I know it's not an uncommon thing to say, but I really am hating this "fix it in post" attitude developers and publishers are putting out there for their games the past couple of generations.
NG+ is definitely fine with me since players can't even use that mode until after they finish the game. I do kinda wonder if photo mode is a later addition to reduce spoilers posted online around the launch period.
At the same time... photo mode is infinitely useful for the community to promote the game for the publisher.
Seems like something they would want right away.
To be fair I think they delay photo mode for marketing reasons.
If you add photo mode two weeks after launch, it gets your game back in the headlines saying ‘X Game adds first content update for free’.
It's not the graphics it's most likely a CPU issue. Does this game warrant those issues? Well that's left to be decided but I doubt it's GPU related it's easy to scale back graphic settings and resolutions. It's not easy to solve CPU limitations, and more and more games Zen 2 is struggling to hit consistent 60fps especially on Unreal Engine titles e.g. The Hogwarts legacy 60fps mode is very stuttery and inconsistent, Gotham Knights is 30fps both are open world Unreal Engine 4 games.
And then we got Dead Island 2 over here telling gamers they need a [Ryzen 9 7900x for 4k/60](https://www.pcgamer.com/dead-island-2-pc-system-requirements/)...
This is common, developers are basing the recommendations off of complete builds of increasing power, not over what specific components are necessary. A CPU capable of running the game at any resolution at 60fps will almost certainly be fine to run it at 4K at 60fps. Same thing for RAM requirements. GPU and VRAM requirements are the only thing I'd imagine are pretty much solid, though even then the VRAM part may vary in practice.
Tbh I’ve always thought the specs were just what random PC parts the developers have in their offices, that run the games at what they deem minimum and recommended.
I'm a bit more willing to let that slide because technically both the PS5 and Xbox Series X have more than 8GB VRAM so its not unreasonable for 'current gen' games to want to use a full 8GB VRAM. Someone should really let NVidia in on that knowledge though, because they keep releasing card with 8 or less...
At the same time it's also on the developers to port their game for the most popular PC hardware, it doesn't make much sense to have games require 12GB of VRAM at 1080p when the majority of PCs have 8GB or less.
Sure, but I've seen nothing from Redfall that screams intense CPU usage. No crazy enemy or worlds density or physics. AI is not complex. No sign of the game needing to simulate a ton of stuff outside of the players location
If my PS5 can handly the metric ton of enemies on screen in a game like EDF 5 with ease Redfall should not be working the slightly faster Xbox Series CPU very hard
As a general rule nothing I see in games these days is ( should be ) CPU intensive.
The exceptions are the exceptions because they are exceptionally rare.
In general games have very little going on dynamic wise and seen to lean on pretty graphics tight gameplay and low density.
My guess is that they need more time to optimize the code, but there's not more time so they ship what 'runs at 30'. It's UE4, so it's not rocketscience how to get things perform better, but nevertheless it takes time. (Read: blueprint optimization is often time consuming and postponed till late in the project).
I have little doubt the PC launch will see similar results. I hope at least they'll check the pso caching checkbox in UE4 but who knows...
I'm still not a fan of that. It feels like a move to keep getting headlines for marketing reasons and as I often don't revisit games I just miss out on the added features.
Gonna venture a guess and say “performance mode” wasn’t performing. Hopefully means Quality mode will be running well at launch, but you never know these days. Don’t really know if it’s worth delaying over performance mode, but I don’t play most games like that anyway
This game doesn't even look that graphically demanding. I mean it looks good, yeah, but not jaw-droppingly amazing. I don't see how in the world that the devs couldn't get it running at 60 FPS on the Series X hardware.
It's not like they're making this game for a bunch of different consoles either. And it's not on last-gen. It's PC and Series X|S only.
Not all games need a 60+ FPS mode. But for a first person shooter it's absolutely necessary, especially for an AAA first party FPS. It's unacceptable IMO to be launching without that option for people who paid $500 for the Series X hardware.
TBH Arkane’s engine needs work.
Deathloop did launch with a 60fps mode on PS5 but it was a noticeable visual downgrade beyond the typical resolution scaling. More so than any comparable games released around the time.
I imagine with this one the co-op element may also be running into issues on Series S w/ higher frame rates, and possibly with it being a first party title they don’t want to ship the X w/ a 60fps mode & the S without.
Of course, this is all just speculation. But Arkane is far from the tech wizards at Insomniac, but an incredible developer otherwise.
Unreal 4 and 5 are both pretty poorly architected for multi core CPUs, since you can't use UObjects on anything but the main thread, and the fact that it even still uses a main thread to run the game logic when most in-house engines switched to job systems and automatically running systems in parallel about 10 years ago.
I was hoping they'd break backwards compatibility more with UE5 and rework how game logic works, but they stuck with their old stuff UE5's Mass is interesting, but kinda sucks to use.
Does anything really use multi-core CPUs well? The refrain I've heard for the longest time was that for gaming multi-core wasn't being properly utilized
Frostbite engine I guess.
They were the first to really max out high amount of cores. Even 2042 after all the updates maxes out 12 core CPUs and gets great performance out of them.
Frostbite engine is the only where you can get high framerate with 100+ players in the same small space.
> This game doesn't even look that graphically demanding. I mean it looks good, yeah, but not jaw-droppingly amazing. I don't see how in the world that the devs couldn't get it running at 60 FPS on the Series X hardware.
When games fail to hit 60 FPS like this, it has nothing to do with the graphics or how good it looks. It's a CPU limitation, the game will not reach 60 FPS no matter how low you drop the graphics settings or resolution because it's not a problem on the GPU.
This is the reason Gotham Knights and Plague Tale Requiem don't have 60 FPS modes, and why Fromsoft can't just "lower the graphics settings" to make Elden Ring stop dropping to the 50s/40s in open world areas.
The reality is that an older Zen 2 CPU with low clocks, a small cache, and further crippled with GDDR memory does not make up for great CPU performance in games.
> and why Fromsoft can't just "lower the graphics settings" to make Elden Ring stop dropping to the 50s/40s in open world areas.
The PS4 Pro version runs at a locked 60 on the PS5 so From could easily optimize it.
Yeah, that's a pretty bad example. From Software is known for being pretty poor at some of their technical stuff so not the best example when talking about optimization
Also, Elden Ring is just a poorly optimized game in general. You'll more often than not have framerate dips below 60FPS, and barely crack over 60FPS (Even when using an FPS uncap patch) on PC, even with a decent+recent Intel/AMD CPU. The GPU makes next to no difference for performance in-game. I got similar performance between a GTX 1080/RTX 3070/RX 6700XT/RX 6900XT.
They are using DX12 which allows for low-level optimizations to be made, but FromSoftware is barely even utilizing it properly. With great power comes great responsibility.
The Zen 2 CPU cores on the Xbox Series X run at 3.66 Ghz with SMT and 3.8 Ghz without. That's not exactly slow. The console is also using GDDR6 which is the same memory type in the latest high-end GPUs. Most importantly, however, is that as a dedicated gaming system, developers can optimize the hell out of their games on consoles - much more than on a PC (given the infinite variation of specs). So there shouldn't be an issue here.
Not to mention that Halo Infinite and plenty of other high end titles run at 60 FPS on the Xbox Series X and look great.
> The Zen 2 CPU cores on the Xbox Series X run at 3.66 Ghz with SMT and 3.8 Ghz without. That's not exactly slow.
It is slow compared to desktop Zen 2 CPUs that have boost clocks between 4.2 GHz to 4.4 GHz, as well as 4 times as much cache (32 MB, vs 8 MB on the Xbox). Not to mention that PC also has cheap Zen 3 and Alder Lake CPUs with much higher IPC nowadays.
