God Of War: Ragnarök Dev Chimes In On Starfield's 30FPS Xbox Limit

Backlash by predominately Playstation users and playstation cultists like Dreamcast guy, who ironically names himself after a console Sony helped kill. This is a non issue and only under the magnifying glass of social media where the smallest minority (10k tweets?) Make the loudest noise. I wouldn't even waste time reporting it, personally

Much much bigger problems in the world right now

@Zoidpilot4 I read somewhere that Dreamcastguy was getting so much pushback, even from PlayStation fans, that he rage quit his own livestream of the Starfield showcase and deleted it 😭

@Chaudy thank you mate! My goodness, this discussion around 30fps for a game of that scale is so ridiculous.

Sonyguy sure does love the company that helped bring an end to his dream console.

Is it just me, but when I play a game these days, the last thing I'm thinking about is the FPS...

30fps is fine if the game is done correctly which is why Redfall failed hard since it had other issues to go with it. Zelda and Plague Tale Requiem are 30fps and they are great games as they were also quite well polished. So Starfield will be fine aslong as 30fps is the only negative.

@Zoidpilot4 and people like you who lump every one under one umbrella don't help folks who have genuine issues with playing at 30 FPS get any help or consideration.

For some folks this is genuinely an accessibility issue. I hope at some point in the future more will see performance modes much like subtitles, close captions and colour blindness settings. Better to have such option and not need them than need them & they not be there.

I am not saying everyone who is complaining has such problems but those that do are seeing their concerns dismissed as "cultists" is very disheartening and depressing.

@Zoidpilot4 I personally don’t care about 60FPS, but this hasn’t been just backlash from PS fanboys. There are plenty of hardcore Xbox fans upset over this too. I know you’re new around here, but it has been a point of contention for a while in these forums, which is probably the impetus behind the post.

Personally, I use performance modes on a case-by-case basis. But for months now I’ve thought people here were setting themselves up for disappointment with their 60fps wishes. It was never going to happen with Starfield.

Gamers don't understand that certain things also don't scale with Resolution. For example, if you have 100 enemies on screen, that's 100 AI calculations per frame, all the hit detection, Physics etc too - doesn't matter if its 4k or 540p, its still the same amount of enemies, same AI, same hit detection and Physics etc etc.

This game could be extremely CPU intensive - even 'optimised' and taking advantage of Multi-threading too - to push AI, Physics etc, do all the Real Time Global Illumination calculations - don't forget that environments are not 'static' time of day with baked in shadows, lighting effects etc to save 'resources' - its Real time Lighting.

The CPU is the brain and you'll cut what it can do in half by changing from 30 to 60fps. The amount of Data that can be transferred and processed is halved too so its not 'just' the Graphics, the GPU that now has 'half' the time. At 60fps, you also double the amount of Controller inputs that need to be calculated.

I'd rather have a Locked 30fps than an inconsistent '60fps' that's only 60fps if you look at the sky. I'd rather they pushed the hardware to the Limit with AI, Physics etc etc - things that don't scale with Res - than dumbed all that down just to hit 60fps or worse, change the Game (reduced AI/Enemy count on Consoles for example) to hit 60fps.

In some games, it perhaps doesn't matter so much. Racing games for example tend to cull the crowds watching and we see in Open World games, less densely filled worlds - less AI/NPC's in towns/cities, more 'pop-in' as objects are 'culled' at distance etc because these don't 'scale' with resolution. You halve the amount of work the CPU can do, the amount of Data you can move/use etc as well.

A 12TF GPU, means it can do (up to) 12 Trillion Floating Point operations per 'second'. At 30fps, that's up to 0.4TF's per Frame but at 60fps, you have up to just 0.2TF's per frame.

A 3.6ghz CPU has 3.6bn cycles per second, at 30fps, that's 0.12bn per frame so can do twice as many Cycles, twice as many operations than at 60fps (0.06bn cycles per frame). SSD's can transfer say 3Gb/s which works out at at 0.1Gb per Frame at 30fps or just 0.05Gb per frame at 60fps. So its also affecting these important aspects too...

People need to understand its not as simple as just drop resolution to hit 60fps. Some things don't scale and even if they drop to 540p, you could still be CPU limited and not hit a 'locked' 60fps.

Watch Digital Foundry's PC analysis of some games - even the best GPU (RTX4090) running games at 540p can't deliver a 'locked' 60fps because the games are CPU limited...

