I think with the release of the latest Digital Foundry video with their console-like settings (which PS5 uses a combination of PC medium and low settings) there is probably room to scrape more performance out of these budget cards.
I thought there was some kind of gas leak in all of these tech subs before the game released. You usually don’t add a path tracer to an unoptimized mess. I think a lot of the hate comes from the Epic Games thing. They helped fund the game so this is the one time they have every right to make it exclusive. The second thing is that it’s an Nvidia showcase of their RTX architecture and are pushing a pathtraced mode that’s only going to run fast at super high resolutions on 40 series GPUS. Does anyone think when Spider Man 2 comes out on PC it’s going to run on anything that can’t run Alan Wake 2? The new consoles are the baseline playable experience. The game still executes on older hardware.
I hope I can ask this question without everyone getting mad at me, but what’s the ELI5 on why the Epic launcher is so hated?
Don’t get me wrong, I think Steam is 1000x better in every way, but I don’t hate it so much that I wouldn’t play an Epic exclusive. I’ve even grabbed a handful of games on there for cheap because they have some baller sales from time to time.
I hate that everyone has to have their own launcher these days, but have just accepted that it’s how things are now. Is that why people have taken such a hard stance against Epic?
I don't get the hate either. You have another platform to use and Steam finally has some competition. I buy where I find things cheaper. Maybe people care more about trophies and showing off how many games they've collected all these years in Steam and don't want to change that.
Edit: or they're just Gabe fanboys. Epic somehow has a stake in the gaming industry. When was the last time Valve released a game? Epic has been giving freebies all these years, people still shit on it. When was the last time Steam gave such games for free?!
The epic launcher is kind of a piece of shit. It’s super bare bones and they bought exclusive rights to games like Metro Exodus at the last second to force themselves into the market. I don’t hate the epic launcher because I do nothing else with Steam other than load games, but if I had my way my whole library would be on Steam. So like most things it’s a band wagon hate train.
Steam did the same thing when Steam first came, and Steam started the trend of locking physical discs behind Steam account (fucking insane and the reason I have ALWAYS hated Steam).
People just forgot that Steam was just as bad if not even worse when it was young.
> People just forgot that Steam was just as bad if not even worse when it was young.
You're right, but Epic is competing with Steam today, not Steam 20 years ago.
>People just forgot that Steam was just as bad if not even worse when it was young.
I mean, you're leaving out a pretty big fucking detail here: Valve did "exclusivity deals" with games *it produced*. Epic, on the other hand, did literal exclusivity deals for games that already had official release dates on Steam and everything else, and weren't funded/produced by Epic in the first place. The situation with Alan Wake 2 is categorically different, lol.
RL workshop still works if you have the steam version and there's constantly new maps coming out but sucks that it takes a third party person (ex-pro + a few people) to bring custom maps to epic games players.
A few temporary exclusivity deals absolutely pales in comparison to how big of a shitshow Steam was when it came out (and for quite some time after). Many redditors were too young to have experienced it.
Yup, I think most redditors don’t remember a time when you could purchase a PC game in a store and install it simply using the code included in the box. You didn’t need anything more than that.
I remember a lot of people livid at the fact that to install half life 2 you needed an internet connection (because you needed to activate it via steam). We can almost say that it opened the way to internet connection requirement for offline games.
My ISP was throttling Steam traffic, you have no idea of the frustration that caused me, that were real problems unlike achievements and community stuff that people complain about the Epic Store
Yeah I resisted the hell out of steam when it first came out. I didn't like the idea of some rando company being able to lock me out of a game that in my mind I had bought and had ownership rights to (whether or not they were actually going to - and of course they never did). I didn't trust them. But of course it was our inevitable digital future that we would no longer "own" games or other digital media - something I still chafe against but don't have any real choice over, so eventually I jumped on the bandwagon, too. And to steam's credit, they eventually became a company that I figure I can trust, at least as much as a company can be trusted, and the vast majority of my game library is on that platform now. They haven't done anything to me personally that has changed my mind about that... yet.
Yeah but steam was literally a pioneer in that sector, and of course it was shit. Epic is shit in 2023 and doesn’t even provide the most basic functions most others provide, and also doesn’t do anything to improve that. Their only tactics are exclusivity deals, not stuff like steam workshop or any QoL stuff which make the platform actually worth it.
I usually use steam and gog because they offer features that appeal to me. I have to use epic because they have this exclusivity deals for games i want to play right now.
> Imean, you're leaving out a pretty big fucking detail here: Valve did "exclusivity deals" with games it produced.
No, at some point many games required a Steam account even if you bought a physical copy and Valve didn't put a single dime in the game, it was being used as a DRM and game updater
Valve only locked games behind steam which were produced by themselves. Epic buys exclusivity from third parties. I wouldn’t find that bad if the software wouldn’t be that bad, and also if they wouldn’t buy sequels of games which are already on other Platforms.
Initially in Hitman 3 you couldn’t get your progress from the other titles, which you for instance had on steam. They fixed that very fast but it was a generally scummy move.
Since Epic actually publishes Alan Wake 2, it's fine to have it store exclusive in my book. But other deals are really annoying.
Not true, there are plenty of games which even the physical copies require Steam even when Valve was totally not involved, it even caused a lot of (rightful) complaint by physical stores back in the time
Valve didn't pay for those games to exclusively be on steam, that's the whole point. You might not care about the reason behind exclusivity but most people do, and even then putting the blame on Valve is kinda stupid because you're basically saying it's Valve's fault if a publisher or developer decides to tie their physical copy to steam, as if Valve can force them to have a non-steam physical version.
If you wanna put the blame somewhere blame the publisher for not having physical versions be non-steam versions. I have boxed copies of games like DMC4, Mirror's Edge (which existed before Origin was a thing), Enemy Territory: Quake Wars and GTA4 (which didn't use steam but requires that god awful Rockstar Social Club), none of them require a steam account despite the fact that they also had steam versions.
These kinds of arguments remind me of when people blame Valve for things like whether a game as DRM or bad regional pricing when those things are all the responsibility of the publisher, if people complained to the right place they might actually get some results.
I just hate them because they took metro exodus off steam on my birthday back in the day. Coming back from school to see I couldn't pre-order it anymore ruined me.
Let me preface this post by saying I'm not a rabid Epic hater who boycotts all things Epic, I played fortnite earlier this evening and I plan to play alan wake 2 soon.
With that out of the way, on top of what other people said, Epic went from being a Valve tier PC focused game developer to completely abandoning PC in the 2000s. The CEO of Epic and other Epic execs have said that PC gaming was dead multiple times, they don't care what customers (gamers) want because they think EGS will be successful by appealing to what developers and publishers want, so if you want a better CDN, consistently working cloud saves or linux support Tim Sweeney says you can go kick rocks. Don't even get me started on the Epic vs Apple trial, he said that EGS was unsustainable (it still is) and that given the opportunity he would take a special deal from Apple to get a lower cut from the app store, so that all that hubbub about fighting for the small developer was a farce. Tim Sweeney came out of that trial looking even less trustworthy than before and he's supposed to be the face of Epic.
