Phil Spencer: Starfield being 30fps is a "creative choice", not a hardware issue.

01011001 said:
snip snap, here's a screenshot of this super clean image quality:

htvF9Pn.jpg
Click to expand...
There's no way in hell you watched that clip and that's what you saw. because it didn't look that blurry in motion. It didn't. You know it didn't.

If 60fps was so great, devs would be using performance modes to capture all the footage for trailers in and gameplay. They capture at 30fps in fidelity mode to SELL THEIR GAME.

please tell me why that is? If it's so horrible, why is it the standard to show trailers, show off gameplay, screenshots, etc?
 
Last edited:
Represent. said:
There's no way in hell you watched that clip and that's what you saw. because it didn't look that blurry in motion. It didn't. You know it didn't.

If 60fps was so great, devs would be using performance modes to capture all the footage for trailers in and gameplay. They capture at 30fps in fidelity mode to SELL THEIR GAME.

please tell me why that is?
Click to expand...

dude, do you see the screenshot I took? that's literally from the video you linked.

if a game looks like this in motion, then all those pixels and details the game renders are only ever of any value if you stand still.
making the concept of a quality mode completely nonsensical.

and trailers are often shot the way that first video you posted is. slow camera pans, still shots, slow walking without camera pans.

that's why they use fidelity mode
 
Represent. said:
It looks worse. Straight up.

I bought a High End OLED TV to experience the BEST possible IMAGE QUALITY. Which is what 30fps provides. Fact.

cannot relate. I just dont know what you guys are talking about when it comes to "juddery". My experience has never been that.

Its not juddery, at all. Smooth as hell and just simply looks better due to higher resolutions and added fidelity.

Nonsense. I have been playing 30fps on OLED for years and never once experienced this "shittiness" everyone speaks of.

This should really end all the nonsensical debates.

People, 60fps at this scale would equal an ugly ass game with everything scaled back. How do so many people not understand such simple logic? Its not rocket science.

Devs don't want to release an ugly fucking game with everything they aim to do having to be scaled back significantly.

Like how does that not make sense? Are people purposely being slow?
Click to expand...

Yeah ... some sony games playing in 60 fps right now are ugly as fuck.. dont know how im been able to finish them... almost melting my eyes with ugliness

Man thats copium and hopium.. but now theres also the spinium ... damn
 
Last edited:
Bernardougf said:
Yeah ... some sony games playing in 60 fps right now are ugly as fuck.. dont know how im been able to finish them... almost melting my eyes with ugliness

Man thats copium and hopium.. but now theres also the spinium ... damn
Click to expand...
Every time I see this guy in a thread about 30vs60fps he posts the Horizon video where someone walks extremely slowly and pans the camera in a pace that makes you fall asleep. Has he posted it here yet to try and prove that 30fps is superior?
 
Exoil said:
Every time I see this guy in a thread about 30vs60fps he posts the Horizon video where someone walks extremely slowly and pans the camera in a pace that makes you fall asleep. Has he posted it here yet to try and prove that 30fps is superior?
Click to expand...

Lets wait for the horizon 60 fps uglyness video ... oh the horror
 
Represent. said:
It looks worse. Straight up.

I bought a High End OLED TV to experience the BEST possible IMAGE QUALITY. Which is what 30fps provides. Fact.

cannot relate. I just dont know what you guys are talking about when it comes to "juddery". My experience has never been that.

Its not juddery, at all. Smooth as hell and just simply looks better due to higher resolutions and added fidelity.

Nonsense. I have been playing 30fps on OLED for years and never once experienced this "shittiness" everyone speaks of.

This should really end all the nonsensical debates.

People, 60fps at this scale would equal an ugly ass game with everything scaled back. How do so many people not understand such simple logic? Its not rocket science.

Devs don't want to release an ugly fucking game with everything they aim to do having to be scaled back significantly.

Like how does that not make sense? Are people purposely being slow?
Click to expand...
The human eye threshold for framerate "flicker" is usually between 30-60 fps, varies from person to person, yours is obviously very low, 30 or even less, no shame in that, but most people have a higher threshold, so 30fps on Oled seems jittery.
 
R6Rider said:
Interested to see how it performs on various GPU and CPU setups for PC.

Also, glad I don't have and OLED in cases like this.
Click to expand...

