But FSR 2.1 (I don't know about DLSS) additionally provides temporal anti-aliasing. And considering that TAA will always be a bit blurry, FSR holds up incredibly well (in quality mode), while also providing a modest performance boost. It also quite effectively removes aliasing from Hairworks in TW3, so you don't have to rely on MSAA, which makes it actually worth using.

Not right now, but when every computer has the capability to do AI upscaling, It will definitely be the next step into making really good looking games by developing with it as the base.

I agree with number 1. With games becoming too powerful graphically.

​@@Elite7555another weirdo that likes TAA

@@bravish I think so too, and by that point, native resolution's only purpose will be to take close-up screenshots within the game.

It probably doesn't help that DLSS likely requires its own optimization pipeline to look halfway decent.

Where's the proof?

Anything nvidia expect deceptive tactics, and FPS bs was the start of messing with your mind from the industry.. I always played 60-70fps and am one of the best players in LoL, and Battlefield when i played while ago.

exaclty what we knew would happen

@@Bustermachine You're confusing DLSS with TAA. TAA needs to be run within the pipeline to look decent. DLSS and FSR just need TAA to work and are easily implemented.

Yep same here. DL2 has really subpar performance and not much going on to justify it.

Except It does not automatically make Devs extremely lazy. They cannot get way with just FSR/DLSS alone with Zero game optimizations.

Took you a while huh? I've noticed this issue post-Crysis.

DL2 was my first experience with this too. I had a 1080ti (which even now is still quite powerful), and it couldn't hold 60 FPS @ minimum settings on a resolution I had no problems running other demanding games on (I should note my peak was like 43 fps while I stood still and stared at the ground in the intro sequence lmao).

Modern software developers have managed, through sheer incompetence and inertia, to render irrelevant multiple magnitudes of hardware improvements over the past 30 years. I wonder how much electricity is wasted each year because of bad code.

60fps 4k dlss performance with 3080 and 120+fps 4k dlss performance with 4090 does seem the way new games are being optimized for. Makes sense with how many tvs support 4k 120hz now. theres got to be way more people overall buying more 4k 120hz tvs vs 1440p/1080p monitors in 2023.

Except FSR and DLSS is not the problem, Just because FSR and DLSS exists does not mean its a free pass to 100% skip optimizations. It does not automatically make Devs extremely lazy. They cannot get way with just FSR/DLSS alone with Zero game optimizations.

@@Rairosu they are litterally skiping optimization bro .that has we have seen in recent games

Just look at cyberpunks phantom liberty update and starfield. This is BS. The way the gaming industry has gone the less and less I want to play games anymore.

@@NoiceBOB Starfield isn't even going to have DLSS at all on release, please do research first

have you heard of a little submarine called "Titan"?

PCs are now doing what consoles have been doing since the Xbox360/PS3 era: running in low resolutions and trying to act like they're not. Most of that old console era was 720p, even though all our tvs and systems were 1080p - and with xbox one/ps4, it was the same thing, a lot of "adaptive resolution". It's going to suck if this starts to be more commonplace in PC games. I remember being happy that my little 2060 had DLSS, as I figured it would give me a bit more oomph, but it's been a mess in most games that bring it on board, who only bring it to cover problems and not to help broke ass PC gamers like me lol

@@PuncherOfWomenAndMinorities that's a new one. you got the joke but you didn't get it

or reuse condoms

And we all know how that turned out

Sadly better graphics and in-game bells and whistles sell.

True except dlss doesn't even make the game look much better for the hardware requirements. It will get scrapped

And then when a big developer dares to make a game that doesn't conform to the graphical fidelity goose chase, people still bitch about it. Hopefully Fromsoft never listens to these dumbasses.

Literally been an issue for 25+ years (yes I'm old). Obviously upscalers etc didn't exist in the days of BUILD, Quake (1-3) engines and everything from the PC "golden age" c1994 to 2004, but we've always _always_ had issues with studios putting graphics above gameplay. For that matter, there's also _always_ been issues with graphical advances outpacing hardware -- at least for the majority of people. When Quake came out back in the '90s, the vast majority of gamers didn't have graphical acceleration at all, and the ones who did were forced to run the game at low settings and in a reduced screen window. The 2000s to mid 2010s were the happy medium of cheap graphics tech and engines that ran great and looked great... But now we seem back to the late '90s-early '00s era of lazy devs and engines outpacing affordable tech once again. Just saying, from someone who's been gaming since the goddam 1980s, this is nothing new.

proven by how the publishers and what not have collectively said "don't expect all games to be this good" when baldur's gate III came out

Except FSR and DLSS is not the problem, Just because FSR and DLSS exists does not mean its a free pass to 100% skip optimizations. It does not automatically make Devs extremely lazy. They cannot get way with just FSR/DLSS alone with Zero game optimizations.

