Has "good graphics" corrupted the minds of gamers?

[ProSaibot]

If you play a lot of FPS and racing games high FPS is great. If you play more open world/story games 60 fps is great. It really depends on what games you play.

Competitive online gaming is different. I get the high-requirements for FPS there, but for some single-player game, not really.

[bongowongo]

1. There are many people online complaining about the bad image quality in performance mode and either being forced to play in resolution or shelving it for later.

2. "As a console player, playing in 4K is never gonna be the standard for single player games given the nature of the platform. HD gaming is just the icing on the cake. If you want HD graphics bare requirement only solution is to go pc or just wait out the gen for a pro version."

See how dumb that sounds? People have 4k 120hz OLED TV's and monitors now boyo. The landscape has changed. For the entire gen, while not quite being true 4k, the standards for HD gaming have improved dramatically to the extent that we expect a resolution mode now on console. The same goes for 60fps, where 99% of games now have a performance mode. Do you think console games are gonna go backwards to 720p30fps from now on?

I get your eyes can't see a difference between 30 and 60. It doesn't bother you so you obviously don't care and think we're exaggerating but it's annoying that you dismiss others who clearly have big issues with it.

Nah I'm not dismissing your gripes with a 60fps mode. My gripe is just your particular wording of "really trash image quality" when that particular line isnt true when the 30fps has pretty damn good IQ as I mentioned lol.

Yes new consoles have been marketing "high framerates" and it's almost fair for console gamers to expect 60fps modes in their games and honestly, I'd love for every game to have all the graphical bells and whistles at 60 fps, but it's just not possible .... The problem is, console's just dont have that sorta power to output games at 4k 60fps consistently for most games (unless you're maybe the platform owner but I digress) ... The issue you have with Rebirth is the graphics in performance mode - Not the performance itself. If we want to read between the lines, the performance mode absolutely does work in rebirth because it is at 60fps, however it's just the IQ/graphics that take a hit and honestly it's just one of the trade-offs of getting higher framerates.

I remember when Scram initially got mocked for saying that games would eventually roll back to quality / 30fps being the "flagship" mode, but he's absolutely right though ... End of the day it's easier to market graphics than framerates and concessions will be made, especially for single player only games where framerates don't really matter all that much.

Cross-gen period spoiled a lot of gamers here with 4k-60 being a standard, but anyone who thought that we've go deep into the gen with 4k-60 with sublime graphics is on a whole lotta cope. You want graphics, too bad you sacrifice high framerate. You want high framerates, too bad you're gonna have to sacrifice the iq/fidelity.

[Coal Man]

Nah I'm not dismissing your gripes with a 60fps mode. My gripe is just your particular wording of "really trash image quality" when that particular line isnt true when the 30fps has pretty damn good IQ as I mentioned lol.

Yes new consoles have been marketing "high framerates" and it's almost fair for console gamers to expect 60fps modes in their games and honestly, I'd love for every game to have all the graphical bells and whistles at 60 fps, but it's just not possible .... The problem is, console's just dont have that sorta power to output games at 4k 60fps consistently for most games (unless you're maybe the platform owner but I digress) ... The issue you have with Rebirth is the graphics in performance mode - Not the performance itself. If we want to read between the lines, the performance mode absolutely does work in rebirth because it is at 60fps, however it's just the IQ/graphics that take a hit and honestly it's just one of the trade-offs of getting higher framerates.

I remember when Scram initially got mocked for saying that games would eventually roll back to quality / 30fps being the "flagship" mode, but he's absolutely right though ... End of the day it's easier to market graphics than framerates and concessions will be made, especially for single player only games where framerates don't really matter all that much.

Cross-gen period spoiled a lot of gamers here with 4k-60 being a standard, but anyone who thought that we've go deep into the gen with 4k-60 with sublime graphics is on a whole lotta cope. You want graphics, too bad you sacrifice high framerate. You want high framerates, too bad you're gonna have to sacrifice the iq/fidelity.

1. I was talking about trash image quality in Rebirth's performance mode. I didn't think I would have to specify that for the 19th time since we had this discussion numerous times before. A trash performance mode which SE even acknowledged and attempted to fix with this recent patch which ended up doing nothing btw.

