Dangling the Dollar -- VR/4K Vs. Photorealism

[babcat]

There is a current push for gaming content that is optimized for virtual reality, extremely high resolutions, and sixty frames per second (minimum) framerates. Achieving these objectives consumes massive amounts of processing power; they are effectively halting the progression towards near photorealistic games. Instead of pushing towards the best possible graphics at ordinary but perfectly acceptable frame-rates and resolutions (for example 720P/1080P and 30FPS), developers have incentives to create content for high resolution displays and virtual reality devices.

My understanding is that while maintaining the same frame rate and resolution (lets say 1080P and 30FPS) pushing further towards true photorealism eventually costs more in terms of money and manpower than GPU power. A developer can potentially save money by making an artistically appealing but stylized game (with characters that are still stuck in the uncanny valley) that is optimized to run acceptably at a much higher frame rate and resolution.

I'll provide an example. Star Wars Battlefront is a game on both major consoles that provides fairly high-end graphics. However, on both consoles, the game is designed to run at 60FPS at 720P or 900P resolution. My short experience playing the game on a 1080P display indicated to me that the resolutions were certainly more than adequate. What I can't help but wonder is how much more realistic the game could have looked if developers had targeted 30FPS -- a frame rate which works just fine for fast paced games like Drive Club.
My guess is the game would have been even closer to being photorealistic.

The Playstation "NEO" will be offering a significantly faster GPU (probably a Polaris 10 variant with at least three times the performance of the GPU inside the PS4). This could allow a game like Star Wars Battlefront to be made at 30FPS at 900 or 1080P with tremendously advanced graphics -- perhaps really pushing the limits like the "Toddymod" videos show. However, I fear this is unlikely, because developers will have a greater incentive to optimize the next Star Wars to run at 60FPS (minimum) at 4K resolution. I doubt there will be an option included in console versions to only have the game rendered at 1080P with photorealistic graphics.

My dream has always been to play a video game that looks as close as possible to real life. I know that I'm getting setup to be mocked, so let me say that I'm not saying there cannot be elements of the game that are dramatized or exaggerated: explosions, bullet time, more damage than would be produced by the same incident (car wreck, gunshot, etc) in real life. I'm talking about the foliage, the grass, the walls, the cars, and especially THE CHARACTERS THEMSELVES.

In my life, I've seen the progression towards photorealism in gaming slow dramatically. But now I fear, at least for a period of time, it might come to a near stop.

I'd like to make a prediction: there won't be a single game come out for PS4 and PS4K in which the PS4K version focuses ONLY on producing a more photorealistic experience at 30FPS and no greater than 1080P resolution (of course the game would allow televisions to upscale the image). I'm talking about a full length game and not a demo. Instead, to save money, time, and labor there will probably be few games that come out for the PS4K that are not optimized for 60FPS and 4K.

I would like to plant an idea that I've mentioned before. I think it would be enormously attractive to many gamers if a developer intentionally produced a game for PS4 and PS4K that ran at 480P at no more than a 30FPS resolution. I've never owned a high definition television in my life and all of my memories of my favorite shows are in standard definition. I would like to see if after ALL THIS TIME since the gaming era started with perhaps the Atari that we can make a game that seems photorealistic -- even at a low resolution.

In conclusion, I'd like to ask if anyone else here hopes that game developers will produce at least some games focused on graphics instead of high frame rate and high resolution on the next consoles released.

 

[Globalisateur]

I don't understand how you could want to push only the static graphics aspect of the game. Both res + fps should be improved simultaneously, it's a dynamic videogame, not a picture. At 30fps only are you not bothered at all of the incredibly big degradation of your photorealistic image when things begin to move in the game?

Battlefront at 30fps? No thanks.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

30 fps versus 60 fps has its own discussion. Does this OP justify anoter discussion, or should I just move this discusison there? Also there are plenty enough 30 fps already! That's going to be the norm for PS4 with PS4N maybe increasing that. So the discussion is really hypotehetical, because at the moment the only way to get more GPU power to approach photorealism is to go sub HD @ 20 fps...

