I feel like more games should bring back demos so people can try the game and see if it even runs on their computers. It would bring alot more people to games if they could see if it runs before they spend 60-90$ on a game nowadays.
@@spectex304 Steam do issue a refund for any title that is requested within 14 days of purchase and has been played for less than 2 hours (this includes online, offline and shared library playtime).
I feel like developers nowadays are focused too much in graphics but what we really want is just decent gameplay. The graphics you will forget about it after a few minutes but the gameplay is what makes it special and grabs you.
On the contrary. There arent many photorealistic games out there. Thats why everyone is hyped about it. But when theres too many games of it, it will die down
@@Mirakuruuu " Thats why everyone is hyped about it" Speak for yourself. People may be hyped for it until these games finally come out and people notice how overrated and boring they will be
Another reason why big and medium sized studios switch to Unreal is quite simple. It's the turnover. Toolset standardization solves the issue of constant vacancy. Nearly every studio looses majority of it's original workforce over couple years which unsurprisingly is development time for a single title. Unreal is what people train with in school so they don't need additional training. It also has an advantage from developers perspective. Staying in a single studio for too long usually stagnates your career opportunities. Therefore learning an internal engine when you hope to reach higher might be a waste of time or even something that just psychologically binds you down, because you can't use your new skillset anywhere else.
Yeah that would be awesome if they made that open source. We didn't even see a current gen only game with that so who knows what are the true limits of that engine. Also IdSoftware's Idtech engines would be amazing for shooters.
Yeah who ever works at capcom to make re engine are incredible making a game that look like mh rise and fit that in a switch is amazing inplay on it as well and still get surprised on what that engine is capable of.
@@valentinvas6454 as if a game can't be downgraded for previous gen/weaker systems 🙄🙄 So I should take Pacific Drive and Sword of the Sea are next gen triple A games since they won't come to PS4, right?
Not to mention at the beginning of unreal engine 5, nanite was extremely restricted on what you could use it with, but really boiled down to just static meshes that didn't move at all. With recent updates improving that to bring nanite foliage in either 5.1 or 5.2 (i dont remember), nanite landscapes in 5.3, and now almost everything can be used with nanite which is insane. Unreal is improving at a ridiculous speed. Making optimization as simple as clicking a couple buttons and still looking insanely good
Yeah! With Nanite, the performance has been boosted more (and I watched 2 videos where the difference between with and without Nanite is ultimately huge as evidence) plus it can be used on low-poly all the way to high-poly. In short, all low-end devices can now handle and play high-quality UE5.3 games with Nanite enabled
Unreal is a shity fack that sits on top fo your pc like a potato. Big clunky and unusavle to be used in middle tier hardware. Meanwhile unity is so simple and lightweight
@@RivenbladeScuz Unity is trash meant for indie trash and mobile games lol But it's the devs fault for not properly optimizing their games and early adopting UE5
I don't think so, I think if you make a photorealistic game, then people will buy it. The problem is making a photorealistic game where people can't even run it.
Yes, if UE5 ends up being the only advanced game engine used in the future for AAA games i see problems as well: the problems you see with every monopoly like you said: they could become greedy and ask for more than a 5% cut for using their engine if your game makes more than a million dollars in revenue. Dunno about the part of more games looking similar to each other, hopefully that is not the case because i hope the engine offers all you need to express your creativity.
If you recall during the 360 and PS3 era of gaming, you could look at a game and go. hmm this is a UE3 game because they share all the same shortfalls and same tech
engine is a tool, a image editor is not the same as all other image editors, but maybe u spot a certain effect specially if the dev no work too much on it, but idfferent form a image editor, a game have many backgroud stuff, bethesda many things in their games are cause of limitations of engine, no game can feel like gta because ROCKSTAR uses they own in house engine, etc etc.
Ghost runner 2 is UE5 and well optimized. This engine runs good on even low end builds when done right. Future games that arent being rushed out will likely impress us alot more.
I work professionally in Unreal Engine - I even coded the custom rendering pipeline for our in-house version of the Engine. I can promise you that Unreal can be very, very, very optimized and run like a dream on a toaster. Really its up to the devs to make sure their technical artists are enforcing tight Texture/Material/Asset SOPs and not using the engine features as an excuse not to optimize like we have in the past.
@@GameBoyyearsago lol according to Google SOP means standard operating procedure, not sure that's what they mean by that, anyway, would love to learn most ways to make a game well optimized
For 2d games there are actually quite a few open source game engines and frameworks that are getting more popular such as Godot, which also does 3d and is getting better at that. I think the future of game dev is open source, it'll take a while for the waves to shift but I do believe it will happen.
@@wallacesousuke1433 Alpha never commented on the 'cost' of Unreal or any engine. Their comment was that Open Source game engines and frameworks will eventually be the future as they get better. And if we're going to talk about cost, then you know as well as everyone else that UE is not free, it's under a licensing agreement. Abandoning commercial engines for open source engines is not simply about finding a "free alternatives". Open Source means that the community and users have total control over the engine and are under no licensing agreement or TOS. The core advantage to open source is that they are non-proprietary, meaning that regardless of what happens with the development of an open source tool, they can be forked over by other people, and extortionate licensing policies can never be imposed on you. You are free as in freedom with open source
@@geraldsmithers9270 5% after your first million for an amazing game engine sounds like a massive deal to me (and studios can even negotiate that fee), especially for indie devs. Even open source projects such as emulators and Blender have to get money from somewhere (funds, donations) and UE source is available for anyone to tweak (unlike Unity).
The main purpose of Ray-tracing for real-time rendering is to remove (or minimize) the laboring process of pre-baked effects. At least that was the good intention, but the performance/cost ratio is still keeping the this from reaching mass adoption, so game devs and artist still put down the time to hand craft all the SFX as a primary option, while RT is still held back as an afterthought. As a result of this, we are all in a vicious circle of an expensive tech (RT) only providing diminished quality returns for a rather steep price of admission and no one is willing to bite bullet and invest in RT-first AAA title. The only way I see out of this loop is for the next gen of console hardware to take a quantitative leap in RT and AI hardware support, to level off the playing field.
Hello there, can you clarify what you mean by "laboring process of pre-baked effects" as for me prebacked lighting even on the oldest engines (Quake1, DOOM 1996 etc) is just done when you compile the level (which is just pressing 1 button and waiting for the mapping editor to finish compiling) and we today have real time preview of pre backed lighting for such engines.
@@attractivegd9531 Light Baking in modern Games are a lot of work, HQ Assets made it so it takes a lot of time to bake the scene. Which makes iterative work harder. Also you need to prepare your Assets, you need a second proper UV channel to store the baked texture, auto generating these is quite often unusable, also small objects are useless to bake. Dynamic objects cant be baked so to get these to behave properly you need to place light probes, they capture the light around and can project it on dynamic object, Placing these in proper places is time consuming
No, pre baked is art form itself , ray tracing gonna making dev more lazy on making their scene intended for viewing, just like how dlss or upscale made dev lazy on optimization on their game
no , and no bro. the purpose of ray tracing was to create realistic lighting . it really doesn't save taht much time in developement otehr tahn thay "bake time " for creating a light map somthing that on a deccent work rig would take maybe 15-20 minutes tops. RT was originally created back in 1989 with the first release of 3ds max. back then a single machine would take a week or two to render a RT frame though. so movie studios woudl ahve a render farm to produce their movies , but every one of those movies had RT in them. it was not created to reduce production times. nor is it a "lazy maker" outta devs. the biggest difference with RT lighting and rasterization lighting; is 1 omni directional light being set to no shadow casting with a "global" radius and having it's luminosity set to very low levels to "trick" bounce lighting. even with RT all the other lights still have to be placed and manually adjusted for luminosity , intensity,. color , radius and a variety of other light settings such as fall off ect ect. the only active build differnce is 1 freaking light placing and adjusting. you got rt you can skip placing that one light. that's like 2-3 minutes of work. minuse 10 minute bak time at max you are only savign 13 minutes of dev time per map area. BUUUT since not every one can run RT good or at all... devs still ahve to do all that 13 minutes of stuff. the 3 minute extra light set up and the 20 minute level baking. right now it saves them NOTHING
@@attractivegd9531 that is litterally what this guy is talking about he just doesn't know it. even with RT and NO classic rasterization lighting , devs are still gonna have to place and manually adjust every light source in the editor minus the one light used to fake bounce lighting, and they are still gonna have to compile the level when the map is finished. these people saying that "RT is only to save dev time" have no freaking idea what they are talking about and have never worked inside 3ds max or unreal or any game engine for that matter. 3ds max has had RT render options since it's creation in 1989. and you litterally do the same ammount of work lighting in Rt as you do in rasterized lighting. you just get results that are a million times better with RT.
There are few more others devs which are not using UE like Bethesda etc, but most of the devs switching to Unreal Engine because it's much easier to develop game in Unreal
Any big studio has engines that rival UE5, dude, Capcom has RE Engine, CDPK has their own for Cyberpunk, Ubisoft, EA, Activision, Rockstar, Sony, and the advantage is that their staff gets to know and optimize their engine to a T, UE5 is just the best "free" engine, but without proper optimization it can run and look like garbage
Godot has getting lot of visibility lately. It's probably going to replace Unity in many ways. And it's opensource so no risk of new CEO making money grab. It's far behind Unreal for realistic graphics, but it's suitably for people who go for different style or 2D. Then there are studio specific custom engines for specific niche. And people who just write game without using a game engine but write everything specifically for their game. Unreal has just advanced so far ahead of others for realistic looking games that if that's your goal then you actually have one option. But for anything else there are many other engines there. And if Unreal stops moving forward in terms of realism the other engines will catch it eventually.
@@danavidal8774 Don't forget Unreal not only does graphics but is also a tool. They can always improve their tool so that you can make a game faster in Unreal than say...Unity for example.
However, realism isn't the only thing it can also excel at. If Hi-fi Rush and Guilty Gear's like games isn't any indication of the flexibility of artstyle too.@@danavidal8774
Godot 4 is quite nice, 3d performance has improved so much since 3. I hope the recent interest and publicity +also donations, can help them fund the project to improve it further.
@@shyhrk Oh i'm sure it will. In fact i suspect that in the coming years some game studios may use Godot as a base to fork their own game engines for their own games, and contribute back to Godot proper. Game Studio's that _actually control their own engine_ is incredibly empowering, whether it's just regular Godot or their own in-house fork of it.
Almost a year later and the title still holds true lmao, love Silent Hill2 remake cause it's so faithful to the original, hated it due to UE5 massive stuttering issue giving me severe headache on indoors area.
Making game lighting close to real life is a boon and bane, especially when darkness is involved. In a game like COD, without NV helmets or, weapons that has them, it is going to be frustrating for players who have to strain their eyes even more to find their targets before the enemy 1 or 2 shot kills them. This would definitely be useful in horror games where it makes sense to increase tension.
