Support NeoGAF

[thief183]

Items in Star Citizen are fully physicialized and persistant. You can drop a bottle of water or handgun on a rock next to a tree or whatever. If you come back a year later or more, those items will still be there if not someone found it. Not only that, they will also bring the current wear and tear system for all these physicialized items.

That is supercool, is it also true for the items in the game world? I played it only a couple of hours when they did a free weekend .... I installed it on an hdd... that didn't work really well.

 

[Team Andromeda]

Well yes, but that's beside the point. That valid reason isn't the number of planets. If you don't want to accept that when given logical reasons why it shouldn’t affect it, that's up to you.

Its not just about the number its about the whole game. Give the director of game said they can't hit a stable 60 FPS, then I would guess there's a reason for it and that it's asking so much of 3 year old console hardware

 

[Team Andromeda]

60% of the games released on Ps4 were 30 fps, so of course a lot of people aren't going to complain, because it was the norm back then. But now, currently 80% percent of the games released on Ps5 have a proformance mode. Now 60 fps is the standard.

Also, lots of people did complain about bloodborn proformance.

I don't know where you got 60% from myself, but people didn't say BloodBorne, Drakes 4, God Of War 2018 were broken mess of games that are unplayable due to 30 FPS. In the 360/PS3 era so many games run at 30 FPS and even they couldn't always hit a stable 30 FPS. How many said GTA 5 was a broken mess of a game because it couldn't even handle a stable 30 FPS Speaking of GTA many PS2 fans labelled GTA San Andreas as its best game another game that couldn't handle a stable 30 FPS.

The only standard that's been on the current gen, is gross gen, even last-gen consoles could improve frame rates of the 360/PS3 games.

 

[Gudji]

I hope Square have 100 Percent sorted the game for launch because if not there are going to be a lot of users that look like idiots if the game launches in a similar state to the demo. Especially after this thread.

Square and FF16 have nothing to do with the lack of performance mode in starfield.

 

[Hendrick's]

Still arguing about this? It's clear the game is CPU bound and can't hit a stable 60 at any resolution. The best you can hope for is an unlocked frame rate. Hopefully PC performance is decent.

 

[Fake]

Because you have no clue what a next gen is.

I guess neither you.

 

[feynoob]

I guess neither you.

I already know what is a next gen and what that game provides.

 

[Snake29]

That is supercool, is it also true for the items in the game world? I played it only a couple of hours when they did a free weekend .... I installed it on an hdd... that didn't work really well.

Jup, while still not every item in the gameworld. Every prop that has been developed right now will be fully physicialized, picked up or can be used.

 

[Gudji]

I already know what is a next gen and what that game provides.

There's nothing next-gen about starfield.

 

[TheRedRiders]

No one even agrees on what next-gen is, everyone pretty much has their own definition at this point.

 

[feynoob]

I wonder how this game would run on a PS4 or PS4 pro.

It won't run that good.
Xsx can't even maintain a proper 60 fps.

It will just be another cyberpunk fiasco, but with Bethesda level.

 

[feynoob]

There's nothing next-gen about starfield.

There is a lot.
If people want to ignore it, be my guess.

 

[Fake]

I already know what is a next gen and what that game provides.

You need to go back on the next gen features video.
'The power of the SSD', 'Ray Tracing', '8k output', '120hz', 'VRR'.

Good times.

 

[Roxkis_ii]

I don't know where you got 60% from myself, but people didn't say BloodBorne, Drakes 4, God Of War 2018 were broken mess of games that are unplayable due to 30 FPS. In the 360/PS3 era so many games run at 30 FPS and even they couldn't always hit a stable 30 FPS. How many said GTA 5 was a broken mess of a game because it couldn't even handle a stable 30 FPS Speaking of GTA many PS2 fans labelled GTA San Andreas as its best game another game that couldn't handle a stable 30 FPS.

The only standard that's been on the current gen, is gross gen, even last-gen consoles could improve frame rates of the 360/PS3 games.

Outside of starfield, what other current gen game is only 30 fps?

 

[Zathalus]

Outside of starfield, what other current gen game is only 30 fps?

Flight Simulator, Gotham Knights.

Jedi Survivor and Dead Space may as well be, 60 Fps modes in those games are terrible.

 

[Fake]

Flight Simulator, Gotham Knights.