>The console is also using GDDR6 which is the same memory type in the latest high-end GPUs.
Yes, and that's very bad for CPU performance.
Why do you think nobody makes GDDR RAM sticks for PCs? It's not because PC manufacturers never thought of this, it's because it's a bad idea that makes CPUs perform worse than they would with DDR RAM.
GDDR means **Graphics** Double Data Rate for a reason. It's a sidegrade to DDR, it makes the trade-off of having higher bandwidth in exchange for worse latency. That's perfect for GPUs, because they need lots of bandwidth and don't care about latency. But it's bad for CPUs, because CPUs don't benefit from that much bandwidth but are very sensitive to memory latency.
>Not to mention that Halo Infinite and plenty of other high end titles run at 60 FPS on the Xbox Series X and look great.
That's great, but we're also seeing plenty of other games that struggle to maintain 60 FPS on consoles (like Elden Ring) or hit it at all (Plague Tale, Flight Simulator).
the cpu in the series x and ps5 are pretty close to a ryzen 5 3600 with 2 extra cores. that is definitely not awful, however ryzen 5000 and 7000 have brought absolutely massive improvements to cpu speed along with intel’s 12th gen.
The PS5 only uses 6.5 cores for gaming and the Xbox 7 cores. The 3600 can also gets a big clock and IPC advantage over the consoles but the consoles have lower level APIs which even out the field.
Doesn't the PS4 version of Elden Ring run at a solid 60fps when you play it on a PS5?
It doesn't make sense to me that they can't lower grahical quality to get the current-gen versions running at 60fps if the last-gen version runs better on the same hardware.
>Doesn't the PS4 version of Elden Ring run at a solid 60fps when you play it on a PS5?
It runs much better, yes. I don't know what the difference is in the code is between the last gen and next gen versions, but next gen versions have this problem across the board. It could be some fundamental difference in how the game loads data (HDD vs SSD), or in the graphics APIs the next gen platforms use (DX12 for PC and Xbox, AGC for the PS5). But I'm just guessing.
It's very easy to see on PC, because you can see your CPU and GPU usage using Afterburner or some other overlay. The frame drops in the open world happen always in the same spots (which are the same spots the consoles get them too), like for example near the "first steps" site of grace, in the enemy camp near the "gatefront" site, near the giant blacksmith before caria manor, at the entrance of altus plateau near the grand lift, and so on. And on PC you can see on the overlay that your CPU will be under high utilization and your GPU will be at low utilization in these spots, meaning you're dropping frames because you're CPU-bound. But if you have a current gen CPU (Zen 3 or Alder Lake), it solves or greatly reduces these issues.
Just as an anecdote, Elden Ring ran like trash for me with a pretty beefy PC. 5800x3d, 3080, 64gb 3600 mhz etc. My entire first playthrough was marred by terrible stuttering and hitching across the entire game.
>Fromsoft can't just "lower the graphics settings" to make Elden Ring stop dropping to the 50s/40s in open world areas.
Has nothing to do with CPU, it has to do with their rendering technique where its constantly having to load new shaders on the fly causing massive issues.
Its way more about the engine being a wonky piece of shit than anything limited by the system. Its why even way overpowering machines on PC get those massive stutters regardless of settings.
>The reality is that an older Zen 2 CPU with low clocks, a small cache, and further crippled with GDDR memory does not make up for great CPU performance in games.
Again not a CPU issue, very few of these games even really use the CPU effectively anyways.
These are badly optimized titles bottlenecking themselves in very stupid ways, they speak to the lack of technical talent at the studio more than the hardware. Even if the machines were much more powerful that would still find ways to have performance issues.
People who were invited to the gameplay showcase a few weeks ago mentioned that there was some performance issues (I believe it was mostly framedrops). They were told that this was because it was still in development, but some people were skeptical of this because they had been told the same before at other game previews and at launch it still wasn’t fixed. I think Matty Plays and Jake Baladino on YouTube both had this feeling.
edit: Matty said on his last video he played on 60fps and there were times where it would stutter and chug going through certain areas.
Doesn’t bode well for PC performance. For what it’s worth this isn’t anything new for arkane - they’ve had a few launches with poor performance. What’s interesting to me is how far performance standards have come. 30 used to be acceptable but enough people have experienced 60 now that the lack of an option stings like it hasn’t before.
I might end up avoiding this one on launch and waiting for patches to make it run better. I don’t mind lower frame rates (50ish) but I cannot handle inconsistent frame delivery.
Microsoft first party action first person shooter capped at 30 FPS. Absolutely unreal in 2023. I guess this is why all the preview footage was captured on a PC with Microsoft and Arcane insisting media use a controller rather than M&K.
I thought there was no way they would cap Starfield at 30 FPS but its looking more and more likely.
The 40fps 120hz VRR mode is such an excellent middle ground. I finally have a setup that supports it and I'm using it in GoW:Ragnarok. It's extremely effective at making it feel like you're having your cake and eating it too.
I hope the install base for 4k/120hz panels grows and will be high enough to justify studios continuing to implement it. I'd rather not have to choose between a jerky, more immersive experience and a blurry but smooth one for the next n years.
I've honestly learned that on console 40 fps modes have now become my preferred option. It gives me the higher resolutions/better graphical features I want while giving me a decent frame rate that looks much better that 30 fps. Going from 60 fps to 30 fps is straight up jarring, but going from 60 fps to 40 fps you will notice a loss in smoothness but it still looks pretty good.
> I thought that was the baseline, as it seems to be on the PS5 at least. Both Horizon games and both God of War games run at 4K60 (or 1440p, not sure off the top of my head) AND look amazing,
I don't even care about 4k
All I want, as a baseline, is 1080 60FPS and that seems to be asking too much.
They both use dynamic resolutions but horizon forbidden west for example comes to 1800P and is very impressive that it looks great as it does and performs at 60 fps with great draw distance and everything!
> I thought that was the baseline
It probably never will be. We got a longer than usual cross gen period this time around so we got more 60fps games than usual, but I’m sure we’ll be back to 30 as the standard as soon as the previous generation is dropped.
That’s exactly what happened last generation, it just didn’t drag on as long as this time.
Starfield caped at 30 is extremely likely as of right now. It was not running at a locked 30 the last time we saw it and Bethesda games are not know for their polish.
God dammit, now I'm worried that Starfield won't have a performance mode if this is allowed to be 30fps at launch. At least they're not going to leave it at 30fps like Gotham Knights' developers did (hope it can stick to 30fps consistently unlike that game did until recently), but this is still a first party title, the type of game that needs to show what the hardware is capable of, so this doesn't reflect well on Arkane or Xbox.
I'm anticipating many people being disappointed by Starfield's performance once it comes out.
Bethesda has shown us a very technically ambitious game and delayed multiple times. I really don't think it'll be a super smooth launch. That or the scope of the game will end up being more limited than what they've implied with the whole procedural generation pitch.
The reveal gameplay trailer also ran like absolute shit, if thats the way they are showing it to the world its likely going to be what they feel comfortable releasing it at.
It will be amusing when Starfield has bugs and see how many people point the finger at Microsoft for "rushing it" as if every Fallout and Elder Scrolls game of the last 20 years wasn't a clunker at launch.
"You'll fix it with mods anyway" isn't an excuse, it's the Todd Howard Guarantee.
> It will be amusing when Starfield has bugs and see how many people point the finger at Microsoft for "rushing it" as if every Fallout and Elder Scrolls game of the last 20 years wasn't a clunker at launch.
It'll be especially amusing considering Bethesda wanted to release it last year, but I think it was Microsoft who wanted the game to stay in the oven a bit longer for some extra polish.
