Discussion Star Wars Outlaws Requirements Revealed - Ridiculous

[SyCoREAPER]

Ubisoft isn't known for being pro-consumer let alone releasing games that run properly or properly at the the specs provided.

According to Techspot to achieve;

1440: AMD Ryzen 7 5800X or Intel Core i5-11600K combined with a GeForce RTX 3080 (10 GB)/GeForce RTX 4070 (12GB), or AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT (16 GB) or better

4K; AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D or Intel Core i7-12700K and a GeForce RTX 4080 (16 GB) or AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX (24 GB) or better.

What makes this ludicrous? These are the required configurations for UPSCALED 1440/60 and 4k/60 respectively.

Are they out of their minds? Developers/Studios seem to be becoming out of touch and relying on upscaling rather than proper coding and optimization for recent games. Are (potentially) desirable games like these supposed to be catered to the elite with the top of the top hardware to have an enjoyable experience? My setup outweighs these requirements so this isn't some personal vendeta, it's me thinking about all those that don't have that kind of juice and what it was like for me growing up not being able to afford top of the line or even middle of the line components.

ALL that aside this game apparently isn't what they are leading everyone to believe it is. If you preordered l, cancel. If you were going to get it, boycott. This is wholly unacceptable.

https://www.techspot.com/news/104076-ubisoft-reveals-star-wars-outlaws-upscaling-dependent-pc.html

 

[Roland Of Gilead]

Yeah, spotted this a few days back, and am disappointed. Like Immortals of Aveum, I have to dial all settings in at low-medium to get higher fps than 60 at 1080p. And that's with upscaling. DOH!!!

I'm now at the point where I need a GPU upgrade to take on some of these titles on 1440p, which is where my monitor is at. My GPU is now purely just a 1080p card at best

Yes, I agree with you. Having to use upscaling for decent FPS is taking the mick. It rules out so many potential customers at launch. I don't get where the Game Studios are going, and how they think that ruling out a huge proportion of gamers because they don't have those kind of specs., will somehow increase revenue. Not good. Not good at all.

On a sidenote, FSR 3 Frame Gen actually works quite well with nVidia cards. It made Immortals of Aveum very playable with the 3060ti FPS up about 120-140 with 1% lows down around the 90-100 mark. I can deal with that.

But, this whole affair gets me annoyed with nVidia that their DLSS 3 doesn't include FG on the 30 series cards.

 

[Eximo]

I think most studios have come to the realization that making a truly profitable AAA game is a lot harder than it used to be. So they rush to minimum viable product and immediately cut further development to save money. If the game is more successful then projected, they will go back and optimize.

 

[Roland Of Gilead]

So they rush to minimum viable product and immediately cut further development to save money. If the game is more successful then projected, they will go back and optimize.

I think practically every major AAA release in the last 6-12 months, has been exactly like that. A rushed out job, with high demanding specs, that aren't optimized, and the consumer becomes the beta tester. Long gone are the days when games were polished at release and actually did rake in the moolah. It seems broken to me somehow.

 

[faalin]

I think practically every major AAA release in the last 6-12 months, has been exactly like that. A rushed out job, with high demanding specs, that aren't optimized, and the consumer becomes the beta tester. Long gone are the days when games were polished at release and actually did rake in the moolah. It seems broken to me somehow.

Everything had to be polished back in the day since games came out on cd/dvd. No one was going to download a patch to fix bugs in a game. Now everything is digital with high speed internet so who cares if theres bugs in the game, we'll just send out a 10GB patch to fix the game later.

I might try Outlaws tonight just to see what FPS i get in the game, ended up getting it for free from work. Did a custom built computer for work with a 14700k and it came free with the CPU, no one knew about it so i just remoted home and installed it on my computer.

 

[Roland Of Gilead]

Is it not due for release until 30/08?

 

[Roland Of Gilead]

Admittedly, looking at the gameplay footage it is stunning.

 

[faalin]

Is it not due for release until 30/08?

my bad, your right. guess im not playing tonight

 

[Zerk2012]

That's fine with me if my 10600K and 2080 can't play it with decent settings I just don't buy it.

 

[Rogue Leader]

Everything had to be polished back in the day since games came out on cd/dvd. No one was going to download a patch to fix bugs in a game.

