Initially, I thought there would be mixed reactions across games media and fans when the 30 frames per second lock was announced for Starfield. However, almost all of the major voices in the media argued the opposite. Anyone who wants 60 FPS in Starfield is wrong, and console gamers are just getting greedy again. But is that really the case?
It has been argued that 60 FPS mode is unnecessary, and all those arguments are coming from PC gamers. There are too many components that define next-generation games that were left out of the conversation.
The Genie is Out of the Bottle for Console
Over the past couple of years, 60 FPS performance modes have become a staple of almost every game released. This started with lower resolution games like Fortnite as early as the PS4 Pro. As a result, console gamers expect that same sweet 60 FPS experience in every next-generation game.
MORE: All Revealed Starfield Factions Listed – Open Universe!
Defining why players don’t want to go back to lower frames by saying “I think 30 FPS is fine” or “Console gamers are just entitled” is not enough. It’s a simple fact that 60 FPS looks better, and moving backward doesn’t feel good. Nevertheless, that’s not the real issue. Instead, the issue is that Starfield is too complex, and consoles are just too cheap. This sentiment however ignores how technology changes.
The Price of Consoles Shouldn’t Matter for Starfield Performance Mode
I have seen countless arguments claiming that we will see much more games return to 30 FPS because consoles are simply too cheap and outdated. But that’s not really the case, is it? Nearly all the games released on next-generation consoles have had a fairly smooth Performance Mode. Yes, many of them are also on previous-generation consoles, and they do not run well.
When we compare how technology evolves, 60 FPS today is what 30 FPS was for AAA games 10 years ago. It’s not always clear how much a graphics card costs in comparison to a console. Consoles are cheap, but what do you think a $1,500 graphics card does? I can assure you that people spending thousands on a current PC aren’t looking for 60 frames per second. Depending on the game, they want 120 or even 300 frames per second. In PC terms, 60 frames per second is considered the minimum or even poor performance.
In other words, saying 60 FPS for Starfield isn’t feasible on consoles because they’re cheap and outdated doesn’t necessarily make sense. As 60 FPS is outdated when it comes to PC games, it makes perfect sense on a console timeline as framerate and resolution will increase again and prices will go up.
We Already Know Starfield is Capable of 60 FPS on Console
I get it, Starfield is a massive game with tons of object permanence that slows down performance. There have been lots of arguments about whether 60 FPS is too complicated for console play. I did not say it’s easy to reach 60 FPS or that Starfield is not difficult. But you don’t have to take my word for it. Todd Howard has already confirmed it.