Should performance profiles be mandatory for next-gen games?

Instead of forcing us to run with 30fps. I quite like it they did in God of War. You have resolution vs performance mode but that's two modes only.

Wouldn't it be good if all devs were forced to implement three modes?

Performance: Target 120fps, minimum resolution 1080p

Balanced: Target 60fps, minimum resolution 1440p

Quality: Target 30fps, minimum resolution 4K

So...like PC settings?

@MonsieurX: Not quite as expansive because I don't feel like console gamers would like to fiddle around with settings. Just modes(presets), really.

Notoriously SW hates Options but as for me, I love'em. So yes, give us console gamers the options please. :P

Many console gamers want to simply plug/ download and play. They don't really give two $hits about reaching 120fps.

Mandatory? No.

Encouraged? Yes.

Sure, I really like to see that happen but knowing console developers/publishers, they'll always push higher resolution over better framerates cause its what console developers always go for.

But really, if console gamer wants both worlds, they can always go to PC and get everything vs what consoles can give you. I be really surprise if console developers give console players this option for next-gen consoles.

Yes so let's not give them the options? Putting the options there just gives more without taking away anything.

Would be nice, but we all know it won't be

Strongly encouraged.

Encouraged? Yes

Forced? No

First Party Devs could and should normalize it. Then have it spill over to the other devs.

@Juub1990: Devs have gotten lazy the last couple gens. Adding something in actually does mean the game will suffer elsewhere.

Whut? They have to target a frame rate and resolution. By doing that alone, other targets will be possible and adding them will basically cost nothing.

yes.

Agreed. Devs should be able to build their games the way they want and not let the performance profiles dictate how they can build their game.

Those performance profiles cover the entire spectrum. Can't go above 4K/120fps and can't go below 1080p/30fps. It in no way restricts devs.

Encouraged? No

Forced? Yes

All you console gamers have to do before the game starts is pick 1 out of the 3 options ( Performance, Balanced, Quality), its not fuking rocket science and would literally take 3 seconds..Sorta like how they make you adjust the brightness for HDR games before you begin the game.

For a console audience, the terms of the resolution and performance settings needs to be defined.

I don’t know if it should be mandatory but I would certainly like to see developers putting in options like that into their games.

Nah, I kind of predict 4K@30fps as a standard, yet far away from quality - especially later/halfway into the gen (like every gen).

Yeah that'd be a great addition to have. Also devs should update online multiplayer matchmaking with better options like having different areas like a different pool of players for casuals, and one for no lifers based on hours played and skill level--not just a casual arena and a competitive one, because that hasn't stopped skilled players from playing in the casual matchmaking.

I don't know about mandatory but I'd love to see this as a more widespread practice. Like enough devs would do it that it starts becoming a non-official standard.

I don't know what the modes would exactly look like but yeah, more games should offer up that option.

Cannot agree with mandatory in any creative endeavor, developers are free to do as they wish, but it’d be a wonderful option to have. Especially as some genres are more conducive to performance modes than others.

Just because someone plays a game for 100's of hours doesn't mean he won't get beaten by a "n00b" who plays the game for less than 10 hours.
I know from experience - when Killer Instinct (3) got released on Windows, i literally wiped the floor with a dude who was #1 on the leaderboards. I definitely didn't expect that and i bet that neither did he. I was playing Sabrewulf, he lost twice with Tusk, then brought up Rash - won once, lost for the second time and then quit.
It was when either Tusk or Rash was a brand new character added to the game, and all i had was that dreaded "F2P" version with only Jago and Sabrewulf was a only a "trial" character. Just a non-ranked match, but still, what a twist nonetheless.

If it's a game that's also getting a release on PC (which is like 90% of games) there's absolutely no reason that those options shouldn't be available.

The thing is, part of the optimization on consoles is also to make the options menu as bland as possible (because your average console pleb skips the options menu entirely).

Yeah but that's an idealistic situation. I'm speaking in more general terms. I'll use Rocket League for an example. For some reason (to own lesser players) highly advanced teams constantly play casual mode. With the luck of the draw, even an advanced player can be put on a team of noobs (and that happens a lot) where that team can't even get the ball advanced past the middle of the field, and opposing players are coptering the whole match.

If they made it to where a player has to move to an advanced arena once he hit level 100 for instance, this wouldn't be a problem. And devs could still allow a mode for all players of all skills to play together.

So what I'm saying is this: add more online modes because options are the keys to success in having a happy online community.

Absolutely.

I'll go one further and say there needs to be standard graphics settings like on every normal game out there. Put it deep in the menu, make me sign a waiver, I don't care. Just give me access to the damn settings so I can fix the developers 'vision' for how they think the masses need to experience their game.

friggin' consoles, amirite?

Yeah that'd be cool. Was glad to see some devs do that this gen, hoping it becomes more common. I don't think performance vs image quality is too much to ask for settings. I'd be satisfied with those options alone.

But it'd also be nice to opt out of some of the shitty post process effect implementations. A lot of times they either go overboard with an effect, or put it in a game where it really doesn't belong. Chromatic aberration usually being the biggest offender, but just about any effect can and has been overdone.

Oh yeah, definitely. Unless the difference in how it looks on a 4K TV is just ridiculous, i'd definitely take the frame boost.

I've always said the more options the better. That's always been one thing I really liked about PC games. I do indeed think that the new games next gen should have the ability to change settings. Out of the three given by the TC I would just about always pick Performance with perhaps a little Balanced sprinkled in. I would much rather have pristine gameplay that prioritizes frame rate and smoothness over shine.

Having the option would be great.

Yes it should be and any dev that won't include will NOT be getting my business.