Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Sony XBox (Games)

Video Game Console Makers Confront Performance Ceiling (bloomberg.com) 160

Posted by msmash from the not-impressed dept.
An anonymous reader shares a report: The human eye can't really tell the difference between 4K and 8K resolution. Video game console manufacturers, who have built their businesses selling increasingly powerful machines every few years, are grappling with a future where performance improvements are becoming less dramatic.

Sony Group launched its PlayStation 5 Pro console in mid-November. The $700 upgraded version of Sony's 2020 gaming machine uses AI to improve games' frame rate while maintaining exceptional image quality -- at least for 82 games that have been enhanced to take advantage of the new specs. That means gamers can see the realistic glint of their metal sword and experience smooth, sword-swinging battle action.

But despite all the fancy tech and a $200 price increase over the previous version, reviews so far haven't suggested it's a must-have machine. "It's an improvement, but there's nothing that makes it a complete generation above what the Series X offered," Daniel Ahmad, director of research and insights at Niko Partners, said. "It's a lot more difficult to distinguish the jump between each generation." The number of households with a gaming console hasn't really budged in more than a decade. Many gamers are replacing older machines more slowly, finding the one they already have is good enough.

Video Game Console Makers Confront Performance Ceiling More | Reply

Video Game Console Makers Confront Performance Ceiling

Comments Filter:

  • A game console? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by war4peace ( 1628283 ) on Tuesday November 26, 2024 @11:07AM (#64973597)

    I don't see a need for a game console, personally, since I always had a powerful PC which was able to play most current games at good resolutions and framerates.
    Exclusive games didn't help, quite the contrary: I saw them as me being denied from playing them, rather than something that prompted me to buy a console.

    It was never about money or performance, but rather a genuine "why should I even bother"?
    As long as consoles remain something more limited and less versatile than a PC, I am not going to buy one.

    • Re:A game console? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DarkOx ( 621550 ) on Tuesday November 26, 2024 @11:23AM (#64973645) Journal

      A game console is still for the most part cheaper than a like capabilities "gaming rig" at least for some period near the start of the generational introduction.

      For many many years I was with you than something else hapend, the need for PC power to do anything but game was kinda of eclipsed as well. For certain things sure you can't have enough compute or memory or GPU bandwidth, etc. If you have one of those use cases super, but for most people at home doing their taxes, browsing the web, watching streaming video, writing letters, doing research, even "learning to code" you can do all that with a five year old box now and want for nothing. However unless you spent $$$$$ on that PC five years ago you most likely can't have as good a gaming experience with the latest titles as you could with a launch PS5.

      For the person who wants to come home for work or school and just play a game for an hour or two without any 'fuss' it is darn hard to beat the console experience or the price point in the PC world. As for us nerds, well if you are going to do the PC gaming thing you probably still have to run Windows for the cutting edge and well eww...

      • For the person who wants to come home for work or school and just play a game for an hour or two without any 'fuss' it is darn hard to beat the console experience or the price point in the PC world.

        There is certainly convenience with a dedicated game console. However, in comparing price, since almost all gamers will also need a computer, shouldn't the price comparison be between a console plus low-end laptop/PC compared to a high-end laptop/PC? In that type of comparison, the console is more expensive. The big consideration is whether a high-end laptop/PC provides a good enough game experience and whether the weight of that laptop impacts portability.

        • Uh, I'd have to dispute that "almost all gamers" will also need a computer. These days, they can do their stuff on their phone.

          A low end PC is like $100, and a "good" gaming PC is like $1k, so the combination of a cheap PC and a gaming console is often cheaper than a gaming PC.

          That's without considering that these days you can often add a bluetooth keyboard and mouse and straight up use the console as a basic computer. Use google docs or such, office suite on the web.

          • $100? No. There's no way you're getting anything new for $100. Used? Maybe. Just the monitor is going to cost $100.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by 2TecTom ( 311314 )

        No, consoles are never cheaper once you factor in the annual fees, not to mention, it's enabling classist corporate market manipulation.

