Chrkeller said:
Soundwave said:
Actually it is, my point was most of the top Steam GPUs are low end GPUs, the 2050 is in that category. You don't get to say "it doesn't count" because it disproves your point. The 2050 is a popular choice for a lot of gamers that don't want to spend a ton of money.
Developers don't give a shit about showcasing the best tech for the sake of showcasing tech. They need to make sure their game runs on a very wide gamut of technology, the PC actually is accelerating that focus because PC games scale much further than consoles traditionally have.
No developer out here is going "y'know I've spent $150 million making this game, now let me lock it off to a tiny audience of 40 series card owners". That's not a reality anywhere and won't be probably even in the next 5 years.
Graphics enthusiasts like the type that watch Digital Foundry videos and all that shit are a tiny part of the actual market. You're not making big money targeting that audience solely and it's been shown again and again with multiple flops/underperforming games this gen that people don't give a shit about that.
|
It doesn't count because YOU listed a bunch of GPUs and I pointed out the 200 to 300% difference I'm memory bandwidth.
Then you shifted goals posts and started adding hardware that wasn't part of the original discussion.
|
The 2050 shows that modern games can be run on even lower bandwidth than what the Switch 2 has. Of course you hate it when anyone points stuff like that out because you have a tech nerd agenda (on a sales board for some reason), again maybe expend that energy buying some of these tech showcase games, but your group of techies don't show up for any of those games anyway, so it's like well who gives a fuck then.
Lots of talk, not a whole lot of actual action, turns out making games for the "Digital Foundry" audience isn't very smart based on the sales data we are getting.
Publishers are making sure their games run on low RAM, low bandwidth environments.
