RTX picking up steam - Cyberpunk 2077 & Watch Dogs: Legion join the growing list of RTX titles

[Ross Siggers]

Just now, pas008 said:

its early adopter stage

you need the hardware before you can get the software/games

 

real time rt has been wanted for couple decades

 

...Duh. You think I don't understand that?

 

Early adopter is also how the console industry works!! Fancy that!  You don't realize that newly released consoles almost always sell at some kind of loss?**

I understand that RT has been the next step for a long time now...and that yes, Nvidia were taking the lead in getting the hardware out there...but that STILL doesn't mean that the launch wasn't a shambles in the way it was handled.

The adoption rate, which is what you're referring to, would have been better given better support. That's literally all I'm trying to say. The software support at launch was woeful. Which put lots of people off purchasing first gen RT cards yet, that much is blatantly obvious.


**I mean, until recently, with streaming taking the forefront, obviously that'll all change.

[Ross Siggers]

12 minutes ago, System32.exe said:

What? Are you expecting Nvidia to throw tens of millions of dollars at developers? Don't be absurd.

If they want their product to be picked up and further the cause they're pushing...well, yeah.
 

Nobody will buy into the new tech if they can't see the benefits of it. Which up till this point hasn't been stellar, I think mostly down to their launch approach. Gotta spend money to make money  

To roll back into the console analogy, the success of a console strongly relies on it's launch lineup. Which is what i was getting at. Although in this situation, Nvidia are 'somewhat' safe because they industry will all be adopting the same standard eventually. There's no competing alternative.

 

Quote

Also, if anything, the high cost of RTX cards only further reduces the incentive to support RT right now as there's fewer cards selling.

 

I'm not disagreeing with this...?

Apologies if anyone is quoting, this post has been edited

[illegalwater]

9 minutes ago, Ross Siggers said:

 

...Duh. You think I don't understand that?

 

Early adopter is also how the console industry works!! Fancy that!  You don't realize that newly released consoles almost always sell at some kind of loss?**

I understand that RT has been the next step for a long time now...and that yes, Nvidia were taking the lead in getting the hardware out there...but that STILL doesn't mean that the launch wasn't a shambles in the way it was handled.

The adoption rate, which is what you're referring to, would have been better given better support. That's literally all I'm trying to say. The software support at launch was woeful. Which put lots of people off purchasing first gen RT cards yet, that much is blatantly obvious.


**I mean, until recently, with streaming taking the forefront, obviously that'll all change.

They're selling GPUs, not consoles. They're not comparable. The addition of an extra graphical feature isn't going to move millions of copies. Therefore there isn't much incentive for game devs to spend all the time and money it takes to not only implement RT but also port their games to DX12/Vulkan so it can run RT in the first place.

 

Getting a ton of RTX games on day one was never feasible.

[pas008]

10 minutes ago, Ross Siggers said:

 

...Duh. You think I don't understand that?

 

Early adopter is also how the console industry works!! Fancy that!  You don't realize that newly released consoles almost always sell at some kind of loss?**

I understand that RT has been the next step for a long time now...and that yes, Nvidia were taking the lead in getting the hardware out there...but that STILL doesn't mean that the launch wasn't a shambles in the way it was handled.

The adoption rate, which is what you're referring to, would have been better given better support. That's literally all I'm trying to say. The software support at launch was woeful. Which put lots of people off purchasing first gen RT cards yet, that much is blatantly obvious.


**I mean, until recently, with streaming taking the forefront, obviously that'll all change.

read that edit in that post

 

its a graphical feature that will be mainstream not a platform for sales not even close

[Ross Siggers]

You two think I'm trying to compare sales figures. I'm not, and focusing on the fact is only going to make the misunderstanding worse. I'm looking at the industry parallels of which there are many.

@System32.exe Are you really saying that because it's a tricky tech to implement, it's okay to have a weak launch? And that creating, developing for, and releasing a new console platform doesn't have any similarities whatsoever?? 

If so i can only say I disagree entirely  

 

 

[illegalwater]

4 minutes ago, Ross Siggers said:

You two think I'm trying to compare sales figures. I'm not, and focusing on the fact is only going to make the misunderstanding worse. I'm looking at the industry parallels of which there are many.

