PUBG struggles to hit 30 fps on console release (lol)

[SpeedDemonAdam88]

17 hours ago, Linus Tech Tits said:

FYI pc version is also early access and they don't seem to improve the optimization after so long

Yes this is a well known fact of the PC version no suprise the Xbox version is similar. 

[SeriouslyMikey]

A game that's not even finished development coming to console? It's a lot like how DayZ is trying to do the same, difference there is, DayZ has peaked and will never return to it's former glory. 

It's a stark reminder as to why one shouldn't purchase early access games. 

[Drak3]

2 hours ago, SeriouslyMikey said:

It's a stark reminder as to why one shouldn't purchase early access games.

From new developers and if they're promising the world.

 

[TenThousand]

Bluehole was never known as good in optimizing. Their original game, Tera is one of the worst performing mmo despite it's age. It even has a known bug where just have a controller attached while playing the game causes a memory leak that still persists to this day.

[JoeCoke]

On 12/14/2017 at 1:16 PM, DarkBlade2117 said:

 

PUBG runs like shit. There's no defending it. It looks like shit too.

[DarkBlade2117]

1 hour ago, 2Buck said:

PUBG runs like shit. There's no defending it. It looks like shit too.

The ignorance in these few words is funny. So, all the pros suddenly aren't getting 100-140FPS on Test Servers? I'm not getting a STABLE 60FPS with dips hitting at minimum 45? And that is in the lobby, where 100 people are all running around? All of my friends who can't play the game on live servers due to FPS can't suddenly play it now because they now are able to load in buildings when dropping before they hit the ground and are getting 30+ FPS compared to the old 15? Ya, ok. It runs like shit and "hasn't been optimized". Believe what you want.

[SkilledRebuilds]

I can run it on an i3+HD260x Toaster with super low settings (Medium Textures) and maintain 45-55fps (Give or take 5fps either side)

Basically a Toaster from YEARS AGO.

 

Optimization allows me to play it this way, at launch, this was IMPOSSIBLE.

[Nena Trinity]

Same as a Q6600 rig and the game is not even optimized for shit on PC at all, test sever is slightly better tough.

 

[JoeCoke]

12 hours ago, DarkBlade2117 said:

The ignorance in these few words is funny. So, all the pros suddenly aren't getting 100-140FPS on Test Servers? I'm not getting a STABLE 60FPS with dips hitting at minimum 45? And that is in the lobby, where 100 people are all running around? All of my friends who can't play the game on live servers due to FPS can't suddenly play it now because they now are able to load in buildings when dropping before they hit the ground and are getting 30+ FPS compared to the old 15? Ya, ok. It runs like shit and "hasn't been optimized". Believe what you want.

And yet other games that "clone" it run way better. Ohhhh the denial. I guess next you'll tell me that ARK is the most optimized game to ever release. But if you wanna call me ignorant, go for it.

 

For instance, fortnite runs better and it's the same concept. PUBG also looks like a PS2 game, I mean I can't believe how awful it looks. With how shitty it looks a 9800gt shouldn't even be sweating. And yet anything in the GTX 400/500 series is gonna have a really bad time. I know, I built my little cousin a PC pretty much specifically for PUBG. Tested tons of old GPUs and eventually settled on a 660ti and even then the performance was still shit. So then the settings went way down, and calling it a PS2 game at that point would be complementing it. And yet it runs fortnite like it's NOTHING. Fortnite's graphics even look better, way more polished at least.

 

Defending poor performance and poor optimization makes you a part of the problem.

[DarkBlade2117]

3 hours ago, 2Buck said:

And yet other games that "clone" it run way better. Ohhhh the denial. I guess next you'll tell me that ARK is the most optimized game to ever release. But if you wanna call me ignorant, go for it.