        Consoles are for kids.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by CAIMLAS ( 41445 )

        Nah, you're out of your mind.

        You can get an AMD NUC type box for $350 that'll blow the latest Xbox/PS platforms out of the water at half the cost and be a capable desktop computer. Hell, you'll even get AI capabilities.

        • Ehhh not really. PS5 Pro in particular has a beefier GPU than what you'd get in a Rembrandt machine (for example). And there's no telling what you'll get for $350.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by skam240 ( 789197 )

          Show us one of these $350 boxes because I don't believe you.

          • latest AMD integrated on good ram is approximately ~1080 GT class, the first time non-discrete gpus have risen to this level

            no console does so

            console are ahead on "4K" rendering because they got better memory bandwidth, but their gpu's compute doesnt come close... but then the 1080 GT also doesnt do 4K all that well

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by batkiwi ( 137781 )

              Check the latest LTT video about making a PS5 or PS5 pro equivalent.

              He had to use used hardware bought on facebook marketplace and ebay (which is a real hit or miss), priced the OS as $5 for a dodgy/pirated corporate key, and at price to price still wasn't able to match fidelity and framerate at the same time.

              Had he been able to buy a $350 NUC he would have just to prove the same point you are trying to as he's fairly vocal about "pc gaming wins".

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by skam240 ( 789197 )

              Ah, yes. Gotta love vague hand waving from someone who can't be bothered to properly support their claim. How about some citation links with prices?

      • But iif someone already has a PC, is the cost of a PC + console still cheaper than a PC with minor upgrades to support gaming (midrange stuff, not master-race 4K 120FPS raytraced shooters). To me, the cost of a console is more than the cost of a mid range graphics card. If you don't have a PC because you do all your computing at the office and all the home social media on a tablet or phone, then the console is cheaper.

        The value of the console is ability to play it from the sofa, possibly with a friend. I

    • Maybe you just don't enjoy new experiences? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Somervillain ( 4719341 ) on Tuesday November 26, 2024 @11:40AM (#64973681)

      I don't see a need for a game console, personally, since I always had a powerful PC which was able to play most current games at good resolutions and framerates.

      You're making the mistake of comparing resolution and framerate vs experience. First of all, visual fidelity ain't great now. It looks good if you have a tiny monitor, but on a TV..there's a lot of room for improvement in the complexity of the models...Even in UE5, most games look like PS4 models with REALLY GOOD lighting. It's a jump up, but the character details are very meh. Agreed, 8k or 120Hz won't help there.

      What I am more excited about is complex play. Imagine a shooter where you can actually use the environment?...or where you're dealing wth new types of enemies and strategies? Space Marine 2 is the first swarm game I've played. Imagine having a LOT of enemies swarming you...the past games I played long ago have been "meh". But with better physics, it'll feel like 1000 individual enemies instead of a large graphic simulating a large number...very expensive computationally, but very fun. What if you can ACTUALLY change your environment?...some games kinda do that...imagine if it got better enough to make a strategic advantage? What if you could toss a grenade and see the cover chip away slightly?...not just in pre-computed manners, but in realistic ones?

      We're far from the pinnacle of game design. Sure, your PS3 games have been mastered. The PS5 Pro will render the shit out of them and make them as beautiful as possible...so will your PC, but you're still stuck with 15 year old game play and mechanics...which even the best games were surprisingly simple when you go back and play them a 2nd time.

      I don't want greater framerates or resolution. I want more sophisticated and interactive games with better physics...it's quite expensive, but I think that will wow us in the next generation.

