If 90% of gamers can’t play a game, is it still worth releasing it like that?
I doubt 90%of players run the newest games at 4K/high
It’s not the resolution:
Even with AMD FSR 1.0 at 50% resolution scale, the game cannot come close to 30fps.
Dude if someone is spending 1.8k on just a fucking CPU and GPU together (this doesn’t include the cost of the motherboard, ram, storage, case, monitor, or mouse) I would fucking hope I can run my new game release at fucking 60fps 4k (minimum) natively.
Game dev companies got lazy. Instead of DLSS and FSR being really great tools for older GPUs to run newer games, it became a crutch for brand new $900 GPUs to run newer games.
Don’t get me wrong, DLSS and FSR are awesome and I use them to get games to run well at 4K with my 3070 Ti, it’s just a shame so many devs are abusing it.
I think its a bit unfair to say they got lazy. They just shifted their development to lower the priority on optimization since even though corporate Game development sucks I don’t think I’ve seen many “lazy” game devs. Many of them work pretty hard jobs for shit pay at least compared to other programming fields (Rough crunch periods, most of their audience hates them, etc)
Absoluteley, any lazy gamedev would just quit, get a boring SWE job and work fewer hours for twice the pay.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Oh shit, I actually missed that last part of the headline. Mea culpa.
I just built a 7800x3d RTX 4090 build so I’d expect to hit 4k 60fps but I’m more a 1440p 240hz guy. I guess I’ll settle for whatever I can’t get with this game lmao. At least it’s on game pass.
at 4K/High Settings
Do you believe 90% of gamers will be playing at 4K/High settings?
… on AMD’s most powerful GPU.
I mean… At the current state of the game, 0% of gamers will be playing at 4K/High settings.
I don’t know what “high” refers to in this instance, but in general I kinda wish every game had their very highest settings targeted to future hardware. Not by necessity of bad optimization, but simply because it feels stupid playing older games that cap render distances, LoDs, foliage amount crowd sizes, lights, shadow qualities etc to hardware limits that were set a decade or two ago.
Just make it obvious and don’t call it “Very High” or “Ultra”, but directly just “Next-Gen” or something in the settings and have it target like 720p 30fps on a 4090.
I think I’m pretty confident in saying most people aren’t interested in sub 60 FPS, especially if it’s at 1080p and looking the way it does (which is mostly flat and unimpressive)
That’s the most shocking part, the high-end hardware needed to brute force a 1080p game at acceptable framerates
Eh, I’m fine with it in this style of game. A shooter I will not. BG3 I accepted running around 30 and didn’t even feel it. It’s not a twitchy game. It’s a top down city builder. As long as it’s responsive, it doesn’t really need to run at 60. It’s probably the ideal game to target 30.
BG3 runs at stable 1440p100fps+ for me on a 4070Ti without DLSS. I only enabled DLSS Quality and then capped framerate at 90fps because I didn’t really feel like the power consumption was worth it.
I’m almost in Act 3, and so far it’s been unproblematic… This game is on a totally different level.
Edit: every setting maxed out in BG3
Act 3 performs worse. Anyway, everyone has a different system. My point is different games have different acceptable framerates first person games need to be at least 60, most top down games can be lower and you won’t even really notice.
most people aren’t interested in sub 60 FPS, especially if it’s at 1080p
Hate to say it but this is a city building sim. Above 60fps would be amazing, but Cities Skylines 1 was already known for being… not great for frame pacing or frame rates.
Obviously more is better, but you can look at any similar game and get fairly understanding “oh only 37 FPS in CS1/CIV6/Rise of Industry/Urbek City Builder/Satisfactory/Dyson Sphere Program, that’s pretty solid.” The only (similar-ish) game I can think of that actually has never had bad performance is “Per Aspera”, but every single other one mentioned, I have had performance “desires/issues.” I could also throw rimworld and dwarf fortress in there but those are different enough to be questionably relevant, but those too have performance problems at different points in time.
