Aja on 1/10/2008 at 04:11

---

Also, I'm not convinced that the pirates are people who wouldnt' buy the game anyway. The thing I've noticed is that once these people realize they don't have to pay for games, suddenly those games lose all value, and it's only natural that the pirates wouldn't buy em. But if they never had the option to pirate in the first place, the games would certainly seem more valuable, and therefore more desirable.

CaptSyn on 1/10/2008 at 04:27

---

I don't game nearly as much as I used to, so I assumed onboard video would be fine, as it once was. Besides, my rig was a budget build, so a vidcard was not part of the immediate plan.

Yeah, maybe I could have done a little more research, but I didn't feel the need, as my original intention was to get an 8800GT a few months after my build was complete, but the prices at the time were way too high. I refuse to pay over $100 for any vidcard.

As it is, I'm happy with my cheap 8400GS. I don't need loads of eye candy in my games.

Most games these days seem to rely on nothing more than eye candy, which seriously pisses me off. I've been playing pc games for nearly 30 years and I've never seen such shit games look so good.

Back in the ms-dos days, games actually had story and substance. Most games don't these days. Now it's all flashy stuff, no story, and usually crap gameplay. Much like Las Vegas.

And many gamers seem to eat it up, like some sort of brainwashed hoard.

As for Nvidia and ATi onboard video, I never bothered looking at those options as I prefer Intel chipsets over any other. No particular reason really, it's just what I've always used. Old dog, new tricks sort of thing I guess.

Also, the early Nvidia chipsets were garbage so I haven't bothered looking into them further. I know they've been greatly improved though. Nearly every Nvidia mobo has SLI and no onboard video, and I'm not going to pay for a feature that I won't use (and let's face it, SLI sucks anyway), nor limit myself to a handful of choices.

As for ATi graphics, I prefer Nvidia over ATi any day. I wasn't impressed with my Radeon and ATi's consistent failure to produce quality drivers. It seemed that what they fixed in one Catalyst version, they tended to break again in the next.

Knights of the Old Republic 1 & 2 are perfect examples. There's a map in each with lots of grass. No matter what video settings you use, an ATi card simply couldn't handle it. Severe stuttering, unplayable framerates, even crashes were not just common, but impossible to avoid.

And no, it wasn't just my card. It was all ATi cards, according to the Catalyst changelog.

Maybe Nvidia has had similiar issues with particular games, but I'm not aware of them and they've never affected me.

*Where did the post I was responding to run off to? WTF?

CaptSyn on 1/10/2008 at 04:33

---

And why am I suddenly a "fuckwit"?

You are entitled to your opinion of course, but so am I. If you don't like it, you can ignore it.

CaptSyn on 1/10/2008 at 04:48

---

I may not be a business expert, but I do know that it all comes down to the bottom line, which is profit. Make a product that sells well enough, and you make money. It really is that simple.

If games were coded to run on the most common hardware, which is onboard video, almost entirely Intel based, all those n00bs who buy high end games and return them when they don't work, would actually keep them and buy more. This is good for business and it would expand the customer base bigtime.

FYI, I've been making a good living for many years building and maintaining computers, so I think I know a thing or two about them.

Intel GMA3100 does indeed exceed the capabilities of the Radeon 9600, especially on a rig with a Q6600 and 2 gigs dual channel ram. Do the research and see.

If my old mobo with the Radeon was still working, I'd show you screenshots of the features and benchmark results.

Koki on 1/10/2008 at 11:03

---

[citation needed]