The Razer core is a cool idea but when they didn't list the stock GPU in the laptop I did some digging. The Razer Blade stealth doesn't have a dedicated gpu, you will be running on Intel HD 520 in both the base and the 4k model unless you by the Razer Core. Also the Razer Core as of right now will not come with a GPU. This was just announced so there may be Razer Core + GPU bundles in the future. If your looking for an ultra light laptop the Blade Stealth is probably a great choice as long as the battery actually last for 8 hours of browsing the web. I had a Blade 2014 which advertised to have a hour battery life and tested to have 5 and I could barely get through a single 2 hour class while taking notes (maybe i was doing it wrong).As of right now I feel that this is competitive with a the $1299 because by the time you match 250GB SSD you get in the macbook on the QHD model it will probably cost the same amount. In reality because they are Razer they will probably charge $300-$500 for the Core.
I would find the core more interesting if it also had expandable internal storage ports(2xM.2, 4xSATA) and functioned as a NAS/Cloud in Raid 1, 5 or 10 so you can have more storage plugged in and access to said storage while on the go. Also no Razer bullshit software for the NAS/Cloud either I want it accessible like its mounted on the computer as long as I and the core both have internet(Access times may vary). max as is,i would pay up to $200 for the Razer Core. Thats a little more than a Lenovo X1 Docking station. Cram the 6 internal Storage Ports in the same form factor(2xM.2, Space for 2x3.5" or 4x2.5") I would pay $300-$500. I'll throw in up to another $75-$100 for the NAS/Cloud functionality. thats $600 before we even talk about the drives and GPU to go into all of those internal slots. Also they should look into partnering with graphics card manufactures so they can bundle cards and the core together. Partnering with card manufactures to get a slight discount(Talking $100 of a 980ti or ATI equilivent) at time of purchases and I'm in.
~$1200 Blade stealth UHD model and 250GB SSD (purely my best guess) + $600 for an empty Core with the internal points i requested is $1800+tax(round it up to $2000 because its Razer and they are greedy) sounds like a pretty amazing desktop (HDD drives included and graphics card included), But i love the idea of having a single device. Sitting down at my desk and playing the newest games at max settings. then unplugging and taking the same laptop to work. Then all your files are always available to you in your own local Chromebook style NAS/Cloud so you can take it anywhere and backed up in some kind of raid. yeah I'd pay $2000 for that. Take old hard ware from my current desktop and save to buy new HDDs, and a graphics card in the future. Bonus because stuff in the core comes out of a Standardized port (Thunderbolt 3) you could theoretically get a new Razer laptop when the current one becomes obsolete or wares out, while keeping your Core (and all your files) or upgrade your components in the Core. sounds like desktop expandability in a laptop.
Before anyone complains about $2000 (remember the actual cost was $1800 but i rounded up for razer greed and at 1800 whats another $200) being over priced for the basic laptop and empty core Razer is a "premium" brand (lets get real most of their stuff is crap and their software is shit but whatever). Nothing from Razer has ever been inexpensive. $999 is pretty good for a powerful "premium" ultralite (macbook cost $1299). $600 for the Core with the internal ports and functionality i requested is fair when compared to the cost of the features The Core is a glorified docking station as is with a PCI slot.The lenovo X1's(an ultralite) docking station runs about $175. the Cheapest RAID/NAS/Cloud on newegg is $95. Then you need to pay Razer $300 for the componants, R&D and design they put in to get Video (assuming its not going direct to a monitor from the card), Storage, Ethernet and whatever else over a single 40GB/s thunderbolt Cable and small small power supply to power it all it sounds pretty reasonable to me.
Sometimes its good to dream
Edit: Also would like it in 14". 12" always seemed to small to me. they will probably do a stand blade with the thunderbolt port but they haven't announced it yet. Just saw it on Linus Tec tips and i was worng abot the form factor of the core. to get the drives in there you may need to make it a bit larger
@Frost71: did some investigating because your right he didn't list the GPU of the base model. The razer blade stealth doesn't have a dedicated gpu, you will be running on Intel HD 520 in both the base and the 4k model. also the Razer Core as of right now will not come with a GPU. This was just announced so there may be Razer Core + GPU bundles in the future well see.
@jazero1987: Not suggesting that all games be streamed. Personally i prefer disc based content. But many areas in the united states alreay have capable networks and are being limited by there ISP. I believe that older games (PSX & PS2) should be viable for streaming because there are already unauthorized Emulators that could be run on a massive server level at low internet speeds because they arn't HD consoles.
@StokeMeAClipper: yes i agree that streaming and download services are generally not the way to go. they take property rights away from consumers and not all american internet services are not up to snuff for delivering content this way. But it isn't fair to expect a company to update its entire collection of games to work on the latest system or to build a new emulator for each new generation. A 100% compatible emulator wold be would be the best solution but i would accept old games from previous generations to be streamed, as a way for companies to take responsibility in preserving there own old content.
I would assume that companies generally want to avoid emulators because they can lead to piracy. however at the moment pirates are doing the most to archive and maintain video game content. Currently you can get an emulator and play any game up to the XBOX & PS2 generation by pirating them. In the case of the PS3 with its notoriously hard to develop for cell processor creating an emulator would be a challenge. how ever in the current generation of x86 based consoles emulators shouldn't be a challenge
NOT FOR STREAMING SERVICES OR DOWNLOAD SERVICES. but would like to see the entire PSX PS2 and PS3 catalog as fast as possible and i think streaming service, using disc based keys so that you can play the games your already own, is the fastest way do do it.