      Regarding your PC? Game consoles are social, cheap, and worry-free. Your PC isn't. My kids and I play any split screen games we can find in couch co-op mode. My parents and non-gamer wife enjoy a Nintendo switch game on occasion. I hated consoles at first because I enjoy shooters and using a mouse, but after a few years, adapted to the controllers and greatly prefer the experience. I spend all day in a computer chair writing code. It's nice to sit on a couch at night when it's time to have fun. No matter how powerful I made a PC, there would be glitches here and there. I tried making a PC a game console...routed it to a TV so my son and I could play multiplayer games...constant issues with Bluetooth controllers. My XBox...connects reliably every time...those same controllers on a nice PC?....spontaneous disconnect at least once per day. I even tried upgrading controllers, getting a USB one I could have sit in our laps...just drama...poorly tested...not a great adventure.

      When we visit relatives for long periods of time?...pack the XBox in a suitcase and hook it up to grandma's TV for rainy days.

      Different strokes for different folks. Consoles are great for some...PCs are better for others. Since games have become social for me since kids, I prefer the console experience. When I had more time alone and disposable income than friends or loved ones...PC was the way to go.

      • Agreed, 8k or 120Hz won't help there.

        I think display size vs distance determines that more than anything. Think VR glasses.

      • I don't want greater framerates or resolution. I want more sophisticated and interactive games with better physics...it's quite expensive, but I think that will wow us in the next generation.

        A good point. Personally, having played Ark: Survival a lot, just fixing pathing would do a great deal to fix my gaming experience. There are things that you're obviously supposed to be able to do in the game - such as wander around with a pack of dinos to protect you, that you really can't do because the dinos keep getting stuck. In other games I've seen large to small "quirks" that were obvious patch jobs because they couldn't get something to work right.
        For example, in "The Callisto Protocol", you're

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Tyr07 ( 8900565 )

        Okay so, first off - PC Master race, I said it. PCs can easily be superior to consoles in every single way. Bar none.

        Especially with more sophisticated games. I mean screw graphics, sure I like pretty things but gameplay and complexity is where my heart lives. To that end, the computational power of my PC is incredibly important. Take simpler graphical games like Factorio, or pretty space ones like Space Engineers, or even Minecraft - the complexity of the worlds, the sizes of the world or 'maps' vastly lar

        • This article is about how even consoles are feeling the diminishing returns of improved performance. PCs are already there. Flexing with superior
          computation is so weird. It's not improving gameplay. PC is the home of indie games, that's where most of its advantage is.

          With current gen consoles it's more like Cybertruck vs Model 3 and flexing with 0-60 in under 3 seconds, with a "truck" that cost a ton of money that promises to do everything, shitty. Vs a car that does car stuff excellently and still has more

      • I don't want greater framerates or resolution. I want more sophisticated and interactive games with better physics...it's quite expensive, but I think that will wow us in the next generation.

        The two are not exclusives. You can have both, different people are responsible for achieving each. Frankly coming from a computer to a console I definitely do want greater framerates. What is happening in the living room is embarrassing and I say that as someone without a gaming monitor limited to a pathetic 60fps even on the gaming rig.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Matheus ( 586080 )

        Pretty much all this but to add some corollary:

        Moore's Law: Frequently misinterpreted to imply "computers get twice as fast every 2 years" when that's not the case.Those doubled transistors are benefiting us now with more cores, additional functional modules, more memory, etc instead of meaningfully increasing our individual CPU speed BUT that takes *work to redesign how we create software to make use of that additional hardware instead of "My thing runs fast now because its on faster hardware".

        I think the

        • I think the authors of this article are basically making the same mistake in the gaming space.

          On the contrary, I think their point was exactly the same as yours. You're agreeing with them, not disagreeing. More powerful hardware doesn't matter. Going from 4K to 8K requires 4x more computation from the GPU, and people can't even tell the difference. Instead developers need to find ways to innovate in game design. And most of those new, innovative games will run fine on a PS4, so why upgrade? That's their point.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by flink ( 18449 )

      I don't see a need for a game console, personally, since I always had a powerful PC which was able to play most current games at good resolutions and framerates.
      Exclusive games didn't help, quite the contrary: I saw them as me being denied from playing them, rather than something that prompted me to buy a console.

      It was never about money or performance, but rather a genuine "why should I even bother"?
      As long as consoles remain something more limited and less versatile than a PC, I am not going to buy one.

