This....needs to be replaced ASAP

[Fhaerron]

I'm all for native 4K res.
We are halfway into 2019, 8Gb Vram cards are pretty mainstream.

And for those doomsayers about console not powerfull enough. PS4 has 8Gb of GDDR5 (shared system ram & vram, I believe 5Gb was reserved for Vram alone).
During last weeks E3 Microsoft announced that project Scarlet (the new Xbox to be released in 2020) "will support up to 4K and 120FPS". The reason I say this is because Sony hasn't announced such claims yet, however both PS5 & Project Scarlet will roughly have the same performance.

Anyway with the claims Microsoft provided for next gen consoles, they are more then powerful enough to run 4K textures on this game at higher framerates.

[Vereleisk]

8GB VRAM is NOT mainstream.
I work as technician, selling parts and upgrading computers, and not everyone has a 500$+ CAD budget to put into a graphic card.
Almost 75% of the GPU and/or computers we sell for gamers either has something similar to a GTX1050/1060 which have 2, 3, 4 or 6GB depending on the model you choose.
Maybe YOUR reality is that everyone has 1200-2500$ to put into a gaming PC, while according to Steam stats, a GTX1070/RTX2070 (8GB) is mostly under 10% of the user base.

That being said, an optional high-res pack? Sure, i'd even pay to have it!
BUT we should not force people who have average computers (or use their laptop on the road to do dailies and casual content) suddenly be unable to play their favorite game.

[MrKusakabe]

8GB VRAM is NOT mainstream.
I work as technician, selling parts and upgrading computers, and not everyone has a 500$+ CAD budget to put into a graphic card.
Almost 75% of the GPU and/or computers we sell for gamers either has something similar to a GTX1050/1060 which have 2, 3, 4 or 6GB depending on the model you choose.
Maybe YOUR reality is that everyone has 1200-2500$ to put into a gaming PC, while according to Steam stats, a GTX1070/RTX2070 (8GB) is mostly under 10% of the user base.

That being said, an optional high-res pack? Sure, i'd even pay to have it!
BUT we should not force people who have average computers (or use their laptop on the road to do dailies and casual content) suddenly be unable to play their favorite game.

Well, you work in a very weird store or are not as experienced as you might think. A quick check on an ASUS GTX1060 with 6 GByte of VRAM resulted in several 180€ ($200) pricetags, or an Sapphire RX 580 wth 8 GByte of VRAM for a mere 171€ ... I know the difference of simple VRAM and GPU power are important, but you could set up to 1080p @ 60fps with maximum texture settings with the graphic cards I just mentioned and still would have more than half of VRAM empty.



ARR ran fine on my GTX670 @ 1080p and it looked very good (not sure if I used High settings back then as the game advanced, we can't compare 1:1 anymore, but it was very good-looking!). And that was a 2012/13 graphics card.


Also, Steam, isn't it that place where people buy nothing if it's not for 8€? (i.e. "Don't buy [Game] for 30€!!! Wait until it's in sale!!") Of course these cheapskates there do not invest into according hardware and are happy with Newground-like Flash games and Indie Games of that sort... If you can afford monthly subscription fees for this AAA MMORPG, I am sure your hardware might be suitable for games better than Tetris

The game, right now, is not even remotely to take up to even the lowest budget graphic card's VRAM, and it often shows, e.g. when old (or stretched?) textures - the carpet - mix into a fairly good-looking scene:

This scene runs on maximum details in everything at 1440p on my GTX1080 in Stormblood (not ARR content). And it just takes about 3 GByte of Video RAM - if you run older hardware, you have to go down to 1080p/720p anyways, and you won't notice those textures -- if you have a budget graphics card, you will turn down some settings anyways. It's just funky you would buy/use a graphic card with 2 GByte of VRAM and then want to crank up everything.


Unfortunately, for people that can afford it, we are basically stuck because people can't shell out $150 or the console support. And the weakest link should never be the goal...


I am not a graphics fetishist at all (my favourite game: MS-DOS DooM in 320x200x256) but this odd mix of new and old (even my Papalymo hairstyle is low-res from 1.0) makes it stand out more.

Sincerely,

[S-r-ex]

I'm all for native 4K res.
We are halfway into 2019, 8Gb Vram cards are pretty mainstream.

And for those doomsayers about console not powerfull enough. PS4 has 8Gb of GDDR5 (shared system ram & vram, I believe 5Gb was reserved for Vram alone).
During last weeks E3 Microsoft announced that project Scarlet (the new Xbox to be released in 2020) "will support up to 4K and 120FPS". The reason I say this is because Sony hasn't announced such claims yet, however both PS5 & Project Scarlet will roughly have the same performance.

Anyway with the claims Microsoft provided for next gen consoles, they are more then powerful enough to run 4K textures on this game at higher framerates.

8GB VRAM is still on the enthusiast end.

And PS4 reserves 3.5GB of its RAM for system alone, although 1GB of that can flexibly be used by games when necessary. That leaves up to 5.5GB total for games.

Finally, while Scarlett "will support 4k and 120fps", it is only technically correct, "support" being the keyword. It's just the HDMI 2.1 standard, do not expect games to actually run at that. Sony is probably yawning at that statement, perhaps even chuckling.