Yazu13's forum posts

Avatar image for Yazu13
#1 Edited by Yazu13 (5185 posts) -

Here are my specs:

CPU - Intel i7 6900K (8-Core) @ 4.2 GHz Overclock

GPU - Nvidia GTX 1080 Founder's Edition Overclocked

Memory - 64GB 2666 MHz Digital Storm Custom RAM

Storage - 2TB Samsung SSD

Motherboard - ASUS X99 Rampage V Edition 10

Nothing to sneeze at, but my GPU is probably holding the system back with the new Ti and Titan X on the market. I have a 4K TV that I use as a monitor too, but I rarely try to output at 4K because my system just can't run any modern, graphics-intensive games at that resolution. 4K is incredibly demanding still, even if you're on the bleeding edge. What I do settle for is 1080p @ 120Hz. It still looks pretty good, but the smoothness of the 120Hz look is the icing on the cake that makes me not miss 4K so much.

Avatar image for Yazu13
#2 Edited by Yazu13 (5185 posts) -

@demi0227_basic: To me at least, this expansion does seem like it's beyond the scope of what was intended for the base game. I don't think this is a case of a developer withholding content from the base game to sell as DLC later. With all of the information released about it, it seems to be a true expansion like the days of old when that word used to mean something. Asking $40 for it though, now that stinks of more modern industry trends.

Avatar image for Yazu13
#3 Edited by Yazu13 (5185 posts) -

As many of you have probably heard or seen on the Steam store page, the War of the Chosen DLC now has a price of $40 and you are able to pre-purchase it as well. At a glance, this seems like a lot of money to ask for an expansion, though I'll refrain from judging until the DLC actually drops because it sounds pretty substantial. However, one issue presents itself when looking at the base game you need before you even think of looking at the expansion. The base XCOM 2 game is 1 year and 5 months old, yet it is still being sold for its original price of $60. Now, this is before you also factor in the $20 Season Pass which does not include the new WotC expansion.

Things are getting a little expensive now see? For those of us who own the base game already, $40 is a little easier of a pill to swallow, but imagine if you were looking at this game with a real intention to buy after passing it up the first time around, only now you have a $100 barrier staring you in the face if you want the complete experience (Tack on an extra $20 for the less substantial DLC packs too). I'll be honest, the new expansion looks essential, and if I didn't have the base game already, I would think hard before even considering spending money on anything having to do with XCOM 2 for fear that I would be obligated to sink serious money into this game or miss out on the best parts. In short, either the base game needs a price cut or the new DLC needs to come down in price if Firaxis wants this endeavor to succeed. I have some reasons listed below for why I think something's gotta give:

1.It turns away potential new customers

As stated above, a $60 base game + $20 Season Pass + $40 expansion = troubled wallets. A newcomer to XCOM may want to pick up XCOM 2 because it's starting to look irresistible with that new WotC hotness on the horizon, yet the base game is still full priced more than a year later and the new expansion is nearly as expensive. Imagine I'm a potential customer, and all of a sudden, my excitement to play XCOM 2 has now turned into resentment that Firaxis is asking the moon for it's XCOM 2 opus. I'm a gamer with some pride and more important things to spend money on, and being yanked around doesn't sit right with me, which leads me into the next point:

2. It alienates gamers

Gamers aren't your average consumer. We can be fiercely loyal to a brand or developer, or we can band together, torch in hand, to slay the fowl abominations of the gaming industry. When we see a developer who is charitable and reasonable with their customers, we are lavish in our praise and supportive with our hard-earned dollar. Looking at a glowing example of symbiosis between consumer and producer, CD Projekt RED was generous with their offerings, and in turn, gamers elevated them to a near god-like status in the industry. It helped that their games were good, but in the collective memory of gamers, we wouldn't care half as much if they had price-gouged us and gotten on our nerves. I'm not saying that's what is happening in the case of XCOM 2, but the perception is definitely there, and that's already not a good thing, which is why my next point is a genuine concern:

3. It's a reasonable request

Like I've said before, the base game is over a year old. With most other games, this is the time to think about cutting the base price, if not by a purely business standpoint of bringing in new attention, but because the product is getting older and less desirable to the public (Losing "new" factor). I can't imagine before this DLC was announced that a year-old game still at full launch price was selling very well. I know the developers put a lot of blood, sweat and tears into making their game, and the new expansion feels every bit as valuable as their $40 asking price to them, but people aren't made of money and we can only be reasonable in reasonable situations. Asking $60 for a game that's over a year old? Not reasonable. Asking $40 for highly desirable DLC on top of the base game to a potential new customer? Not reasonable.


As for a reasonable solution to all of this, and my personal choice, I believe the best decision would be to cut the base game price to $30 and the season pass down from $20 to $10. You can keep the expansion priced at $40 because it is content-rich and new, and aside from maybe some initial belly-aching, if it stands up to the asking price with quality content, then gamers will embrace it.

Lets face it though, the base game needs a reasonable price cut because your target audience for it is new customers. Keeping it at $60 does nothing for current owners, but it certainly dissuades new customers considering all of the DLC they'll need to purchase afterwards. Dropping the price down to $30 gets their foot through the door, and raises the potential of more sales for the WotC expansion. As for the season pass, the consensus among gamers is that the quality and quantity of content is nowhere near the asking price of $20. You also have to consider that this DLC is old now as well, so a more reasonable price of $10 or even $15 for the season pass would bring in sales and garner some good will with gamers, most of whom thought the season pass was lacking, what with its basic offerings of a single new mission, some boss enemies, and accessories to dress your team with that free mods already have covered.