Jedi Survivor and Dead Space may as well be, 60 Fps modes in those games are terrible.

If I remember right, GK have a 60 fps now. Both Jedi and Dead have, just bad implementation.

 

[Hendrick's]

There's nothing next-gen about starfield.

Calling things "next-gen" 3 years into a generation is dumb. Next gen is in the future. Starfield is every bit current gen and wouldn't be possible on last gen hardware.

 

[DaGwaphics]

We've seen snippets of the cities, there are many open world games this generation that have 60 fps modes with busy cities.

This whole CPU debate has very little backing. The types of systems they have in Starfield is very similar to their older games, and there are 60 fps versions of those on next gen consoles. We are not seeing any advanced AI or physics. Pretty landscapes with little activity. Combat that seems pretty similar to other open world titles with 60 fps modes.

If the "sandwiches" are literally holding the game back from 60 fps, then that is a very poor decision on the part of the developers. And they could easily still have the "sandwiches" and just let the framerate tank if somebody is that fascinated with the silly idea.

I have no idea what the limiting factors are as I haven't seen it running on a PC with monitors in place (and you have no idea about this either).

What makes your position here so foolish is the idea that all new games should match the performance profile of older games on the same hardware, creating a situation where you actually advocate for stagnation. Skyrim is 60fps on this hardware and this game has added things over the top of that. I haven't walked a character through this city, I don't know what their goals for it are. You can even look at something like CP2077 and what NPC density does to CPU usage and apply that here. Skyrim is at 60fps, what if Starfield increases the NPC density in the major cities by even 30 or 40%, or if they have improved the quality/variety of the AI attached to them?

If it is a GPU bound issue (which is possible) maybe the cuts needed to hit 60 simply aren't something they were willing to entertain. Skyrim isn't exactly a looker by todays standards, is that the line you think they should hold to match the framerate?

 

[Gudji]

Calling things "next-gen" 3 years into a generation is dumb. Next gen is in the future. Starfield is every bit current gen and wouldn't be possible on last gen hardware.

Don't tell me tell the other dude.

 

[feynoob]

You need to go back on the next gen features video.
'The power of the SSD', 'Ray Tracing', '8k output', '120hz', 'VRR'.

Good times.

That is the same stuff as Xbox one and PS4 used to tease.
I like the games to expand their content and do things that were impossible on the old gen.

The medium (double screen camera)and returnal used that to their advantage.

 

[DaGwaphics]

The only standard that's been on the current gen, is gross gen, even last-gen consoles could improve frame rates of the 360/PS3 games.

That's the most embarrassing thing about this line of thought. Players have been playing PS4/X1 games at 60fps and these users seem to have decided that they are ride or die with last-gen tech forever.

Once the previous gen is left behind completely we will get games that offer the stripped performance modes and others that don't. It will depend on the makeup of the games themselves and the standards the developer is holding.

The only difference between this gen and previous generations is that neither manufacturer stepped up and maxed the console at 30fps with a launch game, just to provide a point of reference for the generational shift. This time around these games will come in years after launch and it has confused some folks.

 

[Team Andromeda]

Outside of starfield, what other current gen game is only 30 fps?

Flight Sim, Gotham Knights, Redfall and so was Reqiuem. Who knows maybe Beth will be able to give Starfield a 60 FPS patch at a later date. With Redfall one got the outcry.
I don't get it at all with Starfield and I have my doubts that GTA6 will run at 60 FPS and the same for Dragons Dogama 2

​

 

[Team Andromeda]

That's the most embarrassing thing about this line of thought. Players have been playing PS4/X1 games at 60fps and these users seem to have decided that they are ride or die with last-gen tech forever.

Once the previous gen is left behind completely we will get games that offer the stripped performance modes and others that don't. It will depend on the makeup of the games themselves and the standards the developer is holding.

The only difference between this gen and previous generations is that neither manufacturer stepped up and maxed the console at 30fps with a launch game, just to provide a point of reference for the generational shift. This time around these games will come in years after launch and it has confused some folks.

It always depends on the game the developer wants to make. I guess if you're an FPS or driving game developer you pretty much know you need to hit 60 FPS but for most other styles I think you can get away with it based what the game is trying to do and the levels of graphics you want to push.

I mean I keep on hearing how wonderful the 16-bit gen was and how it was all 60 FPS. I remember Space Harrier 2 having a 30 FPS update for launch.

