People who care about 60 fps and pixel counts definitely know about Lumen and nanite. Even if they dont, they want next gen visuals. Thats literally the entire premise of the thread... people want next gen visuals without understanding the cost of 60 fps.
i mean both PS4 and PS5 cost $399 at launch. Less than the cheapest PS3 sku and on par with the X360.
Gamers only became entitled after Sony, MS and third parties phoned in the first two to three years of this gen with cross gen releases that ran at 60 fps at higher resolutions. The moment devs actually started pushing fidelity, that became impossible and now they have to resort to 720p which looks like shit on 4k tvs everyone is rocking.
i never saw anyone complaining about 30 fps in witcher 3, batman ak, uncharted 4, horizon 1, zelda botw, rdr2, or even ghost of tsushima and tlou2. This is a relatively new phenomenon.
I think the PS5 looks good on modern TV.So PS4 and PS4 Pro Pro both cost $399. Now the real PS5 costs 800.
I think you answered your own question, maybe some people expected PS5 to look good on their modern TV without upgrading halfway.
Sony/MS are encouraging cross-pollination with PC and making PC look like a good way to play their own games, so the most authentic fans of these brands might be figuring things out lately like 60FPS is actually good and how to double-click a game in the scary world of Windows.
I think the PS5 looks good on modern TV.
The moment devs actually started pushing fidelity, that became impossible and now they have to resort to 720p which looks like shit on 4k tvs everyone is rocking.
Do you think that these systems would struggle to hit 1080p/60fps on a UE3 engine game from 2008? Of course not. PS5 could run PS4 games at 4K/60fps without breaking a sweat. The issue is that these games are putting in these graphical technologies that are insanely computationally expensive. PS3 could run these games at maybe 5 seconds per frame, maybe lol.No, we're just tired of games being sub-par. It was understandable on the 360/PS3 considering the leap those systems made in a variety of areas, but how are we still unable to get hit a 1080p60 minimum on hardware that is nearly 50x as powerful? Especially when other aspects like AI and physics haven't improved as signifcantly since then and games are launching more broken than ever.
Apparently performance mode is chosen by 75% of PS5 gamers. Hardly doubt any of them care about Lumen or Nanite. If they did, the DF sub base would reflect that.People who care about 60 fps and pixel counts definitely know about Lumen and nanite. Even if they dont, they want next gen visuals. Thats literally the entire premise of the thread... people want next gen visuals without understanding the cost of 60 fps.
Sure, you can type a word salad on twitter to an executive and try to hurt their feelings or cause them to be spiteful, but a better impact would probably be to keep that 59.99/69.99 in your pocket.If you don't complain you get stomped over.
What are you waiting for? For a fucking CEO to go to your house, fuck your dog and kill your wife?
Batman Arkham Knight runs on UE3 and I can't name that many games that completely visually outclass it even in 2024. I'm in favour of ditching these fancy "graphical technolgies" until the hardware can actually handle it. Just imagine if every game looked like AK and also performed well too.Do you think that these systems would struggle to hit 1080p/60fps on a UE3 engine game from 2008? Of course not. PS5 could run PS4 games at 4K/60fps without breaking a sweat. The issue is that these games are putting in these graphical technologies that are insanely computationally expensive. PS3 could run these games at maybe 5 seconds per frame, maybe lol.
Is it really that bad? I am legitimately curious, as I don't own any tv or monitor over 1080p. I know games like sonic frontiers look like shit on my 1080p set on switch, but that is because it dips to sub sd resolutions (how sega did so poorly with the dnyamic resolution and draw distance).I don't have a PS5 but I believe him because I've seen 720 Switch games on a 55" 4k TV and uh...
Is it really that bad?
I think people are sick and tired of being overcharged for worse and worse products. Devs use the Internet as a crutch and just think, "we'll send out a patch" instead of releasing a polished game. When there was more physical media before the Internet became standard, they had to make sure the game was not in such a shit state as recalling them cost so much more. Now, we pay a whole lot more for a whole lot less quality. How many "letters" have we seen from the devs saying "we stride to do better. We will make it right for our loyal fans, " etc. All while they are happy to take our money knowing the state of the game and we have such a tiny window for a window, if we are lucky.