 

For instance, fortnite runs better and it's the same concept. PUBG also looks like a PS2 game, I mean I can't believe how awful it looks. With how shitty it looks a 9800gt shouldn't even be sweating. And yet anything in the GTX 400/500 series is gonna have a really bad time. I know, I built my little cousin a PC pretty much specifically for PUBG. Tested tons of old GPUs and eventually settled on a 660ti and even then the performance was still shit. So then the settings went way down, and calling it a PS2 game at that point would be complementing it. And yet it runs fortnite like it's NOTHING. Fortnite's graphics even look better, way more polished at least.

 

Defending poor performance and poor optimization makes you a part of the problem.

I'll describe it again since you're thick headed. The fortnite map is a quarter of the size. Their loot system is far lessing demanding as loot spawns in the same spot every time. Their gun play is extremely simple. The graphics which may be more polished are another reason it runs better.

Have you touched the RECENT test servers for PUBG? Probably not because your head is so far up your ass you dont have a damn clue what you're talking about right now. ARK, runs like shit. The FPS I'm getting in test servers MUCH better than Live servers. And Ill state this again in caps, FRIENDS WHO PREVIOUSLY COULD NOT PLAY THE GAME CAN NOW PLAY THE GAME ON TEST SERVERS. These are friends who have never taken care of their PC, on of them has a FX 6300 and GTX 1050. One an 860k and R9 270x. A friend with an i7-960 and 560Ti RAN THE OLD UPDATE but the NEW UPDATE, ON TEST SERVERS runs smooth. The only issue now is servers which HAVE BEEN IMPROVED A TON.

[ItsMitch]

1 minute ago, DarkBlade2117 said:

The graphics which may be more polished are another reason it runs better.

*also the fact the developers who are making fortnite are the developers of the unreal engine*

[DarkBlade2117]

30 minutes ago, SC2Mitch said:

*also the fact the developers who are making fortnite are the developers of the unreal engine*

Plus the game is being developed by way more knowledgeable people, been in develop longer. What the PUBG guys have accomplishment in less than two years is very good and I wish them luck in future games if they ever decide to dive into making their own engine and a better game.

[mrmonmon2]

Fucking kek, my dad's 460 sli rig with a i7 950 from 2012 ish can run the test server at 40-120 fps Lol, it's still better than xbox

[Dabombinable]

32 minutes ago, mrmonmon2 said:

Fucking kek, my dad's 460 sli rig with a i7 950 from 2012 ish can run the test server at 40-120 fps Lol, it's still better than xbox

To be fair, the 8 cores in current consoles are slower than those found in the Penryn based Core 2 series 9-10 years ago, at a lower clock speed. So the difference in performance between the old i7 and 2012/2013 Jaguar APU is significant (current ones still use the same CPU core, just factory overclocked).

[mrmonmon2]

1 minute ago, Dabombinable said:

To be fair, the 8 cores in current consoles are slower than those found in the Penryn based Core 2 series 9-10 years ago, at a lower clock speed. So the difference in performance between the old i7 and 2012/2013 Jaguar APU is significant (current ones still use the same CPU core, just factory overclocked).

True, but this machine runs the stock cooler, no overclocks, so its pretty funny

[Ithanul]

On 12/13/2017 at 9:49 PM, ARikozuM said:

I can't believe people voted for PUBG over something like Senua, Odyssey, or Breath of the Wild. 

Or, HZD, Persona 5, and many other games.

 

Anyway, games like PUBG are far more dependent on the net code and servers.  One has to consider you have like 100 people hooking into one game server (most likely in a VM on shared hardware) handling all those calls from the clients (and each client has varying Internet speeds and latency).  These games tend to hit the CPU hard instead of the GPU.  You are more at the mercy of the game servers and your Internet speed.

 

I find it interesting that they are managing to host 100 people in one game instance within a FPS.  Be interesting to learn how they handle all those positions and hit detections.

[JoeCoke]

9 hours ago, DarkBlade2117 said:

I'll describe it again since you're thick headed. The fortnite map is a quarter of the size. Their loot system is far lessing demanding as loot spawns in the same spot every time. Their gun play is extremely simple. The graphics which may be more polished are another reason it runs better.

