Unknown Soldier
Veteran
jvd said:
Wrong. Vampire Masquerade 2 - Bloodlines also uses the Source Engine and it supports SM3.0.
I'll look for a link for ya.
US
VR-Zone: Counter-Strike:Source Benchmarked!
- Thread starter digitalwanderer
- Start date
Wrong. Vampire Masquerade 2 - Bloodlines also uses the Source Engine and it supports SM3.0.
I'll look for a link for ya.
US
http://www.driverheaven.net/showthread.php?p=423812#post423812
nuff said - those original benchies are just b*llox tbh
NV must be so proud they have the best performer on the most over-hyped - crappest game of the last 4 yrs - Doom 3.
Bring it on HL2!!!!!!!
nuff said - those original benchies are just b*llox tbh
NV must be so proud they have the best performer on the most over-hyped - crappest game of the last 4 yrs - Doom 3.
Bring it on HL2!!!!!!!
Unknown Soldier
Veteran
Wow!!
/me wants X800XT
US
/me wants X800XT US
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
Legend
And so the flip-flop from the D3 benchies begins....
happiness
I remember reading this study from Harvard, I think it was Harvard, that addressed the issue of unhappiness and choice. The idea was that in the old days, people had less choice, so they were more satisfied with what they had, because there really wasn't too much that was better. But now, with all the choices we have for something as simple as gum and up to more expensive items like cars, people are never sure that they're getting what's *best*, and so they are often yearning for more. I think Harvard should have used gamers as the basis for their study. Once again, this study may not have actually been done by Harvard. It was pretty interesting though.
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros. said:
I remember reading this study from Harvard, I think it was Harvard, that addressed the issue of unhappiness and choice. The idea was that in the old days, people had less choice, so they were more satisfied with what they had, because there really wasn't too much that was better. But now, with all the choices we have for something as simple as gum and up to more expensive items like cars, people are never sure that they're getting what's *best*, and so they are often yearning for more. I think Harvard should have used gamers as the basis for their study. Once again, this study may not have actually been done by Harvard. It was pretty interesting though.
Re: happiness
The article was called 'The Tyranny of Choice' and it was published in Scientific American. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0006AD38-D9FB-1055-973683414B7F0000
Scott_Arm said:
The article was called 'The Tyranny of Choice' and it was published in Scientific American. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0006AD38-D9FB-1055-973683414B7F0000
THE JEW (RaVeN)
Newcomer
http://www.gamers-depot.com/hardware/video_cards/source/001.htm
The Driver Heaven one seems significantly different compared to this review and the VR-Zone one.
I think this is one of those cases where's it's best to wait until the game ships before passing judgement either way.
The Driver Heaven one seems significantly different compared to this review and the VR-Zone one.
I think this is one of those cases where's it's best to wait until the game ships before passing judgement either way.
Re: happiness
I've always thought the premise of the article was badly flawed. It pretends that product choices are something besides a by-product of a vigorous and healthy and largely unregulated economy. The healthier an economy is, or a particular market segment is within an economy, the more product choices there are for the potential consumers of those products.
The issue is really one of who makes the choices, I think. Do consumers wish to make their own choices, or do they wish to have someone else (like government bureacrats with political and/or philosophical agendas) make their product choices for them? That's pretty much what it boils down to, I think.
I think what concerns people is getting not "the best," but rather getting "what's best for them" from their individual standpoints of need, taste, budget, and desire. At its core the issue is one of simple supply and demand--if consumers in various market segments didn't demand the choices that exist, then the number of those choices would diminish accordingly. The system is self-regulating in that way. My opinion is that it's always better for consumers to do the regulating through the exercise of their own elective choices--far better--than to have an elitist group of bureaucrats try and invent a one-or-two-sizes-fit-all centrally planned economy. I think that history amply demonstrates that central economic planning won't work, and the reason is obvious: one size does indeed not fit all, as people exist as individuals and not as hypothetical "groups" or "masses." IE, if people wanted fewer choices then that's exactly what they'd get. They have more choice because they demand it with their pocketbooks.
Would you rather have Congress designing your next 3d card, or nVidia and ATi?... Easy question...
Scott_Arm said:
I've always thought the premise of the article was badly flawed. It pretends that product choices are something besides a by-product of a vigorous and healthy and largely unregulated economy. The healthier an economy is, or a particular market segment is within an economy, the more product choices there are for the potential consumers of those products.
The issue is really one of who makes the choices, I think. Do consumers wish to make their own choices, or do they wish to have someone else (like government bureacrats with political and/or philosophical agendas) make their product choices for them? That's pretty much what it boils down to, I think.
I think what concerns people is getting not "the best," but rather getting "what's best for them" from their individual standpoints of need, taste, budget, and desire. At its core the issue is one of simple supply and demand--if consumers in various market segments didn't demand the choices that exist, then the number of those choices would diminish accordingly. The system is self-regulating in that way. My opinion is that it's always better for consumers to do the regulating through the exercise of their own elective choices--far better--than to have an elitist group of bureaucrats try and invent a one-or-two-sizes-fit-all centrally planned economy. I think that history amply demonstrates that central economic planning won't work, and the reason is obvious: one size does indeed not fit all, as people exist as individuals and not as hypothetical "groups" or "masses." IE, if people wanted fewer choices then that's exactly what they'd get. They have more choice because they demand it with their pocketbooks.
Would you rather have Congress designing your next 3d card, or nVidia and ATi?...
Easy question...Umm
I don't think the article was really suggesting that choice be taken away from the consumer and placed in the hands of someone else.
I think it was just suggesting that some people find it very difficult to be satisfied with what they have, when they know there are so many other products they could have tried, or products that will be available shortly. It's not that having less options is better, it's just that some people feel more comfortable knowing what they got is the best there is, because it is the only one available at all.
I don't think the article was really suggesting that choice be taken away from the consumer and placed in the hands of someone else.
I think it was just suggesting that some people find it very difficult to be satisfied with what they have, when they know there are so many other products they could have tried, or products that will be available shortly. It's not that having less options is better, it's just that some people feel more comfortable knowing what they got is the best there is, because it is the only one available at all.
Re: Umm
yep, I'm satisfied with ATI and nVidia being the two big gaming vid card makers.
.....but then the 3 bajillion classes of cards they produce make me uneasy about choosing even middle end hardware knowing that I really wanted the high end stuff.
Scott_Arm said:
yep, I'm satisfied with ATI and nVidia being the two big gaming vid card makers.
.....but then the 3 bajillion classes of cards they produce make me uneasy about choosing even middle end hardware knowing that I really wanted the high end stuff.
oh yah
I just thought it was interesting when you think about 3d cards. I think that's basically the environment that creates "fan-boy"ism. People are trying to decide between buying an X800Pro, or a 6800GT or 6800 vanilla, or holding out for the 6600, or maybe even the next generation of cards, and trying to justify which is worth the money etc. So when they finally buy one, anything that suggests their time and money spent on the product could have been spent better elsewhere becomes offensive
I just thought it was interesting when you think about 3d cards. I think that's basically the environment that creates "fan-boy"ism. People are trying to decide between buying an X800Pro, or a 6800GT or 6800 vanilla, or holding out for the 6600, or maybe even the next generation of cards, and trying to justify which is worth the money etc. So when they finally buy one, anything that suggests their time and money spent on the product could have been spent better elsewhere becomes offensive
Re: Umm
That really makes no sense, though, if you think about it. If choice is limited to a single product, and people don't like it, they are either forced to buy something they don't want (say for instance a car), or if it's something they can live without (like a 3d card) and they really don't like it they won't buy it at all--so not only does the product vanish from lack of demand, but the entire market it serves could vanish as well. There's no relationship between "best" and "only," imo. In fact, I'd say it is only possible to reach a "best for me" conclusion among a variety of choices--as with but a single choice there exists no framework from which to reach such a "best" determination or opinion.
Scott_Arm said:
That really makes no sense, though, if you think about it. If choice is limited to a single product, and people don't like it, they are either forced to buy something they don't want (say for instance a car), or if it's something they can live without (like a 3d card) and they really don't like it they won't buy it at all--so not only does the product vanish from lack of demand, but the entire market it serves could vanish as well. There's no relationship between "best" and "only," imo. In fact, I'd say it is only possible to reach a "best for me" conclusion among a variety of choices--as with but a single choice there exists no framework from which to reach such a "best" determination or opinion.
Re: Umm
Well, it's obviously bad from an economics standpoint. And a crap product is just a crap product, and people won't like it. The idea is that a person bombarded with choices might be unhappy with whatever they end up with, because they're never sure that they couldnt have gotten something better for them. The article doesn't suggest that this applies to every person. I think it's an interesting idea. I know I've been miffed when I bought something and found out that if I'd waited a month I could have gotten something much better for relatively the same price.
WaltC said:
Well, it's obviously bad from an economics standpoint. And a crap product is just a crap product, and people won't like it. The idea is that a person bombarded with choices might be unhappy with whatever they end up with, because they're never sure that they couldnt have gotten something better for them. The article doesn't suggest that this applies to every person. I think it's an interesting idea. I know I've been miffed when I bought something and found out that if I'd waited a month I could have gotten something much better for relatively the same price.
Re: Umm
Ah, OK, I see what you mean--it's not really the choices that some people complain about--it's the need to feel better about their choices after they've made them ... IMO, the best defense against "buyer's remorse" is to do your homework ahead of time... Also, I've found that buying my hardware from a 30-day, no-questions-asked return policy retailer is a wise policy. All goes back to caveat emptor, doesn't it?
Scott_Arm said:
Ah, OK, I see what you mean--it's not really the choices that some people complain about--it's the need to feel better about their choices after they've made them ...
IMO, the best defense against "buyer's remorse" is to do your homework ahead of time... Also, I've found that buying my hardware from a 30-day, no-questions-asked return policy retailer is a wise policy. All goes back to caveat emptor, doesn't it?THE JEW (RaVeN)
Newcomer
CyFactor said:
Must have missed that in my readings. Good to know. Thanks.