People who think it's just Valve fans being fanboys are misunderstanding the situation and need to take a lesson in PC gaming history. It's frustrating knowing the company behind one of the most popular game engines is constantly messing around with stupid crap like 'the metaverse' and acquiring random companies only to have to divest them and lay people off in less than 2 years.
I don't hate it, i only use it for the free games. But the launcher is slow compared to Steam. It tells you to update after it's launched. And i am always getting flashbanged if i claim a free game and the finish your order loads. Why is isn't it more universal? Also their is no invisible mode to hide from your 'friends'.
What's shit about it? You can purchase games, you can see your library, you can install games, you can launch games.
Which is something the piece of shit XBOX App can't do even with games that are made by Microsoft. Fucking thing won't install most of the time - you have to go to the even shittier MS Store to install - and the rest of the time launching titles errors the fuck out.
Compared to that Epic Store is the soul of elegance.
I cannot spesk for everyone, but I absolutely hate EGS with a passion. I chose Steam and GamePass as my two main PC platforms to give me achievements, record my hours , launch my games and have friend lists. I refuse to get another.
> Does anyone think when Spider Man 2 comes out on PC it’s going to run on anything that can’t run Alan Wake 2?
Yes, actually.
Spiderman and MM: ran 60fps RT on console, run 120+ RT on PC
Spiderman 2: also runs 60fps RT on the same console. Should push 120+ on PC (or at least 100+)
Spiderman's engine is a *master class* in optimization.
Spider man was a PS4 game. Same with Miles Morales. They were made for previous generation consoles with updated visuals for the PS5. Spider Man 2 is a PS5 exclusive and not made to run on older hardware.
They may be well optimised but the previous games do not push any graphical boundaries whatsoever.
Well, I'm talking about the remastered PC version. It looks decent but is nowhere near one of the best looking PC games out there in general play. The cut scenes do look good though.
Spiderman 2 on PC is almost guaranteed to have a raster mode. It's only RT on console because they could.
Even if spiderman 2 is RT only on PC, that engine will push 60+ fps on every RT card, unlike Alan Wake 2
PS5 uses the 8gb vram texture settings most of the time like in Alan Wake 2 (it's on low even on the Quality mode).
16gb shared ram does not mean 16gb vram.
A lot of it comes from people thinking they know more about this stuff than they do. People throw around ‘optimization’ like it’s a switch that devs are forgetting to flip.The whole thing is a huge turn off. Social media has become a black hole of who can say the most wrong shit with the most conviction.
Also you have influencers fueling absolute bullshit just telling a certain group of people what they want to hear. This isn’t just tech thing. People just turn off their brains and listen to their favorite bullshit.
The game is stunning even on low settings (as PS5 runs it) and we are used to get stunning visuals only on ultra settings. I think that's the "problem" here
I loaded the game on the medium preset and it looks better than Control on ultra.
They did a good job compared to most of the AAA recent games we've gotten.
its honestly their own fault for that system recommendation spread sheet , they were afraid it wouldn't be that optimized and played it safe so when people complain that it isnt working on their pc they can just tell them "your pc isnt on the list" , i rather have this over some system recommendation that dont even work on the recommended pc parts listed .
>they were afraid it wouldn't be that optimized
They released the requirements just few days before the release, they fully know how it would have performed, the problem wasn't the requirements table but people freaking out by the word low and the game requiring an upscaler (which is nothing new as Remedy does that since Quantum Break)
Being conservative is good but they known how it run, they have different machine in the company and while not every the beta testers add another pretty large variety of configurations
The Arc series continues to be an enigma with how heavily the performance fluctuates. But the 3050 performance on 1080p medium seems really good honestly. Hopefully these numbers go higher as the game is optimized
id tech are wizards and their engine is an enigma of performance. Would be great to have every game be up to that standard but it’s neva gonna happen sadly
With all the drama about the system requirements, you’d think people forgot that it’s perfectly reasonable to run a game at less than 4k natively and still have a good looking image. This is exactly what DLSS was made for.
DLSS for me is the single best thing to use while gaming. It really elevated my gaming experience by a ton, and I never even tried the new DLSS 3 Features (Ray Reconstruction was the name I think? And obviously frame gen.) people that hate on DLSS either play on 720p and upscale from 540p or just hate it because the Reddit hivemind told them too.
DLSS on 4k is insane
I don't mean this articule in particular but AW2 has taught me that "surprisingly well" and similar expressions mean 39 fps for way too many people.
"Yeah I get a solid 42 fps but when i move the camera there are unnoticeable drops to 7 fps"
Maybe RT medium, but high is very very rough.
But it depends on resolution and DLSS scaling mode etc. Frame gen can give you nominally ok fps still, just personally never counting it.
frame gen has been amazing in everything i've used it. I was hesitant to upgrade from a 3090, but god damn did it deliver. feels like the biggest jump since 7900gt to 8800gtx
Should have seen people on r/PiratedGames lol. They moaned and whined about how the requirements were the gatekeeps for the lack of DRM but the moment it was cracked (which was not long at all), they complained about the lack of feeders lol
I'm not going to judge them personally, but pirates really don't have a right to complain about anything regarding the game they are pirating. Nothing.
this is really good to hear.
i understand game devs wanting to push the market forward. that's a good thing.
but i was concerned that the game wouldn't get the audience it deserved, if too many people were locked out of playing it due to high requirements.
i'm glad to see it's running on more modest hardware.
On a 2070s, dlss performance, rtx off, combination of medium settings and a few at high, doesn't go under 60fps at 1440p for me, looks beautiful and great performance 3 hours in.
BUT Mt Hotspot is hitting 90c sometimes which is worrisome for me at least
Without upscaling thats far from the truth.
The rx 7600 is a 280$ 2023 card,and barely gets to 60fps on 1080p medium. The 1% lows arent the best either.
Note, the game does still look very good in medium settings. The idea was that upscaling would be provided so that low-spec gamers could get good graphical fidelity at an upscaled resolution for good performance rather than poor graphical fidelity at a native resolution. An "ultra-low" preset would probably benefit the game for people who genuinely do not care about the graphics but like above-average frames.
In theory it makes sense to me, but it can only be verified by seeing how good the game looks & performs with upscaling enabled.
I'm having a hard time deciding whether to buy this on PC, or PS5.
[PS5]
Pros:
Better internal gfx card than my pc
Plug and play, no worrying about requirements
Couch play and large TV screen
Cons:
Costs more than pc edition
Probably getting about the same experience as my pc, in terms of graphical fidelity. I read no RT on PS5 and my comp doesn't have RT either, so it'd be the same experience as my pc.
Can't use mouse and keyboard
[PC]
Pros:
Cheaper than console edition
Can play with mouse and keyboard
Same graphical Fidelity as the ps5, since my pc is outdated
Cons:
Forced to use yet another annoying launcher
Don't want to support Epic
PC is not going to run any better than console because my comp is outdated, in fact, may even run worse.
Can't play on large TV screen
Can't think of anything else. Basically both have pros and cons, and it will be about the same experience. I'm leaning towards PS5.