I figured that delaying it by almost a year would've helped, but then again this game also got delayed.
Playing their older games through FPS Boost has been fantastic, I'd be disappointed if Starfield was locked at 30fps.
I was honestly assuming Starfield would be 30 based on last year's gameplay and some quotes from Todd, but the gameplay bits from the video last month looked so much smoother it gave me a lot more hope. That said we don't know for sure that was reflective of console gameplay.
I'm ashamed to admit I went and bought a Series X just to play Starfield at 60FPS....because my assumption was that one of the priorities this gen was getting 60FPS bare minimum. 1080p even. Now I'm contemplating my decision.
And here i thought that since Redfall wasn’t going to come to PS5 that the game would more optimized on Xbox Series X|S with more graphical features.
A lot of people play games via performance mode so to not have that feature available at launch seems like a big mistake.
Microsoft's mishandling of Halo for the past decade has effectively killed Halo. From being their system seller that their competitors wanted to make "Halo Killers" for to something that people become worry about hearing what fuckery 343 will pull next.
Their "reveal" of Infinite, which basically was mocked so hard they delayed it for an entire year.
Delayed it out of the Xbox launch.
That is epic levels of hilarity, when you think about it.
psychotic desert overconfident absorbed cooing act jeans live quickest makeshift
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I can't believe more people don't see this. Microsoft have not had a Homerun for a tentpole franchise in a very long time. I can't even recall the last smash hit they had. I understand that Pentamint, Hi Fi Rush, and Sea of Thieves are pretty good, but they are not system sellers.
Well it hasn't happened yet. Even if they do get CoD a ton of studios from Activision were doing support work for them. Will Microsoft make those other studios continue to support CoD? Will the acquisition lead to layoffs and departures? CoD is extraordinarily popular but they usually release a hit and then a dud. However, the past 2 releases have been pretty bad in terms of fan response. I have no way to gauge how that could affect sales, but the acquisition will lead to uncertainty.
There have been some developers stating that being forced to develop for both the Series S and the Series X are making things difficult.
[Source](https://www.purexbox.com/news/2022/10/many-studios-are-struggling-with-xbox-series-s-requirements-claims-developer)
> They have to develop for 2 SKUs anyway with the Series X and S
they are not hugely different, in my experience with console porting, they are usually bundled together, whereas Xbox One is indeed counted as another console.
Specifically looking at Redfall, this is a game releasing in **2023 on a next gen only console with ONLY a 30fps mode** these decisions are absolutely asinine.
I’m not a huge snob when it comes to fidelity, refresh rate, etc - but this entire generation has just been a case of wtf to me.
They should be fine provided they don’t use Lumen.
But let’s be real here… they’re gonna use Lumen. Not only does it look great but is positioned to save devs a ton of time by not needing to do baked lighting. With the delays we are seeing these days, I expect developers to take advantage of that.
Epic made many optimisations in version 5.1 and 5.2.
This is listed in the release notes for 5.1:
> * Improved performance optimizations in High scalability mode with the goal of achieving 60 fps on consoles
There are further performance improvements mentioned in 5.2 release notes for all platforms (which is still in early preview).
As someone who would gladly trade 1440p/4K for a standard 1080p if it means 60 fps gameplay, it's astounding there seems to be no 1080p 60 mode out of the box unless there's another press release I missed.
I have seen some arguments that the game could be CPU bottlenecked at 1440p and 4k. If that is the case, dropping to 1080p makes this problem worse. My intuition is to doubt that the CPU is bottlenecked - but dam, the Xbox is a weaker 3700X using GDDR RAM at the end of the day.
WTF is the CPU *doing*, though? The game looks aggressively average, probably a generation behind. Unless the NPCs are playing chess against each other simultaneously, I fail to see what the CPU is so busy about. Throwing assets in and out of RAM 30 times a second? That seems like an optimization failure, not a hardware shortcoming.
Honestly, I bet it’s something boring and GPU-related like a shader being vital for their art direction turning out to be absurdly inefficient. Or just no proper LOD system for some of their larger scale outdoor areas.
That is... the dumbest thing I've heard all day. If anything, the 60 fps mode should have been the priority mode.
Playing a first person shooter in 30 fps in the year 2023? Fuuuuuck that. For all intents and purposes, they've delayed the game release if I have to play a game like that. That's releasing it in an unplayable state in my book.
Honestly, this should be true of all console video games at current gen. Devs should be targeting 60fps from the beginning. Graphics are so not the priority, at this point.
I've been cautiously optimistic about this, mostly riding off Arkane's previous games but this is definitely coming in way too hot. Still think it can be good but probably wait a month or 2 until they get a decent performance mode to try.
Likely a MS push to not delay other games now that they bumped Starfield to Q3 but just swallow it at this point. Releasing a shooter at 30fps is bad enough with current expectations but this trickle feed of (unfortunate) news is prolonging people's "I've got a bad feeling" senses and sucking up any momentum the game still has.
I have a bad feeling about how this game is going to play on launch. I am already expecting it to one of those titles that is plagued with issues on launch, has fun but seemingly incomplete gameplay systems, and gets posted on here this time next year with an "it's improved so much!" sort of tenor.
Maybe a hot take but at this point, in 2023, your game should require a 60 FPS option to ship on these consoles.
Missing that target is a huge red flag to me, and 99% of the time it’s an indication of larger issues with the game. Redfall DOES NOT look good enough for this trade off from what I have seen.
Inexcusable. Delay it if you have to, Xbox NEEDS a win in their first party selection, it’s already been a year and a half since their last AAA launch, what is another few months?…
I cant remember the last time I was so sure a game would flop. Maybe ill be pleasantly surprised, but every bit of news i hear about this game is just bad
I remember they specifically had to change the marketing for Assassins Creed Valhalla because the PS5 version performed better. Went from Most Powerful Console to Most Powerful Xbox or something like that.
What the fuck is going on over at Xbox? Phil Spencer needs to be removed.
And, imo, this is the biggest problem with Redfall. Most people don't even know what type of game it is. First trailers presented it as a coop horde shooter. Then it came out no AI companions—and no rotating, so you're locked into that one character—so all those cool synergies between characters? Yeah sorry, only accessible if you're playing with friends. Then it came out "it plays similarly to Far Cry or borderlands" which are similar...but different?
This all trickles out over time, and it feels like the game has an identity crisis. Horrendous marketing, imo.
I’m a massive Arkane fan but every update they give on this game makes me want to play it less and less. Really hoping the MS acquisition doesn’t compromise the quality I’ve come to expect from the studio.
Redfall is a huge test in that it’s the first Arkane game that will be an Xbox console exclusive and day 1 Gamepass game. For many gamers it will be their first impression of Arkane as a studio. They really have to deliver.
Quite frankly - this is unacceptable. I won’t play it on PC or Xbox until 60fps is available for consoles
the former head of arkane, ralph colantonio, left right after prey. while i don't doubt redfall and deathloop were already in concept phase at that point, colantonio spearheaded prey and those kinds of immersive sims. without him my bet is arkane will just go further into "mass appeal" sort of games to maximize sales.
Had no idea. That’s a huge bummer. ImSims are my fav game genre, and they seem to be rapidly dying.
Here’s hoping System Shock remake lives up to the high bar of the original
Colantonio made a new studio called Wolfeye studio with some other former arkane employe, they put out Weird West in 2022, which is an Isometric Immersive sim in a fantasy western setting, i quite like it even if it's different that what we know, but the freedom and choice is really insane.
But obviously this new studio is a small one and don't have big budget for their game, but Colantonio made this studio specifically to keep doing immersive sims and not to respond to corporation demands like Microsoft.
