Support NeoGAF

[Lunatic_Gamer]

What year are we in? ​

When the 30 frames per second lock was announced for Starfield, I expected a mix or reactions across games media and fans. However, almost all of the major voices in the media argued the opposite. Anyone who wants 60 FPS in Starfield is wrong and console gamers are just getting greedy again. But is that really the case?

Plenty of arguments were given for why 60 FPS mode is unnecessary, and of course, all of those arguments are from gamers who will be playing on PC. Too many components of what has defined next-generation games have been left out of the conversation, and we need to discuss them.

​

The Genie is Out of the Bottle for Console​

After the past couple of years in gaming, having a 60 FPS performance mode has been a staple feature of nearly every release. This started with lower fidelity games like Fortnite as early as the PS4 Pro. So now that console gamers are used to that sweet 60 FPS feel, they expect to see it on every next-generation game.

Saying “I think 30 FPS is fine” or “Console gamers are just entitled” doesn’t actually address why players don’t want to go back to lower frames. It is a simple fact that 60 FPS looks better, and moving backward doesn’t feel good. But that’s not the crux of the debate. Rather, it’s that Starfield is far too complex and consoles are just too cheap. That sentiment is skipping how technology evolves though.

​

The Price of Consoles Shouldn’t Matter for Starfield Performance Mode​

I have seen countless arguments claiming that we will see far more games go back to 30 FPS because consoles are simply too cheap and outdated. That’s not really the case though, is it? Nearly every game that has been released on next-generation consoles has had a fairly smooth Performance Mode. Yes, many of them are on previous-generation consoles as well, and they don’t run well.

​

When we compare how technology evolves, 60 FPS today is what 30 FPS was for AAA games 10 years ago. When some of the latest graphics cards for PC are compared in price to console, the full picture isn’t painted. Yes, consoles are cheap, but what do you think a $1,500 graphics card is used for? I can tell you that someone spending thousands on a current PC is not looking for 60 FPS. They want 120 FPS or even 300 FPS depending on the game. 60 FPS on a PC is considered the bare minimum or even poor performance.

So saying 60 FPS for Starfield isn’t feasible on console because they are cheap and outdated doesn’t necessarily add up. 60 FPS as a capability on AAA games is outdated in terms of PC. For a console timeline, it makes total sense as the standard and prices will go back up when framerate and resolution increase once again.

​

We Already Know Starfield is Capable of 60 FPS on Console​

Gamers can argue all day about whether Starfield is too complicated for 60 FPS on console. I get it, the game is massive and has tons of object permanence that slows down the performance. I never said it’s easy to reach 60 FPS or that Starfield isn’t complicated. But you don’t need to take my word for it that it’s possible. In fact, Todd Howard already confirmed it.

In an interview during Summer Game Fest with IGN, Todd Howard confirmed that Starfield had the capability to reach 60 FPS on the Xbox Series X. Todd Howard said, “Fortunately in this one, we’ve got it running great. It’s often running way above that. Sometimes it’s 60. But on the consoles, we do lock it because we prefer the consistency, where you’re not even thinking about it.”

Before that statement, Howard confirmed that Starfield runs at 4K on the Xbox Series X. So, he’s saying that the game as it stands can almost hit 60 FPS on the Xbox Series X at 4K, which already sounds like some fantastic performance. However, Howard confirmed that Starfield isn’t completely steady at 4K and 60 FPS.
Of course, it’s not steady at those specs! So many gamers and media are claiming that Starfield is too complicated, but that’s not the case at all! The resolution is incredibly high on console and Bethesda is making an artistic decision to keep the game at 30 FPS so that everyone has high fidelity.

If you know anything about Performance Mode on consoles, then you know it places the resolution at 1080p and 60 FPS. Players are choosing to sacrifice resolution for frame rate. In theory, and based on Todd Howard’s comments, Starfield is absolutely capable of the same option. It has nothing to do with the price point of consoles or how complicated the game is.

Don’t get me wrong, the game looks great, and I can’t wait to get my hands on it. But I’ll also be jumping on to PC for this release because 30 FPS just isn’t the standard anymore, and everyone knows it. When you see someone say that 30 FPS is totally fine, ask what platform they are playing Starfield and I’m sure the answer will always be the same.

