Starfield will be locked at 30 fps on consoles; PC requirements revealed

[midian182]

A hot potato: It used to be a common sight: console games locked at 30 fps while the power of the PC pushed frames to 60 fps and well beyond. That started to change with the arrival of more powerful machines, such as the Xbox Series X. But it seems when it comes to Starfield, owners of Microsoft's consoles are going to be stuck with 30 fps.

Ahead of the Starfield showcase yesterday, part of the Summer Game Fest, Bethesda's Todd Howard spoke to IGN about the game's console performance. He confirmed that it will run at 4K on the Xbox Series X and 1440p on the Xbox Series S – there's no PlayStation version - but it will be locked at 30 fps on both machines.

"I think it'll come as no surprise, given our previous games, what we go for," Howard said. "Always these huge, open worlds, fully dynamic, hyper detail where anything can happen. And we do want to do that. It's 4K in the X. It's 1440 on the S. We do lock it at 30."

Howard said that Bethesda did get Starfield running at 60 fps on console during its development phase, but the company took the decision to lock the final version at 30 fps because it doesn't want to sacrifice any fidelity to gain more frames. "We prefer the consistency, where you're not even thinking about it."

"And we don't ever want to sacrifice that experience that makes our games feel really, really special. So it feels great. We're really happy with how it feels even in the heat of battle. And we need that headroom because in our games, really anything can happen," Howard continued.

The news of Starfield's performance will come as a disappointment to Xbox Series owners, most of whom weren't happy when Redfall arrived on console with a 30 fps cap after Microsoft had previously shown it running on PC at 60 fps.

Yesterday also saw Starfield's PC requirements land on Steam, where it can now be pre-ordered. Like almost all modern AAA games, this one is going to take up a massive chunk of your SSD: 125GB.

Starfield's minimum recommendations include a Ryzen 5 2600X/Intel i7-6800K combined with a Radeon RX 5700/GTX 1070 Ti and 16GB of RAM.

As for the recommended specs, Bethesda picks a Ryzen 5 3600X/Intel i5-10600K and a Radeon RX 6800 XT/RTX 2080 while keeping the RAM at 16GB. There's also a broadband internet connection required, though we don't know if this needs to be a constant connection while playing.

Full specs:

Minimum

• OS: Windows 10 version 22H2 (10.0.19045)
• Processor: AMD Ryzen 5 2600X, Intel Core i7-6800K
• Memory: 16 GB RAM
• Graphics: AMD Radeon RX 5700, NVIDIA GeForce 1070 Ti
• DirectX: Version 12
• Network: Broadband Internet connection
• Storage: 125 GB available space
• Additional Notes: SSD Required

Recommended

• OS: Windows 10/11 with updates
• Processor: AMD Ryzen 5 3600X, Intel i5-10600K
• Memory: 16 GB RAM
• Graphics: AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080
• DirectX: Version 12
• Network: Broadband Internet connection
• Storage: 125 GB available space
• Additional Notes: SSD Required

It's unclear what kind of performance or resolution these specs offer, either. For comparison, the Unreal Engine 5-powered Lords of the Fallen also recommends an RTX 2080, and that's just for 1080p gameplay.

Bethesda showed off a full 45 minutes of Starfield during its showcase, including the story, cities, skill trees, upgrades, space combat, and much more. Check out the whole video at the top of the page.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/99024-starfield-locked-30-fps-consoles-pc-requirements-revealed.html

 

[dangh]

... Is that a joke? Wasn't that supposed to be 'most powerful console'? I will be playing it on PC (but first will see how really good it is), but for now what I seen do not really prevent 60fps option. We seen last Horizon, works well in 60, and it is not even a shooter rpg...

 

[Peter Farkas]

That minimum with the RX 5700, 1070ti is brutal. Just looked at May's Steam Hardware Survey and most of the gamers on Steam will not meet the minimum. I wonder how they plan on selling a lot of copies of this game with such high requirements (in light of the survey results).

 

[bviktor]

Here's to the year of 4K gaming!

 

[Gharren]

If it could run in 4K at 30 fps, then it should be able to run at 1080p at around 120 fps, which is much preferable. Definitely targeting the wrong goals here, because '4K' is such a trendy word right now.

 

[Neatfeatguy]

So far it looks okay from the videos and gameplay I've seen, but you never know how things will turn out when it's completely finished. I may be tempted to pick up a copy of this game, but what holds me back is the 125GB size - data caps are a bit¢h.

