Buy Nvidia graphics card, get Arkham Asylum free

Yeah, what's with the free stuff!! How much money you got, huh?! HUH?!

You should learn to read left to right, then this would happen less often.

I got Half Life 1, Half Life 2, and Half Life Deathmatch for free from Nvidia, just for having an 8500.

By every you mean just HL2:DM when they choose to give it away?

Lol, nope, this was when 8500's were popular... in 2007.

I got the complete collection of all 5 original half life games, Half Life 2, episode 1 and 2, portal, and team fortress 2 ALL 100% free for having an ATI card.

Basically i've never paid for a half life game since ATI game them all to me for free.

Funny, as I have an ATI and had to buy my Half-Life 1 collection and L4D. I've never recieved HL2 and I only got HL2:DM from CAL for a tourny, but it was limited time only.

Original Half Life 5 game set and Half Life 2: deal i got when buying my computer from cyberpowerPC. buy an ATI card and you get it all for free.

Episode 1: bought a new ATI card and got a code inside to get episode 1 for free.

Black Box (Episode 2, Portal, and TF2): just for having an ATI card Valve and ATI gave everyone the black box for free.

so thats how i got everything. Though i would of bought every one of these anyway if i didn't get them for free. Probably will end up having to buy Episode 3, since ATI/Valve haven't done anything like this since the black box

Get 2 GTX 260s= GTX 295. Plus, it's a little cheaper.

I already have a GTX 285 purchased when I built my PC back in late January, very happy with it. Just curious why the GTX 295 isn't eligible. I'm waiting for the new DX11 cards from ATI and Nvidia.

It is eligible.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130508

I'm not sure why this post doesn't mention it.

People who play at 2560x1600 resolution, 1080P, eat your heart out!

Thats alot of P's yo.

Arkham Asylum looks really nice at 1280x800. Really nice. I'll be keeping my $500, thanks.

For people who really, really like video games.... and have 4 monitors. Believe it or not, that thing still can't play Crysis at 60 FPS on all high with 8x AA on 1680x1050. Oh well. Still the fastest card available (except the Asus Mars).
My card was 230$, but I love it.

For people who have to have the newest thing all the time. No other reason.

Well I don't play at that resolution, that's a bit excessive for me right now. : )

@ThatPCgameryouhate

My laptop can handle Crysis on Enthusiast settings max across the board including AA at about 45fps average at 1440x900. You'd be supprised what a little knowledge and tweaking can do to squeeze out a lot more power out of that old PC.

yeah, but the crysis settings he's talking about requires a LOT more than the settings you're talking about.

You don't really need 8x AA for Crysis. Too much performance hit for not a huge gain in image quality. I'd rather just use EdgeAA -- the performance hit is small but it works really well at smoothing foliage jaggies. You can do nearly 60 FPS with a GTX 295 at 1920x1200, over 60 FPS if you use a config.

@Einhanderkiller, you don't NEED anything above Medium really, it's because it's there.

http://colinlaidlaw.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/dsc_0234.jpg

People, like me, who own the 3D vision bundle. Using it cuts your framerate in half, but with my GTX295 I still play Left 4 Dead at 60+ FPS in 3D.

If you used a narrower aperture, you could have kept both your hand and the mountains in focus creating a better illusion of your fingers pinching the mountains. :P

"Who needs a 500 dollar video card?"

"Believe it or not, that thing still can't play Crysis at 60 FPS on all high with 8x AA on 1680x1050"


And this is why I hate PC gaming. $500, which is more than my 360 and almost as much as my ps3, JUST for a graphics card that still can't play everything at max.

Then 3 years later and it will only be considered average compared to other things on the market. All that and you still only get marginally better graphics for games that are on consoles and PC. Total waste of money.

Crysis is an exception Tmac, Crysis 2 on the consoles will run at 720P at the maximum and upscaling to higher resolutions and at 30fps. Whereas PCs are always pushing the performance envelope, running games at TRUE 1080P and beyond.

