Jump to content

Wanaknow

Member
  • Posts

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Awards

This user doesn't have any awards

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Belgium
  • Occupation
    IT Project Lead

System

  • CPU
    Intel Core i7 6700K
  • Motherboard
    ASUS Maximus HERO VIII
  • RAM
    4x Hyper Furry X 16GB DDR4
  • GPU
    ASUS ROG STRIX GTX 1080 TI 11g
  • Case
    NZXT H700i Black
  • Storage
    2x Samsung 850 EVO 500 GB; 1x generic 1TB Hard disc
  • PSU
    Corsair CS650M
  • Display(s)
    1x Asus PG278QR; 2x Philips 242G5DJEB
  • Cooling
    NZXT Kraken 62x
  • Keyboard
    Razer Black Widow Chroma
  • Mouse
    Razer Naga Chroma
  • Sound
    Razer Soundbar & Bose QuietComfort 25
  • Operating System
    Windows 10 64bit

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Wanaknow's Achievements

  1. I believe he calculated with 1 game-free-day per week, that would reach about ~0.38$/h Still we are talking about 782.5 hours per game. The actual play time seems to be an average of 60h (just an assumption by looking at GameLengths.com and howlongtobeat.com) So if we calculate no season-passes, DLC, Micro transactions, ect. we would be talking about 1$/h (highly different depending on the game itself and "replayability")
  2. Interesting. are there any numbers on how many people are playing free-to-play actually for free? or what the average amount spent is per year?
  3. There is indeed a genuine discussion to be had here. But the study should be done by an appropriate and independent instance (maybe a university?). and maybe it is time to see what gamers want as an increased price? is microtransaction the answer? for developers it seems so but is this in the best interest of both parties? are we willing to pay more for additional DLC or would we rather pay more for a game with no or free DLC (witcher has don it)? In my opinion i would opt to pay more for a game to begin with, with no or at least minimal additional costs.
  4. now why would you try it with a tree stripper. that makes no sense
  5. no but you could still do it with a simple prospecting pan in a riverbed. actualy that would be more like CPU mining. what they used to do before they started using pickaxes/GPUs. the LTT way would be using a bunch of overly expensive pickaxes that are not the best for gold mining (maybe better for marble or somethng =p) and are realy exhausting to use. and have a few rgb lights.
  6. they do have the right tools for the job. their cards do mine don't they? you don't need the perfect tools for a job to do a job.
  7. I believe, correct me if i'm wrong, the question in the LTT video was more a general questing. Is mining profitable? Is gold mining profitable, not what tools are the best for the job. But rather the act of mining itself. If i spend time mining for gold, silver,.. will i get some actual profit? or will i just waste time and effort? Are these cryptocurrencies actually worth mining? and for the selection of the tools, yes, i believe they just took whatever they had available and suited their own preference.
  8. the NZXT x62 is supposed to be very good (and good-looking). noisy fans but you can always replace those. I have yet to try it myself as i'm waiting for my case to arrive where it will actually fit.
  9. this is quite good. some extensions are missing but this might be a good replacement for the memory hungry chrome.
×