I do think there's still a big gap between stuff like maxed out Alan Wake 2 and full on photorealism but peak real time graphics are getting close enough to it where diminishing returns are getting real. Future engines like UE6 will help with the budget issue but starting next decade getting closer to simulating real life in other aspects will become more important than simulating it visually. A game with not quite photorealistic but still good enough visuals and an extremely believable world chock-full of interactive elements and compelling NPCs will be more immersive for probably most people than one with photorealistic visuals but a dull world with not much interactivity.

Resolution itself doesn't actually increase budget costs.
I could grab a PC game from 1998 and run it at 16k resolution with the press of a simple button, it's development budget would probably be comparable to an indie game today.

It's making all the high quality assets that costs money... And it doesn't matter if it's 720P, 1080P, 4k or 8k, we aren't photo-realistic at any resolution yet.

We need better developer tools and technologies to streamline game development... And things are improving there.
I.E. Ray Tracing removes the burden from artists to make baked lighting/shadow and let the graphics engine handle it in real time and dynamically, that actually can save money outside of cutscenes which require specific light and shadow placement to obtain a certain look.

Lets just by magic you had a console-viable chipset that could render even Avatar 2 type visuals in real time for $600. You're not magically going to get movie quality graphics like say Avatar 2 in real time without there being a massive cost behind that (1 billion dollar budget? 2 billion? Unlike movies games have to have full environments, you can't just cheat whatever is in the frame).

In the relative future that just isn't realistic, even if the hardware existed to do that in real time (it doesn't, not even close), developers don't have 1-2 billion + 10+ year dev cycles it would take to even use such hardware properly.

And honestly most people don't even care, which makes the whole pursuit even more pointless.

Yet PSVR1 to PSVR2 is a massive generational leap. And VR has room for many more leaps in resolution, fov, comfort, full body tracking, variable focus (solving vergence-accommodation conflict), games.

Console games can also still advance. Living worlds is a dream that's still in its infancy. A-Life 2.0 in Stalker is where the advances are at. (Remains to be seen if it actually works, not yet) Physics still have miles to go before they no longer have to be scripted.

It's just graphics that don't visibly advance that much anymore, or don't make that much of a difference anymore. Hence future consoles should focus more on CPU cores and RAM to make other advances possible. Physics based worlds instead of model sets.

Yet the industry still sells games based on screenshots and videos, eye candy. Consoles are powerful enough to explore more games like From Dust, yet people still flock to AAA eye candy instead of lesser looking games with more interactivity.

As long as people keep pre-ordering AAA eye candy en masse, why would the industry focus on the gameplay :/

VR as I said is the undiscovered country, that's where innovation will happen, traditional screen consoles (any size) are kind of going to be in a rut of simply just getting prettier graphics of the same thing, which would be a bigger deal if graphics of now weren't already quite nice and able to create basically any kind of game play scenario with beautiful visuals. It just depends on the art team you have. 

I think VR in general has stalled... Just like 3D did, this year has seen some significant sales decline... PSVR2 has definitely done a belly flop.

And whilst the technology has potential, it will probably never have the mainstream appeal of say... Console or mobile gaming.

There's still plenty excitement, PSVR2 has a great BF price, let's see how it does. Since the PCVR adapter PSVR2 is now also seen as a good headset for PC.

The technology is the future, but not in it's current helmet form. But that will be solved, just like mobile phones didn't catch on until they actually fit in your pocket.

And currently everything has stalled in the fallout of the pandemic :/ PSVR2 got dealt a bad hand but Sony seems committed to continue with VR. GT7 just had a great update for PSVR2 trying out a new reprojection (frame doubling) technique making it feel like native 120 fps.

Btw 3D hasn't just stalled, it has faded away (3D movies). PS5 doesn't even support 3D blu-ray. (does support PSVR1)


But we're in a weird situation atm. Meta is losing between 3 to 4 billion dollars each quarter on VR, heavily subsidizing the headsets and games. While that is great for VR adoption, it is also stifling for advances in VR games, as most are made to work on a mobile chipset. People are begging to play popular AAA games in VR, hybrid games is what they want and what will drive adoption. Not mobile games in VR that look like PS3/360 games.

Hm..I wouldn't call Batman Arkham Shadow, Metro Awakening or upcoming Alien: Rouge Incursion mobile games with PS360 level of visuals.

Nor would I call that Asgard's Wrath 2 from last year.

They run on mobile hardware and look like this

(Except much grayer in the headset, not real HDR, grey blacks)

It feels like playing a ps3/360 game in VR. It feels 2 generations behind RE8 / CotM.

While the games are still fine, they are not a selling point to lure people over used to flat console gaming. Metro Awakening doesn't even reach what it did on PS3/360. You never get to the surface, all game you're stuck in repetitive tunnel environments.

Plus Metro 2033 on 360 was more detailed

So I'm being generous calling them ps3/360 level of visuals...

But since it runs at a locked 60 fps, it's what I imagine ps3/360 could have done at a locked 60 fps.


Maybe a fairer comparison (I didn't get that far yet in Metro Awakening)


Metro 2033 XBox 360




Anyway I hope they fix the HDR for PSVR2, that would improve immersion 10x already.

VR has a lot longer of a run way to go because what it's trying to do is so much more ambitious than standard video games. 

VR is in effect trying to basically completely alter ones entire reality and envelop their sensations to create a new world, basically. To viably do that it's going to probably take another decade or two to get it to where it needs to be. I think it's still in its infancy compared to what it will become. 

VR is trying to go to the moon, standard games are like trying to travel cross country. 

People are more finnicky about putting things on their face, so the technology is going to need more breakthroughs to be feasible (getting smaller, cheaper, while the processing end simultaneously improves), but if I'm looking at gaming technology in the big, big picture, absolutely yes I think VR is where experiences have room to grow. 

Even on Quest 3 with "PS3-tier graphics" people are blown away by that new Batman game. VR if it gets to its potential will alter reality and entertainment entirely, I don't even know if calling it "video games" will suffice any more. 

Whereas modern gaming, alright in 20 years you have photorealism, ok, so what? A game from 20 years ago like Resident Evil 4 still plays about as good as anything today. Whereas you look at the difference between games 20 years prior to that, so you'd be looking at games from 1984/1985 vs 2004/2005 ... the difference is monumental, you're going from Super Mario Bros. 1 (lol) to Resident Evil 4. 

If I have people over today and I want to show them the most "whoa, amazing" thing in video games I show them the Quest 3, not PS5, because PS5 isn't really going to do anything that blows people away. It's not to say it's not a product without appeal, but to get that "first time I played Mario 64!" type wow, the closest thing that can do it today and I find really surprise people is VR.