Searching for that the only thing that comes up is a repo with half life / doom / quake branches. There’s no documentation on how to use the library for other games and most github issues seem to be about those games instead of the library. Am I looking at the right thing?
State of decay 2 lethal difficulty. You pretty much can’t fast search. You can’t have a follower because they start brawls needlessly by attacking zombies and they don’t disengage, making running away from brawls impossible. And without a follower a feral spotting you is pretty much a death sentence. Add the insane food usage, overly eager plague hearts / sieges and the undying hostile npcs and I have no idea how people play that
This is not based on benchmarks from qualcomm, it’s based on benchmarks revievers ran on demo units.
You don’t need to shift the software to work on arm. Most essential things already work and the ones that don’t can be emulated. All valve needs to do is to make it seamless. And unless they also switch to arm its a long shot for amd to achieve a 2x uplift in a single generation.
Edit: 2.5-3.5x faster cpu and 2x faster gpu at slightly higher tdp (23W vs 19W). Even if the arm x86 emulation has 40% overhead it’d still be faster and more efficient especially at lower power limits where arm shines.
Saw oppenheimer the other day, it was 145₺ ($5) for 3hrs. For other movies the price seems proportional. Tbh triple A games typically cost $30-40 here so the break even comes down to 20-25 hrs.
I had only considered the price for my seat as friends pay for their seats. Ofc this is also not considering popcorn etc, those increase the cost quite a bit.
Did a quick calculation and found that a 60$ game needs to be 35hrs to break even with movie prices edit: *where I live
Although I rarely think about game length when buying games. I find that what my gut says is a justified price is far more influenced by a game’s reputation/store page/reviews/what kid of game I feel like playing at the moment. What I’m pricing is my perception of an experience, not an amount of enjoyment for an amount of time. After I buy a game then unless it’s unexpectedly bad or broken I don’t really think about whether it was worth the price. Edit: In fact for longer games I find myself thinking if it was worth the time more.
I think it’s worth mentioning that I don’t buy games with a hype wave behind them, so the “perception of experience” is closer to the actual experience than if you apply the same to new releases.
For game length, I find that left to my own devices I like when games are 10-20 hrs in length. For longer games I prefer when there’s a driving story that I can strive for, and even then it gets boring around the 30-40 hr mark. Some open ended games captivate me for 100+ hours but that’s not my expectation from a game.
I see that people are shouting out games in the comments, so I’ll add one. Cyber Hook is a fantastic runner/platformer game. It’s really fun (especially the beginning and dlc) and it’s pretty cheap. It’s not very long especially if you don’t bother getting good times in levels but the experience alone is worth it. Although, for some reason it requires internet connection for game progression so take that into account when buying too.
Calculating a turn is the most intensive part of the process. I don’t expect it to use no cpu. But Civ6 has no right to use similar cpu power to stelarris running at max speed while just rendering grass. And considering that it continues to use that even if its paused and minimized, I think it’s pretty clear that they just don’t care about power consumption.
Stopping rendering / game logic / music if you alt tab. And resource management overall. It grinds my gears when games use resources even when there’s nothing happening. (Civ6 for instance constantly uses absurd amounts of cpu just for idling in game and doesn’t use any more when calculating so turns.)