, "normal" gaming PCs, SLI/CF rigs...).

The concept of the "average PC gamer" is very strange, because the PC gaming community is widely diversified, much more than the community of any other gaming platform. And that's why many PC gamers hate it when a developer limits their options with 30 or 60 fps locks, mandatory V-sync, fixed resolutions and similar stuff.

I'm pointing out the specs that appear to be most common on Steam statistics are less powerful than current gen consoles. Its unlikely many of those machines can play modern graphical showcases at 60 fps if at all.

For example, I have a low end video card that should be able to handle CS:GO and DOTA at 60 fps. But that doesn't mean I can run high end 8th gen games well even at low settings.

As long as Steam doesn't make individual hardware stats for every game (or at least for the popular games) it is still mostly blind guessing in which resolution and with how many fps these games are played on PC.

Valve has the data... it would be easy for them to offer filtered hardware stats of every Witcher 3 or Doom (2016) or Skyrim owner. Then we would have a better base for discussions.

Why include every laptop in the "average settings" which haven't even access to the game or don't even fulfill the minimal requirements of the game?

I see what you're saying, but specs are a limitiing factor on what people play.

Which is why many popular games tend to be designed for lower end specs.

It would be very interesting if Valve would show a filtered data set of (f.e.) the ~5 million GTA V players or the ~10 million Skyrim owners.

How many of THEM have a quad core? Which are the most popular GPUs for that game? Which is the most popular RAM setting for that game?

There are very few genres where I actually feel a real difference between a locked 30 FPS and a locked 60 FPS. It might be because of my gaming skills (or lack of them) or my poor eyesight (doubtful as with my glasses I have a perfect 20/20 vision) but I simply cannot be bothered.

There are some exceptions when it comes to fast paced games. I will instantly notice the difference or framerate dip in a brawler, or a pod racer. I also noticed when I played the Uncharted HD collection, that the movement seemed a bit more fluid, but also a bit unnatural for me. Maybe I got used to standard 30FPS. I also dont play multiplayer games a whole lot, so again, I mostly deduce this from the single player part of the games.

In conclusion, I would rather have the designers fulfill their artistic vision at 30 FPS then take away from it and make it 60.