Jump to content

MageTank

Member
  • Content count

    5,069
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Awards


This user doesn't have any awards

About MageTank

  • Title
    Fully Stable
  • Birthday October 27

System

  • CPU
    Core i7 7700K overclocked to 5.2ghz (delidded and supplied by @done12many2)
  • Motherboard
    ASRock Z270 Taichi
  • RAM
    32GB (2x16GB) G Skill Ripjaws V 3200mhz C14 (Overclocked to 3600mhz C14-14-14-28-CR2)
  • GPU
    EVGA GTX 1080 Ti Hybrid FTW3
  • Case
    Cooler Master MasterCase Pro 5
  • Storage
    Samsung 850 Evo M.2 500GB
  • PSU
    EVGA 650W Supernova G2
  • Display(s)
    Dell S2417DG 165hz G-Sync TN
  • Cooling
    EVGA CLC 280 AIO
  • Keyboard
    Logitech G810 Orion Spectrum
  • Mouse
    Logitech G403
  • Sound
    Sennheiser Game One
  • Operating System
    Windows 10

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    United States, Ohio
  • Interests
    Gaming, Computer Hardware
  • Occupation
    Slim Jim Enthusiast

Contact Methods

  • Battle.net
    MageTank#11790

Recent Profile Visitors

5,617 profile views
  1. Which GTX 1080 Ti?

    Get the FTW3, flash the secondary vBIOS with the Strix XOC bios, and profit? Get the performance AND the warranty, lol.
  2. Which GTX 1080 Ti?

