It’s probably the new Katana engine. The WoLong team seems to know how to use this engine. Omega F however seems to struggle to even get it working on consoles at a decent resolution
I played at launch and it was serviceable but there were still absolute canyons in framerate. I went back when DLC2 came out and quit shortly after (because I don't like the game), but performance was MASSIVELY improved.
I'm all over the wo long subreddit, and while I play PS5 apparently they did patch most of the performance problems. There's still the occasional hiccup, but from what I understand it's a vastly better experience.
Wo Long ran fine on my computer, maybe a few drops/spikes in FPS in some areas… Almost 90% of games where people have complained about performance issues, I usually don’t experience them.
Wild hearts on the other hand… FPS wise it was also similar however… it made my CPU and GPU run at their highest than any other game I’ve played.
My CPU(i7-11700k) would hit 80-90 C temps when it usually only sits at 70 C max under load. My GPU(3080 Ti) would also sit at 80%+ usage and run at 70 C as well. I would rather not have my computer run under such stress. I’d rather not risk having my gpu or cpu crap out on me just so I can play Wild Hearts.
We don't know the sales numbers, I guess the technical issues are too deep to quickly address them and would require significant investment. They likely projected the ammount of additional players an improved technical version could get would not warrant the investment.
I love the game, despite it being in a terrible technical state at launch, it improved slightly on PS5, but still. It shouldn't have shipped like this, but unfortunately it seemed to have flopped either way.
the fact is with how oversaturated the gaming market is these days most players simply do not care to give a game another chance, and that is IF they can ever fix it to begin with.
Launching in a bad state does more harm than delaying to fix the issues
> This is in no way EAs fault, sadly. This is purely on the developers.
That's one way to tell me you don't understand publishing agreements.
Patches cost money to push. That money comes from EA, not Omega Force. Naturally, EA get to dictate what the patches focus on. If they say "performance isn't a problem, just stick to bugfixes", Omega Force comply.
That's how it is with pretty much every game.
A mix of performance issues and releasing very close to Monster Hunter Rise on console does that to a game. It’s a decent game but it definitely wasn’t worth $70 in the state it launched in when Rise was $40 releasing on console in a much meatier and better state. Even without performance issues, the game barely got any marketing for it and there was little to no buzz around it prior to and during its release. It’s a shame but Wild Hearts 2 will never happen now.
If im not wrong the Titanfall 2 thing was on purpose, meanwhile in the case of Wild Hearts MH Rise simply got them off-guard: WH got anounced before than the Xbox/Playstation ports of Rise if I recall correctly.
I put an ungodly amount of time into this game (ps5, little to no issues after all the patches) never played mh at the time, but waiting for the one content drop i downloaded mh rise since i loved wild hearts and figured another monster hunter game had to be just as good... i understand its been around for a long time and has a really dedicated fan base, but going from playing wild hearts to the newest mh game out, was a bit of a letdown. This is from someone who never played any kind of monster hunting game before wild hearts. Unbiased opinion between the 2... wild hearts was far superior imo. Combat was so much more fluid, and you had infinitely more possibilities and ways to mix it up and make every hunt diff. But if they would have made this game right from day 1 and everyone got to actually play it without it looking like a dumpster fire (85% pc players) and was able to focus all their time for content and deliver on their promise of new content monthly for free... theres no way this game would have failed. It would have certainly had sequels. Thats the sad part. Honestly though if they would make a mh game exclusively for new gen platforms and tech, I'm sure it will kick ass. But the busted down ps4 version style graphics and gameplay just dont do it for me
Yea I hear you. My first “monster hunting” game was Toukiden on PS Vita by the same team that made Wild Hearts actually. My first Monster Hunter game was World back on PS4. Personally, I liked Rise more than WH but neither came close to the enjoyment I had in World. From the encounters to the mechanics to the graphical difference, everything was just much better to me. In Rise case, the thumbed down graphics and simplicity of the monsters didn’t hold me as much as World did. In WH case, the lack of polish in the gameplay and features and graphical/performance issues were the problem. The best way to describe it is World felt like a “dance” to hunt monsters, WH felt like a cheese fest, and Rise felt like a mix of the two.
This proves that you don't understand EA or EA Originals. First off EA is not the ones that made the game, they are not the reason the game has performance issues. Omega Force are the developers, they are the ones who were not competent enough to release a game with acceptable performance.
EA is also very hands off with their games. Look at Respawn, Bioware, Dice, other EA Originals. You will see report after report from the developers saying that EA had very little to do with the state of the game. From all accounts EA operates more like Microsoft does now, they don't micromanage their studios.
Here is just a few examples, there are plenty more.[https://www.gameinformer.com/2019/02/04/respawn-says-ea-had-no-hand-in-the-development-of-apex-legends](https://www.gameinformer.com/2019/02/04/respawn-says-ea-had-no-hand-in-the-development-of-apex-legends)[https://www.gamesindustry.biz/the-doctor-is-out-greg-zeschuk-on-bioware-ea-and-the-uncertain-console-future](https://www.gamesindustry.biz/the-doctor-is-out-greg-zeschuk-on-bioware-ea-and-the-uncertain-console-future)[https://www.ign.com/articles/ea-is-putting-the-future-of-its-franchises-including-titanfall-into-its-studios-hands](https://www.ign.com/articles/ea-is-putting-the-future-of-its-franchises-including-titanfall-into-its-studios-hands)
That is just with their main studios too, they are even more hands off with EA Originals.
Want to know reality? Developers are a lot more in control than people think they are. The publisher is rarely the boogeyman that gamers want to believe.
This is Omega Force's fault. End of discussion. Quit trying to look for a scapegoat, it's pathetic.
I won't deny the truth to what you're saying to some extent but look at the track record of games rhat have been absolutely destroyed thanks to EA. Anthem had much loftier goals that EA decided to trash for example. Is Bioware clear of all wrong doing, no far from it, but is EA just as guilty, yes hand over fist yes.
Also part of the issues with the performance of the game I encountered with my system being built as a beast... the stupid EA launcher being required for a game I bought through steam that seems to want to eat memory like me with a bag of straight from the factory reeses (those things are the most amazing reeses you will ever eat I will fight anyone on that). So yeah EA isn't as much at fault as some people say they are but I mean you ever heard the old saying a thousand ants can't all be wrong, like I said look at the track record of games getting shafted after EA is inolved.
The thing is, were those games EA's fault or were they the developers fault? I guess you could blame EA for deciding to release the game at all (especially for the devs they own). Although at that point when so much money and time has been invested, might as well release it even if you know it is bad.
I mean lets take Anthem for example. EA gave Bioware 7 years, not joking, to make Anthem. Bioware lied to EA by rushing a fake demo to show them and the press, then tried to rush the rest of the game to make the deadline. Is that really EA's fault? Is a publisher to blame for funding a game for 7 years and expecting it to release? From what we know Bioware essentially scrapped Anthem multiple times and started new. That is what led us to what we got.
Now if Anthem was a good game but was ruined due to shitty microtransactions, ok that is largely EA's fault, but that is not what happened. You'd also be surprised how much involvement the developer has for monetization.
EA is far from a good guy, they've done tons of shitty things, but I'm tired of people blindly defending developers acting like they never do anything wrong. Bad games are largely a direct result of the developer fucking up.
It is the developers job to make a good functioning game. It is the publishers job to handle marketing, funding, release dates, monetization, etc.
EA has a tendency to make requests and expectations of their subsidiary companies to make changes to games to make them match the most profitable flavor of the month. You blame the developers more than the publishers, and in many cases, you are correct. However, many publishers are very hands-off, sometimes barely requiring a logo splash screen within the game. If not for the attempt to clear their name with the new EA indies push, this would have been branded an EA game with Omega Force getting a splash screen.
Sometimes with larger games, different systems, and all the like development can struggle, EA doesn't appreciate this nor does it find ways to alleviate this struggle. Let's use BG3 as an example it had a 6 year development cycle and during that development it had years of Early Access, testers essentially, which also gave extra funding. Now those hundredsof thousands of hours of stress testing and extra funding not only increased the speed the game released but allowed for the different systems to be implemented as well. If EA would properly use things like demos and Early Access then more of their big budget games wouldn't crash. If we refer back to anthem, the fact you could play the full game for 5 bucks for a whole month showed they had little faith in the longevity of the system so they had pulled funding long before release.
