Why Don't Consoles Have Performance Settings Like PCs?

[Olas]

So I'm not really a console gamer anymore, the last console I bought was a Wii, but I have been keeping up with the discussions on resolution and framerate with the newly launched consoles and it's starting to make me wonder if console games wouldn't benefit from having the same performance settings as PCs. (ie texture quality, anti-aliasing, v-sync, etc)

As far as I'm aware, consoles have always lacked most of the features that let you tweak graphics like on a PC, and for the most part it made sense to me: consoles have standardized hardware that can be optimized for, while PCs have variable hardware that needs to be compensated for.

However, I'm starting to question this rationale. Locking all these settings to get the same performance assumes that there's a certain baseline performance that everyone is shooting for. However it's clear that not everyone feels the same way about frame-rate, some people want 60 FPS or higher while others are perfectly happy with 30FPS. The same is true of resolution, some people may not even have TVs that can take advantage of 1080p resolution (like me) while others want it. Some people play games competitively while others just want to enjoy the atmosphere of the game's world.

I don't really understand why you would want everyone to have the same experience when it's pretty obvious we don't all have the same priorities. And for people who don't care or don't want to bother with these settings they can just stick to the default. There's really no major downside to this that I can see, it would probably even benefit PC users as these settings would most likely trickle up into the PC ports.

If there's some obvious technical reason this type of thing can't be done, then I apologize for wasting time here, but from what I can tell consoles are just standardized PCs.

What do you guys think? Do you agree?

 

[Bad Jim]

It's simple really. PCs need it, because it needs to run on four year old laptops while also doing justice to high end PCs. Consoles don't need it. Not that much, anyway.

Since consoles are all the same, it is generally expected by console gamers that the game should just work. These days they have to install the game and download patches just like PC gamers, but both these things have major upsides. Having to tweak graphics settings is not something they should have to do.

The desired framerate should really be a judgement call from the developers. It depends on the amount of motion, the importance of sensing motion and the importance of reflexes. If there is lots of motion, 60 fps will look better full stop. If it is important that the player dodge projectiles or drive vehicles, the game needs 60 fps to help the player do that.

A brawler needs 60 fps, though most action games don't actually require really fast reflexes that might make 60 fps important. Usually the emphasis is on how you react rather than how quickly, with the player getting half a second or more and the 17 millisecond latency difference being trivial.

If a game needs 60 fps for the reasons I've stated, then virtually no-one will want to play on 30 fps if 60 fps is available. If the game doesn't need 60 fps for those reasons (or anything I forgot) then people will just play at 30 fps because it is prettier. Why would you want to play XCOM at 60 fps?

 

[seaweed]

Because it just works?, even if it's at 25 FPS and plays like ass. Anything to squeeze out some slightly prettier marketing bullshots. Barf.

I do wish they'd give us the choice though. A ton of console games used to be 60 frames in the 6th gen and I'd gladly sacrifice a ton of fidelity to get back to that point.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

Er...I'll be honest here: all of that stuff? That doesn't matter to me. I don't know what the difference is between frame rates or pixel resolution or any of this stuff. And personally, I don't want any of those options on my console. I play on consoles because I cannot figure out the technical stuff of computers. You guys are basically speaking a different language to me. If these options start showing up on consoles--if I start getting messages when I put a game in that say, "Which resolution would you like to run? Which OS? Where do you want to save?" and all that other stuff that comes with installing a computer game, I'm going to be ticked. I play on consoles because they are simple and easy to deal with. I don't have to fiddle with settings in order to run a game.
But that's just me. I'm sure there are other people out there who would love to have those options, but it makes me wonder why they don't just play on the PC.

 

[Risingblade]

The whole point of consoles is not having to deal with that stuff.

