Would you buy a more expensive version of PS5/XSX that plays all games at 60-120FPS instead of 30-60?

Would you pay extra for a PS5/XSX model that plays all games at minimum 60FPS instead of 30?

  • Absolutely, 60FPS should be the bare minimum for video games

  • Nah, I'm perfectly fine with 30FPS as long as it's stable

  • Human eye can only see 24FPS

Results are only viewable after voting.
JeloSWE said:
In theory, but it could an absolute 60fps mandate by Sony/MS when releasing a game on that console.
Click to expand...
That is the worst thing that can happen to console industry... devs being forced to created something they didn't choose to begin.

If devs thinks the game is fine at 30fps then it will be 30fps... if they choose 60fps it will be 60fps.

You don't need to buy a game you don't like (30fps) like devs doesn't need to make a game like you want.

I saw a lot guys here talking about PS4 Pro but it was an unnecessary machine to get more sales in the mid of the gen.
You are well served (sometimes even better... TLOU2 example) with the PS4 Amateur.
 
Last edited:
Nah where's the option for 60fps or above for recommended retail price, stop encouraging price increases, if they can't offer that on these consoles about to be released thats on them, they shouldn't promise what they can't deliver.
 
Last edited:
Nah. I don't really play games (competitive games, racers, fighters, action games etc.) where frame rate affects gameplay much and my eyes are fine with 30 or 60 in the stuff I play as long as it's stable. So wouldn't be worth the extra cash to me. I'd rather put it toward games. Would be a cool option though as I know many do care greatly about it and options for consumers are always a good thing.
 
diffusionx said:
Realistically speaking how much traction would a "PS5 - 60fps Edition" get. We have ~15 years of evidence that proves that this stuff doesn't really drive sales. Even to this day ~80% of PS4 sales are the base version.

What you should be pushing for is for Sony to release more games on PC, eventually getting to where MS is, honestly. Might be a pipe dream but nobody thought MS would be launching Halo day one on PC in the 360 days.
Click to expand...
I know 30 fps is the best bang for buck. It's the lowest acceptable FPS and people who either can't afford more, don't care or in many cases don't know better will keep this horrible thing going. But as resolution increases, you have to increase frame rate as well, at a certain point or you'll start to lose out on the extra details that you can only appreciate when you aren't moving the camera. The clarity of games when played at 120fps is striking, you can quickly spin around the camera and still see details in the environment without it being a blurry mess, combine this with BFI and it's looks sooo goood. So my thinking is, a lot of people don't know how good 60 feels to control, let alone 120. 4K is possibly the highest resolution we'll need in a long while unless you have a 85"+ screen and sit very close to it, so we REALLY should talk more about TEMPORAL resolution, as in how much better things will look in motion.
 
Last edited:
JeloSWE said:
I know 30 fps is the best bang for buck. It's the lowest acceptable FPS and people who either can't afford more, don't care or in many cases don't know better will keep this horrible thing going. But as resolution increases, you have to increase frame rate as well, at a certain point or you'll start to lose out on the extra details that you can only appreciate when you aren't moving the camera. The clarity of games when played at 120fps is striking, you can quickly spin around the camera and still see details in the environment without it being a blurry mess, combine this with BFI and it's looks sooo goood. I so my thinking is, people don't know better, how good 60 feels to control, let alone 120. 4K is possibly the highest resolution we'll need in a long while unless you have a 85"+ screen and sit very close to it, so we REALLY should talk more about TEMPORAL resolution, as in how much better things will look in motion.
Click to expand...

Sure, no doubt higher framerate is better, but how many people are going to go out and pay for it. That's the question. My guess is, virtually nobody. Maybe people here, but even then, I see tons of "no, stable 30fps is fine" even on this board. If 60fps was so important that people were willing to pay extra for it, more games would be 60fps.

There's nothing stopping devs from making 60fps games on this hardware, it's not an impossible feat. They just choose not to, because they feel they will get more sales with better graphics. That's really all it comes down to. I mean, look at how much DriveClub is praised to this day, and that's a 30fps racer. They couldn't do those graphics at 60fps.
 
Last edited:
I buy where the games are first.... that is PlayStation and Nintendo for me. Then I get the best option.... I have the PS4 Pro. If there was a 1000 dollar PS5, I would buy it.
 
How much more we talking? I never got a PS4 Pro and regret it, so a little more would be worth it if we're looking at the long game for this generation.
 
No. Because no matter how much power you add the developers would still find ways to prioritise the processing power available to them to enhance visuals instead of frame rate.
 
My biggest fear is as consoles become more powerful and visual become more impressive, they will demand too much for 60fps.
Or that FPS will always be seen as the 2nd most important part of what's on screen.
 
I would if it's a mid gen refresh.

Not worth it right now.

