Game development: 2D-> simple 3D-> 3D with rasterization-> Raster + some path tracing-> Fully path-traced-> Fully path-traced + higher FPS + better collision, fluid simulation etc.-> and finally, as an example of the best gaming will have to offer: Super Mario World on a CRT!
No joke, but i´m more excited about Nintendo Switch II and what Nintendo will do wiith 12GB (?) RAM and the new Tegra Chip. Can´t wait for the new Mario Kart, Super Mario, Zelda... and all that stuff. I mean with Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom the whole world was alive and you was able to do so many things because of the physics. Weather, sound, weight, material and so on. ... playing one of the new games feels often so boring. God of War Story and chinematic stuff was great, but the gameplay was one of the worst i´ve ever experienced. That´s only one example. But these games look good, but play like old games 10 years ago.
@@logirex Yeah, but what it means is, that PS5 (base) and Xbox should be more than enough to create great games. But all what we see is focus on graphics (also the user, if you look at games like Rise of the Ronin, people freak out because it not looks over the top AAA). We need better games and new ideas... I don´t care if i can get some better details. That looks good for a while, but after that you are into the game. And if it is boring... it makes it not better.
I'm pretty sure switch is quite a state of the art device (tho dated now). Maybe not on a compute front, but if you want battery powered device you have to optimise on this front too. I'm pretty sure Nintendo would love to give you 4k 10k nits HDR screen in a switch with 9090ti graphics performance with Zelda running ray traced lighting (and in the future at some point they will unless we just won't be able to push performance further - unlikely), but they can't and they also optimise for longer lifecycles of the hardware, focusing on games since that's why you go for Nintendo and they have no competition in this regard. If anything Microsoft specifically should look into Nintendo to realise how important exclusives are..
Finally. Yes, as much as I appreciate Digital Foundry’s work, I find the emphasis on hyper focusing on details that are so minuscule that you need to zoom in to find differences or giving up tremendous power for that extra bit of RT bump is not what gaming is for most gamers.
But that’s what their channel is about! Definitely agree with you thought haha Some of their minuscule details I find myself squinting at … I mean honestly who cares
It's interesting 'seeing' the differences. But defo agree with the sentiment. DF rose during the ps360 era where the upgrades in visuals were still obviously apparent. My first gaming experiences were with the atari 2600, dragon 32 and spectrum (I was very young). The transition from 16bit to ps1 era was the gold age for all this. It's almost a shame DF wasn't around then , for obvious reasons. My child self tried imagined the future of gaming, I think the ps360 era was as far as I could imagine. We could just stick with this hardware for 10 years at this point, make better gameplay experiences with what we have. Gameplay is king as the 'underpowered' Nintendo hardware consistantly proves
@@caliginousmoira8565 - I mean, yeah. If you want better technology on the GPU side, your only choice is Nvidia for multiple reasons. I don't like it, but I'm also not giving AMD money when even their top GPUs are competing with hardware from 2020 when it comes to modern features (and when they still try to price their hardware like they're not behind). There's a reason only the most die-hard brand loyalists still buy discreet AMD GPUs. And with that said, their SoC's are great, as are their Ryzen 3000-7000 CPUs. I love my Deck, my 5900x, and unless Intel magically gets its act together, I'll love an x3d chip whenever I next upgrade. I'll also still cross my fingers that AMD's GPU division will have its own turnaround after a decade of disappointments, but I'll believe it when I see it.
Exactly, that’s why a lot of the 6th and 7th Gen games still hold up so well. The graphics still look great and controls for 3D games were figured out. We haven’t evolved that much since then on a surface level IMO.
Zelda Tears of the Kingdom was in development for six years (longer than any Zelda game before) despite reusing the map and a lot of tech from the previous game. So Nintendo doesn't seem to be immune to the AAA cost disease.
The argument that technology helps developers make easier and better games is wrong. The games from back in the day were classics because there were limits devs had to adhere to, and there was resistance from the technology. Now, everything is possible, everyone can make a game, you don't have to even code and games are terrible.
Unreal 5 is simply drag and drop and you can make a forest in like 10 minutes, with terrain, lighting etc. This used to take devs months, I rememeber how bethesda bragged about using quicktree in unreal engine 3 I believe for oblivion. But yet somehow those games were made in just a couple of years. Not having to optimize has made game devs lazy and frankly less talented. Game engines are too blkated and therefor most games actually from an technical point of view might look better , but from an artistic point of view look worse then lets say a game from 10 years ago. Unknown 9 looks worse then the witcher 3, and there is 9 years between these 2 games. Dragon age inquisition looks better then dragon age the veilguard.......and also there is almost a decade between these game......
For me that's an overly nostalgic view. For example I recently put 100+ hours into Death Stranding and was very impressed by it. It's an open-world AAA game where you can build lots of things, like bridges, shelters, ziplines, even highways. I don't think that kind of gameplay would've been possible before the PS4 & Xbox One and their 8GB RAM. VR games are another positive example of new kinds of games enabled by technology.
They were classic a because you where kids and had really low standards and easily impressed When I come Back to old game si realize they were absolute trash. And only playa ale though tho there not being anything better to comapre
There are plenty of old games that took more than twenty hours to beat, but that involved the games being hard and having to replay them to get through with limited lives. I think a lot of the longer games made today end up repeating too many things and having such a low threshold on action that they are objectively more boring on the moment to moment basis. A lot of long games today are more about being immersed in a world than the game play actually being mechanically interesting. I know it shouldn't be all one or the other, but I think modern games, particularly open world ones, have gone too far in the other direction. Starfox 64 is a short game, if you could get through it the first time without game overing, but I think it's actually worth it for the level of action in the game, and the meaningful challenge of mastering the game that it presents. Action games can be made long by requiring you to get good at the game, but then some modern people will cry about how bad it is that a game that let them fail, so they could get better at it, instead of muddling through the whole way.
I'd prefer devs focus more on game development mechanics > graphics. I also think 20-25 hr games is the sweet spot depending on the game followed up by a 10-15 hr DLC a year or so later.
@ChaosAngelZero lmao , audiophiles will tell you that MP3s are absolute garbage sure it might not be the best audio quality but it isn't bad , they must be hearing something else other people can't
Audiophiles notice difference between 99.99999% copper cables and 99.999999% copper cables. I bet most people don't see difference even in stated numbers. Also audiophiles don't hear difference when they don't know which cable is used.
John is 100% correct on what younger kids are playing. My older kids all LOVE N64 games, a bit of Steam, and then older XBox / PS games. (20 and 24) My next younger kid is 17 and loves to play indie games like Hollow Knight, occasionally Minecraft or Terraria (I run a Terraria server on the LAN, so they all play that one with me). Then my youngest (14) plays Minecraft, Roblox, Genshin Impact, and other stupid online games that I have a large distaste for. All of them have PCs that I've built them, whatever consoles I don't collect games for, I give to them, and they all have switches. They all play a lot of Nintendo first party stuff across the age range though.
@tronam everything that doesn't create food or construct is a waste. The point is for all good things to end. Never ending games are like a movie on a loop.
@@tronamWhenever someone tells me that gaming is pointless or a waste of time it just makes me sad, because it means the games they "enjoy" just have them caught in an addictive cycle, never (or hardly ever) giving them something really meaningful. It means they've completely lost the plot on why I think gaming is worthwhile to begin with. Games that are art provide something meaningful to your life, just like a good show or movie or book will. Messages to remember, themes explored in detail. It's not just entertainment, it's enriching. I think that's what the industry needs most right now; games that don't just suck up your time, but provide a meaningful experience. It can definitely be done in 20 hours, it can be done in just a couple even. I don't have a problem with games that take longer as long as they are providing something meaningful, but it's very possible that things have just ballooned way too far.
@@hahasamian8010 I’ve been gaming for 40 years and still do at least 3-5 times a week. What I don’t do is point at other people telling them the games they choose to play are a meaningless waste of time, but how mine weren’t, like a hypocritical boomer. At least in Minecraft they’re building stuff. As a kid I spent countless hours replaying Super Mario Bros, Legend of Zelda, and Metroid over and over again because we were too poor to buy games more than a few times a year (they were $110 in today’s dollars). I’m under no illusions about all those hours spent being anything more meaningful than simply experiential fun in the moment. Everyone games for different reasons: For some it’s a therapeutic escape from the real world. For others it’s a collaborative multiplayer conduit for playing with their friends, like D&D or sports. For some it’s the raw challenge of real-time puzzle solving which any difficult boss fight essentially is, and then there’s the gamers who just want an interactive movie (which has only really been a thing within the past decade). Adults get self-conscious about wasting time, especially in their older years, so they like to pretend their leisure activities are “important”. It’s okay to admit they’re just fun. There is nothing of tangible, constructive value to show for that time unless you’re a game developer. They’re the ones who actually created something.
i’m ready to be done with this race towards higher fidelity! i’m just as big a fan of pretty graphics as the next person, but i’m tired of games coming out with smaller scopes in gameplay and terrible optimization issues eg. shader stutter or traversal stutter, just for the sake of more eye candy. AAA games have all looked and played nearly the same for the better part of a decade when you zoom out. i miss mid-to-large tier studios getting the chance to experiment and explore new opportunities in gameplay and story, or hell just coming up with a new IP that (shocker) can appeal to a niche audience 😱 I genuinely want MORE games with WORSE graphics that are more FUN and interactive, and that doesn’t NEED to be played by everybody and their grandma to turn a profit. thank you.
It's not just graphics tho'. I recently played NFS Hot Pursuit 2 on PS2, a highly regarded racing game, among the best of NFS series. It lacks features. There are only a few courses (with slight vatiations,) only a few cars, only a few songs repeates over and over again, only 2 modes (with police and without police,) etc. I mean, it's still fun to play, but I don't think that kind of game can be a sold nowadays. Even free mobile games have more features (but also predatory microtransactions.) Making a barebone game with solid gameplay only is not going to cut it now. So many "must have" features that are impossible to not be included or else the game would be said as simply "unfinshed" or "left a lot to be desired." But when you spent so much time and budget to add those highly-expected features, may as well make the graphics prettier. Developers can compensate raw graphics with ingenious designs and great art-direction of course, but they would also take time and maybe even more resources. Nintendo games may look simple but pretty without using much power, but that surely cost a lot of time and money to design and optimise. Probably even more expensive and time consuming than simply bruteforcing realistic graphics using Unreal 5 on PS5 Pro. Having WORSE graphics doesn't seem to be the answer except for some indie games or shovelwares.
@@davidsentanu7836 mentioning indie games kind of bolsters my point tbh. some of the best games to come out in recent memory, and I mean both critically AND commercially, have been from indie studios who get the need to spend their budget wisely. they almost always choose to direct their budget towards the "game" first, and will often go with stylized graphics and aesthetics over higher fidelity/more demanding visuals because those elements cost so much more to produce and, more importantly, polish. the more analogous to realism your graphics get, the easier it is to notice any flaws in the render, which then takes more time/effort/money to buffer out, which can ultimately lead to a balloon in cost and your game suddenly going over budget. personally, I don't think big publishers and studios should be averaging their projects in the HUNDREDS of millions of dollars. I think its unsustainable, and based on the rapid closure of studios over the past year, i'm poised to believe in that sentiment. obviously graphics aren't the only thing that costs money, and a game can take a long time and a lot of resources to produce for a plethora of reasons. but it's a BIG reason, and one that I think we can start to step back on. I genuinely believe we'd be in a better position as an industry if there was more priority on providing a wide variety of fun experiences that don't need a ps5 pro or rtx 4090 to run smoothly. and i'm not asking games to play like stuff from 20 years ago, not at all. I want games to innovate, and i'm sure developers do too. I mean, tough pill to swallow, but chances are high that the young dev set to make your next game was born AFTER that PS2 NFS game even came out 💀 i'm sure they want to make something new, and i'm here for it. but as things currently stand, that developer is either going to be on the next COD team, or the next hero shooter, or without a job.
@@SorryImRelatable I would like to agree, but what indie games are you referring to? Are they 2D games? Because I can't think of any indie games that are in 3D, successful critically and commercially, while having fun inventive gameplay, but having worse graphics. Maybe Hello Neighbor? Human Fall Flat?
@@davidsentanu7836 deep rock galactic, ultrakill, lethal company, bomb rush cyberfunk, neon white, outer wilds- just to name a few. all indie projects, a couple even helmed by mostly one person, and all of them extremely successful critically and financially. easiest metric to pull from is steam reviews. statistically there's no concrete number but generally it seems that roughly 3% of people who buy a game review it. all of these games have tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of reviews, all very positive. and while I couldn't find numbers for all of these games, all of them were made by smaller studios and the ones I could find were generally only a couple million dollars to make, and their sales completely demolished that initial budget. and I don't know why 2D games have to be removed from the conversation when the principles i'm talking about still apply, but if your concern is that a general audience wouldn't gravitate towards a 2D game besides mario then, while I wouldn't agree with that, it still stands that there are tons of very very successful 3D games that experiment and innovate or try new things that gamers love, and their numbers reflect it. numbers that I think bigger studios would really like to see for themselves LOL
As for the 8 hour game, I feel like nowadays you have such a large back-catalog of really quite cheap older singleplayer games to play, indie games to play. That 8 hour game is just a tough sell at full price, at the same time digital distribution can leave a much bigger slice of the price of cheaper games available too. It just makes sense for those games to move down in price bracket.