You don't know what Nanite is

Nanite IS optimization

What Nanite has to do with it? The thing is a real optimization for geometrical objects

Welcome to the next generation. I remember when everyone was "forced" to upgrade their machines when everything was suddenly created for 3d video cards And people cried just as much about being "forced" to upgrade.

This!

this is not how graphics API work. they are too different.

@@DiogoManteu I'd advise you to do your research. They arent. Hell, Intels GPU's do this all the time by converting older DX calls to 12. Thats why recent Intel GPU's dont perform as well on older DX versions.

@@silvy7394 that's not on the game or engine programmer.

@@DiogoManteu It is if they're so fucking lazy they wont convert their game to 12 and instead just translate 11 calls to 12. Or not develop for 12 and kill performance on cards like Intel's. Get out of here 🤡🤡. You dont know shit.

Yeah, the same graphic not even realistic as realistic it is

Yeah I mean, older games that look incredible came out during the RTX 2000~ or hell even the GTX 1000 series, even the best looking games these days dont really hold a candle to Red Dead Redemption 2 which came out on the PS4/Xbone which were running on hardware significantly less powerful than the best PC hardware at the time- and it still ran at a very solid framerate. Meanwhile if you tried playing RDR2 on PC when it came out (and even now really) it runs like dogshit on pc hardware that's multiple times more powerful than those old consoles... No matter how much power you have, if the game devs didn't properly optimize their game, it wont matter, look at the original dark souls 1 for example, that thing brought even RTX 2080's to its knees in blighttown, despite looking like an early PS3/Xbox360 title. It's true that this generation of Graphics cards have been absolute dogwater though, RTX 3060 Ti outperformining it's successor the 4060 Ti is fucking pathetic and laughable, and Nvidia should be ridiculed for it at every opportunity. Literally the only card that offers significant gains on its predecessor is the 1000$+ 4090, which is bullshit.

One big culprit is ultra HD textures. Which players will not even notice until they're hugging an object. You see this problem with Higwarrts and, RE4 remake. VRAM is gobbled up to store textures to an insane degree. Turning textures down actually fixes performance while barely changing visuals. Hogwarts in particular you will not notice a difference between ultra high and arguably even medium texture settings.

@@WelcomeToDERPLAND I played dark souls remastered on 1660 TI laptop and an RTX2080 and I can’t ever remember frame dips or stuttering on either system. 1660ti was 1080p max settings and 2080 was 1440p max settings. I definitely had to turn down settings with my 970m laptop to get 60fps at 1080p though, ps3 and 360 ran that game at 30fps 720p, with frequent dips into slideshow territory.

@@MechAdv Key word: Remastered The Remaster fixes most of the performance issues. The prepare to die edition is what kills fps, specifically in blighttown.

My rule of thumb is 1.5yrs after a sp title release. This usually is enough time for all the dlc for the game to be released and issues to be worked out. MP? Well that is a shitshow because you gotta get in early on MP to not miss out before population drips which it almost inevitably does.

I was so close to pre ordering Remnant 2 because of how much I liked the first game and how well it run. But I was glad I backed out after the early access benchmarks came out, then I went to the subreddit and after seeing that post from the devs my fears were confirmed.

Tell that to all the dumb masses still pre-ordering xD

That's what i did with Elden Ring, it was running poorly for people at launch but right now after multiple patches it's running damn nice at 1440p/high/60fps with very small rare drops.

@@Dregomz02 Ye Elden Ring was the first game that I ever purchased and played Day 1 and I got burned. Waited a couple months and played it when it ran well. Never again though lol

I've actually heard from people who code, and a few developers with experience note they learned a lesson at some point that you should optimize early. If you don't, you have to go through the whole project optimising everything when you could have built it up from the ground up on a framework of proper optimisation. It can make sense that while learning a new engine or gaming device that the bloat comes in as mistakes during the learning process. But eventually, general experience along especially with experience with the engines and platforms should lead to teams knowing what they are doing at project inception. You would see this progression with older versions of Windows and game consoles; advanced games that ran better than the previous ones on those systems. UE5 just came out last year, PlayStation 5 in late 2020. (Maybe Xbox series x is a big technical change, I just wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't that much of a difference compared to xbox one and windows 10..and now 11. And the switch was built on older tech even when released around 6 years ago now. But the ps5 is the popular thing folks have to work around now) I would say it hasn't been enough time, but that would be excusing all the bad launches throughout the 2010s. It appears to be that greater graphical fidelity is demanded even when that same level of fidelity takes twice or four times the effort and performance, while giving diminishing returns in terms of actual satisfaction when....so many popular games played online with others are years and years old now and run on potatoes and toasters. Do they just have to keep hiring more and more new people to make it all happen on a tight schedule? Well we know the answer to that already, yes, it's yes. So it seems that AAA devs are in a perpetual cycle of learning how to do things and by the time they've built up experience, something new comes along that is even more expensive both computationally and effort/logistics wise, along with studios closing down and people constantly shuffled and.... I suspect they just never get to that point of competence. And if they were to spend the money to somehow do that on time.... maybe they wouldn't profit? We could just use 10 years with no new additions to the whole process....just, take a break and work things through, straighten the kinks out, and see the quality rise back up before moving forward. After all, it's not like anyone is demanding 8K, and surely we've finally hit the top mark and into the real area of diminishing Graphical returns? Right....right?!?!