 

[zed]

there was a dev pdf from nvidia ~10 years ago estimating how much power we need to get near to photorealistic, I forget howmuch was needed but it was >10,000x so its still aways away
btw even at 480p, the rendering is actually at >10000p and then downscaled to 480p, if a film was rendered at pure 480p it would look crap

 

[babcat]

Shifty,

I propose that Sony cap the native output of the PS4Neo at 1080P and include an upscaling chip that can increase the resolution to whatever is needed. However, Sony is making sure that developers don't have to worry about making photorealistic games by pushing resolution and VR. Developers are happy to increase resolution or push VR rather than spend the time, money, and effort to make near photorealistic games.

My view of the industry is that developers are having their costs soar as games become closer to photorealistic. Sony is doing them a huge favor by pushing resolution and VR rather than pushing past the uncanny valley. However, this is a great disservice to gamers who won't see a big leap closer to photorealism until the PS5 at best or maybe even the PS6. Because by the time the PS5 comes out, the Playstation Virtual Reality headset will utilize a 4K display. The standard resolution for all games will be 4K and non-VR versions may only see frame rate increases.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I propose that Sony cap the native output of the PS4Neo at 1080P and include an upscaling chip that can increase the resolution to whatever is needed. However, Sony is making sure that developers don't have to worry about making photorealistic games by pushing resolution and VR. Developers are happy to increase resolution or push VR rather than spend the time, money, and effort to make near photorealistic games.

My view of the industry is that developers are having their costs soar as games become closer to photorealistic. Sony is doing them a huge favor by pushing resolution and VR rather than pushing past the uncanny valley. However, this is a great disservice to gamers who won't see a big leap closer to photorealism until the PS5 at best or maybe even the PS6. Because by the time the PS5 comes out, the Playstation Virtual Reality headset will utilize a 4K display. The standard resolution for all games will be 4K and non-VR versions may only see frame rate increases.

You're mental. You know that, right? Forcing every game to be photorealistic? 1) Can't be done, it'll still be uncanny valley, and that doesn't suit most games. 2) Costs would soar. Should devs charge gamers $120 a game, or still sell at $60 because that's what's best for gamers? 3) Sony isn't pushing anything! They just put out hardware. They're no more pushing 4k now than they were pushing 1080p with PS3. Devs decide their targets. Hardware companies just provide a hardware platform and ecosystem for them to develop to. There's nothing stopping any of these devs making a 720p game, save the fact the market doesn't particularly want it. Sony is chasing 4K and VR because these might be the next consumer-driven sales-point that Sony wants to cash in on.

As for 720p being fine, it looks good but blurry unless you have a small FOV. I'm guessing you need glasses if you are comfortable looking at a blurry TV screen because that suggests you see the world as blurry and don't appreciate the difference. And at 30 fps it's okay for passive action (your brain can switch off when it gets really blurry and then pick up what's happened after the fight scene has concluded) but not always for where one is in control and needs to know what's going on.

If you were in charge of a console company, it'd fail hard. Nothing wrong with having your own preferences, but you should acknowledge that they are unrealistic, not what everyone else wants, and just find a solution that works for you. Repeat, get a friggin' PC already!

 

[babcat]

You're mental. You know that, right? Forcing every game to be photorealistic? 1) Can't be done, it'll still be uncanny valley, and that doesn't suit most games. 2) Costs would soar. Should devs charge gamers $120 a game, or still sell at $60 because that's what's best for gamers? 3) Sony isn't pushing anything! They just put out hardware. They're no more pushing 4k now than they were pushing 1080p with PS3. Devs decide their targets. Hardware companies just provide a hardware platform and ecosystem for them to develop to. There's nothing stopping any of these devs making a 720p game, save the fact the market doesn't particularly want it. Sony is chasing 4K and VR because these might be the next consumer-driven sales-point that Sony wants to cash in on.

As for 720p being fine, it looks good but blurry unless you have a small FOV. I'm guessing you need glasses if you are comfortable looking at a blurry TV screen because that suggests you see the world as blurry and don't appreciate the difference. And at 30 fps it's okay for passive action (your brain can switch off when it gets really blurry and then pick up what's happened after the fight scene has concluded) but not always for where one is in control and needs to know what's going on.

