Video Game News and Miscellany

AMD is the sole producer of graphics cards for consoles now and they can't keep their current line of cards in stock anywhere. Even if Unreal 4 runs better on Nvidia, I don't think it's that cut and dry.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
AMD is the sole producer of graphics cards for consoles now and they can't keep their current line of cards in stock anywhere. Even if Unreal 4 runs better on Nvidia, I don't think it's that cut and dry.
Artificial scarcity doesn't necessarily translate into profitability. AMD's been sucking hind teat for so long I don't even think the console market can save them.
 
Is that accounting for mobile GPUs or is it just PC ones? If it's mobile, than yes, nVidia wins because it has lower power consumption and that's basically the end all/be all of mobile design issues. But if we're talking PC GPUs only, then AMD is winning based on price alone... it has similar performing cards to the new nVidia models, only at $50 less. The new Radeons look kind of shitty, but the old ones are still good enough and at a better price than comparable nVidias.

The real issue with cards right now, however, is that everyone is fucking buying them to farm litecoins and bitcoins. This is fucking with pricing on EVERYONE in the market.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Is that accounting for mobile GPUs or is it just PC ones? If it's mobile, than yes, nVidia wins because it has lower power consumption and that's basically the end all/be all of mobile design issues. But if we're talking PC GPUs only, then AMD is winning based on price alone... it has similar performing cards to the new nVidia models, only at $50 less. The new Radeons look kind of shitty, but the old ones are still good enough and at a better price than comparable nVidias.

The real issue with cards right now, however, is that everyone is fucking buying them to farm litecoins and bitcoins. This is fucking with pricing on EVERYONE in the market.
No, that's all discrete GPUs. AMD is not "winning" at price alone... they may be slightly less expensive, but they're still selling less of them and have been for a while.

Of course, Intel still outsells them both. But when you discount onboard quasi-gpus, the split is basically 66/33 Nvidia/AMD right now.
 
The market share is currently reversing as of last quarter with AMD slated to climb to 40%.

They aren't only slightly less expensive. In high end graphics cards, they're hundreds of dollars less expensive.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
The market share is currently reversing as of last quarter with AMD slated to climb to 40%.

They aren't only slightly less expensive. In high end graphics cards, they're hundreds of dollars less expensive.
Time will tell. 10 years ago I was a die-hard ATI fan (it was before AMD bought them). Eventually though, their horrible bullshit drove me away. The 8800 series made me an Nvidia convert for the last 7 years. I have an AMD again now since December (as you probably know, it was a gift from a friend) so we'll see if they've got their act together yet. I've already noticed some very odd behavior from my card...
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Man, I remember when I used to have a Voodoo.

It was able to do special colored lighting in Diablo 2. That shit was tight.
Shit, I remember 3DFX as well. I had one, it made Unreal so much more awesome. Then Everquest came out, and the regular voodoo didn't cut it any more, but I skipped a stage and got a Voodoo 3. It was so rad.
 
I remember I was stuck using an old Permedia 2 for like 7 years because my Dad didn't play PC games much anymore and he didn't see the need for one. Then a game he wanted came out and we finally bought an nVidia. It was like the second coming of GOD.
 
Of course, Intel still outsells them both.
I was going to call you out on this, but you just managed to save yourself. :)

If NVIDIA/AMD were cars attempting to break the sound barrier, NVIDIA would be the ThrustSSC, and AMD would be the Spirit of America. NVIDIA's cards are usually the ones which are engineered to do a job and then do that job, while AMD's cards tend to be the plucky underdogs which sometimes pull out the upsets. Currently, I would rate AMD's cards as the more forward-looking, since I see their GCN architecture most closely resembling that of Intel's original proposed Larrabee idea which was intended to make all this driver-specific abstraction-layer DirectX/Mantle/OpenGL/CUDA gobbledygook irrelevant by being a card which could just be software upgradeable to conform to new standards as they were released rather than having to swap out entirely new GPU silicon whenever the next generation comes out.[DOUBLEPOST=1395366649,1395366569][/DOUBLEPOST]
Shit, I remember 3DFX as well. I had one, it made Unreal so much more awesome. Then Everquest came out, and the regular voodoo didn't cut it any more, but I skipped a stage and got a Voodoo 3. It was so rad.
My "old box" still has both a PCI Voodoo3 16MB and AGP TNT2 Ultra 32MB in it for all my nostalgic needs.

--Patrick
 
Last edited:

GasBandit

Staff member
I was going to call you out on this, but you just managed to save yourself. :)
Yeah, but gamers don't count intel. PC Gaming is to computers as racing is to cars. Yes, Corollas outsell indy cars and formula one racers, but they're not in the same league.
 
they're not in the same league.
...yet. AMD/NVIDIA are a little bit nervous because of Iris (If you don't click the link, all you need to know is 24fps in Crysis 3 on high settings at almost 1080p! On integrated graphics!), and the discrete players know they have to do something to stay ahead, or else Intel will eat their lunches by virtue of being "good enough and already included/'free.'"

--Patrick
 
http://venturebeat.com/2014/03/21/a...ame-industry-is-very-real-and-very-dangerous/

Adam Orth is the guy that ALSO tweeted (not mentioned in that article), when asked about what about people who don't live in major urban centers and who's internet is not reliable, Why would anyone live there?