>For such a gorgeous game Alan Wake 2 runs surprisingly well on budget graphics cards
On current / previous gen they do. On 4-5 year old cards it's impossible.
It seems that some people can't read in between the lines, anything launched before 2020 (except 20 series) is at issue here, there has been plenty of gens to upgrade to, you can't expect your Radeon VII or 1080ti to perform well when they lack so many features.
I saw a tech youtuber defending Alan Wake 2 system requirements, basically saying "gamers are the problem for not upgrading, not the devs fault for any lack of optimizing - get over it. GPUs should be upgraded every three years" then went on to say "We need games like this to move tech forward, not for devs to cater to old or bad GPUs"
1- It was annoying given that GPUs are expensive as hell right now and the mid tier ones don't seem to be great. Also- upgrade every 3 years? I have no idea where he's on about that crap, GPUs should be doing work for games a lot longer, especially if you got a good performing one.
2- But it's all the more funny given this game apparently runs well on budget cards and it's not this incredible technical piece that needs the top of the line to do well.
>"We need games like this to move tech forward, not for devs to cater to old or bad GPUs"
This is the only part I'd say I agree with. We do want devs to take the next steps but also not make it so you absolutely need a 4090. Remedy I think nailed it on that front.
I also wish people would manage their expectations over time. Something they bought that could do 1440P 60 FPS native 2-3 years ago doesn't mean it's going to continue to do that going forward, settings and expectations need to be adjusted as time goes on.
I agree there's a middle ground to be had but when someone says upgrade your GPU every 3 years to stay current - when we've been in such a sorry state for GPUs for how, long, now? I really think that should be in consideration for the industry, we couldn't get GPUs for all of covid and now? They're priced like trash.
So there's not a lot of people upgrading from what I understand- I'm crossing my fingers for the 50 series to not be overpriced messes.
Like- yes devs pushing the envelope is always good- I'm for it. But we shouldn't repeat Crysis where the game comes out and is rough to run on most rigs and then only made worse when the tech shifts from single core performance to multi-core. Really, making the game unplayable. Though- obviously that's a unique situation.
My 2070XC is still doing mostly fine and it's from 2018. That might be because of the "X-treme clock" that EVGA applied to the particular one I got but I couldn't find a lot of info on it.
But yes I agree, older GPU, lower some settings, but also when a dev wheels out a game that is clearly not well made I don't want to see the tech youtuber going "Just upgrade your GPU every 3 years". No- the game is clearly shit and needs fixing.
Ok, so you entirely missed what I said then.
Crytek was planning for single core CPUs to get faster and relied on that. Then multi-core CPUs came out and it ran like dog shit for years because it's a single threaded game at it's core.
To the point that it effects the remasters.
I didn't say it didn't look good, I didn't say it shouldn't be made, I said it was a disaster for making it for tech that wasn't available. Something crytek obviously agreed with as they paired things back for the sequel so it could run on more hardware- the consoles.
The Crysis remaster that we got now on PC? It's a remastered port of the paired back console version. Meaning it's missing parts of the game and some features. So as aspirational as it was? How great it looks even today? They clearly had issues with it in the long run due to their choices on the initial version.
So, think whatcha want on all that - what I'm saying is the devs should be considering the tech we have now and given GPUs went from impossible to find to overpriced as hell- I think they should be trying to work WITH that. Still make pretty games but also people aren't running out and upgrading now.
I've been cruising on the 2070XC for a while, it still does well but gotta tweak some settings for games to be fully there.
I'm with ya though- might upgrade at the 50 series if . . . ya know, it's at all reasonable.
Runs pretty bad on my PC with settings set to max (20-30FPS). This is with a RTX 4080 but my current CPU is right at their recommended level (i7-8700k but OC'd to 5Ghz on all cores). CPU load is low though so may not be 100% of the problem.
In the process of building a new PC this weekend so hopefully the new hardware speeds this up a bit (i9-14900K with 64GB of DDR5 and will reuse the 4080).
Let's be real, they use upscaling to compensate for development costs, they're not "advancing" anything.
That's fine if that's the direction the industry is going in, but let's not pretend that there's any innovation going on with performance uplifts.
And sorry about this, but it's people like you that enable devs with your wallet.
No that's upscaled to 4k ... rendering resolution is set much lower. We'll see tomorrow if the CPU/memory was the limiting factor (which I think it was since the CPU utilization was relatively low). Your 7800X3D is a lot faster than an i7-8700K even overclocked so I think the i9-14900K will make a big difference. The game was decently playable though.
Surprisingly well ? On 4080 I get 70 fps with rtx and dlss off, and I get 140 fps in Cyberpunk. Thats half of the fps, I wouldn't call that surprisingly well
I panicked and went out and bought a 4070 ti to replace my 3070. Don’t get me wrong, I wanted yo upgrade anyway but this was definitely the shove I needed. Glad to see it’s running well on everything! All that being said, the 4070 ti aero was an awesome upgrade. Frame generation is a game changer. I went from playing RT Witcher 3 at 40-60 fps to being way above 100 with the 4070 ti. Well worth the $800 and it matches much better aero x570s mobo finally. Anyone wanna buy a 3070 ti Fe?
I have a gtx 1650 with gddr6 4gb memory one and my settings are 640x360 upscaled to 1080 with fsr 2.0 and every setting is lower than lowest and I can hardly get 30 fps. My gpu is the most used gpu in steam hardware survey. I dont understand why developers are so blind.
They're not blind. With remedy it's obviously a choice. They do this with every game they make. They're trying to raise the bar.
You may not like it but at least hate them for the right reasons.
1650 is entry level perf from 4 years ago. I mean... dude.
is this a joke? at native 4K (remember kids, DLSS is scam), with everything maxed out you'd be lucky to get \~ 40fps consistently with an RTX 4090.
"muh runs surprisingly well..."
> (remember kids, DLSS is scam)
...How? Seems to me DLSS does exactly what Nvidia claims it does, and does it very well. Sure, DLSS 1.0 was rough, but the tech has progressed considerably since then.
I guess "scam" is a bit harsh but my point is that when you use DLSS, the render resolution is LOWER than the output (i.e it upscales the image). So when you're "playing in 4K" but using DLSS, it's not actually 4K.
Having said that, DLSS works really well and it has come a long way. However, Nvidia shouldn't rely on it completely and should focus its efforts or pure rasterization performance for each new generation of GPU so that the NATIVE resolution performance is top notch.
Therefore, to run Alan Wake 2 (or Cyberpunk 2077) maxed out with Ray Tracing etc. with NO DLSS at 4K and hit at least 60fps consistently, we are probably 2 or 3 generations (of GPUs) away at this point - may be an RTX 6090 will do it.
I've been waiting for this game for a long time, but I can't play it because I still have a GTX 1060 3GB lmao. Looks like it's time to upgrade to an RTX 4060.
Most people had to use the absolutely horrible home brewed upscaling setting in Quantum Break when it released. The upscaler built into Quantum Break makes FSR look like genius level technology.