Recalculate the whole package now though, and you get $30 base game + $40 WotC expansion + $10 season pass = XCOM 2 complete experience for $80. Still a lot of money, but infinitely more enticing to consumers and a hell of a lot more reasonable considering the old content is showing its age. Firaxis wants to support the new expansion with a premium price for their hard work, so at least concede to gamers that the base XCOM 2 is too expensive currently. Everybody wins; gamers get to play this great game with all of its bells and whistles without breaking the bank, and Firaxis still makes a lot of money accounting for new sales of the base game along with sales of DLC, but most importantly, they win back a little respect from gamers for showing some humility. After the rocky launch of the base game (Bugs, performance issues, etc.) and the season pass' lukewarm reception, this could be a very wise move.

What do you think? Is XCOM 2 getting long in the tooth and in need of some industry standard price cuts? Is Firaxis getting greedy?

Avatar image for Yazu13
#4 Edited by Yazu13 (5185 posts) -

I have a 27" monitor that I plan to use with the laptop, as well, I said I wanted a framerate that's higher than 30 FPS but not necessarily 60 FPS. If you're an enthusiast PC gamer you should be able to tell the difference between when a game is at playable frames per second, and when it flows like water. I don't know what framerate the latter has to be for that to happen since it's different for each person, but I want that constant experience even when I crank up the settings to make the game graphically impressive at the same time, and I know that's at least higher than 30 FPS for me. I'd guess around 50 FPS should do the trick, but my point is that I don't want it to ever dip below that and that's why I got a gaming machine that should breeze through most games in the present and years into the future.

Anyway, can someone answer my question? If you have a similar setup and AC4 (Hell, I'll settle for Battlefield 4 since they're both pretty demanding), how does it perform with the settings I specified?

Avatar image for Yazu13
#5 Posted by Yazu13 (5185 posts) -

I hear Nvidia is doing a good job with getting mobile drivers out and updating them since they pretty much own the mobile market. Mobile gaming is increasing in popularity and Nvidia is having to cater to more and more laptop gamers nowadays. They've been pretty proactive about putting out updated drivers I've noticed as of late. They're pretty much covering all of their bases.

Avatar image for Yazu13
#6 Posted by Yazu13 (5185 posts) -

Sorry, I forgot to mention that I don't actually have the laptop yet, and won't for a few weeks. I edited my post to reflect that.

Avatar image for Yazu13
#7 Edited by Yazu13 (5185 posts) -

I recently purchased my dream gaming laptop (EDIT: I won't actually have the laptop for a few weeks, that's why I'm asking about this) so I can sell off my desktop and not have to worry about it taking up space, heating up my surroundings anymore, etc., but I can't get a straight answer from the web about how 2 GTX 780Ms perform, namely with Assassin's Creed 4. AC4 is currently the most demanding game I own, and with my current setup I can max everything out at 1080p and get a smoother than 30 FPS (not sure if 60 FPS, all I care is if the game flows/looks like it), but to keep the game at a solid framerate like that no matter where I am in the game world I have to keep anti-aliasing off. My question to those who have a similar setup to the laptop I just purchased, is how it will perform in AC4 compared to my current setup. Specs of both down below, and thanks for any and all replies:

My current setup (Desktop):

GPU - Nvidia GTX 580 Classified Ultra (Core overclocked to 950 Mhz)

CPU - Intel i7 2700k (3.5 Ghz) (Quad-Core)

Memory - 8GB Corsair Dominator (I believe 1600Mhz)

My new setup (Laptop):

GPU - 2x Nvidia GTX 780M SLI

CPU - Intel i7 4930MX Extreme Edition (Up to 3.90Ghz) (Quad Core)

Memory - 32GB DDR3 1600MHz

What I'm trying to achieve is to at least be able to play AC4 at 1080p with maxed settings and at least MSAA x8 anti-aliasing enabled at a constant framerate above 30 FPS (Lets say never dipping below 45 FPS) no matter where I go on the map (some areas are a lot more demanding than others. The towns for example.)

I travel at times for work and a desktop solution isn't viable anymore. Just a heads up for those who say I could've gotten a better and cheaper desktop instead. I know. :P

Avatar image for Yazu13
#8 Posted by Yazu13 (5185 posts) -

Man, you must have a lot of porn!acanofcoke

I try my best. :D

Anyway, thanks for the replies, though if anybody actually owns the product in question, I would greatly appreciate some feedback.  This person who said the usable storage was around 10.7TB claimed to be an owner of the product.  Buying these things is no simple purchase and I'd rather go into such a large purchase with nothing but confidence.

Avatar image for Yazu13
#9 Posted by Yazu13 (5185 posts) -

Hello, I am currently thinking about purchasing a 16TB Quad-Bay External HDD, yet I hear only about 10.7TB of that space is actually usable storage.  I don't know if this changes from each manufacturer, but the device itself is the Buffalo Drivestation Quad.  I currently have an 8TB HDD from Buffalo, but month by month it seems I am fast approaching its limits so I was interested in making the leap and going for a large upgrade this time around to quell my storage needs for good.  I run in RAID 0 by the way, and I'd love it if someone could answer how much usable storage is available with that Buffalo 16TB drive.  Thanks.

Avatar image for Yazu13
#10 Posted by Yazu13 (5185 posts) -

The team has just reached a very interesting stretch goal for their Kickstarter.  At $150,000 of funding, the dev team, Gears For Breakfast, has enlisted the help of Grant Kirkhope, a legendary composer that is responsible for making the unforgettable tunes for Banjo-Kazooie (and Tooie), Goldeneye 007, Perfect Dark, and even Kingdoms of Amalur, to make a theme song for one of the chapters in the game.  Very cool stuff.  I am comfortable in admitting that I nearly squeeled with joy once I learned of this.