John Carmack Insists New Consoles Will Run Games at 30fps

[MikeWehner]

John Carmack Insists New Consoles Will Run Games at 30fps

A PC gaming legend expresses his concern over the future of consoles.

If there's one thing you can say about Id Software co-founder John Carmack, it's that when he chooses to weigh in on a topic, he rarely holds back. In a recent Twitter exchange, [https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/statuses/280752127238889473] the well-known programmer stands by his claim that future consoles will be capable of running most titles at just 30fps.

A well-established name in the PC gaming scene, Carmack has been largely critical of console gaming for quite a while. But given that both Sony and Microsoft have remained completely tight-lipped on what their next hardware release will be, any opinion of what next-gen consoles will be capable of is based largely on rumored specs and other details that may have no basis in reality.

With Id's release of Rage for both PC and home consoles, Carmack appeared to have mixed feelings. He is quoted as saying that the FPS title was expressed regret [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/93374-Carmack-Rage-is-Designed-for-Consoles] in his decision to focus on consoles from the start, noting how negatively his choice affected the product on PC.

It remains unclear whether Carmack's stance on next-gen consoles stems from disappointment in the rumored hardware specs or a belief that developers simply won't push the consoles to their respective limits. Either way, it appears that Carmack is siding with the PC, at least for the time being.

Source: DSOGaming [https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/statuses/280752127238889473]

Permalink

 

[Squilookle]

I'm fine with that, if it means more actual content and things able to happen in the game world.

In Driver San Francisco, singleplayer supposedly runs at 60, multiplayer at 30. Switching to multiplayer you notice the change...

...for about three seconds. After that it's business as usual, and the FPS becomes irrelevant.

 

[dyre]

You know, back when my computer had a Pentium 4 processor with 2 gigs ram, I ran games at 30 fps and was happy about it!

Anyway, he's got his opinion and it's his right to express it (and I guess it's the Escapist's right to pick up a random twitter comment and turn it into a story...), but I've gotta say, Rage didn't run too well on PCs either :|

edit: btw, does he really "insist" it? I always figured "insists" means "maintains the same position when pressured," while this is more a case of "claims."

 

[SageRuffin]

Fighting games can only really run at 60fps, but that's largely due to how inherently frame-intensive such games are. Some action games (DMC immediately comes to mind) also work better at 60fps, but that's largely dependent on the inherent mechanics.

You know... I really don't know where I'm going with this, so I'll show myself out now.

 

[BrotherRool]

I'm a little confused. We can run games at 60 FPS on consoles now right? With some graphics hits and tweaking. I'm pretty sure Dantes Inferno is 60 FPS. So is he saying that the games graphics are going to increase to a point where consoles still can't handle higher frame rates? Are they going to look better enough that it's still worth than over 60 FPS?

EDIT: Accidentally wrote 30 instead of 60. Now corrected

 

[Something Amyss]

I'm fine with that, if it means more actual content and things able to happen in the game world.

Sadly, that's unlikely to happen. With every new gen, we talk about limitless possibilities and expanded realities. And some games deliver. most do not. Especially since the PS1 era. Remember when everyone was like "Man, if they can do Final Fantasy VII on 3 CDs, imagine what they could do with a DVD!"

And then people were like "imagine what we could do with BD!"

That's not even touching other tech specs. This gen brought us the rise of the Samey Brown Linear Shooters (SBLS), and capping framerate hasn't really done jack to benefit us.

Granted, I don't care. 30 FPS is fine for me in most games. Just saying.

 

[Something Amyss]

I'm a little confused. We can run games at 60 FPS on consoles now right? With some graphics hits and tweaking. I'm pretty sure Dantes Inferno is 30 FPS. So is he saying that the games graphics are going to increase to a point where consoles still can't handle higher frame rates? Are they going to look better enough that it's still worth than over 60 FPS?

Yes, because gaming has mastered the art of polishing a turd.

 

[Meight08]

I'm a little confused. We can run games at 60 FPS on consoles now right? With some graphics hits and tweaking. I'm pretty sure Dantes Inferno is 30 FPS. So is he saying that the games graphics are going to increase to a point where consoles still can't handle higher frame rates? Are they going to look better enough that it's still worth than over 60 FPS?

Modern console games can't run on 60 fps because it's crappy 6 year old hardware.

Ot: Well looks like more 30 fps locks.

 

[Milanezi]

Many games were made with consoles in mind and turned out great on both PC and consoles, sometimes better in one than the other, but RAGE, oh boy, it worked bad on both of them...

 

[BrotherRool]

I'm a little confused. We can run games at 60 FPS on consoles now right? With some graphics hits and tweaking. I'm pretty sure Dantes Inferno is 30 FPS. So is he saying that the games graphics are going to increase to a point where consoles still can't handle higher frame rates? Are they going to look better enough that it's still worth than over 60 FPS?

Modern console games can't run on 60 fps because it's crappy 6 year old hardware.

Ot: Well looks like more 30 fps locks.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-dante-a-must-at-60-blog-entry

Dantes Inferno did indeed run at 60FPS on the consoles

EDIT: Also lots of the CoDs, Gran Turismo, Ratchett + Clank, FIFA.

Anyway I'm pretty sure the refresh rate on the TV my PS3 is hooked up to can't actually do 60FPS. You need a top end TV, so it's all good for me if they continue to focus on the graphics

 

[Squilookle]

I'm fine with that, if it means more actual content and things able to happen in the game world.

Sadly, that's unlikely to happen. With every new gen, we talk about limitless possibilities and expanded realities. And some games deliver. most do not. Especially since the PS1 era. Remember when everyone was like "Man, if they can do Final Fantasy VII on 3 CDs, imagine what they could do with a DVD!"

