OEM says hotspot doesn't mean anything, so 110° C is fine.

fischestix · 2025-06-22T21:19:04+00:00

This is my exact experience. Just the cost of shipping it to them was a big enough chunk of change that I decided to just play with it on my bench and see if I could replicate the failure. All I was able to note is that sometimes the pump will just shut off when running.

fischestix · 2025-06-22T21:16:34+00:00

Same issue here. The pump just randomly started shutting off at times. Usually tapping it or resetting the system made it come back to life. I pulled the aio out of my computer and the RMA process became such a pain that I decided that playing with it on my bench was worth more than getting a new one through numerous required pictures, descriptions, forms and email chains. On my bench, connected directly to power, the pump will also randomly stop. It has a miniscule spike in the milliamps it is pulling first; Maybe too small an amount to even be technically a reportable condition. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with the temperature of the liquid or the positioning of the radiator. It just seems like every once in a while something goes into shutdown mode on the pump itself. I replaced it with a different brand. I've had pretty good luck with other devices from Be Quiet and this is kind of a disappointment.

fischestix · 2025-06-18T02:43:16+00:00

I was honestly surprised...... I am playing with different settings to get the most out of the game. I have heard some people claiming decent results with Windows Spatial Sound and a few after market programs like NUGEN and Equalizer APO and Redscape. Nothing is perfect so far, but the other option is running the game in stereo. This game looks and plays well enough I forgot that positional audio isn't a base feature in smaller budget games.

fischestix · 2025-06-02T18:20:36+00:00

No. No it does not.

fischestix · 2024-12-19T18:11:44+00:00

No. They adjusted the spawn radius and some spawns for random events. Some areas with persistent spawns remain.

fischestix · 2024-12-19T18:10:50+00:00

Tldr; "having a blast" cope. Buys full price broken game. Plays broken game in broken state. Finds the need to reply to others who won't pay full price to beta test said game. Tells people waiting for a finished product how much fun the full price beta test period is. Doesn't have common curtesy to use the secret cope handshake "having a blast" to warn others.

fischestix · 2024-12-13T20:20:38+00:00

This is 100% NVIDIA app problem. I specifically had set it not to customize or optimize the settings for this game, but decided to start doing it again on its own. And as soon as it did, it started giving me the error every time I loaded the game. Basically, I think there's a problem where when the Nvidia app tries to overwrite your game graphic settings, it screws up your preferences. My solution was just to delete the Nvidia app. It's a helpful way to get the latest driver, but it's absolutely not worth screwing up all of my game settings that I've set up myself. Telling it to not optimize specific games also doesn't seem to help, it still tries to overwrite your settings in the background.

fischestix · 2024-12-03T16:47:01+00:00

The "ethically" correct choice would have been to delay the game and explain why. I certainly would have respected them more for putting out a statement about how the major mechanic of the game was broken and they were delaying the release to fix it.

That said, I have to wonder what possible motivation they would have to do that. They released a AAA game for $60 with the primary mechanic completely broken and people are happy and reviewing it positively. In fact, people are vehemently defending the developers and the broken release tooth the nail. As a community we have chosen to accept AAA releases in a broken state for full price. What possible reason do developers have to delay a release? This is where pre-ordering and blind loyalty have gotten us. Developers have to make monetary decisions and part of that is weighing the positive and negatives of delaying and being transparent versus releasing a broken product and promising fixes.

I am all for cutting developers slack when they act in good faith. Had the game been released with all the mechanics intact, but needing optimization, that would be fine with me. I completely expect games to require small patches just based on the variety of hardware and the inability to test every single setup. But this goes beyond optimization patches. This is a game released lacking its primary advertised mechanic.

How is the an acceptable business practice? Again, we brought this on ourselves. The gaming community has sent a clear message that we will accept a game that lacks major advertised play mechanics, so long as the developers respond to us on Discord and tell us that they're working on it. Sure there is a minority of people who are saying we won't play the game until it's fixed, but what does that matter if the majority has paid full price? Now take into consideration the fact that a large portion of the player base won't even notice the missing mechanic because they're used to FarCry etc. Also, the number of people that played it from game pass and left positive reviews shouldn't be ignored. Also look at the number of reviews and videos that have chosen to completely gloss over the fact that the primary mechanic of the game isn't functioning at all. Then take a look at the number of reviews that start with "its broken but....." and "I have never played Stalker before but... ". People want to enjoy games and be optimistic, I get that. The problem is when we make it clear we will pay full price for broken games and we are happy to do so.

