warm

Priced at MSRP + like 100-200 extra for the more premium cards in Europe. Just a clickbait article.

Yeah, op just had a very rare experience.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

This issue isnt exclusive to the internet. But I agree, these complainers do not represent humanity, because they show none.

Yeah, any game I deem worthy to play, is worthy of my money anyway, so I would rather buy them on Steam/GOG.

I have some free games on Epic, but havent even had the launcher installed for like 7 years.

The PC market is growing faster than the console market, the value of consoles has completely plateaued.

You can build a PC for just slightly more, an added cost you recoup anyway after a couple years. You can do a lot more with a PC than a console, you have upgrade flexibility, your library of games will always be playable, you can even emulate and play console games.

There’s no reason to buy a console if you put a bit of effort in, their only appeal is the initial plug and play, which you can do with a PC anyway if you buy prebuilt.

There’s probably loads of builds online with new components, I haven’t built a low end PC for a while, so I am not sure on the market. As I said though you have to consider the lifespan and the savings, even just 3 years later you have saved $360. And you can definitely build a PC that is better than a PS5 Pro for $1060, peripherals included even.

With discs falling out of fashion, games are absolutely cheaper on PC for patient gamers. As you say though, the savings do depend on what games you are interested in personally. Big publishers are much more stingy on giving discounts in sales.

The Arc cards are stronger than the PS5 and are like $200-250 new, you could get used RX 7600/6600XT for cheaper than that. There’s definitely paths to a PS5 equivalent PC for a similar price, and even if you spend $100, $200, $300 more, that pays off in 1, 2 or 3 years anyway.

Big games yeah, but I don’t buy those anyway myself. The 30% tax is what Xbox/Playstation take from each game sale. Steam on PC takes 30% too, but doesn’t require a subscription ontop of that to use their online services.

You can build a PC as powerful as a console for near enough the same price these days and you save massively in the long term from cheaper games and no subscription. If you have the know how. But yeah, the barrier of entry is lower for a console for sure, but that gap is only closing more and more each year with PCs becoming more accessible.

It’s still crazy to me that people will pay 30% tax on all their games and then fork over another $120/year just to be able to play them. Or in Playstation’s case, to not play them.

Ignoring graphical aspects. It might be good game, it’s just not a DOOM game other than in name and monsters. I played the shit out of the originals and I felt with D2016 they really captured the essence of it but with just a few new simple additions to keep it fresh, then when I started Eternal it felt like I was playing a different franchise, wall climbing and grappling hooks? The pacing was all off. Maybe the dev team moved on, I dont know, but I was left extremely disappointed.

Imo, they have downgraded each time.

2016 was a great reboot of the franchise, it felt like a modern version of the originals. It looked great and ran great.

Then Eternal added pointless wall climbing, loads of skills, put the whole game on rails. The start of the game is like a tutorial for 2 hours, good game design doesnt require you to tell me exactly what to do every 5 minutes. The graphics got downgraded with some shitty AA added, probably Temporal, I cant remember and the performance was down across the board. The game just didnt feel like DOOM anymore and was a poor continuation from 2016.

Now we have this forced ray tracing, probably going to require DLSS and shit. This has to be a case of Nvidia slipping cash right? No way they would be so stupid? It’ll probably be a case of updating to remove the requirement a few months down the line.

I will bite. You could scroll through landscape videos with a swipe of the thumb, in just the same way as you can with portrait. I watch YouTube videos in landscape, it’s not really a hassle for me to rotate my phone, it can pivot on a pinch really effortlessly, that’s the beauty of a small screen in your hand. I am obviously not going to remount a TV for the same reason, so the analogy is kind of mute.

While there is a use case for both orientations, landscape is generally better (especially for the content I like), which is why it was chosen for video content across the world before these shortform vertical videos took off with social media. But I suppose for content where someone just talking to you, then portrait fills the screen better with their face.

So does landscape.

Lemmy.world is the worst offender I have come across personally. Lemmy.ml is reddit like too, but it’s mostly okay for discussion and it hosts a lot of posts so I don’t really want to block it.

What the echo chamber of reddit doesnt have critical thinking? Well I never…