It's sad that this is necessary. And given that it took less than a week for modders to get actual performance gains means that bethesda could've easily done it themselves.
Don't think Bethesda is focused on making their gaming look specifically bad just to make it run on older hardware. Similar to all other companies there is a minimum spec. I do think that having such great mod support allows for this to happen which is great.
They are sabotaging their own sales by not doing it. Starfield is such a hyped game that many people who don't usually game much will want to play it and those people tend to not have the most up-to-date hardware. The PC I built in 2018 for about 1100€ is pretty much exactly the minimum spec for starfield. And given that minimum specs usually target 30fps for some reason, I'd need this mod if I wanted to play it at a reasonable framerate.
It's a first party title used to drive Gamepass subs now, they have different metrics for success. Not to mention you can play it streaming on multiple services too and on console. They'll be fine not appealing to people stuck a decade back tech wise.
From a money perspective, probably. But there's also the PR perspective to consider, and they threw away an easy win there. Starfield can run decently on the steam deck and if they cared to optimize it for that, it would have been a big win.
People were going to shit on it no matter what, literally the only game in recent memory that the Internet didn't shit on was Baldurs Gate 3, and that's probably mostly because it's a much smaller company.
Bg3 is great don't get me wrong
I'm running starfield medium graphics on a 1660 super and getting 60fps at 1440p.
It honestly runs fairly good on just a decent graphics card.
Good to hear, maybe the minimum specs are just a very conservative pick for this game.
I'm surprised that the mod is even necessary given that the game can run on the Xbox S or whatever the hell it's called.
The Series S is still current Gen tech running at a lower power profile. A lower end PC may be using a previous gen CPU or GPU making it harder to optimise.
They probably optimized the minimum settings for that and spent zero time considering low-spec PCs.
I'd guess that this is a management issue and not a development one.
The fact you need a 4090 to touch 120fps on 1080p in 2023 is disgusting. That should be the minimum target fps for mid range hardware at the least.
Meh, game is bland anyway.
The game is cpu bound so having a 4090 won't do you much good if your Cpu can't keep up, which is the problem most people have
Even with a 7000x3d, GPU performance is pretty rough across the board https://youtu.be/vTNiZhEqaKk?t=2m46s
It's shitty code bound. Sometimes no matter how powerful your hardware is, software will perform poorly because it just doesn't scale. Writing complex software like game so that it can fully utilize current hardware AND actually run faster with better CPU/GPU can become very difficult once a certain complexity threshold is reached. It's easy enough to do for a small linear game even if it has exceptional graphics, but an open world sandbox game like ones that Bethesda makes is a completely different story.
That doesn't mean that it's impossible of course - Bethesda absolutely should have made a better job, but it's by no means an easy task.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/vTNiZhEqaKk?t=2m46s
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
I'm getting 120FPS indoors at 1440p with a 3080TI. Outdoors it's more like 80FPS.
At first I thought you meant like your computer ran faster in the air conditioning.
I thought this until i read your comment.
Like, who games outdoors?!
Games don't feel like they've advanced very far in graphics since the witcher came out, I should still get 144fps on my 1080ti, if I'm honest.
But then people wouldn't buy $1000 graphics cards all the time which isn't very cash money for the industry
Potatoes? You mean PCs with < $1000 GPUs?
I'm not touching Starfield until I can play it at 1440p 60 fps with decent graphics (yes, actual 1440p, not "720p upscaled to 1440p" bullshit. Neither that nor 30 fps are acceptable to me).
If Bethesda can't be bothered to fix performance and I will need to wait years until I decide to upgrade so be it - I have plenty of great games in my "to play" list. By that time the will also be lots of mods to choose from to make Starfield worth it.
Wait a year for the modding community to finish it.
When I first played Fallout 4 years ago, it ran at 20fps in some parts of the map and on medium.
Playing it again now, modded to the max, ultra, higher res textures, 60fps everywhere.
Same pc.
That's the plan. I haven't actually properly played F4 yet either lol (tried years ago but dropped due to performance issues). Probably will do it soon after spending a month modding it.
It's crazy to me that they make the same game for almost 20 years but still can't make it work. The ai seems to get worse every game, computers get better and better but it still runs the same.
I've never played a Bethesda game at launch.
Or any game for that matter.
I'm playing with a Ryzen 5 and a 970 and it runs pretty smooth on low settings. I'm not a graphics whore though so I don't mind the visuals on low.
A Ryzen 5 is a pretty large span of processors, ranging from "old and mostly obsolete" to "modern and highly capable for gaming". Which one exactly would be helpful for others to help judge their own.
Looks like this is what I bought almost exactly 3 years ago:
AMD Ryzen 5 3600X 6-Core, 12-Thread Unlocked Desktop Processor with Wraith Spire Cooler
Game does not really look good even at high settings. Releasing something with such bad performance and nothing to even show for is just insulting.
Not my experience at all, looks really nice, I did get rid of the overblown LUTs tho for a neutral one from nexusmods.
There are definitely some silly things like some of the random gen NPCs look... Disturbing sometimes.
Other then that though, very detailed environments, textures are very high quality and shadows/lighting is good
Reminds me of Oldblivion. It was amazing being able to play that game with a Geforce 3.
It's just poorly made (performance wise), period.
Even modern hardware struggle with that crap. The old "But will it run Crysis?" meme is even more relevant for Oblivion
Me: Turns on HDR
Oblivion: Fucking crashes
Sad that the article focused on this particular mod. It's aimed at textures for low-end systems, yes, but there are 2-3 others that are aimed at systems across the board and use stock textures with simple config file changes. They're all tweaks with options that are in the game but unavailable on the menu, and they do vastly improve performance without a drop in quality.
A better headline could have been "Modders fix in days what Bethesda didn't do with years".
What? Already? Damn, that was fast.
I'm wondering if this would help get a solid 60 outside of interiors/around loads of NPCs. Only my GPU doesn't meet requirements, and it's still playable. But is mostly 30-40's unless I'm in a small interior or an interior with not many NPCs. The NPCs are more bound to CPU so I'm not sure if having lower res/filesize textures would help. I don't think the VRAM is the problem.
it will certainly help
It's a little better. I'm pretty sure it's gotta be the NPCs now. Video card is handling it all quite nicely, despite not having RTX or even DLSS support, but everywhere there are crowds it slows down by 20 fps. Currently just standing in the main road of Neon and it's around 40-45, dropoing to 35 when I run, but get a solid 60 when no NPCs are visible by looking up at an animated billboard or something.
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
Comments.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities: