Re: Maybe they're right... maybe GPU prices _are_ a bit high

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 14:31 this Tuesday (GMT):

On Tue, 13 May 2025 08:43:39 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>

On 12/05/2025 18:00, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

Of course, you don't need any of these high-end cards, not really. If
you don't mind playing at 'mere' HD resolutions (1920x1080) and
cranking down the settings a bit, even the newest games will run on
video cards two or three generations old. Still, it's a far cry from
the heyday of video-card development (late 90s, early 2000s) where you
could scoop up the hottest card for $300 or less. (And even then we
thought the prices outrageous!).

>
Something I did see that I find quite plausible is that the gulf between
settings has now shrunk a lot as developers understand how to get a lot
more out of medium and low settings than they did before. That doesn't
mean that a top end GPU won't look nicer but instead lower settings no
longer make your eyes bleed as much.

>
In part, that's because video game graphics became 'good enough'
(depending on whom you ask) five to fifteen years ago. Like you said,
it's an era of diminishing returns. There's still a lot of overhead
that, with optimization, even older cards can manage gorgeous visuals.
As GPU prices go up --and gamers become less willing to spring for the
newest hardware-- developers are being forced to better optimize their
games for this 'less powerful' hardware.
>
It also helps that new consoles -caught by these same price
restrictions- are putting a brake on the more extravagant hardware
demands of game publishers. Even if the PC is the dominant gaming
platform, there are too many Playstation/XBox users to ignore by
making a game that looks noticeably worse on those consoles.
>
So nowadays even the cheapest $300 USD HP laptop can play modern
games. Maybe not that well, and without the same flash of the game
running on top-end hardware... but it works. I'd bet there are a lot
more gamers playing on hardware that struggles to provide 30fps than
those who get 120fps or even 60fps, and even if they aren't thrilled
with that limitation, they've come to accept it.
>
>

My personal view is that I got out of 'chasing' high end graphics
several years ago as the price you were paying seem to have ever
diminishing returns for the actual game experience. I also find you very
quickly get used to what you've got so I'm sure I'd be impressed running
at native 4K but I'm also sure that in a month or so it will just be the
norm to me.

>
Same. Like I said, I used to buy multiple GPUs a year, just because I
could and it was fun. There was a noticeable difference in quality and
speed, and the price wasn't THAT outrageous. But nowadays you're
looking at 10-15% speed bumps between generations, for 2 to 10 times
the price. So why bother? I just wait three or four generations before
I bother with an upgrade.
>
It's almost like the lack of competition in the marketplace is making
it easier for the ensconced companies to jack up the price without
improving the quality of the goods. But that would never happen in a
free market. ;-)

Frankly, I feel like all the "super fancy HDR lighting and 8K models"
stuff is just marketing with no point besides to make screenshots look
good and make your super high-end computer feel worth it. Seriously,
would ANY game with the hyper realistic world stuff be worse off if it
was instead focused on other aspects of the game??
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom