From "likely contemplating" to actually happening there is some difference I dare to say.

WannaLogAlready wrote on Sep 25, 2023, 16:36:

Kxmode wrote on Sep 25, 2023, 15:31:
25% Star Wars 75% lootboxes and mtx.

Jedi survivor has no microtransactions.
Aside from pre-order and Deluxe edition skins, all cosmetic items can be discovered and collected in-game.

Jedi: Fallen Order was EA's attempt to recover from their disappointing, lootbox-filled Battlefield updates after a ten-year exclusivity with little to show. Despite losing exclusivity, the Cal Kestis series unexpectedly prospered. EA permitted the sequel to continue without microtransactions and lootboxes. However, for this new Star Wars release, EA is likely contemplating the incorporation of lootboxes and microtransactions. Its in their nature to exploit.

1badmf wrote on Sep 25, 2023, 03:40:
not elitism, just the reality of PC gaming. sometimes you get lucky and a new game doesn't require a hal9000 to run it, but a lot of the time it does, and this is one of those. you guys griping about not being able to run it are essentially denying the reality of why we're all here on this site. i can think of a bajillion games off the top of my head that required top end hardware to play when they came out; i don't understand why it's suddenly unreasonable for a new game to require new hardware when this is the reality we've lived with for 20 years. my personal stake in this you ask? ok maybe a little elitism - i want them to keep putting out games with bleeding edge technology because i'm eternally excited for what the future holds; not stagnate and put out the same looking/playing crap for a decade.

incidentally, i loved what crysis did even though i personally couldn't run it because it forced us gamers to upgrade and expanded the market so future games could leverage that level of technology. it's a positive feedback loop and i love being a part of it and anyone that pushes the envelope to perpetuate it. that's why i want you guys to get gud - not because i'm better than you, but because it makes new things possible and our little hobby is the better for it in the long run.

No games "required" top end hardware to play when they came out, this is complete BS. Because if it was true, no one would buy those games, and they would flop. You might "need" high-end hardware to play the games at their highest settings, but all of those game would've had extensive options that allowed less powerful computers to run them at acceptable framerates and visuals.

The vast majority of games do not own anywhere near high-end systems, and any survey will show you that, including Steam's. Even Crysis was playable on lower end computers, because I played it on mine which was far from cutting edge at the time.

so it's really not an either/or situation that you claim it is, developers can still make games with cutting edge technology while also having options that favor the majority of gamers, and not just elitist a-holes that think they're the center of the gaming world.

Kxmode wrote on Sep 25, 2023, 15:31:
25% Star Wars 75% lootboxes and mtx.

Jedi survivor has no microtransactions.
Aside from pre-order and Deluxe edition skins, all cosmetic items can be discovered and collected in-game.

25% Star Wars 75% lootboxes and mtx.

Admirably put !

Sadly not very feasible to get the point across to people that don't, nor want to know, what a whole picture is.

It's "what I got, what I like, screw everyone else".

I understand and concur with pushing the envelope when prices are sensible.
Otherwise the long term results will not benefit anyone, not even whales.

I don't think this is an "either/or" situation. I think it is legitimately both.

If we look at the Steam Hardware Survey and look at the top 10 GPUs, the GPU with the highest rating is...a GeForce 1650. 50% of the top 10 are GPUs that are two generations behind current. If we look at CPUs, unfortunately the SHS does not break out by model but by core counts and Ghz. In that case, 6 cores and 4 cores are the predominant CPUs running at 2.9Ghz or less. 16GB or less is the mean average for RAM.

So, a system with a 1000 series card with a moderate CPU and running 16GB or less is the mean average according to Steam.

Yes, developers can push the envelope and some should. However, not all developers are doing that and Jedi Survivor 2: Cal Finally Gets Laid is certainly not among them. What we see most is poor optimization because, let's face it, the PC is an "also ran" when compared to consoles. As long as it runs, ship it! Then there's the mentality of "we'll just patch it later". I am going to note that I am excluding really small devs here because many of them are in situations where they have to ship because they have no more money with which to develop their game and hope sales will generate enough profit to keep working on it.

I have a fairly decent system and JS2 ran like garbage on my box until after the first big patch. It is well above the specs that EA released and I played it in 1080p. CP2077 also ran like a lame three legged dog with plentiful examples of poor performance and even poorer optimization when it was released. The excuse of "Well it ran fine for meeee" is not a defense when there are far more counterpoints where it does not for a larger majority of purchasers.

