Devs have forgotten what optimization means, they just dont care.

[Khader87]

recently i have noticed that games are not being optimized properly and devs are not putting an effort to do so, its like they just dont care, they want to sell and get money and maybe concentrate on consoles only.  

 

i have i7 4790, Vega 64, 16GB DDR3 1600Mhz and 2560x1080 monitor 21:9 @80hz.

 

I run graphically amazing and intensive games no issues at screen refresh rate with some normal FPS dips at max settings, like shadow of the tomb raider, shadow of war, the witcher 3, Wolfenstein, BO4, BF1, the division...

 

on the other hand you find games with the same graphics as above games and sometimes even less amazing but runs bad with many frame spikes, like far cry 5, assassin's Creed Odyessey, watch dogs 2, sudden strike 4, blitzkrieg 3, total war Warhammer 2, BF5, wildlands amd many other games, where CPU and GPU are sitting almost @50% -70% usage.

 

i mean why are devs killing PC gaming? why cant a powerful PC run a game smoothly but a 300-500 dollars consoles can with decent graphics and smooth gaming?

 

why DX12 and vulkan still not widely supported? although they game good boost when gaming.

 

Recently PC gaming are being published but not polished, look at just cause 4, fallout 76, BF5...etc , they just dont care about PC community anymore, i know games are being pirated but dont blame the remaining majority.

 

devs are just producing games to maximize their proft, ubisoft 2 AC games in 2 years! black ops 4 is a remaster from previous games, just cause 4 is bad....

 

many of pc gaming community are thinking of buying PS5 when available and abandon PC. atleast i dont have to worry about my 2000K rig running the game...

[SpiralTTGL]

"many of pc gaming community are thinking of buying PS5 and abandon PC "

legit don't think any real pc gamer is thinking this

 

 

all comes down to the engine and what dev's are comfortable with implementing, dx12 is similar enough to dx11, but vulkan is on its own.

 

fallout 76 and there other games have been using the same engine that worked decades ago and haven't done much improvement to it graphically and it show's

 

unlike battlefields Frostbite engine that gets constant updates

[WereCatf]

11 minutes ago, Khader87 said:

i mean why are devs killing PC gaming?

Idiotic hyperbole. There have ALWAYS been better-optimized games and worse-optimized games and yet the PC-gaming scene is still doing just fine.

 

3 minutes ago, SpiralTTGL said:

legit don't think any real pc gamer is thinking this

Certainly not me. Consoles are fine and all, but not to my taste.

[myselfolli]

There've always been poorly optimized games and there always will be. I think we'll survive

[SpiralTTGL]

I don't wanna be that guy but your also using a amd gpu when games are center'ed toward nvidia gpu's for optimization its just how things are because of the marketshare. These issues your facing could be it, also could be your aging hardware 4790 came out in 2014 and that means your also still using ddr3. Hitching could be storage related many games use texture streaming having a slow hdd could hinder your smooth experience.

 

windows 10 has also had some issues with games specifically studdering with standby memory

[JoostinOnline]

15 minutes ago, Khader87 said:

i mean why are devs killing PC gaming? why cant a powerful PC run a game smoothly but a 300-500 dollars consoles can with decent graphics and smooth gaming? 

They aren't, and they can't. Console versions either turn the settings way down, or they run at a lower frame rate. You've got no idea what you're talking about.

[samcool55]

The problem is that they don't really care about this.

The only thing that matters is profit, money. That's it.

 

It's not because devs want to, it's because they have to, the crunch culture is real in the game dev world and it's awful.

Why do you think microtransactions are a thing? Why do you think the big guys mainly keep selling basically the same game as last year? Because it gives them the most amount of profit.

 

Ubisoft, EA and Bethesda are all going this route, and it's a bad one.

 

I'm not saying they are all like this, CDPR is like REALLY good when it comes down to being consumer friendly (GOG store) and creating actually decent games.

 

An old but great example is simcity vs cities skylines, simcity was absolute trash and clearly a cash grab, cities skylines was an indie project by passionate people and it really shows.

[Master Disaster]

2 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

They aren't, and they can't. Console versions either turn the settings way down, or they run at a lower frame rate. You've got no idea what you're talking about.

Normally they do both.

[JoostinOnline]

Just now, Master Disaster said:

Normally they do both.

If you've got the higher end models you usually get to choose which one you want.

 

[Jurrunio]

console run 1080p 30fps mostly, or they run near the low settings. Do that and you'll get better frame rates as well.

 

Also a tendency of DDR3 platforms is that they get overwhelmed by how much new games care about memory transfer rate. Beefing up my DDR3 1600MHz CL11 kit to a 2233MHz CL11 kit boosted performance on pretty much all the games you put as 'badly optimized' significantly. Not something you can blame devs, after all it makes sense to test new hardware only for time reasons.

