Uncharted 4 May Not Run at 60 FPS Because "It's Really F---ing Hard"

[Haru17]

Oh shut up you snarky, condescending ass! If Uncharted 4 is a good game then it'll be a good game at 25, 40, 30, 50, or 60 frames per second.

Except it wouldn't. Lets take, say, Metal Gear Rising as an example. That game is an absolute joy to play, and is an (imo) excellent game.
Would it be a good game if it was capped at 25FPS? No, it would be an awful game. Entirely unplayable, in fact.
Because gameplay is important, and a bad framerate hinders the gameplay significantly.

I've enjoyed games at 25 fps in the past and I will in the future. The content in the game is my chief concern, not the frame rate. Again, good games are good at any decent frame rate are good games and bad games at any frame rate are just bad games.

This isn't me trying to make excuses for Naughty Dog; I am speaking mainly to lampoon the ridiculous graphics fetishism and freaking out over numbers. 'Oh *dramatic hand on brow* the next gen consoles are KILLING the games industry because they don't cost $1000+ dollars and have seven graphics cards! I'm so much better because I own an expensive computer, why can't everyone in the world be exactly like me!?!'

Anyone with any common sense knows that Microsoft and Sony couldn't have sold their machines for much more than $400; look at what happened to the PS3 in 2006 and the Xbox one in early 2014. As the price increases demand decreases and you know what would 'kill' the games industry? Low install bases and low sales; that's what'll shutter developers. We don't need the best graphics just like we don't all need to drive Porches; it's a lot more expensive for minute differences.

And honestly, asking for Sony's first party studios to port their games off of playstation is just futile. They're obviously not going to do that.

Also please note how this amateur news writer still hasn't clearly marked his editorializing. Poor form.

 

[Rozalia1]

Also please note how this amateur news writer still hasn't clearly marked his editorializing. Poor form.

You're not the target audience so it won't happen. If this was a piece on one of the crowd's internet darlings than he wouldn't have dared put in such a comment to begin with I'd wager. Just look at the piece written about Valve and its region locking... no wisecrack there instead replaced with an attempt to bring consoles into it because... well everybody knows the result if he tried the same thing on Valve.

I should just see it as poor business and management but a business will act as it likes.

 

[Rozalia1]

I dont get what the problem is now?

Naughty Dog, that are fairly decent and competent devs on the technological level just came out and said it is very hard to achieve something as basic as 60fps.
We already knew that. They just had the balls to admit it. We all know the PS4 is not who knows how powerful.

I'm thinking you're misunderstanding. I wasn't talking about Naughty Dog/Sony.
Haru17 is talking about shoddy journalism and I'm just saying my piece on why it happens and won't change.

In regards to Naughty Dog I'm very glad that they just were as straight as possible. Some will undoubtedly spin it negatively saying that they are sacrificing game play for graphics but... well those shouldn't even be able to say that with a straight face considering some of their other comments but... outside that they will make their game as they want it. If 1080/30 frames fits their vision over 720/60 than that creative decision should be respected.

 

[Nurb]

Maybe companies shouldn't have sold new consoles pushing graphical abilities so hard.

 

[The Bucket]

Oh shut up you snarky, condescending ass! If Uncharted 4 is a good game then it'll be a good game at 25, 40, 30, 50, or 60 frames per second.

Except it wouldn't. Lets take, say, Metal Gear Rising as an example. That game is an absolute joy to play, and is an (imo) excellent game.
Would it be a good game if it was capped at 25FPS? No, it would be an awful game. Entirely unplayable, in fact.
Because gameplay is important, and a bad framerate hinders the gameplay significantly.

I've enjoyed games at 25 fps in the past and I will in the future. The content in the game is my chief concern, not the frame rate. Again, good games are good at any decent frame rate are good games and bad games at any frame rate are just bad games.

This isn't me trying to make excuses for Naughty Dog; I am speaking mainly to lampoon the ridiculous graphics fetishism and freaking out over numbers. 'Oh *dramatic hand on brow* the next gen consoles are KILLING the games industry because they don't cost $1000+ dollars and have seven graphics cards! I'm so much better because I own an expensive computer, why can't everyone in the world be exactly like me!?!'