@RetroMan71 you are in the majority. Most people don’t care or notice. I much prefer 60fps and think it should be standard but if it’s not whatever, I’ll still play at 30 if the game looks good enough to justify it.

@BBB Because there are two kinds: the vocal Sony trolls that are trying to hurt the Starfield hype based on the frame rate and then add Fable to the list of disappointing games based on a cinematic trailer to expand the damage because they only have Spider-man sequels and Sony's new MMOGs on the horizon, and the Xbox players that are genuinely rooting for the addition of an optional performance mode, like you. At the very least, an unlocked mode for VRR screens at launch would be reasonable.

@JON22 this made me smile so much ahaah

Dev is right. It's definitely my choice to dislike it.

I will exercise my choice by not playing it, in the hope they will downgrade the visuals to hit 60fps.

I personally believe the design choices in this game have not taken into consideration the majority of what gamers actually want.

@senote I'll throw in an answer to this.

I find it visually displeasing to the point it makes me enjoy a game much less.

Mostly to the point i won't play it.

That's the issue i have with 30fps.

@senote 30 FPS games these days make me feel sick & dizzy after a short while. It's not something that happens with 60 FPS or higher games.

It's something to do with the way my eyes process what it sees on the flat surface of a TV or monitor. It has got worse the older I got.

A plague tale requiem at 30 fps was realy good, Zelda TOTK is good, cyberpunk 2077 was unplayable for me at 30 fps , Starfield I hope Will be ok at 30fps if the shooting have autoaim, I also prefer playing Forza horizon at 60fps it depends of the game but I am open minded for a game of this scale and ambitions.

@Zoidpilot4 extremely well said! Dreamcast was fantastic, sad times, I had one! The Games were brilliant!

@UltimateOtaku91 I thought the controls felt incredibly sluggish and rough on Plague Tale, I attributed that to the 30fps. I’m going to try another game at 30fps for comparison, as I never choose 30fps.

DreamcastGuy is a tool. He was sh*tting all over Starfield on his stream, you could see the vitriol oozing out of him by the mannerisms. He's just annoyed he can't play it on his precious PlayStation. He rage quit his stream because he was being called out on his BS and this was all before the 30fps limit was announced. When that was announced he then latched on to that claiming the game was unfinished because of it. He likes to pretend he's platform neutral but he's one of the biggest Sony fanboys on YouTube.

Todd Howard said that unlocked the game was often way higher than 30fps, sometimes even reaching 60fps, but they wanted the stability of locking it to 30 (which is fair enough) but it does make me wonder if a 40fps mode could have been an option at least. It saddens me how few games take advantage of that frame rate as it is so much smoother than 30fps.

@Episode_13 I loved the dreamcast, chu chu rocket, Shenmu, just to name two. It had online capabilities and the controller was amazing. I was well gutted when it died.

If the games good, who care's right?

The devs have obviously made what they believe is the right choice to make Starfield the best it can be.

We'll see if they're right when we play the game 👍👍

By the way, Dreamcast guy made a tweet basically retracting his comments. Also, his YouTube video has 90% positive comments, calling him out. See, when you're entire personality is a brand of negativity aimed at the demographic of fan boys, you got no choice but to negate a thing that even you know is great, problem is, starfield looks so awesome that even the fan boys on his channel could not find grounds to agree with him. In fact, the showcase was simply too good to be widely accepted as anything less. Seems xbox won over a lot of gamers. When the tides change, so will Dreamcast guys content. He's a parasite and a chameleon trying to fan the console wars for views and likes. What a sad man

@Spaceman-Spiff Indeed! What about an unlocked mode for VRR screens like other games have, e.g., A Plague's Tale Requiem that runs at 40-45fps (at least when I played it).

@Banjo- I really hope they introduce that as an option.

As long as it's a locked 30fps with even frame pacing and input latency is kept at a minimum, it's really a non-issue.

I think the hate 30fps gets is because many times, those 30fps feel inconsistent because of bad frame pacing and high input latency - plus, any deviation from 30fps is noticeable.

Then you look at something like Tears of the Kingdom where the majority of the game is a tight 30fps and it feels completely fine to play. Yes, when it drops, it drops, but that 30fps feels fine!

Bloodborne is actually very closely locked to 30fps, but the frame pacing is bad so stutter is a lot more noticeable.

@LoquaciousB Me too and I completely agree with your comment above.

