Tachikoma said:
In putting in the work to make the best graphics you can, fit into the space youve chosen to work with, multiple itterations are made as the map and environments fine tuned, texture data for models is optimized, UV's are packed tightly and efficiently, care is taken over material variety, placement, density and overall appearance, without that set limit to work to, things fall apart quickly. For example, why optimize the textures and fine tune UVW resolutions and packing to fit 2gb if our development machine can handle 12gb?, and were going to "recommend" at least 6gb cards?, we can save money and time by not putting in the effort to optimize this sort of thing or spend the manpower on doing said work, faster development time = cheaper development, less optimization needed = less manpower required, more profit. Game quality isn't scaling with hardware performance, because the more powerful "recommended" hardware becomes, the more liberties and corner cutting developers can get away with, that's always been the case. Flooding the market with high capacity vram cards wont make development teams suddenly start using much higher quality textures and effects, not for a long while, all it will do is allow them to do the same shit at a lower price and get away with it, but the PC fanboys will point and say "hurdur, but it does look betterm look this texture here is 1024x1024 but only 512x512 on console!!!, but the level headed would say, well thats nice but does it really effect much overall, and is it really worth the buy in price of high end cards? p.s. the titan x costs $305 more if you're from the EU instead of the US. |
Yeah its quite bad, certain companies like apple and nvidia are shameless. They didnt lower the prices for their products here in europe when the euro was 30% more than the dollar but they increase it now when its 1=1 now
