960°

Bethesda’s Todd Howard Confirms Starfield Performance and Frame-Rate on Xbox Series X and S

Starfield runs at 30 frames per second on both Xbox Series X and S, Bethesda’s Todd Howard has confirmed.

sparky77353d ago

Expected considering how immense this game is.

Jin_Sakai353d ago

Yes but it sucks. I can’t go back to 30fps after playing games at 60fps or even better 120fps.

darthv72352d ago

When choices are available, I will choose performance mode no question. If there is only quality mode, it is what it is.

Jin_Sakai352d ago

“When choices are available, I will choose performance mode no question. If there is only quality mode, it is what it is.“

I think developers should always offer a performance mode even if it involves more than a drop in resolution.

AuraAbjure352d ago (Edited 352d ago )

"I can’t go back to 30fps after playing games at 60fps..."

Haha, sucks 4 U. That means there are countless legendary video games already released you will never experience. Unless you already played all 5,000 of them.

Jin_Sakai352d ago

“Haha, sucks 4 U. That means there are countless legendary video games already released you will never experience. Unless you already played all 5,000 of them.“

I guess so. I just don’t care for 30fps and the laggy controls that come with it.

kneon352d ago

60 fps is overrated. the difference between 60 fps and 30 is 16.7ms , your reaction time is more than 10x that. It's just not that important no matter how much you try to convince yourself

DarXyde352d ago

kneon,

No. It is not overrated at all. There is a reason that competitive games (racers, shooters, and fighting games especially) all prioritize it.

Ever play Dark Souls at 60fps? How about Bayonetta on PS3 and Xbox 360? Drive Club feels nowhere near as good, immersive, or fluid as Gran Turismo.

It matters.

MadLad352d ago

@kneon

I can definitely see and feel a large difference than even 30 and 60; let alone higher.

So either what you're saying simply doesn't track, or I'm perpetually fooling myself literally every time I'm playing a game.

shinoff2183352d ago

There's nothing wrong with 30 fps, it isn't gonna make or break a game for a majority of us. As a Sony fan truth is starfield looks awesome as fk, and sony doesn't have anything to match it in their catalog. Shame because we would have gotten this but it is what it is. Now I've gotta buy a used series x starfield looked fantastic.

neutralgamer1992352d ago

Jin

I understand your point but when done right 30FPS could be smooth too. Issue here is Bethesda and they don’t have any excuses now they are only supporting 2 platforms so their available resources should be correctly utilized

Si-Fly352d ago

Get a PC then 👍🏻

Yui_Suzumiya352d ago

How would you do with 15fps?

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 352d ago
Christopher353d ago

Disagree. 60fps as a mode should be a focus of any AAA game today.

sparky77353d ago

For linear games or basic open world games sure, but something like Starfield with all those interactive objects would be a massive feat to get to 60fps especially considering how good it looks already.

He mentioned in the articles it hits 60fps a lot but they wanted it consistent so they locked it at 30fps, so it's possible we might get a 40fps mode sometime in the future.

Christopher353d ago (Edited 353d ago )

***For linear games or basic open world games sure, but something like Starfield with all those interactive objects would be a massive feat to get to 60fps especially considering how good it looks already.***

What? This is nonsense. Your interaction with objects is in its own mode and not live gameplay. You're not shooting in a blast out in space and modifying your ship in real-time. I'm not sure you understand that detail-oriented things are done in their own space and without relationship to those same levels of interaction once they are done. It's similar to gun mods, you are assigning attributes to things and shape boundaries to them, but you're not constantly calculating their attachment points during gameplay. Let alone if that's a reason then why is it not 60fps when outside of your ship and during the action elements of the gameplay?

Let's not try and make excuses here, let alone ones that don't make sense.

I get development is hard, but this is Bethesda and Microsoft. If anyone has the ability to make a 60fps mode it's the company that takes almost a decade to make a game and the company supporting them that's spending $64B to buy up more of the industry.