You are wrong, we must develop with optimization in mind from the beginning, because if you schedule a 3-day development requirement that just works and nothing else, you will have a lot of work to do to rewrite your code later, I am a software developer and that is correct. It's about thinking first about the best performance of your code.

Consumers buying a game in alpha state: "Wtf this game is poorly optimized..." Devs: "..."

@@chillinchum For sure, people always expect too much from the beginning of a new generation. There is a sweet spot, though. 2009-2011 is my favorite example when it felt like devs really had a solid handle on the current tech *just* before new hardware rendered their progress meaningless. And then there's MGSV and the venerable Fox Engine, which seemingly blows a massive hole into this theory

Mordhau went from UE4 to UE4.5 and the game became a fair bit smoother fps-wise when it happened, at least on my power gamer AMD rig from 2+ years ago, big battles with loads of real players still puts a big burden on my cpu however due to the insane numbers of computations but still.

Doesn't UE5 have better performance at the same quality level?

@@arcticfox037 its all about how its used and who's working on it, until the engine automates literally everything and auto optimises it, which is still a decade or more away, maybe ue7 or 8, competent devs will still need to work on polish and optimisation.

@@arcticfox037 Ue5 without using Nanite or lumen will perform almost the exact same as ue4, its when turning these more expensive features on where the optimization is felt. They are more expensive, but have no limit to their ability when they are used. So more expensive, but more capability from lumen and nanite

not the gpu manufacturers fault. the game devs are using cool features like dlss & fsr as an excuse to not properly optimize their games. Like a lot of people said they would when it first got announced.

@@hypnotiqnvidia is also guilty of this issue of slacking off due to dlss, the 4060 is a garbage graphics card because it literally depends on dlss to get good fps

@@hypnotiq I disagree, the pipeline for GPUs, graphics engines, and game development, is too interlinked to say that the problem sits solely in the lap of any one of the three. They're all to blame.

@@Bustermachine also very true

@@hypnotiq its a mix of both. nvidia and game devs are both at fault

Yeah, I can definitely see that. I’m sure some game devs enjoy their jobs but at the end of an 8 hour shift or longer you just wanna get tf home, especially if the needed work is unpaid.

Yep. Optimization is not easy and it takes a lot of time. People want games quickly and those at the top want them released quickly. FSR/DLSS is being used as a way to get it playable sooner and out the door. If it sells well, it gets optimized and patched. If not, maybe it gets optimized down the road or maybe it doesn't.

Sadly, they don't get optimized in a patch. Often (for me anyway) patches end up making it even worse than launch.

@@michaeldeford1335 if it sells well without controversy related to performance why would a company spend money on optimization (and they wont), it isnt used to get games out the door quicker to patch it later, its just used as a crutch to get games out the door for the sake of early release.

Same here and I've had similar experiences being a backend dev. Normally it isn't the lead dev/scrum master who wants to leave it out but someone up in middle/upper management who decides that the costs & effort outweigh the benefits even if the devs disagree. I've had countless arguments with these people on how much effort things take and they seem to think I'm purposefully putting way too much time down. They literally have no clue

Except FSR and DLSS is not some dark magic wizardry that makes optimizations just magically work right out the gate.

Technologies like nanite and lumen aren't things you just turn on and see if they work on different hardware, they are complex codebases that apply differently to every single object, scene, and asset in the game, and typically are intertwined in a 100-step optimization process that affects every line of code and every type of hardware that could possibly be released on.

It's a total contradiction of what raytracing was supposed to add to the games. Raytracing = better accuracy of shadows & reflections for "high picture quality", but lower fps, D.L.S.S = "worse picture quality" by removing the accuracy of things like AA, AF, shadows, & draw distance, but higher fps.

@@kevinerbs2778 Modern AA was already removing details, with methods like TAA creating ghosting and blurring the whole picture. I honestly think DLSS and FSR are the best kind of anti aliasing at high resolutions, since MSAA is so heavy on the framerate and TAA doesn't look good imo.