 

[DaGwaphics]

It always depends on the game the developer wants to make. I guess if you're an FPS or driving game developer you pretty much know you need to hit 60 FPS but for most other styles I think you can get away with it based what the game is trying to do and the levels of graphics you want to push.

I mean I keep on hearing how wonderful the 16-bit gen was and how it was all 60 FPS. I remember Space Harrier 2 having a 30 FPS update for launch.

Absolutely, esports type titles might even continue to target 120fps modes for the duration.

 

[Team Andromeda]

Absolutely, esports type titles might even continue to target 120fps modes for the duration.

Yeah, and some games does it really matter? I still play GoldenEye 64 on my N64 and still love it

The most important things for me in a game are it's good and it controls well.
Framerates do not make a game

 

[GrayFoxPL]

I keep confusing Starfield with Star Citizen.

Btw. when's that (SC) coming out?

 

[DaGwaphics]

Yeah, and some games does it really matter? I still play GoldenEye 64 on my N64 and still love it

The most important things for me in a game are it's good and it controls well.
Framerates do not make a game

Agreed. That's why the pitchforks against 30fps bother me. I want to see that advancement, what can be done if they push things that far.

As you said, poorly optimized games like Redfall or Gotham Knights can get stuck at 30 without much to show for it, and those will get called out. There were a ton of 60fps games last gen and a lot of them were really good, but there are also a lot of games that would have never been possible beyond 30 on that hardware and I think we will see that come around again (I hope).

It's not like I advocate for 30fps in all games either, 60 or 120 are more than welcome when they are feasible. But I want some boundary pushing moments too.

 

[Roxkis_ii]

Flight Sim, Gotham Knights, Redfall and so was Reqiuem. Who knows maybe Beth will be able to give Starfield a 60 FPS patch at a later date. With Redfall one got the outcry.
I don't get it at all with Starfield and I have my doubts that GTA6 will run at 60 FPS and the same for Dragons Dogama 2

I think it more people on console who prefer 60 fps then don't. (going by the neogaf polls and thread about framerates) Companies are going to get tired of the backlash when a game comes out without a proformance mode, so I think there is an incentive for games to lunch with it.

 

[adamsapple]

I keep confusing Starfield with Star Citizen.

Btw. when's that (SC) coming out?

 

[Team Andromeda]

I think it more people on console who prefer 60 fps then don't. (going by the neogaf polls and thread about framerates) Companies are going to get tired of the backlash when a game comes out without a proformance mode, so I think there is an incentive for games to lunch with it.

You mean the console gamers who for the last 20 years plus have had to accept and put with games running at either 30 FPS or 60 FPS.

 

[Roxkis_ii]

You mean the console gamers who for the last 20 years plus have had to accept and put with games running at either 30 FPS or 60 FPS.

Because we did something for a long means we shouldn't improve the situation? You deserve better then that.

 

[Team Andromeda]

Because we did something for a long means we shouldn't improve the situation? You deserve better then that.

Well, think like that, 3D consoles have always been a step backwards from the 8-bit and 16-bit era when so many games run at 60 FPS.

I care more about how good the game is myself.

 

[CatLady]

object pop in isn't a gameplay feature.

Those that prefer 60 fps would gladly take some extra pop in for added framerate.

If it's that big of a deal to you, and got you so upset why not just skip this game? Every other post in this thread is from you, but Bethesda is not going to change their game design for you no matter how many times you post the same shit.

Do as someone suggest, go touch grass and find something to play that's more to your liking. There are a ton of great games coming out the rest of this year and most probably have a 60 fps option.

 

[DaGwaphics]

I think it more people on console who prefer 60 fps then don't. (going by the neogaf polls and thread about framerates) Companies are going to get tired of the backlash when a game comes out without a proformance mode, so I think there is an incentive for games to lunch with it.

There is an equal number of people that complain about the lack of a generational leap and how the XSX/PS5 are just additional "pro" systems for last-gen. It isn't a one sided argument by far. The Starfield "30fps" backlash is a thing, sure, but so is the Spider-Man 2 that game doesn't look like a big enough improvement thing.

 

[Roxkis_ii]

There is an equal number of people that complain about the lack of a generational leap and how the XSX/PS5 are just additional "pro" systems for last-gen. It isn't a one sided argument by far. The Starfield "30fps" backlash is a thing, sure, but so is the Spider-Man 2 that game doesn't look like a big enough improvement thing.

