How realistic will PS5 graphics get? Will it even matter?

>consoles will try to push graphics intensity and fail
>consoles will try streaming as a service and fail
>the hardware of consoles will always be inferior
>PC will always be dead anyways because" muh piracy" even though piracy is only rampant because no one FUCKING releases demos anymore
Gaming is dead and I'm glad I can sit back and play Zoo Tycoon and not care one bit.

Attached: Bbctrollface.jpg (180x171, 5K)

Weeb small chinese cock

>Zoo tycoon
>Not Roller Coaster Tycoon

based

They'll look the same as PS4 games.

those screenshots fucking suck

>consoles will try to push graphics intensity and fail
No they won't. There's a shit ton that can be done with dynamic lighting, it will blow minds. You just don't know it yet because you haven't seen it.

eh, but the resolution is greater

BLACK was such a good fucking game.

Ah yes, because dynamic lighting at 10fps is so immersive and impressive, especially when you consider the fact that Orange Box still to this day holds up and runs well on last gen consoles.

Attached: 1552999320446.jpg (768x768, 127K)

Based on what's been shown, graphics won't improve but there will be better processing power. There will rather be more room to go crazy with items and effects before having to worry about FPS loss or loading screens being too long.

My mind was blown in like 2009, my 1080ti and 4k monitor just spoil me

This
The next push will be lighting. It made all the difference with RDR2

>My mind was blown in like 2009
I still remember the first time I actually played CoD4 in HD and was fucking mindblown after playing on a small CTR for years. Nothing these days can compare to the feelings, it's like touching up a painting at this point.

>because dynamic lighting at 10fps
dear retard i hope you realize that only console cant handle that shit and mostly because developers push muh polygons so much like Uncharted
every STALKER game has fully dynamic lighting even the first game from fucking 2007

>2009
>CoD fucking 4
How to spot the underage

it's been happening for almost 15 years now though.

>my dear retard
Didn't even bother to read the rest now if you'll excuse me I'm still building my zoo.

Yeah because I totally said it came out in 2009 you mouthbreather.

Attached: 438274983271432.jpg (580x435, 156K)

Who the fuck cares about cod 4 didn't it come in in 2007 tho?

Combat will become even more like John Wick in these games, and they'll try to be even more realistic looking to look like a John Wick film. The future is bleak for gaming. Fuck John Wick, fuck his movies, and fuck YOU for supporting that shit, this is all YOUR fault.

>John Wick
The fortnite skin?

People played CoD4 en masse in 2009. MW2 only released the next year.

>people played CoD4 the year MW2 came out
Yeah ok not like people were playing WaW retard

We are reaching peak graphics. PS5, 6 or 7 will be the plateau

It will be an even bigger jump and yes, it'll matter. Every little bit matters since you're looking at a screen refresh 60 frames per second over the course of 12+ hours a week.

Yeah, because they weren't.
Back then IW was the shit and Treyarch, just shit and everyone not in it just for the edgy dismemberment knew this.

I'm so glad I'm not as retarded as you are holy shit

t. WaWkid

WaW was a shitty COD like COD 3 that's why it got hacked like day 6, fuck all you treyarch fags they made the worst cods including sledgehammer

I wish games fucked around more with dynamic level geometry. A genre like horror could especially benefit from this. Antichamber played around with this idea a lot and it was genius but it's generally underutilized in games. This is the sort of technology I hope devs start working on instead of higher resolution textures and whatnot.

You mean like everyone else on the planet? Just because you were one of the few thousand to stay on CoD4 doesn't change the fact WaW literally had hundreds of thousands of players daily and CoD4's population dropped to almost nothing.

>This is the sort of technology I hope devs start working on instead of higher resolution textures and whatnot.
This, once textures hit 2K that's literally all you fucking need, and even then they shouldn't take up 50GB like most games do.

And yet the west is the best culture on Earth in every single regard.

>You mean like everyone else on the planet?
Nah, just the double-digit IQ people like you. Even critics gave Treyarche's games lower scores because they were so much more shoddily made.

>if i keep posting about how Treyarch was inferior that'll change history
ok

spotted the eggsbawcks kid

wanna know how i know your a brainlet

>sold less
>got played less
>got rated lower by critics
>got rated lower by gamers
I mean do deny it that's just par for the course for treyfags right

>I parrot video game journo opinions instead of forming my own

Attached: kekek.gif (480x228, 469K)

barely any change, but Sony is full of faggots and they will push 4k meme, not shit that matter like physics, better AI, better gameplay, stable FPS at 60 etc. But normal faggots will everything because has 4K on it.

