So... should I really have 50 games on my radar? And should most of them be small games? I'm not hating, some of these seem alright at a glance, but I don't think I'm gonna have all of this "on my radar".

@regulars101: How so?

Btw, I'm not disagreeing with you. I don't read a lot of game articles, I'm curious about what's been happening.

I didn't wanna upgrade for the first gen rtx, specially when my 1070 had no problem running anything in 1440p. Newer games are still playable, but I'm starting to have to lower some settings.

The price to performance on these new cards seems worth the upgrade. If the benchmarks confirm this, I'm probably getting myself a 3070.

@aross2004: Alright, that's fair enough. Obviously I haven't played it either, but both the gameplay demo and the text up there seem to point out very clearly that this will be no where near a triple A product, it has been marketed as a rather one dimensional game. The article says one thing, but then the pricing does not seem to reflect the sentiment, and that is why I still can't understand it.

@aross2004: The comment makes sense to me. Anyway, you didn't agree or disagree with my point. Do you think it should cost 40? More? Less?

Using Plants vs Zombies as an example doesn't really help the point, since that game is barely even worth 5 bucks... and apparently the sequel is even more expensive. What is it about the "breadth" of Plants vs Zombies that warrants a triple A cost?

And from the looks of it, Squadrons is a 20 buck game at best (without the Star Wars name on it, you couldn't sell this for over 15). This article still does not explain why it costs twice as much.

Why does the guy keep calling it Hadooken instead of Hadouken?

@rodro: Maybe you should stop bringing a sword to a gunfight. Or you could get better at sword play.

@HarlemVIP: Well, the in game cutscenes are already a big enough movie.

@HarlemVIP: I guess we're pretty much on the same club.