Have you touched the RECENT test servers for PUBG? Probably not because your head is so far up your ass you dont have a damn clue what you're talking about right now. ARK, runs like shit. The FPS I'm getting in test servers MUCH better than Live servers. And Ill state this again in caps, FRIENDS WHO PREVIOUSLY COULD NOT PLAY THE GAME CAN NOW PLAY THE GAME ON TEST SERVERS. These are friends who have never taken care of their PC, on of them has a FX 6300 and GTX 1050. One an 860k and R9 270x. A friend with an i7-960 and 560Ti RAN THE OLD UPDATE but the NEW UPDATE, ON TEST SERVERS runs smooth. The only issue now is servers which HAVE BEEN IMPROVED A TON.

 

It's funny my cousin's 660ti rig still runs the game like shit (he just played the game the other day, so my knowledge is definitely up to date), which is better than a 270x and a HELL of a lot better than a 560ti. And I know a 560ti cannot run it acceptably, I built my cousin that rig not even quite a month ago and a 560ti was actually my first choice for the rig, if you think 40 fps lowest settings with heavy stuttering is acceptable then you just have low standards. With the 660ti, the game is playable (50s) at medium settings, but still looks like dog shit and has random frame dips and stutters. Still not an experience I'd call "good". AND YES, my cousin played the damn test servers, so drop it.

 

The game has no excuse to run that poorly. Huge maps and lots of players should NOT LAG if the graphics look like Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 4. Hell, there's minecraft servers a thousand players and those worlds are infinite... And at least Minecraft's graphics are intentionally bad. Yeah yeah, here comes your hair splitting "MINE CRAFT IS SO MUCH MORE SIMPLE BLAH BLAH BLAH PUBG IS SO MUCH MORE COMPLEX YADAYADA", but we're still talking hundreds of players with infinite worlds running perfectly on old 7950GTs and Pentium Ds so no matter how you swing it that's what actual optimization looks like.

 

Do you actually think the gun play or loot system has any noticeable effect on the game's performance? I really hope you don't actually believe that.

 

Maybe when the game is actually finished and doesn't run like shit, then MAYBE I'll have some respect for it. I'm done arguing by the way. Internet debating is not usually an activity I partake in these days.

 

PS: To be clear, not saying PUBG is the worst optimized game ever, duh it's not even close to that. Just acknowledging the fact that it is generally poorly optimized.

[Xander Cousins]

On ‎17‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 5:54 AM, 2Buck said:

The game has no excuse to run that poorly. Huge maps and lots of players should NOT LAG if the graphics look like Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 4. Hell, there's minecraft servers a thousand players and those worlds are infinite... And at least Minecraft's graphics are intentionally bad. Yeah yeah, here comes your hair splitting "MINE CRAFT IS SO MUCH MORE SIMPLE BLAH BLAH BLAH PUBG IS SO MUCH MORE COMPLEX YADAYADA", but we're still talking hundreds of players with infinite worlds running perfectly on old 7950GTs and Pentium Ds so no matter how you swing it that's what actual optimization looks like.

 

For you information Minecraft works on a render in render out basis meaning it will render in so many chunks and players depending on where you are. If you are outside a rendered chunk for so long it will unload it self to allow the game to run smoothly. 

 

PUBG works a bit differently, it will render anything that is in the direction your facing, Many players had FPS issues and rendering of building issues that can be solved using a SSD (supposedly) Mainly when parachuting out of the C-130 WHY? Because you are seeing the whole map... your pc rendering all it can see at that time. I have played PUBG a good few times on medium settings with an i3 4th Gen Quad core and a old Radeon 900 GPU and I have not once experience these Low frames. lowest I get is 40 FPS and worst 25 FPS when a dip occurs usually to a lot of shiz happening around my area. 

 

And Yes Gunplay and Loot system does play affect into Performance as firstly Gun play is Bullet projectile meaning the bullet has to travel. So the server is having to register the travel line of the bullet and if it connects or doesn't with a player? Doesn't seem too tasking, But its more than a single bullet you are having these firefights all over the map which build up stress same with the looting system. PUBG's isn't static it has an area it spawns in and will appear in that area if script is given. among that you have the bombing zone's which add stress and all. 