If No Man's Sky can do 60fps and native 4k on PS5, there are no excuses here, IMHO. The development team sizes alone should give Bethesda the massive advantage let alone the much longer history and the direct association with the hardware. Let's not forget that Starfield also has hub-styled cities, so you're not loading all those NPCs and city areas in the open world regions. They've literally set themselves up so they should be able to do 60fps, but Bethesda just isn't working towards 60fps. They're working towards 30fps. That's on them.

sparky77353d ago

Actually I am a software engineer (not game dev) so I have some idea of how these things work. Having a bunch of interactive objects affects how high you can get the frame rates. Have you never seen a video when someone throws a fireball in a store in Skyrim? The frame rate plummets since all those objects have physics, Bethesda games are unique like that. Most other games have no interactive objects and everything is just static.

I am sure they could get it to 60fps is they really wanted but I would rather they get it out and polished then added 60fps later.

GhostScholar353d ago

You really just compared no mans sky to starfield? Some of the things you said about how frame rate works is correct, but if you think the scope of no man’s sky is anywhere near starfield you’re either a troll or insane.

Sonic1881353d ago (Edited 353d ago )

@Ghostscholar

I would compare No Man Sky to Starfield. It looks very similar to it and No man sky had a lot of updates and couldn't even run in 60fps during launch. It took a few updates to get it to run in higher resolution and 60fps. No man sky is a bigger game now and the scope is bigger as well after all the updates as of today and it has a lot of planet's just like Starfield. A matter of fact you can fly in every planet's atmosphere unlike Starfield. I'll be playing Starfield on PC

https://youtu.be/sMT-Mz1D4p...

darthv72352d ago

60fps is ideal for fast paced games. This is not that.

Christopher352d ago (Edited 352d ago )

***Actually I am a software engineer (not game dev) so I have some idea of how these things work. Having a bunch of interactive objects affects how high you can get the frame rates. ***

1. https://i.kym-cdn.com/entri...

2. Nothing shown in the gameplay showed anything more interactive than most games out there. Let alone those interactions are limited to tool use and are handled procedurally just like No Man's Sky. Things like mining. Not destruction was otherwise lacking as were a world filled with unnecessary individual objects or physics. Sorry, no. And even then... They aren't doing a 60fps mode even if it has drops due to player derived shenanigans. They are focused on 30fps. That's the issue. And it's not because there's too many interactive elements. Plenty of games are 60fps and deal with that. Plenty.

*** You really just compared no mans sky to starfield? Some of the things you said about how frame rate works is correct, but if you think the scope of no man’s sky is anywhere near starfield you’re either a troll or insane. ***

Hey, folks, if you haven't played NMS in the last three years, please don't provide input or act like it's a simple game. It's not. And, furthermore, fps is about optimization and you think a team of 20-something can optimize a game better than a company with hundreds of people? C'mon. Stop giving Bethesda a pass on this.

DarXyde352d ago (Edited 352d ago )

Completely agree. Hardware is powerful enough now that you can always crank out a great looking game at 60fps. Maybe no ray tracing or fewer shadows and particle effects. Who cares?

More importantly, game can be played in first person, which I would say absolutely should be incentive to make a 60fps mode.

All games should feature performance options in this age, and the game has really had more than enough time in the oven to ensure that this happens.

At the end of the day, it's a Bethesda game and it looks like it'll be a great title of you enjoy those games. Maybe the fans don't mind the game being 30fps and options will come later on. Really, who knows? Assuming it doesn't, maybe the most important part of the conversation for consideration is whether it launches at a stable 30fps.

Won't really know until you get your hands on it, I suppose.

352d ago
352d ago
352d ago
352d ago
352d ago
shinoff2183352d ago

Christopher

Maybe should be but isn't a dealbreaker.

PhillyDonJawn352d ago (Edited 352d ago )

I disagree. 60fps would hold back immersion and next gen graphics for many games you won't get both of those with 60fps. You think GTA 6 is gonna be 60fps?
If it's not a competitive FPS, Fighter, Racer. 60fps is not needed

And you just compared No man's sky being able to run 4k 60fps to Starfield smdh. Thise meat on both game aren't even comparable. Starfield has way better animation, graphics, lightning, combat, etc. You gotta be joking

frostypants352d ago

It should always at least be an option. I am fine with 30fps quality mode...as an option.

351d ago
+ Show (14) more repliesLast reply 351d ago
potatoseal353d ago (Edited 353d ago )

No way. It should be 60 on Series X. Dynamic res and 60 fps. It can be done, they're just not good enough to get it done.