I agree. While I would buy a full price game that is only 8 hours if it’s good and scratches my itch. Median though, to me around 20 hours is enough for a full price game if it’s good.
I really don't even need 20 hour AAA games , just give me anywhere between 8-12 hours and I have zero problems paying full price If It's AAA or even AA level production.. as long as It's preferably not indie level UNTIL indie level "diy" games have the tools accessibility/power to look like mid-tier AA games , then I'll pay full price for short indie games too , It's just right now most Indies usually feel too limited and cheap for me. I personally had the most fun with the length of 5th and 6th gen games , and the production was just enough.. lightly refined.. advanced in certain areas while rough and jank in others..mature enough looking while at the same time stuck in an imaginative unfinished looking uncanny valley that let your mind fill in some blanks of possibility.. complex enough plots.. only light voice acting to no voice acting while letting environments and atmospheric immersion predominately tell the story.. slower sluggish pace indirectly making actions and reactions feel more epic.. the overall ambition of early polygonal and primitively textured worlds struggling to hold together amidst all kinds of various hardware limitations making everything feel so unsustainably "alive"... all this combined made the far smaller games back then feel like 50 hours and like so much more of a larger grander journey.
Hellblade 2 / 8 a 10 de jeux 49.99€ très beau même sur "XBOX serie S" la plus petite console de salon et oui ! quand a la ps5 pro arnaque foutage de gueule poudre au yeux prix trop cher beaucoup trop cher SONY connerie !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It still exists for them and everyone else, even if "they" can't afford them. More and more games are being shipped without options to remove ray tracing.
@@Aki_Lesbrincolet's be honest, most of them are failures because only on high-end pc's do they actually look good with a decent framerate and resolution. And the high-end pc segment is small.
Just read the VGC article. What Layden meant was that neither Nintendo, PlayStation, nor Xbox won the console arms race, AMD did. And it's kind of an empty victory, at least for most gamers.
Metaphorically, Cerney and co. gave devs a bigger engine so they can shorten the trip to a completed game. Devs add more load to the engine and now the trip takes twice as long.
I miss the PS3 days when you have Naughty Dog release 4 games over that consoles life (Uncharted 1, 2, 3 plus The Last of Us). It feels like game length now needs to be double the length compared to what you would play in the past. 10 hour game becomes 20 hours, a 30 hour games becomes 60 hours.
I feel like big part of the problem is DEI policies that deprioritize talented developers simply because they’re not ‚diverse’ enough so studios end up with bloated teams full of unskilled people
I mean you are not wrong,but most of it are just fillers bloated fetch quest etc,i don't think that is something that takes a toll on development of games.
In those days you simply had a team of mostly permanent hires at studios. Which means you got to keep them working on stuff. Thats why they made so many games in a shorter time and why games were cheaper to make. Nowadays after a game is completed, the contractors and their co tract run out. Contractors cost 2-3 times more then just a regular permanent hire. But after your game is done, the studio goes empty and the few senior devs come up with some new ideas etc, flesh them out and then a whole new hiring proces needs to be done. New people are being brought in who have no feeling at all with the company or the game. This proces takes years and years. So what you then get is totally un-inspired sequels like spiderman 2 or god of war ragnarok or horizon forbidden west......and worse and worse, same for xbox games etc. With indie studios they are not run like this, studios like larian are teams of devs who have been togetner for years and years now.
@@onesadlittleboy Dude, get your DEI,'woke' or whatever silly thing youtube influencers invented out of here. The real problem is game developers can't unionize, can't protect themselves, that's why suits thinking about short term profits and shareholders fuck them up after each unsuccessful, mildly successful game release and fire them all. So having a very long and sustainable career in game development with long relationships and kids is just not possible. On top of that people go through crunches, burned out, ruin their health, sanity and leave the game industry earlier.
Tbh my entire life society has said "be an engineer. Art is worthless." And now we have gorgeous looking games on the tech side with stale bread storylines, mechanics, and writing. Zero innovation. So maybe we got exactly what was preached to us.
Art is worthless - artisanship is the key. Saying it as art kid turned enginerd. “Back in my day” most of game developers were nerds and programmers, who took their craft seriously. Now, when game development has courses in schools, people who go into game development are directionless art/theatre kids. Now ewery game needs to be artistic statement about society, not inovation.
It was a lot easier to optimize back when you could literally count polygons… Today’s characters have more polygons and textures than entire games had back in the ps3 era, let alone the ps2 one.
@@faustianblur1798 According to whom? The “games are expensive to make” talking points is publisher bs but somehow even DF seems to regurgitate that despite it not being true. Insomniac shows how it’s done. It doesn’t take them 8 years to make a game, the games are optimized and look awesome.
I love my consoles from N64 to PS4, Switch and Series X. I care about graphics, not about the minimal differences where you need to zoom 4X in order to notice them. Currently the amount of power needed to make those small differences is to high and not worthy of attention.
I don't think the Teraflop war is dead in the sense that I think there will still be a market for high end consoles moving forward. I gamed on the Series X and also have a Series S which all get use. With the Series X, I do like the power. I built a high end gaming PC at the beginning of this year with no Xbox upgrade in site just because I enjoy tech. But consoles serve a purpose that nobody talked about. NHL isn't on PC. GTA 6 isn't going to launch on PC. Just this generation alone, the PS5 and Series X/S have accounted for roughly 100,000,000 units. That's a lot of people gaming on console, not to mention the consoles still in use from the previous generation. As for increasing console specs, I'll still buy the next Xbox as long as it doesn't completely abandon it's roots. I'd love for them to do a Switch type console next gen, but do it a little differently. Spec the handheld like a really high end handheld PC, top of the line everything, and use the docking station to house a powerhouse GPU. The CPU on board the handheld can operate with efficiency cores in handheld mode at low power and then like a high end gaming CPU when docked. Handheld will have new AMD onboard graphics that rival mid range GPUs and the base station will have a high end unit. Maybe give the handheld an HDMI port to play it on a TV without the dock and offer the dock separately just for the performance upgrade.
You can say microsoft is seeing this and is preparring for it with gamepass. They want you to play anyway you can. By doing this, they immediately remain relevant. Most people want a cheap, fun Escape. Not pay 700 for a console to play one game. Nintendo needs to stay with the switch model and should continue to do well.
Nintendo is an easy counterpoint to this notion of relying on hardware improvements that really bring fewer and fewer visual improvements. If you have to pixel peep or freeze a frame to highlight a technology that isn't immediately obvious, then in reality its not a need. Nintendo's biggest software sales that even dwarfed the PC market was The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom. It used the supposedly inferior FSR. Yet, it didn't matter to real gamers. None of them even knew it to begin with.
I would like to see with these massive budget games just a breakdown of where the money is going, there are examples of games getting rebooted and major changes which then cause delays and cost more money
That would be an amazing video - I always wondered how game's lifecycle looks like. I was also wondering how the features are combined. Are most things developed in parallel? Do bugs/performance issues mainly pop up on reintegration of features into the whole and are nowhere to be seen before that or are those present already in a feature's development (meaning it's not precisely scope that's the issue with current games, but rapid development times and understaffing which I suspect). If DF could pull this off it would be amazing.
Modern games look like blurry 30fps garbage. Best looking games are enhanced last gen games. I still buy many games but almost all of them are indiegames and avoid ue5 games like the plague.
Part of why 30 fps used to be fine, and is now considered bad is that crts don't have an after image like modern monitor tech does. Because the image changes less at 60 fps the after image is less noticable. I wish they fix this on modern monitor tech. Even 60 fps games that scroll very fast (eg. Sonic Mania) can look blurry thank to the new monitor tech. Yes UE5 will reduce fps for many games.
am confused, what does GPU and CPU competition between intel amd nvidia, have to do with developers and publishers making good content for the hardware already there.
Low competition allows for low investment which allow lower cost, MS and Sony where super happy to go with a single supplier so they could stop competing (and because AMD such low price that it wasn't even profitable). Imagine if they had to worry one of them would have paired an Intel CPU with a NVIDIA GPU, at the same transistor and power budget so at the same manufacturing cost (I'm excluding licensing to remain on the engineering side and because AMD had gone unrealistically low to push out NVIDIA) it would have wiped the floor with the AMD SoC. 4 ARM A54 at 2GHz where beating 3GHz+ 8 core AMD for example, look what the Switch can do with just 2 billion transistors and 10W screen included compared to the almost 6 billion and 100W+ of old consoles. In the end excluding games development cost ballooning, which have little to do with the hardware, it's all coping in my view
It doesnt stop them from making better games but it makes it easier to make them. imagine all CPUs are 50% faster at the same prices which will allow PS and Xbox to get faster CPUs Dragons dogma 2. It has horrible cpu performance but now would that mean we get more interactivity in the city and a stable fps It doesnt excuse poor performance but imagine what Insomniacs Wolverine could be like with more npcs, crowds of people, able to move in and out buildings with interior spaces etc think what Rockstar could do with it? What do you think the next gen of consoles will look like? Well probably Zen 6 right, Zen5 is like 5% better than Zen 4. Are we saying the PS6 is going to have a CPU thats 20% faster than a low end CPU from 2022?
About the younger generations, I think phones replaced what we did before actually seeing a good game. When I was 12-14 I only played WoW but at some point I saw a gof of war 3 trailer and I was starstruck and stsrted playing single player pc.games like skyrim. The first console I bought was a ps5 and I only got to play god of war(the original trilogy) 2 yerars ago at 24 when I got tired of waiting and bought a ps3. And in thr mean time I got into darksouls and all the real good modern games. Can you really imagine a 20 years old playing roblox everyday?
One of the issues are where increases in hardware power are being put to use. At some point a piece of clothing looks good enough for suspension of disbelief and using more hardware horsepower on it is wasted. Pants or hair looking 15% better is not bringing in new buyers, but a bigger and more detailed map with destructible and shapeable landscapes will. Thing is the things that would drive sales like in the old days would cost a lot more horsepower than incremental hardware improvements give us. The days of quality jumps like existed between the Playstation 1 and the Super Nintendo will never come again because the kind of power increase that would have revolutionized the gaming industry in 1997 is a run variance in a PC benchmark today. Growth at those rates can not be sustained and we are entering an era where software will need to do the heavy lifting for a bit, because even when the next gen GPU comes it will just be 20% better, but realistically it will only feel 5% better because CPUs are not keeping up with demand for power and it will cost 50% more than this gen. So again we will get better looking clothing an hair in games(because it all we can do), but the rotten bones underneath remain functionally the same with the same restrictions for game makers and players that have existed for 15 years. We get simulations of size and populations in game, but no real improvement in either size or player populations in a game. The number of players and objects interactable between the players as a total has nearly stagnated. The horsepower needed to resolve this is not on the horizon. (Edited for spelling mistake)
Ugh I unfortunately have to bolster John’s take on consoles. My kids do own PS5s but all they play is Roblox, Minecraft, siege and Fortnite smh 🤦♂️ I’m really hoping it’s just a phase 😂
It's not a phase. My son games on PC and tablet but only Minecraft, Roblox and occasionally random stupid games from Steam like Baldi's Basic or Hello Neighbors.
@@davidsentanu7836it is a phase. The so called modern audience doesnt excist. Your kids are not gamers they are simply casual tourists. Mincraft and roblox are trash, fortnite is alright but nothin special. I dont think we need to cater to kids who all have an attention span of 5 seconds nowadays due to tik tok and highlight reels. Consoles due seem to be more for b00mers , fine. But a lot of kids still play/buy nintendo stuff. Nintendo's only problem is they have to try and remain there or invite these forever games to their platform or create some forever games themselves. An MMO pokemon game would make them so much money, they dont even know.
It's a phase... once they become 40 years old, their reaction times would slow down, and they would start spending more time in single player games, turn-based games, etc, etc.
@@SWOTHDRA He may be a casual but no tourist in Minecraft nor in Roblox. Just because someone is only interested in playing casual games doesn't mean he's a tourist. Even frickin' Tetris, the father of all casual games, has world champions.
I think selling games digitally and the concepts of a digital library have changed how console upgrades work in practice now also. Telling games their new console won't play their past library is going to help sell new consoles anymore. And at the same time if your whole library is playable, is that upgrade really worth the high price for a new console? They just don't work the way a lot of us are used to. New consoles were able to convey immediately why the upgrade was worth it. Even the box art and manuals improved (for a little while). Dare I say, I thinks games are really just another commodity at this point.
