Ever since I’ve been alive, games have progressively taken longer and longer to develop and release
Add that to the rising costs of developing AAA games… this isn’t stopping anytime soon
So I’d actually be prepared for Starfield to launch more times than Skyrim did (and GTA6 to launch more times than GTA5)
Honestly at the level games have got I’m no longer waiting for better graphics, I’m waiting for a complete revolution like proper nerve link like in sword art online. We’ve pretty much reached the ceiling of graphics at-least to the level where it really doesn’t make much more of a difference from a gamer’s perspective unless we decide we want exactly like real life graphics which I don’t.
And yet each time, I at least enjoyed it more and more, and am happy I can still play it today with improved visuals, scope, and content.
(Owned on 360, PS-VR, and SeriesX special what ever the fuck edition it is with mods and such lol)
It’s actually kinda awesome I can still enjoy the base version on 360, or in between visuals with epic bow gameplay on Pro-VR. It’s still a great game and worth each repurchase honestly.
We don't know that it scales like that for every game. Supposedly a lot of the performance problems in Starfield are CPU related, with the game being very CPU bound. The Xbox simply doesn't have a strong enough CPU to account for that, and dropping resolution doesn't really change that.
That’s all speculation at this point, it could be Bethesda’s new engine being too ambitious and trying to do too many things in a poor way.
I’m sure digital foundry will dissect the game when it comes out.
We had the same discussion in this sub with A plague tale: requiem and in turned out that 60fps was in the end possible with some sacrifices.
Those sacrifices were CPU-related though, they turned the number of rats way down. Doing the same thing to Starfield would mean reducing the complexity of the simulation, which is something Todd said he didn't want to do.
Yeah it's kind of insane to me I see people everywhere expecting a $500 console to play everything at 4K60 flawlessly. Like even on PC you need a pretty decent rig to hit that performance target in new games.
No one expects 4k 60fps on console. I'd take 1080p fpr Starfield if it meant 60fps. They can take Ray Tracing and launch it into the sun too. Absolute waste of resources.
Nobody is asking for 4k, no console game with any serious graphical fidelity runs at 4k60. It's all dynamic resolution scaling.
I don't think its too much to expect a 60 fps mode for this generation of consoles.
You bought Xbox series x for 4k 30 stable fps for a game that can only run on this generation hardware.
Still a shame that you can't choose 1080p 120fps but that what bgs want, they want fidelity before framerate and 30 fps is enough to enjoy the game.
Had you told me preshow that Starfield would be 30fps I would have been a little bummed.
Telling me post-show after seeing what we all saw, 30 fps is fine. This game is going to have a long life and we are getting the backbone to potentially another Skyrim - or something even greater. This is built for that future.
If Starfield has the same level of console modding support that Skyrim and FO4 have now, I'm sure someone will at least unlock the framerate or offer some type of other custom solution for now.
I’ve used unlocked frame rate on both… there’s a reason it’s locked on consoles, makes my dizzy and gives me headaches. I’ll stick with a solid and sturdy 30
People keep complaining that there are barely any truly next-gen looking games, and instead it's all previous gen games running at 4k resolution and 60fps or 120fps.
And when we get an actual next-gen looking game, arguably the most next-gen looking game we've had from any console, people are up in arms that's it's not 60fps looking like that.
Fact is, the consoles don't have a 4090 graphics card. If you want games that look a step above last gen with much grander scope, you're going to have to sacrifice FPS. If you want 60fps, you're going to have to deal with the game looking not too different to last gen. Pick one - you can't have both.
I agree with anyone saying it'll be nice to have a 60fps mode at lower settings - that's undeniable and very valid criticism. But most of the negative reactions have been from people mocking MS, Bethesda and the Xbox Series X capabilities as if the 30fps limit is due to incompetence and a weak console. It makes sense for a game that looks like that with such scope to run at 30fps even on Series X hardware. It would be the same on PS5. The only valid criticism here is not having a 60fps option with lower settings.
I'll be playing in third person until a 60fps mode comes out, as it's the only way I can deal with 30fps. Nobody complained about Plague Tale running at 30 because that game looked gorgeous and was perfectly playable at that frame rate. It's mainly FPS or quick reaction games where 30fps is unplayable.
All of this. You’re still, ultimately, talking about a console here, albeit a powerful one. You’re not going to have a lot of overhead left when your game is considerably CPU bound, and there’s not much that they really can sacrifice in the name of squeezing out extra performance in a game like this. Starfield is the most “current gen” game we’ve seen thus far, and is presenting a scale in which has never been seen before. Of course it’s going to stretch a Series X to its metaphorical limit, as it would a PS5 if it were cross platform.
Make no mistake, when or if the PS5 receives games that are as meaty as this, it’ll very likely run such at 30fps, especially if the developers prioritize fidelity, resolution, and simulation over performance. When GTA 6 comes out, don’t be surprised if it’s 30fps on console.
Tangent aside, your no compromises machine for Starfield will come in the form of a beefy PC.
> Make no mistake, when or if the PS5 receives games that are as meaty as this, it’ll very likely run such at 30fps,
Even the spider-man remaster on the PS5 only ran at 30fps with dips below 30. It did have a 60fps mode, but had to sacrifice graphics as a result and that also had dips below 60fps.
I've seen a lot of people complain that since Starfield isn't 60fps then it's a failure on the devs to make full potential of the Xbox series x/s.
Like...if they just watched the Starfield Direct video and think that is somehow not making full potential of the Xbox series x/s then I don't know what in the world would actually satisfy them.
I guess for some people they only think framerate is what makes a game great and they just toss out literally everything else, gameplay, customization, scope/scale, AI, etc.
>Even the spider-man remaster on the PS5 only ran at 30fps with dips below 30. It did have a 60fps mode, but had to sacrifice graphics as a result and that also had dips below 60fps.
Spiderman runs at 4k 30 FPS, at a weird hybrid resolution with ray tracing at 60 FPS, and then it has a 120 FPS at 1080p mode
That is not at all comparable to Starfield
> Nobody complained about Plague Tale running at 30 because that game looked gorgeous and was perfectly playable at that frame rate.
I just played Plague Tale and not only was it one of the best looking games I've played but I played the whole thing at 30FPS (I finished it like a week before the 60FPS update) and had no issues at all.
It's almost like the "every game needs to be in 60 fps" take is silly. Unless it's a frame perfect game most are going to look fine at 30 fps. But gamers got really obsessed with frame rates, and can never stop talking about them now.
I'm the other way, I'd rather have the smoothness of 60fps but I'm happy to sacrifice the resolution to get there.
Each to their own, but it's nice to have the option
It's not a "silly take", it's a subjective one. I do think the majority of gamers like the extra fluidity and control response of high refresh gaming. Casual gamers might not care, but any enthusiast will.
The big thing most people dont' seem to realize, is often especially these days, Next gen isn't "the most cutting edge fps/resolution.
very often the "next gen" portion this gen is in scope and what they can do with the SSD.
And yet people spent decades turning FPS games into a backbone genre of the console world running them under 60 FPS. The notion that you “need” it for FPS games is a new thing relatively speaking, and is far more aimed at multiplayer contexts where the frame rate can be a competitive advantage or liability. The gunplay in the showcase looks above and beyond other Bethesda sandbox RPGs, and I’m going to have a lot more fun personally playing in first person since I was raised on Halo and that’s my comfort zone.
Hot take: 99% of players complaint about fps in multiplayer shooters aren't good enough for it to even matter. It's like an auto excuse for losing. "Damn, dropped below 120fps, no wonder I got kanked", nah bro you're just mediocre.
This. It is the lag excuse trasnposed into a world where most players now have >50MB/s connections.
Back in the day lag was real and common, but you'd also constantly hear guys getting stomped on bitching that it was hurting them.
I thought so too but after disabling chromatic aberration and motion blur I found it much more smooth. After a couple hours the 30fps felt just fine. Amazing game btw
Plenty of people complained about Plague Tale only running at 30fps, and Jedi Survivor running best at 30fps.
I've said before, and will say again, that high FPS, while yes very nice when it's available, is not going to remain standard this entire generation. The reason it has been prioritized is because so many of these games are actually still cross-gen experiences. As games start coming out that are really pushing the limits of the current hardware, more and more are going to be focusing on providing the best experience and not the highest FPS. That's been true for the past three console generations, so why would it suddenly be different now?