​@@meuhtalgearYou don't even need AA at higher resolutions like 4k. Downscaling just makes you image look like dogshit. Its something you don't really want if you play at higher res

Cringe take. This happens because of console culture that is based on locked 30 or 60 fps. DLSS is not responsible for the developers picking one over the other, and in most cases still being unable to deliver.

​@@evaone4286the need for AA isn't resolution bound but based on screen size and resolution. 7" 1080p doesn't need AA cause your eyes can't make out jagged edges.

Facts Amazing how we’re blaming hardware for poor quality games

@@Ober1kenobi Are you trying to say the hardware that's been put out recently is good and up to standard? In my opinion it is very much a case of both groups being in the wrong.

I've been saying this forever

People with 8GB videocards, and PC gamers in general, need to lower their expectations of console ports. Making a game is extremely hard work, and to accuse game developers of being lazy is just honestly completely ignorant. The optimization argument is getting blown out of proportion. Would you rather wait three more months before it releases? If you want it to be better optimized, just wait three more months, and it will typically be much better optimized by then, if it wasn't well optimized to begin with. It's much more important that the game is actually a good game than to have it super well optimized, and this looks to be a VERY good game. Making a game really well optimized for PC can be very difficult for a game that's first developed for the PS5. Making sure that the game will run really well on the PC will give the game designers more restrictions, and will make it harder for them to optimize the game for the PS5.

@@thee-sportspantheon330 Hardware can only advance so much per generation. Nothing can be done about that. Game devs are choosing to add technology that GPUs are having trouble keeping up with, along with just making their games unoptimized. An RTX 4090 shouldn't have any trouble running any game 4K maxed out, but sadly, it does on a few "AAA" games. When you pay THAT much for a GPU, you shouldn't have to use upscaling technology just to get good FPS.

to be fair. unreal engine 5 nanite is incredible technology (zero pop in)

@@legendp2011 to be fair, maybe nanite isn't worth it then if it makes the game unplayable without upscaling technologies.

@@thelastgalvanizer up to the developers. I personally find pop in is more distracting than modern DLSS, but I can understand it's a personal preference. using nanite also probably reduced the budget (helpful for a small team with limited resources). No nanite means a team would have to create 5x more objects to manage LOD transitions (also every-time they make a new object, they than have to create all the different LOD models, slows down development) nanite doesn't just fix pop in. it also saves a huge amount of time and resources for developers. I can understand why they used nanite

​@@legendp2011For the record, LOD creation is practically automatic, and the number of people who would be able to tell the difference between Nanite and good LOD levels is... Literally 0, you can't since LOD levels are determined by distance from render view.

Nanite is kind of an enigma. It can be more costly than traditional LODs when it comes to less complex scenes. But when geometric density, and especially object density reaches a certain level, it can end up being cheaper and more performant. It really comes down to use cases and optimization. And surely there could be implemented a kind of quality scaling setting for nanite that allows for more or fewer polygons overall, or for fewer polygons in the distance. It could be like standard quality options we have in traditional games. Why does it have to be so locked down?

Paying more for less is better then the more you spend the more you save.

DLSS 3 is actually locked via software on the non-40 series GPUs, nvidia is truely doing this only for pure gain

Intel Battlemage had better be competitive. They are our last hope.

Either that or use a console lol. I'm so pissed that the Xbox series S runs games better my 3090 desktop. The console litteraly only has 4 terrflops of performance!

@@vogonp4287 Intel is essentially a year behind Nvidia and AMD. Battlemage is going to be launching when RDNA 4 and Blackwell are coming out and it's aiming to compete with current gen not Nvidia's and AMD's next gen. Intel won't be competing against Nvidia's high end either so Nvidia has even more of an incentive to do what they did with the 40 series outside of the 4090 and move all products down one tier while charging more because AMD isn't competing either. It's the same reason why Nvidia just cancelled the 4090 Ti. They have no reason to ever release it because their main competitors are nowhere near close to their level of performance.

unless we have the ability to delete the people that rushes the devs in releasing a game, not gonna happen anytime soon lol

Bro, I’m a software developer, and when I read about various tactics game developers were using way back in the 90’s / 2000’s I am literally blown away by the sheer ingenuity and complexity for which they ended up solving their problems I have NO QUESTION in my mind that modern day developers across the board…aren’t anywhere near as good in regards to writing Efficient Software 😂❤ We were spoiled lol

The problem with Nanite (and UE5 in general) is how bassline heavy it is. Make a blank UE5 scene and look at how poor the framerate is. That said, it's like a freight train - you can load it up will stuff and it won't slow down.

