I know they are probably bombarded with requests for comments and interviews, but CDPR have learnt nothing from CP2077.
they are going to over-sell this again, promising things that don’t materialize because they are dreaming of the thing now when it’s still 3-4 years away, then people are going to be disappointed when it releases and doesn’t have all the things they talk about.
Obviously consumers haven’t learnt anything either, we eat this up, but CDPR is going to get the fallout from it.
Obviously consumers haven’t learnt anything either, we eat this up, but CDPR is going to get the fallout from it.
I waited for almost 3 years of patches and a deep discount and I’m still somewhat disappointed, it’s just three shitty ubisoft sandboxs stacked in a next gen suit.
I’m talking specifically of the over-promising and under-delivering on game design. not the technical issues which is a whole separate problem that may or may not be solved by UE5
Now if only CDPR would eliminate their crunch work environment, and release games when the DEVS say it’s ready.
If you can’t afford advertising the game prior to launch, just don’t. That’s where for example Bethesda saved a ton of money. Released “complete” games within 1-3 months of the first announcement. (Do mind I’ve lost all hope in Bethesda)
In other hand, over-promising in terms of what’s actually currently out is fine. The issue is when you …
Don’t have the devtime. (Board releasing the game way before it’s ready, because marketing is so damn expensive, and the stockholders want it now not later)
Don’t have the skill. (Which means re-training all your employees constantly)
Don’t have the work morale. (Which leads to talent bleed, further exaggerating point 2.)
Additionally, this isn’t new IP like Cybeypunk was, you’re not designing in-game systems from the ground up or hashing out the gameplay loop…you’re just improving on an already existing formula that is well received. The main challenge is the new engine, but as you’ve said they will also get a lot of problems solved with UE too. I think it’ll be fine in the end.
I played CP2077 only recently after 2.01 patch and it’s kind of ok as an ubisoft sandbox. There’s something like 40 hours of well made content that’s on rails and a lot of really generic filler missions. I’m kind of disappointed and not because I expect voiced exposition and writing from such filler, but I did expect gameplay that was tuned to be challenging and it’s not. Seriously, Watch Dogs 2 (which is actually ubisoft) had better designed and balanced side missions. Here it’s just have these 5 dudes standing on a corner, you can kill them by hacking their shit without them ever seeing you or getting a chance to react. It’s a nice world that’s an average game garnished with a lot of Potemkin content.
If you want to blame someone, blame the producers, not the devs. They don’t want to be pushed to strict deadlines with artificially limited budgets and whatever enshittification method the execs bought into this week. They want to make good games, but often they work under stifling conditions.
How’s the frame rate? I saw some reports of 7-12fps from systems that kick the absolute shit out of my 2 year old gaming laptop and had flashbacks of wasting $50 on KSP2, which I still can’t play despite exceeding the minimum specs. So I figured I’d wait to hear from people for a week or so this time instead of potentially wasting money on release day.
There’s a lot of entitled people who are upset because they kicked everything to ultra and yeah , that’s where that 7-12 fps is. Most people can’t fathom fiddling with the settings a bit and maybe lowering them.
The dev sent out a forum post on what settings are causing the biggest lag. I followed their advice and it is completely playable. I’m about 10 hours in and I’m loving it
I am a firm believer that if you have a bleeding edge system you are 100% entitled to playing stuff in max settings (at least in reasonable resolution). I don’t see the point in blaming the customers when there is clearly a faulty product here.
Just to clear things up I am definitely not one of those people with the bleeding edge system with my 3060.
I don’t have a dog in this fight but bleeding edge literally implies that unreliability is to be expected. That’s why it’s bleeding edge and not leading edge.
No worries; that would be leading edge, which you’re probably correct in your original statement with that in mind.
Bleeding edge in English generally refers to day zero hardware, software, or services, in which mainstream support most likely doesn’t exist and it is generally anticipated that issues will be encountered.
It’s not being pedantic; I’m not correcting their use of an incorrect word that doesn’t matter. There’s a pretty big distinction between leading edge and bleeding edge, especially when it comes to stated disappointment that a software or program isn’t as stable as expected.
No need to toss insults just to jump to the defense of someone in a pretty simple misunderstanding.
There isnt jack shit difference in the colloquial sense, except for the fact that one word people generally know, and the other people dont. If you were telling this to a native english speaker I wouldnt care, but to an ESL person I feel the need to step in and say “Yeah no, everyone will understand what you mean with the phrasing you chose, the person correcting you is being hyper literal”
Difference here is, Crysis had graphics never seen before. C:S2 on max settings is nothing groundbreaking, it doesn’t even have raytracing. In this case there’s performance issues, not futuristic technologies.
100% a top of the line cpu and gpu should not have problems running the game on max settings. It’s so weird seeing everyone defend a game with terrible performance if you want to exercise any of the graphics options
Can you send that forum post? It would have been cool for Paradox to have put a link in their useless launcher, or the steam news, or in the launch announcement, or wherever else. My observation is that Volumetrics and Global Illumination make the game run like garbage, but with global illumination off entirely, the game looks flaaaaaaat.
A laptop with a 1660ti 6GB got me 20-25fps 1080p low to medium around 10- 20k population. But I turned nearly everything off except for level of detail. Turning off Vsync somehow made it run around 5fps faster.
I was getting 7 fps in the main menu before poking at the settings, but my VII is damaged due to a new faulty 1kW psu that suicide-bombed my machine. I’m amazed it works at all, tbh.
Ultra with 1080 and no motion blur (e: and no AA), I’m getting the same as I got in 1 on 1440 (25-30, also with half dead gpu). I have hope that the additional fixes will bring it on par with 1 for fps.
I’ve been playing on my 7840U (integrated graphics) laptop, 1440x900 low settings and FSR averaged around 30fps in early game, so not great but playable
Radeon VII (damaged from a psu failure, though). 1080 ultra, no motion blur, no AA. 25-30 fps, as expected on this card (a fully working one I’d expect ~70, it’s about half dead).
Also played a ton yesterday. Biggest issue I had was a small stutter every 20 mins or so when zooming in or something. Maybe with certain hardware it’s having issues, high end cards or something? Overall I’m having a great time
Yeah, honestly, the state of the game is fine. Yes, they should have taken a couple of more weeks to fix up the performance, and they definitively should have chosen more sane default settings…
But, other than that, the launch state is fine. There are no major bugs, and there is nothing too major missing. A lot of things are done and designed quite well actually, I’d say.
Just give it a month or two and then look again. There’s no rush, it’s not a story game. But I’ve been enjoying my time so far.
I wish more PlayStation games would allow use of motion controls. I’ve gotten used to enabling it with Steam Deck to actually make fps games playable for me on controller, then when I switch to ps5 and start tilting the controller for precise aiming and nothing happens…
Steam input, and their customization options for controllers on Steam Deck (or I guess in Steam in general) are incredible, and something I don’t see mentioned nearly enough.
I think it wasn’t used enough or not creatively enough in the PS3, the only one that comes to mind is Heavenly Sword and its implementation was a bit poor and I’m unsure if it was the Six-Axis fault.
I've had playstations for multiple console generations, but I just ordered an OLED Deck as my first ever "gaming PC". Forgive the naivety, but could non-supported titles potentially get Dualsense features modded in?
Yeah, that’s what steam input did, it emulates a controller on the fly, you can even emulate a keyboard and mouse in games that don’t support controllers, I have a steam controller and in most fps I configured it to emulate a controller but with mouse look on the right touch pad and gyroscope on a light press on left trigger, unfortunately some games don’t support simultaneous mouse and controller use, other games change UI when switching between mouse and controller, which may be annoying
Touchpad always works, but the haptic triggers and rumble need you to be wired. They also only work in supported games like Spiderman. I remember needing to go into desktop mode to enable the controller’s “speaker” for the rumble.
Yes and no, there are MANY games I have been forced to use DSX for because they don’t recognize my controller (not that what this update does changes that).
Too bad my Dualsense started drifting less than 8 months after purchasing… it’s just been sitting in a drawer ever since. I liked it, but I feel it was a waste of money.
