All Channels
Popular
DoomeDx5457d ago

IMO, 60 frames are a must for Next Gen. But ofcourse they want to push the consoles to its limit, so it will still probally be 30 frames on 720p because the are maxing the graphics already before even thinking about resolutions and framerate

Theyellowflash305457d ago

Yeah, thats what concerns me about the next generation. I hope game developers focus on having the smooth gameplay first then worry about graphics. I would faint if Mass Effect played in 60FPS next generation.

MoveTheGlow5457d ago

There's also the familiarity that people have with 30fps in films and tv shows. No, it's not exactly 30 (I think it was 24?), but making a 30fps game gives it, to the Average Joe Gamer, a 'cinematic' feel.

But I'm right there with you. I love more skill-based, fast-paced games, and if you aren't locked in at a smooth 60fps, it doesn't work. Devil May Cry 3 wouldn't nearly have its appeal if it ran at the speed of, oh, Enslaved. Not that that would ever happen to DMC, right?

Theyellowflash305457d ago

LOL i see what you did there at the end. But yeah im a little worried about the new DMC. Using the unreal engine is not what i wanted to hear. Hopefully the game runs at 60FPS.

LightofDarkness5457d ago

UE3 is one of the easiest engines to get to run at 60FPS if you really want it to, it has a plethora of streaming options and compression techniques coupled with some "visual trickery" that can keep the game looking pretty nice with a high framerate.

Honestly, if NT can't get UE3 running at 60FPS they are pretty hopeless.

Tetsuryu5457d ago

Based on my past experience with the engine myself, I can tell you (and people I've worked with will tell you the same thing) it's almost impossible get 60FPS on consoles without some major corner cutting and compromises in the visuals even with some of the new features.

But in a sense LightofDarkness is correct, it's easy to get any title to an average of 60FPS (and 1080P if you want) on today's home consoles with virtually any decent engine, just don't expect Uncharted 3 or Gears of War 3 visuals (or anything near that for that matter). Turning off V-sync is almost mandatory in most cases.

http://media.ps3.ign.com/me...

To get it to look like this (at its current state) and have it run at said framerate, it's simply not going to happen, period. Unless NT has some miracle programmers to prove me wrong, which I hope, but doubt is the case.

NetherRealm Studios were one of the only ones to pull it off, but not without difficulty and taking a hit in the graphics department. Not to mention the maps (stages) are fairly small compared to other genres (and you only have 2 combatants onscreen majority of the time). You can read the documentation here if you want to learn more.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/1...

When it comes to choosing FPS versus visual quality, most studios tend to lean towards better visuals in the action genre, especially by Western studios. There are numerous reasons why that's the case.

While it's a good engine for its value (fairly cheap license compared to most out there), it's not quite the powerhouse in terms of raw power compared to some of the in-house engines from the other juggernauts of the industry. If it was capable of pulling a feat like that with relative ease, I'd be all over UDK and not use anything else.

Baka-akaB5457d ago (Edited 5457d ago )

THere is only one category of games i refuse to play below 60 fps , that would be fighting games .

Otherwise , while unfortunate , and soon unacceptable for any upcoming home console , i can deal with it .

60 or 30fps doesnt exactly decide the pace and feel of the game .

I'm worried over DmC , especially at 30 , but more because of Ninja theory's lack of skills when it comes to creating a fast paced , fluid , lag free and intense enough gameplay ... so it get's even worse when you factor the fps count .

But look at bayonetta and vanquish , incidently both from Platinum games , you can definitively have a fast paced and skill based game at 30 fps .

Theyellowflash305457d ago

Bayonetta is 60FPS on the 360 isn't it? But I agree with you. I would just rather have 60 cuz i can tell the difference in a action game and in games like COD over Killzone between 30 and 60 FPS.

rumplstilts5457d ago

Strategy games should also be 60 fps. Being able to observe all your units is easier.