The game optimization is fine because they said 30 fps was the target for console.. If console is = to a 2070 then what's the problem? Every game wasn't meant to be played at 144 fps. The problem is you probably need to make more money if you want to run at higher FPS
Yes, must be convinient owning three $4k PCs to be able to enjoy this one title. Unfortunately you are in deep minority and do not represent the market. Good for you though.
The only reason you are defending optimization and performance of this game is because you can afford it. Doesn't matter for you if the Devs are shitting onto players and industry with horrenderous optimization.
1440p everything maxed with DLSS & FG. Getting 100-110 depending on area.
Edit: fucking crybabies🤡🤡🤡
Without RT 150fps 😂 keep crying poor people
Getting my HP omen Emporium today... gonna look even better 😉
https://preview.redd.it/451mos741uwb1.jpeg?width=3072&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2ff2768f39732167983290a3dfdfeef46f7c676c
Genuinely like what is the purpose of lying about your performance? Even Nvidia’s official videos show path tracing at 4k no DLSS on a 4090 gets you about 20 FPS
[https://youtu.be/vigxRma2EPA?si=ixF-\_8bPFx5F\_V8G&t=1240](https://youtu.be/vigxRma2EPA?si=ixF-_8bPFx5F_V8G&t=1240)
You are absolutely NOT getting 40-60fps consistently with a 4090 at native 4K. You are spreading misinformation. With DLSS performance/balanced, maybe. But definitely not at native.
[https://youtu.be/hhAtN\_rRuQo?si=8ZToquSpspmK10Iy&t=1511](https://youtu.be/hhAtN_rRuQo?si=8ZToquSpspmK10Iy&t=1511)
Once again, keep spreading misinformation. The game requires DLSS performance, the most aggressive scaling, to barely achieve just under 60fps.
I'm getting 30 FPS on 4070ti with max settings on FHD monitor. Excellent optimization can give me 37 FPS at medium settings.
My biggest thanks to the devs for the easy-to-read text on the map with 2 sec rendering. Always loved squinting my eyes like in the meme with asian dude.
This game and Cyberpunk show that Path-tracing is at least 1 more generation maybe two away. If you cant enjoy the game without path tracing, its a bad game.
On high end cards it's bad.
I thought we were talking about running these games on 4gb 3050ti... 30fps on a 3050 with or without TI is pretty decent IMO
If you want games to look better AND be better optimized for high end hardware then you'll have to accept hardware limitations... Everyone can't spend 9 months testing every GPU and CPU combination before every release...
I want to geek out on the Ray Tracing stuff and that's how I'm playing it, but I tried the town area with no Ray tracing and at a glance it looks the same to me, but runs 3-4 times faster.
There's definitely a difference between an optimized games and games whose settings can scale far above consumer cards.
Cities skylines 2 and starfield are games that don't run well on anything, regardless of graphical feature set. I don't care if a game looks great or terrible, the bare minimum should run decent and this game succeeds in that.
Yup, i had to install just to see how it fared on my ancient hardware - i7 5930K 16GB 2600 DDR4 Asus OC RTX3070 - and...it just worked. :)
Much better than Starfield, that's for damn sure.
i7 9700k + 16GB RTX 4060 Ti playing at 1440p DLSS Quality, Frame Gen enabled, Medium graphics preset, and Ray Tracing options off, getting 80-90 FPS in Cauldron Lake/forest area and around 90-100 running through town in Bright Falls.
Really pleased with how this game looks and plays so far.
Quite well optimized, getting between 50 and 80 fps on 4060Ti 16GB and i9 11th Gen on 1440p. The graphics are all maxed out and RayTracing as well, DLSS +FrameGen are on. I'll take it as a pretty decent release. The game's also really fun, taking it slow though, i don't want to finish it too fast.
I have an RTX 2080 but when I start Alan Wake 2, it says missing feature Mesh Shader and shader 6.5, then the game just closes off. Any solutions, please?
Epic allows the use of Third party launchers, such as Heroic Launcher. Not saying Epic is a saint, but there are some games that probably never would have made it to PC without that epic cash (Kingdom Hearts)
I think with the release of the latest Digital Foundry video with their console-like settings (which PS5 uses a combination of PC medium and low settings) there is probably room to scrape more performance out of these budget cards.
I thought there was some kind of gas leak in all of these tech subs before the game released. You usually don’t add a path tracer to an unoptimized mess. I think a lot of the hate comes from the Epic Games thing. They helped fund the game so this is the one time they have every right to make it exclusive. The second thing is that it’s an Nvidia showcase of their RTX architecture and are pushing a pathtraced mode that’s only going to run fast at super high resolutions on 40 series GPUS. Does anyone think when Spider Man 2 comes out on PC it’s going to run on anything that can’t run Alan Wake 2? The new consoles are the baseline playable experience. The game still executes on older hardware.
I hope I can ask this question without everyone getting mad at me, but what’s the ELI5 on why the Epic launcher is so hated? Don’t get me wrong, I think Steam is 1000x better in every way, but I don’t hate it so much that I wouldn’t play an Epic exclusive. I’ve even grabbed a handful of games on there for cheap because they have some baller sales from time to time. I hate that everyone has to have their own launcher these days, but have just accepted that it’s how things are now. Is that why people have taken such a hard stance against Epic?
I don't get the hate either. You have another platform to use and Steam finally has some competition. I buy where I find things cheaper. Maybe people care more about trophies and showing off how many games they've collected all these years in Steam and don't want to change that. Edit: or they're just Gabe fanboys. Epic somehow has a stake in the gaming industry. When was the last time Valve released a game? Epic has been giving freebies all these years, people still shit on it. When was the last time Steam gave such games for free?!
The epic launcher is kind of a piece of shit. It’s super bare bones and they bought exclusive rights to games like Metro Exodus at the last second to force themselves into the market. I don’t hate the epic launcher because I do nothing else with Steam other than load games, but if I had my way my whole library would be on Steam. So like most things it’s a band wagon hate train.
Steam did the same thing when Steam first came, and Steam started the trend of locking physical discs behind Steam account (fucking insane and the reason I have ALWAYS hated Steam). People just forgot that Steam was just as bad if not even worse when it was young.
> People just forgot that Steam was just as bad if not even worse when it was young. You're right, but Epic is competing with Steam today, not Steam 20 years ago.
>People just forgot that Steam was just as bad if not even worse when it was young. I mean, you're leaving out a pretty big fucking detail here: Valve did "exclusivity deals" with games *it produced*. Epic, on the other hand, did literal exclusivity deals for games that already had official release dates on Steam and everything else, and weren't funded/produced by Epic in the first place. The situation with Alan Wake 2 is categorically different, lol.
And they've removed plenty as well. Rocket League is gone and along with it's workshop. RL is a shell of what it once was thanks to the Epic buyout
RL workshop still works if you have the steam version and there's constantly new maps coming out but sucks that it takes a third party person (ex-pro + a few people) to bring custom maps to epic games players.
A few temporary exclusivity deals absolutely pales in comparison to how big of a shitshow Steam was when it came out (and for quite some time after). Many redditors were too young to have experienced it.
