"code your own engine" , is that license?

not very well thought out indeed, risking someone will actually roll thier own and everyone will get one.

I was somewhat shocked when I saw that BL3, a 2019 game, barely even booted on my 2015 gaming desktop. BL1 and 2 were playable on my dirt cheap Dell Vostro laptop with integrated graphics, 4GB RAM and a low power Core i3 processor. I thought it was possible because the BL series' graphics are quite cartoony compared to the ultra-realism of something like Battlefield. But I'm looking at BL4's graphics and they mostly look....the same?

> The exec also said "less than one percent of one percent" of players are filing customer service tickets about performance issues

Okay, and how many refunded the game on Steam?

The game really doesn't perform great, but it's not impacting the fun I'm having with it, so I decided to stick with it.

What I don't get is why Randy Pitchford seems intent on alienating the player base further by doubling down again and again on there not being a problem. Emotionally, I understand being defensive of one's work, but at a certain point it might be financially advantageous to show some humility or simply ... not say anything. Then again, he's free to do as he pleases.

When running a brand new game most savvy gamers don't expect 120fps 4K HDR native on an 3+ year-old hardware. But they might reasonably expect 60fps at 2K native. So, apparently, the CEO - or the PMs that report to him - decided to ship with a performance level which surprised their customers negatively. The most obvious mistake here is if they weren't very clear and upfront with the fact it would require an unusually high spec system and/or synthetic pixel/frame gen to reach resolutions and frame rates customers might expect based on prior experience.

Performance optimization in AAA games is hard and time-consuming. Some game developers believe chasing ever higher visual fidelity will increase sales due to the 'curb-appeal' of the game play trailer. Maybe they're right but it's a double-edged sword because management loves the killer visuals but then will reduce the minimum required frame rate over slipping the schedule to permit performance optimization. Yet marketing will still insist on a game play trailer showing Ultra settings, so it ends up being made with lots of synthetic pixels and frames being inserted because they know YouTube streaming compression will hide much of the degradation. As someone who cares about visual fidelity and frame rate I've learned to not trust YouTube streams of game play anymore and wait for a technical analysis by someone like Digital Foundry.

It's pretty clear how this keeps happening. The dumb thing is a CEO going on social media trying to argue their customers shouldn't want what they want. The right way to respond is pointing to where they made the higher system specs and requirement to use synthetic pixel & frame modes super clear in the specs, demo videos and other marketing. Synthetic generation can be useful in the right context but companies need to stop acting like it's something they don't need to fully disclose. Being either "artfully vague" or misleading in their marketing is unethical.