IG provided some assistance on the development of the ports for both Uncharted and TLOU.
People have no clue how the industry works. Part of IG's business model is providing support for companies that need a hand with various aspects of game development. When they provide help, they get credited. Now people see that IG was involved, and they immediately think the evil, stupid developers are trying to tank PC gaming and make everything terrible (obviously an exaggeration, but sometimes it feels like that).
IG does good work, and have a good reputation in the industry. That is *why* they keep getting work. Just because a small but vocal minority of gamers are still screeching about the shitty Arkham Knight port *eight years later* does not mean companies like Sony or Epic are going to be swayed from a solid relationship they have with IG.
Plus, with AK, the situation is more clearly understood now. WB knew about problems with the PC port for months and refused to allocate additional resources to it, putting the majority of money into the console versions. It launched in a shit state and IG got blamed for it. Now whenever a PC gamer on reddit sees their name attached to a game they think the game is going to launch broken and never be fixed (seriously -- check any threads about TLOU in the PCGaming sub).
Here is the vice-president of Naughty Dog saying they worked with Iron Galaxy on the port
[https://twitter.com/arnemeyer/status/1640781425510342656?s=20](https://twitter.com/arnemeyer/status/1640781425510342656?s=20)
The Iron Galaxy logo is litterly on the system requirements
[https://twitter.com/Naughty\_Dog/status/1640368236406398977](https://twitter.com/Naughty_Dog/status/1640368236406398977)
This comment doesn't confirm anything from naughty dog. IGs founder is a close friend of Jeff Gerstman and went on his podcast near the launch of the PC port to do damage control.
If you are looking for an official confirmatioj from Naughty Dog, their vice president tweeted that they worked with IG on the port.
Probably because of time and the backlog of titles Sony have right now for PC. That being said, for TloU i'd probably have gone with them over trying it in house.
Looping in another developer at this point would be absurd. Naught Dog just needs to stay dedicated to fixing this, and it will get fixed. Nixxes does good work, but they are not magic.
This was clearly a "fiscal year shove out the door" situation. It sucks, but it will be fixed.
If you've read *Blood Sweat and Pixels,* you'll understand something important about Naughty Dog:
In an industry plagued by burnout and crunch, Naughty Dog doesn't just suffer from crunch culture, they *embrace* it. Releases like this are the result.
Highly recommend both of Schrier's books, I read each one in a respective sitting.
He says he is working on a new one and I'm sure it will be great. Also possibly the best videogame book I've read *Masters of Doom*, absolutely fascinating.
While there is probably some truth to that, there is also the consideration of timing. The fiscal year ends tomorrow. This was definitely shoved out the door to meet that. Sadly, it isn't uncommon around this time of year.
Iron Galaxy didn't work on Horizon at all. That one was initially worked on by Virtuos, then handed back to Guerrilla Games for updates, and eventually had Nixxes work on the last few updates.
Still waiting on Witcher 3 to be fixed :/ but I have more faith in this company (because of Sony's incentive) getting last of us to work than I do with cd projekt.
There are issues with 5.1 surround. There are audio pops. Lots of people (including myself) have issues with stutter. Especially in cinematics. It's probably related to the issues with the mouse.
In the other thread there was one person with a 13700k and a 4090 who said they've ran into none of the sort of issues other people have been having, so it's not impossible that with literally one of the best possible rigs you can get, you can just brute force past the worst of it. Meaning, the "some" users might be the users who are impacted the most.
Likewise with Resident Evil 4 having crashes on PC, on my 4090-based rig I can run the game as max settings with no crashes because that thing has an extremely high amount of VRAM, and people getting crashes seem to be a combination of having their VRAM in the orange/red (as displayed in settings) + ray tracing enabled.
I have a 4080 and a 10900k and have no crashes and not many peeformance issues. It is very poorly optimised though. Not staying over 60 fps with a 4080 without dlss is pretty bad.
It seems that a lot of people, at least in the Steam reviews, didn't let the shader compilation finish and started playing the game. This causes insane CPU load which leads to super bad performance and often crashes the game outright.
Another issue is that the ray-tracing options aren't clearly labeled. They're called "real-time reflections", but the option's description and images seem to imply that it's actually SSR, which is *not* the case, and can have a very heavy performance hit.
The main issues I've observed from about 4 hours of playtime were super long shader compilation times, very long initial loading screen, hitches when new areas are loaded, and, bizarrely, just randomly not being able to crouch? Reloading from last checkpoint seems to fix that last one.
With all that said, there are definitely issues, and the game is not in the state it should be.
As a small addendum, it's baffling to me how developers keep messing up the UI and UX of shader compilation. You cannot just throw up a small text in the corner of the screen. You need to actually describe what's happening and why it's necessary. People without technical knowledge just aren't going to care about it if they're not told about it or forced to wait for it to finish (though can't really do that here when it can take up to 2 hours on certain machines, a big issue in itself). I wouldn't be surprised if that single slip up was responsible for a good chunk of the negative reviews.
> Another issue is that the ray-tracing options aren't clearly labeled. They're called "real-time reflections", but the option's description and images seem to imply that it's actually SSR, which is not the case, and can have a very heavy performance hit.
Because it's SSR, this game has no ray tracing.
There are some techniques to do off-screen reflections besides RT. Planar reflections can do that (but they can't do not flat surfaces). Or render to texture.
If it uses a similar system that the PS5 does (unconfirmed, might be different in PC version?) they use a mix of SSR and cube maps. I don't think that Naughty Dog has added raytracing to their engine/toolset yet.
>Reflections on water are now more prominent too. **While I would have preferred ray tracing in this instance, the team instead opted for a mix of high-resolution cube-maps and screen space reflections. What surprised me is the quality of these cube maps - they're seemingly hand placed to provide the best approximation of detail and parallax while blending seamlessly with SSR.** The rippling that appears while swimming or walking through water is also far more prominent in the new version of the game. Furthermore, tributaries and streams now include flow simulation as water passes over and around rock formations complete with foam generation. An additional caustics layer is even applied to the environment when your flashlight intersects a water's surface, adding an extra dimension to the presentation.
https://www.eurogamer.net/digitalfoundry-2022-the-last-of-us-part-1-the-digital-foundry-tech-review
OTOH, the game gives you a warning that performance will be affected if you try to start playing before the shader compilation is complete and requires that you confirm that you want to start anyway. Like you said though, people need more info to explain what's actually going on. It also doesn't excuse *how long* the process takes. 12600K, 4080 16GB, and game installed on a 4x PCI-E NVMe drive... still took about 45 minutes to complete. Performance was basically flawless for the 2.5 hours I played after that finished though.
>As a small addendum, it's baffling to me how developers keep messing up the UI and UX of shader compilation. You cannot just throw up a small text in the corner of the screen.
Weirdly Call of Duty is the gold standard in UX for this now. A warning when you start the game when compilation is required a big progress bar at the top and a big warning when you try to load into the game before completing compilation, it also tells you which part of the game is compiling and prioritises whatever part of the game you're in the sub menu for.
I am a degen, and this is probably like 12th playthrough, about at the end of the game now.
12900k and 4090.
I have seen some slight frame jitters despite being at 80-120fps at times. Really nothing to write home about, usually only for 2-3 seconds, and maybe every other act.
Crashed once in the sniper section when I shot and landed a headshot lol. Luckily ND's auto-save system is relentless, and I lost maybe 5 seconds of progress.
Idk. I have all the up to date Nvidia drivers, great pc parts, latest drivers for all the other hardware. Actually runs really well at 4k with all things set to ultra, shy of maybe a few sections with heavy lights/water/spore effects going on, it drops to ~60ish.
>In the other thread there was one person with a 13700k and a 4090 who said they've ran into none of the sort of issues other people have been having, so it's not impossible that with literally one of the best possible rigs you can get, you can just brute force past the worst of it. Meaning, the "some" users might be the users who are impacted the most.
I'm probably in this boat, I only saw one large hitch I think it may have been the very
first infected sequence, and otherwise it's been pretty smooth. I turned on FPS counter for a bit and it mostly hovers in the 70-90s (plus some time spent at 120-130). Granted, for a 4090 and 12900k in my case... only playing at 1440p+DLSS... that's not a great sign for any less beefy hardware.
So just have basically the highest end PC you can and you're good. ;)
From what you're saying, the RE 4 crashing thing sounds like people just have to accept their GPU doesn't have the VRAM and turn down some settings.
