Yeah there's a distance where they turn off shadow casting from the NPCs in sandbox. I'm not entirely sure if that distance/decision was revisited later in the project though; it may not be as necessary as it was earlier on. That said, the NPCs are indeed non-Nanite (skinned, etc) and thus they...
forum.beyond3d.com
*note he works at Epic
Ooh I see, thank you.
Just to correct this, it’s PS4 Pro
after DLSS. Not before it. That would be insane.
I was just imagining a frankenstein setup or possibly just the same Ampere chip we've been discussing but with no DLSS features because it wasn't working as hoped and its too far aong to build a new chip, so we endup with a DLSS-less chip with 3x base perf to the OG Switch.
If it’s too far along and there is no DLSS, it’s likely because they didn’t allow devs to use it and mandated they don’t use it I assume.
Fortunately, I haven't seen anyone so far thinking that the DLSS model* will be roughly on par with the PlayStation 4 Pro without DLSS enabled. I think I've seen most people think that the DLSS model* in the absolute best case scenario will be roughly on par with the PlayStation 4 without DLSS enabled.
There is an expectation that with DLSS enabled, it would be relatively like the PS4 Pro. In some ways that is.
I was in the $399 camp before, but with the way everything is going in the world, and the OLED bumping things up, decent chance they have the price elasticity to go up to $449 if they want/need to.
Yeah I’m in the camp of 400-450 personally. If 450, please hold higher (and faster) storage, k thanks
Nintendo will not set their baseline at 500. no way
We don’t really expect 500 unless it can fly.
It won’t be Switch 4K because people without 4K TVs will think they don’t need it - you want everyone to want your hardware. A lot of games probably won’t hit 4K either so they won’t want to advertise it in that way.
I mean, the PS5 says 8k on the box but doesn’t really do that
.
When it comes to naming a device, there will always and I mean always be that group that would take the meaning literally and not metaphorically on the space. But if you give the proper name of what the product is in the title, what you get is essentially an unnecessarily long name that can confuse others.
For example: Nintendo Switch model that has stronger hardware that can do 4K and give you extra performance, and even if you don’t have a 4K Tv it can give you extra performance for your titles.
That’s the title.
And you’ll still get someone that doesn’t it buy it because they
assumed that it wasn’t for them based on the title of it when they don’t have the hardware for it.
But also, timing factors into this, the time during the 2010s is not quite the same as the time now where the majority of the population is connected to the vast media that can provide them information on their finger tips.
If Nintendo doesn’t explain the device in more detail and just leaves it with “does 4K!!!” And ends it there in which it flops, it’s because people didn’t know it works on non 4K TVs or the other benefits. That’s their fault for not actually doing the bare minimum of doing a good first impression for the consumer audience and they would suffer so as a result for doing a terrible job in marketing the device.
The whole marketing is psychological. We before had TV as the major advertiser for gaming related media and WoM from friends and family. Now we have TV, the internet (YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, etc.) and the personalities that give us the info even if paid to do so.
That said, I’m not in favor of Switch 4K as the name.
