lol. has anyone found ways to optimize starfield for their pc, like reducing stuttering, FPS drops, etc?
They did lol, and that’s a really dumb question by a tech illiterate. Optimization isn’t a boolean state, it’s a constant ongoing process that still needs more work.
Always irks me when gamers talk about optimization like it was a specific process or just changing a setting
Also optimization happens between a minimum and a maximum. If Bethesda defines that the game should have a certain minimal visual quality (texture and model resolution, render distance, etc), that will lead to the minimum that hardware has to offer to handle it.
What modders so far did, was to lower the minimum further (for example by replacing textures with lower resolutions). That’s a good way to make it run on older hardware, but it’s no optimization Bethesda would or should do, because that’s not what they envisioned for their game.
So what’s this about modders immediately being able to improve performance with mods within a week after release?
They only meant to say that Bethesda did optimize throughout the development process. You can’t do gamedev without continually optimizing.
That does not mean, Bethesda pushed those optimizations particularly far. And you can definitely say that Bethesda should have done more.
Point is, if you ask “Why didn’t you optimize?”, Todd Howard will give you a shit-eating-grin response that they did, and technically he is right with that.
It’s usually several small things, like stopping the game from reading a 5GB file several times over and over again.
Honestly, I’m not interested in Starfield. It seemed a bit meh from the get go.
All the lower then expected review scores, lack of optimization and the fact it isn’t verified on Steam Deck? Its a no from me lol.
and the fact it isn’t verified on Steam Deck?
Verification doesn’t mean much - ProtonDB is where the deets are at.
FWIW, it was plug-and-play for me on Linux.
Optimise for which PC though? There’s only so much you can optimise for general PCs.
This argument was a really good one when consoles used to be highly specialized to play games, but new ones are just PCs with a different OS.
Consoles are essentially PCs locked down to gaming but they still have their own APIs and have very few hardware variations. Games can be optimised for the handful of different consoles in ways that just aren’t possible with the thousands of combinations of PC components.
One good example from current gen is the shared RAM between CPU and GPU in the PS5. That doesn’t really exist in the PC world (yet), even in systems with “shared VRAM” (in those PC setups, the GPU just gets a chunk of regular non-VRAM that the CPU will no longer access until the GPU gives it up). In the PS5 it’s implemented as a way to eliminate making copies of data between system RAM and VRAM, which can hypothetically be a boost to efficiency, depending on the workload. Of course it also leads to a cheaper hardware bill of materials, which was probably Sony’s primary impetus.
I think the trend for manufacturers has clearly been away from that sort of thing, though. There used to be very deep, architectural differences between PCs and consoles (anyone remember PS3’s Cell?), and for the most part, those days are over.
Nah, there’s tons of things you can optimize, independent of the hardware. The whole industry runs on smokes and mirrors, because even a 2D game can bring the strongest hardware to its knees, if it’s badly coded / unoptimized.
(Yes, I have experience with that. 🙃)
And there’s always more smokes and mirrors you could be integrating to squeeze out more performance.
Check out steam hardware survey, and target the most used config. That way you can make sure your game is enjoyable for the most players
This would be insane. The majority of Steam users are running outdated hardware. Devs aren’t going to cut their PC games down just to focus on the majority.
insane you say? So it’s much more sane to aim your PC optimization towards a config that only the top 5% use? So that 80% of the possible users cannot run it?.. interesting definition of insanity you have there. Forsaking 80% of your possible target group, therefore missing out on a bunch of money, instead you put out some hot garbage that needs a PC with the cost of a small new car to be played, to still look like absolute shit
I’m glad everyone is beta testing this game for me.
I’ll wait until it’s $20 on steam with all DLC for spaceship horse armor.
Same but I’m going to wait until it’s $5. Can’t give Todd too much money now.
With Xbox sales in the gutter you would think they would make an effort to make some money on PC sales, but nope. Looks like the game is a bomb.
I think, their strategy is actually the reverse. They try to strengthen XBOX by making this game a quasi-exclusive for it.
I don’t think, they’ll gain many new XBOX customers with Starfield, as it’s neither so exceptionally good, nor does it do things, you can’t find in other games, to make anyone buy a new console for it.
But since their other big IP this year, Redfall, was a complete dud, they’re probably rather even worried of losing long-time customers.
This. I think they expected an Xbox sales surge.
AMD might have had a surge in component sales due to Starfield bundles. But I can’t see it selling a lot of Xbox consoles when it’s a game that kind of makes the console look bad with a 30fps cap even on the top-of-the-range variant.
