DOOM: The Dark Ages

[LukeTbk]

Okay maybe I need to be more specific, a single player AAA shooter that can be finished quickly (12-18 hours) and cast aside is not a viable game for gamepass.

Or the perfect game pass release because to sell new would will need a really low price anyway. By making $70 games they do not think they would sales day 1 anyway straight to gamepass, make gamepass look like a great value, make upgrading to ultimate more expensive version look like a great deal. That the type of stuff hard to judge without raw data numbers with the estimate of new gamepass and added retention such release had.

A 50 minutes movie is an easier sell to a streamer than amovie theater in both case (no pass or with day 1 pass) a 12-18 hours shooter probably need to be made on the cheap enough to work, but in a way it is a perfect rent not buy title, as being a short experience.

Expedition 33 is a longer RPG

Yes but is still available on gamepass, at least by the time of that 3.3 millions sales numbers, there is yet to have anyone for who their play via gamepass window expired that bought it because they did not finish yet type of sales.

 

[pendragon1]

I agree, but also say $70 bucks is a lot for a single player shooter with no multiplayer, no CoOp, and no DLC this year. Shooters are typically quick games to run through, and then your done. I know several people that were turned off by the $70 price tag, and these are guys LOL that can EASILY afford it.

yup, have said that too. its waaaaay too short, no mp etc.

 

[pendragon1]

Are you one of those "g0 wOke, or Go bR0kE" ? guys? LOL no one cares about that stuff, real adults live their life open minded and don't think about DEI or trans people or whatnot. To each their own, I personally don't care what other people do, as long as they're safe and don't bother others, do and say whatever you like. Plus that stuff never effects my purchasing something or not.

I've never once said to myself, oh crap that game is "woke" can't buy it. Uh nope, never.

no, adults are sick of the retards pushing the message. "dont bother others" lol thats exactly the problem.....

 

[Decko]

Or the perfect game pass release because to sell new would will need a low price.

A 50 minutes movie is an easier sell to a streamer than amovie theater in both case (no pass or with day 1 pass) a 12-18 hours shooter probably need to be made on the cheap enough to work.


Yes but is still available on gamepass, at least by the time of that 3.3 millions sales numbers, there is yet to have anyone for who their play via gamepass window expired that bought it because they did not finish yet type of sales.

If the studio goes bankrupt because gamepass tanked their sales, even if they would've made half of them (say 1.6 million sold), then it's a horrible game for gamepass. It's contingent on revenue sharing. There are plenty of examples of smaller studios suffering due to gamepass all over the internet. This is an example of a AAA company suffering because of gamepass currently, so we'll have to see if they shut down, pivot, or have a better revenue sharing amount than a smaller company and it doesn't matter. People are less likely to use claire obscure on gamepass becasue it's over twice as long and has new game plus options, and its sold at a lower price.

They're also completely different games, one is the third in a series the other is completely new and is part of an audience that's been starved for something like it for a very long time. They're a bit apples and oranges in terms of design and audience.

 

[Dan_D]

Okay maybe I need to be more specific, a single player AAA shooter that can be finished quickly (12-18 hours) and cast aside is not a viable game for gamepass.

That makes zero sense. Games with little to no replay value and shorter completion times are perfect for something like Game Pass. Those types of games are a hard sell at $70. Something that takes longer and has more replay value is a good value on Game Pass, but only if that's not the only thing you are playing. If it is, you are probably better off buying the game rather than keeping an active Game Pass subscription for months on end. To put it another way: I've got over 1,000 hours in Starfield. I initially played it on Game Pass but didn't really play anything else on the service. To keep that subscription going for all that time would have made no sense as I'd have spent more keeping up with a Game Pass subscription for the one game than I did simply buying the game.

If the studio goes bankrupt because gamepass tanked their sales, even if they would've made half of them (say 1.6 million sold), then it's a horrible game for gamepass. It's contingent on revenue sharing. There are plenty of examples of smaller studios suffering due to gamepass all over the internet. This is an example of a AAA company suffering because of gamepass currently, so we'll have to see if they shut down, pivot, or have a better revenue sharing amount than a smaller company and it doesn't matter. People are less likely to use claire obscure on gamepass becasue it's over twice as long and has new game plus options, and its sold at a lower price.