 

About PUBG graphics I don't know what you play at but I don't think it looks like PS2 graphics, If you want to risk having the major frame drops and have a beautiful looking game then go for it but I run it mid settings and the game still looks acceptable as if it was an Xbox 360 mid season release. They ain't an eye sore.

 

You compare it to Fortnite because you most likely get kills on it due to it being a hit scan game bar the Snipers in it. 

 

Fortnite is a well flushed out game but like people have said Loot spawns are static they always drop in the same area but could be a different item there instead. you don't have as large a map as PUBG and doesn't have bombing sites, Yes they have construction in it and demolition mechanics to destroy and build walls but the graphics used in Fortnite is Basic. It's cartoony type graphics making it less stressful for any system to run.

 

So Please if your gonna complain about a game get your Facts and justification because it just looks pathetic judging a game to ones not within it's 

genre or same level of detail, Once again the PC version isn't a finished version of PUBG and a lot can agree.

 

EDITED: Plus this game isn't an AAA title, 

Quote

An AAA game (usually pronounced "triple A game") is an informal classification used for video games produced and distributed by a mid-sized or major publisher, typically having higher development and marketing budgets. AAA game development is associated with high economic risk, with high levels of sales required to obtain profitability.

 

Me and Some mates that I discussed this with would all agree PUBG would be more under an Indie game.

Quote

An independent video game (commonly referred to as an indie game) is a video game that is often created without the financial support of a publisher, although some games funded by a publisher are still considered "indie". Indie games often focus on innovation and rely on digital distribution.

 

We think this as this game was heavily focused on Digital Distribution During it starting up and still is. Console is the only platform that has a Physical Copy and that's more for the classic gamers that like to have a disk and not just a screen full of game titles on tiles.

 

[The Benjamins]

On 12/17/2017 at 12:54 AM, 2Buck said:

 

It's funny my cousin's 660ti rig still runs the game like shit (he just played the game the other day, so my knowledge is definitely up to date), which is better than a 270x and a HELL of a lot better than a 560ti.

 

PS: To be clear, not saying PUBG is the worst optimized game ever, duh it's not even close to that. Just acknowledging the fact that it is generally poorly optimized.

Did he play on live or test? Live hasn't had updates in over a month due to them finalizing 1.0 which is on test. Test is night and day in playability, features, content, and a 100% UI update. the only major issue on test is network lag due to limited server resources reserved for it.

 

Live is poorly optimized, but its not a released game, all other games are poorly optimized before release. I was a game investor/tester for Project Cars for 3 years. the last month had huge improvements in stability and FPS. Test server build is at a good optimization level and give it a month or so after 1.0 hits (Dec 20) it will be able to run on a lot of hardware and become a very smooth game.

[Dabombinable]

3 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

Did he play on live or test? Live hasn't had updates in over a month due to them finalizing 1.0 which is on test. Test is night and day in playability, features, content, and a 100% UI update. the only major issue on test is network lag due to limited server resources reserved for it.

 

Live is poorly optimized, but its not a released game, all other games are poorly optimized before release. I was a game investor/tester for Project Cars for 3 years. the last month had huge improvements in stability and FPS. Test server build is at a good optimization level and give it a month or so after 1.0 hits (Dec 20) it will be able to run on a lot of hardware and become a very smooth game.

Here's to hoping for Intel HD4600 support at 720p potato settings (I really don't trust my GTX 970 to last much longer).

[Natsoup]

On 12/13/2017 at 1:30 PM, Ashiella said:

WhydopeopleevenlikePUBG

Tense endgame, good shooting mechanics, fun gameplay

[Natsoup]

On 12/16/2017 at 12:39 PM, 2Buck said:

And yet other games that "clone" it run way better. Ohhhh the denial. I guess next you'll tell me that ARK is the most optimized game to ever release. But if you wanna call me ignorant, go for it.