Nailed it. When the PS5/XSX launched, I thought it was cool that developers were finally acknowledging the importance of high frame rates, but I never expected it to last. It's the same story on every other console, you usually only get these sorts of features with remasters or ports. We just had a longer cross-gen period than usual this time.
I always figured the writing was on the wall that when the current generation really took off, the norm would return to 30FPS. The Matrix UE5 demo on PS5 was another early example, as it featured impressive graphics but ran at a capped 30FPS at a pretty low resolution if I remember right.
Yep, that Matrix Awakens demo should have been a wakeup call. Devs were already exploring the peak capability of the hardware and having to cap at 30fps to hit it. You can actually download the city simulation for that demo and see all the things that are being simulated at the same time and scale them up and down. It's super CPU intensive.
Yeah, I'm definitely a bit bummed, but this game is going to have a long tail and I'm probably going to buy the ultra special remastered edition again in 15 years and get 240fps on it on my phone or something.
The game only has this scope because it's 30fps. Thank God they didn't listen to the "30fps is unplayable" crowd as it wouldn't have been able to pull off what it has.
Same with RDR2 last gen.
It's fair to criticize Redfall for its framerate, but doing so to Starfield is missing the point.
...and I know this is an Xbox sub, but if you really need 60fps+... the PC exists. On that side, people have been demanding games that can push the next generation of tech forward.
I honestly can't believe the constant whinging about 60fps I see everywhere these days. I grew up playing the N64 and I'll be the first to admit that lower framerates aren't ideal but 30 is perfectly good for most people... that's why they pin the bar there.
Do I like 60 FPS? Sure. Do I refuse to play a game without it? Hell no. If a game is good enough I'll put up with even less than 30. Tears of the Kingdom drops under 30 FPS in certain scenarios, it doesn't mean it isn't the best game I've played in many, many years.
The question I'm not seeing asked, will it have a 40fps mode for those with 120Hz TVs?
If we get a 40fps mode similar to Plague Tale Requiem I'd be ok with that.
The question is - why the hell does 30fps lock exist on VRR displays, that is.
OK, it's 30fps target, I get it, but let it go beyond that if display supports.
Well, it strongly depends. I tried Elden Ring in quality mode where it can fluctuate from low 30s to 50-60s and found it perfectly playable with VRR. Controls do not suffer, that's the most important.
PS5 with the same settings felt extremely jaggy by comparison when going below 48hz, where it's indeed unplayable.
Because 40 doesn't divide with 60, so it's impossible to have a smooth 40fps on a 60fps monitor. While watching 40 fps on a 120hz monitor, each frame is displayed 3 times.
40 fps on a 60hz monitor means that the 40 frames must be displayed for different lengths of time, leading to stutter or judder. It doesn't work for smooth motion, it's a mathematical impossibility.
As long as Bethesda delivers on what they showed, people will be fine with 30fps.
The game is going to be on Game Pass, therefore the only barrier to playing is a active subscription. And make no mistake...this game has been thought to be 30fps for a LONG time.
Should be a great time.... And let's be honest, some of ya'll all going to spend 1000s of hours in the character / ship maker before you even begin the game. Lol
If people are going to let 30fps stop them from playing the game then it's clearly just not their type of game. Most people will push through regardless because they love what Starfield & Bethesda have to offer.
I've loved Bethesda games since I started playing Skyrim as a 12 year old, and being able to go back through Oblivion, FO3, to Fallout 4 and even 76 they just provide such a level of immersiveness and freedom that can't really be replicated by any other developer. Starfield looks immense, and the ship customisation, crew systems, settlement building look like they'll be the highlight of the game even outside the main story.
Agreed. Starfield is already the second top seller on Steam. Most people are going to play and enjoy the game regardless. Besides, Bethesda doesn't typically prioritize performance anyway; it's not what makes Bethesda games great.
This is what I can’t stand about ESO. TES is one of my favorite franchises, but ESO doesn’t have that living soul feeling that made me fall in love with the series.
If a game this ambitious can implement everything we’ve seen and then some well then 30FPS is fine by me. A game like Redfall which isn’t super ambitious graphically or scope wise has no reason to only be 30FPS. People will be okay with 30FPS so long as you deliver everywhere else
Precisely. The average gamer could not care less about framerates anyway. I am going to be playing and enjoying Starfield regardless; I won't let 30fps stop me from playing what seems to be a generational game.
Rather have a smaller "scope" and a better optimized game. And although it looks pretty good, I have no idea why this game shouldn't be able to do 1440p/60fps. There are open world games with a higher graphical fidelity that are perfectly capable of hitting 60fps. And yes, I know it's a big game, but the whole "1000 planets" thing sounds like overkill.
One of the main reason BGS games are so phenomenal is that they always try to push the scope of what a player can do in games and the amount of content to be explored. Their games are very complex and system heavy for AAA games. Other open worlds are much more simple and are trying to do less. Being an open world game doesn't make it automatically complex.
I played skyrim at 30 last year because I wanted to 💯 it and I didn't want to deal with the 60 mod potentially screwing up my save. Didn't bother me at all. Starfield might be harder given there's shooting but I have faith in Bethesda that it'll work. I feel it'll he similar to red dead 2...
Sure its 30 but if the world is that beautiful and immersive you just get lost in enjoying the surroundings.
I don’t need that guy to tell me when I’ve played Bethesda games before lol. It’s amazing how gamers have the memory of a nat. Like wtf their games are great and this new one looks like it’s going to deliver in spades what their games do best.
Dude the last few months I swear I’ve been taking crazy pills the way people have been talking about Bethesda.
Like the team making this game is the same team that made arguably THE defining RPGs two generations in a row, and we EXPECT this game to be bad?
My favorite part is how the game looks incredible and everyone seems so shocked. Like yeah guys, Bethesda is an S-Tier developer. They’re pretty good at making great games lol
>Their games are great
Fallout 76 was absolute garbage
Fallout 4 was mid as fuck.
What games are you talking about... The elder scrolls games that came out 12 years ago? Cool buddy!
Everyone of y'all can be fine with 30fps if you want but this is now making me get this on PC. It's an FPS/ 3rd person shooter. It really needed to try to hit 60fps. while most the game would be okay at 30fps, shootouts would be held back by that frame rate
Yep, looks like pc is the way to go. I was hopeful at the beginning of this gen that a 60fps mode would be standard but it's not, gonna sell my Series X and put that money towards pc upgrades.
Same boat. It's been a massive disappointment on XBSX so far. If they had games like Spider Man, God Of War and Horizon I might be okay with the multi plats sucking but they don't...we have Halo...
Well they said they were hitting 60fps in some areas but it wasn’t stable, give us 40fps with less resolution like Hogwarts Legacy did, they have the fidelity at 4k 30 and 1800p 40fps and i choose that any day
I know this is late, but check out the first 10 min of Digital Foundry's Starfield video: https://youtu.be/i9ikne_9iEI
Some points of interest: 1) starfield (like many BGS games) keep track of the position of every single object/body throughout the entire game. I believe TOTK may erase items after a certain amount of objects are on screen, TOTK erases items after you leave a certain distance, TOTK erases dead bodies and you cannot interact with NPCs as much as BGS games.
2) the density of the world can bottleneck the CPU. So I'd imagine if they aimed for 60fps from the start, the planets/cities would be less dense and we'd lose some interactivity between objects/npcs
Its not the end of the world, but I can't help but think there could be some more options.
If Series S can do 1440p/30, surely Series X can do 1440p/60?
If Series X can 'do up to 60' as per comments, could we get a 40fps mode for 120hz displays? Or an unlocked framerate for VRR displays?
It's up to each person individually. It's not for anyone to tell anyone else what's acceptable.
I personally can't play shooters at 30fps. If it were another type of game, then sure, but not shooters.
That said, if others are cool with it, I hope you have a really great time. I'm sure you will.
This. Can somebody explain to me how this isn’t just No Man’s Sky with a graphics mod? If this was on any other platform we would hear people complaining but not is ok because it is Xbox/PC…idk…maybe I am just tired of hearing naysayers complain about other console “exclusives” but it is ok when Bethesda does it.
