Only on the "Pro" consoles that will have been released by then :).
XxXboxelite69XxX
I'd rather see consoles be limited to what they can handle than a game to be limited for everyone because of what a single console can handle.
I want this game to be huge and look beautiful. If my PC can handle 60fps I don't want to locked to 30fps because that's all an Xbox can handle. And if I want to play it on an Xbox I don't want it to be a blurry mess to get 60fps, I want it to look as good as it possibly can. Especially in a game like this where the visuals do a great majority of the storytelling when it comes to exploration and finding new things.
As a game dev: this is 100% the developers fault. The engine knows how long it's been between frames. Devs can use that information to keep everything running at the same pace regardless of 30fps, 10, or 120.
Next time you see a game with its speed tied to the frame rate, make sure you make some noise! Maybe devs will finally fucking learn.
More annoying than a constant 30fps framerate is an inconsistent framerate, which a game like this is likely to encounter very frequently if not capped.
I don't like it, but I'd rather have that than what could likely be worse.
Good then, because this is quite literally what Bethesda is doing with Starfield.
If you target 60 fps you have to be more conservative woth poly counts, draw calls, shader complexity, rendering capabilities etc. You get have more you can play with on the rendering side and can technically have better visuals. It's a dev decision. Devs will always need to make that decision until there are not hardware limitations.
and in this case rhey made the wrong decision imo
games like minecraft, runescape or WoW are still popular, why the hell are studios spending this much of their performance on having 4k resolution on every rock, tree and dust mite
Beth has historically had to make serious gameplay concessions because of consoles. Console limitations killed open cities and levitation on their engine in Oblivion.
I don't mind if they play it safe with Starfield.
And the PlayStation ports of their games were always terrible. Like the further south you went in Oblivion the longer it would take to load a town. Sometimes Leyawin would take 5+ minutes to load.
Skyrim had that stuff with data corruption and the upside down dragons.
While I don't remember, I'm sure the fallout PlayStation versions had their own issues. So I'm glad Bethesda is solely Xbox/pc now because the PS versions were a distant afterthought anyways.
30fps is fine so long as it's not a crutch. And since it's on game pass day one, if it's terrible all I've done is waste bandwidth downloading it, and not $70.
This right here. As a 40+ gamer, I don't mind 30fps. Been dealing with lower fps for a long, long time and its fine for me. But that just seems like an unreasonably low expectation of a AAA video games these days.
It was new gen three years ago, and its kept up the 60fps dream for a lot of games over the last three years. However developers were always going to hit the point of diminishing returns when their visions got bigger, and now we're there.
What's really weird to me is the hard 30fps cap. Why not have at least an option to disable the cap and let VRR do it's job?
This isn't surprising. Todd Howard already stated that given the choice between fidelity or framerate they would choose fidelity every time. It's disappointing that he thinks that's still what people want in 2023, but it's not surprising.
At least give a performance/fidelity toggle like many games. Especially with how similar the Xbox architecture is to Windows, I’ve always wondered why devs can’t use some of the same tools to give console players more graphical options.
I don’t think I’ve played a native/ported PS5 game yet that didn’t have a toggle. This is an odd choice for sure.
I wouldn’t say that’s accurate at all. Especially since providing more options to players is never a bad thing, letting them pick performance vs quality.
Not a deal breaker for this kind of game but a 60fps performance mode on series x at 1080p would’ve been a nice option.
Playing TOTK right now on switch and it really proves how great games can overcome technical limitation. A masterpiece at 30fps is still a masterpiece. Here’s hoping Starfield can deliver as a great game first and foremost.
If the bottleneck is something like AI or physics calculations on the CPU then lowering the rendering resolution won't help achieve a higher framerate unfortunately.
I suspect most games shipping this gen without 60 FPS modes are CPU bound.
That's a great point.
Nothing wrong with that. They want stability instead of poor performance and I can appreciate that decision. Games are best played on a system you can actually upgrade anyways, if you play console this is something that you should expect, maybe not now but in the near future as gen (pick a number) comes out
I think this is more of a "decent graphics and 30 fps, or worse graphics and 60 fps" question. Personally I would like to have a performance setting where one can choose to downgrade the graphics for more fps.
yeah it'd at least be nice to have that option. no worries i'll just get this on PC. was planning on upgrading my rig anyway
Oh come on Todd, if there's headroom you could've at least give an option to run it at 40 fps
I think they should at least give console players the choice between 4k 30 fps or 1080p 60 fps Let's be realistic here, 4k 60fps for a game of this size in this engine will require a BEEFY machine, nothing a current gen console can offer.
The game is probably CPU bound not GPU bound, based on past bethesda games. If that is the case, decreasing the resolution will not necessarily increase the frame rate a proportional amount.
Idk, if they release a game in 2023 that is still CPU bound that would be a big L from them. I really hope that's not the case.
Especially because I bought a freaking 7900 XTX :D
Idk, if they release a game in 2023 that is still CPU bound that would be a big L from them.
This is Bethesda were talking here lmao. Starfield is still running on the Creation Engine, which they've been hacking together since the Morrowind days.
I feel that's an unfair thing to say. Lets be real here, the Creation Engine that runs Starfield isn't the same engine that runs Fallout 4 or Skyrim. It's a new version of that engine. When Unity, Unreal or Anvil (just to name a few) release new versions of their engine everyone is like "wow, so much better, so much more possibilities" When Bethesda releases a new version of the CE, everyone is like "Yeah but it's still the garbage CE" although the CE is a very powerful engine when you think what it really enables them to do (and how easy accessible it is for modders)
My point is, of course we can end up with a CPU bound game again, but before we know for sure, we should give Bethesda the benefit of the doubt.
I'm curious about this kind of thing from an engine and console architecture perspective. Any gamedevs able to shed some light?
I work in the industry, but not directly on low-level engine implementation details. Personally, my gut thinking is that the Creation Engine is falling behind in terms of modern asset streaming techniques.
Similarly, I wonder if a lack of strong virtualized geometry / just-in-time LOD generation tech could be a huge bottleneck?
From what I understand, efforts like Nanite in UE5 were an enormous engineering investment for Epic, and unless Bethesda has a massive engine team of their own (they don't), they simply won't be able to benefit from an in-house equivalent in tech.
Ultimately, I do think the lack of innovation in the Creation Engine is due to internal technical targets being established as "30FPS is good enough", with frame times below 33ms being viewed as "for those PC gamers with power to spare."
My best guess would be that the engine just has vast amounts of technical debt. Skyrim (pre-LE at least) had a savegame corruption bug that has been around since Morrowind. And while I'm sure they have rewritten huge parts of the engine over the decades it's not rare to see bugs persist over generations, and modders complaining loudly about it. The engine has never been great about asset streaming either so no surprise here.
What even is the point of selling the series x
@Dasnap I honestly would have been shocked if it had been more than 30fps. 60 would be nice, but is not as important for this style of game.
Still, I will probably be checking it out on my PC to compare graphical fidelity + performance between that and my Series X, and choosing where to play accordingly.
Peasants get the shaft again, unsurprising
This is a bummer but not surprising. I think the bigger concern should be how much Bethesda jank is going to be in the game.
I love how Microsoft said that with their exclusive titles they'll only have to focus on one console and as such the performance will be better. Now here we are and seemingly all of these titles run at 30 FPS. I just hope they will offer a performance option if it is run on a lower resolution. Having these options is exactly what keeps me on the PC platform.
thanks for using Leebra!
go to feed...
They'll save 60fps for the Special Edition in 3 years.
save