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arguments claiming that we will see far more games go back to 30 FPS because consoles are simply too cheap and outdated.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So saying 60 FPS for Starfield isn’t feasible on console because they are cheap and outdated doesn’t necessarily add up. 60 FPS as a capability on AAA games is outdated in terms of PC.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 launch with a 60 FPS performance mode, and that should be standard across all current generation games.
primagames.com
.
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.
