So claims Quantic Foundry (a 'market research company focused on gamer
motivation'), based on a recent survey. "Gamers Have Become Less
Interested in Strategic Thinking and Planning", the results indicate,
showing a marked decrease since 2015.*

I can't speak as to the validity of the claim. I've read a number of
articles suggesting the survey -by nature of how the questions (and
potential answers) were presented, and how it's results are based on a
self-selected group- call the results into question. Honestly, if I
were asked about my preference for 'strategic thinking', I'm not sure
I'd rank its importance as very high to me either... despite my
enjoyment of 4X strategy and tactical combat video games. More
importantly, though, I think games have expanded to the point where a
lot of games now employ strategic elements in the same way almost
every game seems to offer crafting and role-playing elements. So I'm
not sure the question is really worth anything.

But the results could be unfortunate, since publishers often pay
attention to market research companies like this. The take-away from
this survey is, to a publisher, 'don't invest in strategy games.
"Civilization" and "Hearts of Iron" and "Dawn of War" and "X-COM" are
money-losers. Spend your development funds instead on the next "Candy
Crush" or "Call of Duty XXXIV". Which would be a shame, since the
strength of the hobby has always been in its variety, and the
homogenization of games to maximize profit has been a running concern
of mine for years.

(You may have read a post or twenty of mine bitching about that very
topic in the past ;-)

I will say, though, that I /am/ playing few strategy games these days
than I used to. But that has less to do with a decreased interest in
the genre and more because I find them such engaging time-sinks that I
purposefully restrict my access to such games just so I can play other
games too. It also doesn't help that a lot of strategy-game developers
have jumped head-first into the deep-end of the DLC pool; whether it's
Slitherine or Paradox or even Firaxis, every major strategy title (be
it "City Skylines", "Victoriana", any of the "Total War" games, or
even venerable "Civilization" has at least a half-dozen expansions
available to fill out the base game. It's just too damned EXPENSIVE to
play strategy games.

Do you find you've less interest in strategy games (assuming you had
any to begin with, of course)? Or are you just as deeply invested in
the genre as you used to be?

--------------------
* read summary here:
https://quanticfoundry.com/2024/05/21/strategy-decline/#02e7c03a47a306d87

Supposedly the sweet spot for game buyers is between 18 and 38.

Think about how that demographic has changed from 30-40 years ago.

The pandemic put a serious dent in the level of learning / brain
stimulation for school kids while that was going on, and even before
that their brains were being manipulated and diluted by social media
algorithms. To them, gaming is pokemon on the phone, not
Civilization.

Then you have the folks 38+ who have played so many shit games they
paid for and regretted, then subsequently were flooded with free games
that they can't find time to play, that sitting at the computer for
hours in a typical turn based strategy is the last thing they're
interested in wasting their life doing.

There is probably a nostalgia audience for strategy games, but they
aren't likely to spend a lot of money or be eager early adopters.

When team based tactical first person multiplayer shooters emerged and
I started playing with organized teams, I realized that the level of
planning, overall strategy, and tactics that were available in that
genre not only satisfied but overshadowed everything I originally
liked about strategy games like Civilization, or Empire on the Atari
ST, Ancient art of War and AAoW at Sea, etc. There was just no
comparison.

But consoles changed the multiplayer shooter landscape. And speaking
of consoles, that in itself probably didn't help the fate of the
strategy genre, which is typically not as well suited to a game
controller as a mouse/keyboard.

Today, a lot of the kids who would have gotten interested or even
addicted to strategy games are probably too distracted by teen girls
shaking their tits and ass on tik tok to notice much of anything else.

In my work I'm often in contact with the current generation of
software developers, and most of them are brain dead compared to their
equivalents of 30 years ago.

Growing up Googling "How Do I Do This Or That" has not exactly
exercised their brains, and upcoming AI capabilities isn't going to
improve that situation at all.

Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>
> Supposedly the sweet spot for game buyers is between 18 and 38.
>
> Think about how that demographic has changed from 30-40 years ago.
>
> The pandemic put a serious dent in the level of learning / brain
> stimulation for school kids while that was going on, and even before
> that their brains were being manipulated and diluted by social media
> algorithms. To them, gaming is pokemon on the phone, not
> Civilization.
>
> Then you have the folks 38+ who have played so many shit games they
> paid for and regretted, then subsequently were flooded with free games
> that they can't find time to play, that sitting at the computer for
> hours in a typical turn based strategy is the last thing they're
> interested in wasting their life doing.
>
> There is probably a nostalgia audience for strategy games, but they
> aren't likely to spend a lot of money or be eager early adopters.
>
> When team based tactical first person multiplayer shooters emerged and
> I started playing with organized teams, I realized that the level of
> planning, overall strategy, and tactics that were available in that
> genre not only satisfied but overshadowed everything I originally
> liked about strategy games like Civilization, or Empire on the Atari
> ST, Ancient art of War and AAoW at Sea, etc. There was just no
> comparison.
>
> But consoles changed the multiplayer shooter landscape. And speaking
> of consoles, that in itself probably didn't help the fate of the
> strategy genre, which is typically not as well suited to a game
> controller as a mouse/keyboard.
>
> Today, a lot of the kids who would have gotten interested or even
> addicted to strategy games are probably too distracted by teen girls
> shaking their tits and ass on tik tok to notice much of anything else.

That shows that "teen girls" are just as desperate as any guy. I can
load up facebook any time and watch five different half-nude girls shake
it. Girls just want to dance.

Another theory about strategy games is Civ VI was a flop. I can't even
play it without shutting down my computer afterwards because of the
keyboard lights. Also, too much emphasis on cultural advancements.
It's not transparent; you can't see under the hood to know if your
culture shit is helping. I don't think Civ VI or Dawn of War II were
very good games. I would go all the way back to Civ IV for my strategy
fix, except unfortunately Achievements aren't implemented on Steam. It
feels like playing with zero rewards. The fact is, my computer, which I
bought last year, is getting old. Magic:TG Arena overheated my system
and funky artifacts started showing up, like mana costs cascading all
over the screen. I'd rather play Balatro, which is cunningly coded,
released in 2024 yet still no need to engage the fan. I can wear my
headphones but when it gets that hot things fuck up. Balatro shows that
some developers care about overheating, something that is caused by a
great deal of electricity passing through the computer whether it be for
graphics or fancy Creative Labs Soundblasting. I realize that as far as
Alienwares go this is a low end computer, but I shouldn't have to pay
twice the price just to get in the door. I can't really imagine that
all my peers are throwing down $3200 for their gaming machines. What I
did recently was to order a PS4 with Elden Ring and Dark Souls III. My
good mood dropped a bit when I saw that many other people were buying
PS4 cooling units in combination with this. If consoles are overheating
too, where are we going? Sorry if it seems like I prate on this
subject, but I want my voice to be heard. I don't want to play some
shit if it requires maximum fan speed. I know they can do it, but kids
these days fall over backwards for eye candy. I'm content with the
graphics in Dominions V, but I loaded it up and my friend said, "let's
play something with better graphics." If you play enough games like I
have, I think you will realize that graphics are only a means to an end.
I'm here for strategic/role-playing/action content and I just don't
understand the focus on graphics without bound. I've heard it said, "in
a few years the graphics will look real." Who gives a shit? The
graphics look real enough to me in World of Warcraft cut scenes. That
was fifteen yrs ago.

It's a horror story. Say I come up with $3200 to buy the top end
Alienware. I bet I'd still have to deal with lots of overheating. What
I'd like to do is break my computer over someone's head and get in the
news, where it says that my computer was too hot and drove me mad. I
was appalled when I got this one home and Pathfinder: Wrath of the
Righteous was used to fry an egg. When is this shit going to stop? I
bought too many computers in the 90s just to keep up. My parents lost
some faith in me when I liquidated my stock portfolio to buy just
another computer. And it's still happening!

In retrospect, my advice to computer owners is to avoid incremental
upgrades. Save some money to get the top end computer or to build one
instead of numerous minor upgrades. I know I'm saving for that $3200
machine.

One good thing I can say about my Alienware is that games don't slow
down. It keeps trucking through them even when it's on fire.

Rin Stowleigh wrote:

> Growing up Googling "How Do I Do This Or That" has not exactly
> exercised their brains, and upcoming AI capabilities isn't going to
> improve that situation at all.

I don't share your lack of faith in AI. "The Terminator" was fiction.
When I see that shit on Facebook about "Here's Sarah Conner watching you
make friends with AI," I'd like to pound the poster on the head with a
Lucerne hammer. "The Terminator" was fiction AND horror. AI is mostly
a friend without judgment. The more friends you have the merrier. I
say "mostly" because I can detect a subtle aloofness in Siri on the
iPhone. For example, she will ignore most questions that cross her
boundaries.