2. Scram was never right about games going back to 30 fps modes alone wtf is this assessment? The only example you have of this is literally one game @Dragon's Dogma. One game can never be a basis for such a claim since literally every other game still has a performance mode. You need to show me at least 50% of games being stuck at 30fps for your claim to start having a shred of validity. You're FAR off the mark here.

[Coal Man]

This is kind of the point I'm making though, they oversold the console, so now when graphical output falls short the fanbase is (rightfully so, probably) upset.

They keep pushing Pro variants but they've barely gotten these current systems to work.

They oversold which console? The PS5? Nobody expected 8k, whoever did must have been a full retard and not worthing paying any mind to. 8k is on the box because it's capable of outputting 8k. There's like 1 or 2 games that does it, as well as 8k movies. Everyone expected just a 4k console, and while not true 4k we do have upscaling that's good enough. Give people good imagine quality like Demon's Souls and everyone is happy for the whole gen.

[bongowongo]

2. Scram was never right about games going back to 30 fps modes alone wtf is this assessment? The only example you have of this is literally one game @Dragon's Dogma. One game can never be a basis for such a claim since literally every other game still has a performance mode. You need to show me at least 50% of games being stuck at 30fps for your claim to start having a shred of validity. You're FAR off the mark here.

30 fps being the flagship mode as I mentioned. It's clear most games are being marketed and having the quality mode as the default mode.

Performance mode is just a bonus with clear concessions being made to graphics at the expense of performance. Does it hit 60fps? yes ... But at what cost, and that cost seems to be what most people are upset about - However they're still offering you 60fps tho so not they're not outright lying to you perse.

[BearyManilowe]

They oversold which console? The PS5? Nobody expected 8k, whoever did must have been a full retard and not worthing paying any mind to. 8k is on the box because it's capable of outputting 8k. There's like 1 or 2 games that does it, as well as 8k movies. Everyone expected just a 4k console, and while not true 4k we do have upscaling that's good enough. Give people good imagine quality like Demon's Souls and everyone is happy for the whole gen.

If you're going to tell me that Sony/MS didn't drastically oversell the graphical capabilities of these consoles then I don't know what else to tell you.

[Coal Man]

If you're going to tell me that Sony/MS didn't drastically oversell the graphical capabilities of these consoles then I don't know what else to tell you.

They didn't oversell chit. The PS5 did exactly what it was supposed to do and was a great piece of hardware for the time it came out. If Rift Apart, Demon's Souls, Plague Tale Requiem (after performance patch), Horizon Forbidden West, Ragnarok could all look and perform so amazingly then the onus is on devs to make games that are optimized well.

Instead we have lazy devs that just throw out a bunch of power hungry slop and expect hardware to just brute force things. How the hell is Sony to blame for that? They could have released a PS5 that was as powerful as a 3080 rig and yall would still be here complaining that consoles were weak because Dragon's Dogma 2 runs like ass on it today.

[Coal Man]

30 fps being the flagship mode as I mentioned. It's clear most games are being marketed and having the quality mode as the default mode.

Performance mode is just a bonus with clear concessions being made to graphics at the expense of performance. Does it hit 60fps? yes ... But at what cost, and that cost seems to be what most people are upset about - However they're still offering you 60fps tho so not they're not outright lying to you perse.

Shifting goalposts as usual in this thread. Nobody was arguing about "flagship modes" lmfao. Scram's argument was that games would get so demanding there would ONLY be a 30fps mode because games would be unable output at 60 anymore. Why are you being such horrible faith with your arguments?

My claim was that 60fps will be a standard in games this gen and so far that has held true undeniably.

[BearyManilowe]

They didn't oversell chit. The PS5 did exactly what it was supposed to do and was a great piece of hardware for the time it came out. If Rift Apart, Demon's Souls, Plague Tale Requiem (after performance patch), Horizon Forbidden West, Ragnarok could all look and perform so amazingly then the onus is on devs to make games that are optimized well.

Instead we have lazy devs that just throw out a bunch of power hungry slop and expect hardware to just brute force things. How the hell is Sony to blame for that? They could have released a PS5 that was as powerful as a 3080 rig and yall would still be here complaining that consoles were weak because Dragon's Dogma 2 runs like ass on it today.

[Coal Man]

[Img]https://media.tenor.com/tL2j0tzQKFYAAAAM/fly-no-need-to-be-upset.gif[/mg]

Any actual rebuttal tho? For $500 in 2020 how much power would you have put into the PS5/Series X?