 

[clippen05]

Er...I'll be honest here: all of that stuff? That doesn't matter to me. I don't know what the difference is between frame rates or pixel resolution or any of this stuff. And personally, I don't want any of those options on my console. I play on consoles because I cannot figure out the technical stuff of computers. You guys are basically speaking a different language to me. If these options start showing up on consoles--if I start getting messages when I put a game in that say, "Which resolution would you like to run? Which OS? Where do you want to save?" and all that other stuff that comes with installing a computer game, I'm going to be ticked. I play on consoles because they are simple and easy to deal with. I don't have to fiddle with settings in order to run a game.
But that's just me. I'm sure there are other people out there who would love to have those options, but it makes me wonder why they don't just play on the PC.

Is one question really that complex for you? The option he refers to is essentially binary. Would you like better graphics for less smooth gameplay or smoother gameplay with worse graphics? I fail to see how that is ANYTHING like what you have described. More options are better for everyone; there are definitely people out there on consoles that notice these things. For example, I've noticed many people talk about Mass Effect 1's TERRIBLE frame-rate on Xbox360 during combat. I'm sure many of them, me included as I played it on Xbox360, would have cherished an option to degrade the quality a bit to get that framerate stable. Why not provide more options, you don't have to use them if you don't want to.

You realise there are PC gamers who don't care about resolution and framerate but still choose to play on PC for one reason or another. (shocking I know) So is it a stretch to think that there ARE console gamers that care about those sorts of things without wanting to switch to PC? I know that these people exist as they are the people who bicker over one game running at 720p on Xbox and the PS4 equivalent running at 1080p.

 

[crazygameguy4ever]

no idea.. I guess as a console gamer we have to rely on the developer to make our games look as good and run as good as possible.. it all about making the game look the same regardless of console.. with some exceptions like the PS4 having more 1080p games then the xbone or the when the WIi was out and all of the games on it weren't as good as gamecube games looked, let alone as good as ps3/360..

While it might be fun to be able to change settings.. it's better to just let developers make games run as good as they should before we get them rather then to have to change and mess with settings for every game we get. consoles are more convenient, which is why i'm exclusively a console gamer. i don't have to worry about my console running a game made for it.. no upgrading a system to be able to play a game. just install the disc and play

 

[NiPah]

Most likely it's just an added cost that developers don't want to have if they aren't required to.
It's pretty much required to have those settings since the PC market is so varied, but since that's not the case for consoles it's just not something worth dealing with.

 

[Mikeyfell]

um... because consoles aren't PC's...
That's just the nature of things

If you want to customize your experience you play on PC. If you want to..... um... there really isn't a benefit to Console gaming any more... but it used to be for the simplicity of "Plug in and play"
Now that consoles are basically just shitty PC's there could be like a setting that could let you switch between 1080 @ 30 FPS and 720 @60 fps or what ever.

But frankly I don't think anyone cares enough to include a feature like that

 

[FireAza]

Because it would be pointless. The only reason PC games have settings is to give the ability for the user the ability to raise/lower the game's settings in order to match your system's capabilities. If you have a weak system, you wouldn't be able to run the game at a playable framerate if the settings were maxed out and you couldn't change them. Rarely are game settings included just to give the player the ability to customize their experience.

 

[sXeth]

Eh turning up settings and dropping framerate isn't always just a matter of having your game lag a tad. If you're cranking it up to the point you're forcibly (as opposed to the developer coding them) dropping frames, it means you're over-exerting your system resources, and eventually something is going to get damaged.

Since the consoles by nature aren't going to warranty against you overclocking them into a puddle, or allow you to pick them apart and stick in new cooling setups, at best you'd just get two still completely arbitrary sets of settings the developer decided were stable for those specs.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Because consoles were always intended to be governed by their corporate overlords and no one else, that mentality has also become deeply seated in their developers and users so at the end of the day it's a nice circle of no fucks given, or worse people will actively fight against getting options.

But the options should always be there, no one said you need to use them, but when someone does want or need to they should be there, anything else is just half arising it.

 

[Pink Gregory]

Bioshock has an 'unlock framerate' option, but the screen tearing introduced is so damn nasty y'needn't bother.