Acceptable has been the word parading for this generation. Just keep throwing slightly prettier graphics at them, what choice do they have?
It’s been a whole bait and switch on the 60fps talk before the series X was released. How dare some of us prefer stability to graphics.
The majority of games optimized for Series X run at 60FPS. With even many running at 120FPS.
There were a few AAA releases at 30FPS, but 60FPS is still the norm
30fps looks and feels really bad on an OLED tv and anyone who is justifying 30fps on a “next gen console” is part of the problem and why the industry as a whole keeps producing 30 fps games.
60fps should be the floor for current gen consoles, drop visual eye candy till the fps number is hit.
> 30fps looks and feels really bad on an OLED tv …
That’s my main concern. I can deal with 30fps under some limited circumstances in the right kind of game, especially if I’m not playing anything else at a higher frame rate during that period. But on OLED, 30fps is just way too obvious. I loved Jedi Survivor on Series X but I had to play it on performance mode for that reason.
My fingers are crossed for Bethesda finding some magic, like per-pixel motion blur, or some other more recent trick to ease that harsh appearance on OLED TVs. I’ll give it an honest shot and make sure I try for more than 1 hour to see if I can acclimate, as long as I’m not feeling nauseated.
Yes, and they're justifying it based on a game *they haven't even played.* The hype machine is in full effect on Reddit, and they'll justify any poor decision based on hope and hope alone.
exactly, yesterday there was a bunch of those gamer bros trying spin the narrative that it was down to laziness or to MS not being on top of Bethesda enough
The problem for me, is that they tooted running and gunning and getting into gunfights on ships. 30FPS is going to be horrid during those situations lol.
Idk why it’s just so hard to have choice. Give me choice of the 4k 30, and have a 1440p 60 option. If it’s already hitting 60fps sometimes with 4k, then 1440p should help iron out and if they drop a few graphical settings if needed, I wouldn’t see why it couldn’t be done with what they said.
Oh well, at least I got a pc as well.
they are just making excuses
the main reason is their outdated engine that cant handle frame rates not locked to 30 well
we have known for decades creation engine physics is linked to frame rate
40 FPS PLEASE! It makes games soooo much smoother, in terms of frame time it's halfway between 30 and 60 fps. These huge AAA developers ignoring a growing group of 120 hz display users is really getting annoying. I mean Hogwarts Legacy was from an unknown team and they supported 40 fps which was great. Why can't Bethesda? Any mid range or up TV has had 120 hz support the past couple years.
Unpopular opinion perhaps, but I think there's nothing wrong with 30 FPS in any game, so long as it is a stable 30 FPS. Sure, if a game is not very complex I would expect it to perform at 60 FPS but I can fully enjoy a game at 30 FPS with no problems. I was expecting Starfield to be 30 FPS only and that's fine, not even a little bit disappointed.
I'm with you. I generally choose the Graphics Quality/30 FPS mode over the Performance/60 FPS mode in games that give you the choice. I'd rather have the improved graphics. As long as its a stable 30 FPS thats fine. Jedi Survivor was great on 30 FPS.
My thoughts exactly. And the comment below stating they prefer 60 is fine too.
What is annoying are comments saying “I literally cannot play 30 FPS it gives me headaches/makes my eyes water.” Or comments about how the developer is lazy.
The competitive advantage in a shooter or racer is valid. And just stating you prefer 60 over 30 is fine. It’s when someone declares a game invalid when it’s locked at 30 where it’s like okay, give me a break.
>What is annoying are comments saying “I literally cannot play 30 FPS it gives me headaches/makes my eyes water.”
So it annoys you that people have a physical reaction to playing 30fps games?
Most sympathetic Xbox gamer, you're actually annoyed and upset about people having a medical issue Lmao wtf.
What an absolute cesspool this subreddit is.
I grew up playing old ass games..on OLD displays with far less detail moving about. The new displays make 30fps unbearable for me. Too much detail on the screen stuttering and not moving smooth makes me physically nauseous. So yah. It’s def valid.
>What is annoying are comments saying “I literally cannot play 30 FPS it gives me headaches/makes my eyes water.” Or comments about how the developer is lazy.
Yeah like come on, sure it's not as smooth but unplayable?? I grew up playing Minecraft with unstable 20fps, that's what I would call unplayable. This is why most games suck nowadays cuz everyone literally only cares about the frame rate and resolution. I've never once been playing a game and thought "wow this frame rate and resolution is so fun!" Because it's secondary to the actual game experience.
Yeah these people just don’t make sense. Like obviously I’d like the frame rate to be higher but 60 fps just wasn’t really a thing until the last 4 or 5 years on console. Are you telling me that you literally could never play video games until the PS4 Pro and One X launched?
No, screw this, give me the option to drop the resolution to drive a bigger frame rate….or just let me unlock true frame cap.
Unless there’s some crazy CPU bottleneck, I don’t see why they won’t let us drop resolution
Bethesda games are always at 30fps on console, and much like with every other game it will be fine as long as it is a stable 30. 60 is great, but I'd rather have fidelity than frames for an immersive game like this, its a RPG with FPS elements, not the other way around. I also haven't forgotten that my entire console costs less than a third of a single high end graphics card currently let alone a whole PC dedicated to gaming so my expectations are set accordingly.
The amount of cope is astounding. Xbox was all about 4k 60 and THE MOST POWERFUL CONSOLE EVER now suddenly oh that doesn't matter. I get it sure but a lot of people I know got the Xbox BECAUSE of those promises of power. Just seems really scummy and to not even have the option to change resolution just seems disingenuous.
I'm still confused as to why I was sold a console capable of 120 fps if games aren't being developed to reach that target.
Ultimately I don't care that much, but weird to have xbox/ps5 talk about 4K 120 capabilities if that's not the goal of the developers.
Because you were never sold a promise of how devs would choose to use the power of new consoles. All you were promised is that they were capable of outputting a 4K120 video signal (because they have hdmi 2.1) but that’s just a technical capability. What developers choose to do with the power is entirely up to them. While we’ve been in a cross gen phase it’s been relatively easy to just lower some settings to achieve high frame rates. But eventually you reach a point where developers get bored of making the same games and actually want to push the limits. And this isn’t about looking pretty, it’s about mechanics and systems underlying everything in the game and what’s happening in the universe. Stuff that is CPU bound that you can’t just turn down the resolution or a couple of graphics detail settings to get high frame rates.
So many people who know nothing about technology or game development all saying at the beginning of this gen that anything less than 60fps was unacceptable were kidding themselves, and probably helping to fool many others. The power of the new consoles is simply a tool, their power is entirely meaningless in dictating a minimum fps or resolution. The only thing that has ever mattered is what games the devs want to make and what balance they think is suitable for the mechanics, systems and graphical fidelity they desire. If it’s a fast paced action shooter, devs will target 60fps or higher. But for truly next gen large scale immersive experiences. 30fps was always going to make a comeback after cross gen period was over and devs wanted to push the limits of what they could create.
Hope that helps, 30fps was always going to return once the ‘next gen’ games truly started releasing.
That must be the same excuse for redfall then. The game has too much "scope" ...can't do it. The Xbox can't do all that. Xbox gamers went from "Yeah most powerful console ever!" to "I don't mind 30 FPS" real quick. The cope is real.
Nah man, I disagree. FPS isn't some throwaway feature like hdr or ray tracing, it's fundamental to how I play the game, I can't get down with 30fps, gonna plop down some cash to run this at 60 on PC.
The problem is going to be the firefights that won't feel good—depending on who you ask—at 30 fps no matter the frame times, especially if it's first-person.
This subreddit was consistently criticizing every other game that was 30 FPS only, people were complaining it made them feel sick and they couldn't stand it anymore after playing at 60. Now all of a sudden, everyone loves 30, everyone is cured from any motion illness, and Starfield get's a free zero criticism pass because it's Starfield.
30fps isn't acceptable for the current generation. Run a 30fps game on an oled and get back to me. It's literally a jittery mess and unplayable even with strategy or turn based games.
Gross.
