More and more not innovative hardware?
Posted by Hungry-Wealth-6132@reddit | hardware | View on Reddit | 61 comments
It feels like new hardware products and new games are very boring compared to the past when you consider how few new features or how few additional performance they have.
Many game series have its 100th iteration, and new console have only a bit more performance, new CPUs and graphics card even not necessarily this. The Switch 2 also does not seems really surprising. Do you share this opinion?
EmbarrassedAside5558@reddit
Cuz in the past we had talented devs who were thinking about quality. This shit is related to car manufacturers and other’s business sphere’s too. But now everything as if is going to regress. Nobody care about quality of product they are making. So the all things new games have is beautiful graphics and that’s it.
grumble11@reddit
We're going to see a big change in how they're made in the next decade as everything gets AI'd. It won't always be good, but fundamentally a lot of these titles will have different experiences because you can AI maps, interactivity, dialogue, even partly AI-generated side content. Main content will probably be mostly hand-made since you'll be sensitive to quality and it'll be somewhat handmade throughout, but anything that can run a hefty AI model on its local hardware or with an online connection can generate bigger games with more content for less money.
This is as bad as AI is going to be. Every year it will get more and more sophisticated, and in the next few years it will be a lot better than it is now. That will make its use in games (which is already happening in a big way behind the scenes) commonplace.
From a hardware perspective, we'll likely see a mix of some local processing if hardware permits and some cloud processing. It would be much more mature if the local hardware was more ubiquitous - right now most local systems can't do much AI stuff.
With the maturity of upscaling and frame gen solutions, we'll likely see a step upwards in terms of graphics, because frankly they're getting quite good with the latest DLSS, XeSS and FSR models. This will take time as we'll have to move it upwards as the hardware mix turns over which will also coincide with more local AI use.
As the PS6 comes out (likely 2027), it'll also push titles up a notch since the baseline AAA hardware will have a step up. We'll see some AI and some upscaling expected from hardware, and stronger CPUs.
In terms of input revolutions? VR could still be a thing as its gets better - lighter and cheaper. Most people try it, like it (maybe get queasy), but have no real desire to buy it though so will be a tough one to crack.
Hungry-Wealth-6132@reddit (OP)
Thank you for your detailed opinion :)
deadgirlrevvy@reddit
Well, Nintendo isn't at all concerned with performance when they can just release an underpowered piece of shit and then dump the 200th version of Super Mario Bros on it and sell millions of them. Nintendo people will buy their underpowered trash regardless. They've been following the same playbook since the Gamecube. Every other console is embarrassingly more powerful, every generation, and the Ninty people don't seem to care for some weird reason. I mean, the last switch was nothing more than the guts of a smart phone jammed inside a display. The phone in my hand currently is literally faster than a switch in every metric by an order of magnitude. This is why I won't give Nintendo a dime of my money. If they won't try, I won't buy.
iprefervoattoreddit@reddit
The GameCube was actually the most powerful console of that generation
IronLordSamus@reddit
And your phone is also 3x times the price of a switch where as Nintendo likes to keep things affordable.
deadgirlrevvy@reddit
The point is that other manufacturers managed to get twenty times the performance of a Switch, at only 2 or three times the price of a Switch. This has always been Nintendo's scam. The Wii for instace was nothing but a gamecube with waggle added and cost $200 (and they couldn't even be bithered to make it HD when every other console was). The 360 was 30x faster and only cost a hundred dollars more. Same with the Xbox One and Ninty's failed Wii-U. They always make their hardware orders of magnitude slower, without reducing the price to an equivalent level. Every piece of Nintendo hardware is FAR too expensive for the garbage performance it delivers in comparison to other consoles. Sure, the price *seems* inexpensive, but it's actually very expensive considering the lackluster hardware within.
I despise Nintendo. I have ever since the Wii. I felt cheated that it couldn't output anything better than 480P 4:3. You know how shitty that looks on a 16:9 1080p display? They charge too much for such garbage hardware. Full stop.
JuanElMinero@reddit
I can criticize Apple's pricing and ecosystem all day long, but not the SoCs they actually put in their systems.