Would be really really shocking if a 3700x/2080 (SX rough equivalent) can't run at least 1080p/60 at very high setting. Should be able to run 1440p 45-60 (well within VRR range) as well.
 
Last edited:
Reallink said:
Would be really really shocking if a 3700x/2080 (SX rough equivalent) can't run at least 1080p/60 at very high setting.
Click to expand...
I'm thinking the same thing. At that point the CPU bottleneck excuse will be leading to some interesting topics and questions to why console players weren't given more options.
 
Ar¢tos said:
If they get away with this, then their next game will be 15fps with vomit inducing screen tear and they'll say it is a creative choice, and will even call the screen tear a feature.

The lack of a 60fps mode (not 4k,but lower dynamic res) just tells me they are having trouble optimizing the game but don't want to delay it.
Click to expand...
Wait until people realize this game is not native 4k but is upscaled from a lower resolution and is running in the low 20's.
 
In Cold Blood said:
It's due to the engine and open world nature of Creation.
Even on PC I think it can go no more than 60fps?
No one other than those who can't play it will be worried about it being 30fps.
I'm going to be too busy raiding ships, building bases and generally shaking up the universe, to worry about the concerns about the framerate.
Click to expand...
You can get it above 60fps if you uncap it but in my experience physics start to get wonky somewhere around 80fps.
 
On a related note, I really didn't go out there to shit my pants. It started out as a fart. It turned into a shart, but that was a creative choice.
 
recursive said:
You can get it above 60fps if you uncap it but in my experience physics start to get wonky somewhere around 80fps.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I don't have a PC and have never tried it, I have just heard that the engine is really only set up to give 60fps as a maximum. Why that may or may not be, I have no idea.
 
Represent. said:
There's no way in hell you watched that clip and that's what you saw. because it didn't look that blurry in motion. It didn't. You know it didn't.

If 60fps was so great, devs would be using performance modes to capture all the footage for trailers in and gameplay. They capture at 30fps in fidelity mode to SELL THEIR GAME.

please tell me why that is? If it's so horrible, why is it the standard to show trailers, show off gameplay, screenshots, etc?
Click to expand...
It does look that in motion when the camera moves. All 30 FPS games do.

Devs are running the games in "fidelity mode" because the Camera motion blur can be minimized when you're creating a trailer or a "Gameplay demo". Notice how the camera mostly moves slightly when the camera needs another angle? Or when you're watching a gameplay demonstration and the camera pans slowly? That's not done to make it look "cinematic". It's done to keep the motion blur to a minimum. You can work around that when you're making a trailer. During actual Gameplay? Less so.
 
Last edited:
It's absolutely a creative choice. Bethesda could have wound back alot of the interactivity of the game, to where most of the background and objects are static 2d images that you can't interact with, which would take a ton of load off the CPU and given you 60fps.
Bethesda chose not to, and they want their game to be fully immersive.
It's what separates Bethesda games from other studio games.
 
Heisenberg007 said:
Ohhh, got it. So the people advertising their product falsely and making false promises were right, and the people who bought a product based on those promises were wrong!

Lil Yachty Drake GIF by hamlet
Click to expand...

Please show me where Phil or MS ever said "every game will be 60fps on Series X, no exception!"

Pathetic console warring is all you do.
 
He's wrong, it's both. It's a creative choice in that they want to maximize operations per pixel at the expense of framerate. It's a hardware issue in that they're forced to balance operations per pixel and framerate in the first place. Of course, this is an issue that will persist for some decades yet, but nevertheless a hw issue. Phil should strive for accuracy.
 
Hopefully they will do 40fps 120hz option. We know "Pro" consoles are coming, but in the mean time that would be a nice compromise. No way they include it tho because reasons
 
Mephisto40 said:
So basically they delayed the game to try and get it to run at 60fps on series x, and failed miserably
Click to expand...
Yep, clearly there were no improvements at all in the latest footage compared to that from a year ago, so that must be the reason why it was delayed. Good job Sherlock. You solved the case.
 
ResilientBanana said:
It very plain to see that there is a significant difference. I didn't even have to count the bushes.
Click to expand...
I agree but I just played elden ring with the ps4 code on my ps5 for smooth fps and gameplay and not once I stopped and think "hunnn more bushes here would be fine". In the end choices are the best options so everybody can be happy ... of course they cant provide this choices if they are been held back by the series s .... so xbox series x users have to accept lesser options ... until the pro console comes out .... them all this bullshit pr talk will change real quick
 
Jeez, the wars need to be fought so hard around here.

