Capcom puts 30 FPS cap on Dead Rising 3 PC port

Linky

There's absolutely no fucking excuse to put an artificial FPS cap on a PC port that some PC gamers want. Shame on you Capcom, shame on you.

Here's the thing, though...does the console version have a higher frame cap? Did the developers do something dumb like tying the physics engine or gametics to the refresh rate, like Dark Souls did? It may not be as simple as we think it is to uncap the framerate. We won't know for sure until the game comes out and the inevitable hack patches come out.

The console versions are locked at 30 FPS from what I have read and remembered. Still, there is no excuse to cripple the PC port with a console equivalent framerate and it does nothing for people who have 60+ hz monitors.

It might not be that the PC version is necessarily being "crippled"; it could be that the devs of the xbone version of the game took the lazy way out and tied too much stuff to the 30 FPS limit, making it difficult to separate it without affecting the gameplay.

There isn't a single rational thing this company has done in at least 8 years so it's not surprising.

Linked website :
Capcom has “optimised” the game for 30 frames per second and warns that unlocking the frame rate could break the game.

Supposably the devs of the game :
what I’m saying is we’re not gonna stop you from uncapping the framerate, but we can’t guarantee the experience. we just really don’t know what’s gonna happen, you might see some weird stuff with physics, some weird stuff with zombies, I really don’t believe you’re losing anything by playing at 30 frames per second. If you want feel free to uncap it but it’s gonna be wild and crazy.

They claim unlocking the framerate could screw the physics and zombies.

Why do people cry such salty tears over a fucking framerate anyway?

Im not an expert on these things, hence why I'm asking this question...but why does it matter? Isn't it true that after a certain point your eyes can't tell the difference in frames...or??

Any framerate higher then your screen its refresh rate will never be visible. But, a higher framerate could drasticaly increase
the sense of smooth motion, and in some cases precision. For any other reason it is just a performance gimmick to brag
about, as many modern gamers just want to show off how many frames their gaming machine can generate per second.

A modern HD television also has much higher refresh rates then what the HD next gen consoles would generally
spew at them, but the optimization for lower framerates makes it rather neglectable.

BaronOfStuff said:

Why do people cry such salty tears over a fucking framerate anyway?

Because it's smoother and the fact your response time is more precise. I know I record my videos at 30 because Youtube knocks it down to that even if you record it at 60.

Capcom's just a bunch of lazy fuckwits who don't take the time to not optimize their mechanics systems for 60 and 120 Hz monitors.

Yeah, not to mention the Ultra Street Fighter 4 patch which nerfs some characters and one of them is a favorite of mine Oni.

Why should PC get a better port?

Ya, and it's not game destroying, 30fps is still playable, and like geo said why should the pc port be any better, I know we all play on pc's and the pc is much powerful than the console but i'm getting tired of everyone saying "PC MAstAr RASS!1!" and telling every one who plays on consoles that they suck because the play on a fucking xbox or playstation.

Glaice said:

Because it's smoother and the fact your response time is more precise.

Hahaha. Now I've heard everything. "Agh! If only I had an extra 1/60th of a second to react!"

I see they too are going for the "filmic " look...

Glaice said:

Because it's smoother and the fact your response time is more precise.

Can you explain this bit of wisdom you just shat out?

Pfft, I don't mind 30.

Though I'd prefer 35.

i like how smooth 60FPS is, but i find it silly that some people get upset over a lower FPS-setting. there's surely worse things to get angry about.

dew said:

Can you explain this bit of wisdom you just shat out?

If the player input is being polled every frame, then higher framerates will allow for more input resolution. As for the smoother part, well, it really is much smoother. Hell, even 120 looks noticeably better than 60.

dew said:

Can you explain this bit of wisdom you just shat out?

I wouldn't exactly say it's bullshit. Perhaps some people are bit more responsive in higher frame rates. For me, there is always difference between 30 and 60 FPS. Less stuttering while looking around and exact aiming, would be my thesis.

But it's been too many years to say "pro's opinion" with this. Perhaps asking competitive players who play for money say it better?

Eventually, I gotta agree on one thing:
Fuss for nothing.

Let's try this in layman's terms...

Decreased response time = less delay between you pressing a key and manly macho man shooting a dude.

Less delay between you pressing a key and manly macho man shooting a dude = better feel, to some people.

Better feel with a feature = worse feel without said feature.

30 FPS = worse feel than 60 FPS, to some people.

To the point the game feels unplayable and warrants being skipped? Yes, absolutely. We're talking about entertainment, not life and death.

