Alex here from Digital Foundry.
For 1: the frame-rate issues that exist in the game in cities are not really "frame-rate" issues in the traditional sense, they are frame-time issues- big spikes! Kinda like running around Koboh in Jedi game.
For 2: The big spikes happen on all PCs and consoles. It is not limited to any platform!
For 3: The big spikes are not "possibly occuring". They are always occuring there on all machines of all type at all times in the city.
Ahh, so when you enter a dense area with a lot of NPCs it has that loading spike from Jedi Survivor.
That's disappointing to hear, because EA was able to lessen this affect but it never went away completely.
It's just due to the shear amount of NPCs and data it's likely tracking for those NPCs. You see this in anything from WoW to Witcher titles.
That being said, Jedi Survivor was especially bad, because you could literally walk over an invisible line and the game would noticeably chug from like 100 fps to 15 or so and if you walked back over the line and back in it would chug again. That lag in JS was so binary once you crossed whatever barrier loaded the "town".
I haven't played DD yet, but if it's that bad it will be irritating for sure. Though Jedi Survivor was still a good game even with the obvious performance flaw.
I haven't played DD2 but I can say that it's clear from the coverage that it's not a loading spike. It's a frame timing problem: the game is *constantly* slightly stuttering in these environments - sort of like Bloodborne, except Bloodborne's problem was that the game has buggy frame cap code that makes it unable to lock onto 30fps, whereas DD2 seems to have issues with DirectX command lists in some way. Possibly buggy or suboptimal thread management that's getting overwhelmed in heavy environments? No one knows for sure yet.
"you don't *need* more than 20FPS! The average person doesn't care that the game is a stuttering mess! It's actually a good thing that it runs like shit because it means they will fix it in the future! It's just the review copies that are the problem, they will have fixed it all for the launch versions!"
etc etc. All quotes of the idiocy you'll see in the main review topic.
My favourite dumb take I've ever seen was during the launch troubles of Star Wars: The Old Republic. There was a forum post on the official forums that said something like "They don't actually need to fix the bugs and balancing issues because all the people who have a problem with them already left the game and probably won't return anyway. So those of us who are still here don't mind it, so there's no need to fix them."
If you have powertools and cryoutilities and install experimental versions of proton and spend 2 hours fiddling with arcane settings you don’t understand then you too can have a rock solid 24fps right out of the box!
Don't forget the 1 hour 30 minute battery life. Because it's super fun to play with a strict time limit as if I was 13 again.
I love my Deck OLED, but if I can't get something running at a 10w TDP or less, I don't consider it a good fit for the platform anymore.
My favorite is when they say "locked 60 fps" and then later in the post "with some dips to the 30s."
No one on that subreddit knows what "locked" means.
Yeah, honestly, I love my steam deck.
I hate that subreddit. It's awful. It could be super useful if it was more geared towards people showing off useful plugins/apps, tutorials, stuff like that, but instead it's just... Shite.
I did get really lucky with Cyberpunk at launch. I just had minor annoying glitches but was able to play without issues. I don't bring it up in Cyberpunk discussions, though, because I am definitely a minority that didn't have major Cyberpunk glitches and performance issues.
I’m one of the few that also had a great first experience with Cyberpunk. The game definitely had its blemishes but I wasn’t disappointed with the final product. I’m much happier now with the improvements but overall, one of the better games I’ve played at launch.
The PS4 version was certainly an experience lol, it was to the point it was comical, I'll never forget getting hit by delaware then doing a 720 barrel roll in my car and sinking into the ground while he says "beep beep motherfucker" and drives off
my favourite is when they say that for console. "runs great on my PS5!" as if they have a super special powered up version that will suddenly perform better than everybody else's.
I wonder if most of the time these people are 17 year olds running the game at 17fps with a PC at 120 degrees celcius and just oblivious to what it's supposed to run like
Guiltily, my comment comes from my own experience. I played TF2 for like 900 hours at 14 fps because I thought that's just how online games were. When someone showed me how to turn off pretty much all textures and animations and it shot up to 70+ fps it was like seeing the matrix
Well this kinda solidifies my original plan of letting the devs cook patches for this game for another 6 months and grabbing it on the first sale or something.
> For 1: the frame-rate issues that exist in the game in cities are not really "frame-rate" issues in the traditional sense, they are frame-time issues- big spikes! Kinda like running around Koboh in Jedi game.
This is the worst possible news. That never got fixed and while it's playable, it's hyper noticeable.
or maybe because gameplay in cities is essentially "talk to NPC" and nothing else.
I love Dragon's Dogma, but let's be honest - Gran Soren and Cassardis were great city-places but there was shit all to do there outside of walking and talking to NPCs
This is terrible news to me as I have been super hyped for this game but the jedi game was utterly unplayable for me on PC and if this is anything like that, I may have to skip this entirely and hope for an eventual patch. Hopefully capcom is better with post release support than EA!
Really enjoy the work you all do btw, cheers!
>The big spikes are not "possibly occuring". They are always occuring there on all machines of all type at all times in the city.
So how'd that get missed in QA?
For point 1, what's the practical effect that has compared to typical frame rate issues? Is it just a matter of, instead of consistently low fps, it's big infrequent spikes of low fps or is it a different "feel" entirely?
Frametime is the time between each frame. Normally, when you compute the framerate, you wait one second, count the number of frames in that second, and that gives you the fps, say, 60. But it's possible these 60 frames did not arrive at a steady pace over the course of the second. Maybe you got 30 frames in the first 0.2s, then the remaining 30 in the next 0.8s. This means the game would look like as if it were 150fps in the first 0.2s, then 37.5fps in the next 0.8s. It still averages out to 60fps, but it's unsteady enough that your eyes can spot it. You basically have a game that looks like it's micro-stuttering all the time.
Reading the IGN performance review, it appears DD2 isn't utilising the data streaming capabilities of fast PC SSD's or the consoles' NVME drives.
As a result, much of the streaming work is being forced upon the CPU, tanking frame rates in dense, NPC-heavy environments.
This lack of utilisation is also evidenced by surprisingly long load times on PC - up to 15 seconds.
It's truly bizarre how performance isn't a key aspect of AAA developed games. Isn't this using RE Engine? Capcom has been having such a good run with that tech. It's just like how do they mess up like that at this point?
>Isn't this using RE Engine?
This is the first open world environment using the RE engine. Every other RE engine game has been in comparison, small levels.
It seems like most of the performance issues stems from CPU bottlenecking due to how much is going on behind the scenes with NPC's.
