PlayStation’s Lead Designer Is “Very Surprised” by the Popularity of Ray Tracing and How Gamers Prefer Higher Frame Rates

[Tsing]

Mark Cerny, the video game designer, programmer, and producer best known for being the lead architect behind Sony's modern PlayStation consoles, including the PS4 and PS5, is not only very surprised at how many developers are implementing ray tracing in their games these days, but also how modern console gamers prefer higher frame rates instead of a 30 FPS mode where, despite delivering lower frame rates, typically makes up for that with greater visuals.

See full article...

 

[MadMummy76]

Geez, people prefer playable framerates what a revelation. You can't make up for an unplayable experience with great visuals. That's like having a car that is undriveable but at least looks good.

 

[Zarathustra]

I mean, the higher frame rates thing is a little bit irrational.

I mean, certainly we should all have a minimum of 60fps on all platforms. That should not be a surprise. That has been the case for decades.

I used to be in the "nothing over 60fps is ever necessary" club. I've come around on that a little bit. There is definitely a benefit moving from 60-90fps. Going from 90-120fps helps too, but now diminishing returns really set in in earnest.

I don't think there is any point at all in anything above 120fps, even if you are a pro-gamer and everything depends on having every possible benefit in the game. I think above this level is when the irrationality starts setting in. People start rationalizing "bigger number must be better" and because of this "I should buy the biggest number possible just in case"

All of that said, this lead designer guy shouldn't have been surprised by this sentiment. If he had been paying any attention what so ever to games in the last 15 years he would have known.

It's almost difficult to believe that this man works in the game industry. How can you be so detached from your market/customers?

 

[Snowy]

I used to be in the "nothing over 60fps is ever necessary" club.

I think this used to be relatively true when everyone was on an LCD that tapped out at 60hz.
Now, if you're on a 144hz monitor, there is absolutely a difference in smoothness between 60fps and 140fps.

 

[Denpepe]

All of that said, this lead designer guy shouldn't have been surprised by this sentiment. If he had been paying any attention what so ever to games in the last 15 years he would have known.

It's almost difficult to believe that this man works in the game industry. How can you be so detached from your market/customers?

Same then goes for every console game maker that made their games run at 30 fps .

As a gamer it's easy to want max everything as a maker you have to choose your battles and make what's feasable.

And at least on consoles you have mostly a lvl playing field, it always annoys me when tech tubers/influencers think integrated graphics playing CS at 720p 35fps low/medium settings is a good way to start pc gaming.

 

[Zarathustra]

I think this used to be relatively true when everyone was on an LCD that tapped out at 60hz.
Now, if you're on a 144hz monitor, there is absolutely a difference in smoothness between 60fps and 140fps.

My time in gaming predates 60hz LCD's being the norm

Back in college I used to play the original Counter-Strike at 1600x1200 on my 22" Iiyama VisionMaster Pro 510 CRT at 100hz with vsync on

 

[Grimlakin]

Geez, people prefer playable framerates what a revelation. You can't make up for an unplayable experience with great visuals. That's like having a car that is undriveable but at least looks good.

Alpha Romeo would disagree. .

 

[MadMummy76]

I used to be in the "nothing over 60fps is ever necessary" club.

The issue is that frames per second doesn't tell the whole story. Frame time consistency is the real issue. Even 30 fps can appear smooth if there are no spikes in frametime.

And yes I think 60fps is enough, if it is smooth 60fps and not just an average where the actual frame times are all over the place.

 

[Riccochet]

My time in gaming predates 60hz LCD's being the norm

Back in college I used to play the original Counter-Strike at 1600x1200 on my 22" Iiyama VisionMaster Pro 510 CRT at 100hz with vsync on

CRT's weren't as susceptible to motion blur. At least not the higher end ones. Very smooth at lower frame rates.

LCD's are the exact opposite. You need to drive high frame rates or anything fast motion looks like a blurry mess.

I remember going from a Sony CRT to my first LCD and thinking I made a huge mistake.

 

[Zarathustra]

CRT's weren't as susceptible to motion blur. At least not the higher end ones. Very smooth at lower frame rates.

LCD's are the exact opposite. You need to drive high frame rates or anything fast motion looks like a blurry mess.

I remember going from a Sony CRT to my first LCD and thinking I made a huge mistake.

LCD's sucked in the late 90's and early oughts. Blurring, ghosting, and input lag orders of magnitude higher than today.

I don't think many lessons learned from back then still apply today.

 

[Zarathustra]

CRT's weren't as susceptible to motion blur. At least not the higher end ones. Very smooth at lower frame rates.

LCD's are the exact opposite. You need to drive high frame rates or anything fast motion looks like a blurry mess.

I remember going from a Sony CRT to my first LCD and thinking I made a huge mistake.

LCD's sucked in the late 90's and early oughts. Blurring, ghosting, and input lag orders of magnitude higher than today.

