Support NeoGAF

[X-Wing]

The same things where done in past bethesda games with worst cpu .. a lot worst... the its obviously not ONLY cpu bounded... optimization and an old ass engine is holding this game back to better perfomance.. same with fromsoft and that old engine as well

What I dont understand is why not offer the s version on the X .. this version surely can run with better fps and the vrr can take care of the rest ... if not ? Well...is shit optimization all around and the pc version will show it

The S version and the X version are the same, though? Just different settings. You mean running the game on Series X at upscaled 1440p? If the bottleneck isn't the GPU that won't solve the problem... I don't know but I have a feeling that the issue is somewhere between CPU, I/O, SSD...

Consoles use shared memory though... I wonder if that's the issue. The CPU's they require for PC aren't super powerful (AMD Ryzen 5 2600x only has 6 cores vs Xbox's 8 cores) and those are under higher load since PC operative systems are more resource intensive than consoles'...

 

[Fredrik]

Why not just say it's a hardware limitation? Why the word games?

60 fps games has always existed, and lower fps games too. All generations. Saying it’s a hardware limitation is not good PR, imagine how it would sound lol

But as always performance is about what they want to do and what they’re willing to sacrifice to get there, and how skilled they are at coding obviously.

Technically there is a hardware limitation for what they want to do. No doubt. That’s why it’s running at higher framerates on more powerful PCs.
But I bet they could make a 60fps mode on Switch, or PS2, if they’ve wanted, but not like it looks right now and with the systems they have in place.

Anyway without knowing what’s eating system resources (we’ll know more when we have it in our hands on PC) I guess a performance mode could be about lowering the resolution, use lower res textures, have less NPCs, have fewer polygons on everything, lower shadow res, wipe global illumination, updating object physics and npc routines less often and wipe stored object positions closer to the player. Something like that.

But they don’t seem to want to sacrifice too much, so then 30fps is what we get on console and PC is the choice for higher framerates, until there is some Series 2X model out.

 

[Bernardougf]

The S version and the X version are the same, though? Just different settings. You mean running the game on Series X at upscaled 1440p? If the bottleneck isn't the GPU that won't solve the problem... I don't know but I have a feeling that the issue is somewhere between CPU, I/O, SSD...

I think that the series S version will have other types of compromises not only resolution .. I can swear someone already posted pictures showing some differences but I might be mistaken... better wait for more info down the road

 

[Zug]

Behold the ultimate 24FPS cinematic experience on PC, you Xbox peasants.

 

[TheGrat1]

It's crazy how many people are trying to justifing not having the option for 60 fps on console in 2023. What's even the point of these current gen consoles if we can't at least get the option for 60 fps with the fast loading?

Jesus people, have some standards.

When you expect less, you accept less and then you get less.

The funniest part of all this 30 fps damage control is that it goes beyond "this is fine." It almost seems hostile to the idea of 60fps on the Series X, as though no one should even want Bethesda to try it. It seems as though they have convinced themselves (and are subsequently trying to convince everyone else) that for this game to run at 60 it would have to have virtually zero interactivity with the environment, have the mechanical complexity of a NES Mario game and look like something the PS2 would have no trouble running. It reeks of a psychological defense mechanism.

The great irony of this is that no one is trying to rain on their 30 fps "muh fidelity" parade. They can have it. People would be more than happy to settle for a lower fidelity 60 fps mode and are upset that Bethesda has decided they do not get the option like in a vast majority of games this gen, even the next gen only ones. To ask for (let alone expect) that in a SHOOTER should be entirely uncontroversial on a console that "eats monsters for breakfast" and yet here we are. If MS/Bethesda thought the consumers would not let them slide without a 60 fps mode it would be there.

I will say this: Someone will run this game on PC with a rig similarly spec'd to a Series X @ 60 fps while looking totally acceptable and a lot of people in this thread will have crow to eat.

 

[Sony]

When you work with closed spec boxes, than you have finite resources. What to do with those resources is a creative choice. Do you want a 60FPS starfield with less bells and whistles graphically or do you want a 30FPS Starfield with more bells and whistles. I fully understand and support the 30 FPS choice.

 

[YeulEmeralda]

60 fps games has always existed, and lower fps games too. All generations. Saying it’s a hardware limitation is not good PR, imagine how it would sound lol

But as always performance is about what they want to do and what they’re willing to sacrifice to get there, and how skilled they are at coding obviously.