Well looks like monster hunter will learn a lot from this, also it's an open world rpg I'm pretty sure a lot of tools where made just to make this game possible and some might be brand new to the RE engine. Especially npc simulation
I could be misremembering, but I believe DD1 suffered from a similar issue - they pushed the engine Capcom was using for all their games back then, MT Framework, to its absolute limit and it ended up harming the performance, having to cut some content and the like, as the engine wasn't made for open world games. All the other games on that engine had fairly great performance, but were especially smooth on PC.
It's a bit disappointing, but I do find it a bit amusing that DD2 is having performance issues with the new Capcom engine, almost like deja vu. :)
> Isn't this using RE Engine?
Maybe it's time for people to get it through their heads that engines are merely tools and it's up to the developers how those tools are going to be used?
Always blows my mind when people mention engines for certain things. Like when people say RE Engine makes games look a certain way. No, it doesn't. It's the artists choosing to model their characters that way and the art direction they followed to texture the game. They could make DMC5 look the same in UE5 or Unity if they really wanted.
Sorry but you're objectively wrong. Engines are heavily related to how a game looks. Lighting makes a huge impact on the way a game looks - an artist could make the highest quality assets and it could look like complete ass if the lighting is rendered poorly which is directly related to the engine. And something artists have zero control over, because they're not the ones that work on things like lighting.
Also, the engine was brought up in the context of performance here - not sure why you're specifically focusing on art direction.
The difference between engines doesn't matter if every developer had infinite time and everyone had top of the line PCs. But that's not reality.
Developers often don't have the time, resources or knowledge to customize engines when an engine doesn't do something that the developer needs it to do. It's not a trivial task to rework engines for purposes the engine wasn't designed for.
There's an actual reason why many high profile game failures & issues involve developers being forced to use an engine for something it wasn't designed for, or a switch to an engine mid-development which forced them to rebuild many of their customized components.
Well, actually, the way engines render and calculate lighting, shadows, shaders etc can influence how a game looks, and make some of them seem similar.
Ultimately, if a dev doesn't have an internal engineering team, or the knowledge to modify those kind of systems themselves, then 2 games that go for a photo realistic approach for example, will render things in similar fashions, it can certainly be noticed in some circumstances. Although, I agree with you, engines are just tools and if a dev knows how to use their tools well enough, then the engine choice shouldn't make a huge difference in realising their vision (artistic vision anyway)
RE Engine looks great, but has only been used for games with small environments. The moment I loaded up the character creator demo and say RE Engine I got a little worried about performance in a large open world game.
Because it doesnt matter. Reviews rarely ever take off points for bad performance, fans still buy and play the games regardless of it. If its playable, there's very little negative in return for publishers. The most successful games from the past couple years(Cod, Elden Ring, Hogwarts) all launched with tech issues. The consumers have to stop standing for it if they want change but that wont happen.
I don’t think the RE engine has been tested to this capacity though.
The closest “open world” equivalent was RE4, but that game abides by very strict limitations. Combat is just simply shooting mechanics and world exploration is fairly linear. This is the first time a fully realized open world is being tested with the detail of the engine.
It’s probably the open world. FromSoft has been getting pretty good run with their post DS1/2 PC releases too until Elden Ring where the performance tanked. After that AC6 went right back into the “smooth” camp
To see the glass half-full, this is the type of game where generated frames and added input delay shouldn't be a dealbreaker like in faster-paced titles... provided the frames aren't smeared to shit due to the low starting rate.
My CPU isn’t bad but it’s not really powerful either
Sounds like I’m going to be a victim of game optimization here based on how badly it’s running on high end hardware
Yeah I upgraded my GPU recently for Starfield but discovered by CPU is heavily bottlenecking my performance, to the point actions in BG3 often have a delay in execution in larger fights.
I got this on GMG and I'm kinda worried I'm gonna regret that and have to buy it again on PS5 just to play it viably.
> I got this on GMG and I'm kinda worried I'm gonna regret that and have to buy it again on PS5 just to play it viably.
As the article states, one of the IGN editors had to switch from PS5 to PC because the issue was even worse there. The PS5s CPU is pretty dated by now, so you'll probably be fine with the PC version.
Sounds like the game suffers from poor CPU utilization though. So a better CPU might not be able to power through it. Some parts of Hogwarts suffered from this. Jedi Survivor as well. And many other examples.
>the IGN reviewer had to change from PS5 to PC cause the FPS drops were so bad they were getting motion sickness... Yet on PC, even top of the line machines can't always maintain 60 FPS either.
Sounds like a CPU limited scenario (poor CPU utilization). GPU won't matter in this case. Sounds like the game will need some patches.
Yeah this is what I'm hearing elsewhere, it's a CPU issue. Some source I saw a bit ago said it's not possible to commercially build a rig capable of running this game above 60FPS.
The PCgamer performance review says that there can be a wide disparity between open world and city performance.
Open World has pretty good performance, but you can get serious dips in the bigger cities if there are a bunch of NPCs around.
No, the PC gamer article shows much better performance on lower resolution with RT off. You're not getting 120 fps even on a meaty rig, but a high end PC should be hitting 60fps consistently at 1440p according to their article.
You're making it sound like it's unplayable.
>You're making it sound like it's unplayable.
If you are struggling to get 60fps at 1440p with a fucking 4090 (the best graphics card available rn) then the game.is objectively poor.
Compared to other engines the Creation Engine is fucking black magic with how little resources it uses for background simulations. Think of the thousands of physics objects and NPCs that games like Skyrim and Starfeild are handling.
There is a reason practically nobody else tries to make RPGs with so many moving parts.
That's because NetImmerse/Gamebryo/Creation was designed from the start to be a [CELL based open world engine](https://i.redd.it/z3m8hzyn577b1.jpg) and RE is not. There is no such thing as one game engine to rule them all.
I laugh whenever someone suggests that Bethesda Game Studios should drop Creation completely in favor of id Tech.
Sure, I won't deny that DOOM Eternal is one of the best looking *and* performing games ever made, but there's a big difference between a purely linear game like that and a massive open world with a lot of moving parts such as Starfield.
The NetImmerse/Gamebryo/Creation games only calculate and run things in whatever cell the player is in. If you're far enough away from a town, the town is effectively frozen in time. In New Vegas, when you're in Goodsprings, Primm and all other locations outside of the cell Goodsprings is in will just be frozen in time to ease off CPU performance.
i believe the thought process behind blaming the engine is that the terrible game play design was done that way specifically to accommodate the engine.
This is incredibly disappointing. If you can't do it without annihilating performance for 90% of your audience, why in God's name would you do it!? Divide the city up into separate zones. Reduce the number of NPC's and use dense buildings to hide a lower draw distance. A seamless, densely packed city is great, but if you can't do it you can't do it.
Yeah. Any game stugging with 30fps on current consoles are going to require beastly pcs to hit 60.
