173
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 65 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's BS though. People with TOTL hardware are having issues. Those systems don't underperform because the game is advanced or anything like that -- the game underperforms because it is a new release that is poorly optimized. It's also expected because it's on a senior citizen of a game engine that likely needs a few other nudges.

Todd Howard forgets that PC users see this shit all the time, and it's pretty obvious with this one. Hoping to see talk of optimization in a coming patch instead.

Edit: a good example -- not hitting 60fps in New Atlantis, but concurrently, CPU usage in the 50s and GPU usage in the 70s. That's a sign of poor optimization.

[-] Alto@kbin.social 22 points 1 year ago

I'm starting to think that maybe, just maybe brute forcing a 26 yesr old engine that makes skyrim have a stroke if you try to play above 30fps isn't a good idea

[-] NewNewAccount@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Is it actually the same engine?

[-] Animoscity@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

No, Im not a fan of the game personally but a quick search shows they are using the creative engine 2, which is a newer version of their engine.

[-] azertyfun@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 year ago

They could have called it Creative Engine 129030129784.32985 for all that it matters. It's just a name for an engine update, as they do for every new game. They didn't re-write it from scratch; that would be a billion-dollar venture.

From what I've read it's the exact same engine as FO4 with better lighting (and of course, as with every new game, some improvements locally relevant to the gameplay).
But, fundamentally, underneath the fancy lights, still the same engine. That explains the 2008-esque animations, the bugs, the performance issues, and general flatness of the game. It can't be more than "Skyrim in Space" because that's what it technically is.

[-] mordack550@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Because putting a 2 after the name makes a new engine. It's just a new iteration of the same old engine that runs Fallout 3, skyrim, and Fallout 4.

[-] Alto@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

Ill see if I can find it when I'm at my PC, but in an interview a dev said it was still using significant amounts of code from their Gamebryo engine from 97

[-] _waffle_@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

What game engine is 26 years old other than the Unreal engine?

Edit: stepped on some toes i guess lmfao

[-] Xanvial@lemmy.one 8 points 1 year ago

Gamebryo, the base of creation engine used by Bethesda for this

[-] _waffle_@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

Ah okay. Thank you for the actual answer

[-] Th3D3k0y@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

My friend and I were just discussing the likelihood that some hardware producers pay game devs to purposely output bad optimizations so users are encouraged to spend more on upgrades.

[-] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 1 year ago

In this case, you get Starfield free with the purchase of select AMD CPUs or GPUs.

But it's weird for Todd Howard to come out with this push now, because it's in response to those already playing the game.

[-] Rheios@ttrpg.network 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I mean, that's probably why he would make the push. The bait's in the mouth (people have the game), then comes the pull of the hook (they have to upgrade to try and handle its poor optimization, fulfilling the benefit of AMD backing them). And Beth doesn't lose anything if its too frustrating and people stop playing over it because they already have the money.

EDIT: Admittedly I keep forgetting that game-pass is a thing, but maybe even that doesn't really matter to Microsoft if it got people to get on gamepass or something? That makes my earlier point a bit shakier.

[-] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah, MS wins either way, so long as people still want to play the game.

[-] huskypenguin@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago

...like not launching with DLSS. What a weird oversight.

[-] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 14 points 1 year ago

AMD is the official sponsor. That's the one thing that wasn't a surprise.

[-] hypelightfly@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

It's not an oversight, they were paid to not include DLSS.

[-] MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 12 points 1 year ago

While I'm no fan of paid sponsorships holding back good games, this is untrue.

Neither nvidia nor amd block their partner devs from supporting competing tech in their games. They just won't help them get it working, and obviously the other side won't either, since that dev is sponsored. There are some games out there that support both, some of them even partnered.

So yes, it's bullshit. But it's not "literally paid" bullshit. Bethesda could have gone the extra mile, and didn't.

[-] hypelightfly@kbin.social -5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

AMD blocks partners from implementing DLSS. You're probably right that it's not paid bullshit as the payout isn't monetary. But it's still being blocked due to the partnership.

This is hardly the first game to do this. Jedi Survivor, RE4 have the same problem. AMD sponsored FSR2 only. The work required to implement FSR2 or DLSS is basically the same (motion data). That's why DLSS mods were immediately available.

Since FSR2 was released not a single AMD sponsored game has DLSS added. Even games done in engines like unreal where all the dev has to do is include the plugin.

[-] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Literally not the case here, as evidenced by public communications.

[-] hypelightfly@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Yes, it is the case. Companies lie all the time.

[-] HKayn@dormi.zone 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Is there actual evidence for AMD blocking DLSS?

And no, AMD being a sponsor is not sufficient evidence.

[-] hypelightfly@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

There is circumstantial evidence, no direct evidence as contracts are not public. There is no evidence, (circumstantial or direct) that AMD is allowing partners to add DLSS.

Every single AMD sponsored game released since FSR2 launched does not include DLSS despite it being trivial to add if the work is being done for FSR2. For Unreal engine games it can be enabled by including a completely free plugin, the work is already done. Yet, the AMD sponsored games don't. There is even a game that announced DLSS support before it released and then removed it after becoming AMD sponsored (Boundary).

[-] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

To be more accurate, they were paid to include AMD optimization instead of DLSS.

this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2023
173 points (91.8% liked)

Games

16729 readers
673 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

  1. News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
  2. Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
  3. No humor/memes etc..
  4. No affiliate links
  5. No advertising.
  6. No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
  7. No self promotion.
  8. No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
  9. No politics.

Comments.

  1. No personal attacks.
  2. Obey instance rules.
  3. No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
  4. Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS