Frame rate is CPU heavy for the most part. Physics engine needs to play well with it, etc. The Xbox One X [i]might[/i] have the horsepower for it, but I suppose it wasn't stable enough for Bungie to be acceptable. ~[i]TheGreatNike[/i]

Lol Ummmmmmmm.....

Bungie never promised 4k 60 on one X. If they promised it, they'd probably do it. They didn't slow it down, it was never that fast.

1. Because l, despite its beefy graphics card, frame rate is more closely related to cpu processing power.... ...and even the 1X is badly underpowered by modern standards. It’s better than PS4 pro, but not by much. 2. Destiny doesn’t have dedicated servers. So that cpu has to not only run the game for you locally, it has to run the games networking as well. More simply. Go play a round of Gambit. Watch how the game hiccups and stutters—@30 fps—when there are lots of objects on screen. Remember how it used to crash with [i]guitar[/i] errors? That’s what happens when you try to push a cpu beyond it’s ability to keep up with the computing demands on it. That’s called [i]bottlenecking[/i] and in games one of the early signs of it are frame rate drops. This is why it can’t run this game at 60 fps. Because it’s struggles in many places to simply run it at 30 FPS properly. The shooters that run at 60 FPS on these machines do it by sacrificing resolution and detail, to reduce CPU load. They are simple arena shooters not open world games. They have dedicated servers to share the work of running the game. Games that don’t follow this—like Battlefield 1–were infamous for having problems with bottlenecking and unstable framerates. TLDR: A game at a stable 30 FPS looks better than an unstable one at 60 with rubberbanding and pop-ins everywhere.

Pretty sure the One X doesn’t have enough TFPs to run 4K 60 FPS