Keep 35 GB HDD Space Handy for Max Payne 3

[TheMailMan78]

Originally Posted by thematrix606

1 in 6 in the States have no food to eat, I saw this on an ad while visiting, I'd say that's real poverty.

And governments regulate, and that's what they should do when it comes to the internet. Just as if they would regulate a monopoly, or any other big company providing a service or a product to customers for an 'unfair' price. But that's a rather grey area. If most of Europe can have super fast internet speeds, I see no reason why USA should have a problem. Perhaps spend less on killing people, and more on investing in people? Hmm... food for thought.

Oh sure let everyone have high speed internet! Easy to do when your nation is smaller then a single US state. Also 1 in 6 have no food? If you cant find food in the States then your doing it wrong.

[Morgoth]

probaly un compressed files

[cheesy999]

Originally Posted by Dent1

Not really - As you should know being British, a lot of the ISPs here have monthly fair usage bandwidth caps of around 20-30GB. So if somebody is on BT and is silly enough to download this game in a single sit in, its bye bye internet connection or stump up the reconnection fee.

I don't see how that's correct, you only get 20-30GB if you pay for a capped connection

I don't think there are many "Fair Usage" policy's with a cap that low at all

BT (you listed them in your post) sell lower ranged packages with 40GB, so the unlimited policy's would have to be higher then that, and on the current unlimited packages you could sign up to now on their website the fair usage policy only applies to P2P.

Companies like sky have no limits or throttling at all on their higher packages

The only people likely to be affected by this are people on really low end broadband packages, and I doubt they would be downloading games off steam anyway (considering an average steam game can be 10+GB as it is it would take them far too long to re-download any games)

[HTC]

Originally Posted by cheesy999

I don't see how that's correct, you only get 20-30GB if you pay for a capped connection

I don't think there are many "Fair Usage" policy's with a cap that low at all

BT (you listed them in your post) sell lower ranged packages with 40GB, so the unlimited policy's would have to be higher then that, and on the current unlimited packages you could sign up to now on their website the fair usage policy only applies to P2P.

Companies like sky have no limits or throttling at all on their higher packages

The only people likely to be affected by this are people on really low end broadband packages, and I doubt they would be downloading games off steam anyway (considering an average steam game can be 10+GB as it is it would take them far too long to re-download any games)

I used to have a 30 Mb/s connection with unlimited downloads: payed 88€ @ 1st, then 78€ and finally 66€ (they were lowering their prices). What speeds was i really getting, you ask?

- Once in a while, over 24 Mb/s
- Sometimes, between 15 and 24 Mb/s
- Usually, between 6 and 15 Mb/s
- Too often for my linking, under 6 Mb/s

I still managed to download just over 250 GB over roughly 29 hours and, surprise surprise: got a letter telling me i was downloading too much and would be capped for a while ...

Requested a tech to investigate why i was getting so low speeds and the tech found out that indeed i was having low speeds (he tested my connection on his laptop) and, yet another surprise: got an invoice of 154+€ stating the extra charge was the tech visit stating they didn't find anything wrong with their service, therefore, it was @ customer's expense.

I wonder why i changed ISP provider ...

Now, i have a fiber connection with 60 Mb/s that, most of the time, gives me 55+ Mb/s.

My previous ISP provider calls from time to time trying to get me back to their service but, whenever they mention "cabovisão" i say "not interested" and promptly hang up. Whenever i hear co-workers, friends, whatever mention that ISP, i promptly recommend "avoid them like the plague": that's how much i like them


My point is what's advertised isn't always what one gets: wouldn't be surprised if that were the case most of the time.


Finally, on topic:

I have very few games, actually, and have only bought 1 game online: Diablo III

All others i have physical copies.

[Crap Daddy]

DX9 my friends. Developed for PC?
35GB? Intel i7 extreme CPU????
What's with this "can benefit"?
GTX680?
Do you now that the GTX680 has a perf of 128 Mtex/ms which is 16 times the performance of an xbox 360 and I don't have the numbers but I'm sure the 7970 is also right there?
I bet it's a shitty port.
Maybe I'll buy the game.
Max Payne was great back in the days.

[ShiBDiB]

Originally Posted by thematrix606

1 in 6 in the States have no food to eat, I saw this on an ad while visiting, I'd say that's real poverty.

And governments regulate, and that's what they should do when it comes to the internet. Just as if they would regulate a monopoly, or any other big company providing a service or a product to customers for an 'unfair' price. But that's a rather grey area. If most of Europe can have super fast internet speeds, I see no reason why USA should have a problem. Perhaps spend less on killing people, and more on investing in people? Hmm... food for thought.

Sounds like whatever your reading is doing a good job brainwashing u, did it come with a free quran?

[lZKoce]

Originally Posted by lilhasselhoffer

Help me understand this.

