We’ve already seen Gran Turismo Sport running in 8K resolution, but speaking with Australian media at a recent event, Polyphony Digital honcho Kazunori Yamauchi revealed that he believes 4K is good enough for games. The veteran believes that framerate is much more important, and he’s potentially aiming big for the PlayStation 5’s first incarnation of the massive simulation racing series.
“In terms of frames-per-second, rather than staying at 60fps, I’m more interested in raising it to 120fps or even 240fps,” he said. “I think that’s what’s going to be changing the experience from here on forward.”
Obviously, framerate is extremely important in racing games, as it leads to smoother motion and tighter controls. Whether the PS5 will actually prove powerful enough to push these kind of numbers remains to be seen, however. Yamauchi admitted: “Going from PSone to PS2 there was a hundred times the performance difference between the two console generations. An advancement like that is no longer possible.”
[source gtplanet.net]
Comments 36
Pointless unless you are playing on a monitor...60fps@4k is enough
...but will it? I feel like we heard these kind of promises leading up to PS4 and only a bushel of game met that goal-ish.
@BarefootBowser its called progress, if you aren’t going to aim high.. why bother. Good enough isn’t good enough.
@kyleforrester87
Progress is fine. Problem is 4K at 60 fps hasn't been reached yet. Then why bother with 4K at 120 or 8K at 240? I agree that 4K at 60 fps is the target here. Deliver on this and anything above that is just the cherry on the top.
I think it could be related to update/refresh rate requiered to do a better sim. I'm not sure but if you have enough processing power you can run you game engine loop as fast as you can, say 120 times per second and calculate physics, and whatever game logic you need... but if then you can only "send" the visual feedback, and also input feedback, to the player only 30 times per second (30 FPS) you will end with a very janky game I think. So it makes sense to try to match both internal refresh rates (the engine loop) and the external refresh rate (tv/monitor). Someone with game development background can better explain if this sounds right or whatever.
Completely pointless. 99% of consoles players play on TV and 99% of TVs don't go past 60hz, so anything past 60fps is a waste of time.
4K monitor that are 120hz or above are just stupid expensive. If a 120hz or above 4K TV actually exist, it must be even more expensive than a monitor.
@BarefootBowser @gollumb82 make the cars and they’ll build the roads! Anyway, he’s not done anything other than have some thoughts and make some comments. That’s how these things start.
I swear we’d still be banging rocks together if it was down to some of you lot. Fire?! Bah who needs it, pass me another bear skin!
No chance.
Would be awesome, but it's extremely unlikely we get any console games running at 240 any time in the near future.
@kyleforrester87
See, you make a valid point about the essence of what progress is. Most of us, however, will not benefit from that kind of tech. Hell, I think some people will still be playing at 1080p on a PS5. You are as much entitled to your own opinion as the rest of us are.
@gollumb82 why do you say most of us won’t benefit from it? If 1982 is your DOB you’ve seen exactly how far gaming has come in a short time. Look at the difference between FF7 and it’s remake in 25 years. I don’t plan on giving up gaming any time soon so I’ll look forward to these changes
And besides, you know how it is. Aim for 60fps, you get 30. Aim for 240, we might get 120.
@BarefootBowser I just don’t think this industry and the idea of “progress for the sake of progress” as a negative can co-exist. It’s always been about rapid evolution and cutting edge technology. It exists BECAUSE of progress for the sake of progress.
@kyleforrester87
It is indeed my DOB and you are right about gaming's incredible progress. Also, I agree with your last sentence. Fair enough, let me just state then that if making the game run at 8K and 240 fps won't make Polyphony forget about the guys with anything less than the hardware capable of running it at these specs then I don't mind.
@kyleforrester87 I agree but this is like announcing that the NES can do colourful graphics in a world where every TV is black and white. Obviously games going colour instead of black and white was a big deal but announcing it when 99% of people have B&W TV and will have for years to come is pointless and a fake selling point for almost everyone. By the time 120hz+ is anywhere near standard, the PS7 will be out.
Side note, but I wonder how many people will play it on their 60hz TVs and declare "wow you can really tell the difference with 240fps graphics!"