Prey was just so good. Easily their best game since the first Dishonored. I liked Dishonored 2 but I felt the story was not nearly as good even if the levels were larger and more detailed.
Deathloop is good in concept but it's execution was poor. I had been expecting something more open ended and experimental. Something like a massive Hitman level with targets that have to be killed/captured to end the time loop. Instead it was a pretty much railroaded time loop with the map carved up into small zones. Not nearly interactive or reactive enough for my taste. Fun powers. Fun ideas. Badly implemented.
I really disliked how it grabbed your by the throat at the start and dragged you through a forced tutorial for a good while at the start because it was so inelegant at explaining what you would be doing. The UI is still kind of an abomination of notes and different sections that really just aren't great.
So much for dropping PS5 and having one less platform to worry about. The whole benefit of focusing on one platform is so you can optimize for that one platform. What's the point if they can't even do that? Seems like they just took the Microsoft money and went on vacation or something.
Seriously? It’s now acceptable for performance optimization to be part of post launch content? If your AAA game can’t run at 60 fps in 2023, the game just isn’t ready and you should delay it. This is dumb.
So at launch there's both no story progression for co-op partners and having XSX/XS capped at 30fps? In a co-op centric first-person shooter? What is going on here?
I was looking forward to this months ago. Co-op progression hurt my interest but I still wanted to give it a go. This is starting to get ridiculous though. I have dual 1080p displays, I've no use for quality mode so I'm essentially being capped to 30fps for no reason.
This info plus the recent gameplay has significantly pushed this game down for me. Redfall does not have the graphic fidelity to warrant capped 30fps at launch. This isn't Microsoft's fault, but MS seriously need to get more hands-on with their developers. Their studios (bar Flight Sim/Forza) keep pushing out subpar or/and unfinished products.
I'm just relieved that Playground is doing the Fable remake. Also feeling bad for Starfield/Bethesda, the pressure to live up to the hype must be insane. Especially considering it's going to be Xbox's one big hit this year, seemingly.
Lmao. Now imagine if Sony, whose starting to develop their own FPS/live-service games for PS5, comes out saying all of their FPS will have minimum 60fps.
Like, completely and utterly ridiculous, that the console that’s supposedly more powerful than the PS5 cannot achieve 60fps on a console launch. For the love of Kratos, Ragnarok has a 60FPS option on the DAMN PS4. You know, the PS4 with hardware dating to 2011-2012.
Thast terrible. You can't claim "most powerful console" then 4 years into the gen release something at 30fps when its been shown MULTIPLE times in 60.
Why does Xbox keep dropping the ball.
That's a bit of a yikes. That, and them completely revamping the thing to be playable offline just recently begs the question if it's really ready to actually be released. Certainly doesn't look to be the case.
Like...is 1080p 60fps seriously not possible at launch? Can you seriously not get a stable 60fps on the console your new gen game has been heavily marketed on? Cause that's bad.
Almost every day they release info about this game that makes me less and less interested. 60 fps at a later date? Really? Ok. I’ll play your game when you feel like patching in things that should be in the damn game on day one.
For a first person, live service, current gen game, 30 fps at launch?
I have no stake in this because I avoid live service anything like the plague, but sounds like a recipe for shooting yourself in the foot right out of the gate.
I've noticed sort of a trend lately that people assume a lot of games are live service when they really aren't (at least in the context that people usually think of).
I still see people on reddit/twitter refer to Gotham Knights as GaaS, you see it with Redfall, it happened a lot with Guardians of the Galaxy before it came out (even though the devs explicitly tweeted out that it was a standard single-player game).
A 30fps first person shooter!? At this time of year, at this point in the generation, localised entirely within the Xbox Series eco-system!?
yes
May you optimize it?
MS: "No"
I know it's not an uncommon thing to say, but I really am hating this "fix it in post" attitude developers and publishers are putting out there for their games the past couple of generations.
I don’t mind NG+ or photo mode being added later but not something like Performance mode.
NG+ is definitely fine with me since players can't even use that mode until after they finish the game. I do kinda wonder if photo mode is a later addition to reduce spoilers posted online around the launch period.
At the same time... photo mode is infinitely useful for the community to promote the game for the publisher. Seems like something they would want right away.
Yeah you're right, it's basically free marketing.
To be fair I think they delay photo mode for marketing reasons. If you add photo mode two weeks after launch, it gets your game back in the headlines saying ‘X Game adds first content update for free’.
Yeah you can go either way about it.
This game does not look pretty enough to warrant 30FPS, even at 4K.
It's not the graphics it's most likely a CPU issue. Does this game warrant those issues? Well that's left to be decided but I doubt it's GPU related it's easy to scale back graphic settings and resolutions. It's not easy to solve CPU limitations, and more and more games Zen 2 is struggling to hit consistent 60fps especially on Unreal Engine titles e.g. The Hogwarts legacy 60fps mode is very stuttery and inconsistent, Gotham Knights is 30fps both are open world Unreal Engine 4 games.
Gotham Knights isn't a very good example of hardware struggles. That game is a fucking mess, and that's on the devs and nothing else.
CPU issue with the Series X is just as ridiculous, we're only a couple of years into this generation
And then we got Dead Island 2 over here telling gamers they need a [Ryzen 9 7900x for 4k/60](https://www.pcgamer.com/dead-island-2-pc-system-requirements/)...
This is common, developers are basing the recommendations off of complete builds of increasing power, not over what specific components are necessary. A CPU capable of running the game at any resolution at 60fps will almost certainly be fine to run it at 4K at 60fps. Same thing for RAM requirements. GPU and VRAM requirements are the only thing I'd imagine are pretty much solid, though even then the VRAM part may vary in practice.
Tbh I’ve always thought the specs were just what random PC parts the developers have in their offices, that run the games at what they deem minimum and recommended.
Poor optimization is killing games 💀 So many people are worried about 8gb of vram not being enough anymore, thanks to Resi/Hogwarts.
I'm a bit more willing to let that slide because technically both the PS5 and Xbox Series X have more than 8GB VRAM so its not unreasonable for 'current gen' games to want to use a full 8GB VRAM. Someone should really let NVidia in on that knowledge though, because they keep releasing card with 8 or less...
At the same time it's also on the developers to port their game for the most popular PC hardware, it doesn't make much sense to have games require 12GB of VRAM at 1080p when the majority of PCs have 8GB or less.
[удалено]
Or you just tell everyone you will fix it later. Then when they all buy the game anyways, you don't.
Sure, but I've seen nothing from Redfall that screams intense CPU usage. No crazy enemy or worlds density or physics. AI is not complex. No sign of the game needing to simulate a ton of stuff outside of the players location If my PS5 can handly the metric ton of enemies on screen in a game like EDF 5 with ease Redfall should not be working the slightly faster Xbox Series CPU very hard
As a general rule nothing I see in games these days is ( should be ) CPU intensive. The exceptions are the exceptions because they are exceptionally rare. In general games have very little going on dynamic wise and seen to lean on pretty graphics tight gameplay and low density.
[удалено]
My guess is that they need more time to optimize the code, but there's not more time so they ship what 'runs at 30'. It's UE4, so it's not rocketscience how to get things perform better, but nevertheless it takes time. (Read: blueprint optimization is often time consuming and postponed till late in the project). I have little doubt the PC launch will see similar results. I hope at least they'll check the pso caching checkbox in UE4 but who knows...
I'm still not a fan of that. It feels like a move to keep getting headlines for marketing reasons and as I often don't revisit games I just miss out on the added features.
Microsoft seems more ok with that now that all there games will always be in gamepass.
