> If you don't buy DX12.2 capable hardware you don't get the DX12.2 features, it's really that simple. buying fermi or terascale or some other ancient hardware

> If you don't buy DX12.2 capable hardware you don't get the DX12.2 features, it's really that simple. buying fermi or terascale or some other ancient hardware will always be cheaper, but studios aren't just going to not release games because someone is clinging to their 4870. and the situation is not different in kind when we're talking about DX12.0 to 12.2 transition instead of DX9 to DX11 or DX11 to DX12. Again, the question isn't whether they should release new games (of course they should!) but whether those new games are meaningfully improved by relying on this new tech (hint: they aren't). > It is, again, super funny to look back at how uncontroversial this all used to be, when it was AMD who was ahead on DX feature support. Like yeah if you buy a DX11-focused card like Maxwell then your DX12 experience is going to be shit. Doctor it hurts when I do this. It was uncontroversial because back in the day the new tech lead to real visible improvements that you could tell without needing a side-by-side on/off comparison, not just spec wankery. GPU brand has nothing to do with it. The law of diminishing returns kicks in, and the S-curve slows down. It happens to every category of tech eventually. > buying a 2080 Ti for $950 was an outright bargain. Again, you're talking about a $950 purchase that for new tech that maybe improves the level of eye candy by maybe 1%. There is no market for that. There is no possible world where that tradeoff is worth it. But you're never going to understand that, because all you do is look at is a spec sheet, where "bigger number must obviously be betterer".