• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Alan Wake 2

polonyc2 said:
hopefully RTX Mega Geometry won't be nerfed too much on the 40 series...
Click to expand...
Have a look at DF's video, they tested it. On the 2080 it is about a 13% uplift, enough to allow for 1080p30 play with DLSS with PT on. 3080 was 10% uplift. 4090 was minimal, like 1% uplift, 5080 was also like 1% uplift. So it seems like they are not nerfing it older GPUs, in fact in those more performance constrained scenarios it is helping more where on the newer GPUs it really isn't helping, at least with the specific implementation. Now of course this is the first time someone has implemented it, and I imagine it is kinda shoehorned in and not properly optimized and all that jazz, but it is indicative that they are NOT nerfing it on older GPUs.

Now that said, things that use tensor cores are in general going to perform better the newer the GPU because newer models have more of them, and they are faster. But it doesn't look like they are doing things to fuck over old cards.

Same kind of deal with the DLSS transformer model. The ray reconstruction version hits pretty hard, it needs a lot of compute. The net effect is that the 30 series and older do see a non-trivial speed hit when they use it. That's not because of a nerf, they just don't have as much tensor power. The 40 series sees much less hit, since they have more power.
 
In their latest financial publication, Remedy reveals that Alan Wake II has finally started making money a year and a half after release. They could have made their money back in a month had they released on Steam and other platforms.

"But the game would have never been made without the publishing deal from Epic." Well, that is a business decision you have to make: Do you want to go into temporary debt so your game can have an audience and see a quicker ROI, or do you want to make a game fully funded by a publisher forcing exclusivity that will see little to no royalties? Developers did the former all the time back in the '80s-'00s. Gabe Newell and Mike Harrington both nearly went bankrupt to make sure Half-Life was a good game after Sierra wouldn't provide more funding.

https://investors.remedygames.com/r...cationId=de036915-53b0-4bfc-8564-7ce4872914e5
 
pendragon1 said:
it has NOT sold enough to be profitable, thats just spin.
Click to expand...
https://investors.remedygames.com/r...cationId=de036915-53b0-4bfc-8564-7ce4872914e5
  • By the end of 2024, Alan Wake 2 sales exceeded two million units. The game had also recouped the development fees and marketing investments, meaning Remedy started to accrue royalty income from the game sales.

Armenius said:
Developers did the former all the time back in the '80s-'00s.
Click to expand...

From Gran Turismo to a giant list of others, they also did the later all the time, no ? With today budget, getting in those kinds of debt can be hard and not always a choice, how many banks make those kind of loans....
 
pendragon1 said:
that was 2 1/2 months ago and at THAT TIME it hadnt....
Click to expand...
Yes, they said that ( that it hadn't) and they claimed that it would in the future, which you called a spin.... (maybe not a bad guess to take, but they were in a much better position to known something like that)
 
LukeTbk said:
From Gran Turismo to a giant list of others, they also did the later all the time, no ? With today budget, getting in those kinds of debt can be hard and not always a choice, how many banks make those kind of loans....
Click to expand...
Gran Turismo was made by Polyphony Digital, which was a studio created internally at Sony Computer Entertainment. They were never an independent studio like Remedy is.
 
Armenius said:
In their latest financial publication, Remedy reveals that Alan Wake II has finally started making money a year and a half after release. They could have made their money back in a month had they released on Steam and other platforms.

"But the game would have never been made without the publishing deal from Epic." Well, that is a business decision you have to make: Do you want to go into temporary debt so your game can have an audience and see a quicker ROI, or do you want to make a game fully funded by a publisher forcing exclusivity that will see little to no royalties? Developers did the former all the time back in the '80s-'00s. Gabe Newell and Mike Harrington both nearly went bankrupt to make sure Half-Life was a good game after Sierra wouldn't provide more funding.

https://investors.remedygames.com/r...cationId=de036915-53b0-4bfc-8564-7ce4872914e5
Click to expand...
I wish Epic weren't such dicks about their distribution but I totally get why Remedy did it. Alan Wake II was kinda risky. It isn't the kind of super-mass-market game that is going to appeal just everyone and their kids. It is a more limited kind of product. But they also wanted to do it big, they wanted a high tech in-house engine, they wanted really great graphics, they wanted music, and video, and motion capture, and so on. It's expensive. So I get why they took a deal where someone else took the financial risk. Sam Lake is an artist, in the true sense, he wanted to make his art and since someone would fund that, he took it.

I'm glad they've made their money back too, they deserve it. It is a GREAT game, just excellent in so many ways. However, as I said, it is a more niche title, it isn't the kind of thing everyone is going to love.
 
Steam would have helped but not by much. It did not sell well on consoles either. Single player, narrative driven games don't seem to be as popular on PC compared to consoles as well.
 
