No, it is wild speculation. Turning off graphical effects etc. until you get acceptable frame rates isn’t hard and doesn’t take long, definitely not as long as implementing them for the other consoles.
You don’t need to rebuild the game because the CPU is slower.
Company also sold pre-orders for a product, which means people can’t really decide whether the product is exactly what they want until they get it. At which point they complain, because they trusted the company not to sell a sub-par product. What is your issue?
Realistically it’s entirely possible it took more platform specific work to make the switch version viable than anything else.
It’s possible, but that’s wild speculation, and I think pretty unlikely.
It’s not their fault it’s lesser hardware.
It’s their fault for releasing a 70$ game on “lesser hardware” while not spending the time to get it working and looking well-enough. They didn’t have to release it.
That’s how it is once the free money dries up. The profits must rise, no matter the long-term damage this causes - so they try to bleed the existing customer base dry to keep things rising for one or two more quarters. What does it matter to them if all the employees who have worked hard for years will lose their jobs due to their mismanagement?
sure mister gamedev, please continue to tell more on how an engine you clearly worked on, should run…
I can easily compare between what different game companies do. Why are you acting like I need to be a developer on a game to criticise that game?
I dont say that Starfield is a well optimised game and performance will get better with upcoming patches.
Todd could have said so. He didn’t. Why?
But I also don’t think it’s an unoptimized mess, I think it is running reasonable and people really should start review their rig, because modern games will need modern components
I never stated this. I simply said: comparing Starfield and Crysis is deliberately disingenuous, because Crysis was fundamentally meant to break boundaries, which Starfield doesn’t do.
Oh and also other games did not run that well like you maybe remember ;)
Okay, what’s the argument here? Do you think I say for those games “well, you’re not Bethesda, so I’m fine with you not running well”?
Crysis was built by a company specialising in building a high fidelity engine. It was, by all accounts, meant primarily as a tech demo. This is absolutely not the case with Starfield - first, the game doesn’t look nearly good enough for that compared to Crysis, and second it’s built on an engine that simply can’t do a lot of the advanced stuff.
The game could be playable on max settings on many modern computers if it was optimised properly. It isn’t.
That’s kind of the price you have to pay if you use mods. You can either not use mods and experience the full game (if you can beat it), or you can use mods, but shouldn’t go online so you don’t kill other peoples fun.
I have to say that I played Horizon: Zero Dawn, and after the first couple hours it felt very samey. Basically a Ubisoft open-world game with slightly better movement and combat. Haven’t tried the new one, but I don’t think any open-world will ever really catch me again like Elden Ring did.