crispy4000

Xbox and Bethesda Softworks Developer_Direct live stream set for January 25 - Gematsu WWW.GEMATSU.COM Microsoft will host an "Xbox and Bethesda Softworks Developer_Direct" on January 25 at 12:00 p.m. PT / 3:00 p.m. ET, which will present an inside look at games coming to Xbox, PC, and... No Starfield.

Ubisoft cancels three unannounced games, delays Skull and Bones again WWW.EUROGAMER.NET Ubisoft has confirmed the cancellation of three unannounced games following disappointing financial results for its mos… https://staticctf.akamaized.net/8aefmxkxpxwl/3nCTlhd4Dke8pe308etZ6e/b11d0bfe9c5094f0eecd44541c6ba0b8/Ubisoft_update_January_23_English_Final.pdf

You're spot on there. But I also don't trust the rest of the industry to optimize for consoles as well as Sony 1st party does. Definitely not in the long term when everyone will want to push harder (UE5 likely ushering in more of that).

Many developers aren't pushing things now, but more will with the cross gen period ending. It's interesting times with graphics tech. PC's have the expected power gap over consoles on paper, like any other gen. But in practice, the gap is larger than ever before. A lot of that is due to console upscaling tech (FSR2) not being so good at scaling from low resolutions, and their RT capability being exceedingly basic. Things could get ugly if console devs start using frame injection and AMD's solution isn't a magic bullet. My biggest concern going forward is that more games that 'push' the consoles could suffer from IQ issues. And if you want to build a mid-gen refresh-equivalent PC to avoid that at 4K, your GPU alone will cost more than a PS5/SeriesX.

To be fair, those who consider Elden Ring to be their GOTY could relate on some level. Few people are such graphics whores that they couldn't enjoy a poorly optimized game now and again. I think @Xbob42 might be the least tolerant here of it, but he'll still grind it out.

That's a legitimately difficult section that's gained some notoriety as a difficulty spike. It's not just you. And it never gets that hard again.

E3's over recent years have made me jaded enough never to believe this. It's become more about teasing big games you'll get a substantive look at later. It's also not hard to envision these being heavier hitters than what Microsoft releases the rest of the year. So on that note, I'm here for it.

Lots of cel shaded games look the same. There's plenty of reasons to care about graphics today. Near the top of the list for me is to play games that don't look overly smudgy and artifacted. The techniques used to make certain games work on low end fixed hardware can be overbearing and gross. This is why we all want a new Switch with DLSS so badly. And honestly, it's why I think people shouldn't bother with Series S for much longer either.

I'll never understand these pre-release CG trailers.

I'd vouch for Days Gone being good enough to finish and enjoy. The middle third of the game is where it hits its stride. The last zone still isn't bad, other than a mildly disappointing finale. It's the 2nd area of the game where things bog down a bit. Get over that hump and it improves.

I've played plenty of bad games through emulation for curiosity's sake, including a number in the Intellivision Lives! collection in the late 90's. It doesn't feel fair picking from those. I think the worst modern game I've played is Overruled, by the developers who went on to make the Battletoads reboot. It was such an offputting experience I was rooting for the latter to flop so these guys would switch careers.

Same here, full 1st game of the triology on PC, no problems.

Holiday Haul. Thanks Epic. Spent $26, including $6 for the Death Stranding Director's Cut. Got Sackboy for Christmas. EDIT: Forgot The Evil Within 2 courtesy of GOG/Amazon.

We'll probably see a lot of console games this gen upscaling from 1440p with FSR2 as a result. That's been CD Projekt Red's approach. For games like Forspoken struggling to reach that, or Series S in general ... oof.

4k60, not just 4K. If someone cares for higher FPSs, then yeah, that 30% uplift will push things in an appreciable way for them. Gives more room to drop settings too if they care to go even higher. But if a nice (if not flawless) 4k60 experience is the primary aim, I think 4080 could still be overkill for the price for most AAA games in the middle of this console gen. I could be totally wrong in that, we’ll see what happens. We could also be headed towards a time when max settings vary WILDLY. On that note, I’m quite curious as to how the 4080 will handle Overdrive RT in Cyberpunk.

Vrr also kind of throws the whole idea of needing to get to a perfect 60 out the window though. So if that’s the barometer of what 60fps gaming entails, it actually makes the 4070ti more flexible to be worse.

Not many would have 4k vrr screens. Many more would have 1080p and 1440p. Which a 4080 would be overkill for.

Someone without a VRR screen may be better served putting that extra $400 to a new display. That's where the 4070ti is today for 4k60 gaming generally, to be fair. The unanswered question is how much longer than 4080 would manage that by comparison, and if that's worth the price differential. Part of me wonders if the 4090, DLSS3 and eventual 50xx cards will give PC devs the greenlight to go RT nuts, pushing max setting to something bonkers.

Not having to slightly reduce DLSS settings or RT for the time being isn't worth a 1/3 cost increase IMO. But for those that would pay the extra $400, what's another $400 for a 4090? That's why I've said its in a no man's land.

True, and we're already seeing with Portal RTX that games can challenge both cards' 4K capability. Who know about Cyberpunk Overdrive RT. That's why it's such a guessing game how much longer the 4080 would stay relevant at that resolution compared to the 4070ti. If the price differential was less, this wouldn't matter as much. I'm with stepee. Might have to tone down DLSS or some settings in cases, but it should last you at 4k60 for a good while for most games. Plus I think many of those that would push it will be the ones supporting DLSS3.

Gotcha. Compare it their 4080 RT chart then. 4080 gets ~75fps on average with 4k DLSS2 Quality, where 4070ti is closer ~59fps. That's still a gap that reducing DLSS settings can help close. I'm also not as concerned knowing that Cyperpunk is dropping that average. I'd be surprised if games that push the 4070ti's RT capability don't support DLSS3 going forward.

You said it yourself, why would you not have DLSS enabled at 4k? That chart doesn't reflect that. This from their article does: I don't know which two games they're referring to, but Cyperpunk is definitely one of them. DLSS3 and DLSS2 performance settings addresses that issue.

I definitely wouldn't call it struggling based on the benchmarks coming out. https://www.eurogamer.net/digitalfoundry-2023-nvidia-geforce-rtx-4070-ti-review?page=4 https://www.theverge.com/23538558/nvidia-rtx-4070-ti-review-gpu-graphics-card-benchmark-test The 4070ti still runs almost everything currently out at at least 4k 60fps+ average with just DLSS 2. As for the few heavy games it doesn't, they're all DLSS3 enabled. Cyberpunk at 4K with Psyco RT 4080 DLSS3 + DLSS2 Quality - 78fps average 4070ti DLSS3 + DLSS2 Quality - 64fps average 4070ti DLSS3 + DLSS2 Performance - 88fps average I don't think the difference between Quality vs Performance DLSS at 4K is worth an extra $400.

We talking DLSS2 here? Because if not, it negates so much of that talking point.