What is actually borderline offensive with the apology, is that there's no way anyone with their right mind would launched this game knowing that it runs like this. This implies that they either did not did a single test run at all before release (which sounds pretty surreal), or they knew it's going to be a disaster, but released it anyway.
While I couldn't care less about this game - from the moment I saw some gameplay videos with some stationary levitating Pterodactyl in the air conveniently at the end of a ledge so you can grab it's legs and glide through a pit. Stuff like this were in some early 2000's platformers made from some forgotten Pixar cartoon. Star Wars is not something to be taken seriously, but I never saw things like this in any movie.
Anyway, I find it very interesting how such a big company with an army of management like EA deliver results like this. How could they all come to the decision that releasing, dealing with the avalanche of terrible reviews and bad rep is a more suitable way to go instead of holding off and making it console only, then eventually releasing it on the PC a year later or something. God of War did this and while the game is nothing like it's name as now it's about petting animals (even trees) while talking to an 8 year old with a cutscene every 4 seconds - they eventually released it for PC with okay performance. The Last of Us was the exact opposite, it's also more like an interactive movie than an actual game (pretty much most AAA games are today) that came out for the PS3 in 2013 (so TEN years ago!) and still run like dogwater in modern PC's. In today's gaming, the bigger the name - the worse it's optimized apparently.
I think it deserves to be a disaster and buying it later after any fixes (if there'll be any) is a bad move as well, because it will reinforce developers that they don't need to make a game that runs properly as even if they're called out on their BS, the worst that can happen is simply to provide fixes and people will buy it. That's like stealing something and I only have to return the item and that's it. No punishment. If I can't actually suffer for my wrongdoing, then there's nothing that discourage me to commit crime again. It actually reinforce the method to try it whenever I can, as there's nothing to actually loose by doing this, but there's tons of money to save with simply skipping testing altogether. That amount can be described in numbers, can be shown to whoever, compared to previous year's budget and the conclusion is that this is the way. This is the standard now. Look at those numbers, hard to argue against that when people are buying the game regardless right?
And that brings me to this: why are people buying this game? As much as I want to point a finger to EA - if people are buying this game regardless, then ultimately they played a part just as vital as corporate greed as latter would not be able to happen without the former. I know youtubers have a tendency to benchmark with games that have spectacularly bad optimization - just for this reason. And the fact that they are used as benchmarks somehow places these games as high-tier - exactly due to how bad they run. It's ridiculous. Anyway - indie games ftw, next time, just don't buy such games that runs terrible as eliminating the market for such atrocities is the only way to combat these practices. Otherwise, it's going to be the standard and that will decrease the value of PC hardware too. If you buy your powerful gpu for 1200$ that should've been capable of running this on 160 fps, now you only get 35-40 for that money. It is in our best interest to fight against this phenomenon and staying away from purchasing them - changing those numbers that matter over at EA. That's the only way to get the message through.
