Carmack: Next-gen will still target 30fps

While the next generation of consoles will likely represent a significant jump in computational power, Carmack believes that next-gen games will still target 30 frames per second, much like this generation.

58

One peek at John Carmack's Twitter feed will convince you that, hey maybe this guy is smarter than you. Lead programmer at id Software, Carmack probably has more insight into future tech than the rest of us. While the next generation of consoles will likely represent a significant jump in computational power, Carmack believes that next-gen games will still target 30 frames per second, much like this generation.

Responding to a fan on Twitter, Carmack said that "I can pretty much guarantee that a lot of next gen games will still target 30 fps," without divulging any more information. This doesn't necessarily mean that next-gen systems will be underpowered. However, it suggests that developers are likely to use their graphical bandwidth on making prettier images.

Should Carmack's prediction come true, PC gamers could maintain their technical advantage over consoles even when the next generation launches. Now, PC games typically feature visual improvements over console counterparts, such as unrestricted framerates.

From The Chatty
  • reply
    December 18, 2012 4:15 PM

    Andrew Yoon posted a new article, Carmack: Next-gen will still target 30fps.

    While the next generation of consoles will likely represent a significant jump in computational power, Carmack believes that next-gen games will still target 30 frames per second, much like this generation.

    • reply
      December 18, 2012 4:27 PM

      FPS need more then 60fps to not jitter my controls. im gonna get a new console. but controllers for FPS are just garbage.

      Was playing blops2 on my ps3 with my roomies and their friends, its like a control abortion.

      • reply
        December 18, 2012 4:35 PM

        Seriously, microsoft and sony's next consoles should let us connect our usb keyboard and mouse I mean gamepads may be good for TPS games but for FPS its utter crap.

        • reply
          December 18, 2012 5:12 PM

          On the hardware end of things, the PS3 *does* allow for USB keyboards and mice. Its the software that needs to start supporting it.

        • reply
          December 18, 2012 9:07 PM

          Won't happen because the gamepad people would get sick of getting murdered. There's no technical reason at all why they couldn't do it.

        • reply
          December 18, 2012 10:10 PM

          Consoles are mad for couch play. A mouse and kb would be horrible on a couch.

        • reply
          December 19, 2012 6:29 AM

          Absolutely this

      • reply
        December 30, 2012 8:07 AM

        agreed

    • reply
      December 18, 2012 4:31 PM

      If it's a stable 30, that's fine.

      • reply
        December 18, 2012 6:20 PM

        yeah, that's fine with me too. it's all about tradeoffs anyway. pc gamers maintain their technical advantage but i buy a console that costs less than a top of the line video card that some people around here replace yearly (which may be the only way you're going to get a nice high res 60fps on a pc anyway) and i'll get maybe another 7 years out of the thing. in the end both sides are having fun playing new games.

        • reply
          December 18, 2012 8:04 PM

          So true

        • reply
          December 18, 2012 8:53 PM

          Might want to check your facts before posting. A lowly 7850 that costs as low as 200 bucks is enough to get 60fps at 1080p in most cases.

          With a tiny bit of effort, you can build PCs costing as low at $600 that will blow away any console. Too bad people nowadays just take the easy way out (getting a console), and way exaggerate PC cost to justify their purchases.

          • reply
            December 18, 2012 9:43 PM

            I don't get it. Since when is 1080p a standard on a desktop? I was playing 1600x1200 since like...Jesus I don't know. On my 20" Trinitron. With the two lines.

            • reply
              December 19, 2012 6:30 AM

              Since almost every monitor in the price range we're talking about started come out with a 1920x1080 widescreen format.

            • reply
              December 19, 2012 6:40 AM

              since probably about 2009, it's moving up from there even.

            • reply
              December 19, 2012 7:33 PM

              So sick of this argument about Trinitron tech. The shadow lines aren't even noticable unless you're writing in Word or anything else with a plain white background. And even then you eventually don't even notice them. In games? Please, might as well be non-existant.

              Troll somewhere else please.

              sarcasm

              • reply
                December 19, 2012 9:47 PM

                Haha, I'm sure these monitors are ancient history for all of you but I've actually been grabbing Trinitrons whenever I see them in good shape on craigslist. You see a lot from photo and video editors that are upgrading to flat panels. The color is freaking mindblowing and I like playing games in 4:3.

