Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
 

Specifically, they added DXR support to their non-RTX cards (from the original 1060 6GB card and up). DXR being a non-proprietary implementation of real-time ray-tracing through I think DX12. Their RTX cards (ie those with tensor cores) will still be able to use their proprietary RT... tech? hardware? whatever... to do ray-tracing, maybe in conjunction with or instead of through DXR.

Here's an example of DXR (IIRC) being integrated into CryEngine. They render this video using a Vega 56.

 

Posted
 

stadia...

I'm curious, but cautious.  I checked with Speedtest and I should be good to go (72 Mbps down, 12ms ping).  I'm also hearing you need Chromecast to play on a TV, and that's baked into the Shield TV I already own.  But Stadia sounds a lot like PS Now and GeForce Now, neither of which have exactly wowed me.  Just local streaming from my desktop to either the Shield or a Steam Link is janky as all get out.

Posted
 

I'm curious, but cautious.  I checked with Speedtest and I should be good to go (72 Mbps down, 12ms ping).  I'm also hearing you need Chromecast to play on a TV, and that's baked into the Shield TV I already own.  But Stadia sounds a lot like PS Now and GeForce Now, neither of which have exactly wowed me.  Just local streaming from my desktop to either the Shield or a Steam Link is janky as all get out.

the 10.7 teraflops is interesting.

 

i heard it'll use up 20gbs per hour:wacko: 

Posted
 

This is a multi-faceted strike.

It gets developers to use DirectRay, or whatever MS calls their raytracing API, because so many more systems can use it.

It lets gamers get a taste of the effects, so they know what upgrading to an RTX gains them. RTX isn't much different from a 1080Ti without the raycasting in use, but a 1080Ti won't do raycasting effects near as fast.

It ALSO serves to kneecap performance on older cards, because any use of raytracing is taking up hardware that could be used elsewhere.

 

All of which adds up to MOAR SALEZ!

Posted
 

stadia...

Considering it's built on top of the Youtube-framework, then sure, anyone on any connection can use it. But people on a faster connection will get to enjoy the benefits of having a better connection (i.e., Want to enjoy that 4k-60fps goodness? Get a faster connection) Otherwise your resolution-&-fps auto-scale to your connection. Bypassing the auto-scaling will vary your results. I watch a few livestreams and it's fine at 720p/30fps on my connection. 1080p starts artifacting but is manageable. 4k is a $hit-show of artifacting and stuttering. 

Posted (edited)
 

Considering it's built on top of the Youtube-framework, then sure, anyone on any connection can use it. But people on a faster connection will get to enjoy the benefits of having a better connection (i.e., Want to enjoy that 4k-60fps goodness? Get a faster connection) Otherwise your resolution-&-fps auto-scale to your connection. Bypassing the auto-scaling will vary your results. I watch a few livestreams and it's fine at 720p/30fps on my connection. 1080p starts artifacting but is manageable. 4k is a $hit-show of artifacting and stuttering. 

I think all of this pales in comparison to the fact that games require two way streaming.  Regardless of how powerful the processors are, the entire infrastructure is going to be bottlenecked by whatever inherent latency exists in the connection you're using.  How much latency is really in those "live" streams everyone watches?  There could be fractions of, or even whole seconds of delay in the video, and it won't really matter, because videos aren't interactive in real time.

It'll work better for some types of games than others, and I guess in theory it might not be much different than the input latency that already exists in online games.  But I can't help but think of the fact that video streaming benefits from the ability to buffer the content, and smooth out an inconsistent download rate by pre-loading.  You can't buffer a live video feed, and I can't shake the feeling that those sorts of little delays are going to snowball into complete unplayability for wide variety of games.

Things like MMOs that run on server timers, and only process game data packets on a pre-determined schedule might have the best chance of running well, but even those can take very precise timing, all based on what you're seeing on your screen.  If the video lags behind, you're going to have a bad time playing anything faster paced than chess.