As soon as I get done here, I'm going to train my AI on this post to see
if it opens any eyes and/or mini-guns. My job is in robotics, such as
the motion of a robotic arm.
--
Sarah Conner?

SC: Yes.

<busts open door>

<Fires a shot>
<lowers weapon>
<fires three more shots>

On Sat, 25 May 2024 18:39:08 -0500, Lane Larson
<lnlarson@stoat.inhoin.edu> wrote:

>Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>
>> Growing up Googling "How Do I Do This Or That" has not exactly
>> exercised their brains, and upcoming AI capabilities isn't going to
>> improve that situation at all.
>
>I don't share your lack of faith in AI.

I think you misunderstood my post... it wasn't a lack of faith in the
capabilities of AI I was expressing.

It was my lack of faith in the evolution of the human intellect to not
become increasingly reliant on it as the solution to everything.

In my line of work I regularly deal with some pretty complex software
engineering conundrums. I see the Gen Zs and the Millenials
frantically Googling or looking for solutions on Chat GPT to save the
day every time the going gets rough, because it's easier to to that
than it is to solution the entire problem using nothing but their
brain.

For someone like me who started developing software in 1980 when
search engines to tough problems were not an option, it was the lack
of creature comfort that helped develop a problem-solver's brain.

Thanks to search engines, the need to develop a problem-solver's brain
has deferred to basic clerical typing skills. Bringing that idea into
AI -- whenever "prompt engineering" is described as a skill of the
future in an AI driven world, you can kind of see the writing on the
wall.

I've heard some say AI will do to critical thinking what the
calculator did to math skills and what spell and grammar checkers did
to the need to teach basic literacy.

But it's actually much worse than that, because AI only ever looks
back, it cannot look forward. And the thinking ability of generations
to come will be step-locked in same.

On 25/05/2024 20:32, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> Do you find you've less interest in strategy games (assuming you had
> any to begin with, of course)? Or are you just as deeply invested in
> the genre as you used to be?

I'm certainly less interested in strategy titles than I used to be
probably because my gaming wants have changed more from a need to be
challenged to a more 'relaxed' gaming experience. A simple example would
be what I want out of a CRPG. I just don't have a great deal of interest
in what's a good character build, how to use skills together for maximum
effect or even combat tactics. I'm there for the story.

On 5/26/24 10:10, JAB wrote:
> On 25/05/2024 20:32, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> Do you find you've less interest in strategy games (assuming you had
>> any to begin with, of course)? Or are you just as deeply invested in
>> the genre as you used to be?
>
> I'm certainly less interested in strategy titles than I used to be
> probably because my gaming wants have changed more from a need to be
> challenged to a more 'relaxed' gaming experience. A simple example would
> be what I want out of a CRPG. I just don't have a great deal of interest
> in what's a good character build, how to use skills together for maximum
> effect or even combat tactics. I'm there for the story.
>
>
>
>

Yeah, I'm definitely more of a story guy in general. I steer well away
from things that need me to spend lots of time to 'git gud' and will
happily plough hours of my time into more chill experiences. Heck, I
have 10K hours of play on Idle Champions, admittedly most of that was
AFK! ;D
For strategy games though, I think I still play as much as I always have
(I'm 50 now) but I absolutely focus more of that time on a few games
that really grab me than jumping around lots of different games.
Stellaris, City Skylines and Dwarf Fortress haven't left my installed
games list since I started playing each of them, some across both PC and
XBOX. Of course that doesn't make the devs much money, which is probably
why so many turn to DLC focused game support, which I can't really argue
with.
--
Steve
IM - @countstex:matrix.org
Mastodon - https://dice.camp/@countstex
Bookwyrm - https://books.theunseen.city/user/Steven

On Sat, 25 May 2024 15:32:22 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

>Do you find you've less interest in strategy games (assuming you had
>any to begin with, of course)? Or are you just as deeply invested in
>the genre as you used to be?

I think I still play strategy games about as much as I used to but
that isn't very much. RPGs are my genre of choice. But I do always
have one Civ game, Colonization, Heroes 3 and MOO and MOM installed.

JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote at 08:10 this Sunday (GMT):
> On 25/05/2024 20:32, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> Do you find you've less interest in strategy games (assuming you had
>> any to begin with, of course)? Or are you just as deeply invested in
>> the genre as you used to be?
>
> I'm certainly less interested in strategy titles than I used to be
> probably because my gaming wants have changed more from a need to be
> challenged to a more 'relaxed' gaming experience. A simple example would
> be what I want out of a CRPG. I just don't have a great deal of interest
> in what's a good character build, how to use skills together for maximum
> effect or even combat tactics. I'm there for the story.