          • reply
            December 18, 2012 9:54 PM

            A 2 gig 7850 wont' even pull 60 frames per second at 1080p for BF3. YOU might wanna check your facts first.

            If you're referencing a sub 200 dollar card I assume you are referring to the 1gb.

            • reply
              December 19, 2012 12:06 AM

              @devildog: It does. Just don't turn on 4x AA

              http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/battlefield-3-aftermath-test-gpu.html

              • reply
                December 19, 2012 6:07 AM

                it does, just turn down all detail and turn off AA and buy yourself a 600 dollar computer that you have to put another 600 bucks into in a year when it doesn't work. what's the point of that then? let's be realistic. we are discussing cost and bang for your buck and you are fighting some kind of pc vs console war that nobody cares about. not to mention that we are discussing next gen consoles because if we were talking about current gen consoles, you can get an xbox for 199 and play any of the top games coming out and then you have even less of an argument over the actual topic we're discussing.

                • reply
                  December 19, 2012 7:33 AM

                  There's no need to be hyperbole mate. Probably you need to run off the MSAA (FXAA wil be just fine), and detail down a notch or two; and at 1080p it will still blow away anything consoles can come up with.

                  And what's with an another 600 bucks a year later? What's with it doesn't work? If you don't know how to build a decent PC that stretches your dollars, don't assume that it can't be done. And as I metioned, I haven't even touched on the game price subject.

                  Off topic it might be, but I also hate the hyperbole that people like you throw at pc gaming. Video card replacement yearly, seriously?

                  • reply
                    December 20, 2012 9:53 AM

                    Also, that money I can afford to throw into upgrades every 2-3 years comes from the fact that I can buy lots of games for 10-30 bucks on Steam, GF, GMG, Amazon or others, whereas console games often stay the original price for longer.

            • reply
              December 19, 2012 12:36 AM

              Anyway, my point isn't whether the 7850 can run all games at 1080p 60fps... surely there're some it struggles at. The point is PC gaming is hardly as expensive as people make it to be. I haven't even touched on steam sales.

              • reply
                December 19, 2012 4:30 AM

                Yea, if you consider the average gaming pc vs the average console, and then factor in steam sales / how cheap PC games are in general relative to console games, you can make up any cost difference pretty quickly.

            • reply
              December 19, 2012 6:28 AM

              Huh. I was averaging 80 fps in BF3 with my 7850. And that's on an old-ass i7 920 as well.

              Probably couldn't do it at absolute max settings but who gives a fuck about AA and shit like that when you're at such a monster resolution already?

          • reply
            December 18, 2012 10:18 PM

            Hi

        • reply
          December 19, 2012 4:27 AM

          Yes, exactly this - it's all about choice. You can get a 360 for $99, yet here I am thinking of dropping $1,000 on the next best dual GPU card (790) because the relative technical advantage means that much to me.

          For for those who don't care (I actually wish I was among them), the chocie is so incredibly easy, and cheap!

        • reply
          December 19, 2012 6:20 AM

          [deleted]

          • reply
            December 19, 2012 6:43 AM

            And even when you do upgrade, a budget or midrange card is overkill might be almost overkill for current games (unless you're running at an abnormally high resolution).

      • reply
        December 18, 2012 9:51 PM

        Finally we can start to bridge the stigma between hardcore video games and women. I mean if we're all just looking for a stable thirty-something we have some common ground to work with.

    • reply
      December 18, 2012 4:34 PM

      uh, Bitboys' console will run at 300 fps

    • reply
      December 18, 2012 4:49 PM

      I maintain that the biggest mistake id made with Rage was the time they spent making the game 60fps on a console. They spent an inordinate amount of time trying to make a next-gen engine run like 60fps and not look like crap on hardware taped out in 2005. So they wind up delaying the game a ton, being largely ignored by the console crowd on release, and with technical issues that plagued the PC (the pop-in wasn't an issue on the 360 because you can't turn fast enough to make it an issue)

      Granted I don't know the real sales numbers so the "disappointment" might just be my perception but I bet I'm right.

