Support NeoGAF

[Marty-McFly]

I know this subject might be met with great derision on an enthusiast forum like this, where the DF crowd dissect every bit of performance advantage, but for the gaming layman, the casual, the difference in graphics in games like this is not all that substantial. I don't really notice much of a difference myself and I'm a long time gamer, especially relative to previous generations.

Doom is a good example because it's incredibly well optimised game that runs on hardware of vastly different levels of power.



The fact of the matter is this is the same game with a performance advantage on the PS4 Pro. No serious cutbacks had to be made completely changing the game. I think one of the the reasons the Switch has taken off the way it has.

According to Digital Foundry, the Alien Isolation Switch port is actually superior to the PS4/X1 versions of the game in most respects




In the old days of gaming, performance advantages were so vast comparing platforms like Xbox and PS2,

they were nearly entirely different games



or even the following generation, and this was considered top tier ports at the time

(Ridiculous screencap btw, but the video is very telling)



Or even comparing mobile technology of the past to consoles





Sure there are some terribly unoptimised Switch ports out there that look and run like absolute garbage, but these tend to be from games that ran on sub optimal engines to begin with (see Ark, Outer Worlds), and even in the worst cases, still not nearly as bad as generations prior.

Granted, the new machines blow the Switch away in terms of raw horsepower, but visually the impact is not the same because the reality is, in this day and age game engines are much more scaleable and returns are diminishing.

This will only become increasingly evident every generation ahead of us.

 

[Husky]

Watching that DF Alien Isolation video's an odd experience. The narrator is telling me the Switch looks better, but my eyes are showing me an image that's much worse than the comparison image at its side. I don't like seeing a fuzzy image.

Anyway OP's still correct. It does kinda suck though, that we're done making leaps and bounds. The jump from PS2 to PS3 looks so much more significant than the multi-gen jump from PS3 to PS5.

 

[Aldric]

Switch games still look noticeably uglier than titles on dedicated home consoles but yeah we're definitely approaching a wall in terms of visual prowess I think. A shit movie game like The Order 1866 which is an early PS4 game doesn't look nearly as dated today as say the first Uncharted in comparison to early PS4 games.

Now if they do release a DLSS Switch differences will be even less apparent between generations.

 

[mhirano]

Very true statement.
The Switch let Nintendo game design genious shine.
The hybrid console surely is weak but it still has the best-in-class games.

 

[Zannegan]

I've been hoping that the big boys would try to counter the small visual jumps (as viewed via Youtube on a phone screen anyway) by flexing their CPUs and putting out more interactive, expansive, physics and "AI" driven game hooks.

Alas, I'm afraid game publishers will just lean even more heavily into A. Hollywood-style trailers and B. paid influencers.

 

[ReBurn]

It's just my opinion but there are probably more examples of less impressive Switch ports than more impressive ones. Mortal Kombat 11 and the Crash Bandicoot trilogy are two examples where the PS4 versions show what more capable hardware can do. If we're being honest even Doom Eternal doesn't prove what you're saying it proves. It only proves that sometimes for some people Switch is good enough.

The returns aren't really diminishing. Switch just doesn't hold it's own against more powerful machines. Smaller screens probably make the drop in graphic fidelity hard to see so that masks the shortcoming. The only real reasons to have one in almost every case are to be able to take a game you like with you or to play the games you can't get on other systems. But the second one is probably the reason most people buy it. I bought one because it's how I play Mario Kart with friends. Because it's fun.

 

[Marty-McFly]

It's just my opinion but there are probably more examples of less impressive Switch ports than more impressive ones. Mortal Kombat 11 and the Crash Bandicoot trilogy are two examples where the PS4 versions show what more capable hardware can do. If we're being honest even Doom Eternal doesn't prove what you're saying it proves. It only proves that sometimes for some people Switch is good enough.