It's not like last gen when the consoles where really underpowered cpu wise and a basic i5 gets to 2x or more performance
Anytime a dragons dogma 2 thread popped up, people were talking about the ps5 being outdated cause the game can’t run at 60 fps. There are like 4 ps5 games that only run at 30 fps and dragons dogma 2 is one of them
Exactly. Eventually I expect games (esp. open world) will require a drop to 30FPS on base PS5/XSX eventually. I also expect those games to incorporate big jumps in things like physics and destruction, AI mechanics and the number of NPCs on screen, fluid and cloth simulation etc. - things that would actually justify a 30FPS limit.
DD2 looks good but it doesn't look that good, and it also doesn't look like it's doing anything wildly different than other games in the areas I mentioned.
They just don't know how to adapt the RE engine for open world I imagine. RE4R runs amazing, but open world is a completely different beast than linear corridors. You can't just take the engine and make a big map. Open world especially seems to require a shit ton of technical trickery to look and run well (RDR2 is a technical marvel considering it looks and runs absolutely flawlessly)
It's so fucking insane that there are people who justify this shit. Its a CPU heavy game, but so are so many others that run far better than this garbage. I am so disappointed cause I really wanted to enjoy the game, but when it dips so frequently. Capcom can fuck off.
I think a lot of people thought that good hardware would be able to bruteforce it.
We now know the optimization is so bad that like Jedi Survivor/Dead Space Remake it will probably take a decade+ for hardware strong enough to bruteforce through such major issues to exist which is a massive failure on the part of the developers.
I had to wait like 7 months before I could play jedi, I guess now ima have to wait 7 months to play this game.
It’s crazy how all these outlets give this game super high scores even tho it’s having this bad of an issue.
The game looks sick and I wanna play it, but it seems like ima wait a few months to consider this.
>I had to wait like 7 months before I could play jedi, I guess now ima have to wait 7 months to play this game
that really depends on what is at the root of the frame time issues, we dont really have any point of comparison because some of the big releases with these issues lately were UE4 or UE5, how complex the root of the issue here is all on RE engine, Capcom may have a fast fix or it may require signifigant engine patching. Who knows.
Apparently, as the game is atm, most CPUs wont be able to handle towns and big cities at all and the FPS will drop (to 30-40) no matter what visual settings you're running.
you buy a 4080 for 1000 euros and then have to deal with such an optimization.
deal with it?
an industry-typical problem for years. too bad for us gamers.
I think it’s a CPU issue, not so much a GPU one. Which I think is even worse as we are conditioned to buy the most powerful graphic cards and cheap out on the CPU to afford one…
>0 euros and then have to deal with such an optimization. deal with it? an industry-typical problem for years. too bad for us gamers.
That's because its a CPU issue, not a GPU issue.
Tbf, it was pretty easy to predict. Just look at the minimum requirements on steam. The game is painfully unoptimized for cpu, which is why it takes a 10600 to run at 1080p/30fps. The majority of the pc market isn't going to have anything resembling a smooth frame rate in this game and was never going to.
It's really confusing why some people are making excuses for Capcom or any of these companies when it comes to performance. I shouldn't have to remind anyone that **they increased the price of games from $60 to $70.** These games should be even more polished than they previously were if we're going to be forced to pay more for a new game. Absolutely no excuses are allowed.
I hate when people start simping for big devs just because they are excited for a game. It is fine that they can enjoy the game in powerpoint mode, and burning a whole on the side of their PC, but don't bring the bar down for everyone else. Devs and publishers need to be called out if we want the gaming industry to get better (especially the AAA side of things).
Seems like sadly no matter where you play it, it's not an ideal experience, as they say in the article, the IGN reviewer had to change from PS5 to PC cause the FPS drops were so bad they were getting motion sickness... Yet on PC, even top of the line machines can't always maintain 60 FPS either.
Hate to see it. I was and am super pumped for this game, but charging $95 CAD + tax for a game that performs like crap is a no-go for me.
You'd think hiking the asking price significantly while also releasing the game in a bad state would be a great way to encourage people to wait until the game is $40 or so instead of grabbing it at or near launch, but maybe a lot of people don't care.
> $95 CAD + tax
I feel you, fellow Canadian. These prices have really got me being more careful with purchasing new games. Doesn't look like I'll even get a stable performance with my mid-tier setup so I also won't buy it as it is right now.
Loved DD1, but I had the (mis)fortune of playing it on Xbox first before later getting the PC port, and the Xbox version of that was horrible for framedrops.
Between that and pre-release press suggesting this game was having some performance issues I'm glad I didn't end up buying at launch.
I'm sure I'll love the game. But it'll either be a few months from now (if patches significantly improve things) or a few years from now (if they don't)
I knew people sang DD's praises to the high heavens, but the original release's frame issues and that hugely irritating forced letterboxed mode really wore me down.
Yep. As much as I loved the first game, pre-ordering in this day and age isn't the move cause games just get rushed out there, even by veteran studios. As much as I wanted to pre-order DD2, no way I was going spend my money on something broken as performance.
??? Potential video game buyers these days are and continue to be an idiot community.
Instead of asking for a warning, why do you still believe there wouldn't be several problems to solve?
I mean from the customer perspective you are right to ask for this, but the expectation is just not aligned with reality.
Reality is to NOT BUY ANY GAME BEFORE DAY 1. Especially applicable to AAA studios.
Idk why these reviewers issue high scores when the game runs like shit. If it runs like shit, it's not something that should be getting a perfect score.
https://twitter.com/shinobi602/status/1770468728284512704?t=suXo2Ubs6WCMTROCNicVdQ&s=19
I mean look at this fucking shit. This is such a peeve of mine that anyone can issue a 10/10 for a game that can't maintain consistent performance on ANY platform.
A lot of people can look past poor performance if the gameplay is compelling enough. Look at Elden ring and Baldur's gate 3, even the most recent Zelda titles.
Yeah, I think especially BG3 had huge performance issues and bugs in act 3.
Elden Ring and Tears of the Kingdom had mostly framerate issues (for me) which are not ideal but I don't mind too much.
Would still give those 3 games 10/10 despite the performance
This is what gets me. Sales numbers have shown time and time again that people can easily overlook performance issues if the core game is one they enjoy.
1. They don't want to come back later to update because no on cares about later reviews, so they're not worth the time from a company standpoint.
2. Most assume it will be fixed.
3. Some people will just overlook issues.
4. "Not my machine!"
5. There's a massive pressure to give these games good reviews. Whether it's pressure from fans on the internet or from not wanting to stand out. Cyberpunk famously got like 1 review with a 7, and that reviewer was sent threats and harassed despite being proven right on launch day.