Technically there is a hardware limitation for what they want to do. No doubt. That’s why it’s running at higher framerates on more powerful PCs.
But I bet they could make a 60fps mode on Switch, or PS2, if they’ve wanted, but not like it looks right now and with the systems they have in place.

Anyway without knowing what’s eating system resources (we’ll know more when we have it in our hands on PC) I guess a performance mode could be about lowering the resolution, use lower res textures, have less NPCs, have fewer polygons on everything, lower shadow res, wipe global illumination, updating object physics and npc routines less often and wipe stored object positions closer to the player. Something like that.

But they don’t seem to want to sacrifice too much, so then 30fps is what we get on console and PC is the choice for higher framerates, until there is some Series 2X model out.

Well I don't see hardware limitation as bad PR. Every game ever created suffers from it.
The PS5 couldn't run Starfield at 60fps either.

 

[Razvedka]

I think that the series S version will have other types of compromises not only resolution .. I can swear someone already posted pictures showing some differences but I might be mistaken... better wait for more info down the road

Id Software Devs Express Their Concerns Over the Xbox Series S’ Hardware Specs; Memory “Situation” Not Easy to Compensate

Several devs at id Software have expressed their concerns over the specs of Microsoft’s Xbox Series S, more specifically, its memory.

wccftech.com

And others.

 

[Pagusas]

I guess not being able to take-off and land in a NASA licensed space-sim RPG in 2023 is a "creative choice" and totally not an engine/design/talent issue either.

I mean yes? They made a choice on priorities and what mattered to them. They determined the ability to take off and and land directly from space wasn’t worth the man power/time dedication it would take. That in the end is a creative/management level choice.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I mean yes? They made a choice on priorities and what mattered to them. They determined the ability to take off and and land directly from space wasn’t worth the man power/time dedication it would take. That in the end is a creative/management level choice.

I'm betting it's more of an engine thing and the work involved getting it to do that.

 

[Calverz]

Starfield could have easily ran at 60fps on console. But in order to do that, they would have had to have stripped back features, textures etc to hit it. Therefore, a "CREATIVE DECISION" was taken to NOT do that and have it run smoothly at a locked 30fps.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Starfield could have easily ran at 60fps on console. But in order to do that, they would have had to have stripped back features, textures etc to hit it. Therefore, a "CREATIVE DECISION" was taken to NOT do that .

It's nothing new. Every developer that offers 60 FPS makes those decisions.

Your creative choice is to make it an eye-candy? Cool. Put all the bells and whistles in the 30 FPS mode.

Strip those bells and whistles and offer a 60 FPS performance mode.

There is no "creative choice" here. This is just cutting corners, not doing the extra work to make a 60 FPS mode, and presenting it as if this is something revolutionary.

and have it run smoothly at a locked 30fps.

Well, that's optimistic.

 

[RyanEvans21]

When you work with closed spec boxes, than you have finite resources. What to do with those resources is a creative choice. Do you want a 60FPS starfield with less bells and whistles graphically or do you want a 30FPS Starfield with more bells and whistles. I fully understand and support the 30 FPS choice.

Or Options? like Performance & Fidelity like most games right now.

 

[Calverz]

It's nothing new. Every developer that offers 60 FPS makes those decisions.

Your creative choice is to make it an eye-candy? Cool. Put all the bells and whistles in the 30 FPS mode.

Strip those bells and whistles and offer a 60 FPS performance mode.

There is no "creative choice" here. This is just cutting corners, not doing the extra work to make a 60 FPS mode, and presenting it as if this is something revolutionary.


Well, that's optimistic.

It is a creative choice. The console can output at 60fps. The mental gymnastics some people go through on this forum lol

 

[Roxkis_ii]

It is a creative choice. The console can output at 60fps. The mental gymnastics some people go through on this forum lol

It's a creative choice to not have options??
Are you really against having a proformance option??

 

[CompetitionPro]

Hold on... will PC players see these "creative" 30 fps too or do they have to deal with "shitty" 60fps? Just wondering...

 

[Heisenberg007]

It is a creative choice. The console can output at 60fps. The mental gymnastics some people go through on this forum lol

Who's blaming the console here? Of course the console can output the 60 FPS. It can even do 120 FPS.

Not working to create a 60 FPS performance mode has nothing to do with the console. It has all to do with the developers cutting corners.

