Sounds fair, if you're being paid to advertise you should say so.

@ECH71: You're right. AMD might do this too if they were dominating thr gpu market, but they're not, so I support AMD because they're more consumer friendly.

Who knows if things might change in the future, but for now, I buy AMD. Beats letting Nvidia or Intel become monopolies.

@Random_Matt: I agree that the 3.5+.5 gb split was very concerning, but AMD didn't have a proper response until the 390, which I feel is a better deal considering it has 8gb and thus is more future-proof (in that regard anyways) but for 1080p and some 1440p, the 970's not all that bad.

For 4K though, I agree, 3.5gb is NOT enough, especially when you're using 2 970's which get limited by that ram, which is slower than what AMD's been using lately anyhow.

Seems interesting. I don't know if VR will ever be anything more than Niche, but if it does break out, it looks like AMD will be ready for it.

That said, I think I personally agree more with Nvidia's stance on just waiting to see what happens before investing time and money. I honestly feel that the average person and even average gamer won't be interested in mounting a screen to their head and shutting out the outside world. Personally, the detachment I get from being able to look away from and step away from a screen is part of what gets me interested in gaming and tv watching to begin with.

I like it because it feels less real, not more. Anyhow, I hope that dual Fury does well, they're sure launching it close to Polaris and Pascal. I feel like both next-gen fin-fet GPU's will outperform all the 28nm stuff. So much so that the 300 and 900 series from both companies will probably have to be sold at steeply discounted clearance prices when the time comes.

@ECH71: To be fair, they are working on it. I wouldn't be shocked if them and Nvidia launched around the same time.

@7tizz: Only companies that want to sell it to us as their next profit vector I think. I don't know many consumers that are all that excited about VR, and I personally am not.

I feel like we spend enough time in front of screens, and don't necessarily need one strapped to our faces and blocking our view of life.

@jyml8582: I don't know about Ubisoft in general, but U-play sure is. And I will admit that they've been making so many Assasin's Creeds that I've lost interest, and I was a pretty hardcore AC fan back in the day that generally played them all too.

@Wintermist: Same. On Steam as well, so I can open up U-play from steam, and then play on U-play. I Hate Uplay so damn much. And I used to be such an Ubisoft fan.

@dookie_213: Honestly, if not for consoles, Bethesda games on PC might not even exist. I play all the mod-heavy series like Bethesda games on PC, but let's be honest, all the PC sales put together usually don't even match the sales on 1 console, much less both of them combined.

Sure PC gaming is growing lately, but the only reason AAA games even exist for it (besides MMO's and multiplayer games) is console ports.

@snugglebear: The cups give your ceramics (useful for power switches and relays and more advanced power armors) and the cigars and cigarettes give you cloth, asbestos, plastic and other stuff you need for building. Very likely, many of the beds in your settlement are made of stuff like cigarette boxes and old newspapers.

You know, stuff that breaks down into "cloth" because there's no paper option.