Immortals of Aveum Gets Delayed to August 22

[GFreeman]

Electronic Arts and Ascendant Studios have delayed its upcoming first-person FPS Immortals of Aveum to August 22nd. As detailed by Ascendant Studios, the game will be pushed back to August 22nd, in order to further polish the game and optimize the performance on all platforms. In case you missed it earlier, Immortals of Aveum is a fantasy first-person magic shooter that will put the player into role of Jak, an Immortal capable of using all three colors of magic.

Originally scheduled to launch on July 20th, Immortals of Aveum raised a lot of interest as it will be the first Unreal Engine 5.1 game. The game also looks pretty good, despite high PC system requirements, which included either a GeForce RTX 3080 Ti 12 GB or AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT 16 GB graphics card to run the game at 1440p at 60 FPS, and that is with medium to high game settings.



Ascendant CEO and game director Bret Robbins was also keen to note that Immortals of Aveum is their first game as a self-funded independent studio. The delay will give the studio time "to further polish the game, finish optimizing all platforms, and deliver a strong launch. We owe it to ourselves and to you to get this right."

"Hey Battle mages,

Your reactions to Immortals of Aveum over the past few weeks has been incredibly inspiring - from our trailer at the PlayStation Showcase, and the recent hands-on previews, to the latest gameplay reveal, and being named one of the most anticipated games from Summer Game Fest. It's been amazing.

As you know, this is our first game as a self-funded independent studio. We set out five years ago to ambitiously make an original Magic FPS in a new fantasy world. Along the way, we worked through a pandemic, built a new team, developed on Unreal Engine 5.1 and pushed the boundaries of what we thought was possible. Now, the finish line is in sight.

The recent feedback to the game proves to us what we already felt: that Immortals of Aveum is something special. In order to realize our full vision, we are going to take a few extra weeks, making our new launch date Tuesday, August 22nd. This will give us time to further polish the game, finish optimizing all platforms, and deliver a strong launch. We owe it to ourselves and to you to get this right.

Stay tuned for more info about the game in the coming weeks, and thank you for taking part in this journey with us!"

As said, Immortals of Aveum is now launching on August 22 2023 on PlayStation 5, Xbox Series X|S, Steam, Epic, and EA App.

View at TechPowerUp Main Site | Source

 

[phanbuey]

recommended specs are beefy

 

[bug]

When a release gets pushed back, it means it has some serious issues (otherwise, we'd just get a day-0 patch). But when it only gets pushed back by one month... seriously, how much can you fix and QA during that timeframe?

 

[oxrufiioxo]

recommended specs are beefy

Not going to say it does it well but it uses every major UE5 technique which would technically make a 3090 a 1080p60 card so the requirements make sense.

 

[watzupken]

This was exactly what they said for the recent Starwar Jedi Survivor release. And we all know what happened when it got released. So I am not optimistic here given its EA.

 

[lemoncarbonate]

Looking at the min. specs, how did they think that this is okay considering that majority of PC gamers are playing with mid-range GPU?
Are they just targeting console players?

 

[watzupken]

Looking at the min. specs, how did they think that this is okay considering that majority of PC gamers are playing with mid-range GPU?
Are they just targeting console players?

To be honest, I am skeptical that current gen consoles will be able to handle UE5's hardware requirements. Even a mid cycle refresh with current mid end hardware will likely struggle without significant cut in image quality.

 

[lemoncarbonate]

To be honest, I am skeptical that current gen consoles will be able to handle UE5's hardware requirements. Even a mid cycle refresh with current mid end hardware will likely struggle without significant cut in image quality.

Then what's the point of selling a game using it? Are they already expecting low sales from the beginning just for the sake of adopting UE5 early?

And frankly speaking, this game looks good, but not better than any other AAA games out there without UE5.

 

[Vayra86]

Then what's the point of selling a game using it? Are they already expecting low sales from the beginning just for the sake of adopting UE5 early?

And frankly speaking, this game looks good, but not better than any other AAA games out there without UE5.

Chicken/egg situation

You need hardware in the market to run a heavier thing. You need software in the market to inspire people to buy hardware for something they can't run proper.

EA as a big publisher can simply push some titles forward to serve the latter, and in the meantime, earn sales on a new IP, with all its future potential, while not sacrificing a big budget franchise they already have on an engine that might not have the market penetration they like to see, say, for example a game like Battlefield #781512.

 

[Assimilator]

Looking at the min. specs, how did they think that this is okay considering that majority of PC gamers are playing with mid-range GPU?
Are they just targeting console players?

Crysis says hello.

 

[AsRock]

When a release gets pushed back, it means it has some serious issues (otherwise, we'd just get a day-0 patch). But when it only gets pushed back by one month... seriously, how much can you fix and QA during that timeframe?

I hope they keep pushing it back, shit happens and they don't need to look like the Cyberpunk ordeal.

 

[watzupken]

Then what's the point of selling a game using it? Are they already expecting low sales from the beginning just for the sake of adopting UE5 early?

And frankly speaking, this game looks good, but not better than any other AAA games out there without UE5.