The returns aren't really diminishing. Switch just doesn't hold it's own against more powerful machines. Smaller screens probably make the drop in graphic fidelity hard to see so that masks the shortcoming. The only real reasons to have one in almost every case are to be able to take a game you like with you or to play the games you can't get on other systems. But the second one is probably the reason most people buy it. I bought one because it's how I play Mario Kart with friends. Because it's fun.

How can you possibly look at older multiplat ports from other generations and come to this conclusion?

Even with top of the line port jobs like Call of Duty it wasn't just performance, they had to remove full scenes, drastically lower polygon counts, completely remove effects, buildings, textures, set pieces, npc's.

 

[packy34]

How can you possibly look at older multiplat ports from other generations and come to this conclusion?

Even with top of the line port jobs like Call of Duty it wasn't just performance, they had to remove full scenes, drastically lower polygon counts, completely remove effects, buildings

There's a lot of context missing here. You're assuming COD was a "top of the line" port just because Activision makes so much money on it every year... but they tend to cheap out on things like this. Even up to a couple years ago, they barely put any effort into PC ports. Now they tout basic features like "ultrawide" and "uncapped FPS" as major improvements. So, that's the bar we're working with.

In this specific case, we have a COD title developed for HD consoles being ported down to a SD console that is not only substantially weaker than the others, but also done as cheaply as possible to minimize risk.

 

[Marty-McFly]

There's a lot of context missing here. You're assuming COD was a "top of the line" port just because Activision makes so much money on it every year... but they tend to cheap out on things like this. Even up to a couple years ago, they barely put any effort into PC ports. Now they tout basic features like "ultrawide" and "uncapped FPS" as major improvements. So, that's the bar we're working with.

In this specific case, we have a COD title developed for HD consoles being ported down to a SD console that is not only substantially weaker than the others, but also done as cheaply as possible to minimize risk.

This is in no way true whatsoever. The Wii COD games were miracles considering engine scalability at the time and the fact that 360 and PS3 blew the Wii away in terms of power. Probably the best HD to Wii ports of high fidelity AAA games on the console. They were heralded as fantastic ports for the most part, just greatly inferior to their HD counterparts. The machine (and the times) just wouldn't allow for anything more.

 

[AnotherDayAnotherDollar]

This is part of the reason I think the PS5Pro/XBoxSeries X update would benefit more by being a hybrid than just adding more power. Maybe they can do both (add more power and be a hybrid). But if I had to choose between A) Add an insane amount of power like they did the PS4 and XBox One or B) Add a bit of power and give us a hybrid I would choose B. No brainer to me.

 

[Marty-McFly]

This is part of the reason I think the PS5Pro/XBoxSeries X update would benefit more by being a hybrid than just adding more power. Maybe they can do both (add more power and be a hybrid). But if I had to choose between A) Add an insane amount of power like they did the PS4 and XBox One or B) Add a bit of power and give us a hybrid I would choose B. No brainer to me.

True, but I think what prohibits this from happening is uncertainty. Neither MS or Sony want to risk their position in the arms race against each other and become a competitor to Nintendo's space.

 

[Hobbygaming]

We'll be laughing at how some thought there wouldn't be a big leap in visuals this generation

Give it a year or 2. A few games show a great leap already

 

[Fahdis]

Whether you guys like it or not... with 1TB to 2TB network connections, WiFi 6, 5G and Starlink becoming real, the future is in cloud gaming with crisp fidelity, 4K-8K resolutions and 120 Fps gaming. When it becomes cheap af, we all win since you could play it on your favorite storefront.

But the downside to this is that everything will be digital, multiple storefronts trying to buy exclusivity of every game and you will never own anything, not that you did anyways since its a copy of the license. We are indeed blessed and fucked at the same time.

I swear playing GeForce Now right now and it feels like playing in the living room but stuck with 1080P but everything turned to max.

