From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action


It's been a long and slow battle, but victory is soon at hand. It is
projected that by 2028, PC gaming revenue is expected to surprass
revenue for console gaming.*

PC has already surpassed the revenue for any individual console
platform's sales: PS5, Nintendo Switch, that one from Microsoft that
used to be popular (what was it called again? ;-)... they all lag
behind the PC in revenue. But soon the PC will be so popular that even /combined/ the console market won't be able to compete.

Pretty good for a platform that was declared dead twenty years back.
Maybe going back to PS5 exclusivity isn't the best strategy, Sony, ya
think?

The only fly in the ointment is that --as great as PC is doing--
mobile is doing even better. In fact, some are even saying that soon
nobody will be developing for PC anymore, but instead everything will
be mobile.

We'll see about that. Come back for a follow-up report in twenty
years.




* report here https://newzoo.com/resources/trend-reports/the-pc-console-gaming-report-2026


--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Fri, 13 Mar 2026 13:12:48 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

It's been a long and slow battle, but victory is soon at hand. It is >projected that by 2028, PC gaming revenue is expected to surprass
revenue for console gaming.*

PC has already surpassed the revenue for any individual console
platform's sales: PS5, Nintendo Switch, that one from Microsoft that
used to be popular (what was it called again? ;-)... they all lag
behind the PC in revenue. But soon the PC will be so popular that even >/combined/ the console market won't be able to compete.

Pretty good for a platform that was declared dead twenty years back.
Maybe going back to PS5 exclusivity isn't the best strategy, Sony, ya
think?

The only fly in the ointment is that --as great as PC is doing--
mobile is doing even better. In fact, some are even saying that soon
nobody will be developing for PC anymore, but instead everything will
be mobile.

We'll see about that. Come back for a follow-up report in twenty
years.

Can anyone even afford a PC any more? I just checked on the 64 GB of RAM
I bought for a little over $200 a year ago. It now costs over $850.

We'll see what the PC gaming revenue reports look like after the AI bros
get done wreaking havoc on the consumer markets. I suspect a strong dip
in 3-5 years.

AI can't fail fast enough, afaic.
--
Zag

Give me the liberty to know, to think, to believe,
and to utter freely according to conscience, above
all other liberties. ~John Milton
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On 3/13/2026 10:12 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

It's been a long and slow battle, but victory is soon at hand. It is projected that by 2028, PC gaming revenue is expected to surprass
revenue for console gaming.*

PC has already surpassed the revenue for any individual console
platform's sales: PS5, Nintendo Switch, that one from Microsoft that
used to be popular (what was it called again? ;-)... they all lag
behind the PC in revenue. But soon the PC will be so popular that even /combined/ the console market won't be able to compete.

Pretty good for a platform that was declared dead twenty years back.
Maybe going back to PS5 exclusivity isn't the best strategy, Sony, ya
think?

The only fly in the ointment is that --as great as PC is doing--
mobile is doing even better. In fact, some are even saying that soon
nobody will be developing for PC anymore, but instead everything will
be mobile.

We'll see about that. Come back for a follow-up report in twenty
years.

Hackers will hack the games to run on PCs until they die.
--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Fri, 13 Mar 2026 13:12:48 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

It's been a long and slow battle, but victory is soon at hand. It is >projected that by 2028, PC gaming revenue is expected to surprass
revenue for console gaming.*

I just wonder how much of the damage has already been done.

In terms of the software development industry that grew up with a
preference for keyboard/mouse and the tweakability of industry
hardware over consoles, a shit load of GenX have already checked out
of it all due to the overall decline of creativity caused by wokism
and such.

Millenials and younger grew up on consoles, believing Microsoft is the
evil empire and that open source and Linux might be their gaming
savior (even though boomers and genx'ers before them said that 30
years earlier and it never happened or even came close). They want
their mac books, which suck for games... they have their phones and
consoles, why would they want PCs?

GenX is in such peril that they have no real future employment
opportunities at this point.. Their brains were already fried enough
by TikTok and now AI will finish the job for them, and make sure they
have little options other than sex work going forward. How would they
afford "good hardware" otherwise?