 

[damidu]

Starfield could have easily ran at 60fps on console. But in order to do that, they would have had to have stripped back features, textures etc to hit it. Therefore, a "CREATIVE DECISION" was taken to NOT do that and have it run smoothly at a locked 30fps.

lol you are basically describing what a hardware limitation is.
lets settle on "creative choice" forced by hardware limitation and be done with it.

 

[Calverz]

lol you are basically describing what a hardware limitation is.
lets settle on "creative choice" forced by hardware limitation and be done with it.

Yes. It’s a creative choice. The game would have to be scaled back in some way to hit 60fps.

 

[Calverz]

Not working to create a 60 FPS performance mode has nothing to do with the console. It has all to do with the developers cutting corners.

My first comment explained the comments. You can interpret it anyway you like. It was a creative choice.

 

[Bernardougf]

My first comment explained the comments. You can interpret it anyway you like. It was a creative choice.

So what about the series S, the game will be absolutely the same ? Only resolution scaled back ? And what to say about low/mid settings avaible on pc ? What will happen to the "creative choice" in this cases ? Or the creative choice tag only applies to the xbox series x and high to ultra options on the pc ?

Or Pc will have a new and revolutionary graphics mode called "creative choice mode" ? And the others will receive "not compatible with the developer creative choice" tag ?

You really cant see that out of the isolation of the xbox x case this creative choice narrative falls apart? If the xbox x was the only system avaible for this game it would make perfect sense talk about this... but with so many options avaible day 01 that will show various differences between them.. is really hard to support this creative choice theory/narrative

Even more so assuming this game will sell more on PC then on the series consoles...

 

[Heisenberg007]

Yes. It’s a creative choice. The game would have to be scaled back in some way to hit 60fps.

No, the "60 FPS mode" would have to be scaled back, not "the game". That's the difference. And which is why this argument of "creative choice" is completely false and an insult to the intelligence of gamers.

 

[Kataploom]

Let's see if they have the balls to make it 30 fps only on PC for maximum creative expression lol

 

[Bulletbrain]

No, the "60 FPS mode" would have to be scaled back, not "the game". That's the difference. And which is why this argument of "creative choice" is completely false and an insult to the intelligence of gamers.

Jfc it's just a matter of resource optimisation. Bethesda wants the game to look and play a certain way, and in order for that vision to be possible on the resources available on series consoles, they had to limit the framerate to 30fps. Whether it's a "creative" decision or "technological" decision is irrelevant, frankly.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Jfc it's just a matter of resource optimisation. Bethesda wants the game to look and play a certain way, and in order for that vision to be possible on the resources available on series consoles, they had to limit the framerate to 30fps. Whether it's a "creative" decision or "technological" decision is irrelevant, frankly.

I agree. No arguments there. But that's how every developer does it. And to account for that, they create 2 modes:

1. A 30 FPS mode, where they make the game look like they wanted to, at increased visual fidelity.
2. A 60 FPS mode, where they compromise the graphics in order to give players option to play at higher frames if they choose to.

What's misleading about this statement by Xbox is the fact that the existence of a 60 FPS mode does not compromise the look and fidelity of the game in 30 FPS mode.

 

[Bulletbrain]

I agree. No arguments there. But that's how every developer does it. And to account for that, they create 2 modes:

1. A 30 FPS mode, where they make the game look like they wanted to, at increased visual fidelity.
2. A 60 FPS mode, where they compromise the graphics in order to give players option to play at higher frames if they choose to.

What's misleading about this statement by Xbox is the fact that the existence of a 60 FPS mode does not compromise the look and fidelity of the game in 30 FPS mode.

In Starfield's case I'm inclined to believe the graphical/other compromises needed to get a locked 60 FPS might have proven too much. Maybe the RTGI solution would need so much downgrading that the whole visual identity of the game is lost. Maybe the resolution would have to be lowered so much more that the whole game ends up looking a soupy, shimmery mess. If the final visual output at 60fps becomes something Bethesda does not feel like what the game should look like at a minimum, I understand taking a decision to just not do a 60 FPS mode. It's unfortunate, yes, but it's a reality of working with fixed systems. On the other hand the game will be on PC and that's where people (including me) will individually decide on the best visuals/framerate balance, based on our own priorities and preferences. But I get the devs not wanting to put out a mode that they feel does not fairly represent their vision for the game on the consoles.