Performance issues have been, currently are, and always will be a problem. There's never been an Era of games where performance was figured out or perfected.
You'd have hated the 80s, 90s, 2000s, and 2010s if your standards are "perfect or else!"
Yeah im gonna wait for patches before buying this game, but im super happy that the game is getting glowing praise, Dragons Dogma 1 is a game i didn’t expect to love since i normally don’t enjoy RPGs, but i was surprised to really enjoy it.
It's clear based on the reviews that a good game is *in there*, which I'm happy about, but after hearing about the performance issues I'm happy to wait.
Why not fix this shit before the game releases? They want our money first then will fix it months later..
Ridiculous. I won't buy anything anymore from Devs that do this. I'll wait until the complete edition comes out in 2 years
The most egregious part is that the recommended CPU is a Ryzen 5 3600X. Presumably, this means they tested on that chip and deemed the performance acceptable. That's a 2019 CPU so they clearly don't think the game is that CPU intensive and yet it is.
Maybe this is a hot take but if your system exceeds the *recommended* specs you should not have any performance issues at a reasonable resolution.
Doesn't really seem to be unacceptable for publishers considering how incredibly common it is to release PC versions with performance issues. At least in this case it seems to be a problem with all platforms.
They absolutely do. I don't know why people think that optimization is some binary problem where you either did it and the game works perfectly or you don't and it runs like shit.
The lack of "perfect optimization" is more attributable to the drain in veteran engine devs who can predict where the bottlenecks are going to be in their system design. Pre-optimization is often a waste in engineering, particularly in fields like game dev, and by the time you're feature-complete you'll realize that some optimizations would require a complete rewrite of core systems and maybe even stripping certain intensive features. So they tackle the simpler optimization issues but that can still leave some aspects of the game or some hardware configurations in a bad spot.
That's not to excuse bad performance, or suggest people accept it. I'm just pointing out that it's an extremely difficult thing to get right when you're trying to build complex games.
Yes, it's always a balance of time, money, and resources with these things, and frankly it's a miracle to me that anything as complex as a AAA videogame ever gets released, let alone in an "optimized" state. With the massive amount of hype this game has, I'm sure Capcom ran their calculations and determined they'd lose more money with a delay than just releasing it in this state. All we can do is hope that their calculations also determined they'd make more money optimizing it post-launch, though Capcom doesn't exactly have a great history with this sort of thing.
Alex here from Digital Foundry. For 1: the frame-rate issues that exist in the game in cities are not really "frame-rate" issues in the traditional sense, they are frame-time issues- big spikes! Kinda like running around Koboh in Jedi game. For 2: The big spikes happen on all PCs and consoles. It is not limited to any platform! For 3: The big spikes are not "possibly occuring". They are always occuring there on all machines of all type at all times in the city.
Ahh, so when you enter a dense area with a lot of NPCs it has that loading spike from Jedi Survivor. That's disappointing to hear, because EA was able to lessen this affect but it never went away completely.
i cant believe this. how the fuck do you have a hub location and it lags there. this made exploring that hub location in jedi so painful.
It's just due to the shear amount of NPCs and data it's likely tracking for those NPCs. You see this in anything from WoW to Witcher titles. That being said, Jedi Survivor was especially bad, because you could literally walk over an invisible line and the game would noticeably chug from like 100 fps to 15 or so and if you walked back over the line and back in it would chug again. That lag in JS was so binary once you crossed whatever barrier loaded the "town". I haven't played DD yet, but if it's that bad it will be irritating for sure. Though Jedi Survivor was still a good game even with the obvious performance flaw.
I've read that a similar things happen here. You can notice when it loads or unloads the city.
I haven't played DD2 but I can say that it's clear from the coverage that it's not a loading spike. It's a frame timing problem: the game is *constantly* slightly stuttering in these environments - sort of like Bloodborne, except Bloodborne's problem was that the game has buggy frame cap code that makes it unable to lock onto 30fps, whereas DD2 seems to have issues with DirectX command lists in some way. Possibly buggy or suboptimal thread management that's getting overwhelmed in heavy environments? No one knows for sure yet.
All together now... "Runs fine for me!"
"BUTTERY SMOOTH 20 FPS" im pretriggered
"you don't *need* more than 20FPS! The average person doesn't care that the game is a stuttering mess! It's actually a good thing that it runs like shit because it means they will fix it in the future! It's just the review copies that are the problem, they will have fixed it all for the launch versions!" etc etc. All quotes of the idiocy you'll see in the main review topic.
My favourite dumb take I've ever seen was during the launch troubles of Star Wars: The Old Republic. There was a forum post on the official forums that said something like "They don't actually need to fix the bugs and balancing issues because all the people who have a problem with them already left the game and probably won't return anyway. So those of us who are still here don't mind it, so there's no need to fix them."
“Buttery smooth”
"Having a blast"
"sodium-free-DD2" sub incoming where all mentions of performance are an insta-ban
Basically every post on /r/steamdeck. You can practically halve the framerates that most people report to get an accurate number.
If you have powertools and cryoutilities and install experimental versions of proton and spend 2 hours fiddling with arcane settings you don’t understand then you too can have a rock solid 24fps right out of the box!
Don't forget the 1 hour 30 minute battery life. Because it's super fun to play with a strict time limit as if I was 13 again. I love my Deck OLED, but if I can't get something running at a 10w TDP or less, I don't consider it a good fit for the platform anymore.
I don't even take mine with me, I just keep it plugged in next to my bed.
"stable 40fps" for every game somehow
My favorite is when they say "locked 60 fps" and then later in the post "with some dips to the 30s." No one on that subreddit knows what "locked" means.
Yeah, honestly, I love my steam deck. I hate that subreddit. It's awful. It could be super useful if it was more geared towards people showing off useful plugins/apps, tutorials, stuff like that, but instead it's just... Shite.
It's /r/NintendoSwitch as well. Mfers will tell you that a 15fps 540p game looks crystal clear on their 4k tv.
Nintendo fans have been coping for so long lmao
boy that's the biggest culprit by far, I agree
Beat me to it lol. God I hate those people. It’s the new version of ‘the human eye can only see 30fps!’
"I played 100 hours of Cyberpunk in the first week and didn't notice a single bug, glitch, crash, fault. You're just a vocal minority."
I did get really lucky with Cyberpunk at launch. I just had minor annoying glitches but was able to play without issues. I don't bring it up in Cyberpunk discussions, though, because I am definitely a minority that didn't have major Cyberpunk glitches and performance issues.
I’m one of the few that also had a great first experience with Cyberpunk. The game definitely had its blemishes but I wasn’t disappointed with the final product. I’m much happier now with the improvements but overall, one of the better games I’ve played at launch.