Attached: 1432325735695.jpg (700x649, 81K)

Japan isn't the best culture either Weeb, maybe before that atom bomb created anime.

Pic related, it's you.

Attached: pwgP_F-0Ek3GU91QQTbVbCBbYgMBQsRwNqluUnKrdeo.jpg (500x376, 38K)

>implying im a weeb
here's your biggest brainlet ever award. you deserve it

oh boy i'm really excited for the next diminishing-returns iteration of static lighting

I honestly think we should step back for a gen, stick with what we got, and improve other areas like lighting and physics. No point having super realistic models if the lighting is still from the PS2 era.

I don't think everyone is stupid, I think (You) are stupid, you dumb fuck. Are you new to video games? Video game journos are the scum of the earth and letting them think for you is the absolute most brainlet thing you could do. What a retard, holy shit.

Attached: 562.jpg (600x600, 37K)

I'm not that user, but you're a fucking retard if you trust critics, especially in video games/ movies where they can by bribe very easy. Also majority of them can't play video games even if that's their fucking job.

Attached: 1558720551462.png (314x299, 103K)

No, the industry has entirely moved away from dynamic lighting because there are no techniques to render them both quickly and realistically.

Alright what eastern culture did it better? India? China? Mongolia? Egypt?

Sup, underage. 2008 called. They called your game shit.
it's shit.
Nah, the game was criticized for the same reasons across the board starting with how shitty the guns feel.

I know it's bait but what I wanna know is are you doing it on purpose for free or not?

>Sup, underage. 2008 called.

>unironically posting this reddit tier shit
>calling anyone else underage

Attached: irony.jpg (752x1097, 225K)

>pointless bickering to a degree that would make a bbs blush
what a shit board

Critics were just the tip of the iceberg. You know it's bad when even they call it as it is.

Good argument.

How fucking new are you

You know it, bitch boy

i've been here since 2005 and i'm commenting on the degradation of the board, you smarmy little cunt

Yea Forums was never good but it keeps getting worse

Not that guy but
>calls someone underage
>gets a "no u" in return
>WOW G-GOOD ARGUMENT
You're retarded user

No, you just keep getting older. The worst years were during the whole GG debacle. It's not much better now, but it's still better.

I cannot even begin to imagine how many times you breathe manually throughout the day.

Attached: doomed05.png (449x401, 233K)

it's even worse now. certainly not BETTER

>btfo trannies wojak bros seething cope blah blah blah

talk about video games

cringe

Won't be as big of a difference that PS2 to PS3 was

get fuck

>muh grabhigs
when are we getting good games?

>this amount of cope

Not him but back then game critics weren't calling games bad because they were idiots, much less high-profile games like Call of Duty.
Treyarch's campaigns and multiplayer were both weaker than IW's even if they had their highlights.

That's what's happening you fucking idiot shut the fuck up and never EVER post on this board again, you imbecile, you fucking utterly useless retard.

The joke is that he has no idea what 2008 significes for his argument.

Diminishing returns are real. We'll see less and less of a leap in graphics with each new generation of consoles. Not only because there are diminishing returns from the same increase in polygon count, but because the rate at which processors get faster has slowed down significantly.

seething

Marginal gains are thing too. And every 1% more is a good thing because it adds up.

lol, look at this absolutely SEETHING faggot

piracy is rampant because games are too expensive
there is literally no justification for digital games costing $60-80 on release especially since they are ridden with cash shops and loot boxes now

Never said otherwise, user. Read my post carefully. All I said is that there will be less and less of a difference between upcoming console generations compared to the previous ones. I never said there would be a complete halt in progress.

It doesn't matter now.

we're at the limit. unless raytracing really does become viable within the next year, the next generation is going to be the same as the late current generation

why would you want more graphic, if you have to wait hours for it to load?

i'm glad they actually fix that issue now

I don't know my 1080ti is still stronger than the next gen consoles and when I went from 4K Med with my GTX 1070 to 4K Ultra I saw the difference they still got a long way to go

videogames

The question is, how big will they be? 300gb?

Attached: 1556359786784.jpg (480x467, 45K)

You know exactly what it's called and you're only pretending not to know because you don't want people to think you're interested in the game

>1440p 60 fps with minor raytracing
This would be a dream if standard

>I don't know my 1080ti is still stronger than the next gen consoles

How do you know that? Last I checked, they hadn't released the full details about the specs of the next gen consoles. The PS5 will be using a Navi-series GPU but they haven't said anything more detailed than that, have they? Correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't been following this very closely.

Late Gen PS3 was the massive graphics quality jump and that was it. We cant go further aside from more resolution and framerate quality

Attached: 1477440099772.gif (362x362, 1.07M)

No way PS5 GPU is as strong as a 1080Ti as just that GPU costs more than the entirety of PS5's rumored price. Sony can't defy laws of physics here.

Sony is pushing the boundaries of what's possible with the PS5. You will probably have trouble telling apart game graphics from reality.

Fuck graphics. I just want good gameplay. Like they put too much development time in the graphics first and gameplay second.

Attached: 1559269747842.png (1124x1024, 1.68M)

I want AA games back but with 4K resolution 60 fps. This gen took way too long for those games. Graphics don't impress me past the first 15 minutes.

Attached: ace-combat-7-skies-unknown-listing-thumb-02-ps4-us-11jul17-890x600.png (890x600, 916K)

The rumor for the Dev Kit was 13tf AMD tflops are measured differently than Nvidia it's likely a much lower powered (TDP) Vega 56 equivalent. It just makes sense with the tech curb the PS4 pro had what was pretty much an RX 470 equivalent and the Vega 56 is about a 93% stronger GPU, maybe the PS5 will be a bit better but not by much. Still will be cable of 4K 60 with some settings adjusted. I think if devs are smart this gen they'll push physics harder, I certainly hope so

I don't really care about better graphics.
Wish more would focus on other things like small details and ideas for deeper mechanics.
Game seem so shallow now, like you are just walking through some static movie set without much to do but walk to the next scene.

they could have pushed graphics hard if they didnt bow to tv manufacturers and try to push 4k so early

>Fuck graphics. I just want good gameplay.

I legit hate it when people say shit like this. As if wanting good graphics means you don't give a single shit about the gameplay. This might shock you, but you can want BOTH. Fucking crazy, I know. If I have to choose one obviously I'd choose good gameplay over graphics, but that doesn't mean I want my games looking like shit. Give me good gameplay and some eye candy too.

>Wish more would focus on other things like small details and ideas for deeper mechanics.
Those games take time and passion to make. No AAA budget can replace that. They just focus on doing the bare minimum to meet deadlines. Next gen's worst enemy won't be hardware but greed and incompetence.

>Will it even matter?
Do consoles matter?

>this
I have my cake and eat it too, good graphics don't inherently take time away from good gameplay. People just gotta stop using AAA EA and ubisoft shit as the bar for "quality"

only AAA is going to give you eye candy though

Sometimes good grsphics hinder good gameplay.

As an example would be Naughty Dog games where animations are made to look realistic over gameplay responsiveness. ND games look great byt when you play them, nothing about the animations feel right. So much went into making them look realistic. Very incompetent devs if you ask me.

No theres lots of gorgeous games not from AAA devs, Insurgency Sandstorm looks and plays beautifully

There's still many things left to achieve with good optimization. Polygon count doesn't need to increase stupidly for games to look good. The next generation will probably focus on lighting now that we're reaching high resolutions.
If devs cleverly used tessellation instead of putting moar tiny rocks on their terrains, and if they dropped their expensive hacks for an all-in-one lighting solution like ray-tracing or voxel GI, we could still be blown away, even if the machines won't be 10x faster than they are now.

My anime games will look better.

That's fine. There are a good amount of good AAA games. Unless you're a jaded hipster faggot, that is.

Will they release good games? That is all that matters.

Exaclty don't buy naughty dog games, call me when they make Jack and Daxter 4

No, unlike Xbox which has 14 games lined up. PlayStation is keeping evening dark.

NWI is no small developer

It'll be more of Sony© tundra/woodland area.

>all those alerts on the BFV pic
Not only they get the trashcan-tier version and consider it good graphics, they also cannot run it properly.
Lmao

>This might shock you, but you can want BOTH.
Hardly, in truth. At least, better graphics don't leave much room for better gameplay, because they sacrifice variety, and without variety, even the best gameplay ends up being dull.

