I don't get how any of this comes across as shocking or hard to understand for anybody. These guys were talking about emulating a cinematic look from the beginning. It is not a hardware limitation. If this where to be a PC game they would have probably locked the fps at 30 to not distance themselves to much from the film aesthetic. People can disagree on what they're priorities should be (1080p, 60fps bla bla) but those where the design choices they made clear when they announced the game.
A 60fps cinematic experience is a bit of an oxymoron. Your 60fps game can be atmospheric, moody, gritty, or whatever adjective you want but not cinematic. That's because framerate, specifically that of 24fps, is one of the most important characteristics of achieving this and 60fps is just too much of a departure from that.
Of course these are games, so responsiveness and controller input definitely play a very important role which is improved by higher fps. But for RAD getting the closest they can to cinema with this game is more important, so we have and anamorphic picture at 30fps( the closest playable fps to 24) and many post processing effects that help transform the digital image into something that seems captured by a lens. A lot of the stuff they use to achieve this look actually takes more of a toll on the hardware than they're probably saving - 1920x800 (1:1) as opposed to an upscaled 900p image, 4x MSAA to deliver the cleanest image possible, and some physics based lens capture stuff they got going on.
I am ok with these choices as I was when they first revealed their game. I don't know why this has to cause controversy.