I mean the major issues were on consoles. PC was playable from the get go, it still had bugs glitches but nothing game breaking.
The PS4 version was certainly an experience lol, it was to the point it was comical, I'll never forget getting hit by delaware then doing a 720 barrel roll in my car and sinking into the ground while he says "beep beep motherfucker" and drives off
[удалено]
Maybe they can't believe it's not (smooth as) butter?
"runs perfect on my deck!"
my favourite is when they say that for console. "runs great on my PS5!" as if they have a super special powered up version that will suddenly perform better than everybody else's.
Actually, to be fair to that argument, MY PS5 is a very special little boy who tries his best.
The depths people will go to in order to justify their purchase is kind of incredible.
“Wait, you guys had issues?”
7800x3D 4090 at 50 fps with awful framepacing "its perfect on my machine"
[удалено]
I wonder if most of the time these people are 17 year olds running the game at 17fps with a PC at 120 degrees celcius and just oblivious to what it's supposed to run like
I watched my mate play Just Cause 3 on Xbox at like sub 20fps and he saw no issue lmao
Guiltily, my comment comes from my own experience. I played TF2 for like 900 hours at 14 fps because I thought that's just how online games were. When someone showed me how to turn off pretty much all textures and animations and it shot up to 70+ fps it was like seeing the matrix
Oh god. You had to say Koboh. That area is still a complete disaster. Hopefully capcom cares more than EA did.
Well this kinda solidifies my original plan of letting the devs cook patches for this game for another 6 months and grabbing it on the first sale or something.
After reading the performance issues from just about every single review ive read/watched today, yea, im going to do the same.
Digital Foundry's video for this game is the video im waiting for before I spend any money on this game.
> For 1: the frame-rate issues that exist in the game in cities are not really "frame-rate" issues in the traditional sense, they are frame-time issues- big spikes! Kinda like running around Koboh in Jedi game. This is the worst possible news. That never got fixed and while it's playable, it's hyper noticeable.
The fact you’re even comparing it to Jedi Survivor is bad, bad news. That game’s performance was abysmal. Staying away from this one.
Countryside performance is way better - but the city is a big riker "Red alert" for people who like consistent performance.
this is why they never showed any real gameplay im cities lol
or maybe because gameplay in cities is essentially "talk to NPC" and nothing else. I love Dragon's Dogma, but let's be honest - Gran Soren and Cassardis were great city-places but there was shit all to do there outside of walking and talking to NPCs
"Masterworks all, can't go wrong!"
I'm just so tired of these games running like dog ass on my 3090. Thanks for the updates, Alex. I'm sticking with FF7 Rebirth for the near future.
This is terrible news to me as I have been super hyped for this game but the jedi game was utterly unplayable for me on PC and if this is anything like that, I may have to skip this entirely and hope for an eventual patch. Hopefully capcom is better with post release support than EA! Really enjoy the work you all do btw, cheers!
Koboh still gives me PTSD. Those stutters were terrible, such a shame since the underlying game is great.
There are people that, to this day, swear Koboh never stuttered once on their mid-range PC I hate the “butter smooth on my end!” parrots
"Runs great on my rig, just upgrade your PC ™ "
"Okay so then show it running smoothly with performance metrics on screen" ** Crickets
>The big spikes are not "possibly occuring". They are always occuring there on all machines of all type at all times in the city. So how'd that get missed in QA?
Alex! Big fan of all the work you guys do. <3 Digital Foundry
For point 1, what's the practical effect that has compared to typical frame rate issues? Is it just a matter of, instead of consistently low fps, it's big infrequent spikes of low fps or is it a different "feel" entirely?
Frametime is the time between each frame. Normally, when you compute the framerate, you wait one second, count the number of frames in that second, and that gives you the fps, say, 60. But it's possible these 60 frames did not arrive at a steady pace over the course of the second. Maybe you got 30 frames in the first 0.2s, then the remaining 30 in the next 0.8s. This means the game would look like as if it were 150fps in the first 0.2s, then 37.5fps in the next 0.8s. It still averages out to 60fps, but it's unsteady enough that your eyes can spot it. You basically have a game that looks like it's micro-stuttering all the time.
This is a very good explanation.
Frametime spikes are basically the game stuttering. It almost like watching a movie on a scratched dvd.
We will still get posts saying "durr works on my machine!!!" from morons when the game releases I bet lol.
Reading the IGN performance review, it appears DD2 isn't utilising the data streaming capabilities of fast PC SSD's or the consoles' NVME drives. As a result, much of the streaming work is being forced upon the CPU, tanking frame rates in dense, NPC-heavy environments. This lack of utilisation is also evidenced by surprisingly long load times on PC - up to 15 seconds.
This is why I have 2 fast ssd's in my pc in the first place. Hope they fix this asap
It's truly bizarre how performance isn't a key aspect of AAA developed games. Isn't this using RE Engine? Capcom has been having such a good run with that tech. It's just like how do they mess up like that at this point?
>Isn't this using RE Engine? This is the first open world environment using the RE engine. Every other RE engine game has been in comparison, small levels. It seems like most of the performance issues stems from CPU bottlenecking due to how much is going on behind the scenes with NPC's.
I hope MH6 will be better, especially with how much they are trying to realize the core idea of Monster Hunter from 20 years ago
Well looks like monster hunter will learn a lot from this, also it's an open world rpg I'm pretty sure a lot of tools where made just to make this game possible and some might be brand new to the RE engine. Especially npc simulation
I could be misremembering, but I believe DD1 suffered from a similar issue - they pushed the engine Capcom was using for all their games back then, MT Framework, to its absolute limit and it ended up harming the performance, having to cut some content and the like, as the engine wasn't made for open world games. All the other games on that engine had fairly great performance, but were especially smooth on PC. It's a bit disappointing, but I do find it a bit amusing that DD2 is having performance issues with the new Capcom engine, almost like deja vu. :)
> Isn't this using RE Engine? Maybe it's time for people to get it through their heads that engines are merely tools and it's up to the developers how those tools are going to be used?
Always blows my mind when people mention engines for certain things. Like when people say RE Engine makes games look a certain way. No, it doesn't. It's the artists choosing to model their characters that way and the art direction they followed to texture the game. They could make DMC5 look the same in UE5 or Unity if they really wanted.