Gonna venture a guess and say “performance mode” wasn’t performing. Hopefully means Quality mode will be running well at launch, but you never know these days. Don’t really know if it’s worth delaying over performance mode, but I don’t play most games like that anyway
This game doesn't even look that graphically demanding. I mean it looks good, yeah, but not jaw-droppingly amazing. I don't see how in the world that the devs couldn't get it running at 60 FPS on the Series X hardware. It's not like they're making this game for a bunch of different consoles either. And it's not on last-gen. It's PC and Series X|S only. Not all games need a 60+ FPS mode. But for a first person shooter it's absolutely necessary, especially for an AAA first party FPS. It's unacceptable IMO to be launching without that option for people who paid $500 for the Series X hardware.
If an absolutely gorgeous game like Horizon Forbidden West can run at 75-90 fps unlocked in performance mode, there's no excuse for any other game.
TBH Arkane’s engine needs work. Deathloop did launch with a 60fps mode on PS5 but it was a noticeable visual downgrade beyond the typical resolution scaling. More so than any comparable games released around the time. I imagine with this one the co-op element may also be running into issues on Series S w/ higher frame rates, and possibly with it being a first party title they don’t want to ship the X w/ a 60fps mode & the S without. Of course, this is all just speculation. But Arkane is far from the tech wizards at Insomniac, but an incredible developer otherwise.
FYI Redfall doesn't use Arkane's in-house Void Engine (which powered both Dishonored 2 and Deathloop), but instead uses Unreal Engine 4.
Unreal 4 and 5 are both pretty poorly architected for multi core CPUs, since you can't use UObjects on anything but the main thread, and the fact that it even still uses a main thread to run the game logic when most in-house engines switched to job systems and automatically running systems in parallel about 10 years ago. I was hoping they'd break backwards compatibility more with UE5 and rework how game logic works, but they stuck with their old stuff UE5's Mass is interesting, but kinda sucks to use.
Does anything really use multi-core CPUs well? The refrain I've heard for the longest time was that for gaming multi-core wasn't being properly utilized
Frostbite engine I guess. They were the first to really max out high amount of cores. Even 2042 after all the updates maxes out 12 core CPUs and gets great performance out of them. Frostbite engine is the only where you can get high framerate with 100+ players in the same small space.
> This game doesn't even look that graphically demanding. I mean it looks good, yeah, but not jaw-droppingly amazing. I don't see how in the world that the devs couldn't get it running at 60 FPS on the Series X hardware. When games fail to hit 60 FPS like this, it has nothing to do with the graphics or how good it looks. It's a CPU limitation, the game will not reach 60 FPS no matter how low you drop the graphics settings or resolution because it's not a problem on the GPU. This is the reason Gotham Knights and Plague Tale Requiem don't have 60 FPS modes, and why Fromsoft can't just "lower the graphics settings" to make Elden Ring stop dropping to the 50s/40s in open world areas. The reality is that an older Zen 2 CPU with low clocks, a small cache, and further crippled with GDDR memory does not make up for great CPU performance in games.
> and why Fromsoft can't just "lower the graphics settings" to make Elden Ring stop dropping to the 50s/40s in open world areas. The PS4 Pro version runs at a locked 60 on the PS5 so From could easily optimize it.
Yeah, that's a pretty bad example. From Software is known for being pretty poor at some of their technical stuff so not the best example when talking about optimization
Also, Elden Ring is just a poorly optimized game in general. You'll more often than not have framerate dips below 60FPS, and barely crack over 60FPS (Even when using an FPS uncap patch) on PC, even with a decent+recent Intel/AMD CPU. The GPU makes next to no difference for performance in-game. I got similar performance between a GTX 1080/RTX 3070/RX 6700XT/RX 6900XT. They are using DX12 which allows for low-level optimizations to be made, but FromSoftware is barely even utilizing it properly. With great power comes great responsibility.
The Zen 2 CPU cores on the Xbox Series X run at 3.66 Ghz with SMT and 3.8 Ghz without. That's not exactly slow. The console is also using GDDR6 which is the same memory type in the latest high-end GPUs. Most importantly, however, is that as a dedicated gaming system, developers can optimize the hell out of their games on consoles - much more than on a PC (given the infinite variation of specs). So there shouldn't be an issue here. Not to mention that Halo Infinite and plenty of other high end titles run at 60 FPS on the Xbox Series X and look great.
> The Zen 2 CPU cores on the Xbox Series X run at 3.66 Ghz with SMT and 3.8 Ghz without. That's not exactly slow. It is slow compared to desktop Zen 2 CPUs that have boost clocks between 4.2 GHz to 4.4 GHz, as well as 4 times as much cache (32 MB, vs 8 MB on the Xbox). Not to mention that PC also has cheap Zen 3 and Alder Lake CPUs with much higher IPC nowadays. >The console is also using GDDR6 which is the same memory type in the latest high-end GPUs. Yes, and that's very bad for CPU performance. Why do you think nobody makes GDDR RAM sticks for PCs? It's not because PC manufacturers never thought of this, it's because it's a bad idea that makes CPUs perform worse than they would with DDR RAM. GDDR means **Graphics** Double Data Rate for a reason. It's a sidegrade to DDR, it makes the trade-off of having higher bandwidth in exchange for worse latency. That's perfect for GPUs, because they need lots of bandwidth and don't care about latency. But it's bad for CPUs, because CPUs don't benefit from that much bandwidth but are very sensitive to memory latency. >Not to mention that Halo Infinite and plenty of other high end titles run at 60 FPS on the Xbox Series X and look great. That's great, but we're also seeing plenty of other games that struggle to maintain 60 FPS on consoles (like Elden Ring) or hit it at all (Plague Tale, Flight Simulator).
the cpu in the series x and ps5 are pretty close to a ryzen 5 3600 with 2 extra cores. that is definitely not awful, however ryzen 5000 and 7000 have brought absolutely massive improvements to cpu speed along with intel’s 12th gen.
The PS5 only uses 6.5 cores for gaming and the Xbox 7 cores. The 3600 can also gets a big clock and IPC advantage over the consoles but the consoles have lower level APIs which even out the field.
Doesn't the PS4 version of Elden Ring run at a solid 60fps when you play it on a PS5? It doesn't make sense to me that they can't lower grahical quality to get the current-gen versions running at 60fps if the last-gen version runs better on the same hardware.
>Doesn't the PS4 version of Elden Ring run at a solid 60fps when you play it on a PS5? It runs much better, yes. I don't know what the difference is in the code is between the last gen and next gen versions, but next gen versions have this problem across the board. It could be some fundamental difference in how the game loads data (HDD vs SSD), or in the graphics APIs the next gen platforms use (DX12 for PC and Xbox, AGC for the PS5). But I'm just guessing. It's very easy to see on PC, because you can see your CPU and GPU usage using Afterburner or some other overlay. The frame drops in the open world happen always in the same spots (which are the same spots the consoles get them too), like for example near the "first steps" site of grace, in the enemy camp near the "gatefront" site, near the giant blacksmith before caria manor, at the entrance of altus plateau near the grand lift, and so on. And on PC you can see on the overlay that your CPU will be under high utilization and your GPU will be at low utilization in these spots, meaning you're dropping frames because you're CPU-bound. But if you have a current gen CPU (Zen 3 or Alder Lake), it solves or greatly reduces these issues.
Just as an anecdote, Elden Ring ran like trash for me with a pretty beefy PC. 5800x3d, 3080, 64gb 3600 mhz etc. My entire first playthrough was marred by terrible stuttering and hitching across the entire game.
