• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Starfield

Comixbooks said:
I asked on Steam if someone would buy the game for me I got like 20 replies. Then got banned for 3 days on the forum said I didn't want to waste my money. Not sure why they banned me.
Click to expand...
You asked strangers to buy you a copy of the game? Wtf?
 
Comixbooks said:
I asked on Steam if someone would buy the game for me I got like 20 replies. Then got banned for 3 days on the forum said I didn't want to waste my money. Not sure why they banned me.
Click to expand...

you're working so you should be able to afford the game...
 
M76 said:
Isn't it the rumor that it won't have DLSS, at least on launch? I play at 3/4 4K. I doubt DF's analysis will focus on a 5 year old GPU.
Click to expand...

I think the DLSS thing is blown out of proportion.

If it needs scaling (and I hope it doesn't) it will have FSR which works on every GPU.

Yes, DLSS technically looks a little better, but unless you are screenshot ting and pixel-peeping that difference is negligible.
 
FearTheCow said:
Games are so inexpensive all considering that worrying about having to pay for them has never crossed my mind.

I almost want to buy a second premium edition for fun.
Click to expand...

At $70 it sets off my "ripoff" alarm. I have a difficult time seeing any game being worth more than $20-30.

I can afford it, but I am not going to be taken advantage of by the industry.

I wish more people stood up and refused to pay and thought the publishers a lesson.
 
Last edited:
Zarathustra[H] said:
I have a difficult time seeing any game being worth more than $20-30.
Click to expand...

Outside of indie games, no game has EVER charged that little, even back in the cartridge days. Your basically saying you only buy older titles on discount while posting about a new game charging a very standard industry price.

Sometimes your posts are well thought out, and other times their just off the wall ridiculous, this is the latter.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
I think the DLSS thing is blown out of proportion.

If it needs scaling (and I hope it doesn't) it will have FSR which works on every GPU.

Yes, DLSS technically looks a little better, but unless you are screenshot ting and pixel-peeping that difference is negligible.
Click to expand...
I have not tried FSR yet, but DLSS Balanced is already too much of an IQ loss to me, I was only able to live with DLSS Quality in any game I played with DLSS.
 
Aireoth said:
Outside of indie games, no game has EVER charged that little, even back in the cartridge days. Your basically saying you only buy older titles on discount while posting about a new game charging a very standard industry price.

Sometimes your posts are well thought out, and other times their just off the wall ridiculous, this is the latter.
Click to expand...

How is $70 the industry standard when this is the first time I've seen anyone charge that much for a game?

I've seen a handful at $59.99, but only recently, and I never bought any at that price.

At a launch price of $39.99-$49.99 (which is where I remember most titles I've ever bought at launch landing) I'd still be grumbling, but on occasion id buy one or two if it were a title I was really looking forward to. At $69.99 that just ain't happening.

But yeah, almost every title in my library I have bought on sale years after it came out. If a game is good today, it will be good in 5 years. There is no rush.

Don't be a pawn to the game studios because of your ADHD induced FOMO. It makes everything worse for everyone as it continues to tell them they should charge more and more.

And lets not forget the Gabe Newell rule when it comes to game pricing. You make more money the lower the price is.

Since - with digital distribution - there is practically no unit cost, the lower the set your pricing, the more money you make by upping the number of units sold.

In their experiments when they dropped the price by 40% they increased revenues by a factor of 40, or 4,000%.

Publishers keep prices high because they are stubborn and can't get physical unit pricing where there are unit costs out of their heads. It hurts both the publishers and the buyers.
 
Last edited:
Zarathustra[H] said:
At $70 it sets off my "ripoff" alarm. I have a difficult time seeing any game being worth more than $20-30.
Click to expand...
A game like starfield is a team 400+ people working 5-8 years by major title and will support it for a long time, that cost more than 200 millions to make.

