PUBG creators are unhappy with Fortnite: Battle Royale, considering ‘further action’

[STRMfrmXMN]

9 hours ago, Lach1230 said:

 

Fast forward to today, and I am sitting at a solid 60, with some dips down to 40-50 with lots of grenades and smokes going off in cities.

 

That's still laughable. With the lowest settings in the game, a Core i7 4770 and a GTX 970 overclocked I should not struggle to hit 144 FPS, but alas that's how poorly the game is optimized. It's rare I even see 100 FPS.

[KawaiiRaven]

It’s not even a blatant rip off that tries to be PUBG. 

 

It uses their game formula to make their own version of the concept. They aren’t trying to be PUBG, but an alternative. 

 

It appeals to a different demographic. It’s less violent, difficult, runs much better on lower end PCs, and it’s free. 

 

Next time, we’ll hear them “take action” against a minecraft server that has battle Royale.l

[RagnarokDel]

On 23/09/2017 at 1:54 AM, STRMfrmXMN said:

Fortnite is a great game but this mode is obviously a grab at PUBG players who hate the PUBG lack of optimization. 

It's not optimized, it has cartoon graphics. You can play that game on a laptop from 2008 at a decent framerate because it has about 12 polygons on display at any point in time and "empty textures". Battlefield One is an optimized game. It looks good and it runs well.

[WereCat]

12 hours ago, STRMfrmXMN said:

That's still laughable. With the lowest settings in the game, a Core i7 4770 and a GTX 970 overclocked I should not struggle to hit 144 FPS, but alas that's how poorly the game is optimized. It's rare I even see 100 FPS.

I see FPS drops to low 40, high 30 FPS range with OCd 4770k and 1080ti (but I haven't played since the last big update).

 

The game looks atrocious on Ultra settings. Arma 3 has way bigger maps and looks way better with more players yet the performance of the games is similar (Arma 3 performs a bit worse though).

 

BF1 is pretty much pinned to my 144FPS lock on Ultra at 1440p and looks way, way, way better with not as big map but still with plenty of players and actually destructible environment (to an extent)

[Lach1230]

22 hours ago, STRMfrmXMN said:

That's still laughable. With the lowest settings in the game, a Core i7 4770 and a GTX 970 overclocked I should not struggle to hit 144 FPS, but alas that's how poorly the game is optimized. It's rare I even see 100 FPS.

Sounds like you play a lot games that only have to render the next room or platform.

In what world do you think an air cooled 4770S and 970 are going to pull 144 fps in a game that has to cope with 99 other people in it.

If anything it sounds like your CPU is bottle necking you mate.

This isn't CS:GO.

[ARikozuM]

29 minutes ago, Lach1230 said:

Sounds like you play a lot games that only have to render the next room or platform.

If anything, this game needs quite a bit of work before it becomes stable for the majority of users. 

29 minutes ago, Lach1230 said:

If anything it sounds like your CPU is bottle necking you mate.

Considering that I get about 90-95Hz (78Hz minimums) in Battlefield with an i5-4690K and 1080 while PUBG dips into the 20's and average around 50Hz, I'm going to say that PUBG's engine is sh#t. 

[STRMfrmXMN]

2 hours ago, Lach1230 said:

Sounds like you play a lot games that only have to render the next room or platform.

In what world do you think an air cooled 4770S and 970 are going to pull 144 fps in a game that has to cope with 99 other people in it.

If anything it sounds like your CPU is bottle necking you mate.

This isn't CS:GO.

Literally any other game with 100 people in it can get a steady 100 FPS with my system at the very lowest settings. I promise an i7 is not bottlenecking a 970 and, if anything, it's the other way around. This game takes better advantage of GPU power than CPU power but for CPUs sees no difference between a 6800K and my CPU.

 

This game has tremendous FPS dips in wide-open areas where you're the only person in sight. I understand that in beta software the last thing to be done before a final release is optimization, but yikes it sucks on this game.

[RagnarokDel]

6 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

If anything, this game needs quite a bit of work before it becomes stable for the majority of users. 

Considering that I get about 90-95Hz (78Hz minimums) in Battlefield with an i5-4690K and 1080 while PUBG dips into the 20's and average around 50Hz, I'm going to say that PUBG's engine is sh#t. 

The team that works on BF has literally hundreds of workers and you cant judge PUBG yet, the game's been in beta for 6 month it's not planned to be released until 2019 lol

 

6 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

If anything, this game needs quite a bit of work before it becomes stable for the majority of users. 

Considering that I get about 90-95Hz (78Hz minimums) in Battlefield with an i5-4690K and 1080 while PUBG dips into the 20's and average around 50Hz, I'm going to say that PUBG's engine is sh#t. 

Unreal Engine is indeed shit, every single game I've played recently that uses it runs like dogshit.

3 hours ago, STRMfrmXMN said:

 

This game has tremendous FPS dips in wide-open areas where you're the only person in sight. I understand that in beta software the last thing to be done before a final release is optimization, but yikes it sucks on this game.

It's already been vastly improved recently.

[Derangel]

On 9/29/2017 at 12:51 AM, Lach1230 said:

 

 

If you have played PUBG for longer than a few weeks you will know that statements like these are not true.

PUBG's performance was abhorrent to begin with. I remember playing in the very early days of it being out (just after pre-purchase) and being at 20-30fps and 10-15 when in a city.

Fast forward to today, and I am sitting at a solid 60, with some dips down to 40-50 with lots of grenades and smokes going off in cities.

 

As for the statements about not putting money into anything, they are constantly posting dev notes, talking about their upcoming new map release, and shit they release a patch every week for bugfixes.

 

As for comments about who is ripping it off who in a game sense, are you all forgetting that PlaywerUnknown (Lead Dev on PUBG) was the one who created the ARMA2: DayZ: Battle Royale game mode? 

 

I thought the title of the game may give it away, but hey.

 

He also worked as one of the lead dev's on H1Z1 - so to be honest this seems like Bluehole putting their weight behind the original creator who's actually having his own work being ripped off for the first time. (Considering he's worked on all the previous iterations of BR-esk games.)

Playerunknown didn't create the concept of battle royale in games. There was a Hunger Games mod for Minecraft in 2012, there were also modes for CS:GO and Starcraft 2 before his Battle Royale mod for ARMA 2. Beyond that, even Bluehole admits that battle royale is derived from last man standing game modes, something that has been around in games for decades. Bluehole is throwing a temper tantrum, nothing more and nothing less.