$500 videocards are ridiculous, even to most PC gamers, they don't give much of a performance gain anyways.

tmac,

Have you ever actually bothered to play Crysis at all High settings? If you had, then you'd understand just how demanding it is to use 8x FSAA at 1680x1050 (which is a higher resolution than all but a handful of console games run at natively) while trying to achieve a consistent 60 FPS; it's harder on a GPU subsystem than it would be trying to play the game at all Very High settings with the game's built in Edge AA. Crysis is the exception, not the rule.

A $300 videocard can chew up and spit out all but three games on the market (Crysis, Crysis Warhead, and GTA IV). Of those three, two of them are the most visually stunning and hardware intensive games ever released. The last is a perfect example how a console-centric developer doesn't seem to have the faintest clue when it comes to properly optimizing their game for a good PC port. Beyond those three exceptions, that same $300 card can play most of the same games you cherish between 1920x1200 and 2500x1600 with every image quality preset maxed out, high levels of AA (between 8x FSAA and 24x CFAA), high quality antiscoptic texture filtering, and do it without dipping below 60 FPS. A $500-$600 videocard simply dominates it all.

Who are you one to judge, anyway? With the exception of MGS4, none of your best looking console exclusives run at a higher native resolution than 1280x720 (quite a few run below 720p), they lack high level AA (in MGS4's case, there's no AA at all), there's hardly any texture filtering, and your systems have difficulty maintaining a steady 30 FPS during scenes with a lot of action. For you to moan that a top end videocard, "that still can't play everything at max" for all but 3 games while you seem perfectly content with substantially less performance and mediocre visuals is quite hypocritical, isn't it?

"All that and you still only get marginally better graphics for games that are on consoles and PC." Marginally better? The difference, to us, is precisely the same difference to you console kiddies between late-gen XBOX and XBOX 360 ports; they may look similar, but there are appreciable differences in fidelity that make one version clearly worth owning over the other. "Total waste of money." You're getting what you paid for. If you're happy paying $300-$400 for a system with terrible reliability and overpriced peripherals, more power to you (I'll be quick to point out that, in Canada, the Xbox 360 Core and Premium packages were priced $400-$500 right up until the PS3 came out). If you're happy paying the same amount of money (previously more money) on a system most multiplatform games perform or look worse on (largely because most developers are too lazy or stupid to properly use the hardware), I won't hold it against you either. Just because you're too cheap and ignorant to pay the price for more reliable and extremely powerful hardware doesn't give you much of a right to bitch about it at every opportune moment. It's akin to buying a Chevy Cobalt and complaining about the MSRP of a Corvette C6.

I'm constantly confused by the fact that tmac spends most of his time attacking the wii for having poor graphics and being cheap... and extoling the vitrues of paying more for better graphics and hardware.

But then spends the other 10% of his time bashing the PC because it has better graphics and costs more.

It's not even something I understand.. you can pick up a gming PC for less than a launch console, and keep it up to date for the price of a game every year or two... whereas the consoles will very quickly have out-of-date graphics, and you can't update them till next generation (10 years, right?)

Personally I picked up a laptop that can play games at pretty high graphical quality, for about the launch price of a PS3... and it'll be ok for the next few years.... plus it allows me to to do loads of other things that i can't do on a console.

And i guess tmac has a PC anyway... since he's always posting greyed out posts here.... so he's effectively paying for a PC, 360 and PS3....

