this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2023
119 points (94.7% liked)

Gaming

19727 readers
492 users here now

Sub for any gaming related content!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 year ago (6 children)

So long games don't force it to be on, then whatever. Although I expect it to become a requirement for a usable framerate for next gen games. Big developers don't want to optimize anymore and upscaling/framegen technologies are a great crutch.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Of course nobody want to optimize. Its boring. It messes up the code. Often reqires one to cheat the player with illusions. And its difficult. Not something just any junior developer can be put to work on.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You'd expect that when Raytracing/Pathtracing and the products that drive it have matured enough to be mainstream, devs will have more time for that.
Just place your light source and the tech does the rest. It's crazy how much less work that is.

But we all know the Publishers and shareholders will force them to use that time differently.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Eh, in my experience that's not how development works. With every new tool to improve efficiency, the result is just more features rather than using your new found time to improve your code base.

It's not just from the publishers and shareholders either. Fixing technicial debt issues is hard, and the solutions often need a lot of time for retrospection. It's far easier to add a crappy new feature ontop and call it a day. It's the lower effort thing to do for everyone, management and the low down programmers alike.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

New features is what sells a product, so not far from my original point, I'd say.
Definitely a bit of both, and improving code is never the highest priority, yeah.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)