I willing to bet that if you put up a poll on neogaf of graphics versus framerate, that framerate would win.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

If it's that big of a deal to you, and got you so upset why not just skip this game? Every other post in this thread is from you, but Bethesda is not going to change their game design for you no matter how many times you post the same shit.

Do as someone suggest, go touch grass and find something to play that's more to your liking. There are a ton of great games coming out the rest of this year and most probably have a 60 fps option.

It's not a big deal to me. I would have played the game @ 30 fps anyway, if you had read my posts. I personally am not upset about their decision. I am simply arguing that their reasoning seems like an excuse more than anything, and they should be a little more upfront with the reason why. I think it's 100% down to lack of dev time to put together a quality 60 fps mode and it has nothing to do with "systems" or "it's a true next-gen exclusive and not cross gen" or any of that stuff.

There is an equal number of people that complain about the lack of a generational leap and how the XSX/PS5 are just additional "pro" systems for last-gen. It isn't a one sided argument by far. The Starfield "30fps" backlash is a thing, sure, but so is the Spider-Man 2 that game doesn't look like a big enough improvement thing.

Because with SM2 you can anchor to Miles which already was a next-gen game release on PS5. SF has no previous next gen title to compare itself to, so the leap looks bigger by default if you are going to compare against Fallout. However, SM2 is just as much a "next gen exclusive" title as Starfield, and it's doing very impressive things like a full open world @ 60 fps with Ray Tracing and looks stunning. For some they just had way too high of expectations for Insomniac, and Bethesda had nowhere near high expectations - those were set pretty low based on previous titles and they managed to exceed those low expectations with Starfield

 

[DeepEnigma]

It's not a big deal to me. I would have played the game @ 30 fps anyway, if you had read my posts. I personally am not upset about their decision. I am simply arguing that their reasoning seems like an excuse more than anything, and they should be a little more upfront with the reason why. I think it's 100% down to lack of dev time to put together a quality 60 fps mode and it has nothing to do with "systems" or "it's a true next-gen exclusive and not cross gen" or any of that stuff.

This I agree with. Remember all the hub-bub about cross-gen or the S early on before and around the time these systems launched, and how some of these very same people were like, "engines are super scalable now, this won't be an issue?" I remember.

Now these current engines are no longer scalable for performance modes?

I think it comes down to getting the best version out the door before even exploring 60fps (or a performance mode). They had to delay a year and pull all hands on deck from other talented studios to assist during that time.

 

[Kamina]

Im September spiele ich Sternenfeld

 

[DaGwaphics]

Because with SM2 you can anchor to Miles which already was a next-gen game release on PS5. SF has no previous next gen title to compare itself to, so the leap looks bigger by default if you are going to compare against Fallout. However, SM2 is just as much a "next gen exclusive" title as Starfield, and it's doing very impressive things like a full open world @ 60 fps with Ray Tracing and looks stunning. For some they just had way too high of expectations for Insomniac, and Bethesda had nowhere near high expectations - those were set pretty low based on previous titles and they managed to exceed those low expectations with Starfield

I'm not complaining about the state of Spider-Man 2, I'm fine with it. The first one was great, I really never expected them, or even felt they needed to, do that much more with that formula. But that noise is there, it does exist, the developers even responded to it. That viewpoint will continue to exist and get louder as time goes on because there is a growing frustration about the never-ending cross-gen and gamers not feeling like they are seeing something new and better. The instant gratification has not come as quickly as in previous generations.

The forever forward push will continue moving at all times, albeit a little slower than before and the base console hardware is static.

 

[DaGwaphics]

I willing to bet that if you put up a poll on neogaf of graphics versus framerate, that framerate would win.

On Neogaf, maybe. Is Neogaf a good picture of the gaming market at large, maybe not. You can find people on the interwebs that will spend a lot of time arguing about the benefits of 360fps vs. 240fps, those hyper enthusiasts are not representative of the whole.

If you showed two trailers to a group of average gamers, one that looked relatively samey for what we've been getting but at a smooth 60fps and another with the graphics cranked to 11 at 30, I can all but guarantee what trailer is getting the most votes there.

