I think it makes sense cause they likely want to sell more of the Extreme model than the cheaper model. Asus doesn't make money from games like Valve/Consoles do so they want as many people to buy the expensive model as possible cause that one likely has higher margins.

Sadly UE is really popular with AAA and some indies these days. Funny how Timmy spends his days bitching about Valve having their monopoly when he himself has basically drummed up his own with UE (For real, I hardly hear many talking about Unity, or fan sites dedicated to why Unity is a great engine, unlike the few studios I've seen dedicate themselves to telling the praise of UE).

Telecom industry is definitely a standout case for competition not really doing much of anything, like at all (especially when you look at how China handles it, where it's all operated by one corp, being Tencent). 

Consoles definitely feel like they've gone the route that Telecom has, since MS hardly does much to drive Sony, Nintendo actively ignores it's competition and drove it's prices up, despite each generation of trying to skirt by with lesser hw, or faulty parts.

Sony also gave up on free online play and just copied MS in charging to pay to play online, then Nintendo followed, which meant competition worked in complete reverse for the consumer. Now we're also paying $70 price tags, instead of prices coming down (Same with EGS promising to "pass the savings onto the consumer", and prices on PC haven't exactly come down in a perma fashion). 

These days the pot shots aren't done in commercials or posters, it's done in courts, and it's quite sad.

Absolutely brutal

Lmao, why is IGN even talking about this?.

https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/132xvqp/star_wars_jedi_survivor_day_1_patch_and_why_these/

Why is it that we, the forum goers, know that if the pubs would just DELAY their games, they would then be able to get them to WORK properly, yet IGN is like "oh right fellas, I'm here to explain why this thing isn't working and why we're here to experience this shit".

like no fucking shit sherlock?. We know why it's happening, we just want it TO STOP HAPPENING.

Like god damn, I hate stupid news pieces like this, it reeks of a big nothing burger, and it doesn't help do anything (other than letting us know a Journo has finally caught up to what we already knew for the past couple of years, if not longer).

Alex has absolutely every single reason in the known universe to be this brutal. The guy has had it up to here like we all have for some time now.

Even Sony just recently posted it's earnings on PC, as well as it's desire to continue porting to the platform, despite the dire state TLOU was in, and Drake being a rather mid port. 

What's very stupid is how these reviewers give these games a pass despite having performance problems. Even if you play on PS5 or Xbox, you would have performance problems. Yet the game is 86/100 on meta for ps5 and 79 on PC. On PC it should be at 60 and 70 on PS5 at best until they fixed the problems. But no, reviewers love getting shat fed to them as long as they get free samples and shit. Very stupid.

You know, after watching that vid, I feel like I lost a few braincells and time, time I want back...

All it droned on about was "certification process", like yeah, no shit that's been a problem, but it's not THE ONLY PROBLEM. It's mainly down to devs not being given ample enough time to sort this out, and yes, the Cert time and process absolutely needs to be reworked and slimmed down, so they can push out their updates faster, but even then we shouldn't even be seeing this many updates.

Like when you and me were talking about QQ&A the other day, none of the devs in that damn video ever mentioned a lack of Q&A, which would naturally leads to this many certs needed to get those patches out. 

Really I feel like I'm that tinfoil hat guy from Futurama, where I know we're lacking Q&A, but the devs themselves somehow don't know, or don't care to touch that subject with a ten ft pole. 

PCGamer is absolutely one of the worst out there (besides IGN), when it comes to giving a game a good score, but not talking much about perf or the hw side of things when it comes to the game reviews themselves (which is why I really, really love when Alex talks about both sides, because it's both informative and logical, in helping us better understand why we need to tweak the settings for better quality/perf).

One day, I really hope reviewers eventually get caught out hardcore, I that's probably not going to happen unless their parent companies get tired enough of them to want to split them apart and remake some new outlet (much like how Escapist magazine went from reviewing games and movies, to now just focusing way more on movie reviews and one reviewer for games, also their forums went to shit). 

Although since it's a Bethesda game, it will probably be broken for years

That's basically a list of all the AAA games released on PC this year.

And yeah, it wouldn't be a Bethesda game if it launches without game-breaking bugs.

Not wrong. However we need to keep in mind that AMD and nVidia use VRAM differently as well... Which is why in games when comparing VRAM usage between Radeon and Geforce, the numbers don't always line up.

For example... A while ago if the on-chip caches on Radeons filled up with vertices data, it would spill over into system memory, but eventually AMD changed that behaviour and had it spill over into VRAM instead. - It resulted in higher memory usage, but higher performance, but was less of an issue because AMD gave more memory anyway.

But in regards to nVidia specifically, nVidia actually has invested a shit-ton of time and resources into building and managing memory oversubscription issues... Hence the CUDA Unified Memory programming model, Micro-Mesh, merging duplicated meshes and more.

However... Like most nVidia propriety approaches, it's not industry standard so it requires developers to build for it specifically. (Hence why Open standards are better, it forces adoption.)

So it seems like games aren't optimized for the hardware, because they aren't... And wouldn't be an issue if the GPU's had more VRAM to start with, thus not necessitating the need to use those technologies.

VRAM is also all relative, lower tier GPU's simply don't need as much as it all comes down to how competently they can utilize all that space.

In saying that, I believe that 8GB is not enough on the 6600XT class GPU's, they need to be 10-12GB, which is where nVidia did the right thing with the 3060 at 12GB, but regressed with the 3060Ti at 8GB which sucks.

Lots of VRAM is the solution to shit optimization sadly.