AMD's Frank Azor Expects Upcoming Presentation to Fully Detail RDNA 4 GPUs

[alwayssts]

my original post about it was 'if i were building a rig right now' in which case yes it does kind of matter, many games force it upon you now whether you just want raster or not. and FSR is inherently blurrier than DLSS. that being said, I love my 7900 xt and won't be parting with it ever, its probably going to be the last line of raster focused cards ever made, so keeping it for a linux build if nothing else.

Dude, ain't truly nothing wrong with a 7900xt at all beyond it's RT ability. 1440p->4k raster upscaling isn't bad at all imo, and that's generally what that card is for. It has sufficient ram and compute.

The 'future', which some would argue is starting now, is really about 1080pRT upscaling to 1440p/4k and 1440pRT->4k. N48 is the former (as is damn near every nvidia card + 7900xtx).
4090/5090 the later. The rest of the Radeons kinda SOL.

 

[Space Lynx]

Dude, ain't truly nothing wrong with a 7900xt at all beyond it's RT ability. 1440p->4k raster upscaling isn't bad at all imo, and that's generally what that card is for. It has sufficient ram and compute.

The 'future', which some would argue is starting now, is really about 1080pRT upscaling to 1440p/4k and 1440pRT->4k. N48 is the former (as is damn near every nvidia card + 7900xtx).
4090/5090 the later. The rest of the Radeons kinda SOL.

yeah i am happy with 7900 xt at 1440p, it does pretty dang good. especially for someone like me who doesn't mind turning down some settings for fps gains. like ambient occlusion sometimes make games look worse imo, some games it works good, but those are few imo

 

[alwayssts]

yeah i am happy with 7900 xt at 1440p, it does pretty dang good. especially for someone like me who doesn't mind turning down some settings for fps gains. like ambient occlusion sometimes make games look worse imo, some games it works good, but those are few imo

I hear that. I turn off a ton of stuff these days. It's not even about performance, which I'll take, I just think it looks bad. Motion blur, chromatic bullshit, sometimes AO, etc etc etc.
Topic for another thread, I suppose.

 

[Space Lynx]

I hear that. I turn off a ton of stuff these days. It's not even about performance, which I'll take, I just think it looks bad. Motion blur, chromatic bullshit, sometimes AO, etc etc etc.

yep, even shadows on ultra or high for some games can look worse than shadows at medium. it's pretty bizarre how lazy developers have become. i just play around with settings until i find the right fps and looks balance and then away i go. bit annoying with so many settings these days.

 

[alwayssts]

yep, even shadows on ultra or high for some games can look worse than shadows at medium. it's pretty bizarre how lazy developers have become. i just play around with settings until i find the right fps and looks balance and then away i go. bit annoying with so many settings these days.

Shadows ofc is the longest running joke of our hobby. Want a performance upgrade? Just make the shadows actually tolerable rather than absurdly overwrought.

Yeah, you and I think the same in this regard, I think.

 

[Jtuck9]

Likewise, AMD is likely shooting for a similar thing, but probably just targeting up-scaling to 1440p, most-likely (in terms of getting IQ ok), rather than 4k. This is because N48 is a 1440p raster targeted card.

I take it Lisa Su didn't mention bringing 4k and RT to the masses in the same breath?

 

[alwayssts]

I take it Lisa Su didn't mention bringing 4k and RT to the masses in the same breath?

I have no idea what you're trying to say, apologies.

I'm just saying the raster of this card is aimed toward 1440p, and that's where most people will probably use it.
Nothing really exists for good native 4k outside a 4090/5090 (1440pRT) or 7900xtx (raster, 1080pRT). People can use it ofc, just saying it could be a limitation (ram/raster) and it's clearly not the aim.
Because of this (and the inferred up-scaling capability [difference between total compute and ROP limitation] which would be similar to DLSS3) I would assume the general good quality of scaling could be limited to something similar to DLSS3. Obviously you could use that for 1080p->4k, but it's real strength wasn't really beyond one step (1080p->1440p or 1440p->4k) imho.
DLSS4 1080p->4k is much better than DLSS3. That is literally what Huang has sold this generation on because none of the non-90 cards are true 4k or 1440pRT cards.
That means upscaling from at least 1440p, if not 1080p. This was clearly pushed in both the CES presentation and the '5070 is a 4090' (by up-scaling 1080p->4k plus 4x frame gen).
Now, I would argue <45TF/12GB means 5070 is going to suck at 1080pRT (especially 1440p) and maybe even raster soon regardless, which is the whole point of N48 (to succeed where it falters), but I digress.