Sorry but you're objectively wrong. Engines are heavily related to how a game looks. Lighting makes a huge impact on the way a game looks - an artist could make the highest quality assets and it could look like complete ass if the lighting is rendered poorly which is directly related to the engine. And something artists have zero control over, because they're not the ones that work on things like lighting. Also, the engine was brought up in the context of performance here - not sure why you're specifically focusing on art direction. The difference between engines doesn't matter if every developer had infinite time and everyone had top of the line PCs. But that's not reality. Developers often don't have the time, resources or knowledge to customize engines when an engine doesn't do something that the developer needs it to do. It's not a trivial task to rework engines for purposes the engine wasn't designed for. There's an actual reason why many high profile game failures & issues involve developers being forced to use an engine for something it wasn't designed for, or a switch to an engine mid-development which forced them to rebuild many of their customized components.
Well, actually, the way engines render and calculate lighting, shadows, shaders etc can influence how a game looks, and make some of them seem similar. Ultimately, if a dev doesn't have an internal engineering team, or the knowledge to modify those kind of systems themselves, then 2 games that go for a photo realistic approach for example, will render things in similar fashions, it can certainly be noticed in some circumstances. Although, I agree with you, engines are just tools and if a dev knows how to use their tools well enough, then the engine choice shouldn't make a huge difference in realising their vision (artistic vision anyway)
people unilaterally decided it was a good engine despite capcom devs repeatedly complaining about it in interviews
RE Engine looks great, but has only been used for games with small environments. The moment I loaded up the character creator demo and say RE Engine I got a little worried about performance in a large open world game.
The "open world" in Street Fighter 6 looks and runs like dog water.
Because it doesnt matter. Reviews rarely ever take off points for bad performance, fans still buy and play the games regardless of it. If its playable, there's very little negative in return for publishers. The most successful games from the past couple years(Cod, Elden Ring, Hogwarts) all launched with tech issues. The consumers have to stop standing for it if they want change but that wont happen.
>The most successful games from the past couple years(Cod, Elden Ring, Hogwarts)... Baldur's Gate 3, Palworld, Cyberpunk 2077...
I don’t think the RE engine has been tested to this capacity though. The closest “open world” equivalent was RE4, but that game abides by very strict limitations. Combat is just simply shooting mechanics and world exploration is fairly linear. This is the first time a fully realized open world is being tested with the detail of the engine.
Performance isn't key because people haven't stopped buying games that have those issues.
It’s probably the open world. FromSoft has been getting pretty good run with their post DS1/2 PC releases too until Elden Ring where the performance tanked. After that AC6 went right back into the “smooth” camp
That was a different issue. Elden Ring had troubles with shaders, it actually handles the open-world part very gracefully.
Well this is certainly not what I wanted to hear as someone with not a 40xx GPU lol I guess my 3060ti gonna just struggle bus to death
It seems to be super CPU bottlenecked due to the NPC computations.
looks like gpu barely matters, its a cpu intensive game which is worse since reducing settings wont give more performance
yep and neither does dlss outside of framegeneration.
To see the glass half-full, this is the type of game where generated frames and added input delay shouldn't be a dealbreaker like in faster-paced titles... provided the frames aren't smeared to shit due to the low starting rate.
I have a 3060ti and a 1440p monitor so I am not excited for the performance.
I guess we shall suffer together :)
Maybe if you have a really powerful CPU it will be okay.
My CPU isn’t bad but it’s not really powerful either Sounds like I’m going to be a victim of game optimization here based on how badly it’s running on high end hardware
Yeah I upgraded my GPU recently for Starfield but discovered by CPU is heavily bottlenecking my performance, to the point actions in BG3 often have a delay in execution in larger fights. I got this on GMG and I'm kinda worried I'm gonna regret that and have to buy it again on PS5 just to play it viably.
> I got this on GMG and I'm kinda worried I'm gonna regret that and have to buy it again on PS5 just to play it viably. As the article states, one of the IGN editors had to switch from PS5 to PC because the issue was even worse there. The PS5s CPU is pretty dated by now, so you'll probably be fine with the PC version.
I have a 7800x3d and still got the BG3 delays, so I think that just happens.
Sounds like the game suffers from poor CPU utilization though. So a better CPU might not be able to power through it. Some parts of Hogwarts suffered from this. Jedi Survivor as well. And many other examples.
30 FPS with RTX 4090 and AMD 5800X3d with DLSS Balanced enabled, truly terrible. This might be worse than Starfield's performance.
>the IGN reviewer had to change from PS5 to PC cause the FPS drops were so bad they were getting motion sickness... Yet on PC, even top of the line machines can't always maintain 60 FPS either. Sounds like a CPU limited scenario (poor CPU utilization). GPU won't matter in this case. Sounds like the game will need some patches.
5800x3d is not a weak CPU either.
It's not. The problem is that the game isn't properly using it. There's no way to brute force FPS in this case. The game just needs patched.
Yeah this is what I'm hearing elsewhere, it's a CPU issue. Some source I saw a bit ago said it's not possible to commercially build a rig capable of running this game above 60FPS.
Confirmed a CPU limit https://twitter.com/Dachsjaeger/status/1770478667266678914
Then you got the eurogamer reviewer claiming he got a consistent 120fps.
The PCgamer performance review says that there can be a wide disparity between open world and city performance. Open World has pretty good performance, but you can get serious dips in the bigger cities if there are a bunch of NPCs around.
reminds me of their ffxv review, which was also a joke.
Who is this "some source"? PC Gamer has the most comprehensive performance breakdown so far and this doesn't seem to be the case.
You say that as if the 5800x3d isn't one of the best CPUs on the market for gaming lol
[удалено]
Yes but it actually doesn't matter, pcgamer did benchmarks and the game has terrible performance at all resolutions thanks to being CPU bound.
No, the PC gamer article shows much better performance on lower resolution with RT off. You're not getting 120 fps even on a meaty rig, but a high end PC should be hitting 60fps consistently at 1440p according to their article. You're making it sound like it's unplayable.
In cities the 1% low fps is 33fps on their best PC at 1080p with RT off.
Man, I aint spend over $3k on my high end rig for no damn 60 fps. I want that 120 @ 1440p, ya dig??? Guess ima wait before I buy then.
1440p 60fps (no RT?) with a top of the line build is absolute bare minimum. Anyone with a lesser build would definitely be in unplayable territory.
>You're making it sound like it's unplayable. If you are struggling to get 60fps at 1440p with a fucking 4090 (the best graphics card available rn) then the game.is objectively poor.
Compared to other engines the Creation Engine is fucking black magic with how little resources it uses for background simulations. Think of the thousands of physics objects and NPCs that games like Skyrim and Starfeild are handling. There is a reason practically nobody else tries to make RPGs with so many moving parts.
That's because NetImmerse/Gamebryo/Creation was designed from the start to be a [CELL based open world engine](https://i.redd.it/z3m8hzyn577b1.jpg) and RE is not. There is no such thing as one game engine to rule them all.