    I'll say this: I failed to put liquid metal on my 1080 Ti (took it apart, realized my syringe was 100% empty, I am dumb) went to put it back together, and the AIO tubes would not fit back properly, so I dremeled the shroud to make them fit (frustration got the better of me). Well, unbeknownst to me, the backplate tombstoned a capacitor when I went to put it back together (physical damage caused by me) and EVGA not only paid for RMA shipping, they sent me a brand new unit. Mostly because the model of GPU I had literally just came out, and they didn't have any used/refurbs on hand to send me a used card. They even registered the warranty for me, allowed my original warranty to continue on (I was 2 months in on my warranty when I broke it) and offered to extend it by 2 years for $15 if I wanted to. That's premium customer service if you ask me. I respect manufacturers that are actively helping their customers. Having never heard of your brand before, I was hesitant about buying the Vivo VO7 because of it, but my little brother loves the case, and it has a ton of airflow for the money. Keep it up
  3. It's hard for me to believe in that when I see my nieces and nephews treat what the industry is currently doing as completely normal. They think nothing of it, and will gladly ask for money so that they can progress in games. "Can I have $5 to beat this level?". Makes me sick to think about it. Part of me feels the next generation of gamers won't really know what it was like before this garbage came to be, and seeing no alternative, they are likely to just accept it. Micro-transactions won't be going anywhere anytime soon, nor will the concept of releasing partially finished games, locking the rest of it behind DLC paywalls. I am certain DRM is going to evolve for the worse as well, and the industry will continue down this path for as long as their consumers allow it. I certainly hope that you are right, and that what we are seeing now is just a phase, but I certainly won't be holding my breath for change.
  4. Then I apologize for misreading your message, I certainly agree with what you've said just now. It's ironic in a sense that pirates and companies are both equally naive enough to think their ends justify the means. "I don't like this company, so if I don't pay for their product, I am not supporting them in any way"- Pirates "We have to use this spyware level of DRM on our products to protect them from being stolen, or else we won't be able to afford working on that that new DLC you want"- Companies The irony being, piracy allows companies to use pirates as an excuse for DRM, regardless of whether or not it's true, and the pirates still get to consume the products of the company without any drawbacks, lol.
  5. You think making higher quality products is what it takes to stave off piracy? Why does that sound like complete nonsense to me? We have games that are of extremely high quality, still being pirated. Games that are not only high quality, but DRM free. The problem is not the quality of the product, the DRM tied to it, or even the companies at this point. We, the consumers, are the ones that enable this behavior by continuing to support the practices we despise by buying the product. The pirates share a similar level of blame, by taking the product by force, not only showing enough interest in the product to take it (letting the company know their product is worthy enough to be downloaded), but also justifying their continued use of DRM as a means of stopping piracy (regardless of whether or not that is their intended use for the DRM, it is the excuse they will use). We can point the fingers at the companies all we want, but at the end of the day, it's our fault for letting them get away with it.
  6. Legal customers complain about DRM, I've stated that several times in my posts, but legal customers are not pirates. You've stated on multiple occasions that DRM is the reason people pirate, which means pirates complain about DRM, right? Or is my thinking somehow far fetched? As for legal services that rivals piracy for a reasonable price... we have that. We have Steam, Origin, UPlay (ubisoftjoke.gif), GOG Galaxy, etc all offering convenience and each having periodical events for sales of their hosted titles. This is not enough to rival piracy, because "reasonable price" is entirely subjective, and others see these clients as nothing more than resource hogs that collect data from them, defeating the "convenience" part. Piracy at it's core is still an entitlement issue, not a pricing or convenience issue. No matter what you do, no matter how much it costs, how widely available you make the product, somebody somewhere will still feel entitled to get it for free, just because they can. I too am friends with many pirates. I've had this same debate with them for almost a decade now, and they still take a hard stance on the side of piracy. Their reasoning is "I am not giving $60 for something I may or may not like, without trying it first". Basically, the "free sample" argument. Now, I can say that most of them do end up buying a product if they like it, oddly enough due to the achievements that come with the game, which is why I mentioned several pages ago about bringing demos/trials back to help end this kind of piracy. That being said, there are still pirates in my group of friends that simply hate the industry, and want to reap the rewards of the industry without "rewarding their behavior". There are fallacies on both sides of the argument here, and I am not naive enough to see that my logic has holes in it, but it still remains true that piracy is not the answer for enacting change in this industry. If every paying customer adopted the pirate philosophy, the industry wouldn't be able to afford to pay those that produced the content we consume. Is it possible that the industry would get the hint if everyone pirated? Probably, but let's be real, these are the same people making the same foolish mistakes that we all mock them about. The same industry that, despite all of the backlash from their consumers, feel the consumers themselves are the ones that are out of touch. I feel the only way to get it through their heads, is to completely refrain from consuming the product on any level, that includes purchasing or pirating it. Once they realize people don't want the garbage product they are trying to push, they will understand that they have to change, and that they can no longer get away with it. If people still pirate it, it shows that interest in the product is still there, and that they should focus on "preventing the piracy" instead. I could be wrong about that last part, but I genuinely feel that's how it works. Perhaps now you people see why I have no faith in this industry getting better. You will always have your pirates, you will always have the die-hard fans bending over to the terrible practices of companies, and you will always have companies that justify their actions based on the previous two groups. Unless pirates and paying customers form some kind of pact to abstain from validating these products (via money or downloads), we cannot expect any change to come of it.