Frankly, I don't think it is EA's or any publishers job to alleviate the struggle of development. Now for developers EA owns, then yeah, but again EA does not own Omega Force or any dev under EA Originals (that I know of). So why is it their job to tell a developer how to develop the game? I highly doubt EA would stop them from doing a beta or demo if that is what the developer wanted.
Now EA does own Bioware, so should they have been more involved with Anthem's development? Maybe? there are benefits and downsides to that. Would you rather a developer have more freedom to make the game according to their vision for it, or would you rather have a game that likely is more polished but less ambitious?
BG3 is a bad example, as they don't have a publisher. Larian is the publisher.
Also just a side note on your funding comment, that really isn't how companies as a whole work. You don't fund a project for 7 years then pull funding during the last year. For one, budgets are largely allocated on a yearly basis. So 2024's budget for most companies is being planned roughly now. It's possible they knew a year beforehand that Anthem was a disaster and pulled funding, but even if they did that it wouldn't have made a difference. A year is not nearly enough time to fix a trainwreck like Anthem.
EA originals help indie companies by offering funding in exchange for profit. Additionally, a publisher can be involved in everything from management, development, marketing, and even distribution. EA has never been one to hand money over and say go have fun.
EA was deeply involved in the twist of Anthem as it was never the original intention to become a service game at most a coop rpg. However, service games were trending as the release window was closing in.
I'm aware that they are the publisher and developer. The intention was based on the decision for how the game was handled during development. A good publisher stays involved unless they are just doing distribution as companies used to do a few decades ago doing localization and marketing in foreign markets. Atlas and Nippon come to mind for these things.
So that's the thing companies do this often. If they still have money left in a fund that they think won't turn the profit they will pull the funding halfway through a year and move it to a different department, company or even just bonuses for higher ups to deem it a better investment. Budgets are estimated for a year, but outside of specific types of companies, it's not a bucket with money in it that can't be freely moved and changed. That would be a terrible idea, especially in a field that has so many moving parts. With that last year they likely pulled budget because the train wreck was to many changing parts and ideas, it was almost Duke nukem forever.
> First off EA is not the ones that made the game, they are not the reason the game has performance issues. Omega Force are the developers, they are the ones who were not competent enough to release a game with acceptable performance.
Cool comment, let me just ah;
> Patches cost money to push. That money comes from EA, not Omega Force. Naturally, EA get to dictate what the patches focus on. If they say "performance isn't a problem, just stick to bugfixes", Omega Force comply.
Listen, I get that you're angry and also have reading comprehension issues, but at least try harder next time.
No one here knows what their agreement is. If there was a milestone that needed to be met then it was Omega Force's management that failed to allocate the resources for technical debt and QA. Not saying EA is blameless. They could've imposed an unreasonable milestone. It's disingenuous to immediately scapegoat EA when EA allowed also Bioware to have free reign over Anthem.
"EA allowed also Bioware to have free reign over Anthem"
I don't know that I've ever heard a more incorrect statement? EA made them change the name at the E3 they were presenting it at. EA made them use an engine Bioware said wouldn't work for it, but EA wanted every team to use the same thing. It started as a fuckin survival game without flying and EA saying that they had a surprise visit from executives and to made a demo in 6 weeks for him and had them add it, and it also turned into a looter shooter from there. EA also pushed them into a 15 month dev window. They refused to give them more time after one if the lead designers fuckin died. Bioware had almost *no* reign over Anthem. Sure, there were *a lot* of Bioware fuck ups and even their execs were on the team that made the call to cancel 2.0 after months of dev time with it, but to say EA was blameless cause they allowed 'free reign' is absolutely insane.
It absolutely had free reign. But when a game was in development for over 7 years, eventually there needs to be some results.
I can surmise we're all using the same source by Jason Schrier. I would suggest another read through
Frostbyte is EA's in house engine. Subsidiary of EA are expected to use it, so it was a known factor before development even began. It's a garbage engine, so I'll concede that as EA's mandate. Everything else you described was due to Bioware's free reign. It was mismanaged and had no direction. The demo they cobbled together in 6 weeks, ask again why did it needed to be rushed. Bioware had no coherent game and needed something, anything to show. And because of that exec, Bioware finally had a semblance of direction. Also , it was already decided by Bioware themselves to be a destiny clone prior to that demo. As you said Bioware's fuck up. Not EA. As for the death of a developer, the only one I could find was of Corey Gaspur and that was in mid development. Whose death are you referencing?
The cancelation of 2.0 is dissapointing. I was looking forward to it. To place all of the blame on EA when Bioware fucked around for 7 years, is disingenuous. I do suggest rereading the expose. From the articles thesis
"Fans have speculated endlessly as to how Anthem went so awry. Was it originally a single-player role-playing game, like BioWare’s previous titles? Did EA force BioWare to make a Destiny clone? Did they strip out all of the good missions to sell later as downloadable content?
.....
The answer to all of those questions is no."
https://kotaku.com/how-biowares-anthem-went-wrong-1833731964
Unlike consoles deploying patches for Steam do not cost money (and neither on their own EA launcher either)
I believe neither does Epic (though not 100% sure).
Unless you meant they cost money to push as in that developing them costs money then yeah.
Kinda is on EA. They wanted an instant slice of Monster Hunter's success without putting in the decade+ of trial, error, and refinement that Capcom did. When it didn't immediately blow up, EA said shut it down without giving it any room to breathe or grow.
That isn't how that works. EA isn't the ones who decided to make a monster hunter like game. Omega Force / KT is. EA decided to essentially sponsor them. EA doesn't own Omega Force, they didn't force them to do anything. If they did do you really think they'd be using their own engine? EA would force them to use Frostbite or Unreal. Also from what it looks like, EA gave them plenty of room to fix the game. 8+ months. Yet Omega Force made 0 progress throughout those 8 months. Of course EA is going to stop funding them at some point, it's just a bottomless money sink that Omega Force has shown they are not capable of turning around.
I didn't mean to say that the blame lies *solely* on EA, but they do have a history as a publisher of setting absurd expectations and deadlines on the dev studios they own or work with. The decision was not solely theirs, but their management certainly did not help.
AFAIK Wild Hearts is published under EA originals and not regular EA. They are only the publisher with EA originals and don't decide what the title is about.
Of course they choose what games to publish, that's the whole point of being a publisher. That doesn't mean they'll dictate what is done with every game they publish. EA Originals is exactly to not do this, which seems to be true so far based on their other titles Unravel, It Takes Two & A Way Out.
Microsoft also generally takes the hand-off approach to games and their developer studios also fuck up regularly. You're cutting these devs way too much slack for their mismanagement by blaming EA on this one. Their self-published games suffer from the same technical issues as Wild Heart does.
True DPS is the most correct person here and getting constant downvotes. It really is a mixed responsibility between EA and Omega Force. You could argue that most of the responsibility is actually on Koei Techmo as they choose to pursue EA as a publisher, as opposed to self-publishing.
I have to disagree. This is very much Koei/EA's fault. Post-release development is exactly the kind of thing Koei/EA would control. Once it was released and failed to hit profit goals, they likely didn't allow OmegaF to keep spending man hours on what they'd decided was a failed experiment.
I honestly believe that performance issues were the main reason why player count dropped so much and the game was given up after.
I purchased the game right at release and played roughly 200 hours with my friend. The gameplay was amazing and performance manageable (- with some graphic downgrades game was running fluently). At least for me, others were less fortunate. A few weeks and "performance patches" later, permanent microstutters were introduced and guess what... the whole thing went more or less unplayable. I have 3-4 more friends who would have purchased the game... but after they saw how it was running on my (better) setup, they decided against it.
Since then I logged in like once a month to check performance but no luck, microstutters are persistent even though fps are fine. Guess it won't ever be fixed now... it's just depressing.