[sooby]

Graphics imo aren't the be all end all.

For example the older games, I wouldn't say they were bad graphics, but just outdated. But the gameplay still made it worth it. Some new games I do not like the graphics at all even though it is newer.

For example I still like the graphics of Diablo I, Ocarina of Time even though they are older games.

Hell all the pokemon games on gameboy. it was basically just a bunch of pixels but nobody can say they didn't have a blast, or couldn't have a blast playing those games even now.

but yeah if you're blowing your entire budget on graphics and have no gameplay to show for it, it is basically the equivalent of a polished turd.

[nkiritsis13]

There certainly is a side of basic bitch consumers who only want pretty graphics, but we're seeing a large increase in games where everything else from story, characters, to performance is mediocre, if not total schit, which is rubbing people the wrong way when said games cost even more now.

Visual showcases will always at least partially serve window dressing that improved the subjective experience, although I think the double edged sword there is just how insanely costly that is becoming for developers/publishers, not only in terms of pure monetary investment, but the long development times that have left the "new" generation rather starved.

nice graphics can still amaze me even though it's not the most important aspect (cfr. Nintendo)

I'd rather say the focus on sheer size has corrupted the minds of gamers

brb we want massive worlds

brb feel like chores

Good call, that size creep has become unreal and, like the graphics, has increased development time and cost. On that end, massive worlds have corrupted the developers as well because the vast majority of them don't have anything to add to these huge game worlds to justify their size.

Remember AssCreed Odyssey and how Ubisoft claimed they would pull back on the world size, only to double down on making their game too goddamn big for its own good? Open worlds aren't inherently bad, but too many developers have been drinking the same retarded kool aid that has put oversized worlds on a pedestal across the board, regardless of how (1) appropriate they even are for the game in question and (2) whether the developer is even capable of making a remotely decent open world to begin with.

You're making up arguments to counter against. Rarely anyone brings up 8k. Most people buy 4k TV's and just want 4k60. Show me threads where people are complaining about lack of 8k?

Also, there is lots of discourse is about lack of great gameplay. You think people aren't complaining about bad writing and gameplay? It's just that if graphics don't matter at all then they should have kept selling the PS4. If you're advertising a new gen of "premium" consoles you expect people to buy into then you have to show them that their new tech is capable of something better.

It looks weird when your $70 TLOU2 on PS4 absolutely mogs the chit out of your $70 Ronin on PS5 that came out 4 years later.

This is my own observation from the sidelines owning a PC, but the best analogy I can make between the two generation is that it's like they just unlocked the higher settings with little else making a significant enough improvement offset how more games are releasing half-finished, with poor performance, subpar plots/characters, and simply aren't innovating gameplay or AI*.

*We're kind of going backwards because developers have gotten so lazy that they rely on multiplayer games so they don't even have to bother making better AI than what we had over a decade ago.

It's like they're releasing basically the same thing, but now consoles players get to see it with graphics cranked up to "high" (still not ultra), and turn on some ray tracing. Sure, I guess it's technically a leap (or at least can be, e.g. Suicide Squad still looks worse than Arkham Knight) if you're strictly looking at it from a PS4/Xbone --> PS5/XSX standpoint since we're talking a ~10 year gap in hardware.

On the flip side of that, when you consider just how good looking games were either on the PS4/Xbone given their subpar hardware even on release, or especially on high end PCs, we're definitely hitting points of diminishing returns with respect to what reasonable hardware is actually capable of running at an acceptable level. Emphasis on that latter part because as a large number of recent "AAA" games have shown, actually running at an acceptable level is still a tall order.

That's not the biggest discussion at all, only a small part of it.

The biggest discussion is that most new games are coming out in alpha stage because devs are chitting them out as fast as possible due to mismanagement and shareholder demand. Seriously, think about how many games are coming out in awful states these days? Poor optimization, bad gameplay, busted matchmaking, predatory MTX, identity politics, major bugs, and horrible graphics like textures not loading and random weird interactions are all a part of it.

When it comes to a purely graphical discussion the only game I've recently seen taking a huge chit on is Rise of Ronin and nobody would have complained about its graphics if it was a $40 game btw.

110%, mate.

All of the bad practices have gotten so out of hand with very little outweighing all of the negatives.

