So it costs $1050 which converts to 922€, so about 100€ more expensive.

Try something AAA made in this decade, on a monitor made in this decade. Valve also isn't marketing this as a retro console.

They said 60fps at 4k.

They lied.

I blame the competitive gamers that barely understand what theyre doing. I seen guys complaining about their frame rates dropping below 120 on a 2k display.

Maybe, something higher than 120 provides an advantage to players with extreme reactive skills in the most intense close quarter first-person combat, but there otherwise wouldnt be a reason to sustain anything above 120. I dont think there are any monitors that refresh above 120.

Imagine bottlenecking 200+ frames a second, at 2k resolution, through a 60 hertz monitor. What a waste of gpu.

Microslop though

Yeah good point, i've just double checked their capabilities (steam store link)

Xbox Elite series 2 controllers are $200, Switch 2 joycons are $100 for a pair, a base PS5 controller is $60-75, 3rd party wired controllers are like $20-30.

$80 for a controller is about average.

Considering the competition starts at $60 and doesn’t have touchpads, back buttons or a dedicated wireless receiver, I’d say it’s pretty reasonable.

yea very, its about 1049 512Gb, and 300 more for the 2tb one.

Depends on what you compare it to I’d say. From reviews the quality is really high, and if you would use them a lot the trackpads might already be worth it compared to conventional controllers. But if you just want a standard controller, a PS5 controller has pretty much all other features and also has a very good build quality. (xbox controllers don’t have gyro which is stupid in this day and age) and also brands like 8bitdo have caught up a ton in terms of build quality and features and offer great cheaper options. So imo it really comes down to the trackpads and perfect steam integration.

Regardless, I still have ps2 controllers from 18-25 years ago that i can use for every non-keyboard game on my steam. Humblebrag.

Ah in OP's original post they linked a dollar version of the image so i was looking at that when inkade the comment

 ❯ free -h
               total        used        free      shared  buff/cache   available
Mem:            62Gi        24Gi       4.6Gi       5.8Gi        37Gi        37Gi
Swap:          8.0Gi       530Mi       7.5Gi

no thx

This is similar to what I've experienced too but don't be surprised if someone tells you that it's impossible for windows to use less ram than Linux. There's one of those people in every thread.

Gonna guess you mean USB drive, and not HDD.

In 2004, 128 and 256 GB HDDs were pretty standard, and if you had some extra budget to throw at a PC, you could get a 512GB.

My budget laptop in 2004 had a 128GB HDD, 256MB RAM (quickly upgraded to 768MB) and like a 1ghz dual core processor.

I remember having a 512MB usb stick and thinking that I would never have to delete anything off it, because I would never have enough word docs or projects at school to fill it up all the way.

I bought a 16Gb laptop in 2012, which is out of the noughties, but still 14 fucking years ago.

14 years before that I had 32Mb; a 500* multiplier.

Huh, I got a PC in 1997 with a 2GB hard drive. It didn't take long (a year or so) for that to start feeling small compared to others my friend had. He got an 8 GB HD in probably 1998 and a 20 GB shortly after. It was ram I remember being so small. That PC I mentioned from 97 had 24 MB RAM which was good in 1997. It took a couple of years for anyone I knew to exceed 64 MB.