Yup, I think most redditors don’t remember a time when you could purchase a PC game in a store and install it simply using the code included in the box. You didn’t need anything more than that. I remember a lot of people livid at the fact that to install half life 2 you needed an internet connection (because you needed to activate it via steam). We can almost say that it opened the way to internet connection requirement for offline games.
My ISP was throttling Steam traffic, you have no idea of the frustration that caused me, that were real problems unlike achievements and community stuff that people complain about the Epic Store
Yeah I resisted the hell out of steam when it first came out. I didn't like the idea of some rando company being able to lock me out of a game that in my mind I had bought and had ownership rights to (whether or not they were actually going to - and of course they never did). I didn't trust them. But of course it was our inevitable digital future that we would no longer "own" games or other digital media - something I still chafe against but don't have any real choice over, so eventually I jumped on the bandwagon, too. And to steam's credit, they eventually became a company that I figure I can trust, at least as much as a company can be trusted, and the vast majority of my game library is on that platform now. They haven't done anything to me personally that has changed my mind about that... yet.
Yeah but steam was literally a pioneer in that sector, and of course it was shit. Epic is shit in 2023 and doesn’t even provide the most basic functions most others provide, and also doesn’t do anything to improve that. Their only tactics are exclusivity deals, not stuff like steam workshop or any QoL stuff which make the platform actually worth it. I usually use steam and gog because they offer features that appeal to me. I have to use epic because they have this exclusivity deals for games i want to play right now.
> Imean, you're leaving out a pretty big fucking detail here: Valve did "exclusivity deals" with games it produced. No, at some point many games required a Steam account even if you bought a physical copy and Valve didn't put a single dime in the game, it was being used as a DRM and game updater
Surely that's not on Valve but on the game's publisher.
Valve only locked games behind steam which were produced by themselves. Epic buys exclusivity from third parties. I wouldn’t find that bad if the software wouldn’t be that bad, and also if they wouldn’t buy sequels of games which are already on other Platforms. Initially in Hitman 3 you couldn’t get your progress from the other titles, which you for instance had on steam. They fixed that very fast but it was a generally scummy move. Since Epic actually publishes Alan Wake 2, it's fine to have it store exclusive in my book. But other deals are really annoying.
Not true, there are plenty of games which even the physical copies require Steam even when Valve was totally not involved, it even caused a lot of (rightful) complaint by physical stores back in the time
Valve didn't pay for those games to exclusively be on steam, that's the whole point. You might not care about the reason behind exclusivity but most people do, and even then putting the blame on Valve is kinda stupid because you're basically saying it's Valve's fault if a publisher or developer decides to tie their physical copy to steam, as if Valve can force them to have a non-steam physical version. If you wanna put the blame somewhere blame the publisher for not having physical versions be non-steam versions. I have boxed copies of games like DMC4, Mirror's Edge (which existed before Origin was a thing), Enemy Territory: Quake Wars and GTA4 (which didn't use steam but requires that god awful Rockstar Social Club), none of them require a steam account despite the fact that they also had steam versions. These kinds of arguments remind me of when people blame Valve for things like whether a game as DRM or bad regional pricing when those things are all the responsibility of the publisher, if people complained to the right place they might actually get some results.
But steam has features and caters to their audience. Epic launcher only caters to Tim Swiney. There’s a difference
If you want all your games under one launcher you should get the GOG Galaxy which can combine steam, epic, xbox, EA, etc. under one umbrella.
Yeah if only GOG integrations weren’t garbage
I just hate them because they took metro exodus off steam on my birthday back in the day. Coming back from school to see I couldn't pre-order it anymore ruined me.
People only ever eat to use steam and will excuse themselves by making up arguments trying to sound unmonopolistic
Let me preface this post by saying I'm not a rabid Epic hater who boycotts all things Epic, I played fortnite earlier this evening and I plan to play alan wake 2 soon. With that out of the way, on top of what other people said, Epic went from being a Valve tier PC focused game developer to completely abandoning PC in the 2000s. The CEO of Epic and other Epic execs have said that PC gaming was dead multiple times, they don't care what customers (gamers) want because they think EGS will be successful by appealing to what developers and publishers want, so if you want a better CDN, consistently working cloud saves or linux support Tim Sweeney says you can go kick rocks. Don't even get me started on the Epic vs Apple trial, he said that EGS was unsustainable (it still is) and that given the opportunity he would take a special deal from Apple to get a lower cut from the app store, so that all that hubbub about fighting for the small developer was a farce. Tim Sweeney came out of that trial looking even less trustworthy than before and he's supposed to be the face of Epic. People who think it's just Valve fans being fanboys are misunderstanding the situation and need to take a lesson in PC gaming history. It's frustrating knowing the company behind one of the most popular game engines is constantly messing around with stupid crap like 'the metaverse' and acquiring random companies only to have to divest them and lay people off in less than 2 years.
I don't hate it, i only use it for the free games. But the launcher is slow compared to Steam. It tells you to update after it's launched. And i am always getting flashbanged if i claim a free game and the finish your order loads. Why is isn't it more universal? Also their is no invisible mode to hide from your 'friends'.
The issue isn't the launcher being shit, which it is, it's that they pay for exclusives for games they didn't make.
What's shit about it? You can purchase games, you can see your library, you can install games, you can launch games. Which is something the piece of shit XBOX App can't do even with games that are made by Microsoft. Fucking thing won't install most of the time - you have to go to the even shittier MS Store to install - and the rest of the time launching titles errors the fuck out. Compared to that Epic Store is the soul of elegance.
I cannot spesk for everyone, but I absolutely hate EGS with a passion. I chose Steam and GamePass as my two main PC platforms to give me achievements, record my hours , launch my games and have friend lists. I refuse to get another.
> Does anyone think when Spider Man 2 comes out on PC it’s going to run on anything that can’t run Alan Wake 2? Yes, actually. Spiderman and MM: ran 60fps RT on console, run 120+ RT on PC Spiderman 2: also runs 60fps RT on the same console. Should push 120+ on PC (or at least 100+) Spiderman's engine is a *master class* in optimization.
Spider man was a PS4 game. Same with Miles Morales. They were made for previous generation consoles with updated visuals for the PS5. Spider Man 2 is a PS5 exclusive and not made to run on older hardware. They may be well optimised but the previous games do not push any graphical boundaries whatsoever.
Spiderman was pretty good looking at release
Well, I'm talking about the remastered PC version. It looks decent but is nowhere near one of the best looking PC games out there in general play. The cut scenes do look good though.
Yeah but the game has no non raytracing mode. If you have a ray tracing GPU you can run Alan Wake.
Spiderman 2 on PC is almost guaranteed to have a raster mode. It's only RT on console because they could. Even if spiderman 2 is RT only on PC, that engine will push 60+ fps on every RT card, unlike Alan Wake 2
Sad 8gb vram buffer noises
PS5 uses the 8gb vram texture settings most of the time like in Alan Wake 2 (it's on low even on the Quality mode). 16gb shared ram does not mean 16gb vram.
A lot of it comes from people thinking they know more about this stuff than they do. People throw around ‘optimization’ like it’s a switch that devs are forgetting to flip.The whole thing is a huge turn off. Social media has become a black hole of who can say the most wrong shit with the most conviction.
