So this problem started back in 2023 as in still occurring. Dead Space Remake, Jedi Survivor and Silent Hill 2 are some of the offenders. All these games were highly rated on gameplay and graphics
Basically, even if you have a 4090, the stutters and poor fps still exist due to the way the game is designed.
Its exceptionally frustrating because open world devs do optimise for performance while corridor type REMAKES like Dead Space and Silent Hill forget the work their predecessors did on worse hardware years ago
Unpopular Opinion: The last few hardware generations have had diminishing returns while increasing the cost of being a PC gamer drematically. While the DOOM games are generally well-optimized, I just upgraded my whole ass system after 8 years just two years ago and I’m hitting minimum specs to play the new DOOM game at all. Same with Indiana Jones, same with STALKER 2, same with Alan Wake 2.
Of course, we also went from 8gb of video RAM being more than enough to needing fucking like 16-24gb as a standard somehow.
Seriously, the rig I bought to play fucking Bioshock Infinite kept up for about 8 years. I know I didn’t go all-out in building my machine but I didn’t 10 years ago either when I put my old box together. Honestly current machine feels way more high-end than the one 10 years ago did.
Anyway, kind of feels like a rip-off by the industry to me, and this is the same industry that is pushing for GTA 6 to cost $80-100 because they’re not making enough money somehow.
In a way, it’s like being back in the NES days all over again. Sometimes the game itself would just push the hardware too much and it would slow down. This shouldn’t be happening at all in this environment, it’s a joke. It goes well beyond just positive reviews for this kind of stuff.
The reason the new Doom and Indiana Jones games require a card with ray tracing is a consequence of the consoles all having ray tracing and an increasing number of PC users do too.
So to support a diminishing number of PC players would require the game to be lit twice, one with RT and one with traditional methods. Obviously this costs more in development and testing and studios are increasingly deciding it’s just not worth it.
It’s got to be the biggest dividing line we’ve seen in years. I suspect things will settle down for a while, now.
FYI:
https://www.pcgamer.com/gaming-industry/new-report-says-pc-games-are-outselling-console-games-calling-pc-gaming-a-bright-spot-in-a-troubled-industry/
Well, the number of PC players with a non RT card is diminishing. RTX has been available since 2018 now.
And my card from 2018 (RTX 2080) runs Indy just fine. 1440p/60. Not at max settings, of course, but nobody would realistically expect that.
I meant a diminishing number of PC players without RT.
The PC with RT + console market is increasing. The PC without RT market is only decreasing.
There needs to be better compression for texture and sound files. That’s pretty much the reason for the giant install sizes and RAM requirements. In theory it’s possible, but it hasn’t really changed in decades.
“AAA” companies don’t want to spend q/a time on code. Indie devs don’t seem to have that problem. So there’s a huge gulf between quality.
Personally I think the day one patch excuse for reviewers is bull. Day one patches have been a thing for at least 25 years, everyone should know they don’t fix bad games. If the companies are not being called out for bad practices then they’ll never bother to fix them before going gold.
Additionally, if a day one patch were actually enough to fix these issues, then just delay the game by a day. That way, the launch day gamers won’t suffer through a (sometimes) unplayable experience and possibly leave bad reviews.
After the 1080ti launch, I’ve held the opinion that any card with less vram has been a scam.