Reply With Quote
I haven't hooked up to my 4K TV yet, but that's what I was thinking.. It's pushing about 85 FPS and NEVER drops below 60. The linear nature is perfect for 4K
Damn that runs effectively 4k60 then on a 1060?
I haven't hooked up to my 4K TV yet, but that's what I was thinking.. It's pushing about 85 FPS and NEVER drops below 60. The linear nature is perfect for 4K
I don't think you could run 0 at 4k60, but it should do 1080p100 most of the time from what I have seen. It's got some really cool backstory for Majima too.
That's cool, 2X super sample looks great too.. does 0 actually look better? Or just run worse?
I just remember seeing benchmarks for 0 running mostly 1080p120 on a 1060 on the Digital Foundry channel if I remember right. I haven't seen what they look like for Kiwami. The graphics look pretty much identical in the two games, at when I played them on PS4. I guess I shouldn't be surprised a 1060 could run Kiwami at 4k60 when the scrub version of PS4 can run it 1080p60 with a gpu in between the HD 7850 and HD 7870 (but closer to 7870).
You definitely want to play 0 before Kiwami 2 though. Hopefully Kiwami 2 gets a PC release in the next year or so.
nm
Last edited by baseline bum; 03-02-2019 at 11:09 PM.
it was supposed to be VR. Tried it, lived with it for a week, and was underwhelmed. Didn't find the "immersion" all that immersive (periscope effect, conscious of wearing the thing on your face, etc). I think where it suffers as a gaming device is that the VR concept revolves around putting you "more physically into the game." I see this as redundant because we have access to a far, far, infinitely superior way of physically involving entertainment. They're called sports and outdoor activities. Why would I waste my in' time "throwing and catching" in something like Echo Arena when I could do it for real playing a sport? "Ooooh, but you don't get to role play as a futuristic athlete in a zero-G environment!" Yeah, I don't feel like a futuristic athlete in a zero-G environment. I know I'm sitting/standing around and lightly swinging my arms.
And traditional game mechanics don't translate to VR very well. We can say that great VR game mechanics haven't been developed yet, but VR tech isn't all that young. I think the controller/mouse + external screen is simply naturally superior for video games. Now, for racing/flight sims, VR proves its worth, but other than that, I find it lacking. Virtual tourism and such has great potential, however.
And traditional game mechanics don't translate to VR very well. We can say that great VR game mechanics haven't been developed yet, but VR tech isn't all that young. I think the controller/mouse + external screen is simply naturally superior for video games. Now, for racing/flight sims, VR proves its worth, but other than that, I find it lacking. Virtual tourism and such has great potential, however.
People hating on VR havent tried astro boy
Or re7
Just looked at the gameplay. Seems like a typical platformer. Where does the gameplay mechanics that can only be reproduced in VR come in? Looks like you can do everything the game requires on a regular screen, which I'd rather do than have to wear a helmet.
Just read a little more about Astro Bot. Guess the selling gimmick is that you have to look around and find areas in which to guide the robot through, sometimes even requiring you to turn all the way around! You're also required to physically move your body in order to dodge objects. This is basically like a platformer on the Wii adding motion control gimmicks on top of traditional game design.
You havet played the game.
Also watched an in depth review. Looks like a solid platformer that incorporates some VR gimmicks (moving, looking around 360 space, etc). I'm not saying it isn't fun or good, just that it isn't a game that uses new technology to reinvent the genre or create a new genre, (for example, first person shooters were something completely new as hardware finally got good enough for improved 2D scaling (Doom) and then 3D proper). VR's uniqueness is centered around physically "putting you in the game," i.e. instead of controlling Solid Snake with a controller, you now to get to walk around your room, duck, go prone as you try to stealthily avoid enemies. I don't find any of that interesting since I'd rather do a real physical activity.
discipline, that game is amazing.also, witcher 3 complete edition is on sale at gamestop for $20
https://www.gamestop.com/ps4/games/t...edition/132185
thats tempting as . i cant imagine it would get any cheaper than that even on black friday... although i told myself im just gonna buy games in black friday batches as a way to stay disciplined
I think you're a bit off and a little biased from having mostly played the big budget games this gen. NieR Automata had a pretty shoestring budget but was one of the most memorable gaming experiences I have ever had. Bloodborne is hands down my game of the century and was wildly profitable with 3 million copies sold, while you saw Square Enix ready to commit seppuku with the Tomb Raider franchise when Rise of the Tomb Raider only sold 7 million copies (and there is no way they make another after Shadow only sold a million or so, so far). Persona 5 is another incredible game that was hugely successful with 2.2 million copies sold. The Yakuza series games are considered low budget even by Japanese standards yet they're some of the most compelling games this gen. Japanese developers are proving you can make outstanding single player games without blowing your budget to and without having to go back to pixel art and old school design banking on gamer nostalgia.
