Ray-Tracing ONLY??!?!?!?

[QUAKETALLICA]

WTF were they thinking?

I was excited to play this through Game Pass. It doesn't tell you until after the massive 120 GB download that, oh BY THE WAY you have to have hardware ray-tracing GPU or the game doesn't even work, at all.

I mean, what? I have never heard of anything else ever asking something so ridiculous. Complete lack of support for anybody with lower end hardware? And I say "lower end" in massive quotes there, because I'm able to run most other games of the last year or two still at high graphics at 60 FPS at 1080p full HD with a GTX 1060 (provided they're well optimized...Stalker 2 doesn't count). Even if I had to play on low settings to run it, I don't mind because even today's "low" settings is still graphically very impressive.

But nevermind saying "intended for ray tracing" or whatever, no you can't even start up the game at all unless you have at minimum 2060. Sheesh. It's one thing to have terrible performance, but to not even let you run the .exe? Dang that's a new level of rejection.

From gameplay videos, it doesn't even look like gameplay, the faces looks so photo-realistic I thought I was looking at a movie. Scary good textures and modeling. Too bad the entire thing is unplayable now because of their focus on elitist hardware.

And the funniest part is, it looks worse with "path-tracing" on anyway. Not that I had even heard of path-tracing before this game. It's an ultra ray tracing where the graphics are 100% ray-tracing and nothing else, whereas before they were a mix of normal graphics rendering and ray tracing.

[Tmangus]

Originally posted by Carighan:

Have you tried to buy a PC better than a potato?

You’re really not helping. Why bother to post? Seriously, there’s better ways to spend one’s time.

[-Singularity-]

Originally posted by QUAKETALLICA:

Originally posted by Dagtag:

this is a problem you yourself created by not looking at the minimum requirements.

also, what is elitist about requiring aq SIX YEAR OLD GPU?

Because it's unnecessary for literally every other game out there, so why would I upgrade? Only people who do are enthusiasts who just have to have 4K or 1440p or high refresh rates.

You say "six years" as if the passage of time should make any difference. The 20-series has basically no real graphical advantage over the 10-series except that it could in theory run ray-tracing (albeit so poorly and with such high performance costs, and usually thrown in games as an afterthought anyway) that it was entirely pointless.

I usually ignore "min requirements" because even when they say a CPU or GPU above my specs, my machine usually runs just fine anyway. They claim "minimum" but it's really more of a recommendation 99% of the time. Nobody else has ever been so audacious as to actually refuse to start at all unless you have a gimmicky RTX card.

In my defense, they also didn't even announce it would be RTX-only apparently until 2 days before release. Seems like a bit of an oversight.

PC gaming has always been an enthusiast hobby and there are always going to be games that come along that push the envelop of current hardware. Sure the industry has made great steps to lessen the degree you need to be an enthusiast, but its still there. Its the nature of PC gaming. Its not like consoles where every game plays well on the system its made for. You have to know hardware and decide yourself when its time to upgrade. You can casual PC game, but you will be behind the cutting edge. This isn't a bad thing, but you should expect it and plan accordingly.

[D-Fens]

The game has essentially flopped on PC both because it's a dead franchise (hardly anyone younger than Gen X cares about Indiana Jones) and the system requirements lock out more than half the PC audience, even those who have very powerful cards in terms of raster performance, but lack the gimmick of RT. It will be Microsoft's loss, and all the signs are that this game is going to lose them a fortune as the development costs were enormous.

[Mav99]

Originally posted by Tmangus:

Yeah I see what you mean, but doesn’t excuse it, sorry.

As I wrote before, only about 16% are still using a GTX card. Potential lost revenue versus the cost of doing all that additional work for a small, shrinking minority. It's just not worth it anymore.

[Mav99]

Originally posted by D-Fens:

the system requirements lock out more than half the PC audience, even those who have very powerful cards in terms of raster performance, but lack the gimmick of RT.

According to Steam hardware survey, about 53% of Steam users have an nVidia RTX graphics card. If you add the few AMD and Intel ARC users, around 60% have hardware that supports that "gimmick"...

[Y_B_A_FOOL]

Paid posted, Gamepass isn't a thing on Steam.

Maybe you could have purchased a newer GPU of instead wasting money on time limited game trails with Game Pass.

[Smokey]

brain dead thinking people should just update their hardware. Raytracing just has not proven itself as valuable enough a feature to be mandatory, for any game.
Games should be getting more scalable, not less. Raytracing just isn't a great mature feature yet, even if you have the hardware, everyone should have the choice to not have it in a game and regain 50% of their fps.