All I was trying to say is I think nVIDIA is pushing for higher-quality scaling now (because it doesn't make sense for most markets to render native right now). AMD targeted the market it does, more-or-less.

I guess we'll have to see how 1080p->1440p/4k performance is on FSR4/DLSS4 comparatively. I think FSR will end up similar to DLSS3, in which case I wouldn't personally love using it for 4k. Others might.
Again, I'm sure there are instances 1440pRT might be playable and scale to 4k will look just fine (given it's performance and 1440p->4k has always looked fine imho).
I'm just trying to say but I wouldn't be surprised if fairly quickly it's relegated to 1080pRT, is my point.
If 1080p->4k upscaling is less than stellar (IQ<DLSS4), one might consider other options and/or stick to 1080->1440p....which is probably what they expect given how the rest of the card should typically perform.

This is why this whole situation sucks for people like me (whom write, not do videos*). There are SOOO many variables and things to consider now, and trying to have it all gel for people is difficult w/o lots of words.
Especially for people that haven't used these things to any great extent and/or don't understand the aims of each product. I'm sure it's super confusing to a TON of people (and I bet that makes nVIDIA happy).
I get that people don't want to read all the words; I get some people probably don't even want to watch long videos to understand it all. That is why this whole situation is a nightmare when trying to help.

*Thought of a video one of the Steves did (the framegen one) the other day. It's still a lot of words and difficult to get across, even if you do videos. Writing it just extra sucks, is my point.

 

[vgm]

I don't think pricing wise AMD or nVidia got the memo. Both are equally bad. 7800Xt and 7900GRE/XT/XTX are still selling for more than 800$-1500$ in India especially.

 

[alwayssts]

I don't think pricing wise AMD or nVidia got the memo. Both are equally bad. 7800Xt and 7900GRE/XT/XTX are still selling for more than 800$-1500$ in India especially.

Agree. It's just all bad. Thought N48 might thread the needle. It appears (at least at launch) it may not. Part of that might be the environment it's launching into, but part of it might simply be ignorance/arrogance.

 

[vgm]

Agree. It's just all bad. Thought N48 might thread the needle. It appears (at least at launch) it may not. Part of that might be the environment it's launching into, but part of it might simply be ignorance/arrogance.

Actually went to buy 7900 GRE and it was selling for 1200$ and got 4070 Super for 900$ instead. Mind you, these are the cheapest ones I could find in India. There are no traces of Founders card and all I get is outdated material in India website touting Pascal is the best GPU you can buy ergo 1080 Ti and Titan CEO edition.

 

[alwayssts]

Actually went to buy 7900 GRE and it was selling for 1200$ and got 4070 Super for 900$ instead. Mind you, these are the cheapest ones I could find in India. There are no traces of Founders card and all I get is outdated material in India website touting Pascal is the best GPU you can buy ergo 1080 Ti and Titan CEO edition.

I feel for you, my brother. I'm glad you were able to find something and are able to enjoy it. It does suck you had to pay so much.

 

[AusWolf]

You really should, though. Because it truly is the future. You don't have to like it, but at some point you're probably going to need to learn to accept it. It is important that games support it.

I can accept that it's important for other people. As for me, if I have to rely on FSR (or DLSS for that matter) to play a game, it means it's time for a GPU upgrade.

 

[Jtuck9]

I have no idea what you're trying to say, apologies.

