Xbox To Provide Update On Starfield's Frame Rate Ahead Of September Launch

30fps only, then.

I would guess most people just want them to be upfront and honest. Games should be shown on Xbox hardware, not pc, in my opinion.
And it should be clearly labelled if its gameplay or not. Then people can judge better. Honesty is always the best policy.
The developer direct at the start of the year was good, it was a really good format
Sony are still the best for labelling their trailers, being honest about what is gameplay and what is not, and what it is played on

A huge open world RPG, im fine with 30 FPS what i want is a great story and the usual consequences on decision making, also a fun skill trees

Article number four based entirely round the Kinda Funny interview. This time you have managed to spin an entire article around Phil saying “Yeah”….is this what games journalism is in 2023?

30fps incoming 🥲

Game delayed to may 2024 so 60fps can be at game on launch.

@somnambulance Microsoft are more inconsistent than always terrible in my opinion. I personally think theres a huge amount of hyperbole around xbox at the minute. They were publisher of the year in 2021 with the highest metacritic average ever. Hardly a bad thing, but it didn't move the needle, nobody really cared. People still say "xbox has no games for a decade" That's why I actually agreed with alot of Phils words the other day. Alot of people didn't like his words, and I can respect their opinion, I just don't share it. They have released a number of good games this generation, they have also had some bad games. Redfall never looked good, but I hate looter shooter coop games. I just hope they learn from their mistakes moving forward, and correctly labelling game trailers to realisticly set expectations would be a good start

@GeeEssEff The interview was a big deal and covered a lot of territory. As a listener I paused the interview and went back to listen to his response again and make sure I heard the question correctly. They’re holding his/Xbox’s feet to the fire that there will be official word on the games performance, which has been a hot topic among gamers. Journalism is doing just fine (unless you’re Fox News).

@GeeEssEff Redfall being 30FPS has been the biggest Xbox news story in months, probably since Developer Direct. If Phil went to another source and said to expect an update on Starfield performance, that'd be news, no? People are very interested in this sort of stuff.

Going forward they do need a shakeup as the amount of talented studios they have there shouldn’t be games put out in such a state. Some games that have been underdeveloped such as Sea of Thieves and State of Decay have seen a massive turn around but great IP’s such as the original Crackdown have received such poor sequels due to short development time. Funnily enough, I am enjoying Redfall at the moment, certainly not even close to being great, but not a complete disaster.

This type of game, 30 is fine, but hopefully there is a 60 version for those that want it.

@Kezelpaso what he said isn’t the interesting thing…how he said it is. What he said doesn’t actually answer anything…maybe that they’ve learned to communicate about it months before rather than weeks before. I think if it was just an article of ‘expect news when news comes’ most would be like ‘ok yeah’

In an interview where he’s clearly been feeling consequences of making that choice to release Redfall. How he didn’t flat out confirm 60fps for starfield, and looked (imo) uncomfortable…well that’s definitely cause for interest
One things for sure…the game needs to come out this year for them. 60fps or not.

@Kezelpaso My point is this is the fourth “article”about the same 40 min YouTube video. In all four nothing new has been said, there’s no hot takes, there’s no opinion it’s literally just quoting Phil and basically providing the same story 4 different times. PureXbox may as well have just given us the transcript of the interview and kept it to one article at this point. Sorry but this feels more like buzzfeed than a gaming website. It may be me misunderstanding the point of this but I’m here for the latest Xbox news. Obsessively pouring over a publicly available video produced by a completely separate gaming entity is not the latest Xbox news.

@GeeEssEff It's just not realistic to 'give the transcript' - I'd basically be dropping a Phil essay onto the site 😄.
Look, we're just trying to cover as much Xbox-related news as we can, especially when Phil gives us all lots to talk about. Some people want to hear about Starfield, some about Redfall, and some about the general state of Xbox - just trying to cover our bases.

@Sakai I personally do think Xbox delivers a lot of quality games, however, the issue with Redfall isn't the game itself. The issue is Microsoft's behavior surrounding the game. Showing PCs running 60fps then delaying the 60fps mode for consoles, raising game prices then releasing the game in miserable shape. It's a trust issue. It's not that people don't think MS are capable of delivering quality games, because they absolutely can. What Microsoft truly needs to regain from players far and wide is trust, and this did a superb amount of damage in front.

@northernmonkey75 it’s funny you say that cause i have posted a few times now that i actually like RedFall. Sure it has bad AI and bugs at the moment, it’s graphics are more about art style than cutting edge, and it needs not 1 or 2 patches but more like 4-5 to get it in better shape, after all that most games i would just flat out be done with and somehow i have 15 hours of play time on this and keep pushing to the next vampire and enjoying myself. I feel like there is a good game there underneath it being not fully finished. Had they launched it in a good state this could have been a 78-82 meta score game. At the moment i wish Arkane would forget about the 60fps and hammer out the glitches, bugs, AI and get it polished up running at a solid 30, one the game is fully cooked then drop the 60fps and this will be a cult classic game for me.

Definitely expecting 30 fps. Would love to be wrong but I don't see it. My hopes go as follows

1. It's at least a VERY stable 30 fps. Keep the drops to a minimum. If 60 fps is not possible this is the next best thing.

