MMaRsu
Member
How so? Other games dont have this issue.That one is at least partially on Sony though.
How so? Other games dont have this issue.That one is at least partially on Sony though.
No dude. Come on. The system was hard to develop for but that doesn’t excuse games that ran like ass.That one is at least partially on Sony though.
The cell is difficult to program on. It's issues on PS3. I said partially, and that is true.How so? Other games dont have this issue.
Be that as it may, I think his point is still valid. They wanted the money from that userbase so they made the decision to put the product on there, so they should have taken the responsibility to make sure it didn't have issues but I am already seeing conflicting reports there, I didn't play it myself.The cell is difficult to program on. It's issues on PS3. I said partially, and that is true.
If a game came out on Xbox Series S with issues people would say it's MS fault. MS had to devote resources to get Unreal 5 ready for Series S also. If you guys think the cell architecture has nothing to do with the performance of Skyrim, that's just not true.
Yep, fair point for sure.Be that as it may, I think his point is still valid. They wanted the money from that userbase so they made the decision to put the product on there, so they should have taken the responsibility to make sure it didn't have issues but I am already seeing conflicting reports there, I didn't play it myself.
I consider a 50/50 chanceRegardless I'm not discounting that this person may have taken it off from someone else.
"it just works"Posted in the other thread that Starfield is in trouble and needs another year as I was told
Hope it works because there is a big difference between needing more time and actually getting it"it just works"
Not exactly. I know what I like and this is exactly it. CP77 was a flawed mess at launch and it was easily the best and most fun game I played in years. I'm not speaking for others, but I know exactly what I want and Starfield is it.Game of the generation. See that's I'm saying, the hype is gonna be hard to match with reality
If the game was that unsteady in a cherry picked demo I’m expecting a technical disaster unless there’s a big delay or a massive downgrade.
Game of the generation. See that's I'm saying, the hype is gonna be hard to match with reality
This is Bethesda/Microsoft's fault though.
From Bethesda marketing it as "ELDER SCROLLS. FALLOUT. NOW.... STARFIELD", to Bethesda announcing it literally 5 years ago at this point, to Phil Spencer saying he wants Starfield to be "bigger than Skyrim"...
They've set the expectation. Now it's on their shoulders to meet it.
Well, yes? they've been VERY open about saying that Starfield is the biggest (non-MMO) game they’ve ever made, and it’s their most ambitious.
They’ve set the expectation they wanted. Not sure why you’re painting this as ‘their fault’
How much time do they need? Starfield’s been in development for 8 years now. Bethesda used to make HUGE games in a 2-3 year time frame. Like, what the hell is going on?The optics and narrative around microsoft and their first party output (despite their many acquisitions) has not been good. Starfield launching as “starfield 2077” would be terrible, they really really need to give Bethesda as much time as they need to make sure when it launches it’s not a dumpster fire, even if that means launching in 2024.
Both games have already had long delays. I understand what you are saying but if there are major issues with how these games are being made, more time will not fix them.The optics and narrative around microsoft and their first party output (despite their many acquisitions) has not been good. Starfield launching as “starfield 2077” would be terrible, they really really need to give Bethesda as much time as they need to make sure when it launches it’s not a dumpster fire, even if that means launching in 2024.
The optics and narrative around microsoft and their first party output (despite their many acquisitions) has not been good. Starfield launching as “starfield 2077” would be terrible, they really really need to give Bethesda as much time as they need to make sure when it launches it’s not a dumpster fire, even if that means launching in 2024.
This was the same opinion CDProjectRed management and shareholders had, so they launched when it very much was not ready. It crushed their stock, ruined their reputation, hurt sales, led to court cases, and then they had to spend 18months fixing their mess. The whole debacle in turn also resulted in many other games being delayed out of fear of being 'the next cyberpunk'. Everyone is hanging their hats for Microsoft's first party on the success of starfield, they can more afford the PR pain of yet another delay than they can afford a repeat of cyberpunk. Both options are shit. One is worse than the other.Delaying the game until 2024 is not something I believe the brand can afford.
Especially now that PR wise they cannot count on the Activision deal going through. It would be a PR nightmare to basically have two consecutive years with little to no AAA exclusives.
It's possible to delay it from September to November and it's a card they're gonna play if necessary in July/August.
Well if the game is unplayble, full of quest breaking bugs and glitches and runs at 15fps on Series S then yes they should delay it.This was the same opinion CDProjectRed management and shareholders had, so they launched when it very much was not ready. It crushed their stock, ruined their reputation, hurt sales, led to court cases, and then they had to spend 18months fixing their mess. The whole debacle in turn also resulted in many other games being delayed out of fear of being 'the next cyberpunk'. Everyone is hanging their hats for Microsoft's first party on the success of starfield, they can more afford the PR pain of yet another delay than they can afford a repeat of cyberpunk. Both options are shit. One is worse than the other.