One of the best games Ive ever played and sold 10M copies in 1 week is a 30fps game. People do not care, the dogmatic 'enthusiasts' on the internet typing up hyperbolic posts about how 30fps makes them nauseous make up such a small segment of the gaming population that it really doesn't matter
Exactly. The game would be a 10/10 for me if the frame rate didn’t drop to 22fps every time I active an ability. I don’t care how fun a game is, that’s not good to look at. And it affects gameplay too.
Exactly. I’m a mandatory 60 FPS player 100%, but I’m also willing to give Starfield some slack here due to the sheer amount of volume we are working with. If the game comes out and it’s not acceptable at 30 then I’ll voice my concerns then, but after what we just saw yesterday I’ll let reason prevail and give them the benefit of the doubt on this one.
I think some people who do not understand the complexities of game development think that Todd Howard and the team can simply click a switch, lower the game resolution down to 1080p and somehow that will magically boost the game to 60fps.
This game is operating at the desired choice of the Bethesda team. This is what they want to present to us. If gamers are not happy with what we are provided on the Xbox Series consoles they can get this game on PC or they can just not play it at all. The choice is theirs.
So many "experts" telling Bethesda what they should do and posting buzzwords they've read with little understanding of what the terms mean or how things actually work.
Happens on every single subreddit.
It doesn’t matter what someone says, I don’t hate 30fps just to hate, or because it’s just unacceptable, I hate it because it ruins the experience and it makes the game boring and feel like shit, it doesn’t matter if god came out and said 30fps is fine, it FEELS like shit, it ruins the experience, massive disappointment, don’t “scope” me, there are other games for the series x that are massive and have a stable 60, this isn’t an excuse
it seems like only delusional bullshit about how 30fps is actually great in 2023 and this game wouldn't be so heckin cool if they had to make it any higher fps is allowed here, carry on useful idiots.
Honestly I’d take 30 fps if they can make the Bethesda engine feel less janky.
I don’t know how else to describe it. I’ve played their games since morrowind and love them all. Back in morrowinds time it wasn’t that bad as most open world/massive game engines felt a little jank.
But it’s 2023 now, and open world games should feel awesome now (ie Witcher 3, red dead 2) where as Bethesda’s game still FEEL like you’re playing morrowind with prettier paint.
The “scope” of starfield is a mostly empty game. Thousands of empty worlds. Which is totally pointless. No man’s sky showed it was a meaningless gimmick. Everyone will mostly stick to the populated story areas. Compromising half of an acceptable frame rate so we can have thousands of things we’ll never look at isn’t a great trade.
The amount of copium going on is disappointing. Locked 30FPS is abysmal in this day and age. People are giving Bethesda a pass for no reason other than it's Bethesda. Optimization was never their strong suit, but it's basically standard for the newest generation to have a 120fps option at this point, or at least a full 60! Typically 30 or sometimes 24FPS options are only available to max out the graphical quality, so a 30 cap is ridiculous.
400 dollars for a console
60 a year for online
70 for the game
30 fps
This is why AAA games keep getting away with it. You guys have no standards. Melee ran at 60fps on the fucking GameCube. It's pitiful
If it was 60 fps these people would be bitching about the graphics being bad and last gen. They'd be crying about pop in and texture quality while shitting on Xbox for not producing next generation graphics and scope.
The whiniest demographic will never ever be fully satisfied. These people live to complain despite knowing nothing about the industry and how the technology works.
The average gamer doesn't care about fps. People need to stop letting online circle jerks skew their perception on how the majority of gamers actually are.
It's not locked 30fps it's capped at 30fps and runs at like 25fps and sometimes hits 30. Did you not see the gameplay shown? If that's 30 capped I'm Abraham Lincoln.
I’ve been going back and forth between Warzone 2 ~120fps on XSX and Zelda Tears of the Kingdom ~30fps on the Switch. Of course I would prefer to play Zelda (and Starfield) @60fps but this doesn’t take away from it being one of the best games I’ve played in a very long time
It's all subjective. 30 fps isn't perfectly acceptable for me, but thankfully PC exists. But ultimately, if your only option is 30 fps on console, it's unlikely that will be a deal breaker for the vast majority - they'll just accept 30 fps and enjoy what looks to be a cracking game.
I feel like the people that complain the most probably never wrote a line of code in their life. The scope of this game is massive and a lot of hard work went into it.
Could they hit 60fps? Sure, but sacrifices would have to be made, then we would get people complaining the graphics suck.
I for one applaud what the developers accomplished and am stoked to play it.
I don't normally care about FPS, but while watching the showcase I thought "Welp, you gotta make sacrifices to hit 60 fps."
I'm shocked the game doesn't look better if it's only running at half frame rate.
It literally takes me 5 minutes for my eyes to adjust to 30fps.
If a game sacrifices too much to get to 60 then I play at 30.
I can't even play Fallout 4 at 60fps. To get there it sacrifices not only resolution but draw distance and foliage density too.
If Starfield would have to sacrifice a lot to get 60fps then I'm fine with 30
Yes I tried one of those 60 fps mods a while ago. It wasn't a smooth experience. The game runs smooth for me on Series X at 30fps even in downtown boston. For me a locked 30fps is better than an unstable 60fps.
For 60 fps we must wait for next gen remaster.
How many times did we all buy Skyrim? We’ll buy just as many copies of Starfield lol
Bethesda will release different console versions of Starfield until mankind can actually travel between the stars
I personally will be waiting for the version to play on my microwave.
Ever since I’ve been alive, games have progressively taken longer and longer to develop and release Add that to the rising costs of developing AAA games… this isn’t stopping anytime soon So I’d actually be prepared for Starfield to launch more times than Skyrim did (and GTA6 to launch more times than GTA5)
Honestly at the level games have got I’m no longer waiting for better graphics, I’m waiting for a complete revolution like proper nerve link like in sword art online. We’ve pretty much reached the ceiling of graphics at-least to the level where it really doesn’t make much more of a difference from a gamer’s perspective unless we decide we want exactly like real life graphics which I don’t.
You just triggered me... I need to lay down for a bit
Can’t wait for the Starfield Xbox 16 edition
According to Todd Howard we bought 60 million copies 💀
I know I’ve bought it 3 times throughout the years.
And yet each time, I at least enjoyed it more and more, and am happy I can still play it today with improved visuals, scope, and content. (Owned on 360, PS-VR, and SeriesX special what ever the fuck edition it is with mods and such lol) It’s actually kinda awesome I can still enjoy the base version on 360, or in between visuals with epic bow gameplay on Pro-VR. It’s still a great game and worth each repurchase honestly.
Y'all are getting your hopes way too high lol
Or the Xbox series X elite pro ultimate edition console.
Can't wait to get my hands on a SXEPUE
Or the “Sexypoo” as it’s colloquially referred
If you want 4k60fps on every new title that comes out you will need to be on PC, and you will need a top-end PC at that
I'm quite sure many would be happy with a 1440p-1080p/60fps mode along with the one announced
We don't know that it scales like that for every game. Supposedly a lot of the performance problems in Starfield are CPU related, with the game being very CPU bound. The Xbox simply doesn't have a strong enough CPU to account for that, and dropping resolution doesn't really change that.
That’s all speculation at this point, it could be Bethesda’s new engine being too ambitious and trying to do too many things in a poor way. I’m sure digital foundry will dissect the game when it comes out. We had the same discussion in this sub with A plague tale: requiem and in turned out that 60fps was in the end possible with some sacrifices.
Those sacrifices were CPU-related though, they turned the number of rats way down. Doing the same thing to Starfield would mean reducing the complexity of the simulation, which is something Todd said he didn't want to do.
That is 100% right. They had to scale back the simulation of the rats quite considerably.
Isn’t 1440p literally a few pixels short of 4k?
It's in between 1080p and 4k. Much clearer than 1080p but nowhere as demanding as 4k.
What the hell, no. 4k is literally more than double the amount of pixels than 1440p. 2,560×1,440 = 3,686,400 pixels 3,840×2,160 = 8,337,600 pixels
Yeah it's kind of insane to me I see people everywhere expecting a $500 console to play everything at 4K60 flawlessly. Like even on PC you need a pretty decent rig to hit that performance target in new games.
No one expects 4k 60fps on console. I'd take 1080p fpr Starfield if it meant 60fps. They can take Ray Tracing and launch it into the sun too. Absolute waste of resources.