That being said, it does not sound like the Devs intentionally hid this info, the content creators did mention early on there were performance issues and that Paradox was aiming to have them resolved. If there was any intentional hiding, it would be probably from Paradox as the publisher, but they seem to be relatively open this time around in regards to information.
TLDR: Low fps in genre ain’t that surprising, most are used to it. Obviously more is better, but they seem to be at least intent on addressing it, unlike some other devs.
That’s basically what Crysis was when it released, so yeah why not?
Because Crysis for its time was breaking barriers in terms of graphics and physics. City skylines 2 doesn’t even look that good (graphically). So it just comes down to poor optimization that will get fixed after half a year to a full year of patching. This isn’t a great look even though they said “But we said it will perform poorly”.
Crysis was the game that got me to stop being lazy and finally build my first PC.
I dont get why people are mad about this. I’m happy that games are coming out that destroy top setups today because that means they will be beautiful (hopefully that’s what they are with max settings) with future hardware.
They’re ugly looking now, that’s the issue. skylines 2 definitely is an improvement over 1, but it’s not an astronomical improvement (like the difference you’d notice with some franchises moving from unreal engine 4 to 5)
The amount of raw performance needed to power this game is what’s shocking. It’s just a lack of optimisation.
The issue is when the game is destroying top setups because its poorly optimized and full of bugs, and I dont think it was their idea to do a game for the future hardware because that would not be comercial viable.
Really disappointed that after a solid 3-4 months of dev diaries, open communication and hype for the game, they drop this performance bombshell on us at the last moment.
They get points for at least giving everyone a weeks notice, but that’s clearly a calculated move (compared to if they kept it quiet entirely and it launched with people unaware)
I’m not instead on playing sub 60 FPS games at 1080p, especially not when I’ve got a 4090+13900k and it crushes almost every other game in existence. The game isn’t pretty enough to justify such terrible performance, it’s just purely unoptimized now.
Why there’s no DLSS / FSR also at launch is baffling, it helps GPU bottlenecked necked games greatly (even if boosting from a native 30 to 60 is a bit yuck)
Really disappointed
Like you said, they aren’t trying to hide it. I’m sure they weren’t sure where performance would end up at launch though. They publicly said they aren’t satisfied with the performance and will be working to improve it though. This isn’t the end of it. It’s disappointing it doesn’t perform as well right now (for us and I’m sure even more for them), but they’ve earned some amount of trust. I’ll give them time to get things where they should be.
From the couple of creators I’ve seen paying it, they were aware of some performance issues for sure. I think they were just unaware at how severe the impact was (since content creators normally have expensive PC’s) and how quickly they’d be able to address it.
It never sounded like they were aiming for being super optimised at launch either, but it did seem like they were confident “most” would be able to play it prior to the announcement.
And having watched CityPlannerPlays performance video of it, it sounds like the article didn’t really play around with things to see what different settings’ impact was. Specifically regarding resolution, it was noted that anything above 1080p seems to be extremely poor in performance.
Why there’s no DLSS / FSR also at launch is baffling, it helps GPU bottlenecked necked games greatly (even if boosting from a native 30 to 60 is a bit yuck)
I believe I had heard something about them having issues with getting it running, because for some reason they included their own “render scale” option that runs like ass. You can, fortunately enough, very easily add DLSS to most games even if they don’t natively support it though. That’s most likely what I will be doing.
If I had to guess the reason they waited so long is cause they thought they could fix them before launch, but stuff probably came up that made them realize it’s not gonna be ready.
deleted by creator
This is such a silly argument. Sure I can make a game that has a fucking memory leak to “really put your PC to the limit” and render every single tri on a polygon no matter the distance you are looking from but that is just a stupid way of “pushing your pc to the limit”. Hell lets make a 30 billion tri model for a generic npc and populate a scene with many of them, that will surely push your pc to the limits. This is just a poorly together hackjob where they know they can just patch it post launch because fools will buy this shit. The devs are working hard on this game but optimization shouldn’t just be pushed off to the post launch era of a god damn game.
