"less enjoyable" is a personal opinion, though. It's 30fps because of things you can do in the game and not because of bad optimization. They could also release a 60fps Starfield but give you less of the game they have in mind. 

Sure, 60fps would be much better but that doesn't help when the game itself would be worse then.

The game will look smoother when whipping your gun around in first person to aim at people thanks to the high quality motion blur, but if you have input latency issues with 30 fps it won't help there of course. But I personally don't think input latency will be a big issue in a singleplayer shooter like this, it's not like you are more likely to lose a singleplayer fight due to a poorer input latency, like you might in a multiplayer game. 

I was quite impressed by the motion blur in the direct honestly, I thought most of the scenes in the Starfield direct were 60 fps when watching it live that day, with only a few that looked 30 fps to me, so I thought that Bethesda was going back and forth between showing off PC max settings at 60 fps and Series X at 30 fps. Now to find out it was 30 fps the entire direct has me a bit shook, because it looked 60 fps most of the time for me. I'm impressed by what Bethesda has achieved and don't think I will have any issues with the 30 fps now. Especially if you choose to play it in 3rd person, that 30 fps will be even less of an issue visually then.

Well technically that's also a personal opinion of game we haven't even played yet :P 

And I did state 30fps os somewhat understandable in this case. 30fps is less enjoyable to play than 60fps tho.

From what Todd has said, there are many times they've been able to get Starfield to run at 60fps on console, but it's so insanely inconsistent that they would prefer consistency, which I can respect. Star Wars Jedi Survivor performance mode comes to mind which was so bad many just preferred to play in quality mode.

DF gave Star Citizen as an example of where when on an empty planet, 60fps was pretty good, but GPU was running at 99% usage. Then when going into a city, which is going to be pretty heavy in Starfield still, the framerate dropped into the teens and every single CPU core was almost at 100% usage. So console for Starfield may be CPU limited. 

Which makes sense. I was playing CP2077 on PC, and when I was in the wastelands, I had no problem getting 70-80fps on High settings. But when I got into the center Night City....dropped into the 20s consistently. I had to adjust the graphics settings for hours to be able to get a consistent framerate. But, a lot of the graphical stuff I was sacrificing, Todd Howard doesn't want to do. He wants all the visual fidelity, which looked amazing at the Direct on Sunday, along with consistent performance.

60fps will always be preferred, but if that means a performance mode is so inconsistent that it's jarring, then I wouldn't want it.

What I meant with "worse" is worse for those who work on the game and what they want to achieve with it. It doesn't look to me as if it's just a random shooter which is only 30fps because of incompetent devs. 

The power IS there, it is already resulting in huge improvements, Starfield would not have been possible on Xbox One at this level of fidelity, scale alongside the typical Bethesda simulation and physics based systems. It simply isn't being used in the areas that you personally want it to be used it but that doesn't mean it isn't being used.

Starfield is a heavily CPU bound title, no amount of lowering the graphics will change that. The consoles CPU isn't good enough. They'd have to make major cuts to gameplay systems, engine mechanics, etc. They'd have to remove a bunch of stuff which makes a Bethesda title, a Bethesda title, in exchange for something that Bethesda has never been known for (60fps).

That'd make Starfield less enjoyable to me. I'd rather they kept all the AI interactions, the AI life systems which make the world feel alive, the saving of real time positions no matter where, the physics and simulation based systems and not just keep them but improve on them, instead of it having 60fps and having to cut back on a large part of that because I'll shoot in first person for maybe 50% of the game...If even that, Lol.

Nobody is really calling anyone out for being disappointed but the fanboys who think it means Bethesda is incompetent and other dumb shit, or dooming the title over it not having 60fps when the vast majority will frankly not give a shit because sadly (and this happens every gen) developers chase after graphics because it's what the consumer at large cares more about.

Game design isn't just framerate. I look at Starfield and can't think of many titles that come close to the scale that Starfield is attempting to pull off with all the systems alongside it too. They're taking a step forward in practically every single way for a Bethesda title, as evidenced by that Digital Foundry video.

Almost every single technical aspect that Starfield is doing is a big leap forward from Fallout/Elder Scrolls, aside from the facial animation which is a small step forward. At worse? The 30fps is not a step back nor a step forward, it's the same as always, Bethesda releasing a 30fps title. Everything else is at minimum a small step forward and on average, a very large step forward.

Starfield, if it isn't a buggy disaster and is largely stable, would be a huge technical achievement.

You thought MakesMeSoft put a lot of repetitive content and collectibles in Valhalla, welcome to SW Outcasts with an ENTIRE GALAXY of repetitive shit and collectibles. Main char is a major cutey tho.

Also on the topic of Fables allegedly “ugly main characters” … it’s woke to be ugly now? What my life come to … my entire face is a controversy ;-;

Hard to say yet if 30 fps will become the norm on consoles again this gen or not. We did have several recent and upcoming games that released with either only 30 fps mode at launch (Plague Tale Requiem, Redfall, Starfield) or a 30 fps mode that works and a performance mode that didn't really work (Star Wars Jedi Survivor, Final Fantasy 16 demo). However, we also have plenty of recent and upcoming games that target 60 fps or offer both 30 fps and 60 fps performance modes, and those games seem to far outnumber the ones that were 30 fps only.

Personally I think we will see most developers continue to offer a performance mode option in addition to a locked 30 fps, even if that that performance mode isn't quite a locked 60 fps (though anything over 40 fps is good enough for a VRR screen at least). The 30 fps only games will be rare I think, and mainly due to CPU limitations that can't be fixed by simply lowering resolution on a performance mode, as is the case with Starfield.

Mid gen consoles would alleviate these issues and ensure 60 fps for virtually every game this generation. However, as of now, it seems that only Sony plans to release a mid gen PS5 Pro, as leaked by the very reliable Tom Henderson for a Holiday 2024 release. Phil Spencer on the other hand just indicated that he doesn't see the need for a mid-gen Xbox console this gen. There is both good and bad to this decision by Xbox. On the one hand, forcing developers to develop for 3 different Xbox Series specs the remainder of this generation into the cross-gen period at the start of next gen, would definitely ruffle some feathers, considering some developers are already mad about having to optimize for 2 Xbox Series specs. On the other hand, no mid gen Xbox console means no alleviation for the 30 fps problem in CPU intensive games like Starfield until backwards compatibility when the next-gen Xbox drops in 4 or 5 years, a long wait for those 60 fps diehards who absolutely refuse to play a game at 30 fps these days. However, back on the pros column, not releasing a mid-gen Xbox could potentially open up Xbox to release the first next-gen console and build up an early install base lead like they did on 360, which could alleviate alot of the problems that Xbox has with some developers not wanting to make Xbox ports.