I'm curious to how it really plays in terms of performance, if it's just another game where physics are tied to FPS from Bethesda or if the game runs fine if the frames are uncapped. You got wonky physics if you ever uncapped the frames on Bethesda's Fallout games.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

... Is that a joke? Wasn't that supposed to be 'most powerful console'? I will be playing it on PC (but first will see how really good it is), but for now what I seen do not really prevent 60fps option. We seen last Horizon, works well in 60, and it is not even a shooter rpg...

Why are you surprised? It's a Bethesda game, it's going to be a broken janky arse game that might set your console on fire. Be grateful daddy Todd gave you 30 FPS.

So far it looks okay from the videos and gameplay I've seen, but you never know how things will turn out when it's completely finished. I may be tempted to pick up a copy of this game, but what holds me back is the 125GB size - data caps are a bit¢h.

I'm curious to how it really plays in terms of performance, if it's just another game where physics are tied to FPS from Bethesda or if the game runs fine if the frames are uncapped. You got wonky physics if you ever uncapped the frames on Bethesda's Fallout games.

It's a Bethesda game. You already know the answer.

 

[m4a4]

If it could run in 4K at 30 fps, then it should be able to run at 1080p at around 120 fps, which is much preferable. Definitely targeting the wrong goals here, because '4K' is such a trendy word right now.

No, not if it's CPU bound. Wouldn't matter if you had it set to 480p, it wouldn't consistently run much faster.

Which, with how ambitious the game sounds (and how many systems are going to be in the game), I can't say I'm surprised that it sounds so heavy on the CPU.
If it can stay solid at 30fps, I don't see a point in console folks complaining if the game otherwise delivers...

 

[m4a4]

I'm curious to how it really plays in terms of performance, if it's just another game where physics are tied to FPS from Bethesda or if the game runs fine if the frames are uncapped. You got wonky physics if you ever uncapped the frames on Bethesda's Fallout games.

Older games (on old game engines) sometimes did not to have the physics tied to a fixedDeltaTime (the older the game, the more likely it wasn't). Modern games (and modern game engines) will have it tied to a fixedDeltaTime (so it's independent of framerate).

So yeah, we do know the answer lol

 

[kira setsu]

That minimum with the RX 5700, 1070ti is brutal. Just looked at May's Steam Hardware Survey and most of the gamers on Steam will not meet the minimum. I wonder how they plan on selling a lot of copies of this game with such high requirements (in light of the survey results).

why play on pc if you cant even meet this low of an entry? may as well just snag a ps5/xbox and be set for a few years.

 

[gamerk2]

... Is that a joke? Wasn't that supposed to be 'most powerful console'? I will be playing it on PC (but first will see how really good it is), but for now what I seen do not really prevent 60fps option. We seen last Horizon, works well in 60, and it is not even a shooter rpg...

Everything on the Xbox is going to be specked against the S, not the X. The budget Xbox option cripples it.

 

[poshflamingos]

That minimum with the RX 5700, 1070ti is brutal. Just looked at May's Steam Hardware Survey and most of the gamers on Steam will not meet the minimum. I wonder how they plan on selling a lot of copies of this game with such high requirements (in light of the survey results).

Most console gamers do not meet the minimum either. Only 20 million of the 60 million Xbox One users have upgraded to a Series X/S so far, so Bethesda is also limiting themselves to only a third of the console market. That's normal for next-gen games, as the generation moves on more people will upgrade their PCs or buy a Series X/S console, and then they can get Starfield.
As for the requirements, they seem fine to me. The minimum GTX 1070 is a 7-year-old mid-range GPU, and the recommended RTX 2080 is as fast as the Series X. Keep in mind that today you only need a $280 RX 6700 to match a RTX 2080 (and the Series X), the $220 RX 6600 XT also gets close enough, and so does the $280 RTX 3060.

 

[McMurdeR]

I know there are a few die hards out there who don't care, but 30fps will disappoint the console community. It's also an ominous insight into where this title currently is from an optimisation perspective.

This is the first of several gaffs to come I expect, the hype level on this title is sky high, and there's too much riding on it. Even if it turns out to be amazing, it will be scrutinized to death.

 

[vvtunes]

At least at 2160p it will be a nice looking slideshow.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

I know there are a few die hards out there who don't care, but 30fps will disappoint the console community. It's also an ominous insight into where this title currently is from an optimisation perspective.