Anyone with any common sense knows that Microsoft and Sony couldn't have sold their machines for much more than $400; look at what happened to the PS3 in 2006 and the Xbox one in early 2014. As the price increases demand decreases and you know what would 'kill' the games industry? Low install bases and low sales; that's what'll shutter developers. We don't need the best graphics just like we don't all need to drive Porches; it's a lot more expensive for minute differences.

And honestly, asking for Sony's first party studios to port their games off of playstation is just futile. They're obviously not going to do that.

Also please note how this amateur news writer still hasn't clearly marked his editorializing. Poor form.

You keep acting like graphics and FPS are interchangeable, People aren't demanding top tier high end PC quality graphics, they're asking that less emphasis be put on lighting engines and other graphical devices for the purposes of screenshots and ads that the PS4 cant seem to handle and more on ensuring a smooth and pleasurable experience actually playing the game.

You seem to be seeing this as mainly a conflict almost solely between PC users and console users (not really helped by the news guys snip at Naughtydog at the end of the article admittedly).

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

And maybe PC gamers will fix their ongoing piracy [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/139721-Steam-Scam-Targets-Gamers-With-Fake-In-Game-Comms-Apps] problems [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/139604-Ubisoft-Revokes-Far-Cry-4-CD-Keys-Bought-From-Resellers] and developers will want to prioritise them again

You might want to give examples of piracy next time you comment along those lines, instead of credit card fraud, phishing and keylogger viruses. Reading the articles you link would also help.

Ehh, it's true, I got lazy. Piracy as a word just seemed to cover both those different issues (which I mostly picked since they were from the last couple of days). So, you going to get around to actually refuting my point or... ?

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

And maybe PC gamers will fix their ongoing piracy [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/139721-Steam-Scam-Targets-Gamers-With-Fake-In-Game-Comms-Apps] problems [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/139604-Ubisoft-Revokes-Far-Cry-4-CD-Keys-Bought-From-Resellers] and developers will want to prioritise them again

You might want to give examples of piracy next time you comment along those lines, instead of credit card fraud, phishing and keylogger viruses. Reading the articles you link would also help.

Ehh, it's true, I got lazy. Piracy as a word just seemed to cover both those different issues (which I mostly picked since they were from the last couple of days). So, you going to get around to actually refuting my point or... ?

"Piracy" covers neither of those issues, since it's a completely different thing altogether and, seeing as you based your whole point on you misusing the term piracy, there is nothing to refute.

... OK, if you are just messing with me I'd like to know since I'm concerned I'm wasting both our time.
Would it help if I just removed the word 'piracy' and said ongoing 'problems'? Because mislabelling aside, what you call these problems doesn't affect the validity of pointing out they are ongoing issues that might have greater weight than not hitting frame-rates. It's a little intellectually dishonest to claim otherwise.

 

[Lightknight]

It wouldn't be the first time this developer intentionally made their games look worse because they trapped them on underpowered hardware. This only affirms the freedom and empowerment of PCs, and how damaging consoles are to the industry.

You're right, games should only be made for those wealthy enough to have a high powered machine. [/sarcasm]

Don't get me wrong, I do have a juggernaut machine that can play practically anything on ultra. But you've got to see why the average PC/Console has to be the target. There's nothing to prevent the PC versions from being able to turn up the physics once there.

Games will always and should always be made for the largest number of people. Consoles are not damaging to the industry, they give far more people access to the industry than ever before. They do limit games, but so does the average pc. Right now, the consoles are still around the average gaming PC currently in use if not a little better. It's in a couple years that we should see PCs far ahead on average with the consoles really studdering along. They aren't great machines, they're average. That's what we need for people to be able to afford access into the industry.

I have to admit though, the sort of platformer games that Naughty Dog makes don't really suffer all that much at 30 fps. Not like an FPS would. I remember being quite stunned at Uncharted 3 despite it being 30 fps. Not once did I notice the frame rate. That's not to say it wouldn't be better in 60 fps. Just that the return isn't as great as say 15 fps compared to 30 fps. The images of lines and bouncing squares make things look easy to distinguish but those are very high contrast images. Rich vibrant environments make it a lot more difficult to tell the difference and even then, only when you're toggling back and forth between frame rates. I'm not sure many people could even look at a game like Uncharted 3 and tell you what the frame rate is without having some comparison.