Perhaps it is time someone explains the sharp increase in graphics in recent years. It's an issue of "scale" in ways. Hardware essentially gives you a budget to make your vidya graphics. The more complex your graphics, the more resources it takes: you could draw a whole fucking planet with billions of people on it with wolfenstein 3D grade graphics, or you could render the best motherfucking cardboard box the world has even seen. So you try to find the right balance for your game.
For a strategy game: 1000 NPCs, large but plain environment, low detail.
For an open world: 100 NPCs, open sceneries, alright detail.
For a FPS: 10 NPCs tops, closed environments with short lines of sight, high detail.

Because there's a constant push for better graphics, games are simplified, until they are barebones. The reason no one is making games like Deus Ex or Morrowind anymore, and why even the latest nu-Deus Ex and Skyrim pale in comparison with the old ones, is exactly this. Back then games tried to have good gameplay, and then good graphics that followed the gameplay. Those games looked pretty bad for the time, but they had a complexity that remains unrivaled. Making another complex game today on that level would bring it down pretty fucking low in terms of graphics.

That's why we don't have such good games anymore, because they'd have shit graphics, and some think that wouldn't sell. And that's why the current state of graphics is usurped, current games SHOULDN'T look that good in a way, they should look worse, and that would allow them to have extra things, such as advanced character and gear customization, complex inventory systems, tons of skills with tons of animations... but well, enjoy that shallow FPS with a handful of assets.

Attached: 80891612_BF43.jpg (2560x1440, 726K)

I don't consider animations part of graphics. I think animations are their own category. They both go into the overall fidelity of the game but you can have fantastic graphics and not make an animation for every little thing. RDR2 is another example of this. Even if there wasn't an animation for picking up every object, it wouldn't take away from the overall graphics. This isn't graphics hurting the gameplay, it's the devs' retarded choices that hurt it.

If this were the case, why aren’t there any PS2 tier graphics with really good and complex game play?

No I almost would call then AA, those are my favorite types of devs, they pretty much have the love and funds that 2006 EA games used to have

>At least, better graphics don't leave much room for better gameplay

A high budget allows for both. A game doesn't need to sacrifice gameplay to have good graphics. An indie developer who can't afford to make good graphics should focus on gameplay instead, and this gives fantastic results sometimes, like Hotline Miami for example. However, good gameplay and graphics aren't mutually exclusive. Can you really not think of a whole list of games that both look and play really well? I certainly can. I honestly don't understand your logic where graphics supposedly have to be sacrificed in order to achieve good gameplay. They're two separate categories and can both be achieved in a single game.

Good graphics are a part of it but the main issue with games like Skyrim being ass is because they streamlined the games mechanics to appeal to casuals. Witcher 3 is another example, when you appeal to the lowest common denominator eye candy works. I don't play pretty games that aren't fun. But all my games look pretty even old shit at 4K

Is 1440p really that viable? 4K looks way more crazy.

>1080p
>40 fps on crysis 3

My sides

Attached: 1350241520775.gif (640x360, 2.01M)

Because
>some think that wouldn't sell

Publishers poll the most average and retarded gamers, ask them what the prefer, they say "graphics" because surely none of them will praise the complex magic system of Arx Fatalis, so they aim for graphics, and fuck gameplay. Plus their previous games with shitty gameplay still sell, so who cares about improving gameplay?

I honestly don't understand your logic where graphics supposedly have to be sacrificed in order to achieve good gameplay.
It's explained plainly: if you increase graphics, you reduce variety. Gameplay needs variety. CoD could be a good series if enemies didn't look the exact same and didn't carry the exact same two fucking weapons, and only changed between missions, because each mission only has a few templates, to the point the games can't even load two assets from different parts of the game without exploding the fucking budget. But then take Halo, it doesn't look as good, but it has many several enemies and weapons. It's that simple.

It affects level design complexity, the number and diversity of items, skills, and all other gameplay variables, the different configurations and situations... If your budget is limited, it's going to look like a corridor of identical enemies.

It's true it plays a role, but even then it has severe issues, such as walled cities with a loading door, among others, that even mods struggled to fix. That's not just casualization.

>It's explained plainly: if you increase graphics, you reduce variety

This is a shallow claim because you aren't explaining what you mean by this. How do good graphics reduce variety? Variety of what? Enemies? Bringing up CoD in this discussion is silly because obviously that type of shooter won't have a lot of enemy variety. They're all just humans. Why not talk about Doom for example? There's plenty of enemy variety there and the game also looks fantastic. How do you explain that?