      It's way more comfortable and relaxing to plop down on my couch with a controller than sit hunched up at my keyboard, especially after working all day. Yes, one could build a PC for the living room and run Steam in big picture mode or something, but a console offers a turn-key solution that doesn't ask anything of you. Also, a console is a fixed configuration for game makers to target, so generally (and yes, I'm aware that there are exceptions), performance-driven games will run more consistently. Not be

      • Oh, also, anything co-op, like playing games with my son. Those are almost exclusively ona. console.

        Oddly my son & I went back from a console to PC only because they stopped making split-screen co-op games. On the PC we use Nucleus to play Deep Rock Galactic as god intended, sitting next to each other on the couch. You generally can't do hacks like Nucleus on a console AFAIK.

    • Console remaining advantage: Standard platform (Score:4, Informative)

      by DrYak ( 748999 ) on Tuesday November 26, 2024 @12:34PM (#64973833) Homepage

      I don't see a need for a game console, personally, since I always had a powerful PC which was able to play most current games at good resolutions and framerates. {...} It was never about money or performance, but rather a genuine "why should I even bother"?

      Well indeed, console *hardware spec* isn't a major seller anymore. Back in the late 80s and early 90s a home console would have crazy hardware capabilities (graphics, audio) that either wasn't available or was prohibitively expensive on home computers. Nowadays, both Microsoft's Xboxes and Sony's Playstations are basically variations on PC Hardware (same AMD CPU, familar Radon AMD GPU, etc.)

      BUT

      There's another reason for game consoles: (even the one which are outright litteral PCs in a weird form factor like the SteamDeck). They are standardised platforms.
      Instead of targetting and testing a myriad of possible hardware combinations in home PCs, a game developper can target a handful of consoles and know that their game will work everywhere on those. This is most noticeable with Valve's SteamDeck where absolutely every model on the line up has litterally the same CPU and GPU - the models only different in storage and some cosmetic. Even the latest OLED models use the die shrink to go faster, but instead to save power while behaving litteraly the same. If a game studio get their game "steamdeck verified" it will run litteraly the same on any model.
      The situation is roughly similar with Microsoft and Sony's console, though with a bit more variations (Pro models with higher specs, absence of optical media reader on entry-level which prevents buying physical games, etc.)

      So there's a big argument for game studios to target consoles (simpler landscape to target),
      and there's a somewhat relevant argument for gamers - it "Just works(tm)!", no need to fuck with drivers, settings, etc.(the versality of PCs comes at a cost).
      With the SteamDeck somewhat halfway there (non-verified steam games could *require* some fumbling; and once you switch into desktop mode, you're into PC-style versatility)

      If you buy a PS5 games, you just pop it in (well if you have optical drive) and grab a controller and start playing.
      If you buy a Switch game, you just plug the flash media and start playing.
      If you buy a steam game that is SteamDeck verified, you just download it to your SteamDeck and start playing.
      But if you buy a PC game, you might need to upgrade drivers, tweak settings, etc.

      Personally, I already spent too much time massaging our PhD's software to get it to run on the HPC, I appreciate not needing to spend time tweaking when I want to just play a game.

      • But if you buy a PC game, you might need to upgrade drivers, tweak settings, etc.

        It must be more than 5 years since I last had to update drivers and tweak settings to make a game playable.
        But I agree that PC ports of some games are horrible.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Ogive17 ( 691899 )
      We've bought most of the Nintendo consoles because they have some classic franchises and they have some fun "social" games to enjoy as a family.

      I still prefer PC gaming but talking through discord does not match up with sharing the couch with a few friends or family members and laughing together.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Hodr ( 219920 )

      Hey everybody, war4peace doesn't see a need for your products that sell 10s of millions of units a year so you better cut that shit out.