 

[EMWISE94]

You know what, screw it, just make it a solid 30. I wont lie, I've been in the camp of "I dont care about the framerate." but after a while... I kinda do, not about whether a game hits 60fps, no, I just care for a SMOOTH framerate. I can recognize the difference between 60 and 30 now and I'm fine with either, sure I prefer 60 as its better and what not but I wont complain if I get 30. Also Naughty Dog, just admit the pisspoor can't handle your game, its not a bad console, it just can't take the massive swollen member that is Uncharted 4 with ease... not like the PC anyway, that gals been around.

 

[Piorn]

If you're specifically developing for a certain hardware, and the hardware doesn't meet your software's requirements, then you failed as a software developer, simple as that.

 

[Lightknight]

If you're specifically developing for a certain hardware, and the hardware doesn't meet your software's requirements, then you failed as a software developer, simple as that.

I don't think anyone is saying that.

You know what, screw it, just make it a solid 30. I wont lie, I've been in the camp of "I dont care about the framerate." but after a while... I kinda do, not about whether a game hits 60fps, no, I just care for a SMOOTH framerate. I can recognize the difference between 60 and 30 now and I'm fine with either, sure I prefer 60 as its better and what not but I wont complain if I get 30. Also Naughty Dog, just admit the pisspoor can't handle your game, its not a bad console, it just can't take the massive swollen member that is Uncharted 4 with ease... not like the PC anyway, that gals been around.

"The PC". That's a fun thing to hear someone say. Please tell me what specs "the PC" is. Because from where I'm sitting, the average desktop PC is still just under or at the console specs. Sure, I have a beast of a machine but I'm under no impression that studios should develop games for the minority of gamers that were willing to shell out a grand or whatever. Instead, they're going to continue to make it for the norm and just give us the option to turn some settings up. That's good enough for me.

But hey, good luck playing Uncharted 4 on your PC at all.

 

[Piorn]

If you're specifically developing for a certain hardware, and the hardware doesn't meet your software's requirements, then you failed as a software developer, simple as that.

I don't think anyone is saying that.

They need to cut corners so the game runs on the hardware. That means someone somewhere either fucked up their planning, or was overambitious, or whatever.
On such a huge project, when it comes to system requirements, you don't just eyeball it!

 

[Lightknight]

If you're specifically developing for a certain hardware, and the hardware doesn't meet your software's requirements, then you failed as a software developer, simple as that.

I don't think anyone is saying that.

They need to cut corners so the game runs on the hardware. That means someone somewhere either fucked up their planning, or was overambitious, or whatever.
On such a huge project, when it comes to system requirements, you don't just eyeball it!

No one is saying that they eyeballed it.

Naughty Dog is saying that if they want it to run at 60 FPS they'll have to go through all sorts of hoops that they may not be able to do. Not that the game won't fit or that they designed the game at 60 FPS and now it's broken because of an oversight. No, fps can be locked by the software pretty easily.

This is a studio that pushed the boundaries of graphics on the ps3 but kept the fps at 30 fps. I don't see why we'd really have expected them to change their ways. I'm betting this will be one of the prettiest games we've ever seen on consoles. But that comes at a cost just like it did on the ps3. Thankfully, it doesn't make as big of a difference on a third person platformer like it would on a first person shooter.

 

[Haru17]

Oh shut up you snarky, condescending ass! If Uncharted 4 is a good game then it'll be a good game at 25, 40, 30, 50, or 60 frames per second.

Except it wouldn't. Lets take, say, Metal Gear Rising as an example. That game is an absolute joy to play, and is an (imo) excellent game.
Would it be a good game if it was capped at 25FPS? No, it would be an awful game. Entirely unplayable, in fact.
Because gameplay is important, and a bad framerate hinders the gameplay significantly.

I've enjoyed games at 25 fps in the past and I will in the future. The content in the game is my chief concern, not the frame rate. Again, good games are good at any decent frame rate are good games and bad games at any frame rate are just bad games.

This isn't me trying to make excuses for Naughty Dog; I am speaking mainly to lampoon the ridiculous graphics fetishism and freaking out over numbers. 'Oh *dramatic hand on brow* the next gen consoles are KILLING the games industry because they don't cost $1000+ dollars and have seven graphics cards! I'm so much better because I own an expensive computer, why can't everyone in the world be exactly like me!?!'