This is the first of several gaffs to come I expect, the hype level on this title is sky high, and there's too much riding on it. Even if it turns out to be amazing, it will be scrutinized to death.

The "console community" has repeatedly shown that they are perfectly fine with buying millions of copies of games that cant even maintain 30 FPS, dont work at launch, crash constantly, ece. Their "disappointment" is worth as much as the dirt on my shoe. They will buy it anyway, en masse, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.

 

[Ojref]

The "console community" has repeatedly shown that they are perfectly fine with buying millions of copies of games that cant even maintain 30 FPS, dont work at launch, crash constantly, ece. Their "disappointment" is worth as much as the dirt on my shoe. They will buy it anyway, en masse, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.

If consumers would stop buying consoles, that platform would finally die.

 

[m3tavision]

In all honesty, this game is pointless because it's single-player & there is nobody else witnessing/seeing/enjoying/playing along with you...

If you are going to spend that much time in a game... you might as well be playing one that has millions of players and is truly open world, like Star Citizen (in which Starfield is clearly a knock-off of), which is in playable-alpha & is being released in a few years* time.

 

[scavengerspc]

I don't get it. This still isn't even in the same ballpark of pitiful compared to The Last of Us on 8 GB graphics cards.
So why are all the panties bunching up now?

 

[amoeba00]

Ugh, internet connectivity required?!?! Why?!?! At least with other non-MMORPG - you can still play if your Internet is out. *sigh. At the very least, it should be optional - but not a requirement - unless there's a reason why you have to be online to play this "single" player game.

 

[Peter Farkas]

Most console gamers do not meet the minimum either. Only 20 million of the 60 million Xbox One users have upgraded to a Series X/S so far, so Bethesda is also limiting themselves to only a third of the console market. That's normal for next-gen games, as the generation moves on more people will upgrade their PCs or buy a Series X/S console, and then they can get Starfield.
As for the requirements, they seem fine to me. The minimum GTX 1070 is a 7-year-old mid-range GPU, and the recommended RTX 2080 is as fast as the Series X. Keep in mind that today you only need a $280 RX 6700 to match a RTX 2080 (and the Series X), the $220 RX 6600 XT also gets close enough, and so does the $280 RTX 3060.

Keep in mind that the RX 6800XT is the recommended for 1080p (likely 60fps), which is a bummer. That card should be the recommended for 1440p instead of 1080p. These are really high specs for only 1080p. I have been enjoying superb 1440p with 3060ti for years. This game will be an exception.

 

[Crabjuice]

In all honesty, this game is pointless because it's single-player & there is nobody else witnessing/seeing/enjoying/playing along with you...

Pointless? The only "point" of gaming is to be entertained. You may not be entertained by single player, but there are a whole bunch of us who are. If there wasn't, there would be no market for single-player games and that isn't the case.

...like Star Citizen (in which Starfield is clearly a knock-off of), which is in playable-alpha & is being released in a few years* time.

*Yeah, right.

 

[MSIGamer]

It's hilarious (read sad) that nobody cares about the game itself, quality, terrible upscaling filters,things that are much more important imo. I mean there are so many games running at 30 fps on consoles, which are amazing to play. Buy a good tv and it won't even bother you. Stop looking at stats and start enjoying life a little.

I prefer a solid steady game at 30 fps to a stuttery mess that runs at 120 average

 

[toooooot]

That minimum with the RX 5700, 1070ti is brutal. Just looked at May's Steam Hardware Survey and most of the gamers on Steam will not meet the minimum. I wonder how they plan on selling a lot of copies of this game with such high requirements (in light of the survey results).

It will still run, but with such low fps that a lot of people will be upset. They will complain, but the devs will say we told you--1070 minimum.

 

[poshflamingos]

Keep in mind that the RX 6800XT is the recommended for 1080p (likely 60fps), which is a bummer. That card should be the recommended for 1440p instead of 1080p. These are really high specs for only 1080p. I have been enjoying superb 1440p with 3060ti for years. This game will be an exception.

The recommendations for AMD are nonsense. On the minimum specs, the RX 5700 XT is a lot faster than a GTX 1070 Ti (about 25% faster according to reviews), and on the recommended specs the RX 6800 XT is a lot faster still than the RTX 2080 (about 50% faster according to reviews). You can safely disregard those.

 

[fastEddie]

While I don't care what framerate a person plays a game at the fact it's locked at 30 with no performance option on the Series X indicates that there is serious performance issues with the game. Low to mid tier computers are going to have problems.