The same way it always has been and a big part of the reason why the UE5 demos got the responses they did.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

I'm not complaining about the state of Spider-Man 2, I'm fine with it. The first one was great, I really never expected them, or even felt they needed to, do that much more with that formula. But that noise is there, it does exist, the developers even responded to it. That viewpoint will continue to exist and get louder as time goes on because there is a growing frustration about the never-ending cross-gen and gamers not feeling like they are seeing something new and better. The instant gratification has not come as quickly as in previous generations.

The forever forward push will continue moving at all times, albeit a little slower than before and the base console hardware is static.

In some ways, they were too successful by releasing early next gen games and now having another one in only a few years time. That kind of output is unheard of, but it also sets the bar higher because their product has already been shown on next-gen already. Expecting massive leaps within gens isn't that realistic.

So Starfield definitely benefited from having FO4 as the main point of reference, so for that franchise the leap is indeed massive.

 

[DaGwaphics]

There have been some stark upgrades between cross-gen and current-gen iterations over the years (FH2 vs. FH4 on X1, etc.), I'm not sure if that has much to do with anything or not. Most of the online hubhub comes from people comparing current-gen games directly against the last-gen games on those last-gen systems anyway.

My point was never about any one game, just that while there is noise around wanting 60fps there is also noise around the idea of seeing more graphical/gameplay advancement. Some developers will focus on one or the other, others will satisfy both groups at once. Clearly Bethesda has gone for trying to get the most noticeable leap they could in comparison to their last-gen efforts.

 

[Bernardougf]

Agreed. That's why the pitchforks against 30fps bother me. I want to see that advancement, what can be done if they push things that far.

As you said, poorly optimized games like Redfall or Gotham Knights can get stuck at 30 without much to show for it, and those will get called out. There were a ton of 60fps games last gen and a lot of them were really good, but there are also a lot of games that would have never been possible beyond 30 on that hardware and I think we will see that come around again (I hope).

It's not like I advocate for 30fps in all games either, 60 or 120 are more than welcome when they are feasible. But I want some boundary pushing moments too.

60 fps as a standard is pushing things forward ... just in other direction that 30 fps pushes ... some like pretty lights and better hair and others like a more fluid image (which by the way is per say a graphical quality) .... in the end options is the better for everyone ....

I simple just dont buy this creative vision bullshit since the game is going to be downgradade to hell o series s and on the low settings in PC ...

More honest to say they didnt have the time to optimize on consoles for two graphical modes and chose for now to concetrate on the 30 fps mode...or is the series s holding everything back as usual

And also.... whatch as they launch the xbox pro with the slogan "play starfield goty edition in 4k 60 fps in the most powerfull console ever"

 

[DaGwaphics]

.... in the end options is the better for everyone ....

I'm all for options too. There will be games where options simply aren't possible however, because the CPU side of the equation simply doesn't scale that well.

That's the specific reason why most 1X and PS4 Pro games only scale in resolution but not framerate, they only had marginally better CPUs than the base units and the game logic just couldn't scale from 30 to 60. The graphics side does scale very well now, but even there eventually games will be pushing a base level graphic that just can't reach to 60 while maintaining the expected fidelity associated with XSX/PS5.

 

[Bernardougf]

I'm all for options too. There will be games where options simply aren't possible however, because the CPU side of the equation simply doesn't scale that well.

That's the specific reason why most 1X and PS4 Pro games only scale in resolution but not framerate, they only had marginally better CPUs than the base units and the game logic just couldn't scale from 30 to 60. The graphics side does scale very well now, but even there eventually games will be pushing a base level graphic that just can't reach to 60 while maintaining the expected fidelity associated with XSX/PS5.

Lets see what they will do with the pro versions of the consoles.... because there is no more push left... 4k is out of the window.. the push now and for the next generation is going to be FPS..is the only tangible marktable thing with numbers they can use ...so if they launch a pro with a better gpu and quasi better cpu and the game runs ar 60 fps we all will have our answers... i call bullshit.. but we all can have our opinions

 

[DaGwaphics]

Lets see what they will do with the pro versions of the consoles.... because there is no more push left... 4k is out of the window.. the push now and for the next generation is going to be FPS..is the only tangible marktable thing with numbers they can use ...so if they launch a pro with a better gpu and quasi better cpu and the game runs ar 60 fps we all will have our answers... i call bullshit.. but we all can have our opinions

I'd expect to see a noticeable upgrade in the CPU department if we get pro systems this gen. With as cache sensitive as AMD processors are (in gaming), going from 8MB to 32MB of L3 and adding a 1ghz over the top could probably double the real-world output in fps. The small cache is really limiting the potential of these CPUs as it stands.