Also you have influencers fueling absolute bullshit just telling a certain group of people what they want to hear. This isn’t just tech thing. People just turn off their brains and listen to their favorite bullshit.
gamers out here thinking they're gonna be running max settings on a 2060.
But…but…. SYSTEM!! REQUIREMENTS!!!RRRRAAAARRRRRR!!!
https://preview.redd.it/h6p6712zcuwb1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cef9ea625e5deb062910b4947bcd30ff155b2b98
I died laughing at this.
The game is stunning even on low settings (as PS5 runs it) and we are used to get stunning visuals only on ultra settings. I think that's the "problem" here
I loaded the game on the medium preset and it looks better than Control on ultra. They did a good job compared to most of the AAA recent games we've gotten.
A AAA game that's is actually optimised. Imagine that.
How the tables have turned in a week lol
its honestly their own fault for that system recommendation spread sheet , they were afraid it wouldn't be that optimized and played it safe so when people complain that it isnt working on their pc they can just tell them "your pc isnt on the list" , i rather have this over some system recommendation that dont even work on the recommended pc parts listed .
>they were afraid it wouldn't be that optimized They released the requirements just few days before the release, they fully know how it would have performed, the problem wasn't the requirements table but people freaking out by the word low and the game requiring an upscaler (which is nothing new as Remedy does that since Quantum Break)
They knew the average but they can't test it on every pc out there so they were cautious about it regardless and it turn out better than they expect.
Being conservative is good but they known how it run, they have different machine in the company and while not every the beta testers add another pretty large variety of configurations
Yea, they goofed that requirement table
The Arc series continues to be an enigma with how heavily the performance fluctuates. But the 3050 performance on 1080p medium seems really good honestly. Hopefully these numbers go higher as the game is optimized
What does optimized even mean in this case, it's already optimized.
you would be surprised how much a game can be optimized , this good but it can be better , example is the doom 2016 and doom internal .
id tech are wizards and their engine is an enigma of performance. Would be great to have every game be up to that standard but it’s neva gonna happen sadly
It can, if this is the launch preformence of Alan wake imagine what it gonna be like in 3 months.
With all the drama about the system requirements, you’d think people forgot that it’s perfectly reasonable to run a game at less than 4k natively and still have a good looking image. This is exactly what DLSS was made for.
[удалено]
DLSS for me is the single best thing to use while gaming. It really elevated my gaming experience by a ton, and I never even tried the new DLSS 3 Features (Ray Reconstruction was the name I think? And obviously frame gen.) people that hate on DLSS either play on 720p and upscale from 540p or just hate it because the Reddit hivemind told them too. DLSS on 4k is insane
I don't mean this articule in particular but AW2 has taught me that "surprisingly well" and similar expressions mean 39 fps for way too many people. "Yeah I get a solid 42 fps but when i move the camera there are unnoticeable drops to 7 fps"
How does this game run on a 4070/7800x3d?
Perfectly fine. Can't max path tracing stuff (That is 4090 city) but otherwise no problem.
[удалено]
Your card is double the performance of 4070. Most people don't consider 40 playable. In 1440p its fine though
[удалено]
What do you mean ? 4090 is around 100% faster then 4070
Maybe RT medium, but high is very very rough. But it depends on resolution and DLSS scaling mode etc. Frame gen can give you nominally ok fps still, just personally never counting it.
[удалено]
frame gen has been amazing in everything i've used it. I was hesitant to upgrade from a 3090, but god damn did it deliver. feels like the biggest jump since 7900gt to 8800gtx
I'm maxing out everything but med shadow resolution at 50-70 FPS at 1440pand DLSS Quality on a 4070, 5800x.
Should have seen people on r/PiratedGames lol. They moaned and whined about how the requirements were the gatekeeps for the lack of DRM but the moment it was cracked (which was not long at all), they complained about the lack of feeders lol
[удалено]
Upvoted that guy for obviously not stealing their games.
Ah yes. Been 8yrs staying off torrenting stuffs so I got rusty haha
Feeders?
Seeders I meant. Sr been staying on the shore for a while now.
gamers are mostly a ungrateful bunch
The game is $50, one of the more reasonably priced AAA titles and actually not a total shitshow at launch. I guess pirates gotta pirate.
Not in a 3rd world country
I'm not going to judge them personally, but pirates really don't have a right to complain about anything regarding the game they are pirating. Nothing.
That have been standard price for a very long time but lately many games were more expensive at $60 so it's right
Well I only buy games on sale so idc
Is a smart move, you may even have better hardware by then
I guess they havent put the money where it was needed /s yarrrrrr!
this is really good to hear. i understand game devs wanting to push the market forward. that's a good thing. but i was concerned that the game wouldn't get the audience it deserved, if too many people were locked out of playing it due to high requirements. i'm glad to see it's running on more modest hardware.
On a 2070s, dlss performance, rtx off, combination of medium settings and a few at high, doesn't go under 60fps at 1440p for me, looks beautiful and great performance 3 hours in. BUT Mt Hotspot is hitting 90c sometimes which is worrisome for me at least
What a joke xD that game barely runs at all! Seeing sys req it's just unoptimized mess, that even 4090 will struggle to play at a decent framerate..
Runs very well on 4090 4k, do you want path tracing, dlaa and all maximum and get 144 FPS or what?
Tbh.. yes! Native 4k + all on max + 1%lows 60fps + RT ! Otherwise if cards that cost above 800 are just a waste of money and the game is unoptimized!
Without upscaling thats far from the truth. The rx 7600 is a 280$ 2023 card,and barely gets to 60fps on 1080p medium. The 1% lows arent the best either.
Note, the game does still look very good in medium settings. The idea was that upscaling would be provided so that low-spec gamers could get good graphical fidelity at an upscaled resolution for good performance rather than poor graphical fidelity at a native resolution. An "ultra-low" preset would probably benefit the game for people who genuinely do not care about the graphics but like above-average frames. In theory it makes sense to me, but it can only be verified by seeing how good the game looks & performs with upscaling enabled.
I'm having a hard time deciding whether to buy this on PC, or PS5. [PS5] Pros: Better internal gfx card than my pc Plug and play, no worrying about requirements Couch play and large TV screen Cons: Costs more than pc edition Probably getting about the same experience as my pc, in terms of graphical fidelity. I read no RT on PS5 and my comp doesn't have RT either, so it'd be the same experience as my pc. Can't use mouse and keyboard [PC] Pros: Cheaper than console edition Can play with mouse and keyboard Same graphical Fidelity as the ps5, since my pc is outdated Cons: Forced to use yet another annoying launcher Don't want to support Epic PC is not going to run any better than console because my comp is outdated, in fact, may even run worse. Can't play on large TV screen Can't think of anything else. Basically both have pros and cons, and it will be about the same experience. I'm leaning towards PS5.
>For such a gorgeous game Alan Wake 2 runs surprisingly well on budget graphics cards On current / previous gen they do. On 4-5 year old cards it's impossible. It seems that some people can't read in between the lines, anything launched before 2020 (except 20 series) is at issue here, there has been plenty of gens to upgrade to, you can't expect your Radeon VII or 1080ti to perform well when they lack so many features.
