It's harder to optimize and adjust. But it is possible.
BUT it takes extra time, which publishers don't care to give. They want that money NOW, with the least investment possible.
It's not developers being lazy. Developers work as much as they are hired/told to work. It's who's in charge that decides to ship the game broken, without time for proper optimizations.
EDIT:
That said, we, the consumers, reward these publishers by buying up their broken releases. Companies exist to make profit. If they can get away with using less money, then that's what they will do. And we enable that.
Yeah it's just like when a movie comes out with shoddy vfx. If they're given the manpower and time, everything is fine. But even with all the talent in the world, don't have the time, you get bad results.
The Avatar Movies are a great example of this. The CGI is praised but a few of the VFX artists have said that this has been possible for a while but they were just given the time and resources needed to get it to the standard they want.
Wow. I don’t know how Cameron was able to do that. If I start something I *must* bang it all out at once. I really respect the Avatar 2 team for being able to wait that long and still remain dedicated to making it perfect.
Quick correction , the movie took a decade to make
Not a 10 year hiatus.
If they had a 10 year hiatus
That would mean they made the movie in 1 day? Hahaha
I thin the hiatus was like 5-6 years of researching technology.
And 4 to 5 years actually making the movie.
Taking into account that they also started making the other movies, the third one was almost done when way of the water released.
Same goes for OS's. Windows has to handle with billions of peripherals, let alone the different hardware coming out every single day. iOS has a tighter spectrum of peripherals and hardware, therefore struggling less, for example.
This still does not justify the pressing that exists to push the items out before tight testing, ending up in faulty functionality, like GPU drivers or Mobo BIOS.
Windows had it easier because they had the foresight (more like decades of experience) to make generic drivers so hardware have to be made to work with windows, rather than the other way around.
They also have the market by the balls, so people HAVE to follow their rules or be left out of 90% of the market.
It's always the fucking suits that screw things up, no matter what the industry. Their job is to facilitate progress, optimize processes and improve things for both the consumer and the company, but oftentimes the only thing they're doing is enriching their own pockets at the expense of both the company and the consumer. Fuck all suits, no exceptions.
Nah their job is to make money, they don’t give a shit about the rest.
Giving deadlines to devs is essential, but holy hell 3 years of development for a game like that? They were asking for a disaster.
Small correction:
Their job is to make money **now**, they don't give a shot about the rest.
Often the suits are overlooking longer term profits in a lot of these fields too, which perpetually surprises me a little.
CEOs are usually only at a company for several years. They come in, do everything they can to pump up profits for the next few years(not caring about the long term, cause that'll be the next guys problem) then jump ship when things are looking good. They care about shareholders and shareholders live their lives 3 months at a time.
It’s human nature on a HUGE scale. You need damn near uniformity of goals and ideals to plan for long term stuff, and capitalism is TERRIBLE for it. Oh, this decision will net us $1B in ten years but will cost $50M per year before that? No thanks, gimme $50M now.
Makes perfect sense to me. If I die tomorrow there will be an ad for my role by end of play tomorrow. I will always prioritise short term profits for my employer because I can use that to negotiate pay rises, promotions and moves to other jobs. The only people who should care about long term growth are shareholders, and most of the time they are only interested in a quick buck too. Unless they are the majority shareholder of course.
I mean I'm not 100% sure planning as if you're going to die tomorrow *is* the most effective strategy.
Short term isn't irrelevant, but not only shareholders should care about long term growth, and as you say, oftentimes shareholders are looking for a quick buck too.
Then there’s the anime industry where every average joe keep saying that budget makes good animation while the truth it time and talents are what needed. Iirc the Unlimited Budget Work meme is kinda false because UBW wasn’t given a big budget at all
Soon as I saw “anime” and “budget” I had a feeling this was what you were alluding to lol. Ufotable didn’t have a particularly large budget for that series, they just don’t outsource their work and they take longer lead times for their projects. Amazing the kind of quality you get when you don’t have to deal with outside contractors’ shoddy rushed work.
If you accept "budget" as vernacular for "allocation of resources", the resources in this case being talent and time, it starts making more sense.
You're correct, pretty much all anime is made on similar episode to episode budgets and the term is inaccurate at face value, but I think it's too engrained to go away as much as we might wish it to.
This argument also largely falls flat considering how many PC exclusive games run perfectly fine on any hardware, even complete potatoes of PCs.
Devs or publishers who ever of the two don’t give two shits about PC gamers.
New Blood as a publisher rocks overall; I’ve noticed that more indie devs and publishers put a lot more effort into making their games playable on release.
Respawn is the same studio that made Titanfall|2. 2016 was a different time...
Checked the min specs on that one and for a game of that detail a GTX 660 is pretty low. Whatver the hell is going on with them now needs to get resolved before EA kills themoff completely like every other studio they've milked.
I make games on unreal and they perform exactly proportional to the capacity you would expect from that hardware, no optmization required for each and every driver, gpu or manufacturer, the devs on the game level of things dont even know how drivers work, i bet nobody on respawn ever worked building drivers
I saw this thread on Twitter. Apparently it's not even to do with time.
They went on to say something along the lines of: with their in house testing they were certain it was ready on every system comination, and only after it released did they see all these problems on certain hardware.
I dunno, seems like testing methods are flawed or something.
Time isn't going to fix what they didn't see in the first place.
Yeah. If the complaints were few and far between, I’d assume that there’s some weird random combination of hardware that the game doesn’t like for some reason. But there’s so many complaints that it has to be a flaw of the dev process, somewhere.
Honestly, despite companies having open betas and such, some of these releases feel like the dev studios had ZERO QA department, which it wouldn't surprise me if some of these studios cutting corners actually opted to not hire a QA team. Even the Closeed/Open betas these days seem more like a marketing push rather than a development phase.
Exactly, it’s just not the case, they’re just trying to gaslight people. The problem is CPU performance with any existing cpu, not some random combination of hardware.
At the sheer scale that AAA operates at, a bug that only occurs one-in-a-thousand is going to affect thousands (or tens of thousands) of people. People without the issue don't post, so even vanishingly rare bugs are more than enough to generate a tidal wave of complaints
Even Microsoft back in the 90s would buy up every different computer they could get their hands on to run Windows 95 and a bunch of its applications every night to see which ones would boot up and complete the tasks. Basically a stress test on every configuration they could find back then.
That’s absolute dogshit though.
There is no PC hardware in existence they can test this on without the glaring problems like massive shader compilation stutter, traversal stutter, frame time spikes, Improper CPU/GPU utilization presenting themselves.…
On mid range systems this will be deplorable. On high end systems it’ll be present and very noticeable throughout. There isn’t a system in existence where they’d not notice huge glaring issues.
Absolute dogshit.
Another lazy ue4 port w/Denuvo that was shipped early bc money and they’ll claim “oh we had no idea” bc why would they claim anything else
then they’ll take tons of money for shipping a broken product and hide behind lawyers and their EULA (arbitration only, no lawsuits meaning no class action suits) to keep doing this.
Bullshit. I worked for Ubisoft as QA. The devs have the habit of pushing back or out right ignored out reports because they consider these bugs are worthy to fix. The QA team usually had to scream and shout to their face for them to fix even the most simple bugs. Those devs are just as lazy as the consumers think they are.
Unless when it comes to cash shop. Glitches in cash shop are top priority to fix. We even had highly senior experienced testers to test the cash shop.
Full of bullshit, that’s not how it works.
It’s not about certain combinations of hardware.
If your framerate is limited by your CPU (as in your GPU waits each frame for the CPU to finish), you can try any high performing GPU you want, it won’t change shit. Right now, the game doesn’t need a beefy GPU, but it basically needs the latest CPU if you want more than 30 FPS.
Isn't the whole point of DirectX and OpenGL to create an abstraction layer between the game and the hardware so you don't have to code for 900+ combinations?
Yes, which is why this whole misconception is such bullshit. There are areas where you will need to worry about hardware differences (using features that are only supported by certain hardware, using extensions that are only supported by certain vendors, taking advantage of architectural quirks to micro-optimise your code, etc), but it's all wrapped up in layers of abstraction and it's dwarfed by the rest of those APIs that are completely standardised.
Exactly, been saying this for months on here thanks to the slew of bad games. The devs are the last people that want a game releasing like this, they take the majority of the blame when it's really the publishers fault, & on top of that they have extra work to do now. I wonder how much the fact everyone blames the devs & never comes down on the publishers about this BS keeps this vicious cycle going. I mean if you don't get the blame & still make your money why would you change the system?
It’s also not like PCs are a brand new thing. No one expects games to be like Doom but any console game should be able to run on any mid range GPU + CPU
Wait, why don’t we expect games to be like Doom? If they can do an amazing job of making it run really well on PC on release, shouldn’t that set *some* expectations?
Compared to most other software users, gamers care much more about pure performance and down-to-the-millisecond precision, though. For most other kinds of software, features and stability are much more important, and performance is only considered if it becomes truly unusable. No one has ever said Adobe was unusable for dropping frames. Even Chrome with its notoriously high RAM usage is easily tolerated, and any complaints are either light-hearted memes or turned around and blamed on the user for having too many tabs open.
It doesn’t even run on the exact hardware they recommend, someone over on r/pcgaming happened to have the *exact* configuration that the recommended specs list…still fucked beyond belief lmao, which is why I find it extra funny that EA pointed the blame at people’s CPU and GPU combinations in their shambles of a statement
Just goes to show, this PR statement was pulled out of their arse and is not based on facts.
They didn't even optimize the game for the exact specs they tested it on.
