Jump to content

Star Wars Jedi: Survivor - Information Thread, update: Stig Asmussen (director of Fallen Order/Survivor) is departing EA/Respawn

Commissar SFLUFAN

By Commissar SFLUFAN
in The Spawn Point

 Share

Recommended Posts

stepee

stepee

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:
star-wars-jedi-survivor-1.jpg

EA is planning ‘weeks’ of Star Wars Jedi: Survivor patches to fix bugs and performance issues | VGC

WWW.VIDEOGAMESCHRONICLE.COM
Despite a delay for polishing, the game looks set to launch with a significant number of issues…

 

 

 

Or, you could've just postponed the release for another month?

 

oh ffs release it as early access then at this point 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pikachu

Pikachu

Posted
Posted
Just now, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

Gaming sites need to take a stand and say they won’t give out high scores in hopes of future promised fixes. They will review it as it is and update the review when issues are fixed. And if publishers don’t like that, they can stop forcing games out the door in an unfinished state. 

 

Agreed!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
stepee

stepee

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Dodger said:

For some reason I'm ok with people with $4000 gaming PCs being treated as second class gaming citizens. 

 

The problem with optimization affects the people with more mid-range and lower the most though. Those are the people who might have trouble running it decently at all. @Mr.Vic20 and i might complain we aren’t getting 4k/120 but Im sure no matter what this will run fine for us!

 

There is some truth to what he said that part of the reason of going crazy high end is to brute force past when things like this (potentially) drop super hot.

 

I’m not concerned that I won’t get at least 4k/60 here on launch, but I am concerned that most other pc gamers will have a hard time hitting any reasonable performance profile. 

 

I just mean in general, I actually agree with AS that this is Respawn and I bet they have a nice patch to make things decent enough out the gate here.

  • Halal 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
AbsolutSurgen

AbsolutSurgen

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, stepee said:

 

The problem with optimization affects the people with more mid-range and lower the most though. Those are the people who might have trouble running it decently at all. @Mr.Vic20 and i might complain we aren’t getting 4k/120 but Im sure no matter what this will run fine for us!

 

There is some truth to what he said that part of the reason of going crazy high end is to brute force past when things like this (potentially) drop super hot.

 

I’m not concerned that I won’t get at least 4k/60 here on launch, but I am concerned that most other pc gamers will have a hard time hitting any reasonable performance profile. 

 

I just mean in general, I actually agree with AS that this is Respawn and I bet they have a nice patch to make things decent enough out the gate here.

I'm just guessing based on their history.  I could be completely wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
stepee

stepee

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

I'm just guessing based on their history.  I could be completely wrong.

 

The one thing that sucks is that either way there is essentially a switch they could flip to give us double whatever performance we end up getting and they took money in exchange for not doing that.

 

I feel like since high end users and influencers are often the most vocal and reviewers themselves often have high end pcs, these developers would get better online press if they implemented dlss3, providing an avenue to leap above any optimization issues. I wonder what that difference in conversation could be valued at and what AMD pays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Commissar SFLUFAN changed the title to Star Wars Jedi: Survivor (PS5/Xbox Series/PC, 28 April 2023) - Information Thread, update: EA promises "weeks" of post-release patches to address performance issues
Spork3245

Spork3245

Posted
Posted

I skimmed PC Gamer’s article about the pre-launch patch for PC which bumped their 30-ish fps to about mid 50s-60, but then I saw they’re playing at 1080p on a 9900k with a RTX 2060… bro, you work for PC Gamer and review PC games… maybe you should have a better PC to review games on? I’d typically never shame someone for not having a higher end PC, but, this a professional, so I’d expect a PC with a less than 5+ year old CPU and less than 5+ year old GPU that was already lower-range when it launched, I dunno :p 

They also complained about FSR2 in the game saying to skip it and that going below “quality” made the game “blurry”… you’re playing at 1080p and trying to implement upscaling techniques, no shit it’s blurry? :p 
 

Anyway, apparently the pre-launch patch helped performance a decent amount as well as some of the VRAM issues, and the day one patch may help more

  • Halal 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spork3245

Spork3245

Posted
Posted

@stepeelooks like your 7950x3D won’t help you, the CPU utilization is so bad right now that 4090s with a 7800x3D can’t consistently break 60fps in most areas outside of the opening regardless of resolution. CPU utilization is only around 40%. Not sure if the day one patch is out yet or not, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
skillzdadirecta

skillzdadirecta

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Spork3245 said:

I skimmed PC Gamer’s article about the pre-launch patch for PC which bumped their 30-ish fps to about mid 50s-60, but then I saw they’re playing at 1080p on a 9900k with a RTX 2060… bro, you work for PC Gamer and review PC games… maybe you should have a better PC to review games on? I’d typically never shame someone for not having a higher end PC, but, this a professional, so I’d expect a PC with a less than 5+ year old CPU and less than 5+ year old GPU that was already lower-range when it launched, I dunno :p 

They also complained about FSR2 in the game saying to skip it and that going below “quality” made the game “blurry”… you’re playing at 1080p and trying to implement upscaling techniques, no shit it’s blurry? :p 
 

Anyway, apparently the pre-launch patch helped performance a decent amount as well as some of the VRAM issues, and the day one patch may help more

Reason number 675 why "reviewers" suck :p

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cusideabelincoln

cusideabelincoln

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Spork3245 said:

@stepeelooks like your 7950x3D won’t help you, the CPU utilization is so bad right now that 4090s with a 7800x3D can’t consistently break 60fps in most areas outside of the opening regardless of resolution. CPU utilization is only around 40%. Not sure if the day one patch is out yet or not, though.