@BAMozzy I read all that like you were a go co chair at digital foundry. What you said make sense especially when you look at the scope. But then folks would compare GOWR, HZDFW,FF16. My question and I know design makes the difference, what makes a game like FF16 hit its targets at the scale they built that game? Is it engine? Hardware?

@Seioni The engine and the optimisation of the code are the two most important things. Hardware is important but Series X is powerful and efficient and has CPU built-in advanced features (as discussed by Microsoft and DF when they presented the console). Obviously, Starfield would never work on Switch but that's downclocked tablet technology from ten years ago. In short, if the technology is fine, the engine and the optimisation are the two most important variables.

@Banjo- yea I’m fine with the 30 frames just last year I got a lg C1 so before that I couldn’t even tap into the 120 and at the time 60 wasn’t really a benchmarker and yea I got a switch so I’m used to 30 and I’ve been having since NES. Long as it plays well. I know this game isn’t star citizen

@Seioni Scope.

God of War Ragnarok is...for the most part..static. Sure, Sony added animations and environmental attention to detail, but NPCs aren't walking around "living their own lives", there aren't physics based objects everywhere, you can't explore beyond what has been carefully crafted for you.

Horizon is a bit different since it's open world, but I bet there still isn't the level of depth and interactivity as Starfield. It's crafted to tell the story it wants to tell and adds some extras for Trophies - again all specifically crafted. Other than maybe some vegetation placement, there isn't any procedural generation work added on top of all the other systems in place.

Sony mostly designs games that, gameplay-wise, could still run on a PS2/PS3 if the graphics were dropped. That leaves a ton of headroom for favoring high resolution or high framerate.

Not knocking PS5 - I have one and enjoy the games Sony puts out - but Sony's focus is Hollywood spectacle over "living, breathing worlds" like Bethesda.

@GamingFan4Lyf Yep, that's worth mentioning that on-rails, static and linear games are much easier to develop and perform well, like in certain Sony games that you move the stick and the character moves in one direction with fixed animations and the camera is automatic, like an interactive film. Impressive but played once, seen it all.

I don't mind 30fps as along as the motion blur isn't super heavy but I'm contemplating on upgrading my GPU 😆just for 60fps atleast, hopefully a 3090 will do the trick with all the bells & whistles.

@Seioni I'm sure that Starfield is great and deserves the game of the year awards whether it gets them or not. I have a C9 and a C1 like you and I would love an unlocked frame rate mode. It doesn't even require any extra work.

Isn’t he the same guy who made fun of TotK graphics last month? Maybe he wants to work anywhere but Sony

I still remember the good old days games ran at 640p upscaled into a blurry brown 720p by the game and then a further crap upscale by console to 1080p, all of this running in a solid 25fps which could dip down to 19fps at any given time. The narrative that anything below 60 is bad was injected into console gamers by PC community (which regularly throws a whole month's salary at a GPU alone) and now we have to run this same discussion every two weeks about why 30fps is ok!

99% of my time is on PS5, but I got a Series X so I could play stuff like Starfield. Not massively bothered about 60FPS, so 30 is fine for me. Just wondered they don’t have an Unlocked option, so people can chose? Would this be possible?

Games now are like art… Todd Howard wants the game at 30 FPS so we can play Starfield the way it was meant to be played. I have no problem with that. I would hate to be playing at 60 and the game becomes janky at busy moments…

So if I’m understanding this correctly, starfield is pushing the needle forward for gaming as far as world building? Not being linear, living universe, AI, lighting, dialogue, character building? And 30 fps allegedly breaks game immersion or makes it unfinished?

30fps is fine for most games.

@Seioni That would be the sentiment for some, yes.

Bethesda has always tried to push the needle in terms of having digital worlds you can essentially live in: there is a reason people still play Skyrim today.

I am actually not a huge fan of Bethesda RPGs - but I think that's because the scope and ambition is so big, that I just can't "live" in the game. I do, however, admire what it tries to accomplish.

@Spaceman-Spiff 40fps mode only works well on 120hz screens. On 60hz screens, it will feel inconsistent, since there 40 over 60 doesn’t make a good multiplier for the refresh rate.

@Suda52 I know what you are referring to, but Aaron Greenburg did backtrack a little bit a few days later to say that 60fps will be common and standard, but not a mandate.

His exact Tweet was:
"Developers always have flexibility in how they use the power, so a standard or common 60fps is not a mandate."