 

[Marty-McFly]

We'll be laughing at how some thought there wouldn't be a big leap in visuals this generation

Give it a year or 2. A few games show a great leap already

Every generation ends with more impressive looking games, but it's not just due to hardware. Development software support continues to improve during the course of every generation. Switch games will look better in 3 years as well, even if the hardware remains the same. People somehow still think Breath of The Wild is the best we'll ever see on Switch when it's basically the first game, a Wii U game, which is significantly less modern architecture than the Switch.

The greater point is that while games continue to improve visually, the rate at which they are improving is slowing down and has been for several generations. Couple this with the improved scalability of games nowadays, and it's easy to see why gamer's are not too put off by Switch's visuals to continue buying it in droves.

 

[AnotherDayAnotherDollar]

True, but I think what prohibits this from happening is uncertainty. Neither MS or Sony want to risk their position in the arms race against each other and become a competitor to Nintendo's space.

This is a good point. Even though it won't affect 90% of users, the marketing for "most powerful console" would be undisputed.

Whether you guys like it or not... with 1TB to 2TB network connections, WiFi 6, 5G and Starlink becoming real, the future is in cloud gaming with crisp fidelity, 4K-8K resolutions and 120 Fps gaming. When it becomes cheap af, we all win since you could play it on your favorite storefront.

But the downside to this is that everything will be digital, multiple storefronts trying to buy exclusivity of every game and you will never own anything, not that you did anyways since its a copy of the license. We are indeed blessed and fucked at the same time.

I swear playing GeForce Now right now and it feels like playing in the living room but stuck with 1080P but everything turned to max.

Unless they can have data centers every 20 miles then I think latency would still be an issue. And then there's the issue of multiplayer games too. If the game is not hugely popular and they have to match someone in FL playing against someone in Chicago then latency will be an issue even if they have data centers every mile throughout the country.

If they can't solve the latency problem then it'll make every game besides turn based ones a bit unfeasible. That is the biggest obstacle for cloud gaming IMO. I agree cloud gaming is the future though.

 

[martino]

that DF video about Alien isolation is really about preferences ....
do you prefer image stability or detail in it ?
in my case i would say depend of base resolution and switch is too low here. I think i prefer more shimmering with more texture detail in this case.
(And since warrior are sith dealing in absolute they can see that the DF point in this video is valid, pixel resolution vs quality is mix of resolution and AA technics. there is no absolute anwser and it's why the result and preference can vary on a per game basis and also why for PS3 era resolution was way more important because of state of both)

 

[Scotty W]

We'll be laughing at how some thought there wouldn't be a big leap in visuals this generation

Give it a year or 2. A few games show a great leap already

I don’t doubt that your prediction is correct, but I also think that op is correct about the law of diminishing returns.

From a technical standpoint, and from a hobbyist standpoint, vastly improved visuals are possible. But most of the market is not hobbyist, so are vastly improved feasible from a financial standpoint? That remains to be seen.

 

[ripeavocado]

Anyone that talks about "diminishing returns" and then plays Doom Eternal with an abysimal resolution and framerate on Switch cannot be taken seriously.

 

[ParaSeoul]

You gotta give up at some point.

 

[Marty-McFly]

Anyone that talks about "diminishing returns" and then plays Doom Eternal with an abysimal resolution and framerate on Switch cannot be taken seriously.

So how does Doom Eternal at a relatively stable 30 fps and lower resolution remotely compare to the ports of old that had to sacrafice not only performance, but npc counts, complete absence of textures, lighting, buildings, geometry, entire set pieces, and content?

You're just basically saying I'm wrong because Doom Eternal's performance is not as good while completely ignoring that ports in past generations were so half baked that substantial portions of the game were cut out altogether.

Nothing you said proved me wrong as you are claiming. The exact opposite actually.

 

[Flutta]

Never mind…

 

[FStubbs]

Every generation ends with more impressive looking games, but it's not just due to hardware. Development software support continues to improve during the course of every generation. Switch games will look better in 3 years as well, even if the hardware remains the same. People somehow still think Breath of The Wild is the best we'll ever see on Switch when it's basically the first game, a Wii U game, which is significantly less modern architecture than the Switch.

