Where does "Microsoft’s original claim of first-party Xbox Series X/S titles always running at 60 FPS." come from?

I don't remember that, nor do I remember him apologising for breaking that claim during the interview. I'm pretty sure most gamers with common sense can't have expected Starfield being 60fps on console, and I doubt Xbox would ever be foolish enough to try and sell that illusion.

...Ok, I found the Game Informer article that you so conveniently didn't bother to link here, and ironically they were kind enough to link the twitter video of what they were apparently referencing--

"I think back to the announcement of 60fps, and then we weren't shipping 60fps..."

So logically hearing that, someone with common sense would assume he's just referring to Redfall. But obviously the hardworking game media chose to instead run with that and re-phrase his words, likely misquoting him and misinforming the public in order to create some buzz. Imagine my surprise.

And you obviously never bothered to fact check it. Imagine my surprise.

Variable refresh rate resolves the inconsistent sub-60fps issue.

And you are right, it does nothing for frame times, but that isn't what I was asserting, ergo. Not a contradiction.

There's going to be an unfortunate trend of faux 60fps modes just to avoid twitter backlash.

Looks at recent FFXVI demo where the quality mode capped at 30fps is objectively the smoother experience but they've thrown in a "performance" mode to make people feel like they've been given options. The terrible thing about that is people are actually picking & playing in the performance mode and wondering why things feel weird.

 Nah quality mode was chunking up badly for me just standing in a room moving the camera. It felt better playing in performance mode. Neither was super smooth. Also, It has nothing to do with recent Twitter drama. Demos of games are always several-month-old builds. Demo's themselves take a while to make. We already know now the demo is an older build than what SE was showing in April. So we don't know the actual performance of the final game yet.

I wish they'd build a new engine from scratch,instead of modifying it. There are things that are outdated in the showcase

What's interesting is that I think this is probably an objectively wrong analysis, the 30fps mode is 30 99% of the time. 

PS5 Final Fantasy 16 Demo Frame Rate - YouTube

Your experience of the camera chunking in empty rooms could be the motion blur artefacts from the upscalling, moving to higher frames typically reduces the amount of motion blur unless developers specifically increase the shutter angle in high frame rate modes to match the aesthetic of the 30fps modes.

Otherwise are you using a VRR display? If not, you're more comfortable with a wildly eratic frames between 40-60 than a stable 30fps, which is fine as a personal preference but is definitely an uneven experience compared to a stable 30fps.

Another question out of curiosity, which mode did you try first? 

As for the twitter backlash, I'm not just referring to this but also other games like Jedi Survivor where the 60fps modes are essentially just uncapped framerate modes with no real ability to stabalise around the 60fps mark. In the past these games would have been capped at 30 to deliver a consistent experience and more resources could of gone into maintaining that 30fps experience. Nowadays it feels like there are performance modes being thrown out knowing full well that the games were never targeting that and haven't been optimised for it.

No VRR on my TV. 3-year-old 4K display. I always go framerate first but I also always try RT/Quality modes in games. I always end up going framerate in any game this generation. Miles Morales had a nice option for RT Performance mode. It was nice but I still ended up turning RT off. Unless it benefits gameplay I'm just not seeing the upsale on RT aside from just shiny things. I got over things being shinier and being impressed with the 7th gen.

Like with every generation of consoles, it comes a time when games outgrow the hardware. It was still far better run than what we had during the 8th gen. Now that's coming from an inhouse studio that surly spent significant amount of time and resources to optimise it for this specific hardware, which makes me very worried about the PC version.

I think this is very crutial and it also partly why I think developers should sometimes take the initiative with prioritising certain modes or hiding some options deeper in the menu instead of presenting them to the gamer out the gate. 

The experience of frames is based many things like proximity to screen, moniter etc but also context/conditioning. Going from a high framerate to a low framerate will almost always make the lower frame rate look weird for a few minutes as it takes the eyes brain/time to adjust and read it as smooth, since it was previous reading way more frames. It's like going from a dim room to a bright one or vice versa. Starting a game from the 30fps mode is an entirely different experience and is why whenever we look at gameplay demos/trailers, the 30fps mode rarely doesn't stand out as stuttery if its a stable framerate.

If you toggle between them, I'd normally start with the quality mode unless the deveoper has defaulted to performance like GOW etc. Typically I go in with a strong idea of what mode I'll be using based off previews/reviews, but if I don't I give the graphics mode at least 10-15mins to settle in. If the performance mode is solid and you don't mind the visual trade offs, then no harm is starting  there. But if it's all over the place (something that constantly rears its head) you risk setting yourself up for an experience where fps is a persisent distraction, versus a stable 30 fps mode which which your brain will just get entirely be used to it and framerate won't be a factor in your experience ouside from a few minor hitches here and there. 

It's all entirely subjective to your experience of course but this is something that I've noticed. 

What are you talking about ?