Consoles arent upgradeable...PCs are. Thats why PC > consoles forever. And its PCs that push console makers to bring out ever newer and better consoles, not the other way around.
I quite disagree that consoles brought competition. There is a severe lack of competition there. That's the reason why consoles have such slow hardware refresh cycle. Compare it to mobile computers (laptops / handsets). They are refreshed a lot more frequently by their manufacturers. Because competition actually exists.
If anything, incumbent consoles are only holding everything back.
If anything, incumbent consoles are only holding everything back.
PC's don't push consoles to improve - they push themselves. Do you think Microsoft and Sony are seriously trying to catch up to PC with their new consoles? Of course not. That would make the consoles extremely expensive. They are trying to out-do each other, while still keeping their consoles cheap enough that they can sell a truckload of them. If any of them though putting a 2080ti in each box would make financial sense, they would be fully capable of doing so.
All of my old gaming friends who have moved to console have done so because we have less time to play now that we all have kids and jobs. Consoles are good enough for getting some gaming in, if you don't want to spend the time and money to make a high-end PC that can outperform them. They are also wonderfully maintenance free, which the same reason why your grandma has an iPad and not a laptop running Linux.
Consoles face the dilemma that if they iterate, they don't provide game developers with a large number of uniform devices they can tailor their code towards. If they don't iterate, they have to completely re-build their product every so often to catch up with technology. If they put out 3 new variants of their console on a yearly basis, games have to account for all those different hardware set-ups in their code. If you can be certain that every end user is playing on the same hardware you are developing on, you can optimize code much better.
Consoles will only help the development of ray-tracing. Without them, it would take far longer to hone in on good techniques. The wonderful thing about consoles is that they are much more focused environments. Developers have far less "wiggle room" when implementing things in their games. That means that solid, optimized ways of handling new tech have to be found more quickly.
In the more shapeless development ground for PCs, it's more than possible for devs to implement methods for things like ray tracing that work excellently for 5% of super-high-end machines out there but perform terribly on everything else. Especially for new tech, establishing structure, baselines, and standards that are fairly universal is what will determine how quickly things get ironed out for everyone.
In the more shapeless development ground for PCs, it's more than possible for devs to implement methods for things like ray tracing that work excellently for 5% of super-high-end machines out there but perform terribly on everything else. Especially for new tech, establishing structure, baselines, and standards that are fairly universal is what will determine how quickly things get ironed out for everyone.
They have no such dilemma when it comes to mobile devices, where developers face exact same issues like everywhere else. The only reason for consoles to be so slow with their refresh cycle is not that they care about developers (they never do, look at how they push lock-in which is completely anti-developer stance), but because they can get away with it.
Iterating faster means investing more money in progress. When competition is pressuring them, they run to do it, because if they won't, nobody would be buying their outdated obsolete hardware. But when there is not enough competition, they stagnate, because they are making money anyway. That's the well known problem with monopolized markets. If there would have been many major console makers instead of 2, they would have iterated at the same pace mobile device makers and PC manufactures do.
Last edited:
Please note, I never said either of those things. What I did say was that they brought gaming into the spotlight and mainstreamed it. The industry itself would not be where it is without that much consumerism. Look at how people looked at gamers from 25 years ago vs today. To think that consoles haven't affected the industry in any positive way just shows ignorance.
I'm not sure mass market consumerism is a good thing actually. Lot's of problems that consoles are blamed for, are also attributed to it (from downgrades to low artistic quality of games). I.e. I see their impact as mostly negative, and without rather heavily monoplozed console market, gaming industry could have been a lot healthier, both technologically and artistically.
Last edited:
Agree to disagree then, especially on your stance with mobile. I'd been in that industry for a while and it's far more stagnant for gaming than consoles. Even with oem's pumping out now socs every year, the tech behind the actual games hasn't changed much in the last 4-5 years. Do you remember Tegra phones? That was a push forward at the time. I haven't seen anything since that quite propelled mobile gaming the same way
I'm not talking about gaming (in mobile context), but about hardware progress. You can't deny that it's a lot more intense there than consoles that stagnate for years before next refresh. Gaming is simply a use case, how it's applied to desktop, mobile or "console" computers can have different issues, besides how fast they progress. Mobile gaming is just a lot more limited in general due to poor input interfaces (like touch screen), regardless of how mobile hardware evolves.
Consoles on the other hands have been holding gaming back for years, and I surely won't agree that they propelled anything forward, quite on the contrary, they held developers back from using better technology, due to them not wanting to do double work (one for modern PC hardware, one for outdated consoles ones).
