Freesync and G-Sync are two very interesting technologies. Essentially taking the bad side from unstable performance when playing games at under 60fps - which is not frame capped or vsync'ed. So considerbly less hit on input lag, frame tearing and more free performance to go around. This bodes well for PC gamers who play mainly console ports (a lot of which are poorly optimised) or have lower end rigs that don't quite meet a games requirements.

Though, the tech is still in its infancy and is quite a bit of an expense to slump over a standard screen. Hopefully more monitors and even TV's have this kind of tech built in as standard.

vivster said: michael_stutzer said: hunter_alien said: michael_stutzer said: hunter_alien said: 60 FPS is not required in at least 90% of games that are released. Anyone who says otherwise is an elitist and I bet my house on the fact that I could fool him with any game that runs perfectly locked at 30fps and a 60fps game That said, for some genres its still a must: pixel perfect shooters, brawlers and some platformers. Every other genre can be perfectly played at 30 fps. Expecting a good performance out of your games is being elitist. Got it.   No, but pissing over a product, just because you have your subjective values, is. Most people do not prefer 60 fps over 30, they simply find it "unplayable", or at least thats what Im getting from forums these days. 30 FPS is a perfect performance for most games, like it or not, 60 is unnecesary in most cases. 30 FPS is not perfect for a single game, because there is always a better option that is 60 FPS. Nothing can be perfect when there is a better option. May be turn based games though I haven't seen a turn based taxing game. 30 FPS can be "acceptable" in some cases. Limited hardware for one. But going around saying "60 FPS is not important! We don't care! You are elitist!"  is why we have many games that run like shit nowadays. Next thing he says that 1080p is irrelevant because the human eye can't count so many pixels so fast.

If you do not have anything constructive to say, why bother to write down an insult? 

Simply disrupting a thread, just to add a sarcastic jab, and win some thumbs up from a couple of posters is against the forum rules as far as I know. 

The last thing you should do is talking about what the gaming cammunity accepts because if you check the best selling franchises 90% of them are Nİntendo games which are almost always 60 FPS, and then the Call of Duty games which are 60 FPS as well, and then Gran Turismo etc which are also 60 FPS. Then the Battlefield, Fifa etc. are also 60 FPS. In fact apart from GTA you'll have difficulty finding a 30 FPS game in any best selling games chart. Seriously.

hunter_alien said: michael_stutzer said: hunter_alien said: michael_stutzer said: hunter_alien said: 60 FPS is not required in at least 90% of games that are released. Anyone who says otherwise is an elitist and I bet my house on the fact that I could fool him with any game that runs perfectly locked at 30fps and a 60fps game That said, for some genres its still a must: pixel perfect shooters, brawlers and some platformers. Every other genre can be perfectly played at 30 fps. Expecting a good performance out of your games is being elitist. Got it.    No, but pissing over a product, just because you have your subjective values, is. Most people do not prefer 60 fps over 30, they simply find it "unplayable", or at least thats what Im getting from forums these days. 30 FPS is a perfect performance for most games, like it or not, 60 is unnecesary in most cases. 30 FPS is not perfect for a single game, because there is always a better option that is 60 FPS. Nothing can be perfect when there is a better option. May be turn based games though I haven't seen a turn based taxing game. 30 FPS can be "acceptable" in some cases. Limited hardware for one. But going around saying "60 FPS is not important! We don't care! You are elitist!"  is why we have many games that run like shit nowadays. Bullshit! The reason why we have unoptimized games is because we have por developers. Dont try and put words in my mouth, when its obvious thats not what I have wrote. 60 FPS is not a better option, its a jmeaningless option in most games, as a better loking and stable 30 FPS game beats a crappy looking or fluctuating 60fps game any day. Its a facty, both reviewers and the general gaming comunity accepts it, seeing that there aere plenty multi-billion franchises that are locked at 30 fps

for console, yeah, 30 "locked" is better than  ~40 not locked. but locking for pc is just bullshit.

the most gaming pcs arent as weak as the ps4/xbone.

Consoles with games at rock solid 30 fps with few drops but nothing important it's good, at 60fps great specially for some genres shooters, sports, fighting games, racing games this games could be 30 and be some of them fine. Now in PC 60fps should be and option that every game should have and should not required NASA hardware.

Based on the discussion here, I figured this article was about how more game devs should feel okay locking their game at 30 fps, where it's actually about how devs should provide the option to lock frame rate in-game without resorting to work-arounds.

I could care less about someone else's case for 30fps. Thankfully, so do PC modder's. I prefer the choice of higher fps, or not, and I find it kind of insulting when companies go out of their way to try and tell me how I should game. It's not up to them, it's up to me.

I hate it when they lock framerates.

Everybody seems to be ignoring what the article is talking about, providing 30fps locks for weaker PC hardware. That 750 could probably run Crysis 3 at 60fps at 720p and medium settings but believe it or not evereyone wants to deal with 720p or medium settings. The article is targetted towards PCs and not even consoles for petes sake. Instead we turn it into yet another 60fps whoring thread, typical.

providing 30 locked isnt new for a pc game it NORMAL for most pc games. u can CHOOSE if u wanna play in 30 fps or in 60 or with 50.