We've seen plenty of titles sell well even if they launch day one on Game Pass. Blaming Game Pass alone for a game's failure just doesn't make sense to me. I'm not saying Game Pass doesn't eat into sales numbers, I'm sure it does and revenue sharing on the platform is a point I've brought up many times myself in other threads as a problem. But again, I don't think that's why Doom is failing. At least, its not the only reason for it performing so badly. It's not as if those Game Pass engagement numbers have a 1:1 correlation with people who would have otherwise bought the game at full price.

 

[Decko]

That makes zero sense. Games with little to no replay value and shorter completion times are perfect for something like Game Pass. Those types of games are a hard sell at $70. Something that takes longer and has more replay value is a good value on Game Pass, but only if that's not the only thing you are playing. If it is, you are probably better off buying the game rather than keeping an active Game Pass subscription for months on end. To put it another way: I've got over 1,000 hours in Starfield. I initially played it on Game Pass but didn't really play anything else on the service. To keep that subscription going for all that time would have made no sense as I'd have spent more keeping up with a Game Pass subscription for the one game than I did simply buying the game.

We've seen plenty of titles sell well even if they launch day one on Game Pass. Blaming Game Pass alone for a game's failure just doesn't make sense to me. I'm not saying Game Pass doesn't eat into sales numbers, I'm sure it does and revenue sharing on the platform is a point I've brought up many times myself in other threads.

It makes sense to you, but not to the studio. It's contingent on revenue sharing. If their revenue is mostly made in one to two months of it being on gamepass it's likely better they had fewer sales at 70 dollars than a revenue sharing from 2.2 million people on game pass for a month or two. Steam takes 30 percent on all sales, and there's a ton of other costs that go into online distribution alone. I would imagine game pass revenue share is even worse.

 

[LukeTbk]

If the studio goes bankrupt because gamepass tanked their sales, even if they would've made half of them (say 1.6 million sold), then it's a horrible game for gamepass. It's contingent on revenue sharing. There are plenty of examples of smaller studios suffering due to gamepass all over the internet. This is an example of a AAA company suffering because of gamepass currently, so we'll have to see if they shut down, pivot, or have a better revenue sharing amount than a smaller company and it doesn't matter. People are less likely to use claire obscure on gamepass becasue it's over twice as long and has new game plus options, and its sold at a lower price.

They're also completely different games, one is the third in a series the other is completely new and is part of an audience that's been starved for something like it for a very long time. They're a bit apples and oranges in terms of design and audience.

well of course, that saying if a terrible result is due to gamepass then its a horrible game for gamepass. And studio will not put their game on gamepass after that (or microsoft will need to pay more), but that trivial, that start with the answer.

If we look at the gamepass less platform sales, they are bad, i..e if it does not sales well on playstation and PC, why would it have done well on Xbox without gamepass ? Xbox sales being exactly the same as playstation 5 is not showing a big depressing effect in sales due to gamepass, more a the small hardcore/collector group that bought it on xbox despite being on gamepass was your only sales anyway.

It could very well be an example of saves/soften the blow by gamepass/microsfot hand held to keep it artificially alive more than anything. As for people less likely to use claire obscure on gamepass, that a I have xbox + gamepass + a PC scenario I am more likely to buy it on the pc because it is a long game, true, but that a small subgroup of player.

if this was a console instead of PC heavy title, if the sales were still good on PC/playstation for that type of game but low on Xbox with large gamepass number on Xbox, then gamepass could be blaimed, we do not see that in the estimate floating around here and it is a should not be console heavy vs PC title.

 

[Flogger23m]

It makes sense to you, but not to the studio. It's contingent on revenue sharing. If their revenue is mostly made in one to two months of it being on gamepass it's likely better they had fewer sales at 70 dollars than a revenue sharing from 2.2 million people on game pass for a month or two. Steam takes 30 percent on all sales, and there's a ton of other costs that go into online distribution alone. I would imagine game pass revenue share is even worse.

