Games company claims their graphics are 100,000x better

What is somewhat disappointing is that they don't tell if they have managed to solve these issues or not, as they were clearly commented on one year ago. Another major issue is the RAM-usage, as point cloud data will require a lot of memory.

Their claims of being 100,000 times better than current technology is also "frustrating", as it is repeatedly mentioned as if you've for some strange reason forgot it in the last 30 seconds. It is also a lie if they cannot use this in a game: I would suspect it's not impossible to increase the level of polygons to 10-100 times the amount - if not even more - if there's no animations or dynamic light sources around.

If this technology is legit without problems with animation and lighting etc, what will it mean for the costs of game content creation? You still need artists to create the models, textures etc, and higher detail generally takes much longer with diminishing returns. I also find that environments with highly detailed objects also need far more objects to be convincing which compounds the issue.

In short, the tech sounds great, but will it result in better games or just more expensive games (and in turn, fewer games with more innovative but risky design)?

I can understand that adding dynamic objects/shadows is difficult and their videos do not show them being capable of doing that yet. However, why can't 90% of the objects be rendered in the new static way like they do (statues, buildings, tree trunks) and dynamic objects be added on top of it using whatever method game devs use right now? I don't really care if the cactus is moving or not but I sure would like to see it in much higher detail.

Why can't we take the good from both and get better results?

General consensus last time this rolled around, which I see no reason to change, is that once you add "dynamic objects [or] animation", it completely stops working, so... it probably won't hold up at all.

Most obvious comparison comes in right at the 4:00 mark, where you can see the "polygonal" grass waving gently in the wind, then at 4:22 their "unlimited detail" grass appears to be carved out of some sort of grass-colored rock. Also observe how at the end they are excited about their improvement in "the lighting", by which they mean, the lighting that you will get.

Dynamic shadows work in exactly the same way as they do for standard triangle rasterization.

Each light has a shadow map (which can be thought of as "the depth of the scene, from the point of view of the light").

During the final rasterization pass, the shadow map is sampled. If the sampled depth is less than or equal to the current fragment's depth, then the fragment is in light; otherwise it's in shadow.

So, nothing has fundamentally changed here. When a particle (voxel) is rasterized, it outputs a depth, just like a triangle outputs a depth.

tl;dr: Dynamic shadows work fine.