On the other hand, again, due to the Internet being what it is, even the most deluded, annoying piece of shit can cry about anything, and it gets seen. That goes for customers and devs. When so many people start being cunts, it then paints a picture that everyone must be the same, and we aren't. There seems to be no pride left in making a polished product. Instead, it's like most things are early access with no guarantee of leaving.
The thing is if you look at the last two the game award winners, and probably the third this year, which i am guessing black myth wukong most likely just due to numbers, they’ve all launched with pretty big performance issues yet, yet they win goty. Quite simply put the gaming media is just a bunch of pushovers.. there really isn’t much pressure nowadays to actually like keep pushing developers to actually release a quality product unless it’s an outcry from the fanbase because they got a shitty product. Gaming scores are way too high for what they are especially when you get games that are just totally fucked up as far as frame pacing, stutters, and things along that line. It’s unacceptable, but rairly gaming media outlets are gonna put their neck out that far in most cases.Basically gamers are to blame for begging to buy unfinished games, including knowingly (early access). In theory, the Internet allows games to be updated to everyone's benefit, and games that otherwise would have trouble making it through development raise money to reach the finish line. But of course the most extreme advantage possible is taken of it so now we have "live service Halo" that is just a stripped game with all the old features patched in piecemeal or early access games that languish forever. For every one time the new possibilities are used in a well-meaning way, there are 30 more where the dev just used them to get away with a crappier job.
It was better when there was pressure to deliver day one, and it made sequels more meaningful. Now even a sequel is just starting the whole process over from scratch again.
It would be hilarious if Ubisoft was unable to update the new Star Wars game and the harsh lesson would be even more painfully felt. Personally, I strongly believe people showing up day one with seventy (or more) dollars should get the best version of the game, not the beta. Since of course we can't turn off the internet, it's on gamers to simply not buy it. Maybe they finally had enough.
The thing is if you look at the last two the game award winners, and probably the third this year, which i am guessing black myth wukong most likely just due to numbers, they’ve all launched with pretty big performance issues yet, yet they win goty. Quite simply put the gaming media is just a bunch of pushovers.. there really isn’t much pressure nowadays to actually like keep pushing developers to actually release a quality product unless it’s an outcry from the fanbase because they got a shitty product. Gaming scores are way too high for what they are especially when you get games that are just totally fucked up as far as frame pacing, stutters, and things along that line. It’s unacceptable, but rairly gaming media outlets are gonna put their neck out that far in most cases.
Wrong, best Metal Gear game.Worst sequel ever due to the bait-and-switch.
It must be a generation thing too. I remember x-wing being a slide show, along with smaller screens for ultima underworld, doom and wolf3d on a 386sx 16mhz back in the 90s. I loved every minute of it. I remember getting a pentium 2 clone cheap, only to realize it wasn't a real pentium but a cyrix m2. Which was bad for 3d apparently. I didn't know. I slapped a voodoo 3 in there and then a soundblaster live to bump up my fps to playable. It was great playing thief at 30 fps quake 3 at 24 fps etc.... Then I started building my own pc and it all changed, but even in the 2000s Crysis would melt, yet we played it anyway and had a blast.No. Gamers are easy consumers “con las tragaderas como la boca del metro” as we say here. They’d swallow shit if it has an EA Sport logo. That’s how we ended accepting and suffering many bad practices such as DLC, half assed games, season passes and more. I have a theory about that but that’s for another post.
Now that’s gamers, but if your target are hardcore gamers you’re fucked. We are very picky. I’ve played WipEout in Sega Saturn at 15fps and my major complain was the transparencies were checkerboarded. X-Wing must have run in single digits in my PC, and UFO: Enemy Unknown was so slow that it was a flying bullet simulator. Now if a 60fps game falls to 50 everyone is throwing shit like a main of enraged monkeys.