2. Keep the bugs to a minimum. Part of the reason people were excited to see Xbox pick up Bethesda is because they thought the polish level would go up for a studio that is notorious for buggy game releases. Starfield is a massively ambitious looking title so expecting absolutely zero bugs isn't a realistic expectation. But as long it's not constantly happening, people can forgive the occasional NPC ice skating across the moon/planet.

3. Just create a great fun RPG. Obviously easier said then done but Bethesda Game Studios has done it in the past (though granted it's been a while but still) and hopefully they can do it again.

I'm rooting for Starfield even though I'm what one would probably call a lapsed Bethesda fan. The last game they made I really enjoyed was Skyrim. Hopefully they can get some of that magic back.

How’s that better? Everything lower than 60fps is a huge failure no matter when it’s announced.

@GeeEssEff Yeah!

@Kezelpaso based on how many replies and passion shown on the subject- you are correct. Can you get an interview directly with Phil? Maybe ask him if he reads what we are feeling as the threads here are amazing with actual thoughts and suggestions!

@Kezelpaso Yeh fair enough matey and I appreciate the work you guys do. I was being facetious about the transcript I know it’s not feasible but let’s be honest with all the quotes you guys are getting close 😉.

It’s last thing I’m gonna say on the matter I promise but do you not think you have covered all bases already? None of these articles have said anything new about Redfall or starfield. We have known Redfall is 30fps for weeks. We have known it was a pile of 💩 since Tuesday. We have known there’s going to be a starfield direct for months and there has already been several articles about the recently announced xbox showcase. Phil Spencer’s comments on the matter are worthwhile I couldn’t agree with that more but to spin it into four (and counting) articles just seems like a quantity over quality approach which kinda feels like the direction it’s been going in for a while. Btw I give this feedback as a daily frequenter and fan of the site, not to p*ss off or upset anyone.

@AlwaysPlaying We'd love to talk to Phil, that's the kind of thing we're gunning for as the site continues to grow. Hopefully one day!

I don’t care if resolution has to drop to 720p on the series x, please, give us the option for 60 fps!!!

If I was playing on PC I would be able to lower all settings I wanted until I got 60fps.

Its a massive systems driven RPG, if Todd pulls off 60 fps then hes a wizard.

Yeah, the way he said that, and the response was that in a month we'll have an answer to 60/30....that sounds like a 30 to me. And that's not good at all. But my hope is the underlying piece if is is that they're going to try to scramble for 60 even if they have to run it through FPS boost in the next month first.

Really not going to be thrilled at 30. This gen's promise was more about 60fps than it was about 4k, really.

@Tharsman The Luminous Engine solution?

@Sakai I agree. Phil specifically says what some of us have said many times before, that even if they release top shelf games, it's not going to change the market. Then people argue that he's wrong and games are everything. Then go right back to the conversation of Xbox has no games and ignores all the successful games they have. People are proving Phil right in their claims that he's wrong.

But @SplooshDmg while you're very much right about real issues with what happened with Redfall, let's be real, 90% of the complaining on the internet about MS's games overall has nothing to do with PC footage and 30fps and broken games. What most comments really mean is "I like 3rd person cinematic action adventure games best." and "I trust Metacritic to tell me what's best even though only certain types of games get a score bias by nature." It always comes back to that being the definition of what a worthy game is. Well....that's not what MS makes. Never actually was. And no matter what MS does, they'll never meet the bar of approval for anyone expecting that and the narrative won't change. Phil kind of danced around that reality in his comments which could easily be read to mean "People say if we just make a bunch of Sony format games we can win and that isn't true." The internet is like 10% of the sales market and doesn't matter much, but that's what the internet seems to do.

@GeeEssEff The Buzzfeed format has unfortunately been the format of this network for quite some time, long before Pure relaunched. It started with NL shortly after the Switch launch and migrated to Push and eventually Pure. Yes, it's bad, it's always been bad. I guess it keeps the lights on.

And here's why I prefer PC over consoles for AAA stuff. User control.

I'm playing this at 60fps. Might have to lower all the settings and use FSR, but with my hardware, it should be doable. Probably won't be a smooth 60fps (cuz, y'know, Bethesda), but I'll make do.

@Green-Bandit It would be a fascinating documentary on how it went all wrong. Purchased mid-project Switching gears when they realized they read the room wrong about FPS, constant connectivity and single vs multiplayer

If Starfield wasn't now 'owned' by Microsoft, I doubt anyone would be expecting this to be 60fps and/or completely 'perfect' at launch. People may 'hope' for that, but realistically expect a 'buggy' 30fps game because that's what ALL Bethesda games have been on Consoles - especially at launch...

I don't really care if it doesn't have a 60fps option on Consoles. Its not a PC where you have to optimise a game to your hardware - even if that means making the game 'look' very low res with low quality settings just to get the frame rate you want. A Console is a 'cheap' fixed platform that you expect Devs to have full control and 'optimise' their game to balance frame rate and visual quality to best suit the hardware.

No-one complained about games launching at 30fps last gen, from the Witcher 3, Far Cry, Fallout 4, Far Cry etc. Yes XB1X/Pro may have had '60fps' modes - although generally ran at 40-55fps and a LOT of 'last' gen games are now playable at 60fps due to the fact they were 'built' for last gen and 30fps on 'base' hardware.