All very interesting and true/valid points. All of what was said, including the case about incremental upgrades, will set the tone for the PS6 and consoles after. I have said elsewhere on other channels when defending the Pro that incremental upgrades need to happen, or else how can you tell what works and what doesn't? If incremental upgrades are not valued, how can devs initiate creativity and challenge what already exists? If you just leap from one major upgrade to the next, you're leaving a lot of room for errors, which apprently devs are already having problems with and it will be harder to pinpoint where those errors began. Nowadays, because the generations of gamers have changed, they are expecting things to happen in a much more grand fashion and quicker. But I hope they realize that in the tech world, it's just not that easy...and also, will be a lot more expensive than what they have been complaining about. With that being said, it's going to be very interesting in how console gaming will be moving forward, considering that, I'm sure they want to push the console market and cater to the gamer's needs as far as more interesting games and the leap in hardware with frame rates. I am also in that group of people that " just want to play their fav games" and don't care about anything else. But as somebody who has gotten older with more experience, I've also learned to be more open-minded. Being open-minded just helps you to expand your gameplay and gaming library. So, whatever games that come out (the forever game, fps, souls, sports, etc.) I'm down for them as long as they are satisfying and can keep my interest. And as for the prices for the games, the economic value will set the prices. I, like anybody want affordable games, but the price will automatically be set by the value and how much in demand they are...higher demand, higher prices...just how it is. Not to mention the state of the economy as time goes by.
Nintendo’s way of doing things is working out for them. They don’t abandon their hardware before its reached their limit. Unlike Sony, who creates a new super expensive console that’s barely better than what came before, and games that could easily be done on previous hardware. The Switch 2 may not be as powerful as ps5, but it will be more powerful than ps4 and won’t cost an arm and a leg.
Some added truth we need to face too, is Nintendo isn't doing a console model at all. Nintendo is using their handheld platform not their traditional set top box business, that's over. Which is why Xbox is going to do a handheld too because the younger audience likes gaming laptops (I do too despite being older).
I believe Oliver is bang on and I agree that we should have a more optimistic outlook even though the industry is in a rough spot. AI and ML will change what is possible and usher in experiences that were never before popular.
@ A good (but limited) example would be Alien Isolation and the AI behind the Xenomorph. You could have a model that is significantly more intelligent that the player would have to try to outsmart, it could even learn in real time like the xenomorph does but to a much finer degree. You could have NPCs that can hold full on conversations with a player. You could train a model on another persons fighting style in a fighting game to get better practice or simply improve the skill of the bot. The possibilities are truly endless.
@@R0ZZAYyou can do all that right now, without A.I. because those are just algoritmic models. Look at for example the nemesis system in shadow of mordor. I mean in theory A.I. should be able to make make endless quest tailored to what you as a gamer like or what simply makes sense in the world. Like the random stranger missions you have in both gta and rdr2. So there definatly is a use for A.I. and just like with chatgpt I think in the future, when we all stream our games mostly from beefy A.I. driven nvidia servers.......you might have subscription based open world games that last you for years and years. Whereby games simply generate new bossos or new lore or new parts of a game world which in itself also keeps evolving and changing. You might have a game where at the start there are just somevilliages and they can grow to full on cities. Or new buildings , new quests, new dialog for each and every NPC who lives a full and complete life. But this is why RDR2 is such a great game, because it already feels like that in that game and it runs on hardware from 2013 and it looks good!
What I can't seem to understand is, why people say games cost too much to make? The revenue growth of console gaming is greater than it ever was, and revenue is doing good on average for most companies. I feel we're repeating this myth of games costing too much to make, but the money seems to be here, so what gives? I think it's not about the production cost, I think it's that companies are seeing how big the profit margins are for mobile games, gatchas, and live service games, and in comparison, it seems like the more traditional games have these small margins. But it's not like companies are bankrupting left and right.
Shawn Layden knows the graphics wars are unsustainable. The media knows it. The average player knows it. Unfortunately the triple A developers have no clue they’re unsustainable, even after multiple examples have failed miserably recently.
@DragonOfTheMortalKombat Alan Wake 2 cost $80 million. How is that a small amount? And I don't want to hear "well other games like TLOU 2 cost way more" when they sell like at least 10× the amount of Alan Wake 2 for around 2-3 times the cost.
On the concept of forever games, I hate the trend towards longer and longer games with less and less content. On the AAA side, you have Ubisoft style junk with empty filler and weapon crafting, and on the indie side it's almost even worse with the number of rogue-likes that stretch a few hours of unique content into 150 hours of repetition. It just feels like the free-to-play smartphone game tactic of giving you constant tiny dopamine hits rather than giving you anything you'll remember a month from now.
Truth, that era has passed. I realized that when spiderman 2 dropped. This was a chance to do the venom arc in a video game for the first time in a mature and meaningfull way. And they simply fumbled it. They didnt care about that oppertunity. They only cared to insert their agenda....
@SWOTHDRA - Of course someone has to take my comment in a completely different direction to drop a "VIDEO GAMES AREN'T GOOD ANYMORE......BECAUSE OF WOKE!" comment. Amazing what people are offended by these days and then have the absolute audacity to speak of maturity.
I agree with John. I purchased my son a Nintendo Switch, I have a series x and a ps5. My son, nor my daughter, has any interest in playing anything other than Roblox or some other service type game they can play on their iPad or laptop. I’m the only “traditional” gamer in the house and I’m in my 40’s. They’ve watched me play Elden ring or other fromsoft games but they have no desire to play a console.
Yes. Hardware has improved over the years and we really are at the peak of it. As most gamers have said that optimization now has to run its fair share of the work. Companies need to start putting effort into their games in terms of performance. We're halfway thought the current console's lifespan and no game has yet to push the consoles to their limits.
I remember when PS2 and the original Xbox were new, people commenting that we had reached the peak of graphical fidelity and they didn't know how it could get any better. GPUs, CPUs and graphical advancements will keep happening and in a few generations what we have now will look primitive.
@@gothpunkboy89in what way is space marines different from gears of war 2? Games that came out 20 years ago? It doesnt push anything, its like many games this generation, simply badly optimized.
The developers take at least 2-3 years to get used to the new hardware architecture and optimise games. That’s a huge waste every time we move from one generation to the next and because we are in the times of diminishing returns they should look at lengthening the time between introducing a new console.
Lmao by your logic we should never have any better hardware lol. You know what 3050 6gb also looks good enough if you have one of those 768p monitors or a CRT.
The biggest difference between the ps5 vs ps5 pro is the fps. Yeah if you don't think the bump up in image quality is worth it, I'm sure you'd agree going from 30fps to 60fps IS worth it.
recently I went back and played a few last gen games that I missed, and I enjoyed them a lot more than many of the newer games that ran badly. Using more powerful hardware that finally run some of these last gen games smoothly, I finally realise what bothers me with new games. With newer games you have anti-aliasing, shadow shimmers and pop in issues, and you cant lower the graphic settings to fix those problems as even on low preset the developer wont make it lower than what they deemed pretty, and those low preset looks higher than the high/ultra of last gen games. When I run old game with newer hardware, all those problems are fixed, so I might as well wait for a few years to play games when my hardware overpower their requirements.
But through upscaling that wont happen anymore. Thoseold games, they were oltimized for certain hardware setting. Which means, low is really lkw and barebones ugly and high is really high. But no game studio wants to release a game where there is a setting that totally strips the game kf its artstyle and makes it look so ugly that you cant even recognize it. Why? Because those images will be posted online on twitter, instagram and in videos on youtube. They will be mocked and you will loose investors if you become a meme. So now the games always have to look good even at minum setting. And thats why I laugh at digital foundry wh still talk about low, medium and high settings and want to compare console to PC etc. Those terms dontmean anything anymore. Just like how resolution means nothing anymore. Devs will make games running in internal resolutions of sub 900p and the consoles or PC will upscale that blurry image to 4k 60 or 120fsp with more detail and looking more like 6 or 8k in sharpness then native 4k without DLSS. Digital foundry is about to go out of business.
We could argue NVIDIA as Nintendo is around 50% of the console market and NVIDIA dGPUs are 88% of the PC gaming market, which in turn is larger than the console market.
I think the amd won part refers to when a merchant is selling to both sides of a war. AMD would have never gotten ryzen off the ground if the PS4 and Xbox one didn't exist.
@6:04 it’s all because of channels like this. I love watching what you guys say and take the advice for the most part but you are made from saying which is better and which is the lesser. I’m not saying it’s just you, but this is what contributes to the so called “console wars” about resolution. Instead of resolution let’s focus on frames, gameplay and story. Heck let’s put story first on most games
Its tough for me to buy a game that is beaten in 8 hours for £70 its very expensive but then they do games that last 100+ hours for £70, i feel they need to figure out a price for these differences, i would of bought spiderman 2 for £35 but that game is very short so i wont pay £70
In terms of realism. We’re definitely not there, when I feel like I I’m moving a character in a real movie then yeah we’ve made it. 3D modeling AI agents will be required to build entire worlds, then have them refined by humans. Only way we’ll be able to continue building massive realistic worlds that take full advantage of hardware and make it profitable for game developers.
I agree, Nintendo Switch was basically Mobile Hardware while competing with PS4 Pro and One X and it sold so many UNits and made alot of Great Games. Zelda is a Fun and good looking game but doesnt need beefy hardware....Mario Kart 8 looked very colorful and fun but didnt have the visuals of Gears 5. Maybe he has a point. 1000 Dollars for a Ps5 pro is not going to appeal to the common user so a HArdware box needs to be affordable.
I'd say most games should be scaled back and be more focused being a game. no amount of graphics will fix the issue of sales or reaching another standard of fidelity thats a must buy, make pleasing visuals that possibility can scale for novelty reasons. Just look at Bioshock infinite, I played it recently and you can tell apart the Men from the boys trying to use UE5 and ray tracing unsuccessfully. That Matrix Demo did indeed happen and now were here, the best example I got is Spiderman miles PS5. Nvidia winning also came from propriety tech, creating a monopoly that they play alone.
Keep open "The Bottleneck Talk" always good, people not just knowing also can feel the graphic and game graphic quality is stayed there for 3-5 years already, nothing is shocked gamers mind and open gamers eye for quite some time.
I think we are approaching full path tracing at 60fps. The hardware will get there, and it will be made affordable. That will be the next real "next gen". From where we are now to that, the increase in graphics alone won't do anything to sell your game if it's just not a good game.
People generally don't want to spend $50-$70 on a game that they can complete over the weekend. Replayability ( so called forever games ) are attractive for many when you factor in value for money invested. Like many, I prefer games with basically infinite replayability / customization, etc. Game developers are mostly making the types of games demanded by the consumer. If one has a choice between a ~ 20 hour game or ~100+ hour game most will choose the game with much more content for the $$$ invested. Good luck trying to convince consumers to spend more for less.. I have well over 1500 hours in Destiny 2 because I enjoy the replayability, infinite customization and gameplay mechanics in general. Then again if your income is ~200K+ a year paying $50-$70 per game really isn't an issue one thinks about all that much. Your average gamer isn't pulling in anything remotely close to this sort of income.
Can I get 60fps with good enough resolution on PS5 Pro due to PSSR without RT ? If yes then I need a good game worth spending over 50-70 pounds. RT isn't the thing for me, as if you play the game, without side by side comparison, then you still can enjoy the really good looking games, you can enjoy them anyway, as long as the game has good story and overall gameplay. Also I think, that this extra more performance in RT with PS5 Pro, will be more usefull in UE5 games when Lumen can get better performance, when there is better hardware.
This gen showed me Devs didn't utilize the XSX to the maximum and so will the case for PS5 Pro which is just a slightly better XSX. Its why i built a gaming PC because i know next gen consoles will be inferior to my 7800x3D 7900xtx combo and devs won't spend the 💰 to maximize games to the best hardware and i can still upgrade if i need/want to in 5-7 years for the PS7/ next next Xbox
Layden is 100% right. But it‘s not only the industries fault. It‘s also due to the superficiality of many gamers, asking for better and better graphics, instead of asking for compelling games.
You overestimate average gamers. They won’t buy GTA6 for the PS5 Pro for the plot. They will buy GTA6 to see sugar babies twerking in 60fps 4k with RT!😅
Games are just fine and better than ever . The problem is that gamers have grown older and cannot get excited by a game anymore in the same manner when they were young and thats absolutely normal . A 30+ or 40+ should not play videogames but focus on other things in that part of their lives instead of playing Sonic and Mario
Ad a PC gamer that's the thing that often made me uninterested in consoles (PS/Xbox). Basically the only new thing about the ps5 compared to the ps1 dualshock is the hardware power. So it all comes down to the games and absolutely only reason to get a PS is an exclusive game. The ps5 is a nice piece of tech the only reason to get it is if you only game on Playstation and you want slightly better graphics.