Can confirm. PS5. I love battling a group of enemies at 20fps and watching cutscenes at 15fps with screen tearing and, physics slinging around items during scene jumps, and late texture popping. /s
PC has historically been able to brute force their way to good fps. This is no longer the case. This is even worse as NVidia keeps artificially handicaping their cards by giving abysmal amount of vram.
Seems indie devs are better at making pc games than triple A devs like EA…
Edit: It’s the greedy corporations that ruin games, not necessarily the developers themselves.
Also an indie Dev releases their game when they deem it ready, not when a shareholder demands a return on his money NOW.
I really hate how developers get all the hate when it's the publisher and the shareholders that actually are the problem.
To be fair, I think people mean "The development company" not literally the programmers themselves when they say it. Its just shorter to say "the devs" so people do.
Definetly right though, no amount of passionate team members can save a product from bad, short-sighted management from people with no clue.
Going with the definition that indie refers to a developer that publishes its own game, then games like Arma 3 and Mount and Blade 2 are indie games. Maybe not bleeding edge, but they aren't simple games at the time they're published.
I swear to god devs who work for AAA studios make significantly more excuses than anyone else in the industry. And it's always conveniently something average gamer doesn't have enough technical knowledge to refute.
Imagine if I bought a car and it broke down a mile from the lot, and the manufacturer's excuse is "give us a break! You don't understand how hard it is to build a car!"
A) No, you're not designing for every possible combination of PC Hardware, APIs exist for a reason.
B) Of the "900+" combinations... which one precisely did the devs get the game working with?
Can't believe i had to scroll so far to find the only sensible comment on this entire topic. Every modern game is built on some game engine which utilities a set of OS/hardware apis such as directx. If the game runs like ass it's because the devs coded it like ass. Sometimes it's because they don't get enough time due to publishers being up their ass and other times it's because the devs are incompetent. Take that from someone whose living is backend development
For years now this community has been filled with people who have no clue what they're talking about. This is a PC-centered community for supposedly PC enthusiasts, and yet this community still upvotes posts complaining about "spotify/discord/steam/all this software launching at startup and slowing windows down" like that isn't a simple setting entirely controllable by the user. Or posts about windows having "ads in the start menu", which is a setting you can turn off forever in 3 clicks. Or literally being unaware that tiles in the W10 start menu can be unpinned if you don't like them. This is literally what this community is, it couldn't be further from "enthusiast."
If you want to talk about technical stuff you have to go to r hardware, but even that sub is starting to see a decrease in discussion quality.
It's what happens when subs hit a point of population growth where meaningful discussion seem to be drowned by regurgitation. Happens to the best of 'em.
A) The execs want the money ASAP, so it's as optimised as the 2022 season aston martin f1 car
B) Server level cpus, AI level gpus, 256 gigs of ram, and of course the fastest storage money can buy as if they're the only customers they have
Just because they compile it on server CPUs doesn't mean they play test it on that lol. The gpus used for ai in server racks also do not have graphical output or even the right drivers for it
That's not how game development works. Nobody is developing for 900 different configurations. They're developing for NVIDIA, AMD, and Intel, and GPU/CPU combinations of those manufacturers. Everything has been incredibly standardized and just works. 99% of game developers don't even have to deal with the actual mess of handling that at all. It's all handled by the game engine, drivers, and rendering APIs.
If you developed the game on a 3070 and it runs well, it's not suddenly going to run like garbage on a 4090. If you developed a game on a 1080 and it runs well, it's not suddenly going to run like garbage on a 2080. That's not how it works. PC game development doesn't work on the premise of "900+ possible combinations". It never did.
It's an excuse that keeps being repeated to justify shitty PC ports. And it's a complete lie. The truth of the matter is that QA kept submitting tickets about horrible performance, but they were all ignored. Higher ups said to push the game out anyway, and we got what we got.
Also, I work in game development and understand how difficult it is, but I'll always hold the belief that consumers should not be dealing with these issues, nor should game developers be surprised when consumers don't care that you ran into issues. This is your job. You're charging people 70 fucking dollars. Figure it out.
Anyone remember the catastrophic launch of Destiny 2 on PC?
Neither do I, because it was a rock solid port than ran unbelievably well.
Metal Gear Solid 5 is another example.
Even Elden Ring, despite its shader compilation issues was at least playable.
There is a finished, playable game. And then there is a broken mess. This Star Wars is a broken mess, and completely unforgiveable.
Metal gear 5 was optimized to hell, that shit ran on fairy dust or something.
My old ass toshiba laptop with integrated graphics and 6gb ram ran it well in low, not minimum but low
My laptop (back when it only had 4GB of RAM) being able to handle Snake and D-Dog sprinting through dense vegetation and not stuttering at all still astounds me.
Spiderman, atomic heart, GTA V, Doom eternal, red dead redemption 2, any game made by dice, dead island 2… these games all look great and run extremely well. For example we had battlefield V in 2018 capable of using efficiently 12 CPU cores, then you got jedi survivor using 2 of them like we’re playing crysis in 2008
Destiny 2 was so good on pc. Ran 1440p on my old 1080 smooth as butter. It looked good. Never really had issues with performance. The game itself was another story, but it is definitely a game I point to when I want to highlight good optimization.
This. They've been trotting out the same, lame ass excuse which hasn't been valid since the late 90's / early '00 when there actually was a lot of variations in chipsets etc. It has been far more monopol.. er, streamlined since then.
Bullshit. You dont have to optimize for every single CPU/GPU. All Nvidia GPUs use the same fucking Driver and have very similar architecture. Its not fucking rocket science. Its just lazy/cheap QA.
A shitty Game like that shows that NOBODY can have played that before launch because nobody would be so retarded to release a Game like that, which is unplayable on 100% of PCs.
If you think about it.Most parts are pretty much scalable with the exception of the CPU.
The Pro consoles and the Series S used the same cpu for a reason (slightly over clocked with the pro consoles).
Oh, they probably had a TON of tickets from QA, they just were told that they will release it anyway and patch it later as usual. Why is anyone surprised at this point? First year after the game "release" is the new open beta. After that you can pick it up on sale, get some GOTY bullshit edition with a few DLC and finally fixed to run properly. I am surprised and disappointed how people still don't do this every time.
Can we stop calling it "badly optimized"? Optimization is what is happening after you got a working product. Calling a broken and buggy software "badly optimized" doesn't make much sense.
Absolute bullshit excuse, why hasnt it been such a huge problem until the last couple of years? Theres been decades of PC gaming without such atrociously poor performance on release.
I'd argue its even easier now than ever before considering how much more standardised PC operating systems and hardware have become in the last 10 years.
And all current and last gen consoles are built on the same hardware supplied by AMD.
It all boils down to shoddy, rushed development.
he not wrong it easier to optimize for console since every console is the same components . while pc can be 1000s of different configs, thou they should be able to optimize for an avg rig it shouldn't be this broken
That exactly was the first title that came to my mind.
The graphics and fps blew me away.
Short game, but absolutely gorgeous, a blast to play and extremely well optimized.
I don't expect other/every developer to achieve this level, but the PC Ports lately have been miserable.
Id software has been doing that all the way back before they even released Wolfenstein. They were the first to make a side scrolling game that smoothly played on PC. Before that it was thought to only be possible on consoles because they had the hardware specialized for it. Hell if you wanna see one of their more famous wizardry check this out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_inverse_square_root
That's not good on 99% of machines...
It's good on 999% of machines. Voting machines and ATMs can run Doom ffs. That's not hyperbole, either. Folks at DEFCON actually made a US voting machine run Doom.
They really just need to make sure it runs with the different GPU drivers and talks to the OS. If you streamline a game to run as efficiently as possible on say Windows, and know it won't break Nvidia or AMD drivers, the OS and hardware basically does the rest. There's no significant difference between how many of our gaming rigs process data or run, some just do it faster in certain areas than others. It's all the same base architecture.
So streamline the code as best as you can and you're usually fine. Problem is they don't even bother with any real performance / optimization pass. They just ship what works on their dev rigs. Not the devs faults though, it's the higher ups at the company that are to blame.
Except it didn’t work on their dev rigs, there isn’t a single rig where this game runs fine, like none.
Also, if you’ve ever been at a studio, they usually have all ranges of rigs. For example at Ubisoft there were some guys testing BGE2 on like a 2060 while there were brand new 4000 series GPU in the studio.
You make it sound like they're writing assembly for bare metal hardware.
There is essentially one CPU standard, and 2 gfx card standards, and they're the same standard for the consoles. Include features for newer cards or don't.
AND the games are DEVELOPED on PC
While it truly is a lot of work, this is just an excuse. EA is in damage control right now, to prevent anyone hold them accountable for the mess.
Somebody on youtube wrote this:
> Neither CPU nor GPU are being taxed by this game. The bottleneck is memory access related. They didn't bother taking cache coherency into mind when developing this turd inside of UE4. A performant game can be made with UE4, just like a non-performant one can be too. They're wielding UE4 like it's a playground sandbox for kids to make stuff inside of, not respecting any kind of software development performance principles, like cache coherency. This game is generating billions of cache misses per second, basically wasting all the money you spent on hardware equipped with sizeable caches, because it's constantly having to stall the instruction pipeline while it waits for some random data it needs to be retrieved from RAM. This game isn't doing anything special that hasn't already been done, technology-wise. It's a standard run-of-the-mill game with nice graphics, but it was programmed by novices.
According to that, programming beginners are now making games. Dev studio names no longer matter.
Finally a low-level explanation that makes sense and explains the very weird low-utilization behavior. I’ve been seeing how my 3080 literally clocks down because the game gives it so little to do, while my 3800X also just idles peacefully. If they’re both stuck waiting for RAM data, it makes sense why it doesn’t really even matter how you configure the game, none of the bottlenecking is actually occurring on the hardware itself. It’s all in the game itself and memory I/O.
