On the one hand I fully agree. They have plenty of resources to be working on multiple projects at once.
On the other, it’s very easy for studios to lose their way when spread too thin. There is value in staying focused.
On the third hand, it’s taking an absurdly long time to build their games now. It’s clear the Gamebryo/Creation Engine is no longer fit for purpose. I don’t give a fuck about object permanence for 10,000 cheese wheels. I want fewer loading screens, much better facial animations, much better lighting, much better performance, and MUCH better collision handling. Unreal proved YEARS ago that functionally unlimited polygon assets were achievable with good performance with dynamic mesh loading. Gamebryo is absolutely shitting the bed with the assets in Starfield. Maybe it wouldn’t take 5+ years to build these games if they weren’t shackled to Gamebryo.
It’s weird, because they absolutely need to switch things up… but also they have a winning formula and so long as the games sell they will never adapt.
For me, the biggest fault isn’t the tech itself (at least not directly), but the game design. Every time they strap another system to that Frankenstein’s monster of an engine, those systems need to be justified in gameplay, which is harder to do the more there are. As everything grows in scale and scope, each component, whether locations or mechanics, feels less individually compelling. Then they hide mechanics behind the tech tree, which solves one issue by focusing the player experience, but now the quests feel even more bland because they need to appeal to every possible build.
Except you’re looking at Unreal from a purely graphical perspective and as if Bethesda’s slowest process was making the engine work. If either of those two points were the issue, we’d have a whole bunch of Bethesda-style games on Unreal already, but we don’t.
I’ve always been a fan, but no way I’m buying a second system just for Bethesda games.
Yes, I bought a switch to play Zelda, but that’s where I draw the line.
Skyrim has released on basically every platform that exists, I have to assume Starfield, and ES6, will eventually release on PS5. That is just too much money to leave on the table.
On the other hand, Demon Souls was spawned out of a failed PS exclusive to go head to head against Oblivion, and I’d dare say the souls series have given more to gaming than the past decade of Bethesda releases.
The official announcement teaser for The Elder Scrolls VI came out in June of 2018. That means Bethesda will have most likely started advertising the game a full decade before it came out, if the game is at least five years away at this point.
Doesn't really matter, they don't need the switch to have bleeding edge performance, that isn't why it sells. It has to be affordable and using older processes helps achieve that.
No but it does need enough performance to be capable of running games in low quality modes. The Switch is so anemic that many big budget games are simply not even trying anymore as performant running can't be achieved without complete rewrites of engine code. So a better Switch that is at least a low spec gaming computer will enable more big games to many the effort of trying to support it.
A big issue with modern game developers is bad inefficient code. Compare Nintendo titles file size and performance to every other big game. I don’t think any AAA PC/PS6/XBOX? is going to run on the most powerful switch in 3 years time.
Big time. Their chassis design will dictate performance too. They will get the best chip they can in a cost budget and then thermal/battery limits will dictate where that chip actually lies.
The steam deck is cool and a great device but the Switch 2 will be sleeker and nintendo won’t settle for a 90min battery a whiney fan, and that has trade offs.
Switch 1 had a 720p screen with a 1080p max TV output. That’s approx a 2x increase in throughput.
With Switch 2 it’s expected to be a 1080p screen and a 4k output, that’s a 4x increase in pixel throughput. So a 2x output increase might not be adequate.
However, it is widely expected to have DLSS, which would greatly reduce that requirement.
Cost is going to be a big factor. Nintendo doesn’t want the best possible console. The want a good console, that they can get into as many hands as possible. Even a simple active dock is going to add £10 to the price.
basically it just means it's using newer chip-making processes to make the chip smaller and faster. It's sort of a no-brainer that a new chip would use some updated processes and likely run faster than one made 7 or 8 years ago.
Smaller chips are a combination of faster and more power efficient than chips of a larger process size. The smaller the chips the less electrical impedance there is. That’s what makes processors hot. Less heat means less energy wasted and more potential to run the processor at a faster rate
its meant for people in the tech space that can cross compare numbers with on the market devices. some basic specs give you a ball park estimation of what you kind of expect. Albeit, this is from WCCFTech, which theyll post just about any rumor, so take with huge grain of salt.
for laymans, ill do some of the cross comparison now.
5nm is the fabrication process used in AMDs current top end gpus, and current generation GPUs. In apple terms, same process used on its A14/A15 (iPhone 12-14) and M1/M2 (all current macbook devices) chips (only difference between the two generations is bleeding edge vs matured process, but they are effectively the same size).
For comparisons sake, the 5nm process is used by Nvidia’s current generation RTX 4000 series gpus, but a special process for it (cusotmized basically for Nvidia). The clocks likely refer to CPU clocks so I will drop discussion of gpus here and move onto Nvidia’s CPU offerings.
Nvidia essentially only puts CPUs on its enterprise and developer parts (the Tegra line, which is how the Switch ended up using it). Nvidias “Thor” would be the only device using 5nm, but little is known about Thor so I would refer to last gen Orin, which have development boards already on the market (in the same way the Tegra X1 in the switch also has Development boards on the market).
Orins Wikipedia section on pure numbers, the 2 middle SKUS, the 2 NX models are the ones that would likely go into a switch due to their TDP (10-25W), as 10W is the typical handheld TDP and 15-25 tends to be the TDP of devices when “Docked”. Since last gen orin was capable of holding 2.2 Ghz CPU docked, then the switch SOC at least on paper, is closer to the full clocks when compared to the older Tegra X1 in the switch (which had it clocked to 1000 Ghz essentially, which is almost half of what the chip was designed for ~1800 which is seen in the commercially available Nvidia Shield TV). The CPU is a Arm Cortex A78, so I’d compare it to phones using it such as phones using the Snapdragon 888 cpu, but downclocked. Also forgot to put out there, Orins GPU is essentially similar to the Nvidia RTX 2050 mobile if you need some remote idea on how it would perform graphically.
Opinion post starts here:
Im on the boat who believes Nvidia is going to use Orin (or a varient of Orin just shrunk down to 5nm, as Orin is a 8nm product) as Nvidia does not like to do custom designs for any customer. It’s the reason why Apple for instance, dropped nvidia and the last Nvidia GPU used in an apple product i believe was the GTX 670. The choice sounds like a very Nintendo thing to do, because 1. Nintendo has a history of choosing the lower end part nowadays and 2. Nintendo prefers to have their consoles sold at profit and not at a loss, so theyre more inclined to pick the cheaper device of any option. Given that Orin is an early covid design, it makes sense of the timeline as it would kinda be similar to the switch (the Switch launched in 2017, used the Tegra X1 which was in devices in 2015). Orin was produced early 2022, and the next Switch would likely launch in 2024
Nothing until they actually announce something. Rumors aren’t to be trusted at all, Nintendo has a history of disappointing on specs and making up for it with interesting gameplay.
Billboard trees and lack of fog, detailed reflections and shadows were tradeoffs of last gen that at that time weren’t as perceivable as they are now, when compared side by side. I wonder what the next gen would look like? Accurate RTAO, RTGI, RTR and no ghosting artifacts? It definitely feels like we’re near the end phase of graphical fidelity. I mean we can improve infinitely but it’ll come at extremely diminishing returns and insane amounts of pixel peeping.
Maybe the focus would shift towards realistic animation blending and pixel accurate collision physics once everything is path traced and uses photogrammetry. Thanks for listening to my ramblings.
I’ve got a 7900XTX Ultra, and FSR2 does literally nothing, which is hilarious.
100% resolution scale, 128 FPS.
75% resolution scale … 128 FPS.
50% resolution scale, looking like underwater potatoes … 128 FPS.
I don’t know how it’s possible to make an engine this way, it seems CPU-bound and I’m lucky that I upgraded my CPU not too long ago, I’m outperforming my friend who has an RTX 4090 in literally all scenes, indoor, ship, and outdoor/planet.
He struggles to break 70 FPS on 1080p Ultra, meanwhile I’m doing 4K Ultra.
I had no idea it was a problem on Radeon GPUs. I saw a few people complaining about not seeing the stars, but I didn’t have a clue what they were talking about since it was always fine for my Nvidia card.
wccftech.com
Aktywne