The real future of gaming is likely streaming services that connect to powerful local servers enabling everyone to have a "state of the art" gaming platform, what OnLive tried to do some years back. I don't think it'll work as advertised and probably be (for core gamers, casuals will won't care about slight frame rate drops, etc), but the prospect of cutting out hardware manufacturing costs and R&D is just too attractive a concept for Sony and Microsoft (consoles are typically loss leaders for software). Now instead of buying your 399.00 new console, you'll be paying 10.00-15.00 per month for the service on top of game purchases (they'll "sweeten" it by probably giving you one free [non-AAA] le per month). Think of it as current consoles being akin to DVD/Blu-Ray players and this future platform being like Netflix/Hulu, etc.
PC gaming will still revolve around physical hardware most likely, because the GPU manufacturers make their money by selling cards, although it's not out of the question for Nvidia or AMD to offer a similar streaming solution, but PC gamers probably won't bite in general since upgrading and building new machines is an essential part of the hobby.
If they can make it work decently via smartphones, then it's RIP consoles (again, I think it'll work relatively poorly compared to an actual console, but since the masses are so in love with their smartphones, if Microsoft or Sony can make it work passably, it'll be a hit).Game subscription services have been around for decades. But with the Project xCloud service it announced last year, Microsoft is betting that it can take games like Halo, which have always required powerful consoles, and move all that processing to the cloud, allowing users to play these games on their phones. If it can pull that off, the tech giant could open itself up to a huge new audience and usher in a tectonic shift in the gaming industry.
That . Thats like sayig id rather play bball than play 2k. But we know even pro s love 2k
Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo will be dragged kicking and screaming into the dumb terminal era of gaming. Having expensive consoles is how they can be become middlemen taking a 30% cut of each game sale. The loss leader consoles are a great trade off when you can lock gamers into buying games on your platform you get to collect the tribute on, as most people don't buy multiple consoles per generation. Plus they also get a huge revenue stream charging $60 a year for online play. You take away those consoles and replace them with dumb terminals and there is no reason for there to be a Playstation or an XBox brand. Sony won't keep making loss leader first party les like God of War when it's not going to lock people into their ecosystem the way it does now when you have to buy a PS4. A streaming future is a bland one, god I hope it doesn't happen for at least 15 years. Thankfully American internet being ty might save the consoles for a while.
I gotta say I'm not nearly as into the combat in God of War as everyone else. Too many times I'll have five or six enemies attack at once, at which point only ranged attacks seem to make much sense. Then it's just dodge roll and spam square repeatedly as well as axe throw if the arrow behind me isn't red. The game started out pretty hard on the give me a challenge mode but has gotten super easy with only a few upgrades to Atreus. I'm finding the combat much less interesting than Nioh much less Bloodborne and give me a challenge doesn't feel any different from casual other than making the enemies hit harder. Game is beautiful graphically and the story is pretty cool too but Atreus makes the game too easy IMO. Though maybe that's the point of the game? That Atreus is the real badass? I did love the part when you walk into the light for what seems like a minute or two and Atreus drags you out saying you have been in there forever and then you see the corpses of all these enemies he slayed while you were gone.
Sports games are still video games in that use your hands and a controller to play them. I'm talking about "full body" experiences, whether it be through VR, the Kinect, or Wii motion controls. Why would I want to mimic basketball actions in a VR/Kinect basketball game when I can just step outside and do the real thing, which is infinitely better? Now for sit down sims (racing, flight, mech, etc), VR is the platform. I would buy a headset for those, but unfortunately, I find VR headsets underwhelming.That . Thats like sayig id rather play bball than play 2k. But we know even pro s love 2k
The brand will become their service (e.g. like the Netflix brand, Hulu brand, Amazon video brand, etc). Microsoft, I believe, seems to want it to happen. Why wouldn't they make loss leader les? "Hey, check out this amazing game we sunk a billion dollars into. Only available on PlayStation Streaming! Sign up now for 120.00 per year!" Something like that.
You're right. Streaming sucks. In all forms. People think streaming services (Netflix, et al) are going to save us from the "eviillllll cable companies," but the end game of the streaming model is an endless amount of separate services that will all be charging a premium for their content. As I'm sure you know, the cable subscription model makes money for content providers by subsidizing the cost across customers (i.e. you might not watch Turner Classic Movies, but you're still paying for it/paying for someone else to watch it, while that person is paying for you to watch the NBA network). "Cable cutters" are lacking foresight in thinking all they need is Netlfix, Hulu or Amazon Prime to watch their AMC, HBO, et al shows. But if the cable model dies, so does the majority of AMC and HBO's profit. So what will happen is that these providers will either charge an obscene amount to the streaming services to license their content (which will increase price of the streaming service) or simply create their own streaming services. Disney has already done so.
