This looks interesting.

[Marko]

 

[Marko]

 

[Ssnake]

I'll venture a guess without even watching the video, and say the answer is "No".

 

I know, it's the age of clickbait titles, but jeez...

 

A planetary renderer ist a nice gimmick to produce beautiful scenes for screenshots and ten-second video snippets, but at the end of the day you still need to fill it with players, and the bigger the area the lower the player density. And a planet is a REALLY BIG area. Landscape is one thing, but you also want (human) infrastructure - roads, houses, twons, cities, industrial zones, airports, harbours ... in short, objectives worth fighting about rather than just hill 326. So the question still is, how do you make it a good gaming experience, and the answers to that question have nothing to do with the presence of a planetary renderer. Fun and terrain size are only weakly correlated. Too little terrain sucks, too much of it could be even worse. A quality experience with games hinges on other factors. Sure, if you had two otherwise equally good games, where one had much better looks than the other, most people would prefer the good-looking one. But the idea that every game of the future would need a planetary scale is simply ridiculous.

[Ingolf]

Looks interesting, yes. But as Ssnake states above, it comes down to so much more.

We've seen this with the Outerra engine and nothing has really come out of it yet. MSFS2020 is perhaps the best example of "global" coverage yet. As a GIS specialist I have all the data available on-screen everyday. The question is what you do with it, and how.

Still, interesting.