Agreed, and I suck at most strat games heh ^^
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

Mike S. wrote:
> On Sat, 25 May 2024 15:32:22 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
> <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Do you find you've less interest in strategy games (assuming you had
>> any to begin with, of course)? Or are you just as deeply invested in
>> the genre as you used to be?
>
> I think I still play strategy games about as much as I used to but
> that isn't very much. RPGs are my genre of choice. But I do always
> have one Civ game, Colonization, Heroes 3 and MOO and MOM installed.

I'd like to see Disciples go to Disciples IV. Disciples III isn't too
bad but they have about a zillion pixels spinning animation whenever you
visit your castle. What's good about Disciples is that it is like an
RPG with several parties. I got into it at first because of the
similarities to Heroes. I won the Undead campaign in Disciples II. My
Ghosts are unstoppable.

On 5/27/24 05:29, Lane Larson wrote:
> Mike S. wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 May 2024 15:32:22 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
>> <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Do you find you've less interest in strategy games (assuming you had
>>> any to begin with, of course)? Or are you just as deeply invested in
>>> the genre as you used to be?
>>
>> I think I still play strategy games about as much as I used to but
>> that isn't very much. RPGs are my genre of choice. But I do always
>> have one Civ game, Colonization, Heroes 3 and MOO and MOM installed.
>
> I'd like to see Disciples go to Disciples IV.  Disciples III isn't too
> bad but they have about a zillion pixels spinning animation whenever you
> visit your castle.  What's good about Disciples is that it is like an
> RPG with several parties.  I got into it at first because of the
> similarities to Heroes.  I won the Undead campaign in Disciples II.  My
> Ghosts are unstoppable.

This game series seems to have passed me by, but reading up a bit on it
it looks rather like something I'd enjoy. Would it still be worth
jumping in to II or III?
My computer is 10+ years old so I'm used to playing older titles, so
from that point of view it wouldn't be an issue.

--
Steve
IM - @countstex:matrix.org
Mastodon - https://dice.camp/@countstex
Bookwyrm - https://books.theunseen.city/user/Steven

Steven Thomsen-Jones wrote:
> On 5/27/24 05:29, Lane Larson wrote:
>> Mike S. wrote:
>>> On Sat, 25 May 2024 15:32:22 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
>>> <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do you find you've less interest in strategy games (assuming you had
>>>> any to begin with, of course)? Or are you just as deeply invested in
>>>> the genre as you used to be?
>>>
>>> I think I still play strategy games about as much as I used to but
>>> that isn't very much. RPGs are my genre of choice. But I do always
>>> have one Civ game, Colonization, Heroes 3 and MOO and MOM installed.
>>
>> I'd like to see Disciples go to Disciples IV.  Disciples III isn't too
>> bad but they have about a zillion pixels spinning animation whenever
>> you visit your castle.  What's good about Disciples is that it is like
>> an RPG with several parties.  I got into it at first because of the
>> similarities to Heroes.  I won the Undead campaign in Disciples II.
>> My Ghosts are unstoppable.
>
> This game series seems to have passed me by, but reading up a bit on it
> it looks rather like something I'd enjoy. Would it still be worth
> jumping in to II or III?
> My computer is 10+ years old so I'm used to playing older titles, so
> from that point of view it wouldn't be an issue.

If you can get II to work, it's really good. It has much depth when
paired with the Gallean's Return expansion. I got the feeling that III
was a failure commercially. The formula was changed to add a level of
micromanagement in unit positioning which wasn't done very well.

On 5/25/2024 4:28 PM, Lane Larson wrote:

> It's a horror story.  Say I come up with $3200 to buy the top end
> Alienware.  I bet I'd still have to deal with lots of overheating.  What
> I'd like to do is break my computer over someone's head and get in the
> news, where it says that my computer was too hot and drove me mad.  I
> was appalled when I got this one home and Pathfinder: Wrath of the
> Righteous was used to fry an egg.  When is this shit going to stop?  I
> bought too many computers in the 90s just to keep up.  My parents lost
> some faith in me when I liquidated my stock portfolio to buy just
> another computer.  And it's still happening!