Xbox has what appears to be a giant exclusive, and a few people are desperate to say why it'll be terrible.
 
E-Cat said:
He's wrong, it's both. It's a creative choice in that they want to maximize operations per pixel at the expense of framerate. It's a hardware issue in that they're forced to balance operations per pixel and framerate in the first place. Of course, this is an issue that will persist for some decades yet, but nevertheless a hw issue. Phil should strive for accuracy.
Click to expand...
The capabilities of a closed box are a known quantity. A dev team must work within those parameters. Where they allocate those resources is a choice. There is no hardware "issue", as this is the way any computer operates.

This "issue" also won't last for decades either, it will last for as long as computing devices do not have infinite resources. A solar system sized CPU would be tremendously powerful, but would still have limits that a software developer would have to work around by balancing processes. Your claim that because a dev team is "forced to balance operations per pixel and framerate" is nonsensical because this is true for literally every peace of software ever created now, or in the future.
 
Mr Reasonable said:
Jeez, the wars need to be fought so hard around here.

Xbox has what appears to be a giant exclusive, and a few people are desperate to say why it'll be terrible.
Click to expand...

Persecution complex at its finest... if the game was a bethesda only game (still independent) .. and was 30 fps on all consoles and was todd Howard spilling the same bullshit PR you can be sure that the backlash would be the same.. of course that the initial "60 fps standard" PR by MS makes things more critical... but nevertheless you get my point
 
I always pick 30fps over 60fps. I spent a lot of money on a really good TV, and I will always pick visual quality.

FF16 demo @ 30fps looks real good!
 
MarkMe2525 said:
The capabilities of a closed box are a known quantity. A dev team must work within those parameters. Where they allocate those resources is a choice. There is no hardware "issue", as this is the way any computer operates.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
MarkMe2525 said:
This "issue" also won't last for decades either, it will last for as long as computing devices do not have infinite resources. A solar system sized CPU would be tremendously powerful, but would still have limits that a software developer would have to work around by balancing processes. Your claim that because a dev team is "forced to balance operations per pixel and framerate" is nonsensical because this is true for literally every peace of software ever created now, or in the future.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily true, you do not need infinite resources to hit diminishing returns on, e.g., light transport simulation. Therefore, if your goal is photorealism at 60 fps, that goal becomes attainable with no trade-offs to either image quality or fps.
 
E-Cat said:
Not necessarily true, you do not need infinite resources to hit diminishing returns on, e.g., light transport simulation. Therefore, if your goal is photorealism at 60 fps, that goal becomes attainable with no trade-offs to either image quality or fps.
Click to expand...
I may have not been clear, my point is unless a computer has invite resources, a software developer could always find operations that run into the limitations of the hardware. I was attempting to show that just because computing hardware has inherent limitations, that in itself shouldn't be classified as an "issue".
 
Last edited:
MarkMe2525 said:
I may have not been clear, my point is unless a computer has invite resources, a software developer could always find operations that run into the limitations of the hardware. I was attempting to show that just because computing hardware has inherent limitations, that in itself shouldn't be classified as an "issue".
Click to expand...
Right, this is just rhetorical masturbation. I got your point, but saying 30 fps is "not due to a hardware issue" is so self-evidently, axiomatically true (like how could it ever NOT be true?) that one starts to dig deeper into the philosophy of a hardware issue.
 
Just because you have a "creative vision or choice" that does not mean it's not a hardware issue preventing that choice from also being 60fps. It's both. I am sure Bethesda would love for it to be 60fps on the consoles with the visual vision. The PC won't have that "creative vision" then since it will exceed 30fps? Didn't think so.
 
Last edited:
Bernardougf said:
Persecution complex at its finest... if the game was a bethesda only game (still independent) .. and was 30 fps on all consoles and was todd Howard spilling the same bullshit PR you can be sure that the backlash would be the same.. of course that the initial "60 fps standard" PR by MS makes things more critical... but nevertheless you get my point
Click to expand...

I don't feel persecuted at all because a few console warriors are desperate to find any chink in this game's armour and then to create 1000 post threads about it, it's just normal around here!
 