2.PS3 Classics (preferably with some type of backwards compatibility by using the disk as a key) through PS Now or emulation
2. PS2 Classics (preferably with some type of backwards compatibility by using the disk as a key) through PS Now or emulation
3. PS1 Classics (preferably with some type of backwards compatibility by using the disk as a key) through PS Now or emulation
4. abillity to remove (i'll settle for hide) demos and ended betas in my library
5. Store wish list
I put up PS now because they spent a lot of money on acquiring gykai so rather than taking the time to write a new emulation system just allow people to use there old games as keys to the games they want to play on PSNow. In the end they probably won't make their money back but they won't have to spend any additional development time and money trying to write an emulator for every system now until forever. and if your really have to hide that feature behind PS+ (they gotta get they money to pay for bandwidth and rack space from somewhere)
I don't mind pre-loading in most cases but downloading something as large as destiny is redicilous especially on an eco system that starts with only 500 the. Even if it does just put the icon up I'm not sure I'm OK with this type of direct advertising on an unsubsidized machine that I bought. This stuff belongs in a suggested games section
There a 3 truths about halo 1. Its halo, 2. its good 3. people who like halo and have Xbox ones are going to buy the crap out of it. The multiplayer woes are depressing because a big part of what made halo special was its multiplayer. However that is not to say that halo is only its multiplier like other modern shooters I.E. call of duty. I'm not saying call of duty is a bad game (quite the contrary bought new at launch COD 4-Ghost with the exception of world at war)but i feel there is still something special about halo that makes it magic.
The game play in halo at the time is of then regarded as a master class of mechanics. Bungie dose mechanics very well. Despite Destiny's flaws the underlying mechanics of moving and shooting still feel amazing, Mostly because the feel like they were ripped from the halo games. The story in the games at times can be convoluted and might i say down right stupid (halo 2's revelations that there are Multiple halo rings so that they can make the same game till the end of time) but it has spawned a rich universe of novels and other media.
But i digress back to this review. Halo MCC is a great COLLECTION of OLD video games that everyone has probably already played. I will not argue that it deserves any thing more than a 7 (come on its halo it deserves to be called good based on GS's current 10 point scale) at the time of writing. Giving this game with broken features anything higher than a 7 in its current state is irresponsible. The game has BROKEN major features such as matchmaking that is crucial to online multiplayer. As gammers and reviewers we shouldn't allow developers and publishers to push out BROKEN and UNFINISHED (the 20gb online multiplayer patch which still had issues) to meet a deadline. Giving games like Halo MMC reviews of 8+ gives them licence to continue this bad practice.
Being one of the first and best representation of first person shooters on consoles(I am not forgetting about 007 or N64 Perfect Dark, the 360 remakes were bull shit.) it deserves your respect. People shouldn't shit out on it in an attempt at sparking the console flame war or justify there purchases of either console. People should just play the games, I promise you they are good and and worth trying. They are old but they are an excellent representation of what FPSs used to be on console and how far they come. Its sad that the matchmaking so far is a failure and i hope that it doesn't kill this game's online community but the halo are best when you can get four of your friends sitting on a couch playing and laughing together in multiplier (online or off) or 4 player system link co-op.
many games are good or even great but not every game is supurb or perfect. using the score titles as a disscriptor rather than the number is a better representation of this game. Personally i would have given it a 7 (good) for just the single player and the offline multiplayer but 6 or 7 is an execlent rating for a collection of 10 year old games that have a broken multiplayer component.
Reviewers have different taste thats why you go to different sites to get different opinons. IMHO GS is the most honest because they don't just give 8-10 to every major AAA release that comes around like other sites *cough*IGN*cough* (tried really hard not to call them out). i feel that they actually play and rate the games on there own marrit. my second choice in reviews would be giant bomb be cause it was founded by Geff Gertsmen and a original member of the GS review team and giver of GSs first ever 10 to Ocarina of time I feel that he still gives fair reviews on games even if he has become a grumpy old man in videos
I bought a PS4, play most of my games on PC (PCMR for life), and owned and played through every Halo to date (except Halo wars, I admit that was a fucked up cash-in on peoples love of halo games but a call back to what halo was originally going to be. ya halo originally was an RTS). But if i had a Xbox one I would have been right out there at midnight waiting in line rain or shine to get my copy of MCC. And if i knew someone with an Xbox one i would probably buy it any way so i could play in on their system and then get them one for XMAS if they didn't already have it.
Lets face it people halo is a supurb game but they are 10 years old let it go. games built on what halo started and gotten better for it. Thees were amazing games in there time and I still love them but we have played them before. lets look to the future and let halo 5 continue our dreams of gaming excellence
--7/10 GS Rating Good (Non-functioning matchmaking at the time of review keeps it from going any higher. If it worked I would only give it an 8 because they are old games that every one played on last gen or the gen befor. the offline game/split screen multiplayer is still fun and a great value for your money and great games to boot)
P.S. I too am starting getting old. The first halo came out when i was 12 which is why it is so special to me. DON'T SHIT ON IT!!
Giving this game with broken features anything higher than a 7 in its current state is irrispnsible. The game has BROKEN major features such as matchmaking that is crucial to online multiplayer. As gamers and reviewer shouldn't allow developers and publishers to push out BROKEN and UNFINISHED (the 20gb online multiplayer patch which still had issues) to meet a deadline. Giving games like Halo MMC reviews of 8+ gives them licence to continue this bad practice.
7/10 in its current state
8/10 MAX!!! ounce the multiplayer is fixed.
Lets face it people halo is a supurb game but they are 10 years old let it go. games built on what halo started and gotten better for it thees were great in there time and I still love them but we have played them before. lets look to the future and let halo 5 continue our dreams of gaming execelence
sgthobbes' comments