    • I've always preferred PC for SP or online MP but couch multiplayer was their killer feature back in their heyday. Nowadays the kids seem to use tablets or Nintendo Switch instead of sharing the TV so the dynamic is very different.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Same here. And 4k or 8k? Why? I find FullHD works entirely fine for me.

    • It is a completely different experience to play something "chilled out" on a sofa, maybe with someone watching you, or playing couch coop with someone after work. I too have always preferred playing titles on a computer, but some games are way less enjoyable when not played on a console
    • Well, with even midrange GPU's costing more than the standard console (hell even the PS5 Pro almost) a lot if people are opting for a console as it's much more userfriendly and affordable for more people. They can push much better graphics out of a console due to optimization for only one SKU (or two) as with a comparable GPU for the PC (as it just isn't really worth really trying to optimize for the PC due the gazillion configurations). My gaming PC needs to be replaced by now, but it'll cost me around 5 t

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dnaumov ( 453672 )

      Most people neither need nor want a powerful PC. They are entirely happy with their smartphone. For gaming purposes, you need to spend AT LEAST 3 times the price of a console to get maybe 10% better framerates and way more to get a signicantly notable difference. Most people do not find that enticing at all.

    • I've been a professional game developer for most of my career with a good chunk of that being a console programmer. Here is a summary:

      1990s: Consoles were for people who couldn't afford a PC.
      2010s: Consoles are a cheap PC with artificial scarcity "exclusives" as marketing.

      There used to be advantages of a console in the 1980's - 2010's.

      * Plug-and-Play. No fucking around with drivers as the hardware was standardized. It just worked out-of-the-box.
      * Games were held to a higher standard. A standard 24 hour "

  • Great (Score:4, Insightful)

    by paul_engr ( 6280294 ) on Tuesday November 26, 2024 @11:08AM (#64973601)
    Now stop making them so fucking expensive, idiots. $700 for a console with negligible benefit over the prior version, if not regression in graphics performance due to AI remastering being shit, is no fucking good.

    • Now stop making them so fucking expensive, idiots. $700 for a console with negligible benefit over the prior version, if not regression in graphics performance due to AI remastering being shit, is no fucking good.

      I agree that $700 is too much for a console; however, the PS5 Pro has far better graphics performance than the PS5. The main problem I see is that there is not really a need for it. Better graphics is nice to have at the moment for most games. Maybe in a few years newer games are barely playable on the PS5, but that day is not today.

    • Now stop making them so fucking expensive, idiots. $700 for a console with negligible benefit over the prior version, if not regression in graphics performance due to AI remastering being shit, is no fucking good.

      It's cheaper than past consoles. Or did you not realise that the PS3 top model cost $937 in inflation adjusted terms? If you're poor don't buy the PS5 Pro. The PS5 is an option for you. Heck the PS5 Online edition is one of the cheapest gaming consoles made, in inflation adjusted terms cheaper than the PS4, 3, 2, and 1.

      So with that out of the way, what's your next excuse?

    • Account for inflation and a $600 or $700 console today is not much different than earlier consoles. For instance, Nintendo, the 1985 NES was $150 (inflation adjusted to today it is $440), the SNES in 1990 was $200 (inflation adjusted to today of $480). The Nintendo Switch OLED today is $350.
      Sony Playstation release in 1994 was $299, which is $633 in today's dollars...

      I can go on and on, but consoles themselves have not really increased in price, the value of the currency has simply changed over time. And
    • If you account for inflation the cost of console gaming has barely budgeted in decades. I still prefer PC gaming, but current console gaming represents incredible value for money, especially for people that just want something that works.

  • Excellent news (Score:3)

    by I'm just joshin ( 633449 ) on Tuesday November 26, 2024 @11:11AM (#64973613)

    Now they can focus on game play and bug fixing.

    • Re:Excellent news (Score:4, Funny)

      by nightflameauto ( 6607976 ) on Tuesday November 26, 2024 @12:24PM (#64973807)

      Now they can focus on game play and bug fixing.

      Nope. They'll focus on shoveling AI at the users. AI will save them, just like it's gonna save everything and every body else!