So I'm wondering even if PC gaming does have a popularity resurgence,
who is the buying customer? Boomers and GenX have made clear they
give less fuck about games as they grow older. I personally as a
buyer would be glad to hold on if the games are good and innovative
enough, but who is going to do the development and innovating? GenX? Millenials? "Generation Alpha"? Bwahaha




--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Fri, 13 Mar 2026 19:09:55 -0500, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
said this thing:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2026 13:12:48 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

Can anyone even afford a PC any more? I just checked on the 64 GB of RAM
I bought for a little over $200 a year ago. It now costs over $850.

The report itself is actually talking more about game sales than
hardware. In that regard, PCs have long dominated that market; I think
actual PC sales surpassed console sales back in the 90s. Of course, a
lot of those were for businesses, but even a lowly Dell can still play
games, if you don't mind lower quality settings, so they still count
as gaming rigs. ;-)

No, the big change now is that PC games sell more than console
games... and publishers pay attention to this. Increasingly, the PC
will be the main market (in many cases it already is), with ports to
PS5 and Switch the secondary markets. There will be some exceptions
(Sony decided to go back to PS5 exclusives in order to push their own
platform) but --at least for now-- you won't see consoles as the
primary market anymore. The PC will get the games first... and the
games will be designed around the specs of the PC.

We'll see what the PC gaming revenue reports look like after the AI bros
get done wreaking havoc on the consumer markets. I suspect a strong dip
in 3-5 years.
AI can't fail fast enough, afaic.

I don't disagree with you there. But there's so much money tied up
into AI these days --not just tech companies, but investment firms--
that I worry about how it will affect the world economy when the
bubble actually pops.


--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Fri, 13 Mar 2026 19:09:55 -0500, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
said this thing:

We'll see what the PC gaming revenue reports look like after the AI bros
get done wreaking havoc on the consumer markets. I suspect a strong dip
in 3-5 years.

AI can't fail fast enough, afaic.

Meanwhile, the VC guys funding the whole AI debacle can't seem to
understand why gamers hate AI so much.*

The fact that they can't figure out that their technology (which has
only marginal upsides --mostly benefitting the C-levels and above--
and numerous downsides: endless slop, environmental cost, loss of
experienced developers, raising the price of computer hardware) speaks
volumes about their motives. It's not about better products or making
a better world. It's about revenue. And while, as a gamer, I'm happy
to support a publisher if it means they get to keep making me good
games, there's a limit to that support.

Fortunately, this anti-AI sentiment is fairly broad, and while there
is a lot of hype about what AI can do, it doesn't seem to be
convincing a lot of people to actually PAY for those services. And
while the appeal of being able to fire all your staff and replace them
with braindead chat-scripts still attracts many C-levels, there's an
increasing awareness that those chat-bots aren't actually that good
and you'll probably just have to rehire all those employees
eventually. So corporate support (outside of the AI bubble) is
starting to slow.

But the cluelessness of the AI-bros amuses me. It's right up there
with the crypto-bros who thought everyone would leap to bitcoin and
NFTs, and then were bemused when --after the initial hype cycle
faded-- they were left with mostly worthless pictures of ugly frogs.

But its especially stupid regarding AI in games. We want to play good
games, and your product prevents us from doing that. Is there any
wonder gamers are against it?!?




----
* article about the clueless here https://kotaku.com/investors-grapple-with-ai-unpopularity-at-gdc-xbox-2000678933



--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Mon, 16 Mar 2026 12:02:03 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

But the cluelessness of the AI-bros amuses me. It's right up there
with the crypto-bros who thought everyone would leap to bitcoin and
NFTs, and then were bemused when --after the initial hype cycle
faded-- they were left with mostly worthless pictures of ugly frogs.

But its especially stupid regarding AI in games. We want to play good
games, and your product prevents us from doing that. Is there any
wonder gamers are against it?!?

There are whole games where you converse with an LLM. They suck.

<rant>Basically, we're seeing sunk cost fallacy. Tech bros made an
amazing leap with their processing algorithms where LLMs sounded so human
that some idiots even thought it was conscious. They figured they didn't
have very far to go to make it a killer product. They circulated stories
about AI causing an extinction event, it was so groundbreaking, just to generate buzz. Then they created a killer tech demo, and a bunch of
people who don't deserve to hold their jobs any longer bought into it.