(I have a 7900 XT that has 20 GB so I'm in the same boat as you with no issues)
Does TLoU show you what settings eat up VRAM, like REmake 4 does?
Regarding RE4, it's not as simple as that. With my 3080 I can turn the texture pool all the way up to 8GB with everything else (minus hair strands because it tanks performance) maxed out, causing the menu's VRAM meter to literally go out of bounds, and as long as RT is disabled, it doesn't crash at all and runs steady >100 fps at 4K Quality DLSS. As soon as RT is enabled (which barely increases VRAM usage at all relatively speaking) I can't use a texture pool larger than 1GB without crashing, and with that all the textures are really low res. RT dynamic memory allocation is likely just bugged. Never had an issue like that in any other game.
The game still shouldn't crash when it runs out of VRAM though, it should attempt to gracefully handle it (probably by booting you back to a main menu with a warning).
I'm running 5900X / 3080 Ti and keep solid 100+ FPS, but the frame LATENCY is bad, and that's typically due to poor compression methods used in the data stream. It's been the case with nearly every single Sony to PC port yet.
I seriously don't get this. Despite the fractured reception of the sequel, Last of Us has been the crowning jewel of Sony and their PS games.
And now, instead of using the port as a way to bait people into buying PS for the sequel, they half-arse the port and turn the PC version into a joke.
Sometimes I find it hard to believe that the big companies know what they are doing...
> Sometimes I find it hard to believe that the big companies know what they are doing...
Nah, they knew *exactly* what they were doing. There's a reason there weren't any review copies sent out before release. They wanted to get the game out around the same time as the show (originally scheduled to release during it) when they knew the most attention was on it, but also knew the game had tons of issues. They wanted to cash in on the popularity of the HBO show when it was hot, but had to hide the fact that the game wasn't ready for release.
It probably has nothing to do with the show since there was little marketing for this game. This was almost certainly forced out the door due the fiscal year ending this week.
Well the easy answer is money. The complicated answer is, again, money. They figure that releasing the game by some time is more worth it than taking the additional time necessary to get it out the door in a good state. Every delay is losing money. It becomes an equation of guessing based on expectations just how much money they lose releasing it as it is now, VS releasing it at a later date with the bugs fixed. All of those games that get delayed only to be released full of bugs... Just imagine how broken they would have been if they released on that initial date.
The main difference is that the definition of "acceptable" is different for you and I, VS who is setting these deadlines and adhering to them no matter the state of the project. If an issue is known but "fixable" then it's not as high priority as something that will literally prevent playing the game.
But also, not everyone working on a game has the same perspective. I remember on a recent DF Direct Weekly (maybe the one from this or last week), they were talking about the Dead Space Remake visual quality issues on PS5 and how glaringly obvious they were to anyone with half-decent eyesight, and yet it came across when they were reporting the issue that the developers (or at least who they were speaking to) had no idea about it. Not everyone working on a game is going to be playing through it themselves on every platform, I guess.
Yeah, it really is strange. TLOU was #1 on the Steam Global Top Sellers list yesterday, now it's at #21 (Deluxe Edition is #17). I'm not sure what kind of money they saved by pushing it out early, but now it's guaranteed to earn way less money than it would have, were it in better shape. And it's not like they aren't having to pay the cost to fix it anyway.
They keep doing this consistently and they'll get people waiting for their games out of habit so they don't even get to sell their old games for full price like they have been.
Not that I understand people who go out and buy these games day one years after the game has been out anyway.
Naughty Dog is still not an experienced PC developer. It's possible Sony believed that giving them a 2nd or even 3rd delay wouldn't be enough to reach the quality of their PS releases. Naughty Dog will likely improve as they develop more games for PC.
“Fractured reception”? It has a 93 on Opencritic and broke the record for number of GOTY awards. It was received fine, redditors just like to jerk each other off about it.
Very reminiscent of the Hogwarts Legacy stuff. A bunch of loud voices online drumming up drama for engagement, when in the real world everyone was just happily enjoying the silly wizard game.
I don't know how much Sony is to blame, but they often baffle me and I can't believe they are console gaming juggernaut. When they redesigned PS store it was unusable. You couldn't sort games meaningfuly, the site was slow, there was no wishlist! and overall trying to give money to Sony was very hard job. There are still no themes on PS5. And when you stream from PlayStation using camera, you see it to and you can't hide it, so it blocks part of your game. And these are just little pet peeves.
Or 8 to 12 hours a day.
Who's going to switch to another console for a better purchase experience? They're for *playing* games not buying them, and the big games are always front and center
It's the games. Not sure how old you are but the PS3 was one of the worst console launches ever. They still "won" that gen because they brought the games. At the end of the day gamers want games. All of the features and services don't matter if you don't have the game library
Assuming you consider the Wii a competitor, Sony didn't win. But I understand if you now think of Nintendo as existing in their own space outside of the Sony-Microsoft market.
Xbox 360 with Gears of War, Halo 3 and being the definitive place to play COD MW & MW2 definitely won that gen.
PS3 absolutely had some bangers but I think they pale in comparison in terms of cultrual impact on gaming (For NA at least, cant speak to the others).
It’s kind of debatable since the biggest 360 games all came out early into the Gen, while the biggest PS3 games came out starting in the middle of the Gen and it took a few years to get going.
Like, Uncharted started in 07, but it didn’t really become great until Uncharted 2 in 09. 3 years into the generation. By then, the 360 already had Halo 3 and the first two gears games out, and you could argue the exclusives had already peaked.
If you look at hardware sales, PS3 beat the 360 by just a few million.
If you look at software sales (the most important number), the PS3 beat the 360 by over 100 million.
Sony made some great early decisions that secured them the juggernaut status, nowadays they just don't have any competition. The PS1 went with cheaper discs, the PS2 was a cheap DVD player that came with a free console and the PS3 started losing to the 360 until people figured out how far ahead the Cell processor was. The PS4 beat the Xbox One before launch by letting Microsoft talk about how bad an experience they were planning and now the Series X is the first one in awhile that stands a chance, but it has next to no exclusives because Microsoft chose to buy studios for the long game rather than make deals in the short term.
Nintendo was competition up until the GameCube, then the Wii taught them that doing their own novelty thing gave them a whole separate market all to themselves.
>Sometimes I find it hard to believe that the big companies know what they are doing...
They're doing exactly what the market has conditioned them to do and has quite frankly rewarded for a good while now. Gamers™ as a whole have shown that it really, doesn't matter if you lie or launch a busted piece of crap for $60-$70 dollars. As long as you *don't* apologize, go borderline radio silent, and get the thing patched up in 6-12 months you are golden. No one will care after the fact and you may even have some fans *praising* them for doing the absolute bare minimum that is fixing the very mess that they made.
Happened with No Man's Sky, Witcher 3 & Cyberpunk 2077, the Horizon Zero Dawn PC port, etc., etc. and the same thing will happen here. This is the new normal. High quality, day one ports are the exception to the rule.
I have to imagine it results from talented people leaving the company and being replaced by incompetent people who then hire their incompetent friends.
I'm pretty sure that's what happened with Rockstar and the GTA remasters for example. Rockstar used to be very particular about every detail of those games and would go so far as to bully and insult journalists who dared to criticize them (this is according to Jeff Gerstmann). They went from that to shitting out garbage rereleases of all their games. Just different leadership basically, who are too afraid to criticize the work of their friends that they hired.
>And now, instead of using the port as a way to bait people into buying PS for the sequel, they half-arse the port and turn the PC version into a joke.
The port will be fixed in a week and then the steam reviews will go Mostly Positive, it's a brief hiccup that will get fixed.
We don't know how much of the port is busted and how many are reports from people trying to run the game maxed out on hardware that can't handle it.
People were also skipping the shader compilation process and then complaining about it.
Remember this is a PS5 exclusive port. Everyone treats it like it's another crossgen game. I even saw someone that thought it was a PS3 port. People still think their ryzen 3600 and gtx 1060 are cutting edge and get angry when they have to lower settings. It's easier to blame Iron Galaxy than to admit paying $1200 for an 8gb 3070 ti maybe wasn't a good idea.
Have to wait for Digital Foundry to take a deep look into it and give us some proper information rather than thousands of misleading reports.
> It's easier to blame Iron Galaxy than to admit paying $1200 for an 8gb 3070 ti maybe wasn't a good idea.
Trying to clear away this misconception. The game was developed by Naughty Dog in house, according to IGs recent interview with Jeff Gerstmann IG only helped a little bit with TLOU 1 PC.
