I really hope that this doesn't come to pass. It's all in on the two worst trends in graphics right now. Hardware Raytracing and AI based upscaling.
Even without modern deep-learning based "AI", it's not like the pixels you see with traditional rendering pipelines were all artisanal and curated.
Given netflix popularity, most people obviously don’t value image quality as much as other factors.
And it’s even true for myself. For gaming, given the choice of 30fps at a higher bitrate, or 60fps at a lower one, I’ll take the 60fps.
But I want high bitrate and high fps. I am certainly not going to celebrate the reduction in image quality.
When I was a kid people had dozens of CDs with movies, while pretty much nobody had DVDs. DVD was simply too expensive, while Xvid allowed to compress entire movie into a CD while keeping good quality. Of course original DVD release would've been better, but we were too poor, and watching ten movies at 80% quality was better than watching one movie at 100% quality.
DLSS allows to effectively quadruple FPS with minimal subjective quality impact. Of course natively rendered image would've been better, but most people are simply too poor to buy game rig that plays newest games 4k 120FPS on maximum settings. You can keep arguing as much as you want that natively rendered image is better, but unless you send me money to buy a new PC, I'll keep using DLSS.
What about perceived image quality? If you are just playing the game chances of you noticing anything (unless you crank up the upscaling to the maximum) are near zero.
I am playing on a 55” TV at computer monitor distance, so the difference between a true 4K image and an upscaled one is very significant.
Some [0] are seeing 20 to 30% drop in actual frames when activating DLSS, and that means as much latency as well.
There's still games where it should be a decent tradeoff (racing or flight simulators ? Infinite Nikki ?), but it's definitely not a no-brainer.
But how about a practical argument instead. Enabling raytracing in games tends to suck. The graphical improvements on offer are simply not worth the performance cost.
A common argument is that we don't have fast enough hardware yet, or developers haven't been able to use raytracing to it's fullest yet, but it's been a pretty long damn time since this hardware was mainstream.
I think the most damning evidence of this is the just released Battlefield 6. This is a franchise that previously had raytracing as a top-level feature. This new release doesn't support it, doesn't intend to support it.
And in a world where basically every AAA release is panned for performance problems, BF6 has articles like this: https://www.pcgamer.com/hardware/battlefield-6-this-is-what-...
Pretty much this - even in games that have good ray tracing, I can't tell when it's off or on (except for the FPS hit) - I cared so little I bought a card not known to be good at it (7900XTX) because the two games I play the most don't support it anyway.
They oversold the technology/benefits and I wasn't buying it.
Ray tracing looks almost indistinguishable from really good rasterized lighting in MOST conditions. In scenes with high amounts of gloss and reflections, it's a little more pronounced. A little.
From my perspective, you're getting, like, a 5% improvement in only one specific aspect of graphics in exchange for a 200% cost.
It's just not worth it.
CP2077 rasterization vs ray tracing vs path tracing is like night and day. Rasterization looks "gamey". Path tracing makes it look pre-rendered. Huge difference.
As soon as you remove the ridiculous amounts of gloss, the difference is almost imperceptible.
But that's a game design change that takes longer
Because enabling raytracing means the game supports non-raytracing too. Which limits the game's design on how they can take advantage of raytracing being realtime.
The only exception to this I've seen The Finals: https://youtu.be/MxkRJ_7sg8Y . Made by ex-Battlefield devs, the dynamic environment from them 2 years ago is on a whole other level even compared to Battlefield 6.
With raytracing lighting a scene goes from taking hours-days to just designating objects that emit light
(sorry if obvious / already done)
Ray tracing is solving the light transport problem in the hardest way possible. Each additional bounce adds exponentially more computational complexity. The control flows are also very branchy when you start getting into the wild indirect lighting scenarios. GPUs prefer straight SIMD flows, not wild, hierarchical rabbit hole exploration. Disney still uses CPU based render farms. There's no way you are reasonably emulating that experience in <16ms.
The closest thing we have to functional ray tracing for gaming is light mapping. This is effectively just ray tracing done ahead of time, but the advantage is you can bake for hours to get insanely accurate light maps and then push 200+ fps on moderate hardware. It's almost like you are cheating the universe when this is done well.
The human brain has a built in TAA solution that excels as frame latencies drop into single digit milliseconds.
I would say, the closest we can get are workarounds like radiance cascades. But everything else than raytracing is just an ugly workaround which falls apart in dynamic scenarios. And don't forget that baking times and storing those results, leading to massive game sizes, are a huge negative.
Funnily enough raytracing is also just an approximation to the real world, but at least artists and devs can expect it to work everywhere without hacks (in theory).
edit: not Doom Etenral, it’s Doom The Dark Ages, the latest one.
Light mapping is a cute trick and the reason why Mirror's Edge still looks so good after all these years, but it requires doing away with dynamic lighting, which is a non-starter for most games.
I want my true-to-life dynamic lighting in games thank you very much.
Most modern engines support (and encourage) use of a mixed lighting mode. You can have the best of both worlds. One directional RT light probably isn't going to ruin the pudding if the rest of the lights are baked.
640Kb surely is enough!
On a more subjective note, you get less interesting art styles because studio somehow have to cram raytracing as a value proposition in there.
2. People turn on RT in games not designed with it in mind and therefore observe only minor graphical improvements for vastly reduced performance. Simple chicken-and-egg problem, hardware improvements will fix it.
In accelerated compute, the largest areas of interest for advancement are 1) simulation and modeling and 2) learning and inference.
That's why this doesn't make sense to a lot of people. Sony and AMD aren't trying to extend current trends, they're leveraging their portfolios to make the advancements that will shape future markets 20-40 years out. It's really quite bold.