Here we go again! Just like The Last of Us Part I (and so many other games recently), another major game released too early. STAR WARS Jedi: Survivor is a hot mess.
It didn't take long for players to make their thoughts clear, with the Steam user review rating hitting Mostly Negative shortly after release from over three thousand people, although now it's changed to Mixed. This could easily be the worst launch so far this year. It's so full of general technical issues but the biggest problem is the performance, as even on top-end systems it seems to be struggling everywhere.
Here's an example of just how bad it is on Steam Deck:
It's probably going to be quite a while before it's fixed up to a satisfactory level. They've now released a statement that reads:
We are aware that Star Wars Jedi: Survivor isn’t performing to our standards for a percentage of our PC players, in particular those with high-end machines or certain specific configurations.
For example, players using cutting-edge, multi-threaded chipsets designed for Windows 11 were encountering problems on Windows 10, or high-end GPUs coupled with lower-performing CPUs also saw unexpected frame loss. Rest assured, we are working to address these cases quickly.
While there is no single, comprehensive solution for PC performance, the team has been working on fixes we believe will improve performance across a spectrum of configurations. We are committed to fixing these issues as soon as possible, but each patch requires significant testing to ensure we don’t introduce new problems. Thanks for understanding and apologies to any of our players experiencing these issues. We will continue to monitor performance across all platforms and share update timing as soon as it is available.
The Star Wars Jedi Team
Testing STAR WARS Jedi: Survivor out on desktop Linux with my Fedora KDE 38 system running an AMD Ryzen 5800X, an NVIDIA 2080 Ti and Proton Experimental it can't hold anywhere near 60FPS even at only 1080p. Testing across Low, Medium and High details preset, the performance across all of them is very similar and even Low is well below 60FPS, often 40FPS and below. Keep in mind these shots are on Low details:
Right now, it's a definite skip until they actually sort out all the performance problems.
You can buy it on Steam.
Quoting: ArehandoroI honestly don't know how do companies test their games to release them in a mess like this. I guess it's our own responsiblity too for having short term memory and allow it.
Why spend money testing or optimizing when everyone will preorder/buy anyway? Then throw out a patch or two sometime later fixing some of it and you have modern AAA gaming.
Doesn't have Denuvo does it?
From what I've seen it leaves a lot of GPU (and on SD it seems CPU also) cycles on the table for some reason,.
Last edited by TheRiddick on 29 April 2023 at 12:18 am UTC
Quoting: TheRiddickI wonder if there is some sort of DRM/Copy Protection going on that is gobbling up the CPU cycles?
Doesn't have Denuvo does it?
It does, in fact, have denuvo.
Imagine my shock that a poorly performing PC port once again uses that shitty DRM.
Last edited by WMan22 on 29 April 2023 at 12:35 am UTC
It made me wonder.... If the game worked fine at launch, that article likely wouldn't be there... and it's a positive article (Improvements!)....
I kinda wonder if there is a bit of a marketing strategy to this. To keep the game in the news longer and generate more positive coverage. 1 bad release article vs multiple positive improvement articles?
Quoting: denyasiskinda wonder if there is a bit of a marketing strategy to this.
A bad release is a bad release and it will cause less sales. Sure maybe down the road they will be able to catch up to all the refunds, but success is based on the first couple weeks of a product release, beyond that is irreverent as far as marketing goes.
See more from me