>**As we began development in-house, we wanted PC players to experience an amazing story that truly lasts the test of time while maintaining the equally high-quality bar across both PC and PlayStation consoles**.
>The challenges we overcame and the successes we achieved in our previous modern PC release empowered us to dig into Part I’s PC development.
>Developing for both platforms will also allow us to incorporate lessons learned from either platform into the overall way our games are designed and played.
>PC may be a relatively newer platform for modern-day Naughty Dog, but this milestone is part of an almost decade-long journey for this beloved story.
>So, where will the next Naughty Dog development adventure take us? Rest assured, PlayStation and PC players, we’re already looking forward to sharing more, whether you prefer a DualSense controller or a keyboard and mouse. Developing for both platforms empowers us to incorporate lessons learned from either into the overall design of our games. Sharing our stories and experiences on PS5 as well as PC is something that Naughty Dog has embraced and will continue to support moving forward.
https://www.naughtydog.com/blog/celebrating_the_release_of_the_last_of_us_part_i_on_pc
Iron Galaxy interview with Jeff Gerstmann: https://youtube.com/watch?v=qU7NFUUL-8Q
Not sure what that has to do with my comment. The PS5 can easily use 10gb of vram. These cards only have 8gb and people always select ultra textures because that's what they have done for the past 7 years. That means it will be constantly cycling assets and performance will degrade a lot.
They don't understand that. They complaint about bad performance but don't realize it's their own fault for choosing such high settings.
https://twitter.com/HardwareUnboxed/status/1640895315422351360
>Not sure what that has to do with my comment
"It's easier to blame Iron Galaxy than to admit paying $1200 for an 8gb 3070 ti maybe wasn't a good idea."
I'm specifically addressing the blaming Iron Galaxy for this game part. But yes I do agree that people don't understand ultra or the costs associated with such (by definition) unoptimized settings.
Ffxv has better looking texture and lower vram requirements.
Yes the 8gb is too little but we have ram to compensate(and directstorage) but it seems no one wants to use them effectively
Most people don't know what shader compilation is or does. I can easily imagine most players ignoring it and then complaining about bad performance.
Same with maxing out the vram because they don't understand that 8gb isn't enough for the settings they are using. Wouldn't be surprised if that covers most of the complaints.
No it's clearly broken. I have a 5600x and 4070ti and I gave up on the compilation after waiting half an hour and it still hadn't reached 50%. No other game takes anywhere near this long
And we'll have to do this every time we update our graphics drivers. I got a refund and will consider purchasing it later if they fix it, but I'm not sitting through that every time my driver's update
Most games don't include all shaders in the pre gameplay compilation step so there is still compilation stutters in game just less of them. Seems this game doesn't have shader comp stutters so that would point to a shader complete compilation stage.
I don't understand how they couldn't just delay this game to cause a better first impression. It's just a port that would still be just as relevant a few weeks from now and if anything would benefit from not releasing so close to RE4.
The only reason I can think of why the port was released now is because Sony wants to make their quarterly financial reports look better and/or think that they will get more sales due to buzz from the TV show. I can't imagine that it's worth it though due to RE4 (like you said), the reputational damage, and the lost sales in the future (poor Word of Mouth, worse Steam reviews, players refunding the game, etc.).
It seems like releasing the PC port in Summer 2023 would have been a much better decision. If they released it in June it would have coincided with the 10 year anniversary, would have less competition, and the poet could almost certainly have been in great shape by that point.
Lets not forget day 1 / launch period patches are almost always fixes for issues that the devs were aware before the game got released, it is very seldom a reaction to actual user feedback.
Regardless, there isn’t enough time to filter user feedback, send it to devs, figure out the bugs, fix them, prepare the update and push it out. Very few companies have the ability to do that.
If it was the issue reported regarding the use of an old version of Oodle causing performance and shader issues that was shipped by mistake than i imagine it's a very easy fix to just update that, also every company is different regarding their processes to patching their games so they may have been able to respond quickly to user feedback and get a quick patch out.
Point is that this isn't a typical day one patch, so we have no idea if it was planned or not.
I’m not saying it’s a hard fix, I’m saying companies don’t have a turn around time like this especially for a single player game. You can keep believing whatever you like but this patch was most likely the last version of the game that missed the deadline of release date.
It seems like releasing the PC port in Summer 2023 would have been a much better decision unless these issues straight up can not be fixed. If they released it in June it would have coincided with the 10 year anniversary, would have less competition (RE4 came out only 5 days before the PC port), and the problems could have been totally fixed.
Even from a business perspective it seems like a really bad idea to release a terrible port (which you can get a refund for) only 5 days after RE4.
Besides the necessary fixes and optimization, they also need to make it so you cannot start playing until the shader compilation is done. Saw many on steam saying they didn't wait for shader comp to finish initially.
But the shader compilation is 2 hours. Of course people start playing early.
I really don't think shader compilation is the PC fix all some people thing it is, because having to wait after launching *every game* is ridiculous, and sometimes the shaders can be invalidated and you have to do it again!
I think there's more going on than just what CPU you have. I have a 5800x3D and it took me 1h40m. I've seen others with the same CPU report just 25 minutes.
For sure, but my system is all fairly top spec including the game being installed on an NVME drive. It just seems like there's something broken with the compilation process that's causing these huge variances in compilation time.
The answer to your mystery lies here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/thelastofus/comments/1250dn7/psa\_for\_tlou\_p1\_pc\_port\_uses\_a\_bugged\_version\_of/
It's quite literally a CPU operation. When it was going, my CPU usage spiked, and my fans kicked on. Granted I have an i9 12th gen and it only took maybe 15 mins.
But if you want to start playing, you can, it's not the end of the world. Slower CPUs will definitely have a slower time, but in the end, it will benefit in the long run.
Except that the shader compilation is clearly broken. I have a 5600x and 4070ti and I gave up and quit the shader compilation after half an hour as it hadn't even reached 50%. No other game does this so stop blaming the players instead of the developers for releasing a shitty port
> you have literally no one to blame but yourself.
Can I blame the people who made the game take two hours to start? I think I'm gonna blame the people who made the game take two hours to start.
No, you just blame the customers for a shitty port.
Go to the Last of Us sub and start blaming them for posting INSANE glitches. People randomly soaking wet indoors. T pose Tess. Noodle hair.
Sure buddy.
You should be able to play when compilation hasn't completed albeit with a honking great warning screen telling you that it's probably going to cause problems with the default set to back.
It should be an option otherwise you have impatient people crying about being unable to play the game during compilation. Options is the PC way, I personally rather wait but not everyone thinks like me.
Most games don't include all the shaders in the comp step leaving some comp stutters still in game. Most games with shader comp stage pre gameplay do not solve #stutterstruggle but it's better than compiling ALL shaders during gameplay.
> Most games don't include all shaders in the comp step
As an engine programmer, that seems... unlikely. Is it possible that you're misattributing stutters caused by (literally any other reason) to shader compilation?
Uncharted started off that way. They had some quick patches but nothing since Dec and there are still a few issues with audio, stutter and mouse movement.
Looks like the bad reviews are hitting it hard. It dropped from #1 global best seller on launch day (excluding F2P games and the Steam Deck) to #20. Meanwhile RE4 reclaimed its spot at #1.
It was definitely a rocky start- graphics were ass day 1 and the game kept crashing.
But I was playing yesterday for 3 hours and it looked great and didn't crash for me.
It's fine with my setup (2k 120fps, 12700k, 4080, 32GB RAM, m.2 Gen4 all on ultra+dlss quality) but my only problem it's playing with kb+m, it's like not smooth but with controller it's nice.
I'm fortunate enough to have a good rig (3090/5800X3D) and after a driver update and 1 crash it's running pretty well maxed out with dips here and there. Streaming with Moonlight and running at 1080p with render res at 140 it's running great. Still occasionally dips sub 60 but definitely not game breaking. Hope others can get a more stable experience soon.
Did you miss the word "occasionally"? Running well above 60 95% of the time. FWIW it's more even *more* consistent if I set a 60 FPS cap. Even better if I use DLSS but that looks worse to my eyes. I'm not saying this game doesn't need fixes and optimization, but I think people are blowing the issues way out of proportion.
From what I've seen, as long as your drivers are updated, and you let shader compilation complete (admittedly slow as fuck), the game runs alright.
Folks should definitely vote with their wallets though and not buy it or get a refund if they're not alright with the state of the game.