Starfield Should Have a 60 FPS Performance Mode

Starfield should launch with a 60 FPS performance mode, and that should be standard across all current generation games.

primagames.com

 

[Unknown Soldier]

It has a 60 fps Performance Mode on PC

 

[NotMyProblemAnymoreCunt]

 

[feynoob]

Do these people think 60 fps is just something that you can have without any issues?
These are the same people that scream about gameplay issues, when 60fps makes a mess.
30fps vs 60fps has been a mistake for gaming.

 

[CoreyFlawless]

Look, I’m a console user. I’m fine with the 30fps as long it smooths and feel great. Only time I care bout 60fps, if it a fighting game, racing game or a fast paced action game. If you want options and always wanna the options. They’re a platform for you. It’s call a PC. All I’m gonna care about, if this game is fun or not. I don’t get why this a big deal. Is it cause it from MS now? Zelda was damn fun to play. If it fun, I’m playing it and it not gonna stop me

 

[feynoob]

Look, I’m a console user. I’m fine with the 30fps as long it smooths and feel great. Only time I care bout 60fps, if it a fighting game, racing game or a fast paced action game. If you want options and always wanna the options. They’re a platform for you. It’s call a PC. All I’m gonna care about, if this game is fun or not. I don’t get why this a big deal. Is it cause it from MS now? Zelda was damn fun to play. If it fun, I’m playing it and it not gonna stop me

People tasted something cool and now they are crying for it.

 

[RoadHazard]

The game is almost certainly CPU bound, which invalidates that entire article. It's not just the 4K that's preventing it from running at 60fps (and it's not native 4K anyway). He simply doesn't know what he's talking about.

Now, do I think this game COULD run at 60 on XSX? With a better engine, yes, but it is what it is.

 

[TexMex]

They should have stuck to guides.

 

[feynoob]

He simply doesn't know what he's talking about.

This. The entire internet people think they know everything and are expert at it. Most common problem in any field these days.
Take reddit for example.

 

[Represent.]

Another egregious article by a bunch of clueless hacks.

60 doesn’t just grow on trees. There are sacrifices to make. The sacrifices aren’t worth it.

Now buy a PC and stfu about this

 

[Puscifer]

It has a 60 fps Performance Mode on PC

Pretty much, if framerate and custom experiences are what you're seeking either pay the cost to jump into PC or enjoy what you get. People love taking about this plug and play experience with consoles till it doesn't do what they want.

Either go PC or let it go, you're getting the experience your system is capable of.

 

[analog_future]

 

[nemiroff]

Faux pas

 

[PunishedPrince]

I guess the issue is that Bethesda can't offer a consistent 60fps without restricting some of the gameplay systems/player freedoms that can put a strain on the CPU. Best they can do is probably give an option to unlock the framerate.

 

[MarkMe2525]

Is another thread about this necessary? Cant this conversation or link happen in the four other threads that are discussing this.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

The game is almost certainly CPU bound, which invalidates that entire article. It's not just the 4K that's preventing it from running at 60fps (and it's not native 4K anyway). He simply doesn't know what he's talking about.

Now, do I think this game COULD run at 60 on XSX? With a better engine, yes, but it is what it is.

It's not CPU bound when the resolution is so much lower than native 4K

I think the more likely reason is the game is HIGHLY GPU bound mostly, not CPU bound.

 

[FoxMcChief]

They’re still around?

 

[Hugare]

I'm getting really tired of this shit

Its baffling that people can write shit like this and still have a job

Game even had huge drops below 30 at the Starfield Direct and people want it to be 60

 

[Peterthumpa]

I’m sorry but 60 FPS on PC is not considered “poor performance” at all.

 

[FoxMcChief]

Site clearly looking for clicks. Can’t think of the last time I used a guide. Thanks YouTube!

 

[demigod]

It has a 60 fps Performance Mode on PC

Performance mode on PC? This game will easily be 4k 60fps on PC.

 

[feynoob]

I'm getting really tired of this shit

Its baffling that people can write shit like this and still have a job

Game even had huge drops below 30 at the Starfield Direct and people want it to be 60

Let me get my chatgpt google and see if I can write a better or bad compared to that. Maybe I can get in to that job with this skill.

When Bethesda announced that Starfield would be locked at 30 frames per second (fps), it sparked a wave of discussions among gamers and the media. While some argue that a 60 fps mode is unnecessary and console gamers are being greedy, there are several crucial factors that have been overlooked in this debate. In this article, we will delve into the reasons why a 60 fps option is important for Starfield, considering the evolution of technology, the expectations of console gamers, and Bethesda's own acknowledgment of the game's capabilities.