Certain things don't scale with Resolution. Turning down the res to free up GPU resources isn't going to help the AI, the Physics, the amount of 'objects' the CPU has to call in etc. 10 NPC AI's still have the same AI and physics computations, same hit detections etc so I don't 'expect' 60fps modes at 'lower' resolutions - especially not if they are pushing the CPU with more complex AI/Physics for example...

@NEStalgia Honestly, I don't think you're entirely wrong, but I also think you are ignoring MS's other faults, like the inability to market basically anything that can't just sell itself like Windows and Office. Redfall was a shot at trying to take a good dev with a track record of weak sales and make something with some broader market appeal. However, it seems to be the same situation as putting Crystal Dynamics on The Avengers. Arkane basically got sent out to die the same way Bethesda did with FO76, because they probably had no idea what they were doing from the get-go. The entire plan was probably cursed from day one.

Why did MS used to make/secure games with huge market appeal? Why did Gears fall off? Why did Halo nosedive off a cliff? Why did MS ultimately shut down Lion Head? Those events are purely in the lap of Xbox. They have consistently underperformed on basically every franchise except Forza. So, no, I absolutely think this is a broader market mentality, because the mismanagement of things like Fable, Halo and in particular the Gears multiplayer modes is no secret, and those three franchises were pivotal in the success of the 360. Microsoft is their own worst enemy and has been for a long time.

@Ralizah I seriously bought this 3080ti because I said like two years ago, I wouldn't be shocked if Starfield was 30fps on consoles. It appears the prophecy is coming true.

I don’t understand, is there going to be a 60fps mode or will it only be 30fps. What is the time stamp where Phil Spencer confirmed there will be a performance mode?

@JONOFTHEJONS He didn't confirm or deny anything, he basically just said we will find out at the Starfield deep dive. Which basically says, "We don't know yet. The engineers are working overtime, though."

@BAMozzy The hype for me it due to the concept and scope more than anything. I don’t think the MicroSoft stamp of approval exists but is an urban legend…

@SplooshDmg Everyone here agreed with you I remember. 30 is all we are expecting. If anyone is complaining about 60 they obviously do not know Xbox in 2023. I understand the disappointment of failed promises about next gen games…

Hogwarts Legacy working on Xbox One - get those coders sharing their knowledge

@SplooshDmg There's a lot of moving parts to that. I'm not ignoring that about MS. Though I still think the real problem was Redfall was never going to amount to much and never should have been hyped as a major release.

And while I realize the optics can't be separated wholly, it's easy to forget gaming operates on a delay and what we're seeing in Redfall is the remnants of Bethesda's death spiral that lead to them being bought out to begin with. The same thing Todd said about 76. Basically single player didn't make enough money so they were trying to make everything mtx multiplayer. MS bought in midway through, obviously took out the online mtx part partly but then dropped the ball on seeing what it actaully was, and wasn't willing to lose all that development cache by just killing the game.

There's a lot of parts in play, MS absolutely dropped some balls, but I think it's too easy to ignore that we're looking at a pre-MS Bethesda game without follow-through because MS has owned Bethesda for just under 2 years.... It's like I said the other day, Bethesda was a great buy, but also the worst buy for MS. They were a buggy mess at their best and were years into a death spiral of going downhill with ever more slipshod money grubbing games. And their best two games were time locked on PS (and didn't even sell well there.) It's just a rough spot. They needed good games and studios rapidly because they had zero still. Bethesda was a good fit and available. But it was inevitable that Bethesda would still be in bad shape for a good 5-10 years after. Did that buy help or hurt MS?

It's just complicated with Xbox. Most of that downfall is the Matrick downfall still and the awkward position of trying to recover form that while the main competitor has the market under total lock. And that's kind of Phil's point. They just can't recover from that and undo it and just rise in console. The public mindshare is set. You can't just make a new Edsel that's super awesome and have everyone rush to buy it because the reputation is what it is. I also think Halo and Gears were always doomed because their entire genre is simply dated and fixed to a particular period of game design. They needed to come up with a fresher replacement, and, with the whole Matrick deal, didn't.

But in terms of the internet conversation, I absolutely think nothing will change the mental lock people have on what TYPE of game qualifies as "AAA that matters", and an obsession with Metacritic which has a strong number bias to particular genres that are easy to review on production quality alone (because the game has little else.) Considering MS has never made such things, there's going to be an internet dissonance there no matter what. Mostly people just rate at the top what is popular, and XB isn't popular so anything it does is automatically not the top.

Also, RE Arkane, this isn't the good studio that had mediocre sales. That's Arkane Lyon, FR. This is Arkane Austin, the studio the founder of Arkane Lyon set up when he moved to the states to basically be a secondary contract-work studio and support studio. They did make Dishonored 1 (not 2) and Prey, but then he retired, and the other brass went back to Lyon. They got stuffed with the "make us a coop looter shooter to make money" because they were literally founded to be a contract work studio. The "real" Arkane is the one that did Deathloop.

@BAMozzy But the increased performance at 4k was one of the key selling points of both PS5 and XSX. They are both capable. Games are capable. If games don't hit that target that's the devs fault for not doing it, but it's a very bad look from the first party. People are tolerating it on Switch, but most key titles are 60 even there, and the rise of 30fps Nitnendo titles is actually shocking post-Iwata because he was all about 60fps > 30 even on the Wii/WiiU.