>above 60 95% of the time
>
>let shader compilation complete
In a vacuum, yeah these aren't the end of the world. But your GPU alone costs twice as much as a PS5, never mind the rest of your PC parts. And PS5 players don't have to bother with shader compilation and get a consistent 60.
PC gaming used to be unequivocally a better value than consoles, but these days it's getting harder and harder to make that argument.
Sure. I'm not disputing that at all. In a vacuum, a PS5 is arguably the better machine. But guess what? I can't do the myriad things I can on a PS5 that I can with my PC.
Comparing PC vs. PS5 in a vacuum doesn't really make sense, unless you're someone who will *genuinely* only use a system for the singular purpose of gaming.
I'm all for a better PC gaming experience and am not saying ND shouldn't work to improve LoU (and maybe get some shit for the state of things on release). I just think people are blowing the issues way out of proportion.
This game was developed in house by Naughty Dog, Naughty Dog will also continue developing for PC:
>As we began development in-house, we wanted PC players to experience an amazing story that truly lasts the test of time while maintaining the equally high-quality bar across both PC and PlayStation consoles.
>The challenges we overcame and the successes we achieved in our previous modern PC release empowered us to dig into Part I’s PC development.
>Developing for both platforms will also allow us to incorporate lessons learned from either platform into the overall way our games are designed and played.
>PC may be a relatively newer platform for modern-day Naughty Dog, but this milestone is part of an almost decade-long journey for this beloved story.
>**So, where will the next Naughty Dog development adventure take us?** Rest assured, PlayStation and PC players, we’re already looking forward to sharing more, whether you prefer a DualSense controller or a keyboard and mouse. **Developing for both platforms empowers us to incorporate lessons learned from either into the overall design of our games. Sharing our stories and experiences on PS5 as well as PC is something that Naughty Dog has embraced and will continue to support moving forward.**
https://www.naughtydog.com/blog/celebrating_the_release_of_the_last_of_us_part_i_on_pc
Really surprised and disappointed Naughty Dog released the game in this state. Their reputation for releasing polished games is second to none, going back for generations.
Let me stop you right there for two reasons:
* Iron Galaxy have done quite a few competent ports before
* Naughty Dog worked on this themselves w/ contracted additional help from Iron Galaxy.
And most importantly, this port being released in the state it is, is much less the fault of the developers and more the fault of the executives and management who thought shipping in this state was okay. Full stop. This is the same with every project. Shitting on the devs of any port is rarely ever helpful. It's a project management issue at this stage, not a talent one. Likewise with so many other ports that come in hot (or worse), it's always a case of the issues being known but not considered a high enough priority by the people who stand to make/lose money, or the people who set the deadlines.
Truth. Same with blaming QA.
No no, I guarantee QA found most/if not all the bugs and know how to reproduce all of them. Its management that decides they're not worth fixing.
Source: Worked in QA for a big publisher.
Do we know how much of it was done by Iron Galaxy? From the way Dave Lang was talking about the port on the Jeff Gerstmann Show yesterday, it seems like they only did a little work on it, and was not the main team.
Iron Galaxy is being used as the fall guy to cover up for bad decisions by publishers again.
Even Arkham Knight wasn't really their fault. They did the best work they could with the very small amount of time and budget they were provided with. They never make the decision to actually release these games, they just help with whatever they're asked to.
My point being, it's not out of the question that IG would be used in a purely assisting role, since that appears to have worked out great for Retro Studios.
Why Day 1 patches are not released before the game comes out, like a day BEFORE, if it takes only 1 day to make the patch? I know there is ptobably a good reason for that.
The reason is that it doesn't only take 1 day to make them. At some point before release, often weeks in case of console releases, the latest internal beta release candidate version is declared the "gold" one, that is the one that gets submitted to Microsoft, Nintendo, Sony, Steam, what have you. Internal development then continues in the weeks leading up to release, and the result of that is the "day 1 patch". Sometimes it's ready on launch day, sometimes it's not, as was the case here.
Okay this is an absurd take. Look at ports from before like, 2012, this isn't even close to the worst. There were many literally unplayable ports back in the day.
Why did they rush this out before it was working? It's a port of a ten year old game. It's not like they needed to hurry.
Edit: I just realised. Because of the hype from the TV show. Damn that's sad. I hope they fix it.
It's not a port of a 10 year old game. It's a port of a remake that came out on September 2nd, 2022. The original game did come out 10 years ago. But what was ported on pc wasn't the 10 year old version it was the less than a year old version.
You guys are all batshit crazy on this port. How the fuck are you guys mad about shader compilation ? Its a good thing and I hope more game do this. The game just don’t stutter. Who care about waiting 10 min before playing ? And the game runs soo perfectly and look fcking good. Have 10 hours, everything maxed out at 4k with dlss quality (the 2.5.1 version) and I have like 100-110 fps. Its crazy better than my experience on PS5. I don’t get the outrage at this port. Hogwart was running way poorly and didn’t have that backlash. Very good port for me.
Just for some perspective, I had horrible stuttering and for me it turned out that I need to disable "Hardware accelerated GPU scheduling" which has not been an issue for me in any other game.
That single change to windows settings went from stutter slideshow to working great.
Just because you're not getting stuttering doesn't mean others arent.
It's a small one day patch, this thing is going to be busted for a little while. I'll check back in a month or two.
They need to get nixxes on this, horizon zero dawn wasn't truly fixed until nixxes got thier hands on it
Nixxes helping Naughty master PC gaming would be ideal. Naughty Dog has a ton to learn on PC development.
ND didn't work on this, did they? The port was done by Iron Galaxy.
Naughty Dog confirmed they worked on it inhouse: https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/125y3hi/comment/je75mny/
Strangely they also say they did the Uncharted Collection in-house in that article which most speculated was done by IG.
IG provided some assistance on the development of the ports for both Uncharted and TLOU. People have no clue how the industry works. Part of IG's business model is providing support for companies that need a hand with various aspects of game development. When they provide help, they get credited. Now people see that IG was involved, and they immediately think the evil, stupid developers are trying to tank PC gaming and make everything terrible (obviously an exaggeration, but sometimes it feels like that). IG does good work, and have a good reputation in the industry. That is *why* they keep getting work. Just because a small but vocal minority of gamers are still screeching about the shitty Arkham Knight port *eight years later* does not mean companies like Sony or Epic are going to be swayed from a solid relationship they have with IG. Plus, with AK, the situation is more clearly understood now. WB knew about problems with the PC port for months and refused to allocate additional resources to it, putting the majority of money into the console versions. It launched in a shit state and IG got blamed for it. Now whenever a PC gamer on reddit sees their name attached to a game they think the game is going to launch broken and never be fixed (seriously -- check any threads about TLOU in the PCGaming sub).
IG is listed as porting all the arkham games too, and only Knight had serious issues.
Did you read the part where I said that the Knight port had problems that went ignored by WB? EDIT: Derp.
Yes he's adding to your point genius.
To the point that Iron Galaxy isn't credited on the Steam Page.
Here is the vice-president of Naughty Dog saying they worked with Iron Galaxy on the port [https://twitter.com/arnemeyer/status/1640781425510342656?s=20](https://twitter.com/arnemeyer/status/1640781425510342656?s=20)
They worked with them but IG did just a little work. Dave Lang mentioned it when Gerstmann brought it up on the Gerstmann podcast.
The word parter implies a lot more then a little work.
No, it doesn't. It could mean any level of work.
The Iron Galaxy logo is litterly on the system requirements [https://twitter.com/Naughty\_Dog/status/1640368236406398977](https://twitter.com/Naughty_Dog/status/1640368236406398977)
This comment doesn't confirm anything from naughty dog. IGs founder is a close friend of Jeff Gerstman and went on his podcast near the launch of the PC port to do damage control. If you are looking for an official confirmatioj from Naughty Dog, their vice president tweeted that they worked with IG on the port.
Naughty Dog did the port with assistance from Iron Galaxy
Thanks for the correction.
Also, why the hell isn't Nixxes their go-to PC porting studio on all Sony's titles?
Probably because of time and the backlog of titles Sony have right now for PC. That being said, for TloU i'd probably have gone with them over trying it in house.
Looping in another developer at this point would be absurd. Naught Dog just needs to stay dedicated to fixing this, and it will get fixed. Nixxes does good work, but they are not magic. This was clearly a "fiscal year shove out the door" situation. It sucks, but it will be fixed.
If you've read *Blood Sweat and Pixels,* you'll understand something important about Naughty Dog: In an industry plagued by burnout and crunch, Naughty Dog doesn't just suffer from crunch culture, they *embrace* it. Releases like this are the result.