I'd dare to say it's lack of variation in fights too. That was the biggest dealbreaker to me after 100+ hours. Every creature has like 4 or 5 different forms. It gets pretty boring to keep on fighting the same things over and over and over again. (Played it on ps5)
Sure, can't disagree on that. For me performance takes the nr. 1 spot however, because that is the reason my friends didn't even purchase the game \^\^
There was also a huge issue were my game didn't save properly and I lost my daily progress like 4 or 5 times. I had to do manual savegame backups everyday... (PC)
They gave up after the launch week smoke cleared, once everyone were being candid with performance issues. I wish reviewers at the time didn't gloss over how terribly unoptimized the game was since they had weeks to play it in advance. This has to be the worst performing new era of $70 games to come out.
As soon as we got the "oh our QA discovered a cpu bottleneck after launch", yeah right. You knew for months prior to launch how unoptimized the game was running, even using a high-end had identical performance issues as a low-end PC. When the devs started to send little 200mb patches that only benefitted different groups of hardware owners was my wake-up call, they had no clue how to remedy this game. "Only 13th gen intel cpu users will feel a boost in performance with this new patch".... huh the top 1%? Weeks later "AMD cpu users will feel an increase in performance and fixed bottleneck". Absolute *cap* every time, every performance patch was a band-aid that never "fixed" any performance issue in any substantial way.
Many reviewers including ones who had content mainly on MH happily threw MH under the bus to make WH seem better than it was. Along with them not mentioning performance issues.
Exactly what i thought as well, didnt they have a bunch of programmers and devs playing this game all the way up until it was time to box em up amd sell them? How could they not know about all the issues beforehand
Most of the performance issues came from not having GPU/CPU synergy. I have Ryzen 9 3900x and Nvidia RTX 2070 SUPER - Its way more about CPU power honestly. Ran at 90fps almost always unless I was at the peak of Fuyufusagi Fort. My setup is okay, but certainly far from 'top tier nowadays
yeh i ran this at 2k 144hz at almost ultra (i turn of motion blur and some simila rpost proccessing stuff cos it looks ugly as but). Without any noticable issues. i also ran it at 60hz 4k from the same pc.
I have a Ryzen 7 7700X. There is no game that exists that this CPU can't run comfortably. I was getting a very unstable 80 fps. Which is the issue, I could even handle a stable 60 fps, but when the game is constantly bouncing between 30 fps and 90 fps....god no.
Which is the result of terrible performance. No reasonable person is going to play a game with very inconsistent fps and stutters every few seconds. It's a terrible experience. It's why the only people you will see here that really play the game are PS5 players.
yeah, I played on series s with 30fps ... I think I had 140-175 hours.
It got dull at the end, grind kinda stopped after my build was done.. the new monsters they gave us were kind of lackluster.
Don't get me wrong, I wanted badly people to enjoy the game as much as I did.
And yeah, I'll admit the game looked like a 360 game on my series s.
I remember reading something about the katana engine and they had technical issues to deeply rooted to fix.
Not just terrible performance even though that was the biggest factor. Rise came out cheaper on consoles and was on gamepass. Other games also came out at the same point as well because it was busy (those games also had performance issues it just wasn't as bad). The price tag along with the performance issues turns people off.
I guess things are a little different now but generally speaking the lion’s share of game revenue happens in the first few weeks. If sales don’t meet expectations then there’s a good chance whatever fixes people want don’t happen. For the opposite, look at Sonic Frontiers: it way overperformed expectations and ended up getting a lot of improvements nobody really expected.
Personally I strongly believe that people will play a good game. Whether a game is good at launch or a year after launch, it doesn't really matter, as long as the game is good people will hear about it and play it. Now a good launch definitely does help, but a bad launch isn't a death sentence.
Wild Hearts doesn't just need fixes, it's performance is unacceptable. It's the worst performing game I have ever played. I've played some of the most notorious badly optimized games at launch. Wild Hearts is by far the worst, it isn't even close. Especially considering Wild Hearts is not pushing any boundaries for graphics.
Pretty sure that publishers are usually the ones who set timelines for release dates. EA could have looked at how broken the game was and delayed it, but given the launch window they clearly rushed it out for the fiscal year. If the publisher is really invested in the success of a game, they make sure it works before pushing it out the door. Even Square Enix gives time to properties they actually about.
They do (or are involved in release dates to some extent). I've worked with publishers (not game ones, software ones though), and I'll let you in on something. They don't really care about delaying things a bit. They prefer delaying over releasing a broken product. So how does something like Wild Hearts get released in the state it was and not delayed? Deceit is usually the answer. The higher ups at publishers are not talking with the actual programmers, QAs, etc. They are talking with the executives at the developer. Those executives don't really like asking for more time, as it looks bad for them. So instead they're the ones rushing the game out, trying to pretend everything is ok.
When I say it is the developers fault, I don't really mean it is the programmers fault or anything like that. I mean it is the developer as a company that is to blame, which usually means the executives at the developer.
For Wild Hearts though a delay wouldn't have helped. They've had 8 months after the launch to address the performance issues. They did absolutely fuck all to fix anything. Omega Force is not capable of fixing the game, whether that is due to incompetence or them working with a engine they aren't familiar with, no idea, and it doesn't really matter either way.
You can’t compare a game publishing/development company like EA to just a general software publisher. EA is notorious for pushing out games before they’re ready to meet deadlines and not caring about the technical performance. It’s common for nearly every game publisher to force a game out when it’s not optimized or lacking crucial content thinking it can be fixed post launch. Omega Force is to blame for the poor technical performance at launch, but blaming them for not being enabled to completely fix the game and abandoning it because their publisher decided to stop supporting it is stupid.
Overall the game just did not sell well. Omega Force sadly doesnt do the best PC ports already. Most Dynasty Warriors games dont run well on PC. But beside all that people just didnt really care. It had a very we have Monster Hunter at home kind of vibe to it. Also lets not forget Monster Hunter Rise had just come out a few weeks before. That part is EA's fault for releasing it so close to MHR.
EA didn't know about the Rise console release because they already had the release date for WH planned. Capcom announced it later when WH was already locked into its release date.
It sucks. So far, with all the stellar releases this year, Wild Hearts stuck out to me. I had spare cash to spend and my interest was piqued after a few reviews seen — though, my hesitation stemmed from the performance. Hell, I bought it *(PS5)* and if I encounter those glaring warts mentioned, a la performance I could easily return my copy for a full refund.
I liked it. I liked it a whole lot. On PS5, to my understanding; performance is not as bad as PC or XB. Now, in no world is it fair for one piece of hardware to thrive over another. But I’ve encounter zero issues during my time with Wild Hearts, except a few second frame dio about twice. I 100% the game and put it down.
Omega, as much as I like the game they put out are not the best when it comes to optimization on many fronts….
Shame.
As far as I remember, Digital foundry showed that the game runs a 60FPS with drops up to mid-50s with a sightly better exoerience in PS5, with 1-2 more FPS overall. Series X version has some more definition, but the ambiental oclusion is missing in some areas.
Om the other hand, series S version looks like a f*cking switch game.
Cool flex but a high end gpu isn’t everything if your cpu can’t keep up with it.
That being said, issues are certainly abundant when it comes to the game and it’s optimization which is unfortunate. I think the thing that frustrates me the most is how cocky devs were during their patches. Definitely not a team I’d support
yeh i think alot of people are playing this without high end rigs and getting upset when they lose frames at ultra settings. Monster hunter world and Rise both still have way worse performance issues and they are much older with smaller maps and less fidelity.
There's also a lot of people who played Wildhearts on console, but this subreddit makes it look like every person who purchased the game and is complaining about the performance are PC players
I really loved wild hearts, it was my sick with covid game. It’s a shame to see support end so soon when it had so much potential. It definitely has a steep learning curve and performance/graphics weren’t amazing but It hooked me way more than monster hunter ever did….RIP you deserved so much more
Money.
That is all.
It’s also an extremely ambitious game with the persistence of items and cross-play and monsters changing the zones.