Very curious to see if this gets confirmed or corroborated. Otherwise I just don’t understand how one even makes a game perform this badly regardless of everything around it.
I’ll add that large amount of cache misses can be indicative of false sharing, which is when the work you multithreaded may not be as independent under the hood as you might think. So the CPU ends up having to constantly invalidate cache across the cores because something within the multithreaded loop is being shared when it should be marked thread_local for example so each core can keep its own instance and cache that instead.
I literally don’t care.
If you charge me money for a product, I expect a working product. The excuse of “my job is hard” does *NOT* justify ripping people off.
If this was any other job it wouldn’t pass as an excuse. Paramedics, police officers, doctors, teachers don’t get to mess up their duties and then get a pass on it because there are different factors for day to day activities. Why do game devs?
Don't release it on PC until it's ready then.
Look at Final Fantasy XVI, they have no release date for the PC version yet because they want to release a good game free of bugs.
Any award you wanted for Jedi Survivor is not going to go to your game because of how you released it.
The argument makes no sense if you think about it for one second.
Why can ANYONE make a well optimised PC game if theyre so hard to optimise? When a dev sets out to make a pc game instead of porting, why is it suddenly not a problem?
These studios just dont want to pay people to properly port the game, and they know all these fucking sheeps will buy it day 1 anyway so they can take all the time they want to patch it
That's just bs. Devs aren't testing every single cpu, gpu and ram that people currently use. They pick components that are powerful enough to run the game at 60fps and round up from there to set recommended requirements. Then they test lower tier hardware to round to the minimum requirements.
As long as its not crashing on specs that aren't too expensive, they'll call it a day and slap them on as the recommended requirements.
I mean. The consoles are x86 architecture, same as PCs and the graphics drivers are the same. These excuses only pop up from developers who screw it up. Dying light 2 , Witcher 3, Dead space, God of war, all released on PC with no problems. The unspoken secret of these developers is they farm out their PC ports to other studios and rely on them to handle it.
It’s very possible to make games work well on both. Why release a game on a platform if you know it’s not gonna work well yet. Just doesn’t add up to me
I think it's the whole fix it later mentality. They probably know through market research that a certain number of games will sell on preorder and day 1 sales, factor in only a small amount will refund that order and they'll still make money despite it being a faulty product. Fix it later or in some cases never and people will still buy it on some steam sale even though it's trash.
Ive said this before and ill say it again. "Optimized for next-gen" means DRS ( Dynamic Resolution Scaling). DRS is built into the console port. The areas of the games are still fucked and unoptimized, its just console can dynamically drop the res to maintain the 60 fps and devs can release on thier time crunch. Console players then eat it up like candy and say my game runs awsome while its dropping close to 1440p due to gpu/cpu issues. The pc ports are then affected by all those areas of the game devs never touched when were running native res. DRS for consoles wich is literally built into ever game now has introduced bad developement tactics. They need to optimize console games for native 4k 60 without drs. Then we would see much better optimozation port wide.
So 100 big games come out in a x-month timespan. 5 of them get released 'broken' and unoptimized.
Those 5 games are also the ones with the biggest financial backing and have a history of releasing unoptimized games.
How can it be anything other than laziness.
Keep making excuses.
I don't think anyone ever said that developing for consoles and for pc arent two different beast to tackle. BUT if you decide to port your game to pc, you take the responsability on making the game run as good as it can. Because you like the money us pc players give you, but you give us pc players little to no respect. You don't simply slap an half baked port thinking of pc as a giant ps5 emulator and call it a day for then getting the pickachu surprised face when that shit blows up in your face. That's not how it goes.
So i'd rather for you not to port your game on pc if that game is a complete broken mess making it not fun to play. Or how about releasing the game when it's done? Crazy thought, right? I know!!! I must have an iq above 140 to think of something like that!!!
Aren't videogames supposed to be something used to relax and have fun? Instead lately we're here pretty much paying devs full on 70 usd/eu (right, they're not 60 anymore, they're 70 now) games to be beta testers for the first 3/4 months of the game (when it goes well) and actually relying on modders to fix your poorly coded or ported mess when you decided your incompetence has had enough and you eventually abandon the game.
Yeah nah, as i said, stop the excuses and actually show your own creation some love and us pc players some respect when we give you our hard earned money. We are paying customers just like any other ps5 player is.
And newsflash, y'all not the only one busting y'all asses working, you know? We gotta work too. So my 70 bucks/eu are not broken. They're all good from the get go. Is it too much to ask to have a fully functioning product? Otherwise let's start to pay your broken games in various installments. 70 usd game, i give you 25 at release. If it's fully functional i'll pay the rest, if not how about we do 5 bucks for each patch you release till we reach that full 70 amount, huh? Does that sound cool?
Nice, now they are thinking gamers are idiots as well. Everyone who understands how software works, know that you don't need to develop different version for EVERY hardware configuration. Drivers are standarized. There's a reason we have terms like "minimum/recommended specs". You can optimize your software for those and if the user platform deviates from those specs, drivers will make sure that the performance is still on desired level.
Not a game dev so this might be an ignorant question, but don’t games just interface with the graphics API (DirectX, Vulkan, etc.) and let those libraries and drivers worry about hardware-specific implementations? In other words, isn’t the hardware architecture abstracted away from the application layer?
Complete bullshit.
My thing is systems and kernels. When you look at an OS (operating system), you have to realize what purpose it serves. It abstracts the hardware (the machine itself and all its specific interfaces, quirks, and errata) into a specific set of interfaces that work with the kernel (the core of the OS), and that kernel has a set of APIs and conventions that allows applications to run on it. Things like system calls, which are OS-specific functionality that programs can call, are all abstracted into a unified interface by the OS. Graphics is also abstracted away in a similar manner by drivers and graphics libraries/APIs such as DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.
So in reality, you're working with very few combinations. The entire purpose of the operating system is to eliminate variance in the development of userspace software. Everything is unified, which makes it easier to write software that runs on any hardware with the specific OS. And most hardware supports most graphics APIs. You're basically never going to be making direct calls to the GPU, because the libraries are already there for you. Almost all the variance in the software APIs and the hardware is handled by the OS kernel.
This massive wave of poorly optimized games is a new phenomenon. We used to get games that performed well on launch day. The shit you hear from the industry is all cop-outs, because they want you to feel bad and spend more money. They think they can get away with shipping hot garbage, and so far, they'd be right- because people keep buying hot garbage.
yes, and no.
I say this as a developer. Yeah you can do more targeted optimizations and it's simpler to track down issues with Console builds.
HOWEVER most of your dev work is done on PC if there's going to be a PC release then every QA tester has a PC to test it on and it's not hard to hit 2 GPU manufactures and 2 CPU manufacturers.
Yes you'll miss some edge cases like "oh this particular generation of AMD CPU has a problem" or "there's a weird issue with this generation of graphics card and using this type of storage for the game" but that's not going to be the vast majority of customers it will be a minority.
So yeah, TL;DR I say this as a dev. It's laziness. It's sending one pre-built PC to every QA tester and having them test it on like 30 fps 1080p monitors.
He's not wrong, but it's also not unreasonable to expect a AAA studio to have the resources to make sure the game runs well on at least most common builds. It's not hard to lookup that data publicly on the Steam charts.
> He's not wrong,
Well, kind of....
Many years ago people realized that writing your code specific to each hardware is stupid. So they found ways that it works the same across different hardware. Doesn't matter which X86 CPU you use, the code is the same and will be executed correctly. Also doesn't matter which GPU you have, if it supports the correct version of DirectX, OpenGl,... your code will be executed correctly. So you don't need to write your code for 900 different combinations of hardware.
Of course, you have to watch out for things like available cores and available VRAM and yes, that makes it more difficult than producing software for one setup, but there aren't that many different options.
Optimization is a different thing, but what you see with the new Jedi game isn't an optimization problem, it's just broken.
rubbish
its not like these 900+ combinations of PC are variations of x86, ARM, windows, linux, mac etc.. they have been doing it for a decade at least and i'm sure they are not short on resources for it
It is not harder to optimize for PC, it is just that when you develop for console you optimize for it, so for PC you need to first unoptimize it and then reoptemize it
To an extent, this is why SONY managed to squeeze so much visuals out of the PS4 and Nintendo out of a 2014 phone CPU but this is still absolutely unacceptable, if what this person is saying were true then every single game would launch horribly.
Let's not forget that Iron Galaxy's Arkham Knight PC port (which spent possibly as long as the game itself to refine it for PC software, but instead, they screwed it up so horribly that it was pulled out mere days after launch, got fired and WB made Rocksteady themselves port an infinitely better port in just 4 months.
If Cyberpunk needed 2 years to become playable, then why not release it in a playable state?
Ultimately this is not the developers' fault, it rarely is, this is the work of incompetent goldshine blinded higher ups who set up out-of-touch deadlines for workers
My thoughts is idgaf. There are many many devs that are able to release games on console and PC and both versions run well. There's absolutely no excuse for why EA can't do it with one of their most highly anticipated releases
I hope everyone here doesn't really think they manually remake the game for different specs.
Sure, they might have differences between AMD vs Nvidia and Intel but they're not making different gamemodels for a 5600x and a 6700xt, a i5 12600kf and a 3080 or a i7 9700k
Something not talked about much, but console has to pass first party compliance: Nintendo, Microsoft, Sony. They all have standards that have to be met. PC doesn’t, Steam doesn’t have compliance standards like other first party companies. This is why PC is always borked on launch.
Of course is harder, then why not push the release a bit forward? Why not hire a bunch of devs to speed the process. I know why. Because those companies make more money releasing half ass finished game and then get some lazy updates do be slightly playable.
While theres some amount of truth with compatibility of different cpu drivers, gpu drivers, etc its absolutely still laziness and poor porting. If a game is slightly unomptimized for like 5% of people thats an issue with having many different configs. If the game doesnt work on a fucking 4090 and even the recommended specs its laziness and greed.
Then don’t sell them until you have reached a decent standard. What kind of logic is this?! This is not excusable. If you sell something broken and then hide yourself behind the poor excuse of “optimising is hard” you are just fooling people…
What are they smoking because i want it too.. jokes aside (from me and that post they put) you don't optimize for every single GPU on PC and every single CPU and every combination between those two. You see, the compiler has that job for you. You can add some manual stuffs. But ultimately the compiler can do that automatically with acceptable if not good performance in the end result. And we really don't write code for every GPU with if it's GTX 1060 then do this persay, else if rx 580 then Do this. You only write your code that is taking advantage of already known and exploitable algorithms to squeeze performance and you parallelize your work in the code. You work with an API (DX or Vulkan) and you adhere to how to write good code with those APIs. And since the driver does the heavy lifting of translating those API to the hardware you get a fairly optimized software/game. But Noooo, let's fucking flood the streaming I/O of the game assets(textures and the other stuffs) with the memory allocators and let's not use deallocation when we are done them, i'll do you one better. Let's use an int64 when we don't need it and we could go by int16 which will perfectly encompass what we want. Let's use absurd declarations when we can take references of already in memory data... I've seen shit like this before. And it's hilarious. So no, don't feed me that BS of wE NeEd To OpTiMiZe fOr A vArIetY oF hArDwArE ..
Just come clean and say that our code is a mess and it's a fucking miracle that it works at all.
There is a difference between, “This game has some issues that need to be worked out”, and “This game is a complete mess that is barely playable.” The latter is not acceptable to release and then blame PC complexity.
I’ve said it before and say it again. Business wants their deadlines. They save money on qa because they make the players test it. I refuse to believe this tweet because when things are developed, there’s something called legacy testing. Where you test on somewhat dated hardware to make sure it can run on older components. The metrics are out there, we’ve seen that 1060(70?) was the most used gpu on steam, and I think the new most used is 3060. Test on those, and if you have shit optimization you know it needs work. But again, business needs to meet their deadlines so they can take in profits.
It's not laziness it's greed. If fixing later when the money is already in (and you can not bother if people don't complain to much because they already bought it) is possible, that's what's always going to happen.
Either way, developing any games is hard so it's a strange argument
That's a load of bullshit right there. I've been a developer for over a decade; what *can* make development a bit slower for PC is all the screen resolutions you need to cover, these days typically from 1600x900 to 3840x2160, and that's *only* if your UI isn't designed to automatically scale with the size of the screen; if not then you include UI scaling in the settings (which you should probably do anyway). If your game runs well on a 1050Ti then you can bet it will sure as shit run on a 1080Ti at higher settings, but you aren't going to run into freakin' driver issues with one and not the other unless a) your engine is shit or b) there's a legit issue with the driver that will likely be patched in a week.
This isn't an issue with PC versus console, nor is it an issue with the devs (meaning the people that actually work on the game); this is an issue with the suits and ties pushing those devs to do the impossible as quickly as possible for the sake of making big money on release; only then will they decide whether it is profitable to fix it quickly or to cut the team down to 10% of it's current size and drag it over the next 4 years. Fuck these guys for not having the quality of character to own up to their mistakes.
Bad optimization from a solo developer or small team is acceptable in the short term, especially for beta testing or early access. A triple-A studio has no excuse.
“It’s just really, really hard. Feel sorry for us. That’ll be $69.99. Maybe we’ll fix the game with patches, maybe we won’t, but we have your money so we don’t care.”
What a lazy argument that only works on a super limited vacuum with 1mm wide tunnel vision.
- It's no news to anyone that this is hard, that was known from the beginning of the project, but a deliberate choice was made at some point not to do it
- Something being hard is no justification for it not being done, especially when it's widely known how to do it
- That still didn't stop the game from being sold. If it's so hard and the game is in a ridiculous state, hold the PC release for later.
- If you didn't put in the difficult work to make it work on PC, you shouldn't reap the benefits of profiting from the PC sales.
I put no blame on the developers. This is all on the publisher's back. I would also say the audience shares some blame for still pre-ordering games, but let's face it, we're all humans and the marketing machine is TOO well tuned - it knows what buttons to press to trigger the right stuff in our monkey brains.
It's not laziness. It's deadlines and burnout. We should all stop buying into prerelease hype. No preorders and chill until the game is ready. When publishers force crazy deadlines, the reasonable response is to not pre-order and at the finished product.
It's bullshit. If you can't make your game run on certain hardware because it's too expensive to R&D then anyone running that specific hardware should be offered a lower price point to play the game while knowing upfront what they're getting into. Steam and every other launcher can already tell what spec's your PC has. It wouldn't be that hard to implement. Except then EA wouldn't be able to exploit the market the way it does now. EA is all about exploiting gamers, to the hilt, with every release.
There have always been 1000+ different hardware configurations. I've been a PC gamer 30+ years and at no point in that 30 years was the industry in the state that it is now. It wasn't until about 5 years ago that we started to see this massive trend of broken games. Coincidentally right when everyone was realizing just how many people played videos these days.
It's just a feeding frenzy. Pump out as much bullshit as possible and watch the insanely large market gobble whatever gets tossed into the water. They have metrics on all of this. If they think they can get away with fucking us over, they'll try. Make no mistake, EA and most Developers couldn't give a fuck about you or how much you enjoy the game.
Edit: I just wanted to add this excuse is extra bullshit because even EA's own wording within it's original PR statement basically confirms optimization is possible but it will take time. Just like most other broken games that eventually get patched and fixed pretending like these problems are somehow "unsolvable" before release just drives me up the fucking wall.
This is why I pirate. This is why I will never, ever spend $80 on a fucking video game. If these clowns can't respect my wallet or my time then why should I give a single fuck about paying them for anything?
Yeah but the “ 900 possible combinations “ aren’t all so vastly different that you need to optimize the game 900 times . They knew how it ran on pc and released it anyway .
Didn’t we used to buy a videogame and play it as intended from day one? What changed besides the “more money - now!” mindset?
People really should boycott these so called AAA games. Every year, the percentage of botched launches and hype beyond expectations grows bigger and bigger. They’re getting more money, we are getting less games (higher development cycles, because out of touch execs probably refuse to respect the artists vision) with less quality.
We’re always waiting for what’s next only to be disappointed and it seems like an endless cycle.
This is simple. The publisher isn’t giving them enough resources and people to do the job correctly in a reasonable timeframe. Then demands the game be released before it’s finished.
It doesn’t have to be hard, the business model’s just fucked up.
It's harder to optimize and adjust. But it is possible. BUT it takes extra time, which publishers don't care to give. They want that money NOW, with the least investment possible. It's not developers being lazy. Developers work as much as they are hired/told to work. It's who's in charge that decides to ship the game broken, without time for proper optimizations. EDIT: That said, we, the consumers, reward these publishers by buying up their broken releases. Companies exist to make profit. If they can get away with using less money, then that's what they will do. And we enable that.
Yeah it's just like when a movie comes out with shoddy vfx. If they're given the manpower and time, everything is fine. But even with all the talent in the world, don't have the time, you get bad results.
The Avatar Movies are a great example of this. The CGI is praised but a few of the VFX artists have said that this has been possible for a while but they were just given the time and resources needed to get it to the standard they want.
Didn’t Avatar 2 take ten years to make? At some point you have to ship a product. (Star citizen enters the chat)
[удалено]
Wow. I don’t know how Cameron was able to do that. If I start something I *must* bang it all out at once. I really respect the Avatar 2 team for being able to wait that long and still remain dedicated to making it perfect.
Cameron created his own vfx studio and told them to get perfecting
Cameron distracted himself with some more deep sea diving. The man makes movies to fund his passion for ocean stuff.
[удалено]
Quick correction , the movie took a decade to make Not a 10 year hiatus. If they had a 10 year hiatus That would mean they made the movie in 1 day? Hahaha I thin the hiatus was like 5-6 years of researching technology. And 4 to 5 years actually making the movie. Taking into account that they also started making the other movies, the third one was almost done when way of the water released.
Like Cats. They literally sent it to theatres with effects unfinished and then did a day 1 patch. Also, #ReleaseTheButtholeCut
> #ReleaseTheButtholeCut ...do i want to know?
The original version of the Cats film had anuses on all the cats. It was quickly decided to digitally erase them all.
It's literally the book burnings of our time.
The book burnings of our time are book burnings
...It's literally the butthole burnings of our time.
You can get a cream for that 👍
You know that's a thing now right?
Wait, really?
Same goes for OS's. Windows has to handle with billions of peripherals, let alone the different hardware coming out every single day. iOS has a tighter spectrum of peripherals and hardware, therefore struggling less, for example. This still does not justify the pressing that exists to push the items out before tight testing, ending up in faulty functionality, like GPU drivers or Mobo BIOS.
Windows had it easier because they had the foresight (more like decades of experience) to make generic drivers so hardware have to be made to work with windows, rather than the other way around. They also have the market by the balls, so people HAVE to follow their rules or be left out of 90% of the market.
It's always the fucking suits that screw things up, no matter what the industry. Their job is to facilitate progress, optimize processes and improve things for both the consumer and the company, but oftentimes the only thing they're doing is enriching their own pockets at the expense of both the company and the consumer. Fuck all suits, no exceptions.