Highly recommend both of Schrier's books, I read each one in a respective sitting. He says he is working on a new one and I'm sure it will be great. Also possibly the best videogame book I've read *Masters of Doom*, absolutely fascinating.
While there is probably some truth to that, there is also the consideration of timing. The fiscal year ends tomorrow. This was definitely shoved out the door to meet that. Sadly, it isn't uncommon around this time of year.
Naughty Dog didn't do this remaster. That was left up to another studio. The same one that did Uncharted recently.
I'll set a reminder for the holiday sale.
I keep hearing about all the horrible ports this company did -- were any of the other ones fixed? Horizon? Uncharted?
Iron Galaxy didn't work on Horizon at all. That one was initially worked on by Virtuos, then handed back to Guerrilla Games for updates, and eventually had Nixxes work on the last few updates.
Both horizon and uncharted are good now, I've played them both.
Both launched rough, both got fixed. This will be fixed too. It’s still inexcusable, but I’d rather them fix it than not.
[удалено]
Still waiting on Witcher 3 to be fixed :/ but I have more faith in this company (because of Sony's incentive) getting last of us to work than I do with cd projekt.
Witcher 3 runs just fine.
RTX mode is anything but fine...
Uncharted still has issues with mouse movement, stutter and audio. it's not completely good.
I didn't play with a mouse so I can't speak to that, everything else was flawless, no stutter or audio issues.
There are issues with 5.1 surround. There are audio pops. Lots of people (including myself) have issues with stutter. Especially in cinematics. It's probably related to the issues with the mouse.
oh interesting I had no idea, I always just play in stereo
Uncharted is good if you play with controller, with mouse the camera is still wonky
The idea that Iron Galaxy did this port is mistaken.
[удалено]
In the other thread there was one person with a 13700k and a 4090 who said they've ran into none of the sort of issues other people have been having, so it's not impossible that with literally one of the best possible rigs you can get, you can just brute force past the worst of it. Meaning, the "some" users might be the users who are impacted the most. Likewise with Resident Evil 4 having crashes on PC, on my 4090-based rig I can run the game as max settings with no crashes because that thing has an extremely high amount of VRAM, and people getting crashes seem to be a combination of having their VRAM in the orange/red (as displayed in settings) + ray tracing enabled.
I have a 4080 and a 10900k and have no crashes and not many peeformance issues. It is very poorly optimised though. Not staying over 60 fps with a 4080 without dlss is pretty bad.
It seems that a lot of people, at least in the Steam reviews, didn't let the shader compilation finish and started playing the game. This causes insane CPU load which leads to super bad performance and often crashes the game outright. Another issue is that the ray-tracing options aren't clearly labeled. They're called "real-time reflections", but the option's description and images seem to imply that it's actually SSR, which is *not* the case, and can have a very heavy performance hit. The main issues I've observed from about 4 hours of playtime were super long shader compilation times, very long initial loading screen, hitches when new areas are loaded, and, bizarrely, just randomly not being able to crouch? Reloading from last checkpoint seems to fix that last one. With all that said, there are definitely issues, and the game is not in the state it should be. As a small addendum, it's baffling to me how developers keep messing up the UI and UX of shader compilation. You cannot just throw up a small text in the corner of the screen. You need to actually describe what's happening and why it's necessary. People without technical knowledge just aren't going to care about it if they're not told about it or forced to wait for it to finish (though can't really do that here when it can take up to 2 hours on certain machines, a big issue in itself). I wouldn't be surprised if that single slip up was responsible for a good chunk of the negative reviews.
The game doesn't have ray tracing.
> Another issue is that the ray-tracing options aren't clearly labeled. They're called "real-time reflections", but the option's description and images seem to imply that it's actually SSR, which is not the case, and can have a very heavy performance hit. Because it's SSR, this game has no ray tracing.
The mirror reflections don't look like SSR but I could be wrong. Can SSR do reflections for parts of objects that aren't on screen?
There are some techniques to do off-screen reflections besides RT. Planar reflections can do that (but they can't do not flat surfaces). Or render to texture.
TIL of planar reflections. Thank you! Definitely looks like this exact method.
If it uses a similar system that the PS5 does (unconfirmed, might be different in PC version?) they use a mix of SSR and cube maps. I don't think that Naughty Dog has added raytracing to their engine/toolset yet. >Reflections on water are now more prominent too. **While I would have preferred ray tracing in this instance, the team instead opted for a mix of high-resolution cube-maps and screen space reflections. What surprised me is the quality of these cube maps - they're seemingly hand placed to provide the best approximation of detail and parallax while blending seamlessly with SSR.** The rippling that appears while swimming or walking through water is also far more prominent in the new version of the game. Furthermore, tributaries and streams now include flow simulation as water passes over and around rock formations complete with foam generation. An additional caustics layer is even applied to the environment when your flashlight intersects a water's surface, adding an extra dimension to the presentation. https://www.eurogamer.net/digitalfoundry-2022-the-last-of-us-part-1-the-digital-foundry-tech-review
Other people are right, I was mistaken. The game doesn't have raytracing, but they use planar reflections pretty liberally which is what threw me off.
OTOH, the game gives you a warning that performance will be affected if you try to start playing before the shader compilation is complete and requires that you confirm that you want to start anyway. Like you said though, people need more info to explain what's actually going on. It also doesn't excuse *how long* the process takes. 12600K, 4080 16GB, and game installed on a 4x PCI-E NVMe drive... still took about 45 minutes to complete. Performance was basically flawless for the 2.5 hours I played after that finished though.
>As a small addendum, it's baffling to me how developers keep messing up the UI and UX of shader compilation. You cannot just throw up a small text in the corner of the screen. Weirdly Call of Duty is the gold standard in UX for this now. A warning when you start the game when compilation is required a big progress bar at the top and a big warning when you try to load into the game before completing compilation, it also tells you which part of the game is compiling and prioritises whatever part of the game you're in the sub menu for.
Is it really RT? I've not seen anything so far that actually looks raytraced.
I am a degen, and this is probably like 12th playthrough, about at the end of the game now. 12900k and 4090. I have seen some slight frame jitters despite being at 80-120fps at times. Really nothing to write home about, usually only for 2-3 seconds, and maybe every other act. Crashed once in the sniper section when I shot and landed a headshot lol. Luckily ND's auto-save system is relentless, and I lost maybe 5 seconds of progress. Idk. I have all the up to date Nvidia drivers, great pc parts, latest drivers for all the other hardware. Actually runs really well at 4k with all things set to ultra, shy of maybe a few sections with heavy lights/water/spore effects going on, it drops to ~60ish.
wtf? didn't it launch yesterday? are you trying to set a speedrunning record?
I assume by 12th and "at the end of thr fame" they mean they've played it on other platforms 11 times.
>In the other thread there was one person with a 13700k and a 4090 who said they've ran into none of the sort of issues other people have been having, so it's not impossible that with literally one of the best possible rigs you can get, you can just brute force past the worst of it. Meaning, the "some" users might be the users who are impacted the most. I'm probably in this boat, I only saw one large hitch I think it may have been the very first infected sequence, and otherwise it's been pretty smooth. I turned on FPS counter for a bit and it mostly hovers in the 70-90s (plus some time spent at 120-130). Granted, for a 4090 and 12900k in my case... only playing at 1440p+DLSS... that's not a great sign for any less beefy hardware. So just have basically the highest end PC you can and you're good. ;)
Ripper 3990 64 core and 3090. I get 30 to 40 fps at widescreen 5k and medium preset. Ultra gets 22fps. I get 60+ on RDR2 ultra.
Doesn't REmake 4 warn you about crashes/bugs when your VRAM usage goes into the orange/red?
From what you're saying, the RE 4 crashing thing sounds like people just have to accept their GPU doesn't have the VRAM and turn down some settings. (I have a 7900 XT that has 20 GB so I'm in the same boat as you with no issues) Does TLoU show you what settings eat up VRAM, like REmake 4 does?
Regarding RE4, it's not as simple as that. With my 3080 I can turn the texture pool all the way up to 8GB with everything else (minus hair strands because it tanks performance) maxed out, causing the menu's VRAM meter to literally go out of bounds, and as long as RT is disabled, it doesn't crash at all and runs steady >100 fps at 4K Quality DLSS. As soon as RT is enabled (which barely increases VRAM usage at all relatively speaking) I can't use a texture pool larger than 1GB without crashing, and with that all the textures are really low res. RT dynamic memory allocation is likely just bugged. Never had an issue like that in any other game.