I have a cheap PC i use for school and internet, not for games. There's no reason for me to shell out $800+ to play games that I can play on consoles with all their extra benefits. The graphics difference for games that appear on both pc and 360/ps3 are extremely miniscule, to the point where it's almost impossible to tell unlike the Wii where it is VERY easy to tell. So why in the world would I spend 800+ for that tiny of a difference?

tmac,

If I wanted to, I could sit here for the next two hours explaining how that "tiny of a difference" is an enormous chasm as far as image quality and performance is concerned, but I won't. You're a console gamer and you seem to prefer that hardware. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. However, just because you're perfectly content with cheap hardware that can barely accomplish its advertised goal of playing games in HD doesn't mean all of us are. You've made it clear, time and time again, that you don't care for PC gaming for two reasons: 1) you're lazy to the point that anything that requires effort beyond "insert disc in drive" is simply not worth your time (never mind the number of console games that require partial installs before you can actually play them) and, most importantly, 2) you're too much of a tight ass whiner to buy decent hardware.

You know that annoying prick who shows up in the comment section of every PS3 related and moans about how the system was just too expensive? How he'd never get a PS3 because he wouldn't spend $500 on a system, even though he had no problem shelling out $180 for a 120GB HDD for his $300 Xbox 360 Premium? You're that kind of dickhead and I'm growing more than annoyed with nearly every PC centric comment of yours translating into what's essentially "Whaa! I'm a cheap bitch so I have to make other people miserable!" You don't wanna pay to play? Then don't, STFU, and let those of us who do comment in peace. I ask you the same question I did before. If you're only wiling to buy a Chevy Cobalt, why are you bitching about the asking price of a Corvette C6 or ZR1?

Oh...and as far as "Total waste of money." is, once again, concerned, keep something carefully in mind; if it wasn't for our platform and the technology it produces, your beloved Xbox 360 and PS3 would be the same marginal improvements over their predecessors as the Wii is to the Gamecube. We practically handed you Xenos, the RSX, and nearly every major technological innovation that makes this generation a standout from the previous one. Instead of acting like a total twat at every opportune moment, why not show a little appreciation for the platform and the people who made your cherished toys what they are today?

Jackal, it is always a pleasure reading your posts. : )

How so, because it's free stuff? Damn that analogy.

Am I detecting a hint of jealousy from a console gamer?

$60 game for free, but you have to buy a card that's more than the consoles were at launch.





I'm really jealous....

I don't think you should say you hate PC gaming Tmac, just that you are indifferent to it. Hate is such a strong word, a Sprinkles word.

Tmac, a GTX 260 is $150.

But you're just trolling.

No, it's stupid on my part because I preordered the ps3 version, and I already have a really good graphics card.

"a GTX 260 is $150."

Oh, ONLY $150. You don't find that ridiculous just for 1 small part to build a gaming pc? That's why just about everyone prefers consoles, less hassle, cheaper, more comfortable and convienent, and all you give up in exchange is an extremely small hit in graphics...so small most people can't even tell the difference.

You can buy an HD 4770 or something for $80 which is two generations ahead of consoles. The PC allows you choice -- you don't have to be confined to a fixed configuration. People like to game on the PC because they like being allowed choice instead of having their choices be dictated by Sony or Microsoft.

Also, PC gaming is a hobby. It's fun spending a couple hundred making your computer do some amazing things, like how it's fun spending thousands on camera equipment or car parts. A totally capable gaming PC will run you around $600, but if you'd like to expand it even further, you have that option.

Also, I lol'd at your 'comfortable' statement.

Well if you need a new pc, buy it, and then add a few key parts, largely a nice gfx card. I mean if you want to spend $2000+ go ahead it can be done. But lets say you buy a 500 dollar pc, (minus monitor, etc) then just add a couple of parts. I tell this to people who want a gaming pc but dont have the $.

BUT, dont go buy a gateway, go to Newegg.com and buy it peice by peice, reuse your old case, cd/dvd drive, maybe even things like your hard drive (atleast use the old one for extra space) and you can get more and more for less. I mean that dvd player you have will be 99% the same thing (assuming of course its not like 4 years old). Anyway if you do it smart you dont NEED to buy so much. Now as Im saying this, dont expect it to be a monster, but to be able to play 100% of the same games the $8000 pcs play, ofcourse just not as well.

And people wonder why PC gaming is dying...