PS5 and XSX is hovering around the sweet spot between price and performance. Anything stronger is just exponentially more expensive.
 
ethomaz said:
That is the worst thing that can happen to console industry... devs being forced to created something they didn't choose to begin.
Click to expand...
This is a hypothetical thread we are talking about a 60-120fps console after all. I just stated that such a machine, if marketed so, would of course have to have a mandate enforcing a 60fps+ mode, it doesn't exclude a fidelity mode.


ethomaz said:
If devs thinks the game is fine at 30fps then it will be 30fps... if they choose 60fps it will be 60fps.
Click to expand...
I disagree, it's like ordering a stake at a restaurant, the chef might say medium rare is how it should be cooked but you might prefer it well done (heaven forbid).

ethomaz said:
You don't need to buy a game you don't like (30fps) like devs doesn't need to make a game like you want.
Click to expand...
Come on, that is such a basic way to put it. It's not so clear cut, I might still buy and play a 30 fps game if it's really interesting, but it's a SUBPAR experience and I'm just sharing my frustration so the community and potentially the developers learns about it. Unless you make your self heard there won't be change.

The argument for PS5 to do 60fps is that a 4K/30fps title will still look great at 1080~1440p/60fps in contrast to PS4 where a 1440p/30fps title at 720p/60fps just wouldn't look good at all. We've reached a threshold where it's feasible and reasonable to demand 60fps in our games.
 
Other: I would pay more for a PS5 that worked offline (online present but optional) and allowed me to collect physical media (just like the PS4 does).

My alternactive when the PS5 goes online required is an RTX3080 PC. So the opposite makes sense to me; a more expensive pro console at launch would be of interest and I'd spend Large sums if it otherwise worked as I preferred.
 
PC Master Race already does something similar. Yes, I'm willing to spend more for a better experience but it really has to be a better experience. For example, the Jump to Pro wasn't worth it in my opinion.

I really hope Sony keeps releasing their games on PC. I'll still get a PS5 but I'd rather have the freedom to chose where the best experience is instead of the only platform where the experience is possible.
 
diffusionx said:
Sure, no doubt higher framerate is better, but how many people are going to go out and pay for it. That's the question. My guess is, virtually nobody. Maybe people here, but even then, I see tons of "no, stable 30fps is fine" even on this board. If 60fps was so important that people were willing to pay extra for it, more games would be 60fps.

There's nothing stopping devs from making 60fps games on this hardware, it's not an impossible feat. They just choose not to, because they feel they will get more sales with better graphics. That's really all it comes down to. I mean, look at how much DriveClub is praised to this day, and that's a 30fps racer. They couldn't do those graphics at 60fps.
Click to expand...
HAha.. yes, I was at first very impressed with drive club when I saw the trailer, I WAS going to buy it, did I, NO and you know already know why.

Funny thing is some people like to compare it with GT Sport, a game that runs at double frame rate. :messenger_tears_of_joy:
 
If either console is $600 I'm taking that money and putting it into my PC and waiting for the price to comes down.
 
I could not tell the difference between 30 fps and 60 fps if my life depended on it. I ALMOST believe that people are lying when the say that they can. But I 100% support a higher power console; I need 4K for my 75" TV. I would gladly pay $1000 for an Xbox Elite/Pro/Ultra, especially if it meant not having to buy a mid-gen console.
 
I cannot tell the difference between 30 frames vs 60 frames so to me it doesn't matter. The only time I will notice is when it dips below 30
 
Last edited:
Night.Ninja said:
i doubt they will be mid gen refreshes this gen
Click to expand...
On the contrary, I wouldn't be surprised to see 2 skews this generation as they've grown longer and longer. It's really a win win situation for Sony. Me and many would buy all of them and Sony will sell more machines over the generation.
 
diffusionx said:
Sure, no doubt higher framerate is better, but how many people are going to go out and pay for it. That's the question. My guess is, virtually nobody. Maybe people here, but even then, I see tons of "no, stable 30fps is fine" even on this board. If 60fps was so important that people were willing to pay extra for it, more games would be 60fps.

There's nothing stopping devs from making 60fps games on this hardware, it's not an impossible feat. They just choose not to, because they feel they will get more sales with better graphics. That's really all it comes down to. I mean, look at how much DriveClub is praised to this day, and that's a 30fps racer. They couldn't do those graphics at 60fps.
Click to expand...
Yet most of the popular, best-selling games today do target 60fps. In fact, it's been this way since the PS2.

I'd really like to know where the "better graphics gets more sales than framerate" argument comes from. There seems to be zero proof of it.
 
Last edited:
JeloSWE said:
On the contrary, I wouldn't be surprised to see 2 skews this generation as they've grown longer and longer. It's really a win win situation for Sony. Me and many would buy all of them and Sony will sell more machines over the generation.
Click to expand...

But that was only because of the weak CPU last gen
 
I'd prefer that the video game system manufacturers just produce one really good console, than to produce multiple tiers with all these little differences. It's less confusing for the consumer, and the developers can focus on properly optimizing their games for a single hardware configuration.

PC users and developers already have to wrestle with all kinds of varied hardware configurations. One of the reasons why video game consoles still exist is so that users don't have to worry about whether a new game that is purportedly meant for their system will run with acceptable performance.
 
Um... honestly, if it was just a few hundred more, why not? I'm already five hundred in the hole. Might as well spring for the extra eye candy over the next four years.
 