I'm just saying the raster of this card is aimed toward 1440p, and that's where most people will probably use it.
Nothing really exists for good native 4k outside a 4090/5090 (1440pRT) or 7900xtx (raster, 1080pRT). People can use it ofc, just saying it could be a limitation (ram/raster) and it's clearly not the aim.
Because of this (and the inferred up-scaling capability [difference between total compute and ROP limitation] which would be similar to DLSS3) I would assume the general good quality of scaling could be limited to something similar to DLSS3. Obviously you could use that for 1080p->4k, but it's real strength wasn't really beyond one step (1080p->1440p or 1440p->4k) imho.
DLSS4 1080p->4k is much better than DLSS3. That is literally what Huang has sold this generation on because none of the non-90 cards are true 4k or 1440pRT cards.
That means upscaling from at least 1440p, if not 1080p. This was clearly pushed in both the CES presentation and the '5070 is a 4090' (by up-scaling 1080p->4k plus 4x frame gen).
Now, I would argue <45TF/12GB means 5070 is going to suck at 1080pRT (especially 1440p) and maybe even raster soon regardless, which is the whole point of N48 (to succeed where it falters), but I digress.

All I was trying to say is I think nVIDIA is pushing for higher-quality scaling now (because it doesn't make sense for most markets to render native right now). AMD targeted the market it does, more-or-less.

I guess we'll have to see how 1080p->1440p/4k performance is on FSR4/DLSS4 comparatively. I think FSR will end up similar to DLSS3, in which case I wouldn't personally love using it for 4k. Others might.
Again, I'm sure there are instances 1440pRT might be playable and scale to 4k will look just fine (given it's performance and 1440p->4k has always looked fine imho).
I'm just trying to say but I wouldn't be surprised if fairly quickly it's relegated to 1080pRT, is my point.
If 1080p->4k upscaling is less than stellar (IQ<DLSS4), one might consider other options and/or stick to 1080->1440p....which is probably what they expect given how the rest of the card should typically perform.

This is why this whole situation sucks for people like me (whom write, not do videos*). There are SOOO many variables and things to consider now, and trying to have it all gel for people is difficult w/o lots of words.
Especially for people that haven't used these things to any great extent and/or don't understand the aims of each product. I'm sure it's super confusing to a TON of people (and I bet that makes nVIDIA happy).
I get that people don't want to read all the words; I get some people probably don't even want to watch long videos to understand it all. That is why this whole situation is a nightmare when trying to help.

*Thought of a video one of the Steves did (the framegen one) the other day. It's still a lot of words and difficult to get across, even if you do videos. Writing it just extra sucks, is my point.

Presumably she meant bringing 4k to the masses with the help of their software, FSR 4 etc. It will be interesting to see how that scales, coupled with something like Ray Tracing. Whether they have the horsepower to implement something like this to their ray tracing?!

https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-com...ling-and-denoising-for-real-time-path-tracing

We'll see how the math holds up.

Also, my bad for assuming people would instantly be aware of what Lisa Su mentioned recently (chronically online).

 

[alwayssts]

I can accept that it's important for other people. As for me, if I have to rely on FSR (or DLSS for that matter) to play a game, it means it's time for a GPU upgrade.

Your thinking on this will change over time, I believe. Like I said, for the new paradigm there are essentially two tiers. 1080pRT (upscaled) and 1440pRT (upscaled). One is N48 (et al). The other is 4090+.
It will make sense as more cards launch and time moves forward a bit. You may very-well be the type that invests in a 4090-level card next time they upgrade. So will I! Others slightly better than N48, imho.
Because the later will likely be similar in performance to the next-gen consoles. Because of that, everything not up to that tier will be relegated to 1080pRT (or less) and/or 1440p raster (or less) at high settings.
4090 prolly still 1440pRT ~60fps mins. That's what I'm to get across. They're trying to be the 4090 of the mid-range (1080p/1440 where 4090 1440p/4k). This requires good upscaling IQ, esp 1080p->4k.
IMHO that will require >60TF and 18GB of ram (long-term), but they might be able to sell it on that scenario for what's currently available. Does that make sense? I honestly understand it's confusing.