If a small team 3 years game is worth $25, hard to see why this would be a rip off, they can affor to sell them this extremelly cheap because of the expectation of being extremelly mainstream and popular, the first 8 millions of full price copies not being that interesting of an return considering the risk, even if they would have no marketing cost.
 
dub77nj said:
I look at it like this, if I'm going to get a couple hundred hours of entertainment out of a game I'll pay 60-70 bucks for it. That's just me if you have a different view of why how and when you purchase something no worries from me.
Click to expand...
I've got over 1,000 hours in Ghost Recon Breakpoint, ($80? I think), 550 hours in Cyberpunk 2077, ($59.99) 3,000 hours in Destiny 2, (Tons of $39.99 expansions), countless hours in Star Wars: The Old Republic ($150 Collector's Edition), etc. I'm the same way. Value for me is determined by how much time I want to spend with a game. I do not shun a game because its full price or whatever. I'm more likely to take a chance on cheaper games, but if something interests me, I'll pay full price if I think the value is there for me.
 
dub77nj said:
I look at it like this, if I'm going to get a couple hundred hours of entertainment out of a game I'll pay 60-70 bucks for it. That's just me if you have a different view of why how and when you purchase something no worries from me.
Click to expand...
I actually went a little deeper and figured out my minimum is 2 hours per dollar. $60 game = 120 hours.
Otherwise I wait for sales.
 
LukeTbk said:
A game like starfield is a team 400+ people working 5-8 years by major title and will support it for a long time, that cost more than 200 millions to make.

If a small team 3 years game is worth $25, hard to see why this would be a rip off, they can affor to sell them this extremelly cheap because of the expectation of being extremelly mainstream and popular, the first 8 millions of full price copies not being that interesting of an return considering the risk, even if they would have no marketing cost.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Also, going from Fallout games, their open worlds actually have detail. If this was a copy/pasta game I would understand that logic. I'm thinking of things like the sports games which are copy/pastes with minimal changes each year.
 
$70 is very expensive specially when you consider there is absolutely no quality control in the industry.
Imagine being one of the suckers who bought redfall for seventy dollars.

$50 seems about right to me.

FOMO and hype drives a lot of gamers purchases I bet.
 
FearTheCow said:
There you go Flogger!
Click to expand...

Thanks a lot!

Untitled.jpg



I have not tried FSR yet, but DLSS Balanced is already too much of an IQ loss to me, I was only able to live with DLSS Quality in any game I played with DLSS.
Click to expand...

DLSS Quality is all I will use. Their newest videos of DLSS 3.5 shows some noteworthy improvements on things like fences in Alan Wake 2 and Cyberpunk, areas DLSS has always had problems. AMD dose have FSR 3 coming, but I don't think it will be in Starfield at release. And if it is, we are still not sure how it compares to Nvidia's DLSS 3.5 or DLSS frame gen. I assume it will be better than FSR 2, but I am doubting it reaches parity with Nvidia's latest iterations. So it would be disappointing if Starfield doesn't feature it.
 
Last edited:
Flogger23m said:
Thanks a lot!

View attachment 594179




DLSS Quality is all I will use. Their newest videos of DLSS 3.5 shows some noteworthy improvements on things like fences in Alan Wake 2 and Cyberpunk, areas DLSS has always had problems. AMD dose have FSR 3 coming, but I don't think it will be in Starfield at release. And if it is, we are still not sure how it compares to Nvidia's DLSS 3.5 or DLSS frame gen. I assume it will be better than FSR 2, but I am doubting it reaches parity with Nvidia's latest iterations. So it would be disappointing if Starfield doesn't feature it.
Click to expand...
Wow! I guess sometimes it "pays" to speak up! :)
 
Flogger23m said:
DLSS Quality is all I will use. Their newest videos of DLSS 3.5 shows some noteworthy improvements on things like fences in Alan Wake 2 and Cyberpunk, areas DLSS has always had problems. AMD dose have FSR 3 coming, but I don't think it will be in Starfield at release. And if it is, we are still not sure how it compares to Nvidia's DLSS 3.5 or DLSS frame gen. I assume it will be better than FSR 2, but I am doubting it reaches parity with Nvidia's latest iterations. So it would be disappointing if Starfield doesn't feature it.
Click to expand...
My guess is it won't get it, because of that AMD money and the fact that they'll probably decide FSR is "good enough". I agree, DLSS is better and Hardware Unboxed did a huge test showing that to be the case, but it wouldn't surprise me if they don't implement it because they don't want to make AMD mad.
 