The greater point is that while games continue to improve visually, the rate at which they are improving is slowing down and has been for several generations. Couple this with the improved scalability of games nowadays, and it's easy to see why gamer's are not too put off by Switch's visuals to continue buying it in droves.

The other thing to add is that a large reason games used to improve so much through the generation was because developers learned how alien stuff like Emotion Engine worked over time.

The last 2 generations Sony and MS have been using x86 AMD CPU and GPUs. Developers already know how to push these systems to the max. (Same with the Switch since it's an off the shelf Tegra).

 

[jigglet]

The answer is yes, companies like Nintendo benefit big time. I've agree with their move away from graphical fidelity for the longest time - I was immediately on the Wii bandwagon from day #1.

But Doom is hardly the best example to put up. It's a technical marvel that they got it running, but in a vacuum it still looks like ass.

 

[Guilhermegrg]

Agree. And I think that the current focus on making games cross gen will also benefit Nintendo.

Sure the games don't even run on the switch now, but on a future switch 2, probably going to launch a "definitive" edition of these games, with all the bugs patched up and all of the dlc.

It's never going to be a PS5 or X, but if it runs close to a PS4 /Pro, with a small screen, it's just money on the table that publishers might take advantage of.

So you won't get the game when it's new, but you'll get the definitive edition with less graphical effects on a portable console. It might work for them

 

[Punished Miku]

Agree. It's going to benefit Nintendo, and MS. We know how Nintendo can maximize profits and ease development by staying behind the bleeding edge, but still stay competitive due to great gameplay design and strong IPs. MS will benefit with the approach of offering S, X or Cloud options.

I realized the switch when I got Xcloud up and running and it actually works pretty dang well. They can literally start selling a $150 chromestick with a controller and get people a way to play Starfield. It might dip in resolution or lag occasionally when the connection dips slightly, but lots of people are just not going to care that much when they have a cheap entry price, and a cheap subscription.

 

[Scotty W]

Anyone that talks about "diminishing returns" and then plays Doom Eternal with an abysimal resolution and framerate on Switch cannot be taken seriously.

I recently played through it on a Switch Lite, and had no complaints about it. I only noticed a bit of slowdown on the final boss. The market at large rejects the standards that hobbyists have.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

This thread won't age well.

We're closer to diminishing returns but Horizon:FW, Demon's Souls and the UE5 demo prove that major leaps in graphical technology to enable insane-looking games are still ahead of us.

We start to hit real major diminishing returns when games aiming for realism start to look so realistic in their graphical presentation that further advancements start to make very little visual difference. We're categorically not there yet.

Horizon:FW and the UE5 demo alone are so far ahead visually of any game released to date, that any claim of diminishing returns this gen becomes clear as rooted in pure fallacy.

And you all should be happy with this! We have eye-melting, mind-blowing looking games to look forward to, once the cross-gen period is over and developer engine and toolchain tech matures. If you're expecting to see the best this current-gen has to offer with this current crop of still effectively launch games, you're simply doing it wrong and drawing foolishly premature conclusions.

Trust developers. They'll bring the goods eventually.

 

[ripeavocado]

I recently played through it on a Switch Lite, and had no complaints about it. I only noticed a bit of slowdown on the final boss. The market at large rejects the standards that hobbyists have.

It's funny, people go nuts if a fps game is not 60fps but not on switch, there it's fine if it's a unstable 30fps and a resolution from 2002

 

[ripeavocado]

So how does Doom Eternal at a relatively stable 30 fps and lower resolution remotely compare to the ports of old that had to sacrafice not only performance, but npc counts, complete absence of textures, lighting, buildings, geometry, entire set pieces, and content?

You're just basically saying I'm wrong because Doom Eternal's performance is not as good while completely ignoring that ports in past generations were so half baked that substantial portions of the game were cut out altogether.

