Wow. People giving bad review because of performance.

[Falcon]

I don't get it. The game gives you a free benchmark tool before you buy it. It gave a beta testing for people to try. Why would you buy a game if the benchmark tool ran it poorly. I agree the game is not optimized, so for now i did not buy it. But i was well informed. I'm not going to buy the game then complain about performance when they gave me the tools to try it before i spent money.
Now if the game benchmark ran it perfect for you and the game did not that is fear enough. But for the rest why buy a game that everybody knows you need a high end computer before you even try the FREE benchmark tool. Crazy.

The benchmark tool max players was 16,726.
7,069 in the last 24 hours. More people need to test.
Edit
I have a high end computer but use 4k. I refuse to use frame generation. I decided not to get it. But the amount of players in the last 24 hours playing it compared to the benchmark tool is staggering. I'm not sticking up for the company. They are not getting my money but everybody should at least use the free tool before they buy this game.

[RubyCante]

because the benchmark tool is a lie, it's padded with 80% cutscene vs the horrible fps in gameplay especially in open field

[★Brosef]

World had the same problem, mid end and lower was a no-go but, albeit a few months later, Capcom fixed those issues so Wilds'll be the same case.

[Milk 2]

the game is bad, just like the performance

[Mechanique]

CAPCOM brought it upon themselves by letting poors think they can buy and play it

They should have put 4070 as minimum and 5090 as recommended in requirements and the Lidl shoppers would be praising how good it runs on their 5 years old machines instead

[VIC1OUSTHREAT]

2025 gaming. trash performances = bad review. simple as.

[Elric of Swoleniboné]

"Wow! People leaving bad reviews for a totally legit reason."

Who could have EVER imagined?

[D E T T E R]

i can understand the people. I was able to play the beta without any problems, but now when i manage to get the game running, 90% of the environment are missing

[Dae]

Originally posted by ★Brosef:

World had the same problem, mid end and lower was a no-go but, albeit a few months later, Capcom fixed those issues so Wilds'll be the same case.

One key difference here, World wasn't using RE Engine. Refer back to how DD2 was and currently still is, hopefully you hit a realisation.

[Falcon]

Originally posted by RubyCante:

because the benchmark tool is a lie, it's padded with 80% cutscene vs the horrible fps in gameplay especially in open field

Thats fear enough. If your getting different results you cant argue with that.

[Gates ☠]

If performance is trash they deserve to be called out and should hopefully be fixed. Sitting at Mixed reviews. Will wait a few days or weeks and see if its worth purchasing.

[Falcon]

Originally posted by D E T T E R:

i can understand the people. I was able to play the beta without any problems, but now when i manage to get the game running, 90% of the environment are missing

Thats fear enough. If your getting different results you cant argue with that. I just dont think overall enough people are using the tool.

[Chimera]

Does anyone else find it crazy that you spend 70 dollars for a game these days for bad performance, 65 dollars worth of dlcs, and a "maybe we'll fix it later." jfc

[Qimir]

well this game have Denuvo Anti-tamper that cost lots of performance and even worse hiccup for game that rely on internet connection. Which dont really stop cheating from trainer or hax modder.

[᲼]

Okay and your point is?

If incompetent modern developers can't optimize their games right in 2025, they rightfully deserve the bad reviews they get.

There is no game on this planet that should be unoptimized on a 3080ti build, a few years from now, sure, but optimizing a game around AI scaling and new cards is the most idiotic move I've ever seen.

[Falcon]

Originally posted by Elric of Swoleniboné:

"Wow! People leaving bad reviews for a totally legit reason."

Who could have EVER imagined?

I clearly said why would you buy a game if the benchmark tool ran it poorly then complain about it. Whats wrong with saying that? Test before you buy. If your test is good then it was bad after you buy it of coarse complain. If the game is bad leave a bad review. I'm talking about performance.