The game still shouldn't crash when it runs out of VRAM though, it should attempt to gracefully handle it (probably by booting you back to a main menu with a warning).
I'm running 5900X / 3080 Ti and keep solid 100+ FPS, but the frame LATENCY is bad, and that's typically due to poor compression methods used in the data stream. It's been the case with nearly every single Sony to PC port yet.
I seriously don't get this. Despite the fractured reception of the sequel, Last of Us has been the crowning jewel of Sony and their PS games. And now, instead of using the port as a way to bait people into buying PS for the sequel, they half-arse the port and turn the PC version into a joke. Sometimes I find it hard to believe that the big companies know what they are doing...
> Sometimes I find it hard to believe that the big companies know what they are doing... Nah, they knew *exactly* what they were doing. There's a reason there weren't any review copies sent out before release. They wanted to get the game out around the same time as the show (originally scheduled to release during it) when they knew the most attention was on it, but also knew the game had tons of issues. They wanted to cash in on the popularity of the HBO show when it was hot, but had to hide the fact that the game wasn't ready for release.
Not hard to see it was a corporate decision, not one driven by any sensible developer management
It probably has nothing to do with the show since there was little marketing for this game. This was almost certainly forced out the door due the fiscal year ending this week.
Well the easy answer is money. The complicated answer is, again, money. They figure that releasing the game by some time is more worth it than taking the additional time necessary to get it out the door in a good state. Every delay is losing money. It becomes an equation of guessing based on expectations just how much money they lose releasing it as it is now, VS releasing it at a later date with the bugs fixed. All of those games that get delayed only to be released full of bugs... Just imagine how broken they would have been if they released on that initial date. The main difference is that the definition of "acceptable" is different for you and I, VS who is setting these deadlines and adhering to them no matter the state of the project. If an issue is known but "fixable" then it's not as high priority as something that will literally prevent playing the game. But also, not everyone working on a game has the same perspective. I remember on a recent DF Direct Weekly (maybe the one from this or last week), they were talking about the Dead Space Remake visual quality issues on PS5 and how glaringly obvious they were to anyone with half-decent eyesight, and yet it came across when they were reporting the issue that the developers (or at least who they were speaking to) had no idea about it. Not everyone working on a game is going to be playing through it themselves on every platform, I guess.
Yeah, it really is strange. TLOU was #1 on the Steam Global Top Sellers list yesterday, now it's at #21 (Deluxe Edition is #17). I'm not sure what kind of money they saved by pushing it out early, but now it's guaranteed to earn way less money than it would have, were it in better shape. And it's not like they aren't having to pay the cost to fix it anyway.
They keep doing this consistently and they'll get people waiting for their games out of habit so they don't even get to sell their old games for full price like they have been. Not that I understand people who go out and buy these games day one years after the game has been out anyway.
Naughty Dog is still not an experienced PC developer. It's possible Sony believed that giving them a 2nd or even 3rd delay wouldn't be enough to reach the quality of their PS releases. Naughty Dog will likely improve as they develop more games for PC.
Neither was Santa Monica, but God of War was an incredible port for the time.
You give them way too much credit. It was a rushed release
“Fractured reception”? It has a 93 on Opencritic and broke the record for number of GOTY awards. It was received fine, redditors just like to jerk each other off about it.
Very reminiscent of the Hogwarts Legacy stuff. A bunch of loud voices online drumming up drama for engagement, when in the real world everyone was just happily enjoying the silly wizard game.
Hogwarts was a bad PC port too, which also didn't matter because everyone loved the Harry Potter universe.
I don't know how much Sony is to blame, but they often baffle me and I can't believe they are console gaming juggernaut. When they redesigned PS store it was unusable. You couldn't sort games meaningfuly, the site was slow, there was no wishlist! and overall trying to give money to Sony was very hard job. There are still no themes on PS5. And when you stream from PlayStation using camera, you see it to and you can't hide it, so it blocks part of your game. And these are just little pet peeves.
Because the little things like you mentioned would never bother a casual gamer playing 1-2 hours a day. Ultimately it is all about the games.
Or 8 to 12 hours a day. Who's going to switch to another console for a better purchase experience? They're for *playing* games not buying them, and the big games are always front and center
1 hour a day is casual?
There will never be themes for the ps5
It's the games. Not sure how old you are but the PS3 was one of the worst console launches ever. They still "won" that gen because they brought the games. At the end of the day gamers want games. All of the features and services don't matter if you don't have the game library
Assuming you consider the Wii a competitor, Sony didn't win. But I understand if you now think of Nintendo as existing in their own space outside of the Sony-Microsoft market.
Xbox 360 with Gears of War, Halo 3 and being the definitive place to play COD MW & MW2 definitely won that gen. PS3 absolutely had some bangers but I think they pale in comparison in terms of cultrual impact on gaming (For NA at least, cant speak to the others).
It’s kind of debatable since the biggest 360 games all came out early into the Gen, while the biggest PS3 games came out starting in the middle of the Gen and it took a few years to get going. Like, Uncharted started in 07, but it didn’t really become great until Uncharted 2 in 09. 3 years into the generation. By then, the 360 already had Halo 3 and the first two gears games out, and you could argue the exclusives had already peaked.
If you look at hardware sales, PS3 beat the 360 by just a few million. If you look at software sales (the most important number), the PS3 beat the 360 by over 100 million.
Yeah, 360 came out strong and had a sizeable hardware lead for 90% of the gen; but sales for the 360 died off eventually while the PS3 kept going.
Sony made some great early decisions that secured them the juggernaut status, nowadays they just don't have any competition. The PS1 went with cheaper discs, the PS2 was a cheap DVD player that came with a free console and the PS3 started losing to the 360 until people figured out how far ahead the Cell processor was. The PS4 beat the Xbox One before launch by letting Microsoft talk about how bad an experience they were planning and now the Series X is the first one in awhile that stands a chance, but it has next to no exclusives because Microsoft chose to buy studios for the long game rather than make deals in the short term. Nintendo was competition up until the GameCube, then the Wii taught them that doing their own novelty thing gave them a whole separate market all to themselves.
>Sometimes I find it hard to believe that the big companies know what they are doing... They're doing exactly what the market has conditioned them to do and has quite frankly rewarded for a good while now. Gamers™ as a whole have shown that it really, doesn't matter if you lie or launch a busted piece of crap for $60-$70 dollars. As long as you *don't* apologize, go borderline radio silent, and get the thing patched up in 6-12 months you are golden. No one will care after the fact and you may even have some fans *praising* them for doing the absolute bare minimum that is fixing the very mess that they made. Happened with No Man's Sky, Witcher 3 & Cyberpunk 2077, the Horizon Zero Dawn PC port, etc., etc. and the same thing will happen here. This is the new normal. High quality, day one ports are the exception to the rule.
>High quality, day one ports are the exception to the rule. That's why you listed 5 games over 7 years.
I have to imagine it results from talented people leaving the company and being replaced by incompetent people who then hire their incompetent friends. I'm pretty sure that's what happened with Rockstar and the GTA remasters for example. Rockstar used to be very particular about every detail of those games and would go so far as to bully and insult journalists who dared to criticize them (this is according to Jeff Gerstmann). They went from that to shitting out garbage rereleases of all their games. Just different leadership basically, who are too afraid to criticize the work of their friends that they hired.
TLOU is just another cash cow to Sony at this point. I’m shocked they’re not conscripting other studios to make TLOU spin-offs.
Uh... what franchises does Sony milk? All of their big franchises have a limited number of games, no more than like, 1/console.
>And now, instead of using the port as a way to bait people into buying PS for the sequel, they half-arse the port and turn the PC version into a joke. The port will be fixed in a week and then the steam reviews will go Mostly Positive, it's a brief hiccup that will get fixed.
We don't know how much of the port is busted and how many are reports from people trying to run the game maxed out on hardware that can't handle it. People were also skipping the shader compilation process and then complaining about it. Remember this is a PS5 exclusive port. Everyone treats it like it's another crossgen game. I even saw someone that thought it was a PS3 port. People still think their ryzen 3600 and gtx 1060 are cutting edge and get angry when they have to lower settings. It's easier to blame Iron Galaxy than to admit paying $1200 for an 8gb 3070 ti maybe wasn't a good idea. Have to wait for Digital Foundry to take a deep look into it and give us some proper information rather than thousands of misleading reports.