If you were in charge of a console company, it'd fail hard. Nothing wrong with having your own preferences, but you should acknowledge that they are unrealistic, not what everyone else wants, and just find a solution that works for you. Repeat, get a friggin' PC already!

First of all, I am so thrilled about Beyond3D changing it's policy so that personal insults are now allowed!

Secondly, in my proposal photorealism would not be mandatory. However, by capping the native resolution (unless they are upscaled with a separate chip) to 1080P, resources would have to be spent making 1080P look better. Right now, with Sony pushing developers to achieve resolutions higher than 1080P (and not allowing lower resolutions) developers will have virtually zero extra power left over to making games look more photorealistic. And this is wonderful to developers -- because increasing resolution is easy/cheap and pushing for better graphics is hard/expensive.

Third, I think there would indeed be a market for a $120 dollar near photorealistic game such as Grand Theft Auto if it was extremely well made with attention to detail. If developers want to go up in price for their games, I'm fine with that. I never, ever said that games should stay at their current price.

Fourth, you are absolutely dead wrong beyond any doubt. Sony is pushing higher resolution. Look at the official document that came out in which they urge developers to do better than 1400P upscaled! They are hoping that higher resolution gaming catches on because it will allow for a fast transition to PSVR2 which will have a higher resolution display. And I doubt most developers have any problem with Sony wanting higher resolutions. They can save megabucks by keeping graphics at the current level while promoting their game is running at a higher resolution. Basically, making X dollars for very little work verses making X dollars for much more work.

Fifth, Devs don't exclusively choose targets anymore. Sony required NEO games to run at a minimum of 1080P.

Sixth, I think Sony saw a big problem -- development costs were soaring due to developers trying to produce better graphics. Then they came up with a fabulous solution for them (pushing for high resolution) that will both keep development costs constant for several more years, sell a bunch of 4K TVs, and make high resolution gaming the standard for when PSVR2 is released.

Seventh, switching to PC is not an option because most PC game developers set their standard by consoles. For many years to come, every PC game will be built around the NEO and Scorpio. Yes, there will be some settings you can dial up higher, but fundamentally the game will be designed so that it will run optimally on the NEO or Scopio. If you kept your resolution at 1080P and maxed out almost every setting, you'd still be wasting a huge amount of frame rate. What we need are some PC games that simply CANNOT RUN ON CONSOLES EVEN TREMENDOUSLY DOWNGRADED. For example, I'd love to see a modern CRYSIS that would barely run at 1080P and 30FPS with a 1080GTX PASCAL. But such a game will never exist again, because the new standard is building them up to run on inferior console hardware.

The really sad thing is that the PS4K really isn't even powerful enough to even achieve 4K graphics without various methods of cheating. I suspect they will be forced to bump up the PS4K (PS4NEO) specs higher for this reason.

 

[Karamazov]

Sony only proposes, devs will be free to do what they want, that's why we still have sub 30fps, 900p or even 720p games today.

 

[London Geezer]

Maybe a new thread so we can dump the utopia of lower resolution rendering for babcat to discuss? Just a thought.

 

[Karamazov]

maybe babcat has a point with reconstruction techniques we saw in games like quantum break to achieve better/more complex graphics.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

First of all, I am so thrilled about Beyond3D changing it's policy so that personal insults are now allowed!

You've been peddling the same postiion for as long as you've been here, no matter the counterpoint (fair enough, free country), but now you're basically accusing the devs of being cheap-ass lazy good-for-nothing for not working harder and doing more to give you your photorealistic games. the reason Uncharted 4 doesn't look like a movie isn't because Sony forced ND to focus on 1080p when they could have created photorealism at SD res, but because UC4 already cost a fortune and a crazy amount of effort and the results, far from photorealistic as they, are actually as good as they, one of the best devs in the world, can manage. So to accuse them and all others of being cheap and just avoiding creating photorealistic games is an insulting attitude that invites the same. Your arguments are beyond 'different' and well into the realm of crazed fantasy. If you just expressed them "this is what I'd like but it'll never happen " then you'd get no beef, but to present them as a reasonable course of action, and to suggest the reason things don't work that way now has nothing to do with free market economics and consumers making their choices, and to blame Sony for the choices devs make outside of their TRCs, is conspiracy nonsense.

