Cheap entertainment.
Gary Jackson wrote:
Yes, that is exactly right. I still play World of Warcraft, and
pay my $15 dutifully every month . lol
Regards,
Gary
At 05:30 AM 10/26/2009, Stan Zaske wrote:
Just means you pay a monthly fee to play on official servers. That's
why Bilzzard makes so much money. Not only do they sell the game but
you pay your monthly fee as well to take part in playing it. MMO:
Massive Multiplayer Online. Pretty sure that's right anyway.
DSinc wrote:
I suppose that I am w-a-y out of the norm here.
Can someone please 'splain me this concept of "subscription" for a
video game for a PC?
Do not believe I am a complete dweeb. I so have a "subscription" for
my weekend newspaper. OR? Might this be close?
I an really curious....
Best,
Duncan
Gmail wrote:
I do not understand that argument. $15 for on average 60+ hours of
fun a month is pretty darn cheap compared to many other firms of
entertainment.
I would much rather pay that subscription than $50 for a game with
15 hours of game play and no replay value.
Or a trip to the movies.
-----------
Brian
Sent from my iPhone
On 2009-10-25, at 5:22 PM, maccrawj <[email protected]> wrote:
Only one I'd consider playing is floundering in the beta stage:
Stargate Worlds.
Guess MGM should of not frakked PTY Lmtd. and backed release of
the originally promised stand-alone SG-1 game from 2005!
Quake stated MO (not massive) play for free phenomenon the money
grubbers have polluted. I have trouble seeing the supposed value
added paying for benefits of "massive" w/ persistent save data @
$15/month subscription + $50/year software.
Stan Zaske wrote:
It's my first MMO. After all these years of playing games it took
the words "Dungeons and Dragons" and "free" to get me to try it.
I still play it in single player mode however. Someday I'll take
the plunge and join a social group. Probably get eaten alive by
the kids in there. LOL
Brian Weeden wrote:
I'm sure it's great but I went cold turkey on MMOs. With a
toddler in the
house and another on the way I am strictly a single player,
pause any time
sort of gamer now (not that I didn't enjoy my time with MUDs,
DAOC, and
WoW).
Oblivion, Fallout 3, Mass Effect, Bioshock, Civ 4 (still going
strong), Dead
Space, the Witcher - those are my type of games now.
---------------------------
Brian Weeden
Technical Advisor
Secure World Foundation <http://www.secureworldfoundation.org>
Montreal Office
+1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
+1 (202) 683-8534 US
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Stan Zaske <[email protected]>
wrote:
I have something you might be interested in Brian:
Dungeons and Dragons Online: behold the power of free
http://bit.ly/8dUTM
Brian Weeden wrote:
I bought a Q6600 for $250 in March 2008. I consider that to
be a dirt
cheap
price to get a processor that will meet my foreseeable needs
for 3-4
years.
I bought a Radeon 4850 for $180 in Oct 2008 and it has suited
me just
fine.
The last game I played - Batman Arkham Asylum - ran very
smooth. And yes,
I
am running a 24" LCD. I've considered getting another 4850
and doing SLI,
but I don't really see a need at this point and I'm not sure
I"m going to
get much value as opposed to waiting another 6 months and
getting a whole
new card. The next major game I will be playing a lot - Dragon
Age:Origins
- will probably run just fine on my current setup.
However, I am still running a pair of Seagate SATA drives that
I've had
for
years (250 GB boot, 80 GB data). So my upgrade this winter
will be
Windows
7 64-bit, another 4 GB of RAM (because I multitask a lot and
run VMs), and
a
SSD boot drive. But I have no incentive to change my CPU.
---------------------------
Brian Weeden
Technical Advisor
Secure World Foundation <http://www.secureworldfoundation.org>
Montreal Office
+1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
+1 (202) 683-8534 US
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Stan Zaske
<[email protected]> wrote:
With gaming it depends on the resolution you play at. With a
30" monitor
you're going to need some decent horsepower and even with my
24" there
are
times I wish for something better than my 4850 (5850 coming
up as soon as
price takes the 1st drop). I'm confused, you speak of an
Intel quad core
processor you bought 2 years ago being dirt cheap? Did you
get it used
because new and cheap don't equate to Intel processors. LOL
Brian Weeden wrote:
Hard drives have been the major system bottleneck for most
computer
users
for years now. I'm surprised that it's taken this long for
that fact to
settle in AND for companies to realize that's the future
growth area.
Video cards? Eh...unless you are a freak you can get by. I
play most
new
games and get by just fine spending $200 every couple of years.
Processor? The quad core intel I bought 2 years ago was
dirt cheap and
I
have yet to saturate all 4 processors.
---------------------------
Brian Weeden
Technical Advisor
Secure World Foundation <http://www.secureworldfoundation.org>
Montreal Office
+1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
+1 (202) 683-8534 US
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Stan Zaske
<[email protected]> wrote:
Yep, Vista and Win7 are both very hardrive intensive
compared to XP.
Better
pony up the dough and get a solid state drive with the
"barefoot"
controller. LOL
Steve Tomporowski wrote:
I've noticed this 'problem' on both Vista and Win7. It
seems like the
system puts it's file manager to sleep, so that if you try
to do a
disk
action, you get a substantial delay. For instance, I'll
be playing a
game,
then I jump to email, when I try to drag and drop, there
is a delay, I
get
the circle, then finally it moves the message. Of course,
the next
message
goes quickly. The same with getting disk directories.
I'll click on
a
drive, get the 1st half of folders, then the circle and
then the
moving
bar,
then it finally gives me all the folders. Of course,
after that
point,
everything works quickly. My power settings are for
always on, so
it's
not
a power down. Anyone else seen this?
Thanks....Steve
__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version
of virus
signature database 4537 (20091023) __________
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.com
