TuxedoCruise

Living in the US, it's difficult for me to watch price trends on other territories. It does seem like there have been price hikes in the UK/EU, and especially in South America. That puts in some more context as to why I've seen stories of tourists visiting the US to buy games.

To make things a bit more apples to apples, I'm mainly talking about AAA games. I remember paying $80 USD for Super Metroid, and $55 for Final Fantasy VII on launch day. Within the last year I spent $60 on God of War, Asssassin's Creed Odyssey, Red Dead Redemption 2, Spider-Man, and Shadow of the Tomb Raider. I didn't engage with any of the microtransactions, season passes, or any other DLC for those games, and I felt like I got my money's worth. I usually don't come back to games after I finish them, so that's another habit that keeps me moving on to the next game.

I do remember game prices varying more wildly when I started buying them in the mid-90s. I recall first party games were sometimes $5-$10 cheaper than third party games.

I also remember at the start of the Xbox 360's life, first party Microsoft games were $50. But then they all went to up $60 without anyone batting an eye.

Is it safe to assume that publishers have kept the $60 price due to manufacturing and cutting in retailers? But because manufacturing is much cheaper now, and a lot of sales are done digitally, that cost has now shifted over to the actual rise of development costs and inflation?

I remember paying $50-$60 USD for PS1 games, and $60 for PS2 games. I'm still paying those prices today. I rarely buy DLC packs for games, because even with the rise of season passes and microtransactions, the base $60 games that I buy very rarely feel incomplete.

The price of other entertainment mediums have risen over the years, how come the price of video games have mostly remained the same?

Not sure about that. Path of Exile is better than most paid or AAA games.

You're the reason why I love Mondays and always look forward to Tuesdays.

Thanks Ryan.

The black and white buttons are still indefensible. They were much smaller and thinner than the 4 face buttons, which means they dug into your fingers and caused a slight stinging sharp pain that got worse the longer you played. The black and white buttons were also higher than the left analog stick, so there was a slight awkwardness with the asymmetry of the layout.

Sega fixed the issue of functional and comfortable 6 face buttons years ago. Sony fixed the issue by just making them into shoulder buttons before Microsoft did.

I have larger than average hands. It's probably just me, but I found the S controller to be more comfortable over extended periods of time. Ergonomics makes controllers more comfortable for me, not just size.

@facelessvixen: @justin258: Your conclusions are true. From many of the tech pundits I've seen, all of them land on the notion that HDR is nowhere near maturity on the PC side - in terms of both hardware and content support.

@mikewhy: I think I may feel the same way. When HDR is implemented well, it has a bigger impact on me than 4K does.

The reason why HDR is a major feature for me is due to its realization of getting closer to realistic lighting than bloom or anything else has. Software bloom usually creates an overblown effect for me in most games. Third party tricks to simulate HDR tries to process the entire video. I admire HDR because most of its impact is where the lights hit in a scene. Areas where sunbeams land are stark and appropriately saturated with brightness. While everything else in the image retains its original contrast, with only subtle hints of lighting occlusion upon it.

The HDR in the Last of Us Remastered is my favorite example of HDR done well. The HDR effect is intense, but only in the few areas where the sun is directly bleaching out some of the scenery. The rest of the picture still remains vibrant and contrasty. The headlights of cars at night in Gran Turismo Sport is another good example of HDR done subtly, but very well.

In the end I value high framerate and response time over bells and whistles that are still too early to have hardware and game support. So I'll stick with a non-HDR monitor for the coming years.

Thanks all :)

Hey folks,

I'm about to buy a 27" (68.58 cm) 1440p 165hz monitor mostly for PC gaming. I also have a 4K TV with HDR, and I've enjoyed the few games and shows that have HDR. So I would like to have HDR in my gaming monitor as well.

But all the high-end monitors that fit my criteria are 4K. I value framerate more than I do resolution, and I don't see the current need for a monitor that goes above 60hz that's also 4K. A lot of modern games that I play won't be able to take advantage of the 144hz at native 4K.

So should I just buy a non-HDR monitor now with the specs I'm looking for, or wait and hope for a non-4K HDR monitor that fits my needs?

Darkest Dungeon

I prefer the uncapped framerate mode.

Yes, it does fluctuate quite often, but I get used to the fluctuations after a while, and they become predictable for them to no longer be jarring. I know I will get between 40-45 FPS during combat phases, and 50-60 during quiet, exploration moments. I've rarely had moments of 30 FPS dips, they happen infrequent enough for it not to become bothersome.

Framerate is an important gameplay necessity to me; it conveys visual information and provides visual feedback from my inputs. The more often I can get that information, the overall better my gameplay experience is. But again, it only helps when I can anticipate framerate fluctuations, and I can in most games on the framerate mode.

Waiting on gameplay of dinosaurs escaping and fucking shit up.