Yeah, because the management side of things is only interested in something to show the investors for a given quarter, so they rush things to release, and of course the developers' priority, when being forced to release a game months or sometimes years ahead of schedule, is to focus on getting the game to an actually functional state, and unfortunately stuff like optimization is usually one of the last steps of the whole process once everything else is done, and they don't even have time to even finish everything else. Upscaling technology isn't the problem here. The problem is capital getting in the way of art, a tale as old as time. Blaming upscaling tech is a weird take, because you know that we'd probably be in the same situation regardless, just with even less playable games.

UE5 has easy preset programmings for a lot of things so they never bother to optimize anything

4) the graphics don't look hardly different/better from a game released 10 years ago, yet we are getting worse and worse performance. Feels like collusion with GPU manufacturers or terrible optimisation to me.

short timeframes are results of idiots still buying halfmade games

You are one of the very few who does acknowledge that the devs basically have to do what the greedy higher ups tell them to. Most people and the content creators only mention the devs when in most cases they are doing what the publisher orders them to.

alot of devs i find for some reason think that dlss on balanced looks just as good as native. so they probs just assume theres not problem using it.

@@mryellow6918 those devs are dumb, they have no clue what game engines can handle and use way too much polys effects etc

I see 0 difference tbh between game with and without nanite if there will be 0 difference in other games we pretty much can consider this thing as useless gimmick probably made only to made devs work easier but for cost of performance.

Nanite is just to power hungry for now. I think it is a great technology for the future, it is too much. Unless the remnant two devs didn’t implement it efficiently, since epic’s demos looked quite good. Lumen seems to be a better technology for current gen gaming.

@@Extreme96PLyeah, devs should focus more on lumen.

@@Extreme96PL nope there are definitely merits to using Nanite. Even though this was my first Nanite experience I could tell right away it looked better. There was little to no shimmering in distant objects, even at 1080p. Distant object detail was maintained so well I couldn't tell when an object was gaining or losing polygons, which I could notice easily in any other game because of their varying levels of LoD implementation. Like how when you walk far enough an object will suddenly be replaced with a lower poly model - that doesn't happen in Nanite. So I legitimately couldn't tell when an object (and it's shadows!) faded in or out of existence, and most importantly object pop-in was non-existant. If I looked past the horrible character models and animation the graphics really did feel like a next-gen thing.

Do you not like unreal engine 5? ( I hate it, I think it's trash, & it makes developers lazy.)

As someone who's an upcoming game dev, I can confirm most people [devs] do care, we want our games to be played how we want them, sadly I agree that the people cracking the whip simply don't care, they don't see games as art they see it as a "product" as something to be done as quickly, cheaply and as profitably as possible If it means that there's a way to almost cheat performance into a game, I can grantee they'll do it, because if there are corners to be cut, they'll cut alright, it's the sad state of some modern games

We need more flat organizations with less management, let the professionals be professional

@@Marsk1tty flat originations aren't the best, they mostly work in small groups, once the groups get big enough power dynamics and invisible hierarchy is created It's good for indie projects but the bigger the game gets the more people is needed than the flat hierarchy can handle

they dont modern devs only know copy n paste and cry

imagine thinking dlss or frame generate are "sliders"... DLSS/FSR is up scaling to reduce resolution of objects that barely or unnotice in a frame (which almost doesnt affect the experience) to boost up performance which gain a TON of experience when you gaming

I don't you'd want it in VR as the artifacts would be more visible.

it is actually embarassing that games are so poorly optimized that i cant get constant 144fps in games on my 4090, in remnant without DLSS its around 80-90 and not most eople are not enthusiast enough to invest in a 700€+ GPU, i have no clue on which systems those Devs actually test their stuff.

Late reply but thats MSI Afterburner

Name one game where dlss looks blurry

Unfortunately the majority of people (and content creators) don't realize how this works behind the scenes, and they only mention the devs, when in reality the vast majority of the horrible anti consumer decisions are made by the publisher and the greedy higher ups.

As a former dev, you should know the problem is also object and pixel density bring too high too.

@@NeoShameMan True. The need to compete with better graphics also causes pressure.

as a consumer that knows my condolences corporate greed f's us both

lol there are plenty of incompetent developers too, easy to use the higher ups as scapegoats...@@J.A.Z-TheMortal

I think DLSS and FSR are the best antialiasing performance wise. At 4k the blur is negligible but ghosting is what annoys me the most.

