You could try to get a used Steam Deck. That will let you play most current AAA games and plenty of indie or older titles for not a lot of money. Apart from that, I wish you all the best and I hope things get better for you.
You could get monthly subscriptions for services like Geforce Now or Xbox Cloud Gaming. With a decent internet connection and a controller, pretty much any device that can display video becomes a gaming device. Obviously this may work out to be more expensive in the long run and these services have some weird terms of service so a decent research before subscribing is required but if you need to game for a month with minimal upfront investment they are pretty good.
I was a major in the scene back then when they all rose. Razor, fairlight and the unknown nonames. A time where you could sell a warez-cd for 200 moneyz and it all was IRC, FTP and BBS. The days with phones lines bills >1000 bucks because you HAD to call this one foreign board 😁
I miss these days… It was all about fun, friends and fame. Same with competitive gaming.
There was somebody else who works at the company I work at with the same name as me. I will often see my boss typing a message and it goes on for a very long time and then suddenly stops, that’s when everyone lies that right at the last minute she’s realised she’s messaging the wrong person.
I cannot say I find the experience overly distressing.
Oh gosh you’re way too kind. I wouldn’t call it that, but I am happy to share interesting things here. And I’m so lucky that you all read it and agree with me that it is worth the read!!!
I think this question also applies to PC. Why? Because we are limited too. I try to reach 120 fps and consider it performance mode when dialing back quality settings, and enabling upscaling to reach that. If not, 90 fps is also pretty good. For certain games, 60 fps feels like what you describe of 30, but that does not apply to all games. There are single player rpgs played with a gamepad, that I would even consider playing at 30 fps if there is no other option. The problem is, games are not designed to be played with that low fps, as the input latency increases.
I’ll compare this to the Switch, playing Zelda (emulated with Yuzu). Breath of the Wild on original Switch is designed to be played at 30 fps. Playing it on my PC like that felt like a slideshow, but one can get used to it. If I didn’t had the 60 fps patch, it would still be fine at 30. The next game in the series, Tiers of the Kingdom, was not stable at 60, so I was “forced” to play at 30. And after some time playing it felt pretty good and not upsetting like in the first few minutes.
What I mean by that is, performance mode if possible, I would sacrifice quality. But not too much, because at some point the image looks really bad.
PC is harder to define since everyone has varying hardware and specific setting preferences. Most PC games let you change nearly everything and let you mix and match what is high, what is low, what is on or off, etc. And if you have the money, you can get both performance and quality if the game isn’t busted. :p
That’s not entirely true. Because even if you buy a strong PC, you have to make choices, depending on the game. It’s just the fps and settings we are talking about are higher floor. In example on PC people can enable RayTracing, which tanks the fps a lot. Do you go for 120 fps or 60 or maybe lower fps with higher fidelity and RayTracing in example.
So the question to answer is still the same, its just on PC we have a bit more individual choices to make.
Edit (added): Most people don’t have the strongest PC anyway. Look at the Steam hardware survery, most have common graphics cards like the 4060 in example. Or look at handheld PCs and laptops, with fixed hardware. And as said, even in high end with lots of money people need to make cuts in fidelity or performance; just on a higher level in that case. So your question applies to PC as well.
sufficient performance > sufficient beauty > power usage > max beauty > max performance
I set a frame rate limit in most 3D games, to avoid inflating my electricity bill for barely noticeable effects or FPS improvements. Plugging my system into a Kill A Watt was enlightening.
sufficient performance > sufficient beauty > power usage > max beauty > max performance
This is basically alien to me. I think it has to be game specific.
Euro Truck Simulator? Beauty is more important than performance, unless playing it on my handheld, in which case I can knock the FPS limiter down to 40 and crank the settings down
Satisfactory? Performance over everything.
Granted most of the games I play are older (so I don’t need to choose) or CPU-bound simulation games (Raising the graphics doesn’t make it run meaningfully slower if your CPU is the bottleneck).
Although I must also point out that I think the current trend of “fidelity=beauty” is ridiculous. I recently played INFRA, a game built in Source, and while the fidelity was clearly “outdated”, the game looked fantastic.
Plugging my system into a Kill A Watt was enlightening.
Laptop gaming is a harsh but educational mistress re: power consumption (even when it’s plugged in), I’ll tell you that. All the heat you generate is right in front of your face, as is all the airflow (and noise) needed to wick it away.
Hopefully so, the gaming market in my area has gotten rough. Maybe it’ll calm down for the future but that’s likely not gonna happen too soon. I’m thinking of passing the time without a PC for now. I don’t think I’ll able to afford a PC for a few years at best. Sorry for making it sound too dramatic in the post.
I’m pretty sure that was the year I was mostly playing Populous, on the Amiga IIRC, or maybe spectrum. I think my little brother may have had a copy of this though. There were some good games back then, the late 80s were when they really started to branch out into genres that we still see today.
I tend to stick to quality mode unless it causes too many < 30fps drops OR it needs a higher FPS e.g. driving. I don’t play shooters or any PvP games on console though
bin.pol.social
Najnowsze