Crazy that they have all that figured out already. I generally do a first playthrough without reading anything, save the min/max for the second palythrough.
 
About half the skills are boring % increases and the other half actually unlock new features for your character.
Feels a little unbalanced, it's definitely a priority to take skills that advance your character rather than boost pistol damage by 5%.

There's no mention of respec (maybe with mods/console) and there's like 250 total skill points in the game.
 
This game is releasing on the Labour Day weekend - why had I not realized this?

Too bad I’m struggling with my mental health at the moment. My anxiety has just skyrocketed and playing games, at the moment, just seems wrong… though, weirdly, reading what you guys are writing about games is somehow calming?

I especially like seeing new posts. I don’t know why but somehow it’s comforting reading something newly posted by a member whose name is familiar to me.

Is it because of ‘sense of community’? We all yearn for community, don’t we. Which is why I find it so weird when forum members start getting angry with each other. We shouldn’t do that.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
How is $70 the industry standard when this is the first time I've seen anyone charge that much for a game?
Click to expand...

Since the last year or so. Most new AAA games are $70. FF7 Remake, last 3-4 Call of Duty games, Jedi Survivor, Sony's newly released games.

Zarathustra[H] said:
I've seen a handful at $59.99, but only recently, and I never bought any at that price.
Click to expand...

$60 more or less became the standard around 2009-2010. Practically every game over the past 13 years has been $60 unless it is a smaller budget/indie game. After holding the $60 price the industry has move up to $70. Some games are still $60 but this is a transitional time.

Zarathustra[H] said:
Since - with digital distribution - there is practically no unit cost, the lower the set your pricing, the more money you make by upping the number of units sold.
Click to expand...

I'm sure these money driven companies know how to price their products, at least in most cases.
 
I wasn't all that excited about this release but now I'm looking forward to it. It's coming at a perfect time too as I'm sitting at home on unemployment waiting for work to pick up in the fall. I already went through BG3 and I honestly don't have a desire to replay it yet. If nothing else Bugthesda games give you a lot of hours of play time. I'm currently playing a modded FO4 for the millionth time while I wait for this to drop.
 
Flogger23m said:
I'm sure these money driven companies know how to price their products, at least in most cases.
Click to expand...
I'm sure high unit cost makes sense for highly anticipated big budget games, especially ones with an expected long tail of sales. Not just because a lot of people will pay the higher price, and thus make you more per unit, but because it looks like a comparatively better deal when it goes on sale, has GOTY re-releases, and that kind of thing. It also makes Gamepass look like a better deal, and that sweet recurring revenue stream is what MS really wants.

I'm not saying it is nice for the consumer, but for companies trying to make as much money as possible it makes sense. While people here are mad about it, I bet the game sells millions of copies in the first week. Shit it may have already sold millions of copies preorder because gamers never learn about not preordering.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
I think the DLSS thing is blown out of proportion.

If it needs scaling (and I hope it doesn't) it will have FSR which works on every GPU.

Yes, DLSS technically looks a little better, but unless you are screenshot ting and pixel-peeping that difference is negligible.
Click to expand...
It's a drastic difference in many games, especially motion artifacts and thin stuff like fences and lines in general.
 