Nothing you said proved me wrong as you are claiming. The exact opposite actually.

a fast paced FPS plays much better with high resolution and 60fps.

Doom has a relatively low NPC count , worse lighting, geometry and it has extremely worse textures.

The resolution standards are unacceptable these days and the framerate awful for a game like Doom.

But people on gaming forums are ok with it, usually the same people that are so fervent about 60fps as a standard.
Why?
It's on a Nintendo.

 

[Scotty W]

It's funny, people go nuts if a fps game is not 60fps but not on switch, there it's fine if it's a unstable 30fps and a resolution from 2002

You are not following me: I have no idea how many fps there are, and I don’t care. I am just happy to play the game.

 

[Hobbygaming]

I don’t doubt that your prediction is correct, but I also think that op is correct about the law of diminishing returns.

From a technical standpoint, and from a hobbyist standpoint, vastly improved visuals are possible. But most of the market is not hobbyist, so are vastly improved feasible from a financial standpoint? That remains to be seen.

From Sony owned studios and some funded 3rd party titles, yes

 

[Scotty W]

From Sony owned studios and some funded 3rd party titles, yes

There must be some reservations. Given Nintendo’s dominance of the Japanese market, it seems that the law of diminishing returns is already hurting output in a bad way.

 

[Hobbygaming]

Every generation ends with more impressive looking games, but it's not just due to hardware. Development software support continues to improve during the course of every generation. Switch games will look better in 3 years as well, even if the hardware remains the same. People somehow still think Breath of The Wild is the best we'll ever see on Switch when it's basically the first game, a Wii U game, which is significantly less modern architecture than the Switch.

The greater point is that while games continue to improve visually, the rate at which they are improving is slowing down and has been for several generations. Couple this with the improved scalability of games nowadays, and it's easy to see why gamer's are not too put off by Switch's visuals to continue buying it in droves.

The PS5 and XSX will show titles in a few years that won't run on the Switch even at low settings, there's a few currently

 

[Hobbygaming]

There must be some reservations. Given Nintendo’s dominance of the Japanese market, it seems that the law of diminishing returns is already hurting output in a bad way.

We've seen what new engines like UE5 will be capable of and then you have stuff like Demon Souls, Spider-man 2, Forspoken, Ratchet and Clank Rift Apart, etc. Visuals are going to get way better

 

[Scotty W]

We've seen what new engines like UE5 will be capable of and then you have stuff like Demon Souls, Spider-man 2, Forspoken, Ratchet and Clank Rift Apart, etc. Visuals are going to get way better

As I said, I don’t doubt the technology, but I have reservations about how much it will cost to make a game in even the best engine.

 

[Punished Miku]

This thread won't age well.

We're closer to diminishing returns but Horizon:FW, Demon's Souls and the UE5 demo prove that major leaps in graphical technology to enable insane-looking games are still ahead of us.

And in 10 years when Nintendo is putting out stuff on par with God of War and The Last of Us 2, people will still be super into it.

 

[Marty-McFly]

The PS5 and XSX will show titles in a few years that won't run on the Switch even at low settings, there's a few currently

There's no doubt that the Switch will miss out on some AAA games that won't make sense for the platform, but that still doesn't change the premise of the thread. The fact that something the size of the tablet from 2017 has gotten the games it has against giant stationary, power hungry consoles and PC's speaks volumes about the scalability of games in modern times. The playing field is just going to become more equal as mobile hardware advances and returns further diminish.

 

[Fahdis]

This is a good point. Even though it won't affect 90% of users, the marketing for "most powerful console" would be undisputed.



Unless they can have data centers every 20 miles then I think latency would still be an issue. And then there's the issue of multiplayer games too. If the game is not hugely popular and they have to match someone in FL playing against someone in Chicago then latency will be an issue even if they have data centers every mile throughout the country.

If they can't solve the latency problem then it'll make every game besides turn based ones a bit unfeasible. That is the biggest obstacle for cloud gaming IMO. I agree cloud gaming is the future though.