As an aside, I wasn't paying attention to Rise of Ronin, but after checking it out and the complaints... damn, I get it, and that's precisely what I mean: you get these $70 games that barely look better than last gen games, especially if you consider how games back then looked on capable hardware (i.e., not PS4s/Xbones). Although in Rise of the Ronin's case, Rise of Ronin vs Ghost of Tsushima really struggles to match the last gen game, so I guess the PC version will just mog the hell out of it. Plus, Rise of Ronin is guilty of the open world sin TokenV brought up, so I'm sure that factored into the visuals being so mediocre for a PS5 exclusive roughly halfway into the generation.

Yeah this is what most people are thinking, thought that would be obvious. Nobody is talking about 8K, it's basically a pointless thing. Who knows, maybe one day we will get some hardware so powerful that 8K will be a part of the discussion, but nobody is even thinking about that right now. 60-120 FPS in 4K is where all the focus is when it comes to graphics and performance these days.

Games can't even output 4k without having to resort to upscaling trickery, and even they have to sacrifice frame rate unless you're running a high end PC... to maybe hit 60?

Technical capacity is only one side of the equation though, because the brutal reality is that most people won't have setups where they will even be able to discern a difference between 8k and 4k. The industry got too caught up focusing on just resolution, which while absolutely an important factor, has reached its realistic limitation for current technology that still allows a good enough balance between how it looks to the human eye and not bricking the hardware for just daring to run it.

However, something like frame rate, frame pacing, and stuttering, all of which human eyes can unequivocally see no matter the resolution (unless you have the reaction time of someone who shouldn't be playing video games) has become an afterthought in the pursuit of cramming as much technical faff into games that have no business trying to run it when the developers optimization is nowhere up to snuff.

Frankly, Sony in particular could have possibly garnered some good will just pushing out 60fps patches plus maybe some slight resolution sharpening tidying up for PS4 games if they're so devoid of current gen games. I mean, it couldn't hurt to breathe new life to people's old/current libraries on the cheap compared to going through all the effort of trying to "remaster" them if they can't even squeeze out a new title at a reasonable pace. Even then, fat lot of good that did for something like TLOU2.

[JayJ350]

Games can't even output 4k without having to resort to upscaling trickery, and even they have to sacrifice frame rate unless you're running a high end PC... to maybe hit 60?

Technical capacity is only one side of the equation though, because the brutal reality is that most people won't have setups where they will even be able to discern a difference between 8k and 4k. The industry got too caught up focusing on just resolution, which while absolutely an important factor, has reached its realistic limitation for current technology that still allows a good enough balance between how it looks to the human eye and not bricking the hardware for just daring to run it.

However, something like frame rate, frame pacing, and stuttering, all of which human eyes can unequivocally see no matter the resolution (unless you have the reaction time of someone who shouldn't be playing video games) has become an afterthought in the pursuit of cramming as much technical faff into games that have no business trying to run it when the developers optimization is nowhere up to snuff.

Frankly, Sony in particular could have possibly garnered some good will just pushing out 60fps patches plus maybe some slight resolution sharpening tidying up for PS4 games if they're so devoid of current gen games. I mean, it couldn't hurt to breathe new life to people's old/current libraries on the cheap compared to going through all the effort of trying to "remaster" them if they can't even squeeze out a new title at a reasonable pace. Even then, fat lot of good that did for something like TLOU2.

True, and that later point about Sony is one of the things I have always liked the most about Xbox. They actually bothered to make FPS boost a thing for a lot of the Xbox One titles as well as some 360 titles, heck they did an X enhanced thing for original Xbox and 360 titles as well where they gave them a 4K resolution boost. All that backwards compatibility and back catalog enhancement has been a really big deal to me as someone who generally enjoys a lot of older titles, and I think it shows off how well a lot of games from the 360 and One generation have aged. Performance and resolution enhancement has probably been the biggest thing when it comes to what makes the latest generation of games look better, so much of the technical faff has been hard to notice.

[eod8989]

Playing Just Cause 3 right now and the textures aren't even that good but it's better looking than 99% of games nowadays. Mind = blown. I need more games like this.

[bongowongo]

Shifting goalposts as usual in this thread. Nobody was arguing about "flagship modes" lmfao. Scram's argument was that games would get so demanding there would ONLY be a 30fps mode because games would be unable output at 60 anymore. Why are you being such horrible faith with your arguments?

