3 ms·

Well maybe stop making them obsolete? Just make software that can either last longer, or can run on slower hardware. I have been complaining about wirth s law

by jokoon 6y ago

Well maybe stop making them obsolete? Just make software that can either last longer, or can run on slower hardware. I have been complaining about wirth s law for years now, and the environment requires the industry to adapt. You cannot add features and features and get each user a new chip every 2 year.

dragontamer 6y ago
> You cannot add features and features and get each user a new chip every 2 year. Except we can. Video games continue to get more graphical enhancements: and people continue to want to buy stronger GPUs (Raytracing, VRS, etc. etc.) so that its possible for them to see these improved graphics. Be it high-framerates for esports, or 4k graphics, or virtual reality, or raytracing. Video gamers have always pushed for better-and-better. There's nothing wrong with being excited for these new features. It probably sucks to reprogram these engines every few years to take advantage of these features... but that's a job lol. There are plenty of video-game developers who don't care much about the latest-and-greatest graphics. Instead, they build a "retro" look and try to compete on gameplay alone. That's also good and fine (and I usually tend to buy these games instead). But I don't think there's anything wrong with someone out there being excited for say... Minecraft Raytracing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_4QaWbntUQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_4QaWbntUQ ----------- I mean, they're games. They're supposed to innovate and excite us in new ways. They're entertainment. Some developers choose the graphical route, others choose gameplay. Nothing wrong with that.
- jokoon 6y ago
  I think it can be done without having to obsolete previous hardware. I'm not saying to stop performance improvement, just that it could be done more responsibly, to avoid a system of growth and short lifecycle for profit motives.
swiley 6y ago
This would be much easier if they published/maintained drivers for older chips but many companies do not because they "want to protect IP." I would argue most of the "IP" is really just forced API incompatibilities so that most software only works on their devices and anything that isn't is irrelevant to reverse engineering but it doesn't matter, there's surprisingly little money to be made manufacturing things that work well and shocking amount to be made shoving things that barely work down everyone's throats.

by jokoon 6y ago

dragontamer 6y ago

> You cannot add features and features and get each user a new chip every 2 year. Except we can. Video games continue to get more graphical enhancements: and people continue to want to buy stronger GPUs (Raytracing, VRS, etc. etc.) so that its possible for them to see these improved graphics. Be it high-framerates for esports, or 4k graphics, or virtual reality, or raytracing. Video gamers have always pushed for better-and-better. There's nothing wrong with being excited for these new features. It probably sucks to reprogram these engines every few years to take advantage of these features... but that's a job lol. There are plenty of video-game developers who don't care much about the latest-and-greatest graphics. Instead, they build a "retro" look and try to compete on gameplay alone. That's also good and fine (and I usually tend to buy these games instead). But I don't think there's anything wrong with someone out there being excited for say... Minecraft Raytracing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_4QaWbntUQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_4QaWbntUQ ----------- I mean, they're games. They're supposed to innovate and excite us in new ways. They're entertainment. Some developers choose the graphical route, others choose gameplay. Nothing wrong with that.

jokoon 6y ago
I think it can be done without having to obsolete previous hardware. I'm not saying to stop performance improvement, just that it could be done more responsibly, to avoid a system of growth and short lifecycle for profit motives.

swiley 6y ago

This would be much easier if they published/maintained drivers for older chips but many companies do not because they "want to protect IP." I would argue most of the "IP" is really just forced API incompatibilities so that most software only works on their devices and anything that isn't is irrelevant to reverse engineering but it doesn't matter, there's surprisingly little money to be made manufacturing things that work well and shocking amount to be made shoving things that barely work down everyone's throats.