It's up to developers to light areas as they want them lit. There is no excuse for completely dark areas unless that is for a desired effect. That's why you often see night time missions in games having a bright full moon so there is still some lighting. It goes beyond the rendering with monitor technology as well. The likes of oled monitors have much better variation in dark levels so a standard ips will have much muddier dark colour levels making it harder to see details. Again this is a consideration that developers have to keep in mind.
I've said a few years now that we are in another shiny Unreal Engine Era just like the Xbox 360 era. Unreal much Cyber Punk Is a high functioning tech demo , when your engine is constantly updated then there's a High learning curve and steps back as we go forward, Engines like the Red engine has been cooked longer than whatever version of Unreal that's out, But investors are the ones pushing for faster turnaround times etc and Unreal promises that
We're in a shiny unreal era, but i also think we're on the cusp of entering a shiny Open Source Era too. When you've got an explosion of attention to Open Source projects like Godot at the complete demise of a big commercial engine like Unity, that's a big deal.
I'm hoping Godot can actually make some waves in the wake of Unity self-emolliating themselves. Competition is definitely good. On the other hand, UE has already had a dominant market share for years now. I believe on their own, they make up nearly 50% of all games put out on the market, give or take. I believe what will be "ruining games" more over the next decade is game studios becoming complacent and resting on their laurels by remaking their most beloved classics IN unreal. With all the resident evils and last of us' and assassin's creeds and metal gear solids that are getting remakes made for them, and getting LOTS of critical and commercial praise, stagnating creativity is going to be the biggest issue for me personally as the years go on. Because games in UE can stand out if the devs want to or have the freedom to make them, like hi fi rush or the pathless. But if they can just take a game they already made and slap a really pretty UE5 skin over it and tweak the mechanics a tad, then make squillions of dollars doing it, why bother innovating or being creative at that point?
I mean, if the Witcher 1 Remake in Unreal Engine 5 is gonna be any good (and will come after The Witcher 4 anyways, a new game) can you blame me for buying it? I played the original from 2007 in 2007 and recently as well and if play it right now you can see why a remake would probably be successful: same good story and music but modern gameplay and graphics? Why not? Expecially the gameplay and mechanics.
@@Z3t487 That's actually the most insidious part. Yes, it makes sense to do. Yes, a lot of these games can benefit from modern updating. And that's why it's going to keep happening. The games will be good, they'll sell gangbusters, people will love them, it will encourage the studios to just keeping doing it and doing it and doing it and doing it and doing it, and then you wake up and suddenly realize we haven't had an original AAA game for the last 3-4yrs. I won't blame you for it. If Atlus put out Persona 1 and 2 remakes, I'll snatch them up immediately. I'm not innocent in the creation of this creative dystopia we are making for ourselves. I just think it's good for us to at least acknowledge that the water is beginning to boil as we sit in it.
@@rellikai945 what's the issue with Remakes again? Have you see the majority of new games these years? Pure generic garbage or recycled ideas (cough From games, Ubisoft cough cough) creativity has already been stalled so I'd rather they remake actually but dated games from the past, better eras of gaming
@@wallacesousuke1433 You don't regain creativity by burying your head in the sand and remaking entire IPs wholesale from the past. That's how you end up with the "recycled ideas" that you appear to not be such a big fan of being perpetuated ad nauseum.
Developers should focus on making sure the average consumer's builds can at least run the game. Not like in immortals of aveum where you need a 2080 super to RUN it.
I really want tutorials that don't cost a kidney to learn optimisation. Seriously I can't find 1 comprehensive tutorial that covers anything deeper than 4 buttons. LODs, Nanite, Lumen those are all such a small part of optimisation.
UE5 is not ruining games, its the developers that really dont know how to use it properly. One of the main reasons it now runs worse than 4 is it defauts to DX12 instead of 11. Also like you said, a lot of people are using Lumen which is very hard on GPUs. So any game that is unoptimized will absolutely run like crap.
@mikem9536 yeah the only problem here is... are we going to blame every singe game ever Made from this day forward? Can't keep blaming the devs it's a hardware issue at the moment that's why I didn't buy a 4090 or any 40 series it's a huge downfall of released gpus. 4090 vs 3090 isn't huge isn't a game changer like the 20 series was. The 50 series on the other hand will be a different story
@@jessiestarr4600 The 4090 runs circles around the 3090 (well north of 50% faster) while being $100 more expensive at MSRP. As far as flagship GPUs go, the 4090 is a huge generational increase in performance and easily "justifies" the extra expense over the 3090. Say what you will about the rest of the 40-series lineup, but the 4090 is the one card in it that doesn't embarrass itself.
i am a bit worry because UE5 was released years ago but yet we don't see any complete games developed and as a mainstreamed games. And i wonder why .....
The best thing about PC Gaming in 2023 is unplugging from the new AAA scene. Most of the games are unfinished, uninspired hyped-up piles anyway. How many "Starfield sucks but I really like it" reviews does it take to make the point? It's a lot more fun to go back and play an older title you only got 30-45fps medium/low with back in the day, and run it at maximum settings, the bugs all fixed, all the DLC, plus mods.
This is a great question. With UE anyone can express their artistic creativity without a need to get into complexity of level programming and hardware resource management. Indie developers especially try grab attention with shiny graphics, sacrificing all performance in the process. Now it's almost a guarantee that if something is made with UE5, it's gonna run poorly. Viewcounts of UA-camrs that make and showcase good looking, but poorly optimized, scenes made in UE5 give wrong impressions to companies that this is what gamers want and are okay with. Thus we get optimization catastrophe that, for example, Starfield is.
And I just thought that if Starfield would use Unreal engine, I would probably buy it. I think that everybody should use UE instead their own bugged engines. I haven't played any UE 5 games, so it is possible that it has gone to pigs after introducing RT.
@@playnochat Bethesda I don't think will ever release game on Unreal Engine, they use Creation Kit and if it's for good or bad, Skyrim and Fallout 4 is good example why CK and Skyrim is one of most modded game Bethesda should release CK2 next year and let's see what this brings, hoping for CBBE reincarnation and new quest which you can create only with CK, I don't think it will be possible with Unreal Engine Starfield is not bad game although performance is far from best but this I think is limitation as at first they made this game for Xbox S/Xbox X in mind and probably limitation of CK2 If you played before Skyrim SE or Fallout 4 then you will understand I don't think so if Starfield was on UE would be better game, I don't think so it would be as big as right now plus requirements would be lot higher, just check Skyrim rework on EU, it's massive and I'm sure it will run on 4090 at 30FPS with game cranked up to max When Skyrim was released it was mess but after few patches and mods it's awesome game and with Bethesda track record in mod support it can become next Skyrim in modding community
It’s top heavy for sure, but it offers a lot of tool sets for developers and artists. As time passes and the product matures, and the tech around it, so will the people creating on the platform.
the problem is unreal is truly the best value option out there. it respects your time. if you want to use another you have to make a choice to choose a lesser option. you can't reasonably ask developers to use a less tested, worse funded, less supported engine.
if nintendo is anything to go by, graphics matter to a point. If the game looks ok and is fun the people don't really care about graphics. I myself play a lot of 2d pixel art games.
There's a game engine which will more likely replace Unity for most indie developers than UE5... it's Godot. Because Godot is an open-source game engine which does not require any credit or financial cut... It has also made quite a lot improvements when it comes to 3D rendering already.
Why is the water physics in Wave Race 64, which is 27 years old, still not achieved in modern games? Why does the waterfall in Panzer Dragon Orta, which is 21 years old, look an order of magnitude better than another waterfall in modern games? It's not about hardware power, and tricked out engines. It's about the people who draw this water and other delights.
I feel the opposite, I feel like because of Unity's drama, big companies will start to develop their own engine more. UE is just one of the most accessible engines, hence why so many people's using it.
my man. i am so onboard with everything you're saying. i literally got downvoted to hell and back for bringing some of these points up in the unrealengine subreddit...
Everyone should check out the SW Battlefront 2 and compare the lighting and outdoor textures to CP2077 and ask were we better before the pump and dump stock schemes took over gaming. Compare redwoods of Endor to Nomad desert scenes. 5 Years, a kidney sale, and I don't think it's better.
I'd say if the engine itself makes the game basically unplayable on Steam Deck right now, then it is an issue right now. Epic updating UE doesn't really translate into improvements for already released games because developers should do extra work in order to update existing project with those new features. There is an indie game called Boti: Byteland Overclocked that doesn't look extra demanding at all and yet people have issues running it. Now check out how it looks and tell me that this kind of game style really needs raytracing to look good.
Devs are not at UE5 due to lumen and nanite mainly. Of course its shiny and everyone wants to get as much as possible when it comes to graphics. This tech is kind of showing the direction. Real power in UE5 is huge amount of tools. Thanks to that, creative part at many aspects can be done without engaging coders and it is easier to do the things in parallel. Secondly there are thousands of possible employees on the market which is not a thing with custom technology. About optimization. Engine itself is huge and not all companies know how or/and have time to optimize- unfortunately.
I think the only game engine that can dominate UE5 is Ubisoft Massive's SNOWDROP engine, till now only 2 games have been made with SnowDrop (The Division 1 and 2) and both games looks insane and runs like a dream. Their upcoming games Avatar Frontiers of Pandora and Star Wars Outlaws are using SnowDrop engine and those games looks so much better than any UE5 game that came out recently.
Its too bloated and heavy. The good looking features like nanite and lumen tank framerates. This is why I LOVE Valve. In Counter Strike 2 I can get like 300+ FPS maxed out, it feels super responsive, and fluent, and it still looks beautiful. Video games are not movies. If you're sacrificing frames, input latency, and causing poor feeling controls you're doing it wrong. The novelty of amazing graphics wears off fast and you're left with the gameplay and mechanics to hold your interest, ya know, the most important part. I was so happy when DLSS started becoming mainstream thinking it would allow me to do 4K 120+ frames in everything but its sad where its ended up where devs use it to circumvent any work in optimization, to barely hit 60 FPS with it on. Consumers need to stop accepting 60 FPS as the bare minimum. We see more and more console releases reverting to THIRTY FPS again (Starfield recent example)! This is insane! It feels like a sluggish choppy slideshow, IDK how anyone can go back to that!
I work with UE5, my pc have a R5500 and a RX6600. And i can say games made with Unreal can be optimized, but we know its up to devs to do this task. But all i can see is lazy devs making shitty games and expect to gamers buy a new gpu. I dont will buy another gpu and not will buy your game too 😀
Nah its a good thing to be unifying game design with a very powerful, easily accessible, universally understood engine. Devs can focus more on making good games instead of a good engine because they have one already. It makes it easier to higher new devs too if they use it, because many devs might already know UE5 but wouldnt know how to use some proprietary engine tech
TBH, UE isn't the only AAA engine out there, it's the most advanced engine that's commercially available. The big studios like EA, Rockstar, Blizzard they all have their own proprietary engine. This is similar to how 3D industry works with also part of the game industry. In 3D, Maya and Max are basically monopoly (made by the same company) and every single studios are using it for asset creation and animation for games but the biggest studios like Pixar have their own tools for everything although in more recent days they've also adopted the more popular options.