 

[Kamina]

The root problem is likely the outdated engine based in gamebryo.

 

[genesisblock]

It really is such a shame that Bethesda is the only open-world developer that's doing very ambitious RPG's aside from Star Citizen. I just wish even one of Sony's studios would attempt such a thing.

 

[dotnotbot]

It really is such a shame that Bethesda is the only open-world developer that's doing very ambitious RPG's aside from Star Citizen. I just wish even one of Sony's studios would attempt such a thing.

Yea I was thinking about that but they probably avoid this genre due to complexity. Games taking even longer to make and needing bigger budget is probably not what they are looking for.

 

[mansoor1980]

no one does open world rpg like bethesda , there is simply no alternative

 

[dotnotbot]

no one does open world rpg like bethesda , there is simply no alternative

I'm praying for Bioware come back

 

[Heisenberg007]

It really is such a shame that Bethesda is the only open-world developer that's doing very ambitious RPG's aside from Star Citizen. I just wish even one of Sony's studios would attempt such a thing.

RPG, yes, I agree. But open-world? I disagree. Starfield is not even a true open-world -- like Skyrim was, for example -- because its world is divided into 1,000 planets now.

 

[genesisblock]

Yea I was thinking about that but they probably avoid this genre due to complexity. Games taking even longer to make and needing bigger budget is probably not what they are looking for.

I would agree with this but Sony has been experimenting with "Open-world" since inFamous and they're only adding more and more to their library: Days Gone, GoT, hell GoW has evolved from Linear to open-hub. By then, their games are getting more technically complex, not exactly to the direction of Bethesda, but scalewise. So far, it's already matching Ubisoft in terms of open-world production values with Horizon/Spiderman.

By this time, they could take time to add more in-depth systems such as persistence and emergent gameplay. We don't need to worry about tracking "item A in next planet" or even stacking up a bunch of sandwiches but something that advances your typical quest-design, more investigation and player agency, then Bethesda will have a real challenger in their hands.

 

[FireFly]

No, the "60 FPS mode" would have to be scaled back, not "the game". That's the difference. And which is why this argument of "creative choice" is completely false and an insult to the intelligence of gamers.

It depends whether it's a CPU or GPU limitation.

So what about the series S, the game will be absolutely the same ? Only resolution scaled back ? And what to say about low/mid settings avaible on pc ? What will happen to the "creative choice" in this cases ? Or the creative choice tag only applies to the xbox series x and high to ultra options on the pc ?

Or Pc will have a new and revolutionary graphics mode called "creative choice mode" ? And the others will receive "not compatible with the developer creative choice" tag ?

You really cant see that out of the isolation of the xbox x case this creative choice narrative falls apart? If the xbox x was the only system avaible for this game it would make perfect sense talk about this... but with so many options avaible day 01 that will show various differences between them.. is really hard to support this creative choice theory/narrative

Even more so assuming this game will sell more on PC then on the series consoles...

On the PC it's on the user to pick suitable graphical settings, since developers don't know what combination of hardware will be used to run the game. But PC users with mid range PCs may also choose to lock to 30 FPS to get a smooth experience depending on how demanding it ends up being.

 

[Heisenberg007]

It depends whether it's a CPU or GPU limitation.

Yes, but in the case of Starfield, it is most likely not CPU related. Two reasons:

1. The CPU limitations are expected to be because of how Bethesda does object permanence and NPC. We've seen this in other games that run on 60 FPS. We've also seen the same level of CPU calculations in Bethesda's previous games -- Skyrim, Fallout, etc. -- that run 60 FPS on current-gen consoles easily.

2. Starfield's recommended PC requirements include AMD Ryzen 5 3600X. The CPU in Xbox Series X is the equivalent of AMD Ryzen 7 3700 X.

 

[Cr1ptkeeper]

The root problem is likely the outdated engine based in gamebryo.

Agreed. It's most likely their outdated engine that's the reason to cap it to 30.

Gollum also has bad performance on the series X, yet nobody is saying the Xbox isn't powerfull enough to run Gollum.
But with Starfield it's the fault of the hardware, not the developers...

You can have eye candy and 60 fps on console, it's been done many times in the past.

 

[Bernardougf]

It depends whether it's a CPU or GPU limitation.