On the other hand, we are also in a terrible global financial climate where it isn't feasible for a lot of people to upgrade their machines every year, every two years, or even every three years. First we had "supply chain issues" which caused GPU prices to skyrocket and then came greedflation across all sectors. Rent and food, for example, are 40% higher on average than they were this time last year with no corresponding increase in wages. So even if people wanted to upgrade, most are in a position where they simply can't when they're barely making do with keeping the lights on, food on the table, and a roof over their head. Add to that the stupid idea of "Let's jack game prices up to $70 in the middle of some of the worst financial times for the average person" and you have a recipe for less hardware being sold, less titles being purchased, and a much slower refresh cycle. I look at work, which has plenty of cash, and we're now pushing machines to be emplaced for 7 years. 7 years! We used to swap them out every 3!

Finally, we're now relying on brute strength to accomplish things instead of solid code. It's not just gaming, it's everywhere. Games, applications, and OSes are dealing with a staggering amount of bloat. The concept of KISS has been completely abandoned in the blind rush for ever higher levels of "more". Does your word processor really need to connect to the net for telemetry, "features", and resources you will likely never use? No, but it is going to anyway and it is going to make sure that all of that is running all the time in case you accidentally hit a button or key combo so it's right there in your face in microseconds. It's absurd.

We have to look at the whole picture instead of relying on pat "Get gud scrub" replies and thinking that somehow makes a valid point.

VaranDragon wrote on Sep 25, 2023, 06:32:
Wake me up when they make a game worth playing. The last really good Jedi game I played was Jedi Academy.

Agree. Fallen Order a.k.a Backtracking Simulator had its moments (the Nightsister Merrin arc was pretty well done) but overall it was kind of disappointing and if you are not a fan of the metroidvania and Souls-like bullshit (I'm not) then it had some very glaring flaws that stuck out like two sore thumbs.

I think it could have been decent if it would have been more like the modern Tomb Raider reboots, i.e. just a straight action adventure with no Souls-like crap like the save only at "campfire" (meditation circle) and enemy respawns galore. Then also remove the insane backtracking and most/all of the metroidvania crap and we might have a deal...

Prez,
Link works perfectly, an excellent based example, thanks !

Another would be The last of us, undeniably one of the best games ever, with a shameful 62% Steam score and low sales.

Oh well, I tried. Point is, complaining about other people's specs is not only lame and elitist, it gives a company who knowingly releases broken shit consistently a pass. AGAIN. In an age when at least half of PC games ship broken for the express reason that you shift the blame off of EA and other AAA publishers, well that is pretty disgusting to me. Not a fan.

I only use voice to text, and I struggle mightily with posting links, but

[url=https://www.pcgamer.com/ea-kinda-sorta-apologizes-for-poor-star-wars-jedi-survivor-performance-cites-high-end-hardware-as-a-problem
] maybe I can do this
[/url]

So the elite hardware buyers think they are in the crest of the wave while we see crew members abandoning the sinking ship in a slowly shrinking fleet.

Larian did what I propose:
Gave themselves stellar sales polishing and optimizing Baldur's Gate 3, shaming other AAA games, while allowing hardware accessible to the majority of gamers.

Meanwhile other promising games, sequels, or famous ported ones fail miserably in running well, to the financial loss of developers and publishers.

Means cancelled future games, downsized game studios with devs being let go or directly closing, and PC losing ground to console investments.

This affects not only the games you care for but those you wish for but not being made, are you aware ?

VaranDragon wrote on Sep 25, 2023, 06:32:
Wake me up when they make a game worth playing. The last really good Jedi game I played was Jedi Academy.

Same here, brother!

Wake me up when they make a game worth playing. The last really good Jedi game I played was Jedi Academy.

Kosumo wrote on Sep 25, 2023, 06:05:
Often the drop from Ultra textures to high or medium has very little change in the perception of the game but will increase the frame rate but some people won't do that.*

I agree. I got the Avengers game in the recent sale and had to go from high to low for it to run on my old system fluidly, but honestly I couldn't see a difference. On the other hand if Jedi: Fallen Order ran fine and Jedi: Survivor, which I guess uses the same engine, doesn't, something is wrong. Like with Spiderman and Spiderman: Miles Morales.

Prez wrote on Sep 25, 2023, 05:28:
..... However, by EA's own admission Jedi Survivor shipped with crippling stuttering, crashes, and terrible optimization. They even said that they weren't sure it would ever be fixed for everyone. It's not hard to imagine why people's negative reviews even as recently as last week focus largely on the performance and lack of optimization.....