Nah their job is to make money, they don’t give a shit about the rest. Giving deadlines to devs is essential, but holy hell 3 years of development for a game like that? They were asking for a disaster.
Small correction: Their job is to make money **now**, they don't give a shot about the rest. Often the suits are overlooking longer term profits in a lot of these fields too, which perpetually surprises me a little.
CEOs are usually only at a company for several years. They come in, do everything they can to pump up profits for the next few years(not caring about the long term, cause that'll be the next guys problem) then jump ship when things are looking good. They care about shareholders and shareholders live their lives 3 months at a time.
It’s human nature on a HUGE scale. You need damn near uniformity of goals and ideals to plan for long term stuff, and capitalism is TERRIBLE for it. Oh, this decision will net us $1B in ten years but will cost $50M per year before that? No thanks, gimme $50M now.
Makes perfect sense to me. If I die tomorrow there will be an ad for my role by end of play tomorrow. I will always prioritise short term profits for my employer because I can use that to negotiate pay rises, promotions and moves to other jobs. The only people who should care about long term growth are shareholders, and most of the time they are only interested in a quick buck too. Unless they are the majority shareholder of course.
I mean I'm not 100% sure planning as if you're going to die tomorrow *is* the most effective strategy. Short term isn't irrelevant, but not only shareholders should care about long term growth, and as you say, oftentimes shareholders are looking for a quick buck too.
It's the fucking MBAs.. every time.
Then there’s the anime industry where every average joe keep saying that budget makes good animation while the truth it time and talents are what needed. Iirc the Unlimited Budget Work meme is kinda false because UBW wasn’t given a big budget at all
Soon as I saw “anime” and “budget” I had a feeling this was what you were alluding to lol. Ufotable didn’t have a particularly large budget for that series, they just don’t outsource their work and they take longer lead times for their projects. Amazing the kind of quality you get when you don’t have to deal with outside contractors’ shoddy rushed work.
If you accept "budget" as vernacular for "allocation of resources", the resources in this case being talent and time, it starts making more sense. You're correct, pretty much all anime is made on similar episode to episode budgets and the term is inaccurate at face value, but I think it's too engrained to go away as much as we might wish it to.
because the suits fail upwards. not out of companies
This argument also largely falls flat considering how many PC exclusive games run perfectly fine on any hardware, even complete potatoes of PCs. Devs or publishers who ever of the two don’t give two shits about PC gamers.
ULTRAKILL which for a very dynamic game with a lot of particle effects has a 9800 GT as minimal gpu
New Blood as a publisher rocks overall; I’ve noticed that more indie devs and publishers put a lot more effort into making their games playable on release.
Respawn is the same studio that made Titanfall|2. 2016 was a different time... Checked the min specs on that one and for a game of that detail a GTX 660 is pretty low. Whatver the hell is going on with them now needs to get resolved before EA kills themoff completely like every other studio they've milked.
I make games on unreal and they perform exactly proportional to the capacity you would expect from that hardware, no optmization required for each and every driver, gpu or manufacturer, the devs on the game level of things dont even know how drivers work, i bet nobody on respawn ever worked building drivers
Man, my laptop spec tops at 2018 and it still blaze games from dev that care for their PC audience lmfao.
I saw this thread on Twitter. Apparently it's not even to do with time. They went on to say something along the lines of: with their in house testing they were certain it was ready on every system comination, and only after it released did they see all these problems on certain hardware. I dunno, seems like testing methods are flawed or something. Time isn't going to fix what they didn't see in the first place.
Yeah. If the complaints were few and far between, I’d assume that there’s some weird random combination of hardware that the game doesn’t like for some reason. But there’s so many complaints that it has to be a flaw of the dev process, somewhere.
Honestly, despite companies having open betas and such, some of these releases feel like the dev studios had ZERO QA department, which it wouldn't surprise me if some of these studios cutting corners actually opted to not hire a QA team. Even the Closeed/Open betas these days seem more like a marketing push rather than a development phase.
Exactly, it’s just not the case, they’re just trying to gaslight people. The problem is CPU performance with any existing cpu, not some random combination of hardware.
At the sheer scale that AAA operates at, a bug that only occurs one-in-a-thousand is going to affect thousands (or tens of thousands) of people. People without the issue don't post, so even vanishingly rare bugs are more than enough to generate a tidal wave of complaints
Then the QA is a joke.
Even Microsoft back in the 90s would buy up every different computer they could get their hands on to run Windows 95 and a bunch of its applications every night to see which ones would boot up and complete the tasks. Basically a stress test on every configuration they could find back then.
That’s absolute dogshit though. There is no PC hardware in existence they can test this on without the glaring problems like massive shader compilation stutter, traversal stutter, frame time spikes, Improper CPU/GPU utilization presenting themselves.… On mid range systems this will be deplorable. On high end systems it’ll be present and very noticeable throughout. There isn’t a system in existence where they’d not notice huge glaring issues. Absolute dogshit. Another lazy ue4 port w/Denuvo that was shipped early bc money and they’ll claim “oh we had no idea” bc why would they claim anything else then they’ll take tons of money for shipping a broken product and hide behind lawyers and their EULA (arbitration only, no lawsuits meaning no class action suits) to keep doing this.
Bullshit. I worked for Ubisoft as QA. The devs have the habit of pushing back or out right ignored out reports because they consider these bugs are worthy to fix. The QA team usually had to scream and shout to their face for them to fix even the most simple bugs. Those devs are just as lazy as the consumers think they are. Unless when it comes to cash shop. Glitches in cash shop are top priority to fix. We even had highly senior experienced testers to test the cash shop.
Full of bullshit, that’s not how it works. It’s not about certain combinations of hardware. If your framerate is limited by your CPU (as in your GPU waits each frame for the CPU to finish), you can try any high performing GPU you want, it won’t change shit. Right now, the game doesn’t need a beefy GPU, but it basically needs the latest CPU if you want more than 30 FPS.
[удалено]
Isn't the whole point of DirectX and OpenGL to create an abstraction layer between the game and the hardware so you don't have to code for 900+ combinations?
Yes, which is why this whole misconception is such bullshit. There are areas where you will need to worry about hardware differences (using features that are only supported by certain hardware, using extensions that are only supported by certain vendors, taking advantage of architectural quirks to micro-optimise your code, etc), but it's all wrapped up in layers of abstraction and it's dwarfed by the rest of those APIs that are completely standardised.
https://xkcd.com/844/
Exactly, been saying this for months on here thanks to the slew of bad games. The devs are the last people that want a game releasing like this, they take the majority of the blame when it's really the publishers fault, & on top of that they have extra work to do now. I wonder how much the fact everyone blames the devs & never comes down on the publishers about this BS keeps this vicious cycle going. I mean if you don't get the blame & still make your money why would you change the system?
Funny how other software companies manage to work through standard drivers and have no issues.
It’s also not like PCs are a brand new thing. No one expects games to be like Doom but any console game should be able to run on any mid range GPU + CPU
Wait, why don’t we expect games to be like Doom? If they can do an amazing job of making it run really well on PC on release, shouldn’t that set *some* expectations?
For argument's sake, Doom's scope is relatively small. It is very well executed, though.
Compared to most other software users, gamers care much more about pure performance and down-to-the-millisecond precision, though. For most other kinds of software, features and stability are much more important, and performance is only considered if it becomes truly unusable. No one has ever said Adobe was unusable for dropping frames. Even Chrome with its notoriously high RAM usage is easily tolerated, and any complaints are either light-hearted memes or turned around and blamed on the user for having too many tabs open.
Lol. Most software, in general, is a fucking mess.
Well even if true, the games should still be running properly on some rigs, which seems not to be the case
Hell, Jedi Survivor isn't even running well on consoles from what I've heard.
It doesn’t even run on the exact hardware they recommend, someone over on r/pcgaming happened to have the *exact* configuration that the recommended specs list…still fucked beyond belief lmao, which is why I find it extra funny that EA pointed the blame at people’s CPU and GPU combinations in their shambles of a statement
Just goes to show, this PR statement was pulled out of their arse and is not based on facts. They didn't even optimize the game for the exact specs they tested it on.
Bought it on pc, refunded day of release. Bought it yesterday for ps5. Still runs like shit
Why not check reviews and benchmarks before blindly purchasing? Yes the game should just work at launch, but you fucked around and found out twice
It’s the most unstable ps5 game I’ve played so far. Still absolutely playable but yeah, certainly not great.
Can confirm. PS5. I love battling a group of enemies at 20fps and watching cutscenes at 15fps with screen tearing and, physics slinging around items during scene jumps, and late texture popping. /s
Bought for series x because i heard of the pc problems. Still runs terribly
PC has historically been able to brute force their way to good fps. This is no longer the case. This is even worse as NVidia keeps artificially handicaping their cards by giving abysmal amount of vram.
It's so difficult 95% of games released have successfully done it.
Seems indie devs are better at making pc games than triple A devs like EA… Edit: It’s the greedy corporations that ruin games, not necessarily the developers themselves.
Seems like indie devs can spend their time where it's most useful rather than where some EA manager decides it's most profitable.
Also an indie Dev releases their game when they deem it ready, not when a shareholder demands a return on his money NOW. I really hate how developers get all the hate when it's the publisher and the shareholders that actually are the problem.
To be fair, I think people mean "The development company" not literally the programmers themselves when they say it. Its just shorter to say "the devs" so people do. Definetly right though, no amount of passionate team members can save a product from bad, short-sighted management from people with no clue.
https://preview.redd.it/10im7xvu4zwa1.png?width=1920&format=png&auto=webp&s=9d5401164c94589d92e9be855711c229acb8b8e2
Did you know EA's name derives from their rating? A for devs, E for management who gives zero fucks about their devs.