To say it’s recent for these 80 to 90+ hr games is kinds bullshit. Mass effect series. All 3 games, you could easily 50 to 75+ hrs for each game. But I do agree that console power isn’t alway best option and the devs should be taking advantage of the hardware and telling good stories, adventuring gameplay. The steam deck and switch are proof don’t need powerful system. Just decent system. But Imo switch was under powered. It struggle play most game at 30 fps. When 60 fps is/had been standard for while. Graphics isn’t everything. Rather have steady smooth 60 fps game, don’t care what it looks like vs realistic graphics at slow 30 fps. RT on current consoles is meh at best Imo. Ratchet and clank was the only one where I noticed the RT was decent at 60 fps. The Precinct is indie title game which isn’t even out yet, is proof you don’t need spend millions or billions on game project and have huge staff. Game just need be done with passion, respect and skilled staff/devs/writers who care. So many game companies now are pushing their own bs agenda and or they’re chasing just for a live service/battle Royal bs or just wanted you spend $$$$. Or want game to last long long time while still getting ppl spend MTX/paid dlc or other content. Pushing for gamers spend $$$ more in game is red flag your doing it wrong. Your only being greedy and you and your company will fail. It is not about making good Quality games anymore. It’s about $$$$$$$$$. big companies are buying up all good IP, then ruin them buy shutting them down or laying off thousands of workers. Publishers have too much power. This needs too be STOPED now. EA/MS/UBISoft/2k has too Much power now over IP of games and they ruining it. Nintendo has becoming a big bully, and Sony is too focusing on battle Royal/making money bs. Microsoft can’t even make good games anymore. How Phill Spencer still has job is beyond me. He’s done nothing for last 10+ yrs.
If he was correct xbox s wouldn't be an issue and pro wouldnt clear up res or fps issues . Could they do allot more with the hardware like Nintendo? Sure but ultimately you should still give the artists the best canvas possible bs making the most out of poor or sub optimal tools.
As far as visual leaps and gains, this is kind of an odd mentality. Ask anyone back then who played games 20 years ago and they’d tell you then that games look ‘so realistic’ that we’ve probably peaked. This happens every gen. The only difference now is games don’t take 1-3 years to make anymore. They take 5-8 on average. We have longer gens now that optimize late gen games. And we have Pro consoles that make that next gen push just a bit less impactful. And most games coming the first couple years of the gen now started development on last gen hardware. Even going into 2025 we’re seeing games that look quite a bit better than anything that released in 2014-2015 for example. In 2023 it had only been 10 years since the end of the PS3 gen. And look at a game from 2023 and from 2013 and it’s a pretty insane difference. In only a decade. Games coming now already rise above last gen limits, and they’re doing it at 60 fps at higher resolutions with ray tracing on console. These are not small gains. This is a leap over just a decade prior. Not to mention more realistic animations, longer stories (we didn’t have many 100 hour games that are now fommon 10 years ago) and granular world detail, lighting, shadow quality, npc faces, everything, has come a long way. A lot of it people may not notice because of nostaligia goggles and rose colored glasses of older games. But it’s there. So I’m not sure I get someone like him, who’s been in the industry a long time, with this mindset. It’s kind of wild.
I think you've misinterpreted whomever's mindset you're criticizing (that take doesn't sound familiar to me after watching the video). But I agree that we gamers have been spoiled by the pace of visual improvement. Imagine if game visuals improved at the rate that TV picture quality improved.
@@DanKaschel I was talking about the opening minutes with Laden’s comments that ‘you’d need an 8K monitor in a dark room’ or something to see the visual differences. Stating that visuals and hardware have plateaued and platform holders should not be looking there for innovation anymore.
Why not upscaling? The tech at the higher level - DLSS and maybe even PSSR is close to and in some ways better than native. Embrace the tech don't shun it. Nvidia did it right.
The more money you spend on creating the game, the less likely I will buy it and play it. I don't have hundreds of hours for your game. I will never see more than 1% of the money you spent. Gameplay is number 1. And most games have mediocre Gameplay. If assassin's creed unity had a Gameplay edition that I could finish in 25 hours. I would play it. But last time I tried i spent hours and only remember the nice graphics.
While it SEEMS like graphics have plateaued they definitely haven't (They are giving diminishing returns from generation to generation though with pro consoles making it diminish even more) and there's nothing to suggest they ever will even though it's hard to imagine what they might look like in the future. Moores law (the number of transistors on a chip doubles every 2 years) is still a thing made capable by ever advancing semiconductor manufacturing technology. There has always been a focus on both graphics and gameplay and there always will be but it's best to have a good balance of the two with gameplay being ultimately the most important
Making pretty graphics is easier than creating good game play designs and that's why many companies are pushing into this graphical fedelity race shit. Companies like FS, never push too hard on their games's graphical presentation, but for me, games like BB is striking the best balance between good graphic and great game play/feel/vibe whatever you call it.
Ahh yes... "forever games." LOL That was me with Elite Dangerous, at about 10K hours. Maybe a little more. Years later, (2022) when I finally burned out, I was like "What are all these games that came out 5-7 years ago? I have some catching up to do..." 😂Yeah sometimes you find that one game and it's all you care about. The graphics war is over. The IQ/ image quality war is the only thing that remains: Sharper picture, better post processing, higher resolution, anisotropic filtering, level of detail..." Those are the things that we are dumping 1K+ into on just the GPU alone. RT is the latest graphics trend, but is considered debatable, as many don't see the justification and/ or the difference, which ties into what Shawn said about having the perfect room conditions to see the differences and also as the DF guy says about the pixel-peeping. You don't notice this stuff when you're actively engaged and playing. You have to stop and look for these things. It always almost seems to come down to IQ and frame rates at the end of the day.
We destroyed the foundation of the industry that was the gamestops and brick n mortar shops. Chased online money for a quick payday, ignoring the long term need of the marked.
High quality graphics, and shaders, for 4k are too expensive and prolong development time. 1440P/120 Should be the industry standard. And upscale to 4k/8k from there. And most gamers still play games at 1080pULTRA/60/120fps
I think that, yes, game design needs a reset, a redesign of the business model for development of new games. We reached that point of "diminishing returns" for graphics versus HW requirements, often times brutally so. Everybody in the gaming industry should pedal back on the "eye candy" development, and respective higher HW requirements involved. What I'm trying to say here is, what everyone needs is "better" games, not "prettier" games. And considering where the economy is right now (and it may not go better), when only a portion of the userbase can afford that elusive top 10% performance incredibly expensive hardware, it stops making sense going in the current direction. It goes for both PC and Consoles.
@@DanKaschel Conversation about what? The latest bells and whistles from AMD or nvidiia which do nothing to make games better but DO increase costs and waste? That conversation?
@@smellthensing2221 ...so, the way this TH-cam thing works, my comment is actually a *reply* to your comment, so you don't really need to ask about what the conversation is; you're the one that brought it up.
@@DanKaschel Except your reply indicates that my comment is the opposite of, or an impediment to, some ill-defined "conversation" that you opened the door to, but never detailed or explained.
@@smellthensing2221 fair enough. I consider your first sentence to be a "thesis statement" that defines the "conversation". The second and third sentences are assertions which (separately and in combination) I consider impediments to a productive conversation about whether graphical fidelity is worth the incremental value to increase.
I think it's sad that in this generation and with access to a ps5 and xbox the best game I've played is not any of the ones I've bought but the astros playroom bundled in with the ps5 and most of the games i end up occasionally going to play are from previous generations via back compatibility
When I play real engine 5 games and see if the currect hardware can handle it then talk to me about the Tflops war is over...it's not over until it's over !
I think that the high end consoles are in a growth lull. They've neared the ceiling when it comes to gen-x and millenial markets. Zoomers and gen alpha kids are so smartphone-minded that they aren't familiar with the benefits of console or PC gaming. As more of them age out of high school and need to spend their free time more deliberately, the gap in quality between what is available on a phone and what is available with dedicated gaming hardware will become apparent, leading to interest and adoption. The death of the console at the hands of PC and smartphones has been prophecized repeatedly, and it has yet to pass. This too will blow over.
TFlops isn't over because PS6 and next XBox will have the same feature set with the same AMD GPUs so we will still need some kind of metrics to compare these consoles. In fact we first started hearing about TFlops when PS4 and XO launched. If one console used AMD GPU and other Nvidia then Tflop metric would be less useful because there is big difference between TFlops as theoretical performance metric and performance. If you compare PS5 GPU and XSX GPU Tflops even if not entirely representing performance because things like memory bandwidth and ratio of shaders vs ROPs also matter it is still good approximation of overall GPU performance difference. So long story short if next time around we will use TFlops or not to judge consoles entirely depends if they again use similar GPUs from the same company - which is very likely. AMD isn't gonna let this goose that lays golden eggs to slip. In fact I bet AMD is already working hard on new consoles.
it is over.. nobody cares if Xbox is more powerful. these are people living in a bubble and watching df. but most people look at the games. also these fps und pixel counting comparisons are not important. content mattters.
Meanwhile in the mobile world games are still cheap to make. $1 development 100$ marketing is not an unusual ratio. Same for "retro" games, copy an old game concept, put $0 in graphics, get crazy nostalgia money.
I agree, I think what they mean by plateau is how the tech improvements will be leveraged into a business model. Releasing hardware is really expensive and when older consoles longevity is increasing and still most people use 1080p rn there is a plateau cause its development that is essentially for edge cases. Obviously these consoles can become a lot more compact, lighter, energy efficient. And they should also have 5g cellular capable or satellite internet capable imo
Oh my, that guy totally embarrased himself with his talk of old guy who really dont know a thing about videogames. The spiderman tshirt is to make us believe he is like us XD
![PS5 Pro Reviews, Boost Mode, Sony's Secret Upgrades | PlayStation Lost A Big IP. - [LTPS #647]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/h1a7OKEqB1E/mqdefault.jpg)
Game development:
2D->
simple 3D->
3D with rasterization->
Raster + some path tracing->
Fully path-traced->
Fully path-traced + higher FPS + better collision, fluid simulation etc.->
and finally, as an example of the best gaming will have to offer:
Super Mario World on a CRT!
And this is why MISTer FPGA is the best gaming console that money can buy today.
Absolutely hit the nail on the head, utilise the hardware and make great games for it. Look what Nintendo can do with the switch!
i agree that nintendo games often look surprisingly good on the switch, but that doesn't change the fact that the console is way too weak.
No joke, but i´m more excited about Nintendo Switch II and what Nintendo will do wiith 12GB (?) RAM and the new Tegra Chip. Can´t wait for the new Mario Kart, Super Mario, Zelda... and all that stuff. I mean with Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom the whole world was alive and you was able to do so many things because of the physics. Weather, sound, weight, material and so on. ... playing one of the new games feels often so boring. God of War Story and chinematic stuff was great, but the gameplay was one of the worst i´ve ever experienced. That´s only one example. But these games look good, but play like old games 10 years ago.
Crazy idea surely you can improve both the hardware and the games 🤔
@@logirex Yeah, but what it means is, that PS5 (base) and Xbox should be more than enough to create great games. But all what we see is focus on graphics (also the user, if you look at games like Rise of the Ronin, people freak out because it not looks over the top AAA). We need better games and new ideas...
I don´t care if i can get some better details. That looks good for a while, but after that you are into the game. And if it is boring... it makes it not better.
I'm pretty sure switch is quite a state of the art device (tho dated now). Maybe not on a compute front, but if you want battery powered device you have to optimise on this front too. I'm pretty sure Nintendo would love to give you 4k 10k nits HDR screen in a switch with 9090ti graphics performance with Zelda running ray traced lighting (and in the future at some point they will unless we just won't be able to push performance further - unlikely), but they can't and they also optimise for longer lifecycles of the hardware, focusing on games since that's why you go for Nintendo and they have no competition in this regard. If anything Microsoft specifically should look into Nintendo to realise how important exclusives are..
Finally. Yes, as much as I appreciate Digital Foundry’s work, I find the emphasis on hyper focusing on details that are so minuscule that you need to zoom in to find differences or giving up tremendous power for that extra bit of RT bump is not what gaming is for most gamers.
💯 agree on this
apparently it is for nvidia boi's..... 'but nvidia has better ray tracing' 'if you want ray tracing then get nvidia'
But that’s what their channel is about! Definitely agree with you thought haha
Some of their minuscule details I find myself squinting at … I mean honestly who cares
It's interesting 'seeing' the differences. But defo agree with the sentiment. DF rose during the ps360 era where the upgrades in visuals were still obviously apparent. My first gaming experiences were with the atari 2600, dragon 32 and spectrum (I was very young). The transition from 16bit to ps1 era was the gold age for all this. It's almost a shame DF wasn't around then , for obvious reasons. My child self tried imagined the future of gaming, I think the ps360 era was as far as I could imagine. We could just stick with this hardware for 10 years at this point, make better gameplay experiences with what we have. Gameplay is king as the 'underpowered' Nintendo hardware consistantly proves
@@caliginousmoira8565 - I mean, yeah. If you want better technology on the GPU side, your only choice is Nvidia for multiple reasons.
