Little bit of everything!

Avid Swiftie (come join us at !taylorswift@poptalk.scrubbles.tech )

Gaming (Mass Effect, Witcher, and too much Satisfactory)

Sci-fi

I live for 90s TV sitcoms

  • 46 Posts
  • 2.07K Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 2nd, 2023

help-circle


  • No, I disagree with that. It’s always been perfectly normal to have ultra graphics a bit out of reach so that the game will look great on future graphics cards, and 120fps is a ridiculously high number that should never be expected even with top of the line graphics cards for a brand new release. (Assuming 2 or 4k)

    However, a 1 generation out of date graphics card should be able to easily play most things on High settings at a decent framerate (aiming for 60) on 4k settings, which Borderlands failed at horribly. Medium to low settings on a 4000 series card sounds like a gutpunch to me.


















  • I’m aware, we aren’t going to make a massive dent. However, for this 2 million dollar settlement, how many people would need to be swayed to not buy a switch 2 to make the settlement more expensive? In other words, how many sales would need to be lost because of us not buying the console to make the settlement moot?

    In the case of 2 million, that’s about 4,500 switch 2s, not counting the loss in games bought or accessories.

    If just 4500 people were convinced not to buy one because of this settlement, then the cost to their brand being tarnished is worse than the loss of potential sales due to the chip.

    There’s a dozen other factors too, legal costs, what drives these potential sales, etc. what I’m trying to say is that if they’re willing to be this litigious over a few thousand console sales, then that means that even small groups like us not buying consoles can actually be noticed. It may be a simple dip in sales on a chart, but they’ll notice. To a greedy corporation willing to go after a single guy in a garage, they’ll notice a couple thousand people not buying consoles.