• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

[Prima Games] Starfield Should Have a 60 FPS Performance Mode

StarfieldFeature.jpg

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arguments claiming that we will see far more games go back to 30 FPS because consoles are simply too cheap and outdated.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.

Starfield Performance.

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.

Nice Post that you've created mate but it's ultimately for nothing.
 
This is boring now. 60fps isn’t going to happen on console, it’s also not native 4K according to DF, they’ve said that it looks like 1276p with FSR2.!

If you want 60fps Starfield, you’ll need a PC. You’ll also get mods, which will be the highlight for this game in the coming years.
 
Tell me you don't know how games are made without telling me you don't know how games are made.

I do laugh sometimes, a few fanboys online think they know more about what framerate they can get on a game, running on a proprietary engine than Todd Howard and the hundreds of experienced developers and engineers.
Fun fact, you don't. Sit the fuck down and know your role.
 

Robb

Gold Member
60fps is always better but it all depends on what cutbacks they’d have to make to achieve it. I don’t really mind 30fps as long as they push the system and can make it look/feel smooth. Remove motion blur when turning the camera and other vomiting inducing effects and I recon it’ll be fine.

99% of people will start playing and get used to it being 30fps after 10 minutes.
 

Kacho

Gold Member
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
Any unoptimized ports end getting patched in the end so it’s a moot point really.

On the subject of BGS games, the PC version always runs circles around the console version. Then you factor in the graphical mods and you’re straight b-b-ballin 🎶.
 

X-Wing

Member
30 FPS is fine now apparently, developer should just pump up that ray tracing and stop worrying about performance at all. Performance modes be damned.
 
Last edited:
What a thoroughly tiresome fucking discourse. Slow site traffic for this clown who wrote this?

Don’t buy the game, get a pc, or be a normal human being and enjoy it on console if you can’t do the first 2 options. That’s it. That’s all there is. There is not some article warranting, in depth discussion to be had about this.
 
I’ve been exclusively using performance modes when they are available and I think all games should provide the option. I’ve also been a massive fan of Insomniac’s performance RT modes.
 

Fabieter

Member
Options are great so why would anyone say no. But part of me thinks that it gets patched. Todd didnt have enough time to make is happen.
 

Portugeezer

Member
People who know better say it's not a GPU issue, can't just lower resolution and change some graphics settings, so alterations to make the game a stable 60fps would literally change the vision of the game.

Death to crossgen.
 
Last edited:
People who know better say it's not a GPU issue, can't just lower resolution and change some graphics settings, so alterations to make the game a stable 60fps would literally change the vision of the game.

Death to crossgen.
Yes, but the internet is full of fucking idiots who think that they can just turn down some of the graphics and BAM! 60fps.

Let’s make this super fucking clear, again.

This is a CPU bound game from everything seen, turning down the graphics will not really help the game get to 60fps!

Digital Foundry also spoke about this at length, go watch that video if you cannot get that concept around your head.

Also, Todd shouldn’t have said anything about the game being able to get to 60. This has gone against them at this point when they know full well that the game can’t achieve that framerate.
 

Fess

Member
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
In most cases? I play almost everything around or over 100fps at the highest gfx settings, with gsync I don’t really think about the framerate anymore, not able to see any variations unless I look at a counter. With the latest frame generation tech it’s not uncommon that the screen refresh is the bottle neck, at 165hz.

2023 has been bad on some bigger releases, highlighted by DF, but then I wait for patches or play on console. It’s no biggie unless you limit yourself more than you should and the whole library don’t turn to trash because there is shader stutter on a couple new games, most games run amazingly well and looks awesome.

For real, buying a gaming PC is hands down the best thing I’ve done for my gaming interest.

Sidenote: If you want to take the jump, invest a GPU amount of cash on stocks between the upgrades. Nvidia is already up 192% this year alone, means a 5090 won’t be an issue whenever it arrives. 👍 As always with stock investments there is no guarantee it won’t plummet down tomorrow. I sell regularly and move some earnings to a dedicated hobby account and reinvest again. Won’t get filthy rich that way but it pays for the hobby.
 
Last edited:
2023 has been bad on some bigger releases, highlighted by DF, but then I wait for patches or play on console.

For someone investing money into a monster rig, this should not be a thing. No thanks. Not for me.

And gambling on NVIDIA stock won’t make the situation any better. I don’t speculate on overvalued individual securities
 
Last edited:

Edder1

Member
None of these sites were saying anything about 30fps when they were giving 10/10 to Zelda just a little while ago.

As a PC gamer I could care less really, but this just feels like it's an easy thing to do to pick on Microsoft because they're in a bad spot right now.
 
Last edited:

Robb

Gold Member
None of these sites were saying anything about 30fps when they were giving 10/10 to Zelda just a little while ago.
Well Nintendo isn’t really boasting that they have “the most powerful console” that’ll “power your dreams” either..

You reap what you sow.
 
Last edited:

Fess

Member
For someone investing money into a monster rig, this should not be a thing. No thanks. Not for me.

And gambling on NVIDIA stock won’t make the situation any better. I don’t speculate on overvalued individual securities
It’ll always be a thing because you won’t get all games on PC, so whenever something miss the target you could just play on the consoles you already have if things are better there.
There is no need to create a problem that don’t exist.

Stocks isn’t really gambling when you’re buying stocks in a segment you’re interested in. Covid was brutal for everyone but otherwise you usually know when things could get problematic enough that you need to move your investments. I usually have some stocks sitting on Nvidia, Sony, Apple, Microsoft. I rearrange the percentage depending on what they’ve announced and what I think is coming.
 

Edder1

Member
Well Nintendo isn’t really boasting that they have “the most powerful console” that’ll “power your dreams” either..

