VaranDragon wrote on Sep 29, 2022, 14:07:

theglaze wrote on Sep 29, 2022, 13:09:
lol @ Polygon's reviewer:

It’s been so long since I played the original Overwatch that it’s hard to determine whether Overwatch 2 is “better” than its predecessor.

Jesus....these shill reviews are sometimes worth checking out for the comedy gold alone...

Are they not allowed to review if they didn't play tons of Overwatch lately?

I see Anandtech has decided that hijacking your back button is a smart way to treat visitors.

Their content output has collapsed, so yeah, between that and the back button hijacking, feels like it's fair to put them on a block list.

Armengar wrote on Sep 26, 2022, 15:01:

RogueSix wrote on Sep 25, 2022, 22:28:
sure b00mer kek

My blues news account is older than some of the kids on here.

Yeah, no one here is under 30, and I'd wager 90% are above 40.

Bodolza wrote on Sep 26, 2022, 13:28:
Sounds like y'all have never worked with fresh-out-of-college hires that will take every shortcut and try to game the system as hard as they can to do as little work as possible. And if they get fired in 6 months after 3 months of training, who cares? Take the money and run. About 10% of our new hires literally just don't show up on the first day. No notice or anything.

What are you paying them?
We have none of those issues, and hire a ton of fresh-out-of-college. We start just north of $60k. We get people that value the opportunity.

And, frankly, nannying never works. People either get the work done or they do not. If they do not, nannying won't help, it'll just prolong the pain.

MoreLuckThanSkill wrote on Sep 25, 2022, 16:18:
I think I'm throwing in the towel, on having any live action or even animated series follow the novels. It's a lost cause. Game of Thrones, the new Lord of the Rings show, The Witcher, The Expanse, Sandman, Wheel of Time, The Boys, you name it... it's not worth the frustration to expect any adaptation to follow the novels/comics. It's probably far less stressful to go in with an open mind and just judge the product on its own merits(or lack thereof) and let it go otherwise. Too much money is involved, too many creative influences and staffing issues, to have any show/movie be fully true to the source material and actually get made these days.

That said, I'm enjoying the Witcher series so far, looking forward to S3, and I'm sure they will toss a ton of money at whatever Witcher spinoff they make, so they at least have a chance of making a good show.

I mostly agree, except for the Boys, which is infinitely better than the comic book was. This seems a somewhat common opinion, though largely held by those of us that weren't comic fans first. I found the comic off-putting to the point of being absolutely terrible and one of the worst things I've read

Burrito of Peace wrote on Sep 23, 2022, 18:42:
This is a larger problem than just game journalism.

Most "journalism" isn't. They're mostly modern day blog posts and/or "opinion" pieces baiting for clicks and ad revenue.

The days of journalists like Bernstein and Woodward are over, unfortunately, as news outlets are subsumed and conglomerated under fewer and fewer megacorps. Megacorps that have a desire to control narratives and push their own spin for either their own enrichment or whomever is paying them.

Also, investigative reporting is expensive and doesn't necessarily lead to anything. We no longer pay for news. So while all of your points are right, it all stems from the money leaving the industry. Few outlets really pay for actual journalists. Very, very few. And some here do everything they can to erode trust in them.

Beyond that, no one in enthusiast media can do much investigative. No one will talk about their current employer. Few will talk about their ex while still in the industry. There's little to actually investigate. News solely comes from PR teams. Mostly the same in music, sports, film, etc. Mostly.

Argonius the 3rd wrote on Sep 23, 2022, 12:11:

Beamer wrote on Sep 23, 2022, 11:33:
Recently, I had someone defend Elon Musk to me by saying "people just don't like him because Big Auto tells them not to, and because he's a troll."

I was a bit surprised. First, does anyone really not like Elon because Ford tells them not to? The overlap between giant raised truck guys and Elon Musk seems to have really collapsed of late, even if they still hate Tesla they love Elon. And second, why would you excuse someone being an ass that bothers everyone just because their goal is to bother everyone? Someone acting like an asshole because they're an asshole and someone acting like an asshole because they're pretending to be an asshole is still choosing to act like an asshole.

Who cares about Elon Musk ? Don't you people have a life or something ? What's this constant need to be always outraged by people you've never met ? FFS get off twitter.