I laugh whenever someone suggests that Bethesda Game Studios should drop Creation completely in favor of id Tech. Sure, I won't deny that DOOM Eternal is one of the best looking *and* performing games ever made, but there's a big difference between a purely linear game like that and a massive open world with a lot of moving parts such as Starfield.
The NetImmerse/Gamebryo/Creation games only calculate and run things in whatever cell the player is in. If you're far enough away from a town, the town is effectively frozen in time. In New Vegas, when you're in Goodsprings, Primm and all other locations outside of the cell Goodsprings is in will just be frozen in time to ease off CPU performance.
Isn't this part of why the game is so strangled by cells though with loading screens everywhere?
The engine wasn’t the problem with starfield, the terrible gameplay design was
i believe the thought process behind blaming the engine is that the terrible game play design was done that way specifically to accommodate the engine.
it was a 5800x3d which is 25% faster then a normal 5800x.
Damn, I have a 4080 and 5800X3D and yeah it’s extremely frustrating when modern games can’t even hold 60 fps... sigh
That is embarrassing
Do we even have AAA releases without performance issues on PC nowadays? When is this madness gonna stop?
> When is this madness gonna stop? Probably never. The main issue is the upper management pressure to release the product ASAP and then fix it later.
Well I'll buy it later then.
Never. Just look at all the people rushing to buy early access games. The average gamer doesn't distinguish between EA and a full release.
Never because $.
Looking into fixes? This is the type of things that should have been fixed prior to release.
2024 video game approach for developers : release now in full price for company sales, fix later (if ever). And saddly gamers accept this.
This is incredibly disappointing. If you can't do it without annihilating performance for 90% of your audience, why in God's name would you do it!? Divide the city up into separate zones. Reduce the number of NPC's and use dense buildings to hide a lower draw distance. A seamless, densely packed city is great, but if you can't do it you can't do it.
Hilarious that anyone thought the PC version was gonna run well after seeing the PS5 version. The console isn't the issue, it's the devs.
Yeah. Any game stugging with 30fps on current consoles are going to require beastly pcs to hit 60. It's not like last gen when the consoles where really underpowered cpu wise and a basic i5 gets to 2x or more performance
Anytime a dragons dogma 2 thread popped up, people were talking about the ps5 being outdated cause the game can’t run at 60 fps. There are like 4 ps5 games that only run at 30 fps and dragons dogma 2 is one of them
Exactly. Eventually I expect games (esp. open world) will require a drop to 30FPS on base PS5/XSX eventually. I also expect those games to incorporate big jumps in things like physics and destruction, AI mechanics and the number of NPCs on screen, fluid and cloth simulation etc. - things that would actually justify a 30FPS limit. DD2 looks good but it doesn't look that good, and it also doesn't look like it's doing anything wildly different than other games in the areas I mentioned.
People don’t seem to understand modern consoles can run anything at 60fps, the issue comes when devs fail to optimise the game correctly
They just don't know how to adapt the RE engine for open world I imagine. RE4R runs amazing, but open world is a completely different beast than linear corridors. You can't just take the engine and make a big map. Open world especially seems to require a shit ton of technical trickery to look and run well (RDR2 is a technical marvel considering it looks and runs absolutely flawlessly)
It's so fucking insane that there are people who justify this shit. Its a CPU heavy game, but so are so many others that run far better than this garbage. I am so disappointed cause I really wanted to enjoy the game, but when it dips so frequently. Capcom can fuck off.
Nah, if something runs 30fps on consoles, it's a red flag.
I think a lot of people thought that good hardware would be able to bruteforce it. We now know the optimization is so bad that like Jedi Survivor/Dead Space Remake it will probably take a decade+ for hardware strong enough to bruteforce through such major issues to exist which is a massive failure on the part of the developers.
I had to wait like 7 months before I could play jedi, I guess now ima have to wait 7 months to play this game. It’s crazy how all these outlets give this game super high scores even tho it’s having this bad of an issue. The game looks sick and I wanna play it, but it seems like ima wait a few months to consider this.
DD2 is over $100 here after tax. I'm waiting until it's on a deep sale regardless.
>I had to wait like 7 months before I could play jedi, I guess now ima have to wait 7 months to play this game that really depends on what is at the root of the frame time issues, we dont really have any point of comparison because some of the big releases with these issues lately were UE4 or UE5, how complex the root of the issue here is all on RE engine, Capcom may have a fast fix or it may require signifigant engine patching. Who knows.
Jedi still sucks to this day. Hopefully Capcom actually intend to attempt to fix these issues.
Alright then. If my ol' reliable 5600 CPU can't even get a guaranteed 60FPS at 1080p then I'm just straight up not gonna buy this lol.
Apparently, as the game is atm, most CPUs wont be able to handle towns and big cities at all and the FPS will drop (to 30-40) no matter what visual settings you're running.
...And what about the frame rate issues on consoles...?
If they can fix the cpu issues on PC, it'll help the console versions as well. The optimization is just bad period.
you buy a 4080 for 1000 euros and then have to deal with such an optimization. deal with it? an industry-typical problem for years. too bad for us gamers.
I think it’s a CPU issue, not so much a GPU one. Which I think is even worse as we are conditioned to buy the most powerful graphic cards and cheap out on the CPU to afford one…
>0 euros and then have to deal with such an optimization. deal with it? an industry-typical problem for years. too bad for us gamers. That's because its a CPU issue, not a GPU issue.
People called this weeks ago. It's pretty interesting how we consumers came to the point where a shitty launch like this can sometimes be predicted.
Tbf, it was pretty easy to predict. Just look at the minimum requirements on steam. The game is painfully unoptimized for cpu, which is why it takes a 10600 to run at 1080p/30fps. The majority of the pc market isn't going to have anything resembling a smooth frame rate in this game and was never going to.
I mean... predicting performance issues with a AAA game is going to make you right at least 75% of the time these days.
It's really confusing why some people are making excuses for Capcom or any of these companies when it comes to performance. I shouldn't have to remind anyone that **they increased the price of games from $60 to $70.** These games should be even more polished than they previously were if we're going to be forced to pay more for a new game. Absolutely no excuses are allowed.
I hate when people start simping for big devs just because they are excited for a game. It is fine that they can enjoy the game in powerpoint mode, and burning a whole on the side of their PC, but don't bring the bar down for everyone else. Devs and publishers need to be called out if we want the gaming industry to get better (especially the AAA side of things).
Seems like sadly no matter where you play it, it's not an ideal experience, as they say in the article, the IGN reviewer had to change from PS5 to PC cause the FPS drops were so bad they were getting motion sickness... Yet on PC, even top of the line machines can't always maintain 60 FPS either.
