Because many signing up for war are doing it for money due to the severe poverty they’re experiencing:

https://youtu.be/dVZjvOrJ0aM

I’m not a graphics engineer so I only have cursory knowledge of the topic.

The biggest benefits that ray tracing brings is the accuracy of lighting your scenes and being able to forego the “tricks” that you mentioned. These are almost always going to be screen-space lighting techniques and effects e.g. reflections (SSR) and ambient occlusion (SSAO).

Unfortunately, the bad news is that you’d still need to understand the 3D math and shader knowledge regardless of whether you can take advantage of ray tracing or not. The good news is there are numerous game engines and resources out there to help!

Hope you make something cool from the hobby!

Game devs are apathetic to ray tracing.

Traditional rasterization will never go away in our lifetime because ray tracing hardware will never advance broadly enough to replace it.

Ray tracing also doesn’t replace the work needed to achieve the desired atmosphere through lighting and fixing performance related issues - which is most of the work.

The games that do support it right now are primarily using it as a marketing tool, and developers are often paid by Nvidia or AMD to spend the time and resources to implement it.

The most broadly successful games are ones that run on the widest variety of hardware to gain the largest reachable audience. Given that Nvidia is pretty much the only competent ray tracing solution for hardware, that market is extremely small compared to the industry at large.

The technology in its current state is not an exciting prospect because it simply means devs have to spend more time implementing it on top of everything else that already needs to be done - purely because the publisher/studio took Nvidia’s money so they could slap the RTX label on the game.

Street value.

deleted by creator

Because the truth is worth knowing

This is the defacto argument that gets pulled into reporting, good or bad.

What is the in the point in the truth in this article’s reporting? What about this story told you anything, or anyone, about what’s ravaging the industry? What message does a supposed $400 million cost tell you other than Concord failed? Do you think 160 developers worked on this project over 8 years with the intent to ‘chase the trend’? Do you think they spent 8 years of their lives building a bad product they didn’t believe in? Or was Sony and the entire leadership team able to fool all 160 people that they were building something special when all they really wanted was a trend chaser?

If this article has enlightened you in a way that has somehow eluded me, I would very much like to learn what you’ve gleaned.

Unless someone from Sony AND ProbablyMonsters confirms the real numbers, I would have nothing concrete to add to the validity of the claims, other than I think it’s bullshit.

But even if I did have this bulletproof info, why would I do what you suggest? So that games journalism can continue to beat a dead horse?

News like this doesn’t do the industry and the people who work in it any favors other than to serve the masturbatory curiosity of people who claim “I can’t believe they spent this much on a game that was clearly going to fail!”

All this kind of reporting does is continue to pull money away from investors who are willing to take chances on new teams making new games (regardless of how derivative they might seem), and cause anguish for the passionate developers who poured their lives into what they believed would have succeeded.

The games industry is in absolute shambles now thanks to years of psychopathic ravaging from large corporations with milking profits, studio shutdowns and layoffs.

Contributing to unconstructive reporting will only worsen it, and I would instead encourage you to ignore news like this.

deleted by creator

This is absolute bullshit.

Firewalk, the studio that made Concord, used to be a part of a parent startup called ProbablyMonsters. Firewalk was sold to Sony last year, in April 2023.

ProbablyMonsters only had a total Series A investment of $250 million, and Firewalk was not the only studio that it was funding - it had multiple.

But let’s just say all $250mil went to Firewalk (of which is impossible because ProbablyMonsters still exists and has other studios). In order to hit this mythical $400mil figure, Sony would have had to spend $150mil in ONE YEAR.

The most significant cost of making a AAA game is paying for the developers, of which Firewalk has about 160 of them. In what world would Sony pay over 900k per developer to see Concord through to the finish line?

The more likely figure that each developer got paid on average is about 180k, that’s still just short of 30mil for 1 year.

Firewalk didn’t start with 160, so you can’t extrapolate that cost to its 8 years of development.

Don’t believe this horseshit.

obviously not Trump but what does Harris bring to the table, Walz?

As @[email protected] has succinctly pointed out, your choices are: vote for Trump, or vote for Harris.

Asking inane questions like “what does Harris bring to the table?” is both-siding bullshit that detracts from this simple fact: If you care about the environment, Trump is the absolute worst choice. Vote Harris.

There is no resolution to your straw man argument worth having and quoting a Wikipedia article doesn’t change the reality of your choice.

“Forever Pay For Your Mouse”

I’ve read a number of comments like yours and have always been curious about this sentiment.

I feel similarly iffy about the whole process. Despite that, I can’t think of a viable alternative at this point in time that wouldn’t lead to a disastrous result.

I genuinely want to know: if he does step down and give way to another candidate, who do you have in mind? Is it one person? Is it multiple? Or are we just hoping that if he steps down, a magical better candidate will show up?

Conversely, I’ve only ever seen “make do” used.

“Make due” would make sense to me in the context where debt is a factor, for example, “make due on rent”.

It doesn’t make sense when you apply that meaning to how the sentence was written in this article.

While writing this angry comment, did you stop to consider that maybe they did their job right and you’re wrong?

https://www.grammar.com/make_do_vs._make_due

Unless you’re living in the early 1900s, “make do” is correct for today’s English.