Discussion GPU Business Is A Scam, Change My Mind

[PsychoPsyops]

A decade ago, it was possible to get constant 60 fps with max settings at the highest resolution available, 1080p, with the best gpu available.
Today, it is not possible to do the same, at 4K resolution, with the best gpu available.
Additionally, not even first-party games can reach this quality target on dedicated, current gen hardware, such as the Ps5 and newest Xbox.
Add the fact that gpu's are still overpriced, and this is all why I think the gpu business is a scam, for those who chase max settings.

It is an objective fact, that graphical fidelity in games is the least important part of a game, because it's only purpose is to increase realistic immersion.
Though, the more realistic a game is, the more it becomes a simulation, rather than a game. It also decreases the entertainment value of said game or simulation.
It has also been decreasing the amount of resources, i.e. money, time and development focus on other aspects of a game that actually make it more fun or higher quality.
Additionally, you can have a game with low graphical fidelity, but a great, tasteful art style, which makes it look amazing without graphical fidelity, which further proves graphical fidelity is unnecessary.

Moral of the story is you can enjoy games and save a fortune pursuing your gaming hobby, by not caring about realistic graphical fidelity via unnecessary expensive shiny graphics.
We may also have to not care within 5 to 7 years, as AAA games are literally unsustainable and too much of a gamble/risk to make even today.

 

[Order 66]

Moral of the story is you can enjoy games and save a fortune pursuing your gaming hobby, by not caring about realistic graphical fidelity via unnecessary expensive shiny graphics.

I agree that graphics aren't everything, however I do think that we should care about realistic graphics ONLY if the game itself is good not just the graphics are good. Case in point: Minecraft, it has terrible graphics (without mods, shaders etc.) but is one of the best-selling games of all time. I use mods shaders etc. in Minecraft to improve the graphics because the core gameplay (in my opinion, not trying to start a war over whether Minecraft is fun or not) is good enough and the fact that I am already getting hundreds of fps anyway.

 

[hotaru.hino]

Video games are a scam because what good do they do for society? Sure you could say there's some mental health benefits, but you know what? We were doing just fine without them. Go read a book, go take a walk, go to a coffee shop and make some new friends. Video games aren't solving a problem outside of "I'm bored," which could be solved in practically an infinite number of ways that doesn't involve video games.

Spoiler: Disclaimer

I take none of the arguments I made seriously, it's there to make a point.

 

[PsychoPsyops]

Video games are a scam because what good do they do for society? Sure you could say there's some mental health benefits, but you know what? We were doing just fine without them. Go read a book, go take a walk, go to a coffee shop and make some new friends. Video games aren't solving a problem outside of "I'm bored," which could be solved in practically an infinite number of ways that doesn't involve video games.

Spoiler: Disclaimer

I take none of the arguments I made seriously, it's there to make a point.

How is a hobby a scam, solely because it's a hobby?
With that logic, reading books are a scam. Though that is a hobby and you have to buy books as well.
I prefer video games, because they are like books, but they also tell a story with visuals -- like a movie, but a movie you can interact with. It is a form of entertainment like any other non-physical hobby. It also contributes nothing to the discussion the original post aims to start.

 

[DSzymborski]

How is a hobby a scam, solely because it's a hobby?
With that logic, reading books are a scam. Though that is a hobby and you have to buy books as well.
I prefer video games, because they are like books, but they also tell a story with visuals -- like a movie, but a movie you can interact with. It is a form of entertainment like any other non-physical hobby. It also contributes nothing to the discussion the original post aims to start.

When you draw arbitrary lines around what is a scam and what is not, based solely on your personal feelings of the subject, you're hardly in a position to complain when others do the same.

 

[PsychoPsyops]

I agree that graphics aren't everything, however I do think that we should care about realistic graphics ONLY if the game itself is good not just the graphics are good. Case in point: Minecraft, it has terrible graphics (without mods, shaders etc.) but is one of the best-selling games of all time. I use mods shaders etc. in Minecraft to improve the graphics because the core gameplay (in my opinion, not trying to start a war over whether Minecraft is fun or not) is good enough and the fact that I am already getting hundreds of fps anyway.