  7. This has nothing to do with what I said, but I appreciate you nonetheless, lol.
  8. I never said their reasons make sense, I simply stated what they claim the reasons are. "Netflix is screwing customers over!" Yeah, they are screwing them over for wanting to give them more payment methods and content by adhering to the agreements of the people they license the content from. That's totally anti-consumer. Also, the average consumer doesn't cry about piracy, it's the pirates that cry about the content having DRM/being priced in a way they do not agree with, because they have a strong sense of entitlement. The amount of consumers crusading against pirates is far less than the amount of pirates trying to "stick it to the man". The irony of you lumping me into a group you refer to as "those idiots", while you yourself lack the comprehension skills to understand that you do in fact have an option. You act as if piracy is the only answer, and that no alternative exists. Have you tried not taking the product from a company whose practices you disagree with? Have you asked your pirate friends to do the same? As I said before, if you refrain from buying it and from pirating it, the company can no longer blame the failure of their product on pirates, and instead have nobody to blame but themselves. The sad thing is, entitled people feel owed that content, so they will always take it, regardless of whether or not they agree with the company. That was an interesting read, and a lot of it would translate quite well to the context of video games, but I do believe it deviates slightly in regards to the "DRM doesn't exist to prevent piracy" aspect. While you can't really "prevent" piracy, DRM for games does exist to at least slow them down, or stop the more inept pirates from simply giving their friends a free copy of a game. That's not to say they don't use DRM to have an unrealistic level of control over their property, just that it's not their sole reason for doing so in the grand scheme of things. Most online games are exempt from needing DRM, as you can simply require an account along with an associated license key to play, but online games have another double-edged sword known as "anti-cheat", which often presents the same symptoms of DRM from a performance standpoint on the non-cheating customers. Games that are single player however, don't have the luxury of being able to verify whether or not you own the game, which is partially why companies went the Steam route, and started putting their games in a digital library. That still wasn't enough to stop people from cracking the games for standalone play, but it was decent enough to incentivize (why is chrome wanting to spell check this word) people to pay for legitimate copies for the convenience of having your games in a single library. Why am I bringing this up? Well, a lot of pirates claim they pirate due to products being inaccessible, or that they lack convenience. Even if you make the product accessible, people will complain about something to justify piracy again. The #1 issue with piracy as a whole, is not DRM, or even the availability of products. If you make a product available worldwide on as many platforms as possible, and had zero DRM, would piracy cease to exist? I don't think so. Now, this is not an argument as to whether or not piracy impacts sales (again, don't really believe enough data exists on that subject to have an educated opinion on the subject), but rather an argument as to why the reasons people pirate, only further fuel the reasons they pirate (if that makes any sense). If you pirate because you dislike the prices, or hate the DRM, companies will only try to double down on the DRM to further stifle piracy. The TL:DR of this entire thread is: Pirates win, companies win, paying customers lose.
  9. Toddposting is my new favorite thing.
  10. Your perfectly functioning equipment can still watch netflix at a higher resolution, it's your browser that lacks the proper support. You can download the Netflix app and watch from within that to view content in 4k if need be. As for being unable to watch Netflix on your rooted phone, that is perfectly understandable. In the eyes of many companies, rooted devices are no longer secure, and companies fear that rooted devices can bypass any piracy countermeasures they normally take with their applications. Does it suck that you can't use your device the way you please, while having access to all of the apps you want to use? Sure, but blame the manufacturer of the phone/OS for making you want to root in the first place, not the creator of the app you are trying to use on the rooted device. In order for Netflix to be able to bill with Android Pay, they had to adhere to google's Widevine DRM to achieve that certification. Now, let's roleplay as the company for one second. Would you rather: A. Give your paying customers an alternative paying method (via their mobile bill) or, B. Allow rooted, potentially unsecured devices to utilize your application Doesn't seem like a difficult decision to me. Sounds like all of your problems listed above are better directed towards google, not Netflix. Tell them to update their browser, and dial back on Winevine and you should be fine. Also, another fun fact to digest. When Netflix signs contracts to stream content, part of that process involves taking measures to protect the content they stream. That means utilizing DRM, no matter how ineffective it may be, to adhere to those contracts. Would you let someone stream your work if they took zero measures into making sure it's not copied and redistributed? Great, now I am going to be accused of defending the evil, greedy companies again.