And then people were like "imagine what we could do with BD!"

That's not even touching other tech specs. This gen brought us the rise of the Samey Brown Linear Shooters (SBLS), and capping framerate hasn't really done jack to benefit us.

Granted, I don't care. 30 FPS is fine for me in most games. Just saying.

I'm actually more concerned about the game content devs ditch in order to keep 60 fps- Driver was certainly guilty of that. Technology limitations aside, if you decide right at the start to cap your game at 30 fps, you have a lot more breathing space for your game to do/display/calculate stuff before you start seeing hits to the frame count. I see 60fps as a sort of instant barrier on some features devs would probably like to be able to put in to their games.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

or a belief that developers simply won't push the consoles to their respective limits.

I'm pretty sure it's this, but reversed. The consoles will be pushed to their limits, so hard in fact that they won't be able to keep up the eye candy at a framerate above 30 FPS. The hardware cycle for PC hardware is about a year for the top end stuff to be replaced, maybe 3-5 before even the high end stuff is obsolete enough to have problems running current games. The console cycle is supposed to be five years of the exact same hardware, but if this gen is anything to go on,seems to have slowed to about 10 years per cycle thanks to the economy. What that ultimately means is we'll be hitting up on some very hard limits well before the next generation ends. There's only so much even a programming god like Carmack can do to optimize something for underpowered hardware.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Excuse my ignorance, but don't many games now run at twice that? Whether or not that's a good thing is a matter of debate however.

 

[The Artificially Prolonged]

This is all conjecture anyway until sony and microsoft actually release specs for their new consoles, before that we can only really guess at what they are capable of. I'd think they would want to push for 60 fps though as the Wii U I believe is capable of 60 fps and I'm sure they'd want to at least match that. I would also like it personally as going from my pc to my console to play a game the difference in frame rates can be quite jarring.

 

[Bad Jim]

Is he saying that the games graphics are going to increase to a point where consoles still can't handle higher frame rates? Are they going to look better enough that it's still worth more than over 60 FPS?

Well Carmack himself doesn't say much, but that was the theme of the conversation. There are many, many ways to make games look better than current consoles. More polygons, 1080p or higher resolution, antialiasing, better lighting etc. 60fps is only one of those things, and it's something that a lot of people can't even detect unless the two framerates are shown side by side.

Therefore, it's best reserved for schmups, one on one fighters, racing games and a few other genres that are extremely dependent on quick reactions.

 

[Lucky Godzilla]

Excuse my ignorance, but don't many games now run at twice that? Whether or not that's a good thing is a matter of debate however.

Unless you are playing on PC (where your FPS is determined by hardware/settings) most big name console games these days run at 30 fps. The only series that has truly committed to 60 fps is CoD, and in order to do that it had to sacrifice a fair amount of visual fidelity when compared to other games due to the obvious fact that it must render twice as many frames every second than say BF3. The only other future console game I know of that is running at 60 fps is mgs rising.
I have to agree with Carmack however, despite (in my opinion) the superior gameplay of 60fps, many console gamers seem to choose graphical fidelity over a higher frame rate, and to be fair as long as the frame rate remains constant the game is completely playable. Also, if I may be so bold to make my own prediction, I don't see many "next gen" games running at 1080p either.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Excuse my ignorance, but don't many games now run at twice that? Whether or not that's a good thing is a matter of debate however.

Unless you are playing on PC (where your FPS is determined by hardware/settings) most big name console games these days run at 30 fps. The only series that has truly committed to 60 fps is CoD, and in order to do that it had to sacrifice a fair amount of visual fidelity when compared to other games due to the obvious fact that it must render twice as many frames every second than say BF3. The only other future console game I know of that is running at 60 fps is mgs rising.
I have to agree with Carmack however, despite (in my opinion) the superior gameplay of 60fps, many console gamers seem to choose graphical fidelity over a higher frame rate, and to be fair as long as the frame rate remains constant the game is completely playable. Also, if I may be so bold to make my own prediction, I don't see many "next gen" games running at 1080p either.

Ok, I was sure about that.
As for my personal opinion, well it's the same as my opinion regarding HD, in that I have to ask, does it really affect the gameplay or your ability to have fun playing the game? And if it does, how shallow are you (I mean "you" generically, not "you" specifically)?

 

[grigjd3]

I've yet to see any evidence that the difference in frames per second poses any symptoms other than psychological ones. (I'm telling you I can see the difference. I know its there! That's why I keep losing to you. No it's not that you're a better player, damnit!)

 

[hermes]

I'm a little confused. We can run games at 60 FPS on consoles now right? With some graphics hits and tweaking. I'm pretty sure Dantes Inferno is 60 FPS. So is he saying that the games graphics are going to increase to a point where consoles still can't handle higher frame rates? Are they going to look better enough that it's still worth than over 60 FPS?

Yes. Games will (and have always) focused more in graphic fidelity and lighting effects than smooth gameplay; because it sells. Its harder to display a smooth gameplay than shinny graphics in promotional material. Screenshots and magazines can only show stills and they would much rather show games set to ultrahigh.

Besides, people with the need to justify their latest hardware purchase can grow quite critical of games that don't show the pores out of the skin of NPCs. The so called "graphics whores" exist and are quite annoying; and it will only get worst at the start of the next generation...

In the end, being locked at 60 FPS, even now, does not come cheap. Huge amounts of optimizations must be made and features will be scratched if they compromise that benchmark. Games have to be designed from the ground up to be 60 FPS, and the difference in sales won't be as noticeable (in fact, its likely many will attack the game because of its outdated graphics: see Call of Duty)