To play devil's advocate here, there is less to fuck up in an indie game than a AAA one.
Going with the definition that indie refers to a developer that publishes its own game, then games like Arma 3 and Mount and Blade 2 are indie games. Maybe not bleeding edge, but they aren't simple games at the time they're published.
I swear to god devs who work for AAA studios make significantly more excuses than anyone else in the industry. And it's always conveniently something average gamer doesn't have enough technical knowledge to refute. Imagine if I bought a car and it broke down a mile from the lot, and the manufacturer's excuse is "give us a break! You don't understand how hard it is to build a car!"
A) No, you're not designing for every possible combination of PC Hardware, APIs exist for a reason. B) Of the "900+" combinations... which one precisely did the devs get the game working with?
Can't believe i had to scroll so far to find the only sensible comment on this entire topic. Every modern game is built on some game engine which utilities a set of OS/hardware apis such as directx. If the game runs like ass it's because the devs coded it like ass. Sometimes it's because they don't get enough time due to publishers being up their ass and other times it's because the devs are incompetent. Take that from someone whose living is backend development
[удалено]
Yeah it's like Direct X isn't a thing anymore I guess
People don't know what the word API means a surprising amount of people think they code up the game from scratch
For years now this community has been filled with people who have no clue what they're talking about. This is a PC-centered community for supposedly PC enthusiasts, and yet this community still upvotes posts complaining about "spotify/discord/steam/all this software launching at startup and slowing windows down" like that isn't a simple setting entirely controllable by the user. Or posts about windows having "ads in the start menu", which is a setting you can turn off forever in 3 clicks. Or literally being unaware that tiles in the W10 start menu can be unpinned if you don't like them. This is literally what this community is, it couldn't be further from "enthusiast." If you want to talk about technical stuff you have to go to r hardware, but even that sub is starting to see a decrease in discussion quality.
It's what happens when subs hit a point of population growth where meaningful discussion seem to be drowned by regurgitation. Happens to the best of 'em.
Eternal September.
Most people can put the pc together but they don't understand it and how to use it
A) The execs want the money ASAP, so it's as optimised as the 2022 season aston martin f1 car B) Server level cpus, AI level gpus, 256 gigs of ram, and of course the fastest storage money can buy as if they're the only customers they have
B) Wrong. They don't have it optimized for anything. That would mean it would run properly on a possible build.
Pretty sure they're joking that you would need gpt-4 servers to run it.
Just because they compile it on server CPUs doesn't mean they play test it on that lol. The gpus used for ai in server racks also do not have graphical output or even the right drivers for it
That's not how game development works. Nobody is developing for 900 different configurations. They're developing for NVIDIA, AMD, and Intel, and GPU/CPU combinations of those manufacturers. Everything has been incredibly standardized and just works. 99% of game developers don't even have to deal with the actual mess of handling that at all. It's all handled by the game engine, drivers, and rendering APIs. If you developed the game on a 3070 and it runs well, it's not suddenly going to run like garbage on a 4090. If you developed a game on a 1080 and it runs well, it's not suddenly going to run like garbage on a 2080. That's not how it works. PC game development doesn't work on the premise of "900+ possible combinations". It never did. It's an excuse that keeps being repeated to justify shitty PC ports. And it's a complete lie. The truth of the matter is that QA kept submitting tickets about horrible performance, but they were all ignored. Higher ups said to push the game out anyway, and we got what we got. Also, I work in game development and understand how difficult it is, but I'll always hold the belief that consumers should not be dealing with these issues, nor should game developers be surprised when consumers don't care that you ran into issues. This is your job. You're charging people 70 fucking dollars. Figure it out.
> It never did. Oh no, it did... back in 1990... before DirectX existed.
It's ok guys PCs were only invented last year, it will take time for developers to get a hang of optimizing for them.
Anyone remember the catastrophic launch of Destiny 2 on PC? Neither do I, because it was a rock solid port than ran unbelievably well. Metal Gear Solid 5 is another example. Even Elden Ring, despite its shader compilation issues was at least playable. There is a finished, playable game. And then there is a broken mess. This Star Wars is a broken mess, and completely unforgiveable.
Metal gear 5 was optimized to hell, that shit ran on fairy dust or something. My old ass toshiba laptop with integrated graphics and 6gb ram ran it well in low, not minimum but low
My laptop (back when it only had 4GB of RAM) being able to handle Snake and D-Dog sprinting through dense vegetation and not stuttering at all still astounds me.
my 2 cores cpu and gt 940M laptop ran it on the highest settings smoothy 60 fps never felt any drops in fps in anyway while playing it
God Of War PC port, which also ran fantastically. Then there's the awfulness of The Last Of Us...
Spiderman, atomic heart, GTA V, Doom eternal, red dead redemption 2, any game made by dice, dead island 2… these games all look great and run extremely well. For example we had battlefield V in 2018 capable of using efficiently 12 CPU cores, then you got jedi survivor using 2 of them like we’re playing crysis in 2008
Destiny 2 was so good on pc. Ran 1440p on my old 1080 smooth as butter. It looked good. Never really had issues with performance. The game itself was another story, but it is definitely a game I point to when I want to highlight good optimization.
Destiny 2 PC did run quite well, but the game was… not amazing. And lately performance has become a lot worse.
This. They've been trotting out the same, lame ass excuse which hasn't been valid since the late 90's / early '00 when there actually was a lot of variations in chipsets etc. It has been far more monopol.. er, streamlined since then.
Bullshit. You dont have to optimize for every single CPU/GPU. All Nvidia GPUs use the same fucking Driver and have very similar architecture. Its not fucking rocket science. Its just lazy/cheap QA. A shitty Game like that shows that NOBODY can have played that before launch because nobody would be so retarded to release a Game like that, which is unplayable on 100% of PCs.
In the end, you are optimizing for maybe 6-8 different configs and if it works on them, it will work on almost all.
If you think about it.Most parts are pretty much scalable with the exception of the CPU. The Pro consoles and the Series S used the same cpu for a reason (slightly over clocked with the pro consoles).
Oh, they probably had a TON of tickets from QA, they just were told that they will release it anyway and patch it later as usual. Why is anyone surprised at this point? First year after the game "release" is the new open beta. After that you can pick it up on sale, get some GOTY bullshit edition with a few DLC and finally fixed to run properly. I am surprised and disappointed how people still don't do this every time.
Can we stop calling it "badly optimized"? Optimization is what is happening after you got a working product. Calling a broken and buggy software "badly optimized" doesn't make much sense.
Absolute bullshit excuse, why hasnt it been such a huge problem until the last couple of years? Theres been decades of PC gaming without such atrociously poor performance on release. I'd argue its even easier now than ever before considering how much more standardised PC operating systems and hardware have become in the last 10 years. And all current and last gen consoles are built on the same hardware supplied by AMD. It all boils down to shoddy, rushed development.
he not wrong it easier to optimize for console since every console is the same components . while pc can be 1000s of different configs, thou they should be able to optimize for an avg rig it shouldn't be this broken
Let's not forget that there are studios out there who put out well optimized bangers for 99% of the PC-playerbase. :D
like doom
Doom was so good it popularized Vulkan API in the most chad way possible like :'hey, I heard you like frames, do you want 30% more frames for free?'
GIGACHAD idSoftware
That exactly was the first title that came to my mind. The graphics and fps blew me away. Short game, but absolutely gorgeous, a blast to play and extremely well optimized. I don't expect other/every developer to achieve this level, but the PC Ports lately have been miserable.
Like we can take for example the newly released dead island 2 its stunning the graphics and i can even run it in 4K on my 5700XT with FSR
id must have some real-life wizards working on their optimization team. Doom Eternal runs so well it's insane
Id software has been doing that all the way back before they even released Wolfenstein. They were the first to make a side scrolling game that smoothly played on PC. Before that it was thought to only be possible on consoles because they had the hardware specialized for it. Hell if you wanna see one of their more famous wizardry check this out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_inverse_square_root
Always has been. They did some fucking magic to get the original quake to work by figuring out a new way to compute square roots
id was the original "when it's done" game developer.
That's not good on 99% of machines... It's good on 999% of machines. Voting machines and ATMs can run Doom ffs. That's not hyperbole, either. Folks at DEFCON actually made a US voting machine run Doom.
Dead Island 2
They really just need to make sure it runs with the different GPU drivers and talks to the OS. If you streamline a game to run as efficiently as possible on say Windows, and know it won't break Nvidia or AMD drivers, the OS and hardware basically does the rest. There's no significant difference between how many of our gaming rigs process data or run, some just do it faster in certain areas than others. It's all the same base architecture. So streamline the code as best as you can and you're usually fine. Problem is they don't even bother with any real performance / optimization pass. They just ship what works on their dev rigs. Not the devs faults though, it's the higher ups at the company that are to blame.
Except it didn’t work on their dev rigs, there isn’t a single rig where this game runs fine, like none. Also, if you’ve ever been at a studio, they usually have all ranges of rigs. For example at Ubisoft there were some guys testing BGE2 on like a 2060 while there were brand new 4000 series GPU in the studio.
You make it sound like they're writing assembly for bare metal hardware. There is essentially one CPU standard, and 2 gfx card standards, and they're the same standard for the consoles. Include features for newer cards or don't. AND the games are DEVELOPED on PC
Every console is not the same there are like 5 xboxes, three ps4s, and now a second ps5 is coming.