Last edited:
Zarathustra[H] said:
How is $70 the industry standard when this is the first time I've seen anyone charge that much for a game?
Click to expand...
Sqenix charged €80 for Forspoken. The first game that was $70 I remember very well, was Metro Exodus on EGS, while Tim claimed to be the gamers champion for justice. So the precedents go back a while.
Zarathustra[H] said:
I've seen a handful at $59.99, but only recently, and I never bought any at that price.
Click to expand...
$60 was the de-facto industry standard for AAA games as far as I can remember. Basically since I've been buying games online instead of retail cca.15 years.
You could get games from 3rd party grey market or heaven forbid black market vendors for less, but the official MSRP was always $60.
Zarathustra[H] said:
At a launch price of $39.99-$49.99 (which is where I remember most titles I've ever bought at launch landing) I'd still be grumbling, but on occasion id buy one or two if it were a title I was really looking forward to. At $69.99 that just ain't happening.
Click to expand...
I typically paid $45 for games on greenmangaming and cdkeys, now it is usually around $55. The standard edition of Starfield is currently $58 there.
Zarathustra[H] said:
But yeah, almost every title in my library I have bought on sale years after it came out. If a game is good today, it will be good in 5 years. There is no rush.
Click to expand...
Well, that's different, that's your choice to buy games later, if everybody did that no big budget games would be made. They wouldn't magically cost $30.
Zarathustra[H] said:
Don't be a pawn to the game studios because of your ADHD induced FOMO. It makes everything worse for everyone as it continues to tell them they should charge more and more.
Click to expand...
You do you, but don't tell others what they should do. I'm perfectly comfortable paying $60 or more for a game that will provide countless hours of fun. It's not a mental disorder. Increase in prices was inevitable due to inflation alone. Besides games are much larger in scope today than they were 10-15 years ago.

Zarathustra[H] said:
And lets not forget the Gabe Newell rule when it comes to game pricing. You make more money the lower the price is.
Click to expand...
There is no such rule, IDK where do you get that from. The Gabe Newell mantra is that piracy is a service issue, not a price issue.
Zarathustra[H] said:
Since - with digital distribution - there is practically no unit cost, the lower the set your pricing, the more money you make by upping the number of units sold.
Click to expand...
You can't just increase the number sold ad infinitum. Therer is a limited audience for games. You lower the price from 60 to 50, you need to sell 20% more copies to break even.
Zarathustra[H] said:
In their experiments when they dropped the price by 40% they increased revenues by a factor of 40, or 4,000%.
Click to expand...
Source? What experiment was this where they lowered the price of a highly anticipated AAA game by 40% and they sold 40x as much copies? That would mean 80 million instead of 2 million. And 2 million copies for an AAA game is considered a flop by today's standards. I'm sorry but I don't believe this.
Zarathustra[H] said:
Publishers keep prices high because they are stubborn and can't get physical unit pricing where there are unit costs out of their heads. It hurts both the publishers and the buyers.
Click to expand...
If there is one thing you can't accuse them of is being against making more money. If there was real proof of this they'd all be standing in line, just as they all tried to make their own WOW or PUBG.
 
trikat said:
From my understanding the AMD code requires hardware check and an AMD rewards account.
Also they limit the number of redemptions for a unique game from that PC, not sure what the limit is these days.
Once verified, a real game key will be provided in the AMD account. Might take a few days.
The game key can be redeemed or sold.
Click to expand...
Well I have the Jedi Survivor Origin game key. I hear the game is a mess and I have no desire playing it. I just want to be sure it’s open to anyone now because once I sell if someone claims they can’t register it I’ll be SOL,

Happy to have the free Starfield key tho. I wasn’t so thrilled to find out the Premium Edition only includes the first DLC. What a scam.
 
dub77nj said:
If nothing else Bugthesda games give you a lot of hours of play time. I'm currently playing a modded FO4 for the millionth time while I wait for this to drop.
Click to expand...

Starfield is Bethesda's least buggiest game to date, say sources

Speaking with several sources under the condition of anonymity who are currently under embargo and couldn’t speak publicly about the game, McVicker’s comment is the same sentiment given by everyone I’ve spoken to...five individuals, who have a varying amount of time put in the game have all said that the amount of bugs they’ve experienced can be counted on one hand...in fact, most said one or two at most, with everyone I spoke to having put dozens of hours into the game...in addition, it was also said that almost all the bugs that were found have already been listed to be fixed in the Starfield Day 1 patch...

https://insider-gaming.com/bethesda-bugs-game-sources/
 
NightReaver said:
"Least buggiest Bethesda game"

Has a lower bar ever existed?
Click to expand...
Tell me about it, I'm more concerned about basic quality. Like the writing/quests, the combat the overall game play and the ui. Because these are all areas where Bethesda has proven themselves to be pretty mediocre compared to other AAA studios. We already know that the npcs look like stiff wax dolls.
 