@Matroska we’ll see I guess, I myself bought 2 televisions last gen, I wouldn’t have believed that I’d have done that before I got a PS4 so we’ll have to wait and see where we are at with televisions in another half decade. I do get what you’re saying, though.
@kyleforrester87 the point is, regardless of it it runs at 120 or 240 FPS, 99% of 4K TVs only support 60fps so there it’s pretty much pointless.
@Angelus3K and when I got a PS4 my TV wasn’t even full HD and id never heard of HDR10.
@BarefootBowser Yeah it was an analogy not a historical account. The point was that boasting of an advancement in gaming tech when practically no one can actually benefit from it falls flat, like a colour gaming console if everyone had black and white TVs.
Not disagreeing with Kyle that they should do this in general (i.e. make progress), and I guess it does future proof it, but it's pretty misleading to say the game will run at 120-240fps when for almost everyone for the whole next gen it'll run at 60 due to refresh rates.
Considering a vast majority of gamers play on tvs wouldn’t this be a waste of assets?
The hardware could be better used elsewhere.
Somehow, I don't think your always online racing simulator will be able to hit 240fps on a continuous basis.
I have loved the GT series from the beginning, but I am fearful that it will never be as good as it once was. The graphics keep getting better, but everything else is getting worse.
@kyleforrester87 really! I had a Full HD TV when I had a PS3. I get your point but I don’t see them coming to market and being affordable for a long time (like 3-5 years).
Sounds good but I’d be more interested in the whole game being playable in VR like Gran Turismo Sport was originally planned to be.
I absolutely love the VR section in Sport but it would be amazing to play the entire game in VR.
Next GT game must focus on VR online racing. It will be a VR online killer app.
@GigaGaia I've recently purchased the 2019 LG C9 (55") for £1249.
Sure, that's not cheap, but it's not an otherworldly price to pay for a 4K 120Hz capable TV. Such things will only become more cheap and common during the next-gen consoles' lifecycle.
@Angelus3K The thing is, if they already have it running at 8k 60fps (which they do) it's probably no work at all to get it running at 4k 120-240fps. Just drop the res and raise the frame rate cap!
Even native 4K is a waste of resources these days so going any higher is pretty pointless, increased framerates and visual effects are more important
@GigaGaia PC 4k 144hz monitors really aren't that expensive nowadays. I picked mine up for £1299. Only thing is, only a few games run well enough on my 1080ti to hit that top end refresh/frame rate.
@kyleforrester87 with the specs being banded around, 8k 60fps is a pipe dream. 4k 60 will be the norm next gen.
@Monkeyofthefunk Yeah that's fair enough. Still, 1080 120fps?!
@Shalan Yeah, I realized afterward that 120hz on a tv is not that uncommon. My X900F does it too.
I still stand by the fact that 240hz is very rare though.
@Matroska @gollumb82 @kyleforrester87 @BarefootBowser We won’t have it is what Nintendo thought with the Wii and HD. They ended up being proven wrong. 4K wasn’t a thing when the PS4 launched, we have the Pro now. This console will be here for 7-8 years. In 4 years we don’t know what will be standard for TVs and I’d rather some people got slightly ahead of themselves than nobody be ready for it or have content for the new 120-240FPS TVs or whatever technology there is.
@GigaGaia I think it is still very uncommon, particularly at 4K.
Are you sure your TV does? It doesn't show up on its specifications:
https://www.sony.com/electronics/televisions/xbr-x900f-series/specifications
@Monkeyofthefunk No way you paid £299 for a 4k 144hz monitor. That's the price bracket for budget 4k monitors that can only do 60hz. Please provide evidence of your purchase or stop misleading people.
@Acurisur Oops. I meant £1299. I was being sarcastic.
@GigaGaia the LG c9 e9 b9 w9 can go up to 4k 120 Hz. With the new 2.1 hdmi so yeah some does. Mine do since I got the c9
I allready can't be bothered with 4k, nevermind 8k.
And will still at times look like it's running on a ps2.
Tap here to load 36 comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...