MoveTheGlow5457d ago

I'd say that too, Baka, but then I'd hear something about 3rd Strike's framerate and completely eat crow, I'm sure. BTW, I can't wait for the online version...

Baka-akaB5457d ago

Not sure i followed and understood you there . SF 3rd strike runs in 60 fps .

Brunow5457d ago

Seriously guys, this article is pointless right ?

Gran Touring5457d ago

I don't think 60 fps is necessary for all games, just certain types; namely racing and fighting games. Platformers usually have it (DMC, Ninja Gaiden, GOW, etc.) but it isn't so necessary. If Uncharted, Mass Effect and GTA ran at 60 frames, it would certainly be a commendable achievement for the graphics, but it wouldn't really help the gameplay.

tplarkin75457d ago

If games ran at 60fps minimum, it would grow the industry.

Show all comments (29)
50°

Why the Wii is Such a Nostalgic System in 2026

The Wii is now a retro console. Let’s get nostalgic about an often maligned system.

Read Full Story >>
downupjourney.com
ActualWhiteMan34d ago (Edited 34d ago )

Crazy to think the WII is to the Switch 2, as the NES was to the WII back then. 20 Year difference.

jznrpg33d ago

My wife asks me to bust it out (heh) everyone once in a while to play bowling and tennis with the kids. There was a ton of slop on it but some good stuff as well.

Smellsforfree33d ago

Wii was great but boy howdy did it cause Microsoft to go on a dark walk with the Kinect and the disastrous XBox One launch that they arguably never recovered from.

Loktai33d ago

Not nostalgic for me.. I was there.. anyone who wasnt a little kid realized it was a gamecube with shit tacked onto it, it was the "joke" system and was well below even the switch in terms of comparing it to the latest machines at the time. The machine was well loved by young people and "casual gamers" who now remember it 20 years on, or in most cases more of its sales came in the 15-20 years ago range not right at launch- but again its not nostalgic for people who were "gamers" then really, just for those who ended up with one in their house, the games , graphics, interface and online features were archaic already in 2006.

160°

Xbox Game Pass Ultimate Price Update

Starting today, Game Pass Ultimate drops from $29.99 to $22.99 a month. PC Game Pass will also drop from $16.49 to $13.99 a month. Prices may vary by region.

Beginning this year, future Call of Duty titles won’t join Game Pass Ultimate or PC Game Pass at launch. New Call of Duty games will be added to Game Pass Ultimate and PC Game Pass during the following holiday season (about a year later), while existing Call of Duty titles already in the library will continue to be available.

Read Full Story >>
news.xbox.com
Neonridr35d ago

can't wait to hear how this is spun negatively.

darthv7235d ago

Its nice there is some kind of drop... but is that all they really value CoD to be, a lousy $7 a month?

I was hoping it would drop by $10.

MisterBoots35d ago

That $7 equates to $84 per year - which is more than COD new ($69.99 + tax).

So - you can get the exact same thing - and save a few bucks - or you can skip COD and pocket the savings or use toward another game - or games if on sale.

That’s how I’m taking it - and is enough for me to sign back up after canceling the day it went to $29.99.

fr0sty35d ago

It's unlikely that COD is going to be the only title they stop offering day one, but we'll see how they play their hand.

VenomUK34d ago (Edited 34d ago )

Including Call of Duty in Game Pass is just leaving money on the table. When the Elder Scrolls VI releases hopefully Microsoft doesn’t launch it into Game Pass. Then it can make more profits and use it give more value to Xbox console owners!

1Victor35d ago

Can’t wait to hear how this will be spun extremely positive. 🤣
I wonder why knowing Microsoft thick head something must has happened in the background in the levels of Xbox one and Kinect 🤷🏿

fr0sty35d ago

Any price cut is a good thing in this day and age, but it also reveals a flaw in GamePass' design that we've all been calling out for years... it's unsustainable, especially with day and date releases on new games. COD won't be the only game they exclude, they're setting a precedent with it that they'll likely expand upon in the future.

