Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
13 
Report this post
If you want reason why, there is a ton. Unity is simply not made for FPS. Rust is a little exception, tarkov is a proof.
The base network code on unity wasn't great when we started BL, and i don't think if this is still the case. The Unity team decision is sometime very weird, a lot of non-finished stuff over multiple years, and they suddently change for a new one.
There is a ton of technical reason, and no, performance on unity isn't "years award", they are years before.
Unity's optimization isn't the best in any genre of game, from my experience and its visuals aren't great, together with the gameplay which often feels clunky than anything. It always deteriorates, the gameplay smoothness does over time from my experience and restarting the Unity game in question kind of fixes this up until a moment and I wonder always why that is, because it's kind of common in all the Unity games that I've played.
I think that BSG has done kind of an amazing job with it in Tarkov but that is more of an exception than a rule, with all due respect to the devs who use it and I have quite enjoyed some of the games made in Unity but if it comes down to a choice and a preference, then I choose Unreal, but even it has its flaws I think like it also lags and you need a pretty powerful PC to run games optimally and even then, if you got one; a pretty powerful PC, even then you can't really get often in Unreal's games max frame rates out of the box... It looks and plays good though and that's like 50% if not like more of the experience...
UE does feel like a sham. So much hype and marketing with their tech demos for like a decade, and so far, only Fortnite is the game that actually runs well on UE5.
A BR with barren map
We work hard on performances.
UE5 isn't a shame, yes this is performance heavy, and yes, it require for some people an upgrade. However keep in head most of game who are realease right now are release under ue 5.1,5.2.
UE 5.3, 5.4, and 5.5 (actual) got major performance improvements.
However, if you want to enjoy maximum quality, and more than 120 FPS in 2k, this is possible but require the latest gen (4090).
We have for the moment some good result with BL and are pretty proud of. If you follow our twitter or discord, we shore a lot about how we optimise the game.
However, doesn't matter how far we optimise it, if the hardware is too old... this is too old. So the short answer is keep in mine optimisation have some limit regarding what we want to achieve on graphical side.
One very good news, before the game release, the game will be in Open beta for 3 days, for everybody. You will be able to test by yourself if performance suit you, before buying it (or not, you are not happy :) )
Well, gl to you guys. Multiplayer games I currently play are kinda just waiting rooms for Beautiful Light. Hope it turns out amazing.
Aren't you afraid - isn't it a risk - tho that Unreal will demand too much of the average PC owner today, to really get to try your game properly? By now I have a mid-to-semi-high range PC, Stalker 2 for example was playable enough but it had issues with stability. The entire time I had the "I need to upgrade, but don't have the money" feeling while playing it.
On high reactive shooters. Unreal seems to cause issues across the board for a lot of gamers still. With the new generation of videocards around the corner, things will get better. But wasn't it a bit of a risk to create a genre of game like this, with the gameplay that is included, that a high stable framerate is probably priority #1 for a game like this, in Unreal 5?
Most of 2025 games will be under unreal engine 5, or have the same requirement.
Basically this is not just us, or stalker 2, but mostly the entire industry who is shifting.
A lot of game with UE5 has already been release, multiplayer inclued, and seems sell arn't really impacted by that.
But this is not only this. How do you think we have achieved top 50 steam without any marketing ? Graphism. Even if yes, graphic doesn't do a good video game, this is one of the main marketing power when you are unknown.
We didn't do those graphic for that to be honest, we did this only cause we like immersion and wanted something beautiful. But the consequence is the high whishlist numbers, and without those graphism, we would not have those number, at 100%.
A lot of the "points" you made are irrelevant, and literally have NOTHING do with UE, and being inherent to UE and UE alone. You can pretty much replicate ANYTHING as good or better than unity, with similar or better performance, and equally as sharp or sharper visuals than Unity, or Cryengine, or whatever advanced modern engine you wanna put here. Its all about skill and competency, and how well you know an engine. If you have advanced and professional UE experience, but little to none in Unity, the visuals, performance, and basically EVERYTHING would be VASTLY superior to what you could accomplish with Unity. It doesn't necessarily work the other way around, though. UE is so advanced with so many tools, assists, and users/knowledge resources, while being quite simple to learn if you already have basic knowledge, that you could at least come somewhat close to what you could do in unity with experience, after a relatively short research/training period.
Often times its not even that UE runs bad and has terrible performance, its just that it offers so many tools and features, it makes it easy to end up adding a TON of mechanics, features, and SUPER high quality assets. More so than you may have ended up with Unity, so of course it would be lighter on resource usage. Some people just like to throw everything but the kitchen sink into UE5, and have so much feature bloat and higher quality and poly count scan assets than you could realistically see an additional benefit from. Like when they have a 9000 triangle fly's ass, with physics based hairs, and rtx reflections on its wings, and only ONE dude will ever even notice it. Looks great in trailers, but ends up requiring an Nvidia GPU to even play, and basically only a 3080 or better.
But in all that, I don't see how ANY of it was specifically the fault of the engine itself. UE5 is by far, one of the most capable and advanced engines for anything. Not JUST games. While also being one of the easiest to use and most supported, with a massive user base. Theres a reason why its quickly becoming what is essentially the "Industry Standard" game engine. Tech advances. Poor performance is a problem on the user end, not keeping up with the flow of progression. Every new generation of hardware is more advanced, and all the games follow suit, pushing the boundries to take advantage of the hardware. After all, if a company wants to sell $2,000 GPUs, they HAVE to fill a need. Nobody would ever upgrade if everything ran great on older hardware. And more powerful hardware means devs are less restricted on their vision. Nobody is obligated to buy every game, and no dev is obligated to support older/low spec hardware. The ONLY reason they even do to a point is to generate more sales. If they feel the new gen/high spec audience is all they need to turn a profit, there is nothing wrong with that choice. People need to stop feeling so entitled, or like the devs owe you something, or need to sacrifice on their overall plan/visions, especially when it comes to gaming, which is essentially just a luxury. NOT a necessity.