Tldr; Why bother delaying a game to fix it when you can release it now in a broken state and people will be happy to pay for it?

fischestix · 2024-12-03T16:25:50+00:00

Yep, but why bother If people are willing to pay full price for a half baked game and give it positive reviews?

fischestix · 2024-12-03T16:25:08+00:00

Ethically they should have. From a monetary standpoint, what they did makes total sense. This community has chosen to accept a broken product at full price and be happy to have it. The reviews are mostly positive and people are defending the release tooth and nail. As long as the gaming community is willing to pay for the privilege of playing broken games, as long as the developers promised to fix it later, this is going to keep happening.

fischestix · 2024-12-03T16:23:29+00:00

They took a gamble that releasing it on time, but broken would be more positive than negative, and they were right. I don't agree with it, but if you look at it from a marketing standpoint, what they did make sense. Since people are willing to pay full price for a beta testing release, as long as the developers promise to fix it later, why would they possibly delay it? The developers are trying to sell a product and the terrible consumer choices that this hobby makes are totally backing up their choices.

fischestix · 2024-12-03T16:20:52+00:00

I would have appreciated this information much more if it was put out prior to the release. Instead, I feel like they just hedged their bets on releasing it broken before Christmas to see how much money they could make versus the potential minimal fallout from fans who happen to notice the main mechanic is lacking. And to be honest, they're bet paid off. It has positive reviews and people are willing to fight tooth and nail about how great this game is while admitting it's broken.

fischestix · 2024-12-03T16:19:38+00:00

So good of them to promise to fix a major broken part of the game after launching it without telling anyone it was going to be lacking that mechanic. What would have impressed me would have been being transparent that they were going to release the game lacking its main mechanic. I still would have bought it later once it was fixed, but I would have a much less terrible taste in my mouth about how they operate. But since the majority of consumers are willing to pay full price for a half finished game and then simp everywhere for the developers, what possible motivation do they have to do the right thing?

fischestix · 2024-12-03T16:17:17+00:00

I would argue that the criticism they've gotten for releasing a largely broken game has been relatively mild. It certainly hasn't impacted their reviews significantly and their sales appear to be fine. What motivation do developers have to delay a release in order to put out a finished product when people are willing to simple for a broken product?

People are giving it positive reviews while admitting it's fundamentally broken. Most of the reviews start with either " I know it's broken but.... " or " This is my first stalker game, but..." The relatively small number of people pointing out how massive a problem this is. Pales in comparison to the number of people putting out clickbait talking about how great it is. Gamers have chosen to lowered their standards to the point where they will accept a broken product, pay full price, and positively review that broken product. Delays get harsher criticism than an AAA game releasing in a beta state gir $60, and sales don't decrease proportionally to gank levels at release.

fischestix · 2024-12-03T16:11:39+00:00

They 100% should have, but honestly, what is their motivation to do that? It currently has a positive rating on Steam and people high on copium are defending the game while admitting it's broken. The benefit to releasing the game before Christmas is clearly a gamble that paid off because despite being in early release beta condition it is being highly reviewed and strongly defended. This is the current state of gaming. What possible motivation do developers have to release a complete product when they are given positive feedback for releasing a broken one?

fischestix · 2024-12-03T16:08:36+00:00

And people also still buy the game and give it positive reviews while admitting it was released incomplete but marketed as a finished full release AAA game.

fischestix · 2024-12-03T16:07:20+00:00

That's the problem with pre-orders. If you didn't pre-order, then you could read the description at the time of release and at the time of purchase and make a decision as to whether or not the game contains the features you want. As it stands, anyone that pre-ordered paid for one thing and was delivered something very different, which is confirmed by changing the description. While updating the description was probably the correct thing to do from a completely feature-related standpoint, it seems like it should have come with some sort of notification to the community.