Presumably she meant bringing 4k to the masses with the help of their software, FSR 4 etc. It will be interesting to see how that scales, coupled with something like Ray Tracing. Whether they have the horsepower to implement something like this to their ray tracing?!

https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-com...ling-and-denoising-for-real-time-path-tracing

We'll see how the math holds up.

Also, my bad for assuming people would instantly be aware of what Lisa Su mentioned recently (chronically online).

Marketing is marketing, but like I say...I absolutely expect there to be *some* 1440pRT (where 4070ti/5070 may not quite make the cut it does), but soon relegated to 1080pRT bc it might be asking too much.
This is absolutely where the quality of FSR will come into play. The same is obviously true for 5070 (which soon will mostly be 1080p+/-=RT, if that imo). DLSS4 *does* make 1080p->1440p/4k look okay imho.

Still doesn't mean 5070 won't run out of ram/raster, especially at native 1440p. I think 16GB will become 1080p standard pretty soon. It kinda already is (in some titles, like MH with high-rez textures loaded).
N48 has more of both which could squeak them by (for now), but the question then becomes upscale quality.
1440p->4k will probably be okay; 1080p->1440p too. This was generally true for DLSS3 as well (imho; all of this is subjective), so I don't know why it wouldn't.
If it can't meet DLSS4, which I doubt it can (right now), but rather DLSS3, it will work/run okay, but w/ IQ compromises that we can then nitpick to death at 1080p->4k. That's all I'm trying to get across.

The point to all of this is there is SOOO much more than just looking at a FPS chart these days. If you do, in that instance AMD might look like they struck the right balance, but it's much more complicated.
Just like how when I segment these tiers, some people might say 'x card can run higher resolution sometimes'. That's true, I'm just saying this is where I think things will shake-out long-term for high-end games.

What's your definition of 4k?™ (nVIDIA, you can have that one for free). I didn't really trademark it...yet.

To me 4k requires a 1440p upscale; I can get behind some that argue ~1270p depending on viewing distance ('balanced' upscaling to 4k). I would not call 1080p upscaling 4k, but nVIDIA is trying to sell it.
Likely, soon, so will AMD, perhaps to less success. We shall see. I would love to be surprised by AMD's IQ and hopefully minimal performance hit when using it. I'm not holding my breath, though. Not yet.
Maybe UDNA, especially when there is more spare horsepower on tap.

As far as RT goes, I think AMD's implementation will be excellent; perhaps better than nVIDIA's.
The question again becomes how much that performance can effect playable resolutions/scales/framerates (for these products in particular), especially long-term.
Again, I think we'll need slightly more pure grunt/ram to do what these products are aiming to do long-term. They may succeed short-term. This is also true for every nVIDIA part outside 4090/5090.

 

[AusWolf]

Your thinking on this will change over time, I believe. Like I said, for the new paradigm there are essentially two tiers. 1080pRT (upscaled) and 1440pRT (upscaled). One is N48 (et al). The other is 4090+.
It will make sense as more cards launch and time moves forward a bit.

That's a load of ***. No offense.

You may very-well be the type that invests in a 4090-level card next time they upgrade.

No, I am not the type. The 4090 is way out of my comfortable zone of spending for a toy. Even the 9070 XT is, but since I'm not planning to upgrade for the next 2-3 generations, I'll swallow it just for this once.

Edit: I'm also not the type to use the word "invest" to describe buying something that depreciates faster in value than a used electric car, purely for personal entertainment.

Because the later will likely be similar in performance to the next-gen consoles. Because of that, everything not up to that tier will be relegated to 1080pRT (or less) and/or 1440p raster (or less) at high settings.
4090 prolly still 1440pRT ~60fps mins. That's what I'm to get across. They're trying to be the 4090 of the mid-range (1080p/1440 where 4090 1440p/4k). This requires good upscaling IQ, esp 1080p->4k.
IMHO that will require >60TF and 18GB of ram (long-term), but they might be able to sell it on that scenario for what's currently available. Does that make sense? I honestly understand it's confusing.

Speculation.

