Switch folks have been asking for these upgrades for a while. The target audience is happy with the Switch's core functionality, they just want it to run better. It should be no surprise to anyone that the Switch 2 is basically a major quality of life upgrade for users. Complaining that it's not revolutionary is silly because at heart, if we're all honest, the other console updates haven't been really "revolutionary" in several generations. Consoles just aren't for that (outside marketing copy, heh).
Graphic card updates are interesting from a CS perspective but I'm not sure they mean much to most gamers given the prices. But I'm on record here as saying graphical style has more weight than graphical fidelity, so I'm biased towards kind of apathy.
Aside from that, it's almost worse than the cost for Nvidia. It's like the 20 series over again where they have a feature that could actually change the way games look, but there's probably going to be lile 3 good games in the next 4 years that will feature it.
AMD is lowering the bar for their best features, but even then that's still the cost of an entire console for a single component. It's a *very* luxury market at the moment.
Hmm Acerola has point. I guess I just think of it from a dev cost and "people aren't going to buy what they can't run" perspective. I also think flashy graphics are often used as an excuse for an otherwise generic or less than worthwhile game, especially for AAA studios. It's an old indie game trick, but the AAA's are pulling it hard these days.
Switch folks have been asking for these upgrades for a while. The target audience is happy with the Switch's core functionality, they just want it to run better. It should be no surprise to anyone that the Switch 2 is basically a major quality of life upgrade for users. Complaining that it's not revolutionary is silly because at heart, if we're all honest, the other console updates haven't been really "revolutionary" in several generations. Consoles just aren't for that (outside marketing copy, heh).
Graphic card updates are interesting from a CS perspective but I'm not sure they mean much to most gamers given the prices. But I'm on record here as saying graphical style has more weight than graphical fidelity, so I'm biased towards kind of apathy.
Acerola on YouTube has a pretty interesting video showing how fidelity and style aren't as separate as we tend to think: https://youtu.be/KkOkx0FiHDA?si=grsJ_05I-xeANj75
Aside from that, it's almost worse than the cost for Nvidia. It's like the 20 series over again where they have a feature that could actually change the way games look, but there's probably going to be lile 3 good games in the next 4 years that will feature it.
AMD is lowering the bar for their best features, but even then that's still the cost of an entire console for a single component. It's a *very* luxury market at the moment.
Hmm Acerola has point. I guess I just think of it from a dev cost and "people aren't going to buy what they can't run" perspective. I also think flashy graphics are often used as an excuse for an otherwise generic or less than worthwhile game, especially for AAA studios. It's an old indie game trick, but the AAA's are pulling it hard these days.