The complexity of such games has grown massively in recent years, as have the demands of gamers, not helped by marketing departments. The game was announced way way too soon, they have a lot of technical debt from their creaky old engine. There's been pretty deep dive reporting on quite substantial mismanagement at Bethesda studios over the years too. Then there's the matter of change of ownership half way through development which will have no doubt had some impact, and we've had a change in attitude from gamers, Bethesda in the past were given a lot of latitude in releasing half broken products, but gamer good will gave them a pass. They hurt themselves a lot with Fallout76 in terms of expending that goodwill, and in the broader context Cyberpunk was the straw that broke the camels back for gamers accepting broken releases. This will have impacted them and related timescales. We've also had a global pandemic which significantly affected the games industry, one thing that became particularly hard for large complex games during the pandemic was QA testing. Im sure there's other contributing factors.How much time do they need? Starfield’s been in development for 8 years now. Bethesda used to make HUGE games in a 2-3 year time frame. Like, what the hell is going on?
The problem with Cyberpunk was not that CP2077 was rushed out the door per se - it already had substantial delays. The problem was that they put it on platforms that had no business running it, because they got greedy, and then they lied about the state of those versions. If the game just launched on PC day one and PS5/XSX six months later it would have gotten received a lot better and not hurt CDPR the way it did. Likely the PC version would have been better as well s ince they could have focused on that game and not worried about the downstream impacts of the Xbox One game.This was the same opinion CDProjectRed management and shareholders had, so they launched when it very much was not ready. It crushed their stock, ruined their reputation, hurt sales, led to court cases, and then they had to spend 18months fixing their mess. The whole debacle in turn also resulted in many other games being delayed out of fear of being 'the next cyberpunk'. Everyone is hanging their hats for Microsoft's first party on the success of starfield, they can more afford the PR pain of yet another delay than they can afford a repeat of cyberpunk. Both options are shit. One is worse than the other.
As I understand it they did eventually get it in a reasonable state on ps4/XOne (can't say from first hand experience as I only played on ps5, and even then I waited until after a year post launch). So extra time did help. As I understand, it also had issues on both pc and next gen at launch, tho less pronounced, many of the bonkers bug ridden YouTube videos were on PC. You are right tho, they should have done what Hogwartz did and delay the ps4/Xone version (or cancel them outright).The problem with Cyberpunk was not that CP2077 was rushed out the door per se - it already had substantial delays. The problem was that they put it on platforms that had no business running it, because they got greedy, and then they lied about the state of those versions. If the game just launched on PC day one and PS5/XSX six months later it would have gotten received a lot better and not hurt CDPR the way it did. Likely the PC version would have been better as well s ince they could have focused on that game and not worried about the downstream impacts of the Xbox One game.
Which speaks to my point - no amount of time would have resolved the fundamental problem of putting the game on PS4/One out of greed. Sometimes more time isn't what a game needs. DNF is the classic example but Suicide Squad seems to be a new one. it got years of delays and still looks horrible, and WB responded by pushing it back another year, but we all know it's still going to be horrible. If the decisions/processes behind a game (or any project really) are fundamentally broken and flawed, then delays just become a waste of time and money. At that point you have 3 decisions, I guess: start over, cancel it, or just get it out the door in as best shape as possible and hope for the best.
Theyre not stupid enough to fuck up Starfield. Whatevers broken about it at launch will be down to Bethesda.
Thread bump of concern and doom!
Starfield is probably going to launch at 30 FPS, too. I'm guessing it will still be a good Bethesda RPG.
That one is at least partially on Sony though.
this seems to be confirmed for redfall for the few videos i've seen
I'm surprised people think Starfield will be a 60fps game on console. It's just not going to happen.Launching at 30 fps is NOT an issue at all! Especially on consoles. Even a little gank will be okay in Starfield. As long as the core game is good, that game will be fine. The same doesn't look the same with Redfall. That game just doesn't look that good.
Adam it’s not personal against you bud - if someone says something and it’s partially found to be true (Redfall looks like shit) then obviously people will re-visit the other things that were spoken about.quick lets bump up a few more redfall and starfield threads from last year.
Adam it’s not personal against you bud - if someone says something and it’s partially found to be true (Redfall looks like shit) then obviously people will re-visit the other things that were spoken about.
None of those threads are about Starfield and the condition that game is in AFAIK.bumping up months old threads when there's at least 3 other threads about the same game on page #1 just feels like going out of ones way to drudge up old topics.
bumping up months old threads when there's at least 3 other threads about the same game on page #1 just feels like going out of ones way to drudge up old topics.
I don't know. I feel people will lose patience if Starfield is delayed another fifty years.The optics and narrative around microsoft and their first party output (despite their many acquisitions) has not been good. Starfield launching as “starfield 2077” would be terrible, they really really need to give Bethesda as much time as they need to make sure when it launches it’s not a dumpster fire
I don't see why, there's a gazillion games out this year, id rather play those, then play star field when its actually good, instead of playing it sooner and it being a broken mess. To make up for the loss, Microsoft could just throw money at the problem and pay over the odds for a decent third party to go day one on gamespass.I don't know. I feel people will lose patience if Starfield is delayed another fifty years.
The ps3 version of skyrim is literally unplayable
This guy is officially legit lmao
I don't know what the problem in that vid is, but like many others I played Skyrim on PS3 for dozens of hours and it didn't run remotely as bad as that. It ran quite ok, in fact.
The more you played, the more likely it was to happen. It's related to Skyrim's object permanence.