In Cold Blood said:
It's absolutely a creative choice. Bethesda could have wound back alot of the interactivity of the game, to where most of the background and objects are static 2d images that you can't interact with, which would take a ton of load off the CPU and given you 60fps.
Bethesda chose not to, and they want their game to be fully immersive.
It's what separates Bethesda games from other studio games.
Click to expand...
They did this way back in the PS3/360 era, 2 generations back. You're telling me, they magically consume the same performance woes today using the same engine. Because if I read this correctly, they can literally run this in the 360 if they strip off the graphics.
 
RoadHazard said:
Yes, but the reason for that, IMO, isn't that the XSX couldn't handle a game like this at 60 but that it can't handle Bethesda's engine at 60. With a better engine it could.
Click to expand...
When you say a better engine you're talking from a purely visual perspective. You ain't getting another engine doing what the Bethesda engine does. They've been working on many systems within their engine for decades that go to creating these types of games. You just can't recreate that with Unreal or Unity etc. These bespoke graphics engines are used for a reason.
 
E-Cat said:
Right, this is just rhetorical masturbation. I got your point, but saying 30 fps is "not due to a hardware issue" is so self-evidently, axiomatically true (like how could it ever NOT be true?) that one starts to dig deeper into the philosophy of a hardware issue.
Click to expand...
Firstly, I appreciate you debating me on these points while still displaying manners (for the lack of a better term).

Ultimately we obviously have different definitions of what constitutes a "hardware issue". In your definition, Phil is half wrong by omitting that fact.

By my definition, the computing restraints reaulting from a computer architecture shouldn't be considered an "issue", and should be taken as a given. In that framework, a targeted frame rate for a given visual goal is indeed a creative choice.

So in the end, I think we can both agree to disagree.
 
DeepEnigma said:
Just because you have a "creative vision" that does not mean it's not a hardware issue preventing that vision from also being 60fps. It's both. I am sure Bethesda would love for it to be 60fps on the consoles with the visual vision. The PC won't have that "creative vision" then since it will exceed 30fps? Didn't think so.
Click to expand...
i think they're looking for similar fidelity on PC and Console, but consoles are $500 and PC's that are capable of 60fps with the same fidelity range from $1,000 - $3,000. So technicay, you get what you pay for. Even then the PC benefits significantly more than just FPS but also better looking features.

If this is supposed to be an open world showcase with multiple planets moons and thousands of modeled objects, I think it was a wise choice to go 30fps.
 
ResilientBanana said:
i think they're looking for similar fidelity on PC and Console, but consoles are $500 and PC's that are capable of 60fps with the same fidelity range from $1,000 - $3,000. So technicay, you get what you pay for. Even then the PC benefits significantly more than just FPS but also better looking features.

If this is supposed to be an open world showcase with multiple planets moons and thousands of modeled objects, I think it was a wise choice to go 30fps.
Click to expand...
Oh of course. It still is indeed a hardware issue for their vision as well. If they could get 60fps out of that fidelity on the consoles, I am sure they would be ecstatic and this narrative would not exist. The hardware can't do 60fps of what they want their visual presentation to be. Simple.
 
4k/60 with 90-99% of the features on, with the garbage like CA and motion blur off.
They have been baking this for a long time, I hope 4k/60 doesn't need a fucking 4080-4090.
 
Mr Reasonable said:
I don't feel persecuted at all because a few console warriors are desperate to find any chink in this game's armour and then to create 1000 post threads about it, it's just normal around here!
Click to expand...

In very final fantasy 16 thread, there people shitting on the game.

In every Hfw thread, there are people shitting on the game.

In every God of war thread, there are people shitting on the game.

You Xbox fans aren't special in the way you think you are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Game Pass Is "Not For Everybody," says Phil Spencer
News Business  3 4 5 6 7
326
11K
Bumblebeetuna replied
Phil Spencer's Legacy as told by Phil Spencer
2 3
106
6K
Negotiator replied
Game Pass ‘not for everybody’, says Xbox boss Phil Spencer
News Clickbait 
6
269
Lunarorbit replied
Xbox boss Phil Spencer reiterates Switch 2 support: ‘I’m a big believer in Nintendo’
News  2
71
2K
Fabieter replied
  • Poll
Which UBI IP should Phil Spencer and XBOX purchase?
2
85
2K
Holammer replied
Top Bottom