Mafia III just launched, but it’s already in the hands of reviewers for a while. Unfortunately, they have discovered that the PC version’s framerate is capped at 30 FPS. Now 2K’s dealing with one hell of an angry mob — and not the organised, suit-wearing kind.
As a rule, PC gamers prefer un-capped framerates, given that their machines are generally powerful enough to push well past the buttery smooth realm of 60 FPS. A cap, then, is a sign of a port that caters to consoles at PC’s expense. That’s no good.
Fortunately, Mafia III’s developers have acknowledged the cap, and they say that an update will remove it very soon. In a statement on the game’s official website, they wrote:
We know how important having options that best suit your PC’s performance capabilities are. The team has been hard at work ensuring that Mafia III’s performance is consistent across all platforms, and right now the game runs at a solid 30 frames-per-second. We are currently working on an update for PC that will give players the option to play Mafia III at higher framerates. We’ll share more details about the update, and when you can expect it to arrive, very soon.
They added that they’re “actively considering a number of additional post-launch improvements on PC that would give players more control over how they can tailor the game’s experience to suit their rig’s performance”. Better late than never, for sure, but why weren’t those options in the PC version to begin with?
The answer, I’m sure, is some variation on the phrase, “triple-A game development”. It’s understandable, but as a PC player, it’s hard not to feel bummed about this. It’s never fun to order a new toy and excitedly tear open the packaging, only to discover that it’s missing parts.
Comments
17 responses to “Mafia III’s Framerate Is Capped On PC, But Devs Say That Will Change ‘Soon’”
Reiterating your article: How about a number of additional PRE-launch improvements on PC?
Where the fuck have these people been? This beggars belief!
Sounds like a rush job on the PC side.
This is to be expected, more or less isn’t it?
A game, AAA or no, is going to have to be rubber-banded at some point during development so it can be optimised to actually run on the systems it expects to make the most returns on.
I know it’s still smoke and mirrors from the publisher at this point, but should we be asking to be be told straight up in the review:
who’s working on the PC version?
was it a port?
when was development started?
This time it’s 30fps. In a few years messageboards will froth at the mouth if a similar Sequel to a Franchise game isn’t optimised to run in smell-o-vision or whatever, but it still outputs the visuals that are standard for the machine it’s designed to run on.
Wonder if this is a deadlines situation. Perhaps they didn’t have enough time to optimize it properly. Who knows.
this also explains why there were no review copies sent out until launch.
I feel sorry for devs sometimes, as they can’t win. Do they hold the PC version back a few weeks to get it right? Because then they get complaints about the PC delay. Do they hold back the console versions to make sure the PC version in up to scratch and get a simultaneous release? Angry console gamers!
While a delay sucks, people would much rather see a delay than a buggy game. remember Witcher 3 was delayed quite a few times and even GTA 5 on PC was delayed twice after it was offically announced. What we do hate however is when the delay isnt needed other than to force people to by on console and then again on PC ( ubisofts treatment of PC gamers when it came assassins creed)
It isn’t about bugs. It’s about money.
While I would never suggest that Microsoft or Sony would pay a developer to make sure there isn’t a version of their game at release that looks far better than the game running on their console, Microsoft and Sony clearly pay developers to make sure there aren’t versions of their game at release that look far better than the game running on their console.
Hardly matters for PC though – it’s not like high end PCs are the platform of choice. Console gamers don’t care about the PC.
Source
So, within a few days of release… which means it’s not tying physics to framerate or any of the classic console “optimisation” solutions… which makes it all the more baffling how this could have been so easily overlooked… *shrugs*
according to a reddit post, the physics engine is indeed tied to the frame rate, they set the fps to 15 and the game became 50% slower. Also just had my first CTD with no error msg after 47minutes of playing
I stand corrected. Which means they knew about it a fair while before hand and … hoped people wouldn’t notice? *sigh*
At least it works though right? It’s not a Batman Arkham Knight job. Silver linings.
If it’s a smooth and stable 30 fps then I’m good.
its also blurry due to been upscaled from 720p or 900p one of the two. Steam community is full of hate about it.
understandably
after playing for bit, the its definately blurry, but ive also noticed a film grain effect as well which compounds the problem
i pre ordered it back in April and its just finished downloading… i hope its not to bad i play most of my games on my lounge room tv so hoping sitting back a bit makes it a bit better.
I have said this many times before, before XBOX had DISK PARITY for any games released on their console, now they have GAME PARITY( the game must ship exactly the same across all platforms and not have any difference) therefore they have used legal means to LIE so they can say their console is as powerful as a pc, do you not do research there at Kotaku? I thought you guys would be all over the PARITY LEGAL ISSUES……. geez guys get a clue hey. *sigh*