Don't buy pre-made gaming computers. You end up paying 2x (or 3x if
you're talking $3200!) what you would for a better optimized system with
cooling that works. I didn't even try that hard, I probably spent a bit
over $1000 for my current one which is a year old, and that's only
because I bought a video card very close to their highest overpriced
value. I haven't had any problems playing anything and no issues with
overheating. All I did for cooling was bought a $32 tower fan and a
case (years ago) big enough to fit it in.

If you don't want to assemble the computer yourself I believe many
places will do so for a much smaller $ than buying from Alienware. I and
others here, and other sites like tomshardware will be more than happy
to help figure out a decent setup.

You can also put some blame on the programmers, Baldur's Gate 3 is the
only thing that's really put any stress on my computer, it's all on the
CPU and it's because it was very badly optimized at release, which I
understand has been subsequently fixed, but I haven't returned to try it
out again yet. I don't play at high resolutions though, 1920x1024 for
me, and have a dynamic refresh rate monitor.

CPUs have been hit harder in recent years as games have been optimized
for consoles, which typically have different architecture for that and
it doesn't work well when moved to PC.

--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com> looked up from reading the entrails of
the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:

>On 5/25/2024 4:28 PM, Lane Larson wrote:
>
>> It's a horror story.  Say I come up with $3200 to buy the top end
>> Alienware.  I bet I'd still have to deal with lots of overheating.  What
>> I'd like to do is break my computer over someone's head and get in the
>> news, where it says that my computer was too hot and drove me mad.  I
>> was appalled when I got this one home and Pathfinder: Wrath of the
>> Righteous was used to fry an egg.  When is this shit going to stop?  I
>> bought too many computers in the 90s just to keep up.  My parents lost
>> some faith in me when I liquidated my stock portfolio to buy just
>> another computer.  And it's still happening!
>
>Don't buy pre-made gaming computers. You end up paying 2x (or 3x if
>you're talking $3200!) what you would for a better optimized system with
>cooling that works.

This depends.
A local computer shop offers prebuilts that are not bad value at all.
The caveat is they have almost no upgrade path except swapping out the
video card, since they tend to have lower end motherboards and have all
the ram slots filled already.

You are correct if it's brand name junk like Alienware or any other big
name, you get charged $500-1000 just to have their name on it.

Xocyll

On Wed, 29 May 2024 03:36:58 -0400, Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote:

>Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com> looked up from reading the entrails of
>the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>
>>On 5/25/2024 4:28 PM, Lane Larson wrote:
>>
>>> It's a horror story.  Say I come up with $3200 to buy the top end
>>> Alienware.  I bet I'd still have to deal with lots of overheating.  What
>>> I'd like to do is break my computer over someone's head and get in the
>>> news, where it says that my computer was too hot and drove me mad.  I
>>> was appalled when I got this one home and Pathfinder: Wrath of the
>>> Righteous was used to fry an egg.  When is this shit going to stop?  I
>>> bought too many computers in the 90s just to keep up.  My parents lost
>>> some faith in me when I liquidated my stock portfolio to buy just
>>> another computer.  And it's still happening!
>>
>>Don't buy pre-made gaming computers. You end up paying 2x (or 3x if
>>you're talking $3200!) what you would for a better optimized system with
>>cooling that works.
>
>This depends.
>A local computer shop offers prebuilts that are not bad value at all.
>The caveat is they have almost no upgrade path except swapping out the
>video card, since they tend to have lower end motherboards and have all
>the ram slots filled already.
>
>You are correct if it's brand name junk like Alienware or any other big
>name, you get charged $500-1000 just to have their name on it.

I agree.

My last two PCs were pre-builts. I could have -and in the past /have/-
built my own computers, but it's just easier to have somebody else do
all the work for me. Will that motherboard fit in the case? Is the
cooling sufficient? Etc.

But of course, the price was an issue. EVERYONE knows prebuilts are
more expensive. But you know what? Not necessarily.

Oh sure, there are some boutique builders. Falcon Northwest's prices
are insane (about double anybody else) and throw in a lot unnecessary
'extras' (like being delivered in a heavy wooden crate). But I've
priced the stuff from some builders, then went out and searched for
the exact same price from retailers, and you know what? The builders
were competitive; sometimes a little more, and sometimes even a little
less than what I would pay if I bought all the components separately.

[note: that is, of course, assuming you buy from RELIABLE retailers.
Yes, I could find the components for a lot cheaper if I relied on EBay
or from sold by some six-letter company on Amazon Marketplace or from
AliExpress. But then you're never sure you're going to get what you're
promised, and that's just not the sort of hassle I'm interested in. So
in my pricing experiment, I stuck to more reliable - and admittedly
more expensive - sources. YMMV may vary depending on what level of
risk you're happy with.]