Console Gamers Expectation
Over the past few years, 60 fps performance mode has become a standard feature in many games. Console gamers have grown accustomed to the smoothness and improved visual experience that higher frame rates provide. It is not merely about entitlement but rather a natural desire to experience games at their best. By locking Starfield at 30 fps, Bethesda risks leaving console gamers feeling unsatisfied and longing for the familiar smoothness they have come to expect.

Technological Advancements
The argument that consoles are cheap and outdated, and thus incapable of supporting 60 fps, does not hold up when we consider the rate at which technology evolves. What was once considered 30 fps for AAA games a decade ago is now comparable to the smoothness and visual fidelity of 60 fps. It's important to recognize that high-end gaming PCs can reach frame rates well beyond 60 fps, and gamers investing in such hardware have come to expect even higher performance. By limiting Starfield to 30 fps on consoles, Bethesda disregards the potential for technological advancements and the demand for smoother gameplay experiences.

Bethesda's Own Confirmation
Todd Howard, during an interview at Summer Game Fest with IGN, confirmed that Starfield has the capability to run at 60 fps on the Xbox Series X. Howard stated that the game often runs above 60 fps, but it was locked to maintain consistency. This confirmation highlights the fact that Starfield's performance is not hindered by its complexity but rather a conscious decision by Bethesda to prioritize visual fidelity. By ignoring the potential for a 60 fps option, Bethesda undermines its own acknowledgment of the game's technical capabilities and limits the choices available to players.

Performance Mode Possibilities
Performance modes in games often provide players with the choice to sacrifice resolution for a higher frame rate. Considering Todd Howard's comments on Starfield's capabilities, it becomes apparent that the game could have included a performance mode that allows players to opt for 60 fps at a lower resolution, similar to other titles. This choice would accommodate both those who prefer visual fidelity and those who prioritize smooth gameplay. By omitting this option, Bethesda restricts player agency and overlooks the desires of a significant portion of the gaming community.

While Starfield undoubtedly looks impressive, Bethesda's decision to cap the game at 30 fps misses the mark for console gamers who have come to expect a smoother and more immersive experience. Considering the advancements in technology, the expectations of console gamers, and Bethesda's own confirmation of the game's capabilities, it is clear that a 60 fps option would have been a more inclusive and forward-thinking approach. By restricting the frame rate, Bethesda disregards the desires of its player base and misses an opportunity to deliver an optimal gaming experience for Starfield.

 

[Corndog]

What year are we in? ​

When the 30 frames per second lock was announced for Starfield, I expected a mix or reactions across games media and fans. However, almost all of the major voices in the media argued the opposite. Anyone who wants 60 FPS in Starfield is wrong and console gamers are just getting greedy again. But is that really the case?

Plenty of arguments were given for why 60 FPS mode is unnecessary, and of course, all of those arguments are from gamers who will be playing on PC. Too many components of what has defined next-generation games have been left out of the conversation, and we need to discuss them.

​

The Genie is Out of the Bottle for Console​

After the past couple of years in gaming, having a 60 FPS performance mode has been a staple feature of nearly every release. This started with lower fidelity games like Fortnite as early as the PS4 Pro. So now that console gamers are used to that sweet 60 FPS feel, they expect to see it on every next-generation game.

Saying “I think 30 FPS is fine” or “Console gamers are just entitled” doesn’t actually address why players don’t want to go back to lower frames. It is a simple fact that 60 FPS looks better, and moving backward doesn’t feel good. But that’s not the crux of the debate. Rather, it’s that Starfield is far too complex and consoles are just too cheap. That sentiment is skipping how technology evolves though.

​

The Price of Consoles Shouldn’t Matter for Starfield Performance Mode​

I have seen countless arguments claiming that we will see far more games go back to 30 FPS because consoles are simply too cheap and outdated. That’s not really the case though, is it? Nearly every game that has been released on next-generation consoles has had a fairly smooth Performance Mode. Yes, many of them are on previous-generation consoles as well, and they don’t run well.

​

When we compare how technology evolves, 60 FPS today is what 30 FPS was for AAA games 10 years ago. When some of the latest graphics cards for PC are compared in price to console, the full picture isn’t painted. Yes, consoles are cheap, but what do you think a $1,500 graphics card is used for? I can tell you that someone spending thousands on a current PC is not looking for 60 FPS. They want 120 FPS or even 300 FPS depending on the game. 60 FPS on a PC is considered the bare minimum or even poor performance.