      • AI would certainly save them, as long as it's improving the incredibly stupid enemy AI in so many games.
        Seems like only a handful shooter games have sufficiently smart enemies, and those are even several years old.
        I've seen the improvements in graphics and world size from Far Cry 2 to 5, but also the dumbing down of NPCs. I wish I could expand on FC 2's campaign because there the enemies were smart enough to hide when one of them died from sniper fire. And the graphics were good enough to bring on the Afric

        • Then again, something like that males a game more replayable and that cuts into sales from newer games. That's not in the corporate interests.

          I feel like we've lost a lot of momentum, not just in video games, but everywhere, over the need to sell more stuff down the road.

        • It's easy to kill the player. The real trick is giving a proper, competitive feel. Now you also got to get that experience across the player ability spectrum, as I'll call it. You are probably smarter then the average person and gamer. So if a game were at your level, it may be way to hard for the average. That's bad for sales.

          It's like the idea that we couldn't get certain NES titles because the Japanese felt they were to difficult for Americans.

  • Not just resolution (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Viol8 ( 599362 ) on Tuesday November 26, 2024 @11:19AM (#64973629) Homepage

    There's been a pointless performance war in frames per second when the vast majority of people can't tell the difference past about 60-80 fps anyway.

    What would make a big difference IMO is proper full realtime ray tracing rather than the not very impressive 1st gen stuff in the current gen of consoles. Even on PCs the realtime side isn't that impressive yet. And yeah ,I know some people think that texture mapping + shading + lighting algos can look the same , yeah, no , it really doesn't. When you've seen some high end ray tracing images absolutely nothing compares.

    • Add to that many TVs were not capable of 120Hz or higher frame rates but advertised they had “Motion 120” or whatever the marketing term was. They were 30Hz panels that used some techniques that made the framerate appear higher.

    • There's been a pointless performance war in frames per second when the vast majority of people can't tell the difference past about 60-80 fps anyway.

      Tell us you don't know what you're talking about without telling us. One of the greatest criticisms of video game consoles this generation is piss poor framerate, with several major titles being locked to 30fps on current gen consoles. And if you can't see the difference between 30 and 60fps then I suggest taking up a job as an actor in a Specsavers commercial.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by KlomDark ( 6370 )
        Readin be hard. eh? Past 60 to 80 is nothing to do with the difference between 30 and 60. Perhaps you are the one who is in need of glasses?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Viol8 ( 599362 )

        I said beyond 60-80. Perhaps you should visit specsavers as clearly you can't read properly.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      I always thought my vision was mediocre, certainly not what it used to be when I was young. But I can definitely and easily tell the difference between 60fps and 120fps, or 4k and 8k. The difference between 1080p and 4k is night and day for me.

      Maybe I'm just sensitive to it. Looking forward to a nice 8k OLED monitor or two, ideally 16:10.

  • Duh (Score:2)

    by Bahbus ( 1180627 )

    No version of any PlayStation has ever been a must-have machine. You can get more fun and value out of a defunct Dreamcast.

    • No version of any PlayStation has ever been a must-have machine.

      The original PlayStation was a must-have machine. The competition at the time was not the Dreamcast, but the Saturn. The Saturn cost $100 more and didn't have hardware transparency, you had to waste one of the CPUs that helped make the cost so high in order to do transparency effects even decently, and they still weren't as good as the Playstation's. And the Playstation was dramatically easier to develop for, so you had far more good games for it. AND the best performance achieved was actually superior on t

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Bahbus ( 1180627 )

        The original PlayStation was a must-have machine.

        No. It wasn't.

        The competition at the time was not the Dreamcast, but the Saturn.

        The competition from Sega for that specific generation. The actual competition was the N64, which was the overall better machine. Sony's controller design has always sucked.

        There are no Saturn games with the overall quality of Wipeout XL or Gran Turismo 2

        Your only game references are, not one but, two shitty racing games? One of the worst genres to ever exist?