 

[Jtuck9]

The point to all of this is there is SOOO much more than just looking at a FPS chart these days. If you do, in that instance AMD might look like they struck the right balance, but it's much more complicated.
Just like how when I segment these tiers, some people might say 'x card can run higher resolution sometimes'. That's true, I'm just saying this is where I think things will shake-out long-term for high-end games.

What's your definition of 4k?™ (nVIDIA, you can have that one for free). I didn't really trademark it...yet.

Reminds me of the definition of a piece of fruit and how many perhaps have never tasted proper fruit. Yield per ache or nutrition per ache. "Good enough" perhaps being the metric, like streaming. Or shifting baselines where you don't know the difference.

As far as RT goes, I think AMD's implementation will be excellent; perhaps better than nVIDIA's.
The question again becomes how much that performance can effect playable resolutions/scales/framerates (for these products in particular), especially long-term.

I was mainly thinking of things like input latency. Interesting to see what sort of impact having things like upscaling / ray tracing/ lag reduction will have on image quality.

 

[alwayssts]

Reminds me of the definition of a piece of fruit and how many perhaps have never tasted proper fruit. Yield per ache or nutrition per ache. "Good enough" perhaps being the metric, like streaming. Or shifting baselines where you don't know the difference.

I was mainly thinking of things like input latency. Interesting to see what sort of impact having things like upscaling / ray tracing/ lag reduction will have on image quality.

Totally apt! So many people never had a real banana, for instance! RIP real bananas. (If you don't know, bananas with got wiped out by disease; replaced with less-flavorful type for the most-part).
(I went with that instead of City of Angels/Wings of Desire. Still not sure I made the right call. Sometimes my references are Far Away, So Close!)

I absolutely love your comparison to streaming quality. 100% nailed it. Some are higher bit-rate than others, different compression algos, codecs etc. Some are good, some are bad. Again, what's 'good' 4k? IDFK.
You get what you get and I guess you deal with it. Same thing here; but at least we have multiple companies to compare the options of how it is presented (rather than forced into one by a video host).
I think there will be a big back and forth over IQ vs perf. For instance, I truly think DLSS4 was created to increase ~1080p upscale IQ, but it also relegated some cards below old performance (60mins) thresholds.
There is no standard, and in that respect we are at the mercy of whatever AMD/nVIDIA decide to do to strike that balance. Like I've said, how long before some are switching .dlls for better perf rathan than iq?
That's mostly an exaggeration, but hopefully you get my point. They can move the goalposts however they please; it's another metric/variable they can screw with to require and/or outdate products.

Your question about input latency is fair, but I don't think any of them are/will be *that* bad (JMO). At least not purely up-scaling/rt. Maybe FG depending on how severe these companies lean into it.
I don't like how nVIDIA's (new) antilag thing appears to work wrt IQ, but that's a matter of preference. I think the main thing to get right is frame-metering with all this stuff going on; so it's at least consistent.
It's kind of why I think (at least currently) >3x framegen doesn't make sense (rn). They can make >3 work, but not 4, and it kinda makes it look bad (from what I've seen). Lossless scaling has this problem too.
This is why I think my aim will be 240hz with 3x framegen (1440p @ 80hz upscaled to 4k/240). I think a lot of people will end up going and/or wanting to go this route (for many games).

Might require some beastly hardware for games with heavy RT (certainly PT), so perhaps less some/most of the time.

Hopefully the latency doesn't suck too much for all this stuff (wrt to how they are supposed to be played baseline; not just as an option). We shall see. I hope developers don't use it as a crutch too often.

 

[Jtuck9]

Totally apt! So many people never had a real banana, for instance! RIP real bananas. (If you don't know, bananas with got wiped out by disease; replaced with less-flavorful type for the most-part).
(I went with that instead of City of Angels/Wings of Desire. Still not sure I made the right call. Sometimes my references are Far Away, So Close!)

I don't think I had a "real" banana until one was left on a friends windows to the point of going spotty / brown and started wafting its fine fragrance. Couldn't resist any further. Makes for fine banana bread!