I don't like it, but I'm also not giving AMD money when even their top GPUs are competing with hardware from 2020 when it comes to modern features (and when they still try to price their hardware like they're not behind). There's a reason only the most die-hard brand loyalists still buy discreet AMD GPUs.
And with that said, their SoC's are great, as are their Ryzen 3000-7000 CPUs. I love my Deck, my 5900x, and unless Intel magically gets its act together, I'll love an x3d chip whenever I next upgrade. I'll also still cross my fingers that AMD's GPU division will have its own turnaround after a decade of disappointments, but I'll believe it when I see it.
If you listen to Iwata back in 2004, Nintendo already figured this out 20 years ago.
Exactly, that’s why a lot of the 6th and 7th Gen games still hold up so well. The graphics still look great and controls for 3D games were figured out. We haven’t evolved that much since then on a surface level IMO.
Yup mmmhmm
The games from GameCube era and ps3 days still look great
Great art great stories and great content and gameplay
Zelda Tears of the Kingdom was in development for six years (longer than any Zelda game before) despite reusing the map and a lot of tech from the previous game. So Nintendo doesn't seem to be immune to the AAA cost disease.
@@Toddfrommario even wii games are starting to age. 720p does not cut it in 2024.
@@cube2fox you're right but Zelda has always been like this
whatsinmy AI fixes this (AI Video Analysis) (AI Video Analysis). Teraflop War Over, AMD Wins
The argument that technology helps developers make easier and better games is wrong. The games from back in the day were classics because there were limits devs had to adhere to, and there was resistance from the technology. Now, everything is possible, everyone can make a game, you don't have to even code and games are terrible.
Unreal 5 is simply drag and drop and you can make a forest in like 10 minutes, with terrain, lighting etc. This used to take devs months, I rememeber how bethesda bragged about using quicktree in unreal engine 3 I believe for oblivion. But yet somehow those games were made in just a couple of years. Not having to optimize has made game devs lazy and frankly less talented. Game engines are too blkated and therefor most games actually from an technical point of view might look better , but from an artistic point of view look worse then lets say a game from 10 years ago. Unknown 9 looks worse then the witcher 3, and there is 9 years between these 2 games. Dragon age inquisition looks better then dragon age the veilguard.......and also there is almost a decade between these game......
True. Even scientific finding says limits increase creativity
For me that's an overly nostalgic view. For example I recently put 100+ hours into Death Stranding and was very impressed by it. It's an open-world AAA game where you can build lots of things, like bridges, shelters, ziplines, even highways. I don't think that kind of gameplay would've been possible before the PS4 & Xbox One and their 8GB RAM. VR games are another positive example of new kinds of games enabled by technology.
They were classic a because you where kids and had really low standards and easily impressed
When I come
Back to old game si realize they were absolute trash. And only playa ale though tho there not being anything better to comapre
I'm good with a 20-hour game. Enough to get lost in another world, enough to come back to the real world.
To come back to social media you mean.......
I’m good with a 20 hour game that is not more than 30 dollars.
There are plenty of old games that took more than twenty hours to beat, but that involved the games being hard and having to replay them to get through with limited lives. I think a lot of the longer games made today end up repeating too many things and having such a low threshold on action that they are objectively more boring on the moment to moment basis. A lot of long games today are more about being immersed in a world than the game play actually being mechanically interesting. I know it shouldn't be all one or the other, but I think modern games, particularly open world ones, have gone too far in the other direction. Starfox 64 is a short game, if you could get through it the first time without game overing, but I think it's actually worth it for the level of action in the game, and the meaningful challenge of mastering the game that it presents. Action games can be made long by requiring you to get good at the game, but then some modern people will cry about how bad it is that a game that let them fail, so they could get better at it, instead of muddling through the whole way.
I'd prefer devs focus more on game development mechanics > graphics. I also think 20-25 hr games is the sweet spot depending on the game followed up by a 10-15 hr DLC a year or so later.
That’s too long. If games are that long it’s because it’s repetitive. 10-15 hour is the sweet spot.
Not only dogs can hear the difference... it's both dogs _AND_ audiophiles.
@ChaosAngelZero lmao , audiophiles will tell you that MP3s are absolute garbage sure it might not be the best audio quality but it isn't bad , they must be hearing something else other people can't
As a guy who owns HD650s, that's called being a fucking snob. I listen to mp3s on my $200 headset daily.
Audiophiles notice difference between 99.99999% copper cables and 99.999999% copper cables. I bet most people don't see difference even in stated numbers. Also audiophiles don't hear difference when they don't know which cable is used.
Video games are all about good gameplay. Nintendo has been doing this for the longest time, and it works.
It seems Yamauchi and Iwata have been proved right already
John is 100% correct on what younger kids are playing. My older kids all LOVE N64 games, a bit of Steam, and then older XBox / PS games. (20 and 24) My next younger kid is 17 and loves to play indie games like Hollow Knight, occasionally Minecraft or Terraria (I run a Terraria server on the LAN, so they all play that one with me). Then my youngest (14) plays Minecraft, Roblox, Genshin Impact, and other stupid online games that I have a large distaste for. All of them have PCs that I've built them, whatever consoles I don't collect games for, I give to them, and they all have switches. They all play a lot of Nintendo first party stuff across the age range though.
Exactly... Mindless, pointless, never ending,...
@@reykennedy5716 Let’s be real though; Gaming has always been pointless. We all just waste our time in different ways.
@tronam everything that doesn't create food or construct is a waste. The point is for all good things to end. Never ending games are like a movie on a loop.
@@tronamWhenever someone tells me that gaming is pointless or a waste of time it just makes me sad, because it means the games they "enjoy" just have them caught in an addictive cycle, never (or hardly ever) giving them something really meaningful. It means they've completely lost the plot on why I think gaming is worthwhile to begin with. Games that are art provide something meaningful to your life, just like a good show or movie or book will. Messages to remember, themes explored in detail. It's not just entertainment, it's enriching.
I think that's what the industry needs most right now; games that don't just suck up your time, but provide a meaningful experience. It can definitely be done in 20 hours, it can be done in just a couple even. I don't have a problem with games that take longer as long as they are providing something meaningful, but it's very possible that things have just ballooned way too far.
@@hahasamian8010 I’ve been gaming for 40 years and still do at least 3-5 times a week. What I don’t do is point at other people telling them the games they choose to play are a meaningless waste of time, but how mine weren’t, like a hypocritical boomer. At least in Minecraft they’re building stuff. As a kid I spent countless hours replaying Super Mario Bros, Legend of Zelda, and Metroid over and over again because we were too poor to buy games more than a few times a year (they were $110 in today’s dollars). I’m under no illusions about all those hours spent being anything more meaningful than simply experiential fun in the moment.
Everyone games for different reasons: For some it’s a therapeutic escape from the real world. For others it’s a collaborative multiplayer conduit for playing with their friends, like D&D or sports. For some it’s the raw challenge of real-time puzzle solving which any difficult boss fight essentially is, and then there’s the gamers who just want an interactive movie (which has only really been a thing within the past decade). Adults get self-conscious about wasting time, especially in their older years, so they like to pretend their leisure activities are “important”. It’s okay to admit they’re just fun. There is nothing of tangible, constructive value to show for that time unless you’re a game developer. They’re the ones who actually created something.
i’m ready to be done with this race towards higher fidelity! i’m just as big a fan of pretty graphics as the next person, but i’m tired of games coming out with smaller scopes in gameplay and terrible optimization issues eg. shader stutter or traversal stutter, just for the sake of more eye candy. AAA games have all looked and played nearly the same for the better part of a decade when you zoom out. i miss mid-to-large tier studios getting the chance to experiment and explore new opportunities in gameplay and story, or hell just coming up with a new IP that (shocker) can appeal to a niche audience 😱
I genuinely want MORE games with WORSE graphics that are more FUN and interactive, and that doesn’t NEED to be played by everybody and their grandma to turn a profit. thank you.
It's not just graphics tho'. I recently played NFS Hot Pursuit 2 on PS2, a highly regarded racing game, among the best of NFS series.
It lacks features. There are only a few courses (with slight vatiations,) only a few cars, only a few songs repeates over and over again, only 2 modes (with police and without police,) etc.
I mean, it's still fun to play, but I don't think that kind of game can be a sold nowadays. Even free mobile games have more features (but also predatory microtransactions.)
Making a barebone game with solid gameplay only is not going to cut it now. So many "must have" features that are impossible to not be included or else the game would be said as simply "unfinshed" or "left a lot to be desired."
But when you spent so much time and budget to add those highly-expected features, may as well make the graphics prettier.
Developers can compensate raw graphics with ingenious designs and great art-direction of course, but they would also take time and maybe even more resources.
Nintendo games may look simple but pretty without using much power, but that surely cost a lot of time and money to design and optimise. Probably even more expensive and time consuming than simply bruteforcing realistic graphics using Unreal 5 on PS5 Pro.
Having WORSE graphics doesn't seem to be the answer except for some indie games or shovelwares.
@@davidsentanu7836 mentioning indie games kind of bolsters my point tbh. some of the best games to come out in recent memory, and I mean both critically AND commercially, have been from indie studios who get the need to spend their budget wisely. they almost always choose to direct their budget towards the "game" first, and will often go with stylized graphics and aesthetics over higher fidelity/more demanding visuals because those elements cost so much more to produce and, more importantly, polish. the more analogous to realism your graphics get, the easier it is to notice any flaws in the render, which then takes more time/effort/money to buffer out, which can ultimately lead to a balloon in cost and your game suddenly going over budget. personally, I don't think big publishers and studios should be averaging their projects in the HUNDREDS of millions of dollars. I think its unsustainable, and based on the rapid closure of studios over the past year, i'm poised to believe in that sentiment.
obviously graphics aren't the only thing that costs money, and a game can take a long time and a lot of resources to produce for a plethora of reasons. but it's a BIG reason, and one that I think we can start to step back on. I genuinely believe we'd be in a better position as an industry if there was more priority on providing a wide variety of fun experiences that don't need a ps5 pro or rtx 4090 to run smoothly. and i'm not asking games to play like stuff from 20 years ago, not at all. I want games to innovate, and i'm sure developers do too. I mean, tough pill to swallow, but chances are high that the young dev set to make your next game was born AFTER that PS2 NFS game even came out 💀 i'm sure they want to make something new, and i'm here for it. but as things currently stand, that developer is either going to be on the next COD team, or the next hero shooter, or without a job.
@@SorryImRelatable I would like to agree, but what indie games are you referring to? Are they 2D games? Because I can't think of any indie games that are in 3D, successful critically and commercially, while having fun inventive gameplay, but having worse graphics.
Maybe Hello Neighbor? Human Fall Flat?
@@davidsentanu7836 deep rock galactic, ultrakill, lethal company, bomb rush cyberfunk, neon white, outer wilds- just to name a few. all indie projects, a couple even helmed by mostly one person, and all of them extremely successful critically and financially. easiest metric to pull from is steam reviews. statistically there's no concrete number but generally it seems that roughly 3% of people who buy a game review it. all of these games have tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of reviews, all very positive. and while I couldn't find numbers for all of these games, all of them were made by smaller studios and the ones I could find were generally only a couple million dollars to make, and their sales completely demolished that initial budget.
and I don't know why 2D games have to be removed from the conversation when the principles i'm talking about still apply, but if your concern is that a general audience wouldn't gravitate towards a 2D game besides mario then, while I wouldn't agree with that, it still stands that there are tons of very very successful 3D games that experiment and innovate or try new things that gamers love, and their numbers reflect it. numbers that I think bigger studios would really like to see for themselves LOL
As for the 8 hour game, I feel like nowadays you have such a large back-catalog of really quite cheap older singleplayer games to play, indie games to play. That 8 hour game is just a tough sell at full price, at the same time digital distribution can leave a much bigger slice of the price of cheaper games available too. It just makes sense for those games to move down in price bracket.
I agree.
While I would buy a full price game that is only 8 hours if it’s good and scratches my itch.
Median though, to me around 20 hours is enough for a full price game if it’s good.
I really don't even need 20 hour AAA games , just give me anywhere between 8-12 hours and I have zero problems paying full price If It's AAA or even AA level production.. as long as It's preferably not indie level UNTIL indie level "diy" games have the tools accessibility/power to look like mid-tier AA games , then I'll pay full price for short indie games too , It's just right now most Indies usually feel too limited and cheap for me. I personally had the most fun with the length of 5th and 6th gen games , and the production was just enough.. lightly refined.. advanced in certain areas while rough and jank in others..mature enough looking while at the same time stuck in an imaginative unfinished looking uncanny valley that let your mind fill in some blanks of possibility.. complex enough plots.. only light voice acting to no voice acting while letting environments and atmospheric immersion predominately tell the story.. slower sluggish pace indirectly making actions and reactions feel more epic.. the overall ambition of early polygonal and primitively textured worlds struggling to hold together amidst all kinds of various hardware limitations making everything feel so unsustainably "alive"... all this combined made the far smaller games back then feel like 50 hours and like so much more of a larger grander journey.