Flogger23m said:
Steam would have helped but not by much. It did not sell well on consoles either. Single player, narrative driven games don't seem to be as popular on PC compared to consoles as well.
Click to expand...
And you need to be a fan of the genre. Since the gameplay in this game was just mediocre (imo) then the narrative/story becomes the main reason to play it, which means you need to have played the first game otherwise you have no clue wtf is going on.
 
Flogger23m said:
Steam would have helped but not by much. It did not sell well on consoles either. Single player, narrative driven games don't seem to be as popular on PC compared to consoles as well.
Click to expand...
60% of Cyberpunk 2077's sales were on PC. The vast majority of Kingdom Come: Deliverance II sales have been on PC so far.
 
Armenius said:
60% of Cyberpunk 2077's sales were on PC. The vast majority of Kingdom Come: Deliverance II sales have been on PC so far.
Click to expand...

Cyberpunk's developers had a starting with being PC first, and the console versions were pulled from sale for many months. Kingdom Come is more of a difficult, hard experience so naturally that appeals to PC gamers more. For these reasons, I expect similar results with STALKER 2. But generally mainstream story driven single player games do better on console.
 
Flogger23m said:
Cyberpunk's developers had a starting with being PC first, and the console versions were pulled from sale for many months. Kingdom Come is more of a difficult, hard experience so naturally that appeals to PC gamers more. For these reasons, I expect similar results with STALKER 2. But generally mainstream story driven single player games do better on console.
Click to expand...
I prefer FPS, RTS etc. on PC due to keyboard and mouse being vastly superior methods of controls if you exclude the game doing parts of your job for you (aka built in aimlock). A lot of games like Horizon games, Assassins creed games, the new Jedi star wars games etc. are nicer on a controller so I usually get those on console.

Difficult and hard experiences are just as valid for console as for PC, the market shrinks quite a bit on both platforms. There have been plenty of very difficult games on console with high sales numbers.
 
evhvis said:
I prefer FPS, RTS etc. on PC due to keyboard and mouse being vastly superior methods of controls if you exclude the game doing parts of your job for you (aka built in aimlock). A lot of games like Horizon games, Assassins creed games, the new Jedi star wars games etc. are nicer on a controller so I usually get those on console.

Difficult and hard experiences are just as valid for console as for PC, the market shrinks quite a bit on both platforms. There have been plenty of very difficult games on console with high sales numbers.
Click to expand...
You can plug a controller into your PC.
 
Armenius said:
You can plug a controller into your PC.
Click to expand...
Consoles don't take up a lot of space so they are always connected to my TV. A PC that is as quiet as the current gen consoles take up a lot of space so it is typically move out of living room when not in use. Consoles also have the advantage of being optimized for so I'll generally take the seamless experience of consoles over slightly better graphics on PC for games that work best with a controller.
 
evhvis said:
Consoles also have the advantage of being optimized for so I'll generally take the seamless experience of consoles over slightly better graphics on PC for games that work best with a controller.
Click to expand...
That couldn't be further from the truth for the past two console generations. Console versions of games run like dog shit these days. At least with gen 7 developers generally optimized frame time for a smooth experience even at 30 FPS. Developers now target an average FPS instead of a solid FPS and it shows, making console games often painful to play.
 
Armenius said:
That couldn't be further from the truth for the past two console generations. Console versions of games run like dog shit these days. At least with gen 7 developers generally optimized frame time for a smooth experience even at 30 FPS. Developers now target an average FPS instead of a solid FPS and it shows, making console games often painful to play.
Click to expand...
Keep convincing yourself that all console games run bad, when most run just fine with a choice between 60fps performance mode and 30fps quality mode, with a balanced mode at around 40fps throw in several games if you have a 120hz VRR capable display.
 
evhvis said:
Keep convincing yourself that all console games run bad, when most run just fine with a choice between 60fps performance mode and 30fps quality mode, with a balanced mode at around 40fps throw in several games if you have a 120hz VRR capable display.
Click to expand...
Also... Since when did console games not slow down/drop frames? That shit goes WAAAAY back. Let's take the beloved FF7: It ran at 30fps on the field (overworld) but only 15fps in battle. Why? They wanted more shiny graphics than the PS1 could push at 30fps. Or lets go back further to Starfox on the SNES. That ran at 20fps max, and routinely dropped below that despite having a custom RISC chip on the cart. Again, doing more than the hardware could handle. Or how about even further? Super Mario Bros 3 for the NES did run at 60fps... but it did drop below that when a lot got going on screen and sometimes it would even drop out whole sprites if too many were on the same line (NES had a hard limit on that).

Like, I just don't recall a time when console, or PC, games were this perfect bastion of "60fps minimum, at all times" gaming. Developers pushing the hardware past what it could handle at 60 (or even at 30) has a long history. This idea that people have that modern games are somehow uniquely unoptimized is garbage. Also the idea that if you just "optimize harder" you can have amazing graphics on low end hardware with high framerates.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top