      • reply
        December 18, 2012 4:57 PM

        If you increase the sensitivity all the way in RAGE on the 360, you can turn around pretty damn quick.

      • reply
        December 18, 2012 5:20 PM

        Their stuipd focus on 60fps also meant no 120fps on PC. Between that and the lack of SLI support I was stunned to see how technically handicapped an id game was on my nice computer.

      • reply
        December 18, 2012 5:25 PM

        I dont think the massive development period for Rage had anything to do with hitting their 60fps target, they were previewing the game years prior to release running at that rate.

      • reply
        December 18, 2012 6:51 PM

        It was (in my opinion) marketing and a bad launch (on pc) that killed the game.

        Bethesda seemed to be targeting the Fallout RPG crowd and the issues with the AMD drivers for PC really hurt it. Also id and the rage ip was practically an unknown player in the console market space and Bethesda really did nothing to change that... it was like "here is id with the best RPG game evar" and the crowd was like "who's id and this isn't a fucking rpg?!?!?"

        I agree that 60 fps really didn't matter to the console space but neither did online play when quake world came out. If devs aren't willing to innovate then what the fuck are we going to have for games in 10 years? COD 32423 that plays like COD 1, that's what.

        I thought Rage was a pretty good action shooter but certainly could have used better story telling and the ending "wasn't". It puzzles me that a game like borderlands is basically the same thing but with "millions of guns" and it gets a 95 or whatever from metacritic. I guess if id added a loot system and monthly DLC at 10 bucks a pop it would be game of the year. Note to idiots: I like borderlands as well.

        For people who haven't played: if you want a good action shooter Rage is decent choice... if want the same, well you are already playing it.

        • reply
          December 18, 2012 7:36 PM

          good action shooter with some of the most satisfying controls.

        • reply
          December 19, 2012 3:42 AM

          hrm, maybe it was too far middle, cause i can punch through a mediocre shooter without too much trouble but this bored me before i was half way through

    • reply
      December 18, 2012 4:57 PM

      no need for high fps without mouse-based controls

      • reply
        December 18, 2012 5:22 PM

        I wonder if the opposite is actually true. With a stick you need to constantly move in a given direction then stop when you get there. Reliable tracking of the game world is essential.

        With a mouse, you have a directly proportional input. Once you get used to the feel of the game you can turn a given amount instantly without even leaving time for visual feedback. At the extreme end you get things like the flick-rail kills of the Q2/Q3 days.

    • reply
      December 18, 2012 5:02 PM

      If that is so and its at 1080p res then instead just go with 720p but 60fps.

    • reply
      December 18, 2012 5:09 PM

      If true, exactly why I will stick with high end PC gaming - I can't stand 30 fps, my eyes need 50-60.

      • reply
        December 18, 2012 5:50 PM

        Yeah really, FUCK that.

      • reply
        December 18, 2012 6:21 PM

        Because you'll probably want to play all those console exclusives.

        • reply
          December 18, 2012 7:17 PM

          I dunno, with a decent backlog and steam sales I could see it being pretty easy to just do PC gaming.

        • reply
          December 19, 2012 2:50 AM

          [deleted]

        • reply
          December 19, 2012 4:18 AM

          For me, this is virtually the only downside - and although it is significant, and a deal breaker for many, the pluses of high end PC gaming outweigh this negative many many times over.

        • reply
          December 30, 2012 8:15 AM

          console exclusives? for me games are mouse and keyboard exclusives

      • reply
        December 18, 2012 10:06 PM

        yeah, watching movies is hell.

        • reply
          December 19, 2012 4:17 AM

          Very, very bad comparison. Watching movies is very different than playing games - if you disagree, I suggest that you load up your favorite FPS and try it at 24 FPS, and then again at 60 FPS. If you can't tell the difference, then I suppose ubrokn.

    • reply
      December 18, 2012 5:23 PM

      Carmack's predictions are becoming as redundant as his game engines.

      • reply
        December 18, 2012 6:23 PM

        Pretty much.

      • reply
        December 18, 2012 6:37 PM

        ^^^^^^

      • reply
        December 18, 2012 7:01 PM

        Buuuuurn.

        But I think you might be right.

      • reply
        December 18, 2012 7:09 PM

        100% agree, i don't even listen to him anymore he is completely out of it.