While Unity is on its downfall right now Godot is rising from its ashes and is known for being extremely lightweight and easy to use. Many indies are moving to it and I believe it can definitely compete with Unreal in a few years
i hope there will be variety, having all games on the same engine starts to show up at one point, where different engines and such adds to the game's core in various ways. Kinda like when you play some games and you can say they're made in Unity right away. Not that it's a bad thing but they don't go deep far beyond in it, they stick to the surface like most and you can start seeing the patterns. Like examine a game like Deus Ex Human Revolution, with say, 3 games that are all made in unreal engine. You can pinpoint the different one quick and imo Deus Ex has rly that cozy thing going, thx to its engine.
Rumors say The Matrix Demo ran on Switch 2. I think developers will start optimizing their games, if they want them to release on the new switch (which is a lot slower than a 3050)
Rumors also said it ran zelda botw at 4K60fps with DLSS, which tells me it will be fine. Just because it will have an ampere GPU, it doesn't mean it will have the same performance as a 3050. The main reason it doesn't have 4000 series GPU is because the switch 2 screen will probably be a 60Hz display, so there's no point on trying to use FG on it, so a 3000 series GPU is good enough, and since 3000 series can run DLSS3, for a portable device that will max at 1080p probably unless docked, it will run perfectly fine.
@@rob4222 i know, and my point was that there would be no point on having a 4000 series gpu on the switch because its not probable for it to have a high refresh display, so fg would be pointless.
I'm fine with using Unreal Engine for most games, as LONG as they team up with GPU makers so they can align their performance/optimisation expectations and stop releasing games that run like 🐕💩. The two (software + hardware) must be reconciled one way or another. It'd be better off for both hardware and software industries if it happened sooner than later. You're right about the monopoly aspect though. That'd be bad for innovation, greed and just plain sheer dominance. There exist Unity .... but .. ;) No other game engine can really compete with Unreal Engine...
In what what does using the same game engine affect innovation? UE is just a set of tool, just like most studios and filmmakers use Maya, Houdini, Cinema 4D, Zbrush, Adobe products and still you can't tell unless some insider or video reel tells you
I love what I am seeing from UE5 but I am afraid that studios will leave their in house engines and all shift to UE5. I like engine diversity like I wish CDPR still stuck with red engine because man cyberpunk looks amazing!
I was quite shocked to learn that the red engine is being dropped. Considering how much investment and technology is in it. They should consider licensing to other studios or make it open source and have a plan similar to UE.
It's genuinely refreshing to see a Unreal Engine game release without shader compilation or asset streaming stuttering, without the Vert- FOV scaling that makes playing on anything wider than 16:9 cancer, and with actual controller support (meaning more than just XInput controllers are officially supported). Unreal Engine has become a blight on PC Gaming at this point (And it's shader tools that aren't flexible enough has lead to the homogenization of game visuals), and Denuvo for Unreal makes modders fixing anything with those games way more difficult. Any game using that engine has become "Wait for it to be on Game Pass, wait for a yarhar copy, or wait for a demo on Steam before buying", because most games that use it are hilariously low effort Xbox debug builds.
Love what you said. Take open world games for example, combine the same engine being used and the same Activision Formula and the all seem the same lackluster and boring. They are too similar, no atmosphere, just fancy but empty buckets.
The first engine I used was CryEngine. For me, it was more impressive and intuitive than Unreal. For some reason, they stopped innovating and became less attractive. Even if I don't use it now, I hope they catch up and shine again.
Optimization problems will increase, cause most devs using UE5 can't optimize the core systems of the engine only their game code(except coalition they are better than epic in their own engine lol), unless Epic releases more optimizations like they released with UE 5.2 like allowing to bake static lights, but still use lumen for dynamic lights..
Worth noting Hollywood has fully embraced UE5 to the point were the UE community got flooded by movie & tv pros trying to understand the program, seems like overnight every other studio big and small made their own LED Volume for UE5.
You can make 2D in UE4/5 easier by changing the rendering technique rather than just using normal 2D rendering. Basically, you use a 3D drawing technique called Render-To-Texture. It's actually an old emulator trick to bypass the 2D drawing matrix and leverage the 3D engine completely by having the scene render to a single texture on a 3D plane as the scene and focus. You use the texturing and transformation engine to change everything on the texture rather than using the flat 2D drawing rasteriser.
so many trash games come out of unreal engine 5, i genuinely cant stand looking at people making those low poly games made in it because it just looks bad. Its also a bad shortcut instead of making a game that looks and plays good on its own merit it only looks good because it made in UE5.
I don't think UE becoming the prime game dev engine is a problem. So what if all games look the same in the future? Hollywood movies have been looking the same for quite some time because the ultimate goal of most VFX studios is generally the same -- make the VFX look realistic. That's also the ultimate goal of game devs, so as long as that desire remains there (and UE is there to fulfill it) then yeah, UE ain't going away. That said, I've seen UE games that don't show even a shred of similarity with the average UE-made game, because ultimately you can tweak to taste. So in a sea of clones it's up to the creatives to stand out even if they use the same tools. It's not the tool, it's the user.
Agree with you UE on several points but imagine creating own engine for game? Many big studios developed own render engine like Frostbite, REDengine, RAGE(GTA V, Red Dead Redemption) or Creation Kit (Starfield using CK2 or Fallout 4 etc) Many ports from consoles are UE because they are easier to port, optimisation of games it's down to developers and big studios like EA which are pushing them release the game although they know game is in messy state Many big studios will switch to UE just due money, it's easier to develop game in UE than built own render engine UE on one hand is awesome render engine but on other hand it's killing game industry and development of other render engines Best hope now is,devs will start learn how to utilise UE and learn how to optimise more
It took them 5 years to optimize a cartoon based battle royale , the literall creators off the engine. I mean that should tell you enough about the state it is in and why the engine is insanely bad ...
Here's the problems I see which may have been missed by you or not elaborated enough upon. - With unreal having high requirements, you're going to see more and more mandatory use of upscaling and frame generation with who knows what else to boost framerates. - With upscaling becoming more ubiquitous, we will see dev's equate upscaling to ''optimization''. Currently we are seeing dev's use it as a requirement just to scrape by. - When dev's release more and more unfinished, unoptimized games with UE5, this will signal to other dev's like bugsthesda that unoptimized games are alright to release. Look at how poorly starfield performs despite not using UE5. - All this will affect GPU's. Nvidia will keep releasing software updates more often, especially at the low end. - You should also mention CPU requirements becoming idiotic. Why does CP 2077 need to kill most CPU's? RDR2 looks about as good yet does not need as good of a CPU or GPU to run. I'd argue, upscaling has done more harm than good. Its introducing even more exclusivity to GPU's now. Its now becoming a requirement just to play games that don't look much better than last gen games. Whats the point of releasing games 99% of people cannot reasonably run? 3060 is the most popular GPU. 1650, 1060 and 2060 follow after. Consoles are around a 3060 in performance. Who are you targetting dev's?
@@mikem9536 Exactly. I went from a 1650 to 3070ti and now you're telling me I need some BS frame generation which only rtx 4000 has? Not to mention rtx 4070 does not beat the 3070ti. At best, edges it out. Thats it. Pathetic jump. Literal software update.
3060 user here ( with a 5600G ) and you hit the nail on the head perfectly. Never thought i would need to worry about performance at 1080p with a card equivalent to a 2070, specially coming from a rusty RX470 4GB. But here we are in 2023 with all kinds of garbage performing games on PC.
@@danath5714 When a game is well optimized, it literally does not need upscaling. Also what about CPU's? 5700x is getting maxed out in CP 2077. How? I went from 1650 laptop to 3070ti laptop (similar to desktop 3070). 4070 mobile does not beat 3070ti mobile. If the rtx 4060ti is not faster than 3060ti, 4060 being barely faster than 3060, etc. what will that bode for the future? How will RT ever get even adopted?
@@siyzerix Very true, there are modern exceptions like Everspace 2 i keep mentioning. 😛Or others like Atlas Fallen, which i sadly didn't like much. I also find it ridiculous how a CPU like 5700X can get maxed out on a game, specially when AI is as crappy as CP2077 ( even GTA4 has better pedestrians ) 😂 The most i have seen the 5600G on the games i tried is like 50-55% usage. Remnant 2 used 50% at 1080p native, but ran like ass without upscaler as we know
UE5 provides us with the opportunity to discover games that were previously overlooked due to visual limitations. However, while some aspects of these games may not fully utilize the visual and auditory capabilities offered by UE5, such as sound design, gameplay mechanics, or color palettes, there is a tendency to mistakenly attribute any shortcomings solely to UE5.
unreal engine is not ruining gaming, bad devs studios are ruining gaming because of poor optimization and a lack luster art direction, Unreal engine is just a tool and it's not the problem the developers just suck and companies don't give a damn about quality. the engine has nothing to do with the art style, that's up to the developers and artist in terms of creating their own assets.
I personally chose to not use Lumen + Nanite, because you can't just "turn off lumen" The lighting would look so much different for 80% of the players who couldn't run it. I would rather have 60+ FPS with less realistic graphics, than 30 with good-looking lighting.
The REDengine struggled to run a game like Cyberpunk hence why it took them 3 years to release the 2.0. Simply put, the REDengine never was up to the task for that kind of open world with vehicles and FPS view and I'm pretty sure it it stitched up as best as they could at that point. I think switching to a 3rd partyt engine in which there is support available and a ton on devs working oin it is actually a smart move. Look how Bioware was almost put into the ground because they were forced to use Frostbite, an engine made for FPS. This is hardly the only example.
The upside of Unreal is the dedicated Devs who works on it. In House Game Engine like the CDPR's RED Engine or Beth's Creation Engine needs engineers to get updated to have it on the new games, which in eats time and resources just for the "overhauling/updating/adding". The only thing that Game Devs to separate from themselves are the core art style/gameplay, if they're all aiming down for "graphics".
This video aged like wine over A WEEK now that Unreal Engine advertised they are going to switch to SUBCRIPTION in 2024 so EVERYONE has to pay them something, they also stated its not going to be unreasonably priced or UNREASONABLY CHEAP
not really, they said artists, not game dev or movie makers, will pay for subscription. Which is understandable because when you develop a video game or movie with UE, they make a percentage off of the money you make by selling your creation. But artists who use UE for rendering pictures or short video or characters to then export elsewhere and sell their arts, UE isnt making any money. Thats why they decided to add subscription for those. For game dev, it remains the same, because payment is quite clear. starting at 1 mil$ in profit, they get like 3% cut.
UE5 might be the 800 pound gorilla of engines, but I don't see it becoming a monopoly. A fair number of developers and publishers still and will continue to use their own custom engines, including Ubisoft, Capcom, SIE and its studios, ZeniMax and their studios, etc. As far as games using UE5 becoming visually homogenous, that's also likely not going to happen unless every developer starts dipping into the same asset pool. Unrecord probably won't look anything like the next Borderlands, for example.