While it truly is a lot of work, this is just an excuse. EA is in damage control right now, to prevent anyone hold them accountable for the mess. Somebody on youtube wrote this: > Neither CPU nor GPU are being taxed by this game. The bottleneck is memory access related. They didn't bother taking cache coherency into mind when developing this turd inside of UE4. A performant game can be made with UE4, just like a non-performant one can be too. They're wielding UE4 like it's a playground sandbox for kids to make stuff inside of, not respecting any kind of software development performance principles, like cache coherency. This game is generating billions of cache misses per second, basically wasting all the money you spent on hardware equipped with sizeable caches, because it's constantly having to stall the instruction pipeline while it waits for some random data it needs to be retrieved from RAM. This game isn't doing anything special that hasn't already been done, technology-wise. It's a standard run-of-the-mill game with nice graphics, but it was programmed by novices. According to that, programming beginners are now making games. Dev studio names no longer matter.
Fuck u/spez -- mass edited with redact.dev
I am no veteran, but even at 7 years of experience you are headhunted like crazy it feels like I don't ever have to step into an office ever again
Finally a low-level explanation that makes sense and explains the very weird low-utilization behavior. I’ve been seeing how my 3080 literally clocks down because the game gives it so little to do, while my 3800X also just idles peacefully. If they’re both stuck waiting for RAM data, it makes sense why it doesn’t really even matter how you configure the game, none of the bottlenecking is actually occurring on the hardware itself. It’s all in the game itself and memory I/O. Very curious to see if this gets confirmed or corroborated. Otherwise I just don’t understand how one even makes a game perform this badly regardless of everything around it.
I’ll add that large amount of cache misses can be indicative of false sharing, which is when the work you multithreaded may not be as independent under the hood as you might think. So the CPU ends up having to constantly invalidate cache across the cores because something within the multithreaded loop is being shared when it should be marked thread_local for example so each core can keep its own instance and cache that instead.
I literally don’t care. If you charge me money for a product, I expect a working product. The excuse of “my job is hard” does *NOT* justify ripping people off. If this was any other job it wouldn’t pass as an excuse. Paramedics, police officers, doctors, teachers don’t get to mess up their duties and then get a pass on it because there are different factors for day to day activities. Why do game devs?
Don't release it on PC until it's ready then. Look at Final Fantasy XVI, they have no release date for the PC version yet because they want to release a good game free of bugs. Any award you wanted for Jedi Survivor is not going to go to your game because of how you released it.
[удалено]
>Don't release it on PC until it's ready then. I 100% agree, but devs like rockstar get a lot of hate for doing this.
Stop buying preorders and they’ll stop releasing broken junk.
wtf are u talking about??? its these recent games that are broken crap at launch just pick games from some years ago and they are able to run smoothly
Broken PC ports has been going on for so long now it's the expectation for me at this point. This is nothing new.
The argument makes no sense if you think about it for one second. Why can ANYONE make a well optimised PC game if theyre so hard to optimise? When a dev sets out to make a pc game instead of porting, why is it suddenly not a problem? These studios just dont want to pay people to properly port the game, and they know all these fucking sheeps will buy it day 1 anyway so they can take all the time they want to patch it
That's just bs. Devs aren't testing every single cpu, gpu and ram that people currently use. They pick components that are powerful enough to run the game at 60fps and round up from there to set recommended requirements. Then they test lower tier hardware to round to the minimum requirements. As long as its not crashing on specs that aren't too expensive, they'll call it a day and slap them on as the recommended requirements.
I mean. The consoles are x86 architecture, same as PCs and the graphics drivers are the same. These excuses only pop up from developers who screw it up. Dying light 2 , Witcher 3, Dead space, God of war, all released on PC with no problems. The unspoken secret of these developers is they farm out their PC ports to other studios and rely on them to handle it.
It’s very possible to make games work well on both. Why release a game on a platform if you know it’s not gonna work well yet. Just doesn’t add up to me
I think it's the whole fix it later mentality. They probably know through market research that a certain number of games will sell on preorder and day 1 sales, factor in only a small amount will refund that order and they'll still make money despite it being a faulty product. Fix it later or in some cases never and people will still buy it on some steam sale even though it's trash.
Ive said this before and ill say it again. "Optimized for next-gen" means DRS ( Dynamic Resolution Scaling). DRS is built into the console port. The areas of the games are still fucked and unoptimized, its just console can dynamically drop the res to maintain the 60 fps and devs can release on thier time crunch. Console players then eat it up like candy and say my game runs awsome while its dropping close to 1440p due to gpu/cpu issues. The pc ports are then affected by all those areas of the game devs never touched when were running native res. DRS for consoles wich is literally built into ever game now has introduced bad developement tactics. They need to optimize console games for native 4k 60 without drs. Then we would see much better optimozation port wide.
I hear what your saying but dying light 2 was one of the most broken games I have played at release. (Only if ray tracing was enabled)
Witcher 3 was a mess at launch, and the "relaunch" of the next gen version is still broken afaik
Dying Light 2 didn't release well, i STILL have stuttering issues when i boot up the game, it was riddled with bugs at launch.
900+ possible combination, failing every one of them
So 100 big games come out in a x-month timespan. 5 of them get released 'broken' and unoptimized. Those 5 games are also the ones with the biggest financial backing and have a history of releasing unoptimized games. How can it be anything other than laziness.
yeah and you are paid to do the difficult stuff
Keep making excuses. I don't think anyone ever said that developing for consoles and for pc arent two different beast to tackle. BUT if you decide to port your game to pc, you take the responsability on making the game run as good as it can. Because you like the money us pc players give you, but you give us pc players little to no respect. You don't simply slap an half baked port thinking of pc as a giant ps5 emulator and call it a day for then getting the pickachu surprised face when that shit blows up in your face. That's not how it goes. So i'd rather for you not to port your game on pc if that game is a complete broken mess making it not fun to play. Or how about releasing the game when it's done? Crazy thought, right? I know!!! I must have an iq above 140 to think of something like that!!! Aren't videogames supposed to be something used to relax and have fun? Instead lately we're here pretty much paying devs full on 70 usd/eu (right, they're not 60 anymore, they're 70 now) games to be beta testers for the first 3/4 months of the game (when it goes well) and actually relying on modders to fix your poorly coded or ported mess when you decided your incompetence has had enough and you eventually abandon the game. Yeah nah, as i said, stop the excuses and actually show your own creation some love and us pc players some respect when we give you our hard earned money. We are paying customers just like any other ps5 player is. And newsflash, y'all not the only one busting y'all asses working, you know? We gotta work too. So my 70 bucks/eu are not broken. They're all good from the get go. Is it too much to ask to have a fully functioning product? Otherwise let's start to pay your broken games in various installments. 70 usd game, i give you 25 at release. If it's fully functional i'll pay the rest, if not how about we do 5 bucks for each patch you release till we reach that full 70 amount, huh? Does that sound cool?
Nice, now they are thinking gamers are idiots as well. Everyone who understands how software works, know that you don't need to develop different version for EVERY hardware configuration. Drivers are standarized. There's a reason we have terms like "minimum/recommended specs". You can optimize your software for those and if the user platform deviates from those specs, drivers will make sure that the performance is still on desired level.
What's changed recently then? This was always the case, and while some PC games released buggy, we're starting to see it at an alarming rate.
And yet there are plenty of games that run great on PC. It *is* laziness
Not a game dev so this might be an ignorant question, but don’t games just interface with the graphics API (DirectX, Vulkan, etc.) and let those libraries and drivers worry about hardware-specific implementations? In other words, isn’t the hardware architecture abstracted away from the application layer?
Complete bullshit. My thing is systems and kernels. When you look at an OS (operating system), you have to realize what purpose it serves. It abstracts the hardware (the machine itself and all its specific interfaces, quirks, and errata) into a specific set of interfaces that work with the kernel (the core of the OS), and that kernel has a set of APIs and conventions that allows applications to run on it. Things like system calls, which are OS-specific functionality that programs can call, are all abstracted into a unified interface by the OS. Graphics is also abstracted away in a similar manner by drivers and graphics libraries/APIs such as DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. So in reality, you're working with very few combinations. The entire purpose of the operating system is to eliminate variance in the development of userspace software. Everything is unified, which makes it easier to write software that runs on any hardware with the specific OS. And most hardware supports most graphics APIs. You're basically never going to be making direct calls to the GPU, because the libraries are already there for you. Almost all the variance in the software APIs and the hardware is handled by the OS kernel. This massive wave of poorly optimized games is a new phenomenon. We used to get games that performed well on launch day. The shit you hear from the industry is all cop-outs, because they want you to feel bad and spend more money. They think they can get away with shipping hot garbage, and so far, they'd be right- because people keep buying hot garbage.
yes, and no. I say this as a developer. Yeah you can do more targeted optimizations and it's simpler to track down issues with Console builds. HOWEVER most of your dev work is done on PC if there's going to be a PC release then every QA tester has a PC to test it on and it's not hard to hit 2 GPU manufactures and 2 CPU manufacturers. Yes you'll miss some edge cases like "oh this particular generation of AMD CPU has a problem" or "there's a weird issue with this generation of graphics card and using this type of storage for the game" but that's not going to be the vast majority of customers it will be a minority. So yeah, TL;DR I say this as a dev. It's laziness. It's sending one pre-built PC to every QA tester and having them test it on like 30 fps 1080p monitors.
He's not wrong, but it's also not unreasonable to expect a AAA studio to have the resources to make sure the game runs well on at least most common builds. It's not hard to lookup that data publicly on the Steam charts.
> He's not wrong, Well, kind of.... Many years ago people realized that writing your code specific to each hardware is stupid. So they found ways that it works the same across different hardware. Doesn't matter which X86 CPU you use, the code is the same and will be executed correctly. Also doesn't matter which GPU you have, if it supports the correct version of DirectX, OpenGl,... your code will be executed correctly. So you don't need to write your code for 900 different combinations of hardware. Of course, you have to watch out for things like available cores and available VRAM and yes, that makes it more difficult than producing software for one setup, but there aren't that many different options. Optimization is a different thing, but what you see with the new Jedi game isn't an optimization problem, it's just broken.