This is my understanding as well. It is easier to justify renting a shorter game, which means they will likely suffer in terms of sales. A 100 hour game may require two months, and people may just decide to buy it outright. A shorter game that can easily be finished in 20 hours probably will see a higher rental rate. This is a problem if you want to make a shorter, quality game. I can see rental services promoting elongated games (which I am growing to despise) or releasing games piecemeal over the course of a year even if it is just a single player game. We see this frequently now where single player games are treated like multiplayer games, with maybe a tiny bit of content released every 2-3 months. I can see this becoming even more common if it means a higher rate of renting a 2nd or 3rd time.

I don't see this as good for quality game development practices, and I can't expect low cost rentals to be around forever. The end result is higher rental prices & worse game design.

 

[Decko]

well of course, that saying if a terrible result is due to gamepass then its a horrible game for gamepass. And studio will not put their game on gamepass after that (or microsoft will need to pay more), but that trivial, that start with the answer.

If we look at the gamepass less platform sales, they are bad, i..e if it does not sales well on playstation and PC, why would it have done well on Xbox without gamepass ? Xbox sales being exactly the same as playstation 5 is not showing a big depressing effect in sales due to gamepass, more a the small hardcore/collector group that bought it on xbox despite being on gamepass was your only sales anyway.

It could very well be an example of saves/soften the blow by gamepass/microsfot hand held to keep it artificially alive more than anything. As for people less likely to use claire obscure on gamepass, that a I have xbox + gamepass + a PC scenario I am more likely to buy it on the pc because it is a long game, true, but that a small subgroup of player.

if this was a console instead of PC heavy title, if the sales were still good on PC/playstation for that type of game but low on Xbox with large gamepass number on Xbox, then gamepass could be blaimed, we do not see that in the estimate floating around here and it is a should not be console heavy vs PC title.

We don't know, the game has 2.2 million game pass players between PC and Xbox. If people have both a playstation and a PC (a lot of people do), then they'd just use game pass and beat it in a weekend. 2.2 million people on gamepass and 800k are actual sales are the only numbers we have to go on for the game. We do however, have previous games that sold well while not being on gamepass that can allow us to project a bit as to what sales would be sans gamepass. That would imply saying gamepass saved the game is a highly dubious claim based on prior sales numbers of the previous titles. Eternal did not launch on gamepass, it took 6 months or so for it show up on it, the game launched in march of 2020 and didn't show up on gamepass until October.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

The game also spends a great deal of time trying to communicate its story. It has a fair amount of cut scenes, but its really hard to get invested in what is essentially fan-fiction level writing skills applied to the ludicrous story of the original game from the 1990's. It was preposterous in the 1990's but we didn't care. Games weren't taken seriously as a medium at the time so the stories were mostly some loose excuse for the game play to happen. Doom for a lack of a better way to put it takes itself too seriously trying to get you invested in its absurd narrative. Something it never manages to do very well in my opinion.

I mean, tell me this isn't peak video game storytelling

 

[Hershy]

Wow… some of you guys really really fucking hate gaming. LOL.

 

[Zorachus]

Man these chapters that start off in the mech suit again are a downer. I'm immediately not as excited to play, and often exit the game, it's like the parkour stuff in Eternal.

 

[noko]

Fully intending on paying full price the moment AMD gets its shit together and releases FSR 4 for this game, I keep watching videos and it's getting harder and harder to wait.

Use XESS, better quality. Game runs smooth as butter on 9070 XT at 4K max settings minus the BS ones. Most areas over 100fps. Playing between 5090 and 9070 XT really for me is mute. Yes DLSS is better for clarity but not night and day. Since 120 hz OLED Tv, the fps difference just isn’t a big factor.

 

[KickAssCop]

I am going to be playing this today as I finished Stalker 2.

 

[noko]

Man these chapters that start off in the mech suit again are a downer. I'm immediately not as excited to play, and often exit the game, it's like the parkour stuff in Eternal.

For some reason I went right through those levels without issue. More like button smashing with left right, back forward using fast speed made it too easy. I know how you feel, had that issue with Eternal, blow away the horde and get stuck on some simple looking platforming puzzle.

 

[Ranulfo]

I don't think the forced ray tracing plays a role at all...it's 2025- ray tracing is not new anymore...most AAA gamers have upgraded their GPU to at least a 2000 series card

I think it does if you read the steam forums and internet in general. I have a friend who messaged me the day after he got it that he can't play it at all because he's still on a 1070/80. From the graphics I've seen, the game doesn't need global illumination. It is just devs being lazy. Sad that it has hit iD now but then they are owned by Bethesda/Microsoft.