They're pretty much the only big customer reserving all of TSMCs top nodes before everyone else.
IronLordSamus@reddit
SO you hate nintendo because of personal bias and secondly HD at the time was very expensive and wasn't widely available to home market.
deadgirlrevvy@reddit
That's bullshit. If I could afford an HD TV so could anyone. Over 50% of the population had a 16:9 HD screen in their home at the time.
Strazdas1@reddit
My phone is cheaper than the announced Switch 2 and has a better screen. Performance of switch 2 remains to be seen.
deadgirlrevvy@reddit
The point is that other manufacturers managed to get twenty times the performance of a Switch, at only 2 or three times the price of a Switch. This has always been Nintendo's scam. The Wii for instace was nothing but a gamecube with waggle added and cost $200 (and they couldn't even be bithered to make it HD when every other console was). The 360 was 30x faster and only cost a hundred dollars more. Same with the Xbox One and Ninty's failed Wii-U. They always make their hardware orders of magnitude slower, without reducing the price to an equivalent level. Every piece of Nintendo hardware is FAR too expensive for the garbage performance it delivers in comparison to other consoles. Sure, the price *seems* inexpensive, but it's actually very expensive considering the lackluster hardware within.
I despise Nintendo. I have ever since the Wii. I felt cheated that it couldn't output anything better than 480P 4:3. You know how shitty that looks on a 16:9 1080p display? They charge too much for such garbage hardware. Full stop.
Morningst4r@reddit
2-3x the price is an enormous difference. The impact of more powerful hardware also has subjective value to different people.
Martin0022jkl@reddit
Well, the Switch came out in 2016. And it was portable so it had a 5w power limit vs the 200w of their stationary competitors. And it was faster than phones at the time because Nvidia can actually make decent GPU-s.
The Wii targeted a different audience. Mainly casual gamers, who do not care about high tech graphics, just want to have fun together at their old CRT.
The WII U was the fastest console when it launched. But it came out too early for GCN. So it stuck on Terrascale, which was less efficient. They also cheaped out on the CPU (to be fair, every console this whole gen had terrible CPU-s). But if it came out without the tablet, and maybe a better CPU it could have been an amazing budget alternative.
And before the Wii, Nintendo tried to be cutting edge, but it just didn't work out for them.
EnigmaSpore@reddit
well, they tried to go the powerful route with the n64 and gamecube and it just didnt work. everyone cant just be another "playstation" anymore. the cost of development today doesnt allow it. you have to stand out and carve your own market and that's what nintendo has done. their market is the casual gamer market, the kids just getting into gaming market, and they make games that appeal them but are still fun to play for the entire family, while also not costing as much to make because the games arent as technically complex due to the limited power.
plus you can only cram so much into a handheld console. phones do have more power, but are still limited by thermal limits and throttle due to the extremely small form factor. but its not about power, its about the experience. there are pc handhelds much more powerful than the steam deck, but the deck still outsells them... why? because it offers a smoother experience than the others with valve's direct support. sometimes its not always about raw specs. nintendo is kind of like that and the world is fine with that. the games are fun
Strazdas1@reddit
What do you mean it didnt work? N64 was the best console they ever had.
deadgirlrevvy@reddit
I disagree. Switch ports lack the features of real console versions and that's if they even get ported in the first place. I don't care about Mario or the other kiddie games. I want blood, guts and extreme violence in my games. Not sunshine and fucking rainbows. The Switch is a child's toy. I'm not a child.
EnigmaSpore@reddit
Then buy something else. That’s the point. You’re not their demographic and you still have the choice to go get a system that does have the games you want.
Switch 1 was underpowered because it was just an off the shelf cheaper nvidia tegra x1 that with low ram. Now its got more power and capabilities in the NS2 to lure in 3rd parties who can bring more games to its platform but again. That’s for 3rd parties to bring not nintendo themselves. The hardware this time is more capable so it should have more ports of games like elden ring and etc
deadgirlrevvy@reddit
I can still call out the fact that they sell outdated hardware as a "new thing" at inflated prices and without features that have been considered standard in a game system for years and years. That's not OK, whether I am their demo or not. There's nothing wrong with calling a turd a "turd".
