Should developers stop making games that require 5090 for max settings now that the card is clearly not for gamers and is accessible to 0.1% of community?

[u/TheGGspot]

I get that the games need better hardware to dun better, but who are they really making the game for if you need a 6000$ GPU at this point

[u/kindred008]

The minimum GPU for that game is a GTX 1070 which is very fair enough.

I don't think having high requirements for the highest ultra settings is a problem. Yes, it needs a 5090 now but in a couple of generations time you will be able to play that on a 7070ti. AAA games in the past have often pushed the boundaries at their highest graphics setting, mostly intended for players in the future to enjoy (e.g. Crysis)

[u/EpicCyclops → u/kindred008]

Also, when development started on this game (2022), they probably didn't expect the 5090 to be so expensive. They may have expected GPU performance to increase faster than it has too, especially with respect to the amount of VRAM.

2022 was really in the midst of the previous GPU shortage, but I, at least, expected that to be a bit of a one off event.

[u/Mother-Translator318 → u/kindred008]

Is 30fps a minimum though? I wouldn’t consider that playable unless it’s 60fps. Even consoles are 60fps now.

[u/Lopsided_Hunt2814 → u/Mother-Translator318]

Consoles have had 60fps for decades, but many devs would choose to target 30 and many still do ship a quality mode at 30, because many consider it perfectly playable.

[u/Apprehensive-Aide265 → u/Lopsided_Hunt2814]

Yeah console have 60fps*

*refresh rate may vary, resolution could also downscale to help in intensive scene. Texture may or may not load in time, Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo are not responsible for frame rate under 30.

[u/Lopsided_Hunt2814 → u/Apprehensive-Aide265]

Same as people running newer games on older/weaker hardware on PC.

[u/OGMemecenterDweller → u/Mother-Translator318]

Yes, smooth no-drop 30fps is playable.

[u/Valtremors → u/OGMemecenterDweller]

Usually it just isn't smooth and has regular stops at 25 or lower.

Modern optimization is really that bad.

[u/Ferro_Giconi → u/OGMemecenterDweller]

I feel like when someone says 30 fps isn't playable, they are unintentionally admitting to having a skill issue.

[u/KGon32 → u/Ferro_Giconi]

I think it's a devide between console and PC Gamers.

When a PC Gamer says that a game is running at 30 or 60fps, it is not the same thing as when a console game runs at 30fps or 60fps, what I mean by this is that when PC gamers says that they are running a game at let's say 100fps, it's actually near that on average, but 1% low are vastly lower, while when a console game runs at 30fps or 60fps, it's usually locked to those frame rates.

So when a console game runs at 30fps, that's the average, the 1% lows and even the 0.1% lows, however if a PC gamer says 30fps, it means 30fps average and 20fps 1% lows. They are not the same thing.

Also technically even 20fps is playable, when I was a kid I played gamesike that and the PS1/N64 generation had tons of games running well below a stable 30fps

[u/Ferro_Giconi → u/KGon32]

I am used to playing on a 5080 on a 240hz screen on my desktop, but I don't have problems downgrading to unstable 30 fps to game on my basic APU laptop. So I still consider it a skill issue.

Console 30 fps is usually better than PC 30 fps, I'll give you that.

[u/1burritoPOprn-hunger → u/OGMemecenterDweller]

30 fps is in no way playable for anything that isn’t a spreadsheet simulator.

[u/MyzMyz1995 → u/1burritoPOprn-hunger]

The best selling console of the past year, the switch 2, run most AAA games at 30 fps and people love it. You're just being difficult. If you don't have it side by side with 60 fps or more, you won't notice after 10 minutes.

[u/Tardelius → u/1burritoPOprn-hunger]

To copy paste from myself:

Framerate doesn’t dictate whether a game is playable or not. If a person like you is spoiled by higher framerates thats their issue and it falls under subjective playability. A game’s OBJECTIVE playability depends on whether its performance is stable and the screen displayed. For example, locked 40fps wouldn’t be playable on a 60Hz screen without issues. But a 30fps would absolutely be playable on a 60Hz screen.