@somnambulance IDK where people keep getting the idea 360 beat PS3 because of "games" - 360 beat PS3 because PS3 was $700, a year late, and a nightmare for 3rd party studios to work on. Sony only clawed back the market by, yes, some great games, but also shedding the price by shedding platform features, but it "outsold" 360 by the end at late-gen budget prices and still amounted to a giant loss since software sales were poor, selling more hardware doesn't make more money. I definitely agree with Phil's statement that the internet hecklers just saying "make more AAA games" aren't seeing the whole picture of all the pieces that create the current situation (and past ones.)

@AlwaysPlaying The Microsoft Seal of Quality is real!

@Korgon 60 is the the standard frame rate now with series x and PlayStation 5 no excuses whatsoever

@Jenkinss 60 is the standard now

@Sebatrox It may be a niche title but Flight Simulator is what I purchased the Series X for originally and that gets a 9.5 for me. A true current gen experience.

Better be 60fps on series x

@Dan1283
In an ideal world I would agree with that statement. However we do not live in an ideal world. Gotta have some realistic expectations.

@Korgon no you're exactly right we will see what happens

I think Phil knows this won’t be ready to release in September, much less 2023.

EDIT: Keyword…ready. I’m not saying it won’t release.

@Dan1283 For what genre of game? Maybe fans of complex systems driven RPGs should just play far simpler sony 3rd person cinematic action games that require a fraction of the cpu strain because 60 is the standard now.

If starfield is at a level of fidelity and scope that requires 30 fps, then it's fine.

If starfield is as big as we seem to be expecting, then there really isn't any basis for a particular performance expectation.

It's not like there will be another game that we can point to and be like, "see, that other studio did the same thing at 60 fps, why couldn't you??"

It's a Bethesda game. If it runs at a consistent 30fps, that'll be cause enough for celebration.

@SplooshDmg Always expect 30fps on consoles. I know this cross-gen period has lulled gamers into a false sense of security on that front, but console builds will always prioritize image quality, and we're going to see them re-normalize it more and more as next-gen AAA titles continue to dribble out.

Even 40fps is nice. I’ve played a few games with 40fps and it’s just enough to get rid of the sluggish feeling of 30. Either way i will be giving Starfield a shot.

@Sakai You're right, Microsoft do have great games out there but I don't think it's that people don't care, it's more that they're not really aware as for some reason Microsoft don't seem to promote them as well as others. Take Hifi Rush for example, it's one of the highest rated games of the year so far but outside of Pure Xbox I've barely heard anything about it. I don't think the shadow drop did it any favours either as outwith the hardcore enthusiasts that watch the showcases no one really knew anything about it. Releasing it that way just seemed like they had no faith in it. I know that Phil said it was Bethesda that wanted to release it that way but I think it was a misjudged attempt to look cool that has backfired a bit.
It's always slightly amused me coming into an Xbox site and seeing adverts for a PS game but it happens surprisingly often.

@BAMozzy if it were a Playstation exclusive i’d be 100% confident it’ll be a 10/10 game. Not so much being an Xbox exclusive.

@Ralizah "Always expect 30fps on consoles. I know this cross-gen period has lulled gamers into a false sense of security on that front, but console builds will always prioritize image quality, and we're going to see them re-normalize it more and more as next-gen AAA titles continue to dribble out."

Given the disastrous PR of Redfall I'm not sure that will remain true. Plus 60fps is Xbox's STATED minimum target even for Series S. If 60fps isn't the standard, then MS is lying (again) about their platform.

And remember Redfall isn't 30fps, it's "60fps isn't ready yet we'll patch it later".....so Starfield would still be unique if it were not 60fps. Pretty much everything has to date offered 60 with a handful of exceptions this gen (excluding Redfall which does offer 60....just...real soon, now...)

@Ralizah @NEStalgia I think the cracks in 60fps are starting to show. A lot of games performance modes are not successfully achieving a solid 60fps now. It's more just an unlocked framerate than a locked 60. I think getting into heavier games this gen, there's going to have to be some really good CPU optimizations to keep these things coming and given the state AAA games are currently shipping in, I have a hard time being optimistic.

@SplooshDmg I don’t mind 30fps if the resolution is 1440p on Series S.

@Ralizah I have to agree on the 30fps, we are going to see it more and more once crossgen is over. If you are expecting 60fps on all games on a £450 console, you are setting yourself up for major dissapointment.

Some games have different priorities, like simulation or size and scope. These games will be cpu limited so lowering resolution or effects will not help a game hit 60fps. Consoles are cheap, if you want 60fps on everything, buy a £3000 pc

If it turns out being 30fps at 1440p on Series S, I’ll be fine with that.

@NEStalgia Series S was never going to be a 60fps standard console. Not with that GPU.

We're starting to see more 30fps only experiences this gen. I'm not convinced that's not going to become increasingly common over time.

Also, Redfall is a shooter, so the framerate is especially crucial there. But when The Last of Us Part III drops at a glorious, cinematic 30fps, people are going to fall over themselves to praise it, and Sony's base will fall in line with the messaging that 30fps is OK for action-adventure type games, the same way they fell in line with other talking points from the top.

