OmarBradley

50 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Would you do the same for other bands who have changed their style too much? Like Fleetwood Mac. And how about all artists who have shifted from country to pop, or pop to rock, or doom to death metal. What about Beastie Boys going from punk to rap. I assume you accept only their punk albums as proper Beastie Boys albums (or was it the rap album?). Ween released a country album. But I guess you reject it as a Ween album? Radiohead was a typical guitar based, grungy outfit but turned very experimental in later releases. Blur can hardly be put into any category. And so on, and so on. Would you change all these band's discography pages on Wikipedia and what criteria would you use, simply what you subjectively feel is "true" to that band?

I agree there needs to be more definition and metrics on what is "straying too far." In the case of GNR, it's a few things. The style of music is the major one, but it is further exacerbated by the frequent lineup changes and the erratic conducting of band affairs. 

Fleetwood Mac I am familiar enough with to make a determination. The lineup that released the band's defining content stayed mostly together and mostly in the same style for the band's duration (of course like almost everything else that transitioned from 70s to 80s, the characteristics changed to match the era, but the content remained fairly stable).

I am not familiar enough with the other groups you mentioned to say either way. I would say it's fine for bands to explore other styles with their releases, but that's a decision that must be made by the band together, not the guy who wrangled the rights to the name and then drove everyone away with his new stylistic pursuit (overgeneralization, I don't want to debate why GNR dissolved, multiple parties are at fault and the view that Axl was doing what was best is something I understand, though I don't fully agree with).

I agree it's a precarious line, but GNR has violated it blatantly. Which is why it's so easy for me to continuously defend my position (in my mind at least ).

I agree too, it seems subjective when it's one person (although I know a lot of you out there agree!) driving this point. I propose we establish a committee to determine the validity of a band in regards to its name. We can set up scientific metrics, or as scientific as possible given the sometimes unscientific nature of music, but I do believe a fair set of standard metrics could be established. Now, do I care enough to take the time to diligently construct this? Not really.

13 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

It doesn't matter how many think something. Whether a band is Guns N' Roses or not is up to a consensus decision. It is not up to anyone's decision besides the band itself. They decide, not me, not you. We can be as annoyed and angry and dismayed and bitter and whatever, it doesn't affect reality one little bit. 

As I have said before, I have no problems with people saying that to them this doesn't feel like Guns N' Roses, but as soon as they move away from such a subjective description to a more objective "this isn't Guns N' Roses" we immediately move into the legal discussion because now a statement is made about the existence of something which really isn't up to opinions.

Let's say you were the editor of the band's wikipedia page. Would you then remove CD as part of their discography? If not, then you accept that it is an entirely subjective thing and I would argue that instead of saying "this isn't Guns N' Roses" you'd come off a lot better just saying, "I don't like this version of Guns N' Roses".

The Holy Roman Empire was a legal name. How holy, Roman, or imperial was the country? How about the German Democratic Republic? The Scion FRS and Subaru BRZ are legal names that would lead one to believe they're different cars, but they're 99% the same car.   

A name does not truly define something. Its content does. 

Whether a band is named Guns N' Roses or not is up to the band itself (and really, we're talking solely about Axl here, not "the band"). Axl decides, not me and not you. If Axl recorded an album of Mongolian throat singing, it would not be GNR simply because that's the "dba" on the incorporation form.

Yes, I would unhesitatingly remove CD from GNR's Wikipedia page, but I'm in the minority view so I'd be banned for doing so (if I repeatedly tried to).

Last night as I was waiting for Metro to unlock, I noticed in Anthem's reddit there was a thread of people giving referral links to play a 10 hour trial of the game. Having missed the public demo a few weeks ago, I was interested.

The convoluted deal presented was: someone who owns Anthem (or is an Origin Access member, still not sure) was allotted X amount of referral links to give to other people for 10 hours of Anthem play (full game, just locked to 10 hours). However, the referral links weren't directly for Anthem's trial, they were for a 7 day free trial of EA's Origin Access, which gives you access to a bunch of EA games and trials for upcoming games (including the Anthem 10 hour trial). Anthem went live for Origin Access members today at noon, so a few minutes ago I went to look for the trial in my Origin launcher. Couldn't find it. I then took to Google to see if there was a delay or if I misread something - turns out while any platform could take advantage of the Origin Access free trial, the Anthem trial was Xbox exclusive. So I went back to the Anthem reddit to ask/confirm: so this is Xbox only? Two people replied, 'yes.' A bit disappointing, but not a huge deal.