Here's my take. You don't want an internet dogpile? DON'T FUCKING PUBLICLY TWEET STUPID GOD DAMN BULLSHIT!

This just comes off as really silly. It looks like the type of plaque more befitting a cancer survivor. Wow, you survived a bunch of angry people's twitter feeds? Woop-de-fuck. What a whiny ass.
 

This just comes off as really silly. It looks like the type of plaque more befitting a cancer survivor. Wow, you survived a bunch of angry people's twitter feeds? Woop-de-fuck. What a whiny ass.
Honestly, the more I think about it, the more I can't stand this shit head. He keeps playing the victim when he started the whole thing by being the toxic shitty part of the internet he now talks about SURVIVING.
 
On another unrelated note, MGS: Ground Zeroes, the more I read about it, the more it bugs me. It seriously sounds like they took the equivalent of the Snake portion of MGS2 and charged 30 bucks for it. This sets a really shitty precedent for this generation. I'm not surprised it's Konami doing it.
 
On another unrelated note, MGS: Ground Zeroes, the more I read about it, the more it bugs me. It seriously sounds like they took the equivalent of the Snake portion of MGS2 and charged 30 bucks for it. This sets a really shitty precedent for this generation. I'm not surprised it's Konami doing it.
I'm told it's easily 15-20 hours if you do all of the SideOps. $30 seems a bit high... $20 seems like the sweet spot though.
 
It'll get there; just wait for a sale.

Nintendo is being silly about Shovel Knight. Stuff I get in email still says it's released March 31st, even while the developer's site just last night said they were still trying to figure a new release date.

If they can aim for mid-April, that'd be ideal. There shouldn't be much competition for its type of game. Early May is going to have the new Kirby though and at least on 3DS, it might not get the attention it should.
 
Did you ever play Peace Walker? Did you do ALL the Extra and Side Ops? Did you unlock all the weapons and gear? It was easily more than 20 hours.
Unless a game is fun enough for it, I got out of the "gotta do everything!" mentality after hitting age 20. Many games have tons to do if you do everything, but most of them don't have things worth doing. Some of the Assassin's Creed sequels, I'd consider to be about 10 to 14 hour games. Yeah, if you want to do all the courier missions, extra assassinations, management shit, etc, then it's probably a 30+ hour game, but why? It's not fun to do the same thing over and over, at least for me. I have no reason to bother.

So, is it extra and SideOps worth doing, or is it just gunk?
 
Unless a game is fun enough for it, I got out of the "gotta do everything!" mentality after hitting age 20. Many games have tons to do if you do everything, but most of them don't have things worth doing. Some of the Assassin's Creed sequels, I'd consider to be about 10 to 14 hour games. Yeah, if you want to do all the courier missions, extra assassinations, management shit, etc, then it's probably a 30+ hour game, but why? It's not fun to do the same thing over and over, at least for me. I have no reason to bother.

So, is it extra and SideOps worth doing, or is it just gunk?
ExtraOps are usually fun little mini-game things. One might have you shooting down little UFO things with a weapon and another might have you out on a date with Paz or Kaz. There are also some hidden Monster Rancher inspired missions that have you fighting monsters instead of soldiers. ExtraOps are usually things you wouldn't consider "normal" soldiers doing.

SideOps are the meat of the game. They can be anything from...

- extracting prisoners
- capturing a specific target (and ONLY that target)
- doing a stealth run of an area
- Fighting armored vehicles (and you can capture these for use in another side thing that's more like a strategy game)
- destroying specific objects
- Holding your ground in a certain area.
- Etc...

Basically, SideOps are pretty varied. You'll also want to repeat the fights against the AI Weapons during the game because you can get parts and AI modules for building your own Metal Gear with. Only damaging the AI Core during an AI battle will give you scrap parts from these machines which can build the physical structure of Metal Gear ZEKE, while only damaging the body will loosen more AI modules for you to grab during that sequence. Building ZEKE gives you it to use in the a fore mentioned strategy game thing and it also lets you fight against it as training. Mind you, it doesn't take a whole lot of effort to build a basic ZEKE but it can take a good long time to make him perfect.
 
There are also some hidden Monster Rancher inspired missions that have you fighting monsters instead of soldiers.
I put another disc into the Playstation to create a new monster?

SideOps are the meat of the game. They can be anything from...

- extracting prisoners
- capturing a specific target (and ONLY that target)
- doing a stealth run of an area
- Fighting armored vehicles (and you can capture these for use in another side thing that's more like a strategy game)
- destroying specific objects
- Holding your ground in a certain area.
- Etc...

Basically, SideOps are pretty varied. You'll also want to repeat the fights against the AI Weapons during the game because you can get parts and AI modules for building your own Metal Gear with. Only damaging the AI Core during an AI battle will give you scrap parts from these machines which can build the physical structure of Metal Gear ZEKE, while only damaging the body will loosen more AI modules for you to grab during that sequence. Building ZEKE gives you it to use in the a fore mentioned strategy game thing and it also lets you fight against it as training. Mind you, it doesn't take a whole lot of effort to build a basic ZEKE but it can take a good long time to make him perfect.
I guess I wouldn't know since the Metal Gear games I've played were pretty linear, with the most side quests being "collect the dog tags" or getting an extra item if I have a hidden air duct.
 
Top