Personally, I'll take 60 FPS and 1993 graphics over 30 FPS and 2014 graphics. That faster reaction between input and onscreen action is more important to my perceptions and hence immersion, feeling more like the character is an extension of my own will, than the number of pixels crammed into a texture or whatever fancy post processing effect is flavor of the month.

I don't know why some people must always pop up in these threads to defend the fantasy nobody can ever feel minimal input lag or that the difference couldn't be significant to anyone. I have no reason to falsely promote 60 FPS. It requires more horsepower, which means as the consumer I need to pay more to get better hardware to run my games; and it cuts me off from those games locked at 30 FPS or poorly optimized.

On the other hand it's very easy to understand why devs try to sell this myth. Having a 30 FPS target gives you at least twice as much time to render everything; which means you don't have to work as hard on optimization, or you can use the extra cycles on more eyecandy. Screenshots and videos sell games, and those won't be over 30 FPS anyway. Smoother framerate is only a benefit to the consumer, and even for those who see the difference as a plus, who can notice the game feels particularly smooth or reactive, few have enough awareness of framerates to know it's that in particular, so it's really not a feature you can sell.

Bottomline, game developers have a vested interest in telling you 30 FPS is just fine. You think it's fine, cool. More power to you actually; you get to enjoy more games than us.

But if you go on from that to start claiming not a single person in the world could possibly have different perceptions than your own, to build some sort of fantasy where all those people who claim to feel 60+ FPS are actually liars, because they... brag about a number that is supposedly irrelevant? And bragging to random Internet strangers is supposedly the sole reason they've made tons of websites, videos, blogs to talk about it, they've each spent hundreds of extra dollars on their rig or live with lowering graphic settings to hit the desired framerate, bragging about an irrelevant number to strangers is supposedly the sole reason even some developers shoot for 60 FPS or uncapped framerate in their games, an insignificant amount of them ever pointing out the feature as a marketing point?

Isn't this starting to seem like a little bit far fetched at some point?

Human eyes/brains tend to be sensitive to frame rates up to 72 Hz. It's embarrassing how video is still usually around 30 fps. Games have an excuse sometimes.

It is probably capped at 30 FPS because it would drop to 30 FPS when the screen is full of zombies. Then jump to 60 FPS when no zombies aren't around.

Somehow the recent Batman games could have dozens of enemies on screen and it never dropped.

Sodaholic said:

If the player input is being polled every frame, then higher framerates will allow for more input resolution. As for the smoother part, well, it really is much smoother. Hell, even 120 looks noticeably better than 60.

CorSair said:

I wouldn't exactly say it's bullshit. Perhaps some people are bit more responsive in higher frame rates. For me, there is always difference between 30 and 60 FPS. Less stuttering while looking around and exact aiming, would be my thesis.

Oh, sure. You get a better and more pleasing visual experience with higher framecount. But hardcore_gamer specifically mentions response time. I call bullshit.

Doominator2 said:

Ya, and it's not game destroying, 30fps is still playable, and like geo said why should the pc port be any better, I know we all play on pc's and the pc is much powerful than the console

And I'll stop you there because you just answered your own question. It's annoying when a new game doesn't take full advantage of the capabilities of the platform it's on. Why deny PC users a smoother, more realistic visual experience just because the consoles can't run the game as well?

Each time the topic of framerate pops up on an internet forum, a TV/video technician/producer cries.

Megamur said:

And I'll stop you there because you just answered your own question. It's annoying when a new game doesn't take full advantage of the capabilities of the platform it's on. Why deny PC users a smoother, more realistic visual experience just because the consoles can't run the game as well?

Well if 30 fps frustrates you then that's fine, but I kinda find it dumb to make a thread whining about how a game will only run at 30 fps

Aliotroph? said:

Human eyes/brains tend to be sensitive to frame rates up to 72 Hz. It's embarrassing how video is still usually around 30 fps.

I've seen the Hobbit. Wasn't impressed. 24 FPS 4 life.

If you think your game stutters when it is running on 30 fps while you move your mouse, then you pc cant handle the game,
no matter what excuse you claim to have. Between 30fps and 60fps you wil notice an increased smoothness over your input and
a ultra small gain in visual smoothnes to. Anything between 60 and 100fps would just be neglectable, as from that point
you are going up against the game its own ability to integrate the input calculation with the running game logic that is already
hogging most people their cpu and gpu on non overclocked payable gaming computers.

how precise you can aim, and how smooth the aiming would feel will eventualy
always bump against the wall of what the programmed logic would allow.

No, 60 vs. 120 is not negligible. Not in the least.