I decided to poke around in my Origin launcher a bit more, just in case. Still couldn't find it. Having given up, I then went to my account settings on EA's actual webpage to cancel my trial to avoid getting charged, and lo and behold I stumbled upon a page displaying 10 hour trials for three major EA releases... Battlefield V, Fifa 19, and Anthem. 

It's sitting in my Library and downloading right now. No idea if I'm supposed to have access to it, but I do!

Just now, downzy said:

Possibly.  They do give a little gushy when it comes to all things GTA/RDR.  

Then again, they had wall to wall advertisements for Fall Out 76 but their review gave it a 5/10.  

I've been going to that site since '98 or '99 so I suppose I'm just use to their coverage and reviews.  Not too often do I find a lot of space between their assessment and my own.  

Giving FO76 a good review would have been basically admitting their crookedness .

I don't know how widespread or detailed the allegations are, but it's something I've heard repeated. Haven't really looked into it myself, as I usually forgo reviews and buy games that I'm intrigued by. 

Haven't loaded up Metro yet. I moved recently and I'm still on WiFi, so the download took several hours and I wasn't waiting for it at midnight. In 2019, you'd think there would be a solution to this issue, like preloading? But I guess not. 

Is it because game development rigs are super powerful and they then have to tone it down for release builds (even for PCs)? The Witcher 3 had a pretty notable "downgrade" as well.

50 minutes ago, downzy said:

Have fun.  Reviews so far look positive.  IGN rates it as the best Metro game yet.  

Have tried to avoid reviews to go in 100% blind, but I've seen a few positive mentions. As DeadSlash said, I wouldn't trust IGN as the be-all-end-all. Lots of speculation that gaming journalism is quid pro quo/bought & paid for. I generally look at what the players are saying on forums and Steam reviews, in addition to publication reviews. I definitely expect this to be the best Metro game yet - it's miles ahead of the previous two in terms of versatility. The first two look excellent and have pretty good shooting mechanics, but that's about the extent of what they offer aside from an intriguing story and a few minor interesting game mechanics. I'd say both are worth playing though, especially since they're cheap and can be done in about 12 hours each.

34 minutes ago, DeadSlash said:

The industry has ruined me.  I approach it with the same level of skepticism I do positive GnR news about an album. Everything points to this being a good game, and all I can think is  "IGN has been bought before."

I have a bad feeling about the game ever since the bullshot reveal where it was the pre-rendered demonstration of the game, but it was presented as "actual game play."  Every company does bullshots, and they walked it back later revealing it wasn't actual gameplay, but there is such a high level of sketch, really interested in how it is, let us know Omar. 

That was the 2017 reveal, right? In 2018 what they showed (as far as I'm aware) was in game, and it looked very good.

Speaking of reveals vs. releases though, I just watched a comparison video from Anthem's 2017 demo vs. the 2019 public demo (of roughly the same game sequence/content) and holy hell, the 2017 build looked WAY better - notably in lighting, texture fidelity, and NPC design. And it wasn't pre-rendered, as it was a live demonstration of the game. I guess I'll blame this on console optimization? 

Looks like I'll be able to run Metro at fairly high settings at 1440p. A GTX 1080 system benchmarked 60FPS at 1080p on all Ultra settings. I will aim for 40+FPS at 1440p with mostly Ultra/some High settings. 12AM EST is when I can start downloading it. Hopefully I'll get to play tonight.

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

So you argue that the change in direction was too much for it to still be Guns N' Roses. Other people disagree. Who is right? None, because it isn't up to either to decide this but up to the band itself. They and they alone decide what style of music they will release under their band name and people and there is nothing you can do about it regardless of how much it disagrees with your expectations of what that band should do and sound like. It isn't up to you. GN'R may release an acapella record of Mongolian throat singing and it would still be a record by Guns N' Roses. 

It's like a movie franchise ;). Hardcore fans of the first Star Wars movies (those that were released first) can't seriously say the later movies weren't Star Wars movies. It doesn't work that way. Peoples' own subjective feelings, no matter how intense they might be or how many share them, still has no bearing on what something is. 

 

I haven't seen many people disagree the change in direction was too much to be considered the same band as AFD/UYI. I have seen a lot of people sticking to the argument you're using: GNR is a legal entity and it factually exists under the name GNR and that's the printed text on the record. Quite a superficial defense. I'm aware it isn't up to me. This is not about starting a Change.org petition to get Axl to change the name. He doesn't give a fuck what we think. I am simply expressing a view I feel is important.

I don't see the SW analogy. The arguments about the prequels and newest trilogy usually don't revolve around them not being Star Warsy enough, but them just being not that good in terms of quality. I don't see people claiming TLJ or TFA aren't true Star Wars movies, but I see a lot of people claiming they're disappointing to varying degrees.