You reap what you sow.
Irrelevant point. Sony claimed the same for PS4 and nobody was crying about 30fps.

 
Last edited:

Robb

Gold Member
Last edited:

X-Wing

Member
Irrelevant point. Sony claimed the same for PS4 and nobody was crying about 30fps.


And yet, it consistently outperformed its most direct rival during the entire generation. So they were right. The standard during that generation was also 30 fps, the consoles weren't advertised on launch as 60 fps 8k machines like it happened in the beginning of this generation.
 

Edder1

Member
Times change. A statement like that will obviously have very different implications a decade later.
Nothing's changed really, consoles are still cheap hardware that is outdated within 2 years of release. People expecting anything more out of these machines are silly (I'm being nice with my choice of words). Just because we saw a few early games or cross gen games having 60fps option doesn't mean these consoles can do it with all games. People will come back to reality once more and more games will have 30fps cap.
 
Last edited:

Edder1

Member
And yet, it consistently outperformed its most direct rival during the entire generation. So they were right. The standard during that generation was also 30 fps, the consoles weren't advertised on launch as 60 fps 8k machines like it happened in the beginning of this generation.
You mean like Sony and Microsoft promising 4K last gen and all we got was dynamic 4K or 1440p-1800p with 95% of the games? Lol, these lies about console capabilities have been a thing for as long as consoles existed. I mean I can bring you tons of lies from PS2 era about capabilities of consoles from their makers.
 
Last edited:

Robb

Gold Member
Nothing's changed really, consoles are still cheap hardware that is outdated within 2 years of release. People expecting anything more out of these machines are silly (I'm being nice with my choice of words). Just because we saw a few games early games or cross gen games having 60fps option doesn't mean these consoles can do it with all games. People will come back to reality once more and more games will have 30fps cap.
I don’t agree. From what I recall 60fps were barely a discussion point when PS4 launched. It was way more about resolution and trying to push 4K TVs etc. The 4K debate might be comparable, but it was a different discussion entirely imo.

I do agree we’ll be moving back to 30fps though. Shiny visuals seem to always trump frames so I don’t see how we could keep getting 60fps modes if devs really want to push out bigger and better looking games.
 

Edder1

Member
I don’t agree. From what I recall 60fps were barely a discussion point when PS4 launched. It was way more about resolution and trying to push 4K TVs etc. The 4K debate might be comparable, but it was a different discussion entirely imo.
4K discussion wasn't any different, It's just resolution vs framerate promises that were made. I remember similar discussions online about resolution and then people quickly accepting that Pro consoles last gen couldn't do 4K unless it was with less demanding games like fighting or racing, same as we start seeing with 60fps now.

Reality is console manufacturers always hype things up and set unrealistic expectations, but one has to be sensible and just look at hardware at hand and realise what it's actually capable of. Problem is most console gamers don't understand hardware and are quick to believe pie in the sky fairytales by console makers.

Consoles are definitely becoming more capable and we'll probably see more 60fps games than we have for a long time, but 30fps will still be a thing with ambitious games and games that push graphical boundary. We'll probably have to wait for next gen (PS6/SeriesXX) to have 60fps as minimum standard when things like frame generation and machine learning would make it an achievable target.
 
Last edited:

Mr Reasonable

Completely Unreasonable
Simple math: (doesn't work in real life)

1296p@30fps

1296/2 = 648p

So it should be:

648p@60fps on Xbox Series X.

And about Series S...

lets-not-get-into-that-lets-not-talk-about-that.gif


Also another reminder:


Video games arguing is ending up as disingenuous as right vs left wing politics arguing.

It's really depressing.

The only thing you can do is choose to not take part before it makes a fool of you too.
 

Kamina

Golden Boy
I am not wrong to have the option that i’d prefer a 60fps mode.
Other people are not wrong for thinking 30fps only is fine too.
If someone tells you that you are wrong for having a different opinion than the vocal mainstream, then they are not worthy of speaking to.
 
Last edited:

Caio

Member
The game is CPU bound, this is what Developers said. I think we can safely assert that the autor of this article has understood nothing about this Topic.
 

Kamina

Golden Boy
I would settle for an unlocked mode or even a 40fps target. Whatever gets into the VRR range on Series X.
40fps would be great.
In Hogwarts Legacy 60fps mode reduces graphics and draw distance too much for my preference, and 30fps feels too choppy. But 40fps is a great option that is just so much smoother than 30 and keeps most of it’s graphical level intact.
 

Dunnas

Member
Simple math: (doesn't work in real life)

1296p@30fps

1296/2 = 648p

So it should be:

648p@60fps on Xbox Series X.

And about Series S...

lets-not-get-into-that-lets-not-talk-about-that.gif
If it is simple math, why did you completely screw it up? 648p is one quarter of the pixels as 1,296p, not half. You've been around here long enough to know how resolution works. About 916p is the number you wanted.
 

Bo_Hazem

Banned
Video games arguing is ending up as disingenuous as right vs left wing politics arguing.

It's really depressing.

The only thing you can do is choose to not take part before it makes a fool of you too.

If it is simple math, why did you completely screw it up? 648p is one quarter of the pixels as 1,296p, not half. You've been around here long enough to know how resolution works. About 916p is the number you wanted.

giphy.gif


Changed it accordingly.
 

M1chl

Currently Gif and Meme Champion
I like this resistance.

But with this engine, I doubt the viability, without gimping mechanics in the game.
 

PnCIa

Member
This piece is an example of uninformed hack "journalism", vaguely stringing together recent talking points coupled with some good old console victim second class citizen framing all the while demonstrating a lack of technological understanding.
 
Top Bottom