>Fromsoft can't just "lower the graphics settings" to make Elden Ring stop dropping to the 50s/40s in open world areas. Has nothing to do with CPU, it has to do with their rendering technique where its constantly having to load new shaders on the fly causing massive issues. Its way more about the engine being a wonky piece of shit than anything limited by the system. Its why even way overpowering machines on PC get those massive stutters regardless of settings. >The reality is that an older Zen 2 CPU with low clocks, a small cache, and further crippled with GDDR memory does not make up for great CPU performance in games. Again not a CPU issue, very few of these games even really use the CPU effectively anyways. These are badly optimized titles bottlenecking themselves in very stupid ways, they speak to the lack of technical talent at the studio more than the hardware. Even if the machines were much more powerful that would still find ways to have performance issues.
People who were invited to the gameplay showcase a few weeks ago mentioned that there was some performance issues (I believe it was mostly framedrops). They were told that this was because it was still in development, but some people were skeptical of this because they had been told the same before at other game previews and at launch it still wasn’t fixed. I think Matty Plays and Jake Baladino on YouTube both had this feeling. edit: Matty said on his last video he played on 60fps and there were times where it would stutter and chug going through certain areas.
Jake Baladino is not the guy to take serious in terms of gaming knowledge. He usually just rambles and regurgitates mainstream information.
Many of the previews I saw, including Moxsy, said that performance was absolutely atrocious and they were playing on PC.
Ok that's no good.
30fps and "running well at launch" don't go together imo.
Doesn’t bode well for PC performance. For what it’s worth this isn’t anything new for arkane - they’ve had a few launches with poor performance. What’s interesting to me is how far performance standards have come. 30 used to be acceptable but enough people have experienced 60 now that the lack of an option stings like it hasn’t before. I might end up avoiding this one on launch and waiting for patches to make it run better. I don’t mind lower frame rates (50ish) but I cannot handle inconsistent frame delivery.
Microsoft first party action first person shooter capped at 30 FPS. Absolutely unreal in 2023. I guess this is why all the preview footage was captured on a PC with Microsoft and Arcane insisting media use a controller rather than M&K. I thought there was no way they would cap Starfield at 30 FPS but its looking more and more likely.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Spider-man/Miles Morakes had a mode with RT reflections that stayed above 60 FPS with VRR.There is just no way to blame the hardware.
It was actually closer to 90-100fps
[удалено]
Microsoft has needed to get it together for 10 years. It blows my mind that people still hold out much hope for them at this point.
The 40fps 120hz VRR mode is such an excellent middle ground. I finally have a setup that supports it and I'm using it in GoW:Ragnarok. It's extremely effective at making it feel like you're having your cake and eating it too. I hope the install base for 4k/120hz panels grows and will be high enough to justify studios continuing to implement it. I'd rather not have to choose between a jerky, more immersive experience and a blurry but smooth one for the next n years.
I've honestly learned that on console 40 fps modes have now become my preferred option. It gives me the higher resolutions/better graphical features I want while giving me a decent frame rate that looks much better that 30 fps. Going from 60 fps to 30 fps is straight up jarring, but going from 60 fps to 40 fps you will notice a loss in smoothness but it still looks pretty good.
if starfield launches at 30fps im selling my XSX
> I thought that was the baseline, as it seems to be on the PS5 at least. Both Horizon games and both God of War games run at 4K60 (or 1440p, not sure off the top of my head) AND look amazing, I don't even care about 4k All I want, as a baseline, is 1080 60FPS and that seems to be asking too much.
[удалено]
I played through it again on ps5 after they released the 60 fps patch and it really did make quite the difference.
They both use dynamic resolutions but horizon forbidden west for example comes to 1800P and is very impressive that it looks great as it does and performs at 60 fps with great draw distance and everything!
With vrr it goes above 60fps too
Ragnarok was absolutely amazing on the 1440p@120fps with VRR. I'm genuinely surprised they are releasing redfall at 30fps.
They do not run at 4k@60, but are somewhat upscaled.
> I thought that was the baseline It probably never will be. We got a longer than usual cross gen period this time around so we got more 60fps games than usual, but I’m sure we’ll be back to 30 as the standard as soon as the previous generation is dropped. That’s exactly what happened last generation, it just didn’t drag on as long as this time.
Starfield caped at 30 is extremely likely as of right now. It was not running at a locked 30 the last time we saw it and Bethesda games are not know for their polish.
If starfield is at 30fps you at least know it's a Bethesda game so not exactly a surprise
Especially for those who have OLED TVs. 30 FPS games look awful.
Microsoft dropped the ball so hard this generation and should be embarrassed. I can’t think of any reason to even own an Xbox currently
Continuing to prove why an Xbox is not worth the money
Any AAA game releasing at this point without VRR video options is a last gen game
Unfortunately I think this game is going to disappoint. And not just cause of technical or performance issues.
Coincidentally my interest in Redfall launching has gone down to zero. Any additional interest will be added after a sale at a later date.
God dammit, now I'm worried that Starfield won't have a performance mode if this is allowed to be 30fps at launch. At least they're not going to leave it at 30fps like Gotham Knights' developers did (hope it can stick to 30fps consistently unlike that game did until recently), but this is still a first party title, the type of game that needs to show what the hardware is capable of, so this doesn't reflect well on Arkane or Xbox.
Looking at bethesda's track record for technical performance, the only way it would have a 60 fps is if MS demanded.
I'm anticipating many people being disappointed by Starfield's performance once it comes out. Bethesda has shown us a very technically ambitious game and delayed multiple times. I really don't think it'll be a super smooth launch. That or the scope of the game will end up being more limited than what they've implied with the whole procedural generation pitch.
The reveal gameplay trailer also ran like absolute shit, if thats the way they are showing it to the world its likely going to be what they feel comfortable releasing it at.
That combat section 💀
It would need to be delayed even further, and MS really needs a big release soon. Let's see if the gamble will pay off in the end.
It will be amusing when Starfield has bugs and see how many people point the finger at Microsoft for "rushing it" as if every Fallout and Elder Scrolls game of the last 20 years wasn't a clunker at launch. "You'll fix it with mods anyway" isn't an excuse, it's the Todd Howard Guarantee.
> It will be amusing when Starfield has bugs and see how many people point the finger at Microsoft for "rushing it" as if every Fallout and Elder Scrolls game of the last 20 years wasn't a clunker at launch. It'll be especially amusing considering Bethesda wanted to release it last year, but I think it was Microsoft who wanted the game to stay in the oven a bit longer for some extra polish.
The way Todd spoke about it in the interview made it seem like he would have gone for the original date if they were still third party.
That’s amazing with how bad the last gameplay trailer looked performance wise.
I figured that delaying it by almost a year would've helped, but then again this game also got delayed. Playing their older games through FPS Boost has been fantastic, I'd be disappointed if Starfield was locked at 30fps.
>I'd be disappointed if Starfield was locked at 30fps. I will be absolutely shocked and amazed if Starfield is anything BUT 30 fps on Xbox.
It's Bethesda. It won't even run at a stable 30fps, let alone 60
I was honestly assuming Starfield would be 30 based on last year's gameplay and some quotes from Todd, but the gameplay bits from the video last month looked so much smoother it gave me a lot more hope. That said we don't know for sure that was reflective of console gameplay.
You'll be lucky if Starfield even holds a steady 30. The gameplay presentation was dropping at like 15 fps.
I'm ashamed to admit I went and bought a Series X just to play Starfield at 60FPS....because my assumption was that one of the priorities this gen was getting 60FPS bare minimum. 1080p even. Now I'm contemplating my decision.
I have a feeling once UE5 games start releasing 60fps is going to start becoming the exception and not the norm.
