i like my 980
Sure you can give it away, in exchange for $70.
You also have to know that a lot of people need high end computer for work. Or it's their hobby and thats what they choose to spend money on. Sure spening $2,000+ on a PC seems dumb to us when it'll be worth half that in less than a year, but that's what they find fun or interesting. Who gives a shit, it's better than paying $2,000 on meth.
You also have to know that a lot of people need high end computer for work. Or it's their hobby and thats what they choose to spend money on. Sure spening $2,000+ on a PC seems dumb to us when it'll be worth half that in less than a year, but that's what they find fun or interesting. Who gives a shit, it's better than paying $2,000 on meth.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +641|3965
$2000 of meth will get you laid though.
this tech announcement brought to you by someone who has no idea about tech or how to get laid.SuperJail Warden wrote:
$2000 of meth will get you laid though.
There's probably a few techy chicks out there who get off on high end computers.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +641|3965
hahaha good one chiefSteve-0 wrote:
this tech announcement brought to you by someone who has no idea about tech or how to get laid.SuperJail Warden wrote:
$2000 of meth will get you laid though.
hey I asked the question from a 15" retina MacBook that I insisted on purchasing as the high-end version with the 'standalone' discrete nvidia GPU (for about $400 extra no less). this isn't one of those asinine questions where I challenge what people decide to spend their money on. I just don't see many games around now that had the same benchmark porn and wow factor as, say, Crysis. and no one is hammering out 6 hours a day on our generation's version of bf2 either. the popular games like LoL and CS will run on an old tin with a static charge. so I'm just curious.pirana6 wrote:
Sure you can give it away, in exchange for $70.
You also have to know that a lot of people need high end computer for work. Or it's their hobby and thats what they choose to spend money on. Sure spening $2,000+ on a PC seems dumb to us when it'll be worth half that in less than a year, but that's what they find fun or interesting. Who gives a shit, it's better than paying $2,000 on meth.
I hear a lot of people talking about being able to run the new Assassin's Creed on ultra settings, along with GTA V. I browse some computer building forums and most of the really top-end machines are built to max out one of these games. Skyrim too. But some kind of graphics mod they run.
maybe theres a draw distance fix cause this is trash
Last edited by RTHKI (2015-08-20 08:53:02)
I wouldn't pay the box price for an assassins creed game let alone build a fucking one grand PC. shit franchise. gaming is in the doldrums.
I'd love to play MGSV and GZ on a cutting-edge system. Just Cause 3 looks pretty cool. I'd still like to build a cutting-edge system for no reason in particular other than to blow a bunch of money and go all-out on a system, something I haven't been able to do yet. For the time being though, this old thing is hanging in there, and god knows there are plenty of old games I bought on Steam sales that I haven't touched. I'm still on a quad-core Q9550, GTX460 WTF is i3 i5 i7 i9 ibullshit GTX9999.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +641|3965
Only difference between Phantom Pain on the PS3, PS4, and PC is the graphics. You have a better PC than a PS3 you will be fine.
To play most games at a decent quality all you really need is an i5, Nvidia 970, an SSD, and 8gb of RAM. You could build a very decent system for ~$1000 depending on the peripherals you need.mtb0minime wrote:
I'd love to play MGSV and GZ on a cutting-edge system. Just Cause 3 looks pretty cool. I'd still like to build a cutting-edge system for no reason in particular other than to blow a bunch of money and go all-out on a system, something I haven't been able to do yet. For the time being though, this old thing is hanging in there, and god knows there are plenty of old games I bought on Steam sales that I haven't touched. I'm still on a quad-core Q9550, GTX460 WTF is i3 i5 i7 i9 ibullshit GTX9999.
$1000 is a lot of money for an insipid console port.
970 is more than decent quality thats maxing out. thats also what i have, not a 980.
970+ will be needed for oculus rift
970+ will be needed for oculus rift
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +641|3965
The developers spent a lot of time interacting with the steam community trying to figure out what we wanted from the game. The first part they released was very optimized for PC as well as better looking than console versions by a lot.uziq wrote:
$1000 is a lot of money for an insipid console port.
Konami is really doing a surprising job getting into the pc market for a Japanese company. Super Kawaii
Last edited by SuperJail Warden (2015-08-20 10:27:44)
If you want the machine to run games 2 or 3 years into the future it's worth the investment. I also think the price/performance is best at around that level of card. But, to each their own. You also don't necessarily need an SSD.RTHKI wrote:
970 is more than decent quality thats maxing out. thats also what i have, not a 980.
970+ will be needed for oculus rift
You're right. I'm going to invest that money in salt company stock. I feel like there's about to be a boom in the salt industry.uziq wrote:
$1000 is a lot of money for an insipid console port.