That is perfectly fine, as mods are free and the game's level of fidelity was low enough to allow any additional strain the mods may add, therefore it doesn't fuel the scam. Plus there is a decent level of preference to fidelity.

 

[PsychoPsyops]

When you draw arbitrary lines around what is a scam and what is not, based solely on your personal feelings of the subject, you're hardly in a position to complain when others do the same.

They're not arbitrary, but good for you.

 

[punkncat]

No one is forcing anyone to purchase graphics cards that can run at 4K. Most folks out there only want it because 4K is a "higher number" than FHD or 2K and merely for bragging rights. According to how far you sit from your monitor/TV (and also how good your eyesight is) many aren't actually realizing anything anyway...aside from those bragging rights.

4K is far more punishing to a card than 1080 and it is honestly no wonder very few cards can do it "well" at this point considering where the actual capability, power use and subsequent temperatures are.

If you don't want to pretend like you have a 4K capable system, then don't. This is much along the same lines of how a google-billion FPS is "better", regardless of actual human perception. It is better because you THINK its better. (remember that higher number thing?)

 

[PsychoPsyops]

No one is forcing anyone to purchase graphics cards that can run at 4K. Most folks out there only want it because 4K is a "higher number" than FHD or 2K and merely for bragging rights. According to how far you sit from your monitor/TV (and also how good your eyesight is) many aren't actually realizing anything anyway...aside from those bragging rights.

4K is far more punishing to a card than 1080 and it is honestly no wonder very few cards can do it "well" at this point considering where the actual capability, power use and subsequent temperatures are.

If you don't want to pretend like you have a 4K capable system, then don't. This is much along the same lines of how a google-billion FPS is "better", regardless of actual human perception. It is better because you THINK its better. (remember that higher number thing?)

Not true at all. 4k objectively offers more pixels, and in turn, more detail per pixel, as well as a sharper image and wider colors. To the average user with the average eyesight and average/recommended distance from the screen, they will always see a better picture when comparing to 1080.

Second, I am not pretending I have a 4k capable system. I do have a 4k capable system. The issue here is that it cannot support 4k and run 60 fps with max settings. If I turn the settings to, let's say medium, I can then get 60 fps at 4k. My discussion is about chasing the max settings bit, with expensive cards.

Also, just because someone isn't forcing another to take part in a scam, doesn't mean the scam is nonexistent.

 

[punkncat]

I am just going to drop this here for your edification.

TV Size to Distance Calculator and Science

Our TV Sizes to Distance Calculator helps you choose the right size TV for your space. The optimal viewing distance is about 1.6 times the diagonal length of the television. For example, for a 55” TV, the best distance is 7 feet.

www.rtings.com

 

[PsychoPsyops]

I am just going to drop this here for your edification.

TV Size to Distance Calculator and Science

Our TV Sizes to Distance Calculator helps you choose the right size TV for your space. The optimal viewing distance is about 1.6 times the diagonal length of the television. For example, for a 55” TV, the best distance is 7 feet.

www.rtings.com

Maybe I'm missing the point you're trying to make, but my desk is within 4 feet of the tv, and I'd imaging anyone with a 4k monitor will also be within 4 feet, seeing as how monitors are more popular to use with gaming pcs over tvs.

 

[punkncat]

IDK, perhaps we came to a different conclusion on "the point".

As I said above, no one forced you to go spend the money on a system that you THOUGHT was supposed to give you this level of performance. The only scam would be if one of the manufacturers claimed that you could run 4K/60FPS/highest settings. Even aside from that, anything a consumer purchases should be researched and considered before actually pulling the trigger and putting that money out. So, realistically speaking did the graphics cards manufacturers "scam" you, or did you go in with higher expectations about the capability of the hardware because it is what you wanted it to be without checking?

