flood wrote:i'd rather have high refresh rates (like >200) and framerate than any of those
No reason to not improve both IQ and FPS (to a point). But in terms of allocation of effort? No, super high FPS will not get any kind of priority from studios.
HDR and wider gamut increase rasterization costs by 25% or so (8 bit to 10 bit color depth), but asking for 200fps is kind of silly. As a game developer, it will be a long time before we optimize a AAA title for super high frame rate over things like draw distance, geometry density, AI, etc. I mean, PS4 and Xbox one have a hard time reaching 1080p60, and if you're talking about PC, it's still a pipe dream to aim for ultra high frame rate all the time. If you think going beyond 100fps as a development goal is more important than what each frame looks like, in terms of development resources and focus, I've got news for you, it's not going to happen. Even as GPUs increase, the target minimum frame rate on PCs will remain 60hz for a long time simply because that's what the majority of TVs are limited to. It's simple economics. PC monitors can go up to 144hz, but I'd MUCH rather play games on a 55 inch TV (or a projector) than a 24 or 27 inch monitor, and so would the vast majority of gamers out there. How do I know this? Because I work in the industry and have made dozens of AAA games, and the living room is where the money is. Basically, consoles.
I should also note to the admin, that asking for 1000fps to reduce blur to 0 is even more a pipe dream, it's never going to happen. Any increase in GPU power is going to be matched by a proportional increase in rendering workload. I do rendering and there's no way we'd waste our optimization efforts to target > 100fps instead of vastly increasing particle count, geometry density, draw distance, # of objects displayed. It's just not going to happen. And even if VR targets 120hz, any increases in GPU power beyond the ability to do that, won't be used to target 240fps instead, it will be used to increase detail instead. Reducing motion blur and lag are very important to VR, but people still want to actually play games on these things, and when game A is running at 480hz per eye with Counter-strike quality graphics and the other one is running something like GTA V at 120fps, which do you think players will play more? Or more importantly, spend more money on (I know CS is super popular, but it's archaic) and therefore get AAA development budgets to focus on.
It's diminishing returns going beyond 120hz, let's at least get to that point first before we start talking about 200fps+ let alone 1000fps rendering which is just not gonna happen for anything but the most basic graphics.
As an engineer, I put effort where it yields the greatest dividends. Corporations do the same. AAA studios do the same. Indie studios do the same. They go where the money is. There simply isn't enough demand for a game with simpler graphics but ultra high frame rate compared to more complex imagery with a still-decent 60p. Targetting beyond that is diminishing returns, both from a technical perspective, and definitely from a market and engineering perspective. Trust me, HDR is going to make the next gen games look stunning. Mark my words. We're working on it.