• stewie410@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    6 hours ago

    I’m still not convinced the engine is the problem. Maybe it’s not helping, sure, but heavy reliance on upscalers to achieve nominal performance is probably a bigger issue.

    That, and shipping before proper optimization passes is probably more profitable in the short term, so publishers will push for that.

    • scintilla@crust.piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      I’m becoming more and more convinced it is the engine honestly. It is probably harder to optimize and devs not having enough time to do so if I had to guess.

    • warm@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Yes, the engine could be used well, but it’s used for it’s out of the box “good” graphics, lighting and such. Which then yes, devs slap on shitty DLSS, frame generation or whatever at the end to reach a somewhat playable framerate (or “framerate number” should I say with the way things are going. Fuck you Nvidia).

      No developers are going to spend ages tweaking the engine to get good performance when people will just buy the game regardless. I’ve yet to see a good performing UE5 game with good fidelity and I probably never will because it’s entirely reliant on TAA as it’s deferred rendering as standard. I hate seeing developers abandoning their own in-house engines just to swap to shitty UE5. I know, I know, it’s all about the money…

      The engine is a plague, as every developer is seemingly moving to it. Chasing “upgraded” graphics that no one asked for. All games consolidating onto one engine is very bad.

      It’s good for movies, bad for games. Give us good raster performance back, no TAA, no upscaling, no frame gen.