You can't just "turn off CDN" on the modern internet. You'd instantly DDOS your customers' origins. They're not provisioned to handle it, and even if they were the size of the pipe going to them isn't. The modern internet is built around the expectation that everything is distributed via CDN. Some more "traditional" websites would probably be fine.
If you are DO you could, you just decided not to bother. They control the origins it's spaces (s3), so they could absolutely spin up further gateways or a cache layer and then turn the CDN off.
You outsource it because clouflare have more locations than you so offer lower latency and can offer it at a cost that's cheaper or the same price as doing it yourself.
during release one of the servers peaked at around 8gbps which is around 1000MiB/s which is $1/s which comes out to a - spits out coffee - 2.6million a month, seems perfectly reasonable?
It validates the object shape at runtime, much like you can do in Typescript with a library like Zod. The key difference in this case is that Rust makes it scary to not validate data while Typescript will gladly let you YOLO it and blow your legs off, even in strict mode.
It’s not. And trying to just be a transformation of the source to JS without its own standard library (mostly, some old stuff doesn’t follow this) means it really isn’t possible with just TS alone.
That’s OK with me. I use TS because I like it and hate the total lack of safety in JS. I have to use JS on the web, so TS it is.
If I don’t need it to run on a webpage, I wouldn’t be writing it in TS. I like other languages more overall.
What did ILM work on? I'm looking but I can't find anything regarding them even using Blender at any point, nevermind contributing back to it.
Blender has seen more success than most open source art tools but it still seems to be relegated to individuals and small studios, while the ILMs of the world continue to be neck deep in commercial or bespoke tooling.
> I'm not crying about EA not getting its profit margins, but the cut Steam takes can really hurt indie devs.
Indies actually lose more of their margin than EA does, because Steam reduces their 30% cut to 25% after $10m in sales and 20% after $50m in sales. Few indies are doing those numbers, so it's functionally a discount for AAA publishers to discourage them from leaving for their own launchers again (EA did leave back when it was a flat 30% rate for everyone).
> It absolutely can have the cheap pricing of a console
Valve hasn't committed to a price yet, but they told Gamers Nexus that it'll be priced less like a console and more like an entry level computer (i.e. more expensive than a console).
Weird statement, because I can search for PS5 pro & see $750 price points, and entry level computers have been far far cheaper. Cheaper than Xbox series X at $650. Getting pretty solid laptops for a bit under $500 has been possible for many years now.
But "entry level computer" has a very broad interpretation available. Could be higher for sure.
Do those computers play games competently? I doubt they play them as well as the PS5 or Series X. We aren't in the days where integrated graphics instantly meant sub 20 FPS on any game no matter how simple, but I still wouldn't throw any recent triple A game at even new-ish computers with integrated graphics and expect them to perform all that well. They'll play Rocket League, Stardew Valley and Minecraft just fine, and maybe that's all they need to do, but a Steam Machine that can't play tomorrow's title roughly on par with current gen consoles seems like a losing bet unless the price is equivalently lower.
Yes. There's a peer thread below this one with more examples, but in general the biggest (and most relevant) cost you're looking at with a new computer is the video card. And a PS5 level video card is the RX 6700 XT which is like $200-$300. If you're willing to purchase second hand you can go substantially lower.
I suspect most of us are of a vaguely similar age, and when "we" were growing up, PC gaming was ridiculously expensive. A new gaming PC was thousands of dollars and then obsolete within a couple of years, leaving you constantly checking new release 'minimum system requirements.' It was quite painful and a big reason I (and I suspect others) migrated to console gaming. But now a days? I have a relatively old PC and never even bother looking at spec requirements - it'll run it, just fine.
I used to budget the bulk of my yearly tax refund for a PC upgrade of some kind. A bit over $1k every year. Something was always due for a replacement in an endless treadmill of avoiding total system obsolescence.
Now, shit just lasts forever. I upgraded from a 1st gen i7 920 _this year_ into some mid-range Ryzen 5. I'm still using the 2070 RTX I bought over 5 years ago to power the HTC Vive and a 1440p monitor; with this new CPU the gfx card is finally getting a workout and has become the bottleneck while also giving me a massively better experience.
I'm tempted by the 9070 graphics cards but honestly, I just don't need it. I can tweak settings on any AAA game and get ~50fps of real frames and I'm just fine with that. I probably won't upgrade the graphics card until I pick up a dramatically better display device that requires it. Maybe the Frame will push the issue, maybe it won't.
The Steam Machine uses a dedicated graphics chip, similar to a discrete AMD RX 7060M. Laptop chip sure, but a stone's throw from integrated graphics. These Machines will be able to keep up.