It is what it is. It doesn’t overly bother me.

But I think gamers in 2023 expect options.

There’s no harm in Todd saying the game should be played in 30fps for XYZ reasons, but give those that would like 60 the option to play it even if it comes with a pop up type warning about it not being the best way to play

@Suda52 are you mad that the PS5 also had 8k written on its box? Lol.

Starfield should be 60fps. However, it’s not an unfinished game because Bethesda chose that frame rate because they like that target. People can debate it all they want, but the reality is that Bethesda was always going to choose 30fps for consoles.

Not buying that take. An option for the player would not sacrifice the 4k mode. I’m sure PC players will get a ton of settings they can adjust to get 60fps.

What I would buy is that other things going on at the CPU level, like physics calculations, prevent the implementation of a lower-res 60fps mode, but that is not what we were told. They specifically said “don’t want to sacrifice fidelity*.

@Suda52 I agree with you 60 should be standard but all these companies tell porkies to us to sell their boxes.

@Savage_Joe Yes I know 40fps is limited to 120hz screens, but with each passing year there are more and more of those out there and it's frustrating that so few games are forward looking enough to include it. I really enjoyed playing A Plague Tale Requiem at 40fps and hoped that more games would follow suit.

@UltimateOtaku91 personally, I had a hard time with Plague Tale requiem, and regretted playing it on that mode when they launched a 60fps mode later. But at least Requiem was 40fps on my TV, not 30.

@Zoidpilot4 Dreamcast guy is indeed a clown. Anyone following my posting history knows I’m as Pro Xbox as it comes without being a blind fanboy.

At the end I think this game looks great, and I’m happy for anyone that is not bothered by the 30fps cap on consoles, but I am playing this one on PC. Already got me the constellation edition, the controller, and a rig that is well above minimum specs to install on my gaming room.

@Suda52 I get it, but I do think developers should be allowed to push hardware in different ways.

I know 60fps on PC is basically required. But look at how much one has to spend to do so.

I bet Starfield will have hefty requirements to hit 60fps - which requires significantly more than $500.

For all we know, Bethesda could add in a 40fps mode or 60fps later, but I understand not saying that before the game releases out of bad PR of Microsoft releasing an "unfinished game".

For all we know, a group of engineers could be going through some code (post launch and have some breathing room) and notice that if a few small tweaks are made to x/y/x systems, the game could get to 60fps more often than not.

@Seioni Its a combination of many different things - the engine, the devs and their target/ambition, etc etc etc.

Each has the same pot of resources for example in the Hardware, but the dev may choose to target say '60fps' so factor that into their design. Maybe have much more 'static' elements or more simplified AI. Maybe they don't have so much Physics etc. Different engines will have different costs, different strengths/weaknesses.

Even things like Lighting for example can be all faked, all baked in and static because its a 'fixed' time of day so have very little impact on resource requirements whereas another game may opt for Real Time lighting so all the shadows, ambient Occlusion, bounce lighting etc is calculated 'every' frame. The 'static' faked one then has more resources to put towards maybe having higher Polygon counts so look 'denser' and perhaps more impressive in stills, but they are 'static' compared to the RT GI game that will have a moving light source and be much more dynamic.

GoW:R is a great example of a very Static game with everything carefully crafted and fixed Time of Day so everything can be 'Static'. Its also a Last gen game so had to run on PS4 hardware inc PS4 CPU's The PS5 CPU is magnitudes better so you perhaps can double frame rates. These games were designed to run at 30fps on Last gen hardware so not likely to be pushing CPU's hard - so they have enough overhead with the newer CPU's to do the same (if not more) in half the time. PS5 CPU is twice as fast and Multi-threaded too.

So the decision to have a Static or Dynamic Time of Day for example can have a massive impact on what pool of resources a Developer has left for whatever else they want.

Take Gravity - its static in most games, but this has different Gravity for different places. That affects Physics - like how high you can jump or ballistic weapon recoil can affect you in zero G, That's different things that need to be built in and take up a lot more resources than something that is 'consistent'. How many objects you have on screen, how many can be interacted with or how many are 'static'. How complex the AI is and how many NPC's/enemies are ever on screen.

So many different things can make the difference between why one may offer 60fps and another can't. Even if they are both 'open world' RPG's or Racing Games or FPS etc. Even if you have two devs with the SAME engine building 'Similar' games, one may opt to use the Resources to push AI, Physics, Real Time Lighting etc etc and another may well focus on ensuring 60fps game-play on Console so rely on simpler AI, less Objects with Physics, Static Time of Day etc instead.

