By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Soundwave on 13 June 2024
Edit Thread
Chrkeller said:
Soundwave said:

I said that in this thread because in having MARKET discussion always boil down "well I need XYZ graphics settings" it's like who cares about personal preferences, we're not discussing personal preferences. You might as well also throw in whether you like ketchup with fries into every discussion. Make sure you remind everyone in every discussion about it too. 

Regarding the Mark Cerny comment (that's the designer of the PS5, that's who I'm assuming you are talking about) that proves my point genius. 

He's saying he is surprised this gen that developers are not aiming for maximum graphics fidelity and the best looking game possible and instead just opting for more 60 fps which eats up the performance of the machine. 

His point was he was expecting more developers to choose higher quality graphics at 30 fps rather than lower quality visuals at 60 which has been the norm in the past (at 30 fps you will have better quality graphics). That's not happening anymore as it has on past Playstations. IMO that's because well no shit, to maximize the graphics fidelity costs even more money, to keep your graphics setting in more of a mid-tier and simply push FPS to 60 costs basically nothing, you just need the hardware overhead to accomplish it. 

Not true.  The top best selling games in 2023 were listed.  Most were big budget games.  

Top 2024 selling games were listed.  Most were big budget games. 

Nobody is listing personal preferences, but clear market expectations.  Since it doesn't align with your "developers will only do low end games" nonsense, you run around goalpost shifting and lying about people.

Games will continue to push boundaries, that isn't going to stop.

Nvidia is working on 5000 series GPUs...  I believe Nvidia passed up Apple in net worth.  Nvidia isn't pushing GPUs because "omg nobody wants grAphIcS."  

Your argument is poppy cock and sadly you know it.  

Nvidia's main business isn't even selling over priced graphics GPUs to dummies for $1500 so they can play video games. Someone might want to tell this crowd that the crypto boom is over and really they're being ripped off at those prices being kept artificially high. It's like a grocery store that's selling a bag of chips for $4 because they got away with doing that during the pandemic, but now they're not bringing the cost down even though the pandemic is long over.  

Their stock price is that high entirely because of A.I. speculation much like the dot com bubble of the 2000s, the 40 series didn't have the greatest sales. 

Game budgets are at their ceiling as is if they are going to "push boundaries" it's not going to be within the context of doubling, tripling budgets even further from where they are today. Playstation's own former president (Scott Layden) who was their president for like 14 years has said that. Several times. This is the guy that oversaw Sony and pushed for blockbuster single player titles like Uncharted to begin with saying this, lol. Their own internal documentation says going over $350 million is a killer. 

You can do the math from their own internal sales data and it shows even at 20 million sold, at a budget of say $400 million you are barely making a profit. $500, $600 million budgets are simply not realistic, it's not a matter of opinion, it's is cold hard math. 

I take Sony's own word and their own data sets over "one of three random posters on VGChartz". 

Last edited by Soundwave - on 13 June 2024