Secondly, in my proposal photorealism would not be mandatory.

You mandate a resolution cap to force devs to produce better visuals. Okay, photosurrealism/non-photorealistic visuals may be an option, but the gist is still the same. You want Sony to limit devs res choice to force devs to spend more to make prettier games (as if it's Sony limiting how much devs spend and not business).

However, by capping the native resolution (unless they are upscaled with a separate chip) to 1080P

You can upscale on the GPU for very little. There's literally nothing stopping devs creating 720p games now on PS4 and using the extra power to make them prettier. Why aren't they? What's Sony's hand in that?

Third, I think there would indeed be a market for a $120 dollar near photorealistic game such as Grand Theft Auto if it was extremely well made with attention to detail.

How many games? I'd be utterly shocked if even one $120 game sold in numbers. The suggestion all games should cost more to look prettier, or devs should just work harder for free, is bonkers.

I never, ever said that games should stay at their current price.

It's not you but the market. Joe Gamer doesn't want to spend more than $60. After inflation, price of games has gone down year after year.

Look at the official document that came out in which they urge developers to do better than 1400P upscaled!

they offer suggestions, nothing more. They mention 1400p doesn't look much better on 4K sets, so devs targeting 4K should try for a higher resolution. That's it. The documentation actually talks about targeting 1080p! How's that pushing higher res?! The market has a new display system, 4K TVs. Sony want a machine that can serve those consumer with what those consumer apparently want (if they don't want 4K content , why did they buy a 4K TV?).

Fifth, Devs don't exclusively choose targets anymore. Sony required NEO games to run at a minimum of 1080P.

Really? Where is the TRC with that requirement? Does it specify which of the many buffers need to be 1080p? I think you'll find all they want is a 1080p output buffer. If devs choose to render all or part of that display buffer in lower res, they can and will.

Sixth, I think Sony saw a big problem -- development costs were soaring due to developers trying to produce better graphics. Then they came up with a fabulous solution for them (pushing for high resolution) that will both keep development costs constant for several more years, sell a bunch of 4K TVs, and make high resolution gaming the standard for when PSVR2 is released.

Sony don't care. I think you're confusing them with Nintendo. Sony produce hardware and let the software developers worry about how to make money from it. A game can cost anything from $100k to $250+ million. Sony has done absolutely nothing to make GTA and Destiny and COD and FF cheaper to make.

What we need are some PC games that simply CANNOT RUN ON CONSOLES EVEN TREMENDOUSLY DOWNGRADED. For example, I'd love to see a modern CRYSIS that would barely run at 1080P and 30FPS with a 1080GTX PASCAL. But such a game will never exist again, because the new standard is building them up to run on inferior console hardware.

Now think about this for a second. Who's the PC company limiting these games? No-one. The developers don't want to make them. If there was a market for $120 photorealistic games on PC, don't you think it'd exist? Or are all these devs missing a trick competing with the same crowded market, and in truth there's an untapped market worth megabucks to the developer with the balls to create ultimate PC only games at a price to match?

The really sad thing is that the PS4K really isn't even powerful enough to even achieve 4K graphics without various methods of cheating.

All rendering is cheating. There are many <1080p buffers in a typical 1080p game.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Maybe a new thread so we can dump the utopia of lower resolution rendering for babcat to discuss? Just a thought.

Already was one because it's the same conversation every time. Okay, the suggestion Sony's to blame now is new. Moved posts.

 

[goonergaz]

First of all, I am so thrilled about Beyond3D changing it's policy so that personal insults are now allowed!

Secondly, in my proposal photorealism would not be mandatory. However, by capping the native resolution (unless they are upscaled with a separate chip) to 1080P, resources would have to be spent making 1080P look better. Right now, with Sony pushing developers to achieve resolutions higher than 1080P (and not allowing lower resolutions) developers will have virtually zero extra power left over to making games look more photorealistic. And this is wonderful to developers -- because increasing resolution is easy/cheap and pushing for better graphics is hard/expensive.