I feel not all games are focusing on the fun and entertaining factor. Some games are more about pushing graphic boundaries and becoming like a graphical benchmark. For example, I don't find Crysis to be a fun game (personal opinion). But it's successful because it was so hard on the hardware at that time that people like to test their hardware with this game. Thus it is not uncommon to see this statement, "Can it run Crysis?" It is by no means a bad game, but I feel it was popular not because of fantastic gameplay. It just looks great. So when you don't have great story, and/or, gameplay, you push the visual boundaries. Isn't this quite common with all the remakes of late? You boost graphics on old game and you revive sales.

 

[colossusrageblack]

Crysis says hello.

Exactly, I think EA is saying 'peace out' to older PC hardware and just moving the bar forward. The Matrix Awakens demo showed that all of the bells and whistles of UE5 can look downright cinematic, but will only run at 30fps on a PS5 or XSX. The same demo will run at 45ish fps on a 3080 12GB with an upscaled 1440p to 4K. I'm ok with publishers moving tech along, but obviously it sucks for the wallet and people on older hardware.

 

[bug]

Exactly, I think EA is saying 'peace out' to older PC hardware and just moving the bar forward. The Matrix Awakens demo showed that all of the bells and whistles of UE5 can look downright cinematic, but will only run at 30fps on a PS5 or XSX. The same demo will run at 45ish fps on a 3080 12GB with an upscaled 1440p to 4K. I'm ok with publishers moving tech along, but obviously it sucks for the wallet and people on older hardware.

Since the first Quake, there has always been at least one title in each generation that just wouldn't run right on current hardware. Idk if this is in the same league, but if it is, it wouldn't be the first of its kind by any means.

 

[Vayra86]

Running like shit though isn't a unique selling point these days...

Looking mind blowing while doing so neither. We have path tracing

 

[64K]

I feel not all games are focusing on the fun and entertaining factor. Some games are more about pushing graphic boundaries and becoming like a graphical benchmark. For example, I don't find Crysis to be a fun game (personal opinion). But it's successful because it was so hard on the hardware at that time that people like to test their hardware with this game. Thus it is not uncommon to see this statement, "Can it run Crysis?" It is by no means a bad game, but I feel it was popular not because of fantastic gameplay. It just looks great. So when you don't have great story, and/or, gameplay, you push the visual boundaries. Isn't this quite common with all the remakes of late? You boost graphics on old game and you revive sales.

Having started out gaming on Space Invaders, Asteroids and Centipede on an Atari 800 console back in 1980 my perspective on the importance of great graphics may be skewed a bit but to me the graphics isn't the most important aspect of a game to me. I am in the small minority though. It is common to see an AAA game judged mostly by it's graphics over everything else by the average gamer today and that is why Publishers/Developers invest so much in delivering the best graphics possible to the detriment of other things. Even performance takes a back seat when it comes to graphics.

 

[bug]

Having started out gaming on Space Invaders, Asteroids and Centipede on an Atari 800 console back in 1980 my perspective on the importance of great graphics may be skewed a bit but to me the graphics isn't the most important aspect of a game to me. I am in the small minority though. It is common to see an AAA game judged mostly by it's graphics over everything else by the average gamer today and that is why Publishers/Developers invest so much in delivering the best graphics possible to the detriment of other things. Even performance takes a back seat when it comes to graphics.

Let's be honest, even back then we were drooling when games went from 1 to 4 and then to 16 and 256 colors.
They're still video games, visuals matter. The problem arises when the game becomes all about visuals and little else.

 

[64K]

Let's be honest, even back then we were drooling when games went from 1 to 4 and then to 16 and 256 colors.
They're still video games, visuals matter. The problem arises when the game becomes all about visuals and little else.

Visuals matter to me as well but they aren't the most important aspect and never have been and never will be. I recognize that I'm in a small minority of gamers though.

 

[Assimilator]

Let's be honest, even back then we were drooling when games went from 1 to 4 and then to 16 and 256 colors.
They're still video games, visuals matter. The problem arises when the game becomes all about visuals and little else.

Exactly. While Crysis is mostly remembered for its visuals, that wasn't the only thing revolutionary about it; while it wasn't a full sandbox, the nanosuit powers gave you tremendous flexibility to choose not only how you'd accomplish your next objective, but how you'd get to it. And of course, abusing hapless enemy soldiers with nanosuit powers never really got old.

Visuals matter to me as well but they aren't the most important aspect and never have been and never will be. I recognize that I'm in a small minority of gamers though.

I used to believe I was the same, then the market became flooded with pixel art games and I realised that I cannot get over that art style to play said games, no matter how good they may be. I get that indie developers have limited budgets, and they'd rather spend it on telling a story, but like... even Pokemon is 3D now, can't you put in some sort of effort to make your game stand out from every other indie dev who's using the same "limited budget" line?

 

[Tomorrow]

So I am not optimistic here given its EA.

Abandoned after launch. Dead Space remake that had many issues has received one small patch. ONE.
That's EA support for you.