GamersNexus: "In this benchmark, we'll look at dual-channel vs. single-channel platform performance for Adobe Premiere, gaming, video encoding, transcoding, number crunching, and daily use. The aim is to debunk or confirm a few myths about computer memory. I've seen a lot of forums touting (without supporting data) that dual-channel is somehow completely useless, and to the same tune, we've seen similar counter-arguments that buying anything less than 2 sticks of RAM is foolish. Both have merits."
Come check out who took the major prizes at this year’s BIG Festival, hosted by gamescom latam 2025.
With some recent and pending releases opting to exclude a multiplayer mode; Skewed and Reviewed ask in a new Opinion Piece if this is a growing trend as developers seek to cut costs more than ever.
I think the riskier option is to sell a SP game that you throw some form of MP into just for the sake of it and that ends up affecting the quality of the SP experience. With the plethora of F2P MP games out there, why spend time and money on something when you can focus on the SP experience. Not to say that means they're all good, but at least they're not wasting time with things people don't want in SP games. I doubt anyone bought Veilguard for MP let alone will buy the next Star Wars SP game and expect MP either.
There is that. I think the modes that were tried for The Last of Us is a good example. But for me a FPS missing multiplayer seems off as it was such a staple FPS, RTS, and sports games are where gamers expect it to be.
It's the current logic. People are paying more, for less.
If that "saved" money were actually spent on improving the single-player experience, that’d be one thing. But anyone who actually plays games knows that’s not what happens. We’re in the era of “safe” games, stripped-down, polished packages full of shiny lighting, big setpieces, and all the interactivity of a NES-era background.
Multiplayer modes, extra features, modding tools, things that used to add value for players, keep getting cut. Why? Because they don’t add value for the company. And, as always, the useful idiots will cheer, pay more all while getting less than before. So of course companies will keep doing it.
Exactly and what gets me is if it is done correctly, multiplay adds money. Ask Activision how much they make on skins and DLC all the while giving a year of free content updates. You get through a Call of Duty campaign in about 8-12 hrs. The multiplayer and frequent content updates are what keeps people playing. I always pop back in when new maps and content release. I do not buy skins and packs but many do. I wonder if we will get the Half-Life 2 mode where Multiplayer is added later. Some may see how the game does and then decide to add it later.
I wish they would go back to having SOME simple mp, like instead of the only choices being going all out and gambling on a super roadmaped, season pass, Battle Royale, multiplayer with open world maps and tons of loot OR no multiplayer at all. Why cant we have something in between sometimes? Where's just this very simple PVP probably reusing a sectioned off peace of a level from a single player like they used to do
I think they all have a place but simpler forms are needed. I wish we would see more co-op play in a campaign.
These are the best character builds in Clair Obscur per character.
generally, it doesnt matter until after the half way mark, but will be more important later on
I’ve been beating every single boss with my build… except phase 2 Simon… can’t believe they made that menace
Interesting read, I always dual channeled without much thought
This is one of the tech questions I've been asking. I'm in a dilemma, what RAM should I buy the Quad channel DDR3 or the Dual Channel only?.. Correct me if I'm wrong, the Quad channel RAM storage is up to 8?.
"Does It Matter for Gaming?"
No. the money you spend on better ram is always better if if was on cpu or gpu.
Isn't this article 5 years too late? We have had quad channel RAM for a while.