        My point for referencing Dreamcast is that Sega's consoles were more interesting and worthy of being bought (ok, not so much the Saturn, specifically) now than a PS5. Anywho, the actual winner all around has always bee

        • The competition from Sega for that specific generation. The actual competition was the N64, which was the overall better machine.

          The N64 was pleasantly powerful, but you did have to have the RAM upgrade for it to handle anything complex and that did jack up the price to where it was near the Playstation. The N64's controller was also far inferior to the PlayStation's analog controller when it came along, its shape was an irritating gimmick that no one has repeated with good reason.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Bahbus ( 1180627 )

            Pretty much any controller that comes to mind, except for the NES, is better in every way than PlayStation's controller. N64's controller may have been weird, but it worked, and it worked well. Hell, I would rather use nothing but Wii U Gamepads over ever using a PlayStation controller.

            its shape was an irritating gimmick

            It was not a gimmick. It was designed for 3 (technically 4, but we don't talk about that one) different control schemes depending on the game (and/or personal preferences). The D-pad was the default for 2D games. The analog s

  • ...the only important thing.
    Gamers want good games. Performance is cool, photorealism is cool, but the games need to be good and fun.
    Based on sales reports and reviews, the current generation of high end games are being rejected, not because their graphic performance is subpar, but because gamers don't enjoy playing them

  • It's not the vessel but the software (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MindPrison ( 864299 ) on Tuesday November 26, 2024 @11:31AM (#64973663) Journal

    I'm a gamer and a coder all the way from the 80s. Still I guess I call myself a "gamer".

    The thing is, it's no longer about the vessel, call it console, call it a PC - call it a vessel for your entertainment.

    If you have a 1000+ team making an AAA+ game, you are in for a visual treat, sometimes the fun of the game can get lost in all the detail, but oh boy is the details good.

    The resolution don't matter so much if you make realistic game graphics with good anti-aliasing and all that DOF goodness with proper lights, the more realistic the lighting environment is, the more real the game will look. The more natural the motion is the more real the game will look.

    Walt Disney said it best when he said a good story won't be destroyed by bad animation but all the best animation in the world is not going to save a bad story, and that still holds true today.

    So - game devs and even hardware devs, focus on story and content, there's where the future truly is.

    • Walt Disney said it best when he said a good story won't be destroyed by bad animation....

      Well Disney is going to be putting that to the strongest test with the remake of Snow White and the 7 hideously-animated dwarves.

  • While there is a certain contingent (especially in the PC space) that demands higher resolution and frame rates to justify the expensive GPU they just bought, they are a minority. But does it even matter anymore now that game companies are obsessed with putting ugly character designs into games? I don't need 4K or 8K graphics to watch a third-person view of the back side of an obese, ambiguously-gendered person, with a skin tone chosen to be neither too light nor too dark for opinionated people who wouldn't

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by CAIMLAS ( 41445 )

      That's because a certain demographic, which is not particularly good at story or tech but has been disproportionately represented in media for decades, has been able to get into game development due to -

      - an absence of competition (which happens in all fields when male representation drops below about 60%)
      - low pay for game developers (ie not a lot of job competition)
      - the ease with which games can be developed now (vs having to code game engines from scratch, 10+ years ago)
      - large media conglomerates runni

  • Rather than saying "we don't need more pixels", they should be saying "we need bigger screens".

    Start selling home versions of "The Volume". Put them in a hemisphere of pixels to immerse them in an environment.

  • 1) The focus should be on making better games, regardless of technology.
    2) Most people probably cannot tell the difference between 1080p high definition and 4k or 8k because we have not seen any games built for 4k or 8k. That much data requires faster internet, as long as games are streamed from the cloud. When we finally get 8k and framerates of 120fps, it will seem like reality.
    3) I want a more immersive environment, and objects I can move or change inside the game.
    4) FFS I wish Call of Duty would pick 1

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jsepeta ( 412566 )

      oh yeah, the M4 Pro Mac Mini is probably going to be more powerful than the Playstation 6, just saying.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by CAIMLAS ( 41445 )

      Case in point: Counter-Strike has been one of, if not the, most popular game of all time.

