Topic: Is it important that every next gen release runs at 1080p and 60 fps?

Really you haven't notice..... play any game were the action really intensify like any COD.... when there lot's of explosion or many character on the same screen and then the entire action slows down and the game is glitching and lagging to catch up.... that's when you've experience framerate dropped.

Most recent games on the PS3/360 don't even run at a consistent 30FPS and they usually render at less than 1280x720 pixels.
They only discussion to be had there is which version isn't the worst.

Given that Nintendo often target 60FPS for their games, it gives me the impression that they care about the frame rate and understand the importance of it, especially for certain genres of games.

Frankly I'd rather a game look simpler and run smoothly than fill the screen with shinies and jitter. Run at a lower framerate during the crazy cutscene with the huge explosions fine but don't ever do it without justification. Definitely not all of the time.

and for the millionth time on this forum no, the XBOne and PS4 are not 4K ready in any reasonable sense. In terms of a 60fps target with the sort of visuals people expect from "next-gen" they're barely 1080p ready. If you want 4K ready right now you're going to have to spend at least 2x the cost of these "next-gen" consoles on the graphics card alone for reliably over 30fps.

Really when they say "4K ready" they actually just mean that they can output that sort of signal. Which is great if you want to do spreadsheets on your PS4/XBOne or maybe even if you want to playback a movie. Means nothing for gaming though without the GPU power to back it up... which they seriously lack.

Actually for some sort of guide to the sort of required performance jumps we're talking about here:

480p @ 30fps -> 720p @ 30fps = ~3x required performance jump
720p @ 30fps -> 1080p @ 60fps = ~4.5x required performance jump
1080p @ 60fps -> 4K @ 60fps = ~4x required performance jump

Four generations of "resolution standards" here. There's the previous era upto and including the Wii with the standard def, low framerate target. Then there's the "HD gen" which was most frequently at 720p with a low target framerate. Then there's this new standard which the Wii U is frequently targeting and the XBOne/PS4 seem to be trying to follow. Then there's what'll be next.

It'll be another generation before we see 4K on consoles.

maybe its just me, but i can barely tell the difference between 360p and HD 720p. so i really dont care, and i dont care for frame-rate until it's only a couple frames per second.

I think it's hilarious that Microsoft and Sony are trying to pass off their new systems as "4k ready." Uhm ... nope, they're not. Unless they will be running those games at the PC equivalent of "low" or "minimal" graphics settings. The specs of the news consoles are middling at best when compared to mid-tier PC gaming rigs. Go to a PC gaming site and do a bit of reading on 4k gaming - what you can find out in about 5 minutes will shock you. For 4k gaming with the highest-level PC builds currently available, if you wanted to run anything like Battlefield or CoD or even Tomb Raider or DmC on medium or higher graphics settings, you'd need to link up at least two Titans (one of the most powerful graphics cards currently available). I assure you, the PS4 or Xbone are nowhere near being ready for 4k.

Probably because we're finally moving on from 8 year old hardware, and people are hoping that the next generation of console games can at least compete with current PC games.

Even if consoles could achieve the same as modern PC's, their little technological tie wouldn't last very long. PC's are much more adaptable, and that's just how it is. Though I don't really consider frame rate, graphical quality, and HD important, so I'm fine with playing on a more limited device. Actually, scratch that, I prefer to play on a more limited device.

No, it is not important that every game be 1080p and 60FPS. Why do people suddenly care about such a minuscule set of facts? 60FPS is obviously great, and I wish the Zelda series played at 60frames, but 30FPS will serve just fine - and we've numerous examples of this already. 1080p is a huge joke. Most standard players cannot tell the difference between 1080p and 720p.

@AmyHD
I can tell the difference of a 1080p res on as small as a screen as 32". Any smaller, 720p is fine, and it's all better than 480p in the first place, so you can't really go wrong.

I still think it's more dependent on what the content actually is. Anything will basically look better at 1080p and/ or 60FPS. Sometimes a trade of resolution for better graphics is a better choice, or a similar situation for something else. Like resolution for frame rate. Home console games always have a limited target of 3 systems. As long as the game can run on those systems at the best of their ability, there shouldn't be any complaints.