EnigmaSpore@reddit
That’s fine. The hardware isnt the best and their pricing does suck. It’s pretty much how they roll.
They usually go for “the experience” over specs (wii motion controls, wii u tablet 2 screens, switch portable with detachable controller, etc).
deadgirlrevvy@reddit
In other words, they sell over priced gimmicks, not games. LOL
devnullopinions@reddit
Making an extremely fun game is not the same thing as making a technically impressive game. They don’t care because Nintendo realized competing on tech specs doesn’t matter to the vast majority of user base.
deadgirlrevvy@reddit
Then Ninty is failing on both fronts, because I don't find their kiddie games even slightly fun nor graphically impressive. Quite the opposite in fact. Not a lot of mature games on Nintendo platforms. They water down everything to make it kid safe, even on ports. I didn't like kid games when I *was* a kid. I damned sure don't like them now.
fourunderthebridge@reddit
Wait so Nintendo failed because you don't like their games? How about the other tens of millions of people who do?
Strazdas1@reddit
Theres no accounting for poor taste.
fpsgamer89@reddit
But they make fun games and people gravitate towards that. That’s the main purpose of games. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
Strazdas1@reddit
Its difficult to understand because its not true.
Just_Maintenance@reddit
Yep, Switch massively crushed Ps5 and Xbox Series. Switch 2 will do the same.
If you want good graphics just give up on consoles and go to PC. If you just want to game then Switch is as good as it gets.
deadgirlrevvy@reddit
Bullshit. I have a Switch. It sucks ass. I haven't even turned it on in two years because it's fucking worthless. I play my Series X or PC games instead, because they look better than a fucking cell phone game. The graphics on the switch are woefully behind the curve, even at that price point.
Hungry-Wealth-6132@reddit (OP)
Basically, it's true
BinaryJay@reddit
When games actually use new hardware features gamers these days cry about optimization and compatibility with their hardware they haven't upgraded for a decade.
Hungry-Wealth-6132@reddit (OP)
Except Cities: Skylines 2.;)
hollow_bridge@reddit
Skylines 2 is garbage, it's basically just the first game, with less content and worse optimization.
Strazdas1@reddit
Its not. They did a shit ton of simulation in the background, and got fucked over by Unity team on optimization. Its actually doing all the things i wish the first game was doing, but its also impacting performance to do it.
hollow_bridge@reddit
The unity team has nothing to do with their poor optimization.
JuanElMinero@reddit
Can elaborate on the simulations part or have a source to learn more?
kuddlesworth9419@reddit
Some games are just very poorly optimised and run poor on nearly everything.
dparks1234@reddit
Yep, gone are the days of the cutting edge PC exclusive with futureproof Ultra settings. If it can’t run well on a midrange card from 10 years ago then it lacks optimization.
milyuno2@reddit
The ps3 whit les than half Teraflop run GTA5 at 1280X720p 25-30FPS ps4 have 1.84 TFlops 4 time the "Flops" teorically it coul run at 2360X1440p at the same FPS, whit out considering the fact that the ps4 have 16 times the RAM(8GB vs 512MB) and is faster RAM. Did the ps4 version run at 1920X1080p whit a more stable framerate? No, if istrue that tha ps4 version include extra effects and more drawing distance(thanks to the extra RAM) the game run at basically the same framerate and they have to patch it cutting the draw distance an errasing or simplify some small objects, it should be able to run the game at 1080p whit a perfect frame rate but that didn't happen it woul be an total insult if the ps5 did not run at 4k because is around 5.6 times more power full that the ps4 and according tho Wichard from digitalfoundry they are "better Flops"...
JuanElMinero@reddit
My head hurts from trying to read this.
Martin0022jkl@reddit
The difference in graphics power between the ps3 and ps4 was even greater than 4x. So the GPU could theoretically handle 1080p 60fps no problem at the same quality settings. But the ps4 CPU was quite bad. It probably couldn't handle 60fps, so Rockstar cranked up the graphics.
