John Linneman and Alex Battaglia share their notes on the Starfield Direct, discuss why the game is 30fps on consoles and what 4K on Series X actually means.
Starfield on PS5 has just been updated to 1.000.004 to fix crashing issues, but players are reporting it didn't take.
Senior Director and Video Game Industry Advisor at Circana Mat Piscatella has revealed Starfield was the best-selling video in the US based on dollar sales for the week ending April 11th.
For the week that nothing else of note launched.. I’m sure it will sell some copies but look at what released that week
Replies(6)
It’s not a requirement to buy games every month or whenever one is released. I don’t think people are going to spend $70+ on something they don’t care about.
I have talked about not being able to get into this game at launch. I still haven't given it another go, even though I think it looks great and has come a very long way since launch. Some people just want it to fail, even if it is a great game. I know why, we all do.
Starfield didn't just have the best sales for a week, but it was pre-ordered on PS store, with very nice numbers. I really need to start it again, on my PS5 though. So I can see how it is now. It has had some major updates.
I am looking forward to it all over again now.
Its not that people want the game to fail. Its that Bethesda wont ever improve their games if you guys keep calling slop like starfield great games. Pure as that. Formulaic, chasing the trends, slop.
Like Bethesda has fallen off since FO4.
Ive a PC 4070, no interest in Starfield since the beginning since despite Bethesda owning some serious FPS legacy within their ranks...They just like seem to hate good shooting mechanics.
I dont see whats the appeal and thats ok. But how can you guys call it great? By what metric? The story? The Gameplay? The package all together? Hell I'm enjoying Crimson Desert, but I've got my issues with some design choices, but I do think the game is better as a whole than its individual parts. Is that the case for Starfield?
To be honest alot of you starfield stans dont make a great case for yourself, since I've never heard a starfield say what it is they enjoyed about it other just it being another Bethesda game that feels familiar yet new to them. Yall dont make the case on whats so great about starfield that keeps you coming back.
What does it do that makes it great that everyone like me is missing?
Like I wanted to like the Starfield, but after seeing its first trailer, it pretty much came out like I thought it was. Bethesda has been coasting off prestige for years now. and honestly starfield is proof of that.
I'm fine with the game being janky Bethesda-core etc. For what it's worth it's more polished than previous games have been and the shooting mechanics are fine, feels pretty good even.
What I'm not fine with is it just being completely dull in every way. Even if they managed to resolve the structure of the game constantly sending you back and forth through maps and loading screens it's still going to be dull. The original The Outer Worlds did Fallout in space better, and that was hardly perfect (I haven't played the second one so I can't comment on that). At least The Outer Worlds had some interesting characters, enemies and locations. Starfield has none of that. They can argue that it's more grounded/going for realism or some nonsense (yet it's still doing Star Wars/Firefly style space travel) but it's fundamentally dull.
I dropped loads of money on a copy of this game at launch and I've no desire to get my money's worth out of it, I pretty quickly cut my losses and moved on. I don't know what happened to the writers for Bethesda, I presume they all moved on and have since been replaced by Jenny from accounting.
I agree with @CrimsonIdol
I played the game to completed, but it's version of NG+ simply didn't appeal to me, so I never went back to it.
There's base-building, but it really serves no point, other than, there's base building. If you're into that, you have it, but I didn't touch it at all, as it wasn't part of the story ... At all.
The main character models are "ok", but the NPCs are just bad.
And IMO, people shouldn't be OK with a Bethesda game being janky. They're a big company, and should be jank-free by now!
I've given it another go and with the new more modular difficulty i managed to balance it a bit like Stalker 2 and it has been a lot more enjoyable this time around. The free roaming in space also helps a bit. Still prefer older Bethesda games, but it's growing on me
ever so slowly.
Digital Foundry showed how bad the game runs even on PS5 Pro and crashes. It can’t even hold 60fps and not a looker to begin with. 🤷♂️
I found out. I loved FO4 and wanted to judge Starfield for myself. I should have waited for a sale.
It's still as Bad as it was on Xbox. Of cause some playstation user's are curious and because there is a lot of them then the sales are gonna be somewhat okay for small time period. But still a very sad story what starfield turned out to be. Maybe the biggest disappointment in my gaming life.
The Free Lanes update has arrived! Earn every Trophy in the DLC with the help of our Free Lanes Trophy Guide & Roadmap!
Solid, practical guide overall. The roadmap structure makes it easy to plan a clean run, especially by separating missables from cleanup. I also like that it flags potential grind points and suggests when to tackle them.
A couple of things that could make it even stronger:
Clarify any missable trophies/achievements more explicitly (and whether manual saves are recommended before certain choices).
Add estimated time for 100% completion and note difficulty settings if they affect progress.
Include brief build/loadout suggestions for tougher segments or challenges.
If applicable, call out any bugs or tracking issues in the update that players should watch for.
Overall, helpful for both newcomers and completionists, just needs a bit more detail in a few areas.
Man these guys always give a great tech breakdown. Will be interesting to see what CPU will be needed to run this at 60fps consistently on PC.
"John puts forward the argument that a frame-rate target is a design decision - after all, even consoles in the 80s could hit 60fps, but clearly many developers have opted for a 30fps experience instead in the decades since. The question is what frame-rate allows you to hit your design goals for the game? In the case of Starfield, it's clear that this is an open-world or even "open universe" game, with item permanence, AI, simulations, and a lot of interlocking systems to create an immersive experience." -Digital Foundry
Any wise person could understand this. They are doing stuff now that devs aren't even trying to attempt on this scale.
Starfield too still manages all of that and looks very stunning.
Those environment shots man. Just WOW!
Lots of games run AI in an open world with "multiple systems" and look better at 60fps than Starfield does at 30fps. Just another excuse from Eurogamer who are massive Xbox and Nintendo fan boys.
As long as its stable, I could give a shit. For doing everything it IS doing and maintaining that level of graphical fidelity, its pretty impressive.
I just hope its fun, and not just a massive - empty space of a game (like No Mans Sky is to me)
The design decision is because the Xbox can't handle 60fps due to the complexity of the game. It has to play on the Series S and really, Xbox is to blame for that. It wouldn't do 60fps on the PS5 either. For Toad Howard to sit there and act like it was designed that way, say it's five games in one and feed it to all the dude bros is hilarious. PC is the way to go and I can't wait for the comparison to the PC version from Digital Foundry.