Starfield's 60FPS Update Results In Huge Player Boost On Xbox

72% of what? 1000? 20000? I hate part information

like it or not, 60 fps on consoles is important and a must nowdays. if a dev can't manage that give em the ax.

@PsBoxSwitchOwner They didn't want to say it, but it's 7.... now it's 12.....12 people are now playing Starfield.

Almost like 60FPS is important. We're not living in the 90s anymore.

@PassePartout sorry I’m somebody who enjoys numbers and stats. I find them interesting and you can often understand things far more than a random number

No one should be saying good job Bethesda, or thanks Bethesda. Everything, and I do mean EVERYTHING, included in this update should have launched with Starfield day one.

There is no excuse for not have.

One would hope the lesson learned would be console players do care about 60fps. Your options shouldn't be "accept 30fps, or go spend a thousand plus on a PC that's weaker than the $500 console so you can manually turn down all the settings yourself until you hit 60+fps"

@InterceptorAlpha But in the 90's most games were 60fps....

60fps is obviously better but not crucial to me especially in a game like starfield no matter the frame rate it's slow and boring

The frames were not the issue, the horrible pacing and just how boring the game is, that's the real issue that will never be addressed.

@BigBobEnerG Couldn't disagree more. I took a break after 250 hours because of absolutely how much there was to do. I burned myself out chasing every new thing I found. Never eveven went through the first playthrough despite all those hours. And that is with only having finished 2 factions.

@NEStalgia I'm know it was a joke. But this is something so misquoted it hurts.

The games ran at 60hz, matching the refresh of CRTs so you pretty much never had screen tearing. But not always 60fps. And less so as you moved from the Nes to the SNEs then to the N64.

Quite a few games even rendered into to 10s. 3D games running at 60fps, on consoles in the 90s, was extremely uncommon as well.

When it came to 2D games they were only 60fps by technicality. Due to the interlaced nature of the screen, it used even lines to draw one picture, and odds to draw another. Ultimately this either doubled the same frame, or have you two different frames at half the resolution. IE 640x240 instead of 640x480.

I still have a Panasonic Tau CRT that does 1080i and even has a HDMI input. I use retro consoles on it all the time and it is wild how much this gets misquoted.

@InterceptorAlpha This is all true, though given an option to play modern "30fps" games At interlaced resolutions for 30fps, I'd take that in a heartbeat compared to what we have. And yeah, the "60hz" was more about 8/16bit...obviously N64/PS1 was abysmal performance. Still most of the time for the 8/16 bit games, the NTSC versions had excellent performance, albeit with slowdowns when busy. Still ways away from today's 30fps "standard". And beautiful, beautiful CRT output.

So not even double. That's not 'huge'. False hype much?

People act as if 60 fps has been the standard for ambitious RPGs on consoles. Starfield as 30fps at launch wasn’t the issue with this game. Anyways 60 fps is achievable for any game type but developers must scale back the graphics or art style vision. Which would then cause complaints about the graphics being dated for current hardware. Developers have a tough time pleasing the console crowd these days whom expect a lot but don’t want to pay for good bespoke hardware at launch nor pay for new games which deserve a higher price.