Still a hard one lol I think the 2080ti was the first one consumer single card I saw ever hit 60fps at 4K Ultra on Crysis 3

You'll get a greater number of great games if decent graphics are enough, because of the greater number of games that can be made when a single game doesn't cost the equivalent of a nuclear reactor.

Could a modern version of FMV work?

I tried looking up vehicle list of BFV.
Does the game really only have Britain/Germany?

>this
500 million dollars halo infinite might as well have live action cutscenes it would make my dick hard

It's a continuous improvement. We're still not done, and even within this generation, 2019 games look better than 2013 games.

ps3 look worse than all the others, I'm so glad foggy, blurry graphcis meme is ending, who thought it was a good idea to fucking add fill your screen with vaseline effects?

Do you want games to weigh hundreds of gigs?

No I think Non-English language should be a free DLC

>Bringing up CoD in this discussion is silly because obviously that type of shooter won't have a lot of enemy variety. They're all just humans.
Why wouldn't it have variety? Why is everyone wearing the exact same BDU with a convenient balaclava so you never see their faces? It's lazy, and you fall for it, but the truth is, these games really can't do more than that in terms of graphics. And even "humans" could afford to have different weapons, used in different situations, and perform different actions once in a while, instead of just being carbon copies of each other with the same behavior.

As for Doom, it doesn't look fantastic, don't confuse graphics with art. The environments are still mostly small and rather plain, and even then, every single enemy type still looks the same: there's a single Imp model in the game and all Imps are identical. It fits the theme of the game, but it's really limited.

Compare that to a game like even Skyrim where every character has a different face, and is dressed differently, and you're bound to see a difference. But then graphics are pretty bad and there's loading times everywhere.

>PS5
Cringe Snoy marketer.
Fuck off, no one care about your DRM underpowered PC.

Attached: 1539622820171.jpg (619x807, 84K)

The consoles need compression my PC compresses games to much more decent sizes

battlefield graphics honestly havent improved that much since BF3, just compare BFBC2 to BF3 and then BF3 to BFV, one is a huge leap in presentation and the other is marginal at best

What i am 100% sure about is that they are going to further push resolution meme instead of giving solid 60fps for the first time.

Attached: 1559386484597.jpg (970x990, 99K)

CoD is your only example and CoD has been shit for a decade now, not because they're trying to make good graphics (it usually looks like shit), but because it's just a money machine. You're intentionally focusing on a game that even the devs don't care about as if that proves your point. Ever heard of "cherry picking"? Why didn't you address my question about Doom?

>people were playing WaW
They weren't, retard, nobody played WaW except for your schoolmates, nigger. It was universally shat upon and everyone returned to superior MW after finishing single player.

The physical part of games stopped being expensive to produce when discs happened.

>no one FUCKING releases demos anymore

The market is literally overrun with early-access right now...

Attached: eggman.jpg (940x1300, 92K)

It won't matter because it has no gameplay

It is not fully dynamic lighting tho, there are still a ton of static ambiant light

>Early access

you gotta pay for that first to play

horizon looks like shit no matter how you look at it
it might only look decent in photo mode
even last Killzone looked more impressive than this shit

>Why didn't you address my question about Doom?
Why didn't you read my post? Technically, it's identical to CoD.

This. It's unironically one of the ugliest games on PS4. The whole game was made for cherrypicked photos. In motion it looks fucking awful with janky animations and constant mist 10 meters ahead of you.

MGSV not only looks better but also is locked 60 fps on PS4.

they might finally look as good as the first crysis

Attached: 1533542375851.jpg (1278x720, 167K)

Attached: 3451328946721.jpg (936x1436, 192K)

based and redpilled

Attached: 1551562054067.png (977x645, 269K)

I don't give a shit what it will look like, I want better AI and gameplay and no content locked behind paywalls on day 1

I wish I had a time machine just so I could stuff a sock in this fraud's gibbering gob and throttle his fat turkey neck.

He's absolutely right, but he was talking about art. That's the reason I don't consider photography to be "art", because fuck you it's a picture, you didn't make it, create it, you only pressed a button, and it only shows what exists and I'd rather see it than look at your fucking picture.