I don't think you need datacenters every 20 Miles. The advent of 5G or wireless will be enough. As far as latency goes, we should both ask a Networking Specialist. I bet in 5 more years cloud will be the central focus of gaming.

 

[Marty-McFly]

I don't think you need datacenters every 20 Miles. The advent of 5G or wireless will be enough. As far as latency goes, we should both ask a Networking Specialist. I bet in 5 more years cloud will be the central focus of gaming.

I mostly agree about the idea of a streaming future. It makes too much sense from a Publisher's standpoint. It's a far more cost effective way for the publisher to distribute their software. I think the timeline you propose is too early though. Streaming is too small right now to become the central focus of gaming in 5 years, but it most assuredly will become a much bigger focus in 5 years than it is now.

 

[Fahdis]

I mostly agree about the idea of a streaming future. It makes too much sense from a Publisher's standpoint. It's a far more cost effective way for the publisher to distribute their software. I think the timeline you propose is too early though. Streaming is too small right now to become the central focus of gaming in 5 years, but it most assuredly will become a much bigger focus in 5 years than it is now.

Sure I agree with you but I do think things will progress faster in the West and selective Eastern Countries (hence the focus of the services are there). Places with late implementation are going to be South America, Africa, South Asia and the Middle East. But if Star Link works out... we should see a big rise in Streaming Subs and Regional Stores.

Also look at the cost and form factor. I don't have a PC at the moment. And for $60 or $4.99 a month or a year you can literally play all your games on a service. Which means games will become a lot more accessible and hardware will become a choice. Imagine this for the continents I mentioned. And as AI and Machine Learning progresses, we will see a rise in a lot of fidelity tech.

I do feel like GeForce Now has the best rendition in the fact that you own a license to your games on a storefront and then stream them. But then again nVidia, they do own and make their own hardware, this service alone could become the juggernaut in the future with DLSS and Supersampling DSR on the fly saving even more costs than to have Hardware based resolution upgrades.

At some point of our lives, all you will require is a controller, a screen or a VR headset with a Sub to your favorite storefront. The companies focusing on themselves now will make it, I think Sony and Nintendo are in the worst position so far with the biggest gaming legacies. They need to step up. Before the other giants eat them up.

Either way nice thread.

 

[packy34]

I recently played through it on a Switch Lite, and had no complaints about it. I only noticed a bit of slowdown on the final boss. The market at large rejects the standards that hobbyists have.

Pack it up everyone. We have this guy's anecdotal post about Doom being fine on Switch, so that must mean the majority of the market rejects performance standards.

I'm sure the sales breakdowns and user reviews support this, right?

 

[Marty-McFly]

Sure I agree with you but I do think things will progress faster in the West and selective Eastern Countries (hence the focus of the services are there). Places with late implementation are going to be South America, Africa, South Asia and the Middle East. But if Star Link works out... we should see a big rise in Streaming Subs and Regional Stores.

Also look at the cost and form factor. I don't have a PC at the moment. And for $60 or $4.99 a month or a year you can literally play all your games on a service. Which means games will become a lot more accessible and hardware will become a choice. Imagine this for the continents I mentioned. And as AI and Machine Learning progresses, we will see a rise in a lot of fidelity tech.

I do feel like GeForce Now has the best rendition in the fact that you own a license to your games on a storefront and then stream them. But then again nVidia, they do own and make their own hardware, this service alone could become the juggernaut in the future with DLSS and Supersampling DSR on the fly saving even more costs than to have Hardware based resolution upgrades.

At some point of our lives, all you will require is a controller, a screen or a VR headset with a Sub to your favorite storefront. The companies focusing on themselves now will make it, I think Sony and Nintendo are in the worst position so far with the biggest gaming legacies. They need to step up. Before the other giants eat them up.

Either way nice thread.