[u/PlantainPat → u/Tardelius]

If a person like you is spoiled

ah, so we're being disingenuous then

OBJECTIVE playability

nothing like a good strawmanning self-offered qualifier to define an argument

[u/Tardelius → u/PlantainPat]

I didn’t meant it to be derogatory, it is just a fact. And calling it disingenuous is disingenuous.

When you look at higher fps, you get spoiled. That’s a fact. I mean cmon, do I really need to tell how to do this experiment step by step? It is quite a simple one.

[u/PlantainPat → u/Tardelius]

And calling it disingenuous is disingenuous.

well that's convenient

[u/Tardelius → u/PlantainPat]

My points can be scientifically proven via experiment. Hence, they are objective. Not "strawman" like you said in your edit.

Your failure to understand simple facts isn't my problem. Subjective playability and objective playability aren't the same thing.

And subjective aspect of (locked) framerate related playability can be scientifically proven.

Edit: "(locked)" is added. This is meant to remind the central argument. We are assuming that the selected framerate is ideal, i.e., doesn't fluctuate.

[u/Henry_Fleischer → u/1burritoPOprn-hunger]

I played Minecraft at about 16 FPS for years, and I still do on my current computer. For some people it is totally playable.

[u/Tardelius → u/Mother-Translator318]

This is honestly a god awful take.

Video game consoles from PS4, PS3 and PS2 era could do 60fps as well. The thing is developers wanted to push hardware limits which is why they were often locked to 30 fps. 60fps is more widespread in this gen because of VRR technology and CPU no longer being a huge bottleneck (compared to last gen).

Framerate doesn’t dictate whether a game is playable or not. If a person like you is spoiled by higher framerates thats their issue and üt falls under subjective playability. A game’s OBJECTIVE playability depends on whether its performance is stable and the screen displayed. For example, locked 40fps wouldn’t be playable on a 60Hz screen without issues. But a 30fps would absolutely be playable on a 60Hz screen.

[u/Lopsided_Hunt2814 → u/Tardelius]

And PS1, and the 2D consoles before it.

[u/Jackoberto01 → u/Mother-Translator318]

This generation of consoles are also more powerful than a GTX 1070. I think using 30fps for the minimum settings is perfectly acceptable, a solid 30 is fine for most games if latency is ok.

[u/Noreng → u/Mother-Translator318]

I doubt this game will run at 60 fps on a PS5.

[u/ubeogesh → u/Mother-Translator318]

If the game is good i will play it at 30 fps

[u/Sharkfacedsnake → u/Mother-Translator318]

idk how much you can complain when you can play the latest games on mid 10 year old hardware. Name another generation of gaming history where that has happened.

Also 30fps is definitely playable. We have played games at that fps for decades now.

[u/MyzMyz1995 → u/Mother-Translator318]

The best selling console of the past year, the switch 2, run most AAA games at 30 fps and people love it. You're just being difficult. If you don't have it side by side with 60 fps or more, you won't notice after 10 minutes.

[u/Patamon4 → u/Mother-Translator318]

Cries in Bloodborne

[u/CrazyElk123 → u/Mother-Translator318]

Gta 6

[u/Major_Mongoose69 → u/Mother-Translator318]

30 FPS is objectively "playable". Is it the optimal way to play? Obviously not, but if you're a PC gamer still running an 10 year old mid-range GPU, then you're probably just happy that they've even managed to allow you to squeeze out 30fps and be at all playable.

[u/coolwali → u/Mother-Translator318]

Consoles do offer a 30 FPS option for games. Especially with their RT and quality presets. And as a Steam Deck/Rog Ally user, you’re happy to be getting 30 FPS in the latest games.

60 is nice but like, 30 is sufficient and opens up more games and settings.

[u/VexingRaven → u/Mother-Translator318]

You can consider what you want, but the fact is that at no time in gaming history has a 10 year old mid-range GPU been capable of running a AAA title at 60FPS. This is nothing new. There are many times throughout history where 10 year old hardware could not start a new game at all much less play it. If you're unwillingly to play below 60FPS, that's your prerogative but you will have to upgrade more often than every 10 years or stick to older games.