On the other hand, would Google be so enthusiastic about this game streaming service to start chucking money into the infrastructure, and start giving more people connections capable of running it?  

Edit: And on top of all that.. how much of whatever monthly data cap is this going to eat?  At least with buying a game outright, it's limited by how much you have to download to get the game, and then it's done.  How much bandwidth can you expect to eat playing hundreds or thousands of hours streaming the games you want to play?  Sure, you don't have to deal with downloading day-one patches/reinstalls, or whatever, but what's the crossover point where it makes more sense to just buy the game and install it locally?  At some point, it's going to become much more cost effective, and a much better gameplay experience, to just download the whole game, and be done with it.

Edited by Chronocidal
Posted
 

Edit: And on top of all that.. how much of whatever monthly data cap is this going to eat?  At least with buying a game outright, it's limited by how much you have to download to get the game, and then it's done.  How much bandwidth can you expect to eat playing hundreds or thousands of hours streaming the games you want to play?  Sure, you don't have to deal with downloading day-one patches/reinstalls, or whatever, but what's the crossover point where it makes more sense to just buy the game and install it locally?  At some point, it's going to become much more cost effective, and a much better gameplay experience, to just download the whole game, and be done with it.

See my rant about 50GB day one patches. It’s a no-win with gaming these days. 

Posted

I'm so torn.  I'm happy for more Samurai Showdown.  I'm not sure if I'm down with the 3D.  On the other hand it worked just fine for Street Fighter 4, not so much SF5 or MvC3/Infinite.

 

Posted

The only Samurai Shodown I've played was the SNES version of the original.  I had a friend who liked to get fighting games, practice on them for awhile, then have me over so he could trash me at them.  But I picked up Galford pretty quickly, and for a change I was the one doing the trashing.

Posted

Genesis Mini, what do you think?

Just announced at Sega FES.

US will get a Genesis branded console.
40 games in total, 10 announced.
Releasing on September 19 worldwide.
Price will be 6980円 with 1 controller ($70) and 8980円 with 2 controllers ($90)

List of games announced:

  • Castlevania Bloodlines
  • Comix Zone
  • Gunstar Heroes
  • Madō Monogatari
  • Puyo Puyo Tsu
  • Rent a Hero
  • Shining Force
  • Sonic the Hedgehog 2
  • Space Harrier 2
  • Wrestleball

2k6DZ5B.jpg

 

more to come!

D23v1rAU0AA3svN.jpg

Posted

So it sounds like in Japan they're getting the six-button Megadrive controller, but in the US we're getting downgraded to the three-button version.

Posted
15 hours ago, dizman said:

Well now this is unexpected.

The original Idolmaster!

I watched eagerly waiting for that iconic theme to show up, and it didn't disappoint!

Posted
14 hours ago, mikeszekely said:

So it sounds like in Japan they're getting the six-button Megadrive controller, but in the US we're getting downgraded to the three-button version.

I get why they'd do that. In America, the original controller is sort of iconic and fuels a lot more nostalgia.

But uuuuuuugh.  Especially with Comix Zone in the game list, as that was one of the games designed for the newer pad.

Posted

Honestly the controller wouldn't bother me so much, but in Japan you'll be able to buy it with one controller for around $60. I'd buy that, then pick up the inevitable 8bitdo controller. But no, we're only getting the the $80 two-controller pack here, so I have to pay more for an extra three-button I'll never use.

Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, kajnrig said:

Does the omission of 3 buttons affect any games? And why was the button setup changed from Japan to the US in the first place?

All games are 3-button-compatible. Some later games, like Comix Zone(and more famously, Street Fighter II) play better with the full loadout.

 

I suspect the controller change is for nostalgic reasons. The Genesis wasn't super-popular in Japan, and I get the impression most of its sales were later in life.

In America, it was kind of a big deal from the first day it did what Nintendon't, so there's a lot of fond memories of the older-style controller.

 

 

Edit: It may also just be because the japanese prefer smaller controllers, and the one with more buttons is paradoxically smaller.

Edited by JB0

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...