[JoostinOnline]

5 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

console run 1080p 30fps mostly, or they run near the low settings. Do that and you'll get better frame rates as well.

Lots of games only run 900p 30fps.

[Spotty]

30 minutes ago, Khader87 said:

on the other hand you find games with the same graphics as above games and sometimes even less amazing but runs bad with many frame spikes, like far cry 5, assassin's Creed Odyessey, watch dogs 2, sudden strike 4, blitzkrieg 3, total war Warhammer 2, BF5, wildlands amd many other games, where CPU and GPU are sitting almost @50% -70% usage.

Stop buying Ubisoft games?

[Turretgaming]

dx12 and vulkan leave game drivers up to the devs and not amd or nvidia so they are less likely to use it cause they dont want to make drivers for every card when they could have nvidia do it for them. plus they can use wrappers that act like dx12 or vulkan but its actully dx11 under the hood so nvidia and amd can still make drivers for them. 

[WereCatf]

On another note, BF5 isn't even badly optimized. I mean, have you looked at the graphical fidelity of that thing? Of course it's going to be a pretty heavy game when it looks so good!

[GrockleTD]

33 minutes ago, samcool55 said:

The problem is that they don't really care about this.

The only thing that matters is profit, money. That's it.

 

It's not because devs want to, it's because they have to, the crunch culture is real in the game dev world and it's awful.

Why do you think microtransactions are a thing? Why do you think the big guys mainly keep selling basically the same game as last year? Because it gives them the most amount of profit.

 

Ubisoft, EA and Bethesda are all going this route, and it's a bad one.

 

I'm not saying they are all like this, CDPR is like REALLY good when it comes down to being consumer friendly (GOG store) and creating actually decent games.

 

An old but great example is simcity vs cities skylines, simcity was absolute trash and clearly a cash grab, cities skylines was an indie project by passionate people and it really shows.

You have made me sad now, reminding me how disappointed with simcity

[SkilledRebuilds]

I remember getting angry at games when my locked CPU was over 5 years old too..paired with slow ass memory (even when launched)

Devs are not using these parts, or making games for them specifically.

 

35 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

console run 1080p 30fps mostly, or they run near the low settings. Do that and you'll get better frame rates as well.

 

Also a tendency of DDR3 platforms is that they get overwhelmed by how much new games care about memory transfer rate. Beefing up my DDR3 1600MHz CL11 kit to a 2233MHz CL11 kit boosted performance on pretty much all the games you put as 'badly optimized' significantly. Not something you can blame devs, after all it makes sense to test new hardware only for time reasons.

 

Plus the factors stated in above post that can affect any parts rated speeds and optimum performance vs weakest links in the system holding you back..

[SkyHound0202]

A poorly-implemented new technology is no better than an well-implemented old one.

[Teddy07]

1 hour ago, Khader87 said:

recently i have noticed that games are not being optimized properly and devs are not putting an effort to do so,

1

I have recently read that devs have to focus more on optimization because the end of Moore's law helped in the past to neglect optimization.

[Khader87]

1 hour ago, SkilledRebuilds said:

I remember getting angry at games when my locked CPU was over 5 years old too..paired with slow ass memory (even when launched)

Devs are not using these parts, or making games for them specifically.

 

 

Plus the factors stated in above post that can affect any parts rated speeds and optimum performance vs weakest links in the system holding you back..

my 5 years old cpu can run new AAA gsmes no issues, but not others due to bad optimization by the devs.

[PlayStation 2]

I love how people make blanket statements about how games are on consoles when they have no idea what the fuck they are talking about. 

Now, more on topic: there’s always good and badly optimized games. Team Fortress 2’s optimization has dwindled since the Love and War Update (it’s been 4 and a half years since the Conga came out) but I still play it. Rainbow 6 Siege’s seems to have gotten better over time, and PUBG started off very shitty and got quite a bit better, even if it isn’t optimal. Point is, that’s just how games are. Usually they’re made to target a specific frame rate on consoles for a reason; they aren’t easy games to hit 60fps on even with good PCs. 

[Khader87]

7 minutes ago, handymanshandle said:

I love how people make blanket statements about how games are on consoles when they have no idea what the fuck they are talking about. 

Now, more on topic: there’s always good and badly optimized games. Team Fortress 2’s optimization has dwindled since the Love and War Update (it’s been 4 and a half years since the Conga came out) but I still play it. Rainbow 6 Siege’s seems to have gotten better over time, and PUBG started off very shitty and got quite a bit better, even if it isn’t optimal. Point is, that’s just how games are. Usually they’re made to target a specific frame rate on consoles for a reason; they aren’t easy games to hit 60fps on even with good PCs. 

i prefer to play steady and smooth gaming rather than shitty FPS drops and lags.