You can argue how much of a role it plays but RT plays a role. I'd argue maybe 25% of it. Even those of us who have a RT card, no matter how old, the game isn't running as good across the board as the old engine did on older hardware. Overall, I'd say it is the $70 price point for a single player game, post Eternal negativity (said friend is a big Doom fan and didn't play both dlc's of Eternal), and gamepass factors. Maybe even factor in the shield parry mechanic that some like better than required glory kills but it still hamstrings you into guilded designer preferred gameplay.

 

[Ranulfo]

Wow… some of you guys really really fucking hate gaming. LOL.

I hate what is has become. I hate that sometimes I support the negatives because the game still enjoyable (dune awakening next month). For $60 in the last 2 months I've gotten three indie games that have far more value to me than one Doom type game. It makes those $70 less appealing no matter if you like that genre and game type or not.

 

[sharknice]

My opinion it's the steep $70 price tag for a single player shooter, that once you complete it, your pretty much done with it. And it's 18 to 20 hours long, so a GamePass makes more sense.

Also The Doom franchise is popular with the over 40 crowd, but the younger folks don't care about it, or heck don't even really know about it. New Doom games aren't on the radar of the twenty something crowd.

Also the big change in gameplay, showing it off with a shield and slower movement, playing like a "tank class" and riding dragons, etc... may have turned off gamers thinking this isn't "Doom" it's some Fantasy shooter thing.

Plus I agree on the lack of marketing, unless your a big Doom player, doubt most people even knew this game was coming until it came out this month.

And the mention of it not being "w0kE" LOL what? Or not having DEI or trans stuff in it? WTF, that has nothing to do with Doom games, so why even mention that stuff. Plus games that are inclusive do very well, like BG3 a top seller and super award winner. Only Reich-wingers get butthurt on that stuff.

Bottomline this game tanked because maybe it's an old franchise that hasn't been hyped well, or have a big Twitch following? But then again plenty of old franchises still around today that do very well. I guess I'm kind of stumped as to why it didn't do well?

I've been playing Doom since 1993. I would rank Dark Ages as good, not great, not bad. So far chapters like 8 to 12 were amazing 9/10 rating, but other chapters with dragon riding or mech robot fighting I rank a 4/10. Overall I'd give Dark Ages 7.5/10 rating.

I really think it has nothing to do with marketing. Blaming marketing is almost always a cope.

BTW I am still seeing advertisements for it on Twitch.

 

[KickAssCop]

Anyone who said this game is easy on ultra violence must be smoking some dope. Usually ultra violence is how I play these games but in this one I am having a hard time figuring out the buttons. The gameplay is good but dying a lot especially with fucking ads is becoming a nuisance. I am on Siege 1 level still and 5th gate people have gone a little cuckoo.

Still lots of fun but it is giving me a headache a bit. I also increased FOV from 100 to 105 but I think the setting here is slightly different or it looks different due to massive gun size.

Will continue with this but may adjust a couple of things if this becomes a chore.

Finished chapter 6 and 100% it. Was a pain in the ass on the 5th portal. Always running out of health until I realized health pickups were respawning lol.

 

[Armenius]

I think it does if you read the steam forums and internet in general. I have a friend who messaged me the day after he got it that he can't play it at all because he's still on a 1070/80. From the graphics I've seen, the game doesn't need global illumination. It is just devs being lazy. Sad that it has hit iD now but then they are owned by Bethesda/Microsoft.

You can argue how much of a role it plays but RT plays a role. I'd argue maybe 25% of it. Even those of us who have a RT card, no matter how old, the game isn't running as good across the board as the old engine did on older hardware. Overall, I'd say it is the $70 price point for a single player game, post Eternal negativity (said friend is a big Doom fan and didn't play both dlc's of Eternal), and gamepass factors. Maybe even factor in the shield parry mechanic that some like better than required glory kills but it still hamstrings you into guilded designer preferred gameplay.

The 1080 is 9 years old now. That would be like trying to play Half-Life 2 on a NVIDIA NV1.