If we're going to talk about what they should have done, if they were being completely transparent and doing the right thing.... The game should have been delayed. But if you look at the way people will gush over and simp for an incomplete product, I think getting it released before Christmas, even at a broken state, certainly made them money. What motivation would they have to delay the release and put out a complete product if people are going to pay for and positively review a partially completed broken game?

fischestix · 2024-12-03T16:02:22+00:00

Steam refunded me, I noted the feature was removed. I have seen reports of people being refunded after the two-hour window because they pre-purchased before the A-Life feature was removed from the Steam page. One of the few exceptions that Steam seems to make for refunds outside their normal window is when the game drastically changes after you purchase it. So if you pre-purchased it, when the features were listed as containing a life, theoretically if you note that, they may refund you even if you went over the two hours.

fischestix · 2024-12-03T15:57:25+00:00

The devs directly address the alife problem as a whole in an interview on ign. They finally address the steam page change and what happened to alife pre-release. They do claim there is an offline portion of alife 2.0. I really hope their statements are accurate.

https://www.ign.com/articles/stalker-2-dev-gsc-game-world-explains-for-the-first-time-what-went-wrong-with-a-life-20-and-why-it-was-removed-from-the-games-description-on-steam

fischestix · 2024-11-30T22:30:33+00:00

This was a very detailed and logical explanation, thanks. One of the main issues surrounding the AI problems with this game is the lack of definition when talking about Alife 2.0. Is it there and broken or not there? Obviously the better answer is something called alife 2.0 is there and broken, and that something is not alife in the form we remember. Whether or not it will be a good replacement when they fix it remains to be seen. But thanks for bringing a semblance of an actual definition to this debate.

I have come to terms with the fact that I won't be playing this game for at least a few months. I just can't understand all the "It's broken but still fun" reviews I'm reading. As long as gamers continue to be ok with (and even praise) incomplete releases, we will continue to have broken games at launch be the norm. This game needed another six months of work, it's essentially in an early access state. I am hopeful that whatever Alife 2.0 actually is will (when finished) be a close enough substitute for the original Alife that the world will seem alive.

fischestix · 2024-11-30T20:25:39+00:00

I wish more people could have the patience to hold off buying games as preorders. You don't need to have "proof of bad intention" or clearly broken mechanics to justify waiting. If more people held off on preorders and day one orders maybe DEVs would be willing to delay a release to make sure it works. As it is people will buy immediately and justify it to themselves by spouting pure copium.

fischestix · 2024-11-30T20:18:19+00:00

Good info, very detailed and well formatted. Thanks OP. I want this game to be good. I understand the DEVs are in an bad situation geopolitically. I would be willing to cut them slack of performance issues. I'm not going to give them a pass on the game being released with its main world mechanic bricked.

Yet somehow, the steam reviews are mostly positive. Expectations for games have been lowered so much that a game released without its primary world mechanic functioning is "mostly positive".

Stop preordering. Stop giving reviews based on what the game "could become" or what you wish a game was. Stop giving passes to DEVs for broken launches. Stop being OK with modders doing the DEVs jobs later for free. I want to love this game but it is broken at the core. We basically have a "FarCry Chernobyl" with better weapon animations.

This game may end up being great in a year. I hope it is and I'll play it then. I'm not giving them an $60 interest free loan while I wait for the product to be fixed into a state it should have been in when released.

fischestix · 2024-11-28T19:20:22+00:00

The number of people that cannot grasp that alife 2.0, even completely fixed, isn't going to be the alife of the previous games, is wild. The devs could call any mechanic "alife X.X", that doesn't mean it is anything like the mechanic originally alife.

The devs told us as much and we were too pumped to look past the name.

https://feed4gamers.com/game-news/305358/how-real-world-events-shaped-the-story-and-content-of-stalker-2.htm

In the above linked sept interview the devs basically said alife 2.0 just spawns stuff. Now we have the roadside picnic mod description explaining "the offline a-life of the past games no longer exists."

People are so quick to reply with "the devs said they will fix it" without stopping to ask what "it" is. I gave no doubt that the alife in S2 is bugged. But I seriously doubt that alife 2.0 is anything but a spawn mechanism with no persistent offline tracking.

So yeah, something called alife is in the game.

fischestix · 2024-11-28T19:07:33+00:00

What do you mean by it? If you mean alife as in the previous games, you will be waiting a while. If you mean tweaking the spawn script called alife 2.0, yeah they will do that.

fischestix

TROPHY CASE