I'm not on Twitter, but is it really weird to be "obsessed" with the richest man in the world, particularly when he uses that wealth to have immense influence in our nation for his own gain, or did you miss when he deliberately squashed public transportation plans in LA to ensure they still buy his products?

And, for a discussion about trolls, can you name a bigger or more influential one?

VaranDragon wrote on Sep 23, 2022, 02:43:
Beamer is (once again) playing the devils advocate here, and he is completely ignoring the fact that the WHOLE damn product line has become more expensive. Your argument would not hold up in court counselor.

I'm not playing Devil's Advocate. I'm arguing that there will still be cheaper products. That they stupidly called the more powerful cards by old names, but we'll still have cheap cards.

Yes, the 4080 is more expensive than the 3080. But if there is a 4060 that's more powerful than the 3080 at the same price as the 3080, wouldn't you just buy that? Does the fact that it ends in 60 not 80 really mean you can't buy it? It's more powerful, and it's what fits your budget.

And I am saying there will be a 4040, or some equivalent, that is still as cheap as the 3050 was, while also being a more capable card.

They're adding more products to the higher end and stupidly calling them by the old names, but this does not mean they'll abandon the lower end. There is far too much money to be made there, and manufacturing is all about scale, and they cannot abandon the lower end products without cutting off ~50% of their scale and therefore dramatically increasing the cost of manufacturing and development, as the fixed costs now apply to far fewer units.

I'll bow out, as it's obvious no one agrees with me, but my final statement will just be that there will still be a product at every price point that blows the doors off of the same priced product of the prior generation and competes with the same priced product as AMD, but it may have a lower third number. No one should care about the third number. This entire move is about increasing the products on the high end, not decreasing the options at entry and mid-level, because the vast, vast, vast majority of cards sold are entry and mid-level cards.

Recently, I had someone defend Elon Musk to me by saying "people just don't like him because Big Auto tells them not to, and because he's a troll."

I was a bit surprised. First, does anyone really not like Elon because Ford tells them not to? The overlap between giant raised truck guys and Elon Musk seems to have really collapsed of late, even if they still hate Tesla they love Elon. And second, why would you excuse someone being an ass that bothers everyone just because their goal is to bother everyone? Someone acting like an asshole because they're an asshole and someone acting like an asshole because they're pretending to be an asshole is still choosing to act like an asshole.

Nullity wrote on Sep 22, 2022, 14:35:
Of course there will be, I touched on that, and never meant to suggest otherwise. There will be 4070, 4060, 4050 (etc) cards offered at some point. But that's in the future, and doesn't change the state of affairs happening right now.

That isn't new, either, though. The 3090 and 3080 were released September 2020. The 3070 was released a month later. The 3060 TI two months later, the 3060 5 months later, and the 3050 over a year later.

I get that these are stupidly priced. I get that NVIDIA looks dumb because they're being dumb. I get that there's no $500 option now. I don't get the pure outrage. There will be a $500 option probably in Q1. It will still destroy the 3070. So many are acting like NVIDIA personally offended their mother, swearing off ever buying an NVIDIA product. But if the next time they go shopping, NVIDIA has a 4060 exactly in their price range that's 15% faster than the other comparably priced options, why not get it? Why let this announcement cause such fury?

Nullity wrote on Sep 22, 2022, 13:47:

Beamer wrote on Sep 22, 2022, 12:28:
Yeah. Again, this is naming convention only. It appears they're pushing to stretch the line into higher end products this time around.

That may look reasonable at first glance, but unfortunately, that's not what's happening - these aren't meant to be new ultra high-end products, it's just normal generational tech advancement. Simon laid a lot of it out very well, but it's more than that.

Every new Nvidia generation is the same - a few months before release, production stops on the current GPU generation in order to clear out the remaining supply. Guess what's different this time? Massive overstock of the 3000 series (we all know why, I won't get into that), and Nvidia has already stated that they will continue to sell high-end 3000 cards meant to fill the void of the 4000 series low-end (4060, 4050, etc), at least in the short-term, which is obviously until supply runs out.