@System32.exe Are you really saying that because it's a tricky tech to implement, it's okay to have a weak launch? And that creating, developing for, and releasing a new console platform doesn't have any similarities whatsoever?? 

If so i can only say I disagree entirely  

 

 

Ugh.

 

Like I said, consoles =/= GPU, I don't get what's so hard to understand? You've been repeatedly told that there's far more of a financial incentive to support a new console launch over a new graphical feature exclusive to the latest GPUs.

 

We're talking about hundreds of millions to billions in revenue versus Nvidia throwing a few million at you and them (maybe) sending some engineers out to help.

[Sauron]

1 hour ago, System32.exe said:

Cyberpunk is using RT global illumination, not reflections.

That's my point, you can barely notice the difference. In the mankind divided screenshot the lighting is almost as good and that's already a couple of years old.

[CTR640]

16 hours ago, System32.exe said:

This stuff takes time, they couldn't just snap their fingers and have 100 titles lined up on day one for their first gen RT hardware.

We need a Thanos that can snap to make double the framerates when RT is used instead of destroying half of the popula- eh I mean framerates

[Ross Siggers]

57 minutes ago, System32.exe said:

Ugh.

 

Like I said, consoles =/= GPU, I don't get what's so hard to understand? You've been repeatedly told that there's far more of a financial incentive to support a new console launch over a new graphical feature exclusive to the latest GPUs.

 

We're talking about hundreds of millions to billions in revenue versus Nvidia throwing a few million at you and them (maybe) sending some engineers out to help.

 

It's not "eugh", or "what's so hard to understand"...it's you thinking a comparison is less valid than me, and me simply disagreeing. When you say billions, are you talking about the console industry as a whole? Money for a single developer to implement a feature? I think it's boats passing in the night, I'm trying to focus on parts of the analogy that you're choosing to ignore.

 

It's just a difference of opinions. Don't try and play it off as me being a dunce, because your language implies  

Lets leave it there, because clearly this discussion isn't going to go anywhere. 

[NumLock21]

2 hours ago, Sauron said:

Or get a card with a decent value proposition now and another one 2-3 years from now when this technology is more mature and doesn't cost you 60% of your card's performance.

No, that would be a waste of my hard earn money if I was to upgrade 2 to 3 years just for the sake of having a feature that has matured. I only upgrade when my card dies or it's not able to run the games I want to play. Was about to upgrade a long time ago, but I can't seem to find any good reasons to justified my purchase, since the card was still able to run the games I was playing. Don't really care about the need to have 60+ FPS, as long as I enjoy the game I'm playing even that means having to tone down the settings a notch or two, that's fine with me.  Between my old card a HD5850, and the new RTX2070, it took me about 8 to 10 years to do an upgrade.

[illegalwater]

18 minutes ago, Ross Siggers said:

 

It's not "eugh", or "what's so hard to understand"...it's you thinking a comparison is less valid than me, and me simply disagreeing. When you say billions, are you talking about the console industry as a whole? Money for a single developer to implement a feature? 

 

It's just a difference of opinions. Don't try and play it off as me being a dunce, because your language implies  

I'm talking about individual game sales. Hundreds of millions in revenue is pretty standard for AAA games these days, major titles like Call of Duty bring in a billion+ each year. AAA game development costs are also in the tens-hundreds of millions nowadays. Time is money, and the time it takes to implement RT is highly unlikely to make a ROI right now for game companies.

 

It's not a matter of opinion. I keep telling you why things are the way they are and you keep saying "yeah but they should have had more games at launch anyway", forgive me for getting a little frustrated.

[Sauron]

Just now, NumLock21 said:

No, that would be a waste of my hard earn money if I was to upgrade 2 to 3 years just for the sake of having a feature that has matured.

Buying 2 250$ cards costs no more money than buying one 500$ card - and the second 250$ card is likely to be faster or more mature than the older 500$ card. For example you could have bought a 760 and a 1060 instead of a 780. That doesn't work if you want to play at 4k but it's perfect if you're ok with the 1080p 60 you'd get out of an RTX card doing raytracing.

3 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

Was about to upgrade a long time ago, but I can't seem to find any good reasons to justified my purchase, since the card was still able to run the games I was playing. Don't really care about the need to have 60+ FPS, as long as I enjoy the game I'm playing even that means having to tone down the settings a notch or two, that's fine with me.  Between my old card a HD5850, and the new RTX2070, it took me about 8 to 10 years to do an upgrade.

Nobody is saying you must upgrade after 2-3 years. However it would have been more cost effective for you to buy a lower tier card now if you're ok with 1080p 60fps.

[pas008]

4 minutes ago, System32.exe said:

I'm talking about individual game sales. Hundreds of millions in revenue is pretty standard for AAA games these days, major titles like Call of Duty bring in a billion+ each year. AAA game development costs are also in the tens-hundreds of millions nowadays. Time is money, and the time it takes to implement RT is highly unlikely to make a ROI right now for game companies.

 

It's not a matter of opinion. I keep telling you why things are the way they are and you keep saying "yeah but they should have had more games at launch anyway", forgive me for getting a little frustrated.

not to mention many games take yrs of development and to backtrack or to implement a feature sometimes isnt worth it for them

they will just add in their next game or later like some have if they can

[NumLock21]

2 hours ago, Princess Luna said:

Because it's true, Turing did not provide performance improvements from Pascal, with the 1080 Ti = 2080 / 1080 = 2070 / 1070 Ti = 2060 / 1070 = 1660 Ti at same price points there really isn't any reason to get into Ray Tracing yet specially when it's implementation still adds only marginal graphical improvements over current day rasterization techniques, at a great performance cost.

 

Cyberpunk77 will look beautifully without Ray Tracing and someone with a 1080 Ti or a Radeon 7 will have pretty much an identical experience of someone with a RTX 2080, some fancier reflections that are mimic'd good enough through rasterization at the cost of significant FPS won't really be a justification yet...

 

But here in 5 years when we get second gen RTX cards with real performance improvements and a true mature DXR implementation starting to get spread then "Just Buy It" will finally make sense.

 

Ray Tracing is like RGB, some people hate it, while others love it. For me I like it, but not over the top, a little bit here and there, it's fine, and if I don't want to use it I can simply turn it off.

 

2 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Buying 2 250$ cards costs no more money than buying one 500$ card - and the second 250$ card is likely to be faster or more mature than the older 500$ card. For example you could have bought a 760 and a 1060 instead of a 780. That doesn't work if you want to play at 4k but it's perfect if you're ok with the 1080p 60 you'd get out of an RTX card doing raytracing.

Nobody is saying you must upgrade after 2-3 years. However it would have been more cost effective for you to buy a lower tier card now if you're ok with 1080p 60fps.

I personally prefer to get a high-end card now, use it for as much as I can, and then upgrade when I have to. Spending $250 now, another $250, and another for small upgrade in a short period of time, is a bad investment in the long run. Upgrade your video cards not in small incremental steps, but in giant leaps.

Me having a RTX 2070 1st gen RayTracing, will I be going to upgrade my card for their 2nd gen RTX, absolutely not, I might be upgrading when their 7 or 8th gen RTX cards arrives, but if I don't see a reason to justify my purchase because my RTX2070 can still run the games I play, I will hold off on the upgrade for as long as I can.

[Ross Siggers]

1 hour ago, System32.exe said:

Time it takes to implement RT is highly unlikely to make a ROI.

I keep telling you why things are the way they are.

Quote

It's not a matter of opinion

These are opinions until facts are put behind them especially the first one. Aside from the launch title numbers I posted, I'm not trying to pass anything I say off as gospel, just that it's my angle, my opinion, regardless of whether you agree with it or not. Which you clearly don't. I see your side of the discussion, and I don't disagree with you on all points. What I was saying is the industries structures are very comparable, if the financial figures aren't as much.

 

Quote

And you keep saying "yeah but they should have had more games at launch anyway"

I think this is somewhat oversimplifying my responses, but I get it. Lets say they didn't have more games, that they just had the one flagship; Battlefield. A month or maybe even less of driver optimisations would have avoided all the garbage framerates and bad press they got right out of the gate. They were already working with the dev to have RT in the game anyway, so there wouldn't have been a significant extra outlay involved. Do you still believe Nvidia did things the right way, pushing for a slightly earlier release window?  People have been waiting decades, what's another month  

 

Quote

Forgive me for getting a little frustrated

Not a problem, but talking down to someone in a discussion is never necessary. This isn't Facebook, that's where the shit really hits the fan haha  

[Misanthrope]

Hopefully Nvidia will have something beyond the 2080ti to actually have it perform nicely at 4k and be all ultra fucking fancy and all.

 

Second gen Ray Tracing might be a bit much to ask but if that comes true I might put money down for it, even at Nvidia prices.

[Sauron]

31 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

I personally prefer to get a high-end card now, use it for as much as I can, and then upgrade when I have to. Spending $250 now, another $250, and another for small upgrade in a short period of time, is a bad investment in the long run. Upgrade your video cards not in small incremental steps, but in giant leaps.

Quite the opposite is true, getting a high end option always entails spending a premium on top of the performance you get and every couple of generations the leap in performance and features is large enough to make that high end option obsolete. Getting what you need and upgrading frequently is how you get the best value.

[Majinhoju]

Having a gtx 1080, I'm a in a spot where Nvidia really needs to drop the price of the RTX cards if they want any interest from me.  The 2070 is currently no cheaper than the 1080 I bought a year and a half ago and that would only be a marginal upgrade.  2080 TIs are about $1600 cdn.  I miss the days when the top of the line consumer gamer card was only $1000 and when new releases were released a the previous cards' msrp, not above it.

My 1080 is still pumping out nice graphics and framerates so I can sit tight for a while.

[NumLock21]

17 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Quite the opposite is true, getting a high end option always entails spending a premium on top of the performance you get and every couple of generations the leap in performance and features is large enough to make that high end option obsolete. Getting what you need and upgrading frequently is how you get the best value.

Well then I don't have the privilege of upgrading frequently.

[Sauron]

20 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

Well then I don't have the privilege of upgrading frequently.

Maybe I haven't been clear - I'm not suggesting to spend more money. I'm saying it's more cost effective to spread that money out over a longer period.

[RejZoR]

21 minutes ago, Majinhoju said:

Having a gtx 1080, I'm a in a spot where Nvidia really needs to drop the price of the RTX cards if they want any interest from me.  The 2070 is currently no cheaper than the 1080 I bought a year and a half ago and that would only be a marginal upgrade.  2080 TIs are about $1600 cdn.  I miss the days when the top of the line consumer gamer card was only $1000 and when new releases were released a the previous cards' msrp, not above it.

My 1080 is still pumping out nice graphics and framerates so I can sit tight for a while.

I have GTX 1080Ti and I have ZERO incentive to upgrade to anything. And I think it'll remain this way for a while. I tend to do stupid shit and upgrade when there is absolutely no need for it yet, simply out of curiosity, but RTX just didn't convince me to do that. If there were more DXR games in general, maybe. But not the way it is currently. It's just too gimicky and cards cost in 4 digits which is just stupid.

[geo3]

Until they can figure out how to do it without destroying performance I have no interest in ray tracing.

[SeraphicWings]

Ah yes, just in time for my newly RTX 2070

 

But in all honesty, ray-tracing is only viable if it doesn't cut half of our frame rate away

[Valentyn]

20 hours ago, mr moose said:

So in 8 months they have more supporting titles than any other tech development gained in it's first 5 years?  And people are still trying to argue it is a pointless tech being used to con the consumer...

 

It is supported, it does something, it's bigger than gaming, and if you don't like it you don't have to buy RTX, you can buy NAVI.

I wish I could use a secondary card specifically for it like I can for PhysX. Would make things run a bit better for those that don't mind paying more.

[YoloSwag]

maybe it was delayed because Nvidia tried to inject some of it's proprietary stuff like how Witcher 3 too was delayed...