And... oh fuck that was really way too optimistic, because they don't understand *how* they got the results they did, and so they don't know
how to fix it and make it a usable product. Make a small tweak and it's
spewing Mein Kampf.

Where we absolutely know it went off the rails is when all the AI
services started adding the boilerplate: "LLM Generated results may be inaccurate." Translation from their lawyer-speak is "Our product is irretrievably broken." They all do it now, in one way or another.

And you can't confirm anything, because it's synthesized from everything.
So it's completely useless if you need to rely on its output.

They can't fix it. It's not getting any better. They're fucked. To their chagrin, they spent out an awful lot of speculative money and some
powerful people have big bucks riding on this fool's gold.

I'm personally convinced they're now attempting to get "Too big to fail." People like this always find a way to skirt consequences. They'll
threaten to crash the world economy before they eat their own shit
sandwich. At this point, I'm on team "it can burn." These people need to
suffer consequences or we will get crashes that hurt you and me and never
touch them. If that means I'm back to flint and steel, so be it.

</rant>

- - -

And what does LLM, and ML in general, have to do with games AI? There's
machine learning processes to make AI really good at, say, Counterstrike,
so long as no one learns and adapts, but it requires more compute power
and time than anyone wants to bother with for gaming. We'd need quantum
NPs to do the real-time work necessary. Chess lends itself to algorithmic computation. RTS or FPS? No way.

I'm not surprised devs and pubs did the "unfaithful boyfriend" head turn,
it was sexy as hell, but it should have ended there. The last thing our
toys need is an unreliable, possibly unsafe toy integrated into them.

And NFTs. Fuck NFTs. Had to mention them. It's context.
--
Zag

Give me the liberty to know, to think, to believe,
and to utter freely according to conscience, above
all other liberties. ~John Milton
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Mon, 16 Mar 2026 13:11:03 -0500, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
said this thing:

On Mon, 16 Mar 2026 12:02:03 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

But its especially stupid regarding AI in games. We want to play good >>games, and your product prevents us from doing that. Is there any
wonder gamers are against it?!?

There are whole games where you converse with an LLM. They suck.

<rant>Basically, we're seeing sunk cost fallacy. Tech bros made an
amazing leap with their processing algorithms where LLMs sounded so human >that some idiots even thought it was conscious. They figured they didn't
have very far to go to make it a killer product. They circulated stories >about AI causing an extinction event, it was so groundbreaking, just to >generate buzz. Then they created a killer tech demo, and a bunch of
people who don't deserve to hold their jobs any longer bought into it.

That's not really sunk cost fallacy, but I otherwise don't disagree
with the rant (you know me, I'm always a fan of a good rant! ;-). I
think the majority of big AI firms are still bullish about it, many
being true believers or just figuring they can get off safely anytime,
but in the meantime they might as well take the suckers... erm, their
customers for all they can.

If AI is not taking off the way they expected it to, that's just
because they haven't convinced people about its undeniable merits, or
because it just has a few bugs that keep it from being all it can be.
Another trillion dollars of venture capital should fix that. They see themselves sort of like Amazon back in the mid 90s. Back then nobody
could imagine people would shop online, but look at it now. AI, they
hope, is in that same position; if you just give it long enough, it
will flourish.

Of course, there were advantages to the end-user for online
shopping... and the disadvantages were less immediately obvious. Also,
it didn't cost billions just to set up. Plus, the people running online-shopping start-ups in the late 90s weren't being tremendous
douches. But otherwise it's the same, right?

So I don't think it's a sunk cost fallacy; I think most of the people
involved in the selling of this bubble believe they'll come out
ahead... the same way people who started NFTs ultimately came out
ahead. They just don't care that when the bubble bursts, it will be
everyone else left holding the bag.

And in the meantime, hey, the world gets premium-level child-porn
generators that requires mega-gallons of water, gigawatts of power,
billions of dollars of hardware and is eliminating jobs across the
world. Doesn't that all make it worth it?

They seem to think so.

And... oh fuck that was really way too optimistic, because they don't >understand *how* they got the results they did, and so they don't know
how to fix it and make it a usable product. Make a small tweak and it's >spewing Mein Kampf.