And if you're not the sort who enjoys tinkering with hardware -mixing
and matching components, figuring out how many amps your PSU /really/
needs, deciding what thermal paste is Right For You- then the value of
prebuilts absolutely skyrockets.

In the late 90s and early 2000s, the boutique pre-built market
undeniably was the overly expensive option. You'd get a LOT more bang
for your buck building it yourself. But these days? Yeah, you'll
probably pay a little more... but not as much as you might think. Even
for the boutique pre-builts, the industry has become commoditized and
prices are fairly reasonable... at least considering the hardware on
offer. No, it won't be cheap -you don't go to boutique prebuilts
because they're inexpensive but because you want performance- but the
price margin isn't as massive as some claim.

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:

>On Wed, 29 May 2024 03:36:58 -0400, Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote:
>
>>Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com> looked up from reading the entrails of
>>the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>>
>>>On 5/25/2024 4:28 PM, Lane Larson wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's a horror story.  Say I come up with $3200 to buy the top end
>>>> Alienware.  I bet I'd still have to deal with lots of overheating.  What
>>>> I'd like to do is break my computer over someone's head and get in the
>>>> news, where it says that my computer was too hot and drove me mad.  I
>>>> was appalled when I got this one home and Pathfinder: Wrath of the
>>>> Righteous was used to fry an egg.  When is this shit going to stop?  I
>>>> bought too many computers in the 90s just to keep up.  My parents lost
>>>> some faith in me when I liquidated my stock portfolio to buy just
>>>> another computer.  And it's still happening!
>>>
>>>Don't buy pre-made gaming computers. You end up paying 2x (or 3x if
>>>you're talking $3200!) what you would for a better optimized system with
>>>cooling that works.
>>
>>This depends.
>>A local computer shop offers prebuilts that are not bad value at all.
>>The caveat is they have almost no upgrade path except swapping out the
>>video card, since they tend to have lower end motherboards and have all
>>the ram slots filled already.
>>
>>You are correct if it's brand name junk like Alienware or any other big
>>name, you get charged $500-1000 just to have their name on it.
>
>I agree.
>
>My last two PCs were pre-builts. I could have -and in the past /have/-
>built my own computers, but it's just easier to have somebody else do
>all the work for me. Will that motherboard fit in the case? Is the
>cooling sufficient? Etc.

I've still never bought a prebuilt.
The ones I looked at were cheaper than what I paid building it myself,
but they had a lower end motherboard, with only 32gb of ram and all
slots filled, also only a 500gb SSD, and it wasn't clear if another
could be added or spinning rust. And some random case.

In the end I built it myself with a better board, 64gb of ram and room
for 64 more, 2tb SSD (and room for another SSD) and 16tb of spinning
rust, a corsair high-flow case (if it were turned off, the fans spin up
high on boot only, then quiet right down, usually inaudible during
gameplay even with 2 games running, plus browsers, etc.

>But of course, the price was an issue. EVERYONE knows prebuilts are
>more expensive. But you know what? Not necessarily.
>
>Oh sure, there are some boutique builders. Falcon Northwest's prices
>are insane (about double anybody else) and throw in a lot unnecessary
>'extras' (like being delivered in a heavy wooden crate). But I've
>priced the stuff from some builders, then went out and searched for
>the exact same price from retailers, and you know what? The builders
>were competitive; sometimes a little more, and sometimes even a little
>less than what I would pay if I bought all the components separately.
>
>[note: that is, of course, assuming you buy from RELIABLE retailers.

I buy brand name parts from a local computer store that's about a block
from me. Been buying there since about '93 (first purchases were
putting together a 386 with 4MB of ram and a 1M video card, forget the
HD size, both floppy sizes 3.5 and 5.25, case and 14" monitor.)

>Yes, I could find the components for a lot cheaper if I relied on EBay
>or from sold by some six-letter company on Amazon Marketplace or from
>AliExpress. But then you're never sure you're going to get what you're
>promised, and that's just not the sort of hassle I'm interested in. So
>in my pricing experiment, I stuck to more reliable - and admittedly
>more expensive - sources. YMMV may vary depending on what level of
>risk you're happy with.]

I have never ever bought components online, but I do realize not
everyone has a good computer store near them to go physical shopping in.