I think UE5 will be a huge positive thing for gamers and movie makers. We might finally see amazing budget movies that we could miss without it. I think that it will be good time for gamers because imagine scenerio when UE5 is so good and well known that every game that comes out will be running on 100+ fps on low end graphic card. It might be a future not a problem in the future. Think positive :)
It's almost always the artists and not the tools. Small studios pushing for absolutely maximum fidelity are gonna find a way to run into performance issues no matter what. I'm positive if they'd have tried to optimise their experience, they could have. It's not like Fortnite is impossible to run since they made the switch. Haven't heard too many complaints about Satisifactory either. Games that want to try to drive sales by being Crysis will find a way without UE5. Even the previous Jedi game had big performance issues that were never addressed, prior to UE5.
Gears 5 runs on UE4 and its buttery smooth with great visuals. Its weird that other devs can't achieve the same level of quality of a game that came out in 2019
Yeah I hope UE5 isn't the only engine. It's not just the fact that the games may all end up looking the same, but specific engines are built for specific types of games and its harder to make certain types of games in different engines. Its not just about 2D vs 3D, its sim management games, RTS games, heavy AI stuff, VR games, experimental stuff. It will limit the type of the games and the speed at which they are made if only one engine is available.
the entire point of nanite and lumen was to develop a SOFTWARE-BASED ray-tracing feature for graphics cards and other graphics units that were struggling with developing their own ray-tracing cores in their own hardware. So basically it was intended to be a workaround for processors that couldn't ray trace the hard way (pun intended). It did not help AMD discrete gpu's very much, but it DID make it easier for laptop gpu's and other APU's to perform ray-tracing tasks in controlled environments, which is significant progress because it still makes ray-tracing tasks lighter. Now we just have to refocus both Nanite & Lumen, and AMD graphics cards on getting these things to work together in an optimized manner.
I'd say that yes Unreal Engine 5 will ruin gaming for a while. 1. There's no denying it, UE games all look the same and recent ones do not run well, unless you have top of the line hardware. Texture lag is still a thing to this day. I remember some games day 1 would have character models look worst than Roblox characters? What's the point of the engine, if the majority of the people would never even see it's benefit. 2. Nanite, Lumen, path tracing, ray tracing, whatever other hell tools you put in there, works really well if I'm trying to make animation for a cartoon, movie or shorts. Shitty when needed to be rendered in real time as none of the current hardware that is affordable to the mass public can run it to a stable degree without high power usage and noise levels. As much as UE includes other tools that can help optimize the game, (A)means nothing if developers don't use it, and (B)1 step forwards 2 steps back isn't really a step forward now is it? I remember playing old Assassin's Creed games that still looks good after more than half a decade and even better than many of the recent unreal engine games. 3. Developers and consumers BOTH are to be blamed for the complacency in video game development. Developers who think they can just do the bare minimum and get paid, and we the stupid consumers who buys every game they release. The same problem we can see with micro-transactions and gacha mechanics. Developers include them and STUUUPID consumers eat it up and look where we are now. 4. Look no further than the animation industry in the 90s-2010s. We had Pixar who cracked the code for realism animation, then BOOM every other animation studio is trying to render fuzzy fur, glossy eyes, warm skin, so on and so forth. And for close to two decades, realism was something sought after until Spiderman:Into the Spiderverse broke the cycle, by releasing a piece of stylized animation. The same can be seen now with the utilization of UE as a whole. How realistic can we make the character models, the environment, the LIGHT!!!!! I mean it's baked into the software, I used it so I know. That part of your video demonstrating ray tracing with Spider Gwen in a dimly lit room shows that that the one with ray tracing sucks ass. I can barely see things in the room. In a competitive PVP where my reaction matters, not being able to see where I'm going sucks!! Heck professional FPS players turn of shadow (removing an aspect of realism), to make sure that they don't accidentally shoot shadows. Games are meant to be played too, not gawked over only. 5. A lot of developers with the tools presented to them will no longer go the extra mile to make their games their own. Why would you? It's a formula that works. Make something that looks realistic, release a montage of heavily spliced gameplay with rock music playing in the background, release it on steam and watch the money come in. They will all feel the same and it most cases these games are the same. How many more PvPs that's just another rendition or genre copy of the previous one? How many more open-world action RPG where something happens in the world but nothing meaningful actually occurred and here we go again beating another grotesque giant? 6. Corporatization of a lot of these video game developing companies surely did not help either. Now with execs who never once develop any video game, investors who probably went to Epstein island, and CEOs who just comes in for the paycheck, breeeaaaathing down on developers neck to quickly finish the game so they can churn out a new one, it is impossible to have a good game released. IM-pos-SI-ble. So after all this, what do I think has to happen? I think there needs to be another video game crash in the industry. Like it or not, money talks, and the only way for the execs, investors, and CEOs to listen is to take their money away. But it will never happen, because people today are okay with mediocrity. The silent majority are people who spend on these games, and people like Vex who cares and are critical with the use of the technology is the loud minority.
"But it will never happen, because people today are okay with mediocrity." People didn't buy immortals of aveum and the studio faced layoffs. Forspoken also had poor sales and the studio responsible is being closed as well. Both games have poor performance and mediocre graphics and the sales weren't good. Mediocre games are already coming back to bite devs. If the scales tip too much in one direction with the games being horrible, the simple fact is that no one will buy them. There will eventually be a correction in the gaming market.
Yes. I'm tired of seeing it already. I don't consider Unreal Engine a game engine. I consider it a graphics engine first and game engine second. Its behavior and physics cannot hold a candle to proprietary game engines like Decima and AnvilNext. If you pay attention to what looks good in Unreal they are all static elements. Cutscenes don't count btw. That reminds me that I'm tired of games that have too many or long cutscenes. I game to game. Not watch a movie. A testament to that are Nintendo games. But all that is old news. The emerging technology in gaming is AI behavior. I'm hoping that will make gaming very very interesting.
I have a bad feeling about this… Literally. I just feel like epic is going to turn out to be worse than even ea if given the chance (like most companies would to be fair). My only objective problem with eg is their launcher. If I need to use your launcher, it better not BOG DOWN my pc to the point where I get 60fps for 0.5s and 30fps for the other half.
I think the problem with Cyberpunk is that they tried to develop the game at the same time as the engine. Valve said they struggled during the Half-Life episodes era, so they put a stop on developing games until Source 2 was done (or at least in a state where they were content with). EA had Frostbite, however, this proved that having your own proprietary engine can give you more headaches than benefits given that development teams outside of DICE struggled with the engine and caused high profile failures like Mass Effect Andromeda and Anthem, and it also bit them in the back when key people that developed the engine left, hence, they've been struggling after BF1 and BFV and 2042 were an absolute mess.
Monopoly in any industry is disastrous... You know why the cost of everything is going up... it's because there are monopolies, or near monopolies in many industries in the US. You want a case and point, Nvidia. Nvidia owns 85% of the GPU market, ok, that's not technically a monopoly, but their market share is so high that they basically dictate GPU prices. Do you want Unreal dictating everything they are in a position to dictate if they become the only game engine, did we not see what just happened with Unity, Unity had a near monopoly in the Mobile game space and they decided to be draconian, do you really think that at some point Unreal won't do exactly the same thing, and what would prevent them from doing that... a competitor that customers (studios) could turn to if they ever decided to try it. No competitor, no alternative, you want to make a game you play by Unreal's rules. Does no one know their goddamn history, this has happened before. Have you never heard of J.P. Morgan, or John D Rockefeller or Andrew Carnegie. They owned Banking, Oil and Steel in this country in the early part of the last century, complete monopolies, as a result they dictated wages, and hours, and benefits, and of course prices. THESE "ROBBER BARONS" ARE WHY THEY US HAS FUCKING ANTITRUST LAWS... because monopolies hurt everyone.
4:10 I would risk running this game if I found out that there was a mod that removes lumines and nanites from the game. so that my computer can run this game at 30 FPS
I just hope developers learn to make UE5 games that don't require a 4090.
Is it expected from devs who don't know TAA can be tweaked with simple commands even in UE4 to make a game in UE5 that does not require 4090?
The ultra settings should be catered to the 4090 through
Devs: but innovation... we should push harder
Wishful thinking there. They just gonna slap frame gen and call it a day. Milenial devs are the worst and most lazy devs i've ever seen.
Or we need Nvidia makes 4090 at 300 dollars
I feel like more games should bring back demos so people can try the game and see if it even runs on their computers. It would bring alot more people to games if they could see if it runs before they spend 60-90$ on a game nowadays.
Tru
@@spectex304 Steam do issue a refund for any title that is requested within 14 days of purchase and has been played for less than 2 hours (this includes online, offline and shared library playtime).
@@derrickyam5776 still requires you to "purchase" the game
Demos are free forever
just crack the game, it's so easy. if you like it then buy it
@@qwertyrewtywytertyNot every game is cracked at release
I feel like developers nowadays are focused too much in graphics but what we really want is just decent gameplay. The graphics you will forget about it after a few minutes but the gameplay is what makes it special and grabs you.
Blame today's """""gamers"""""" who only care about graphics and big open world, cinematic storytelling and fall for every fake game trailer.
On the contrary. There arent many photorealistic games out there. Thats why everyone is hyped about it. But when theres too many games of it, it will die down
@@Mirakuruuu " Thats why everyone is hyped about it"
Speak for yourself. People may be hyped for it until these games finally come out and people notice how overrated and boring they will be
@@wallacesousuke1433 Wow you literally just repeated what i just said. *Facepalm
@@wallacesousuke1433on god
Another reason why big and medium sized studios switch to Unreal is quite simple.
It's the turnover.
Toolset standardization solves the issue of constant vacancy.
Nearly every studio looses majority of it's original workforce over couple years which unsurprisingly is development time for a single title.
Unreal is what people train with in school so they don't need additional training.
It also has an advantage from developers perspective.
Staying in a single studio for too long usually stagnates your career opportunities.
Therefore learning an internal engine when you hope to reach higher might be a waste of time or even something that just psychologically binds you down, because you can't use your new skillset anywhere else.
Interesting point
Wow good point.
Very good point! @vextakes maybe make a follow up video highliighting this positive 👌💯
Capcom's RE engine is holding up really well graphically and is very performant on old hardware like the PS4.
Yeah that would be awesome if they made that open source. We didn't even see a current gen only game with that so who knows what are the true limits of that engine.
Also IdSoftware's Idtech engines would be amazing for shooters.
Yeah who ever works at capcom to make re engine are incredible making a game that look like mh rise and fit that in a switch is amazing inplay on it as well and still get surprised on what that engine is capable of.
@@valentinvas6454Resident 4 Remake isn't next/current gen? What have you smoked?
@@wallacesousuke1433 Umm since RE4 remake is playable on the PlayStation 4 it's pretty freaking cross gen if you ask me.
@@valentinvas6454 as if a game can't be downgraded for previous gen/weaker systems 🙄🙄
So I should take Pacific Drive and Sword of the Sea are next gen triple A games since they won't come to PS4, right?