Sorry, I never played either of the Jedi games, or cared about them much (they sounded good/fine, just not my thing).

I agree mostly with what 1badmf is saying, if not about these games, games in general.

Alot of people just think new games should run at 60 frames minimum at 4K on ultra yet they don't have the PC to do that. The great thing about PC games is you can tune it for what you do have.

Often the drop from Ultra textures to high or medium has very little change in the perception of the game but will increase the frame rate but some people won't do that.*

Instead complian the game does not run well.

Even within the developers minimum/recommended/high specs there will be alot of variation of performance.

That's PCs.

So many variables.

If you don't like that, maybe try gaming on a console (no shade, consoles are great, you know what you're getting and what to expect).

Back to the quoted bit, I'd like to see EA admission to these facts, any links?

*Often so more many things to tweak that was just my one example (resolution).

1badmf wrote on Sep 25, 2023, 03:40:
not elitism, just the reality of PC gaming. sometimes you get lucky and a new game doesn't require a hal9000 to run it, but a lot of the time it does, and this is one of those. you guys griping about not being able to run it are essentially denying the reality of why we're all here on this site. i can think of a bajillion games off the top of my head that required top end hardware to play when they came out; i don't understand why it's suddenly unreasonable for a new game to require new hardware when this is the reality we've lived with for 20 years. my personal stake in this you ask? ok maybe a little elitism - i want them to keep putting out games with bleeding edge technology because i'm eternally excited for what the future holds; not stagnate and put out the same looking/playing crap for a decade.

incidentally, i loved what crysis did even though i personally couldn't run it because it forced us gamers to upgrade and expanded the market so future games could leverage that level of technology. it's a positive feedback loop and i love being a part of it and anyone that pushes the envelope to perpetuate it. that's why i want you guys to get gud - not because i'm better than you, but because it makes new things possible and our little hobby is the better for it in the long run.

You're too smart to be missing the point so I am going to guess that you're deliberately ignoring it. Games that are bleeding edge are fine - I love that they are being made too. However, by EA's own admission Jedi Survivor shipped with crippling stuttering, crashes, and terrible optimization. They even said that they weren't sure it would ever be fixed for everyone. It's not hard to imagine why people's negative reviews even as recently as last week focus largely on the performance and lack of optimization. The elitism stems not from that you have a killer rig; it stems from the fact that you deny the possibility that you are in the minority of gamers who played it with no problems.

Prez wrote on Sep 25, 2023, 01:38:

1badmf wrote on Sep 24, 2023, 21:17:
so at what point do you guys accept that your hardware is outdated and the game runs like it was meant to? cuz the way i see it, a AAA game should run fine on top end hardware and lower down the stack you just need to make due with lower settings. which is absolutely true of the game when it first came out and even more true now. i get griping when someone pulls a crysis and it can't even run on top end hardware, but i played this when it first came out and never had to drop settings from max and from what i've read it runs even better now.

So at what point do you accept that just because you have no problem does not mean everyone else is just running below spec computers? Assuming that everything boils down to insufficient hardware specs is not at all accurate. Unless everyone else is lying or a moron? That's extraordinarily unlikely. Your post smacks of elitism.

I agree with 1badmf 99% on this.

They are working on the third game of a trilogy? Okay, this is surprising.

I heard it's good but I am not into 3rd person brawlers with a bit of soulslike gaming style. I am still hoping that one day, Machine Games or id Software are allowed to work on a great new Star Wars FPS. Or some FPS RPG like Skyrim taking place in the Star Wars universe, maybe in the Old Republic era.

not elitism, just the reality of PC gaming. sometimes you get lucky and a new game doesn't require a hal9000 to run it, but a lot of the time it does, and this is one of those. you guys griping about not being able to run it are essentially denying the reality of why we're all here on this site. i can think of a bajillion games off the top of my head that required top end hardware to play when they came out; i don't understand why it's suddenly unreasonable for a new game to require new hardware when this is the reality we've lived with for 20 years. my personal stake in this you ask? ok maybe a little elitism - i want them to keep putting out games with bleeding edge technology because i'm eternally excited for what the future holds; not stagnate and put out the same looking/playing crap for a decade.

incidentally, i loved what crysis did even though i personally couldn't run it because it forced us gamers to upgrade and expanded the market so future games could leverage that level of technology. it's a positive feedback loop and i love being a part of it and anyone that pushes the envelope to perpetuate it. that's why i want you guys to get gud - not because i'm better than you, but because it makes new things possible and our little hobby is the better for it in the long run.