Third, I think there would indeed be a market for a $120 dollar near photorealistic game such as Grand Theft Auto if it was extremely well made with attention to detail. If developers want to go up in price for their games, I'm fine with that. I never, ever said that games should stay at their current price.

Fourth, you are absolutely dead wrong beyond any doubt. Sony is pushing higher resolution. Look at the official document that came out in which they urge developers to do better than 1400P upscaled! They are hoping that higher resolution gaming catches on because it will allow for a fast transition to PSVR2 which will have a higher resolution display. And I doubt most developers have any problem with Sony wanting higher resolutions. They can save megabucks by keeping graphics at the current level while promoting their game is running at a higher resolution. Basically, making X dollars for very little work verses making X dollars for much more work.

Fifth, Devs don't exclusively choose targets anymore. Sony required NEO games to run at a minimum of 1080P.

Sixth, I think Sony saw a big problem -- development costs were soaring due to developers trying to produce better graphics. Then they came up with a fabulous solution for them (pushing for high resolution) that will both keep development costs constant for several more years, sell a bunch of 4K TVs, and make high resolution gaming the standard for when PSVR2 is released.

Seventh, switching to PC is not an option because most PC game developers set their standard by consoles. For many years to come, every PC game will be built around the NEO and Scorpio. Yes, there will be some settings you can dial up higher, but fundamentally the game will be designed so that it will run optimally on the NEO or Scopio. If you kept your resolution at 1080P and maxed out almost every setting, you'd still be wasting a huge amount of frame rate. What we need are some PC games that simply CANNOT RUN ON CONSOLES EVEN TREMENDOUSLY DOWNGRADED. For example, I'd love to see a modern CRYSIS that would barely run at 1080P and 30FPS with a 1080GTX PASCAL. But such a game will never exist again, because the new standard is building them up to run on inferior console hardware.

The really sad thing is that the PS4K really isn't even powerful enough to even achieve 4K graphics without various methods of cheating. I suspect they will be forced to bump up the PS4K (PS4NEO) specs higher for this reason.

If it's all Sonys fault then why aren't PC devs pushing the much more powerful hardware into this direction? Also, Sony seem to support the most realistic looking console games - off the top of my head - Heavy Rain, Beyond 2 Souls, Detroit, Driveclub, Gran Turismo, Until Dawn, hell even The Getaway back in PS2 days - all Sony exclusives and all going for realistic looks.

 

[babcat]

It is not all Sony's fault. Almost the entire industry is to blame. The constant march to higher resolutions (instead of pushing to achieve photorealism at a moderate resolution first) is keeping us within the uncanny valley for an extended period of time. And this is fine for most developers, because it keeps their costs down. I'm not saying anything is ever going to change -- it may not. The bulk of consumers are happy with developers taking the easy/cheap way out. If they want to keep buying such games that is their right. But I think the remaining gamers who don't buy into the "spin" about 4K and VR should be much more vocal. Those of us who want to game beyond the uncanny valley need to make noise! We can't forcefully make anyone do anything against their will. But we can peacefully protest -- especially with our dollars. I for one haven't purchased a video game in YEARS because there are virtually non with the graphical quality I desire. And it seems like the games that get close have to add stylism to make their game look less than photorealistic.

These are basically my rules for game buying.

1) If the game does not attempt to push past the uncanney valley, I'm automatically not interested.

2) If the game attempts to push past the uncanney valley but is running at greater than rock solid 30FPS, I'm not interested and will not purchase the game. Anything over 30FPS rock solid is a waste of resources unless you are talking about ultra high speed games like racers.

3) If the game attempts to push past the uncanney valley but is running at a resolution greater than 1080P (absolute max) then I'm not interested.

I don't expect games using today's hardware to be absolutely photorealistic. That is almost impossible. But if they are wasting resources on frame rate or resolution instead of photorealism then I'm not spending one dollar.

To be blunt, I doubt that there will be many games in the future that meet my rules simply because higher frame rate and resolution reduces development costs.