Sony isn't...

They've said it'll support movies and video in 4K in the future and both the PS4 and Xbox One come with HDMI cables capable of displaying 4k at 30 FPS. Microsoft is being much more misleading.

Yusuf Mehdi, Microsoft's Corporate Vice President of Marketing and Strategy stated back in May that "There's no hardware restriction" when it comes to 4K gaming on the Xbox One.

Sony's Worldwide Studios boss Shuhei Yoshida told Joystiq back in February that PS4 games do not play in 4K, despite confirming that 4K video support will be present.

So as you can see microsoft will tell you any old crap.

Well Microsoft isn't wrong but there's a difference between having the ability to run games at 4K and being able to have games playable at 4K. Just like how a ten year old PC with integrated graphics can run games and output 1080p. Doesn't mean it can actually do it acceptably.

Exactly. Like I said, the next-gen consoles showing movies and stuff at 4k? Yea, I can buy that. But the next-gen consoles, which are only equivalent to about a mid-power gaming PC, running video games at 4k with decent graphics and framerate? Nope - no way. The research that PC gamers have done is out - go look at it to make sure you know the facts. I really wouldn't put money down on one of those consoles thinking that it will be able to do 4k gaming for you. In a couple years' time, IF 4k gaming takes off, you'll be stuck with a dud.

Thats why I said 'at least compete'. If this next gen of consoles rolls up and the difference between PC games and console games remains as bad as it is then there will be less reason for people to pick them up, especially when in the end the graphically superior PC versions will be cheaper via Steam sales and such. Consoles will never be on the same level as PC's, and of course the difference will keep on getting greater, but these new console generations are supposed to be when the machines catch up a bit and still remain a viable option.

PC gaming will never make consoles extinct. They are two completely different things. Most people don't want to bother building PCs and having to upgrade and maintain them. Home consoles are much more convenient and accessible for your average gamer.

It's like saying that Ferrari's will eventually make Honda Civics obsolete, because they are superior automobiles.

HDMI 1.4a, which you probably have in your hoise right now, is already 4K @ 30FPS compatible. HDMI 2.0 is what ups it to 60FPS and a few oher features.

This is why I was saying around December, that I already 4K equipment laying around the house. If I was tech savy enough to tear apart my $400 audio receiver and know what I was doing, I'd be able to upgrade my HDMI ports without buying a the whole thing just for 4K. That's only in the case that I actually was able to get a 4K UHDTV, and anything actually utilized it.

You're looking at it from the wrong perspective and I don't think anyone really knows what will happen. Certainly not people who think of consoles and PCs as two entirely different product types divided only by "easy" and "hard". What is certain is that it's not just a three console race anymore. We have seen Android boxes and SteamOS play their hand already both of which can easily be sold as appliances like consoles are.

Just face it, the game industry is the biggest entertainment industry in the world now and development costs are through the roof. People aren't as brand loyal as you think they are and the major third parties only care about selling as many units as possible. If a more open platform allows these open boxes to constantly be upgraded in the market then the traditional console will quickly become obsolete.

..... think about it. If SteamOS was a thing five years ago and their PS4 equivalent one was last years model would you be still hyped about PS4? Would you care about PS3 content still?

@skywake
That's not true. If a game console allowed you to upgrade it, that wouldn't guarantee success. Sega tried the same thing. Granted they didn't stick with it on a consumer level, and ditched it t a commercial level, but upgrades are generally not what people look for unless they are into PC.

I've truly thought, 'oh well Nintendo could release an add on if they need to', but they refrain from that as much as possible unless it's a miscellaneous hook up.

Most people just want something simple that will do most of what they want/need it to. A big COD fan could very well say, "Wii U is cheaper, has free online, and has COD with some extra Wii U features". As for the Ferrari vs. Honda Civic thing: We can only go 65 miles per hour on highways. That's the point I like to make that having a faster car basically never matters.