After saying this, they've shown a dedication to pushing the limits of everything (Crysis 2.0 maybe?). They've shown tech demos that are impressive.

After doing all of this, and telling us that its just for PCs, people from the PC crowd are looking at this and complaining about how system intensive they estimate it is going to be. What?


I'm no fan of the more recent forays by Rockstar, but they are pushing boundaries and showing that they can make money at it. The games industry needs someone like them, so that we don't have something like a semi-annual Halo to match our annual Madden/FIFA games.


Like them or hate them, Rockstar is pushing the limits of gaming, which everyone on this forum should appreciate. Even if Max Payne 3 isn't on your wish list, this type of thing will help other developers justify more time and effort being put into games than is currently seen as "financially reasonable."

I feel like they are pushing the limits of people's pockets. What I am thinking is that according to the Law of Diffusion of Innovation, people look like this:

1. gr.- 2.5%- innovators
2. gr.- 13,5%- early adopters
3. gr.- 34%- early majority
4. gr.- 34%- late majority
5. gr.- 16%- laggers,

in order to have a mass commercial success you need to have 15-18% of market penetration to reach the masses- 3+4= 68%. Now, I don't see 15% of the gamers to have i7+gtx 680 at home, neither do I see, 68% of the other people who are not interested in games. And I would certainly not buy a new PC just because of this game. Actually I wouldn't buy a new PC solely based on my entertainment needs anyway.

The last LAN party I was, most of the kids were still playing on G92 (8800/9800gt). After all the largest group of gamers is aged around 33, men. Because they can afford it. Gaming is an expensive hobby to have and I don't think that better titles will change that, you either have the money/time/desire/energy or you lack some/all of these. But that's just my 2 cents.

[EarlZ]

I honestly doubt this game can take advantage of 6 cores, let alone 4 cores at capped usage.. 16GB RAM usage is also a pipedream, probably 2-3Gb at best.

[TheMailMan78]

Originally Posted by EarlZ

I honestly doubt this game can take advantage of 6 cores, let alone 4 cores at capped usage.. 16GB RAM usage is also a pipedream, probably 2-3Gb at best.

GTA took advantage of multi-cores. Dunno why they would downgrade for this game.

[Hayder_Master]

anyone tell what is the point from using (as they say) GTX680 and 7970 which they are DX11 cards with game only using DX9 ????

[v12dock]

Originally Posted by thematrix606

1 in 6 in the States have no food to eat, I saw this on an ad while visiting, I'd say that's real poverty.

And governments regulate, and that's what they should do when it comes to the internet. Just as if they would regulate a monopoly, or any other big company providing a service or a product to customers for an 'unfair' price. But that's a rather grey area. If most of Europe can have super fast internet speeds, I see no reason why USA should have a problem. Perhaps spend less on killing people, and more on investing in people? Hmm... food for thought.

I want my government to stay as far away as possible when it comes to regulating the internet, let anyone anything. They can not properly manage the USPS, I think the internet would be a task a little large for them. Besides we are in the heartland of RIAA, MPAA, and other criminal organizations.

Would you really want the government to be lobbied into blocking half the internet. Government regulated internet would not only effect the United States but the entire would. Also we are geographically on average 27 times better than a European country.

1 and 6 people are starving come out to the Midwest where we have millions upon millions of acres of essentials foods growing.

Back to topic: The game might be compressed when downloading

[slyfox2151]

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

Oh sure let everyone have high speed internet! Easy to do when your nation is smaller then a single US state. Also 1 in 6 have no food? If you cant find food in the States then your doing it wrong.

not to upset you,

But check out the NBN - FTTH (national broadband network) we are installing in Australia. plans ranging from 12/1 - 100/40 - 1000/250mbps, with large Quotas( 1TB+ )

Not a cherry picked network but Fiber to 93%+ with the other 7% (towns with less then 500 people) on Sat/wireless.


looks like the states really are falling behind.

*sorry, somewhat way off topic*



I hope this is the new "crysis" only better then the original in terms of system demand/graphics

[Scrizz]

Originally Posted by thematrix606

1 in 6 in the States have no food to eat, I saw this on an ad while visiting, I'd say that's real poverty.

PHAIL

Originally Posted by slyfox2151

not to upset you,

But check out the NBN - FTTH (national broadband network) we are installing in Australia. plans ranging from 12/1 - 100/40 - 1000/250mbps, with large Quotas( 1TB+ )

Not a cherry picked network but Fiber to 93%+ with the other 7% (towns with less then 500 people) on Sat/wireless.


looks like the states really are falling behind.

*sorry, somewhat way off topic*



I hope this is the new "crysis" only better then the original in terms of system demand/graphics

population......
AUS: 22,015,576 (July 2012 est.)

US: 313,847,465 (July 2012 est.)

[slyfox2151]

Originally Posted by Scrizz

population......
AUS: 22,015,576 (July 2012 est.)