@Sakai Pretty much. Developers are going to start pushing more demanding tech in their upcoming games, and it's going to tank performance at higher resolutions. This gen has barely started in terms of seeing how modern titles are going to push the hardware.

@NEStalgia The 'increased' potential of these was a Selling point - yes 4k with all the bells and whistles, or maybe a 'High Frame Rate' option 120fps or even 60fps in 'more' games but at the end of the day, its 'still' limited hardware and people 'want' more than just 'old' games boosted to 4k/60, they want 'cutting' edge graphics with RT, AI and Physics beyond anything seen on last gen etc. Every 'game' that 'pushed' the limits of Physics, AI etc (AC:Unity, Just Cause etc) struggled on last gen. Even games that 'run' at 4k/30 on XB1X can't suddenly drop resolution to 1080p and hit a locked 60fps because certain things don't scale with Resolution.

All I am saying is that I want devs to be 'free' to create the games they want, push the AI, push physics, be more 'dynamic' worlds instead of 'static' environments with proper 'physics', AI that's not so 'dumb' or simplistic (its not difficult to have 100+ enemies with the only 'AI' script is to chase the character (like most Zombie AI) but having more than 3 or 4 different 'enemies' all with their own unique behaviour, unique AI, more destruction and 'physics' - all that doesn't scale with just dropping resolution.

Therefore, I am OK with games being 30fps because they can't run 'smoothly' at 60fps because they are pushing the CPU to its limits at 30fps, same as I was last gen. Like I said, I happily played games like Far Cry 5 at 30fps - even though that game 'now' can be played at 60fps on newer hardware.

We have been complaining that 'true' next gen games haven't yet released - they are all 'last' gen games at their core, targeting '30fps' on a PS4/XB1 console, so have 'overheads' on new gen hardware. MSFS is 30fps - a true 'next gen' game - Very CPU heavy.

Certain games - I expect Forza for example, will target 60fps as their 'minimum' and build their game specifically to hit that metric because Turn 10 have always targeted 60fps. However, there will be games that will see these consoles as the lowest 'tier' hardware and build their games to target 30fps that maybe with a 'Pro' or 'next' gen system will get updated to play at 60fps. I doubt people expected Starfield to be 60fps on Console - not before MS bought them. I doubt anyone expected it to be flawless - Bethesda games aren't flawless or '60fps' on the Hardware they were built for.

In general, the vast majority of games are '30fps' on the lowest spec hardware they are built for and as the last gen machines are still relevant, still a market to sell to, they are not 'pushing' to fr beyond the capability of those machines. Therefore we have had 'more' 60fps 'options' - although they often don't come at '4k' native with all the 'bells and whistles', you have to sacrifice Picture Quality to get 60fps so 30fps is 'expected' at 4k in many games with 'Performance' modes dropping res (and/or turning down visual settings) to try and hit 60fps - 'Quality' 4k Visuals in AAA games with the 'next-gen' visual quality you were 'sold' hardware on is '30fps' despite the 'promise' of 4k/120/RT capability of these Consoles. So 'Quality visuals you 'expect' and '60fps' are at best 'optional', you don't get 'both'. Even the best PC on the market right now can't play 'next-gen' visual Quality 4k games at 60fps so have to use DLSS - even at 540p, they can be CPU bound. Even VRR, Dynamic Res and/or FSR reduce PQ, just not as obviously as just reducing the res.

So even with being Sold on 4k/120fps/RT capable incredibly powerful 'consoles' as these consoles are presented as, I doubt you'll get many, if any AAA games that will run at 4k/120, not unless they are 'old' games built for much less capable hardware and 'boosted' to 4k/120 by modern hardware. Its Quality 4k visuals 'or' 60fps in most games that were built to run at '30fps' on last gen hardware as these games ALL started out targeting PS4/XB1 hardware!

@NEStalgia "Plus 60fps is Xbox's STATED minimum target even for Series S. If 60fps isn't the standard, then MS is lying (again) about their platform."

Microsoft do not dictate what fps 3rd party games release at on their console, that's up to the developer and publisher. Some will aim for 120, some 60 and some 30.
Just because something is capable of 4k/120 does not mean everything will run at that. Its a capability not a requirement. How could Microsoft (who don't even make the vast majority of games on their platform) promise all games would be 60fps minimum?

Some PC games (like Jedi Survivor, a recent example, or Flight Sim) barely hit a consistant 60fps on a 4090 without DLSS3 frame generation, how do people expect a £450 console to do that? It sounds very unreasonable

@SplooshDmg Problem is modern display tech basically requires it and there's no reason the games CAN'T hit it, it's that marketing and art departments just want to cram in as much particle and lighting effects as possible for their bullshots. Plus most of these games, where cpu bound, are still single threaded even on PC which makes no sense at all.

It was 60 in the crt days. We settled for 30 for a brief while and in that time displays were slow and hid that problem. That's not the case anymore. Many modern displays just do not handle 30fps very well at all. That's really why 60fps needs to be offered. Usually even vrr which most people don't even have only kicks in over 40 or 45fps.

@Ralizah But that conflicts with the PS5 pro messing that a guy on the Internet said his brother's uncle's cousin's friend's dry cleaner overheard someone saying was guaranteed to be arriving next year.

@Sakai It's the stated target for the platform though. 3rd party is expected but not required to hit that. First party is effectively obligated.