Fsr is the worst

Not really for ds dlss have better clarity then native res at 4K, and same as cp

The best part is that, when I got remnant 2 jumped on it looked terrible at 1080p, I turned it off. It still looked terrible, so I checked the config files and resolution scaling is automatically set to on at 50%, with no in game slide for it. So you're already running at 540p then upscaling that with performance. So the resolution is fucked

steam charts are from the hardware survery which is just the resolution of the primary monitor

The thing is. Most of the time games get harsher requirements, its because of consoles getting stronger. ATM Consoles are as strong as an i3 12100 and 6700 xt (i know they use a 6700, but console have optimizations on the board itself compared to computers). So in 5 years they will probably be on a way higher level since we have rapid improvements on the soc and other sff components market. So it wouldn't be false to think that the next console generation will be as strong as a current ryzen 5 7600x 4070ti config.

@@FenrirAlter I can see what you mean, and I feel like consoles would be a little more inticing to get if that's the case, compared to gaming PCs

Yeah of course reactionary behaviour will probably take place. The issue isn't that it will stay the same. It's that it doesn't have to get worse before it gets better. Hopefully similar games to BattleBit Remastered comes out that are like a replacement for these higher-budget games. They look much worse and usually this comes with a lot better performance and they may still do other things better as they aren't tied to all the red tape, demands and larger budget to make any changes. That's not to say lower-tier graphics automatically give you better performance, there can still be stuff that slows it down significantly. In Teardown for example the game is very low-res, but stuff like smoke can lag hard. I haven't played that game, but have seen some play it on KZfaq.

I feel devs always keep getting the short end of the sticks for problems they should not be held responsible for. Management at first, and now even hardware manufacturers. It's not the Steve the environment artist's fault Jensen thinks an 10% perf gain on half the bus width is an "upgrade". The 1060 was on par with the 980, the 2060 was on par with the 1080, even 3060 was chewing on the heels of a 2080 non-super. The 4060 can't even beat the 3060 ti, heck it even falls behind the 3060 when vram overflows.

The devs are just as responsible, I'm seeing examples of devs themselves making excuses that we KNOW are full of shit.

@@jaronmarles941 See, software development in general is hard. Try to coordinate 10 people into making a small game and have it done by the end of this week. Impossible. By the end of this week what happend is with a bit of luck everyone has their repo setup and is ready to sta- oh wait, it should have been done by now?? Yeah, people who don't know like to shit on the devs for not making good games. In reality, it's the publishers and the management, they are the root of all evil.

its not because its boring but because it costs money

Optimization is absolutely not boring, it's super fun. I think one of the big issues is the games industry has a lack of engineering talent. Not only is there a lack of engineering, but the bar has been progressively raised due to not only continuously rising expectations of graphics, moore's law dying, introduction of 8/16 core consumer cpus, but also new and harder to use technologies like Vulkan/DX12. It's not uncommon to have a 50 to 1 artist to graphics programmer ratio. Team of 400 people, 250 artists, 5 graphics programmers. Artists start just PILING work on the heap, graphics programmers are like way underwater in work just getting the game to not DEVICE REMOVED because Vulkan was just such a good idea of a technology. OK another story for you, due to lack of graphics programming talent company decides to use unreal, general purpose engine. General purpose means not specialized, ie not optimized. To make this crystal clear, if a game uses unreal, it is unoptimized. Full stop. If the game looks like it has advanced graphics and it uses unreal, prepare to buy a supercomputer. The grand irony is we moved from opengl/dx11 to low level apis, but that raised the barrier to entry high enough to push three quarters the industry to use unreal, which is going to perform worse than a well designed custom opengl/dx11 engine. Company demands graphics that can compete with e.g. red dead redemption. So what do you get? A general purpose engine pushed way past its limits. Not only that but Unreal has the horrific idea to let artists write shader code. They glue together overcomplicated garbage with their lego duplo blueprints despite having never heard of the words 'register' or 'occupancy'. No graphics programming talent to fix it. Might get a cleanup crew contracted near end of project to get it to pass console certification.

Pretty much. The advanced features of the engine cost a lot more as a base, but become more performant in the complexity that they allow. Devs will still need to optimize for CPU, but the graphics side of things arent as big as a deal so long as the scene isnt filled with transparent textures

They also have less complex graphics, good optimization then mean lower texture resolution and variety, less interactive foliage, sand and snow, non dynamic lighting, object that shine in the shadows, less complex geometry, etc... ie... battle bits 😊

I wouldve prefered if AC Odyssey came with fsr instead of me having to run a blurred out 720p

How are they ruining games? Which part of your gaming experience specifically has been ruined by upscalers? Your game looks a little bit worse? That probably saved the devs months of development time in optimization that they put to make other areas of the game better.

@@Ansalion if the game is made for being played at half resolution even on the latest hardware, gamers who don't yet own an rtx will literally not be able to run the game at all lol. And don't respond by telling people to upgrade, gpus are expensive as shit and if you're able to upgrade your pc, congrats, you're privileged as shit.

