New Nvidia Cards

[Dio]

It's completely mental (and even the companies promoting it know it - one of them already mocked up an Xbox Series X with lights inside to take the mick out of themselves) but it's incredibly cheap to do (you can buy 1000 SMD RGB LEDs for a few quid) and regarded as a differentiating point. It's the cupholder of the 21st century.

[gilesgoat]

It's completely mental (and even the companies promoting it know it - one of them already mocked up an Xbox Series X with lights inside to take the mick out of themselves) but it's incredibly cheap to do (you can buy 1000 SMD RGB LEDs for a few quid) and regarded as a differentiating point. It's the cupholder of the 21st century.

And yet I SWEAR if there's ONE custom mod I am VERY TEMPTED to do is to add LEDs WHERE THE CONNECTORS ARE and I've see NO CASE HAVING THAT !

Now .. Why ?

Ok .. imagine you are taking in/out "various connectors" under a desk and everything is dark and you can't see where goes in where ( not to mention the dreaded USB connectors ) and you are at 25 swearwords per minute ...

[Whiteball]

It's completely mental (and even the companies promoting it know it - one of them already mocked up an Xbox Series X with lights inside to take the mick out of themselves) but it's incredibly cheap to do (you can buy 1000 SMD RGB LEDs for a few quid) and regarded as a differentiating point. It's the cupholder of the 21st century.

And yet I SWEAR if there's ONE custom mod I am VERY TEMPTED to do is to add LEDs WHERE THE CONNECTORS ARE and I've see NO CASE HAVING THAT !

Now .. Why ?

Ok .. imagine you are taking in/out "various connectors" under a desk and everything is dark and you can't see where goes in where ( not to mention the dreaded USB connectors ) and you are at 25 swearwords per minute ...

I use an old (not sure if you can still get them) little light on the end of a flexible plastic covered piece of wire that plugs into a USB port for that. Works surprisingly well when fumbling about under the desk amongst the wires and you can bend and move it to point at what youre doing too.

[venusian]

Guilty

Building a new PC I noticed that the margin of lit parts over unlit was small given the overall cost and you can't really buy cases without windows atm.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/CxNTT38sJKJ9EZCf7

In my defence I didn't buy a discrete controller - the 5050 strip is driven by the mainboard and I hacked the cooler to control extra fans.

[gilesgoat]

They'll never beat this ...

[Dio]

Ok .. imagine you are taking in/out "various connectors" under a desk and everything is dark and you can't see where goes in where ( not to mention the dreaded USB connectors ) and you are at 25 swearwords per minute ...

Yes, good idea. The one I find amusing is that most boards, even cheaper ones, now have half a dozen LEDs for lighting, but you do pay more for the ones with debug lights (power good, regulators OK, various potential BIOS failures).

[KlaxonCow]

Well, now we get the parry from Microsoft.

According to Linus Tech Tips, the new X-Box is going to be $499 with an optical drive and only $299 for the disk-less "digital" version.

Has nVidia kicked off a chain reaction of aggressive pricing here?

Well, as speculated, nVidia was trying to shore up PC gaming and "take the market" before the consoles hit. So here's Microsoft counter-announcing that $299 price tag - for a November release, which ain't too far away - to undermine that little strategy.

(That's also quite the price difference for an optical drive. One wonders if Microsoft's strategy here is to knock a bit of the disk-less version, subsidised by adding a little to the disk-ful version, to promote "going all digital"? Or, hey, do fancy optical Blu-ray players just genuinely cost that much?)

Edit: Ah, I'm watching on a bit more of Linus's LAN show, and the disk-less version is also slightly lower spec'd. So it's actually a kind of "budget" version of the console, not just absent a disk player. But, presumably, all games will be capable of running on the "budget" version - or is Microsoft actually splitting their own market here? That's kind of counter to the whole point of consoles, really, isn't it? Presumably, they must have some "must run fine on the budget version" stipulation in their verification process, to ensure that game developers don't just aim for the higher-spec version and alienate the "budget" console owners?

Anyway, regardless, I'm a coder, so I'll always be #PCMasterRace forever, I'm afraid.