Where we absolutely know it went off the rails is when all the AI
services started adding the boilerplate: "LLM Generated results may be >inaccurate." Translation from their lawyer-speak is "Our product is >irretrievably broken." They all do it now, in one way or another.

And you can't confirm anything, because it's synthesized from everything.
So it's completely useless if you need to rely on its output.

They can't fix it. It's not getting any better. They're fucked. To their >chagrin, they spent out an awful lot of speculative money and some
powerful people have big bucks riding on this fool's gold.

I'm personally convinced they're now attempting to get "Too big to fail." >People like this always find a way to skirt consequences. They'll
threaten to crash the world economy before they eat their own shit
sandwich. At this point, I'm on team "it can burn." These people need to >suffer consequences or we will get crashes that hurt you and me and never >touch them. If that means I'm back to flint and steel, so be it.

</rant>

- - -

And what does LLM, and ML in general, have to do with games AI? There's >machine learning processes to make AI really good at, say, Counterstrike,
so long as no one learns and adapts, but it requires more compute power
and time than anyone wants to bother with for gaming. We'd need quantum
NPs to do the real-time work necessary. Chess lends itself to algorithmic >computation. RTS or FPS? No way.

I'm not surprised devs and pubs did the "unfaithful boyfriend" head turn,
it was sexy as hell, but it should have ended there. The last thing our
toys need is an unreliable, possibly unsafe toy integrated into them.

And NFTs. Fuck NFTs. Had to mention them. It's context.

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Tue, 17 Mar 2026 11:02:40 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

And in the meantime, hey, the world gets premium-level child-porn
generators that requires mega-gallons of water, gigawatts of power,
billions of dollars of hardware and is eliminating jobs across the
world. Doesn't that all make it worth it?

This reminds me of a thoughtful Thai show on Netflix called Tomorrow + i.
It has a very "The Outer Limits" feel to it.

The second episode, "paradistopia" in particular, as far as AI generated
porn.

Although the iBuddy episode is even better. AI generated virtue. I highly recommend the series.
--
Zag

Give me the liberty to know, to think, to believe,
and to utter freely according to conscience, above
all other liberties. ~John Milton
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Tue, 17 Mar 2026 21:13:16 -0500, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
said this thing:

This reminds me of a thoughtful Thai show on Netflix called Tomorrow + i.
It has a very "The Outer Limits" feel to it.
The second episode, "paradistopia" in particular, as far as AI generated >porn.
Although the iBuddy episode is even better. AI generated virtue. I highly >recommend the series.

Haven't seen the show; it sounds interesting but I've enough on the
plate already. I'll add it to the watch-list (which is even longer
than my video-game playlist, sadly ;-)

Still, I suspect the AI espoused by any of these shows is 1000% better
than the over-glorified chat-bots we currently have. All the copyright violating, porn-generating, privacy-destroying, environment-stomping,
and technology-hoarding wouldn't be quite so bad if it actually
resulted in a worthwhile product. HAL9000 they ain't.






--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Wed, 18 Mar 2026 17:37:26 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

Still, I suspect the AI espoused by any of these shows is 1000% better
than the over-glorified chat-bots we currently have. All the copyright >violating, porn-generating, privacy-destroying, environment-stomping,
and technology-hoarding wouldn't be quite so bad if it actually
resulted in a worthwhile product. HAL9000 they ain't.

You know, when I think about it, I don't want a product. I want a tool. Products are used to make bank, whether they help us or not. Tools are
used to make life better... or worse. They're pretty agnostic.

I want AI to be used for our betterment, not our replacement. I don't
want it to relieve me of my burdens, I want it to help me carry bigger
ones. Ultimately, when we do get this to work, we're going to have to
decide if we actually value human beings. It's pretty clear that all the
people drooling over this do not. I'm also pretty sure that they don't understand that it's easier to feed a person than it is to come up with
the fuckton of energy a truly valuable tool would require. Commercial
fusion is going to predate actual AI, IMO. The fact that we're burning
this many resources just for... this? That makes me think we don't *have*
the resources. Yet.
--
Zag

Give me the liberty to know, to think, to believe,
and to utter freely according to conscience, above
all other liberties. ~John Milton
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Wed, 18 Mar 2026 19:10:33 -0500, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
said this thing:



In a related-to-gaming news (this is a gaming newsgroup, remember?
That's why they call it comp.sys.ibm.pc.games ;-), Nvidia has stepped
into it with their handling of the DLSS5 announcement.

