I dont but heres a crazy thought, should we allow them to lie? If we can;t complain then how are things going to improve, with like anything?
They aren't lying though; like I said the features exist and noone wrecks their sales pitch by highlighting limitations and shortcomings.
Everyone is the target. If consumers arent satisfied with how the game run, companies dont make money. Have you seen what the majority of people have as hardware on steam surveys? Low towards mid-end stuff.
Untrue. Epic want their product's usage highlighted because its good for their business, and why showing their logos is part of their licensing arrangement. That being said they cannot take responsibility for the quality of every implementation.
Buying a Ferrari won't make you a better driver than you were already! What it does offer though is the
potential to drive real fast and look cool while doing it!
Ofc, I'm eastern european. We are are impossible to please and we rarely take shit. Diminishing returns is a real thing and while techniques have improved, more realistic shadows and whatnot, at the end of the day, no one is going to stop and stare at them when they shoot stuff on screen. I hardly care for raytracing even though I appreciate what it does, especially in CP2077 for example, the light bounces and how each tiny useless shit u will never notice casts a shadow that halves your framerate. Work smarter is all they have to do.
Your nationality is irrelevant. The problem is that you probably have spent way too much time listening to shysters like DF, who pretend to know everything but in actuality understand remarkably little and merely parrot buzz-words.
One of the most toxic consequences of their rise is the popularisation of feature-sets as a metric for quality; they emphasize stuff like RT being implemented (and the quality of its implementation) as being somehow really valuable and important, when the real question is to what degree it is beneficial to the presentation as a whole.
There's some screenshots earlier in this thread used to argue the case how little things have improved;
when all what I see is yet another example of the importance of good art-direction and ingenuity versus sheer tech grunt.
My point being that Art and Tech are different, and should not be used interchangeably. DF is toxic specifically because more than anyone else they have driven this idea that the tech is somehow more instrumental than the art in creating an impressive result.
The consequence of this -to get back on point- is that a lot of the time with modern games, devs get hung up chasing feature sets in order to keep-up with the more accomplished teams because the media influence encourages them to think along those lines.
The end result is that they spend so much time and effort ramping up their workload so they can boast using Nanite, or Lumen, or RT or whatever, as part of their competitive pitch, that the smaller stuff simply does not have time to be polished.
I hope you're following me on this because if you have you'll see why I was offended by the "lazy devs" line. They are not being lazy, they are in fact trying to do more then ever technically in many cases
because they feel like they have to.
In the real-world, the upshot of all this is the end-user seeing flaws and issues in the final product that simply weren't there using older, more limited tech*, resulting in them calling the devs "lazy" despite them working harder than ever to please the audience.
*Shader comp stutter is a classic example of this. It only became an issue after shader-usage and variety reached a point where the compiled scripts could not be kept permanently memory resident, and needed to be generated on-the-fly. It being a problem borne not out of lazyness, but out of making efforts to do more, and more work.