Here, we're talking about video games. Video games have the ability to represent things that aren't just raw nature. Even though they may appear realistic, they can always twist the rules and invent anything no matter how crazy. And then they provide experiences which nature can't render.

It's not very applicable, really.

better than literally every console games

Since you don't consider photography art yet consider video games art, is The Flowers of Robert Mapplethorpe (1992) for the CDI art?

Attached: Flowers.jpg (1912x1071, 710K)

>yet consider video games art
That's not what I said. Simply, it doesn't have to suffer as much from the issues of art, because it can go well beyond nature, and into fiction.

good photographers capture the impossible. photography is definitely an artform.

>good photographers capture the impossible
If a camera captures it, it certainly is possible.

>real life
>perfection
Yeah, that's exactly why I wondered why everything and everyone looked so shit the first 18 years of my life before I found 2D. Fuck off, it's shit because you're copying something that looks and smells like complete shit, you fucking retard.

If life smells like shit you need to move away from the landfill bro

I can confirm that (even if i liked cod5 though)

it's pretty cool that the new consoles will actually ship with more processor cores than the vast majority of gaming pcs out there right now.

that's a legitimate leapfrog over the average pc we haven't seen for awhile. it'll also be the most defining hardware trait of the generation.

>that's a legitimate leapfrog over the average pc we haven't seen for awhile. it'll also be the most defining hardware trait of the generation.
You mean since the PS3 and that was a fucking mess because no one could ever figure out how to work on this platform because more complicated hardware doesn't necessarily lead to more efficient code.

The last gen consoles shipped with more cores than the average gaming PC

>we are already getting to the point where insanely futuristic graphics are becoming "eh, seen it already"
People have been saying this since last gen and we still haven’t reached this point yet. There is still much further to go and all you need to do is look at hollywood CGI to recognize this.

You have to pay for early access you numbskull

Whats wrong with it? Its a Remedy game, they're generally decent games

I know this is bait but fuck you for posting something this stupid

and yet struggle to maintain 30 fps due to other bottlenecks

Doesn't matter. Being impressed by graphics is like being impressed by fireworks. Shiny things for those who are easily amused.

hopefully developers stop holding back on PC, just because consoles cannot keep up

Attached: Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon® Wildlands2019-5-11-20-3-15.jpg (1920x1080, 520K)

It's because games used to rely near completely on SC performance and even so the next gen consoles are gonna be pushing 4K, where the way games are currently made put nearly all the load onto the GPU. Also the CPUs are generally bad getting like 50 on cinebench r15's single core test

Those are games designed to run on 2013 hardware. There will be a huge jump when games are designed with PS5 and the next Xbox as the minimum target.

>Those are games designed to run on 2013 hardware
Yeah and consoles are almost 10 years behind.

last gen consoles used a slow CPU architecture that was outdated even in 2013. PS5 and next Xbox use current tech.

Attached: eggbok2.jpg (1920x822, 594K)

Attached: ige2h3lw61jy.jpg (1920x1080, 178K)

Don't kid yourself. Current gen tech wouldn't be affordable to the casual consumer.

Man critics are dumb as a box of rocks. They can barely handle modern watered down AAA games.
I wouldn't be surprised if they played for like ten minutes and just wrote the review saying "dude its a paradox game of course its good lol 83 out of 10"

>PS3
SPEs are not cores

Geometry and Textures have already peaked, but I think the next big jump in fidelity is lighting. That raytracing test in minecraft really shows off how accurate lighting can make a scene look great.

Are you retarded? The more current the tech, the cheaper it is to produce.

lmao

This
Why aren’t demos a fucking thing anymore?
Hell the last game I remember that got a demo was Octopath traveler

we need to fix physics now, game worlds have gotten worse with physics over time

COD 4 was 10 years ago
If they played when they were 12 they’re 22 now

>Paid online
>DLC instead of the good old EXPANSIONS
>Day one DLC
>Microtransactions
>Loot boxes
>Censorship
>Barely mods
>Identity politics
>Companies behaving like jerks (Like Nintendo taking down gameplays or fangames)
>Games being release in a completely broken state
>Focus on muh graphics instead of gameplay, player interactivity with the environment/physics
>Less amount of games being produced by the old classic game companies and more boring/safe/same remakes
>Games are not made by nerds for nerds, I am not the target audience for them anymore, it's a product made by corporate suits for a safe bland souless public
>More shit I just forgot to mention

We are better than ever, I can't wait for each new gen!

