But it's the fact that these figures are being seen with the most powerful consumer graphics card (on a brand new unpopulated game map) that's the problem.
Again, this is a simulation game. If I ask the game to spit out more detail and graphics than can be physically supported by today's technology, I guess I don't necessarily see this as a design fault.
To be clear: I had to turn the quality down to much worse than I recall Cities Skylines 1 looking in order to get worse performance than Cities Skylines 1.
The major complaint here is not "I cannot max the settings on my mediocre hardware", but rather "I cannot mediocre the settings on my max hardware"; the performance is bad at any level, but my hardware, while not top-of-the-line, should be able to run a game like this at 4K playable, or at 1080p while looking awesome and running great. Instead, I get 1080p with a mix of medium/low settings in order to get it looking pretty okay in most aspects.
This assumes Cities Skylines 2 is using some next gen graphics technology when in practice it is a Unity game without any cutting edge graphics. Another comment mentioned they are doing 10k+ draw calls per frame - it's just poorly optimized.
As a city builder it has not just dynamic geometry (which makes graphics optimization more challenging) and lots going on on screen like DSP, but also a complex agent based simulation of a city, its transportation, its economy, and individual agent AIs. It is far more complex than most games despite not being graphically intensive. And do note that as far as cities builders go, it's also one of the most ambitious graphically. My personal opinion is they deserve some slack as long as the game continues to improve.
Yes, scalability towards the future is good -- but not at the detriment of player performance now.
If the player base doesn't stick around during our current dark-times medieval technology stack, there won't be a player base when we have whatever future tech makes it playable -- see the problem?
Why enable those heavy, performance crippling post processing filters by default?
From what I can find in this comment section, and I guess this has to be taken with a grain of salt, performance doesn't scale. It seems we max out at 50fps on a beefy 13th gen Intel with the fastest GPU available, but then there's a couple comments with mid-range hardware where performance is nearly identical.
The Steam hardware survey suggests otherwise to my eyes; it's often easy to forget working in tech that a lot of Steam customers have relatively shit hardware:
https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Softw...
While they don't track monitor peak supported refresh, just looking at the rest of the results suggests to me high-refresh gaming (over 60FPS) is going to be relatively niche at best. Lots of PC gaming specs I take for-granted on my own builds or consider "average" are actually not that common.
I absolutely agree 60fps should be considered the floor for most modern PC games running on "reasonable" hardware though, 30fps belongs to the past.
I wouldn't read too much into these stats.
This is probably one of the best public sources of data we have on the topic of what hardware actual PC gamers are using.
Woahhh
You're forgetting the increasing popularity of the Steam Deck where even 60 FPS is a luxury so game devs should definitely have that as a target.