Its different priorities, goals, ambitions, design, resource allocation etc etc etc.

@Savage_Joe We are not asking for a 40fps game, just the option for unlocking the frame rate or a 40fps mode for VRR screens on top of stable 30fps as default. Bethesda admitted that the game can run much higher than 30fps on Series X.

The main issue is your TV/monitor is too good and outpaced the consoles lol if you just stayed with your plasma like me with its burn in - no problem 😂

@Tharsman i get what you're saying, I said predominantly but of course not everyone is complaining just to complain, to some, 60fps really matter.

I am going to mention something I said before:

There is a high chance that player mods on the console version will be a thing, and a mod could potentially change the game enough to enable 60fps and disable X or Y to make it happen. Only issue there is that mods that are not part of the Creation Club tend to disable the ability to earn achievements in previous entries of the game.

@Exerion76 skyrim ain't a slower rpg haha

Nor was fallout 4

If it is an artistic and personal choice that has nothing to do with the hardware then the PC version should also be locked at 30fps, wouldn't they want the vision to be same across all platforms?

@BBB so you didn't play any games during 360/ps3 generation?

@VokDaWiibSlayer
please read for answer, thank you.
https://www.purexbox.com/news/2023/06/starfield-at-30fps-is-a-creative-decision-says-xboxs-phil-spencer#comment7645229

@Tharsman This is what I am pinning my hopes on right now given Bethesda's "it's an artistic choice" stance.

I wouldn't give achievements a second thought and just see it as a necessary sacrifice I am more than willing to make.

@BBB 60 fps hasn't been the standard until just recently and it's still not a "standard" as opposed to an option. It does indeed suck you're affected in such a manner but maybe a PC is more for you in that regard.

@VokDaWiibSlayer TVs also used to be a lot smaller. The bigger the screen, the more obvious 30ps jerkiness becomes.

@VokDaWiibSlayer and that's all I am asking for is the option. They could still offer the "artistic choice" with a quality mode but give an option of a performance mode too. Even if performance isn't perfect it would help even if only a little bit.

PC gaming isn't a magic bullet and comes with its own problems & drawbacks. I rather enjoy the relative simplicity of console gaming

Not having to fiddle with umpteen drivers etc then having to sacrifice a goat on a weekly basis so that they all work together so you can maybe get a good gaming weekend 😉

Todd Howard said star field is a Bethesda rpg through and through.
Anyone who doesn't play their games doesn't know the company at all.

@BBB then don't play the games. If you can't be bothered to navigate your own ailments why should anyone else? I don't mean that to sound harsh but you're talking about a phenomenon that has yet to be proven scientifically. Im sure as awareness becomes available they will take these things into account but at this impasse it's a regular console war debate that carries little actual scientific proof or understanding. I don't mean to say you don't actually suffer, and I am truly sorry that you do, but it is what it is and we just aren't there yet.

@Zoidpilot4 imagine if starfield were to be on ps5. Will the the PS cultist, wannabe fanboys react to such trivial things?. The internet has changed their opinions once starfield became an Xbox exclusive. Everything is good if it's PS but if it's Xbox it's not.

@Tharsman I'm sure the blind would love to drive cars too. I myself have a fairly large TV, far larger than any TV Ive owned previously. I don't suffer these ailments. Without scientific evidence to back up these claims all I can go off is my own anecdotal experiences. And as I said to BBB with the world as it is there is an amount of responsibility that rest on the consumer to navigate these issues. If that means playing on a smaller TV, playing on PC or not playing at all that's a personal choice that comes down to the consumer. We're talking about a billion dollar corporation that's targeting the biggest of their demographics. Small blips of an undocumented "syndrome?" steeped in relative infancy isnt their responsibility. I mean this in no way to disregard or claim that anyone who truly suffers is faking by any means. It's just not the world's responsibility to handle it. Not yet atleast.

As much as I dislike admitting this, prior to the super consoles of last generation - the XBO X and PS4 Pro - the 60fps target may not have been as commonplace or standard as we think. 30fps was still very common leading up to ajd and including the early years of PS4 and XBO.