Not to mention at the beginning of unreal engine 5, nanite was extremely restricted on what you could use it with, but really boiled down to just static meshes that didn't move at all. With recent updates improving that to bring nanite foliage in either 5.1 or 5.2 (i dont remember), nanite landscapes in 5.3, and now almost everything can be used with nanite which is insane. Unreal is improving at a ridiculous speed. Making optimization as simple as clicking a couple buttons and still looking insanely good
Yeah! With Nanite, the performance has been boosted more (and I watched 2 videos where the difference between with and without Nanite is ultimately huge as evidence) plus it can be used on low-poly all the way to high-poly. In short, all low-end devices can now handle and play high-quality UE5.3 games with Nanite enabled
Unreal is a shity fack that sits on top fo your pc like a potato. Big clunky and unusavle to be used in middle tier hardware. Meanwhile unity is so simple and lightweight
imagine shilling for Unity even after the recent news@@RivenbladeS
if you call unity lightweight, Wait until you see godot@@RivenbladeS
@@RivenbladeScuz Unity is trash meant for indie trash and mobile games lol
But it's the devs fault for not properly optimizing their games and early adopting UE5
This engine has almost singlehandedly killed my hype for any game announced, just gonna stick with classics if all devs start using this
It takes more than real-life graphics to get people to buy a game. The overall experience KEEPS their attention and keeps them coming back to play it.
I don't think so, I think if you make a photorealistic game, then people will buy it. The problem is making a photorealistic game where people can't even run it.
@@richardsmith9615I'm done with pc gaming
@@richardsmith9615pretty much.
I wont buy shit that I can’t run in the first place.
@@richardsmith9615 The opinion of casuals does not count.
@@IncognitoActivado average snob gamer
And at the end (or at the beginning), the main question is "What I can make with the engine?", not "What the engine is capable of".
Yes, if UE5 ends up being the only advanced game engine used in the future for AAA games i see problems as well: the problems you see with every monopoly like you said: they could become greedy and ask for more than a 5% cut for using their engine if your game makes more than a million dollars in revenue. Dunno about the part of more games looking similar to each other, hopefully that is not the case because i hope the engine offers all you need to express your creativity.
If you recall during the 360 and PS3 era of gaming, you could look at a game and go. hmm this is a UE3 game because they share all the same shortfalls and same tech
the issue won't happen as long as TIm is in control.. but once Tim loses control.. yeah..1000000% f'd.
engine is a tool, a image editor is not the same as all other image editors, but maybe u spot a certain effect specially if the dev no work too much on it, but idfferent form a image editor, a game have many backgroud stuff, bethesda many things in their games are cause of limitations of engine, no game can feel like gta because ROCKSTAR uses they own in house engine, etc etc.
It won't, pal, tons of big studios have their own game engines
Ghost runner 2 is UE5 and well optimized. This engine runs good on even low end builds when done right. Future games that arent being rushed out will likely impress us alot more.
I work professionally in Unreal Engine - I even coded the custom rendering pipeline for our in-house version of the Engine. I can promise you that Unreal can be very, very, very optimized
and run like a dream on a toaster. Really its up to the devs to make sure their technical artists are enforcing tight Texture/Material/Asset SOPs and not using the engine features as an excuse not to optimize like we have in the past.
SOP?
@@wallacesousuke1433 Explain : )
@@GameBoyyearsago explain what? I'm the one asking what SOP means :P
@@wallacesousuke1433 Yes i want explain too : )
@@GameBoyyearsago lol according to Google SOP means standard operating procedure, not sure that's what they mean by that, anyway, would love to learn most ways to make a game well optimized
Late 2024, and every SINGLE UE5 release is still a horrifically optimized pile of shit. I have 0 doubt this will continue
For 2d games there are actually quite a few open source game engines and frameworks that are getting more popular such as Godot, which also does 3d and is getting better at that. I think the future of game dev is open source, it'll take a while for the waves to shift but I do believe it will happen.
I agree
UE is technically free lol
@@wallacesousuke1433 Alpha never commented on the 'cost' of Unreal or any engine. Their comment was that Open Source game engines and frameworks will eventually be the future as they get better.
And if we're going to talk about cost, then you know as well as everyone else that UE is not free, it's under a licensing agreement. Abandoning commercial engines for open source engines is not simply about finding a "free alternatives". Open Source means that the community and users have total control over the engine and are under no licensing agreement or TOS.
The core advantage to open source is that they are non-proprietary, meaning that regardless of what happens with the development of an open source tool, they can be forked over by other people, and extortionate licensing policies can never be imposed on you. You are free as in freedom with open source
@@geraldsmithers9270 5% after your first million for an amazing game engine sounds like a massive deal to me (and studios can even negotiate that fee), especially for indie devs. Even open source projects such as emulators and Blender have to get money from somewhere (funds, donations) and UE source is available for anyone to tweak (unlike Unity).
@@wallacesousuke1433 Just because something is free doesn't mean it's good.
UE5 is not ready. Remanent 2 and Black Myth Wokung look great but something still looks wrong. I put hours into both.
The main purpose of Ray-tracing for real-time rendering is to remove (or minimize) the laboring process of pre-baked effects. At least that was the good intention, but the performance/cost ratio is still keeping the this from reaching mass adoption, so game devs and artist still put down the time to hand craft all the SFX as a primary option, while RT is still held back as an afterthought. As a result of this, we are all in a vicious circle of an expensive tech (RT) only providing diminished quality returns for a rather steep price of admission and no one is willing to bite bullet and invest in RT-first AAA title. The only way I see out of this loop is for the next gen of console hardware to take a quantitative leap in RT and AI hardware support, to level off the playing field.
Hello there, can you clarify what you mean by "laboring process of pre-baked effects" as for me prebacked lighting even on the oldest engines (Quake1, DOOM 1996 etc) is just done when you compile the level (which is just pressing 1 button and waiting for the mapping editor to finish compiling) and we today have real time preview of pre backed lighting for such engines.
@@attractivegd9531 Light Baking in modern Games are a lot of work, HQ Assets made it so it takes a lot of time to bake the scene. Which makes iterative work harder.
Also you need to prepare your Assets, you need a second proper UV channel to store the baked texture, auto generating these is quite often unusable, also small objects are useless to bake.
Dynamic objects cant be baked so to get these to behave properly you need to place light probes, they capture the light around and can project it on dynamic object, Placing these in proper places is time consuming
No, pre baked is art form itself , ray tracing gonna making dev more lazy on making their scene intended for viewing, just like how dlss or upscale made dev lazy on optimization on their game
no , and no bro. the purpose of ray tracing was to create realistic lighting . it really doesn't save taht much time in developement otehr tahn thay "bake time " for creating a light map somthing that on a deccent work rig would take maybe 15-20 minutes tops. RT was originally created back in 1989 with the first release of 3ds max. back then a single machine would take a week or two to render a RT frame though. so movie studios woudl ahve a render farm to produce their movies , but every one of those movies had RT in them. it was not created to reduce production times.
nor is it a "lazy maker" outta devs. the biggest difference with RT lighting and rasterization lighting; is 1 omni directional light being set to no shadow casting with a "global" radius and having it's luminosity set to very low levels to "trick" bounce lighting. even with RT all the other lights still have to be placed and manually adjusted for luminosity , intensity,. color , radius and a variety of other light settings such as fall off ect ect. the only active build differnce is 1 freaking light placing and adjusting. you got rt you can skip placing that one light. that's like 2-3 minutes of work. minuse 10 minute bak time at max you are only savign 13 minutes of dev time per map area. BUUUT since not every one can run RT good or at all... devs still ahve to do all that 13 minutes of stuff. the 3 minute extra light set up and the 20 minute level baking. right now it saves them NOTHING
@@attractivegd9531 that is litterally what this guy is talking about he just doesn't know it. even with RT and NO classic rasterization lighting , devs are still gonna have to place and manually adjust every light source in the editor minus the one light used to fake bounce lighting, and they are still gonna have to compile the level when the map is finished. these people saying that "RT is only to save dev time" have no freaking idea what they are talking about and have never worked inside 3ds max or unreal or any game engine for that matter. 3ds max has had RT render options since it's creation in 1989. and you litterally do the same ammount of work lighting in Rt as you do in rasterized lighting. you just get results that are a million times better with RT.
it feels like rockstar and naughty dog are the only devs which could stand up to UE5
Capcom?
There are few more others devs which are not using UE like Bethesda etc, but most of the devs switching to Unreal Engine because it's much easier to develop game in Unreal
@@jurakerlehaBethesda engine sucks
Decima Engine sais "Hi".
Any big studio has engines that rival UE5, dude, Capcom has RE Engine, CDPK has their own for Cyberpunk, Ubisoft, EA, Activision, Rockstar, Sony, and the advantage is that their staff gets to know and optimize their engine to a T, UE5 is just the best "free" engine, but without proper optimization it can run and look like garbage
Godot has getting lot of visibility lately. It's probably going to replace Unity in many ways. And it's opensource so no risk of new CEO making money grab. It's far behind Unreal for realistic graphics, but it's suitably for people who go for different style or 2D. Then there are studio specific custom engines for specific niche. And people who just write game without using a game engine but write everything specifically for their game. Unreal has just advanced so far ahead of others for realistic looking games that if that's your goal then you actually have one option. But for anything else there are many other engines there. And if Unreal stops moving forward in terms of realism the other engines will catch it eventually.
Even if Unreal keeps moving still realism has a limit, reality, and every steps closer to reality the details get smaller and harder to notice
@@danavidal8774 Don't forget Unreal not only does graphics but is also a tool. They can always improve their tool so that you can make a game faster in Unreal than say...Unity for example.
However, realism isn't the only thing it can also excel at. If Hi-fi Rush and Guilty Gear's like games isn't any indication of the flexibility of artstyle too.@@danavidal8774
Godot 4 is quite nice, 3d performance has improved so much since 3. I hope the recent interest and publicity +also donations, can help them fund the project to improve it further.
@@shyhrk Oh i'm sure it will. In fact i suspect that in the coming years some game studios may use Godot as a base to fork their own game engines for their own games, and contribute back to Godot proper. Game Studio's that _actually control their own engine_ is incredibly empowering, whether it's just regular Godot or their own in-house fork of it.
Almost a year later and the title still holds true lmao, love Silent Hill2 remake cause it's so faithful to the original, hated it due to UE5 massive stuttering issue giving me severe headache on indoors area.
I hate UE5 with a passion. Makes me wonder how well MGS: Delta is going to run.
Making game lighting close to real life is a boon and bane, especially when darkness is involved. In a game like COD, without NV helmets or, weapons that has them, it is going to be frustrating for players who have to strain their eyes even more to find their targets before the enemy 1 or 2 shot kills them. This would definitely be useful in horror games where it makes sense to increase tension.
It's up to developers to light areas as they want them lit. There is no excuse for completely dark areas unless that is for a desired effect. That's why you often see night time missions in games having a bright full moon so there is still some lighting. It goes beyond the rendering with monitor technology as well. The likes of oled monitors have much better variation in dark levels so a standard ips will have much muddier dark colour levels making it harder to see details. Again this is a consideration that developers have to keep in mind.
