And how much would you pay for it? Obviously the market for such a game would be incredibly small since you'd be making a game for a select few with that kind of gpu and up. Think Crysis 2007 but even more extreme. I'd say they'd be justified to price such a game at $99. It'd be the new game to be talked about for years, "but can it run X"?

Are there any recent demos that showcases what these cards can do?

Just imagine a game using the full 12GB GDDR5.

How many people own the 1080 Ti ? 1-2% of the PC gameing market?

If the graphics where sooooooo insane, nothing before a 1080 ti, could run it even close to 1080p 30fps...... sales would suck, everyone would complain about.

"And how much would you pay for it?"

Nothing, that would be a "skip" :p

Maybe it can pay off it they can just sell it for like 50 times the normal price.

So.... 60$ x 50 = a 3000$ game, for the top 1% of users.

It just doesnt make sense OP.

The problem with makeing a game noone with less than a 1080 Ti can run at 1080p30fps, is that market share is too small.

Such a game would be crazy expensive to develope.

And if no one (very few) buy it... whats the point? its going to be one of those games that ends up bankrupting the people that develope it.

Technical demo. (It's boring.)

Bruh I did de mathematix and it kinda make sense:

$99*50k owners=5 million $ + revenue from future gpu owners on the same level

You can make a nice interactive small game with it that takes maybe 2 hours to complete

Just imagine 90% of budget poured into the graphics and 10% on the gameplay, a walking simulator maybe

It would look like this:




Making a game for a graphics card sounds rather silly tbh. Developing for at least 3-4 GPu's sounds more reasonable and covers more users out there. Don't forget, the majority of games on PC always feature low, medium, high and Ultra preset settings to choose from, to scale to what hardware you have. Games like Star Citizen look really beautiful, but they can also be dialled back visually for those with hardware that isn't near the top end (not talking potato weak).

Also I wouldn't pay £100 for a game that's just about visuals. I want visuals, proper physics and believable animations , a world that comes to life and one that can be explored and interacted with. If a game managed to achieve all that and provided a great deal of replayability, then I could consider going for said game, but I'd still wait for a price cut.

That's kinda stupid. Even if it was made for a specific card you could easily run it on most other cards. That's the magic of PC games. You're basically just asking what would happen if a dev would spend a ton of money on ingame arts. It would look great of course. But through the magic of programming every game can run on every platform.

The goal isn't to make the most beautiful game for the smallest user base. It's about making most games available to as big of a user base as possible and let them choose how good they want the game to look and run.

Just look at Skyrim. Thanks to it being on an open platform it can look extremely pretty and it didn't even cost a single cent for the devs.

Some of the CGI movies have 10 or more hours put into rendering each frame.

We won't render that quality in a few milliseconds, not for another 20 years.

I have 1 word to you: Crysis

Period! No matter how much you tinkered with the settings, you couldnt get it to run decently on most cards until like 2010.

Of course you'd be able to run my proposed game on lower end cards, for example you could watch the intro and see how the menus looked, but as soon as u get ingame then ur fps dives into single digits.