Marketing departments are going to infer what you wanted to hear in the first place. Shame on you for accepting it blindly.

 

[Colif]

Too many people get sucked in by pretty graphics. Games aren't movies, they are also meant to be fun but categorising what fun is to a business man only after making money is difficult. So we get movie like experiences in open world games where there just isn't that much to do... but it looks good right?

The GPU industry is just an off shoot of people wanting life like graphics. Is it making the games any better? Probably not, it just means they are getting bigger with all the high res texture packs that don't add anything to game play.

I have been wanting us to reach a point in graphics where they can't get any better in the slim hope that they have to make games more fun at this point as they can't make them any prettier... I have my doubts we ever reach that point though... always some other stupid thing to throw at people to make them buy it.

 

[PsychoPsyops]

IDK, perhaps we came to a different conclusion on "the point".

As I said above, no one forced you to go spend the money on a system that you THOUGHT was supposed to give you this level of performance. The only scam would be if one of the manufacturers claimed that you could run 4K/60FPS/highest settings. Even aside from that, anything a consumer purchases should be researched and considered before actually pulling the trigger and putting that money out. So, realistically speaking did the graphics cards manufacturers "scam" you, or did you go in with higher expectations about the capability of the hardware because it is what you wanted it to be without checking?

Marketing departments are going to infer what you wanted to hear in the first place. Shame on you for accepting it blindly.

I do my research. The 2080 TI had benchmarks. They probably didn't say anything about playing on max settings, the games were probably on medium or high and that's fine. 60+fps will always be better than having shiny graphics anyway. Not saying I want max settings, just saying it should be possible by now, especially on dedicated gaming hardware, both pc and console.

 

[PsychoPsyops]

Too many people get sucked in by pretty graphics. Games aren't movies, they are also meant to be fun but categorising what fun is to a business man only after making money is difficult. So we get movie like experiences in open world games where there just isn't that much to do... but it looks good right?

The GPU industry is just an off shoot of people wanting life like graphics. Is it making the games any better? Probably not, it just means they are getting bigger with all the high res texture packs that don't add anything to game play.

I have been wanting us to reach a point in graphics where they can't get any better in the slim hope that they have to make games more fun at this point as they can't make them any prettier... I have my doubts we ever reach that point though... always some other stupid thing to throw at people to make them buy it.

We are probably far from the point where graphics will reach their comparison limit to real life depictions.

However, the good news is that AAA games are unsustainable. It takes way too much time and money to make a game these days and companies are terrified of creating one that flops, because even the biggest game companies can only survive 2 to 4 flops. Even CD Projekt Red said they will have to close down if they have another cp2077 repeat with a future title. And most of these game companies are only churning out 1 to 3 AAA games a year now. So, give it 5 to 7 years, and you will likely see them stop completely with indie devs taking over as the AAA companies sit back and buy out all the small indie companies that release huge successes. 10 to 15 years, we will see maybe only a handful of companies making 1 AAA game a year, all with the same IP and taking zero risks what-so-ever with new IPs or unique ideas. And this is all if the corrupt and/or predatory business practices don't go rampant.

 

[Colif]

They already buy indie devs, thats EA's entire business model, buy a company, exploit it, and discard once there is nothing left. They aren't alone in it, all AAA companies are vultures

Gaming got too big, too many non gamers in control. Cookie cutter games that all use same control schemes. No one trying anything different, just copy what sells.

I am all for it collapsing. DO we need another ET?

Atari video game burial - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

at least digital games don't need to be physically buried.

 

[palladin9479]

Hmm "Scam" is too harshe a word and the argument is rather circular. 2160p (that's 4K for you who got sucked into marketing buzzwords) is 4x the number of pixels then 1080p at the standard 16:9 ratio. Compounding this is that most AAA game developers have started using "Ultra" settings as a way to stress test their creation and show off, even if there is little to no real gain in quality. Graphics cards have not had the same level of performance increase as displays during that time period.

Thought I think this post is really about criticizing the price-to-performance of recent offerings, especially nVidia.