So the 4090 is meant to replace the 3090, 4080 16GB -> 3080, 4080 12GB -> 3070 (yes, shenanigans afoot). The main reason for the massive price increase is because they have to sell off the 3000 overstock, but they can't drop the price on those too much or they'd lose money. And they can't price the new 4000 series where they should be, otherwise no one would buy the 3000 overstock. So the only choices are to delay the 4000 release, or price them way above what they're meant to be (above the 3000 cards).

My guess is that they looked at the 3000 scalping market and saw that there were plenty of people willing to pay obscene prices and that jacking up the 4000 MSRP was an acceptable gamble rather than to delay. Many don't agree, including me.

Hopefully AMD decides to undercut them at normal prices instead of also being greedy. Greedy may be good (for them) short-term, but releasing RDNA3 at "normal" prices would highly benefit them long-term. And if they do, then maybe Nvidia will come to their senses and drop the 4000 cards back to normal prices after the 3000 supply is gone.

Though Nvidia has been getting even shadier lately, so I'm not going to hold my breath.

You're absolutely right that this is because they know some people are willing to pay obscene amounts of money. And those people would be annoyed if the lower end cards hit first, and they bought them, then the higher end ones hit, though people waiting for lower end ones normally wouldn't be annoyed if higher end ones came out first.

I disagree with most of the rest of your assessment. Yeah, they're upping all of their models to create higher priced offerings, but again, that doesn't mean the lower priced offerings won't exist. Because, as much as Jensen hates it, NVIDIA doesn't have a monopoly. They have the largest market share, but they have one major competitor and one potentially rising competitor.

If AMD releases the RX with comparable performance but the old pricing model, NVIDIA is dead. They'll still have the 30X0 overstock issue, but they'll also be able to move new product that is obscenely overpriced, just exacerbating an existing issue.

Again, if these were the GeForce 41X0s, with the GeForce 40X0s yet to be announced, I just don't think people would be angry. They may think it was dumb, but they wouldn't be angry.

I will 100% guarantee that there's a 40X0 to compete with every price point of the Radeon 7000, and that they're actually competitive. They've been doing this long enough to know that, as nice and profitable as whales are, you need the scale of $300 GPU sales to keep development alive.

PHJF wrote on Sep 22, 2022, 12:19:
Dude the gtx 970 (a solid upper middle class card) msrpd at $330. The number isn’t relevant like you said but the hierarchy is, and it’s been long established by nvidia:

X90 - super high end
X80 - high end
X70 - upper mid
X60 - mid
X50 - budget

If they think they should get ~$600 for a mid-range card I shudder to think what they will ask for the lower end...

Yeah. Again, this is naming convention only. It appears they're pushing to stretch the line into higher end products this time around.

I am saying that I am certain we will still get lower priced cards. The largest revenue price range for GPUs is, by far, sub-$400. NVIDIA is not ceding the bulk of the market to AMD. They are not leaving all of that revenue behind. They will have products at the $300 range that are more powerful than last gen's $300 products and that compete favorably with AMD's $300 products.

They may have different names now. That's fine. They're names. But, for the dollar range, they'll still exist with the same value and competitiveness as always.

Maybe I'm unique? I don't know, I'm starting to feel that way. I thought everyone always shopped like me. When I've built PCs, I've mostly figured out what my budget is, then done research inside that budget, then usually done some research above it to see if there was more bang for the buck and usually ended up deciding to buy the one above my budget. I've never really cared if it's an AMD or an NVIDIA, or really cared if it's a 970 or a 5800 Ultra or a X1650 Pro. I've cared about it being the best in my budget range, and there's 0% chance NVIDIA doesn't still have 40X0s that fit a wide range of budgets and are competitive dollar for dollar with AMD.
The naming just doesn't matter to me but seems to have some people absolutely irate.

VaranDragon wrote on Sep 22, 2022, 10:04:
How do I express something that should be crystal clear: If a product line-up refreshes a last-gen product line-up. And by refresh, I actually mean replaces. And that new product line up is 30-50% more expensive than the last line-up. How is that a naming issue instead of a pricing issue?

