Hot take: video games have peaked in terms of resource requirements and there's not much need to keep making better and better GPUs etc. Hardware has been more than enough for several years now
@drewdevault I don't think this paints an entirely accurate picture.
While it's true that modern hardware can easily render photorealistic graphics, there are other factors like more complex AI and VR which could potentially contribute to pushing forward the baseline.
@drewdevault@ProfessorCode yeah I meant the solution for someone not wanting to buy a new computer to play "AI" games, not the solution to the whole problem 💀
@drewdevault Games on the Switch tend to target people from all walks of life, casual and hardcore gamers alike. The other platforms have a reputation of being made for "capital G" gamers and their attempts to break into the casual market have been less than successful. Remember Xbox Kinect?
Nintendo also holds a tight grip onto their IP, even more so than Sony. You can only play Zelda or Mario on Nintendo consoles.
All of this contributes to the record breaking sales of the Switch.
@drewdevault Possibly, but let's wait a year or two until at least half of the AAA games come with AI generation for voices, open worlds, quest lines and visuals.
You'll still need to upgrade your GPU, only this time not for more graphical fidelity, but for more AI compute power.
@drewdevault Maybe. But also, why do this server-side and pay AWS (or OpenAI) a fortune for it, when you could outsource the expensive part to the customers?
@drewdevault There are reasons to keep making better and better GPUs, but the reasons have shifted from videogames to neural networks and cryptomining.
You are correct video games have already peaked, just look at consoles, they aren't getting any more computing because they simply don't need it.
Perhaps the onset of this was encouraged by the chip shortage, but nevertheless. The bottleneck to higher fidelity is labor, not hardware, and we're well into the diminishing returns
@drewdevault Actually, I believe the next big thing in game development is reducing the amount of labour. And to this end, global illumination, ray tracing, and other techniques like that will be definitely at the core of the change... So I expect hardware needs to grow for a little while longer :p
PS5 sold 50 million lifetime units as of December 2023. Nintendo Switch (now seven years old) sold 7M units in Q4 2023 alone. Switch sales are equal to the PS4 plus PS5 sales combined, and the PS4 was released 4 years earlier than the Switch
@drewdevault I don't think comparing sales of the PS4/PS5 with the switch is useful, due to the difference in form factor. The portable form factor is just that much more convenient than the fixed form factor. It's the same reason many people buy laptops even when a desktop would be more powerful and cheaper (and often more durable too, due to the ease of swapping pieces).
@drewdevault I do agree with the point, but I disagree with the justification (sales numbers). As a counter example, you could argue Wii was enough based on sales: it outsold PS3 but that doesn't mean hardware was more than enough to make any game.
@doragasu what I'm specifically trying to do here is draw attention to the fact that not only did the PS4 lose to the Switch, but the PS5 is also arguably losing to the Switch; and I think that's kind of meaningful when it comes to demand
@drewdevault real-time raytracing only recently became viable at over 60 fps thanks to hardware acceleration. It’s the latest in a long list of techniques used in e.g. movies that didn’t work well for games.
Realistic caustics in games basically weren’t a thing before this. Years from now, we could have underwater caustics (which normally require a ridiculous amount of compute).
@drewdevault That’s just one example I pulled from a hat. There are dozens of rendering techniques that get thrown out the window in real-time settings, but more become viable every few years.
@drewdevault Ray tracing? definitely. The latest Forza entry lets you use raytracing for realistic reflections on all your shiny cars at 120 fps if you have a recent GPU. That was unheard of a few years ago.
@Seirdy racing sims is a wealthy consumer niche, though. I think that the market for general consumers willing to open their wallet for new hardware advancements is quickly drying up and most game publishers aren't bothering.
@drewdevault Nearly every AAA game can benefit massively from real-time raytracing, and it’s been an available but hardly-used option in game graphics settings for years. Unreal Engine 4 games will be leveraging it. It’s kind of hard to go back once you’ve seen it in action, even if you don’t bother with the whole world of irregular transparent surfaces it opens.
Before real-time ray tracing, new hardware meant more aggressive volumetric lighting and better upscaling algorithms. In games like Cyberpunk 2077, that means the difference between 50 and 80+ FPS.
And then there’s the ability to render more in real-time instead of pre-made cutscenes, 2-D pre-rendered backdrops, etc. which is what makes more recent procedurally-generated games way more immersive with large viewing ranges.
@Seirdy I understand that. Every AAA game is also releasing ports for a console generation going on a decade old now. Like I said: the market for new graphics is drying up. Games are good enough.
@drewdevault Ah, I think I understand what you were saying. Yes, new AAA titles do not require the latest and greatest hardware to be playable. But I don’t think most gamers buy the latest GPUs for their gaming rigs just to make their favorite titles merely playable; the appeal has always been about making games run well, with better framerates on better graphics settings. That’s always been part of the appeal of PC gaming over consoles.
If you want to play at 60 fps or higher, the best graphics settings on Cyberpunk, Forza, Starfield, and other intensive AAA titles will still exceed the limits of the latest graphics cards and CPUs.
Playing a game doesn’t require the latest hardware, but enabling a given setting and reaching a target framerate does. Gaming hardware sells for graphics more than titles. Baseline requirements have always been driven by consoles.
@mntmn indie hardware has been mainly limited as a function of how good easily available ARM processors are (and kernel support lagging behind bullshit vendor kernels)
@drewdevault i would partially agree, though i don't see that x86 is the main issue, as we have box64 and dex now (if you need to run x86/64 binaries) and apple has an arm success story. the problem is rather limited embedded GPU options available for indie makers—those in socs are only now getting a little more interesting imo with more funding going into serious open driver development.
Add comment