With that said, console gamers should still be grateful for the power of the CPUs we got in comparison to the last-gen ones.

 

[CatLady]

It's not a big deal to me. I would have played the game @ 30 fps anyway, if you had read my posts. I personally am not upset about their decision. I am simply arguing that their reasoning seems like an excuse more than anything, and they should be a little more upfront with the reason why. I think it's 100% down to lack of dev time to put together a quality 60 fps mode and it has nothing to do with "systems" or "it's a true next-gen exclusive and not cross gen" or any of that stuff.



Because with SM2 you can anchor to Miles which already was a next-gen game release on PS5. SF has no previous next gen title to compare itself to, so the leap looks bigger by default if you are going to compare against Fallout. However, SM2 is just as much a "next gen exclusive" title as Starfield, and it's doing very impressive things like a full open world @ 60 fps with Ray Tracing and looks stunning. For some they just had way too high of expectations for Insomniac, and Bethesda had nowhere near high expectations - those were set pretty low based on previous titles and they managed to exceed those low expectations with Starfield

If it's not a big deal why is every other post from you complaining about it. Are you thinking if you make enough posts complaining Bethesda will change it?

I willing to bet that if you put up a poll on neogaf of graphics versus framerate, that framerate would win.

Well see now there you go. I'm sure a poll on NeoGAF showing the majority of gamers here want 60fps regardless of features we might have to give up will convince Bethesda to change it. Guys it seems to me you're not being realistic and just arguing to argue. But carry on, I'm going back to Zelda.

 

[MarkMe2525]

I didn't even pick up on the lack of Screen Space Reflecfions before they mentioned it.

but god damn, THANK YOU BETHESDA! that is honestly my tech highlight in the game so far!
dynamic cubemaps instead of those DOGSHIT, DISGUSTING, VILE, UGLY, HORRID, ATROCIOUS, DESPICABLE excuses for a graphics effect!
FUCK screen space reflecfions! FUCK THEM RIGHT TO HELL!

I should actually buy the game now instead of only playing it through gamepass tbh, just to pat them on the back for deciding TO NOT expose their players to that hellspawn that is SSR!


FUCK SCREEN SPACE REFLECTIONS! ALL HAIL BETHESDA!

Lolol you are a trip. I agree with you

The game could run at 60 with concessions like any other game.

When they speak about "creative decisions", this is what they are referring to. They absolutely could trim the fat, so to speak, but they looked at what concessions they would have had to made, and decided against it. Of course, this could also be to get the game shipped and maybe one day we will have a 40fps or unlocked mode.

 

[MarkMe2525]

[

What does no man sky lack? Honest question. It has features that Starfield does not. NMS has base building and combat. It has ship battles and settlements. It has mining and planetary exploration. It also allows you to fly your ship in and out of orbit at any point on any planet which Starfield has not yet shown and is reportedly a missing feature. It also has mechs and aliens. The only thing I can think of that Starfield has that it doesn't is a shiny coat of paint and the creation engine's features. Again I'm all in and day 1 I just don't see what it's doing that NMS and Scam Citizen aren't.

I love NMS and I realize you weren't addressing me specifically, but NMS on foot combat is crap, their enemy variety is crap, there mission structure and objectives are crap, copy and paste assets galore. I put about 150 hours into the game just because I really enjoyed the discovery aspect it, but as a whole it left me wishing there was more to it.

 

[Bernardougf]

Lolol you are a trip. I agree with you
When they speak about "creative decisions", this is what they are referring to. They absolutely could trim the fat, so to speak, but they looked at what concessions they would have had to made, and decided against it. Of course, this could also be to get the game shipped and maybe one day we will have a 40fps or unlocked mode.

The game has a version *probably* full of concessions to run on the series s... what kind of fps this version would do running with vrr on the series X ??? ... I would bet that better than 40 fps .... BUT .. they always have to go for the damn "parity" ... I would bet that they could get the S version running fine on the X .. and jsut wont do it because of the parity conundrum


Orrrr maybe .. they are holding out the 60 fps version for the PRO CONSOLE push next year ... thinking about it is kind of genius