Facts but they won't change the price Nintendo should be 30-40 at most
Hellblade 2 / 8 a 10 de jeux 49.99€ très beau même sur "XBOX serie S" la plus petite console de salon et oui ! quand a la ps5 pro arnaque foutage de gueule poudre au yeux prix trop cher beaucoup trop cher SONY connerie !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@@kevinkev1530Facts about nintendo games. But won't matter to me anymore.
You need a 600$ GPU to use Ray Tracing. Most people cant afford It, so It doesnt exist for them.
It still exists for them and everyone else, even if "they" can't afford them. More and more games are being shipped without options to remove ray tracing.
Every generation the cost of good rt card has become lower and lower. But it's still long way to reach console level price.
@@Aki_Lesbrincolet's be honest, most of them are failures because only on high-end pc's do they actually look good with a decent framerate and resolution. And the high-end pc segment is small.
Keep graphics on RDR2 level from 2018. That looked and worked amazing. No need for stupid stuttery UE5 etc.
Which was one of the most expensive games ever made, so even that level is not sustainable for lots of developers.
You think studios will be capable of putting out games like rdr2 consistently? You want one game per decade costing millions to billions?
@@KenTWOusure but it's also much bigger than most games and creating assets and animation at that level is easier today than back then.
@@Riyozsuit doesn't have to be a huge openworld game though. That's not what he said
Just read the VGC article. What Layden meant was that neither Nintendo, PlayStation, nor Xbox won the console arms race, AMD did. And it's kind of an empty victory, at least for most gamers.
Metaphorically, Cerney and co. gave devs a bigger engine so they can shorten the trip to a completed game. Devs add more load to the engine and now the trip takes twice as long.
I miss the PS3 days when you have Naughty Dog release 4 games over that consoles life (Uncharted 1, 2, 3 plus The Last of Us).
It feels like game length now needs to be double the length compared to what you would play in the past. 10 hour game becomes 20 hours, a 30 hour games becomes 60 hours.
I feel like big part of the problem is DEI policies that deprioritize talented developers simply because they’re not ‚diverse’ enough so studios end up with bloated teams full of unskilled people
I mean you are not wrong,but most of it are just fillers bloated fetch quest etc,i don't think that is something that takes a toll on development of games.
@@onesadlittleboy You're a clown dawg.
In those days you simply had a team of mostly permanent hires at studios. Which means you got to keep them working on stuff. Thats why they made so many games in a shorter time and why games were cheaper to make. Nowadays after a game is completed, the contractors and their co tract run out. Contractors cost 2-3 times more then just a regular permanent hire. But after your game is done, the studio goes empty and the few senior devs come up with some new ideas etc, flesh them out and then a whole new hiring proces needs to be done. New people are being brought in who have no feeling at all with the company or the game. This proces takes years and years. So what you then get is totally un-inspired sequels like spiderman 2 or god of war ragnarok or horizon forbidden west......and worse and worse, same for xbox games etc. With indie studios they are not run like this, studios like larian are teams of devs who have been togetner for years and years now.
@@onesadlittleboy Dude, get your DEI,'woke' or whatever silly thing youtube influencers invented out of here. The real problem is game developers can't unionize, can't protect themselves, that's why suits thinking about short term profits and shareholders fuck them up after each unsuccessful, mildly successful game release and fire them all. So having a very long and sustainable career in game development with long relationships and kids is just not possible. On top of that people go through crunches, burned out, ruin their health, sanity and leave the game industry earlier.
Tbh my entire life society has said "be an engineer. Art is worthless." And now we have gorgeous looking games on the tech side with stale bread storylines, mechanics, and writing. Zero innovation. So maybe we got exactly what was preached to us.
Art is worthless - artisanship is the key. Saying it as art kid turned enginerd. “Back in my day” most of game developers were nerds and programmers, who took their craft seriously. Now, when game development has courses in schools, people who go into game development are directionless art/theatre kids. Now ewery game needs to be artistic statement about society, not inovation.
If Developers used PS2 era optimization on the PS5, we would have 120 FPS games easy.
Ratchet & Clank ain't a bad looking ps2 game and its a rock solid 60
It was a lot easier to optimize back when you could literally count polygons…
Today’s characters have more polygons and textures than entire games had back in the ps3 era, let alone the ps2 one.
It would take over a century to make each game, but sure.
@@markedone494
I guess Horizon 2 is an impossible game to make then, and yet it exists.
@@faustianblur1798
According to whom? The “games are expensive to make” talking points is publisher bs but somehow even DF seems to regurgitate that despite it not being true.
Insomniac shows how it’s done. It doesn’t take them 8 years to make a game, the games are optimized and look awesome.
I love my consoles from N64 to PS4, Switch and Series X. I care about graphics, not about the minimal differences where you need to zoom 4X in order to notice them. Currently the amount of power needed to make those small differences is to high and not worthy of attention.
I don't think the Teraflop war is dead in the sense that I think there will still be a market for high end consoles moving forward. I gamed on the Series X and also have a Series S which all get use. With the Series X, I do like the power. I built a high end gaming PC at the beginning of this year with no Xbox upgrade in site just because I enjoy tech. But consoles serve a purpose that nobody talked about. NHL isn't on PC. GTA 6 isn't going to launch on PC. Just this generation alone, the PS5 and Series X/S have accounted for roughly 100,000,000 units. That's a lot of people gaming on console, not to mention the consoles still in use from the previous generation.
As for increasing console specs, I'll still buy the next Xbox as long as it doesn't completely abandon it's roots. I'd love for them to do a Switch type console next gen, but do it a little differently. Spec the handheld like a really high end handheld PC, top of the line everything, and use the docking station to house a powerhouse GPU. The CPU on board the handheld can operate with efficiency cores in handheld mode at low power and then like a high end gaming CPU when docked. Handheld will have new AMD onboard graphics that rival mid range GPUs and the base station will have a high end unit. Maybe give the handheld an HDMI port to play it on a TV without the dock and offer the dock separately just for the performance upgrade.
u can even emulate on xbox series x and s like a pc
You can say microsoft is seeing this and is preparring for it with gamepass. They want you to play anyway you can. By doing this, they immediately remain relevant. Most people want a cheap, fun Escape. Not pay 700 for a console to play one game.
Nintendo needs to stay with the switch model and should continue to do well.
Nintendo is an easy counterpoint to this notion of relying on hardware improvements that really bring fewer and fewer visual improvements. If you have to pixel peep or freeze a frame to highlight a technology that isn't immediately obvious, then in reality its not a need. Nintendo's biggest software sales that even dwarfed the PC market was
The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom. It used the supposedly inferior FSR. Yet, it didn't matter to real gamers. None of them even knew it to begin with.
Richard Leadbetter, thank you for the monthly excitement of my SEGA Saturn Magazine purchases back in the 90s 👍🏼
I would like to see with these massive budget games just a breakdown of where the money is going, there are examples of games getting rebooted and major changes which then cause delays and cost more money
That would be an amazing video - I always wondered how game's lifecycle looks like. I was also wondering how the features are combined. Are most things developed in parallel? Do bugs/performance issues mainly pop up on reintegration of features into the whole and are nowhere to be seen before that or are those present already in a feature's development (meaning it's not precisely scope that's the issue with current games, but rapid development times and understaffing which I suspect). If DF could pull this off it would be amazing.
@@Gosu9765DF sadly knows very very little about game development.....
Modern games look like blurry 30fps garbage. Best looking games are enhanced last gen games. I still buy many games but almost all of them are indiegames and avoid ue5 games like the plague.
Part of why 30 fps used to be fine, and is now considered bad is that crts don't have an after image like modern monitor tech does. Because the image changes less at 60 fps the after image is less noticable. I wish they fix this on modern monitor tech. Even 60 fps games that scroll very fast (eg. Sonic Mania) can look blurry thank to the new monitor tech. Yes UE5 will reduce fps for many games.
am confused, what does GPU and CPU competition between intel amd nvidia, have to do with developers and publishers making good content for the hardware already there.
Low competition allows for low investment which allow lower cost, MS and Sony where super happy to go with a single supplier so they could stop competing (and because AMD such low price that it wasn't even profitable). Imagine if they had to worry one of them would have paired an Intel CPU with a NVIDIA GPU, at the same transistor and power budget so at the same manufacturing cost (I'm excluding licensing to remain on the engineering side and because AMD had gone unrealistically low to push out NVIDIA) it would have wiped the floor with the AMD SoC.
4 ARM A54 at 2GHz where beating 3GHz+ 8 core AMD for example, look what the Switch can do with just 2 billion transistors and 10W screen included compared to the almost 6 billion and 100W+ of old consoles.
In the end excluding games development cost ballooning, which have little to do with the hardware, it's all coping in my view
It doesnt stop them from making better games but it makes it easier to make them. imagine all CPUs are 50% faster at the same prices which will allow PS and Xbox to get faster CPUs
Dragons dogma 2. It has horrible cpu performance but now would that mean we get more interactivity in the city and a stable fps
It doesnt excuse poor performance but imagine what Insomniacs Wolverine could be like with more npcs, crowds of people, able to move in and out buildings with interior spaces etc
think what Rockstar could do with it?
What do you think the next gen of consoles will look like? Well probably Zen 6 right, Zen5 is like 5% better than Zen 4. Are we saying the PS6 is going to have a CPU thats 20% faster than a low end CPU from 2022?
About the younger generations, I think phones replaced what we did before actually seeing a good game. When I was 12-14 I only played WoW but at some point I saw a gof of war 3 trailer and I was starstruck and stsrted playing single player pc.games like skyrim. The first console I bought was a ps5 and I only got to play god of war(the original trilogy) 2 yerars ago at 24 when I got tired of waiting and bought a ps3. And in thr mean time I got into darksouls and all the real good modern games. Can you really imagine a 20 years old playing roblox everyday?
One of the issues are where increases in hardware power are being put to use. At some point a piece of clothing looks good enough for suspension of disbelief and using more hardware horsepower on it is wasted. Pants or hair looking 15% better is not bringing in new buyers, but a bigger and more detailed map with destructible and shapeable landscapes will. Thing is the things that would drive sales like in the old days would cost a lot more horsepower than incremental hardware improvements give us. The days of quality jumps like existed between the Playstation 1 and the Super Nintendo will never come again because the kind of power increase that would have revolutionized the gaming industry in 1997 is a run variance in a PC benchmark today. Growth at those rates can not be sustained and we are entering an era where software will need to do the heavy lifting for a bit, because even when the next gen GPU comes it will just be 20% better, but realistically it will only feel 5% better because CPUs are not keeping up with demand for power and it will cost 50% more than this gen. So again we will get better looking clothing an hair in games(because it all we can do), but the rotten bones underneath remain functionally the same with the same restrictions for game makers and players that have existed for 15 years. We get simulations of size and populations in game, but no real improvement in either size or player populations in a game. The number of players and objects interactable between the players as a total has nearly stagnated. The horsepower needed to resolve this is not on the horizon.
(Edited for spelling mistake)
We can have all the good hardware but if the games aren’t optimized then we end up with a bad taste from all of these Devs who keep pushing up scaling
Ugh I unfortunately have to bolster John’s take on consoles. My kids do own PS5s but all they play is Roblox, Minecraft, siege and Fortnite smh 🤦♂️ I’m really hoping it’s just a phase 😂
It's not a phase. My son games on PC and tablet but only Minecraft, Roblox and occasionally random stupid games from Steam like Baldi's Basic or Hello Neighbors.
@@davidsentanu7836it is a phase. The so called modern audience doesnt excist. Your kids are not gamers they are simply casual tourists. Mincraft and roblox are trash, fortnite is alright but nothin special. I dont think we need to cater to kids who all have an attention span of 5 seconds nowadays due to tik tok and highlight reels. Consoles due seem to be more for b00mers , fine. But a lot of kids still play/buy nintendo stuff. Nintendo's only problem is they have to try and remain there or invite these forever games to their platform or create some forever games themselves. An MMO pokemon game would make them so much money, they dont even know.
It's a phase... once they become 40 years old, their reaction times would slow down, and they would start spending more time in single player games, turn-based games, etc, etc.
@@SWOTHDRA He may be a casual but no tourist in Minecraft nor in Roblox. Just because someone is only interested in playing casual games doesn't mean he's a tourist. Even frickin' Tetris, the father of all casual games, has world champions.
@@SWOTHDRAit's statements like this that make the term 'gamer', toxic.
I think selling games digitally and the concepts of a digital library have changed how console upgrades work in practice now also. Telling games their new console won't play their past library is going to help sell new consoles anymore. And at the same time if your whole library is playable, is that upgrade really worth the high price for a new console? They just don't work the way a lot of us are used to. New consoles were able to convey immediately why the upgrade was worth it. Even the box art and manuals improved (for a little while). Dare I say, I thinks games are really just another commodity at this point.
All very interesting and true/valid points. All of what was said, including the case about incremental upgrades, will set the tone for the PS6 and consoles after.
