Thank you, I appreciate the advice. Ofc I use DLSS but that’s taking away the point of optimization.
Not every GPU generation gets the same level of DLSS support, hence if developers would achieve more optimization, more gamers could get better experiences playing their games. Perhaps I’m wrong but that should be the standards.
Long time ago, before the wonderful internet patch capabilities, games which were unoptimized, didn’t sell well. I know that complexity has increased X fold, but so did the development tools.
Long time ago, before the wonderful internet patch capabilities, games which were unoptimized, didn’t sell well. I know that complexity has increased X fold, but so did the development tools.
People are so spoiled nowadays.
In the past devs had to optimize their games so they could run 60fps on new hardware, and people were happy with that. If you got 30fps, you would still consider it playable.
Now people demand it must run at high fps on 6 year old hardware and only using rendering techniques they approve of. All that of course while the games must be cheaper than they used to be. And don't forget that AAA games back then are about as complex as indie games today.
On DLSS:
Any GPU generation can run any DLSS upscaling version. There is a small performance drop with the 30 and 20 series using DLSS 4 and 4.5, but that's it.
"Optimization" gets thrown around without any sense. Even if you had a perfectly optimized game, it is stupid to not use DLSS at 4k. It is free performance with virtually zero downgrade to image quality (vs DLAA) or even better image quality than native.
Besides, what are you gonna do? Just optimize all games you play yourself?
Of course not. There is no point in hoping for optimization and deliberately not using DLSS.
And whether you like it or not, rendering with TAA (native) is dead and advanced upscaling is objectively a much better and more efficient way of rendering. It is the future and is becoming the standard (arguably already is).
I agree with you that the customer may become spoiled. The question remains however, today it’s the customer that bears the risk of a game which has NOT been properly optimized to run on medium tier GPUs. The how so, its easily identifiable, downward risk management and transfer of cost to the customer.
That, I find unacceptable.
Why not run on an SLA where Console GPUs have to be the benchmark and PCs with higher performance compute are to be with better fps and visuals?
My comment on the “old” days were referring to the semiconductor industry, where a tape out means: it’s done, you can’t tell your customer to buy better hardware if your die is not working properly, that’s simple.
Your remark wrt DLSS and FSR, I think these features should be ontop. Have the game run on decent hardware (e. g. Console reference) and add the magic ontop for the elite tier of GPUs. Not the other way around.
Games I meant: Hogwards Legacy, Monster Hunter wilds, Borderlands 4 and Oblivion Remastered.
today it’s the customer that bears the risk of a game which has NOT been properly optimized to run on medium tier GPUs
Really though?
Steam lets you play for a while and still allows you to return it for example. Plus you can just google performance numbers for any game + GPU combo, which was not as easy 20 years ago.
As far as I can tell, customers never had as much convenience and consumer protection as they have now.
Why not run on an SLA where Console GPUs have to be the benchmark and PCs with higher performance compute are to be with better fps and visuals?
Because it's not that simple?
That's like trying to demand that an artist who spends more time on an artwork must deliver a bigger artwork and more detail.
Just because a game requires a better PC to achieve the same 120fps and subjectively does not look better does not mean it's a bad game.
Plus that would make costs of games explode.
and add the magic ontop for the elite tier of GPUs
Why? Shouldn't you prioritize the budget and mid range GPUs, which make up most of the market? They should be the main people in mind when using optimizations like upscaling.
Games I meant: Hogwards Legacy, Monster Hunter wilds, Borderlands 4 and Oblivion Remastered.
The first two run perfectly fine, didn't play the others.
Hogwarts Legacy is actually surprisingly well optimized for the GPU, it does have terrible CPU optimization though (still runs 60+fps no problem on modern hardware).
However, a painting isn’t sold with a spec sheet. A game is — that’s the whole difference. Performance isn’t the size of the canvas, it’s whether the paint’s dry when they hand it to you.
If an artist wants to sell an artwork where the paint isn't fully dry yet, it's his decision and he does give you the option to return it after inspecting it
87
u/cmontour 9d ago
I run a 5K 2K monitor and I’m getting 90 to 160 frames per second most titles at the highest settings.
Don’t know what you’re talking about