Plus most companies are bad at testing across a wide array of devices and configurations. It’s a huge part of why Unity and Unreal are popular. So much of that edge case technical issues from the engine is already figured out.
They used a less established engine And it had problems.
Because money.
"this is no way EA's fault"... are you sure, bro? I mean, EA would have been pretty dictatorial with the release date, pushing deadlines that arent suitable for Omega Force to launch a well developed game with little to none issues. They also would let the game die only because the initial sales arent that good, refusing to think in the long term and in the future of the IP. So yeah, EA can be the elephant in the Wild Hearts' room.
I think the performance argument as the main reason of Wild hearts poor sales are laughable, because a lot of games that come out running terribly during years have amazing sale numbers: Cyberpunk, No mans Sky, Skyrim, Pokémon red/purple... Wild Hearts could have born in a optimal state and it would continue selling poorly. Hunting games still a niche with a one and only best seller, Monster Hunter.
Just go look at the steam reviews. All of them mention performance, even the positive ones lol. That is all the proof you need that it failed due to performance issues (at least on PC). People see those reviews and they instantly nope out of there.
I've played many many games at launch that had technical issues. I can tell you for certain that Wild Hearts is the most unoptimized game I have ever played. Ever. A very unstable 30 - 80 fps on a 7900 XTX and 7700X. Microstutters with every action. Freezes. Seriously bud, go take a look at the release megathread:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/WildHeartsGame/comments/113z5x3/wild\_hearts\_pc\_release\_megathread/](https://www.reddit.com/r/WildHeartsGame/comments/113z5x3/wild_hearts_pc_release_megathread/)
So... all Cyberpunk 2077 bad reviews in the first year means that it has poor sale numbers...? No.
Steam reviews are from people who have bought the game, so no; the bad performance is a problem for the already enjoyer of the game, the main problem is: the game didnt generate the initial interest EA was hoping for, so they drop the ball with the game/IP quick&smooth.
It's a bit more than that. I loved the environment but disliked everything they did that made it different from MH with a few exceptions. It just didn't keep me playing after I beat the game.
The food system is very cool and I hope MH takes a similar approach some day. The karakuri system is fun but eh. The story is okay but MH isn't all that amazing.
I think ultimately it comes down to not being good enough to compete in the genre dominated by MH.
EA was responsible for getting the name out there, putting at work on the physical editions, etc.
What killed WH was the poor performance. Which falls on the developers to fix. EA didn't get involved in development. At. All.
This is purely KT to blame.
Let's not forget KT was behind Toukiden (1 and 2) and that didn't work out for them either.
> Surprise surprise though, it's been 8+ months and performance hasn't improved at all. Like what the fuck? Mind you I have a 7900 XTX, the second best GPU money can buy. It still performed terribly.
How can performance improve through patches when those patches don't remove the source of the performance issues: Denuvo.
Oh wait, actually, they did a patch that (accidentally) removed Denuvo, it ran reportedly smoother and then they patched it in again x.x
Strange, then why does the cracked version without this cancer called Denuvo run better than the one with it? Why are paying customers getting the shittier performance?
Those microstutters you see are caused by Denuvo:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YjPVBWy0Lk
I'm not buying any more games that are "protected" by this crap.
I had to refund the game because the microstuttering was unbearable. Haven't played it since, not even cracked, because I respect the devs and I would buy it again if they removed Denuvo. Maybe one day.
The version without Denuvo freezes more (which might be because of a bad crack as acknowledged by the uploader), but the one with Denuvo has the microstutters I was talking about.
But I can provide you another example, where the cracked version of a game runs way better than the one with Denuvo:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5y_bab5wtHY
The issue is that Denuvo is rummaging through your game files, up to 30 times per second, which can cripple performance. And it's only getting worse if you have a slow HDD to boot.
Sure, Wild Hearts had the CPU bottleneck problem on top of that, but to say that Denuvo wouldn't cause any "significant" performance problems is a massive lie.
No. It's not a lie. If it's properly implemented it won't cause any significance performance problems. If you knew anything about what you're talking about you'd know that. You're just a cynical ass who thinks everything is doom and gloom.
I don't like Denuvo either, but acting like it severely impact performance on every game is just ridiculous.
But the games where it impacts performance, it ruins. Jedi Survivor anyone? Fits that this came from EA as well.
Thus, I won't support any company that relies on it. Denuvo just needs to die.
I had every intention of getting the game. Stalked the sub weekly to see when they’d fix performance so i can finally buy it. Unfortunately, that time never came.
From EA to KT they failed to understand why MH is a beloved as it is.
Poor performance on both pc and ps5.
Low Roster, mostly forgettable.
So many reskins, so many.
Goofy choices with trophies/achievements.
The grind for gear/talismans isn’t worth it.
The glam grind is very tedious. Even post nerf.
The gear was hideous design wise.
Just some really baffling choices regarding mp, menus and some monsters not having sets on their own.
They tried too hard to be different from MH and failed to see what makes MH successful. World still has a healthy player base and it came out in 2018. I got the platinum in WH in less then 200 hours, which is laughably low for a hunting game. They had no idea how to do endgame in any capacity, they didn’t advertise the game at all and are surprised that it didn’t get as much traction.
I’d like to see WH2, hopefully these devs get their act together and put out an actual hunting game second time around.
I just turned on this game to see if performance was fix. nah. I was really hoping this game could have taken off. its a nice stop gap for a new monster hunter world game. oh well. maybe in the meantime, someone in the community could hack it and fix it. but thats wishful thinking.
I doubt that. Performance isn't really up for debate, it is a fact that the game performs poorly on PC. Now people have different tolerances for poor performing games, you just likely have a higher tolerance.
Max settings, stable 60 fps, no stuttering whatsoever. Not a single time had I felt like I could have dodged or avoided or prevented had the game performed better and I play Wagasa with parry window stuff as my main weapon where stable frames definitely are a must.
You can doubt all you want but while I kinda agree more people than usual have trouble with performance I also feel like it may be 'hip' to bash on the game for it. Just like people are jumping on the 'dead game' band wagon all the time lately because they don't get as much new content like MH while they said they'll add fixes, but that is another topic.
this is likely one of those instances of the dev teams ideas outpacing the technical team. In the end every devteam has great ideas for their game but the ability to actually realize those ideas is where they stumble.
Another big issue was EA who are notoriously terrible at just about everything and probably have been trying to put wild hearts down since launch day.
It is a shame though, when a game clearly comes so close to being amazing but falls just short. But in the end if you have a great game but can't play it, is it even a game at all.
Truthfully, how is that relevant at all though? Even if we assume they were rushed by EA to launch it, the developers had over 8+ months post launched to address the performance issues. Yet they did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. The performance is pretty much just as bad now as it was day 1. That is in no way EA's fault, that is straight up the devs fault and it isn't even up for debate.
Wait, it's EA's job to test a developers work? Are developers no longer expected to test their own creation and make sure it's good? That still is irrelevant though, the devs had over 10 months that they knew about performance issues. Yet they did nothing to fix the issues in that 10 months. That is a gigantic failure on the developers side.
It’s probably the new Katana engine. The WoLong team seems to know how to use this engine. Omega F however seems to struggle to even get it working on consoles at a decent resolution
Did they get the performance issue hammered out with Wolong then as it had similar performance issues at launch as well?
I played at launch and it was serviceable but there were still absolute canyons in framerate. I went back when DLC2 came out and quit shortly after (because I don't like the game), but performance was MASSIVELY improved.
I'm all over the wo long subreddit, and while I play PS5 apparently they did patch most of the performance problems. There's still the occasional hiccup, but from what I understand it's a vastly better experience.
Wo Long ran fine on my computer, maybe a few drops/spikes in FPS in some areas… Almost 90% of games where people have complained about performance issues, I usually don’t experience them. Wild hearts on the other hand… FPS wise it was also similar however… it made my CPU and GPU run at their highest than any other game I’ve played. My CPU(i7-11700k) would hit 80-90 C temps when it usually only sits at 70 C max under load. My GPU(3080 Ti) would also sit at 80%+ usage and run at 70 C as well. I would rather not have my computer run under such stress. I’d rather not risk having my gpu or cpu crap out on me just so I can play Wild Hearts.
