Support NeoGAF

[Draugoth]

Star Wars Jedi: Survivor Game Director Refused Another Delay

Star Wars Jedi: Survivor launched with quite a few issues for players on PC, so why did its game director refuse another delay?

insider-gaming.com

When Star Wars Jedi: Survivor launched on April 28, it was met with some backlash over its performance on PC. From frame rate drops to stuttering and more, many with even the most powerful machines saw problems. It lead to questions about why the game wasn’t pushed back to sort out those issues. If you look back, however, there was an opportunity to delay the game further, one that Star Wars Jedi: Survivor game director Stig Asmussen refused.

In an interview with IGN back in March, Asmussen was asked how the team at Respawn Entertainment settled on the April 28 launch date after numerous delays, including one from March 17, 2023. He told the outlet that the team was asked how much time they needed, and they settled on six weeks.

“That was exactly April 28,” Asmussen said. “That’s no joke.”

Asmussen added that the team “stress-tested” the date. That included looking at other games releasing around the same time — Redfall and The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom are two that immediately come to mind — and finding what Respawn and EA believed to be a good spot to fit in.

“There was an option of do we want to extend it a little bit longer, but no we said no we can get it done in six weeks,” he said.

Have PC Issues Hampered Star Wars Jedi: Survivor Sales?​

Despite the issues at launch, Star Wars Jedi: Survivor still became the second-biggest Star Wars launch on Steam. It showed that the team still had a game players wanted to enjoy, and were willing to look past issues with the hope of fixes from Respawn.

That said, Respawn has made it known that the issues for PC players are actively being addressed.

“While there is no single, comprehensive solution for PC performance, the team has been working on fixes we believe will improve performance across a spectrum of configurations,” the company said in a statement on launch day. “We are committed to fixing these issues as soon as possible, but each patch requires significant testing to ensure we don’t introduce new problems.”

 

[Luipadre]

But EA sucks i heard? Everyone blaming EA for this when no one knows what really went wrong here

 

[SlimySnake]

Yeah, I remember that interview with IGN. Stig felt very confident about it. I am guessing they dont understand the performance side of things. Game isnt very buggy so they likely focused on the bugs and didnt realize people actually care about games dropping below 30 fps or looking blurry in 60 fps modes.

 

[Punished Miku]

But EA sucks i heard? Everyone blaming EA for this when no one knows what really went wrong here

They paid Bioware for years for Andromeda too.

 

[diffusionx]

Sounds like they had no issue with launching next to Redfall, but figured they would get swamped by TOTK a la Horizon. Probably a smart move.

 

[MiguelItUp]

But EA sucks i heard? Everyone blaming EA for this when no one knows what really went wrong here

Honestly, it can go both ways in any and every situation. The reality is, no one really knows other than the studio, and you can't really pinpoint it from outside of it either. But when it comes to release dates, the faults typically fall on the publisher's wants and demands.

Even if the game director at Respawn said this, EA as the publisher, still has say. However, in this situation they could've trusted his judgement and just rolled with it. Regardless, this should be a large learning lesson for them, hopefully it is. Them being Respawn, I don't think EA gives a damn, lmao.

Sounds like they had no issue with launching next to Redfall, but figured they would get swamped by TOTK a la Horizon. Probably a smart move.

Honestly, this is why I figured they did it in the first place. The game released in April, not in May. They probably didn't want to touch May because of Zelda and other potential "big" releases.

 

[AJUMP23]

Sometimes people are just ready to release it at good enough.

 

[Nydius]

But EA sucks i heard? Everyone blaming EA for this when no one knows what really went wrong here

Same song and dance with Anthem years ago. Everyone was quick to blame EA but the investigative post-mortems clearly illustrated the fault was on BioWare’s shoulders.

 

[Fbh]

“There was an option of do we want to extend it a little bit longer, but no we said no we can get it done in six weeks,” he said.

 

[OverHeat]

Play a lot better and look better on my 7950x3d plus 4090 then on my ps5 still expected better performance from my hardware.

 

[HTK]

Play a lot better and look better on my 7950x3d plus 4090 then on my ps5 still expected better performance from my hardware.

But the question should be does it look better and play better for $1599.

 

[Shifty1897]

They won't learn their lesson because it's the second best selling game so far this year.

This is why you don't preorder games.

 

[HTK]

OverHeat I'm literally laughing my ass off right now, oh man that was too much. Thank you for that. I know you paid more for that shit too.

 

[Brigandier]

But the question should be does it look better and play better for $1599.

You mean $3000+

The 1599 is GPU only.

 

[HTK]

You mean $3000+

The 1599 is GPU only.

I enjoy OverHeat on these forums so I don't want to peel any more layers than need be. LOL.

 

[TrueLegend]

I don't blame EA. EA has been good for some time now in their output and attitude. I want to pin it on devs and not just on this case but on many cases. In recent years due to so call game journalism and activism we have lazyass taletless devs with scoping issues, then there are dumb decisions like not including fsr, dlss or xess on titles for short change money.

 

[rodrigolfp]

You refuse a delay, costumers delay to pay.

But the question should be does it look better and play better for $1599.

Because people pay $1599 just for this game?

 

[Dural]

Should have delayed PC and focused on the console versions. I know a lot of PC gamers wouldn't want to hear that, but what option is better; launch at same time as consoles with lots of issues and hope for fixes or wait a couple months for it to be released in a proper state?

 

[HTK]

Because people pay $1599 just for this game?

No, but it is a Star Wars Jedi: Survivor thread.

 

[Fake]

Star Wars Jedi: Survivor Game Director Refused Another Delay​

 

[rodrigolfp]

No, but it is a Star Wars Jedi: Survivor thread.

And?

 

[Loomy]

But EA sucks i heard? Everyone blaming EA for this when no one knows what really went wrong here

The release date is ultimately the publisher's decision. Same as Sony did with TLOU Remake, and Microsoft with Redfall, they made the decision to launch a shitty PC version. That's on them as much as it's on Respawn.

 

[Luipadre]

The release date is ultimately the publisher's decision. Same as Sony did with TLOU Remake, and Microsoft with Redfall, they made the decision to launch a shitty PC version. That's on them as much as it's on Respawn.

Yes but what if respawn told EA the game is ready?

 

[Bragr]

The release date is ultimately the publisher's decision. Same as Sony did with TLOU Remake, and Microsoft with Redfall, they made the decision to launch a shitty PC version. That's on them as much as it's on Respawn.

Not if EA told them they could delay it and they refused. That's 100% crooked fucking Repawn.

 

[Loomy]

Yes but what if respawn told EA the game is ready?

Not if EA told them they could delay it and they refused. That's 100% crooked fucking Repawn.

Repsawn lied and EA didn't verify the claim. Both are at fault here.

 

[winjer]

What a dumb ass.

 

[coffinbirth]

How many years has it been since it was even remotely intelligent to play a AAA game at launch without expecting issues???

It's hard to have any sympathy for people that continually fail at this basic fact, let alone when they run to the internet to cry about it.

That being said, this game certainly should've stayed in the oven a bit longer, and I'm not quite sure I believe that Respawn were given many options here, despite what he said. Fixing the performance issues was probably always intended for post launch support and those six weeks was for fixing the save issues and/or any other major bugs. Delaying it to make it "perfect" basically never happens anymore, unless you're Nintendo. This isn't RedFall...which should've been delayed by at least a year.

Buy this in a few months when everything is ironed out and it's considerably cheaper...just like nearly everything else.

 

[Mister Wolf]

His hubris has cost EA alot of money.

 

[Buggy Loop]

They found out they could make bank and they did

No lessons to be learned here sadly