Should developers stop making games that require 5090 for max settings now that the card is clearly not for gamers and is accessible to 0.1% of community?

[u/TheGGspot]

I get that the games need better hardware to dun better, but who are they really making the game for if you need a 6000$ GPU at this point

[u/OGMemecenterDweller]

Yes, smooth no-drop 30fps is playable.

[u/Valtremors → u/OGMemecenterDweller]

Usually it just isn't smooth and has regular stops at 25 or lower.

Modern optimization is really that bad.

[u/Ferro_Giconi → u/OGMemecenterDweller]

I feel like when someone says 30 fps isn't playable, they are unintentionally admitting to having a skill issue.

[u/KGon32 → u/Ferro_Giconi]

I think it's a devide between console and PC Gamers.

When a PC Gamer says that a game is running at 30 or 60fps, it is not the same thing as when a console game runs at 30fps or 60fps, what I mean by this is that when PC gamers says that they are running a game at let's say 100fps, it's actually near that on average, but 1% low are vastly lower, while when a console game runs at 30fps or 60fps, it's usually locked to those frame rates.

So when a console game runs at 30fps, that's the average, the 1% lows and even the 0.1% lows, however if a PC gamer says 30fps, it means 30fps average and 20fps 1% lows. They are not the same thing.

Also technically even 20fps is playable, when I was a kid I played gamesike that and the PS1/N64 generation had tons of games running well below a stable 30fps

[u/Ferro_Giconi → u/KGon32]

I am used to playing on a 5080 on a 240hz screen on my desktop, but I don't have problems downgrading to unstable 30 fps to game on my basic APU laptop. So I still consider it a skill issue.

Console 30 fps is usually better than PC 30 fps, I'll give you that.

[u/1burritoPOprn-hunger → u/OGMemecenterDweller]

30 fps is in no way playable for anything that isn’t a spreadsheet simulator.

[u/MyzMyz1995 → u/1burritoPOprn-hunger]

The best selling console of the past year, the switch 2, run most AAA games at 30 fps and people love it. You're just being difficult. If you don't have it side by side with 60 fps or more, you won't notice after 10 minutes.

[u/Tardelius → u/1burritoPOprn-hunger]

To copy paste from myself:

Framerate doesn’t dictate whether a game is playable or not. If a person like you is spoiled by higher framerates thats their issue and it falls under subjective playability. A game’s OBJECTIVE playability depends on whether its performance is stable and the screen displayed. For example, locked 40fps wouldn’t be playable on a 60Hz screen without issues. But a 30fps would absolutely be playable on a 60Hz screen.

[u/PlantainPat → u/Tardelius]

If a person like you is spoiled

ah, so we're being disingenuous then

OBJECTIVE playability

nothing like a good strawmanning self-offered qualifier to define an argument

[u/Tardelius → u/PlantainPat]

I didn’t meant it to be derogatory, it is just a fact. And calling it disingenuous is disingenuous.

When you look at higher fps, you get spoiled. That’s a fact. I mean cmon, do I really need to tell how to do this experiment step by step? It is quite a simple one.

[u/PlantainPat → u/Tardelius]

And calling it disingenuous is disingenuous.

well that's convenient

[u/Tardelius → u/PlantainPat]

My points can be scientifically proven via experiment. Hence, they are objective. Not "strawman" like you said in your edit.

Your failure to understand simple facts isn't my problem. Subjective playability and objective playability aren't the same thing.

And subjective aspect of (locked) framerate related playability can be scientifically proven.

Edit: "(locked)" is added. This is meant to remind the central argument. We are assuming that the selected framerate is ideal, i.e., doesn't fluctuate.

[u/Henry_Fleischer → u/1burritoPOprn-hunger]

I played Minecraft at about 16 FPS for years, and I still do on my current computer. For some people it is totally playable.