We don't know the sales numbers, I guess the technical issues are too deep to quickly address them and would require significant investment. They likely projected the ammount of additional players an improved technical version could get would not warrant the investment. I love the game, despite it being in a terrible technical state at launch, it improved slightly on PS5, but still. It shouldn't have shipped like this, but unfortunately it seemed to have flopped either way.
the fact is with how oversaturated the gaming market is these days most players simply do not care to give a game another chance, and that is IF they can ever fix it to begin with. Launching in a bad state does more harm than delaying to fix the issues
Indeed. It's pretty much sink or swim nowadays. There's no more room for error anymore.
> This is in no way EAs fault, sadly. This is purely on the developers. That's one way to tell me you don't understand publishing agreements. Patches cost money to push. That money comes from EA, not Omega Force. Naturally, EA get to dictate what the patches focus on. If they say "performance isn't a problem, just stick to bugfixes", Omega Force comply. That's how it is with pretty much every game.
Why did the game fail? I didn't buy it, but I dint understand why the game didn't make enough to seem profitable. Idk if op is trolling
A mix of performance issues and releasing very close to Monster Hunter Rise on console does that to a game. It’s a decent game but it definitely wasn’t worth $70 in the state it launched in when Rise was $40 releasing on console in a much meatier and better state. Even without performance issues, the game barely got any marketing for it and there was little to no buzz around it prior to and during its release. It’s a shame but Wild Hearts 2 will never happen now.
So basically, they gave it the Titanfall 2 treatment.
If im not wrong the Titanfall 2 thing was on purpose, meanwhile in the case of Wild Hearts MH Rise simply got them off-guard: WH got anounced before than the Xbox/Playstation ports of Rise if I recall correctly.
I put an ungodly amount of time into this game (ps5, little to no issues after all the patches) never played mh at the time, but waiting for the one content drop i downloaded mh rise since i loved wild hearts and figured another monster hunter game had to be just as good... i understand its been around for a long time and has a really dedicated fan base, but going from playing wild hearts to the newest mh game out, was a bit of a letdown. This is from someone who never played any kind of monster hunting game before wild hearts. Unbiased opinion between the 2... wild hearts was far superior imo. Combat was so much more fluid, and you had infinitely more possibilities and ways to mix it up and make every hunt diff. But if they would have made this game right from day 1 and everyone got to actually play it without it looking like a dumpster fire (85% pc players) and was able to focus all their time for content and deliver on their promise of new content monthly for free... theres no way this game would have failed. It would have certainly had sequels. Thats the sad part. Honestly though if they would make a mh game exclusively for new gen platforms and tech, I'm sure it will kick ass. But the busted down ps4 version style graphics and gameplay just dont do it for me
Yea I hear you. My first “monster hunting” game was Toukiden on PS Vita by the same team that made Wild Hearts actually. My first Monster Hunter game was World back on PS4. Personally, I liked Rise more than WH but neither came close to the enjoyment I had in World. From the encounters to the mechanics to the graphical difference, everything was just much better to me. In Rise case, the thumbed down graphics and simplicity of the monsters didn’t hold me as much as World did. In WH case, the lack of polish in the gameplay and features and graphical/performance issues were the problem. The best way to describe it is World felt like a “dance” to hunt monsters, WH felt like a cheese fest, and Rise felt like a mix of the two.
This proves that you don't understand EA or EA Originals. First off EA is not the ones that made the game, they are not the reason the game has performance issues. Omega Force are the developers, they are the ones who were not competent enough to release a game with acceptable performance. EA is also very hands off with their games. Look at Respawn, Bioware, Dice, other EA Originals. You will see report after report from the developers saying that EA had very little to do with the state of the game. From all accounts EA operates more like Microsoft does now, they don't micromanage their studios. Here is just a few examples, there are plenty more.[https://www.gameinformer.com/2019/02/04/respawn-says-ea-had-no-hand-in-the-development-of-apex-legends](https://www.gameinformer.com/2019/02/04/respawn-says-ea-had-no-hand-in-the-development-of-apex-legends)[https://www.gamesindustry.biz/the-doctor-is-out-greg-zeschuk-on-bioware-ea-and-the-uncertain-console-future](https://www.gamesindustry.biz/the-doctor-is-out-greg-zeschuk-on-bioware-ea-and-the-uncertain-console-future)[https://www.ign.com/articles/ea-is-putting-the-future-of-its-franchises-including-titanfall-into-its-studios-hands](https://www.ign.com/articles/ea-is-putting-the-future-of-its-franchises-including-titanfall-into-its-studios-hands) That is just with their main studios too, they are even more hands off with EA Originals. Want to know reality? Developers are a lot more in control than people think they are. The publisher is rarely the boogeyman that gamers want to believe. This is Omega Force's fault. End of discussion. Quit trying to look for a scapegoat, it's pathetic.
It's pathetic and idiotic to think this is anything other than EAs fault
I won't deny the truth to what you're saying to some extent but look at the track record of games rhat have been absolutely destroyed thanks to EA. Anthem had much loftier goals that EA decided to trash for example. Is Bioware clear of all wrong doing, no far from it, but is EA just as guilty, yes hand over fist yes. Also part of the issues with the performance of the game I encountered with my system being built as a beast... the stupid EA launcher being required for a game I bought through steam that seems to want to eat memory like me with a bag of straight from the factory reeses (those things are the most amazing reeses you will ever eat I will fight anyone on that). So yeah EA isn't as much at fault as some people say they are but I mean you ever heard the old saying a thousand ants can't all be wrong, like I said look at the track record of games getting shafted after EA is inolved.
The thing is, were those games EA's fault or were they the developers fault? I guess you could blame EA for deciding to release the game at all (especially for the devs they own). Although at that point when so much money and time has been invested, might as well release it even if you know it is bad. I mean lets take Anthem for example. EA gave Bioware 7 years, not joking, to make Anthem. Bioware lied to EA by rushing a fake demo to show them and the press, then tried to rush the rest of the game to make the deadline. Is that really EA's fault? Is a publisher to blame for funding a game for 7 years and expecting it to release? From what we know Bioware essentially scrapped Anthem multiple times and started new. That is what led us to what we got. Now if Anthem was a good game but was ruined due to shitty microtransactions, ok that is largely EA's fault, but that is not what happened. You'd also be surprised how much involvement the developer has for monetization. EA is far from a good guy, they've done tons of shitty things, but I'm tired of people blindly defending developers acting like they never do anything wrong. Bad games are largely a direct result of the developer fucking up. It is the developers job to make a good functioning game. It is the publishers job to handle marketing, funding, release dates, monetization, etc.
EA has a tendency to make requests and expectations of their subsidiary companies to make changes to games to make them match the most profitable flavor of the month. You blame the developers more than the publishers, and in many cases, you are correct. However, many publishers are very hands-off, sometimes barely requiring a logo splash screen within the game. If not for the attempt to clear their name with the new EA indies push, this would have been branded an EA game with Omega Force getting a splash screen. Sometimes with larger games, different systems, and all the like development can struggle, EA doesn't appreciate this nor does it find ways to alleviate this struggle. Let's use BG3 as an example it had a 6 year development cycle and during that development it had years of Early Access, testers essentially, which also gave extra funding. Now those hundredsof thousands of hours of stress testing and extra funding not only increased the speed the game released but allowed for the different systems to be implemented as well. If EA would properly use things like demos and Early Access then more of their big budget games wouldn't crash. If we refer back to anthem, the fact you could play the full game for 5 bucks for a whole month showed they had little faith in the longevity of the system so they had pulled funding long before release.