Attached: day one dlc.jpg (600x665, 99K)

Ultra realistic graphics ruined videogames. Devs and game studios started abandoning creativity in favour of ever improving graphics. Good graphics are nice to an extent but once you get past a certain point there is no room for any artistic style which is what gives games a unique feel

>The market is literally overrun with early-access right now...

But that not what a demo is, early-access cost money you know

Attached: 1537053705139.png (544x733, 74K)

This. I cannot fucking stand shit either popping in out of nowhere 15 feet in front of my character or blurred out shadows and textures or some mesh that's supposed to be high poly looking like it came out of an early alpha for Mario 64 before popping into it's normal state. At least we're mostly past that janky unreal engine 3 fuckery where turning the camera at all would cause every texture to unload and reload over the course of 20 seconds no matter how fast your hardware was.

Computers generated people look creepy as fuck and there’s something off about them that make the weird caveman part of my brain absolutely fucking hate it

PS4/X1 are just below an 8800GTX. That's a 10 year old GPU.

A 1080ti probably costs like $5 to manufacture. The costs you pay when you buy one goes to cover the development of it. Snoy can probably swing a deal to get them for cheap if they wanted to.

You mean PS3/Xbox360

The ram itself is like 50$ lol

manufacturing costs are completely irrelevant. The only thing that limits console GPUs is heat output. That's why consoles don't use high end GPUs anymore. 250W is just too much heat in a small box that's supposed to be put in TV furniture with bad airflow.

Sure they benefit from economy of scales but not to that degree. There's capacitors, heatsinks, fans, the actual gpu itself before you factor in the cost in researching and developing the technology. I'd guess it's a couple of hundred to make but there's people who are in the industry on tech forums who should know the complete breakdown on costs.

don't try to sound smart when you don't know what voxels are

>A 1080ti probably costs like $5 to manufacture
"No"

RTX real time ray traced lighting and shadow is the future, the PS5 won't have that.

>piracy is only rampant because no one FUCKING releases demos anymore
PC being "dead" and piracy being an issue are memes pushed by retards like GoW era Epic Gayms.
Also, who the fuck needs demos in 2019. I can't bother with this shit even when demos are available. There are refunds and multiplayer games often have open beta before release. Demos are obsolete, it's relic from the past. They made sense when shareware was a thing or when internet was shit so you had to buy vidiya magazines with demos of new games on included CD.

I am guessing the ps5 will have a 1070ti gpu strength wise. What yall think? Maybe less?

About that probably maybe a bit less but close, depends how cool Navi runs

I would want them to firstly optimize their fucking games before "using" the PC really. Use the fucking pc and optimize that shit

>this
The greatest thing behind Mad Max Australia is reasonable for is Steam's refund policy, if you can't decide a game is shit in under 2 hours then you deserve to be robbed of that money

>How realistic will the graphics be!?!
>Game runs at 30 FPS at checkerboard 1080

hell no. These GPUs are technical masterpieces.

The thing is though that games get optimized so perfectly well for consoles, that they are capable of producing fantastic graphics even though there is much stronger hardware on PC.
I am fucking mad at how badly some games on PCs get optimized. so unfair.

>$5 to manufacture
Don't be a fucking retard. Sure they don't cost 800 dollars to manufacture, but 5? You fucking idiot. These things aren't your fidget spinner collection you underage retard.

Most multiplats don't get much optimization as much as they get the PC version, tune the settings to reach "playable" framerates on the console. When you get like a Sony game they use an engine designed around the PS4s limitations (hehehewalking) and that's how they push the visuals to the max, I could never stand to own a Ps4 because of how loud they get

>engine designed around the PS4s limitations
Not him, but that isn't even the case anymore when these "Ps4 designed" games run at dog shit frame rates with dog shit resolutions.

It only matters for indoor sections, outdoor it's barely noticable and most games today happen outdoor

Hey I never said the engines work well

Fair enough lad.

These are the visuals that can be achieved with just 1.84 teraflops and an ultra budget, low powered netbook processor. We are looking at about a 6x increase in power with the PS5. The graphical fidelity is going to be impressive, especially with what we will see later on in the new generation.

Attached: LJ4Hqte.jpg (1920x1080, 401K)

Nothing I'm just pointing out that that guy pretended to not know the name for it so it looks like he doesn't care for it much