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.

[–] deagle2008@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (5 children)

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?

[–] BURN@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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

[–] MeanEYE@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So much this. Because optimization part is not guaranteed to come. There are many number of other developers who have done exactly this. Promise specific things, you purchase the game only for them to go... yeah about that optimization thing, it's far easier if we just change minimum requirements and let the hardware grow into it. After we've already paid of our investment.

[–] BURN@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Exactly. I don’t trust any game publisher to invest the time and money into fixing ‘minor’ performance problems when people are still buying the game. As long as people continue to buy games that aren’t complete at launch we’ll continue to get games that aren’t complete.

[–] st0v@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yhey optimized and expanded the last CS game for like ten years. It was driven by DLC but the entire time CS vanilla was getting fixes and improvements.

There were some pretty lame limitations to the core simulation that stayed there the entire time but at least the devs were pretty open about having no plans to change them.

The CS2 story won't really play out entirely for a year or two yet.

[–] MeanEYE@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you had an option to pay the full price in installments then such excuse would be acceptable to a degree. As it stands now you bought what's made and then some plans on top of that. Plans that might not come. Sure developer might be trustworthy but they have no legal obligations to fulfill those promises.

[–] st0v@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

yeh but I got ten years of a really great game, with a really great community. It took a long time for me to care that the lane change mechanics weren't optimal.

that ten years buys a fuck ton of good will for me. Life doesn't run on legal obligations.

[–] MeanEYE@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Great game part is not guaranteed. It's not finished yet. Also it might get worse in some of the future changes.

[–] ours@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

If the game is well known not to be finished, they should have sold it as Early Access.

Non-functional requirements are still requirements.

[–] bighi@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] monk@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They informed customers so they can make their own decision. I have hardware that allows me to play the game.

I'm playing a developed, finished game. If you don't have hardware that can run it, then wait until it's fixed.

They were open and honest, and I'm not sure why you're so angry with that

[–] Narrrz@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

imo people should be vocal. perhaps not angry; or, be angry with the publisher, who presumably pushed am unrealistic timeline/release of an unfinished product.

if people just accept it, because hey, they did warn us 🤷, that just sends the message that this is a ploy that can pay off.

we need to make it severely impact sales so that a) paradox feeds the developer the money needed to bring it up to spec, and b) thinks twice about doing it again.

[–] monk@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Keep down voting me, but I bet I'm the only one in this thread that's actually played the game.

What part of it is unfinished? Also, it's on game pass, so I paid nothing, and am playing a sequel to a game I love and spent 100s of hours on. Real evil ploy here.

I'm accepting it because I've played another dozen hours of a game I enjoy. CO spent 8 years updating the first game and I expect no less. Paradox isn't some evil publisher, have you even played anything they've released?

[–] Nithanim@programming.dev 6 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] 9715698@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] XTornado@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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

[–] dinckelman@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] Narrrz@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

what bugs, if you don't mind my asking? I haven't tried it yet - my decade-and-change old pc would probably just pop like a corn kernel.

[–] dinckelman@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

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

[–] robojeb@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

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.