40 minutes ago, vloors said:

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2019/feb/14/slash-greatest-hits-guns-n-roses-velvet-revolver-bob-dylan-lemmy

Spotify playlist also included

Far & Away?! On his favorites list?! And no Ain't Life Grand?! 

I don't think Slash knows what he's talking about . If this was a genuine attempt, Nightrain would be on here.

And Lower and GTBA are not standouts from 5 O'Clock IMO.

On 2/13/2019 at 2:46 AM, SoulMonster said:

I wouldn't agree. I am more pragmatic regarding band and what constitutes a band, and it simply is a bunch of guys playing music together under some kind of band name. It really is that simple to me. The partnership agreement from 1992 doesn't affect that at all. It is basically an agreement detailing how the partners would divide revenues and ownership to the band name. Owners may come and owners may go, partners may leave and partners may be terminated, but the band continues to exist despite of all this, until the band members themselves say the band has been retired. It's like a privately owned company that does an IPO, it is still the same company even if it is now listed and new owners are in. And similarly with football teams, players come and players go, owners come and owners go, but it is still the same team. A band is simply something beyond the legalities and legal boilerplate...to me. Maybe I am more rock and roll and have a romantic view on things?

But of course it isn't only me. The rest of the world, beyond a subsection of hardcore fans, agree that Guns N' Roses has existed throughout these years. The rest of the world simply accepts that it has changed, like all bands do. Vastly different, yes, not as great, sure, but still Guns N' Roses. Again, using a football analogy, Manchester United was Manchester United even when they played shit and had a awful manager and poor players. I might not have liked it as much, I might not have spent money on tickets, but I would never denounce it, reject it and try to argue that it wasn't Manchester United anymore. For some reason, some fans of GN'R try to do that. And the reason, I assume, is to resolve the cognitive dissonance of being a hardcore fan of a band that disappoints you greatly. How to be a diehard fan of a band that put out music you really dislike and pushes away band members you adore? The simple way is simply to deny that it happened. To make yourself believe that the band stopped existing before it got dirty. So it remains pure and pristine for eternity. [Ironically, some of the same guys who argue technicality and claim GN'R was dissolved when Slash became a terminated partner, still argue that the almost-reunited band we have now has somehow become Guns N' Roses again without any evidence at all that Slash is again a partner of the 1992 agreement. There is little consistency ].

To me it isn't a problem, because I am not really a fan of the band (at least not every aspect of it), but more a fan of some of its music. I don't end up in asinine discussions with friends where we argue whether GN'R is great or not. I will simply argue that I like some of the music, and that is a subjective thing that is beyond discussion. 

I think that's totally the wrong way to look at it and the analogy of a sports team is irrelevant and inaccurate.  

It's not a displeasure in the content provided, I like CD! I will modify your analogy: let's say GNR is like a sports team. From 1985 - 1993 they played good ol' American soccer. But then, in 1996, everyone from the original team (except 1.5 members) were gone, this is common for a sports team, yes? But, the one guy who stayed behind now wants to play European football instead. Similar game, but it's not exactly the same. I'm sure fans of either would ridicule you if you genuinely tried to label one as the other. I like both AFD and CD. But positing they are the same artist is an endeavor void of reason. It would be one thing if the people who created what GNR is (and to 99% of people, that's the band that wrote WTTJ, Paradise City, NR, etc.) stayed in the band and evolved their style with Axl. But they didn't. They left because they wanted to continue playing hard rock based on blues/punk, and Axl didn't. Again, I like CD, a lot. TWAT and Prostitute are nearly masterpieces and I quite like several others. But it's just not GNR, it's not the blues/punk based rock band, and CD is not a natural evolutionary step after UYI as some may claim. CD is too far from the rest of GNR's work, both in tonality/audio timbre and style of songwriting. 

Those that argue CD is GNR may have more ground to stand on had the CD lineup remained intact throughout the duration of the wild years and through 2015, allowing for natural artistic evolution and integrity. But it didn't, it was a revolving door of musicians for about 20 years. 

My view on a what a band should be comes from a purer artistic view than what you're approaching this with. I suppose there's not much chance for reconciliation, as I refuse to budge on this. 

On 2/13/2019 at 7:44 AM, SoulMonster said:

But CD was a natural progression of illusions.

Just kidding (no, not really). The important question to me is, why does it matter to you what other people feel on this issue? If some people see some fundamental similarities between UYI and CD, that you don't see, what does it matter? Does it threaten you in any way? Your perceptions of what GN'R was supposed to be? I simply don't get why anyone would get angry over something like that nor do I understand why one would let that anger influence one's idea of what GN'R is or isn't.