@NEStalgia Have you got a link for that? I have never heard that and I am really curious.
All I have seen on the xbox site is that games optimised for the series x can run upto 4k and 120fps.
"Next-gen framerates
Games that have been Optimised for Xbox Series X|S use the full power of the new consoles to deliver higher, steadier framerates at up to 120FPS while playing."
https://www.xbox.com/en-GB/games/optimized

@Sakai Unfortunately I don't have any links, it wasn't the web page for the console with the 120fps marketing speak, it was target specs for XSS and XSX, I know someone around here, but can't remember who, has linked to it from time to time. The one I was surprised about was that the target for XSS is 1440@60, which I always believed it to be 1080p@60. So I was, myself, stunned because I thought the stated target is unrealistic and actually above the reasonable and marketed expectations for it. Which isn't a bad thing to set the target above the real world expected result to ensure the real world target is likely to be hit, but I still think that's a crazy target for that box.

@NEStalgia Eh, I'm not entirely sure. I mean, I think you're right that OLED's and whatnot are particularly shoddy at 30fps, but even Digital Foundry is saying to go ahead and strap in, because 30fps will be back by the time this is over. The hardware requirements for PC are making enormous jumps now, and what's in these consoles aren't as future proof as I think we think they are. I really just think Ralizah is right on this one, which is why I sank the money into the PC to begin with.

Most powerful system

@NEStalgia
A target of 1440p/60 does not mean it's a requirement or a stipulation, or all games will hit that, its just an imaginary target lol.
Honestly it sounds made up to me, but I'm happy for someone to provide a link or some evidence. Otherwise I think you are just mistaken or have taken a quote wrongly, like mistaking target for requirement.

I have never heard of any manufacturer stipulate a minimum framerate to release on their console, it sounds completely absurd just saying it.
Especially when the majority of non crossgen games have been 30fps for a decade or so.
Even Digital foundry expect 30fps to make a return after crossgen is over. These consoles are low/mid range pc parts afterall, people are expecting way too much for £450

@SplooshDmg LOL you think that PC will do the trick without another $1000 video card? Once they start making that jump on console they'll be punishing that PC too.

Game dev is just broken. Completely broken. They don't even attempt to hit targets anymore, they just build whatever pushes the newst prototype hardware the most because the designers mostly want to just take your money to sate their own technophilia and tell you why you should like it at his point.

But yea, it's not just oled it's any faster display. OLED has serious issues, i have an IPS that has actual flashing back and forth at high contrast areas. My old cheap slow IPS blurred horribly that even 25fps looked smooth, I never cared at all about 60fps. My expensive fast IPS? It actually FLASHES wit ghost images is you turn at every high contrast edge. 30 is virtually unplayable. I'm forcing myself through it for Kiwami 2 but I'd not likely play anything else at 30fps, it offers an actual headache in return. Lots of displays simply have issues with 30fps at this point, there's a large vocal community about it as well, and I honestly just don't think devs can get away with saying "30fps take it or leave it" without a big outcry from even a vocal minority because it's a very vocal minority of some of their best customers. Again the redfall debacle kind of exemplifies that.

Doesn't mean every dev will do it, but I don't think it's going to break them to do it, and they know there's a strong demand to keep that in mind. I think most 60fps fans are perfectly fine ignoring RT for 60 ,and the RT on these consoles is bad anyway.

@Sakai It's not a requirement, but it's still the goalpost to hit, even if not every game does, it's out there to be a standard objective. But that also means for FIRST party, hitting their own targets is kind of an expectation. (And so far they haven't failed to do so, remember we're only speculating about the first new gen first party game to fail to do so....)

Personally I probably stop buying games if they go back to 30. I just can't play too much 30fps on my display at this point. Switch, in handheld I'll do it, but even that with the oled model gets sketchy. It's kind of absurd that these games keep flogging fidelity over performance in a medium that's all about motion. It's 100% on devs and I suppose the sales effect of marketing purdy things.

@NEStalgia I game on a 65" LG C2 OLED and 30fps isn't that bad. Before that I gamed on a 55" Lg B7 OLED, and again it wasn't that bad.
I am a gameplay over graphics guy, always will be. So i am there with you. But i am also a realist and realise that if i want 60fps fullstop, its PC or nothing really.
These consoles cost the same as a low to midrange graphics card after all. If people want next gen games, something has to give at that price point. Console are for the budget gamer afterall. Sure I prefer 60fps, who wouldn't. But it's not a deal breaker if I play a game or not

@NEStalgia My 3080ti combined with DLSS will be fine for a good long while. My CPU might mayyyybe need an upgrade sooner or later, but I'm not going for 4K omega ray tracing here. Path tracing is so far the only thing that has made my GPU sweat and demand me to stop, but I can def run it at lower res/fps. I'd say borked software makes it sweat, but that isn't true, the software is borked because it isn't using the hardware to the max, so the problem is it isn't doing anything at all. I'll probably just build a whole new PC when this console gen truly comes to a close. I really can't imagine I'd need to prior to that. Might need 16gb more RAM, but the jury is still out. I actually close tabs.