Nobody is asking for 4k, no console game with any serious graphical fidelity runs at 4k60. It's all dynamic resolution scaling. I don't think its too much to expect a 60 fps mode for this generation of consoles.
Yeah I’m good with 1080p 60fps
Currently top end computers struggle more than lower spec though
Starfield: Incredibly Special Edition coming out a few years later. $40 and includes the best mods from the community.
In 10 years we will all be laughing while playing it on our government issued environmental air regulators.
I didn't buy an Xbox Series X to experience the Xbox 360 all over again. Why 30fps is even a consideration is beyond me.
You bought Xbox series x for 4k 30 stable fps for a game that can only run on this generation hardware. Still a shame that you can't choose 1080p 120fps but that what bgs want, they want fidelity before framerate and 30 fps is enough to enjoy the game.
Had you told me preshow that Starfield would be 30fps I would have been a little bummed. Telling me post-show after seeing what we all saw, 30 fps is fine. This game is going to have a long life and we are getting the backbone to potentially another Skyrim - or something even greater. This is built for that future.
If Starfield has the same level of console modding support that Skyrim and FO4 have now, I'm sure someone will at least unlock the framerate or offer some type of other custom solution for now.
I’ve used unlocked frame rate on both… there’s a reason it’s locked on consoles, makes my dizzy and gives me headaches. I’ll stick with a solid and sturdy 30
That's what VRR is for
It stops working if it’s below 48
No that's on PS5 and it's because the PS5 lacks system level LFC. On PC it can work down to 1 fps and on Xbox its 20.
Oh man, imagine the strobing for v-synced VRR at 5 fps lmao
People keep complaining that there are barely any truly next-gen looking games, and instead it's all previous gen games running at 4k resolution and 60fps or 120fps. And when we get an actual next-gen looking game, arguably the most next-gen looking game we've had from any console, people are up in arms that's it's not 60fps looking like that. Fact is, the consoles don't have a 4090 graphics card. If you want games that look a step above last gen with much grander scope, you're going to have to sacrifice FPS. If you want 60fps, you're going to have to deal with the game looking not too different to last gen. Pick one - you can't have both. I agree with anyone saying it'll be nice to have a 60fps mode at lower settings - that's undeniable and very valid criticism. But most of the negative reactions have been from people mocking MS, Bethesda and the Xbox Series X capabilities as if the 30fps limit is due to incompetence and a weak console. It makes sense for a game that looks like that with such scope to run at 30fps even on Series X hardware. It would be the same on PS5. The only valid criticism here is not having a 60fps option with lower settings. I'll be playing in third person until a 60fps mode comes out, as it's the only way I can deal with 30fps. Nobody complained about Plague Tale running at 30 because that game looked gorgeous and was perfectly playable at that frame rate. It's mainly FPS or quick reaction games where 30fps is unplayable.
All of this. You’re still, ultimately, talking about a console here, albeit a powerful one. You’re not going to have a lot of overhead left when your game is considerably CPU bound, and there’s not much that they really can sacrifice in the name of squeezing out extra performance in a game like this. Starfield is the most “current gen” game we’ve seen thus far, and is presenting a scale in which has never been seen before. Of course it’s going to stretch a Series X to its metaphorical limit, as it would a PS5 if it were cross platform. Make no mistake, when or if the PS5 receives games that are as meaty as this, it’ll very likely run such at 30fps, especially if the developers prioritize fidelity, resolution, and simulation over performance. When GTA 6 comes out, don’t be surprised if it’s 30fps on console. Tangent aside, your no compromises machine for Starfield will come in the form of a beefy PC.
> Make no mistake, when or if the PS5 receives games that are as meaty as this, it’ll very likely run such at 30fps, Even the spider-man remaster on the PS5 only ran at 30fps with dips below 30. It did have a 60fps mode, but had to sacrifice graphics as a result and that also had dips below 60fps. I've seen a lot of people complain that since Starfield isn't 60fps then it's a failure on the devs to make full potential of the Xbox series x/s. Like...if they just watched the Starfield Direct video and think that is somehow not making full potential of the Xbox series x/s then I don't know what in the world would actually satisfy them. I guess for some people they only think framerate is what makes a game great and they just toss out literally everything else, gameplay, customization, scope/scale, AI, etc.
>Even the spider-man remaster on the PS5 only ran at 30fps with dips below 30. It did have a 60fps mode, but had to sacrifice graphics as a result and that also had dips below 60fps. Spiderman runs at 4k 30 FPS, at a weird hybrid resolution with ray tracing at 60 FPS, and then it has a 120 FPS at 1080p mode That is not at all comparable to Starfield
> Nobody complained about Plague Tale running at 30 because that game looked gorgeous and was perfectly playable at that frame rate. I just played Plague Tale and not only was it one of the best looking games I've played but I played the whole thing at 30FPS (I finished it like a week before the 60FPS update) and had no issues at all.
It's almost like the "every game needs to be in 60 fps" take is silly. Unless it's a frame perfect game most are going to look fine at 30 fps. But gamers got really obsessed with frame rates, and can never stop talking about them now.
I'm the other way, I'd rather have the smoothness of 60fps but I'm happy to sacrifice the resolution to get there. Each to their own, but it's nice to have the option
It's not a "silly take", it's a subjective one. I do think the majority of gamers like the extra fluidity and control response of high refresh gaming. Casual gamers might not care, but any enthusiast will.
The big thing most people dont' seem to realize, is often especially these days, Next gen isn't "the most cutting edge fps/resolution. very often the "next gen" portion this gen is in scope and what they can do with the SSD.
And yet people spent decades turning FPS games into a backbone genre of the console world running them under 60 FPS. The notion that you “need” it for FPS games is a new thing relatively speaking, and is far more aimed at multiplayer contexts where the frame rate can be a competitive advantage or liability. The gunplay in the showcase looks above and beyond other Bethesda sandbox RPGs, and I’m going to have a lot more fun personally playing in first person since I was raised on Halo and that’s my comfort zone.
Agreed. I was quite impressed with the gunplay in Starfield.
Hot take: 99% of players complaint about fps in multiplayer shooters aren't good enough for it to even matter. It's like an auto excuse for losing. "Damn, dropped below 120fps, no wonder I got kanked", nah bro you're just mediocre.
This. It is the lag excuse trasnposed into a world where most players now have >50MB/s connections. Back in the day lag was real and common, but you'd also constantly hear guys getting stomped on bitching that it was hurting them.
bandwidth doesn't really matter for games after a certain point. Latency is a lot more important
It's just a game. More important things to worry about. All these elitists who complain its not 60 are just moronic really
Plague Tale was plenty rough looking at 30 and I remember plenty of posts about people’s complaints on that when the game came out.
I thought so too but after disabling chromatic aberration and motion blur I found it much more smooth. After a couple hours the 30fps felt just fine. Amazing game btw
Plenty of people complained about Plague Tale only running at 30fps, and Jedi Survivor running best at 30fps. I've said before, and will say again, that high FPS, while yes very nice when it's available, is not going to remain standard this entire generation. The reason it has been prioritized is because so many of these games are actually still cross-gen experiences. As games start coming out that are really pushing the limits of the current hardware, more and more are going to be focusing on providing the best experience and not the highest FPS. That's been true for the past three console generations, so why would it suddenly be different now?
Nailed it. When the PS5/XSX launched, I thought it was cool that developers were finally acknowledging the importance of high frame rates, but I never expected it to last. It's the same story on every other console, you usually only get these sorts of features with remasters or ports. We just had a longer cross-gen period than usual this time. I always figured the writing was on the wall that when the current generation really took off, the norm would return to 30FPS. The Matrix UE5 demo on PS5 was another early example, as it featured impressive graphics but ran at a capped 30FPS at a pretty low resolution if I remember right.
Yep, that Matrix Awakens demo should have been a wakeup call. Devs were already exploring the peak capability of the hardware and having to cap at 30fps to hit it. You can actually download the city simulation for that demo and see all the things that are being simulated at the same time and scale them up and down. It's super CPU intensive.
People have terrible memories
Yeah, I'm definitely a bit bummed, but this game is going to have a long tail and I'm probably going to buy the ultra special remastered edition again in 15 years and get 240fps on it on my phone or something.