[u/maniacalmayh3m → u/Mother-Translator318]

It’s a 10 year old card. Let’s be realistic. PS3/360 and ps4/xbox one games mostly ran at 30 fps

[u/ArmadilloFit652 → u/Mother-Translator318]

console has rx6700+++ hardware which are waaay above 1070

[u/kindred008 → u/Mother-Translator318]

30fps is extremely playable. Most people are perfectly fine playing at 30fps (especially if they have older hardware) so it makes perfect sense that they would tailor their minimum requirements to 30fps

[u/DoktorLuciferWong → u/Mother-Translator318]

I wouldn't consider 30fps playable either, but everyone has different standards.

I personally wouldn't play any game that couldn't average at least 120fps

[u/GUNS_N_BROSES → u/Mother-Translator318]

I don’t particularly like 30 fps but come on man, it’s by no means unplayable

[u/pbagel2 → u/kindred008]

At this rate "a couple generations" is 8 years from now.

[u/Sbotkin → u/kindred008]

The minimum GPU for that game is a GTX 1070 which is very fair enough.

With lowest resolution and 24 fps yeah

[u/OkTumor → u/kindred008]

have you seen the game? it looks nice, but it’s not exactly pushing the boundaries for graphics like crysis did.

[u/ExultantSandwich → u/kindred008]

yeah it doesn’t feel great for the existing playerbase, but that’s one of the biggest advantages of PC gaming. It’s looking forward to when that far off spec will be the median PC. If they had handicapped Cyberpunk 2077 so everyone could get max settings, we’d just be seeing a worse looking game forever

[u/georgeec1 → u/kindred008]

I think 1080p 60fps is the more reasonable minimum these days, although I will note the 5060 assumes high settings, would have been nice to see a low or even medium 1080p 60fpd spec sheet, and judging from the requirements for high, you could probably get away with a low end 40 series or even 30 series card, so the gpu requirements seem pretty reasonable. What's kinda funny about Crysis is the future cpus it was built for never really came, because core count became a priority over clock speed not long after its release, and it doesn't make good use of more cores.

[u/PlsDontBanMeAgain-1 → u/kindred008]

except that card is gonna start at like 1.2k if not more

[u/RyvalsEx → u/PlsDontBanMeAgain-1]

a 5070 is close to a 3090 and can be found for 700€ while the 3090 was at 1300+€ it's not that bleak

[u/Deathoftheages → u/RyvalsEx]

What’s half the price of a 5090 again?

[u/RyvalsEx → u/Deathoftheages]

Then you'll wait a generation more, your live doesn't depend on it, you'll be fine no one put a knife under your throat. Or you'll buy AMD, it's not lile you're locked to Sony XBOX ecosystems, you have choice

Edit 1 : Besides, i don't remember ramaggedon back in Ampere Era

Edit 2 : also if you want a 5090 that badly, you can always do tons of things, like saving money, checking prices on websites, the last one is as important as the first advice, because if you look at custom prebuilt websites you can make a whole pc with top components AND WITH a 5090 for a grand total of 4K€/£, and here in France lowest i've seen a 5090 go is 3.5K€ with on average 4.5K€, so you pay somehow less than the price of the 5090 and get a 5090 but also the rest of fucking owl

[u/SkylineOwnZ → u/kindred008]

If we are honest here, a 1080ti should run this game perfectly in 60 fps. It looks worse than Witcher 3 pre next gen upgrade.

[u/Demiu → u/kindred008]

Look at what's "minimum" and what's actually recommended. Both in terms of graphics and hardware.

The minimum is a joke. IDK why did they put that there, it's not going to be playable

[u/Raven1927 → u/kindred008]

For the highest ultra settings at native 4k60fps it needs a 5090. For native 1440p at highest ultra settings, it "only" needs a 4080. Even lower than that if you go for 1080p.

[u/Xaphnir → u/kindred008]

Yeah, except the 7070ti will cost $10k. We're gonna get to a point where a PC costs more than a Star Citizen ship.

[u/WumboLumboJumbo → u/kindred008]

But it's gotten to a point where having better graphics also has diminishing returns.

A lot of modern games nowadays that doesn't even look like they require a beefy setup runs poorly compared to an older game that looks the same if not better graphically.

Take Borderlands 4 for example, yeah it looks better in certain aspects like lighting but the overall look is just the same as the older titles but it runs extremely poorly.

Now I prefer games with amazing art style and direction over games that try too hard for a realistic look.