Anyone with any common sense knows that Microsoft and Sony couldn't have sold their machines for much more than $400; look at what happened to the PS3 in 2006 and the Xbox one in early 2014. As the price increases demand decreases and you know what would 'kill' the games industry? Low install bases and low sales; that's what'll shutter developers. We don't need the best graphics just like we don't all need to drive Porches; it's a lot more expensive for minute differences.

And honestly, asking for Sony's first party studios to port their games off of playstation is just futile. They're obviously not going to do that.

Also please note how this amateur news writer still hasn't clearly marked his editorializing. Poor form.

You keep acting like graphics and FPS are interchangeable, People aren't demanding top tier high end PC quality graphics, they're asking that less emphasis be put on lighting engines and other graphical devices for the purposes of screenshots and ads that the PS4 cant seem to handle and more on ensuring a smooth and pleasurable experience actually playing the game.

You seem to be seeing this as mainly a conflict almost solely between PC users and console users (not really helped by the news guys snip at Naughtydog at the end of the article admittedly).

I can understand people desiring frame rate over graphics, but the tone and severity of the discussion is just ridiculous. 'If Uncharted 4 runs at any less than 144 frames Sony will commit ritual suicide and release it on PC out of shame. 30 frames is like looking at a slide show!!!'

It's just dumb, visual fidelity and fps influence the game, both in story and gameplay, but in subtle ways. That's why the actual content of the game; the 3D world, combat animations, cutscenes, and voice acting; all of that stuff will matter loads more than whether the frame rate is high or not. Hence 'a good game will be good at any decent frame rate, a bad one bad at any frame rate,' etc.

Hell, people love Dark Souls 1 for what it is despite it being a technical mess, especially in certain areas. I personally hate playing that game, but not because of the frame rate, but rather because it's too hard to be fun for me.

 

[Lightknight]

Oh shut up you snarky, condescending ass! If Uncharted 4 is a good game then it'll be a good game at 25, 40, 30, 50, or 60 frames per second.

Except it wouldn't. Lets take, say, Metal Gear Rising as an example. That game is an absolute joy to play, and is an (imo) excellent game.
Would it be a good game if it was capped at 25FPS? No, it would be an awful game. Entirely unplayable, in fact.
Because gameplay is important, and a bad framerate hinders the gameplay significantly.

I've enjoyed games at 25 fps in the past and I will in the future. The content in the game is my chief concern, not the frame rate. Again, good games are good at any decent frame rate are good games and bad games at any frame rate are just bad games.

This isn't me trying to make excuses for Naughty Dog; I am speaking mainly to lampoon the ridiculous graphics fetishism and freaking out over numbers. 'Oh *dramatic hand on brow* the next gen consoles are KILLING the games industry because they don't cost $1000+ dollars and have seven graphics cards! I'm so much better because I own an expensive computer, why can't everyone in the world be exactly like me!?!'

Anyone with any common sense knows that Microsoft and Sony couldn't have sold their machines for much more than $400; look at what happened to the PS3 in 2006 and the Xbox one in early 2014. As the price increases demand decreases and you know what would 'kill' the games industry? Low install bases and low sales; that's what'll shutter developers. We don't need the best graphics just like we don't all need to drive Porches; it's a lot more expensive for minute differences.

And honestly, asking for Sony's first party studios to port their games off of playstation is just futile. They're obviously not going to do that.

Also please note how this amateur news writer still hasn't clearly marked his editorializing. Poor form.

You keep acting like graphics and FPS are interchangeable, People aren't demanding top tier high end PC quality graphics, they're asking that less emphasis be put on lighting engines and other graphical devices for the purposes of screenshots and ads that the PS4 cant seem to handle and more on ensuring a smooth and pleasurable experience actually playing the game.

You seem to be seeing this as mainly a conflict almost solely between PC users and console users (not really helped by the news guys snip at Naughtydog at the end of the article admittedly).

I can understand people desiring frame rate over graphics, but the tone and severity of the discussion is just ridiculous. 'If Uncharted 4 runs at any less than 144 frames Sony will commit ritual suicide and release it on PC out of shame. 30 frames is like looking at a slide show!!!'

It's just dumb, visual fidelity and fps influence the game, both in story and gameplay, but in subtle ways. That's why the actual content of the game; the 3D world, combat animations, cutscenes, and voice acting; all of that stuff will matter loads more than whether the frame rate is high or not. Hence 'a good game will be good at any decent frame rate, a bad one bad at any frame rate,' etc.