"Optimized Wildlands" sounds like a joke, but that's okay, at least it scales very well on lower settings for older hardware and had a really massive seamless open world with breathtaking detailed landscapes.

I'm not sure how you are getting those framerates, using an i7 with a 4090 I'm getting about 120fps at 4k

@@gokushivum with no upscaling and framegen off with max settings?

@@darktrexcz Make sure your 4090 is really a 4090 not a 4070 TI undercover

@@parlor3115 I've been building PCs for 20 years, I know what a 4090 is. There's benchmarks on youtube that confirm my framerate. 120fps is with dlss quality and framegen on. Double check your settings, I guarantee those are on.

@@darktrexcz And you got goofed like that. Man you suck

Pretty much this. Raytracing is one of the big use cases for upscaling because initial raytracing cards just had no chance to keep up with actual raytracing at full resolutions, so for that it was a worthwhile trade-off. But with ever-increasing resolutions it instead became a crutch to run even basic graphics on intended resolutions.

finally someone not dumb be saying this since before launch

@@ilovehotdogs125790 I think it could be catching up, but the hardware that actually IS better is overpriced as fuck. Just look at the entire 40 series from Nvidia. It doesnt have the same generational uplift as any previous generation had over its predecessors, it stagnated, sure. But strangely it all falls in line if you call the 4060 a 4050, a 4070 a 4060 and just shift everything one bracket down. They just shifted the numbering scheme and realized they can actually make more money that way.

Yep. 4k killed graphics innovations and performances.

And why did we expect 4k? Because they put a big 4k/8K GRAPHIC ON THE FRONT OF OUR PS5 box. How is this player expectation?

Damn good point I didn’t consider this.

Which is a shame, the 1080ti is still a beast and with its 11GB vram could still last a lot longer.

This is what a comment looks like from someone who got his education from a kellogs box. And they're still looking for the toy at the bottom.

​@@ravenpearce9849dudes completely right what are you on about

@@ANGER2077 I don't disagree with everything, however it's important to note that if we want raw smooth performance people will need to purchase more expensive hardware that often most either cannot afford or are not comfortable with the cost. DLSS and FSR isn't just a "fake frame" generator, but when you look close to the details they actually will also fill in the gaps where some animations (let's say character movement) without would have slightly choppy movement due to the time it takes for your hardware to output an image before the next frame. But with DLSS or FSR enabled, these "fake frames" actually end up filling in those gaps which 'can' provide a smoother user experience (depending how you have your game setup). I was stating that with the scale of which games are growing, you will often either need one of two things to compensate. Either more power, so a better card that can handle the raw performance and provide a smooth user experience, or technology such as DLSS and FSR which can offer a significant improvement without the need to dish out extra funds. You have the choice and can pick whatever poison you'd like. I'm not sure if you've noticed but there's an "Off" option too for these games that suggest the use of DLSS or FSR. If we want devs to magically wrangle up performance in a title that may require more without these features, sorry but your experience won't be too great. But if you believe so you are more than welcome to go out there, become a game developer, and I encourage you to prove me wrong.

That has been a trend with anything that's meant to be a bonus Being able to update the game: In the past any bug that slipped through to release would be in the game forever, future runs would get bugfixes, but if you bought the first run, any bug there would stay unless you bought a newer copy. It ended up making devs not care about finishing the game before release and updating it after launch DLC: It allows devs to add stuff they got halfway through but couldn't finish before release, maybe a new map, some extra levels or the like. It ended up leading to studios adding day one DLC or even including it upon release and charging for unlocking Microtransactions: Great for F2P games or stuff that costs too much to mantain like MMORPGs. Ended up being added to full price titles

Its all good, i lost interest in the triple a game industry, all they do is pop out soulless cash grabs, let them die out instead

It's the same story as always. It's sad.

Ive been hearing this garbage since the ps3 era. Im tired of it. Fuck them, hold em accountable. I don’t buy a TV and forgive them for the shit not working.

>Indie games aren't usually held back by greedy CEOs and investors because they work as they please. Something not right? Delay, fix, tada. No issues. >Big company games just want money, so hype up something, set a public deadline, fuck over your employees, absolutely no delays, and haha! You already pre-ordered it! NO REFUNDS! :

Time to unionize i guess. Or start a platform that incentivizes gamers to mass boycott something and it works 100% of the time.

I think it's wrong to put all the blame on game devs. Hardware is fundamental.

@@thecamlayton I'm not trying to blame the devs. I'm sure the devs are trying to make the best games with the newest tech avaliable to them but if the average persons hardware can't keep up it'll continue like that. In this case I'm blaming the Hardeware companies.

