It's been years since the PoS method was announced.. and they keep saying it's "coming soon".
I'm doubtful it'll change by the next quarter as they claim, but if it does I'd sure welcome it stabilizing the GPU market and not causing the massive power strain/pollution is does now.
@jinzo9988: Of course people were fine with it; they didn't know any better and 3D was all new. Even I played games at 10-15FPS when I was a kid, for the exact same reasons.
But we aren't in those times anymore, and we're in a time where display technology standards have increased so much that 120Hz is becoming the norm.
If you're someone who's used a 120Hz display for any length of time, and tried to go back to even 60Hz, you'll never want to call 30FPS playable again, because even 60FPS looks jarring to your eyes.
If the current console era doesn't increase the 'standard', I'll give up hope for any change in future. 48FPS movies still practically don't exist, when 24FPS can't even be visually coherent in anything with fast motion (like one of the MCU movies that made me sick).
At the end of the day, I just want the experience for everyone to be better, and that will never happen so long as these pointless arguments exist about something that originated from hardware (or artificial) limitations.
@face76: "I would rather they work on keeping games as bug free as possible with 60 fps."
Framerate has nothing to do with bugs in games unless they specifically target a certain framerate with something, like the physics engine. And sadly, many do, because the consoles only run at a specific performance target and are the lowest common denominator in development, and very few devs actually want to design their game versions separately and targeted for the platform they're releasing on. More work = more time spent developing = more time spent paying staff = less income for the suits.
It's the same reason games designed without arbitrary resolution support (ie; only targeting 1080p), are seen as a failure in the eyes of anyone not using said specific display, notably Ultrawide users who routinely get screwed over to this very day by games only targeting 16:9 because of the mass market. If the game has Vert- FoV scaling, it is literally unplayable to anyone even remotely sensitive to simulation sickness.
The problem with technology is education; the people who actually know things, and as such are sensitive to said things, are the minority.
@just_visiting: The PS3/360 era was the time when framerate started being heavily sacrificed to produce games, and for some collective reason, they decided on 30 being the target. Similar to movies and their 24FPS target; but that was done for a cost saving reason, not performance related.
The mass market are not educated in matters, ergo they accept everything and don't ask questions.
It's only in the last decade or so that "FPS" has become a hot debate, especially with the advent of >60Hz displays and the objectively better experience they provide to the user. This is a debate that shouldn't even exist, because it all started from locked down, underpowered hardware and attempts to increase visual fidelity and extend their lifespan. Resolution also kept getting lower the longer a console's lifespan went on.
Consoles used to be at the forefront of technology, but they've only been holding things back since around the PS3/360 era. Every new console generation has me excited, because the technology floor increases to what's been possible on PC's for multiple years prior. But things quickly regress and within just a few years we're already back to consoles heavily holding the industry back.
Also, personally, I can't watch a 24FPS movie without getting sick if there's a lot of motion. There's too much visual data missing and my brain can't tolerate it. Equally, 30FPS, by itself, being rendered in 3D on a console or PC, is extremely uncomfortable. And now when I've been used to a 120Hz display for the last year, even just moving the mouse on the desktop is extremely jarring. 60Hz/FPS looks defective to me now, and upgrading from my old monitor is something I partially regret. The lowest that's comfortable to me is 85Hz/FPS with a technology like adaptive sync.
Not everyone is me, no, but saying 30FPS is acceptable in the modern era of 120+Hz displays, when games started at 50/60FPS due to video formats (PAL/NTSC), is completely asinine.
TLDR: The only reason 30FPS exists is due to hardware limitations and the only reason people accepted it is because they don't know any better. Same reason 16:10 displays on PC went the way of the dodo.
30 FPS should not be called playable anymore, especially when the new consoles are targeting 120.
It never was, and never will be, an enjoyable experience, notably to anyone who's seen better; be it on the 8bit consoles in the 1980's or modern 144+Hz PC's.
Edit: Before you try to argue with me: PAL and NTSC were 50/60Hz, which meant games ran at 50/60FPS by default; nobody questioned anything, it was the standard. Keep this in mind when you argue about how "acceptable" 30FPS is, which only exists because of hardware limitations and developers trying to get more out of underpowered consoles in the mid to late-3D era.
Also, actually use a 120Hz monitor for a while. You'll think 60Hz/FPS looks bad if you attempt to go back. God forbid 30FPS..
DAOWAce's comments