        • reply
          December 18, 2012 7:16 PM

          Also FYI John, the Wii U N new system runs New Super Mario Bros Wii U at 60FPS @ 720p.

          Awkward... I am sure the Xbox 720 and PS4 will be > than the Wii U by quiet a lot.

          • reply
            December 18, 2012 7:20 PM

            valcan, no matter what games running at 30fps can have more eye candy than games running 60fps.

            That's an immutable fact. Games where eye candy doesn't matter, such as NSMB, can target 60. Games where hyper responsive control is important, Super Meat Boy / Call of Duty multiplayer, can also target 60. Games targeting eye candy, Battlefield 3 / Call of Duty singleplayer, will still target 30.

            It's quite possible that more games next gen will target 60 because they value the benefits of 60 vs 30 to be more valuable than the extra eye candy 30 allows. But for games pushing graphics to the limit you will always until the end of time get more candy at 30 than 60.

            • reply
              December 18, 2012 7:23 PM

              Yeah, if your'e dealing with constraints then 60fps matters way more in multiplayer than it does in single player. In SP you can crank the eye-candy up and its fine as long as the framerate is steady

            • reply
              December 18, 2012 8:31 PM

              its also cheaper and easier to make a less graphically impressive 60fps game than a landmark visual feat at 30fps.

              I think budget in nextgen could determine alot of it as well..

          • reply
            December 18, 2012 8:03 PM

            That isn't anything, really.

            • reply
              December 18, 2012 8:36 PM

              For sure it is a freaking joke I am not proud of my Wii U(still it is a launch title so who knows, SMB does look fantastic better than anything on the 360 or PS3). 720p @ 60FPS is like a 7 year target of the last gen Xbox 360 and PS3., your right it is nothing to be proud of at all.

              I was simply making a point that the Wii U that is suppose to have joke hardware can do 720p @ 60fps and JC said that the next Xbox and PS would be only hitting 30fps so that does not add up.

              To me it should be a given that the Xbox 720 and PS4 be way way ahead of the Wii U and easily hit 60fps @ 1080p which some titles last gen did cause if they can not something is seriously wrong.

              Who knows maybe JC saw the next consoles(is working on them) and they are a bit better than the Wii U....? It just feels wrong but who the heck really knows.

              We will all see next year what the deal really is, maybe he meant DX11 100% pimped @ 1080p, that I can understand, but for shit sake if that is the case tell us.

              • reply
                December 18, 2012 9:23 PM

                If the leaks are true, the new gen is going to have a hard time hitting 1080p, nevermind maintaining 60fps as well

              • reply
                December 18, 2012 10:08 PM

                Have you checked out the Rayman demo? If not, do so. It's gorgeous, and the Castle Rock level alone is worth the download.

                • reply
                  December 19, 2012 7:13 AM

                  Yeah that game looks amazing(it is a Gem Ubisoft have mad skillz) and I swear it run @ 60fps as well, totally a reason to have a Wii U.

              • reply
                December 19, 2012 2:05 AM

                You're being dense. The argument is not that 60fps is unachievable period. The argument is that 30fps will be what the majority of developers will target. The presumed reason being the desire for higher fidelity visuals and a general consumer acceptance of 30fps content.

                Citing a single instance does nothing to hurt that argument.

              • reply
                December 19, 2012 3:03 AM

                i really wonder about you sometimes. SMB is a technically pretty simplistic game

              • reply
                December 19, 2012 3:44 AM

                he's saying that they would rather punch a shitload of extra polys/effects rather than shoot for 60fps

          • reply
            December 18, 2012 10:34 PM

            dear valcan, it's super mario bros.

          • reply
            December 19, 2012 12:59 AM

            oh valcan :( this is a silly comment

        • reply
          December 19, 2012 2:28 AM

          Woah, hold up there son. If you insult Carmack, you're basically insulting god. Heresy!

          This is one of the founding fathers of that which you love so much. Have some respect!

          • reply
            December 19, 2012 3:00 AM

            Gods are only worth worship in as far as they are useful to the human condition. If a god's time has past into that of history's there is no reason to hold their words in particular esteem. You can still recognize their importance to history, while being critical of their text.

