By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Chazore said:
DonFerrari said:

Because most people, by that basically all console gamers and even most PC gamers themselves don't play on 120fps setting due to how taxing it is for the system.

Considering how there are games from the PS2 era that ran at 60fps, I dunno man. There are also plenty of PC gamers out there running at 60, rather than hundreds of millions running at 30/sub 30fps (which feels like a baseless claim to ever make, unless you include 10-15 old granny computers used for facebook games, in which case you shouldn't even begin to include those non gamers). 

Also, not all games are taxing to run past 60fps either.

Man, 60fps I would agree a lot of PC gamers aim to, I was saying 120fps is a small fraction.

EricHiggin said:
DonFerrari said:

I like and have VR, but not sure the 3M sales will make they give extra attention to VR on PS5 HW. certainly the better CPU we expect may give "indie level" and VR cartoonish graphics 120fps on good graphic output. And considering one side pretty cartoon versus other side ugly realistic (due to basically 4x more processing) I would take the first, but I believe we will have pristine and better than PS360 level of graphic on 120 fps VR games next gen for PS5.

$499 with the VR breakout box baked into the console, making the VR SKU itself cheaper. Pricing could vary depending on subsidy. You could have a $399 Pro console, $299 base hybrid, and $199 streaming box.

Could be.

VAMatt said:
DonFerrari said:

So really even 60fps is pointless for me outside of Gran Turismo and fighting games. I can understand it being desirable by a small group of PC gamer, but considering console gaming have always put more of the budget on graphics and aiming 30 fps (outside of e-sport games and the like) I don't think anyone will really aim 120fps next-gen. Perhaps we may start to care about 60fps in more genres (I doubt) but before we do it, 120fps is outside of question.

I don't care about frame rate for competitive reasons.  I care about it because higher frame rates feel better.  The difference between 30 and 60 is huge.  I recall going from Destiny at 30fps to Halo 5 at 60 and thinking it was cool, but nothing special.  But, when I finished Halo at 60andd went back to Destiny at 30fps, I really realized how awesome that 60fps was.

As far as I'm concerned, 60fps should be the standard for all games next gen, with hopes that Pro or X models will give us even higher. 

No problem man. There are a lot of people like you that prefer 60fps over prettier graphics. But the console market so far have focused more on the graphic due to being easier to market and show as better than the rest. But considering they made 30fps on potato chips, perhaps just being less scrooge with CPU would grant 60fps without having impact on graphics (considerable at least).



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."