US: 313,847,465 (July 2012 est.)

thats my point... U.S has a much higher population Density... so its cheaper to connect fiber. (less space between people)

83 vs 7 people per square mile. thats 11 times more fiber to run per person.

[FordGT90Concept]

Only on the west coast and east coast. The rockies are relatively barren in terms of people. The Midwest is sparsely populated. In terms of fiber, the Midwest costs a fortune because there's often miles between potential customers.

Illustrated here:


The Midwest is about as costly as a network can get because there's lots of people but a ton of distance between them. That type of network topography covers over half the USA.

USA 2000 rural population: 59,274,456
Austrailia 2012 rural population: 2,420,731

USA has 24.5 times more people in rural areas.


As for the subject at hand, I usually buy physicial retail games unless the digital version is going for a steal. I hate waiting days to download, especially after said program takes a dump on me when I want to play (Steam has done that to me twice now).

[thematrix606]

Originally Posted by slyfox2151

thats my point... U.S has a much higher population Density... so its cheaper to connect fiber. (less space between people)

83 vs 7 people per square mile. thats 11 times more fiber to run per person.

And I think the Americans keep forgetting how big Europe itself is.... and the population is over 300million Still internet is about 10x faster.

This is what happens when you blame the teachers rather than the students for not learning, you get dumbasses.

[FordGT90Concept]

Europe (72.5/km2) has double the population density of the USA (33.7/km2). About the same amount of land (3.8 million sq mi vs. 3.9 million sq mi) but more than double the population (313.4 million vs. 739.2 million).

Like Australia, the population is mostly crowded into cities. The few people that live in rural areas live relatively close together.

[EarlZ]

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

GTA took advantage of multi-cores. Dunno why they would downgrade for this game.

Yes it did with quadcores but it was barely even capped to 70% CPU usage on my Q6600 @ 3.2Ghz, I doubt it can even hit 50% on a 6core CPU.

[v12dock]

Maybe this will help you understand

[lyndonguitar]

I never like RAGEs graphics quality. everything looked like plastic and shit, everything was too grainy and shiny on my opinion. but I still loved their games because of the gameplay and story.

I've played LA Noire, GTA IV, RDR and will surely play Max Payne 3. but I liked the Max Payne 1/2 graphics more than the RAGE graphics.

Also we must not forget that Max Payne knows Kung Fu

[Dent1]

Originally Posted by cheesy999

I don't see how that's correct, you only get 20-30GB if you pay for a capped connection

I don't think there are many "Fair Usage" policy's with a cap that low at all

BT (you listed them in your post) sell lower ranged packages with 40GB, so the unlimited policy's would have to be higher then that, and on the current unlimited packages you could sign up to now on their website the fair usage policy only applies to P2P.

Companies like sky have no limits or throttling at all on their higher packages

The only people likely to be affected by this are people on really low end broadband packages, and I doubt they would be downloading games off steam anyway (considering an average steam game can be 10+GB as it is it would take them far too long to re-download any games)

Higher tier package are "unlimited" in bandwidth but are not unthrottled. This means that the ISP will throttle your connection to about 1/4 the speed if you break fair usage, as long as there is bandwidth going to your door regardless of how slow its still classed as unlimited. Sometimes they call it "network management policy" or "Acceptable Use Policy". Virgin Media and BT have been on Watch Dog many times over this. Maybe things have sinced changed.


I think Sky is an exception. That was a bad example on my part.

[KissSh0t]

I wonder how long it would take to download 35GB at 140KBs

I don't think I will try...

[Yo_Wattup]

DX9!? On a 35gb game that can take advantage of 16gb and 8 cores? Definitely a shitty console port folks, no need to get excited. Seriously, for a game that can utilize such specs you would at least expect the tessellation effects associated with DX11.

I thought all you americans had super fast internet with unlimited caps already? I live in australia and I have 500gb monthly usage. ???

[FordGT90Concept]

Originally Posted by KissSh0t

I wonder how long it would take to download 35GB at 140KBs

I don't think I will try...

If my math is correct...

35,000,000,000 bytes / 140,000 bytes / second

Take your pick:
250,000 seconds
4166.67 minutes
69.45 hours
2.89 days

Originally Posted by Yo_Wattup

I thought all you americans had super fast internet with unlimited caps already? I live in australia and I have 500gb monthly usage. ???

Bandwidth caps are only frequent on cell data plans in the USA. On land lines, it's pretty rare. The problem is the average internet speed in the USA is slow because of all the rural customers.

[thematrix606]

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

Bandwidth caps are only frequent on cell data plans in the USA. On land lines, it's pretty rare. The problem is the average internet speed in the USA is slow because of all the rural customers.

And yet look at Australia. Your argument is void, I don't understand why you keep on persisting that you are right.