The hardwares' capabilities for higher fidelity output have increased, yes, but so have the demands. Now 4K is what is actually "common"... though honestly it shouldn't be. Not enough people listened to reason; 1440p and 1080p with better aliasing techniques still looked good even in recent years — yes, including TAA solutions (it's only when TAA is too heavy do we get a ghosting-blur effect in motion-heavy images).

I don't see why it has to be 30fps compromise though. I've played demanding games in the last two years or so at non-standard caps of 40, 42, 45, 48, 50 and 55 fps. The latter is indistinguishable from 60 fps; 40 is very noticeably smoother than 30, and it's a better number than 42 fps for an even frame time, which would correlate to 25 ms and ~ 23.81 ms respectively. I believe 42 fps was chosen for one mode of "Ratchet & Clank: A Rift Apart."

For reference, 30 fps = ~33.3 ms and 60 fps is 1/2 the frametime of that, so ~16.67 ms. 50 fps = 20 ms, also a sweet spot. 55 ms = ~18 ms, which is very close to 16.67 ms. 48 fps = ~20.83, or half the frametime of a 24 ms cinematic like you see in movies. 45 fps = ~22.2 ms, and I only picked that one because it's the midpoint framerate between 30 and 60 fps.

You'll notice that as framerate increases by significant amounts, frametime decreases by insignificant amounts — that means pushing fps beyond 60fps has diminishing returns for resources required (hardware capability and pricing), which is why even amongst the pro scene you're not going to see too many people playing beyond the 120 fps
(~8 ms) regime and why devs can only do so much.

Also, as you probably guess, I'm a PC tinkerer and gamer.

@VokDaWiibSlayer

If that means playing on a smaller TV

I'm sorry but I got to say this: this sounds like telling people "play on an Xbox 360 if you want to play on an offline device".

I already noted I will play on PC, I would much rather play on console, and if we do get mods and anyone comes up with a mod to make that possible, I hope that transferring data from Steam to the Xbox version is a thing somehow.

@Tharsman our previous engagement consisted of you saying that TVs used to be smaller. You'll have to forgive me for not knowing your prior history. That being said there is the world as it is and the world as you'd like it to be. I offered advice to navigate it as it is. If you ever decide to make the change to more align it with how youd like it to be, you'll have my support. Until then... best of luck.

With a game of this scale and scope i'm not shocked its 30fps, i do think a 1080p60fps update might hit the Series X next year though but i suppose we will see. Either way i don't care as it looks incredible and has shot to the top of my most wanted game of the rest of 2023.

@Jark The 40fps mode that Sony love offering is limited to 120hz displays only as it would feel and play terrible on 60hz screens. Digital Foundry have nicely explained it all in the past. As for uncapped framerate yeah i'm glad its locked at 30fps, i would have a locked 30 then a framerate constantly all over the place.

@WallyWest Um, I played 40 through 55 fps on a 60Hz IPS monitor just fine. No screen tearing or wonky feels.

@Benjamin in your opinion it is not for me and other gamers 60 should be standard now

lazy excuses for modern age game studios

That was the last straw for Xbox and me. I bought a 4080 computer, so now it will be 4k and at least 60fps for a while. Better luck next gen, maybe Microsoft can make more powerful hardware from scratch?! Thanks for PC-GamePass

DGC would be saying nothing about this if his main console was an Xbox and not a PS5.

Dev is correct to say that the choice to prioritise 30fps and better complex gaming systems/visual fidelity doesn't mean an unfinished game.

RDR2 is also the same, which is why it isn't easy for them to just put a 60fps mode on XSX and PS5. There are a lot of complex systems at play. If they could do a 60fps T2 would be all over that cash grab.

It's very unfair to call a devs lazy just because they made a creative choice on how to use the limited console hardware. The hardware was already weaker than a lot of high end PC's when it launched nearly 3 years ago and consoles are a budget friendly way to get into gaming. If I want 60fps + with 4K and complex systems on AAA games I got to have a high end PC which would cost a lot more. I understand some players can't play at 30fps due to eye issues and I feel sorry for them as it means they have to invest a lot more into their hobby.

The players who will buy the game deserve the option of 60fps, not everyone cares about "visual fidelity" and it's a Bethesda game it's gonna be janky, lods gonna suck and it's gonna have pop in regardless of this 30fps to ensure visual fidelity nonsense excuse.