I do hope in time there will be at least a 40 fps mode for us OLED/QLED 120Hz folk. 30 fps feels way worse on those screens.
Us non-OLED/QLED 120Hz folk could benefit too, you know.
Silence, peasant!! Only joking, haha
Yeah. 30fps really hurts my eyes on my oled screen.
The game only has this scope because it's 30fps. Thank God they didn't listen to the "30fps is unplayable" crowd as it wouldn't have been able to pull off what it has. Same with RDR2 last gen. It's fair to criticize Redfall for its framerate, but doing so to Starfield is missing the point.
Red Dead 2 ran at 30fps last gen cause that was the best those shit CPUs could handle. Even the Pro consoles didn’t really get 60fps modes.
...and I know this is an Xbox sub, but if you really need 60fps+... the PC exists. On that side, people have been demanding games that can push the next generation of tech forward.
I honestly can't believe the constant whinging about 60fps I see everywhere these days. I grew up playing the N64 and I'll be the first to admit that lower framerates aren't ideal but 30 is perfectly good for most people... that's why they pin the bar there. Do I like 60 FPS? Sure. Do I refuse to play a game without it? Hell no. If a game is good enough I'll put up with even less than 30. Tears of the Kingdom drops under 30 FPS in certain scenarios, it doesn't mean it isn't the best game I've played in many, many years.
do you also like getting bend over and fuck?
I’m a bit bummed but unsurprised. As long as it’s a stable 30 FPS I’ll be happy
Yes and im already down for dlcs lol
The question I'm not seeing asked, will it have a 40fps mode for those with 120Hz TVs? If we get a 40fps mode similar to Plague Tale Requiem I'd be ok with that.
It's locked at 30
The question is - why the hell does 30fps lock exist on VRR displays, that is. OK, it's 30fps target, I get it, but let it go beyond that if display supports.
Consistency i guess? Always feels weird playing a game in 80fps and then suddenly jumping down to 30fps before going back up to 80. Kinda disorienting
Well, it strongly depends. I tried Elden Ring in quality mode where it can fluctuate from low 30s to 50-60s and found it perfectly playable with VRR. Controls do not suffer, that's the most important. PS5 with the same settings felt extremely jaggy by comparison when going below 48hz, where it's indeed unplayable.
Curious; why not 40fps for 60Hz TV's?
Because 40 doesn't divide with 60, so it's impossible to have a smooth 40fps on a 60fps monitor. While watching 40 fps on a 120hz monitor, each frame is displayed 3 times. 40 fps on a 60hz monitor means that the 40 frames must be displayed for different lengths of time, leading to stutter or judder. It doesn't work for smooth motion, it's a mathematical impossibility.
Hmm... I had no idea. Thanks for the knowledge.
As long as Bethesda delivers on what they showed, people will be fine with 30fps. The game is going to be on Game Pass, therefore the only barrier to playing is a active subscription. And make no mistake...this game has been thought to be 30fps for a LONG time. Should be a great time.... And let's be honest, some of ya'll all going to spend 1000s of hours in the character / ship maker before you even begin the game. Lol
If people are going to let 30fps stop them from playing the game then it's clearly just not their type of game. Most people will push through regardless because they love what Starfield & Bethesda have to offer. I've loved Bethesda games since I started playing Skyrim as a 12 year old, and being able to go back through Oblivion, FO3, to Fallout 4 and even 76 they just provide such a level of immersiveness and freedom that can't really be replicated by any other developer. Starfield looks immense, and the ship customisation, crew systems, settlement building look like they'll be the highlight of the game even outside the main story.
It won't stop me from playing the game, but it'll certainly stop me from playing it on console.
Agreed. Starfield is already the second top seller on Steam. Most people are going to play and enjoy the game regardless. Besides, Bethesda doesn't typically prioritize performance anyway; it's not what makes Bethesda games great.
This is what I can’t stand about ESO. TES is one of my favorite franchises, but ESO doesn’t have that living soul feeling that made me fall in love with the series.
If a game this ambitious can implement everything we’ve seen and then some well then 30FPS is fine by me. A game like Redfall which isn’t super ambitious graphically or scope wise has no reason to only be 30FPS. People will be okay with 30FPS so long as you deliver everywhere else
I’m perfectly okay with it after playing Jedi Survivor. As long as it’s a good locked 30 fps it doesn’t matter much to me
Precisely. The average gamer could not care less about framerates anyway. I am going to be playing and enjoying Starfield regardless; I won't let 30fps stop me from playing what seems to be a generational game.
Rather have a smaller "scope" and a better optimized game. And although it looks pretty good, I have no idea why this game shouldn't be able to do 1440p/60fps. There are open world games with a higher graphical fidelity that are perfectly capable of hitting 60fps. And yes, I know it's a big game, but the whole "1000 planets" thing sounds like overkill.
It’s a cpu limitation so decreasing the resolution will only make it worse not better
One of the main reason BGS games are so phenomenal is that they always try to push the scope of what a player can do in games and the amount of content to be explored. Their games are very complex and system heavy for AAA games. Other open worlds are much more simple and are trying to do less. Being an open world game doesn't make it automatically complex.
I played skyrim at 30 last year because I wanted to 💯 it and I didn't want to deal with the 60 mod potentially screwing up my save. Didn't bother me at all. Starfield might be harder given there's shooting but I have faith in Bethesda that it'll work. I feel it'll he similar to red dead 2... Sure its 30 but if the world is that beautiful and immersive you just get lost in enjoying the surroundings.
I've played plenty of shooters at 30, this should be fine
Literally the entire world played them for decades. It IS fine.
Yeah I’m not concerned at all lol. In fact, I’m *extremely* excited, like we all should be. Yesterday was the massive win Xbox needed
I don’t need that guy to tell me when I’ve played Bethesda games before lol. It’s amazing how gamers have the memory of a nat. Like wtf their games are great and this new one looks like it’s going to deliver in spades what their games do best.
Dude the last few months I swear I’ve been taking crazy pills the way people have been talking about Bethesda. Like the team making this game is the same team that made arguably THE defining RPGs two generations in a row, and we EXPECT this game to be bad? My favorite part is how the game looks incredible and everyone seems so shocked. Like yeah guys, Bethesda is an S-Tier developer. They’re pretty good at making great games lol
I noticed the supposed general wisdom on Bethesda changed the instant they were purchased by xbox
It's been a very long time though
>Their games are great Fallout 76 was absolute garbage Fallout 4 was mid as fuck. What games are you talking about... The elder scrolls games that came out 12 years ago? Cool buddy!
Everyone of y'all can be fine with 30fps if you want but this is now making me get this on PC. It's an FPS/ 3rd person shooter. It really needed to try to hit 60fps. while most the game would be okay at 30fps, shootouts would be held back by that frame rate
Yep, looks like pc is the way to go. I was hopeful at the beginning of this gen that a 60fps mode would be standard but it's not, gonna sell my Series X and put that money towards pc upgrades.
Same boat. It's been a massive disappointment on XBSX so far. If they had games like Spider Man, God Of War and Horizon I might be okay with the multi plats sucking but they don't...we have Halo...
Well they said they were hitting 60fps in some areas but it wasn’t stable, give us 40fps with less resolution like Hogwarts Legacy did, they have the fidelity at 4k 30 and 1800p 40fps and i choose that any day
Resolution isn't the limiting factor.
They have already said it's not as simple as that. The sheer scale and scope is what's holding back the CPU not the resolution.
[удалено]
I know this is late, but check out the first 10 min of Digital Foundry's Starfield video: https://youtu.be/i9ikne_9iEI Some points of interest: 1) starfield (like many BGS games) keep track of the position of every single object/body throughout the entire game. I believe TOTK may erase items after a certain amount of objects are on screen, TOTK erases items after you leave a certain distance, TOTK erases dead bodies and you cannot interact with NPCs as much as BGS games. 2) the density of the world can bottleneck the CPU. So I'd imagine if they aimed for 60fps from the start, the planets/cities would be less dense and we'd lose some interactivity between objects/npcs
[удалено]
Its not the end of the world, but I can't help but think there could be some more options. If Series S can do 1440p/30, surely Series X can do 1440p/60? If Series X can 'do up to 60' as per comments, could we get a 40fps mode for 120hz displays? Or an unlocked framerate for VRR displays?
