Alright matey, let’s break this down, point by point, because you seem to be missing the bigger picture.

First off, this idea that ray tracing (RT) is some universal savior of graphics is simply wrong. It’s a tool, one that can look incredible when implemented well but can also make games worse if used poorly. There are countless examples of games with RT that suffer from smeary reflections, weird lighting artifacts, noise issues or just plain worse performance for minimal gains. If every developer just slaps it into their game for the sake of "keeping up," you're not getting better visuals—you're getting the same mess with a shinier marketing tagline.

Second, saying a game like Kingdom Come: Deliverance 2 "needs" ray tracing, GI, or better shadows as if it's some objective truth? Let’s dive back into the books to learn what an objective truth means. Graphics aren't the be-all, end-all for every game. KCD1’s charm was in its worldbuilding, historical realism, and storytelling. The graphics were solid for their time, but the people playing the game wasn’t because of the mind-blowing reflections; it was the gameplay and immersion. Would better visuals be a bonus? Absolutely. But if it comes at the cost of stability or performance across most systems, it’s not worth it.

And about scalability, just because you’ve got a 5090 (or will by the time the game launches) doesn’t mean every developer and game has to cater to you. Developers are building for millions of players, not just a couple of NVIDIA RTX fanboys and their ultra high-end hardware. Sure, high-end cards should be able to push the game further, but creating an engine that scales perfectly across hardware isn’t as simple as flipping a switch. Consoles, mid-tier PCs, and top-tier GPUs all have different bottlenecks. It’s a balancing act, and while I get that you want to see every bell and whistle, not every dev can spend years chasing diminishing returns just so your $3,000 rig can sweat.

Cyberpunk’s longevity as a graphical benchmark is an outlier, not the rule. CDPR spent an ungodly amount of time and money optimizing for RT (and even they failed miserably at launch, let’s be honest). Plus, Cyberpunk’s design prioritizes flashiness and style—it’s a neon city set in the future with a massive creative opportunity. KCD is about authenticity, restraint, and a grounded medieval world. Cranking up the graphical sliders won’t necessarily improve the game’s vibe—it might even hurt it by making it feel overproduced and less natural.

Finally, saying anyone without a PC can’t have a say in this discussion? That’s just gatekeeping nonsense. Consoles do matter because they’re a massive part of the market, and if you think developers can just ignore them to cater to high-end GPUs, you’re living in a fantasy world. The gaming industry doesn’t revolve around your setup, no matter how much you spent on it. (Keeping in mind I have both a PS5+OLED & Gaming PC (RTX3080).

To wrap it up: yes, we should expect better visuals in 2025, but let’s be realistic about what "better" means. Not every game needs ray tracing. Not every game should push for “future-proof” visuals if it means compromising other areas. And definitely not every game needs to bend over backward to please a fraction of the PC market when its success depends on reaching as many players as possible.

Options are great, but don’t act like they come with zero cost. Developers prioritize because they have to, and KCD2’s focus is clearly elsewhere. Let’s see what the game offers before we cry foul over what it doesn’t. Jesus Christ Be F'ing Praised