I don't know what lumen is but I can't see anything except the character and the light bulb😅
@@VirusUchIts ray tracing all you have to do is look at the lighting of the room not the bulb its not hard to use your eyes.
I've said a few years now that we are in another shiny Unreal Engine Era just like the Xbox 360 era. Unreal much Cyber Punk Is a high functioning tech demo , when your engine is constantly updated then there's a High learning curve and steps back as we go forward, Engines like the Red engine has been cooked longer than whatever version of Unreal that's out, But investors are the ones pushing for faster turnaround times etc and Unreal promises that
We're in a shiny unreal era, but i also think we're on the cusp of entering a shiny Open Source Era too. When you've got an explosion of attention to Open Source projects like Godot at the complete demise of a big commercial engine like Unity, that's a big deal.
@@geraldsmithers9270 Indeed true
I'm hoping Godot can actually make some waves in the wake of Unity self-emolliating themselves. Competition is definitely good.
On the other hand, UE has already had a dominant market share for years now. I believe on their own, they make up nearly 50% of all games put out on the market, give or take. I believe what will be "ruining games" more over the next decade is game studios becoming complacent and resting on their laurels by remaking their most beloved classics IN unreal.
With all the resident evils and last of us' and assassin's creeds and metal gear solids that are getting remakes made for them, and getting LOTS of critical and commercial praise, stagnating creativity is going to be the biggest issue for me personally as the years go on. Because games in UE can stand out if the devs want to or have the freedom to make them, like hi fi rush or the pathless. But if they can just take a game they already made and slap a really pretty UE5 skin over it and tweak the mechanics a tad, then make squillions of dollars doing it, why bother innovating or being creative at that point?
I mean, if the Witcher 1 Remake in Unreal Engine 5 is gonna be any good (and will come after The Witcher 4 anyways, a new game) can you blame me for buying it? I played the original from 2007 in 2007 and recently as well and if play it right now you can see why a remake would probably be successful: same good story and music but modern gameplay and graphics? Why not? Expecially the gameplay and mechanics.
@@Z3t487 That's actually the most insidious part. Yes, it makes sense to do. Yes, a lot of these games can benefit from modern updating. And that's why it's going to keep happening. The games will be good, they'll sell gangbusters, people will love them, it will encourage the studios to just keeping doing it and doing it and doing it and doing it and doing it, and then you wake up and suddenly realize we haven't had an original AAA game for the last 3-4yrs.
I won't blame you for it. If Atlus put out Persona 1 and 2 remakes, I'll snatch them up immediately. I'm not innocent in the creation of this creative dystopia we are making for ourselves. I just think it's good for us to at least acknowledge that the water is beginning to boil as we sit in it.
@@Z3t487The Witcher 😂🤢 get out of here with thay trash, clown
@@rellikai945 what's the issue with Remakes again? Have you see the majority of new games these years? Pure generic garbage or recycled ideas (cough From games, Ubisoft cough cough) creativity has already been stalled so I'd rather they remake actually but dated games from the past, better eras of gaming
@@wallacesousuke1433 You don't regain creativity by burying your head in the sand and remaking entire IPs wholesale from the past. That's how you end up with the "recycled ideas" that you appear to not be such a big fan of being perpetuated ad nauseum.
Developers should focus on making sure the average consumer's builds can at least run the game. Not like in immortals of aveum where you need a 2080 super to RUN it.
Even after latest patch ? If do.Yeah that was sad. No wonder that game, forspoken have poor sale.
Yet everyone's hyping about visuals and all that bullshit, but no one dares to make an actually appealing story, game design and all that core stuff.
I really want tutorials that don't cost a kidney to learn optimisation. Seriously I can't find 1 comprehensive tutorial that covers anything deeper than 4 buttons. LODs, Nanite, Lumen those are all such a small part of optimisation.
UE5 is not ruining games, its the developers that really dont know how to use it properly. One of the main reasons it now runs worse than 4 is it defauts to DX12 instead of 11. Also like you said, a lot of people are using Lumen which is very hard on GPUs. So any game that is unoptimized will absolutely run like crap.
If the game struggles to sell to gamers, then you can only blame the devs for failing to reach their target audience.
So true, I'm glad he pointed it out on 10:39
@mikem9536 yeah the only problem here is... are we going to blame every singe game ever Made from this day forward? Can't keep blaming the devs it's a hardware issue at the moment that's why I didn't buy a 4090 or any 40 series it's a huge downfall of released gpus. 4090 vs 3090 isn't huge isn't a game changer like the 20 series was. The 50 series on the other hand will be a different story
@@jessiestarr4600 The 4090 runs circles around the 3090 (well north of 50% faster) while being $100 more expensive at MSRP. As far as flagship GPUs go, the 4090 is a huge generational increase in performance and easily "justifies" the extra expense over the 3090. Say what you will about the rest of the 40-series lineup, but the 4090 is the one card in it that doesn't embarrass itself.
@@Kuriketto 50% ain't much
Stutter engine 5 did it once again with Silent Hill 2 Remake...
i am a bit worry because UE5 was released years ago but yet we don't see any complete games developed and as a mainstreamed games. And i wonder why .....
The best thing about PC Gaming in 2023 is unplugging from the new AAA scene. Most of the games are unfinished, uninspired hyped-up piles anyway. How many "Starfield sucks but I really like it" reviews does it take to make the point? It's a lot more fun to go back and play an older title you only got 30-45fps medium/low with back in the day, and run it at maximum settings, the bugs all fixed, all the DLC, plus mods.
This is a great question. With UE anyone can express their artistic creativity without a need to get into complexity of level programming and hardware resource management. Indie developers especially try grab attention with shiny graphics, sacrificing all performance in the process. Now it's almost a guarantee that if something is made with UE5, it's gonna run poorly.
Viewcounts of UA-camrs that make and showcase good looking, but poorly optimized, scenes made in UE5 give wrong impressions to companies that this is what gamers want and are okay with. Thus we get optimization catastrophe that, for example, Starfield is.
And I just thought that if Starfield would use Unreal engine, I would probably buy it. I think that everybody should use UE instead their own bugged engines. I haven't played any UE 5 games, so it is possible that it has gone to pigs after introducing RT.
@@playnochat Bethesda I don't think will ever release game on Unreal Engine, they use Creation Kit and if it's for good or bad, Skyrim and Fallout 4 is good example why CK and Skyrim is one of most modded game
Bethesda should release CK2 next year and let's see what this brings, hoping for CBBE reincarnation and new quest which you can create only with CK, I don't think it will be possible with Unreal Engine
Starfield is not bad game although performance is far from best but this I think is limitation as at first they made this game for Xbox S/Xbox X in mind and probably limitation of CK2
If you played before Skyrim SE or Fallout 4 then you will understand
I don't think so if Starfield was on UE would be better game, I don't think so it would be as big as right now plus requirements would be lot higher, just check Skyrim rework on EU, it's massive and I'm sure it will run on 4090 at 30FPS with game cranked up to max
When Skyrim was released it was mess but after few patches and mods it's awesome game and with Bethesda track record in mod support it can become next Skyrim in modding community
Starfield is hardly an optimization catastrophy
Unreal Engine and Performance Optimization never go together.
It’s top heavy for sure, but it offers a lot of tool sets for developers and artists. As time passes and the product matures, and the tech around it, so will the people creating on the platform.
PC gaming is doomed, my friends. See the trajectory.
🥛 i approve, take this glass o' milk for your good work Vex.
Agreed and I liked that cat of yours. U should give him some milk sometimes 🥛
my cat's lactose intolerant
the problem is unreal is truly the best value option out there. it respects your time. if you want to use another you have to make a choice to choose a lesser option. you can't reasonably ask developers to use a less tested, worse funded, less supported engine.
if nintendo is anything to go by, graphics matter to a point. If the game looks ok and is fun the people don't really care about graphics. I myself play a lot of 2d pixel art games.
Possibly there needs to be options to disable VSM and Lumen in games settings as these do have big performance hits.
There's a game engine which will more likely replace Unity for most indie developers than UE5... it's Godot. Because Godot is an open-source game engine which does not require any credit or financial cut... It has also made quite a lot improvements when it comes to 3D rendering already.
It isn't the only one, there is also the O3DE (from the Linux foundation), flax, Wicked engine...
Unity has guaranteed a stutterfest for at least a decade.
Why is the water physics in Wave Race 64, which is 27 years old, still not achieved in modern games? Why does the waterfall in Panzer Dragon Orta, which is 21 years old, look an order of magnitude better than another waterfall in modern games? It's not about hardware power, and tricked out engines. It's about the people who draw this water and other delights.
Wdym? Sea of Thieves has a pretty good water behaviour
I feel the opposite, I feel like because of Unity's drama, big companies will start to develop their own engine more. UE is just one of the most accessible engines, hence why so many people's using it.
my man. i am so onboard with everything you're saying. i literally got downvoted to hell and back for bringing some of these points up in the unrealengine subreddit...
Very happy and smiling when i saw a new video uploaded from you!!! Keep the good work man!!!
I know, Godot is as not near as "good looking" as unreal. But after seeing this, fingers crossed for Godot 5.
Everyone should check out the SW Battlefront 2 and compare the lighting and outdoor textures to CP2077 and ask were we better before the pump and dump stock schemes took over gaming. Compare redwoods of Endor to Nomad desert scenes. 5 Years, a kidney sale, and I don't think it's better.
I'd say if the engine itself makes the game basically unplayable on Steam Deck right now, then it is an issue right now. Epic updating UE doesn't really translate into improvements for already released games because developers should do extra work in order to update existing project with those new features.
There is an indie game called Boti: Byteland Overclocked that doesn't look extra demanding at all and yet people have issues running it. Now check out how it looks and tell me that this kind of game style really needs raytracing to look good.
There's a reason nobody uses Linux.
"Let's make games that people can't even play."
Everyone loves UE
ME : Not me
Monopoly in any market is bad for consumers
I think a lot of the features in UE5 are low key intended for film/television but they're marketed as gaming features
Devs are not at UE5 due to lumen and nanite mainly. Of course its shiny and everyone wants to get as much as possible when it comes to graphics. This tech is kind of showing the direction. Real power in UE5 is huge amount of tools. Thanks to that, creative part at many aspects can be done without engaging coders and it is easier to do the things in parallel. Secondly there are thousands of possible employees on the market which is not a thing with custom technology. About optimization. Engine itself is huge and not all companies know how or/and have time to optimize- unfortunately.
Godot and Bevy devs are like, "just you wait....". Well at least I hope so.
I think the only game engine that can dominate UE5 is Ubisoft Massive's SNOWDROP engine, till now only 2 games have been made with SnowDrop (The Division 1 and 2) and both games looks insane and runs like a dream. Their upcoming games Avatar Frontiers of Pandora and Star Wars Outlaws are using SnowDrop engine and those games looks so much better than any UE5 game that came out recently.