So saying 60 FPS for Starfield isn’t feasible on console because they are cheap and outdated doesn’t necessarily add up. 60 FPS as a capability on AAA games is outdated in terms of PC. For a console timeline, it makes total sense as the standard and prices will go back up when framerate and resolution increase once again.

​

We Already Know Starfield is Capable of 60 FPS on Console​

Gamers can argue all day about whether Starfield is too complicated for 60 FPS on console. I get it, the game is massive and has tons of object permanence that slows down the performance. I never said it’s easy to reach 60 FPS or that Starfield isn’t complicated. But you don’t need to take my word for it that it’s possible. In fact, Todd Howard already confirmed it.

In an interview during Summer Game Fest with IGN, Todd Howard confirmed that Starfield had the capability to reach 60 FPS on the Xbox Series X. Todd Howard said, “Fortunately in this one, we’ve got it running great. It’s often running way above that. Sometimes it’s 60. But on the consoles, we do lock it because we prefer the consistency, where you’re not even thinking about it.”

Before that statement, Howard confirmed that Starfield runs at 4K on the Xbox Series X. So, he’s saying that the game as it stands can almost hit 60 FPS on the Xbox Series X at 4K, which already sounds like some fantastic performance. However, Howard confirmed that Starfield isn’t completely steady at 4K and 60 FPS.
Of course, it’s not steady at those specs! So many gamers and media are claiming that Starfield is too complicated, but that’s not the case at all! The resolution is incredibly high on console and Bethesda is making an artistic decision to keep the game at 30 FPS so that everyone has high fidelity.

If you know anything about Performance Mode on consoles, then you know it places the resolution at 1080p and 60 FPS. Players are choosing to sacrifice resolution for frame rate. In theory, and based on Todd Howard’s comments, Starfield is absolutely capable of the same option. It has nothing to do with the price point of consoles or how complicated the game is.

Don’t get me wrong, the game looks great, and I can’t wait to get my hands on it. But I’ll also be jumping on to PC for this release because 30 FPS just isn’t the standard anymore, and everyone knows it. When you see someone say that 30 FPS is totally fine, ask what platform they are playing Starfield and I’m sure the answer will always be the same.

Starfield Should Have a 60 FPS Performance Mode

Starfield should launch with a 60 FPS performance mode, and that should be standard across all current generation games.

primagames.com

This seems to ignore cpu bottlenecks.

 

[feynoob]

Performance mode on PC? This game will easily be 4k 60fps on PC.

Bethesda PC easy?

 

[Mr.Phoenix]

Performance mode on PC? This game will easily be 4k 60fps on PC.

You forget whois making this game...

The community will patch it for them though.

Wouldn't that be funny, if they allow patches on the Xbox versions, a community patch gets the game running at 60fps on the XSX lol.

 

[tryDEATH]

The funny thing about all this fake outrage is that it's coming from "concerned" gamers who critique the game being 30FPS, but then in the same breath say they'll play the game on a PC at 60FPS, because they all obviously got 13900K's and 4090's as is the PC gaming standard right now.

What I don't see is swaths of real Xbox Series gamers lossing their sh*t like the narrative is being pushed around Startfield right now. Are people disappointed and the odd upset person yeah, but huge majority has come to terms with it being 30 FPS, because of the scope of this game and how its multiple games stacked into one making it most likely the game of the generation and potentially one of the greatest video game ever made if it sticks its landing.

 

[Danjin44]

Based on the scope and type combat Bethesda usually makes I think 30FPS is reasonable. Also I’m sure it support mods and PC gamers can do whatever they want with it.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Its not always about the graphics, CPU-heavy games are far worse to get a 60 fps mode out of.
At least this is the kind of game that justifies high CPU usage.

 

[unlurkified]

I’d rather devs be more ambitious than feel like they need to offer a performance mode. I’ve been disappointed with how low perf modes drop the res in a lot of games (HFW, FF16, etc) anyway. Seem like they’d have to make a lot of concessions with Starfield.

 

[L*][*N*K]

God damn we are back to this? At some point you guys need to move on

 

[adamsapple]

 

[The Infectious Paradox]

God damn.. look, it does suck. But if you're looking at the starfield direct being accurate then it totally understandable that they packed this game with content. I hate 30 fps, but of its a necessary evil then I won't complain. Not all games have this level of depth. And you just can't have both sometimes. If they deliver on their promises from the direct, then 30 fps deserves a pass.