  11. I am not saying that is what developers do. I am saying that they can't just change their entire marketing strategy to "sell more at lower costs" without also investing more money into a larger infrastructure to handle the influx of customers. That is all I was trying to say. When you cut the cost of the product for the sake of making the product more accessible, you run the risk of not making enough money per product to pay the people that need to support said product. As weird as it is to say it, it becomes a "quantity over quality" issue. While you can still support more customers with the same amount of support agents, the quality of that support is going to diminish heavily as a result, due to how fast they need to turn over the customer to get to the next one. This leads to that aforementioned issue where your company earns a reputation of being a bad CS company. The game is plagued with bugs and has the worst de-syncing I have ever seen. This is not an example that works in your favor. Sure, the game is cheap and accessible, but the quality of the game is not that great either. Earning less money per unit sold, they now have more players than what their servers can handle. As a result, they use an extremely poor tickrate, their development cycle is slow (likely due to limited funding due to either spending the money on facilitating the players, or trying to hire enough people to support the players from a technical perspective) and they now have to spend money to retain these players in order to profit off in-game sales or spend the funds on their next product to avoid stagnation. This is why companies try to get the most possible profit per item sold, rather than trying to sell as many items as they can, for whatever price they can get. Getting more money per customer means they can allocate those funds to support the customers that do buy the product, while also working to produce content for the product in the future. I should also clarify that I am not supporting the price gouging tactics in the modern gaming industry, but simply trying to point out why they market and price their products the way that they do. I wish more companies adopted CDPR's philosophy of releasing full games, and then releasing legitimate expansions as DLC, and not just releasing a glorified demo, with the rest of the game being basically an entirely different title (looking at you, Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes).
  12. That's super easy. The more products you sale, the more products you have to support. Customer support is not free, you have to pay employees to handle that. It's not insane to assume that you need more employees to support more customers, is it? Not only that, but you also have to host servers large enough to handle more players (in the case of online games) right? Since this is a digital good, you need download servers capable of handling the higher traffic (if you are hosting the download, and not doing so through something like Steam), right? So unless you live in a world where all of that is free, or somehow shares the same cost regardless of how many people buy the product, it's extremely safe to say the more you sell, the more it costs to support, right? I have no problem with your logic of making games more accessible by lowering the prices. As a gamer and as a consumer in general, I love paying less. My only problem is that you are insinuating that selling more products for less money, is somehow the same in terms of profit, as selling less products for more money. That simply isn't true. Now that you mention it... yeah, it's exactly like that, lol.
  13. We basically got rid of cable, switched to Netflix (parents account), Hulu (brothers account), Youtube Red (other brother) and Crunchyroll (don't judge me). We were able to get quite a bit of content at a much cheaper price, and no commercials/ads to deal with for the most part. I was looking into Youtube TV after @done12many2 brought it up to me, but it's not available in my area yet. I've also looked into that Sling TV, but am still on the fence as to whether or not it's worth it. One thing is for certain, cable is no longer worth it at the price TWC/Spectrum was charging. I was paying over $250 a month for 60Mbps internet, cable + HBO, and a phone line I never used. Was able to cut that in half, nearly double my speed up to 100Mbps, and end up with more shows I actually felt like watching. I genuinely feel cable is going to go the way of the dodo. How do I justify DRM? I don't, at all, lol. Companies do it because they see "customers" differently than we do. They see any pirated copy as a potential sale, because you were interested in the product enough to actively go out and download it. As I have said a dozen times, nobody here agrees with the DRM these companies use. I myself have mentioned several possible solutions to the common reasons people pirate, but I do not expect the industry to change to enact those solutions. I fear the paying customer is always going to get the short end of the stick here. What you say is absolutely correct, so I can't really argue against it (mostly because I agree with it). We are just out of solutions, as this fight will continue for as long as people try to pirate. Piracy seems to help companies far more than hurting them, as they use it as a justification for their intrusive DRM's, even if no evidence suggests their DRM's are effective. I wasn't being literal, I was simply suggesting that selling more at a lower price, and selling less at a higher price, are not the same in terms of profit. It was a pretty simple point, lol.
  14. Yeah, I was kinda irked that the UK Netflix had a show I really wanted to watch, but the US Netflix didn't have the licensing deal for it. Luckily, Hulu had it as well, and my brother has a Hulu family account, lol.
  15. You completely ignored my post, didn't you? How does a post that says "1000 at $60, is not the same as 10000 at $6" translate into me saying people don't make choices based on budgets? I was certain I made my point extremely simple. 1000 x 60 and 10000 x 6 might equal the same number, but when we are talking profit, it's not the same. Again, if you sell 10,000 instead of 1,000, you have 9,000 more customers to support. This means providing them technical support for their product (troubleshooting, installation guides, download/game server costs, etc), all of which costs money. It has nothing to do with people budgeting money to buy games. In fact, if you would go back and read my own posts, you'd see me mention accessibility related to prices, it just does not matter in the context of your example. Also, worth is completely subjective. You cannot put an objective price on a subjective product. What may be worth $20 to me, might be worth $60 to someone else, and vice versa. Also, why are you trying to strawman me with "should they charge 1000 euro's a copy to have less trouble?" Again, that's not what I was saying at all. My point is, your logic behind $6 x 10,000 vs $60 x 1,000 was nonsense because the two are not equal in regards to profit for a company. Also, I like how Netflix is getting thrown around for both sides of the piracy argument, lol. One minute, Netflix is bad because DRM, next minute, they are a shining example of how a service should be.
×