[Orkhepaj]

Lame Tracing is so overrated. It is hard to notice if it is on or off other than low fps

[Crunchy[Daz]]

Gamers whine and cry over everything. This is why Steam lists everything on the store page, upfront, for you to see before you purchase. Thats why it says there's DRM, or a 3rd party account, or special hardware.... to avoid these issues.

If you won't read the store page, no one can help you.

[Mav99]

Originally posted by Smokey:

brain dead thinking people should just update their hardware.

I'm playing on self built PCs since 1991 and it's been like that FOREVER. I had countless CPUs and graphics cards over the years. There have always been games that pushed the limits and people bought new hardware to play them properly. Some right away, some later. But eventually you have to upgrade. That's how it is and always was.

If you don't want to keep your hardware updated, that's fine.
But then stop whining that you can't play new games!
Or buy a console instead...

EDIT: Forgot to address this part:

Originally posted by Smokey:

Games should be getting more scalable, not less. Raytracing just isn't a great mature feature yet, even if you have the hardware, everyone should have the choice to not have it in a game and regain 50% of their fps.

The game uses hardware ray tracing for global illumination and according to the frame rates that lower end cards can achieve it's performance cost is far less than 50%.
"FullRT" path tracing, which apparently you and many others associate with the term "ray tracing", comes indeed with a notable performance cost, but it's completely optional and comes with several settings to scale it's impact.

[Smokey]

Originally posted by Mav99:

Originally posted by Smokey:

brain dead thinking people should just update their hardware.

I'm playing on self built PCs since 1991 and it's been like that FOREVER. I had countless CPUs and graphics cards over the years. There have always been games that pushed the limits and people bought new hardware to play them properly. Some right away, some later. But eventually you have to upgrade. That's how it is and always was.

If you don't want to keep your hardware updated, that's fine.
But then stop whining that you can't play new games!
Or buy a console instead...

EDIT: Forgot to address this part:

Originally posted by Smokey:

Games should be getting more scalable, not less. Raytracing just isn't a great mature feature yet, even if you have the hardware, everyone should have the choice to not have it in a game and regain 50% of their fps.

The game uses hardware ray tracing for global illumination and according to the frame rates that lower end cards can achieve it's performance cost is far less than 50%.
"FullRT" path tracing, which apparently you and many others associate with the term "ray tracing", comes indeed with a notable performance cost, but it's completely optional and comes with several settings to scale it's impact.

The entire point of threads like this it that is not optional lmao. I have a pc that can run this, I still don't think it should be be mandatory. raytracing is heavily Nvidia favoured as well. It has done nothing but make this generation disappointing

[Mav99]

Originally posted by Smokey:

The entire point of threads like this it that is not optional lmao. I have a pc that can run this, I still don't think it should be be mandatory.

I think the market share of ray tracing capable hardware has reached a point where it's okay to make it mandatory.

Originally posted by Smokey:

raytracing is heavily Nvidia favoured as well.

Does that even matter?
Apart from the fact that it's not nVidia's fault that neither AMD nor Intel can keep or catch up, they are also less and less relevant...

As I wrote before, I don't really like it that there isn't any serious competition for nVidia any more, but that's where we are at the moment.

Even if optional, the vast advantage of nVidia will still be visible. Or do you want developers to stop using such features completely to give AMD and Intel a better chance with less demanding titles?

[Smokey]

Originally posted by Mav99:

Originally posted by Smokey:

The entire point of threads like this it that is not optional lmao. I have a pc that can run this, I still don't think it should be be mandatory.

I think the market share of ray tracing capable hardware has reached a point where it's okay to make it mandatory.

Originally posted by Smokey:

raytracing is heavily Nvidia favoured as well.

Does that even matter?
Apart from the fact that it's not nVidia's fault that neither AMD nor Intel can keep or catch up, they are also less and less relevant...

As I wrote before, I don't really like it that there isn't any serious competition for nVidia any more, but that's where we are at the moment.

Even if optional, the vast advantage of nVidia will still be visible. Or do you want developers to stop using such features completely to give AMD and Intel a better chance with less demanding titles?

If it's going to be a mainstay of games going forward, it should be vendor agnostic and not a hard gate of entry exactly like how they've done with Indy, simple as that. Your like "just upgrade" when many people have AMD cards, which shouldn't need upgrading at all, yet Nvidia wants to force people onto their cards specifically. Even having the latest series, all these performance heavy things are seen through the lense of needing to use the crutch of upscaling/frame gen 🙃 The marketplace is how it is because of Nvidia and practices like this.

[laagamer]

If you buy AMD, you're an idiot anyway. Only a moron buys an inferior product.

[Trump G.O.A.T-POTUS]

Ray tracing is old as ♥♥♥♥ tech-wise now. If you are running anything under 20 series cards at this point, its your fault.