To say the release of the technology has not gone down well with
gamers --or at least an extremely vocal minority-- is an
understatement. So of course the CEO of nvidia --which has bet biggly
on AI-- had to double-down in the most condescending way... and that's
made things even worse.

Honestly, I don't think it's all as bad as those gamers make it sound
(although the memes are funny) but it does reflect the growing dislike
of generative AI being forced into everything. And no customer base
likes being told they are completely wrong. But I love watching CEOs
shoot themselves in the foot. Totally justifying your classes' overly
high salaries once again, Huang! You're just so good at reading the
room!

He'd have done better distancing the technology from generative AI...
it might have gone down better with the customers. But nvidia is so
focused on AI these days they can't imagine that people find it
distasteful. I can imagine nvidia CEO Huang staring into the mirror
and asking: "Is nvidia out of touch? No, no, it's the customers who
are wrong."


--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On 3/19/2026 10:04 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

On Wed, 18 Mar 2026 19:10:33 -0500, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
said this thing:

In a related-to-gaming news (this is a gaming newsgroup, remember?
That's why they call it comp.sys.ibm.pc.games ;-), Nvidia has stepped
into it with their handling of the DLSS5 announcement.

To say the release of the technology has not gone down well with
gamers --or at least an extremely vocal minority-- is an
understatement. So of course the CEO of nvidia --which has bet biggly
on AI-- had to double-down in the most condescending way... and that's
made things even worse.

Honestly, I don't think it's all as bad as those gamers make it sound (although the memes are funny) but it does reflect the growing dislike
of generative AI being forced into everything. And no customer base
likes being told they are completely wrong. But I love watching CEOs
shoot themselves in the foot. Totally justifying your classes' overly
high salaries once again, Huang! You're just so good at reading the
room!

He'd have done better distancing the technology from generative AI...
it might have gone down better with the customers. But nvidia is so
focused on AI these days they can't imagine that people find it
distasteful. I can imagine nvidia CEO Huang staring into the mirror
and asking: "Is nvidia out of touch? No, no, it's the customers who
are wrong."

There is the old saying, wish I could remember all of it, "The customer
is always..." something or another. ;)
--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:

There is the old saying, wish I could remember all of it, "The
customer is always..." something or another. ;)

Filched? Screwed? Something.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Thu, 19 Mar 2026 17:25:08 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> said this thing:

There is the old saying, wish I could remember all of it, "The customer
is always..." something or another. ;)

Reputedly, the phrase is: "The customer is always right... in matters
of taste", reportedly coined by British retailer Harry Gordon
Selfridge (there's some debate if that's true). But when it comes to
what customers like and dislike, it does no good to argue with them.
On less subjective matters, customers can very much be wrong. As can
be attested to by anyone who has ever had to deal with customers or
clients. ;-)

The thing is, in this case Nvidia might be correct. But their response
was still bad form and only aggravated the naysayers even more. But
nvidia is so deeply entrenched in AI that they feel obligated to
defend and promote its use at any opportunity. Sure, it may lose them
some gaming customers... but its great for attracting other AI firms.
"If our GPUs can do this for games, imagine how they can manipulate
pictures in your server farms".

Didja know, Nividia is now worth $5 trillion USD? Bigger than Apple,
bigger than Microsoft, bigger than Tesla (or whatever we're calling it
today, Elon), bigger than Google or Facebook... and its all built on
AI cash.

But that bubble's gonna burst eventually...




--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On 3/19/2026 10:04 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

On Wed, 18 Mar 2026 19:10:33 -0500, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
said this thing:

In a related-to-gaming news (this is a gaming newsgroup, remember?
That's why they call it comp.sys.ibm.pc.games ;-), Nvidia has stepped
into it with their handling of the DLSS5 announcement.

This really deserves it's own post. Unfortunately I don't have enough
time to post my thoughts on it right now.
--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Thu, 19 Mar 2026 13:04:12 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

On Wed, 18 Mar 2026 19:10:33 -0500, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
said this thing:

In a related-to-gaming news (this is a gaming newsgroup, remember?
That's why they call it comp.sys.ibm.pc.games ;-), Nvidia has stepped
into it with their handling of the DLSS5 announcement.