Exactly correct. Eye popping graphics are more important than the bridge between 30 and 60 fps. Both impact the game, but I'd far rather have stunning than the somewhat mild increase in fluidity of motion. I mean, I want both, but I understand that there is a trade off until a day where machines a flawless processors that handle the most advanced games the same way modern machines handle word processing.

At least we're not talking the difference between 15 fps and 30 fps. The answer is obvious there unless it's Myst or something static.

 

[Daaaah Whoosh]

I wish I'd never played a 60fps game. Just give me 30fps and high enough resolution to read all the little messages and I'll be happy.

 

[Uhuru N'Uru]

It's hard to blame the devs, really. I imagine the tools they use can easily achieve these benchmarks and the key is simply how to fit that kind of performance into a shitty little box. PC devs that can't get a solid 60 fps don't really have an excuse, but I'll give console devs the benefit of the doubt here. I blame the hardware.

Rubbish, it's not hard to do 1080p/60 FPS on new consoles at all, what's hard is to add all the eye candy the new consoles GPU's are capable of and using 64-bits on top. Trying to push the limits of the system is hard, instead of stopping when the 1080p/60 FPS wall is hit. The hardware is severely limited but it's still better than last gen.
Most gamers I know would prefer 1080p/60FPS and a little less eye candy, even insist on it with a shooter type game.

The real issue is consoles are bottlenecked for power, even after removing the "essential" Kinnect, XB1 is still underpowered for the hardware it contains. PS4 is no better, where power limitation is concerned. The only real improvement over last gen is moving to 64-bit, yet most of the recent PC GPU advances are even more power hungry and 1kW power supplies are fast becoming common.

Meanwhile the consoles basic design is limited to 300W maximum, this is the main reason last gen stayed around for so long and they tried and failed to muscle into the TV ecosystem as a backup plan. They knew they could take the 64-bit boost, only once and having hit the power limits last gen. they can only stagnate in this basic design package.

Increasing power is currently the only option, Steam Box shows the inevitable result of such a move, it becomes a Fixed hardware PC, yet still costs the same as a normal PC. New tech could always change the rules, but the current trend is for even more power requirements.

With the rise of both VR and 4k the power demands just get bigger and bigger.
Wait, Sony's got a VR prototype, so that's not an issue, is it?
Well let's consider what VR needs, Two HD screens at absolute minimum.
First the standard 1080p which is 1920×1080 pixels, a total of 2,073,600 individual pixels.
So about 2 Million pixels for a single 1080p Screen and 4 million for the pair.
What about 720p which is 1280×720 pixels, a total of 921,600 individual pixels
So about 1 Million pixels for a single 720p Screen and 2 million for the pair.

Consoles can just about manage VR at 720p, more than that is beyond them.
The Occulus Rift prototype is already 1080p for each eye and may become even bigger when it's a finally release.

4k is 4 times 1080p which is 3840×2160 pixels, a total of 8,294,400 individual pixels.
So about 8 Million pixels for a single 4k Screen and 16 million for the pair, in the unlikely event that VR gets that big at launch.
High end PC required for one of these and I've even seen claims it's beyond PC's.
Current high end PC's can handle three 2560×1440 pixels in Eyefinity, which is 7680×1440 pixels, a total of 11,059,200 individual pixels.
So 4k is already easily reached and with likely hardware uprades the pair is within reach when power isn't an obstacle.

The consoles won't go down wihout a fight, obsolete but dominant tech can often stay on top for far longer than it should.
Given the current lack of new weapons and without the power to fully wield what they already have. Another gen is unlikely to succeed.
The consumer base will hang on to familiar tech for a long while, but when they do finally turn to another tech it will become a swift and bloodless coup. Whatever tech the onsole gamer turns to next, Sony and MS will turn to that tech as well, whether it's the second coming of the PC or something completely new, the consoles may die, but MS and Sony are not just cocole makers.

Lastly this isn't about which is best or what will win, it's just about actual obstacles, that are already present in the current tech and what's known to exist at this moment. When I talk about the death of consoles I only mean as currently designed with the 300W Max Power Supplies of current and previous gen systems.
I have no idea what will happen to the brands XBox and Playstation, those labels can easily be put on some future tech, the specs for consoles can be abandoned.