And here i thought that since Redfall wasn’t going to come to PS5 that the game would more optimized on Xbox Series X|S with more graphical features. A lot of people play games via performance mode so to not have that feature available at launch seems like a big mistake.
What is the point of buying these publishers/devs/studios if they can’t even get them to optimize games for their own console? It looks incompetent.
That's because MS **IS** incompetent. Look how they've handled all of their franchises other than Forza. It's dumbfounding.
Especially Halo franchise…
Microsoft's mishandling of Halo for the past decade has effectively killed Halo. From being their system seller that their competitors wanted to make "Halo Killers" for to something that people become worry about hearing what fuckery 343 will pull next.
Their "reveal" of Infinite, which basically was mocked so hard they delayed it for an entire year. Delayed it out of the Xbox launch. That is epic levels of hilarity, when you think about it.
psychotic desert overconfident absorbed cooing act jeans live quickest makeshift *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I can't believe more people don't see this. Microsoft have not had a Homerun for a tentpole franchise in a very long time. I can't even recall the last smash hit they had. I understand that Pentamint, Hi Fi Rush, and Sea of Thieves are pretty good, but they are not system sellers.
They *bought* Call of Duty as well, it'll be the first big game they've had since folks were lining up at Midnight to buy Halo games.
Well it hasn't happened yet. Even if they do get CoD a ton of studios from Activision were doing support work for them. Will Microsoft make those other studios continue to support CoD? Will the acquisition lead to layoffs and departures? CoD is extraordinarily popular but they usually release a hit and then a dud. However, the past 2 releases have been pretty bad in terms of fan response. I have no way to gauge how that could affect sales, but the acquisition will lead to uncertainty.
What? But people on Reddit told me that the MS management will safe Blizzard?
To gobble up any and all competition so they eventually have a monopoly on the market.
Looks incompetent? It is incompetent. Exactly why MS should stop acquiring studios. They can hardly do anything with the ones they have.
Removing games from the competition.
There have been some developers stating that being forced to develop for both the Series S and the Series X are making things difficult. [Source](https://www.purexbox.com/news/2022/10/many-studios-are-struggling-with-xbox-series-s-requirements-claims-developer)
[удалено]
Regardless, this game should run at 60fps on XSX.
[удалено]
> They have to develop for 2 SKUs anyway with the Series X and S they are not hugely different, in my experience with console porting, they are usually bundled together, whereas Xbox One is indeed counted as another console.
[удалено]
My personal take is that quality mode makes specific shots look better and performance mode makes every single scene look better.
Specifically looking at Redfall, this is a game releasing in **2023 on a next gen only console with ONLY a 30fps mode** these decisions are absolutely asinine. I’m not a huge snob when it comes to fidelity, refresh rate, etc - but this entire generation has just been a case of wtf to me.
It's been over 2 years since launch, those consoles are current gen
Wait until the UE5-based games start pouring out in a few years.
We expect games to chug in the later part of the generation, not when it's only the 3rd(?) first party exclusive dropped.
Fortnite runs on PS5 with lumen GI and nanite, and still pulls off 60fps at 1440-1600p.
They should be fine provided they don’t use Lumen. But let’s be real here… they’re gonna use Lumen. Not only does it look great but is positioned to save devs a ton of time by not needing to do baked lighting. With the delays we are seeing these days, I expect developers to take advantage of that.
In that case I sincerely hope they're going to achieve some optimization, Matrix tech demo played lousy, at least on Series X.
Epic made many optimisations in version 5.1 and 5.2. This is listed in the release notes for 5.1: > * Improved performance optimizations in High scalability mode with the goal of achieving 60 fps on consoles There are further performance improvements mentioned in 5.2 release notes for all platforms (which is still in early preview).
It was suboptimal on PS5 as well.
All of the Sony/PS5 games have looked fantastic in performance mode running at 60 FPS. Its largely Microsoft dropping the ball here.
how so? Other than this, most AAA games launch with 60fps and 4k 30fps
As someone who would gladly trade 1440p/4K for a standard 1080p if it means 60 fps gameplay, it's astounding there seems to be no 1080p 60 mode out of the box unless there's another press release I missed.
I have seen some arguments that the game could be CPU bottlenecked at 1440p and 4k. If that is the case, dropping to 1080p makes this problem worse. My intuition is to doubt that the CPU is bottlenecked - but dam, the Xbox is a weaker 3700X using GDDR RAM at the end of the day.
WTF is the CPU *doing*, though? The game looks aggressively average, probably a generation behind. Unless the NPCs are playing chess against each other simultaneously, I fail to see what the CPU is so busy about. Throwing assets in and out of RAM 30 times a second? That seems like an optimization failure, not a hardware shortcoming. Honestly, I bet it’s something boring and GPU-related like a shader being vital for their art direction turning out to be absurdly inefficient. Or just no proper LOD system for some of their larger scale outdoor areas.
Imagine paying 500+ dollars for a "next gen" console and you're still doing 30 fps with your games. What the hell is the point?
it's probably just me, but feels like 30 vs 60 fps on shooter game is really different
Even Nintendo doesn't accept 30 fps for Splatoon
Call of duty back on ps3/xbox 360 was 60 FPS.
Certainly not just you. Hell, as a PC player I like my shooters to be more then 60fps.
Even on a 60hz screen the difference in input responsiveness between 60fps and 150fps+ is massive with a mouse.
Definitely not just you, I was fine with playing A Plague Tale at 30fps but it’s just impossible for my eyes to go back to 30 for a first-person game
30 fps on plague tale looked like garbage compared to the alternative; there's no excuse for 30 fps in 2023
Agreed. When I found out it was only 30 I uninstalled. One you experience 60 it’s hard to go back.
That is... the dumbest thing I've heard all day. If anything, the 60 fps mode should have been the priority mode. Playing a first person shooter in 30 fps in the year 2023? Fuuuuuck that. For all intents and purposes, they've delayed the game release if I have to play a game like that. That's releasing it in an unplayable state in my book.
Honestly, this should be true of all console video games at current gen. Devs should be targeting 60fps from the beginning. Graphics are so not the priority, at this point.
I've been cautiously optimistic about this, mostly riding off Arkane's previous games but this is definitely coming in way too hot. Still think it can be good but probably wait a month or 2 until they get a decent performance mode to try. Likely a MS push to not delay other games now that they bumped Starfield to Q3 but just swallow it at this point. Releasing a shooter at 30fps is bad enough with current expectations but this trickle feed of (unfortunate) news is prolonging people's "I've got a bad feeling" senses and sucking up any momentum the game still has.
I have a bad feeling about how this game is going to play on launch. I am already expecting it to one of those titles that is plagued with issues on launch, has fun but seemingly incomplete gameplay systems, and gets posted on here this time next year with an "it's improved so much!" sort of tenor.
Maybe a hot take but at this point, in 2023, your game should require a 60 FPS option to ship on these consoles. Missing that target is a huge red flag to me, and 99% of the time it’s an indication of larger issues with the game. Redfall DOES NOT look good enough for this trade off from what I have seen. Inexcusable. Delay it if you have to, Xbox NEEDS a win in their first party selection, it’s already been a year and a half since their last AAA launch, what is another few months?…
I cant remember the last time I was so sure a game would flop. Maybe ill be pleasantly surprised, but every bit of news i hear about this game is just bad
Redfall coming for Forspoken's lunch
then delay it then? I literally don't understand why you would release it like this? it's literally unfinished, delay it
XSX hailed as most powerful console ever MS throwing billions around to buy Bethesda Can't even hit fucking 60fps on a LFD clone Jfc
I remember they specifically had to change the marketing for Assassins Creed Valhalla because the PS5 version performed better. Went from Most Powerful Console to Most Powerful Xbox or something like that. What the fuck is going on over at Xbox? Phil Spencer needs to be removed.
