GTX 1060, really?

[Superbest]

I saw in the recommended sys reqs that they want a GTX 1060... Why? For a pixel game?

Many reviews also mention FPS issues. Is this game just poorly optimized?

[LanYogort]

This game uses unity3D......it's pixelize style, not Mario-like oldschool engine.

[Billy Blazes]

2023 and people still don't understand what early access means, yes it's not optimised it's literally not complete. Also I don't know anything about coding or making a game but there is a lot more behind there just being pixel art that could make it lag.

[Jaydogg]

Frame rate doesn't just come down to good graphics, imagine all the loot, all the zeds, all the buildings, vehicles and vegetation all rendered at the same time it adds up even if it is pixel graphics. I have a GTX 1080 and at 1440p I get around 80 fps, drops to 65ish when there's hordes around so at 1080p you should be good with a 1050ti or something similar

[Kaschperle]

even with a rtx 3080 I get sometimes frame drops the game isnt optimized yet

[Varenvel The Festive Dinosaur]

Originally posted by Peach Fuzz Peter:

2023 and people still don't understand what early access means, yes it's not optimised it's literally not complete. Also I don't know anything about coding or making a game but there is a lot more behind there just being pixel art that could make it lag.

this kind of thinking is part of problem , dev early development decides what assets you use and what technology and engine he uses to make said game

ask people who got ark how well they optimalised the game over the years (or how lower spects gotten once it relesed)

unless your seeing alpha footage , devs wont do miracles that make game run 10x better later as thats not how any of this works unless you would rewrite game from scratch (who mind some devs done but most dont)

i expect it will run better , but spect requirament if anything will get bigger

[Superbest]

Originally posted by Varenvel The Festive Dinosaur:

this kind of thinking is part of problem , dev early development decides what assets you use and what technology and engine he uses to make said game

I agree with this. Early access or not, it still costs real money. If you expect people to pay you real cash the same as with a finished game, you should at least have a reasonably well working product. It's one thing if there's a couple of bonus levels missing, or only 17 of 35 planned enemies are implemented, or not all the weapons are in or something.

Unlike the person you're replying to, I am developer and it's very clear a lot of EA game devs these days are just being lazy and not doing basic things right. Getting a game like this to run well on modern hardware such as 1060 is extremely easy, the only reason I can see that it doesn't is "screw customers, they'll pay for it anyway". But maybe there's something else.

For many games (not necessarily this one) EA is a scam anyway. Most games stay in EA for years, some over a decade now. I don't know when was the last time I've seen a game come out of EA. And even after like 5 years, most of these basic problems like performance are not fixed for the overwhelming majority of the games. Devs just make incremental content adds like they would for a non-EA game. So excusing every fault with "EA" is follish and disingenuous.

[[Lizard Wizard]]

A lot of solo developers will just put what their specs are as the recommended, this is likely why.

[Superbest]

Originally posted by GordoFreemann:

A lot of solo developers will just put what their specs are as the recommended, this is likely why.

That sounds like a more reasonable explanation. Would be nice in that case if there was confirmation from the dev with more details on what sort of performance they get on those recommended specs.