 

[veloper]

Even if it didn't gain me any frames, I still like the option to disable some debilitating crap such as: lens flares, motion blur and heavy application of bloom and depth of field.

That only gets in the way of playing the game and doesn't make any sense, unless the player character is supposed to be a video camera instead of human being.

 

[WeepingAngels]

PC's have those settings (not features) because they have to, because not everyone has the same hardware. Consoles are supposed to b e plug n play and the more consoles move away from plug n play, the more irrelevant they will become.

 

[Olas]

Er...I'll be honest here: all of that stuff? That doesn't matter to me. I don't know what the difference is between frame rates or pixel resolution or any of this stuff. And personally, I don't want any of those options on my console. I play on consoles because I cannot figure out the technical stuff of computers. You guys are basically speaking a different language to me. If these options start showing up on consoles--if I start getting messages when I put a game in that say, "Which resolution would you like to run? Which OS? Where do you want to save?" and all that other stuff that comes with installing a computer game, I'm going to be ticked. I play on consoles because they are simple and easy to deal with. I don't have to fiddle with settings in order to run a game.
But that's just me. I'm sure there are other people out there who would love to have those options, but it makes me wonder why they don't just play on the PC.

Just because you're given the options, it doesn't mean you're forced to actually use them. Games would still come with default settings which you could leave untouched if you don't care. But it could also be made much easier so that even a novice can understand, ask the user "would you prefer a crisp image or smoother movement" the system could then automatically save this information and apply it to future games you play so that you only have to make the decision one time.

Because it would be pointless. The only reason PC games have settings is to give the ability for the user the ability to raise/lower the game's settings in order to match your system's capabilities. If you have a weak system, you wouldn't be able to run the game at a playable framerate if the settings were maxed out and you couldn't change them. Rarely are game settings included just to give the player the ability to customize their experience.

I couldn't disagree more. Not only do people not all have identical preferences, we don't even have identical monitors to run the games on anyway, making 1080p pointless for some people but not others. The [a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXJh9ut2hrc"]great framerate non-debate[/a] as Totalbiscuit called it I think highlights the fact that there is variance in want people desire in terms of performance and it would be silly to pretend otherwise.

um... because consoles aren't PC's...
That's just the nature of things

If you want to customize your experience you play on PC. If you want to..... um... there really isn't a benefit to Console gaming any more... but it used to be for the simplicity of "Plug in and play"
Now that consoles are basically just shitty PC's there could be like a setting that could let you switch between 1080 @ 30 FPS and 720 @60 fps or what ever.

But frankly I don't think anyone cares enough to include a feature like that

It seems like some people do care, at least Microsoft and Sony seem to think people do judging by their E3 presentations. Besides, if you want to play a game that's exclusive to a console you don't really have a choice in the matter even if you are a PC elitist.

I don't defend consoles, they're pretty much worse than PCs in every way, but it seems like this is at least one area where they don't have to be.

 

[Bad Jim]

Eh turning up settings and dropping framerate isn't always just a matter of having your game lag a tad. If you're cranking it up to the point you're forcibly (as opposed to the developer coding them) dropping frames, it means you're over-exerting your system resources, and eventually something is going to get damaged.

That's not true. If a higher setting requires twice the work per frame, your framerate will halve and your machine will do the same amount of work overall.

 

[mindfaQ]

Mainly it is developer choice, but it also just falls in the usual scheme of consoles offering less everywhere and being more or less completely closed.

 

[Evilpigeon]

PC's have those settings (not features) because they have to, because not everyone has the same hardware. Consoles are supposed to b e plug n play and the more consoles move away from plug n play, the more irrelevant they will become.

Especially with multiplayer games, it goes beyond stuff that you tweak for performance reasons. It allows people to customise the game to make it play better. For instance, you often get to remove effects that might obscure vision, even if they don't have an effect on your frame rate.

Colourblind modes are another example.

Having graphics settings in the options menu where people can remove bells and whistles isn't going to make things complicated, you can just ignore them and run the dev reccommended settings. However it would be useful for the people who wanted to optimise their experience.