On the PC it's on the user to pick suitable graphical settings, since developers don't know what combination of hardware will be used to run the game. But PC users with mid range PCs may also choose to lock to 30 FPS to get a smooth experience depending on how demanding it ends up being.

Yes is up to the user ... so the developer is not worried about keeping some high setting as minimal .. they make the game scalable as always... so 30 fps on xbox is not to mantain some high standard vision.. is because they could not be bothered at this time to optimize the game and have two graphics settings.. thats nothing to do with "creative visions" and thats fine .. just be honest about it

 

[FireFly]

Yes, but in the case of Starfield, it is most likely not CPU related. Two reasons:

1. The CPU limitations are expected to be because of how Bethesda does object permanence and NPC. We've seen this in other games that run on 60 FPS. We've also seen the same level of CPU calculations in Bethesda's previous games -- Skyrim, Fallout, etc. -- that run 60 FPS on current-gen consoles easily.

2. Starfield's recommended PC requirements include AMD Ryzen 5 3600X. The CPU in Xbox Series X is the equivalent of AMD Ryzen 7 3700 X.

1.) CPU usage is expected to be higher with Starfield due to procedural generation of content and dynamic light and weather simulation. We don't know how "heavy" their dynamic GI system is for example.
2.) Recommended for 60 FPS or 30 FPS?

Yes is up to the user ... so the developer is not worried about keeping some high setting as minimal .. they make the game scalable as always... so 30 fps on xbox is not to mantain some high standard vision.. is because they could not be bothered at this time to optimize the game and have two graphics settings.. thats nothing to do with "creative visions" and thats fine .. just be honest about it

Developers have minimum requirements precisely because they have some "vision" about how the game should be played. They're saying "you won't have a good experience on anything below this hardware". Though generally on PC they allow for a slightly worse experience on the low end. However I think it's conceivable that even with low settings on Starfied and an Xbox class PC, you won't be getting a consistent 60 FPS.

 

[Bernardougf]

1.) CPU usage is expected to be higher with Starfield due to procedural generation of content and dynamic light and weather simulation. We don't know how "heavy" their dynamic GI system is for example.
2.) Recommended for 60 FPS or 30 FPS?


Developers have minimum settings precisely because they have some "vision" about how the game should be played. They're saying "you won't have a good experience on anything below this hardware". Though generally on PC they allow for a slightly worse experience on the low end. However I think it's conceivable that even with low settings on Starfied and an Xbox class PC, you won't be getting a consistent 60 FPS.

If the xbox is running presumably high settings at 4k (upscaled) its pretty much guaranteed that an equivalent power PC will get better fps at lower settings and 1080P .... and at this time this narrative will go down the drain

You just cant PR an narrative vision only for 01 specific SKU and kindly forget all the others you support

I think the more honest message would be .. "at this time we coudnt get the game running on the series S at 60 fps without heavily compromises in both resolution and assets, so for the sake of our creative vision and parity between our consoles we chose to keep the game locked at 30 fps"

The problem is not xbox or the hardware... is the PR .. people after this many years can see trough the bullshit real easy ... the lies just have to stop, is becoming an eternal meme

 

[feynoob]

If the xbox is running presumably high settings at 4k (upscaled) its pretty much guaranteed that an equivalent power PC will get better fps at lower settings and 1080P .... and at this time this narrative will go down the drain

You just cant PR an narrative vision only for 01 specific SKU and kindly forget all the others you support

I think the more honest message would be .. "at this time we coudnt get the game running on the series S at 60 fps without heavily compromises in both resolution and assets, so for the sake of our creative vision and parity between our consoles we chose to keep the game locked at 30 fps"

Except you can modify lower PC unlike consoles.
There is a reason why PC is powerful than consoles.

 

[FireFly]

If the xbox is running presumably high settings at 4k (upscaled) its pretty much guaranteed that an equivalent power PC will get better fps at lower settings and 1080P .... and at this time this narrative will go down the drain

You just cant PR an narrative vision only for 01 specific SKU and kindly forget all the others you support

I think the more honest message would be .. "at this time we coudnt get the game running on the series S at 60 fps without heavily compromises in both resolution and assets, so for the sake of our creative vision and parity between our consoles we chose to keep the game locked at 30 fps"

The problem is not xbox or the hardware... is the PR .. people after this many years can see trough the bullshit real easy ... the lies just have to stop, is becoming an eternal meme

It will get better FPS, but whether it will get a locked 60 FPS is the question. We will see after launch.