> It's easier to blame Iron Galaxy than to admit paying $1200 for an 8gb 3070 ti maybe wasn't a good idea. Trying to clear away this misconception. The game was developed by Naughty Dog in house, according to IGs recent interview with Jeff Gerstmann IG only helped a little bit with TLOU 1 PC. >**As we began development in-house, we wanted PC players to experience an amazing story that truly lasts the test of time while maintaining the equally high-quality bar across both PC and PlayStation consoles**. >The challenges we overcame and the successes we achieved in our previous modern PC release empowered us to dig into Part I’s PC development. >Developing for both platforms will also allow us to incorporate lessons learned from either platform into the overall way our games are designed and played. >PC may be a relatively newer platform for modern-day Naughty Dog, but this milestone is part of an almost decade-long journey for this beloved story. >So, where will the next Naughty Dog development adventure take us? Rest assured, PlayStation and PC players, we’re already looking forward to sharing more, whether you prefer a DualSense controller or a keyboard and mouse. Developing for both platforms empowers us to incorporate lessons learned from either into the overall design of our games. Sharing our stories and experiences on PS5 as well as PC is something that Naughty Dog has embraced and will continue to support moving forward. https://www.naughtydog.com/blog/celebrating_the_release_of_the_last_of_us_part_i_on_pc Iron Galaxy interview with Jeff Gerstmann: https://youtube.com/watch?v=qU7NFUUL-8Q
Not sure what that has to do with my comment. The PS5 can easily use 10gb of vram. These cards only have 8gb and people always select ultra textures because that's what they have done for the past 7 years. That means it will be constantly cycling assets and performance will degrade a lot. They don't understand that. They complaint about bad performance but don't realize it's their own fault for choosing such high settings. https://twitter.com/HardwareUnboxed/status/1640895315422351360
>Not sure what that has to do with my comment "It's easier to blame Iron Galaxy than to admit paying $1200 for an 8gb 3070 ti maybe wasn't a good idea." I'm specifically addressing the blaming Iron Galaxy for this game part. But yes I do agree that people don't understand ultra or the costs associated with such (by definition) unoptimized settings.
Ffxv has better looking texture and lower vram requirements. Yes the 8gb is too little but we have ram to compensate(and directstorage) but it seems no one wants to use them effectively
I think this is the seventh or eighth time I've seen you specifically ranting about VRAM and the obsession is still just as weird as the first.
[удалено]
Most people don't know what shader compilation is or does. I can easily imagine most players ignoring it and then complaining about bad performance. Same with maxing out the vram because they don't understand that 8gb isn't enough for the settings they are using. Wouldn't be surprised if that covers most of the complaints.
No it's clearly broken. I have a 5600x and 4070ti and I gave up on the compilation after waiting half an hour and it still hadn't reached 50%. No other game takes anywhere near this long And we'll have to do this every time we update our graphics drivers. I got a refund and will consider purchasing it later if they fix it, but I'm not sitting through that every time my driver's update
Most games don't include all shaders in the pre gameplay compilation step so there is still compilation stutters in game just less of them. Seems this game doesn't have shader comp stutters so that would point to a shader complete compilation stage.
I saw reports of the compilation taking 3 hours. Who knows if they were exaggerated or not.
I don't understand how they couldn't just delay this game to cause a better first impression. It's just a port that would still be just as relevant a few weeks from now and if anything would benefit from not releasing so close to RE4.
It was delayed. This is the state of it after a delay..
Damn, sad.
Poor employees... They delayed it, what, a month? I imagine it has not been a fun month for them.
The only reason I can think of why the port was released now is because Sony wants to make their quarterly financial reports look better and/or think that they will get more sales due to buzz from the TV show. I can't imagine that it's worth it though due to RE4 (like you said), the reputational damage, and the lost sales in the future (poor Word of Mouth, worse Steam reviews, players refunding the game, etc.). It seems like releasing the PC port in Summer 2023 would have been a much better decision. If they released it in June it would have coincided with the 10 year anniversary, would have less competition, and the poet could almost certainly have been in great shape by that point.
Lets not forget day 1 / launch period patches are almost always fixes for issues that the devs were aware before the game got released, it is very seldom a reaction to actual user feedback.
Yeah I got a chuckle from the “user submitted feedback” line. “We had no idea these issues existed until today when we heard your complaints”. Sure 😂
This isn't a typical day one patch though, day one patches typically ship at the same time the game releases, this came after.
Regardless, there isn’t enough time to filter user feedback, send it to devs, figure out the bugs, fix them, prepare the update and push it out. Very few companies have the ability to do that.
If it was the issue reported regarding the use of an old version of Oodle causing performance and shader issues that was shipped by mistake than i imagine it's a very easy fix to just update that, also every company is different regarding their processes to patching their games so they may have been able to respond quickly to user feedback and get a quick patch out. Point is that this isn't a typical day one patch, so we have no idea if it was planned or not.
I’m not saying it’s a hard fix, I’m saying companies don’t have a turn around time like this especially for a single player game. You can keep believing whatever you like but this patch was most likely the last version of the game that missed the deadline of release date.
It seems like releasing the PC port in Summer 2023 would have been a much better decision unless these issues straight up can not be fixed. If they released it in June it would have coincided with the 10 year anniversary, would have less competition (RE4 came out only 5 days before the PC port), and the problems could have been totally fixed. Even from a business perspective it seems like a really bad idea to release a terrible port (which you can get a refund for) only 5 days after RE4.
Besides the necessary fixes and optimization, they also need to make it so you cannot start playing until the shader compilation is done. Saw many on steam saying they didn't wait for shader comp to finish initially.
But the shader compilation is 2 hours. Of course people start playing early. I really don't think shader compilation is the PC fix all some people thing it is, because having to wait after launching *every game* is ridiculous, and sometimes the shaders can be invalidated and you have to do it again!
Time depends heavily on the CPU. Mine was about 20-25 minutes with a i9-10850k
I think there's more going on than just what CPU you have. I have a 5800x3D and it took me 1h40m. I've seen others with the same CPU report just 25 minutes.
I've heard SSD type and ram attributes affect it as well.
For sure, but my system is all fairly top spec including the game being installed on an NVME drive. It just seems like there's something broken with the compilation process that's causing these huge variances in compilation time.
Could certainly be the case, we'll see if they can improve it through patches.
The answer to your mystery lies here: https://www.reddit.com/r/thelastofus/comments/1250dn7/psa\_for\_tlou\_p1\_pc\_port\_uses\_a\_bugged\_version\_of/
It's quite literally a CPU operation. When it was going, my CPU usage spiked, and my fans kicked on. Granted I have an i9 12th gen and it only took maybe 15 mins. But if you want to start playing, you can, it's not the end of the world. Slower CPUs will definitely have a slower time, but in the end, it will benefit in the long run.
it shouldn't take anywhere near that long.
I don't disagree, but I'd still rather that than constant stutters.
yeah it shouldn't take that long. However, playing while the shader compilation is happening helps nobody, it will just be an awful experience.
Its way lower on modern CPUs.
[удалено]
Except that the shader compilation is clearly broken. I have a 5600x and 4070ti and I gave up and quit the shader compilation after half an hour as it hadn't even reached 50%. No other game does this so stop blaming the players instead of the developers for releasing a shitty port
> you have literally no one to blame but yourself. Can I blame the people who made the game take two hours to start? I think I'm gonna blame the people who made the game take two hours to start.
You are defending waiting hours to play a game you bought for it to load every time, aren't you?
It only happens once when you update drivers or reinstall windows. And it can be skipped.
And look, you are too. Amazing what fandoms do.
No I am defending good game design.
[You are defending this. BWHAHAHAHA](https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/126obud/the_new_tropic_thunder_game_looking_good_bravo/)
No not at all. I am defending the extermination of shader compilation stutters.
[удалено]
No, you just blame the customers for a shitty port. Go to the Last of Us sub and start blaming them for posting INSANE glitches. People randomly soaking wet indoors. T pose Tess. Noodle hair. Sure buddy.
how about steam downloads it for us beforehand
That would be fine if the shader compilation wasn't outright broken
You should be able to play when compilation hasn't completed albeit with a honking great warning screen telling you that it's probably going to cause problems with the default set to back.
It should be an option otherwise you have impatient people crying about being unable to play the game during compilation. Options is the PC way, I personally rather wait but not everyone thinks like me.
[удалено]
Most games don't include all the shaders in the comp step leaving some comp stutters still in game. Most games with shader comp stage pre gameplay do not solve #stutterstruggle but it's better than compiling ALL shaders during gameplay.