At least they're being realistic about it now. I bet in the future we're going to start seeing them try to subsidize the high price of new consoles by making you buy 2-3 years of gamepass with it to get the console cheaper. I'm still not sure that'll be enough to save either the hardware or gamepass, but we'll see.

Neonridr34d ago

price cuts are good, the removal of Call of Duty is clearly something they are planning to leverage. But considering everyone around N4G claims Call of Duty sucks, it's not a big loss now is it?

LucasRuinedChildhood35d ago (Edited 35d ago )

Well, they're removing their biggest game from being Day 1 on the service so GamePass users can buy it instead. That's the intention.

They increased the price to $30, then removed COD and dropped it to still be above the old price.

It's an understandable compromise but the consumer Ultimately is getting less.

Think the calculation is that *most* COD users don't play that many games and aren't interested in GamePass. The GamePass users who do like COD would just buy it anyway. MS reportedly lost out a lot of money last year putting COD on GamePass.

Bathyj35d ago (Edited 35d ago )

Well Call of duty could just be the beginning. What other games can they trim from the service to get the price down? How long before it's just the Xbox core first party studio games and not the one to everquired?

Create an interesting scenario with Call of duty as well. Will people wait a year to play it? Does that split the fan base? Will it hurt to Call of duty more than a benefits Game pass? These are all legitimate questions which we will find the answers to in the coming years

And I don't consider my post negative spin just realistic observation. At the very least this backtracking can be seen as an admittance that the previous strategy of gamepass was not sustainable as most of us said.

darthv7235d ago

I'd get rid of the EA and Ubisoft+ too. That should bring the price down more. The only game from either of those parts of the service i played was jedi Fallen order / survivor. both of which i also bought on disc so it was more of a convenience i didnt have to put the disc in to play when i was playing them via remote play. And really that is why i still use GPU and PS+. its the convenience of having the games ready to play from a remote location. I havent picked up my consoles controllers in at least a few years. I guess that makes me a bad gamer, but so what. i'm still playing the games, just not physically on the machines themselves. GCloud and Portal are my go to now.

GhostScholar35d ago

They’ll say no one is buying game pass so they had to drop the price , even though it’s been extremely profitable.

Outside_ofthe_Box34d ago

Why remove CoD if it's *extremely* profitable then? Why even increase it to begin with?

Outside_ofthe_Box34d ago

Always funny seeing those that defended the price hike go "how you gonna spin this now!" after the price drops.

You should be thanking those that called it out. Obviously this is a good thing especially with everything increasing nowadays.

Also, what happened to the reason why that the Activision acquisition was good for gaming was that CoD would be day one on GamePass? Another backtrack on that I guess...

What removing CoD on GamePass shows, is that it's not sustainable for for the more popular and/or bigger budget games because of the sales you lose out on like people have been saying since inception. It never made sense to put CoD on there unless you thought it's popularity would draw in a lot of subscribers which it obviously didn't. And if it was as sustainable as people claim they wouldn't have increased the price while putting it on there in the first place.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 34d ago
35d ago
KicksnSnares35d ago (Edited 35d ago )

New Xbox Boss the 🐐?

35d ago
Vits35d ago

In my region, it’s still more expensive than it was before the last price hike, but it’s a far more viable price point.

Losing Call of Duty from the service, honestly, has zero effect on me, and given they chose to make it so, it’s probably not the big seller they originally thought. Overall, it’s really good news, but I still think they have work to do on the tier structure, having Premium and PC at the same price point with different features feels odd.

Lightning7735d ago

Yep take COD out. Them waiting a year is interesting but it make sense. They don't want certain ppl waiting 4 to 6 months they want fomo and maximum sales. Wait a year while the new one releases.

Ok so far so good.

Show all comments (46)
30°

Activision may be working on a secret Call of Duty game, and Warzone Mobile could be the key

A new Call of Duty game that isn't Modern Warfare 4 may be coming, and the surprise re-emergence of Warzone Mobile could be crucial to it.

Read Full Story >>
pockettactics.com