Have we reached "Good Enough" in the GPU space?

[Boze]

This is off-topic but I do not believe consoles are holding back technical achievement in ANY way ...

We should thank current gen consoles for pushing bindless and stateless compute ...

If it were not for them we wouldn't be getting a fast transition to physically based shading, more options for anti-aliasing, and many more ...

If anything, consoles ARE pushing the boundaries of what's possible! It was inspiring how Alex from Media Molecule outlined a way to get REYES rendering level of geometry on a CONSOLE!

Video cards with 2GB or less of video memory won't be relevant in the near future when comparing to consoles since they'll be bottlenecked in trying to achieve the same settings ...

If we excluded every video card that had under 2GB of video memory and didn't have at least an HD 7870 level of performance then what's in the PS4 would easily show up in the top 10th percentile. Some hardcore PC gamers keep complaining about how consoles are weak yet they refuse to face the fact that the majority of PCs that even have a dedicated DX11 capable video card are weaker than consoles so most the the blame should be pinned on PCs, not consoles.

This is not meant to be a "haha PC sucks, consoles rules" rant since I'm a high end PC user myself but is a post to show the modest view of the landscape or the reality for some ...

Interesting viewpoint, but in my mind, the problem isn't that developers have to become "crafty" to make console gaming look better, its that PC developers are lazy and aren't pushing the engines in terms of features and performance.

High speed CPUs and ultra powerful (compared to even just 3 years ago) graphics cards are making PC developers into lazy crapbags.

Used to be, we could count on John Carmack to release a new id Tech engine every 5 years or so, and that at least would provide PC gamers with a solid basis that developers could use, or Tim Sweeney would work his magic with a new Unreal Engine.

Maybe its time for PC games to dramatically increase in price to offset the enormous R&D budget for these technologies... I paid $50 for Baldur's Gate in 1998. 17 years down the road, should I really cry about paying $72.79 (inflation from 1998 to 2015) for a triple-A game?

 

[Headfoot]

Maybe its time for PC games to dramatically increase in price to offset the enormous R&D budget for these technologies... I paid $50 for Baldur's Gate in 1998. 17 years down the road, should I really cry about paying $72.79 (inflation from 1998 to 2015) for a triple-A game?

I think its somewhat of a self fulfilling prophecy. I've been let down by poor PC ports or just plain old poorly coded / poorly manage servers at release so many times by so many developers there are almost no developers I will buy day one $60 games from, even though I want to. But if they had been fully functional, non-compromised PC releases at day one I would continue to buy them for $60. But because fewer and fewer people buy the game at $60 day one, they put less resources into polishing it for release on PC. And the cycle continues...

 

[tential]

For me this new dlcs model means I refuse to buy the game til it's bargain bin because I want to play with all dlcs and updates. So I'm waiting for the finished product. I can't stand the staggered release of a game.

 

[SirCanealot]

Interesting viewpoint, but in my mind, the problem isn't that developers have to become "crafty" to make console gaming look better, its that PC developers are lazy and aren't pushing the engines in terms of features and performance.

High speed CPUs and ultra powerful (compared to even just 3 years ago) graphics cards are making PC developers into lazy crapbags.

One might want to avoid using the term 'lazy'. The best thing a doctor ever said to me was 'Don't say lazy, say unmotivated and why'.

Applying this to games developers, 'lazy' is a terrible term to use. Do you actually know anyone who works in the games industry? Would you describe them as lazy?

Is them working 80 hour working weeks in cram time with no overtime pay 'lazy'?

Please state the situation as it is: Developers are not lazy, but are simply not given the opportunities a lot of the time to push the envelope.

Can we not put the fault where it really lies: With large corporate bodies that demand games are released on time, etc, etc, etc, and hold developers back in so many ways.

Cite me a single interview where a developer has come out and said 'We were planning to push for 60fps on PC, but we really couldn't be bothered. The team was happy with 30fps and just wanted to sit around and eat pizza before the next project started'

 

[bystander36]

One might want to avoid using the term 'lazy'. The best thing a doctor ever said to me was 'Don't say lazy, say unmotivated and why'.

Applying this to games developers, 'lazy' is a terrible term to use. Do you actually know anyone who works in the games industry? Would you describe them as lazy?

Is them working 80 hour working weeks in cram time with no overtime pay 'lazy'?

Please state the situation as it is: Developers are not lazy, but are simply not given the opportunities a lot of the time to push the envelope.