 

[TrueLegend]

What a dumbass article saying incredible dumbshit things. The reason it's 30 is the CPU bottleneck in dense cities which can't be overcome with lower resolution. I am batting for 60fps but this guy is the problem and not the solution to why we still haven't ditched 30fps. For me this game requires engine optimization which is possible if devs target it from start. And his whole article is invalid because starfield isn't doing native 4K30 it's Dynamic4K30.

 

[Batiman]

The funny thing about all this fake outrage is that it's coming from "concerned" gamers who critique the game being 30FPS, but then in the same breath say they'll play the game on a PC at 60FPS, because they all obviously got 13900K's and 4090's as is the PC gaming standard right now.

What I don't see is swaths of real Xbox Series gamers lossing their sh*t like the narrative is being pushed around Startfield right now. Are people disappointed and the odd upset person yeah, but huge majority has come to terms with it being 30 FPS, because of the scope of this game and how its multiple games stacked into one making it most likely the game of the generation and potentially one of the greatest video game ever made if it sticks its landing.

Exactly. Look at what most steam gamers are running with their PCs. Most are a lot less powerful than XSX. The internet would have you believe differently.

 

[Topher]

Pretty much, if framerate and custom experiences are what you're seeking either pay the cost to jump into PC or enjoy what you get. People love taking about this plug and play experience with consoles till it doesn't do what they want.

Either go PC or let it go, you're getting the experience your system is capable of.

Pretty much. Static hardware is going to compromise more over time. Customized gaming comes at a cost, like you say.

 

[Bernardougf]

What year are we in? ​

When the 30 frames per second lock was announced for Starfield, I expected a mix or reactions across games media and fans. However, almost all of the major voices in the media argued the opposite. Anyone who wants 60 FPS in Starfield is wrong and console gamers are just getting greedy again. But is that really the case?

Plenty of arguments were given for why 60 FPS mode is unnecessary, and of course, all of those arguments are from gamers who will be playing on PC. Too many components of what has defined next-generation games have been left out of the conversation, and we need to discuss them.

​

The Genie is Out of the Bottle for Console​

After the past couple of years in gaming, having a 60 FPS performance mode has been a staple feature of nearly every release. This started with lower fidelity games like Fortnite as early as the PS4 Pro. So now that console gamers are used to that sweet 60 FPS feel, they expect to see it on every next-generation game.

Saying “I think 30 FPS is fine” or “Console gamers are just entitled” doesn’t actually address why players don’t want to go back to lower frames. It is a simple fact that 60 FPS looks better, and moving backward doesn’t feel good. But that’s not the crux of the debate. Rather, it’s that Starfield is far too complex and consoles are just too cheap. That sentiment is skipping how technology evolves though.

​

The Price of Consoles Shouldn’t Matter for Starfield Performance Mode​

I have seen countless arguments claiming that we will see far more games go back to 30 FPS because consoles are simply too cheap and outdated. That’s not really the case though, is it? Nearly every game that has been released on next-generation consoles has had a fairly smooth Performance Mode. Yes, many of them are on previous-generation consoles as well, and they don’t run well.

​

When we compare how technology evolves, 60 FPS today is what 30 FPS was for AAA games 10 years ago. When some of the latest graphics cards for PC are compared in price to console, the full picture isn’t painted. Yes, consoles are cheap, but what do you think a $1,500 graphics card is used for? I can tell you that someone spending thousands on a current PC is not looking for 60 FPS. They want 120 FPS or even 300 FPS depending on the game. 60 FPS on a PC is considered the bare minimum or even poor performance.

So saying 60 FPS for Starfield isn’t feasible on console because they are cheap and outdated doesn’t necessarily add up. 60 FPS as a capability on AAA games is outdated in terms of PC. For a console timeline, it makes total sense as the standard and prices will go back up when framerate and resolution increase once again.

​

We Already Know Starfield is Capable of 60 FPS on Console​

Gamers can argue all day about whether Starfield is too complicated for 60 FPS on console. I get it, the game is massive and has tons of object permanence that slows down the performance. I never said it’s easy to reach 60 FPS or that Starfield isn’t complicated. But you don’t need to take my word for it that it’s possible. In fact, Todd Howard already confirmed it.