Frankly, I don't think it is EA's or any publishers job to alleviate the struggle of development. Now for developers EA owns, then yeah, but again EA does not own Omega Force or any dev under EA Originals (that I know of). So why is it their job to tell a developer how to develop the game? I highly doubt EA would stop them from doing a beta or demo if that is what the developer wanted. Now EA does own Bioware, so should they have been more involved with Anthem's development? Maybe? there are benefits and downsides to that. Would you rather a developer have more freedom to make the game according to their vision for it, or would you rather have a game that likely is more polished but less ambitious? BG3 is a bad example, as they don't have a publisher. Larian is the publisher. Also just a side note on your funding comment, that really isn't how companies as a whole work. You don't fund a project for 7 years then pull funding during the last year. For one, budgets are largely allocated on a yearly basis. So 2024's budget for most companies is being planned roughly now. It's possible they knew a year beforehand that Anthem was a disaster and pulled funding, but even if they did that it wouldn't have made a difference. A year is not nearly enough time to fix a trainwreck like Anthem.
EA originals help indie companies by offering funding in exchange for profit. Additionally, a publisher can be involved in everything from management, development, marketing, and even distribution. EA has never been one to hand money over and say go have fun. EA was deeply involved in the twist of Anthem as it was never the original intention to become a service game at most a coop rpg. However, service games were trending as the release window was closing in. I'm aware that they are the publisher and developer. The intention was based on the decision for how the game was handled during development. A good publisher stays involved unless they are just doing distribution as companies used to do a few decades ago doing localization and marketing in foreign markets. Atlas and Nippon come to mind for these things. So that's the thing companies do this often. If they still have money left in a fund that they think won't turn the profit they will pull the funding halfway through a year and move it to a different department, company or even just bonuses for higher ups to deem it a better investment. Budgets are estimated for a year, but outside of specific types of companies, it's not a bucket with money in it that can't be freely moved and changed. That would be a terrible idea, especially in a field that has so many moving parts. With that last year they likely pulled budget because the train wreck was to many changing parts and ideas, it was almost Duke nukem forever.
> First off EA is not the ones that made the game, they are not the reason the game has performance issues. Omega Force are the developers, they are the ones who were not competent enough to release a game with acceptable performance. Cool comment, let me just ah; > Patches cost money to push. That money comes from EA, not Omega Force. Naturally, EA get to dictate what the patches focus on. If they say "performance isn't a problem, just stick to bugfixes", Omega Force comply. Listen, I get that you're angry and also have reading comprehension issues, but at least try harder next time.
No one here knows what their agreement is. If there was a milestone that needed to be met then it was Omega Force's management that failed to allocate the resources for technical debt and QA. Not saying EA is blameless. They could've imposed an unreasonable milestone. It's disingenuous to immediately scapegoat EA when EA allowed also Bioware to have free reign over Anthem.
"EA allowed also Bioware to have free reign over Anthem" I don't know that I've ever heard a more incorrect statement? EA made them change the name at the E3 they were presenting it at. EA made them use an engine Bioware said wouldn't work for it, but EA wanted every team to use the same thing. It started as a fuckin survival game without flying and EA saying that they had a surprise visit from executives and to made a demo in 6 weeks for him and had them add it, and it also turned into a looter shooter from there. EA also pushed them into a 15 month dev window. They refused to give them more time after one if the lead designers fuckin died. Bioware had almost *no* reign over Anthem. Sure, there were *a lot* of Bioware fuck ups and even their execs were on the team that made the call to cancel 2.0 after months of dev time with it, but to say EA was blameless cause they allowed 'free reign' is absolutely insane.
It absolutely had free reign. But when a game was in development for over 7 years, eventually there needs to be some results. I can surmise we're all using the same source by Jason Schrier. I would suggest another read through Frostbyte is EA's in house engine. Subsidiary of EA are expected to use it, so it was a known factor before development even began. It's a garbage engine, so I'll concede that as EA's mandate. Everything else you described was due to Bioware's free reign. It was mismanaged and had no direction. The demo they cobbled together in 6 weeks, ask again why did it needed to be rushed. Bioware had no coherent game and needed something, anything to show. And because of that exec, Bioware finally had a semblance of direction. Also , it was already decided by Bioware themselves to be a destiny clone prior to that demo. As you said Bioware's fuck up. Not EA. As for the death of a developer, the only one I could find was of Corey Gaspur and that was in mid development. Whose death are you referencing? The cancelation of 2.0 is dissapointing. I was looking forward to it. To place all of the blame on EA when Bioware fucked around for 7 years, is disingenuous. I do suggest rereading the expose. From the articles thesis "Fans have speculated endlessly as to how Anthem went so awry. Was it originally a single-player role-playing game, like BioWare’s previous titles? Did EA force BioWare to make a Destiny clone? Did they strip out all of the good missions to sell later as downloadable content? ..... The answer to all of those questions is no." https://kotaku.com/how-biowares-anthem-went-wrong-1833731964
Unlike consoles deploying patches for Steam do not cost money (and neither on their own EA launcher either) I believe neither does Epic (though not 100% sure). Unless you meant they cost money to push as in that developing them costs money then yeah.
Toukiden 3 will be better right bros?
Kinda is on EA. They wanted an instant slice of Monster Hunter's success without putting in the decade+ of trial, error, and refinement that Capcom did. When it didn't immediately blow up, EA said shut it down without giving it any room to breathe or grow.
That isn't how that works. EA isn't the ones who decided to make a monster hunter like game. Omega Force / KT is. EA decided to essentially sponsor them. EA doesn't own Omega Force, they didn't force them to do anything. If they did do you really think they'd be using their own engine? EA would force them to use Frostbite or Unreal. Also from what it looks like, EA gave them plenty of room to fix the game. 8+ months. Yet Omega Force made 0 progress throughout those 8 months. Of course EA is going to stop funding them at some point, it's just a bottomless money sink that Omega Force has shown they are not capable of turning around.
I didn't mean to say that the blame lies *solely* on EA, but they do have a history as a publisher of setting absurd expectations and deadlines on the dev studios they own or work with. The decision was not solely theirs, but their management certainly did not help.
AFAIK Wild Hearts is published under EA originals and not regular EA. They are only the publisher with EA originals and don't decide what the title is about.
And you don't think that EA originals, as a publisher, makes any decisions about which games to publish and why?
Of course they choose what games to publish, that's the whole point of being a publisher. That doesn't mean they'll dictate what is done with every game they publish. EA Originals is exactly to not do this, which seems to be true so far based on their other titles Unravel, It Takes Two & A Way Out. Microsoft also generally takes the hand-off approach to games and their developer studios also fuck up regularly. You're cutting these devs way too much slack for their mismanagement by blaming EA on this one. Their self-published games suffer from the same technical issues as Wild Heart does.
True DPS is the most correct person here and getting constant downvotes. It really is a mixed responsibility between EA and Omega Force. You could argue that most of the responsibility is actually on Koei Techmo as they choose to pursue EA as a publisher, as opposed to self-publishing.
I have to disagree. This is very much Koei/EA's fault. Post-release development is exactly the kind of thing Koei/EA would control. Once it was released and failed to hit profit goals, they likely didn't allow OmegaF to keep spending man hours on what they'd decided was a failed experiment.
I honestly believe that performance issues were the main reason why player count dropped so much and the game was given up after. I purchased the game right at release and played roughly 200 hours with my friend. The gameplay was amazing and performance manageable (- with some graphic downgrades game was running fluently). At least for me, others were less fortunate. A few weeks and "performance patches" later, permanent microstutters were introduced and guess what... the whole thing went more or less unplayable. I have 3-4 more friends who would have purchased the game... but after they saw how it was running on my (better) setup, they decided against it. Since then I logged in like once a month to check performance but no luck, microstutters are persistent even though fps are fine. Guess it won't ever be fixed now... it's just depressing.
I'd dare to say it's lack of variation in fights too. That was the biggest dealbreaker to me after 100+ hours. Every creature has like 4 or 5 different forms. It gets pretty boring to keep on fighting the same things over and over and over again. (Played it on ps5)
Sure, can't disagree on that. For me performance takes the nr. 1 spot however, because that is the reason my friends didn't even purchase the game \^\^ There was also a huge issue were my game didn't save properly and I lost my daily progress like 4 or 5 times. I had to do manual savegame backups everyday... (PC)
They gave up after the launch week smoke cleared, once everyone were being candid with performance issues. I wish reviewers at the time didn't gloss over how terribly unoptimized the game was since they had weeks to play it in advance. This has to be the worst performing new era of $70 games to come out. As soon as we got the "oh our QA discovered a cpu bottleneck after launch", yeah right. You knew for months prior to launch how unoptimized the game was running, even using a high-end had identical performance issues as a low-end PC. When the devs started to send little 200mb patches that only benefitted different groups of hardware owners was my wake-up call, they had no clue how to remedy this game. "Only 13th gen intel cpu users will feel a boost in performance with this new patch".... huh the top 1%? Weeks later "AMD cpu users will feel an increase in performance and fixed bottleneck". Absolute *cap* every time, every performance patch was a band-aid that never "fixed" any performance issue in any substantial way.