 

[Bernardougf]

Except you can modify lower PC unlike consoles.
There is a reason why PC is powerful than consoles.

Sorry didnt understand your response
. Yes pc can be more powerful than consoles ... did I say otherwise ?

Im assuming, at this moment, that an equivalent power pc to the xbox x will run this game at lower resolutions/settings and achieve probably the 60 or close enough fps and the vrr can take care of the rest
If xbox x is running on the equivalent of high settings configuration pc

 

[feynoob]

Sorry didnt understand your response
. Yes pc can be more powerful than consoles ... did I say otherwise ?

Im assuming, at this moment, that an equivalent power pc to the xbox x will run this game at lower resolutions/settings and achieve probably the 60 or close enough fps and the vrr can take care of the rest
If xbox x is running on the equivalent of high settings configuration pc

I can change the CPU or other parts of my PC unlike consoles.
That changes the dynamics between and consoles.
We don't have fixed parts like consoles.

 

[Bernardougf]

I can change the CPU or other parts of my PC unlike consoles.
That changes the dynamics between and consoles.
We don't have fixed parts like consoles.

Sure ... everybody should know that ... but its beside the point Im trying to make right now.

But to your point.. working with a closed environment on consoles, especially a very good one like xbox x, should be even more easy to work around bottlenecks and achieve better results and more importantly give more options to yours clients , at least on par with the standards of the last years used in the games of your direct competition and quite frankly PRed by your own pr department.

The problem is the elephant in the roon.. or the tiny withe shitty box called series s ...

 

[feynoob]

Sure ... everybody should know that ... but its beside the point Im trying to make right now.

But to your point.. working with a closed environment on consoles, especially a very good one like xbox x, should be even more easy to work around bottlenecks and achieve better results and more importantly give more options to yours clients , at least on par with the standards of the last years used in the games of your direct competition and quite frankly PRed by your own pr department.

The problem is the elephant in the roon.. or the tiny withe shitty box called series s ...

I don't know what xss has anything to do with this.
It's just that console are stuck with that they have. They will have issues with any demanded games in the future.

GTA 6 will be the true test for that.

 

[Bernardougf]

I don't know what xss has anything to do with this.
It's just that console are stuck with that they have. They will have issues with any demanded games in the future.

GTA 6 will be the true test for that.

I disagree, third party are bound to multiple skus to develop for and dont have the obligation to push your harware to their limits.

Sony first party's maintaining all their flagship games with good feasible 60 fps options is really the comparison to be made.

Your competition parading 60 fps games and you stuck on the 30 fps era .. is not a good image at all, but thats just my opinion

And I understand that GTA 6 will also be an open world game equivalent maybe in scope and complexity of starfield and therefore the comparison. But third party and first party are two different horses altogether IMO

 

[feynoob]

I disagree, third party are bound to multiple skus to develop for and dont have the obligation to push your harware to their limits.

Sony first party's maintaining all their flagship games with good feasible 60 fps options is really the comparison to be made.

Your competition parading 60 fps games and you stuck on the 30 fps era .. is not a good image at all, but thats just my opinion

And I understand that GTA 6 will also be an open world game equivalent maybe in scope and complexity of starfield and therefore the comparison. But third party and first party are two different horses altogether IMO

Does Sony have any game that is scope of starfield?

 

[Bernardougf]

Does Sony have any game that is scope of starfield?

No they really dont ... and wont matter anyway ... xbox tused the 60 fps pr in the beginning because it is good pr..it just happened to come back to bite them in the ass ... so when and If comes a day that all sony games are 60 fps and xbox chooses to stay behind and market their games 30 fps as creative visions .. lets see what will happen to the already lower goodwill to their box

 

[feynoob]

No they really dont ... and wont matter anyway ... xbox tused the 60 fps pr in the beginning because it is good pr..it just happened to come back to bite them in the ass ... so when and If comes a day that all sony games are 60 fps and xbox chooses to stay behind and market their games 30 fps as creative visions .. lets see what will happen to the already lower goodwill to their box

It kind matters. Starfield is a CPU heavy game. It pushes the limit of these consoles.

 

[Calverz]

No, the "60 FPS mode" would have to be scaled back, not "the game". That's the difference. And which is why this argument of "creative choice" is completely false and an insult to the intelligence of gamers.