@Flawlessmic
TL; DR: IMO, if the game is good, i can overlook 30 FPS locked; But gamers have every right to complain, they’re paying money for product with a missing or not correctly working feature (60 FPS performance mode).
—
While i agree with you in theory (if the game is great, i will look past the 30 FPS only, although i would enjoy it a lot more if it was 60 FPS; example – Link: Faces of Evil, it play so much better with 60 FPS remastered, but the game is bad still), this is the next-gen only game, from a huge publisher (with Microsoft’s infinite pockets backing) and it costs $70. Next-gen consoles also cost more and have an SSD, so loading/streaming textures should not be a problem anymore. It should, at the very least, have a performance mode with 60 FPS, there’s no excuse. This looks like they’re just “cutting corners”, saving as much time and money as possible.
Especially when Phil himself have insulted everyone’s intelligence, saying that 30 FPS is a «creative decision» (except for PC for some reason, which can run the game with 60 FPS, what’s up with that?!).
Final Fantasy XVI not hitting 60 FPS in performance mode is bad too. Again, people are paying more and getting less (not bad product per se, but worse it could’ve been). This shouldn’t be defended, in my opinion or used as an ad hominem (“not gamer”).