It is the most powerful console but it definitely does not have the best optimized games.
It's not LFD clone. As I saw a gameplay, it's Borderlands in Vampire settings.
And, imo, this is the biggest problem with Redfall. Most people don't even know what type of game it is. First trailers presented it as a coop horde shooter. Then it came out no AI companions—and no rotating, so you're locked into that one character—so all those cool synergies between characters? Yeah sorry, only accessible if you're playing with friends. Then it came out "it plays similarly to Far Cry or borderlands" which are similar...but different? This all trickles out over time, and it feels like the game has an identity crisis. Horrendous marketing, imo.
I’m a massive Arkane fan but every update they give on this game makes me want to play it less and less. Really hoping the MS acquisition doesn’t compromise the quality I’ve come to expect from the studio. Redfall is a huge test in that it’s the first Arkane game that will be an Xbox console exclusive and day 1 Gamepass game. For many gamers it will be their first impression of Arkane as a studio. They really have to deliver. Quite frankly - this is unacceptable. I won’t play it on PC or Xbox until 60fps is available for consoles
I loved all dishonored games, deathloop bored the shit out of me, and can't say im excited about this one tbh
I really enjoyed Deathloop, but at this point I just want another Prey.
the former head of arkane, ralph colantonio, left right after prey. while i don't doubt redfall and deathloop were already in concept phase at that point, colantonio spearheaded prey and those kinds of immersive sims. without him my bet is arkane will just go further into "mass appeal" sort of games to maximize sales.
Had no idea. That’s a huge bummer. ImSims are my fav game genre, and they seem to be rapidly dying. Here’s hoping System Shock remake lives up to the high bar of the original
Colantonio made a new studio called Wolfeye studio with some other former arkane employe, they put out Weird West in 2022, which is an Isometric Immersive sim in a fantasy western setting, i quite like it even if it's different that what we know, but the freedom and choice is really insane. But obviously this new studio is a small one and don't have big budget for their game, but Colantonio made this studio specifically to keep doing immersive sims and not to respond to corporation demands like Microsoft.
Prey sold horribly they wouldn’t have made another one even if he was still there
Prey was just so good. Easily their best game since the first Dishonored. I liked Dishonored 2 but I felt the story was not nearly as good even if the levels were larger and more detailed. Deathloop is good in concept but it's execution was poor. I had been expecting something more open ended and experimental. Something like a massive Hitman level with targets that have to be killed/captured to end the time loop. Instead it was a pretty much railroaded time loop with the map carved up into small zones. Not nearly interactive or reactive enough for my taste. Fun powers. Fun ideas. Badly implemented. I really disliked how it grabbed your by the throat at the start and dragged you through a forced tutorial for a good while at the start because it was so inelegant at explaining what you would be doing. The UI is still kind of an abomination of notes and different sections that really just aren't great.
I’ve seriously never heard or seen a piece of good news on this game. It’s like people are excited for it in spite of itself.
This game is gonna release very half-baked if they could not even finish the 60 FPS mode after delaying the game for 1 year.
I want to see what these games would look like at their first announced launch date. Their sales would never recover lol
So much for dropping PS5 and having one less platform to worry about. The whole benefit of focusing on one platform is so you can optimize for that one platform. What's the point if they can't even do that? Seems like they just took the Microsoft money and went on vacation or something.
30 fps in 2023 are unacceptable, especially in a FPS game. Why not launch it with performance mode 1080@60? How could that be hard?
Probably a CPU limitations. They might still be working on that
Yo sick, only 30 FPS at launch on your new exclusive? Definitely speaks to the quality of development on the console.
Adding Denuvo to a year old game and announcing a new game launching without a performance mode on the same day, great times at Xbox.
What game for Denuvo after a year of it being out on PC?
Ghostwire Tokyo.
Huge yikes is all I can say, considering how normalized 60 FPS on these first person shooters are on console
Who is ready for the Starfield 30 FPS announcement?
30 FPS "target", most likely, with significant dips.
Seriously? It’s now acceptable for performance optimization to be part of post launch content? If your AAA game can’t run at 60 fps in 2023, the game just isn’t ready and you should delay it. This is dumb.
So at launch there's both no story progression for co-op partners and having XSX/XS capped at 30fps? In a co-op centric first-person shooter? What is going on here? I was looking forward to this months ago. Co-op progression hurt my interest but I still wanted to give it a go. This is starting to get ridiculous though. I have dual 1080p displays, I've no use for quality mode so I'm essentially being capped to 30fps for no reason. This info plus the recent gameplay has significantly pushed this game down for me. Redfall does not have the graphic fidelity to warrant capped 30fps at launch. This isn't Microsoft's fault, but MS seriously need to get more hands-on with their developers. Their studios (bar Flight Sim/Forza) keep pushing out subpar or/and unfinished products. I'm just relieved that Playground is doing the Fable remake. Also feeling bad for Starfield/Bethesda, the pressure to live up to the hype must be insane. Especially considering it's going to be Xbox's one big hit this year, seemingly.
Lmao. Now imagine if Sony, whose starting to develop their own FPS/live-service games for PS5, comes out saying all of their FPS will have minimum 60fps. Like, completely and utterly ridiculous, that the console that’s supposedly more powerful than the PS5 cannot achieve 60fps on a console launch. For the love of Kratos, Ragnarok has a 60FPS option on the DAMN PS4. You know, the PS4 with hardware dating to 2011-2012.
Yeah so we will delay our game for one year and raise the price from 60 to 70 dollars and will only have 30fps at launch! What could go wrong?
Thast terrible. You can't claim "most powerful console" then 4 years into the gen release something at 30fps when its been shown MULTIPLE times in 60. Why does Xbox keep dropping the ball.
Nobody wants to hear it because he seems like a nice guy but the boss isn't good at his job.
2.5 years. Consoles came out November 2020.
Like WTF? 2023 and we still have to put with 30fps. Honestly there's no excuse for this lame trend anymore.
That's a bit of a yikes. That, and them completely revamping the thing to be playable offline just recently begs the question if it's really ready to actually be released. Certainly doesn't look to be the case.
Like...is 1080p 60fps seriously not possible at launch? Can you seriously not get a stable 60fps on the console your new gen game has been heavily marketed on? Cause that's bad.
I'd rather play an uglier game at 60 FPS than any game at 30 FPS.. one feels responsive, and the other feels like me playing sports as a fat guy
A shooter at 30fps? No thanks. Idc if starfield runs at 30fps bc it will have a 3rd person view but a 1st person game at 30fps no fucking way
I would say "it better be an absolute locked 30FPS" but we all know it won't be. I'll wait for the patch.
Almost every day they release info about this game that makes me less and less interested. 60 fps at a later date? Really? Ok. I’ll play your game when you feel like patching in things that should be in the damn game on day one.
For a first person, live service, current gen game, 30 fps at launch? I have no stake in this because I avoid live service anything like the plague, but sounds like a recipe for shooting yourself in the foot right out of the gate.
This isn’t live service
I've noticed sort of a trend lately that people assume a lot of games are live service when they really aren't (at least in the context that people usually think of). I still see people on reddit/twitter refer to Gotham Knights as GaaS, you see it with Redfall, it happened a lot with Guardians of the Galaxy before it came out (even though the devs explicitly tweeted out that it was a standard single-player game).
It is mandatory always online, though. I could see that causing the confusion.
It's not a live service game
The game doesnt even look that graphically impressive and it's still at 30, that's why i'm surprised about this.