• Pocketyeti@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 years ago

    Why upgrade when I will just pick it up on the PS7, 10 years from now, along with the Skyrim bundle.

  • gearheart@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 years ago

    I expected this once everyone kept buying into nvidias dlss.

    Nvidia and dlss will be required to get titles to run decently.

    Minimal game optimization will be done on majority of future game titles.

    Fml

  • 1stTime4MeInMCU@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 years ago

    I haven’t played starfield yet but many of the recent headliner releases have been performance hogs. It’s not unreasonable to expect people to either play with lower settings or upgrade if you want to run the best possible set up. That’s why there are performance sliders in most games. When you need a 3080 to run minimum settings that’s when you start running into trouble (👀ksp 2)

    • DoomBot5@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 years ago

      At the same time my 3080 runs these games just fine with 60-90 fps at 4k with high settings. Don’t need more than that for games that aren’t competitive.

    • Ookami38@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 years ago

      Man, that’s why armored core blew me away. Completed the whole game, at launch, maximum settings and I don’t recall a single frame drop. 3060, with very mediocre other hardware. I know there’s a lot to be said about map sizes and instanced missions, but with as fantastic as that game looks and plays…

      • weirdo_from_space@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 years ago

        Same happened with Doom Eternal. The graphics were a show stopper when the game came out and the game didn’t even stutter. It’s so well optimized that I’m told you can even play it with integrated graphics.

        • Ookami38@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 years ago

          It’s almost like having a giant open world comes with some massive drawbacks. I’m pretty fatigued over open world games tho so that may just be me.

          • weirdo_from_space@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 years ago

            Frankly, open world sucks. I’ve played Far Cry 2 sometime last year because one of my friends spoke so highly of it and I’ve spent more time driving around than actually shooting anything. It served no purpose other than wasting player’s time. Missions were rather basic too. And nothing in the reviews of more modern examples showcase that anything has changed.

      • 1stTime4MeInMCU@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 years ago

        I have a 3060Ti and play most games on max settings. There is the occasional game that explodes if I do that but otherwise GPU power is out ahead of decently optimized games (probably because gaming is now no longer the driving factor for GPU performance).

  • GBU_28@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 years ago

    Y’all are surprised the boss of a AAA studio suggested you buy hardware from companies he has a deeply vested interest in?

    It’s all one big circle jerk of companies and anyone buying “cutting edge” gets what they deserve.

    You’re the product in more ways than one

    • Zeppo@sh.itjust.works
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 years ago

      You’re literally the consumer in this instance. The game is the product. The computer is the product.

  • manastorm@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 years ago

    I have a i9 13900k and a Radeon 7900xtx, 64GB RAM and I had to refund on steam it because it would keep crashing to desktop every few minutes. Sometimes I would not even get passed the Bethesda into Logo before crashing. Very frustrating experience to say the least.

    • entropicshart@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 years ago

      I have a i7-10700k/32gbRAM/3080ti - playing the game at 4k with all settings to max (without motion blur ofc) and with almost 80hrs into the game, I have yet to have a single crash or performance issue.

      Only realized people were having issues when I saw posts and performance mods popping up.

    • AmosBurton_ThatGuy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 years ago

      I mean, the game definitely runs like shit but if you keep crashing that sounds like a you problem. My 7600x/6700XT/32GB DDR5 build hasn’t crashed once in 15 hours of playtime and I’ve heard a ton of complaints about the game but barely any about crashing.

  • cyanarchy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    3 years ago

    Starfield also requires an SSD, a first for a modern triple-A PC game.

    I recall the same being said about Cyberpunk 2077, and I’m not sure that was the first either.

    • Naz@sh.itjust.works
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 years ago

      To be fair, Cyberpunk 2077 came out in the peak of Covid GPU scarcity, I was still gaming on a GTX1080 at it’s release and the only way I could have a decent experience was running it at 50% resolution scale with 100% sharpening.

  • Sho@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 years ago

    What Todd Howard is being a dipshit tool again? I’m shocked…shocked I tell you…

    • Rheios@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 years ago

      I’m a little shocked. Normally its Hines caught with his foot that deep in his own mouth.

    • absquatulate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 years ago

      You might be able to run it ok. My 1660 basic manages 20-30fps on medium-high and 30+ on mostly low settings. The game still desperately needs some optimization, that’s for sure.

  • Atomic@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 years ago

    Todd Howard. The CEO of the company which games are world famous for their bugs.

    When you play their games. You learn to quicksave before doing anything. Because you never know when opening a door will send a cheese flying at Mach 5 and hit you in the face.

    He’s the guy who says my PC is the problem? Not their shitty code? Okay.

  • speedstriker858@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 years ago

    Ridiculous statement. I’ve got an rx 7900xtx and a ryzen 7 7700x with 64 gigs of ram @5600mhz and the fucking game barely ever hits 144fps. Usually it’s sitting around 100-110 fps which is playable for sure, but literally every other game I’ve played on it has had no problem staying nailed at 144fps. This is at low-medium settings BTW (for starfield).

    • Rykzon@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 years ago

      Ridiculous statement. 100-110fps is far above playable. Do people forget how Witcher, Crysis and others ran on release?