[Misfit]

Edit: Ah, I'm watching on a bit more of Linus's LAN show, and the disk-less version is also slightly lower spec'd. So it's actually a kind of "budget" version of the console, not just absent a disk player. But, presumably, all games will be capable of running on the "budget" version - or is Microsoft actually splitting their own market here? That's kind of counter to the whole point of consoles, really, isn't it? Presumably, they must have some "must run fine on the budget version" stipulation in their verification process, to ensure that game developers don't just aim for the higher-spec version and alienate the "budget" console owners?

I think the idea is it will target those with older TVs. I don't really see the need to upgrade my decent 1080p set that the consoles are on right now for example. (Although I'll still get an X). They're touting it will do 1440p and upscale to 4k. I guess the lower-res should allow similar performance with a lower spec.

£250 for next-gen gaming could win a lot of sales in these potentially tighter times?

Of course, the real killer is surely the subscription options, get an S for £21 per month and an X for £29 on a two-year deal including Gamepass, so a whole library on day one rather than having to pay £50+ on top for a new game.

[KlaxonCow]

Of course, the real killer is surely the subscription options, get an S for £21 per month and an X for £29 on a two-year deal including Gamepass, so a whole library on day one rather than having to pay £50+ on top for a new game.

Yes, when they got around to covering that bit, then it does seem like Microsoft are being "super genius level" with that new model.

Essentially, a "hire purchase" of the console implicit in signing up for the Gamepass for access to all those games. Bargain!

And even more clever in the current climate because many folks might well prefer paying in instalments, or kids getting a paper round (do those still exist? Well, some kind of "Summer job") to get the whole package in pocket-money-friendly instalments.

[Dio]

Consoles generally don't adjust price for spec, they adjust spec to price. Even since day 1, the machines have always been loss-leaders (Nintendo arguably excepted) with the money made on the games and accessories. Selling the base box at cost on day 1 is entirely acceptable and indeed to some extent expected. As yields improve and production costs lower, some money is made on later tranches, but they're never afraid to give up base hardware margin for more marketshare - it's provably more profitable than trying to make a profit there too.

It was even more obvious in the older days, where a 'soft' launch with high scarcity (=> percieved demand by the public) was only expected to ship a million units at most, and there they would be prepared to sell below cost if absolutely required. Nowadays the market demands hard launches with many millions of boxes available worldwide, so actually selling the hardware at a lost is rare / difficult / impossible.

[gilesgoat]

Consoles generally don't adjust price for spec, they adjust spec to price. Even since day 1, the machines have always been loss-leaders (Nintendo arguably excepted) with the money made on the games and accessories. Selling the base box at cost on day 1 is entirely acceptable and indeed to some extent expected. As yields improve and production costs lower, some money is made on later tranches, but they're never afraid to give up base hardware margin for more marketshare - it's provably more profitable than trying to make a profit there too.

It was even more obvious in the older days, where a 'soft' launch with high scarcity (=> percieved demand by the public) was only expected to ship a million units at most, and there they would be prepared to sell below cost if absolutely required. Nowadays the market demands hard launches with many millions of boxes available worldwide, so actually selling the hardware at a lost is rare / difficult / impossible.

Wasn't the "famous story" that "you had to buy at least 5 games before the console made an actual profit ?" .. and isn't that "one of the reasons" for subscription models and digital downloads ?

[Dio]

There's a lot of ways to run the numbers about what makes a profit and what doesn't. Hollywood accounting has been part of the gaming ecosystem for some years now (see also Apple and Google).

[gilesgoat]

There's a lot of ways to run the numbers about what makes a profit and what doesn't. Hollywood accounting has been part of the gaming ecosystem for some years now (see also Apple and Google).

It's still to me a TOTAL MYSTERY about "how companies that it's YEARS they are NON profitable" they are still alive/in business.

To me I reason "if I spent X and I collected Y and Y-X < 0 then I am fucked".

Because unless I get "soon" some more Z from somewhere ( theorectically my own sales ) I am soon going bust ( going into ever increasing debts I won't be able to repay ).

The problem is it seems to exist "some Z" that "keeps coming" from whatever reasons even if the company itself does not really make any profits with its own sales of its own products ?

Ok theorectically is a bit like the story "don't sell them the razor, sell them the blades ?" .. the razor is the console, the blades are the games/services/subscription associated with that ?