            That being said, I'm not sure this was a particularly insightful comment on Carmack's part, so much as a pointing out of the obvious. But whatever.

            • reply
              December 19, 2012 3:09 AM

              Understood and agreed, I just personally feel he should be treated with reverence because he has had such a big impact on my life, and let's be serious here - dude obviously knows what's up. Just because he's posting captain obvious stuff on twitter for the masses doesn't mean he's 'completely out of it'.

      • reply
        December 18, 2012 9:16 PM

        I'd look up that word "redundant".

        And I'd guess that this isn't so much a "prediction" as something resembling inside information. He's obviously deeply involved in the engine development world and still works closely with big players in the hardware and systems communities.

      • reply
        December 18, 2012 9:31 PM

        Do you mean irrelevant?

        • reply
          December 18, 2012 9:31 PM

          guess I should refresh more than every 15 minutes :(

      • reply
        December 18, 2012 10:38 PM

        Carmack's derpity derp's derp derpity derp derpers

      • reply
        December 19, 2012 4:02 AM

        I used to love fingering his .plan back in the day....

      • reply
        December 22, 2012 7:13 PM

        Game Engine != Game.

        He worked on the engine tech. Rage's downfall was its crap marketing, driver problems at launch (which might have been under his responsibility to test), story ending and lack of clear vision.

        Graphics and responsiveness wise is amazing and the tech is impressive. Just because you notice some texture fade when you do a quick 180 in a new area, or see low res textures when you walk right up to a wall, it should not be the sole heuristic for judging the games graphics.

        During *actual gameplay* that is played at a normal speed (where everything is in motion and you arent inspecting everything with a microscope), the game looks visually fantastic, and runs very smoothly even on old hardware.

        The tech is great. Countless FPS games have been built on top of iD tech (including half life and call of duty). Just because iD tech is no longer being licensed (like unreal is), it does not mean that it is redundant.

    • reply
      December 18, 2012 6:56 PM

      The otonx has a baseline of 100fps http://www.otonx.com/

      • reply
        December 19, 2012 2:54 AM

        HAHAHAHAHA! This is some lulzy shit. I feel like I'm being invited into a kill room in that daily rented office space when he opens the door to the pitch video.

        It's like he saw the OUYA and was like... THAT'S A BRILLIANT INVESTMENT SCHE PLAN!

        I'LL DO THAT BUT WITH LINUX AND AND... IT WILL CREATE ITS OWN GAMES! AND WILL HAVE A PROJECTOR BUILD IN! AND A KINECT! AND THAT WEIRD PS3 BOOMARANG!

        EVERYONE WILL INVEST IN MY FRAU CONSOLE!

        Yeaaaahhhh.

      • reply
        December 19, 2012 3:04 AM

        lulz: "not on kickstarter because of policy change"

        If I'm not mistaken, the main "policy change" was getting "inventors" to be more forward with their risks and being a little more picky when it comes to projects. Also, if I'm not mistaken, kickstarter doesn't charge up front.

        Is this the next-gen Phantom?

        • reply
          December 19, 2012 4:11 AM

          its the this-gen next-gen!

    • reply
      December 18, 2012 6:57 PM

      does he mention texture loading

    • reply
      December 18, 2012 7:04 PM

      The guy made a game where an expert could reliably predict and blind-fire a kill-shot missile in 3d-space into someone's face (also an expert) based upon power-up drop-rate and other strategic variables while in a parabolic descent from a jump-pad with a period of several seconds of zero visibility just prior to the shot. He made the best competitive 1v1 first-person shooter ever.

    • reply
      December 18, 2012 8:01 PM

      30 fps, but is that for both eyes? ala 3D @ 30 fps could be 60 fps in 2D, etc.

      But, I'd settle for 30fps, rock solid, and more pretty.

    • reply
      December 18, 2012 8:09 PM

      Why didn't the shack post an article when I said next gen games will target 30 fps, like they always have? I will go one further. When next gen consoles come out they will talk up 60 fps, but the majority of games will actually run at 30!

    • reply
      December 18, 2012 8:34 PM

      Carmack said that Doom 3 was targeting 30 FPS; it looked best in 60 FPS.

    • reply
      December 18, 2012 9:43 PM

      Hell yeah, everyone needs at least 60 fps.

