We’d like to give some context to the issues the game is currently facing, what we’re doing to address them, and what you can do if you experience performance issues.
While some setups on PC have challenges, we concluded the performance is not a dealbreaker for all the players. For us, the number one priority is for the players to have fun with the game, and we had seen enough feedback from players enjoying the game that it would be more unfair to postpone. We know we will keep working on the game and do our best to fix issues as fast as possible, so we wanted to respect the announced release date and allow people to start playing the game.
I've gotten a lot of flak here on Lemmy for saying this was their plan, because I'm now... 11ish hours into my game and loving it and I don't need super high framerates.
I don't understand the hate unless ppl were not reading the developers prelaunch disclaimer. The message was quite clear that the game was Not optimized. There description of the issues all but indicate not to buy the game on release.
Why buy a game that the creators admitted isn't completely polished to then cry about framerate and performance issues?
Because it shouldn’t be released if it needs a disclaimer. People are fed up with half finished games being sold at full price with “promises” of fixes in the future
Just because CO announced, a few days early, that they were releasing an unoptimized mess, shouldn’t people complain about it being an unoptimized mess?
We should never think it’s okay for companies to release underdeveloped, unfinished games.
I don't get why I would ever have to read announcements. I put the game on the wishlist and got the notification that it is available. I only knew of the post because I watched a streamer play it for a bit and one in chat mentioned the announcement and the streamer read the message out loud. At the very least they should have marked it early access.
Yeah I'm also surprised this is blowing up. If a developer says before launch that there are optimisation issues, reading between the lines you can assume they're going to be very severe.
Still it could have helped if they gave some benchmarking examples to further set expectations.
I agree that it was better than others. With others you find it after you bought it because they hope for some people will accept it and just don't refund and wait for update so they get the money already.
But still.. if you know is bad... just continue working on it.
The only exception to that is if you are a small company or indie that doesn't have money and needs that money now.
Sometimes I wish the updates somehow were super expensive to deliver that they end up being forced to do the minimal updates and keep stuff working from the beginning
I've played this game for a few hours, and yes, it does run like garbage. That said, I could close my eyes to all of that, if they didn't also launch the game with several infuriating bugs, and a handful of design choices I really don't understand yet.
I'll let it brew for a while. Hope is not lost, but I'm not ready to play this yet
Buildings become indestructible once placed. Some roads don't connect because of "invalid shapes", while being as simple as it can possibly be. The endless high rent pop-up. Services not being detected despite them being literally next-door
I get between 35-60 FPS on high with a Ryzen 3600X and a RX7900 XT at 1440p. I'm only medium sized right now but it's not worth complaining about. As I get bigger I'll just turn settings down if they haven't patched performance.
It does seem like VRAM is important, gputop shows using around 12GB.