 

[MrFox]

These are basically my rules for game buying.

1) If the game does not attempt to push past the uncanney valley, I'm automatically not interested.

2) If the game attempts to push past the uncanney valley but is running at greater than rock solid 30FPS, I'm not interested and will not purchase the game. Anything over 30FPS rock solid is a waste of resources unless you are talking about ultra high speed games like racers.

3) If the game attempts to push past the uncanney valley but is running at a resolution greater than 1080P (absolute max) then I'm not interested.

There must be dozens of you. Dozens!

 

[babcat]

Mr Fox,

There are many tens of thousands of us at least. But most of us rarely speak up due to the fear of being ridiculed by the majority of gamers who view frame rate and resolution as more important than realism. Generally, most people don't like being ostracized by their peers. In my case, I'm different. I care very little about what other people think about me; if I have an opinion, I'm going to declare it.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

It is not all Sony's fault. Almost the entire industry is to blame. The constant march to higher resolutions (instead of pushing to achieve photorealism at a moderate resolution first) is keeping us within the uncanny valley for an extended period of time.

No it's not. The reason we are sat in the uncanny valley is because we haven't got the power to render photoreal, regardless of resolution. Even if at SD res, PS4 could make something that looked like the original Star Trek series, the animation and movement and interactions and behaviours would be as fake and flawed as they are now. How stupid would it be to have a photorealistic character spinning on the spot without moving their feet?! And yet if you made a character behave complete realistically, gamers would complain about the lack of control.

What you ask is nonsense. The dream is unreal. It isn't going to happen for generations, regardless of resolution. If you understood what we've all talked about for the ten years you've been on this board, you'd appreciate that and not be asking the impossible of developers.

The bulk of consumers are happy with developers taking the easy/cheap way out.

I genuinely feel I should permaban you for this. What exactly do you bring to the discusison other than bitching constantly about how crap and misguided developers are? Go write your own photorealistic game on PC at 540p and come back and show us how wrong we all are.

These are basically my rules for game buying...

So you don't buy any games?

Mr Fox,

There are many tens of thousands of us at least.

Let's say 100,000 similarly minded people. All willing to pay $120 for a game. That gives you a budget of $12,000,000 to make your photorealistic masterpiece. With a view to breaking even, and not making any profit. Maybe you should hit up Kickstarter? Cryengine, a powerful PC, target 540p, you could make the most amazing game EVAR and show gamers how cheap and lazy the rest of the industry is!

 

[MrFox]

Mr Fox,

There are many tens of thousands of us at least. But most of us rarely speak up due to the fear of being ridiculed by the majority of gamers who view frame rate and resolution as more important than realism. Generally, most people don't like being ostracized by their peers. In my case, I'm different. I care very little about what other people think about me; if I have an opinion, I'm going to declare it.

While I agree you are a beautiful snowflake, and you should continue to be proud of your individuality, it's insane to blame the entire industry around for not catering to your peculiar tastes. It's also pure trolling to call every dev around incomptent and lazy for not achieving your imaginary threshold of quality.

 

[babcat]

A ban for peacefully expressing a comment without vulgarity or name calling would be absolutely repugnant. Basically, it would show unpopular opinions on this forum were bannable offenses.

Furthermore, I'll double down on my comment. Here is an example. Let's say that Sony announced the NEO was canceled and the PS5 would be launched two or three years from now with 7nm GPU with about 10TFlops of processing power, but with a maximum resolution cap of 1080P. I propose most developers would be concerned about the additional development costs that would be associated with utilizing all that power: better lighting, better textures, etc. However, if Sony announced the PS5 would require a *minimum* framebuffer of 4K, I think the opposite would be true. Most developers would breath a sigh of relief because their development costs would remain more or less the same. I see this as flat out truth. This situation is actually already documented with the transition from PS2 to PS3 to PS4. Each time a new console launched there were articles on various sites discussing with developers how their costs had increased and their teams had grown. To produce a AAA game millions of dollars were required, verses in the PS1 or PS2 era where games could be made on a smaller budget.

