Current Events > Why don't devs settle for 40fps minimum?

(+) Yeah! (+)

If it takes too much processing power to keep a vidya game steady at the 60fps range while also sacrificing visual quality, then just design games outright to 40ish and call it a day?

Why only 30 and/or 60?

TVs typically have refresh rates of 60Hz or 120Hz, and VRR is still a high end feature. So games running at say 45Hz will not update with the TV at smooth increments. For example, on a 60Hz TV, 60 fps will have one unique frame for each refresh, 30 fps will have a frame for every two refreshes. A 45 fps game will instead have three unique refreshes, then a duplicate frame for the fourth refresh. For many people, this will create a perceptible stutter. A perfect example is the Arkham Collection for XBox One X, which runs at 45.

Now this is all fine if the TV supports VRR (variable refresh rate), so the refresh rate can match the game. As VRR becomes more commonplace, what you're suggesting may become more commonplace as well.

I'd rather just lose a bit of graphics quality and keep 60.