I don't understand why people keep acting like these consoles aren't capable of running games at 60fps. There are games on the PS5 that will be 4K/60fps
This decisions is largely up to individual developers and whether or not they choose to prioritize higher performance or better visual fidelity.

At a certain point, you might as well just start building yourself a gaming PC if you're wiling to pay more money for 120fps performance.
 
Yeah, those boosts sounds like a great reason to upgrade. If such a thing came out mid-gen, I'd probably skip the launch model and go with that instead.
 
Yes, I'd want a more powerful future proof console than a mid gen refresh. I don't care if it's $999 or even more though so I'll be in the minority.
 
Last edited:
If there was some kind of guarantee of 60fps and higher settings, I'd buy the more expensive one at launch in a heartbeat.

But what would realistically happen is developers would see the high end version as some afterthought and would just barely get something on it to say it's enhanced. Some games wouldn't even do anything for the higher tier. At least that's how I see the current Pro/X situation. I just do not like the 2-tier approach at all.
 
If a couple hundred more dollars gets 60-120, I might stick to the 30-60 system.

The games I trend to are sports, racing and shooters which are 60 fps already. And any itch to play some action games like Diablo or indie games are usually 60 fps too. The only open world games I play are Bethesda RPGs which come out only once every 5 years (if that) and are slow paced. Fallout 4 had a 60 fps mod on Xbox anyway. Not sure about Skyrim as I was already done with the game by the time console mods came full circle.

There weren't that many 30 fps games this gen. Basically AAA open world games and Sony SP campaigns.
 
Last edited:
So when the average mind set is 400 or bust you ask of they are willing to pay more for a enhanced version?
 
PlayerPurple said:
Yet most of the popular, best-selling games today do target 60fps. In fact, it's been this way since the PS2.

I'd really like to know where the "better graphics gets more sales than framerate" argument comes from. There seems to be zero proof of it.
Click to expand...

Fair enough - one thing we saw this gen was more multiplayer games running at 60fps. In fact, I think the only big one is Destiny 2.

But that's the point - anyone who wants to make a 60fps game on the consoles, can. Nothing is stopping them. We had 60fps games on PS2, PS3, PS4, and will on PS5. It's their choice with what they want to do. And I think part of the point of consoles is that developers make that decision for their game. If I want to choose between modes or have different configurations, I'd rather just use a PC.

For some reason, somewhere down the road, people got this idea in their head that frame rate was a matter of power, but it's not and never was.
 
Last edited:
This is a personal answer only, but I would be willing to buy a more expensive XSX that could play the ENTIRETY of past Xbox games (OG, 360, Xbone) at 4k/60 and modern titles at only 1080p/30, rather than an XSX that can play the modern stuff at higher performance levels.
I simply don't care about modern games.
 
Unless we're talking about a few specific genres like the Street Fighter ones etc., stable 30fps with stunning visuals for me is way better than 60fps with average visuals. Games like Uncharted, Horizon, The Last of Us don't need 60fps, they play perfectly ok and push the boundaries of how good games can look.

If they have 60fps, better. If not, I'm ok with 30 fps because they look better than any game on a monster PC that only like 1% of the PC users may have, even if they may have lower native resolution or framerate.
 
Last edited:
diffusionx said:
Fair enough - one thing we saw this gen was more multiplayer games running at 60fps. In fact, I think the only big one is Destiny 2.

But that's the point - anyone who wants to make a 60fps game on the consoles, can. Nothing is stopping them. We had 60fps games on PS2, PS3, PS4, and will on PS5. It's their choice with what they want to do. And I think part of the point of consoles is that developers make that decision for their game. If I want to choose between modes or have different configurations, I'd rather just use a PC.
Click to expand...

I partially agree.

I think the point of consoles above all is simplicity. When booting up a game, most console players expect it to "just work" compared to PC players who are more tolerant of downloading drivers, checking specs, adjusting settings for the best experience, etc. Console players know they're not getting the best, but they'll generally settle for "good enough."

I don't, however, think that means console players wouldn't welcome options, as long as they're kept as simple as possible.
For some reason, somewhere down the road, people got this idea in their head that frame rate was a matter of power, but it's not and never was.
Click to expand...
Amen to that.

I have to imagine the "CPU-bound" excuse must have come from developers starting last gen.
 
Last edited:
I would pay extra for superior cooling.
Whatever framerates PS4 GOW is, which I guess is 30, is fine by me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Lossless Scaling allows you to play any 30/60 fps locked game with a 60/120 fps without breaking game logic
2
71
5K
Xion_Stellar replied
Far Cry 4 now runs at 60 fps on PS5
2 3
100
2K
LakeOf9 replied
  • Poll
Would you buy Nintendo Switch Online for $49 a year (family plan) if it guaranteed that all preorder game prices were $59 instead of $69-$79?
25
917
Pasta la Vista replied
Monster Hunter Wilds runs at 60 FPS on PS5 Pro, 4K30FPS or 1080P/60FPs on XSX/PS5 and 30 FPS on Xbox Series S
News 
46
8K
vkbest replied
  • Poll
Would you buy a new PlayStation system only for first party games?
2 3
124
275
Shadowstar39 replied
Top Bottom