That build uses a 13 year old CPU from AliExpress, there's no accounting for taste but I think most entry level builds are aiming a little higher than that. Some newer games won't even try to run on a CPU of that vintage since it doesn't have AVX2 support.
It was released in 2016 and does support AVX2. In general what matters when building a decent rig is aiming to balance performance to optimize against bottle necks. He demonstrated the system in various modern games, for instance running Delta Force at 4k/120FPS. And the CPU was scarcely getting touched - running at around 20%.
You can spend a ton of money on a bleeding edge CPU and see 0 performance gain in almost all cases, because basically no modern games are CPU limited, or even remotely close to it, so you're sitting there with your overpriced CPU basically idling.
-----
I think many people are out of the loop on PC costs and performance. The days where you needed some $1000+ bleeding edge rig to even begin to play the latest stuff are long gone. Since this thread is on consoles - an approximate PS5 equivalent video card is the RX 6700 XT which is like $200-$300, and that is, by far, the biggest expense.
Gaming tends to adjust to consors, and we're nearing 6 years of gen 9 consoles. expect any "entry level gaming" computer to either be portable or competitive with the $600 price point I can grab at any major retailer.
Otherwise, sure. I can build a potato for $300 and i will probably enjoy Silksong just fine. But at that point why not buy a non-gaming laptop?
The $400 system linked above can run modern games in 4k/120FPS. And that was far from some search for the most efficient price:performance build, it was just the first thing that came up on a quick search. If one is willing to do things like buy a refurbished hardware and assume you already have an OS, you could easily bring that down to $300 and maybe even start pushing towards $200.
Gaming has just gotten so absurdly cheap, but most people's mindsets are stuck in 15 years ago, when it was absurdly expensive and consoles were really the only way to help keep it to a relatively reasonable, and stable, cost. In modern times consoles will generally be price competitive for about a year, but then fall off as hardware prices decline, yet their retail sticker price generally stays the same.
On top of this now a days just about everything also comes to PC as well, so one of the biggest arguments of the past (console exclusives) is no longer valid. Even Japan is finally bringing their stuff to PC. And there also tends to be much more competition on PC, so rare will be the time that you need to pay $60++ for a new game. Though that is one area where many Japanese studios are still lagging behind the rest.
Older games at medium settings, or shooters at low settings sure. If that's your compromise for frames then a relative potato can still play it. I'm not sure I call that "modern" in the same way something God of War Ragnarok is "modern".
>Though that is one area where many Japanese studios are still lagging behind the rest.
Its a different model. They aren't trying to sell millions of copies to report engagement and sales, so they want to lock in the smaller audience they have and get as much out of that. Nintendo style. That's why you'll see the larger public studios like Square Enix and Capcom doing western style, generous sales so their sales calls can be "we sold 20% more YoY from new releases". Koei Tecmo, not so much. And Sega seems to straddle the line depending on the franchise.
Delta Force was released in January of this year. He was running it at 4k and 120FPS in medium. If you're willing to go for 60FPS or 1920x1080 I'm certain he could have it running in ultra or whatever at 60FPS. And that was on a less than $400 PC. Similarly he was also playing CS2 (released late 2023) in medium 4k at what seemed to average around 90FPS.
For contrast most PS5 games are going to run at 1080p at the highest, which is then upscaled to 4k output, and generally capped at 60FPS.
----
I think Japanese studios are simply mispricing their games. Shin Megami Tensei V is a game that could probably be quite big on the PC but instead has less than 3500 reviews (as a ballpark for sales) because of a price that's way outside the peak point on the supply:demand curve. It also has almost no regional pricing adjustments - like $50 in India and Vietnam, $40 in China, etc, for a game may as well have a label saying 'please pirate me, I don't want your patronage.'
In classical advertising it was believed that lowering the price of something was subconsciously associated with a lower quality/brand damage in the consumer, and they're probably still under this school of thought. But I think at this point it's largely obsolete, certainly in software. People, in general, just don't pay $60 (or anywhere near it) for games on PC anymore.
Also consistently the most played game on Steam by a fair margin. That doesn't necessarily make it the most played PC game since some big titles like League and Fortnite aren't on Steam, but it's at least close.
I dont give the slightest of shits about CS but have you seen the figures? It's doing absurdly well. In addition the separate economy for skins peaked at 6 billion recently.
Apple giving you more than consoles do is damning with faint praise, the Mac bootloader is technically open but without any public hardware documentation it's borderline impossible to do anything useful with that. Asahi have done incredible work but even they are still catching up with the M3, nevermind the current M5.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eo8nz_niiM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2P8mjWRqpk
The second is especially interesting as it demonstrates Hetzner's unique semi-custom hardware.
reply