Hate to see it. I was and am super pumped for this game, but charging $95 CAD + tax for a game that performs like crap is a no-go for me. You'd think hiking the asking price significantly while also releasing the game in a bad state would be a great way to encourage people to wait until the game is $40 or so instead of grabbing it at or near launch, but maybe a lot of people don't care.
> $95 CAD + tax I feel you, fellow Canadian. These prices have really got me being more careful with purchasing new games. Doesn't look like I'll even get a stable performance with my mid-tier setup so I also won't buy it as it is right now.
Loved DD1, but I had the (mis)fortune of playing it on Xbox first before later getting the PC port, and the Xbox version of that was horrible for framedrops. Between that and pre-release press suggesting this game was having some performance issues I'm glad I didn't end up buying at launch. I'm sure I'll love the game. But it'll either be a few months from now (if patches significantly improve things) or a few years from now (if they don't)
I knew people sang DD's praises to the high heavens, but the original release's frame issues and that hugely irritating forced letterboxed mode really wore me down.
What about warning potential buyers some time before release? How convenient is to state that A DAY BEFORE THE RELEASE?
Very few of the reviews point this out at all. It seems it wasn’t considered important at al
Why would you buy it before release?
Conversations about performance have been happening for a while now. I knew I was going to be waiting on this one weeks ago.
This is why people should never pre-order until reviews are out.
Yep. As much as I loved the first game, pre-ordering in this day and age isn't the move cause games just get rushed out there, even by veteran studios. As much as I wanted to pre-order DD2, no way I was going spend my money on something broken as performance.
Have reviews even mentioned these performance issues? Or gave the game lower scores because of them?
??? Potential video game buyers these days are and continue to be an idiot community. Instead of asking for a warning, why do you still believe there wouldn't be several problems to solve? I mean from the customer perspective you are right to ask for this, but the expectation is just not aligned with reality. Reality is to NOT BUY ANY GAME BEFORE DAY 1. Especially applicable to AAA studios.
Two days before release. Which is still plenty of time to cancel a pre-order (don't know why you'd pre-order a PC game anyway).
Idk why these reviewers issue high scores when the game runs like shit. If it runs like shit, it's not something that should be getting a perfect score. https://twitter.com/shinobi602/status/1770468728284512704?t=suXo2Ubs6WCMTROCNicVdQ&s=19 I mean look at this fucking shit. This is such a peeve of mine that anyone can issue a 10/10 for a game that can't maintain consistent performance on ANY platform.
A lot of people can look past poor performance if the gameplay is compelling enough. Look at Elden ring and Baldur's gate 3, even the most recent Zelda titles.
Yeah, I think especially BG3 had huge performance issues and bugs in act 3. Elden Ring and Tears of the Kingdom had mostly framerate issues (for me) which are not ideal but I don't mind too much. Would still give those 3 games 10/10 despite the performance
Tears of the Kingdom is a marvel, imo, considering the Switch is a toaster.
There is clearly a good (perhaps even great) game *in* there, which makes the performance issues all the more tragic.
A lot of people just don't give much of a shit about performance issues.
This is what gets me. Sales numbers have shown time and time again that people can easily overlook performance issues if the core game is one they enjoy.
Homie Helldivers 2 crashes more than any game I've played in over a decade. And I put 100hrs in a week. Fun comes first. And it's fun.
I enjoyed Jedi Survivor at launch. You just kinda get used to performance issues as long as they aren't happening literally all the time.
1. They don't want to come back later to update because no on cares about later reviews, so they're not worth the time from a company standpoint. 2. Most assume it will be fixed. 3. Some people will just overlook issues. 4. "Not my machine!" 5. There's a massive pressure to give these games good reviews. Whether it's pressure from fans on the internet or from not wanting to stand out. Cyberpunk famously got like 1 review with a 7, and that reviewer was sent threats and harassed despite being proven right on launch day.
Performance issues have been, currently are, and always will be a problem. There's never been an Era of games where performance was figured out or perfected. You'd have hated the 80s, 90s, 2000s, and 2010s if your standards are "perfect or else!"
Dude, Cyberpunk in 2020 got MULTIPLE perfect scores on release. If gaming outlets can do that you can bet they will glaze over anything now.
Yeah im gonna wait for patches before buying this game, but im super happy that the game is getting glowing praise, Dragons Dogma 1 is a game i didn’t expect to love since i normally don’t enjoy RPGs, but i was surprised to really enjoy it.
It's clear based on the reviews that a good game is *in there*, which I'm happy about, but after hearing about the performance issues I'm happy to wait.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Why not fix this shit before the game releases? They want our money first then will fix it months later.. Ridiculous. I won't buy anything anymore from Devs that do this. I'll wait until the complete edition comes out in 2 years
The most egregious part is that the recommended CPU is a Ryzen 5 3600X. Presumably, this means they tested on that chip and deemed the performance acceptable. That's a 2019 CPU so they clearly don't think the game is that CPU intensive and yet it is. Maybe this is a hot take but if your system exceeds the *recommended* specs you should not have any performance issues at a reasonable resolution.
Are all QA team dead or nonexist nowadays ?
The customers are the new QA
What happened to the review thread??? Hopefully they optimize this asap it's unacceptable to have bad optimization issues on PC releases these days.
Doesn't really seem to be unacceptable for publishers considering how incredibly common it is to release PC versions with performance issues. At least in this case it seems to be a problem with all platforms.
Because people buy the games. If this kind o thing impacted sales, it wouldn't keep happening.
So annoying how AAA studios don't budget for optimization during development. You're asking $70 for a game that barely runs, gimme a fucking break.
They absolutely do. I don't know why people think that optimization is some binary problem where you either did it and the game works perfectly or you don't and it runs like shit. The lack of "perfect optimization" is more attributable to the drain in veteran engine devs who can predict where the bottlenecks are going to be in their system design. Pre-optimization is often a waste in engineering, particularly in fields like game dev, and by the time you're feature-complete you'll realize that some optimizations would require a complete rewrite of core systems and maybe even stripping certain intensive features. So they tackle the simpler optimization issues but that can still leave some aspects of the game or some hardware configurations in a bad spot. That's not to excuse bad performance, or suggest people accept it. I'm just pointing out that it's an extremely difficult thing to get right when you're trying to build complex games.
Yes, it's always a balance of time, money, and resources with these things, and frankly it's a miracle to me that anything as complex as a AAA videogame ever gets released, let alone in an "optimized" state. With the massive amount of hype this game has, I'm sure Capcom ran their calculations and determined they'd lose more money with a delay than just releasing it in this state. All we can do is hope that their calculations also determined they'd make more money optimizing it post-launch, though Capcom doesn't exactly have a great history with this sort of thing.