Certainly .. "if there are so many people willing to spend $$$$$$ on cosmetic add-ons for the game C" then it could be all worth, as long as "from somewhere" you get those $$$$$ you need to keep going.

[gilesgoat]

Consoles generally don't adjust price for spec, they adjust spec to price. Even since day 1, the machines have always been loss-leaders (Nintendo arguably excepted) with the money made on the games and accessories. Selling the base box at cost on day 1 is entirely acceptable and indeed to some extent expected. As yields improve and production costs lower, some money is made on later tranches, but they're never afraid to give up base hardware margin for more marketshare - it's provably more profitable than trying to make a profit there too.

It was even more obvious in the older days, where a 'soft' launch with high scarcity (=> percieved demand by the public) was only expected to ship a million units at most, and there they would be prepared to sell below cost if absolutely required. Nowadays the market demands hard launches with many millions of boxes available worldwide, so actually selling the hardware at a lost is rare / difficult / impossible.

What worries me *A LOT* in this "model" is "what is the perception of the 'real value' of the hw/hw developer".

TRUE.DAT "you have nothing of all that follow IF you DO NOT have a 'valid HW' to start with" .. so in that context "created by some weird market" having the HW sold at loss makes some sense as "if it would be costing more too little people would be buying it".

But worries me "makes some people think HW is almost worthless/easy/cheap to manufacture/develop" when reality is NO IT'S NOT ! AND IT WOULD NEVER BE UNLESS YOU BUY A FUCKLOAD OF 'OTHER SHIT Y'.

I fear this in turns, as it's already happened "thanks to some market strategy" ( Apple please FUCK OFF you and your iOS store things at 69p !!! ) makes also SW "seen like that", as well as developer/coders and if you think about it that's why we are at "subscription models/IAP/consumables/ads/etc." ..

I mean "SW sold at undercost levels" just as "a veichle" for something else, SW/SW development "underevaluated" as "makes stuff that by itself makes almost no profit" rather then being "a work of art".

This I suppose can create also "a new concept" (?) that "entertainement is something you have to pay forever", rather than buying/paying something "a figure X you pay once and you get what you get" from it becomes "a lifelong service" you have to pay for the whole duration of your whole life.

It's odd is it ?

Besides "speaking of Hollywood" I think they are really kicking the bucket - in terms of quality - since pretty long, maybe it's true as someone said ( H. knows ) "that there are only 4 stories that can be told" ..

Movies are .. "very mediocre" , in general, and no "we don't need other heroes" .. no thanks .. enough ..

Hollywood I really think reached a point "they don't know any more what to invent".

[merman]

There's a lot of ways to run the numbers about what makes a profit and what doesn't. Hollywood accounting has been part of the gaming ecosystem for some years now (see also Apple and Google).

It's still to me a TOTAL MYSTERY about "how companies that it's YEARS they are NON profitable" they are still alive/in business.

To me I reason "if I spent X and I collected Y and Y-X < 0 then I am fucked".

Because unless I get "soon" some more Z from somewhere ( theorectically my own sales ) I am soon going bust ( going into ever increasing debts I won't be able to repay ).

The problem is it seems to exist "some Z" that "keeps coming" from whatever reasons even if the company itself does not really make any profits with its own sales of its own products ?

Ok theorectically is a bit like the story "don't sell them the razor, sell them the blades ?" .. the razor is the console, the blades are the games/services/subscription associated with that ?

Certainly .. "if there are so many people willing to spend $$$$$$ on cosmetic add-ons for the game C" then it could be all worth, as long as "from somewhere" you get those $$$$$ you need to keep going.

You look at someone like Blitz Games (perhaps a bad example as they are gone, but still) and they had years of working on contracts - shitty licensed titles - to let them develop more personal/indie projects. They get to the next landmark, payment comes in and covers the bills.

Even Remedy have changed from being focussed on one project at a time to multiple teams.

I really worry how smaller teams are going to cope under the subscription model. It will be like Spotify, trying to survive on crumbs while the big stars get all the money. That's partly why Xbox swallowed up so many studios in the last eighteen months, so they have teams that can work on content/updates.