So rather than pay 100-150.00 per month for cable (about the average cost in the US) that includes a variety of sports, movie, lifestyle channels, the "clever" cord cutter is going to be paying: 15.00 for Netlfix and 9.99 for Hulu. But wait. Shark Tank is now only available on ABC streaming? 7.99 per month. ! This is Us is now only available on NBC streaming? 7.99 per month. Pawn Stars only available on History streaming. 5.99 per month. And on and on. Cable companies are also ISP providers, so if they start to lose significant revenue from declining cable subscriptions, they'll just jack up their ISP price.
https://www.wired.com/story/give-me-...-cord-cutters/
You're kind of making the argument for me. There will be no reason for there to be an XBox or Playstation brand because exactly what you said about a la carte TV will happen with gaming. Ubisoft will stream their games only over UPlay, Epic over Epic Game Store, EA over Origin Access, and so on. You already see this fragmentation exploding on PC. Sony isn't making expensive loss leader games if they don't get to put their hand into the pot you pay into for every game like they do now if you have already bought into their ecosystem by buying the console. With dumb terminals and streaming Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo all lose those lucrative streams they get being the middleman for cash cow games like Call of Duty, FIFA, NBA 2k, Fortnite, etc through yearly purchases and microtransactions. That's where the real money seems to be in the industry based on how much bigger the digital sales pie keeps getting vs physical sales every year for consoles. With streaming and dumb terminals there is no need for a middleman. I don't see why Sony and Microsoft would ever embrace getting rid of themselves as that middle man. Microsoft is talking streaming but it's still with an XBox which will likely still do a lot on the local machine. They have been talking unloading the most computationally expensive calculations (eg for physics effects) to central servers ever since they launched the XBox One, and that's what I'm expecting out of their cheaper hybrid online/local machines they're talking about for next gen.
Good points, but I think Sony might be able to get away with it since their in house exclusives are their system sellers. I'm okay with anything halting the streaming tidal wave. People are mesmerized by the convenience of it, but it ironically leads to restrictive choice not more, especially since streaming services can take off content anytime they feel like it. , my local mom and pop video store had a better selection of les than Netflix. Netflix's library seems to be divided between their original content (their movies are all terrible in general), some big budget current les, and a few modern classics mixed in with a metric ton of garbage (e.g. one Hitch le in their entire library) and their Foreign selection is a joke (No Kurosawa, Bergman, Fellini, Godard, Truffaut, etc, etc. An okay selection of martial arts flicks, at least). Streaming is good for television shows, though.
Cost of making AAA games shift all the time, tbh...
Art always used to be made at much higher res than what eventually shipped, but nowadays, between 4K and HDR, you really need high quality art, and what ships might only pass through something like Simplygon and that's about it. Plus there's many more layers (bump mapping, reflections, displacement, dynamic lights, particle fx, animation, blending, etc). While there's a lot of offshore companies doing art, the sheer volume normally means you're gonna be spending a good chunk on this. Plus, this is an area where there's relatively hefty costs in additional software licensing like Maya, Simplygon, Substance, etc.
With Unreal becoming relatively available at a decent licensing price, it reduced a lot the engineering cost. You still need engineers around, because Unreal can be buggy as , and there's always something you want to do outside of the cookie cut, but it definitely lowered the barrier a lot. Now designers can do Blueprints in Unreal and handle a lot of what used to be the engineering black box. If you do custom engines, the cost on this can e up (because you also need to do tooling, etc), but on the other hand, you get somewhat more control on the feature set. Costs associated with this also include QA, and possibly things like Jira or Perforce.
Audio can vary also, depending on the product. Can go from simple fx, to licensing music, to composing original music to recording with an Orchestra somewhere in the world. Software licensing costs here can also come from sound engines like WWise, etc.
Then there's marketing. If you're a household name, you might need less of a marketing push, but if you need to come up from the shadows, it normally takes more resources. There's cross campaigns, tie-ins with other products... a lot of stuff going on in this area, it's difficult to ascertain what the final cost ends up being, but almost nobody skimps on this.
This is why we see more rehashes sometimes, targeting audiences that know what to expect, than original IPs. Original IPs are valuable, but there's a lot of risks associated with them. A lot of those costs can easily spiral out of control, and the first impression is largely always the lasting one. On the other hand, you can easily ruin a franchise with a terrible product ( o Fallout), so the rehashes carry their own risks too.
There are currently 7 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 7 guests)
Posting Permissions