That's mostly an exaggeration, but hopefully you get my point. They can move the goalposts however they please; it's another metric/variable they can screw with to require and/or outdate old products.

Perhaps ignorance is indeed bliss. People seem to enjoy Lawrence of Arabia on their mobile phones, although the CEO of Netflix saying that is probably a bad omen.

Hopefully the latency doesn't suck too much for all this stuff (wrt to how they are supposed to be played baseline; not just as an option). We shall see. I hope developers don't use it as a crutch too often.

If it gives developers time to focus on other areas then I'm fine with it. Like one of the Wayward Realms developers saying not having to worry about the graphics side of the Unreal Engine gives them time to focus on their gameplay systems.

"In the service of"...

 

[alwayssts]

Perhaps ignorance is indeed bliss. People seem to enjoy Lawrence of Arabia on their mobile phones, although the CEO of Netflix saying that is probably a bad omen.

I know many people this reality literally makes them cry and/or furious, and rightly so imho.

How many beautiful things much be sacrificed at the alter of convenience?

How many people will never see LoA in a theater and truly recognize and appreciate it's splendor? Some would argue too many. What effect diminished that may have brought some to strive to accomplish similar?

In a way, lesser-quality/upscaled 4k could be like that. Because the digital medium; the ability to control what people see given an outside choice of what quality is 'acceptable', is bullshit.

How many native 1440p/4k assets will be sacrificed to the up-scaling Gods? Probably a ton. You can argue that may allow them to make more and/or use more systems, but that's not the point.

The craftsmanship and constraints of the former reality were something to appreciate. There may be less of that (at least that most people ever see). I think that's a shame, especially if the upscale quality isn't great.

I apologize for waxing poetic, but this greater theme is something that matters to myself and many others quite a lot.

 

[Jtuck9]

I know many people this reality literally makes them cry and/or furious, and rightly so imho.

How many beautiful things much be sacrificed at the alter of convenience?

How many people will never see LoA in a theater and truly recognize and appreciate it's splendor? Some would argue too many. What effect diminished that may have brought some to strive to accomplish similar?

In a way, lesser-quality/upscaled 4k could be like that.

How many native 1440p/4k assets will be sacrificed to the up-scaling Gods? Probably a ton. You can argue that may allow them to make more and/or use more systems, but that's not the point.

The craftsmanship and constraints of the former reality were something to appreciate. There may be less of that (at least that most people ever see). I think that's a shame, especially if the upscale quality isn't great.

I apologize for waxing poetic, but this greater theme is something that matters to myself and many others quite a lot.

Wax on I say!

 

[alwayssts]

Wax on I say!

I appreciate that, it's just sometimes I'm sure I appear probably not unlike older gentlemen from a different era that were angry about kids listening to records rather than going to a concert.
I imagine many people told that guy to get with the times and adapt; that it brought accessibility through convenience. They weren't wrong, and in similar fashion that can be applied in many ways today.

In a way though, the type that actually do all the things the way they were meant to be experienced rather than a way more convenient and/or accessible; conceivably less than?

Those people probably live the best lives, imo. They probably get the most from those things, and it may often impact them more; perhaps teach them something and/or gave them something to aspire more often.
The type perhaps less-likely to take art for granted. They don't settle for "we have ___ at home", which literally encapsulates my argument. They don't believe a home theater is 'good-enough', certainly not a phone.

Because it's still not a theater.

No, they go to the theater. If they all haven't closed because instead of buying a ticket many watched the film on their phone. And when they do close, people like myself (and others like me) get very upset.

People should experience things in the best possible way they can. That's the point. And now sometimes people don't even have the option due to some people choosing convenience. For 'settling'.

People should not settle for a lesser experience if a better one is possible and they are able, and shouldn't encourage an atmosphere/ecosystem that promotes the "less than" or 'good-enough' experience.

I want that for everyone; on any scale and regarding any type of thing. That's all. Whenever I see the LoA thing I get really pissed off. So do a lot of people that mourn the death of theaters and/or even physical media.

