Originally posted by Pitchperfect I am new on this game and like to try, but I think my Video card sucks, and suggestion on better video card that will not hit my pocket deeply lol.
Before anyone can tell you what video card to get we need to know what motherboard you are using and what power supply you are using. Without info of these 2 important things no one can accurately tell you what video card to get. Another important factor is what is your budget for the video card. If you can give us the answers to these 3 questions then we can give you an answer.
"Possibly we humans can exist without actually having to fight. But many of us have chosen to fight. For what reason? To protect something? Protect what? Ourselves? The future? If we kill people to protect ourselves and this future, then what sort of future is it, and what will we have become? There is no future for those who have died. And what of those who did the killing? Is happiness to be found in a future that is grasped with blood stained hands? Is that the truth?"
Originally posted by Pitchperfect I am new on this game and like to try, but I think my Video card sucks, and suggestion on better video card that will not hit my pocket deeply lol.
Before anyone can tell you what video card to get we need to know what motherboard you are using and what power supply you are using. Without info of these 2 important things no one can accurately tell you what video card to get. Another important factor is what is your budget for the video card. If you can give us the answers to these 3 questions then we can give you an answer.
I agree. We need to consider all hardware first before doing upgrades. Bec some hardware are not really compatible with certain hardware.. There are certain rules on doing upgrades specially with our technology now. So please check some detail of your computer first before considering doing an upgrade
Yeah it's a really good time to be a PC gamer, lots of games, longer time between upgrades. It's going to be amusing when the next generation of consoles come out and they're still less powerful than PC's from the beginning of the ps4/xbone gen and we don't even have to upgrade to keep up to date!
But, it's not always peaches and cream, we'll have to see if VR is popular and is demanding.
Originally posted by Rusque Yeah it's a really good time to be a PC gamer, lots of games, longer time between upgrades. It's going to be amusing when the next generation of consoles come out and they're still less powerful than PC's from the beginning of the ps4/xbone gen and we don't even have to upgrade to keep up to date!But, it's not always peaches and cream, we'll have to see if VR is popular and is demanding.
Playing devil's advocate here for the sake of discussion:
Does it matter that console hardware this generation was less powerful than PC hardware was? Do consoles need to compete with PC?
The last generation of consoles lasted an unusually long time - the console manufacturers don't want that again, and a lot of the publishers don't want that again. About 5 years is what they shoot for between generations, if you look at it historically. So how powerful exactly do you need to make it in order to hit a 5 year lifespan without adding extraordinarily to the upfront cost (the cost of producing hardware goes down over time)? Given that two major competitors chose nearly-identical hardware specifications - I'd say that's a pretty good guess right there.
If VR Is popular and demanding? Like 3D/stereoscopic is now? Like dedicated sound processors and physics co processors are today? Like how raytracing took over graphics rendering?
Originally posted by Rusque Yeah it's a really good time to be a PC gamer, lots of games, longer time between upgrades. It's going to be amusing when the next generation of consoles come out and they're still less powerful than PC's from the beginning of the ps4/xbone gen and we don't even have to upgrade to keep up to date!
But, it's not always peaches and cream, we'll have to see if VR is popular and is demanding.
Playing devil's advocate here for the sake of discussion:
Does it matter that console hardware this generation was less powerful than PC hardware was? Do consoles need to compete with PC?
The last generation of consoles lasted an unusually long time - the console manufacturers don't want that again, and a lot of the publishers don't want that again. About 5 years is what they shoot for between generations, if you look at it historically. So how powerful exactly do you need to make it in order to hit a 5 year lifespan without adding extraordinarily to the upfront cost (the cost of producing hardware goes down over time)? Given that two major competitors chose nearly-identical hardware specifications - I'd say that's a pretty good guess right there.
If VR Is popular and demanding? Like 3D/stereoscopic is now? Like dedicated sound processors and physics co processors are today? Like how raytracing took over graphics rendering?
Good questions. I think consoles are definitely on borrowed time, this generation didn't much matter as they greatest strength of the console (standardization) is mostly useless without plenty of games. With development costs rising, it's been an odd cycle this time around for consoles. This gen also marked the first console gen I did not own one, in every previous generation I've owned all major consoles and was pretty happy to have done so. Outside of my desire to play Bloodborne, nothing is currently calling me.
Do console's need to compete with PC? Yes. They're becoming PC's (some would argue that they're already there using mostly PC components and less proprietary stuff) with each gen they get more features and apps. Does this make them more competitive? Not in my opinion, it just brings up the question of why not just get a PC when they get close enough? The answer should always be games, but that's not a sure thing.
Personally what I anticipate consoles doing is ditching the hardware aspect of it, I mean why bother? It's the most costly part of the equation. Create a closed eco-system (i.e. XBox Live) where a person can buy any hardware (meaning opening it up to 3rd parties like SteamBoxes) and running XBox or PS as Software as a Service. Charge a box price or monthly fee and release exclusive to the platform. It would be like Steam having exclusives. They save a ton on R&D, they save a ton on manufacturing and they make a bunch of money off of licensing their OS to 3rd parties (like Windows has for decades).