My claim was that 60fps will be a standard in games this gen and so far that has held true undeniably.

Honestly, I don't fully remember word to word what scram said, but I just remember he said most games will end up prioritizing 30fps more ... If it's ONLY 30 fps then yeah, sure maybe he might be wrong about that .... But the point still stands that 30fps is increasingly the mode of choice for most devs with 60fps+ modes being there for the sake of it just so that they can say it's there - Especially in single player titles. a GOOD 60fps mode only exists for multiplayer modes and possibly first party games. For the rest of the dev's out there, 30 fps is definitely what they work on most.

[freeburn]

I would imagine if you asked any devs they'd prefer you play their game at 30fps with max graphics

Imo that is Def the target for most devs.

60fps feels like the afterthought mode for most games.

[Coal Man]

Honestly, I don't fully remember word to word what scram said, but I just remember he said most games will end up prioritizing 30fps more ... If it's ONLY 30 fps then yeah, sure maybe he might be wrong about that .... But the point still stands that 30fps is increasingly the mode of choice for most devs with 60fps+ modes being there for the sake of it just so that they can say it's there - Especially in single player titles. a GOOD 60fps mode only exists for multiplayer modes and possibly first party games. For the rest of the dev's out there, 30 fps is definitely what they work on most.

1. I had this argument with Scram and I can 100% guarantee you he said 60fps wouldn't be possible, games would be too powerful and consoles will be forced back to 30fps

2. I don't really care what devs see as their standard mode and which is tacked on. The fact of the matter is that if devs expect their games to sell well, they need performance modes from now on because that's what customers expect and want. You can never put it back in that box, just like you can never go back to 720p gaming. Only GTA 6 can break this rule.

I would imagine if you asked any devs they'd prefer you play their game at 30fps with max graphics

Imo that is Def the target for most devs.

60fps feels like the afterthought mode for most games.

Doesn't matter what they prefer. I'm sure they prefer to sell you 3 hour campaigns for $60 as well but it's about what the customers overwhelmingly want so devs can kick rocks.

[AD117]

Personally, I think so. Take Signalis for example. Indy pixelized type game. Legit one of the best survival horror games of the decade, and it completely flies under peoples radar despite the quality due to being pixelized chit

Should be talked about with RE, SH, and Alien Isolation. People focus too much on pretty games. Most of the time, the games with the best graphics are kind of chit tier like Horizon or the new God of War. Too much focus in the wrong areas (obviously not always, since TLOU2 is great).

[Akd123]

Personally, I think so. Take Signalis for example. Indy pixelized type game. Legit one of the best survival horror games of the decade, and it completely flies under peoples radar despite the quality due to being pixelized chit

Should be talked about with RE, SH, and Alien Isolation. People focus too much on pretty games. Most of the time, the games with the best graphics are kind of chit tier like Horizon or the new God of War. Too much focus in the wrong areas (obviously not always, since TLOU2 is great).

LOL at chitting on Horizon and GoW but praising TLoU2. They are all good games but TLoU2 is the weakest game out of those three. All the graphics and gameplay in the world cant make up for that chitty story

[OptimusTrajan]

LOL at chitting on Horizon and GoW but praising TLoU2. They are all good games but TLoU2 is the weakest game out of those three. All the graphics and gameplay in the world cant make up for that chitty story

All 3 are trash tbh.

Ghosts is too. Same game as HZD with different assets.

[Coal Man]

All 3 are trash tbh.

Ghosts is too. Same game as HZD with different assets.

I hope you never respawn.

[nkiritsis13]

True, and that later point about Sony is one of the things I have always liked the most about Xbox. They actually bothered to make FPS boost a thing for a lot of the Xbox One titles as well as some 360 titles, heck they did an X enhanced thing for original Xbox and 360 titles as well where they gave them a 4K resolution boost. All that backwards compatibility and back catalog enhancement has been a really big deal to me as someone who generally enjoys a lot of older titles, and I think it shows off how well a lot of games from the 360 and One generation have aged. Performance and resolution enhancement has probably been the biggest thing when it comes to what makes the latest generation of games look better, so much of the technical faff has been hard to notice.