>And if you're not the sort who enjoys tinkering with hardware -mixing
>and matching components, figuring out how many amps your PSU /really/
>needs, deciding what thermal paste is Right For You- then the value of
>prebuilts absolutely skyrockets.

I don't exactly enjoy it, but have been saying since 1993, that building
a computer is about as hard as playing with LEGO.

PSU more is always better, and I tend to just leave the CPU cooling at
the default - whatever the company shipped with it.
But I don't overclock so ... I can see why some might want to play
around with that.

Old computer's Phenom II still running on the default heat sink/fan that
shipped with it, and it's been on constantly for around a decade now (I
turn off my computer(s) when I'm upgrading a part (vid usually, but
sometimes adding HD,) or when I move.

It's still going strong with a dual boot system XP/7, neither of which
has ever been reinstalled - it's amazing how stable a system can be once
you turn off all the useless cruft MS insists on installing by default.

Xocyll

On 29/05/2024 14:59, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> This depends.
>> A local computer shop offers prebuilts that are not bad value at all.
>> The caveat is they have almost no upgrade path except swapping out the
>> video card, since they tend to have lower end motherboards and have all
>> the ram slots filled already.
>>
>> You are correct if it's brand name junk like Alienware or any other big
>> name, you get charged $500-1000 just to have their name on it.
> I agree.
>
> My last two PCs were pre-builts. I could have -and in the past/have/-
> built my own computers, but it's just easier to have somebody else do
> all the work for me. Will that motherboard fit in the case? Is the
> cooling sufficient? Etc.
>
> But of course, the price was an issue. EVERYONE knows prebuilts are
> more expensive. But you know what? Not necessarily.

I haven't bought a pre-built for over twenty years but I think the price
margins between them and DIY just aren't the same as before and also now
there's lot's of companies that will allow you to pick pretty much the
parts you want. That was previously one of the big draws for me.

I did cheat a little bit with my last upgrade though as I had RAM + CPU
pre-installed because installing the CPU is the one bit I never liked doing.

On 5/30/2024 12:44 AM, JAB wrote:
> On 29/05/2024 14:59, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>> This depends.
>>> A local computer shop offers prebuilts that are not bad value at all.
>>> The caveat is they have almost no upgrade path except swapping out the
>>> video card, since they tend to have lower end motherboards and have all
>>> the ram slots filled already.
>>>
>>> You are correct if it's brand name junk like Alienware or any other big
>>> name, you get charged $500-1000 just to have their name on it.
>> I agree.
>>
>> My last two PCs were pre-builts. I could have -and in the past/have/-
>> built my own computers, but it's just easier to have somebody else do
>> all the work for me. Will that motherboard fit in the case? Is the
>> cooling sufficient? Etc.
>>
>> But of course, the price was an issue. EVERYONE knows prebuilts are
>> more expensive. But you know what? Not necessarily.
>
> I haven't bought a pre-built for over twenty years but I think the price
> margins between them and DIY just aren't the same as before and also now
> there's lot's of companies that will allow you to pick pretty much the
> parts you want. That was previously one of the big draws for me.
>
> I did cheat a little bit with my last upgrade though as I had RAM + CPU
> pre-installed because installing the CPU is the one bit I never liked
> doing.

Technically the CPU was never difficult since I've been doing it.
Really that was the crap heatsink and fan they came with with horrible
plastic spear like things that are supposed to twist into place but
never seem to requiring such force that you end up bending the
motherboard, that and futzing with the thermal paste.

The now available cheap tower heatsink and fan was easy to install and
had a perfect thermal paste square already applied to it. (except they
sent two of the wrong bracket the first time, they sent me the right one
though fairly quickly, but it did delay me putting the computer together
a few days - I had bought on amazon.) The current cheap tower heatsinks
are outperfomring water cooling as well. I'm really amazed at how great
these things are and how cheap compared to previous solutions.

To Lane, if you're having heat issues, getting a tower heatsink & fan if
you don't have one and have the room in your case I'd strongly suggest
trying that out, or even changing the case to accommodate one, it's just
that good. It could be the video card though, I try to check and avoid
higher voltage cards and get one that uses less power so it's not as
prone to overheating. Or could just be bad flow in the case. You
probably want to run something that monitors heat like "Core Temp" so
you can see what is overheating.