I can't predict the future, but I really don't see the hardware model holding up for too much longer. I mean Nintendo is already dipping its toes into mobile so it's already thinking of itself in this fluid manner. If I were making decisions at MS or Sony (both companies routinely make some of the worst business decisions and are successful because of decisions they made 25+ years ago), I would totally go the steambox route. License to 3rd party or sell a proprietary OS for $100 + monthly for online service, and book exclusives for it. Adoption rate would be high and costs would be low, much better than the small margins on the physical consoles (and in some cases, negative margins PS3/360 gen).
As far as VR goes, eh I have no clue. 3D is a failure because it's stupid. VR is going to be successful, maybe not in gaming, but medical, military, and other training applications are already taking root. I know personally that the medical community is looking to VR for virtual home visits with low-mobility patients, but it all depends on how accessible it is. In terms of gaming, I kinda think it's a bit gimmicky, but it only takes 1 amazing game to change how people view it. Does anyone have a vision that would revolutionize how we think of video game interaction or it is just going to be a 1 hour Call of Duty toy before nausea sets in? No clue.
Comments
Before anyone can tell you what video card to get we need to know what motherboard you are using and what power supply you are using. Without info of these 2 important things no one can accurately tell you what video card to get. Another important factor is what is your budget for the video card. If you can give us the answers to these 3 questions then we can give you an answer.
"Possibly we humans can exist without actually having to fight. But many of us have chosen to fight. For what reason? To protect something? Protect what? Ourselves? The future? If we kill people to protect ourselves and this future, then what sort of future is it, and what will we have become? There is no future for those who have died. And what of those who did the killing? Is happiness to be found in a future that is grasped with blood stained hands? Is that the truth?"
I agree. We need to consider all hardware first before doing upgrades. Bec some hardware are not really compatible with certain hardware.. There are certain rules on doing upgrades specially with our technology now. So please check some detail of your computer first before considering doing an upgrade
Yeah it's a really good time to be a PC gamer, lots of games, longer time between upgrades. It's going to be amusing when the next generation of consoles come out and they're still less powerful than PC's from the beginning of the ps4/xbone gen and we don't even have to upgrade to keep up to date!
But, it's not always peaches and cream, we'll have to see if VR is popular and is demanding.
Playing devil's advocate here for the sake of discussion:
Does it matter that console hardware this generation was less powerful than PC hardware was? Do consoles need to compete with PC?
The last generation of consoles lasted an unusually long time - the console manufacturers don't want that again, and a lot of the publishers don't want that again. About 5 years is what they shoot for between generations, if you look at it historically. So how powerful exactly do you need to make it in order to hit a 5 year lifespan without adding extraordinarily to the upfront cost (the cost of producing hardware goes down over time)? Given that two major competitors chose nearly-identical hardware specifications - I'd say that's a pretty good guess right there.
If VR Is popular and demanding? Like 3D/stereoscopic is now? Like dedicated sound processors and physics co processors are today? Like how raytracing took over graphics rendering?
Good questions. I think consoles are definitely on borrowed time, this generation didn't much matter as they greatest strength of the console (standardization) is mostly useless without plenty of games. With development costs rising, it's been an odd cycle this time around for consoles. This gen also marked the first console gen I did not own one, in every previous generation I've owned all major consoles and was pretty happy to have done so. Outside of my desire to play Bloodborne, nothing is currently calling me.
Do console's need to compete with PC? Yes. They're becoming PC's (some would argue that they're already there using mostly PC components and less proprietary stuff) with each gen they get more features and apps. Does this make them more competitive? Not in my opinion, it just brings up the question of why not just get a PC when they get close enough? The answer should always be games, but that's not a sure thing.
Personally what I anticipate consoles doing is ditching the hardware aspect of it, I mean why bother? It's the most costly part of the equation. Create a closed eco-system (i.e. XBox Live) where a person can buy any hardware (meaning opening it up to 3rd parties like SteamBoxes) and running XBox or PS as Software as a Service. Charge a box price or monthly fee and release exclusive to the platform. It would be like Steam having exclusives. They save a ton on R&D, they save a ton on manufacturing and they make a bunch of money off of licensing their OS to 3rd parties (like Windows has for decades).
I can't predict the future, but I really don't see the hardware model holding up for too much longer. I mean Nintendo is already dipping its toes into mobile so it's already thinking of itself in this fluid manner. If I were making decisions at MS or Sony (both companies routinely make some of the worst business decisions and are successful because of decisions they made 25+ years ago), I would totally go the steambox route. License to 3rd party or sell a proprietary OS for $100 + monthly for online service, and book exclusives for it. Adoption rate would be high and costs would be low, much better than the small margins on the physical consoles (and in some cases, negative margins PS3/360 gen).
As far as VR goes, eh I have no clue. 3D is a failure because it's stupid. VR is going to be successful, maybe not in gaming, but medical, military, and other training applications are already taking root. I know personally that the medical community is looking to VR for virtual home visits with low-mobility patients, but it all depends on how accessible it is. In terms of gaming, I kinda think it's a bit gimmicky, but it only takes 1 amazing game to change how people view it. Does anyone have a vision that would revolutionize how we think of video game interaction or it is just going to be a 1 hour Call of Duty toy before nausea sets in? No clue.