To a certain degree you are right: we don't have the power for absolutely photorealistic graphics. But we do have the technology for much better graphics than we have right now. Developers just don't have the budget for it! That is why so many developers are getting into mobile gaming -- the budgets required are smaller.

To answer your question, I haven't bought a game in years. I would like to get back to actively gaming, but right now I see a very scary trend of higher resolutions to support virtual reality. My hope is that maybe Quantic Dream will eventually produce a near photorealistic game, but "Become Human" looks very disappointing to me. My only hope is that a developer somewhere makes a modern day version of Crysis that requires a 1080GTX just for 30FPS at 1080P.

Another event that I hope happens is that a console maker will switch from AMD to NVIDIA. NVIDIA's lead in performance per dollar (except of course in their outrageously priced high end Titans) is increasing and a console with a cutting edge NVIDIA GPU could potentially have an advantage over a console with an AMD GPU.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

A ban for peacefully expressing a comment without vulgarity or name calling would be absolutely repugnant. Basically, it would show unpopular opinions on this forum were bannable offenses.

Insulting people doesn't need vulgarity. Belittling the work of the entire industry is extremely offensive, at least to me. It's unlikely I'll ban you because I support free expression on the whole, but I wouldn't be at all adverse to you having the decency to leave us all in peace.

Most developers would breath a sigh of relief because their development costs would remain more or less the same. I see this as flat out truth.

Based on...? How many devs do you talk to on the whole?

This situation is actually already documented with the transition from PS2 to PS3 to PS4. Each time a new console launched there were articles on various sites discussing with developers how their costs had increased and their teams had grown. To produce a AAA game millions of dollars were required, verses in the PS1 or PS2 era where games could be made on a smaller budget

Yep. And if Sony don't force the issue, devs will target what they can afford to spend. Or do you think they're all too stupid, and will keep ploughing limitless amounts of money into games without the guiding hand of a console maker to tell them when to stop?

But we do have the technology for much better graphics than we have right now. Developers just don't have the budget for it! That is why so many developers are getting into mobile gaming -- the budgets required are smaller

Generalisation. There are many types of devs with many different priorities. You'll find plenty like the idea of mobile due to creative freedom. You'll also find many console devs who break out and create smaller games because they are less tiring to do with a shorter turnaround. Many devs, and more all the time. You'd need to present some hard and fast numbers to support the view that devs are moving away from AAA development to mobile development.

To answer your question, I haven't bought a game in years. I would like to get back to actively gaming, but right now I see a very scary trend of higher resolutions to support virtual reality. My hope is that maybe Quantic Dream will eventually produce a near photorealistic game,

It's not going to happen! We haven't the processing power to produce realtime global illumination. We haven't the processing power to animate it properly (although you'd probably be happy with an interactive movie). We haven't the capacity to provide solid physics simulation. It's JUST NOT POSSIBLE. And that's not because higher resolutions are targeted - resolution on impacts part of the rendering pipeline and doesn't define the limits of what you can achieve (although admittedly with more compute possibilities, tying up the shaders with drawing means less time for them to process other stuff, but we haven't the algorithms at the moment for that to really matter).

Another event that I hope happens is that a console maker will switch from AMD to NVIDIA. NVIDIA's lead in performance per dollar (except of course in their outrageously priced high end Titans) is increasing and a console with a cutting edge NVIDIA GPU could potentially have an advantage over a console with an AMD GPU.

Won't make a different. Even if nVidia were twice as powerful, the shortfall between what's needed for photorealism and what we have now is still going to be an order of magnitude.

Tim Sweeney says photorealism may be achieved at 40 teraflops.

40! By his estimate. And importantly, as you seem to not appreciate, that doesn't scale with resolution. It's not 40 TF needed at 4k, so 10 TF needed at 1080p, and 5 TF needed at 720p, and 2.5 TF needed at SD res.

Have you seen this?

Drake's house is amazing in UC4. The lighting is incredible. It's also flawed, and baked, and the physics collisions suck, and the fabrics don't move. It's still a million miles from realistic, and that's one of the best devs out there with crazy amounts of funding available to make a flagship title.