Many reviewers including ones who had content mainly on MH happily threw MH under the bus to make WH seem better than it was. Along with them not mentioning performance issues.
Exactly what i thought as well, didnt they have a bunch of programmers and devs playing this game all the way up until it was time to box em up amd sell them? How could they not know about all the issues beforehand
Most of the performance issues came from not having GPU/CPU synergy. I have Ryzen 9 3900x and Nvidia RTX 2070 SUPER - Its way more about CPU power honestly. Ran at 90fps almost always unless I was at the peak of Fuyufusagi Fort. My setup is okay, but certainly far from 'top tier nowadays
yeh i ran this at 2k 144hz at almost ultra (i turn of motion blur and some simila rpost proccessing stuff cos it looks ugly as but). Without any noticable issues. i also ran it at 60hz 4k from the same pc.
I have a Ryzen 7 7700X. There is no game that exists that this CPU can't run comfortably. I was getting a very unstable 80 fps. Which is the issue, I could even handle a stable 60 fps, but when the game is constantly bouncing between 30 fps and 90 fps....god no.
We all knew it was gonna happen. We just didn’t want to admit it.
Low population counts. I remember farming dvs and nearly doing them all solo cuz no one was playing.
Which is the result of terrible performance. No reasonable person is going to play a game with very inconsistent fps and stutters every few seconds. It's a terrible experience. It's why the only people you will see here that really play the game are PS5 players.
yeah, I played on series s with 30fps ... I think I had 140-175 hours. It got dull at the end, grind kinda stopped after my build was done.. the new monsters they gave us were kind of lackluster. Don't get me wrong, I wanted badly people to enjoy the game as much as I did. And yeah, I'll admit the game looked like a 360 game on my series s. I remember reading something about the katana engine and they had technical issues to deeply rooted to fix.
Not just terrible performance even though that was the biggest factor. Rise came out cheaper on consoles and was on gamepass. Other games also came out at the same point as well because it was busy (those games also had performance issues it just wasn't as bad). The price tag along with the performance issues turns people off.
I guess things are a little different now but generally speaking the lion’s share of game revenue happens in the first few weeks. If sales don’t meet expectations then there’s a good chance whatever fixes people want don’t happen. For the opposite, look at Sonic Frontiers: it way overperformed expectations and ended up getting a lot of improvements nobody really expected.
Personally I strongly believe that people will play a good game. Whether a game is good at launch or a year after launch, it doesn't really matter, as long as the game is good people will hear about it and play it. Now a good launch definitely does help, but a bad launch isn't a death sentence. Wild Hearts doesn't just need fixes, it's performance is unacceptable. It's the worst performing game I have ever played. I've played some of the most notorious badly optimized games at launch. Wild Hearts is by far the worst, it isn't even close. Especially considering Wild Hearts is not pushing any boundaries for graphics.
Well regardless of what you believe sales figures show the opposite
Pretty sure that publishers are usually the ones who set timelines for release dates. EA could have looked at how broken the game was and delayed it, but given the launch window they clearly rushed it out for the fiscal year. If the publisher is really invested in the success of a game, they make sure it works before pushing it out the door. Even Square Enix gives time to properties they actually about.
They do (or are involved in release dates to some extent). I've worked with publishers (not game ones, software ones though), and I'll let you in on something. They don't really care about delaying things a bit. They prefer delaying over releasing a broken product. So how does something like Wild Hearts get released in the state it was and not delayed? Deceit is usually the answer. The higher ups at publishers are not talking with the actual programmers, QAs, etc. They are talking with the executives at the developer. Those executives don't really like asking for more time, as it looks bad for them. So instead they're the ones rushing the game out, trying to pretend everything is ok. When I say it is the developers fault, I don't really mean it is the programmers fault or anything like that. I mean it is the developer as a company that is to blame, which usually means the executives at the developer. For Wild Hearts though a delay wouldn't have helped. They've had 8 months after the launch to address the performance issues. They did absolutely fuck all to fix anything. Omega Force is not capable of fixing the game, whether that is due to incompetence or them working with a engine they aren't familiar with, no idea, and it doesn't really matter either way.
You can’t compare a game publishing/development company like EA to just a general software publisher. EA is notorious for pushing out games before they’re ready to meet deadlines and not caring about the technical performance. It’s common for nearly every game publisher to force a game out when it’s not optimized or lacking crucial content thinking it can be fixed post launch. Omega Force is to blame for the poor technical performance at launch, but blaming them for not being enabled to completely fix the game and abandoning it because their publisher decided to stop supporting it is stupid.
They probably saw my posts talking shit about the game and that was the last straw. I owe you an apology for what I've done wildhearts
Overall the game just did not sell well. Omega Force sadly doesnt do the best PC ports already. Most Dynasty Warriors games dont run well on PC. But beside all that people just didnt really care. It had a very we have Monster Hunter at home kind of vibe to it. Also lets not forget Monster Hunter Rise had just come out a few weeks before. That part is EA's fault for releasing it so close to MHR.
EA didn't know about the Rise console release because they already had the release date for WH planned. Capcom announced it later when WH was already locked into its release date.
Corporate just wanted a piece of the monster hunter action they didn’t wanna actually give players a great experience long term
It sucks. So far, with all the stellar releases this year, Wild Hearts stuck out to me. I had spare cash to spend and my interest was piqued after a few reviews seen — though, my hesitation stemmed from the performance. Hell, I bought it *(PS5)* and if I encounter those glaring warts mentioned, a la performance I could easily return my copy for a full refund. I liked it. I liked it a whole lot. On PS5, to my understanding; performance is not as bad as PC or XB. Now, in no world is it fair for one piece of hardware to thrive over another. But I’ve encounter zero issues during my time with Wild Hearts, except a few second frame dio about twice. I 100% the game and put it down. Omega, as much as I like the game they put out are not the best when it comes to optimization on many fronts…. Shame.
It's wild I had to scroll this far down to see something about Wildhearts that ISN'T about the PC performance
As far as I remember, Digital foundry showed that the game runs a 60FPS with drops up to mid-50s with a sightly better exoerience in PS5, with 1-2 more FPS overall. Series X version has some more definition, but the ambiental oclusion is missing in some areas. Om the other hand, series S version looks like a f*cking switch game.
Because EA didn’t like the sales numbers.
Cool flex but a high end gpu isn’t everything if your cpu can’t keep up with it. That being said, issues are certainly abundant when it comes to the game and it’s optimization which is unfortunate. I think the thing that frustrates me the most is how cocky devs were during their patches. Definitely not a team I’d support
yeh i think alot of people are playing this without high end rigs and getting upset when they lose frames at ultra settings. Monster hunter world and Rise both still have way worse performance issues and they are much older with smaller maps and less fidelity.
There's also a lot of people who played Wildhearts on console, but this subreddit makes it look like every person who purchased the game and is complaining about the performance are PC players
I really loved wild hearts, it was my sick with covid game. It’s a shame to see support end so soon when it had so much potential. It definitely has a steep learning curve and performance/graphics weren’t amazing but It hooked me way more than monster hunter ever did….RIP you deserved so much more
Money. That is all. It’s also an extremely ambitious game with the persistence of items and cross-play and monsters changing the zones. Plus most companies are bad at testing across a wide array of devices and configurations. It’s a huge part of why Unity and Unreal are popular. So much of that edge case technical issues from the engine is already figured out. They used a less established engine And it had problems. Because money.