Being on PC, I agree because that's basically what it feels like since PC games don't face the same kind of strict setting limits consoles have in place, and it makes a world of difference when you play older games that can stretch their legs at least a little bit thanks to better hardware.

Sony has been consumed by this pervasive culture where they prioritize visuals and their whole "cinematic experience" to such an insane degree at the expense of everything else (except their budgets and dev times) that it's biting them in the ass. They created unrealistic, unsustainable expectations for their "normie" audience who don't know any better that the reality is how said expectations can't reliably be met - unless you count half a console generation going by with a handful of titles.

What's worse is how Sony (and Microsoft) already has a ton of really good looking games - they just happen to be from the PS3 - PS4. Sony could and should have bit the bullet to get a grapple on some real PS3 emulation tech, let people play their old games or even do the really smart thing and sell those games digitally a la carte. They got greedy by locking all of that behind the most expensive PS+ tier while ignoring how that locks out so much of the market due to the equally greedy nature of streaming, only instead of money, it sucks up gigabytes of data that eat into people's data caps. When their primary audience for that kind of service is the US, you'd think they'd have thought through how our internet is totally fukked with ISPs charging out the ass if you exceed a measly ~1TB cap, or pay their extortionary premium fees to remove them.

Hell, if you want to go full 4D chess here, they could have come up with their own PS3 emulation, packaged it into their own PC application/storefront, and gotten 100% margins through it selling PC players a Playstation Store over Steam/GOG/ect. One of the reasons I went with an i9-14900k for my upcoming build is because it's such a single-core beast that I could even emulate Sony's PS3 games myself since they can't be arsed to find out a way to sell me their own games.

That isn't even getting to how their PS1-PS2 games could benefit from enhancements while still being more than playable, especially with the constant, i.e. not just a fad, appeal for retro/retro-styled games.

1. I had this argument with Scram and I can 100% guarantee you he said 60fps wouldn't be possible, games would be too powerful and consoles will be forced back to 30fps

2. I don't really care what devs see as their standard mode and which is tacked on. The fact of the matter is that if devs expect their games to sell well, they need performance modes from now on because that's what customers expect and want. You can never put it back in that box, just like you can never go back to 720p gaming. Only GTA 6 can break this rule.

The PS4 Pro introduced the whole performance vs graphics mode, right? You really cannot put that back in the box, and frankly, it's good that console players are now seeing how nice it is to actually be given choice and want that as a standard.

With how much MS, Sony, and some developers love to jerk themselves off over how "accessible" they are, you'd think that offering performance modes would be seen as such (same thing with more options like being able to disable motion blur, adjust field of vision, and all that, but baby steps I guess).

Doesn't matter what they prefer. I'm sure they prefer to sell you 3 hour campaigns for $60 as well but it's about what the customers overwhelmingly want so devs can kick rocks.

Pretty much what I was thinking; developers and publishers are already selling unfinished alpha versions that they might never even bother patching up to beta status, all while somehow managing a fully functional, feature complete in-game shop that could run 120 frames per second.

They're more willing to test how far they can take things for the least amount of effort than to test running their games at a stable frame rate.

Expanding on the above "accessibility" infatuation these days, I don't want to hear a developer gush about their color blind mode if their frame pacing could give you a migraine, and Sony and MS should be holding developers to a higher standard than, "it doesn't brick the console on startup."

[Bodhy]

Different preferences, really. For me, I like great graphics because it adds to the immersion. Chit graphics can actually ruin a game for me. Witcher 3 came close but I forgave CD Red for otherwise making such an incredibly rich and well made game, story and lore wise.

But the graphics obsessed don't ruin it for gamers who like creative gameplay. It's like music, there's more than one preference. Like RDR2, Ghosts of Tsuhisma, they're not hugely novel in terms of gameplay but the graphics and storytelling were mind-blowing.


But....for things like horror, or more unique experiences in terms of gameplay, I've found Indie titles to really deliver there. Thing is to not rely on triple-A games to give you the ultimatel gaming experience. They're designed to cater for the maximum amount of gamers so they stick to a preferred formulae.


Just like Hollywood isn't the be all and end all of movies, neither are the big studios all there is to games.

Having said that, Death Stranding looked nice, fascinating story idea but it turned out to be a clusterfuk of total fuk.

[TokenV]

Chit graphics can actually ruin a game for me. Witcher 3 came close

u w0t m8?