I play at 4k on series x and 1080p on pc can't see any difference between the two, I'll wait for them to concede like they did with redfall and give a performance mode

@Moonglow Where are you getting this information? Show your sources because this just sounds like a lie Todd would put out such as fallout 3 having 200 endings and Skyrim being able to be played forever (only a thing because of modders)

One hundred ideas.

Would be really nice to have selectable frame rate caps in console games. 30, 40, 60 and even 120. Lots of people are not as sensitive to frame drops and find variable 40-60 perfectly fine. From what Todd said about the frame rate it sounds like it would be pretty decent on a VRR display. Selectable frame rates would also be awesome for playing these games on future consoles

@BBB I don't want to stir the pot, but what does 30fps vs 60fps have to do with accessability issues? Legible writing is not the problem. Framerate is not the problem here.

I have never seen complaints in the last 30 years from gamers with regards to framerates being a limiting factor in being able to enjoy a game.

Primarily it was accessability in control of the game. And to be honest Microsoft has done more for that community than any other in my opinion, with their controller option based entirely on accessibility on the M$ store.

Most games now have colour blind options, sound based options, etc. So now, at least usually... It is control based issues.

But this is the first I've heard 30fps vs 60fps affects certain people with disabilities in sight. I am happy to be corrected... Don't get me wrong. I legitimately do not know of any disability that 30fps hurts.

Aside from PC "afficianados" who claim more frames means a better game. Which is B$. I don't see an argument here. They enjoy movies just fine, and guess what? They still very much adhere to 24fps - 30fps depending where you are in the world. Weird, right?

If you can educate me, please do! But be nice. These are things I am ignorant to. I would like to learn more.

Am really excited for the game. What resolution does Tears of the Kingdom run at again? Seems to be a somewhat popular game at the moment.

@XsERTzX Some people get sick & dizzy when playing games at low frame rates (some are the opposite and have issues with higher frames rates). This is generally labeled at motion sickness or simulation sickness.

This is one on the reasons virtually every game released has those warnings at game startup that every ignores and clicks past. It's become more prevalent with the higher fidelity TV and monitors that are available these days.

The reason I am calling this an accessibility issue is that it's a solvable problem. Much like the established accessibility issues were solvable with things like subtitles, close captions & colour blind options among others things.

Devs can provide a performance & quality modes providing 60 & 30 FPS options for folks. This allows people to enjoy a game regardless of where they fall. Having those options takes nothing away from anyone and you get to pick whichever suits your needs.

The reason I am a bit disgruntled with Starfield in particular is their stated artistic reasons. It's not that they couldn't provide a higher frame rate option they chose not to for the aforementioned artistic reasons and wanting to give higher fidelity over higher frames. (Their choice of course but it's a short sighted one from my pov.)

As for your film thing yes those are at most 30 FPS.
Cinematography has evolved using techniques like slow pans with virtually no vertical movement to help provide clear shots & also mitigate motion sickness. Even so some folks do still experience sickness going to the movies.

Not sure if you remember the found footage phase the film industry had with movies like The Blair Witch Project.
Those films had prolonged shaky cams with often fast blurry pans as that is a core of the sub genre. However it made enough folks ill that warnings were posted in many movie theaters about motion sickness (Google it if you don't remember.)

I am not someone who is shouting for 60 fps or nothings your game is ***** etc etc. This is a genuine issue for some folks and these concerns are being dismissed or thrown aside because it's all being lumped together as generic hate towards Starfield.

It's really not I just want to enjoy the game like everyone else and without puking.

I hope that helps your understanding.

Thank you for that! I legitimately didn't understand the hate for 30fps but your explanation helped me. In the situation you are explaining I do get it. And as a result I need to re-examine my own views on framerates. I remember The Blair Witch Project as a kid and the shaky camera just reminded me of home videos... But now I know it's a bit more than that. They can be disorienting and consfusing.

Again, I always appreciate a new viewpoint and opinion. I want that to be a thing in our Xbox community

Creative choice? 30fps is still a lazy choice for this Generation. Its a step Backwards.

You can not simply dismiss it in a AAA game.

I'm guessing it will get patched down the road for 60FPS. I've looked and there is a bright side to buying 1st party games from Microsoft and it's the Play Anywhere feature. Buy the game now, play on your Series S|X, build a new PC in a year or two and play it there with whatever your PC allows.

It's also important to note that Bethesda has had issues with their physics being tied to framerate since 2002. The higher the framerate the less stable the game. It's something I really wish they'd fix but also a consistent 30 is better than a waivering 40-60.