Also Floating Point Operation Per Second =/= graphics performance. Most shaders use fp32 ops, so there is a correlation but there is more to graphics perf than flops.
Strazdas1@reddit
PS3 was so slow Rockstar had to create a novel way to run the game of disk and disc at the same time just to feed the engine with enough data without it stuttering too much.
To be fair at the time we are talking about, FP32 was pretty much 99,9% of what games used. Its different now with more variety.
milyuno2@reddit
I know about Flops no being equeal to graphics performance, but I can't forget the "better Flops" thing. For me the PS4 CPU it should be the same CPU from the PS3 but 4 cores and maybe more speed...
Strazdas1@reddit
PS3 runs GTA 5 in a sense that the slideshow presentation of the game does not outright crash the console, yes.
dparks1234@reddit
Jesus christ
III-V@reddit
Moore's Law has come to an end, so chips aren't getting better at the same pace they used to. That affects everything downstream.
Tencentisbad12121@reddit
There's all sorts of stuff going on that's making chips faster, they're just not getting *cheaper*, which was the original position of Moore's Law
advester@reddit
But what percentage of total production is being bought up by AI? That's why it isn't getting cheaper, demand suddenly increased.
Strazdas1@reddit
Even if we had low demand, the production itself has become more costly, which is the opposite of regular trend.
Firefox72@reddit
I'm starring at Assassins Creed Shadows with RTGI and i'l happly dissagree.
And thats coming from someone who isn't even close to getting the most out of it with a RX6700XT.
Strazdas1@reddit
if only NPCs looked at least as good as they did in Unity :( Unity really was ahead of its time.
Hungry-Wealth-6132@reddit (OP)
What is RTGI?
rezaramadea@reddit
Ray Tracing Global Illumination
Hungry-Wealth-6132@reddit (OP)
Thanks, hmm. Would this feature persuade many people?
Lucie-Goosey@reddit
Persuade them of what? And why are they needing persuading?
stuup1dmofo@reddit
Ray traced global illumination
Strazdas1@reddit
I disagree. I think innocation is happening and is amazing. The issue is long adoption cycle. It took what, 6 years for a game to adopt mesh shaders? a fucking shame. Two decades ago it would have taken a year for game market to switch.
kontis@reddit
Rebirth of VR, especially with room scale and full body tracking, was one of the most innovative things that ever happened in history of electronic gaming that required tremendous amounts of effort from programmers and engineers and a good will also from business people.
But consumers decided with their wallets they value traditional leisure more than innovation.
Morningst4r@reddit
I’m a VR true believer but I only own a PSVR because I can’t justify buying a headset yet. We need something major to happen to convince people to drop a whole lot of money on a very specific piece of gear. I thought HL Alyx might start it but the market is still too niche for anyone to really commit enough resources to make it happen.
moofunk@reddit
Aside from diminishing graphical improvements, there is still little innovation in using generative AI for games. LLMs are still not used for conversation trees and enemy AI is still as pathetic as it was 20 years ago.
There is great potential to make the games much more varied and last longer and the hardware is there for it.
OliveBranchMLP@reddit
graphical improvements are giving diminishing returns. the tech is still advancing in crazy ways, raytracing is amazing and getting better every day, but the results are harder and harder to notice, or are just not that important to a lot of people. and while graphics are important artistically, the indie sphere has proven that you can make great games without crazy good graphics.
the eventual obselescense of alt control schemes as seen on wii, wii u, kinect, PS move, and 3DS has proven that most people are happy with the core gaming experience and don't want fancy shit that fundamentally transforms it. the Switch 1 was successful because it was just console gaming, but made portable — 90% of why it succeeded over the Vita was because the Vita was still missing several controls (two sets of shoulder buttons, analog stick clicking), which necessitated control compromises for console ports.
the real advancements are in game design, and we've been seeing plenty of that everywhere. until a hardware change can enable a transformative advancement in game design (like how dual analog sticks changed console shooters forever), we aren't going to see major leaps in interface tech.