This is why streaming (let-alone quality) and things like crappy upscaling (think AI remasters) might truly spur the second death of greater thought, let-alone art and it's greater appreciation. I'm not even joking.

 

[Jtuck9]

I appreciate that, it's just sometimes I'm sure I appear probably not unlike older gentlemen from a different era that were angry about kids listening to records rather than going to a concert.
I imagine many people told that guy to get with the times and adapt; that it brought accessibility through convenience. They weren't wrong, and in similar fashion that can be applied in many ways today.

In a way though, the type that actually do all the things the way they were meant to be experienced rather than a way more convenient and/or accessible; conceivably less than?

Those people probably live the best lives, imo. They probably get the most from those things, and it may often impact them more; perhaps teach them something and/or gave them something to aspire more often.
The type perhaps less-likely to take art for granted. They don't settle for "we have ___ at home", which literally encapsulates my argument. They don't believe a home theater is 'good-enough', certainly not a phone.

Because it's still not a theater.

No, they go to the theater. If they all haven't closed because instead of buying a ticket many watched the film on their phone. And when they do close, people like myself (and others like me) get very upset.

People should experience things in the best possible way they can. That's the point. And now sometimes people don't even have the option due to some people choosing convenience. For 'settling'.

People should not settle for a lesser experience if a better one is possible and they are able, and shouldn't encourage an atmosphere/ecosystem that promotes the "less than" or 'good-enough' experience.

I want that for everyone; on any scale and regarding any type of thing. That's all. Whenever I see the LoA thing I get really pissed off. So do a lot of people that mourn the death of theaters and/or even physical media.

This is why streaming (let-alone quality) and things like crappy upscaling (think AI remasters) might truly spur the second death of greater thought, let-alone art and it's greater appreciation. I'm not even joking.

"Each is great in their own place" (The Lars Ulrich Napster interview just sprang to mind :/)

Streaming TV Isn’t Just a New Way to Watch. It’s a New Genre. (Published 2015)

Full seasons, released all at once, are something genuinely new. And we’re just starting to figure out their conventions and aesthetics.

www.nytimes.com

How online streaming is changing TV storytelling

Binge-watching and no ad-breaks aren't just making TV more convenient, they're changing the ways television's stories are told...

www.denofgeek.com

Why the prospect of playing certain games on something like the Steam Deck doesn't really interest me beyond the technical accomplishment. I also wonder if the resurgence of handhelds is less about providing a unique mobile experience (a la Nintendo) and more about having to do doing something with your less powerful chips. Like that grey zone the Strix Halo seemingly finds itself in.

 

[AusWolf]

Why the prospect of playing certain games on something like the Steam Deck doesn't really interest me beyond the technical accomplishment. I also wonder if the resurgence of handhelds is less about providing a unique mobile experience (a la Nintendo) and more about having to do doing something with your less powerful chips. Like that grey zone the Strix Halo seemingly finds itself in.

Handhelds are great for less demanding indie titles. I wouldn't want to play any AAA game on the go anyway. Those demand your full attention, and should be played at home when you have absolutely nothing else to do at the moment.

This is the one of the many things I don't get about modern society. Why do people demand constant entertainment, even if it diminishes the value of it?

 

[Jtuck9]

Handhelds are great for less demanding indie titles. I wouldn't want to play any AAA game on the go anyway. Those demand your full attention, and should be played at home when you have absolutely nothing else to do at the moment.

This is the one of the many things I don't get about modern society. Why do people demand constant entertainment, even if it diminishes the value of it?

The Ghosts in the Machine, by Liz Pelly

Spotify’s plot against musicians

harpers.org

 

[alwayssts]

Handhelds are great for less demanding indie titles. I wouldn't want to play any AAA game on the go anyway. Those demand your full attention, and should be played at home when you have absolutely nothing else to do at the moment.

This is the one of the many things I don't get about modern society. Why do people demand constant entertainment, even if it diminishes the value of it?

While I 100% agree with your primary opinion, I am astonished to see someone else ask the question I often do. Great post.