Flogger23m said:
Since the last year or so. Most new AAA games are $70. FF7 Remake, last 3-4 Call of Duty games, Jedi Survivor, Sony's newly released games.



$60 more or less became the standard around 2009-2010. Practically every game over the past 13 years has been $60 unless it is a smaller budget/indie game. After holding the $60 price the industry has move up to $70. Some games are still $60 but this is a transitional time.



I'm sure these money driven companies know how to price their products, at least in most cases.
Click to expand...

Ah.

I just looked at my purchase history on steam for shits and giggles.

I probably would have bought Cyberpunk 2077 at launch, but it was astonishingly buggy at launch, so I put it off for almost a year, and only paid about $35 on sale.

Metro Exodus is another I probably would have bought on launch, but I wasn't about to use Epic Games Store, so I waited for it to go live on Steam instead and as a result paid $23 for it. Same with the Outer Worlds. Waited for the Epic exclusive to expire and paid $32.

Last time I actually bought any game at launch, or spent more than $35 on any game was in 2016 when both Sid Meiers Civilization VI and Deus Ex: Mankind Divided, the latest installments from two of my favorite series launched.

Those were both $60.

Before that, I have to go all the way back to 2011 to find a game I bought at launch. Red Orchestra 2. It cost me $39.99

I also bought Sid Meier's Civilization V at launch in 2010. That one actually cost me $59.99, but I think I thought of it as an outlier, as I tend to think of 2010 as being in the $40 era for new games. It might have been the premium bundle or something.

Before this I have to go all the way back to 2004 when I signed up for Steam to pre-order the Half Life 2 and Counter-Strike: Source to find another at launch purchase. To this day it is my only pre-order. In my defense, games didn't launch broken back then, so I didn't know any better. No idea what I paid for those, as they have dropped off the account history at this point.

In the pre-Steam era I never bought a game at launch.

So I guess in my ~33 year history of PC gaming I have bought exactly 6 games at launch pricing :p

I'm leaning towards giving Starfield some time to cool off an mature, especially considering the crazy launch price, but if it reviews well on launch indicating it isn't buggy and is actually as fun as we all hope, I may change my mind.

That said, if it forces some sort of Bethesda account and launcher on me at install, I will immediately request a refund and never buy it.
 
GoldenTiger said:
It's a drastic difference in many games, especially motion artifacts and thin stuff like fences and lines in general.
Click to expand...
I will say from my informal observations and form Hardware Unboxed's testing it seems to make the most difference with lower resolution settings. They found a couple ties, and a bunch of games that were a minor win for DLSS at quality settings. The bloodbath was at performance settings, that's where FSR just sucked compared to DLSS. While I prefer DLSS and use it if there, FSR is usually fine in quality mode and not noticeably bad.

Not trying to say I wouldn't want to see DLSS in Starfield, just that I think there's a reasonable chance it won't be a huge deal for people just using it to boost 4k.
 
Sycraft said:
I will say from my informal observations and form Hardware Unboxed's testing it seems to make the most difference with lower resolution settings. They found a couple ties, and a bunch of games that were a minor win for DLSS at quality settings. The bloodbath was at performance settings, that's where FSR just sucked compared to DLSS. While I prefer DLSS and use it if there, FSR is usually fine in quality mode and not noticeably bad.

Not trying to say I wouldn't want to see DLSS in Starfield, just that I think there's a reasonable chance it won't be a huge deal for people just using it to boost 4k.
Click to expand...

I did my playthrough of Cyberpunk 2077 with FSR Quality settings back when I had my 6900xt just to give it a little bump, and honestly I could not tell the difference compared to native, unless I took a screenshot and compared them side to side.

Maybe the difference between the two grows the further away from "quality" you get, but quality is the only setting in either FSR or DLSS I've ever used.
 
NightReaver said:
"Least buggiest Bethesda game"

Has a lower bar ever existed?
Click to expand...
But it actually says that the five people had played dozens of hours and each person had encountered no more than a few bugs, all of which have been addressed in the day one patch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top