Its too bloated and heavy. The good looking features like nanite and lumen tank framerates. This is why I LOVE Valve. In Counter Strike 2 I can get like 300+ FPS maxed out, it feels super responsive, and fluent, and it still looks beautiful. Video games are not movies. If you're sacrificing frames, input latency, and causing poor feeling controls you're doing it wrong. The novelty of amazing graphics wears off fast and you're left with the gameplay and mechanics to hold your interest, ya know, the most important part.
I was so happy when DLSS started becoming mainstream thinking it would allow me to do 4K 120+ frames in everything but its sad where its ended up where devs use it to circumvent any work in optimization, to barely hit 60 FPS with it on.
Consumers need to stop accepting 60 FPS as the bare minimum. We see more and more console releases reverting to THIRTY FPS again (Starfield recent example)! This is insane! It feels like a sluggish choppy slideshow, IDK how anyone can go back to that!
I work with UE5, my pc have a R5500 and a RX6600. And i can say games made with Unreal can be optimized, but we know its up to devs to do this task. But all i can see is lazy devs making shitty games and expect to gamers buy a new gpu. I dont will buy another gpu and not will buy your game too 😀
Nah its a good thing to be unifying game design with a very powerful, easily accessible, universally understood engine. Devs can focus more on making good games instead of a good engine because they have one already. It makes it easier to higher new devs too if they use it, because many devs might already know UE5 but wouldnt know how to use some proprietary engine tech
TBH, UE isn't the only AAA engine out there, it's the most advanced engine that's commercially available. The big studios like EA, Rockstar, Blizzard they all have their own proprietary engine. This is similar to how 3D industry works with also part of the game industry. In 3D, Maya and Max are basically monopoly (made by the same company) and every single studios are using it for asset creation and animation for games but the biggest studios like Pixar have their own tools for everything although in more recent days they've also adopted the more popular options.
While Unity is on its downfall right now Godot is rising from its ashes and is known for being extremely lightweight and easy to use. Many indies are moving to it and I believe it can definitely compete with Unreal in a few years
Yeah its incredible
i hope there will be variety, having all games on the same engine starts to show up at one point, where different engines and such adds to the game's core in various ways. Kinda like when you play some games and you can say they're made in Unity right away. Not that it's a bad thing but they don't go deep far beyond in it, they stick to the surface like most and you can start seeing the patterns.
Like examine a game like Deus Ex Human Revolution, with say, 3 games that are all made in unreal engine. You can pinpoint the different one quick and imo Deus Ex has rly that cozy thing going, thx to its engine.
The transition to add was sooo smooth
i was already planning on getting an 4090 after a decade anyway so i should be fine
Rumors say The Matrix Demo ran on Switch 2. I think developers will start optimizing their games, if they want them to release on the new switch (which is a lot slower than a 3050)
Rumors also said it ran zelda botw at 4K60fps with DLSS, which tells me it will be fine. Just because it will have an ampere GPU, it doesn't mean it will have the same performance as a 3050. The main reason it doesn't have 4000 series GPU is because the switch 2 screen will probably be a 60Hz display, so there's no point on trying to use FG on it, so a 3000 series GPU is good enough, and since 3000 series can run DLSS3, for a portable device that will max at 1080p probably unless docked, it will run perfectly fine.
@@TheShitpostExperience Frame Generation is part of DLSS3 and this doens't work with Ampere GPUs
@@rob4222 i know, and my point was that there would be no point on having a 4000 series gpu on the switch because its not probable for it to have a high refresh display, so fg would be pointless.
I'm fine with using Unreal Engine for most games, as LONG as they team up with GPU makers so they can align their performance/optimisation expectations and stop releasing games that run like 🐕💩. The two (software + hardware) must be reconciled one way or another. It'd be better off for both hardware and software industries if it happened sooner than later. You're right about the monopoly aspect though. That'd be bad for innovation, greed and just plain sheer dominance. There exist Unity .... but .. ;) No other game engine can really compete with Unreal Engine...
In what what does using the same game engine affect innovation? UE is just a set of tool, just like most studios and filmmakers use Maya, Houdini, Cinema 4D, Zbrush, Adobe products and still you can't tell unless some insider or video reel tells you
I love what I am seeing from UE5 but I am afraid that studios will leave their in house engines and all shift to UE5. I like engine diversity like I wish CDPR still stuck with red engine because man cyberpunk looks amazing!
I was quite shocked to learn that the red engine is being dropped.
Considering how much investment and technology is in it.
They should consider licensing to other studios or make it open source and have a plan similar to UE.
As long as idTech5+ is there, I'm fine. But yea, bummer... If id Software opensources some of the recent engines, it could change the game...
It's genuinely refreshing to see a Unreal Engine game release without shader compilation or asset streaming stuttering, without the Vert- FOV scaling that makes playing on anything wider than 16:9 cancer, and with actual controller support (meaning more than just XInput controllers are officially supported).
Unreal Engine has become a blight on PC Gaming at this point (And it's shader tools that aren't flexible enough has lead to the homogenization of game visuals), and Denuvo for Unreal makes modders fixing anything with those games way more difficult.
Any game using that engine has become "Wait for it to be on Game Pass, wait for a yarhar copy, or wait for a demo on Steam before buying", because most games that use it are hilariously low effort Xbox debug builds.
Love what you said. Take open world games for example, combine the same engine being used and the same Activision Formula and the all seem the same lackluster and boring. They are too similar, no atmosphere, just fancy but empty buckets.
The first engine I used was CryEngine. For me, it was more impressive and intuitive than Unreal. For some reason, they stopped innovating and became less attractive. Even if I don't use it now, I hope they catch up and shine again.
Optimization problems will increase, cause most devs using UE5 can't optimize the core systems of the engine only their game code(except coalition they are better than epic in their own engine lol), unless Epic releases more optimizations like they released with UE 5.2 like allowing to bake static lights, but still use lumen for dynamic lights..
I wonder what things would be like if Criterion didn't sell RenderWare. That left a huge hole in the industry that was never truly filled, IMO.
Worth noting Hollywood has fully embraced UE5 to the point were the UE community got flooded by movie & tv pros trying to understand the program, seems like overnight every other studio big and small made their own LED Volume for UE5.
You can make 2D in UE4/5 easier by changing the rendering technique rather than just using normal 2D rendering.
Basically, you use a 3D drawing technique called Render-To-Texture. It's actually an old emulator trick to bypass the 2D drawing matrix and leverage the 3D engine completely by having the scene render to a single texture on a 3D plane as the scene and focus.
You use the texturing and transformation engine to change everything on the texture rather than using the flat 2D drawing rasteriser.
so many trash games come out of unreal engine 5, i genuinely cant stand looking at people making those low poly games made in it because it just looks bad. Its also a bad shortcut instead of making a game that looks and plays good on its own merit it only looks good because it made in UE5.
I don't think UE becoming the prime game dev engine is a problem. So what if all games look the same in the future? Hollywood movies have been looking the same for quite some time because the ultimate goal of most VFX studios is generally the same -- make the VFX look realistic. That's also the ultimate goal of game devs, so as long as that desire remains there (and UE is there to fulfill it) then yeah, UE ain't going away. That said, I've seen UE games that don't show even a shred of similarity with the average UE-made game, because ultimately you can tweak to taste. So in a sea of clones it's up to the creatives to stand out even if they use the same tools. It's not the tool, it's the user.
Agree with you UE on several points but imagine creating own engine for game? Many big studios developed own render engine like Frostbite, REDengine, RAGE(GTA V, Red Dead Redemption) or Creation Kit (Starfield using CK2 or Fallout 4 etc)
Many ports from consoles are UE because they are easier to port, optimisation of games it's down to developers and big studios like EA which are pushing them release the game although they know game is in messy state
Many big studios will switch to UE just due money, it's easier to develop game in UE than built own render engine
UE on one hand is awesome render engine but on other hand it's killing game industry and development of other render engines
Best hope now is,devs will start learn how to utilise UE and learn how to optimise more
Lazy developers are ruining gaming. Fortnight proves that UE5 can be performant if handled with competence.
It took them 5 years to optimize a cartoon based battle royale , the literall creators off the engine. I mean that should tell you enough about the state it is in and why the engine is insanely bad ...
Here's the problems I see which may have been missed by you or not elaborated enough upon.
- With unreal having high requirements, you're going to see more and more mandatory use of upscaling and frame generation with who knows what else to boost framerates.
- With upscaling becoming more ubiquitous, we will see dev's equate upscaling to ''optimization''. Currently we are seeing dev's use it as a requirement just to scrape by.
- When dev's release more and more unfinished, unoptimized games with UE5, this will signal to other dev's like bugsthesda that unoptimized games are alright to release. Look at how poorly starfield performs despite not using UE5.
- All this will affect GPU's. Nvidia will keep releasing software updates more often, especially at the low end.
- You should also mention CPU requirements becoming idiotic. Why does CP 2077 need to kill most CPU's? RDR2 looks about as good yet does not need as good of a CPU or GPU to run.
I'd argue, upscaling has done more harm than good. Its introducing even more exclusivity to GPU's now. Its now becoming a requirement just to play games that don't look much better than last gen games.
Whats the point of releasing games 99% of people cannot reasonably run? 3060 is the most popular GPU. 1650, 1060 and 2060 follow after. Consoles are around a 3060 in performance. Who are you targetting dev's?
I'm still using my GTX 1660 ti, devs can piss up a rope with their UE5/NGreedia crutches.
@@mikem9536 Exactly. I went from a 1650 to 3070ti and now you're telling me I need some BS frame generation which only rtx 4000 has? Not to mention rtx 4070 does not beat the 3070ti. At best, edges it out. Thats it. Pathetic jump. Literal software update.
3060 user here ( with a 5600G ) and you hit the nail on the head perfectly.
Never thought i would need to worry about performance at 1080p with a card equivalent to a 2070, specially coming from a rusty RX470 4GB. But here we are in 2023 with all kinds of garbage performing games on PC.
@@danath5714 When a game is well optimized, it literally does not need upscaling.
Also what about CPU's? 5700x is getting maxed out in CP 2077. How?
I went from 1650 laptop to 3070ti laptop (similar to desktop 3070). 4070 mobile does not beat 3070ti mobile.
If the rtx 4060ti is not faster than 3060ti, 4060 being barely faster than 3060, etc. what will that bode for the future? How will RT ever get even adopted?
@@siyzerix Very true, there are modern exceptions like Everspace 2 i keep mentioning. 😛Or others like Atlas Fallen, which i sadly didn't like much.
I also find it ridiculous how a CPU like 5700X can get maxed out on a game, specially when AI is as crappy as CP2077 ( even GTA4 has better pedestrians ) 😂
The most i have seen the 5600G on the games i tried is like 50-55% usage. Remnant 2 used 50% at 1080p native, but ran like ass without upscaler as we know
UE5 provides us with the opportunity to discover games that were previously overlooked due to visual limitations. However, while some aspects of these games may not fully utilize the visual and auditory capabilities offered by UE5, such as sound design, gameplay mechanics, or color palettes, there is a tendency to mistakenly attribute any shortcomings solely to UE5.
unreal engine is not ruining gaming, bad devs studios are ruining gaming because of poor optimization and a lack luster art direction, Unreal engine is just a tool and it's not the problem the developers just suck and companies don't give a damn about quality. the engine has nothing to do with the art style, that's up to the developers and artist in terms of creating their own assets.