Or rather, let me use an analogy. Say you buy a new model of a car, every time a new series is released. And you're used to buying the same model each time, it's a bit more expensive but that's okay because you get the new tech, and its safer and goes faster etc. Let's say that car is the Ford Mustang.
Now a new model of the Mustang is coming out, but the prices on all the new Ford cars have been hiked so high that for the price of the old Mustang, you can only get the new Taurus. Sure the new Taurus is great, and with the latest technology it's actually BETTER than your old Mustang, but the thing is, the NEW Mustang exists, it's even BETTER and is now beyond your financial reach.....

1) Because the entire line-up isn't announced yet
2) "Replace" only in name

Again, if this was the RTX Super Elite 4100, people would gasp in awe at how powerful they were, while giggling at who would be enough of a lunatic to buy these.
But, since it's the RTX 4090, people compare to the 3090 and get angry.

That's a naming issue.

Rest assured, there will be a $299 SKU coming out. It will be more powerful than last year's $299 SKU. It will be a different number. Rather than introduce new product numbers, which would have been smart, they tried to upstream existing numbers, which was dumb.

But had they given these different and new numbers, shown them as a new line, people wouldn't be angry like they are, which makes it a naming mistake. There will still be cheap SKUs coming. They won't align to last year's cheap SKU numbers, but the performance per dollar will be increased, which is the ultimate goal.

Again, a naming issue. Name these literally anything else and no one would be angry. They'd just be saying "great, for the rich people or the streamers or those obsessed with every frame per second, but wake me when you announce the products for the rest of us." Maybe the car analogy was bad, because a Mustang and a Taurus have very different purposes and very different form factors. These are interchangeable, unlike cars. If you have to buy a 4050, but it's 50% faster than your 3070, how does that matter, other than your pride being hurt because the number is 20 lower than the last series you had? You say "used to," which implies emotion. Take emotion out. Be pragmatic. If, for the same money, you can get a card that's faster, but it has a name you didn't expect, does it really make a difference, or is it just a naming issue? What benefit do you get to having the name 4070 slapped on something instead of 4050?

VaranDragon wrote on Sep 22, 2022, 02:22:

Beamer wrote on Sep 21, 2022, 23:15:
I mean, there will be a 4070, 4060, and 4050 still much faster than the 30x0 and priced reasonably.

I feel like these product just have naming issues. Call them the 4110, 4100, and 4090 and no one would have blinked. They're stupid expensive. But Nvidia has had stupid expensive high end products for over a decade. Some people want them. The rest of us buy the reasonable stuff. But people that traditionally bought the x70 are hung up on that, rather than assuming the 4050 will probably be in the right price range and still be much more powerful than the 3070.

Even the 12GB stupidity, and it is stupidity from Nvidia, is really just a naming issue.

Are you serious, because from where I'm sitting this post looks like pure trolling. I KNOW you've been around Beamer, and have been gaming for a long time, so I will ask again, is this a serious post or are you just trolling?

How so? Use your words. If they slotted these in as 3 super-high end products, with a normal 4050, 4060, and 4070 coming later (and they are,) what would your issue be?

Simon Says wrote on Sep 22, 2022, 00:21:

Beamer wrote on Sep 21, 2022, 23:15:
Even the 12GB stupidity, and it is stupidity from Nvidia, is really just a naming issue.

No it's not:

-That 12GB "4080" is a on a 104 die. A die usually reserved for xx70 GPUs.
-The performance is roughly below to somewhat equal a previous gen top-end, a performance slot traditionally reserved for xx70 GPUs.
-The core count VS a 102 die is also roughly in the ballpark of a xx70 class GPU.

They tried naming it a 4080, but no one was fooled. Even if they had named it the super duper RTX 40999ti MAXX, no one would've been fooled because we have all this relevant information we can refer to the past which tells the true story despite any naming shenanigans.

They tried slipping us a quick one, they failed. It's an 80%+, 400$+ price hike ( we all know none of the AIBs will have a 900$ card as announced, unless it's a blower ).

Same for the "4080" 16GB which on paper looks more like a 4070 Ti with the enormous gap in core counts VS the 102 die. And even if you consider it a true "xx80" card, just comparing the price also reveals the plot. It's a 71%, 500$ price hike.

No one was fooled. Well except perhaps only Linus who defended Nvidia's pricing ( LOL ), but that guy has also lost contact with reality long ago too. He spouted some insane babble about inflation, as if we had a 80% inflation in the last 2 years, *facepalm*. In reality it's around 14%, which is still a lot for 2 years but nowhere near 80%, that's pure nonsense.