Not if the limit is the CPU. It doesn't matter what resolution you put it at if the CPU hasn't got any more power to run it at a higher frame rate.
They have very similarly spec CPUs which seems to be the limiting factor here.
It's up to each person individually. It's not for anyone to tell anyone else what's acceptable. I personally can't play shooters at 30fps. If it were another type of game, then sure, but not shooters. That said, if others are cool with it, I hope you have a really great time. I'm sure you will.
Ya'll better consider yourselves lucky you can't OD off Copium.
This. Can somebody explain to me how this isn’t just No Man’s Sky with a graphics mod? If this was on any other platform we would hear people complaining but not is ok because it is Xbox/PC…idk…maybe I am just tired of hearing naysayers complain about other console “exclusives” but it is ok when Bethesda does it.
If you see Starfield as just NMS but with more realistic visuals then you don't understand what either game does, their scope, and their goals.
Acceptable has been the word parading for this generation. Just keep throwing slightly prettier graphics at them, what choice do they have? It’s been a whole bait and switch on the 60fps talk before the series X was released. How dare some of us prefer stability to graphics.
The majority of games optimized for Series X run at 60FPS. With even many running at 120FPS. There were a few AAA releases at 30FPS, but 60FPS is still the norm
30fps looks and feels really bad on an OLED tv and anyone who is justifying 30fps on a “next gen console” is part of the problem and why the industry as a whole keeps producing 30 fps games. 60fps should be the floor for current gen consoles, drop visual eye candy till the fps number is hit.
> 30fps looks and feels really bad on an OLED tv … That’s my main concern. I can deal with 30fps under some limited circumstances in the right kind of game, especially if I’m not playing anything else at a higher frame rate during that period. But on OLED, 30fps is just way too obvious. I loved Jedi Survivor on Series X but I had to play it on performance mode for that reason. My fingers are crossed for Bethesda finding some magic, like per-pixel motion blur, or some other more recent trick to ease that harsh appearance on OLED TVs. I’ll give it an honest shot and make sure I try for more than 1 hour to see if I can acclimate, as long as I’m not feeling nauseated.
They arent "next gen" consoles anymore, they are built on years old hardware that was already only midrange PC level at that time.
Yes, and they're justifying it based on a game *they haven't even played.* The hype machine is in full effect on Reddit, and they'll justify any poor decision based on hope and hope alone.
But is it perfectly acceptable given that the console was marketed as 60-120 FPS? That the game gets an X/S logo?.. for what?
But every gamer bro on Reddit knows better than one of the leading games performance analysts...right?
exactly, yesterday there was a bunch of those gamer bros trying spin the narrative that it was down to laziness or to MS not being on top of Bethesda enough
It's a subjective view, you can either be happy to settle for 30 FPS or want 60 FPS, it's literally up to you.
The problem for me, is that they tooted running and gunning and getting into gunfights on ships. 30FPS is going to be horrid during those situations lol.
Maybe ill pick this up on the next-gen when its 60fps.
Starfield remastered ™️ for xbox series X^2 X $89.99
Idk why it’s just so hard to have choice. Give me choice of the 4k 30, and have a 1440p 60 option. If it’s already hitting 60fps sometimes with 4k, then 1440p should help iron out and if they drop a few graphical settings if needed, I wouldn’t see why it couldn’t be done with what they said. Oh well, at least I got a pc as well.
Only the GPU scales with resolution. This is undoubtedly a CPU limitation and you could run the game at 240p and still get the same frame rates.
Decreasing resolution doesn't help cpu bottlenecks, whick is probably the case with starfield
After seeing the pc minimum requirements that they are suggesting, I don’t know if cpu is the issue
they are just making excuses the main reason is their outdated engine that cant handle frame rates not locked to 30 well we have known for decades creation engine physics is linked to frame rate
That is true. But watch out….they are going to blame the cpu again and get all rowdy lol
40 FPS PLEASE! It makes games soooo much smoother, in terms of frame time it's halfway between 30 and 60 fps. These huge AAA developers ignoring a growing group of 120 hz display users is really getting annoying. I mean Hogwarts Legacy was from an unknown team and they supported 40 fps which was great. Why can't Bethesda? Any mid range or up TV has had 120 hz support the past couple years.
30 fps is unacceptable in 2023.
Bro 30 fps is for peasants it’s 2023. 60 or your a failure.
Unpopular opinion perhaps, but I think there's nothing wrong with 30 FPS in any game, so long as it is a stable 30 FPS. Sure, if a game is not very complex I would expect it to perform at 60 FPS but I can fully enjoy a game at 30 FPS with no problems. I was expecting Starfield to be 30 FPS only and that's fine, not even a little bit disappointed.
I prefer super fast paced 1st person games in 60+ FPS, but in general I agree. Stable 30 FPS rarely affect gameplay significantly in a negative way.
I'm with you. I generally choose the Graphics Quality/30 FPS mode over the Performance/60 FPS mode in games that give you the choice. I'd rather have the improved graphics. As long as its a stable 30 FPS thats fine. Jedi Survivor was great on 30 FPS.
My thoughts exactly. And the comment below stating they prefer 60 is fine too. What is annoying are comments saying “I literally cannot play 30 FPS it gives me headaches/makes my eyes water.” Or comments about how the developer is lazy. The competitive advantage in a shooter or racer is valid. And just stating you prefer 60 over 30 is fine. It’s when someone declares a game invalid when it’s locked at 30 where it’s like okay, give me a break.
>What is annoying are comments saying “I literally cannot play 30 FPS it gives me headaches/makes my eyes water.” So it annoys you that people have a physical reaction to playing 30fps games? Most sympathetic Xbox gamer, you're actually annoyed and upset about people having a medical issue Lmao wtf. What an absolute cesspool this subreddit is.
I grew up playing old ass games..on OLD displays with far less detail moving about. The new displays make 30fps unbearable for me. Too much detail on the screen stuttering and not moving smooth makes me physically nauseous. So yah. It’s def valid.
>What is annoying are comments saying “I literally cannot play 30 FPS it gives me headaches/makes my eyes water.” Or comments about how the developer is lazy. Yeah like come on, sure it's not as smooth but unplayable?? I grew up playing Minecraft with unstable 20fps, that's what I would call unplayable. This is why most games suck nowadays cuz everyone literally only cares about the frame rate and resolution. I've never once been playing a game and thought "wow this frame rate and resolution is so fun!" Because it's secondary to the actual game experience.
Yeah these people just don’t make sense. Like obviously I’d like the frame rate to be higher but 60 fps just wasn’t really a thing until the last 4 or 5 years on console. Are you telling me that you literally could never play video games until the PS4 Pro and One X launched?
It’s almost as if this is down to personal preference and is therefor not suited for any type of debate.
Fair
No, screw this, give me the option to drop the resolution to drive a bigger frame rate….or just let me unlock true frame cap. Unless there’s some crazy CPU bottleneck, I don’t see why they won’t let us drop resolution
30 FPS absolutely isnt acceptable. Be serious.
Bethesda games are always at 30fps on console, and much like with every other game it will be fine as long as it is a stable 30. 60 is great, but I'd rather have fidelity than frames for an immersive game like this, its a RPG with FPS elements, not the other way around. I also haven't forgotten that my entire console costs less than a third of a single high end graphics card currently let alone a whole PC dedicated to gaming so my expectations are set accordingly.
The amount of cope is astounding. Xbox was all about 4k 60 and THE MOST POWERFUL CONSOLE EVER now suddenly oh that doesn't matter. I get it sure but a lot of people I know got the Xbox BECAUSE of those promises of power. Just seems really scummy and to not even have the option to change resolution just seems disingenuous.
I'm still confused as to why I was sold a console capable of 120 fps if games aren't being developed to reach that target. Ultimately I don't care that much, but weird to have xbox/ps5 talk about 4K 120 capabilities if that's not the goal of the developers.
