• Nima@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    3 months ago

    on steam at the moment, Cyberpunk is 20.99.

    Switch 2 version is 69.99

    👋thanks for trying nintendo.

      • atticus88th@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Does Nintendo let you play content that you accidentally downloaded from the high seas? And do you need to worry about Nintendo killing your account for doing such a thing?

      • malwieder@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Well, at least for the physical edition, they have to account for the cost of the 64 GB game card they are using. Wasn’t that rumored to cost like $16 a piece?

        • Geth@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          In theory it makes sense but in the past buying digitally as opposed to physically hasn’t netted anyone any savings. And with the new system where the card doesn’t even hold the actual game, it’s an even worse offering.

      • mang0@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        At least e.g. steam can’t arbitrarily choose to brick your colputer

      • Nima@leminal.space
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        no, they don’t. but the game has been out for 5 years at this point.

        articles like these seem quite pointless to anyone who doesn’t already own a switch 2. and possibly pointless even to people who own a switch 2, but have already played cyberpunk on better or similar hardware.

        this article is an attempt to pat a multi billion dollar company on the back so it doesn’t feel as bad that people aren’t racing out to buy their 5-year-late, overpriced attempts to dominate the handheld market again.

        • Zorque@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          They’re literally selling faster than the original Switch, what the fuck are you smoking?

        • simple@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Possibly the dumbest take I’ve ever seen on this site, are you saying an article objectively comparing the performance of two handhelds is “an attempt to pat a multi billion dollar company on the back”?

          articles like these seem quite pointless to anyone who doesn’t already own a switch 2.

          “Performance comparisons are pointless if the results aren’t what I like”, I’m sure if the steam deck performed a lot better you would be in the comments singing praises for it. Digital foundry have been comparing performance for many years but suddenly now their findings are worthless.

  • who@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Does anyone notice much difference between 25 fps and 30 fps at these screen sizes?

    I don’t have one these handhelds, but in general, I’ve found that smaller screens make lower frame rates feel a lot less choppy.

    • missingno@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Why would a smaller screen make framerate not matter? Textures and resolution, sure, but framerate always matters.

      • who@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Because the distance (and the angle subtended within your field of vision) traveled by a moving object from one frame to the next is shorter.

        The shorter the distance, the more it looks like smooth movement vs. sudden jumping.

        • MolochAlter@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Yes but frame rate is primarily about responsiveness, not aesthetics, which is why AI frame generation is a horseshit idea.

          • who@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Yes but frame rate is primarily about responsiveness, not aesthetics,

            In games that tie physics and inputs to frame rate, 25-30 fps is about a 30-40 millisecond response in the worst case; usually less. That’s plenty fast enough in most games I’ve played. And not all games do that anyway. So I can’t say I agree with your statement as a general rule.

            What game do you play where that’s not fast enough?

            In any case, it’s irrelevant to my point. The comment you responded to is explicitly about the frame rates feeling choppy. Meaning visual effect.

            • MolochAlter@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              You also said “feel” not “look”. If you exclusively meant aesthetics you should clarify it in your own comment.

              Also, responsiveness is not about if something is “fast enough” it’s about making the thought>action gap as small as possible for better immersion and player control. Higher FPS means there is a more consistent time from input to effect. If i press a button in a 30 fps game the input delay can be anything from almost none to 1/30th of a second (30ms, which if you played online games back in the day is not great), and there is no way to tell how much it will be. The more frames the less of a possible variance you experience.

              Also all input is tied to framerate, if you have examples of games that have their input loop completely separate from framerate I’m all ears, especially given rendering is not on demand.

              • who@feddit.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                You also said “feel” not “look”.

                I did, in order to express that I was thinking of overall sense conveyed by the visuals, rather than whether differences in frame rate could be noticed under scrutiny. Words often have multiple meanings depending on context.

                you should clarify it in your own comment.

                I could, but I won’t, since I’m not interested in indulging combative misinterpretations of what I wrote, and nobody else seems to have had trouble understanding me. Bye bye.