 

 

 

If anyone is running a previous gen CPU.... GOOD LUCK.

 

Here is a Core i5 10400 CPU, can't even max out low end GPUs.

 

 

 

AMD video cards should fair better because the AMD drivers have much less CPU overhead, but regardless this game definitely needs more time to cook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spawn_of_Apathy

Spawn_of_Apathy

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Spork3245 said:

I skimmed PC Gamer’s article about the pre-launch patch for PC which bumped their 30-ish fps to about mid 50s-60, but then I saw they’re playing at 1080p on a 9900k with a RTX 2060… bro, you work for PC Gamer and review PC games… maybe you should have a better PC to review games on? I’d typically never shame someone for not having a higher end PC, but, this a professional, so I’d expect a PC with a less than 5+ year old CPU and less than 5+ year old GPU that was already lower-range when it launched, I dunno :p 

They also complained about FSR2 in the game saying to skip it and that going below “quality” made the game “blurry”… you’re playing at 1080p and trying to implement upscaling techniques, no shit it’s blurry? :p 
 

Anyway, apparently the pre-launch patch helped performance a decent amount as well as some of the VRAM issues, and the day one patch may help more


Id counter point with they should be playing on both. Maybe play most of the game on what is the average hardware or the recommended spec. But they should also play a good amount with a better rig. 
 

Id think reviewing a game on a maxed out PC doesn’t tell the majority of people what their experience will be like. Because I think people should know if the recommended spec is or is not actually recommended. While at the same time you should act like the game is unplayable on a 1-2 year old spec rig just because you never tried. 
 

sounds like PC reviewers are just lazy, putting in a minimal effort. Maybe they figure they don’t have to with Digital Foundry around.  

  • Halal 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spork3245

Spork3245

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

Maybe play most of the game on what is the average hardware


Nothing about their system is average, though. It’s practically min spec. :p 
 

13 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

reviewing a game on a maxed out PC doesn’t tell the majority of people what their experience will be like.


Why not? If it’s running poorly on a 4090 it’s easy to figure out how it will run a lower end card. And bugs are bugs, instability is instability: those won’t change from specs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Xbob42

Xbob42

Posted
Posted

Can we get some samples from AMD and Intel CPUs here? Every "this is the worst performance I've ever seen in a video game" thread has seemingly come from AMD CPU owners. I'm on a 13900k and while, like I said, there's definitely the occasional stutter (like the first game) it's nowhere near, not even in the same UNIVERSE as the problems I'm seeing being reported.

 

DAXLy6I.jpg

 

I keep waiting for the performance ball to drop but I think it might just be CPU starved and if your CPU can meet its crazy demands performance is mostly fine, and by fine I mean I got like 70-80 in the first world and am getting 100-120 in the second.

 

Obviously it's still a massive shitshow because uhh, no one should need a fuckin' 13900k to run this, but whatever the issue is I think it might be fixable? Usually you know performance is well and truly fucked when absolutely no one can run a game well. If they can figure out what's causing the absolutely insane CPU thrashing and maybe get VRAM under control, which I have no idea how hard or time consuming either is, I think they can definitely get it playable on far more machines.

  • True 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr.Vic20

Mr.Vic20

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Xbob42 said:

Can we get some samples from AMD and Intel CPUs here? Every "this is the worst performance I've ever seen in a video game" thread has seemingly come from AMD CPU owners. I'm on a 13900k and while, like I said, there's definitely the occasional stutter (like the first game) it's nowhere near, not even in the same UNIVERSE as the problems I'm seeing being reported.

 

 

 

I keep waiting for the performance ball to drop but I think it might just be CPU starved and if your CPU can meet its crazy demands performance is mostly fine, and by fine I mean I got like 70-80 in the first world and am getting 100-120 in the second.

 

Obviously it's still a massive shitshow because uhh, no one should need a fuckin' 13900k to run this, but whatever the issue is I think it might be fixable? Usually you know performance is well and truly fucked when absolutely no one can run a game well. If they can figure out what's causing the absolutely insane CPU thrashing and maybe get VRAM under control, which I have no idea how hard or time consuming either is, I think they can definitely get it playable on far more machines.

Same story over here! Brute forcing over the corpse that is this current code! :sun:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Xbob42

Xbob42

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Mr.Vic20 said:

Same story over here! Brute forcing over the corpse that is this current code! :sun:


Well, at least you can brute force this one I guess!


When I think of truly bad ports, I think of Arkham Knight, where nothing, for YEARS, could brute force that game into being playable. Just a mess down to the bones.

  • Halal 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spork3245

Spork3245

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Xbob42 said:


Well, at least you can brute force this one I guess!


When I think of truly bad ports, I think of Arkham Knight, where nothing, for YEARS, could brute force that game into being playable. Just a mess down to the bones.


You could brute force AK if you had SLI and switched one of the gpus to be dedicated for phsyx. Otherwise it was f’d, though 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spawn_of_Apathy

Spawn_of_Apathy

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Spork3245 said:

Why not? If it’s running poorly on a 4090 it’s easy to figure out how it will run a lower end card. And bugs are bugs, instability is instability: those won’t change from specs.


true, but the inverse isn’t true. Just because it runs very well on a 4090 doesn’t mean recommended and minimum specs are handling the game the way players at those specs might reasonably expect. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...