 

For instance, fortnite runs better and it's the same concept. PUBG also looks like a PS2 game, I mean I can't believe how awful it looks. With how shitty it looks a 9800gt shouldn't even be sweating. And yet anything in the GTX 400/500 series is gonna have a really bad time. I know, I built my little cousin a PC pretty much specifically for PUBG. Tested tons of old GPUs and eventually settled on a 660ti and even then the performance was still shit. So then the settings went way down, and calling it a PS2 game at that point would be complementing it. And yet it runs fortnite like it's NOTHING. Fortnite's graphics even look better, way more polished at least.

 

Defending poor performance and poor optimization makes you a part of the problem.

Have you looked at the game? I don't think it's well optimized but the game ain't ugly.

[PCMasterDebater]

This thread turned into on gigantic argument on PC PUGB run ability.

 

#PCMasterRace - Facepalm

[Steemax]

Lots of haters here... probably can't run the game. Seriously, PUBG is a darn good game and is deserving of the GOTY title. I don't remember the last game other than PUBG that has kept my attention for longer than a month. 

[JoeCoke]

7 hours ago, Alex Colson said:

 

For you information Minecraft works on a render in render out basis meaning it will render in so many chunks and players depending on where you are. If you are outside a rendered chunk for so long it will unload it self to allow the game to run smoothly. 

 

PUBG works a bit differently, it will render anything that is in the direction your facing, Many players had FPS issues and rendering of building issues that can be solved using a SSD (supposedly) Mainly when parachuting out of the C-130 WHY? Because you are seeing the whole map... your pc rendering all it can see at that time. I have played PUBG a good few times on medium settings with an i3 4th Gen Quad core and a old Radeon 900 GPU and I have not once experience these Low frames. lowest I get is 40 FPS and worst 25 FPS when a dip occurs usually to a lot of shiz happening around my area. 

 

And Yes Gunplay and Loot system does play affect into Performance as firstly Gun play is Bullet projectile meaning the bullet has to travel. So the server is having to register the travel line of the bullet and if it connects or doesn't with a player? Doesn't seem too tasking, But its more than a single bullet you are having these firefights all over the map which build up stress same with the looting system. PUBG's isn't static it has an area it spawns in and will appear in that area if script is given. among that you have the bombing zone's which add stress and all. 

 

About PUBG graphics I don't know what you play at but I don't think it looks like PS2 graphics, If you want to risk having the major frame drops and have a beautiful looking game then go for it but I run it mid settings and the game still looks acceptable as if it was an Xbox 360 mid season release. They ain't an eye sore.

 

You compare it to Fortnite because you most likely get kills on it due to it being a hit scan game bar the Snipers in it. 

 

Fortnite is a well flushed out game but like people have said Loot spawns are static they always drop in the same area but could be a different item there instead. you don't have as large a map as PUBG and doesn't have bombing sites, Yes they have construction in it and demolition mechanics to destroy and build walls but the graphics used in Fortnite is Basic. It's cartoony type graphics making it less stressful for any system to run.

 

So Please if your gonna complain about a game get your Facts and justification because it just looks pathetic judging a game to ones not within it's 

genre or same level of detail, Once again the PC version isn't a finished version of PUBG and a lot can agree.

 

EDITED: Plus this game isn't an AAA title, 

 

Of course Minecraft and PUBG work differently, did I say differently? Of course the games aren't comparable, I was just saying that lots of players and huge worlds isn't a new concept and has been accomplished long before PUBG, without the poor performance.

 

Ugh... The way the guns and loot systems work tax the SERVER, not your system, which would cause server lag, not low frame rates. So they do NOT affect the frame rate, unless I really am missing something here. Servers have a shit ton of load in this game, I won't disagree there. I can also understand the CPU load this game has. What I'm talking about is the GPU load. No way in hell a 660ti should be lagging on lowest settings.

 

Well you're entitled to your own opinions, but PUBG just looks like shit to me. Definitely reminds me of a PS2 game. And at max settings, it no longer looks like a PS2 game, but it still looks sloppy and unpolished. I'm not a graphics whore and a game being ugly won't stop me from playing it, I'm just pointing out that it's ugly since we're talking about performance.