 

[Zorachus]

Lots of friends and family I know that like Doom games, but haven't bought it yet, have all said it's one of these reasons;

-Worried their current PC can't handle or play the game with the ray tracing requirement and needing recent newer [H]ardware.
-$70 price tag they say is rather pricey for a short single player game they will finish in a matter of weeks.

Everyone that said this I know make a very good living and can easily afford it, and these guys can afford to upgrade their PC, but they just haven't yet, and don't want to blow 70 bucks on a game right now. They've all said the game looks cool and fun, but few said they will wait for a sale, or waiting to upgrade their system.

 

[evhvis]

I think it does if you read the steam forums and internet in general. I have a friend who messaged me the day after he got it that he can't play it at all because he's still on a 1070/80. From the graphics I've seen, the game doesn't need global illumination. It is just devs being lazy. Sad that it has hit iD now but then they are owned by Bethesda/Microsoft.

You can argue how much of a role it plays but RT plays a role. I'd argue maybe 25% of it. Even those of us who have a RT card, no matter how old, the game isn't running as good across the board as the old engine did on older hardware. Overall, I'd say it is the $70 price point for a single player game, post Eternal negativity (said friend is a big Doom fan and didn't play both dlc's of Eternal), and gamepass factors. Maybe even factor in the shield parry mechanic that some like better than required glory kills but it still hamstrings you into guilded designer preferred gameplay.

The forced RT is just as much about speeding up the development process as it is making the game's lighting look more natural. E.g. with RT the level designer can just place a light and see how it looks immediately, compared to doing lots of stuff, then bake the lighting before they can see if the result is OK. I wouldn't be surprised if doing a non-rt version of the maps would take twice the effort of the RT version of the maps and it would be extra work to cater to those who won't upgrade to RT capable GPUs.

RT capable GPUs have been out for almost 7 years so can't really say I feel sorry for people who can't play a brand new game on a 9 year old GPU.

 

[evhvis]

Man these chapters that start off in the mech suit again are a downer. I'm immediately not as excited to play, and often exit the game, it's like the parkour stuff in Eternal.

The mech suit sequences are fairly short and easy enough to get through. I'm on chapter 18 and only spent less than 20 minutes in the mech so far. Mostly dodge and shoot/punch and you get HP refills on kills. The mech levels aren't amazing, but they do give the game a bit more variation and can be a nice break from the long open levels.

 

[LukeTbk]

Sad that it has hit iD now but then they are owned by Bethesda/Microsoft.

That a bit of a strange way to put, they have been one of the most aggressive/precursor at it with Indiana jones, even Ubisoft always on RT tech did accept to run on 1080 gpu and it is hard to see Bethesda-microsoft going into that level of details that much or caring about RT specially... They are not following a trend they are a trend setter and a seller of game engine.

I think a lot of analysis does not take into account how generalized (steam-ps5-xbox) the low sales issues are.

 

[Ranulfo]

RT capable GPUs have been out for almost 7 years so can't really say I feel sorry for people who can't play a brand new game on a 9 year old GPU.

Next you'll tell me that my 2060 Super could really do RT from the beginning and that RT wasn't just an after thought, even on 4-5 year old 30series gpus. But hey I can spend another $450+ to get a card with 16Gb of vram to maybe run one new game at decent framerates with new GI traced rays in glorious 1080p or maybe 1440p. Sign me up.

 

[Armenius]

The only missions I don't really like are the dragon ones. The way they're structured just feels so unnecessary. If they wanted to make an open world game they should have gone all the way. The Siege I feel is when the game truly comes into its own, though I feel it was still a bit too long, seemingly trying to incorporate open world elements without fully committing and further incurring the wrath of the Doom fanbase.

 

[polonyc2]

too bad Slayer Gates weren't added to Dark Ages...they were incredibly annoying and challenging in Eternal

 

[evhvis]

Next you'll tell me that my 2060 Super could really do RT from the beginning and that RT wasn't just an after thought, even on 4-5 year old 30series gpus. But hey I can spend another $450+ to get a card with 16Gb of vram to maybe run one new game at decent framerates with new GI traced rays in glorious 1080p or maybe 1440p. Sign me up.

Feel free to get a console if PC gaming has gotten too expensive for you.