A poorly optimized game will not put your pc to the limit. Instead it will bottleneck itself on stupid issues and inefficiencies. Your pc will actually not be utilised to its full potential. Make no mistake, this game isn’t slow because it’s gorgeous and advanced, it’s slow because graphically it’s poorly made.
Don’t worry. They’ll release optimization as a DLC.
It’s known performance will be poor, but if it was that bad the ton of YouTubers doing their preview coverage would have been reporting it.
No, there was a performance embargo for reviewers that wasn’t lifted until after the developers had made their statement a few days ago.
It was pretty funny seeing stuttery footage on 60fps YouTube videos without any acknowledgement from the player lol
And they thought that just ignoring such clear issue was a good approach to take? Wow that’s fucking scummy on both sides
There is a reason for them to not report on it. They were still working on the game (and they still are even). They don’t know how the performance will end up at release until it’s there. Reporting on it too early just misinforms people.
Well, surely if they’re playing it 2 weeks before it’s due to launch and it runs like garbage, they’d think “hmm, maybe this won’t be ready in time. I should probably tell people about it” rather than just being greedy and sweeping it under the rug. Also, you can be honest about issues you experience with the people watching your content. If it gets better before it’s released, you just make an update video stating you’ve seen an improvement over time. No need to hide it
I’ve watched a good bit of the game so far. I don’t think anyone hasn’t discussed performance. It’s not something being hidden, it just isn’t where it should be or where they want it to be, and they’ve been clear they’re going to continue working on it to get it where it should be. They just can’t hit that target for launch. Delaying it wouldn’t be great either because plenty of people will be able to run it, just not as well as it could be. That’s OK in my opinion.
I think they did well tbh. They of course hoped they would be able to resolve it before release, so it shouldn’t be the focus on reviewers.
At least reviewers made it clear that there still was something to be said about performance, but it would have to wait.
And Colossus then made a clear statement on performance themselves up front of the launch date.
They do. Look at city planer plays video. According to this, I can hope to get a bit more then 30fps at 1080p with medium details with my 4070 ti and 7600x. Beyond that, I‘ll get a slideshow. For most PC owners out there, the game will be unplayable in it‘s current state.
Most YouTubers have beefy rigs. Also, the preview build could have some kind of limitation which was never intended for the final release but which improves performance
Probably will trial it and then wait for sale. By the time it goes on sale, it should run better lol
You can pick up game pass (which skylines 2 will be coming out on the 24th)
It’s only a buck for 14 days (though that might be region specific) so I’m definitely going to pick it up and give it a go to see how bad the performance is
Unfortunately Gamepass doesn’t work on Linux. Well, I’ll just trial it for free then.
So, this is releasing on Playstation and Xbox aswell? How the fuck will they be able to run it -at all-, 480p and 30 fps on low?
Maybe it is the reason that console release was pushed to next year
deleted by creator
It will run at a glorious 60fph.
I mean, I doubt that concidering PS5 and Series X has roughly the performance of a RTX 2070, while Series S has roughly that of a GTX 1650. If that’s anywhere near the truth there’s something seriously wrong with the game design. That’s about 150% difference in performance compared to the hardware in this post.
Edit: yes I know I misread his joke, I addressed it further down.
He said fph not fps
I must admit that I didn’t do any research, my previous comment was meant as a joke.
Dammit, flew right over my head
I wonder what I did wrong on the delivery of the joke.
Also worth noting that Skylines 2 comes out on Xbox game pass day 1. You can usually pick up a trial for a fortnight, that’s a pretty perfect opportunity to try this on PC (to see how bad it runs for you)
That’s what I’ll be doing, trying it out and most likely skipping it for a few months while they polish it up
Did you just say a “fortnight”?!.. hold my beer…