In an interview during Summer Game Fest with IGN, Todd Howard confirmed that Starfield had the capability to reach 60 FPS on the Xbox Series X. Todd Howard said, “Fortunately in this one, we’ve got it running great. It’s often running way above that. Sometimes it’s 60. But on the consoles, we do lock it because we prefer the consistency, where you’re not even thinking about it.”

Before that statement, Howard confirmed that Starfield runs at 4K on the Xbox Series X. So, he’s saying that the game as it stands can almost hit 60 FPS on the Xbox Series X at 4K, which already sounds like some fantastic performance. However, Howard confirmed that Starfield isn’t completely steady at 4K and 60 FPS.
Of course, it’s not steady at those specs! So many gamers and media are claiming that Starfield is too complicated, but that’s not the case at all! The resolution is incredibly high on console and Bethesda is making an artistic decision to keep the game at 30 FPS so that everyone has high fidelity.

If you know anything about Performance Mode on consoles, then you know it places the resolution at 1080p and 60 FPS. Players are choosing to sacrifice resolution for frame rate. In theory, and based on Todd Howard’s comments, Starfield is absolutely capable of the same option. It has nothing to do with the price point of consoles or how complicated the game is.

Don’t get me wrong, the game looks great, and I can’t wait to get my hands on it. But I’ll also be jumping on to PC for this release because 30 FPS just isn’t the standard anymore, and everyone knows it. When you see someone say that 30 FPS is totally fine, ask what platform they are playing Starfield and I’m sure the answer will always be the same.

Starfield Should Have a 60 FPS Performance Mode

Starfield should launch with a 60 FPS performance mode, and that should be standard across all current generation games.

primagames.com

But have you paused the game to count how many bushes you see and how many sandwichs you can leave on the table and eat later ?... thats next gen son! Fps be dammed!

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Marketing is a serious business.

 

[mrqs]

30fps is completely fine for gaming. People have problems with input lag, and there’s plenty of 60fps games that have big problems with it.

This is some elitist bullshit.

 

[Kacho]

This is some elitist bullshit.

It’s just ignorance. People expect way too much out of these aging $500 boxes. Console only plebs will have to wait for new hardware and a patch to get 60fps. It is what it is.

If all the cross gen 60fps games opened your eyes to how crucial performance is when it comes to enjoying games to their fullest, then it’s time to build a PC.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Another egregious article by a bunch of clueless hacks.

60 doesn’t just grow on trees. There are sacrifices to make. The sacrifices aren’t worth it.

Now buy a PC and stfu about this

Or optimizations to be made.

 

[ChiefDada]

The issue of not being able to provide a performance mode is a Bethesda/Creation Engine problem, not a current generation/incapable hardware problem, as it has always been. There will be other games made with complex simulations that offer 60fps modes on console. Why? Because some game engines are better than others. This is the Creation engine being the Creation engine. For better or worse.

It has a 60 fps Performance Mode on PC

Which/who's PC?

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

this game better be fucking rock solid in performance and extremely polished at launch or else.

 

[8BiTw0LF]

/Thread

 

[mansoor1980]

high quality object motion blur will make it smooth 30fps

 

[Heisenberg007]

Yes, absolutely.

Are people really arguing that it should NOT have a 60 FPS mode? lol.

 

[Max_Po]

Yes, absolutely.

Are people really arguing that it should NOT have a 60 FPS mode? lol.

form DF's break down it is 1292p reconstructed to 4k @ 30 fps.

I think the pressure is on Bethesda and Phil to deliver.

I am pretty sure, Bethesda post release will continue to improve the game.

 

[ByWatterson]

The problem isn't really 30, it's that the footage we've seen is a very choppy, jumpy 30.

 

[Ozriel]

Yes, absolutely.

Are people really arguing that it should NOT have a 60 FPS mode? lol.

Nobody is arguing that it should not have a 60fps mode on console. But you already knew that.

The problem isn't really 30, it's that the footage we've seen is a very choppy, jumpy 30.

Not really a problem until the game releases. They’ve promised 30fps, it better be locked at release.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

If all the cross gen 60fps games opened your eyes to how crucial performance is when it comes to enjoying games to their fullest, then it’s time to build a PC.

In most cases this is untrue. Unfortunately PC games are so poorly optimized on many popular releases that a smooth 60 is pretty much a pipe dream on many higher end rigs

 

[bender]

Prima Games should have print version of their website articles.