To say the release of the technology has not gone down well with
gamers --or at least an extremely vocal minority-- is an
understatement. So of course the CEO of nvidia --which has bet biggly
on AI-- had to double-down in the most condescending way... and that's
made things even worse.

Honestly, I don't think it's all as bad as those gamers make it sound >(although the memes are funny) but it does reflect the growing dislike
of generative AI being forced into everything. And no customer base
likes being told they are completely wrong. But I love watching CEOs
shoot themselves in the foot. Totally justifying your classes' overly
high salaries once again, Huang! You're just so good at reading the
room!

He'd have done better distancing the technology from generative AI...
it might have gone down better with the customers. But nvidia is so
focused on AI these days they can't imagine that people find it
distasteful. I can imagine nvidia CEO Huang staring into the mirror
and asking: "Is nvidia out of touch? No, no, it's the customers who
are wrong."

"You're holding it wrong." Steve Jobs.

I think they sell RDFs in B-school now, but Steve pioneered the product.
--
Zag

Give me the liberty to know, to think, to believe,
and to utter freely according to conscience, above
all other liberties. ~John Milton
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Fri, 20 Mar 2026 10:25:16 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

On Thu, 19 Mar 2026 17:25:08 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> said this thing:

There is the old saying, wish I could remember all of it, "The customer
is always..." something or another. ;)

Reputedly, the phrase is: "The customer is always right... in matters
of taste", reportedly coined by British retailer Harry Gordon
Selfridge (there's some debate if that's true). But when it comes to
what customers like and dislike, it does no good to argue with them.
On less subjective matters, customers can very much be wrong. As can
be attested to by anyone who has ever had to deal with customers or
clients. ;-)

The thing is, in this case Nvidia might be correct. But their response
was still bad form and only aggravated the naysayers even more. But
nvidia is so deeply entrenched in AI that they feel obligated to
defend and promote its use at any opportunity. Sure, it may lose them
some gaming customers... but its great for attracting other AI firms.
"If our GPUs can do this for games, imagine how they can manipulate
pictures in your server farms".

Didja know, Nividia is now worth $5 trillion USD? Bigger than Apple,
bigger than Microsoft, bigger than Tesla (or whatever we're calling it
today, Elon), bigger than Google or Facebook... and its all built on
AI cash.

But that bubble's gonna burst eventually...

Wealth made into paper is called money. Wealth *on* paper is a joke.
--
Zag

Give me the liberty to know, to think, to believe,
and to utter freely according to conscience, above
all other liberties. ~John Milton
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Fri, 20 Mar 2026 10:33:57 -0700, Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com>
said this thing:

On 3/19/2026 10:04 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

In a related-to-gaming news (this is a gaming newsgroup, remember?
That's why they call it comp.sys.ibm.pc.games ;-), Nvidia has stepped
into it with their handling of the DLSS5 announcement.

This really deserves it's own post. Unfortunately I don't have enough
time to post my thoughts on it right now.

Probably, but I'm not up on the DLSS5 technology yet (although https://youtu.be/D0EM1vKt36s seems a good starter) for me to make a
whole separate post describing it.

So instead I just focused on a CEO again showing off how they
absolutely don't deserve their way-too-high salary.

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> looked up from reading the entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:

On Thu, 19 Mar 2026 17:25:08 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> said this thing:

There is the old saying, wish I could remember all of it, "The customer
is always..." something or another. ;)

Reputedly, the phrase is: "The customer is always right... in matters
of taste", reportedly coined by British retailer Harry Gordon
Selfridge (there's some debate if that's true). But when it comes to
what customers like and dislike, it does no good to argue with them.
On less subjective matters, customers can very much be wrong. As can
be attested to by anyone who has ever had to deal with customers or
clients. ;-)

Stores and restaurants often have "the customer is always right" as
policy.

However according to people who actually work in customer facing
positions, it is "The customer is almost always an asshole, but you have
to treat them as though they are right." One of the many reasons that customer service and tech support people burn out fairly quickly.

Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2