Can we not put the fault where it really lies: With large corporate bodies that demand games are released on time, etc, etc, etc, and hold developers back in so many ways.

Cite me a single interview where a developer has come out and said 'We were planning to push for 60fps on PC, but we really couldn't be bothered. The team was happy with 30fps and just wanted to sit around and eat pizza before the next project started'

This is true. Everyone I've known in the industry, claims 80 hour weeks as light. Many work over 100 hours at times.

 

[krumme]

This is true. Everyone I've known in the industry, claims 80 hour weeks as light. Many work over 100 hours at times.

...and yet productivity is very low.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Can we not put the fault where it really lies: With large corporate bodies that demand games are released on time, etc, etc, etc, and hold developers back in so many ways.

Or more exactly don't put enough people on the PC version that is needed to do the port. That was Batman's problem.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

Interesting viewpoint, but in my mind, the problem isn't that developers have to become "crafty" to make console gaming look better, its that PC developers are lazy and aren't pushing the engines in terms of features and performance.

High speed CPUs and ultra powerful (compared to even just 3 years ago) graphics cards are making PC developers into lazy crapbags.

Used to be, we could count on John Carmack to release a new id Tech engine every 5 years or so, and that at least would provide PC gamers with a solid basis that developers could use, or Tim Sweeney would work his magic with a new Unreal Engine.

Maybe its time for PC games to dramatically increase in price to offset the enormous R&D budget for these technologies... I paid $50 for Baldur's Gate in 1998. 17 years down the road, should I really cry about paying $72.79 (inflation from 1998 to 2015) for a triple-A game?

Except Software is unique in that regard. It has an immense R&D cost, but the actual cost of production is virtually zero. When you bought Baldur's gate the number of copies sold is nothing compared to now.

Of course, the cost of development is far greater as well., but it's still nothing compared to the return.

GTA5 cost ~240 million, and they damn near made one billion on the 1st day!

No, I think the problem is the same with most other corporations. The ones at the top make too much money, and only care about profit. The game industry used to be one of the exceptions to the rule, but as gaming became more mainstream it lost that. Now, it's all about the benjamins, like everything else.

 

[poohbear]

They care about profit because they have quarterly results to post for shareholders. If they post a loss then stocks plummet. As a person who owns both Activision & EA stocks, I personally don't wanna see that happen.

Now, if they don't pay their employees well, there's no motivation to work those 80-100hr work weeks. But assuming these guys get paid well, they just gotta stick it out. What I don't understand is why they'd work those hours if they're not being paid well?

 

[MajinCry]

Gimme PS1-era graphics with super-far draw distances, then direct the money, that would have been used for hi-res artists, towards writers.

Games should focus on gameplay, not cinematics.

 

[bystander36]

Except Software is unique in that regard. It has an immense R&D cost, but the actual cost of production is virtually zero. When you bought Baldur's gate the number of copies sold is nothing compared to now.

Of course, the cost of development is far greater as well., but it's still nothing compared to the return.

GTA5 cost ~240 million, and they damn near made one billion on the 1st day!

No, I think the problem is the same with most other corporations. The ones at the top make too much money, and only care about profit. The game industry used to be one of the exceptions to the rule, but as gaming became more mainstream it lost that. Now, it's all about the benjamins, like everything else.

You are only looking at the success stories after the fact. What about all the failures that didn't pan out? For every success, there are 10 that bombed or never made it out of production. It's a very high risk industry.

 

[bystander36]

...and yet productivity is very low.

Do you have anything that would suggest that? It's a difficult industry, and they work extremely long hours. What do you expect?

 

[Boze]

One might want to avoid using the term 'lazy'. The best thing a doctor ever said to me was 'Don't say lazy, say unmotivated and why'.

Applying this to games developers, 'lazy' is a terrible term to use. Do you actually know anyone who works in the games industry? Would you describe them as lazy?

Is them working 80 hour working weeks in cram time with no overtime pay 'lazy'?

Please state the situation as it is: Developers are not lazy, but are simply not given the opportunities a lot of the time to push the envelope.

Can we not put the fault where it really lies: With large corporate bodies that demand games are released on time, etc, etc, etc, and hold developers back in so many ways.