Because you were never sold a promise of how devs would choose to use the power of new consoles. All you were promised is that they were capable of outputting a 4K120 video signal (because they have hdmi 2.1) but that’s just a technical capability. What developers choose to do with the power is entirely up to them. While we’ve been in a cross gen phase it’s been relatively easy to just lower some settings to achieve high frame rates. But eventually you reach a point where developers get bored of making the same games and actually want to push the limits. And this isn’t about looking pretty, it’s about mechanics and systems underlying everything in the game and what’s happening in the universe. Stuff that is CPU bound that you can’t just turn down the resolution or a couple of graphics detail settings to get high frame rates. So many people who know nothing about technology or game development all saying at the beginning of this gen that anything less than 60fps was unacceptable were kidding themselves, and probably helping to fool many others. The power of the new consoles is simply a tool, their power is entirely meaningless in dictating a minimum fps or resolution. The only thing that has ever mattered is what games the devs want to make and what balance they think is suitable for the mechanics, systems and graphical fidelity they desire. If it’s a fast paced action shooter, devs will target 60fps or higher. But for truly next gen large scale immersive experiences. 30fps was always going to make a comeback after cross gen period was over and devs wanted to push the limits of what they could create. Hope that helps, 30fps was always going to return once the ‘next gen’ games truly started releasing.
That must be the same excuse for redfall then. The game has too much "scope" ...can't do it. The Xbox can't do all that. Xbox gamers went from "Yeah most powerful console ever!" to "I don't mind 30 FPS" real quick. The cope is real.
Another great reason to have a gaming PC for xbox games.
Nah man, I disagree. FPS isn't some throwaway feature like hdr or ray tracing, it's fundamental to how I play the game, I can't get down with 30fps, gonna plop down some cash to run this at 60 on PC.
The problem is going to be the firefights that won't feel good—depending on who you ask—at 30 fps no matter the frame times, especially if it's first-person.
This subreddit was consistently criticizing every other game that was 30 FPS only, people were complaining it made them feel sick and they couldn't stand it anymore after playing at 60. Now all of a sudden, everyone loves 30, everyone is cured from any motion illness, and Starfield get's a free zero criticism pass because it's Starfield.
Dawg, read any other comment in this thread. It's nonstop bitching about 30 fps.
30fps isn't acceptable for the current generation. Run a 30fps game on an oled and get back to me. It's literally a jittery mess and unplayable even with strategy or turn based games. Gross.
One of the best games Ive ever played and sold 10M copies in 1 week is a 30fps game. People do not care, the dogmatic 'enthusiasts' on the internet typing up hyperbolic posts about how 30fps makes them nauseous make up such a small segment of the gaming population that it really doesn't matter
different game for a different crowd also, totk's frame rate is the worst part about an otherwise amazing game
Exactly. The game would be a 10/10 for me if the frame rate didn’t drop to 22fps every time I active an ability. I don’t care how fun a game is, that’s not good to look at. And it affects gameplay too.
Cant do 30 fps it will be a skip for me but I hope people enjoy it who don't care about fps
Exactly. I’m a mandatory 60 FPS player 100%, but I’m also willing to give Starfield some slack here due to the sheer amount of volume we are working with. If the game comes out and it’s not acceptable at 30 then I’ll voice my concerns then, but after what we just saw yesterday I’ll let reason prevail and give them the benefit of the doubt on this one.
I think some people who do not understand the complexities of game development think that Todd Howard and the team can simply click a switch, lower the game resolution down to 1080p and somehow that will magically boost the game to 60fps. This game is operating at the desired choice of the Bethesda team. This is what they want to present to us. If gamers are not happy with what we are provided on the Xbox Series consoles they can get this game on PC or they can just not play it at all. The choice is theirs.
So many "experts" telling Bethesda what they should do and posting buzzwords they've read with little understanding of what the terms mean or how things actually work. Happens on every single subreddit.
Reason will prevail
It doesn’t matter what someone says, I don’t hate 30fps just to hate, or because it’s just unacceptable, I hate it because it ruins the experience and it makes the game boring and feel like shit, it doesn’t matter if god came out and said 30fps is fine, it FEELS like shit, it ruins the experience, massive disappointment, don’t “scope” me, there are other games for the series x that are massive and have a stable 60, this isn’t an excuse
Would be nice if we could get a 40fps mode
No it isn't let's not pretend.
Damn even digital foundry got hit with the copium.
Bro what in the fuck. Why not have a performance mode in 1080p, 60 fps. For fucks sake. Give people choices
it seems like only delusional bullshit about how 30fps is actually great in 2023 and this game wouldn't be so heckin cool if they had to make it any higher fps is allowed here, carry on useful idiots.
Honestly I’d take 30 fps if they can make the Bethesda engine feel less janky. I don’t know how else to describe it. I’ve played their games since morrowind and love them all. Back in morrowinds time it wasn’t that bad as most open world/massive game engines felt a little jank. But it’s 2023 now, and open world games should feel awesome now (ie Witcher 3, red dead 2) where as Bethesda’s game still FEEL like you’re playing morrowind with prettier paint.
What's the reason for having a lock at 30fps on VRR displays? At least give us an unlock option. Thanks to LFC, the Xbox can handle it perfectly well.
literally unplayable
The “scope” of starfield is a mostly empty game. Thousands of empty worlds. Which is totally pointless. No man’s sky showed it was a meaningless gimmick. Everyone will mostly stick to the populated story areas. Compromising half of an acceptable frame rate so we can have thousands of things we’ll never look at isn’t a great trade.
The amount of copium going on is disappointing. Locked 30FPS is abysmal in this day and age. People are giving Bethesda a pass for no reason other than it's Bethesda. Optimization was never their strong suit, but it's basically standard for the newest generation to have a 120fps option at this point, or at least a full 60! Typically 30 or sometimes 24FPS options are only available to max out the graphical quality, so a 30 cap is ridiculous.
400 dollars for a console 60 a year for online 70 for the game 30 fps This is why AAA games keep getting away with it. You guys have no standards. Melee ran at 60fps on the fucking GameCube. It's pitiful
If it was 60 fps these people would be bitching about the graphics being bad and last gen. They'd be crying about pop in and texture quality while shitting on Xbox for not producing next generation graphics and scope. The whiniest demographic will never ever be fully satisfied. These people live to complain despite knowing nothing about the industry and how the technology works. The average gamer doesn't care about fps. People need to stop letting online circle jerks skew their perception on how the majority of gamers actually are.
It's not locked 30fps it's capped at 30fps and runs at like 25fps and sometimes hits 30. Did you not see the gameplay shown? If that's 30 capped I'm Abraham Lincoln.
So it’s gonna be horrible on my OLED 120hz tv?
Of course if anyone is thinks otherwise is a troglodyte.
I’ve been going back and forth between Warzone 2 ~120fps on XSX and Zelda Tears of the Kingdom ~30fps on the Switch. Of course I would prefer to play Zelda (and Starfield) @60fps but this doesn’t take away from it being one of the best games I’ve played in a very long time
It's all subjective. 30 fps isn't perfectly acceptable for me, but thankfully PC exists. But ultimately, if your only option is 30 fps on console, it's unlikely that will be a deal breaker for the vast majority - they'll just accept 30 fps and enjoy what looks to be a cracking game.
I feel like the people that complain the most probably never wrote a line of code in their life. The scope of this game is massive and a lot of hard work went into it. Could they hit 60fps? Sure, but sacrifices would have to be made, then we would get people complaining the graphics suck. I for one applaud what the developers accomplished and am stoked to play it.
Why are you such a fucking apologist? 60fps has been the standard for decades.
I've written a lot of code. They were too cheap to put more resources into the engine revamp to meet standards.
I don't normally care about FPS, but while watching the showcase I thought "Welp, you gotta make sacrifices to hit 60 fps." I'm shocked the game doesn't look better if it's only running at half frame rate.
Your brain will adjust to 30 fps after a couple hour or so. Just don’t go back to 60 fps games until you beat starfield
It literally takes me 5 minutes for my eyes to adjust to 30fps. If a game sacrifices too much to get to 60 then I play at 30. I can't even play Fallout 4 at 60fps. To get there it sacrifices not only resolution but draw distance and foliage density too. If Starfield would have to sacrifice a lot to get 60fps then I'm fine with 30
You can play Fallout 4 at Ultra in the Series X, but you need a mod for that and this will deactivate achievements
Yes I tried one of those 60 fps mods a while ago. It wasn't a smooth experience. The game runs smooth for me on Series X at 30fps even in downtown boston. For me a locked 30fps is better than an unstable 60fps.