Agreed, other than Nintendo and Sony being in the worst positions with streaming. I actually think Nintendo would be in the best position with a service because of their IP. They may not have shown savvy with their online, but that's because it's an afterthought to their business model which is more focused on local social play. It will become increasingly easy to get major streaming services up and running and I have little doubt multi billion dollar companies like Nintendo and Sony will as soon as they determined it's necessary.

 

[Haggard]

Whether you guys like it or not... with 1TB to 2TB network connections, WiFi 6, 5G and Starlink becoming real, the future is in cloud gaming with crisp fidelity, 4K-8K resolutions and 120 Fps gaming. When it becomes cheap af, we all win since you could play it on your favorite storefront.

But the downside to this is that everything will be digital, multiple storefronts trying to buy exclusivity of every game and you will never own anything, not that you did anyways since its a copy of the license. We are indeed blessed and fucked at the same time.

I swear playing GeForce Now right now and it feels like playing in the living room but stuck with 1080P but everything turned to max.

Every gen the same bullshit predictions,
and yet, the laws of physics still apply and make streaming a laggy mess compared to stationary devices for most people except those literally living in the neighborhood of a server center.....
Cloud gaming will never replace stationary hardware for anyone but the most casual gamers.

 

[Marty-McFly]

Pack it up everyone. We have this guy's anecdotal post about Doom being fine on Switch, so that must mean the majority of the market rejects performance standards.

I'm sure the sales breakdowns and user reviews support this, right?

I don't think we have sales breakdowns, but that along with user reviews are fairly irrelevant (the userscore on meta was 8.7 btw). Neither Doom game on Switch released day and date with the other platforms and came much later.

I agree with his assessment though, the games were fantastic to play on a portable. I've also played it on consoles and have a preference for 60 fps, but overall I'm not that bothered with 30 fps and the ability to play it portable was overall a superior value proposition to me.

 

[Fahdis]

Every gen the same bullshit predictions,
and yet, the laws of physics still apply and make streaming a laggy mess compared to stationary devices for most people except those literally living in the neighborhood of a server center.....
Cloud gaming will never replace stationary hardware for anyone but the most casual gamers.

If you have only tried XCloud or PS Now then you have some serious catching up to do fren. And see you in 5 years . Its the first time I am not buying a console or a PC. Literally, just buying games off the storefront and playing them is such an easy way to go.

 

[Marty-McFly]

Every gen the same bullshit predictions,
and yet, the laws of physics still apply and make streaming a laggy mess compared to stationary devices for most people except those literally living in the neighborhood of a server center.....
Cloud gaming will never replace stationary hardware for anyone but the most casual gamers.

Let me blow your mind, most gamers are casual gamers.

 

[balt1kr1s]

Nintendo dominates part of market with no competition within consoles manufacturers.
Handhelds.
Games on their handhelds always looked dated AF but who cares if games are like Breath of the Wild.

 

[Fahdis]

Nintendo dominates part of market with no competition within consoles manufacturers.
Handhelds.
Games on their handhelds always looked dated AF but who cares if games are like Breath of the Wild.

What happens when Steamdeck becomes ARM based through Vulkan Emulation? Can play all your games, can do streaming on a whim, can do remote play on something like DSR or DLSS and does emulation of Nintendo's games at 8K through the port?

 

[Haggard]

Let me blow your mind, most gamers are casual gamers.

Let me blow your mind, this board is far away from the casual realm and barely any game that's being talked about here ever fits in that category, so why bring this bullshit up time and time again?
Gamers playing twitch shooters or precision platformers will never switch to streaming.....

 

[Marty-McFly]

Let me blow your mind, this board is far away from the casual realm and barely any game that's being talked about here ever fits in that category, so why bring this bullshit up time and time again?
Gamers playing twitch shooters or precision platformers will never switch to streaming.....

Because we're talking about the trends of the industry hardware/streaming moving forward and they aren't going to move in the direction in what this board discusses, they're going to move towards where the money is and where the mainstream are. I don't even necessarily like this statement from the perspective of my own interests, but it doesn't change it from being any less true.