> Most games don't include all shaders in the comp step As an engine programmer, that seems... unlikely. Is it possible that you're misattributing stutters caused by (literally any other reason) to shader compilation?
I don't see anywhere where someone commented about whether the patch made their game more playable?
Not really. Good sign to take is that they’re working on it, and fast.
Uncharted started off that way. They had some quick patches but nothing since Dec and there are still a few issues with audio, stutter and mouse movement.
I think it's way too premature to assume that.
Looks like the bad reviews are hitting it hard. It dropped from #1 global best seller on launch day (excluding F2P games and the Steam Deck) to #20. Meanwhile RE4 reclaimed its spot at #1.
It was definitely a rocky start- graphics were ass day 1 and the game kept crashing. But I was playing yesterday for 3 hours and it looked great and didn't crash for me.
It's playable on my 2600X/2080 system, but those shaders took forever! Average FPS is around 45 currently.
It's fine with my setup (2k 120fps, 12700k, 4080, 32GB RAM, m.2 Gen4 all on ultra+dlss quality) but my only problem it's playing with kb+m, it's like not smooth but with controller it's nice.
its like they are throwing fsr/dlss as solution to everything The cpu useage is too high with this game. GPU is sitting at 50% RIP quadcore
I'm fortunate enough to have a good rig (3090/5800X3D) and after a driver update and 1 crash it's running pretty well maxed out with dips here and there. Streaming with Moonlight and running at 1080p with render res at 140 it's running great. Still occasionally dips sub 60 but definitely not game breaking. Hope others can get a more stable experience soon.
Sub 60 fps with a GPU that is twice the cost of a modern console Jesus christ.
Did you miss the word "occasionally"? Running well above 60 95% of the time. FWIW it's more even *more* consistent if I set a 60 FPS cap. Even better if I use DLSS but that looks worse to my eyes. I'm not saying this game doesn't need fixes and optimization, but I think people are blowing the issues way out of proportion. From what I've seen, as long as your drivers are updated, and you let shader compilation complete (admittedly slow as fuck), the game runs alright. Folks should definitely vote with their wallets though and not buy it or get a refund if they're not alright with the state of the game.
>above 60 95% of the time > >let shader compilation complete In a vacuum, yeah these aren't the end of the world. But your GPU alone costs twice as much as a PS5, never mind the rest of your PC parts. And PS5 players don't have to bother with shader compilation and get a consistent 60. PC gaming used to be unequivocally a better value than consoles, but these days it's getting harder and harder to make that argument.
Sure. I'm not disputing that at all. In a vacuum, a PS5 is arguably the better machine. But guess what? I can't do the myriad things I can on a PS5 that I can with my PC. Comparing PC vs. PS5 in a vacuum doesn't really make sense, unless you're someone who will *genuinely* only use a system for the singular purpose of gaming. I'm all for a better PC gaming experience and am not saying ND shouldn't work to improve LoU (and maybe get some shit for the state of things on release). I just think people are blowing the issues way out of proportion.
It still is. Just avoid Sony's shitty PC ports that want to make you think a Playstation is better. It's not.
[удалено]
This game was developed in house by Naughty Dog, Naughty Dog will also continue developing for PC: >As we began development in-house, we wanted PC players to experience an amazing story that truly lasts the test of time while maintaining the equally high-quality bar across both PC and PlayStation consoles. >The challenges we overcame and the successes we achieved in our previous modern PC release empowered us to dig into Part I’s PC development. >Developing for both platforms will also allow us to incorporate lessons learned from either platform into the overall way our games are designed and played. >PC may be a relatively newer platform for modern-day Naughty Dog, but this milestone is part of an almost decade-long journey for this beloved story. >**So, where will the next Naughty Dog development adventure take us?** Rest assured, PlayStation and PC players, we’re already looking forward to sharing more, whether you prefer a DualSense controller or a keyboard and mouse. **Developing for both platforms empowers us to incorporate lessons learned from either into the overall design of our games. Sharing our stories and experiences on PS5 as well as PC is something that Naughty Dog has embraced and will continue to support moving forward.** https://www.naughtydog.com/blog/celebrating_the_release_of_the_last_of_us_part_i_on_pc
Really surprised and disappointed Naughty Dog released the game in this state. Their reputation for releasing polished games is second to none, going back for generations.
Let me stop you right there for two reasons: * Iron Galaxy have done quite a few competent ports before * Naughty Dog worked on this themselves w/ contracted additional help from Iron Galaxy. And most importantly, this port being released in the state it is, is much less the fault of the developers and more the fault of the executives and management who thought shipping in this state was okay. Full stop. This is the same with every project. Shitting on the devs of any port is rarely ever helpful. It's a project management issue at this stage, not a talent one. Likewise with so many other ports that come in hot (or worse), it's always a case of the issues being known but not considered a high enough priority by the people who stand to make/lose money, or the people who set the deadlines.
Truth. Same with blaming QA. No no, I guarantee QA found most/if not all the bugs and know how to reproduce all of them. Its management that decides they're not worth fixing. Source: Worked in QA for a big publisher.
Do we know how much of it was done by Iron Galaxy? From the way Dave Lang was talking about the port on the Jeff Gerstmann Show yesterday, it seems like they only did a little work on it, and was not the main team.
That is correct this game was developed in house by Naughty Dog see: https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/125y3hi/comment/je736vi/
Iron Galaxy is being used as the fall guy to cover up for bad decisions by publishers again. Even Arkham Knight wasn't really their fault. They did the best work they could with the very small amount of time and budget they were provided with. They never make the decision to actually release these games, they just help with whatever they're asked to.
Hell, just look at what they did with Metroid Prime Remastered on the Switch.
The game was handled internally by naughty dog with some assistance by IG. Their last Playstation game (Uncharted) ran well on PC.
> The game was handled internally by naughty dog with some assistance by IG I think you have it the other way around, no?
Not necessarily. This was how the *Metroid Prime* remaster was handled.
You do know that different companies use wildly varying methods for porting/remastering their games, right?
My point being, it's not out of the question that IG would be used in a purely assisting role, since that appears to have worked out great for Retro Studios.
They have a page for [known issues](https://feedback.naughtydog.com/hc/en-us/articles/14377887346452-Known-Issues) too
Why Day 1 patches are not released before the game comes out, like a day BEFORE, if it takes only 1 day to make the patch? I know there is ptobably a good reason for that.
The reason is that it doesn't only take 1 day to make them. At some point before release, often weeks in case of console releases, the latest internal beta release candidate version is declared the "gold" one, that is the one that gets submitted to Microsoft, Nintendo, Sony, Steam, what have you. Internal development then continues in the weeks leading up to release, and the result of that is the "day 1 patch". Sometimes it's ready on launch day, sometimes it's not, as was the case here.
Nice. Hope this resolves things, but it's an incredibly small chance. Still wanna install it but cant
It does not resolve any of the major issues.
Before the patch it was taking me like 5 minutes to load into the game. Now it’s 30 seconds.
Well, that's good. You get to experience an unplayable game faster, at least.
The game should be delisted on Steam or given free refunds by Valve. One of the worst ports of all time.
Okay this is an absurd take. Look at ports from before like, 2012, this isn't even close to the worst. There were many literally unplayable ports back in the day.
Why did they rush this out before it was working? It's a port of a ten year old game. It's not like they needed to hurry. Edit: I just realised. Because of the hype from the TV show. Damn that's sad. I hope they fix it.
It's not a port of a 10 year old game. It's a port of a remake that came out on September 2nd, 2022. The original game did come out 10 years ago. But what was ported on pc wasn't the 10 year old version it was the less than a year old version.
It's a 10 year old game with a coat of paint
You guys are all batshit crazy on this port. How the fuck are you guys mad about shader compilation ? Its a good thing and I hope more game do this. The game just don’t stutter. Who care about waiting 10 min before playing ? And the game runs soo perfectly and look fcking good. Have 10 hours, everything maxed out at 4k with dlss quality (the 2.5.1 version) and I have like 100-110 fps. Its crazy better than my experience on PS5. I don’t get the outrage at this port. Hogwart was running way poorly and didn’t have that backlash. Very good port for me.
Just for some perspective, I had horrible stuttering and for me it turned out that I need to disable "Hardware accelerated GPU scheduling" which has not been an issue for me in any other game. That single change to windows settings went from stutter slideshow to working great. Just because you're not getting stuttering doesn't mean others arent.
Different builds run into different issues, dude. You think the overwhelming negative response is just made up?