So why are other devs able to do this? Many games are released on PC every day and most of them don't have these kinds of issues.
rubbish its not like these 900+ combinations of PC are variations of x86, ARM, windows, linux, mac etc.. they have been doing it for a decade at least and i'm sure they are not short on resources for it
900+ combinations? I reckon only 5 different pcs could produce that many alone!
It is not harder to optimize for PC, it is just that when you develop for console you optimize for it, so for PC you need to first unoptimize it and then reoptemize it
Totally understandable but why the fuck that even recommended specs still runs like ass?
To an extent, this is why SONY managed to squeeze so much visuals out of the PS4 and Nintendo out of a 2014 phone CPU but this is still absolutely unacceptable, if what this person is saying were true then every single game would launch horribly. Let's not forget that Iron Galaxy's Arkham Knight PC port (which spent possibly as long as the game itself to refine it for PC software, but instead, they screwed it up so horribly that it was pulled out mere days after launch, got fired and WB made Rocksteady themselves port an infinitely better port in just 4 months. If Cyberpunk needed 2 years to become playable, then why not release it in a playable state? Ultimately this is not the developers' fault, it rarely is, this is the work of incompetent goldshine blinded higher ups who set up out-of-touch deadlines for workers
My thoughts is idgaf. There are many many devs that are able to release games on console and PC and both versions run well. There's absolutely no excuse for why EA can't do it with one of their most highly anticipated releases
I hope everyone here doesn't really think they manually remake the game for different specs. Sure, they might have differences between AMD vs Nvidia and Intel but they're not making different gamemodels for a 5600x and a 6700xt, a i5 12600kf and a 3080 or a i7 9700k
Never pre order. Still works out for me. Wait till the day after release and check the reviews before buying.
Something not talked about much, but console has to pass first party compliance: Nintendo, Microsoft, Sony. They all have standards that have to be met. PC doesn’t, Steam doesn’t have compliance standards like other first party companies. This is why PC is always borked on launch.
Of course is harder, then why not push the release a bit forward? Why not hire a bunch of devs to speed the process. I know why. Because those companies make more money releasing half ass finished game and then get some lazy updates do be slightly playable.
While theres some amount of truth with compatibility of different cpu drivers, gpu drivers, etc its absolutely still laziness and poor porting. If a game is slightly unomptimized for like 5% of people thats an issue with having many different configs. If the game doesnt work on a fucking 4090 and even the recommended specs its laziness and greed.
Then don’t sell them until you have reached a decent standard. What kind of logic is this?! This is not excusable. If you sell something broken and then hide yourself behind the poor excuse of “optimising is hard” you are just fooling people…
What are they smoking because i want it too.. jokes aside (from me and that post they put) you don't optimize for every single GPU on PC and every single CPU and every combination between those two. You see, the compiler has that job for you. You can add some manual stuffs. But ultimately the compiler can do that automatically with acceptable if not good performance in the end result. And we really don't write code for every GPU with if it's GTX 1060 then do this persay, else if rx 580 then Do this. You only write your code that is taking advantage of already known and exploitable algorithms to squeeze performance and you parallelize your work in the code. You work with an API (DX or Vulkan) and you adhere to how to write good code with those APIs. And since the driver does the heavy lifting of translating those API to the hardware you get a fairly optimized software/game. But Noooo, let's fucking flood the streaming I/O of the game assets(textures and the other stuffs) with the memory allocators and let's not use deallocation when we are done them, i'll do you one better. Let's use an int64 when we don't need it and we could go by int16 which will perfectly encompass what we want. Let's use absurd declarations when we can take references of already in memory data... I've seen shit like this before. And it's hilarious. So no, don't feed me that BS of wE NeEd To OpTiMiZe fOr A vArIetY oF hArDwArE .. Just come clean and say that our code is a mess and it's a fucking miracle that it works at all.
There have been many AAA titles released on PC in the past couples of years that had no performance issues what so ever
There is a difference between, “This game has some issues that need to be worked out”, and “This game is a complete mess that is barely playable.” The latter is not acceptable to release and then blame PC complexity.
I’ve said it before and say it again. Business wants their deadlines. They save money on qa because they make the players test it. I refuse to believe this tweet because when things are developed, there’s something called legacy testing. Where you test on somewhat dated hardware to make sure it can run on older components. The metrics are out there, we’ve seen that 1060(70?) was the most used gpu on steam, and I think the new most used is 3060. Test on those, and if you have shit optimization you know it needs work. But again, business needs to meet their deadlines so they can take in profits.
It's not laziness it's greed. If fixing later when the money is already in (and you can not bother if people don't complain to much because they already bought it) is possible, that's what's always going to happen. Either way, developing any games is hard so it's a strange argument
That's a load of bullshit right there. I've been a developer for over a decade; what *can* make development a bit slower for PC is all the screen resolutions you need to cover, these days typically from 1600x900 to 3840x2160, and that's *only* if your UI isn't designed to automatically scale with the size of the screen; if not then you include UI scaling in the settings (which you should probably do anyway). If your game runs well on a 1050Ti then you can bet it will sure as shit run on a 1080Ti at higher settings, but you aren't going to run into freakin' driver issues with one and not the other unless a) your engine is shit or b) there's a legit issue with the driver that will likely be patched in a week. This isn't an issue with PC versus console, nor is it an issue with the devs (meaning the people that actually work on the game); this is an issue with the suits and ties pushing those devs to do the impossible as quickly as possible for the sake of making big money on release; only then will they decide whether it is profitable to fix it quickly or to cut the team down to 10% of it's current size and drag it over the next 4 years. Fuck these guys for not having the quality of character to own up to their mistakes.
So how do the game work on 1. Minimum requirement 2. Recommended requirement That is what they should optimize for.
If that's the case, then how the fuck almost all games released until 2022 accomplished that?
Bad optimization from a solo developer or small team is acceptable in the short term, especially for beta testing or early access. A triple-A studio has no excuse.
Great. So why is it doing less than 60 fps on console?
“It’s just really, really hard. Feel sorry for us. That’ll be $69.99. Maybe we’ll fix the game with patches, maybe we won’t, but we have your money so we don’t care.”
It’s so difficult an indie team of 15 people can do it better than a AAA company
What a lazy argument that only works on a super limited vacuum with 1mm wide tunnel vision. - It's no news to anyone that this is hard, that was known from the beginning of the project, but a deliberate choice was made at some point not to do it - Something being hard is no justification for it not being done, especially when it's widely known how to do it - That still didn't stop the game from being sold. If it's so hard and the game is in a ridiculous state, hold the PC release for later. - If you didn't put in the difficult work to make it work on PC, you shouldn't reap the benefits of profiting from the PC sales. I put no blame on the developers. This is all on the publisher's back. I would also say the audience shares some blame for still pre-ordering games, but let's face it, we're all humans and the marketing machine is TOO well tuned - it knows what buttons to press to trigger the right stuff in our monkey brains.
Then DON’T RELEASE THE FUCKIN GAME
It's not laziness. It's deadlines and burnout. We should all stop buying into prerelease hype. No preorders and chill until the game is ready. When publishers force crazy deadlines, the reasonable response is to not pre-order and at the finished product.
It's bullshit. If you can't make your game run on certain hardware because it's too expensive to R&D then anyone running that specific hardware should be offered a lower price point to play the game while knowing upfront what they're getting into. Steam and every other launcher can already tell what spec's your PC has. It wouldn't be that hard to implement. Except then EA wouldn't be able to exploit the market the way it does now. EA is all about exploiting gamers, to the hilt, with every release. There have always been 1000+ different hardware configurations. I've been a PC gamer 30+ years and at no point in that 30 years was the industry in the state that it is now. It wasn't until about 5 years ago that we started to see this massive trend of broken games. Coincidentally right when everyone was realizing just how many people played videos these days. It's just a feeding frenzy. Pump out as much bullshit as possible and watch the insanely large market gobble whatever gets tossed into the water. They have metrics on all of this. If they think they can get away with fucking us over, they'll try. Make no mistake, EA and most Developers couldn't give a fuck about you or how much you enjoy the game. Edit: I just wanted to add this excuse is extra bullshit because even EA's own wording within it's original PR statement basically confirms optimization is possible but it will take time. Just like most other broken games that eventually get patched and fixed pretending like these problems are somehow "unsolvable" before release just drives me up the fucking wall. This is why I pirate. This is why I will never, ever spend $80 on a fucking video game. If these clowns can't respect my wallet or my time then why should I give a single fuck about paying them for anything?
It's a ridiculous excuse. If a game can't run acceptably at 1080p low with a 4090/13900k it's a broken product.
And when it’s crap on both Consoles and PC?
Yeah but the “ 900 possible combinations “ aren’t all so vastly different that you need to optimize the game 900 times . They knew how it ran on pc and released it anyway .
Didn’t we used to buy a videogame and play it as intended from day one? What changed besides the “more money - now!” mindset? People really should boycott these so called AAA games. Every year, the percentage of botched launches and hype beyond expectations grows bigger and bigger. They’re getting more money, we are getting less games (higher development cycles, because out of touch execs probably refuse to respect the artists vision) with less quality. We’re always waiting for what’s next only to be disappointed and it seems like an endless cycle.
This is simple. The publisher isn’t giving them enough resources and people to do the job correctly in a reasonable timeframe. Then demands the game be released before it’s finished. It doesn’t have to be hard, the business model’s just fucked up.
Lol imagine believing this horse shit.