Cite me a single interview where a developer has come out and said 'We were planning to push for 60fps on PC, but we really couldn't be bothered. The team was happy with 30fps and just wanted to sit around and eat pizza before the next project started'

You know, thinking back to long raids in EQ / WOW, you are right. Here's the actual reality of the situation, because I played EverQuest with Blizzard employees and later played World of Warcraft with employees from EA / Blizzard, and a few other gaming companies.

A timeline for a game is set out, and then corporate f**ksticks think they have to answer to shareholders, so they push the development team, which was making reasonable progress at 40 hour work weeks, into working 60 hours. Now there's a snag in production... new code is introduced, or a part of the graphics engine has to be re-wrote, so now work hours to up to 70. Another snag is hit, so now its 100 hour work weeks for the last 3 months of production...

Instead of just telling shareholders, "Yeah, the game is going to be delayed by one year, you're going to have to deal with it."

Our entire system of capitalism is the problem, because its based on some moron's retarded idea of infinite growth.

id Software, Epic Games, and Blizzard before they were bought by Craptivision, had the right attitude... "It'll be done when its done."

That's the problem with the games INDUSTRY. They're treating it like an INDUSTRY, and not the creative enterprise it needs to be.

 

[StrangerGuy]

This is off-topic but I do not believe consoles are holding back technical achievement in ANY way ...

We should thank current gen consoles for pushing bindless and stateless compute ...

If it were not for them we wouldn't be getting a fast transition to physically based shading, more options for anti-aliasing, and many more ...

If anything, consoles ARE pushing the boundaries of what's possible! It was inspiring how Alex from Media Molecule outlined a way to get REYES rendering level of geometry on a CONSOLE!

Video cards with 2GB or less of video memory won't be relevant in the near future when comparing to consoles since they'll be bottlenecked in trying to achieve the same settings ...

If we excluded every video card that had under 2GB of video memory and didn't have at least an HD 7870 level of performance then what's in the PS4 would easily show up in the top 10th percentile. Some hardcore PC gamers keep complaining about how consoles are weak yet they refuse to face the fact that the majority of PCs that even have a dedicated DX11 capable video card are weaker than consoles so most the the blame should be pinned on PCs, not consoles.

This is not meant to be a "haha PC sucks, consoles rules" rant since I'm a high end PC user myself but is a post to show the modest view of the landscape or the reality for some ...

That is why I find PC Master Gaming types "consoles are pulling us back" arguments so hilariously dumb. If not for consoles the AAA graphic pushing games won't even exist for them to whine about because Economics 101. They really believe those game devs are going spend $100M+ budgets to cater for them just because they bought a $500 GPU.

 

[Arachnotronic]

That's the problem with the games INDUSTRY. They're treating it like an INDUSTRY, and not the creative enterprise it needs to be.

Money talks, BS walks

 

[VirtualLarry]

This is true. Everyone I've known in the industry, claims 80 hour weeks as light. Many work over 100 hours at times.

I used to work in the industry. The office had a "sleeping closet". (After they decreed that they didn't want the devs sleeping on the couches in the lounge area, in case the investors decided to stop by.)

 

[VirtualLarry]

...and yet productivity is very low.

If producing top-quality games is so easy, you should do it, and show the industry how it's done, and raking in the millions or billions yourself!

 

[VirtualLarry]

Now, if they don't pay their employees well, there's no motivation to work those 80-100hr work weeks. But assuming these guys get paid well, they just gotta stick it out. What I don't understand is why they'd work those hours if they're not being paid well?

Love. I would say that just about everyone involved in the games industry, except perhaps for the fat-cat execs at the top, loves gaming, games, and those that produce games, do it because they enjoy creating a piece of art, interactive art. Because that's what it really is.

 

[Headfoot]

Love. I would say that just about everyone involved in the games industry, except perhaps for the fat-cat execs at the top, loves gaming, games, and those that produce games, do it because they enjoy creating a piece of art, interactive art. Because that's what it really is.

Yep. It's the same everywhere, people who do something for the love of doing that thing will get ruthlessly taken advantage of.

Teachers work a lot for crap pay because they love teaching and the people paying them know that. Musicians (real ones, not manufactured ones) love playing music and the venues, labels and people listening know that and take advantage of it. Game Devs love making games, they're passionate for it, so the industry takes advantage of them. If they didn't love it so much they'd walk a lot sooner, and the powers that be would be forced to pay to keep them around.

 

[OVerLoRDI]

For 1080p? Yeah.

For 4k? Not even close.