Last edited by Pocshy2.0 (2015-08-20 10:43:43)
Yeah, that's right, Barney. This year, I invested in pumpkins. They've been going up the whole month of October and I got a feeling they're going to peak right around January. Then, bang! That's when I'll cash in.
no one seems that enthusiastic about these milquetoast games and yet when i point out that spending $1000 on a machine to play them properly seems exorbitant, they act butthurt or make a joke out of it. what i'm talking about is how, a few years ago, there would be 'generations' of games that made sense in buying a new machine. everyone recalls having to hulk out for a machine to satisfy the formidable tech specs of bf2 (or WoW as it was). everyone remembers their first DX10 card and playing crysis. the new windows doesn't seem to brag the latest and greatest directx with a new bag of tricks. this is disappointing to me. spending $1000 to play a console port that has been de-smeared of the vaseline on the graphical lenses does not really inspire me.
i'll be the first to admit that i'm not sure exactly what sort of answer i'm looking for to my question, but i do know for sure that it seems very uninspiring thus far. but people keep making out that i'm ludicrous for asking why these pieces of shit games are worth throwing 20x their box price at hardware for.
i'll be the first to admit that i'm not sure exactly what sort of answer i'm looking for to my question, but i do know for sure that it seems very uninspiring thus far. but people keep making out that i'm ludicrous for asking why these pieces of shit games are worth throwing 20x their box price at hardware for.
Did you confuse yourself on the way here? You asked what the best graphical experiences were. What the 'cutting edge' games were in terms of system demand. The games that pushed the boundaries (like Crysis that you mentioned) have always been shit. There was no golden age of boundary pushing performance coupled with gameplay. If you want good games (good experience) you play something that allows almost everyone to share the experience (CS:GO, DOTA, LoL).uziq wrote:
no one seems that enthusiastic about these milquetoast games and yet when i point out that spending $1000 on a machine to play them properly seems exorbitant, they act butthurt or make a joke out of it. what i'm talking about is how, a few years ago, there would be 'generations' of games that made sense in buying a new machine. everyone recalls having to hulk out for a machine to satisfy the formidable tech specs of bf2 (or WoW as it was). everyone remembers their first DX10 card and playing crysis. the new windows doesn't seem to brag the latest and greatest directx with a new bag of tricks. this is disappointing to me. spending $1000 to play a console port that has been de-smeared of the vaseline on the graphical lenses does not really inspire me.
i'll be the first to admit that i'm not sure exactly what sort of answer i'm looking for to my question, but i do know for sure that it seems very uninspiring thus far. but people keep making out that i'm ludicrous for asking why these pieces of shit games are worth throwing 20x their box price at hardware for.
Sometimes I really do think you write the posts around your word of the day and forget about having a conversation.
EDIT- I'm going to go brew some tea and come back to sit down and read the 1,000 word essay you are preping, 300 words of which will be inane insults.
Last edited by Pocshy2.0 (2015-08-20 11:12:19)
It's a hobby, something to spend your money on. That's about it. There's no killer app I'm dying to upgrade for, nor has there been for a while. The few examples I listed, I think of as "that would be neat to play with maxed out settings." Which is why my system hasn't been upgraded for years and I'm not going to upgrade until I have an excess of money that I don't know what to do with.
Who even buys CDs or records anymore when you can just pirate them or buy a digital version. Why even shell out a ton of money for a nice sound system or headphones when science has proven that anything above an MP3 at 96kbps sounds just the same as a FLAC.
Who even buys CDs or records anymore when you can just pirate them or buy a digital version. Why even shell out a ton of money for a nice sound system or headphones when science has proven that anything above an MP3 at 96kbps sounds just the same as a FLAC.
what is my supposed word of the day?
i know that the boundary pushing games were always shit. that's why i spoke about benchmark/visual porn games and then the 'hardcore' titles that would really get the money's worth out of a good system, i.e. games with actual replay value (remember the bf2 stat?). as it is, you just named a bunch of games i already named, the same games that were worth returning to about 3 years ago. cs, dota, lol. all of those games would run on max settings on a $500 pc, scratch dropping a grand. i can max all those games on my pc i built in 2011.
i'm just wondering where the gaming action is at that drives the continuous new hardware cycles. yes, i know there's a hobbyist element, people who will splash out literally to increase their benchmark scores and earn e-peen on whatever niche hardware nut forum they visit. but it seems to me like gaming has been waiting for a break-out 'generation' shifter for several years now. i'm not posting here just to rile you. i really want a next-gen WoW or something like that which will rip $1000 out of my wallet quicker than a 14 year old vietnamese prostitute with a lifetime's supply of black tar.
i know that the boundary pushing games were always shit. that's why i spoke about benchmark/visual porn games and then the 'hardcore' titles that would really get the money's worth out of a good system, i.e. games with actual replay value (remember the bf2 stat?). as it is, you just named a bunch of games i already named, the same games that were worth returning to about 3 years ago. cs, dota, lol. all of those games would run on max settings on a $500 pc, scratch dropping a grand. i can max all those games on my pc i built in 2011.
i'm just wondering where the gaming action is at that drives the continuous new hardware cycles. yes, i know there's a hobbyist element, people who will splash out literally to increase their benchmark scores and earn e-peen on whatever niche hardware nut forum they visit. but it seems to me like gaming has been waiting for a break-out 'generation' shifter for several years now. i'm not posting here just to rile you. i really want a next-gen WoW or something like that which will rip $1000 out of my wallet quicker than a 14 year old vietnamese prostitute with a lifetime's supply of black tar.