More devs need to utilize 40fps/120hz modes.

Tal Shiar Agent

Tal Shiar Agent

Banned
Yes this is related to the Starfield news, but if devs in general are going to start dropping 60fps performance modes for games on PS5/XSX then they should at least have 40fps/120hz modes.

Why? Well adding an extra 10 frames per second is far less resource intensive than adding an extra 30 and most games that lock to 30fps have the headroom for it already.

As well with 30fps you get 33.3ms of latency by nature, compared to 16.7ms at 60fps. With 40fps you get 25ms at a base. If you are sensitive to latency that is noticeable. As well outputting in 120hz reduces that latency even further.

Most (all?) Sony First Party games have this 40fps mode and a few third party titles do (that rat Plague game is one I know off the top of my head) and it works wonderfully.

If Jedi Survivor had a 40fps/120hz mode people wouldn't have had as much of a problem with the performance.


Personally I'd be fine with 1080p 40fps/120hz modes, but I know some people would rather 1440p. With upscaling tech constantly improving that might not matter as much for too much longer.


Edit: devs should offer a locked 40fps/120hz mode and an unlocked 40fps/120hz/VRR mode if able. Both need to be present since VRR support on consoles can be finicky.
 
Last edited:
Sure, more choices is better.

Though, i'm not sure if the 10fps difference is enough to make it better than 30fps. 40fps is still a bit juddery and blurry compared to 60.

IMO VRR needs to be a standard in all displays and target 60fps average. If a game drops to the high 40s, VRR will still sync it and make it look smooth. No need to lock frame rates anymore.
 
Couldn't agree more.

It might not be for everyone but I'd choose a 40fps fidelity mode over a 60fps performance mode nearly 100% of the time.
 
40fps/120hz is my ideal play mode. It's absolutely fantastic, especially if the performance mode kills fidelity quite abit
 
Say it loud!

40FPS could be the sneaky best feature add this generation if it were adopted wholesale on immersive FPS type experiences.
 
Pirates Of The Caribbean Agree GIF
 
Yes it's a great interim, balancing good frame-time with great IQ. People rarely talk about it, but the difference of going from 30fps (~33.3ms) to 40fps (25ms) is the same as going from 60fps (~16.6ms) to 120fps (~8.3ms) which is ~8.3ms of difference.
 
Yeah 40 FPS and just VRR modes, absolutely.

It's fucked up on Bethesda part to not include at least VRR options, since, when the pro console hits, they could get better performance on day one.

On the top of that triple buffer vsync for 30FPS, adds a lot of latency, which makes situation even worse.
 
agreed, why did it become the norm to be 30 fps and not 40? is there a specific reason why that became a standard?
 
Last edited:
Mhm completely agree. FF16 needs a 40hz mode as well. Performance modes are gonna get progressively worse wrt image quality and graphics as the gen goes on and graphics improve and get more demanding on the hardware. We need 40hz as a standard option.
 
Last edited:
Mithos said:
They should also add the option for us to PICK the resolution the game is rendered at.
Click to expand...
no. get a pc. I want the LEAST possible amount of modes. It goes against optimization.
40 is fine but lets not get crazy. I dont want to be deciding almost anything on a consol
 
rofif said:
no. get a pc. I want the LEAST possible amount of modes. It goes against optimization.
40 is fine but lets not get crazy. I dont want to be deciding almost anything on a consol
Click to expand...
Then we do not need any fps options either, get a PC dude.
 
Last edited:
rofif said:
no. get a pc. I want the LEAST possible amount of modes. It goes against optimization.
40 is fine but lets not get crazy. I dont want to be deciding almost anything on a consol
Click to expand...

So, you also want them to remove graphical options on PC and optimize to just one GPU type?
 
rofif said:
I agree. We do not need any.
I would just give only 1 option. Unlock fps... just so it's ready for future consoles
Click to expand...
Neah, only whatever the developer choose, just keep the 4k almost 30fps or almost 60fps instead of giving us the option to pick 1440p instead and thus locking the fps to 30 or 60fps (as an example).
 
That's cool but Starfield wouldn't even be able to hit 40fps consistently. There's more to graphics rendering than resolution - if the game logic isn't processed inside a 33.33ms buffer, it doesn't matter if the GPU has overhead.
 
Del_X said:
That's cool but Starfield wouldn't even be able to hit 40fps consistently. There's more to graphics rendering than resolution - if the game logic isn't processed inside a 33.33ms buffer, it doesn't matter if the GPU has overhead.
Click to expand...
What is there to process that other games dont? Its not like the game is mining for bitcoins while playing. Its doing what Skyrim does, and that runs on any old toaster. Forza was more physics logic to handle than whatever this prettier version of Fallout is doing.
 
sankt-Antonio said:
What is there to process that other games dont? Its not like the game is mining for bitcoins while playing. Its doing what Skyrim does, and that runs on any old toaster. Forza was more physics logic to handle than whatever this prettier version of Fallout is doing.
Click to expand...

GI is probably partially processed by the CPU, the enemy AI is more advanced than skyrim, there's a much more robust physics simulation.
 
nkarafo said:
Though, i'm not sure if the 10fps difference is enough to make it better than 30fps. 40fps is still a bit juddery and blurry compared to 60.
Click to expand...
I can't play 30fps games on my oled. It feels super bad.
But with 40fps I can actually enjoy the game. So these 10fps make a difference for me.
 
X-Wing said:
No, but you seem to be.
Different modes are optional. You only bother with them if you want to.
Click to expand...
Nothing is optional. If there are many modes, devs need to develop them, implement, test and so on.
It's still not a pc. Things break if you change fps or even just resolution.

And the other part of the equation - I don't want to be choosing if I want pretty graphics or ugly graphics. I want to play the game the way it was meant to be.
There is a device for you. Keep using it. tip - it's not a console
 
Del_X said:
GI is probably partially processed by the CPU, the enemy AI is more advanced than skyrim, there's a much more robust physics simulation.
Click to expand...
Where is this robust Physics simulation showing? AI for shooter like games peaked when FEAR released in 2005. Really dont know what the game is doing thats so physics intense.
 
Don't matter, if its not 60 FPS people would still complain.

Most people especially on console don't want to sacrifice resolution for frame rates.

People like pretty graphics, especially if they have a 4K TV.
 
I'm begging for 40hz modes in Starfield and FFXVI. Those games are perfect for that kind of presentation and would look much better on an OLED (and play better too) than 30hz.
 
Tbh i couldn't see the difference between 30fps and 40fps when played A Plague Tale Requiem on XSX with C9, so not so keen on that option.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Poll
Would PvE only modes in Marathon make you more/less interested?
20
373
Gojiira replied
Switch 2 Screen LCD 120hz, VRR, and HDR?
2
224
Londo replied
Insane gaming experience in 4K 120Hz 21:9
2
95
4K
Insolent replied
Digital Foundry: Starfield Performance Mode Upgrade - 40FPS, 60FPS, VRR And More - The Complete Breakdown
2
50
8K
Danknugz replied
Veilguard Director interview: hate campaign towards the game is "a little naive"; devs need to "see themselves reflected in their work", and more
Opinion  2 3 4 5 6
267
21K
strike670 replied
Top Bottom