@@thecamlayton bruh stop d*ckriding. these devs nowadays are there for a paycheck and agree to switch to ue5 and just slap on their assets and move on. modern devs in the triple a scene are mindless sheep who do as told and you all buy it up.

@@thecamlayton back then devs use to work dedicated to get their game to work. modern times allow unfinished games and patch it over time.

​@@diddykong7354that's literally been the case for at least the past 20 years

But the expensive GPU still does give better results compared to less expensive GPUs? Less expensive GPUs are even more reliant on upscalers compared to your expensive GPU. You’re comparing it against some imagined standard that doesn't actually exist.

@@AnsalionThe more expensive cards may be managing to run native for now, but for how long? It's not like developers never abused a clutch in the past, right? And I can see how optimizing graphics across different levels of hardware isn't an easy task, but the majority of gamers have the cheaper hardware still, so they should be the reference point to run native. You may build the best looking game of its time but, if people can't run it, you will certainly hear about it (cough, cough, Cyberpunk 2077, cough, cough),

AMD doesn’t even want itself to succeed. They could have EASILY smashed the entire 40 series line up except the 4090, but no, they went for the bare minimum “good enough to get sales” approach and completely uncompetitive pricing model.

yeah, bro, try rdr2 with 4K VSR and FSR quality with optimized settings, stays at 50~ FPS and the game become gorgeous, RX 5700 still rocks

Instead of upscaling just undervolt the card.

@@Gen_X_Gamer_79 lol, that's not anywhere close to the energy reduction DLSS or similar tools get

@@malloot9224 I don’t use the upscalers since I have a 7900XTX. The make some of the games look like trash. I was playing Tekken 8 at 4K it was ghosting terribly.

Isn't that cloud gaming?

@@RexGuard yes

You will own nothing and be happy

NVIDIA will push GeForce Experience down people’s throats in a few years and it’s gonna be HILARIOUS

You can also see the huge difference in performance

It's not Hardware producers job to make game devs understand how to use it, it's not smart to "stop innovating", to hold back and not progress technology for half a decade. That's the opposite of smart. Just imagine what phone and tech you would be using now if nothing came out the last 5 years.

5 years is a difference between late Bulldozers and Zen 2. Compare how Kaveri APUs struggled with PS3 era games in 720p and how Steam Deck's APU runs pretty much anything you throw at it at 720p. That's 5 years of difference. The issue is not in hardware, but in shortcuts corporations are willing to take to make that 10.4% ROI jump to 10.5%. The issue is not in devs not willing to polish games they make, but in publishers who are constantly breathing down their necks. And in "capital G Gamers", who massively buy rushed and annually released things they call "games" and micro/macrotransactions in them. When I said some 3 years ago that DLSS will make final games unoptimized and of course game corporations will rely on this technology to make games just playable I was jumped on by Nvidia cucks. And the smartest move is simple. Don't preorder games. Don't hype on unreleased games. Wait until release and call out on mistakes made. It's just as simple as no sucking off corporations, because they don't give a flying fuck about you, and yet some people are defending them more than anything else.

Don't get me wrong i do not believe that programmers (or game designers) experimenting with these features is a bad thing in itself as it can bring new found life into an older 10 series card. It is bad when it is used incorrectly like lots of games now do and ignore blatant base performance issues

Get a RX 6700xt or 6750xt the additional 4GB VRAM and faster baseline performance far outweighs DLSS especially because the AMD cards are less expensive and you can still use FSR2.2.

I agree, if DLSS doesn't interest you and all you do is game, you're going to be very happy with a 6700 XT or 6750 XT!

Amd cards do not have a lot of problems.

nvidia fanboys happened.

If they using unreal engine 5 with all the new techs like lumen, nanite, virtual shadow maps, tsr, etc. than no it will not run well on a 2070ti if they don‘t use upscaling. These techs are running around 30-60 fps depending on the use case on the current console gen which are close hardware so they can optimize it way better. Your System is probably running way worse than a ps5 so yeah i will not run well.

@@Shiv0rDoesn’t even look that good

Real question - does ANYONE ever use ray tracing? The only time I have ever seen someone choose to play with Ray tracing, is streamers on the first 10 minutes of the game, then they turn it off because the FPS is too low with it on

IMO a big part of the problem is game programing and game art have both become so extremely complicated that the amount of people with a decent cross section of both (technical artists) are too rare. So the art department just dumps a bunch of unoptimized stuff in the game and the engineers are too busy to care or say anything about it.

Based opinion.

Ergo, these useless as devs are fucking lazy, and would rather not put the effort in to ensure their product works on as many different hardware configs as possible. Surprise, surprise.

100% agree. I'm just not gonna buy a game where the devs expect you to use DLSS to compensate for awful optimization.