 

[Darunion]

With so many games out there and some good ones recently, I myself just don't see doom standing out from the crowd of options. It certainly isn't a jump out and launch day full price buy. Honestly I am personally thinking it is $20-25 is when I will buy it. Price for me would go up if multiplayer deathmatch or co-op campaign.

 

[DooKey]

Feel free to get a console if PC gaming has gotten too expensive for you.

If he/she/it really has the systems in its sig then I agree with you 100%. Not sure why people that game on old equipment and haven't upgraded in six/seven/eight or more years are complaining since they are obviously not the target market for new stuff.

 

[Zorachus]

My one beef with this new Doom game is all the keybinds and buttons you need to press to play the game now

By adding the shield block we always have to be ready for that. But that's easy, right click mouse button.

But then there's the shield throw which is keybind R.

And there's melee too which is keybind E.

And then you have your standard shooting which is left click mouse button.

Now you have to manage all of these actions almost around the same time within a few seconds of each other. And I'm extending my fingers here there and everywhere and it gets a little tiring or overwhelming at times.

 

[Ranulfo]

Feel free to get a console if PC gaming has gotten too expensive for you.

My apologies, you've missed my point. The hardware makers are advertising tech to sell cards that only have 8gb of vram. Which has been the vram standard for 9-10 years now for mid range to mid-high, namely x70 class cards. The r9 390 had 8gb of vram in 2015. Pascal cards had 8gb+ with the 1070 and higher cards. Polaris chips had 4 or 8gb in 2016.

That new $300 rtx 5060 has the same average performance as my $300 6700xt that I bought almost two years ago and less vram. You can blame Nvidia etc. for the vram and tech issues, I do but game devs are the ones pushing for this now and deserve the complaints they get over it if they make it a requirement. The RT requirement does not help sales and even modern overpriced cards aren't selling me on this new engine when they have problems running it with RT. I think most wouldn't care if the price/perf of the gpu's and the game were worth it.

A video that helps demonstrate the problem of requiring RT when most cards playing it will have 8gb of vram:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAn63YVfJNo

 

[LukeTbk]

A video that helps demonstrate the problem of requiring RT when most cards playing it will have 8gb of vram:

A witcher 3 RT is different, the Witcher 3 does not require it, a special RT edition do, which is a special niche product. An special edition game is more similar to a setting than a requirement.

Mainstream game that require raytracing like avatar, Assassin Creed or Doom will tend to have more work into them and build from the ground up for it, even running it at never should never run game with setting called nightmare or ultra:

Doom will run well, even at ridiculous setting on a 2080/3070 or 7700xt/4060TI 8GB.... with actual realistic setting people use, a 6700xt should be fine (like almost all game tend to be, as it is a bit stronger than a ps5-xboxX and they need to run perfectly fine on those). As hub review say, Even when comparing Medium to Ultra Nightmare, any differences are minimal. Perhaps the distant shadow quality is slightly better, but it's very hard to tell, they are pure screenshot review and not something to use to play the game.

End of the day, unlike a special RT edition, those game need to run perfectly fine on the base PS5 and XboxX, often have an XboxS version, those have very modest RT capability.

 

[pendragon1]

i had no probs on my sig rig. just set the settings realistically.

 

[KickAssCop]

I had no problems either. DLAA and FG.

 

[Captain Newmackwa]

The baseline RT requirement has already reached the lowest common denominator with current gen consoles (including the Switch 2). I'm seeing all this as part of the continuing advancement of gaming graphics which saw shifts towards new hardware requirements e.g. Hardware Acceleration of the various bits of the graphics pipeline like Transform & Lighting, the introduction of Programmable Shaders, new APIs and so on and so forth.

Besides, the baseline requirement for RT hardware, these games are made to still be scalable enough to run decently on RTX 2060 and other 8GB RT capable graphics cards by adjusting the graphics settings accordingly. That's the whole point of having minimum/recommended hardware requirements and graphics settings in PC games in the first place. We can't really expect to run Path tracing at native 4k and Ultra Max Texture quality on a 2060 and feel disappointed if it runs like a slideshow.

 

[sharknice]

The baseline RT requirement has already reached the lowest common denominator with current gen consoles (including the Switch 2). I'm seeing all this as part of the continuing advancement of gaming graphics which saw shifts towards new hardware requirements e.g. Hardware Acceleration of the various bits of the graphics pipeline like Transform & Lighting, the introduction of Programmable Shaders, new APIs and so on and so forth.