You know how worrying the state of modern gaming is when people rely on graphics since the tech demos, its literally hype as "UE5 🤩🤩🤩"
I personally chose to not use Lumen + Nanite, because you can't just "turn off lumen" The lighting would look so much different for 80% of the players who couldn't run it.
I would rather have 60+ FPS with less realistic graphics, than 30 with good-looking lighting.
The REDengine struggled to run a game like Cyberpunk hence why it took them 3 years to release the 2.0. Simply put, the REDengine never was up to the task for that kind of open world with vehicles and FPS view and I'm pretty sure it it stitched up as best as they could at that point.
I think switching to a 3rd partyt engine in which there is support available and a ton on devs working oin it is actually a smart move. Look how Bioware was almost put into the ground because they were forced to use Frostbite, an engine made for FPS. This is hardly the only example.
UE says to not using umen for everything. It's best for mobile lights, but for anything static, light-bake.
The upside of Unreal is the dedicated Devs who works on it. In House Game Engine like the CDPR's RED Engine or Beth's Creation Engine needs engineers to get updated to have it on the new games, which in eats time and resources just for the "overhauling/updating/adding".
The only thing that Game Devs to separate from themselves are the core art style/gameplay, if they're all aiming down for "graphics".
This video aged like wine over A WEEK now that Unreal Engine advertised they are going to switch to SUBCRIPTION in 2024 so EVERYONE has to pay them something, they also stated its not going to be unreasonably priced or UNREASONABLY CHEAP
not really, they said artists, not game dev or movie makers, will pay for subscription. Which is understandable because when you develop a video game or movie with UE, they make a percentage off of the money you make by selling your creation. But artists who use UE for rendering pictures or short video or characters to then export elsewhere and sell their arts, UE isnt making any money. Thats why they decided to add subscription for those.
For game dev, it remains the same, because payment is quite clear. starting at 1 mil$ in profit, they get like 3% cut.
UE5 might be the 800 pound gorilla of engines, but I don't see it becoming a monopoly. A fair number of developers and publishers still and will continue to use their own custom engines, including Ubisoft, Capcom, SIE and its studios, ZeniMax and their studios, etc.
As far as games using UE5 becoming visually homogenous, that's also likely not going to happen unless every developer starts dipping into the same asset pool. Unrecord probably won't look anything like the next Borderlands, for example.
I think UE5 will be a huge positive thing for gamers and movie makers. We might finally see amazing budget movies that we could miss without it. I think that it will be good time for gamers because imagine scenerio when UE5 is so good and well known that every game that comes out will be running on 100+ fps on low end graphic card. It might be a future not a problem in the future. Think positive :)
unlike lumen, nanite isn't taxing on the system, but it's actually freeing up resources by dynamically reducing the LOD.
It's almost always the artists and not the tools. Small studios pushing for absolutely maximum fidelity are gonna find a way to run into performance issues no matter what. I'm positive if they'd have tried to optimise their experience, they could have. It's not like Fortnite is impossible to run since they made the switch. Haven't heard too many complaints about Satisifactory either. Games that want to try to drive sales by being Crysis will find a way without UE5. Even the previous Jedi game had big performance issues that were never addressed, prior to UE5.
Gears 5 runs on UE4 and its buttery smooth with great visuals. Its weird that other devs can't achieve the same level of quality of a game that came out in 2019
Yeah I hope UE5 isn't the only engine. It's not just the fact that the games may all end up looking the same, but specific engines are built for specific types of games and its harder to make certain types of games in different engines. Its not just about 2D vs 3D, its sim management games, RTS games, heavy AI stuff, VR games, experimental stuff. It will limit the type of the games and the speed at which they are made if only one engine is available.
the entire point of nanite and lumen was to develop a SOFTWARE-BASED ray-tracing feature for graphics cards and other graphics units that were struggling with developing their own ray-tracing cores in their own hardware.
So basically it was intended to be a workaround for processors that couldn't ray trace the hard way (pun intended).
It did not help AMD discrete gpu's very much, but it DID make it easier for laptop gpu's and other APU's to perform ray-tracing tasks in controlled environments, which is significant progress because it still makes ray-tracing tasks lighter.
Now we just have to refocus both Nanite & Lumen, and AMD graphics cards on getting these things to work together in an optimized manner.
It doesnt really make it a lighter task, you get an inferior lighting so its easier to run
What?It especially helped AMD rx 7900xtx is on par with rtx 4080 in Fortnite with lumen RT.Only game were they are on par with nvidia in RT.
I'd say that yes Unreal Engine 5 will ruin gaming for a while.
1. There's no denying it, UE games all look the same and recent ones do not run well, unless you have top of the line hardware. Texture lag is still a thing to this day. I remember some games day 1 would have character models look worst than Roblox characters? What's the point of the engine, if the majority of the people would never even see it's benefit.
2. Nanite, Lumen, path tracing, ray tracing, whatever other hell tools you put in there, works really well if I'm trying to make animation for a cartoon, movie or shorts. Shitty when needed to be rendered in real time as none of the current hardware that is affordable to the mass public can run it to a stable degree without high power usage and noise levels. As much as UE includes other tools that can help optimize the game, (A)means nothing if developers don't use it, and (B)1 step forwards 2 steps back isn't really a step forward now is it?
I remember playing old Assassin's Creed games that still looks good after more than half a decade and even better than many of the recent unreal engine games.
3. Developers and consumers BOTH are to be blamed for the complacency in video game development. Developers who think they can just do the bare minimum and get paid, and we the stupid consumers who buys every game they release.
The same problem we can see with micro-transactions and gacha mechanics. Developers include them and STUUUPID consumers eat it up and look where we are now.
4. Look no further than the animation industry in the 90s-2010s. We had Pixar who cracked the code for realism animation, then BOOM every other animation studio is trying to render fuzzy fur, glossy eyes, warm skin, so on and so forth.
And for close to two decades, realism was something sought after until Spiderman:Into the Spiderverse broke the cycle, by releasing a piece of stylized animation.
The same can be seen now with the utilization of UE as a whole. How realistic can we make the character models, the environment, the LIGHT!!!!! I mean it's baked into the software, I used it so I know.
That part of your video demonstrating ray tracing with Spider Gwen in a dimly lit room shows that that the one with ray tracing sucks ass. I can barely see things in the room. In a competitive PVP where my reaction matters, not being able to see where I'm going sucks!!
Heck professional FPS players turn of shadow (removing an aspect of realism), to make sure that they don't accidentally shoot shadows.
Games are meant to be played too, not gawked over only.
5. A lot of developers with the tools presented to them will no longer go the extra mile to make their games their own. Why would you? It's a formula that works. Make something that looks realistic, release a montage of heavily spliced gameplay with rock music playing in the background, release it on steam and watch the money come in.
They will all feel the same and it most cases these games are the same. How many more PvPs that's just another rendition or genre copy of the previous one? How many more open-world action RPG where something happens in the world but nothing meaningful actually occurred and here we go again beating another grotesque giant?
6. Corporatization of a lot of these video game developing companies surely did not help either. Now with execs who never once develop any video game, investors who probably went to Epstein island, and CEOs who just comes in for the paycheck, breeeaaaathing down on developers neck to quickly finish the game so they can churn out a new one, it is impossible to have a good game released. IM-pos-SI-ble.
So after all this, what do I think has to happen? I think there needs to be another video game crash in the industry. Like it or not, money talks, and the only way for the execs, investors, and CEOs to listen is to take their money away.
But it will never happen, because people today are okay with mediocrity. The silent majority are people who spend on these games, and people like Vex who cares and are critical with the use of the technology is the loud minority.
"But it will never happen, because people today are okay with mediocrity."
People didn't buy immortals of aveum and the studio faced layoffs. Forspoken also had poor sales and the studio responsible is being closed as well. Both games have poor performance and mediocre graphics and the sales weren't good. Mediocre games are already coming back to bite devs. If the scales tip too much in one direction with the games being horrible, the simple fact is that no one will buy them. There will eventually be a correction in the gaming market.
Yes. I'm tired of seeing it already. I don't consider Unreal Engine a game engine. I consider it a graphics engine first and game engine second. Its behavior and physics cannot hold a candle to proprietary game engines like Decima and AnvilNext. If you pay attention to what looks good in Unreal they are all static elements. Cutscenes don't count btw. That reminds me that I'm tired of games that have too many or long cutscenes. I game to game. Not watch a movie. A testament to that are Nintendo games. But all that is old news. The emerging technology in gaming is AI behavior. I'm hoping that will make gaming very very interesting.
I have a bad feeling about this…
Literally. I just feel like epic is going to turn out to be worse than even ea if given the chance (like most companies would to be fair). My only objective problem with eg is their launcher. If I need to use your launcher, it better not BOG DOWN my pc to the point where I get 60fps for 0.5s and 30fps for the other half.
i love your hollow knight and parasite eve osts
I think the problem with Cyberpunk is that they tried to develop the game at the same time as the engine. Valve said they struggled during the Half-Life episodes era, so they put a stop on developing games until Source 2 was done (or at least in a state where they were content with).
EA had Frostbite, however, this proved that having your own proprietary engine can give you more headaches than benefits given that development teams outside of DICE struggled with the engine and caused high profile failures like Mass Effect Andromeda and Anthem, and it also bit them in the back when key people that developed the engine left, hence, they've been struggling after BF1 and BFV and 2042 were an absolute mess.
Monopoly in any industry is disastrous... You know why the cost of everything is going up... it's because there are monopolies, or near monopolies in many industries in the US. You want a case and point, Nvidia. Nvidia owns 85% of the GPU market, ok, that's not technically a monopoly, but their market share is so high that they basically dictate GPU prices. Do you want Unreal dictating everything they are in a position to dictate if they become the only game engine, did we not see what just happened with Unity, Unity had a near monopoly in the Mobile game space and they decided to be draconian, do you really think that at some point Unreal won't do exactly the same thing, and what would prevent them from doing that... a competitor that customers (studios) could turn to if they ever decided to try it. No competitor, no alternative, you want to make a game you play by Unreal's rules. Does no one know their goddamn history, this has happened before. Have you never heard of J.P. Morgan, or John D Rockefeller or Andrew Carnegie. They owned Banking, Oil and Steel in this country in the early part of the last century, complete monopolies, as a result they dictated wages, and hours, and benefits, and of course prices. THESE "ROBBER BARONS" ARE WHY THEY US HAS FUCKING ANTITRUST LAWS... because monopolies hurt everyone.
for the visuals the fps is actually impressive, literally millions of triangles 1000 times more detail but does not cost 1000 times the power to run
4:10 I would risk running this game if I found out that there was a mod that removes lumines and nanites from the game. so that my computer can run this game at 30 FPS