Speculation is strongly leaning toward it not being a standalone device and instead being in the WMR/PSVR space. Possibly coupled with a return of “Steam Machines” for a tv/console experience.
I would still prefer a standalone/hybrid. But with wireless a lot of the need for that goes away. Same with if the Steam Deck is powerful enough for stuff like h3vr and other “standalone” levels of games (and, back of the envelope, it is very much capable of that).
And I think the bigger advantage will likely be to focus on OS agnostic support for the HMD itself since that is kind of a cluster. Probably will still mean everything runs on steamvr (which makes porn apps a bit risky), but will couple well with unity’s cock up and people generally getting pissy if you remind them that “meta” is “facebook”.
It is less about taking your HMD on the go and more about not needing a computer. For a lot of people, having a “gaming rig” is very intimidating. And, as the quest (and steam deck…) have shown, you don’t really need too powerful of a computer to run “basic” vr, but you do need the right ports and so forth.
But also? A lot of people have a complete potato of a laptop that can’t even do that.
For me? Standalone does indeed matter less than wireless. But wireless is expensive radios and power issues. Whereas standalone that I can plug in if I want to play Alyx or something with better visuals? That is my jam
Also: Standalone lets you go to a different room. Whereas you don’t want to get too far away from the radio dongle with a wireless setup. Which gets back to porn apps and maybe wanting a wank in your bedroom instead of the office. Or… having more room to move around when you play Gorn, sure.
I mainly like that it shows non vr games in the recent games now. It was an absolute pain to navigate and find a flat game, even if I had just played it a minute earlier.
if deckard turns out to be inside out tracked with a depth sensor to scan the playspace instead of having to manually set it like how quest 3 is said to have soon I will scream
Todd Howard. The CEO of the company which games are world famous for their bugs.
When you play their games. You learn to quicksave before doing anything. Because you never know when opening a door will send a cheese flying at Mach 5 and hit you in the face.
He’s the guy who says my PC is the problem? Not their shitty code? Okay.
To be fair, Cyberpunk 2077 came out in the peak of Covid GPU scarcity, I was still gaming on a GTX1080 at it’s release and the only way I could have a decent experience was running it at 50% resolution scale with 100% sharpening.
I haven’t played starfield yet but many of the recent headliner releases have been performance hogs. It’s not unreasonable to expect people to either play with lower settings or upgrade if you want to run the best possible set up. That’s why there are performance sliders in most games. When you need a 3080 to run minimum settings that’s when you start running into trouble (👀ksp 2)
At the same time my 3080 runs these games just fine with 60-90 fps at 4k with high settings. Don’t need more than that for games that aren’t competitive.
Man, that’s why armored core blew me away. Completed the whole game, at launch, maximum settings and I don’t recall a single frame drop. 3060, with very mediocre other hardware. I know there’s a lot to be said about map sizes and instanced missions, but with as fantastic as that game looks and plays…
Same happened with Doom Eternal. The graphics were a show stopper when the game came out and the game didn’t even stutter. It’s so well optimized that I’m told you can even play it with integrated graphics.
Frankly, open world sucks. I’ve played Far Cry 2 sometime last year because one of my friends spoke so highly of it and I’ve spent more time driving around than actually shooting anything. It served no purpose other than wasting player’s time. Missions were rather basic too. And nothing in the reviews of more modern examples showcase that anything has changed.
I have a 3060Ti and play most games on max settings. There is the occasional game that explodes if I do that but otherwise GPU power is out ahead of decently optimized games (probably because gaming is now no longer the driving factor for GPU performance).
It’s BS though. People with TOTL hardware are having issues. Those systems don’t underperform because the game is advanced or anything like that – the game underperforms because it is a new release that is poorly optimized. It’s also expected because it’s on a senior citizen of a game engine that likely needs a few other nudges.
Todd Howard forgets that PC users see this shit all the time, and it’s pretty obvious with this one. Hoping to see talk of optimization in a coming patch instead.