The only model that "kind of" makes sense is the 4090, which is "only" 1600$ ( 6%, so less than inflation, 100$ price hike ), but with about 70% raw perf boost.

Ironically, the best "value" ( perf/price increase ) option is that 1600$ GPU. That's when ofc you don't take into account the ludicrous price of electricity and the power usage that peaks around 660W according to early info, despite its "450W" TDP.

Me: it's a naming issue
You: no it's not, the issue is they tried naming it 4070

Just wait. You're using the word "value" for products promising 2x-4x performance improvements. These are the Ferraris or Lamborghinis. The Corvettes are yet to be announced. And maybe you're angry because you think you were always a Ferrari driver. But you always bought a price point. You'll still be served at that price point. And since nothing needs these cards, you'll just get 90fps instead of 150fps

I mean, there will be a 4070, 4060, and 4050 still much faster than the 30x0 and priced reasonably.

I feel like these product just have naming issues. Call them the 4110, 4100, and 4090 and no one would have blinked. They're stupid expensive. But Nvidia has had stupid expensive high end products for over a decade. Some people want them. The rest of us buy the reasonable stuff. But people that traditionally bought the x70 are hung up on that, rather than assuming the 4050 will probably be in the right price range and still be much more powerful than the 3070.

Even the 12GB stupidity, and it is stupidity from Nvidia, is really just a naming issue.

We're fine. It takes about 1.5M ants to form a pound. We still outweigh them!

Actually, the internet is really vague on that. Some sites say they outweigh us 5:1. Some say we're even. Some say there are 1.5M ants to a pound, but it seems more like 220k. Even at 220k, We'd be fine if it really is 2.5M ants to a human.

Basically, the math seems really too varied to make any sense and I'm no longer interested enough to get my own opinion vs a good story.

Boomer! wrote on Sep 20, 2022, 15:26:

Kajetan wrote on Sep 20, 2022, 15:20:

Boomer! wrote on Sep 20, 2022, 14:50:
Points should be deducted due to poor graphics. Low poly isn't an "art style", it's just bad graphics period. It's 2022, good gameplay expected and good graphics assumed.

You dont like the art style? Fine. Thats ok. I'm also not very fond of it. But you use technical, pseudo objective arguments "Its 2022 ..." you describe your personal taste. And that's stupid.

* REMOVED *

Yes, low-fi graphics are often due to people having good gameplay ideas but not having the artistic talent or the budget to have better graphics.

I really fail to see how that's a problem. It's a $25 game, not a $60 game. It isn't priced like it had the budget for better graphics.

It's 2022 and people are still hung up on good graphics when the vast majority of great games coming out don't have cutting edge graphics, and the vast majority of games that do are terrible from a gameplay perspective.

This comment was edited on Sep 20, 2022, 23:16.

I disagree with James, as well, and 3DTV failed for a few reasons. Pricing wasn't really one of them, as people pointed out, in the final years it was table stakes for a medium range TV.

But:

1) As Verno said, people didn't like awkwardness of wearing glasses
2) Plus, additional glasses were difficult to find and expensive
3) And glasses were fussy, never easy to tell if they were on, if they were synced, etc. Most were a nightmare
4) And, by default, you got a lesser image because it was 50% as bright and often lower resolution
5) Content was hard to find
6) And players even harder, outside of Playstations

It just wasn't a fun experience at home. Or, really, in theaters. You would forget it was 3D pretty quickly.

Verno wrote on Sep 20, 2022, 09:33:
We have a few EGS trolls but other than that I don't recall any conspiracy theories about Steam Deck. Speaking of which, I decided to keep mind after all. What convinced me was putting EmuDeck on it and being able to replay Suikoden while visiting the in-laws, much more enjoyable.

I installed EmuDeck last night and it borked my system - couldn't use the trackpads in desktop mode. I fixed it, but need to reinstall again. I think the issue is that I thought Steam was closed, but it was just minimized. Clicking the X didn't fully close it.

I outright love my Steam Deck, though. I am constantly amazed at how well Spiderman looks and plays on it. Kind of mindblowing that it's in my hands.