Hitting a locked 60 fps is possible on virtually every game, with only a few exceptions like Gotham Knights which have some unique technical issue preventing it. Hitting a locked 60 fps is simply a matter of lowering the resolution and/or graphics setting enough that the minimum framerate when testing goes above 60 fps, and then turning on vsync. If a PC gamer can hit a locked 60 fps by adjusting the resolution and/or graphics settings, than a game developer can do the exact same thing with the console version of a game. We also know that there is no unique technical limitation preventing 60 fps in Redfall like there was with Gotham Knights, because the preview event was running on PC's at 60 fps. 

The reason we see some games releasing with performance modes that aren't a locked 60 fps on consoles these days is because a. The devs clearly don't want to make the necessary resolution and or graphics settings hits needed to hit a locked 60 fps, and b. VRR screens are becoming more an more common, and VRR means that a game can run at framerates of 40-55 fps without the screen tearing or stuttering you would typically see when running a game at those non-refresh rate framerates.

Wasn't A Plague Tale: Requiem only 30fps too?

I'm just going to go with the Digital Foundry guys on this one, they know a lot more than I do They're expecting 30fps on Starfield (for Xbox) and an increase in 30fps titles as the generation goes on (because developers/consumers care more about resolution). You're setting yourself up for disappointment at this stage if you expect 60fps to become the norm.

Starfield & Redfall is an Apples and Oranges comparison as well, completely different titles, one needs 60fps way more than the other, not to mention, one has a far better reason to not hit 60fps than the other (the one which is a massive open world RPG with advanced simulations running across all objects at all times).

I don't know. I do not think 30FPS will be the norm. I mean the majority of games are 60FPS or even 120FPS and have a performance mode so I'm not sure where they are coming from.  At the end it has nothing to do with UE5 even, I mean it is really in the hands of devs. 

While the Series X, is not as powerful as good high-end PC, I don'T believe developers have do make a lot of sacrifice to achieve 60FPS (just need time to do it like Redfall ;)). On the Series S tho... That's another story :D

I think there is a lot of over-reaction from this Redfall debacle, the patch is coming later to support 60FPS, the issue is just that it is not at launch. People seems to forget that. I'm with you when you said that they should just have delayed it instead and all of this would be history :)

Bookmark this: I'm expecting Starfield to have a performance mode at 60FPS :) 

Every single generation has prioritised resolution over fps so I don't see why this gen would be any different.

We've not seen many true next gen only titles yet, a lot of cross-platform titles running at 60fps/120fps though.

https://youtu.be/rpFPm3WUjzs?t=1063

Benji is another who spoke on it and I don't know if he's speaking from a position of insider knowledge but he seems pretty certain as well, a quote: "I've got bad news for you guys, there's a lot coming that aren't 60, I'll just say that right now, so you've got to get used to it" "There's a lot of games that are going to be shipping at 30"

Again, I don't know if he's speaking on knowledge or a guess but his statement seems pretty definitive for a guess, Lol.

Be nice if I'm wrong though, Starfield at 60fps would be cool, I just don't think it's that important.

Don't know if I agree with that, a first person shooter is a first person shooter, rather one has RPG elements or not (and both Redfall and Starfield have RPG elements). 60 fps is definitely important in any first person shooter, 30 fps is far more noticeable with a first person camera than with a 3rd person camera, always has been. I still remember Far Cry 4 getting shat on by a good many people for being 30 fps on PS4/XB1 and that was late 2014, it's 2023 now, almost 9 years later, more people than ever before find 30 fps unacceptable now, especially with a first person camera. 9 years ago I was one of those people that didn't care that Far Cry 4 was 30 fps, I found it totally acceptable at the time. Now though, I tried the 30 fps mode in Ghostwire Tokyo just a few days ago (also a first person camera game), and it just felt totally unplayable to me, ended up having to switch to the HFR Graphics mode with vsync, which looks like it's about 50 fps to my eyes but works fairly well on a VRR screen like mine.

I think there's a large difference between the two, Starfield will be a much slower paced title than Redfall will be which will be almost constant action, Starfield also has the option of TPS. Starfield will be far less action packed than most primarily FPS titles and you'll probably spend hours overall walking around doing absolutely no shooting. Redfall's primary objective is to go and kill shit. Starfield's seems more to be go and explore.

“We don’t have a problem with 30 frames per second as long as it looks really good and the simulation is running and all that stuff,” said Todd Howard.

Maybe we get it though on Series X, 1080p/60fps, Lol.

Expecting 60fps in a core Bethesda game on console when they’ve never released a 60fps game on console (original release, not a FPS boosted or re-release) just makes you look silly, cmon now. If you want 60fps it’s simple .. get a PS5. 

Anyway, back to GOTY talk. VS DLC is great, the new bow hero is actually pretty challenging to play as. Love the new powers too, once the prismatic missile evolves it’s like a fucking 90s rave going off. 

I only play Bethesda RPG's in third-person I just couldn't get into the first-person gameplay. Maybe because of how slow their games are.