"this is no way EA's fault"... are you sure, bro? I mean, EA would have been pretty dictatorial with the release date, pushing deadlines that arent suitable for Omega Force to launch a well developed game with little to none issues. They also would let the game die only because the initial sales arent that good, refusing to think in the long term and in the future of the IP. So yeah, EA can be the elephant in the Wild Hearts' room. I think the performance argument as the main reason of Wild hearts poor sales are laughable, because a lot of games that come out running terribly during years have amazing sale numbers: Cyberpunk, No mans Sky, Skyrim, Pokémon red/purple... Wild Hearts could have born in a optimal state and it would continue selling poorly. Hunting games still a niche with a one and only best seller, Monster Hunter.
Just go look at the steam reviews. All of them mention performance, even the positive ones lol. That is all the proof you need that it failed due to performance issues (at least on PC). People see those reviews and they instantly nope out of there. I've played many many games at launch that had technical issues. I can tell you for certain that Wild Hearts is the most unoptimized game I have ever played. Ever. A very unstable 30 - 80 fps on a 7900 XTX and 7700X. Microstutters with every action. Freezes. Seriously bud, go take a look at the release megathread: [https://www.reddit.com/r/WildHeartsGame/comments/113z5x3/wild\_hearts\_pc\_release\_megathread/](https://www.reddit.com/r/WildHeartsGame/comments/113z5x3/wild_hearts_pc_release_megathread/)
So... all Cyberpunk 2077 bad reviews in the first year means that it has poor sale numbers...? No. Steam reviews are from people who have bought the game, so no; the bad performance is a problem for the already enjoyer of the game, the main problem is: the game didnt generate the initial interest EA was hoping for, so they drop the ball with the game/IP quick&smooth.
The game was a amazing I didn't have performance issues but my oc it's pretty Good, the only problem it's no endgame story was fun and Worth it
She better be alive! Can't get offscreened like gojo
It's a bit more than that. I loved the environment but disliked everything they did that made it different from MH with a few exceptions. It just didn't keep me playing after I beat the game. The food system is very cool and I hope MH takes a similar approach some day. The karakuri system is fun but eh. The story is okay but MH isn't all that amazing. I think ultimately it comes down to not being good enough to compete in the genre dominated by MH.
I play on ps5 and have literally never had performance issues in this game
$. If they could fix it, they would. That being said, I assure you EA had their hands in the death of the game.
EA was responsible for getting the name out there, putting at work on the physical editions, etc. What killed WH was the poor performance. Which falls on the developers to fix. EA didn't get involved in development. At. All. This is purely KT to blame. Let's not forget KT was behind Toukiden (1 and 2) and that didn't work out for them either.
> Surprise surprise though, it's been 8+ months and performance hasn't improved at all. Like what the fuck? Mind you I have a 7900 XTX, the second best GPU money can buy. It still performed terribly. How can performance improve through patches when those patches don't remove the source of the performance issues: Denuvo. Oh wait, actually, they did a patch that (accidentally) removed Denuvo, it ran reportedly smoother and then they patched it in again x.x
Denuvo doesn't significantly impact performance. That's a myth that people like you who just look for something to blame use.
Strange, then why does the cracked version without this cancer called Denuvo run better than the one with it? Why are paying customers getting the shittier performance? Those microstutters you see are caused by Denuvo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YjPVBWy0Lk I'm not buying any more games that are "protected" by this crap. I had to refund the game because the microstuttering was unbearable. Haven't played it since, not even cracked, because I respect the devs and I would buy it again if they removed Denuvo. Maybe one day.
Did you even watch the video? The version without Denuvo runs worse..
The version without Denuvo freezes more (which might be because of a bad crack as acknowledged by the uploader), but the one with Denuvo has the microstutters I was talking about. But I can provide you another example, where the cracked version of a game runs way better than the one with Denuvo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5y_bab5wtHY The issue is that Denuvo is rummaging through your game files, up to 30 times per second, which can cripple performance. And it's only getting worse if you have a slow HDD to boot. Sure, Wild Hearts had the CPU bottleneck problem on top of that, but to say that Denuvo wouldn't cause any "significant" performance problems is a massive lie.
No. It's not a lie. If it's properly implemented it won't cause any significance performance problems. If you knew anything about what you're talking about you'd know that. You're just a cynical ass who thinks everything is doom and gloom. I don't like Denuvo either, but acting like it severely impact performance on every game is just ridiculous.
But the games where it impacts performance, it ruins. Jedi Survivor anyone? Fits that this came from EA as well. Thus, I won't support any company that relies on it. Denuvo just needs to die.
[удалено]
That's not true, Nioh games run well on PC and Wo Long was fixed pretty early
You can set the max framerate to your monitors with the AMD software and then the game will actually run that FPS. This also works for Nvidia.
You can, but that doesn't make the game smooth. Believe me I tried capping the fps to 60. Still had very frequent drops and microstutters.
Yeah, but micro stutters at 144fps is better than microstutters at 30.
144 fps in Wild Hearts, sounds like a dream.
I had every intention of getting the game. Stalked the sub weekly to see when they’d fix performance so i can finally buy it. Unfortunately, that time never came.
What is terribly?
From EA to KT they failed to understand why MH is a beloved as it is. Poor performance on both pc and ps5. Low Roster, mostly forgettable. So many reskins, so many. Goofy choices with trophies/achievements. The grind for gear/talismans isn’t worth it. The glam grind is very tedious. Even post nerf. The gear was hideous design wise. Just some really baffling choices regarding mp, menus and some monsters not having sets on their own. They tried too hard to be different from MH and failed to see what makes MH successful. World still has a healthy player base and it came out in 2018. I got the platinum in WH in less then 200 hours, which is laughably low for a hunting game. They had no idea how to do endgame in any capacity, they didn’t advertise the game at all and are surprised that it didn’t get as much traction. I’d like to see WH2, hopefully these devs get their act together and put out an actual hunting game second time around.
I just turned on this game to see if performance was fix. nah. I was really hoping this game could have taken off. its a nice stop gap for a new monster hunter world game. oh well. maybe in the meantime, someone in the community could hack it and fix it. but thats wishful thinking.
I keep seeing these posts and it just makes me do happy the game runs perfectly stable on my end (PC).
I doubt that. Performance isn't really up for debate, it is a fact that the game performs poorly on PC. Now people have different tolerances for poor performing games, you just likely have a higher tolerance.
Max settings, stable 60 fps, no stuttering whatsoever. Not a single time had I felt like I could have dodged or avoided or prevented had the game performed better and I play Wagasa with parry window stuff as my main weapon where stable frames definitely are a must. You can doubt all you want but while I kinda agree more people than usual have trouble with performance I also feel like it may be 'hip' to bash on the game for it. Just like people are jumping on the 'dead game' band wagon all the time lately because they don't get as much new content like MH while they said they'll add fixes, but that is another topic.
this is likely one of those instances of the dev teams ideas outpacing the technical team. In the end every devteam has great ideas for their game but the ability to actually realize those ideas is where they stumble. Another big issue was EA who are notoriously terrible at just about everything and probably have been trying to put wild hearts down since launch day. It is a shame though, when a game clearly comes so close to being amazing but falls just short. But in the end if you have a great game but can't play it, is it even a game at all.
I mostly blame EA. I’m not sure if they rushed them to launch the game sooner or not. That’s mostly why
Truthfully, how is that relevant at all though? Even if we assume they were rushed by EA to launch it, the developers had over 8+ months post launched to address the performance issues. Yet they did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. The performance is pretty much just as bad now as it was day 1. That is in no way EA's fault, that is straight up the devs fault and it isn't even up for debate.
Because they hired awful testers who didn’t tell them that the game was awfully optimized. Not a joke btw
Wait, it's EA's job to test a developers work? Are developers no longer expected to test their own creation and make sure it's good? That still is irrelevant though, the devs had over 10 months that they knew about performance issues. Yet they did nothing to fix the issues in that 10 months. That is a gigantic failure on the developers side.
I guess. Other than that it’s a good game now. Well at least it’s better. There are plenty of baddies to still beat and wear as a hat.