I have said elsewhere on other channels when defending the Pro that incremental upgrades need to happen, or else how can you tell what works and what doesn't? If incremental upgrades are not valued, how can devs initiate creativity and challenge what already exists? If you just leap from one major upgrade to the next, you're leaving a lot of room for errors, which apprently devs are already having problems with and it will be harder to pinpoint where those errors began. Nowadays, because the generations of gamers have changed, they are expecting things to happen in a much more grand fashion and quicker. But I hope they realize that in the tech world, it's just not that easy...and also, will be a lot more expensive than what they have been complaining about.
With that being said, it's going to be very interesting in how console gaming will be moving forward, considering that, I'm sure they want to push the console market and cater to the gamer's needs as far as more interesting games and the leap in hardware with frame rates.
I am also in that group of people that " just want to play their fav games" and don't care about anything else. But as somebody who has gotten older with more experience, I've also learned to be more open-minded. Being open-minded just helps you to expand your gameplay and gaming library. So, whatever games that come out (the forever game, fps, souls, sports, etc.) I'm down for them as long as they are satisfying and can keep my interest. And as for the prices for the games, the economic value will set the prices. I, like anybody want affordable games, but the price will automatically be set by the value and how much in demand they are...higher demand, higher prices...just how it is. Not to mention the state of the economy as time goes by.
Nintendo’s way of doing things is working out for them. They don’t abandon their hardware before its reached their limit. Unlike Sony, who creates a new super expensive console that’s barely better than what came before, and games that could easily be done on previous hardware. The Switch 2 may not be as powerful as ps5, but it will be more powerful than ps4 and won’t cost an arm and a leg.
Some added truth we need to face too, is Nintendo isn't doing a console model at all. Nintendo is using their handheld platform not their traditional set top box business, that's over. Which is why Xbox is going to do a handheld too because the younger audience likes gaming laptops (I do too despite being older).
Gaming laptops and portable devices are simply more convenient. You also don't have to horde the TV to use them.
I am done with upgrading. The little gains are not worth the money.
Besides VR. VR it does make big differences
I believe Oliver is bang on and I agree that we should have a more optimistic outlook even though the industry is in a rough spot. AI and ML will change what is possible and usher in experiences that were never before popular.
How?
@ A good (but limited) example would be Alien Isolation and the AI behind the Xenomorph. You could have a model that is significantly more intelligent that the player would have to try to outsmart, it could even learn in real time like the xenomorph does but to a much finer degree. You could have NPCs that can hold full on conversations with a player. You could train a model on another persons fighting style in a fighting game to get better practice or simply improve the skill of the bot. The possibilities are truly endless.
@@R0ZZAYyou can do all that right now, without A.I. because those are just algoritmic models. Look at for example the nemesis system in shadow of mordor. I mean in theory A.I. should be able to make make endless quest tailored to what you as a gamer like or what simply makes sense in the world. Like the random stranger missions you have in both gta and rdr2. So there definatly is a use for A.I. and just like with chatgpt I think in the future, when we all stream our games mostly from beefy A.I. driven nvidia servers.......you might have subscription based open world games that last you for years and years. Whereby games simply generate new bossos or new lore or new parts of a game world which in itself also keeps evolving and changing. You might have a game where at the start there are just somevilliages and they can grow to full on cities. Or new buildings , new quests, new dialog for each and every NPC who lives a full and complete life. But this is why RDR2 is such a great game, because it already feels like that in that game and it runs on hardware from 2013 and it looks good!
John is very smart when it comes to games and hardware.
What I can't seem to understand is, why people say games cost too much to make? The revenue growth of console gaming is greater than it ever was, and revenue is doing good on average for most companies. I feel we're repeating this myth of games costing too much to make, but the money seems to be here, so what gives? I think it's not about the production cost, I think it's that companies are seeing how big the profit margins are for mobile games, gatchas, and live service games, and in comparison, it seems like the more traditional games have these small margins. But it's not like companies are bankrupting left and right.
Amazing video, i thoroughly enjoyed it, thank you Digital Foundry.
Damn Ollie, bringing a good perspective 10:29
Shawn Layden knows the graphics wars are unsustainable. The media knows it. The average player knows it.
Unfortunately the triple A developers have no clue they’re unsustainable, even after multiple examples have failed miserably recently.
Funny thing is you can achieve great graphics without spending a ton of money. Look at Alan Wake 2 or control or A plague tale
@@DragonOfTheMortalKombat Agreed. It’s not just about the power of the hardware, it just takes money to have an art department add detail and realism.
@DragonOfTheMortalKombat Alan Wake 2 cost $80 million. How is that a small amount? And I don't want to hear "well other games like TLOU 2 cost way more" when they sell like at least 10× the amount of Alan Wake 2 for around 2-3 times the cost.
@@DragonOfTheMortalKombat tbf, alan wake runs like crap but so do other games, well most
On the concept of forever games, I hate the trend towards longer and longer games with less and less content. On the AAA side, you have Ubisoft style junk with empty filler and weapon crafting, and on the indie side it's almost even worse with the number of rogue-likes that stretch a few hours of unique content into 150 hours of repetition. It just feels like the free-to-play smartphone game tactic of giving you constant tiny dopamine hits rather than giving you anything you'll remember a month from now.
Truth, that era has passed. I realized that when spiderman 2 dropped. This was a chance to do the venom arc in a video game for the first time in a mature and meaningfull way. And they simply fumbled it. They didnt care about that oppertunity. They only cared to insert their agenda....
@SWOTHDRA - Of course someone has to take my comment in a completely different direction to drop a "VIDEO GAMES AREN'T GOOD ANYMORE......BECAUSE OF WOKE!" comment. Amazing what people are offended by these days and then have the absolute audacity to speak of maturity.
Someone says the same thing about game development every single year since the early 1990s.
This.
This.
I agree with John. I purchased my son a Nintendo Switch, I have a series x and a ps5. My son, nor my daughter, has any interest in playing anything other than Roblox or some other service type game they can play on their iPad or laptop. I’m the only “traditional” gamer in the house and I’m in my 40’s. They’ve watched me play Elden ring or other fromsoft games but they have no desire to play a console.
It's funny you say that Oliver because that's exactly what they did with Hellblade 2. A great game that wasn't 100 hours long.
ML and AI augmentation might change the formula.
Does anyone remember Nvidia GPP and other shady business practices in the mid 2000's? Thats how they got ahead.
Yes. Hardware has improved over the years and we really are at the peak of it. As most gamers have said that optimization now has to run its fair share of the work. Companies need to start putting effort into their games in terms of performance. We're halfway thought the current console's lifespan and no game has yet to push the consoles to their limits.
Comments like your are always amusing because they are so vauge. What does Space Marine 2 fail to do that doesn't count ad pushing it to it's limits?
I remember when PS2 and the original Xbox were new, people commenting that we had reached the peak of graphical fidelity and they didn't know how it could get any better. GPUs, CPUs and graphical advancements will keep happening and in a few generations what we have now will look primitive.
@@gothpunkboy89 If you want more specific examples I’m referring to games like Jedi Survivor and Final Fantasy XVI.
@@Ice_2192 So how do they push systems or fail to push systems that Space Marine 2 does or doesn't?
@@gothpunkboy89in what way is space marines different from gears of war 2? Games that came out 20 years ago? It doesnt push anything, its like many games this generation, simply badly optimized.
The "forever games" of the past used to be our strategy games. God how I miss those.
The developers take at least 2-3 years to get used to the new hardware architecture and optimise games. That’s a huge waste every time we move from one generation to the next and because we are in the times of diminishing returns they should look at lengthening the time between introducing a new console.
When i sit on my couch the PS5 looks good enough
Lmao by your logic we should never have any better hardware lol. You know what 3050 6gb also looks good enough if you have one of those 768p monitors or a CRT.
The biggest difference between the ps5 vs ps5 pro is the fps. Yeah if you don't think the bump up in image quality is worth it, I'm sure you'd agree going from 30fps to 60fps IS worth it.
@@OneLife69-But both consoles have the same CPU. So for a game like GTA 6 it’ll probably still be capped at 30fps.
@@gaminghedgehog6384 it's not just a gta machine
@@OneLife69- Yes, but it does show that the PS5 Pro won’t guarantee 60fps. If the base model can’t do 60fps then the Pro can’t either.
recently I went back and played a few last gen games that I missed, and I enjoyed them a lot more than many of the newer games that ran badly. Using more powerful hardware that finally run some of these last gen games smoothly, I finally realise what bothers me with new games.
With newer games you have anti-aliasing, shadow shimmers and pop in issues, and you cant lower the graphic settings to fix those problems as even on low preset the developer wont make it lower than what they deemed pretty, and those low preset looks higher than the high/ultra of last gen games.
When I run old game with newer hardware, all those problems are fixed, so I might as well wait for a few years to play games when my hardware overpower their requirements.
But through upscaling that wont happen anymore. Thoseold games, they were oltimized for certain hardware setting. Which means, low is really lkw and barebones ugly and high is really high. But no game studio wants to release a game where there is a setting that totally strips the game kf its artstyle and makes it look so ugly that you cant even recognize it. Why? Because those images will be posted online on twitter, instagram and in videos on youtube. They will be mocked and you will loose investors if you become a meme. So now the games always have to look good even at minum setting. And thats why I laugh at digital foundry wh still talk about low, medium and high settings and want to compare console to PC etc. Those terms dontmean anything anymore. Just like how resolution means nothing anymore. Devs will make games running in internal resolutions of sub 900p and the consoles or PC will upscale that blurry image to 4k 60 or 120fsp with more detail and looking more like 6 or 8k in sharpness then native 4k without DLSS. Digital foundry is about to go out of business.
We could argue NVIDIA as Nintendo is around 50% of the console market and NVIDIA dGPUs are 88% of the PC gaming market, which in turn is larger than the console market.
Sean Laden is 100% right again. Sony should be ashamed they let him go.
AMD Wins, Intel Wins, Richard Loses (his hair).
Order 1886: exists
DF: "Perhaps I've treated you too harshly.."
I think the amd won part refers to when a merchant is selling to both sides of a war. AMD would have never gotten ryzen off the ground if the PS4 and Xbox one didn't exist.
@6:04 it’s all because of channels like this. I love watching what you guys say and take the advice for the most part but you are made from saying which is better and which is the lesser. I’m not saying it’s just you, but this is what contributes to the so called “console wars” about resolution. Instead of resolution let’s focus on frames, gameplay and story. Heck let’s put story first on most games
Its tough for me to buy a game that is beaten in 8 hours for £70 its very expensive but then they do games that last 100+ hours for £70, i feel they need to figure out a price for these differences, i would of bought spiderman 2 for £35 but that game is very short so i wont pay £70
Satya should hire Shawn to work for Sarah Bond. He could be the wind beneath her DEI wings.
In terms of realism. We’re definitely not there, when I feel like I I’m moving a character in a real movie then yeah we’ve made it. 3D modeling AI agents will be required to build entire worlds, then have them refined by humans. Only way we’ll be able to continue building massive realistic worlds that take full advantage of hardware and make it profitable for game developers.
I agree, Nintendo Switch was basically Mobile Hardware while competing with PS4 Pro and One X and it sold so many UNits and made alot of Great Games. Zelda is a Fun and good looking game but doesnt need beefy hardware....Mario Kart 8 looked very colorful and fun but didnt have the visuals of Gears 5. Maybe he has a point. 1000 Dollars for a Ps5 pro is not going to appeal to the common user so a HArdware box needs to be affordable.
I'd say most games should be scaled back and be more focused being a game. no amount of graphics will fix the issue of sales or reaching another standard of fidelity thats a must buy, make pleasing visuals that possibility can scale for novelty reasons. Just look at Bioshock infinite, I played it recently and you can tell apart the Men from the boys trying to use UE5 and ray tracing unsuccessfully. That Matrix Demo did indeed happen and now were here, the best example I got is Spiderman miles PS5. Nvidia winning also came from propriety tech, creating a monopoly that they play alone.
Keep open "The Bottleneck Talk" always good, people not just knowing also can feel the graphic and game graphic quality is stayed there for 3-5 years already, nothing is shocked gamers mind and open gamers eye for quite some time.
I think we are approaching full path tracing at 60fps. The hardware will get there, and it will be made affordable. That will be the next real "next gen". From where we are now to that, the increase in graphics alone won't do anything to sell your game if it's just not a good game.
People generally don't want to spend $50-$70 on a game that they can complete over the weekend.
Replayability ( so called forever games ) are attractive for many when you factor in value for money invested.
Like many, I prefer games with basically infinite replayability / customization, etc. Game developers are mostly making the types of games demanded by the consumer.
If one has a choice between a ~ 20 hour game or ~100+ hour game most will choose the game with much more content for the $$$ invested.
Good luck trying to convince consumers to spend more for less.. I have well over 1500 hours in Destiny 2 because I enjoy the replayability, infinite customization and gameplay mechanics in general.
