Point being that a lot of current-gen AAA games already benefit from more RAM, and this is not going to get better. Consider that frame generation and raytracing also consume lots of VRAM, and FG will be essential to keep 4060Ti level silicon competitive in the future.
I tried passing the link through google translate and it skipped the banners unfortunately. I have a feeling it wanted me to make an account though. I uninstalled Chrome on this laptop so I can't use the in-browser translate option.
> Point being that a lot of current-gen AAA games already benefit from more RAM, and this is not going to get better.
Point taken. Wasn't aware of that because I get the few AAA games I'm interested in on console anyway. Most are series that started on consoles so the company is likely to be more experienced on that platform.
Edit: and to be a bit snarky, I could argue that ports from console that don't take into account the amount of VRAM on common PC video cards are a case of crap console port.
It seems increasingly to be a more general issue that if you don’t have more then 8 GB of VRAM you just don’t get console level (or above) image quality. Current gen consoles have 16 GB of unified RAM, and end up effectively assigning more than half of that to the GPU side of things (I know, it’s a bit more complex than a simple split between “CPU” and “GPU” pools in reality). Which can be a problem, at least of you want to lord it over console owning plebs with your several times more expensive battlestation. Although you might get “better framerate, worse textures” type trade offs.
However, isn't this specific game you're mentioned just a case of a crap port from consoles?
Personally I wouldn't try any traditional console franchise on a PC. They're just not designed for it, even if you plug in a controller.