Is this website Gamespot, or Valvespot? or maybe Gabe-spot, Valve did something? queue the angels and heralds! I swear, that company could write into their EULA a universal, i.e. male or female writ of prima nocta for GabeN and it would be hailed as a brilliant move.
Competition wasn't good for the Royal Flying Corps [RFC] (precursor to the British Royal Air Force) in the early twentieth century. They hade forty aircraft, all more or less identical, despite being built by different companies in different places. The problem was each aircraft maker wanted a sure sale, so once the RFC bought one aircraft, the other companies copied it's design almost completely because they knew, or thought they knew it would be bought. When the First World War started, just how poor those designs were became rapidly apparent. I suspect the PS4 and XB1 may have a similar problem, if a real competitor in the console space arrives, at a competitive price, they'll both flop.
I beg to differ with Cam. The implication here is that console gamers are the only ones with this problem, and by their omission we are to assume that Windows gamers are immune to the rude gamer phenomenon. In my experience the opposite is true. My experience playing games online was far worse on my windows box than the console I now have. I would probably play online more if I hadn't played online games on Windows.
I realise I'll be shouted down for this very swiftly, but please give me a chance to explain. The human eye samples light from the environment, but it doesn't process the light at all. Asking what frame rate the eye has is pointless. The human brain is where the light is processed and an image and understanding is created. The human brain recognises anything over roughly 20fps as smooth motion. Studies have shown that the maximum comfortable frame rate for the human brain to process is somewhere in the mid 40's. Thomas Edison believed 46fps was optimal for viewing, and as "The Hobbit," showed us, a segment of the population experiences discomfort around 48fps. The good news is that 60 and 120 are so far over that limit that they don't produce discomfort. What about video games? What the video hints at near the end is the better question. It's not about the rate at which images flash by, but the control inputs per image. 60fps feels smoother because it seems that the game is responding faster to our inputs, it's a tactile sensation, not something one could see in a video. It's not a question of how fast images flash by, but how quickly the results of control inputs are seen. Let's take Edison at his word and say 46fps is optimal viewing for the majority of the population. At 60fps, you'll have moved 14times before your brain perceives the change. At 30fps, a further 16frames will flash by before you see the change you made happen on screen. Take your pick, but it's a question more of hands than eyes.
Good reply. Although I have watched some YouTube let's players claim that 30fps is unplayable, the fact of the matter is those individuals just don't "like" it. Now that that's clarified, can we stop arguing and coming up with "scientific studies," to support our personal preferences.
@AzatiS I'm not sure I follow the response. Is frame rate the same as resolution, when one is trying to argue that a [Windows based] PC is better than an Xbox 360 for example, yes. Any stat that can be found where the number for the PC is higher than the Xbox 360 (except cost by the way) is trumpeted as "optimal." That's what a straw man argument is. What I'm trying to assert is the "debate" is pointless.
You know what really grinds my gears. The 30 vs. 60fps "debate." It's a bloody straw-man argument. The typical gaming console game runs at 30fps, and your average Windows or Macintosh runs a game at 60fps. Based on that and the innate belief that Win/Mac is the "best" platform for gaming 60fps is asserted as the "best" frame rate. When the consoles get to run at 60fps, the argument will likely switch to 60 v. 120fps because the highest high end strictly for gaming Windows based PC can run at 120fps. I find the study cam presented to be ludicrous too. There are so many factors that play into gaming performance and perception of frame rate including distance from display, wakefulness, familiarity of the game, gaming controller, location of the controller unit (mouse/gamepad/etc), experience, reaction time, age, and gaming unit that with a sample size that is scientifically meaningful every one of your data points are going to be outliers. It's impossible to control for all of those factors. Thus your study is meaningless codswallop, pulled out specifically to support the argument that the Win/Mac frame rate is better. If we're honest though, other factors play into the argument too. Those who argue that 30fps is "unplayable" also grind my gears.
Nice job Rockstar, played all last night without a problem, except for all the ASBO's running around shooting other players instead of doing missions and races. Passive mode is a must right now.
jpnelson82's comments