      It's effectively the exact same game it was in 1998. Slightly different engine (Source 2 instead of Source), slight variations in the maps and gameplay dynamics, but otherwise the same game. People still play it, regularly, because it's good. Counterstrike 2 is still the most played game.

      Dota 2? It's a game mod, or at least started that way (IIRC, as a Starcraft or a Warcraft 3 map type). Second most played game on Stea

    • Most people probably cannot tell the difference between 1080p high definition and 4k or 8k because we have not seen any games built for 4k or 8k

      I can't speak to 8k, but when sitting close to a 40" display the difference between 1080p and 4k is very obvious. It makes a huge difference in detail. For a lot of games that probably doesn't matter much; for the kinds of games I've been playing lately where you build stuff and there are text labels and generally a lot of detail it matters a whole lot.

      I would think you would need a significantly larger display for 8k to matter. A lot of people have those.

  • Current gen consoles promised us smooth 60fps/4k, but what we are currently getting is often something much lower, like 2k upscaled and only running at 25-40, so there is plenty of room for improvement just in terms of hitting framerate and resolution targets.

    But beyond that, there is plenty of room to improve simulations. More destructible environments or ineractable objects, more intelligent and reactive NPCs, better physics, etc.

    In fact though, I think the real factor that is going to define the envelop

  • The real "ceiling" for games was hit years ago, and it really has very little to do with FPS, resolution, graphic shaders or any of the tech.

    That ceiling is the quality of the underlying game - the gameplay, which is a combination of writing, game mechanics, music, and any number of other things. There are games from the early 90s with story and MIDI 'soundtracks' that I can recall almost instantly simply because they were good, immersive games. You kept opening avenues for exploration as the game progresse

    • Maybe part of it is nostalgia on my part - almost certainly.

      It is, trust me!

      A lot of games made in the 90s were crap. It wasn't a golden age. Even the good ones weren't as good as you remember. Go back and play them, and you'll find they feel really dated. Games have progressed a lot since then.

      The real golden age of game design started about 15 years ago, and we're still in it. That's when the combination of online distribution and good, inexpensive engines eliminated a lot of the barriers to writing and distributing games. Indie game development became pract

  • Imagine graphics performance vs price depicted as a saturation curve: PS5 went the wrong way, getting more expensive for very little performance gains. I wish Sony would have (in addition to the Pro, perhaps) went the other way: give me the same PS5 graphics (perhaps even slightly less!) but for WAY cheaper. And smaller, while we're at it. That might have gotten me to invest in a PS5 while I would never get a Pro.

  • Sony just has to let a company make a 4k, ultra realistic, VR porn game. Then the consumers will pay the jacked off prices. Er, jacked up.

  • The reality is both PC and consoles are expensive. PCs are great if you want the choice to tinker and upgrade with hardware/software. Consoles are great if you want to have a relatively hassle-free experience with a proprietary system and dont want anything else.

  • >"The human eye can't really tell the difference between 4K and 8K resolution"

    That entirely depends on the size of the screen and the distance of the observer (and it also depends on how much motion there is). I estimate 90+% of people can't tell the difference between 2K (1080P) and 4K on a 60" screen from a normal sitting distance of 12 feet for motion video. Fewer still can tell, if the display is up-scaling the 2K to a 4K display. There is a diminishing return on ever increased resolution. But pe

  • The specs seem like only a rather tiny incremental step towards the upcoming PlayStation 9 ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] ).

    They seem to be releasing new console versions too quickly: We've used more than half the version numbers already, but it has been less than 1/3 of the time elapsed until the year 2078. They'll need to substantially slow down the release of new versions if they expect the PS9 to have anything like the advertised features...

Slashdot Top Deals

Pascal is a language for children wanting to be naughty. -- Dr. Kasi Ananthanarayanan

Close