I just think if we're seeing this many problems already, they're only going to get worse, and I think multiplatform games are where we're really going to see struggles. But really, I think the PS5 really just might be built better for higher FPS, since a lot of the design is truly around taking loads off the CPU. I think we've seen it a lot now, and it seems like it's more than just a trend. I don't care if the PS5 has a lower resolution in performance mode than the XSX, the goal of the mode is performance, and it seems like it really does have an edge there.

@Sakai I think we've kind of crossed over a different threshold though. I mean if we just consider the fact that the game must target the Series S......any game t hat can run on a Series S at 30fps....there's no real reason why the game, at minimum, can't output the same visuals at 60fps on a Series X. The hardware different should not be a barrier, let alone the various PC targets. I just don't see how a performance mode would suddenly become impossible. Especially when much of the limitation of the last gen was really the CPU, and most games are STILL not fully utilizing the CPU.

At this point "it runs at 30fps" translates to "we didn't really want to bother updating our 20 year old code base unless you just buy beefier hardware to brute force it, also, plz pay more cuz' inflation.

And again that's hypothetical because so far games aren't doing that, so we're speculating about what they'll do in the future. As far as "next gen games"....what makes a "next gen game" that pushes the hardware? Higher rez and fancier lighting? Or smoother motion and animation? Marketing says the former. But that's the whole problem.

@SplooshDmg well you bring up a good point about PC even, though, "DLSS" meaning "Everyone who bought AMD gets screwed." It's not even PC vs console at this point but about one mfrs product being necessary to make what devs feel like making effective. In a lot of ways that's THE problem in gaming. nVidia really determines, alone, what the visuals are supposed to be. Even on PC. Switch 2 might outperform PS5 just due to gaining DLSS lol.

You could be right about PS5 having an edge, and if it does maybe I'll end up swinging back that way for multiplats, though I'm not convinced the XSX can't. I still think 80% of our problem is ancient code where MS expected everyone would modernize and multithread, and instead they're still just balling along one thread like they're making games for a Pentium 2. Maybe UE5 and the like will fix that, I mean the Matrix was impressive even on an XSS..... The real problem is were in gen 9 and most of the games, even first party are still running gen 7 architecture. And PC ends up still being the only thing designed to just power through it.

I almost feel sorry for the Starfield Dev team. The redfall situation puts them under even more scrutiny and pressure I think. Hope this one is on high levels and shows the way for the rest, otherwise the loss of confidence from the community is gonna be pretty significant.

@NEStalgia No, everyone that bought AMD willingly made a terrible decision. If the Switch 2 gets DLSS, I will do freaking cartwheels in the yard. You have no idea how bad I want to live in a world where Nintendo has DLSS.

I definitely think game dev is just borked. I've kinda wondered about how consoles are more balanced now and the issues that's translated to with PC. It used to be console GPU just carried the whole show. That translated easy to PC. Slap a monster GPU in and go. Now devs are having to try and balance all of these things out and actually use ALL of the hardware, and it seems like they aren't very good at it. I kid you not, the memory management system for TLOU1 on PC was ported straight over from the PS5. It was reserving these obnoxious portions of the CPU and VRAM for stuff other than the game, and it just tanked performance. It'll get fixed eventually, but it's still frustrating that it was in such awful shape. It's just a case of good devs making obviously stupid decisions, and just scratching your head asking, "How? Why? Make it make sense."

Slightly different note, I think PS+ has an edge over Game Pass now. Game Pass gets borked games day one, and PS+ is cheaper and filled with patched older games. At this rate, I don't want day one games. Lol

@SplooshDmg See that's a problem with PC right there. When I left PC gaming it was nVidia and ATI competing. ATI was actually ahead, better hardware but worse drivers. If it's down to just nVidia mattering, it's not really PC gaming at all, it's just the $3000 nVidia console feat. Gaben and Game Pass.

I mean if Switch 2 is a backward compatible nVidia based device, there's little reason to believe it won't have DLSS. Nintendo's never going to develop over 540p so that's a match made in heaven anyway

Yeah, everything about game dev is broken. It's been for a long time though, but it's coming to roost. The worng people with the wrong ideas make the wrong decisions, and marketing/bsns demands them to make it worse. IDK things were ok in the 90's in console but into the 00's PC devs just started really wetting the bed, going head-long into technophilia. No longer interested in using the tech to make game ideas come true, but pushing the tech just to see what pusing it does. The hardware, not the game started to become the game. Console was spared this for a while longer, but we're there now. And I don't know how to make it stop. It's like every dev decided the Molyneaux Model is the one true path to inner peace.

LOL, yeah...I mean...yeah. PS+ isn't really for me so much only because most of what it has I either already own or don't have an interest in, but it's definitely bigger and cheaper. For now, but as time goes on that'll shift I'm sure. But I kind of agree, getting a broken game "DAY ONE" while you wait 3 months for it to work right doesn't seem like a major advantage.

I have to say I never at all cared about redfall, like slightly, but the more I hear that most of its problem is technical issues and there's a decentshooter in there underneath actually makes me more interested in it now than I've ever been. Still dunno if I'll try it, really, but I'm starting to see it have some charm.

@NEStalgia I mean, it's not Nvidia's fault AMD is miles behind. Personally, I don't really see the issue. The RTX 4070 is brutal performance and most seem to think the price tag really isn't too big an ask. I paid too much for my 3080ti and I like it so much I'd do it again.