Then again if your income is ~200K+ a year paying $50-$70 per game really isn't an issue one thinks about all that much. Your average gamer isn't pulling in anything remotely close to this sort of income.
Can I get 60fps with good enough resolution on PS5 Pro due to PSSR without RT ? If yes then I need a good game worth spending over 50-70 pounds.
RT isn't the thing for me, as if you play the game, without side by side comparison, then you still can enjoy the really good looking games, you can enjoy them anyway, as long as the game has good story and overall gameplay.
Also I think, that this extra more performance in RT with PS5 Pro, will be more usefull in UE5 games when Lumen can get better performance, when there is better hardware.
This gen showed me Devs didn't utilize the XSX to the maximum and so will the case for PS5 Pro which is just a slightly better XSX.
Its why i built a gaming PC because i know next gen consoles will be inferior to my 7800x3D 7900xtx combo and devs won't spend the 💰 to maximize games to the best hardware and i can still upgrade if i need/want to in 5-7 years for the PS7/ next next Xbox
Layden is 100% right. But it‘s not only the industries fault. It‘s also due to the superficiality of many gamers, asking for better and better graphics, instead of asking for compelling games.
You overestimate average gamers. They won’t buy GTA6 for the PS5 Pro for the plot. They will buy GTA6 to see sugar babies twerking in 60fps 4k with RT!😅
@@tringuyen7519 I predict many will stick to GTA V/online.
Games are just fine and better than ever . The problem is that gamers have grown older and cannot get excited by a game anymore in the same manner when they were young and thats absolutely normal . A 30+ or 40+ should not play videogames but focus on other things in that part of their lives instead of playing Sonic and Mario
Dudes, he was exaggerating to make a point, not trying to be literal...geez, go out and learn som social skills!
Ad a PC gamer that's the thing that often made me uninterested in consoles (PS/Xbox). Basically the only new thing about the ps5 compared to the ps1 dualshock is the hardware power. So it all comes down to the games and absolutely only reason to get a PS is an exclusive game. The ps5 is a nice piece of tech the only reason to get it is if you only game on Playstation and you want slightly better graphics.
To say it’s recent for these 80 to 90+ hr games is kinds bullshit. Mass effect series. All 3 games, you could easily 50 to 75+ hrs for each game. But I do agree that console power isn’t alway best option and the devs should be taking advantage of the hardware and telling good stories, adventuring gameplay. The steam deck and switch are proof don’t need powerful system. Just decent system. But Imo switch was under powered. It struggle play most game at 30 fps. When 60 fps is/had been standard for while. Graphics isn’t everything. Rather have steady smooth 60 fps game, don’t care what it looks like vs realistic graphics at slow 30 fps. RT on current consoles is meh at best Imo. Ratchet and clank was the only one where I noticed the RT was decent at 60 fps.
The Precinct is indie title game which isn’t even out yet, is proof you don’t need spend millions or billions on game project and have huge staff. Game just need be done with passion, respect and skilled staff/devs/writers who care. So many game companies now are pushing their own bs agenda and or they’re chasing just for a live service/battle Royal bs or just wanted you spend $$$$. Or want game to last long long time while still getting ppl spend MTX/paid dlc or other content. Pushing for gamers spend $$$ more in game is red flag your doing it wrong. Your only being greedy and you and your company will fail.
It is not about making good Quality games anymore. It’s about $$$$$$$$$. big companies are buying up all good IP, then ruin them buy shutting them down or laying off thousands of workers. Publishers have too much power. This needs too be STOPED now. EA/MS/UBISoft/2k has too Much power now over IP of games and they ruining it. Nintendo has becoming a big bully, and Sony is too focusing on battle Royal/making money bs. Microsoft can’t even make good games anymore. How Phill Spencer still has job is beyond me. He’s done nothing for last 10+ yrs.
If he was correct xbox s wouldn't be an issue and pro wouldnt clear up res or fps issues . Could they do allot more with the hardware like Nintendo? Sure but ultimately you should still give the artists the best canvas possible bs making the most out of poor or sub optimal tools.
As far as visual leaps and gains, this is kind of an odd mentality. Ask anyone back then who played games 20 years ago and they’d tell you then that games look ‘so realistic’ that we’ve probably peaked. This happens every gen. The only difference now is games don’t take 1-3 years to make anymore. They take 5-8 on average. We have longer gens now that optimize late gen games. And we have Pro consoles that make that next gen push just a bit less impactful. And most games coming the first couple years of the gen now started development on last gen hardware. Even going into 2025 we’re seeing games that look quite a bit better than anything that released in 2014-2015 for example. In 2023 it had only been 10 years since the end of the PS3 gen. And look at a game from 2023 and from 2013 and it’s a pretty insane difference. In only a decade. Games coming now already rise above last gen limits, and they’re doing it at 60 fps at higher resolutions with ray tracing on console. These are not small gains. This is a leap over just a decade prior. Not to mention more realistic animations, longer stories (we didn’t have many 100 hour games that are now fommon 10 years ago) and granular world detail, lighting, shadow quality, npc faces, everything, has come a long way. A lot of it people may not notice because of nostaligia goggles and rose colored glasses of older games. But it’s there. So I’m not sure I get someone like him, who’s been in the industry a long time, with this mindset. It’s kind of wild.
I think you've misinterpreted whomever's mindset you're criticizing (that take doesn't sound familiar to me after watching the video). But I agree that we gamers have been spoiled by the pace of visual improvement.
Imagine if game visuals improved at the rate that TV picture quality improved.
@@DanKaschel I was talking about the opening minutes with Laden’s comments that ‘you’d need an 8K monitor in a dark room’ or something to see the visual differences. Stating that visuals and hardware have plateaued and platform holders should not be looking there for innovation anymore.
@@mandrews6282 ah, yeah I assume that was hyperbole but if that is his literal opinion that's pretty sad
Until we can do full 4K with pathtracing at 60 fps with no upscaling, we need more tflops.
Why not upscaling? The tech at the higher level - DLSS and maybe even PSSR is close to and in some ways better than native. Embrace the tech don't shun it. Nvidia did it right.
@TheT0nedude it is currently still not good enough on console (the ps5 pro is close)
@@ItsWhatever24 lol, PS5 Pro runs at lower than PC low RT settings from sub 1080p at 30fps. Not even at Path tracing yet, thats sub standard PC RT
@imo098765 PS5 Pro is doing great considering it has just began. What does it cost?
@@imo098765 you have one already? how?
The more money you spend on creating the game, the less likely I will buy it and play it. I don't have hundreds of hours for your game. I will never see more than 1% of the money you spent.
Gameplay is number 1. And most games have mediocre Gameplay. If assassin's creed unity had a Gameplay edition that I could finish in 25 hours. I would play it. But last time I tried i spent hours and only remember the nice graphics.
While it SEEMS like graphics have plateaued they definitely haven't (They are giving diminishing returns from generation to generation though with pro consoles making it diminish even more) and there's nothing to suggest they ever will even though it's hard to imagine what they might look like in the future. Moores law (the number of transistors on a chip doubles every 2 years) is still a thing made capable by ever advancing semiconductor manufacturing technology. There has always been a focus on both graphics and gameplay and there always will be but it's best to have a good balance of the two with gameplay being ultimately the most important
Making pretty graphics is easier than creating good game play designs and that's why many companies are pushing into this graphical fedelity race shit. Companies like FS, never push too hard on their games's graphical presentation, but for me, games like BB is striking the best balance between good graphic and great game play/feel/vibe whatever you call it.
Ahh yes... "forever games." LOL That was me with Elite Dangerous, at about 10K hours. Maybe a little more. Years later, (2022) when I finally burned out, I was like "What are all these games that came out 5-7 years ago? I have some catching up to do..." 😂Yeah sometimes you find that one game and it's all you care about.
The graphics war is over. The IQ/ image quality war is the only thing that remains: Sharper picture, better post processing, higher resolution, anisotropic filtering, level of detail..." Those are the things that we are dumping 1K+ into on just the GPU alone. RT is the latest graphics trend, but is considered debatable, as many don't see the justification and/ or the difference, which ties into what Shawn said about having the perfect room conditions to see the differences and also as the DF guy says about the pixel-peeping. You don't notice this stuff when you're actively engaged and playing. You have to stop and look for these things. It always almost seems to come down to IQ and frame rates at the end of the day.
We destroyed the foundation of the industry that was the gamestops and brick n mortar shops. Chased online money for a quick payday, ignoring the long term need of the marked.
High quality graphics, and shaders, for 4k are too expensive and prolong development time. 1440P/120 Should be the industry standard. And upscale to 4k/8k from there. And most gamers still play games at 1080pULTRA/60/120fps
I think that, yes, game design needs a reset, a redesign of the business model for development of new games. We reached that point of "diminishing returns" for graphics versus HW requirements, often times brutally so. Everybody in the gaming industry should pedal back on the "eye candy" development, and respective higher HW requirements involved. What I'm trying to say here is, what everyone needs is "better" games, not "prettier" games. And considering where the economy is right now (and it may not go better), when only a portion of the userbase can afford that elusive top 10% performance incredibly expensive hardware, it stops making sense going in the current direction. It goes for both PC and Consoles.
You don't need high end performance unless you demand every game run at 100+ FPS.
John is 100% right
The cost and power of the hardware is making it unsustainable. Thats why AMD isn't bothering with high end for now. 600 watt GPUs is just stupid.
Games look good enough. Capable devs will succeed. Incapable devs will continue to look to more powerful hardware specs as a crutch.
This is a reductive perspective that actually makes it more difficult to have a productive conversation.
@@DanKaschel Conversation about what? The latest bells and whistles from AMD or nvidiia which do nothing to make games better but DO increase costs and waste? That conversation?
@@smellthensing2221 ...so, the way this TH-cam thing works, my comment is actually a *reply* to your comment, so you don't really need to ask about what the conversation is; you're the one that brought it up.
@@DanKaschel Except your reply indicates that my comment is the opposite of, or an impediment to, some ill-defined "conversation" that you opened the door to, but never detailed or explained.
@@smellthensing2221 fair enough. I consider your first sentence to be a "thesis statement" that defines the "conversation". The second and third sentences are assertions which (separately and in combination) I consider impediments to a productive conversation about whether graphical fidelity is worth the incremental value to increase.
1080p or even 720p 60fps is more than enough.
I think it's sad that in this generation and with access to a ps5 and xbox the best game I've played is not any of the ones I've bought but the astros playroom bundled in with the ps5 and most of the games i end up occasionally going to play are from previous generations via back compatibility
When I play real engine 5 games and see if the currect hardware can handle it then talk to me about the Tflops war is over...it's not over until it's over !
I think that the high end consoles are in a growth lull. They've neared the ceiling when it comes to gen-x and millenial markets. Zoomers and gen alpha kids are so smartphone-minded that they aren't familiar with the benefits of console or PC gaming. As more of them age out of high school and need to spend their free time more deliberately, the gap in quality between what is available on a phone and what is available with dedicated gaming hardware will become apparent, leading to interest and adoption.
The death of the console at the hands of PC and smartphones has been prophecized repeatedly, and it has yet to pass. This too will blow over.
TFlops isn't over because PS6 and next XBox will have the same feature set with the same AMD GPUs so we will still need some kind of metrics to compare these consoles. In fact we first started hearing about TFlops when PS4 and XO launched.
If one console used AMD GPU and other Nvidia then Tflop metric would be less useful because there is big difference between TFlops as theoretical performance metric and performance. If you compare PS5 GPU and XSX GPU Tflops even if not entirely representing performance because things like memory bandwidth and ratio of shaders vs ROPs also matter it is still good approximation of overall GPU performance difference.
So long story short if next time around we will use TFlops or not to judge consoles entirely depends if they again use similar GPUs from the same company - which is very likely. AMD isn't gonna let this goose that lays golden eggs to slip. In fact I bet AMD is already working hard on new consoles.
it is over.. nobody cares if Xbox is more powerful. these are people living in a bubble and watching df. but most people look at the games. also these fps und pixel counting comparisons are not important. content mattters.
Meanwhile in the mobile world games are still cheap to make. $1 development 100$ marketing is not an unusual ratio.
Same for "retro" games, copy an old game concept, put $0 in graphics, get crazy nostalgia money.
war never changes
VR is the only thing that excites me anymore
There’s no such thing. There are decades ahead of improvement. It is not over.
I agree, I think what they mean by plateau is how the tech improvements will be leveraged into a business model. Releasing hardware is really expensive and when older consoles longevity is increasing and still most people use 1080p rn there is a plateau cause its development that is essentially for edge cases.
Obviously these consoles can become a lot more compact, lighter, energy efficient. And they should also have 5g cellular capable or satellite internet capable imo
Oh my, that guy totally embarrased himself with his talk of old guy who really dont know a thing about videogames. The spiderman tshirt is to make us believe he is like us XD
I'm glad Sony kicked him out Shawn is unhinged and want everyone to go back to playing snes games