All the complaints that gamers have about "consolization" problems in the gaming industry are well justified. And it surely applies in the context of CDPR and their games. I already brought examples above (i.e. compromises TW3 had to make due to consoles having outdated hardware even back when it was made, let alone what will happen with CP2077 and level of consoles being behind current generation hardware today).
Consoles on the other hands have been holding gaming back for years, and I surely won't agree that they propelled anything forward, quite on the contrary, they held developers back from using better technology, due to them not wanting to do double work (one for modern PC hardware, one for outdated consoles ones).
All the complaints that gamers have about "consolization" problems in the gaming industry are well justified. And it surely applies in the context of CDPR and their games. I already brought examples above (i.e. compromises TW3 had to make due to consoles having outdated hardware even back when it was made, let alone what will happen with CP2077 and level of consoles being behind current generation hardware today).
Last edited:
Im not ignorant...you just didnt make your point clear. Consoles brought games into the living room where people did most of their activity. Plus it made games more accessible to those with little money but gaming interest.
Tho in the "good old days", you had PC games, console games and handheld games. Now they want every game to work in all 3. Which tends to result in "dumbed down" games because they either port from console to PC which sucks mostly for controls or from PC to consoles or handhelds which reduces graphics quality which so many care about.
Ray Tracing being the topic tho, i think its overrated and that game devs push it is just for greed.
Post automatically merged:
They brag about PC like graphics...so yea, they sure as hell do try to catch up with PCs.
Last edited:
I dot see a damn difference to games without it...
Well, the difference is noticeable! I don't think it's possible to say that it has no discernible effect at all.
But I'd still say that the effect it has does not offset the cost of either financial value or performance impact. And I would still argue that it has no discernible effect on gameplay. It's not the same type of innovation as:
- Dedicated, Physics Processing...allowing for games to accurately track the trajectory of bullet arcs or respond realistically to forces applied on flight surfaces. This tech revolutionized what could be done with simulations in games, and gave us things like ArmA, much better Flight Simulators, etc.
- Hardware Transform and Lighting...going from lighting being based on actual gamma settings for an overall frame to point-based or volumetric lighting. This allowed for real-time flashlight cones and spheres of light cast from torches, lamposts, etc. It revolutionized the way that environmental lighting could work and did wonders for especially the horror / thriller / stealth genres.
Also...there will be the bugs...
But, I don't mean to sound totally negative on it. I think the actual effect is really cool!
Wel this comment didn't age well..Or it did age exceptionally.. I can't decideWe need SLI or DX12 mGPU Support!
We saw the game running in SLI, so don't let Nvidia break the support in your game! We know that it works, there's no reason to release the game without it.
Literally?
My guess ... kind of 'mean' ... 'devil' ...
Before launching new hardware, with completely problematic drivers - to sell - nvidia could think a little about its old customers ...
I can use reshade with my OLD GTX and get a better visual and performance then a 3080... (sorry nvidia, i dont like you, anyway). :3
"I know what you did last summer, nVidia"
My guess ... kind of 'mean' ... 'devil' ...
Before launching new hardware, with completely problematic drivers - to sell - nvidia could think a little about its old customers ...
Post automatically merged:
I can use reshade with my OLD GTX and get a better visual and performance then a 3080... (sorry nvidia, i dont like you, anyway). :3
"I know what you did last summer, nVidia"
Should be able to keep at the very least 50FPS at 1440p and with all graphical settings on high (maybe one or two things on medium, but textures and details on high) with RayTracing ON (Reflections ON, Lighting Medium) and DSLL ON (Quality or Balanced) using a 2080 Super. It's ridiculous to have a feature which requires nothing but the very best of the graphics cards to even work, the medium setting of RT lighting and reflections need much better performance and needs to work well on current generation cards (2080 Super and up at the very least). Next generation card (3080 and up) should be able to do the same thing but with RT shadows on too, DLSS off or quality, lighting on ultra or psycho, and graphics on ultra (something, one or two on high), again: 1440p and keeping 50FPS+ ALL times. This is not a reality, if you want TRUE 50FPS+ ALL times at 1440p you have to play with RT off or DLSS on performance and graphics at medium unless you have a 3090 (and even then the performance is nothing trully great or impressive). As it stands now the RT feature is very poorly implemented and has ZERO optimization, seems like it was a very last minute addition and needs a lot more work if it's supposed to actually work in the real world with truly smooth framerates.
PS: not even talking about the lack of new AMD cards support for RT, which is plain ridiculous.
PS: not even talking about the lack of new AMD cards support for RT, which is plain ridiculous.
Last edited:
The RTX implementation is incredible, its the best graphics I have EVER seen anyway.
I don't worry about ray tracing. But getting new AMD cards is just impossible at the moment.