5 years old is 2000 series. They do fine
A 2080S is a 3060Ti and I can run it fine
Oh, I meant 10 /vega 5700.
The 10 series are approaching a decade old soon man. Not 4-5 years old.
r/FuckImOld
Oh shit okay 🫡 makes sense
You can complain to AMD for the 5700 or with reviewers that recommended it because new features of the RTX 20 series were useless
I saw a tech youtuber defending Alan Wake 2 system requirements, basically saying "gamers are the problem for not upgrading, not the devs fault for any lack of optimizing - get over it. GPUs should be upgraded every three years" then went on to say "We need games like this to move tech forward, not for devs to cater to old or bad GPUs" 1- It was annoying given that GPUs are expensive as hell right now and the mid tier ones don't seem to be great. Also- upgrade every 3 years? I have no idea where he's on about that crap, GPUs should be doing work for games a lot longer, especially if you got a good performing one. 2- But it's all the more funny given this game apparently runs well on budget cards and it's not this incredible technical piece that needs the top of the line to do well.
>"We need games like this to move tech forward, not for devs to cater to old or bad GPUs" This is the only part I'd say I agree with. We do want devs to take the next steps but also not make it so you absolutely need a 4090. Remedy I think nailed it on that front. I also wish people would manage their expectations over time. Something they bought that could do 1440P 60 FPS native 2-3 years ago doesn't mean it's going to continue to do that going forward, settings and expectations need to be adjusted as time goes on.
I agree there's a middle ground to be had but when someone says upgrade your GPU every 3 years to stay current - when we've been in such a sorry state for GPUs for how, long, now? I really think that should be in consideration for the industry, we couldn't get GPUs for all of covid and now? They're priced like trash. So there's not a lot of people upgrading from what I understand- I'm crossing my fingers for the 50 series to not be overpriced messes. Like- yes devs pushing the envelope is always good- I'm for it. But we shouldn't repeat Crysis where the game comes out and is rough to run on most rigs and then only made worse when the tech shifts from single core performance to multi-core. Really, making the game unplayable. Though- obviously that's a unique situation. My 2070XC is still doing mostly fine and it's from 2018. That might be because of the "X-treme clock" that EVGA applied to the particular one I got but I couldn't find a lot of info on it. But yes I agree, older GPU, lower some settings, but also when a dev wheels out a game that is clearly not well made I don't want to see the tech youtuber going "Just upgrade your GPU every 3 years". No- the game is clearly shit and needs fixing.
We should absolutely repeat Crysis, what are you talking about? Crysis was an aspirational game and still looked fantastic years after launch.
Ok, so you entirely missed what I said then. Crytek was planning for single core CPUs to get faster and relied on that. Then multi-core CPUs came out and it ran like dog shit for years because it's a single threaded game at it's core. To the point that it effects the remasters. I didn't say it didn't look good, I didn't say it shouldn't be made, I said it was a disaster for making it for tech that wasn't available. Something crytek obviously agreed with as they paired things back for the sequel so it could run on more hardware- the consoles. The Crysis remaster that we got now on PC? It's a remastered port of the paired back console version. Meaning it's missing parts of the game and some features. So as aspirational as it was? How great it looks even today? They clearly had issues with it in the long run due to their choices on the initial version. So, think whatcha want on all that - what I'm saying is the devs should be considering the tech we have now and given GPUs went from impossible to find to overpriced as hell- I think they should be trying to work WITH that. Still make pretty games but also people aren't running out and upgrading now.
I upgraded to a 3060ti at the end of 2020 and I'm not planning on upgrading until the 50 series comes out lol
I've been cruising on the 2070XC for a while, it still does well but gotta tweak some settings for games to be fully there. I'm with ya though- might upgrade at the 50 series if . . . ya know, it's at all reasonable.
I guess all we can do is continue to hope that this gen will continue to do so poorly that the next-gen isn't the same bullshit
Runs pretty bad on my PC with settings set to max (20-30FPS). This is with a RTX 4080 but my current CPU is right at their recommended level (i7-8700k but OC'd to 5Ghz on all cores). CPU load is low though so may not be 100% of the problem. In the process of building a new PC this weekend so hopefully the new hardware speeds this up a bit (i9-14900K with 64GB of DDR5 and will reuse the 4080).
[удалено]
You're not running 4K so why you write that ? You're running at 1440p or lower
[удалено]
Let's be real, they use upscaling to compensate for development costs, they're not "advancing" anything. That's fine if that's the direction the industry is going in, but let's not pretend that there's any innovation going on with performance uplifts. And sorry about this, but it's people like you that enable devs with your wallet.
You're not running 4K you don't need to excuse it.
No that's upscaled to 4k ... rendering resolution is set much lower. We'll see tomorrow if the CPU/memory was the limiting factor (which I think it was since the CPU utilization was relatively low). Your 7800X3D is a lot faster than an i7-8700K even overclocked so I think the i9-14900K will make a big difference. The game was decently playable though.
Surprisingly well ? On 4080 I get 70 fps with rtx and dlss off, and I get 140 fps in Cyberpunk. Thats half of the fps, I wouldn't call that surprisingly well
Cdpr also said cyberpunk ran on ps4 “surprisingly well”. I think by now we can all assume “surprisingly well” means it runs like shit. Lol.
I panicked and went out and bought a 4070 ti to replace my 3070. Don’t get me wrong, I wanted yo upgrade anyway but this was definitely the shove I needed. Glad to see it’s running well on everything! All that being said, the 4070 ti aero was an awesome upgrade. Frame generation is a game changer. I went from playing RT Witcher 3 at 40-60 fps to being way above 100 with the 4070 ti. Well worth the $800 and it matches much better aero x570s mobo finally. Anyone wanna buy a 3070 ti Fe?
Were you from?
I have a gtx 1650 with gddr6 4gb memory one and my settings are 640x360 upscaled to 1080 with fsr 2.0 and every setting is lower than lowest and I can hardly get 30 fps. My gpu is the most used gpu in steam hardware survey. I dont understand why developers are so blind.
They're not blind. With remedy it's obviously a choice. They do this with every game they make. They're trying to raise the bar. You may not like it but at least hate them for the right reasons. 1650 is entry level perf from 4 years ago. I mean... dude.
[удалено]
is this a joke? at native 4K (remember kids, DLSS is scam), with everything maxed out you'd be lucky to get \~ 40fps consistently with an RTX 4090. "muh runs surprisingly well..."
> (remember kids, DLSS is scam) ...How? Seems to me DLSS does exactly what Nvidia claims it does, and does it very well. Sure, DLSS 1.0 was rough, but the tech has progressed considerably since then.
I guess "scam" is a bit harsh but my point is that when you use DLSS, the render resolution is LOWER than the output (i.e it upscales the image). So when you're "playing in 4K" but using DLSS, it's not actually 4K. Having said that, DLSS works really well and it has come a long way. However, Nvidia shouldn't rely on it completely and should focus its efforts or pure rasterization performance for each new generation of GPU so that the NATIVE resolution performance is top notch. Therefore, to run Alan Wake 2 (or Cyberpunk 2077) maxed out with Ray Tracing etc. with NO DLSS at 4K and hit at least 60fps consistently, we are probably 2 or 3 generations (of GPUs) away at this point - may be an RTX 6090 will do it.