    • reply
      December 18, 2012 9:49 PM

      I still have to sigh at of the worry that goes along with console gaming over the dreaded 30FPS.

      It'd be pretty cool if console manufacturers made at least the video cards inside consoles upgradeable - it'd put to rest this constant silly worry over "but will it be 30FPS?" for console gamers.

    • reply
      December 18, 2012 10:15 PM

      Targeting 30 fps made sense for consoles that used NTSC and PAL considering those displays only supported 25 / 29.997 fps. It doesn't really make sense anymore to keep targeting 30 fps when all the digital displays have a minimum of 60 fps and some displays going up to 120 or 240. Cutting the frame rate is something they have been doing the prolong the relevance of the consoles. Its time for them to be updated for the times.

      • reply
        December 18, 2012 10:20 PM

        The only displays doing 120 are the nvidia 3D vision or other 120hz computer monitors. TVs may advertise 120 or 240, but they can't actually accept inputs at those framerates.

    • reply
      December 18, 2012 11:46 PM

      What a silly thing to say. That has nothing to do with the consoles and everything to do with the developer. Current gen consoles can do 60fps, and some games do, but most devs would prefer to eek out every bit of capability at the cost of the lower frame rate.

      I personally prefer the 60 at the cost of some fidelity but I bet your average gamer (read: NOT SHACKERS) doesn't notice 30fps as being lacking

      • reply
        December 19, 2012 2:12 AM

        Isn't that exactly what Carmack said?

        • reply
          December 19, 2012 2:25 AM

          Hence Valcan's post being entirely silly-rabbit.

      • reply
        December 19, 2012 2:49 AM

        so basically you're saying that while the next generation of consoles will likely represent a significant jump in computational power, the next-gen games will still target 30 frames per second.

        • reply
          December 19, 2012 3:01 AM

          Precisely. Someone can make a game for Valcan's OMGOMG PC that will only run at 30fps on his rig maxed. While Valcan will then bankrupt himself to make that otherwise, that's another story.

      • reply
        December 19, 2012 3:18 AM

        I think 30fps would be more acceptable among "gamers" if it was an actual 30fps at all times. The trouble, especially in console games (this generation in particular, but last had issues too) is that 30fps seems to be the maximum, but there's still a lot of occasions where things drop to 15 or so...and that is just not acceptable.

      • reply
        December 19, 2012 5:05 AM

        Yeah, it's less about the new console hardware and more about human nature.

    • reply
      December 19, 2012 2:21 AM

      Triple digits or fuck off. (OK, I'll begrudginglyaccept less, but it better be 60 minimum.)

      Carmack himself taught us that 72 fps is great, why should I accept less than that?

      • reply
        December 19, 2012 3:02 AM

        Carmack is also targetting 30 fps with doom 4. So yeah...

        • reply
          December 19, 2012 3:25 AM

          I don't give a shit what they target, as long as it isn't capped at 30 on PC.

        • reply
          December 19, 2012 10:06 AM

          Doom4
          Consoles SP = 30FPS
          Consoles MP = 60FPS
          PC = 60FPS and 120FPS optionally

          • reply
            December 19, 2012 2:16 PM

            More than likely, the internal calculation rate would still be 30, but the draw rate would be higher. There would probably be too many variables dependent on the internal rate to just change it or unbind it.

    • reply
      December 19, 2012 3:15 AM

      Why do people still listen to this guy?

      • reply
        December 19, 2012 3:28 AM

        why are people asking this question? He pioneered so many techniques in modern graphics, pushed vendors towards where we are now with his work, developed some insane techniques and is incredibly smart

        • reply
          December 19, 2012 3:29 AM

          it's the front page, curb your expectations

      • reply
        December 19, 2012 5:28 AM

        Oh, I don't know, it's not like he's a highly respected developer who created some of the best games of all time?

        • reply
          December 19, 2012 5:51 AM

          Granted he has very little clout with the industry anymore. He's respected mainly by 30 something gamer nerds. Tim Sweeney has pretty much overtaken him by a mile. Plus game quality has nothing to do with him and the old school guys haven't been able to catch up.

          So while it's great to have him around, his opinions aren't law and he's just doing a really ambitious engine feature tacked onto mediocre games.