[PlayStation 2]

4 minutes ago, Khader87 said:

i prefer to play steady and smooth gaming rather than shitty FPS drops and lags.

And I think everyone understands this, but for a decent number of games (especially those that stream in a lot of data, like open world games) it’s tough to keep a stable and not stuttery experience. That’s why devs tend to target 30fps on open world games on console, because it’s easier to give some frame time away to guarantee that more stable experience than it is to be able to directly manage data streaming. This is especially true for games like GTA V and Watch Dogs 2. 

[Mira Yurizaki]

Consoles are easy to optimize for because it's two configurations with minimally intrusive settings. PCs are hard to optimize because it's millions on millions of combinations. And it's not just hardware, but how you tweak with the OS. Devs are always going to target the default configuration because that's the only one they know. They don't know what the heck you did on your machine.

 

Though to address some questions directly

Quote

i mean why are devs killing PC gaming? why cant a powerful PC run a game smoothly but a 300-500 dollars consoles can with decent graphics and smooth gaming?

Aside from tuning the game to the console for maximum efficiency , the other thing is that consoles are only running that game more or less. If you're playing your games with a dozen other apps open along with a web browser with stuff actively going on in the page (e.g., ads or whatnot), not only could it potentially suck away time from the game, but it'll potentially interrupt the game.

 

Quote

why DX12 and vulkan still not widely supported? although they game good boost when gaming.

Because they're not easy API to work with. I haven't seen too much in the graphics development circles, but the general feeling I get when someone asks if they should learn DX11 or DX12 in their application is unless you know what you're doing, use DX11.

 

"Sources":

• https://www.gamedev.net/forums/topic/680854-directx-11-for-small-scale-and-directx-12-for-large-scale/
• https://stackoverflow.com/questions/33986737/new-to-direct3d-programming-11-vs-12
• https://www.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/3wxhyz/should_i_learn_3d_graphics_via_directx11_or/

The thing is, except for ray tracing, DX12 and DX11 share the same exact feature set as far as graphical features go. Their only difference is a change in programming paradigm (well and some underlying features, but from a programmer's perspective it's a change in paradigm). I'm presuming Vulkan is the same. As far as I can tell, the only scenario in which DX12 or Vulkan should be used is if you're hitting a performance wall and you're finding out the GPU job compiling on the CPU is the bottleneck.

 

Or basically, if you can achieve 100% GPU utilization on DX11, DX12 will not gain you anything more. While I would argue a similar case with Vulkan, Doom sort of showed that wasn't the case. But then again I've heard that OGL was a bit of a mess anyway.

 

Quote

Recently PC gaming are being published but not polished, look at just cause 4, fallout 76, BF5...etc , they just dont care about PC community anymore, i know games are being pirated but dont blame the remaining majority.

Just Cause 4 is just as bad on consoles: https://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-4/just-cause-4/user-reviews

 

Fallout 76 likely is just as bad on consoles, but it certainly needs more answers as to what the hell went on at Bethesda. The whole handling of the game is just a fiasco.

 

BF5 is a CPU heavy game. That doesn't necessarily mean it's terribly optimized because there can be a lot of things going on during a multiplayer match.

 

Quote

many of pc gaming community are thinking of buying PS5 when available and abandon PC. atleast i dont have to worry about my 2000K rig running the game...

Yeah no. I don't think that's really going to happen.

 

And a few other points to note:

• You're using an AMD GPU, which for DX11 titles, AMD has a disadvantage. NVIDIA at one point implemented DX11 deferred contexts driver-wide which allowed a degree of multithreaded rendering. For AMD, the API calls go through a single thread.
• If you're playing on ultra settings, don't. Ultra doesn't bring vastly improved image quality and anything it does do can do it at the expense of system resources.
• Developers may also be using the same engines that they've developed years ago and are only iterating on top of what they developed. Battlefield V runs on the five year old Frostbite 3 engine. Similarly Unreal Engine 4 is about five years old.And while you can go "well why can't they make a new engine?"... because that takes a lot of resources. id Tech 6, which powered DOOM, is only about 2.5 years old (and id's already going on to making id Tech 7). So I give caution in praising what DOOM does, because it's newer and it's hard to update older engines.
  • Besides that I don't even know what id Tech 7 is bringing that id Tech 6 can't do and all I'm getting is some vague "it can do 10 times the geometric complexity" which to me is something I'd have to have a side-by-side comparison on what this means. For all I know, id Tech 6 may have set a low bar.

[Princess Luna]

4 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

.

You only forgot 3kliksphillip holy video as icing at the top of this cake :3

 

 

[Guest]

Inb4 a mid 2000 pc gamer talks about how bad console ports used to be.