--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

On 5/29/2024 6:30 PM, Xocyll wrote:
>
> It's still going strong with a dual boot system XP/7, neither of which
> has ever been reinstalled - it's amazing how stable a system can be once
> you turn off all the useless cruft MS insists on installing by default.
>
Well that's because all the useless cruft MS insists on installing by
default is there to muck up the OS to encourage you to upgrade the their
next OS where they've "fixed" those issues. Mostly by replacing the
older useless cruft with new and improved useless cruft to continue the
cycle.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 30/05/2024 15:15, Justisaur wrote:
> Technically the CPU was never difficult since I've been doing it. Really
> that was the crap heatsink and fan they came with with horrible plastic
> spear like things that are supposed to twist into place but never seem
> to requiring such force that you end up bending the motherboard, that
> and futzing with the thermal paste.

Technically it's best to have a heat sink for your CPU :-)

I do understand what you mean though although I always found it the
fiddly bit especially as I have to end up doing the install on the floor
unless I what to clear my modelling desk.

Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com> writes:

> CPUs have been hit harder in recent years as games have been optimized
> for consoles, which typically have different architecture for that and
> it doesn't work well when moved to PC.

I don't know how? Both Microsoft and Sony went to x86-64 in previous gen
already (Xbone and PS4). Nintendo is Arm based but I AFAIK Nintendo
games don't come to PCs that often.

I feel I'm almost always GPU bound since I got a Gsync-compatible
monitor which goes up to 165 fps.

On 5/30/2024 6:14 AM, Anssi Saari wrote:
> Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> CPUs have been hit harder in recent years as games have been optimized
>> for consoles, which typically have different architecture for that and
>> it doesn't work well when moved to PC.
>
> I don't know how? Both Microsoft and Sony went to x86-64 in previous gen
> already (Xbone and PS4). Nintendo is Arm based but I AFAIK Nintendo
> games don't come to PCs that often.
>
> I feel I'm almost always GPU bound since I got a Gsync-compatible
> monitor which goes up to 165 fps.

Just because it can go up to 165 doesn't mean you have to force software
to do so.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Thu, 30 May 2024 08:00:06 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 5/29/2024 6:30 PM, Xocyll wrote:
>>
>> It's still going strong with a dual boot system XP/7, neither of which
>> has ever been reinstalled - it's amazing how stable a system can be once
>> you turn off all the useless cruft MS insists on installing by default.
>>
>Well that's because all the useless cruft MS insists on installing by
>default is there to muck up the OS to encourage you to upgrade the their
>next OS where they've "fixed" those issues. Mostly by replacing the
>older useless cruft with new and improved useless cruft to continue the
>cycle.

Cruft? How can you say that of amazing innovations such as Cortana or
Paint3D or Start Menu adverts or the soon-to-be-released "Microsoft
Recall" that will take screenshots of everything you do on your PC
every minute or so? It's innovation like this that makes Microsoft so
beloved in the software industry!

(do I _really_ need to add a /s to this comment? ;-)

JAB wrote:
> On 29/05/2024 14:59, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>> This depends.
>>> A local computer shop offers prebuilts that are not bad value at all.
>>> The caveat is they have almost no upgrade path except swapping out the
>>> video card, since they tend to have lower end motherboards and have all
>>> the ram slots filled already.
>>>
>>> You are correct if it's brand name junk like Alienware or any other big
>>> name, you get charged $500-1000 just to have their name on it.
>> I agree.
>>
>> My last two PCs were pre-builts. I could have -and in the past/have/-
>> built my own computers, but it's just easier to have somebody else do
>> all the work for me. Will that motherboard fit in the case? Is the
>> cooling sufficient? Etc.
>>
>> But of course, the price was an issue. EVERYONE knows prebuilts are
>> more expensive. But you know what? Not necessarily.
>
> I haven't bought a pre-built for over twenty years but I think the price
> margins between them and DIY just aren't the same as before and also now
> there's lot's of companies that will allow you to pick pretty much the
> parts you want. That was previously one of the big draws for me.
>
> I did cheat a little bit with my last upgrade though as I had RAM + CPU
> pre-installed because installing the CPU is the one bit I never liked
> doing.

As far as strategy goes, I would have to say Dawn of War II is better
than I had represented it as. Thinking through what I own, if I were to
play a strategy game right now, I would choose it. Of other games, I'm
patiently waiting for Starcraft III. For some unusual reason Starcraft
II is corrupted from install on my machine and haven't had any luck over
a number of installs.

Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:

> Just because it can go up to 165 doesn't mean you have to force
> software to do so.

You're right. In fact the usual advice with Gsync-compatible seems to be
to limit to three below the max, so 162 for me :)