          • reply
            December 19, 2012 7:01 AM

            I'm guessing you're a gamer rather than a developer? Might wanna stop pulling crap like "30 something gamer nerds" out of your behind because you're making yourself look like a fool. :)

          • reply
            December 19, 2012 4:37 PM

            carmack has major clout in the industry, to this day. He's pretty much setting standards 5 years before any other developer even approaches them.

      • reply
        December 19, 2012 6:25 AM

        Probably because he's way way smarter than you.

      • reply
        December 19, 2012 4:35 PM

        he pioneered bsp slicing...genius....

    • reply
      December 19, 2012 3:47 AM

      Well I was going to buy the next consoles, but 30fps I'd retarded sludge fest! Going to stick with my 5760x1080 at 120fps. :)

    • reply
      December 19, 2012 3:48 AM

      LOL, consoles. Most of the games won't probably even render at 1080p.

      • reply
        December 19, 2012 4:19 AM

        LOL you can own more than one platform.

        • reply
          December 19, 2012 4:42 AM

          LOL most pc games are just console ports nowadays so what does it matter

        • reply
          December 19, 2012 7:13 AM

          Yeah, I know. I have a gaming laptop and a gaming desktop. Playing games on the laptop is a rather shitty experience though because it doesn't have a 120fps screen and it can't run the latest games even at 60fps @ 1080p. But thank fucking jesus I don't have to ever play a game on a video TV game console or what you call them, THE HORROR!!!

    • reply
      December 19, 2012 5:38 AM

      Software will dictate where I play. Just like the beginning of the PS3/360 lifecycle, there were a lot of exclusives that I wanted to play, and thus I played. If this trend shows up again during the next-gen cycle, I will play along (pun intended).

      However, hopefully the number of exclusives will be limited and I can continue to play on Steam as my platform of choice.

    • reply
      December 19, 2012 6:13 AM

      I wish they'd move to 24 fps so that games didn't look so much like a soap opera

    • reply
      December 19, 2012 7:04 AM

      He posted a clarification:

      John Carmack ‏@ID_AA_Carmack
      For the record, just in case it wasn't clear, we continue to target 60fps, and 120fps will be an option on PC. 120fps stereo VR, even.

      https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/281409030369472512


      Also how is this surprising to anyone? Of course next-gen will be mostly 30fps (or even lower). Unfortunately devs like id or platinum who actually give a damn about how a game runs and feels over pretty screenshots are in the minority. Everyone else would rather push polygons and whatever else to get the most out of each frame, because the videos and trailers people watch will be 30fps anyway.

      • reply
        December 19, 2012 7:58 AM

        It's kind of hilarious that people are getting butthurt about it in this thread. There is absolutely nothing controversial in saying that devs will continue to target 30fps in next gen consoles.

        The vast majority of players don't care about framerate. A couple of years ago when I had a 360, most games suffered from some chop -- even very popular games -- and apart from a single mention in a game review now and then, nobody seemed to care.

        Devs and publishers will continue to push visual fidelity at the expense of framerate because prettier screenshots = more sales. If you play on a PC you can throw more hardware at it, but on a console you're going to be stuck at the minimum consumer-acceptable framerate for the foreseeable future.

      • reply
        December 20, 2012 12:40 AM

        Hell ya! John is the man! 120fps VR I want!!

    • Zek legacy 10 years
      reply
      December 19, 2012 7:48 AM

      Of course this is the case, and always will be unless the hardware becomes so powerful that devs can hit 60fps in their sleep. Otherwise they're not going to sacrifice visuals for an FPS increase that most consumers don't care about. Nor are they going to spend more of their budget than they need to on optimizations.

    • reply
      December 19, 2012 7:54 AM

      I'm comfortable with 30 FPS on a console, though I'll admit one of the things I love about the CoD games is how smooth they are. Other than poorly optimized games where 30 FPS is peak and it varies wildly, it's always been pretty comfortable.

    • reply
      December 19, 2012 10:58 AM

      I figured this much because if you look at benchmarks for PC games running at around 1920×1080 with most details cranked, the games run between 30-60FPS but rarely over 60FPS so them targeting a solid 30FPS would be a reasonable target if they want to actually render games at 1080p this time around.

Hello, Meet Lola