Yeah, if they're sticking to Tegra, then BC seems a lot more likely. But obviously if they stick to Tegra, then no DLSS. Unless Nvidia can just Frankenstein something together. Either way, the Switch 2 will surely be awesome.

I have PS+ and really, I don't use it. I tried Kena, but it just seemed like if Pixar and Naughty Dog made a game together, and that's gross to me. I didn't last long with that one. But yeah, what good are day one games when they're all freaking broken?

I played a few hours of Redfall... Woo wee... Where do I start? It's like... Haze bad. It might be worse than Haze. I'm really having to dig deep to try and think of what shooter I think is genuinely worse.

@SplooshDmg Switch is nVidia's only connection into the console market for quite some years, and round 1 earned a shedload of cash, so I think they'll go all out on it. The switch pro rumors talked about DLSS a lot, and while Switch Pro was obviously fake news I'm sure it had some sort of truth into what was being R&D'd for Switch 2. I think there will be some sort of DLSS solution involved even if it's frankenstiened to a Tegra, personally, as it fits both nVidia's direction and Nintendo's needs well. Probably only when docked, but that's cool.

I don't have + extra but I did buy Kena. I liked it, it was very much a PS2-era Spyro-ish platformer IMO. It has emphasis on colectibles and platforming exploration.....bog standard old school Rare type platformer but that's not a bad thing. It did have a few Naughty Dog moments, but I think it had more Rare/Old-Insomniac moments. Short game.

Might be sad but the game I'm most hyped for other than zelda and pikmin and starfield is a PSVR game from Atari based on old Atari games. I mean that's broken failure stacked on broken failure and it's just beautiful. We're coming close to Atari being publisher of the year. In 2023. I would not have believed that in 1985.

Redfall can NOT be Haze bad. That's not possible. Is it? No. It can't be. Right? (I literally have my Haze copy sitting somewhere near my consoles....)

@NEStalgia I read all that, but in focusing in on the fact that yes... Redfall is every bit as bad as Haze. It's almost unbelievably bad. I genuinely don't understand how anyone can fire that game up and see even one redeeming quality.

@SplooshDmg woof. That's... Wow.

@somnambulance for enthusiasts maybe. But that's not most of the market. Price, timing, the introduction of better online services and voice, association with cod, viral indie phenomenons like super meat boy, and the emergence of Minecraft. That's why 360 won. It goes no deeper than that. Sadly.

Even if it's 30, it won't effect my enjoyment. Just like redfall 30fps isn't effecting it for me.

@SplooshDmg I actually just transitioned to an AMD GPU and am pretty happy with it so far. I know it's no good for anything involving ray-tracing and that DLSS is a superior image scaling tech to FSR, but for my purposes (gaming at med/high settings at 1080p/60), I think my card will work out fine for the foreseeable.

In my mind, my computer is a Series S that'll actually hold up to the rigors of modern gaming.

Usually go NVIDIA, but I had no interest in paying almost $100 more for a similarly powerful card. They've completely messed up lower-mid-range pricing this gen, IMO.

But yes, Switch 2 really would benefit dramatically from DLSS.

@Ralizah I moved over from an RX580, to a RX5700 XT and then to the 3080ti I have now, and I'd be hard pressed to ever go back to AMD. I hated that 5700 so, so much. The drivers were awful and needed reinstalled constantly, the fans were loud, the card was murderously hot. Truly if there is any one thing that makes me stay away from AMD, it's the software side, not as much the hardware side. I think Adrenalin is maybe software I would call 'as bad as iTunes'. So, in reality, I can't sweat the $100 because I think Nvidia is just a better overall product. A $100 is nothing compared to the grief and time I wasted fooling with those AMD cards for the last six some odd years.

Looking at the graphics I think it'll be 30FPS, but I guess that should be ok. Depends I guess on how much help MS gave Bethesda with the game, they seemed to suggest it was a lot more than they gave Redfall.
I actually looked on PSN Plus Premium and the games on it are alright, but not a patch on what Game Pass has. Horizon and GOW are only on there as trials. More games I want are on Xbox. Starfield is a good example of this.

@SplooshDmg You know, I've heard those complaints about AMD cards, and was nervous about going that route. But so far, I've not experienced any driver issues, my PC seems to be running cool, etc. Maybe I won the GPU lottery, idk. My luck tends to be pretty good with gaming hardware. My 360 was also fine, and I got it when everyone else's was RRODing. My launch Switch joycons have experienced a bit of drift, but it took years, and a bit of alcohol on a cotton swab clears up the issue for months, etc.

Haven't messed with Adrenaline yet, but the GeForce Experience software is hot garbage as well.

@Ralizah Yeah, I think it really is a lottery. Word is that the RX5700XT is just a particularly hot card, and I believe it. It was bonkers how hot it was, even when not really asking it to do much. It was just terrible, though. I sold it on Mercari and I shipped it off saying, "Sorry, dude in Washington. This is your problem now." Lol

The GeGorce Experience has its issue, but I mostly just use the Nvidia control panel and it works for what I need it to do. I mean, imo, it is God compared to Adrenaline.

Plus, having now used DLSS 2.0. Its not a feature I'd be willing to skip on. I really love it.

Looks like it's gonna be 30 FPS

@Sebatrox A rehashed to death franchise and a game that could run on 360.