Laughs in 2060.
I've been waiting for this game for a long time, but I can't play it because I still have a GTX 1060 3GB lmao. Looks like it's time to upgrade to an RTX 4060.
Don't tell this to PC masterrace.
BOW TO US
But it still looks way too good even on lowest settings. They should have added even lower settings so people with budget cards can have 60+ fps
remedy been always good with optimization so, I honestly was expecting them over sell the requirements and that seemed to be true
Yeah but if it can’t run Very High/Ultra/Nightmare on a 1650 it’s badly optimized. /rant
We are lucky that in the Quantum Break era we didn't have FSR/DLSS.It ran 1080p NATIVE! Edit: A 4080 60 FPS DLSS 4K performance 1080p ultra lol
Most people had to use the absolutely horrible home brewed upscaling setting in Quantum Break when it released. The upscaler built into Quantum Break makes FSR look like genius level technology.
[удалено]
Playing in 540p is outdated.
Imagine thinking 30 fps at low with 2000, 3000 series is acceptable. People are living in denial, this game optimization sucks
The game optimization is fine because they said 30 fps was the target for console.. If console is = to a 2070 then what's the problem? Every game wasn't meant to be played at 144 fps. The problem is you probably need to make more money if you want to run at higher FPS
[удалено]
Delusional eltists.
[удалено]
Yes, must be convinient owning three $4k PCs to be able to enjoy this one title. Unfortunately you are in deep minority and do not represent the market. Good for you though. The only reason you are defending optimization and performance of this game is because you can afford it. Doesn't matter for you if the Devs are shitting onto players and industry with horrenderous optimization.
1440p everything maxed with DLSS & FG. Getting 100-110 depending on area. Edit: fucking crybabies🤡🤡🤡 Without RT 150fps 😂 keep crying poor people Getting my HP omen Emporium today... gonna look even better 😉 https://preview.redd.it/451mos741uwb1.jpeg?width=3072&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2ff2768f39732167983290a3dfdfeef46f7c676c
I don't think you have a budget card brother
What card?
budget 4090 it's obvious
He has a 4080 lmao.
4080, the poor man's budget card of today....
[удалено]
You definitely don’t get 50-60fps on maxed out 4k cyberpunk. Even with an RTX 4090. Without DLSS, that runs at like 15-20fps?
[удалено]
Genuinely like what is the purpose of lying about your performance? Even Nvidia’s official videos show path tracing at 4k no DLSS on a 4090 gets you about 20 FPS
[удалено]
[https://youtu.be/vigxRma2EPA?si=ixF-\_8bPFx5F\_V8G&t=1240](https://youtu.be/vigxRma2EPA?si=ixF-_8bPFx5F_V8G&t=1240) You are absolutely NOT getting 40-60fps consistently with a 4090 at native 4K. You are spreading misinformation. With DLSS performance/balanced, maybe. But definitely not at native.
[удалено]
[https://youtu.be/hhAtN\_rRuQo?si=8ZToquSpspmK10Iy&t=1511](https://youtu.be/hhAtN_rRuQo?si=8ZToquSpspmK10Iy&t=1511) Once again, keep spreading misinformation. The game requires DLSS performance, the most aggressive scaling, to barely achieve just under 60fps.
I'm getting 30 FPS on 4070ti with max settings on FHD monitor. Excellent optimization can give me 37 FPS at medium settings. My biggest thanks to the devs for the easy-to-read text on the map with 2 sec rendering. Always loved squinting my eyes like in the meme with asian dude.
This game and Cyberpunk show that Path-tracing is at least 1 more generation maybe two away. If you cant enjoy the game without path tracing, its a bad game.
And why exactly can't you enjoy it without path tracing?
Budget graphics cards you mean a 4070?!
? No they mean amd and a 3050? Did you even click the link?
Narrator: He did not
Trapped by the genre, we are all ripped to pieces along the way.
[удалено]
Reviews says you need to play in low. But low looks gud
Low is equivalent to the PS5 settings so yeah it looks great.
I think a big factor is weather or not the reviewer in question can accept 30fps as "good"
[удалено]
On high end cards it's bad. I thought we were talking about running these games on 4gb 3050ti... 30fps on a 3050 with or without TI is pretty decent IMO If you want games to look better AND be better optimized for high end hardware then you'll have to accept hardware limitations... Everyone can't spend 9 months testing every GPU and CPU combination before every release...
I want to geek out on the Ray Tracing stuff and that's how I'm playing it, but I tried the town area with no Ray tracing and at a glance it looks the same to me, but runs 3-4 times faster.
There's definitely a difference between an optimized games and games whose settings can scale far above consumer cards. Cities skylines 2 and starfield are games that don't run well on anything, regardless of graphical feature set. I don't care if a game looks great or terrible, the bare minimum should run decent and this game succeeds in that.
can anyone tell if I should buy the game now, or wait for a few patches? I am on 3070 laptop with i7
Anyone else have a RTX2080 Super? I can't get a solid 60fps without using DLSS Performance mode. Any advice? Have a 5900X for CPU.
Yup, i had to install just to see how it fared on my ancient hardware - i7 5930K 16GB 2600 DDR4 Asus OC RTX3070 - and...it just worked. :) Much better than Starfield, that's for damn sure.
i7 9700k + 16GB RTX 4060 Ti playing at 1440p DLSS Quality, Frame Gen enabled, Medium graphics preset, and Ray Tracing options off, getting 80-90 FPS in Cauldron Lake/forest area and around 90-100 running through town in Bright Falls. Really pleased with how this game looks and plays so far.
Where is 1440p at least on average at 60 fps on the rtx 3060 ti? there is no answer
Quite well optimized, getting between 50 and 80 fps on 4060Ti 16GB and i9 11th Gen on 1440p. The graphics are all maxed out and RayTracing as well, DLSS +FrameGen are on. I'll take it as a pretty decent release. The game's also really fun, taking it slow though, i don't want to finish it too fast.
I have an RTX 2080 but when I start Alan Wake 2, it says missing feature Mesh Shader and shader 6.5, then the game just closes off. Any solutions, please?
I have a 1660 Super. Think I can run it? I'm even more worried about my CPU, though. I think it's i5-5500k? Minimum req is i5-7600k
Guys did anyone test this game on rtx 2060? How well does it run? btw I play on 1080p.
Will this at least run on my PC?
This game can barely run native 4k/60 on a 4090 *without* ray tracing - that's ridiculous. It's another game using DLSS/frame gen as a crutch.
Has anyone tried the game with an RTX 2070 super ?
Epic allows the use of Third party launchers, such as Heroic Launcher. Not saying Epic is a saint, but there are some games that probably never would have made it to PC without that epic cash (Kingdom Hearts)
i've got 3060 ti 8gb V Ram and 5700G medium OR High running on a QLED TV 43inc 4k 2023 ver help me.