Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion [2020]

Not only is it a far cry currently, even in say 4 years and top to bottom RT on cards doesn’t mean that the overall market has RT.
The positive of PC is that it's cutting edge, the negative is that the low end is very low.
Low end is not the same as entry level cards in my definition of the terms.
Low end in 4 or so years are current mid - top end current cards which a good proportion doesn't have RT right now.
Just look at the minimum specs of current games.
It would be nice to drop non RT paths though but I can see it still being support for a long time to come.

When is the expectation of their game due based on previous timeframes, considering when their last game came out? Also supporting it on gcn and RDNA 1 in just compute wouldn't be playable even at 720p most probably.

Guess could play with no RT or back up and game just look like something from the 90s.

 

I tried this on my 1070 for metro. The way the game looks at 720p and terrible frames. I’d take RT off and go with smooth1080p

 

Should was never the question here. AMD has made 0 statements on whether it will be supported. As of this moment it is not. I have nothing to work with that would be any sort of solid indication of the contrary. And this is for all vendors not just AMD.

RT is a complex and difficult beast to handle. When the penalty is so large; you’re just much better off with the alternative; which is sans RT

 

hmpf. It's just double the work, crippling both options for what timeframe? A decade? This totally sucks.

Question: Do all those low end people that might dominate the Steam hardware survey buy any games at all? How much of this is inactive accounts?

Giving them 90's visuals to force them to upgrade is a valid option i would say. But even a second 90's visuals codepath is some work.
It's much worse than back then with the transition from software rasterizer to GPUs, thus i assume a whole lot of devs will require RT GPU in 2-3 years.

I would be fine with everyone having RT, i would be fine with nobody having it. But this upcoming transition period really sucks. RT generates just as many problems as it solves

 

I am sure you would as this is an option but may not be if games go full RT.

My point was console releases often get lower than low pc settings, if you lack RT cores in your pc then I think you should expect to taking some lower than low settings to keep the frame rate up whilst things even out. I would expect a more considered approach to RT than Metro if they expect thoes without RT cores to still run it, but yes lower performance is likely but compromises can be made because of the flexibility in game options.

The shoe may temporarily be on the other foot.

 

On relatively rare occasions some settings are lower than PC low. Usually volumetric resolution and some lod settings. Its often in titles that hardly scale above the consoles in visuals anyway. Usually you're zapping GPU power for somethings that's barely perceptible during actual gameplay. It’s a highly inaccurate statement to make globally.

 

Yea. I guess it’s a question of whether or not developers should care about the PC space. And that might be a question about profits. I’m honestly unsure of the revenue amounts considering the unit sales are good; but most often sold at discounts very quickly after release.

 

Who's likely to buy your new shiny, someone who hasn't bought a new gpu in years or someone with a new gpu looking to play something that validates their purchase?

I know, rhetorical question.

 

While the person who spends more on a new video card every year might be inclined to spend more on games it's unlikely he will spend more than the millions of people who don't have a new video card.

 

I expect the new console gen will be the start of a huge upgrade cycle on pc.

 

Just to be clear, I personally would like minimum specs to have been raised a few times, and am far from against it.

But, I'm going by what I've seen over the years. I think that the people who's gone out and bought RT cards is probably smaller than a lot of people think and that also includes gamers.

Normally you can scale the graphics so it's not such a big problem. But if you're going RT only and not including non RT fallback paths what would a game look like with RT off and no fall back path for lighting, shadows, whatever.

Is it more work to include non RT paths, sure it is. The question is, is the pool of RT enabled PC/laptops big enough at that point to support enough sales, when pc game sales actually isn't the 4k user even now but 1080p, I'm not personally convinced. Even if personally I would like studios to do it.

 

About time, PC gamers had to upgrade every generation aside from the 8th so far.

 

As long as there is a $200 card featuring RT I'm sure it will.

 

That needs to have been the case for years before it becomes the low end/min requirements.

Consoles always cause some level of jumps in pc hardware. But games can usually scale graphics down even below the jump.
RT not having fallback, that wouldn't be the case.
People are buying top end cards without RT now even. Well top end AMD and 1080ti's or whatever the top end non RTX cards are now.

Anyway I would like to be proven wrong by many publishers going the route of RT only. Fingers crossed I guess.

 

It swung towards PC for a few years due to digital sales (huge margins) on PC versus Physical sales (low margins) on console. But now with the console market transitioning towards digital sales, it's swinging back towards consoles. Next generation most game sales are likely to be digital. Combine that with the escalating costs of GPUs on PC and profits are likely to remain with consoles from now on for AAA developers.

AMD bringing down the price barrier for performant CPUs helped the PC gaming space somewhat, but NV rapidly increasing the cost of GPUs more than offsets that. AMD could be disruptive here if they can pull a 4870 with Navi 2 and reset base level GPU prices again. But I don't expect that to happen.

Hence, why I'm rooting for both Sony and MS focusing on non-GPU related methods to push gaming because while it still happens on PC from time to time, PC gaming can't move the gaming industry like it used to be able to. Although it is interesting to see AAA console developers adopting/implementing things that indie devs have been doing for a while and then...sadly...seeing people attribute that to the AAA devs rather than the indie devs.

But, don't get me wrong, the GPU will still be hugely important, but I'm hopeful that other aspects will contribute in a more meaningful way (storage and audio).

Regards,
SB

 

Nope, PC sales are equal or better than Xbox sales for many publishers already.

Right now, the sales in the PC space provide a significant income for developers, hence the push to port dozens of previously console exclusive games to the PC.

PCs (desktops and laptops) massively outnumber any console at any point, so if your game attracts enough PC audience it will get killer sales.

 

And we're just going to ignore the existence of PlayStation?

I never said there were no profits for developers on PC. PC gaming revenue is very relevant (just look at all the Japanese developers putting games on PC now). But consoles will be unlikely to lose to PCs WRT profit generation going forward as there isn't anything else that is disruptive towards profit generation like the discrepancy between digital sales versus physical sales. Combine that with the cost of PC gaming hardware accelerating far faster than console gaming hardware and there really isn't anything that indicates that PC gaming will be able to challenge consoles WRT to profit generation for AAA game developers again.

Regards,
SB

 

*at console-level requirements.

 

We have heard under so many years that PC gaming is declining or even dying etc, never happened, only got stronger (as do consoles).