I'm all for people buying what they enjoy playing, so if someone genuinely enjoys CoD I'm excited for them that they get some new stuff to play.
What I don't get is the constant group of people buying it every year and complaining. Like, guys, if you don't like the product you're buying, stop buying the next product from the same place until they fix what you hate about it.
There's literally tens of thousands of video games out there. You'll be fine if you don't play one of the most creatively bankrupt franchises in the industry, I promise.
DMZ in the last iteration of CoD was the most fun game that I’ve played in a long time - despite the bugs.
Zombies mode in MW3 is also good fun but it irks that I paid money for this game and it’s buggier than DMZ which it’s evidently based on, and they’ve had a year to fix it.
As someone who uses gold to buy WoW tokens for both game time and shop credit to make other Blizzard purchases, I have a hard time getting upset over this. I’ve been playing the game without spending money for years, and tokens are also how I buy both WoW expansions and other Blizzard games. Asking me to pay money for a month of sub time every few years seems reasonable, especially if this change makes it even the slightest bit annoying/harder for bot accounts.
The WoW token wasn’t introduced until WoD, so if you played that long ago it wouldn’t have been an option. If you’re ever looking to jump in again though, it’s definitely a useful system if you like to make gold in game.
As long as it’s a one-time thing I can’t get too annoyed by it.
I just hope it doesn’t turn into a frequent thing, and it’s hard not to be skeptical when the token/battle.net credit system has only become more restricted over the years.
True, if it turned into a situation where you had to sub with money for a month every time you wanted to redeem a token or something, that would definitely lessen the value for me. I’d still say it was worth it because I could use the tokens for expansions and other games, but not everyone may have the same opinion.
But somebody else has spent the real money to buy a token. The only justification for the concept is, that it allows people with less time and more money to balance things with people with more time and less money, in an effort to curb the expansive illicit gold trading that happens otherwise (and still does).
Without the motivation of the people with less money and more time, to afford playing for free, the whole concept is weakened and the token sellers are more inclined to go back to illicit gold farmers.
I guess gold farming bots were too self-sustaining? Blizzard really wanted to make sure they were getting their pound of flesh out of the exchange?
I just can’t imagine this mattering in any other instance. It’s not like you were realistically farming the gold with the free trial, this is a weird change solely to prevent theoretical abuse.
Free trials can’t farm gold anyway because they’re capped to 1k gold, so this really does only impact bot accounts for the most part. There’s likely a small number of people who use tokens because they otherwise couldn’t afford to play, but I expect that’s not terribly common.
From the article, it indicates you’ll just need to have bought something since 2017 to avoid this wave. I can’t imagine someone has been playing exclusively free since WoD while buying the expansions, but it sounds like just paying for the next xpac with money will be enough.
Oh, I’ve been doing that. This is a hot topic on the big gold-making Discord server, and there are over 10,000 people in there (and that’s just English-speaking players who even know about and opted-in to said Discord server).
No, Blizzard makes an extra $5 a month on any subscription bought with gold.
This seems intended to create an extra hurdle for people managing a large number of accounts in the hopes of making that kind of operation less profitable.
I’m gonna be really cynical here and say they’re hoping people sign up to auto sub which they forgot to cancel.
Was a long time wow played and back before tokens were a thing it was pretty straightforward to just pay for 1 month only of game time. I stopped playing midway through baf and at that point I mostly bought game time with gold but on the few occasions I did pay for 1 month it wasn’t that easy to find the 1 month game time, like the nonauto sub. Then I fired up the game like right before the last xpac, can’t remember the name now and it was near fucking impossible to find game time in the store, it kept trying to get me to buy an auto sub.
That seems a bit ridiculous since you can immediately cancel it if you’re only in it for one month. It seems like they want to link payments to account so they can ban all accounts of specific boters at the same time that are on one payment source. I’m going to guess that they also want to ban people who are using other regions accounts. Like Chinese and Korean users who play on the American realms. If they have a contract coming up for someone else in China it would be a big push they would need to get the Chinese players back off the American realms.
pcgamesn.com
Aktywne