I hate to "well actually..." you but this isn't true. Sure if you're talking about console systems its different, but I have owned FLOPPY DISC games that even had game breaking bugs, and what you needed to do was to use your dialup to go to the BBS of the game company and download a patch. I've even had games that had a sticker on the outside of the box warning you to do it. I remember LucasArts had a program that they would mail you a floppy with the patch if you didn't have a modem. I'm sure others would do the same.

Now yes I'll agree they are far more reliant these days on everyone having an internet connection to be able to automatically patch their game, but this is nothing new at all.

As for the system requirements, again we were complaining about this in the late 1980's as well. They are going to build the best graphics they can because in 6-8 months or a year when they would like to still continue selling the game those high requirements won't be as high anymore. They do use the patch/update system as a crutch though because yes they need more time to optimize it, but that does often happen. when the game is good and popular. Look at Cyberpunk 2077 for example which even if you bought no expansions is eons ahead of where it was released.

 

[logainofhades]

I don't do AAA games, as I am strictly a WoW player, but I have seen complaints, elsewhere, of games getting more demanding, but visually they haven't really improved much in recent years. If Starfield's ugly NPC's are anything to go by, they might be onto something. I do think developers have gotten lazy. Console ports that come out as unoptimized trash, for instance. IMO, there's little excuse for such things, with current gen consoles being equipped with what is basically a Ryzen APU with better graphics.

 

[Eximo]

As for the system requirements, again we were complaining about this in the late 1980's as well. They are going to build the best graphics they can because in 6-8 months or a year when they would like to still continue selling the game those high requirements won't be as high anymore.

Yeah, but pretty much every year or two was some great leap in graphics or gameplay features in the 80s and 90s.

Now we get higher resolutions, texture quality, or things like hair physics that don't have anything to do with gameplay. What is interesting is how good some games can look while not requiring the best equipment.

But 30 FPS 1080p upscaled, with fairly recent hardware is asking a bit much. (I know, back in the 30 FPS was pretty awesome)

 

[CelicaGT]

Simple, vote with your wallet. Besides, lots of indie games that are of much higher quality both graphically and story wise for much less money. While I'm sure there's probably some FOMO going on with many people, their lives won't be much worse off giving *Yet Another Star Wars a miss until it's patched up, or entirely.

 

[punkncat]

I think practically every major AAA release in the last 6-12 months, has been exactly like that. A rushed out job, with high demanding specs, that aren't optimized, and the consumer becomes the beta tester. Long gone are the days when games were polished at release and actually did rake in the moolah. It seems broken to me somehow.

I agree 110%. I have purchased one game in the last 2-3 years that wasn't basically broken to the point of not working, or very buggy to say the least. That has been Baldur's Gate 3, and IMO probably had more to do with my current spec and that games wide range of possible requirements from minimum up.

I have played and own a few of the Star Wars titles myself, but I wait until they are older, well developed, and basically free. I have not yet purchased even the last game in that franchise. The most recent one I have (whose name escapes me) is the one where you start in the "boneyard" as a scrapper. I have not been enjoying it even as much as Battlefront 2.

 

[Rogue Leader]

I agree 110%. I have purchased one game in the last 2-3 years that wasn't basically broken to the point of not working, or very buggy to say the least. That has been Baldur's Gate 3, and IMO probably had more to do with my current spec and that games wide range of possible requirements from minimum up.

I have played and own a few of the Star Wars titles myself, but I wait until they are older, well developed, and basically free. I have not yet purchased even the last game in that franchise. The most recent one I have (whose name escapes me) is the one where you start in the "boneyard" as a scrapper. I have not been enjoying it even as much as Battlefront 2.

You're talking about the most recent JEDI games, both are fantastic.

 

[SyCoREAPER]

I think most studios have come to the realization that making a truly profitable AAA game is a lot harder than it used to be. So they rush to minimum viable product and immediately cut further development to save money. If the game is more successful then projected, they will go back and optimize.

By then the game already has the reputation it does and is often too late. They still haven't even fixed Jedi Survivor.

That's fine with me if my 10600K and 2080 can't play it with decent settings I just don't buy it.

And this, this is a sentiment I 100% agree with. By going what Eximo said, they shooting themselves in the foot making a demanding bug ridden title not for the masses based on HW requirements alone.