Besides, the baseline requirement for RT hardware, these games are made to still be scalable enough to run decently on RTX 2060 and other 8GB RT capable graphics cards by adjusting the graphics settings accordingly. That's the whole point of having minimum/recommended hardware requirements and graphics settings in PC games in the first place. We can't really expect to run Path tracing at native 4k and Ultra Max Texture quality on a 2060 and feel disappointed if it runs like a slideshow.

Yeah, supporting decade old hardware really holds devs back. If you want to play games on your decade old hardware there are plenty of old games and non AAA graphic games to choose from.
The modest hardware requirements weren't the reason for poor sales, there are plenty of other reasons. I think they made the right choice by cutting the dev time and cost and requring global illuminnation. Imagine if the game took twice as long and cost twice as much to make. It probably would have been tthe end of the studio.

Also the people that think they should be able to run every game at max is such a weird entitlement. It reminds me of this guy I played WarCraft 3 with. His performance was so bad he would get seconds per frame during big battles because he had everything maxed out. He refused to lower the settings because "i'm running on a mac it's the best".

 

[KickAssCop]

Hit Chapter 9 and I keep getting 99% in chapters coz of the stupid missions nonsense. I think I give up trying to do 100% on all chapters as I want to play the game how I like it. Puzzle etc. is fine but trying to do dazed with shield bash - I am not going to do that. Ain't nobody got time for that.
Game is dope af though. I am finally getting into the rhythm of things. Chapter 8 boss made me die a few times but once I learnt the timings it was fine.

Sooo good!

 

[evhvis]

My apologies, you've missed my point. The hardware makers are advertising tech to sell cards that only have 8gb of vram. Which has been the vram standard for 9-10 years now for mid range to mid-high, namely x70 class cards. The r9 390 had 8gb of vram in 2015. Pascal cards had 8gb+ with the 1070 and higher cards. Polaris chips had 4 or 8gb in 2016.

That new $300 rtx 5060 has the same average performance as my $300 6700xt that I bought almost two years ago and less vram. You can blame Nvidia etc. for the vram and tech issues, I do but game devs are the ones pushing for this now and deserve the complaints they get over it if they make it a requirement. The RT requirement does not help sales and even modern overpriced cards aren't selling me on this new engine when they have problems running it with RT. I think most wouldn't care if the price/perf of the gpu's and the game were worth it.

A video that helps demonstrate the problem of requiring RT when most cards playing it will have 8gb of vram:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAn63YVfJNo

You are missing the point. I am saying that people either need to get appropriate hardware or get a console if doing proper upgrades is too difficult or expensive. I don't want my experience to be held back by 5-6 year old GPUs and by going RT only they could speed up the development process a lot. Even quite old mid-range cards can run Doom the dark ages, people just need to use upscaling or accept that they get low FPS. Even a 3060 12GB can run the game just fine and that was a lower mid-range GPU from early 2021.

Go back 15 years and the single chip flagships were dropping to medium after 1-2 years and obsolete within 3-4 years. People have been spoiled by the old consoles holding back games, but now games start to go newest gen only and ramp up the graphics along with the minimum requirements. PC gaming has always been much more expensive than consoles, but people have gotten used to the slow development in graphics with RT being optional. E.g. my 3080 held up almost 4.5 years at running close to max settings at 1440p, which is was unheard of when you go back 10 years. A lot of us have been waiting on RT only games as Metro exodus enhanced edition showed it was possible and developers are finally starting to make it a requirement so they can improve the RT and performance with RT on.

There are very few games, if any, that aren't playable on a 8GB GPU, but people need to accept that they bought the card that is meant for low-medium settings with upscaling. They shouldn't have made 8GB GPUs in 2025, but I hold uninformed buyers just as much accountable as I do Nvidia and AMD. I would barely buy a 10GB GPU in 2020 because I knew it was borderline back then, so not sure if I feel sorry for people who can't be bothered to do a little bit of research before buying a GPU.

 

[KickAssCop]

Hit chapter 14. Game is dope af. Enjoying the living crap out of it.