I don't think many lessons learned from back then still apply today.

I will say this though.

I am not quite sure why, but older games feel smoother at 60fps than newer ones do. And when I say older, I mean like 2005 at earlier.

I'm not quite sure what is going on. I wonder if there is some sort of post processing or something that messes with the frame rate and timing and contributes to things not feeling fluid.

 

[Peter_Brosdahl]

I think a part of it i

I am not quite sure why, but older games feel smoother at 60fps than newer ones do.

Not something I really tracked with older games but something I'm acutely aware of with newer ones is how they'll render different things at different framerates depending on distance from the player. Capcom is notorious for it with the RE Engine rendering as low as 15 FPS depending on how far something is away from the player. I don't know specifics but I've noticed the same effects in a number of modern games made in the last ten years. It can be baffling when AB shows 60-120 FPS but you know somethings not quite right.

Frame render times really play a huge factor as well and something I'm constantly reminded of whenever I do a significant CPU upgrade. I used to only judge by FPS but learned the hard way when things didn't look smooth it meant some part of my rig was out of date.

 

[Zarathustra]

I think a part of it i

Not something I really tracked with older games but something I'm acutely aware of with newer ones is how they'll render different things at different framerates depending on distance from the player. Capcom is notorious for it with the RE Engine rendering as low as 15 FPS depending on how far something is away from the player. I don't know specifics but I've noticed the same effects in a number of modern games made in the last ten years. It can be baffling when AB shows 60-120 FPS but you know somethings not quite right.

Frame render times really play a huge factor as well and something I'm constantly reminded of whenever I do a significant CPU upgrade. I used to only judge by FPS but learned the hard way when things didn't look smooth it meant some part of my rig was out of date.

I mean, correct me if I am wrong, but aren't render times just 1/fps? So you are really just talking about instantaneous framerate. (which I know is counter-untuitive since framerate is a natural average, and instantaneous is just one, but still)

I tend to look at it like this. I don't find great variety in frame times particularly bothersome, as long as the longest frames don't dip down really low. Like less than 1/60s.

 

[DrezKill]

...something I'm acutely aware of with newer ones is how they'll render different things at different framerates depending on distance from the player. Capcom is notorious for it with the RE Engine rendering as low as 15 FPS depending on how far something is away from the player. I don't know specifics but I've noticed the same effects in a number of modern games made in the last ten years.

Yeah a lot of console games will have lower framerates for in-game stuff that is farther away from the player, such as a 60fps game with NPCs in the distance that animate at 30fps or lower (depending on the distance). It's extremely jarring, and can contribute to breaks in immersion. Switch games are notorious for doing this. It pisses me off when I see it in PC games. Just another example of lazy ports not taking advantage of PC hardware. That kind of sh1t is completely un-f*cking-necessary on PC. Honestly it's sad to see it in the 9th-gen consoles too.

 

[Peter_Brosdahl]

I mean, correct me if I am wrong, but aren't render times just 1/fps?

Honestly I'm not sure but I've also noticed that things are not always as smooth as 60-120 FPS might indicate. When I upgraded to the 5800X3D it was night and day compared to the 3700X and 4930K before it, and the same when that replaced 2600K. In each case AB and just about every other app I used to measure FPS showed 60-120 FPS since that's the target I aim for with my GPUs but I learned over time not to trust it since there's more to it than that. Sorry I'm not being more specific just agreeing that sometimes when a high framerate is reported that things can still look a little janky onscreen and the only thing I've seen make a major difference are CPU upgrades.

 

[Peter_Brosdahl]

Yeah a lot of console games will have lower framerates for in-game stuff that is farther away from the player, such as a 60fps game with NPCs in the distance that animate at 30fps or lower (depending on the distance). It's extremely jarring, and can contribute to breaks in immersion. Switch games are notorious for doing this. It pisses me off when I see it in PC games. Just another example of lazy ports not taking advantage of PC hardware. That kind of sh1t is completely un-f*cking-necessary on PC. Honestly it's sad to see it in the 9th-gen consoles too.

Hadn't thought of that. Just used to finding the biggest hammer to overcome it.

 

[Denpepe]

Capcom is notorious for it with the RE Engine rendering as low as 15 FPS depending on how far something is away from the player.

I noticed this in the division 2, also seen some jarring low fps in flames rendered in some game, but for the life of me can't remember which one.

 

[MadMummy76]

I will say this though.

I am not quite sure why, but older games feel smoother at 60fps than newer ones do. And when I say older, I mean like 2005 at earlier.

I'm not quite sure what is going on. I wonder if there is some sort of post processing or something that messes with the frame rate and timing and contributes to things not feeling fluid.

Older games are easier on the CPU, the GPU never has to wait for the CPU. So it is smooth because at no point is the game CPU limited.