Id say screw them too and future products. I have no problem blackballing a company based on their actions. Will I potentially miss some goodies? Yeah but as someone else said above, vote with your wallet and stick to it.






One should always buy based on what you get today, not the promises of tomorrow because tomorrow may never come. If a studio wants to make a game that just works they can, they need to just stop rushing.

Look at (RIP) HiFiRush whether it's your style or game or not, it's polished, runs on anything even hopes and dreams, looks great, plays great AND NOBODY knew it was coming. Proof that rushing and setting expectations with early previews or cinematic trailers months or years in advance is not the way.

 

[gamerk316]

I think most studios have come to the realization that making a truly profitable AAA game is a lot harder than it used to be. So they rush to minimum viable product and immediately cut further development to save money. If the game is more successful then projected, they will go back and optimize.

Because studios are over-reliant on a few massive hits per year which suck in tons of development resources. This also has the side effect of studios playing *safe* and refusing to innovate, for fear of making something no one wants.

There's a reason why its the independent studios making the good stuff.

 

[Eximo]

I agree. The field also got wider and at the same time narrower.

More games, more platforms, more competition for people's spending money increasing the field. Gone are the days where you could come up with a truly unique concept. Narrowing the options of worthwhile projects.

That is why a lot of games now rely on expensive storytelling, famous actor tie ins, and famous IPs like Star Wars. They are playing it safe and killing themselves at the same time. Frankly they should make some safe games to stay afloat but also try to create new IP and hits, but that isn't how the financial people see it.

Small scale titles retain the fun by exploring new mechanics, but also don't bring in as much money, generally. Only the rare occasional hit seems to happen, but they are also shortlived.

 

[Rogue Leader]

That is why a lot of games now rely on expensive storytelling, famous actor tie ins, and famous IPs like Star Wars.

Do you remember the painful beginning of the CD-ROM Era where everyone was like "OH WOW FMV" and tons of basically point and click "Interactive Movies" came out? Big name actors, fancy soundtracks, poor gameplay.

The only ones who sort of got it right were Wing Commander III and 7th Guest.....

 

[Eximo]

Do you remember the painful beginning of the CD-ROM Era where everyone was like "OH WOW FMV" and tons of basically point and click "Interactive Movies" came out? Big name actors, fancy soundtracks, poor gameplay.

The only ones who sort of got it right were Wing Commander III and 7th Guest.....

I do recall.

Privateer 2 is one of my favorites for the random actors that pop in (great on Youtube if you want the silliness without playing the admittedly buggy game). It was a novelty back then. It was also actual video, not CGI cut scenes. Seeing an actor's 3D model up close while you stare at it is a really weird experience. And those are games that I didn't buy because of the FMV or actors, it was the game I was after. I would prefer just regular decent voice actors and they don't have to have their likeness recreated. Even if a few minor celebrities sneak in from time to time. God of War series comes to mind.

Command & Conquer series was pretty famous for it. And there were a few games that used it well, and didn't resort to high paid actors. Mechwarrior 4 Vengeance comes to mind, just little videos between each mission.

 

[helper800]

Just to be clear, most game dev's, and their studios, want nothing more than to release a game with no bugs, and their designs completely fleshed out, but what happens is their publishers cannot wait any longer and force their hand. I was within a hair's breadth of getting into the games industry but decided against it because of the work environment. I can say that devs almost always want perfect versions of their game to be the first release. Most devs pour their heart and souls into games at the detriment of their lives working in excess of 60-120 hours a week during crunch time.

 

[Gururu]

Much ado about nothing. Those specs are for high and ultra-high 4K settings at 60fps. Recommended specs will reach mainstream gamers rocking a 3060 or higher. I can't play yet, but I can't play Cyberpunk either :/

 

[helper800]

Much ado about nothing. Those specs are for high and ultra-high 4K settings at 60fps. Recommended specs will reach mainstream gamers rocking a 3060 or higher. I can't play yet, but I can't play Cyberpunk either :/

You still rocking the specs in your signiture?

 

[Gururu]

You still rocking the specs in your signiture?

Of course, and struggling with low settings on Elden Ring :/

 

[Eximo]

A580 might be up your alley if you aren't waiting on something.