Edit: a good example – not hitting 60fps in New Atlantis, but concurrently, CPU usage in the 50s and GPU usage in the 70s. That’s a sign of poor optimization.
My friend and I were just discussing the likelihood that some hardware producers pay game devs to purposely output bad optimizations so users are encouraged to spend more on upgrades.
I mean, that’s probably why he would make the push. The bait’s in the mouth (people have the game), then comes the pull of the hook (they have to upgrade to try and handle its poor optimization, fulfilling the benefit of AMD backing them). And Beth doesn’t lose anything if its too frustrating and people stop playing over it because they already have the money.
EDIT: Admittedly I keep forgetting that game-pass is a thing, but maybe even that doesn’t really matter to Microsoft if it got people to get on gamepass or something? That makes my earlier point a bit shakier.
While I’m no fan of paid sponsorships holding back good games, this is untrue.
Neither nvidia nor amd block their partner devs from supporting competing tech in their games. They just won’t help them get it working, and obviously the other side won’t either, since that dev is sponsored. There are some games out there that support both, some of them even partnered.
So yes, it’s bullshit. But it’s not “literally paid” bullshit. Bethesda could have gone the extra mile, and didn’t.
AMD blocks partners from implementing DLSS. You're probably right that it's not paid bullshit as the payout isn't monetary. But it's still being blocked due to the partnership.
This is hardly the first game to do this. Jedi Survivor, RE4 have the same problem. AMD sponsored FSR2 only. The work required to implement FSR2 or DLSS is basically the same (motion data). That's why DLSS mods were immediately available.
Since FSR2 was released not a single AMD sponsored game has DLSS added. Even games done in engines like unreal where all the dev has to do is include the plugin.
There is circumstantial evidence, no direct evidence as contracts are not public. There is no evidence, (circumstantial or direct) that AMD is allowing partners to add DLSS.
Every single AMD sponsored game released since FSR2 launched does not include DLSS despite it being trivial to add if the work is being done for FSR2. For Unreal engine games it can be enabled by including a completely free plugin, the work is already done. Yet, the AMD sponsored games don't. There is even a game that announced DLSS support before it released and then removed it after becoming AMD sponsored (Boundary).
I'm starting to think that maybe, just maybe brute forcing a 26 yesr old engine that makes skyrim have a stroke if you try to play above 30fps isn't a good idea
Ill see if I can find it when I'm at my PC, but in an interview a dev said it was still using significant amounts of code from their Gamebryo engine from 97
They could have called it Creative Engine 129030129784.32985 for all that it matters. It’s just a name for an engine update, as they do for every new game. They didn’t re-write it from scratch; that would be a billion-dollar venture.
From what I’ve read it’s the exact same engine as FO4 with better lighting (and of course, as with every new game, some improvements locally relevant to the gameplay).
But, fundamentally, underneath the fancy lights, still the same engine. That explains the 2008-esque animations, the bugs, the performance issues, and general flatness of the game. It can’t be more than “Skyrim in Space” because that’s what it technically is.
Same here except I use a 6600 xt, which isn’t anywhere near as good as your GPU. I’m running medium settings at 4k and it’s fine. It even runs on the Steam Deck, although the graphics are not so good on there. Still, it’s playable and I will probably play there when it’s convenient.
IMO, ultra settings are for people with new, high end hardware and to future proof a game for at least a couple years. It’s not for people running a 2-3 year old rig with a 1080p GPU. Medium and high settings are generally good. Ultra is just like bonus mode for hardcore enthusiasts.
Yeah, the reason why I mentioned my experience is because I’m finding people with better specs complaining and I’m like if we just turned the FPS counter off and enjoyed the game, I’m sure we’d barely notice it dips below 60 at times.
Ridiculous statement. I’ve got an rx 7900xtx and a ryzen 7 7700x with 64 gigs of ram @5600mhz and the fucking game barely ever hits 144fps. Usually it’s sitting around 100-110 fps which is playable for sure, but literally every other game I’ve played on it has had no problem staying nailed at 144fps. This is at low-medium settings BTW (for starfield).
pcworld.com
Aktywne