Talking to Soundwave is like ramming your head repeatedly into a brick wall.

Remember when he kept telling us the only people that care about 60fps have fetishes.  Now even the designer of the ps5 sees how 60fps has become one of the most wanted features on ps5 not mention he kept telling us that most people gaming on a 2050. Or wilds looks like aps4 game lol.

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. 

Heck you talking about at 30fps you get much better graphics but people just prefer 60fps it's the standard for perfomance now and people view 30fps as downgrade. If you look online not having 60fps option will get massive complaints for most gamers, sure they will take a 30fps game but it will be the biggest complaint now you hear about a game on current consoles. 

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.  

That's not what Cerny's point was, his point was historically in the past developers went for 30 fps and the highest graphics fidelity, that no longer happens and gamers are OK with it. 

Which is not far off from what I've been saying for developers for quite some time ... there's no need to bankrupt yourself or spend stupid amounts of time and money chasing the highest graphics fidelity. You're better off a game with a lower level of graphics fidelity which still looks good (like last gen games such as Horizon Forbidden Dawn and Miles Morales still look good enough), save yourself money, simply just crank your frame rate to 60+ and resolution to as high as it can go until they max out, doesn't take all that much. If there's still some power hanging out, you can then turn on ray tracing and then that's it those machines are easily maxed out even with lower fidelity games. And this way you can also have the possibility of porting to a wider variety of software and increasing sales on top of that. 

The type of game that Cerny is really kind of talking about with an outdated philosophy is Senua's Saga ... the "best looking game of this generation" is also the biggest flop of the year. But it follows the traditional way of Cerny's expected development cycle ... lock in at 30 fps and go for the highest possible visual fidelity.

Unfortunately for them that meant they ended up with a game that was only 5 hours long after about 5 years of development even with paper thin gameplay, they obviously spent most of their time/effort all on the graphics and now they have the best looking game on the market and also the biggest flop of the year. 

Senua's Saga HB2 is basically the "we're going for max graphics and gonna lock down at 30" philosophy in game form in the modern era. And we see the result. 

I think you don't understand inflation has sky rocketed and games are just costing more, Spiderman 2 had a 60fps option so it wasn't like it was pushing anything to its limits. Starfield was not expensive cause of its graphics it was cause of its ambition. Games are just more expensive to make now even games like last of us 2 and Forbidden West cost like 200 million and they started development way before inflation went crazy. It's not even about graphics. developers want the best everything in their games that's why it's costs to much they wanna make the next best game ever and sometimes they fail.

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".