So now we’re being forced to have poorer performance and locked into buying more expensive hardware.
I’ll have to pass on this type of crap and vote with my wallet when ray tracing still isn’t there for the majority of pc gamers.
So now we’re being forced to have poorer performance and locked into buying more expensive hardware.
I’ll have to pass on this type of crap and vote with my wallet when ray tracing still isn’t there for the majority of pc gamers.
How does requiring a GPU feature translate into bad optimization?
Since you and the other g*mers are frothing at the mouth acting intentionally dense:
https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam
Find your own answer.
That link explains nothing, it just tells you what people are using. Why does a game requiring a GPU feature mean, by your own words, the death of optimization?
I’ll chime in for the other commenter.
Having ray tracing be “a minimum requirement” is batshit insane. Just make it an option and don’t require it for everyone.
Ray tracing is not that widely available, so you shouldn’t just force it onto your whole player base.
And while this might not sound like an optimization thing, it really looks like they couldn’t be bothered to develop their game with and without the ray tracing features.
Edit: looking more into the numbers, they are all insane.
I don’t really play AAA titles nowadays, but this is aweful and far from optimized. Doom 2016 needed half of that for every single metric!
On the other hand that was almost a decade ago.
to be fair graphics havent advanced as much in the last decade compared with the previous one to justify higher and higher requirements.
Titanfall 2 is 9 years old and looks pretty damned good compared to recent releases. The biggest jump I have seen in graphics was HL:Alyx and a lot of that was VR letting you press your eyeballs up against the windows to see the sweaty hand prints.
There is plenty of room for publishers improve without leaning on new hardware features.
Yes, but the tech has not advanced that much since then. Also the game probably doesn’t look twice as good.
Tbh. the game needing 8 cores is the most outrageous of the list, but the ray tracing is a close second, since that could easily be toggleable.
Depending on how a game is made, no, ray casting may not be “easily toggleable”
You wouldn’t complain about games requiring DirectX 12, or requiring DirectX 11, 10, whatever, in the past, so why complain about ray tracing? Modern games require modern GPU features, that is nothing new.
I totally complained about games needing dx12! I had to buy my current video card to meet that demand!
I have been planning on upgrading, but my budget is about $400. A RX 7600 looks like it might fit that budget.
Maybe I wouldn’t, but I would definitely complain if this was a very new feature available in higher end GPUs.
DX12 is also software, it’s easily update able and modern hardware supports it.
But in the end I don’t give a fuck, since I just won’t play doom then.
It’s been a standard for graphics cards for around a decade now, it’s not just high end GPUs
And, yeah, you don’t need to play newest titles. But devs do want to move with the times and utilize modern features. This is nothing new, and was worse in the past, in fact. Things have slowed down from how they used to be 20 years ago.
It’s not toggleable if they use it for registering hits.
In a doom game ray tracing should not be used for registering hits, since most if not all of the projectiles are visible and fly slower than light.
Nobody buying $80 games doesn’t have all this shit. You guys are living in a bubble. Everyone has rtx these days. The ones that don’t weren’t going to buy Doom anyway.