I can't believe it either!! And you are absolutely right. I should learn from you and try to be more concise in my posts

CD was not a step forward for GNR, it was a step sideways (I don't mean in regards to quality, but musical direction and the band's meta).  I wouldn't say I'm angry about this, but I do feel it's important to debate it.

On 2/13/2019 at 8:18 AM, SoulMonster said:

You are allowed to say whatever you want 

Hell, you are allowed to say it isn't Apple anymore after Jobs died, you are allowed to say it isn't USA anymore with Trump in charge, you are allowed to say it isn't Fleetwood Mac after they moved to California, you are allowed to say it isn't Manchester United anymore, and you are allowed to say it isn't Guns N' Roses.

And you are allowed to say it is only a little bit Guns N' Roses and divide it up as you like. You can say it is only 2/5 Guns N' Roses or 20 % or 0.01 % or whatever.

But just keep in mind this is only a mental exercise, the power to actually define what is Guns N' Roses or not doesn't lie with you, or anyone else besides the band members (and/or legal owners depending upon whatever agreements regulate this). 

And this has nothing to do with agreeing with any sentiments on who was the best drummer in the Beatles. That is subjective. What something is called isn't. 

Without Jeremy Spencer, Peter Green, or Danny Kirwan, no it's not really Fleetwood Mac. It became something else, but it has little to do with the blues rock band it started as (I like both eras). <- this one I'm sort of not serious about, because the defining content of what made Fleetwood Mac who they are, came after the blues rock era. For GNR, their defining content was AFD. This is not to say artists should be limited to explore new stylistic options (AFD to UYI is a good example), but if you present a certain sound, you are expected to roughly stick to it. Among other reasons, this is why CD didn't sell terribly well.  

EDIT: And stop comparing GNR to non-artistic things!  Companies, countries, and sports teams are designed with longevity and sustainability in mind. Artistry is not built that way.

On 2/11/2019 at 9:37 PM, DeadSlash said:

I loved the Gothic series when it was new.  Not sure I could play it now, even with updated visuals, I remember it as really true open world where there were not a lot of hints or any guide, just go do wtf ever you want.  I find those games overwhelming in my gaming twilight years.  Good, underrated series though.

There are a lot of mods that try to modernize Gothic 3, further than visuals. Lots of things that change combat, AI, quests, and general bug fixes. It looks pretty appealing for that open world experience. But I don't think I'm going to get it since Metro and Anthem are right around the corner. Maybe in a few months when I have nothing to play.

I did remember why I stopped playing DA:O, I tried playing last night and it's crashing every 2-3 minutes. Must have to do with the mods I have installed, but I don't want to put in the effort to systematically reinstall everything. 

I did pre-order Metro yesterday, but only because I was able to find a good deal on the Gold edition. Epic Launcher is junk, but I'll deal with it for the game. Metro just looks too damn good. I am worried about performance given Denuvo, though a reviewer noted he had excellent performance on a machine similar to mine. Not sure if press copies are DRM-free though.

I also saw this list of why Epic sucks, and while I think some are a bit unfair and not unique to Epic, there is enough here to show that the experience for the user/customer is demonstrably worse than Steam's:

Quote

1) They have terrible security (80 million accounts were exposed last week)
2) They have terrible customer service (just google it)
3) Games are more expensive on Epic due to regional pricing
4) You can't play games offline
5) Limited social features
6) No screenshots
7) No controller support
8) They broke EU laws (and still do)
9) Scummy tactics (you had to tick a box to opt out of emails etc)
10) They are partially owned by Tencent (a company that sells user data to the Chinese government)
11) No achievements
12) No cloud saves
13) No game forums (many people went to steam for subnautica support)
14) Epic make you pay the transaction fee when purchasing games
15)They are anti-consumer (They pay for exclusive rights to games to try and force you to use their store)
16) They can refuse refunds even if you meet the criteria
17) No reviews
18) No Linux support

And there's no preloading on Epic, because the platform can't do it.

5 minutes ago, Tyler Drama said:

Not to mention the songs’ order. At the very least, that could be changed. Changing things up, opening with different songs, etc.

Good point too. Literally just switching a few songs' placement each night would go a long way in adding to the experience.

11 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

Whats a proper musical band?  You play music, thats what makes you a band.  There really is no obligation to make new music if the audience is alright trundling along listening to you do your old shit.  I do see your point though. 

Artists create. The cover band that plays Timmy Johnson's steakhouse every other week is a band, but they are not artists. There's no financial "obligation to make new music if the audience is alright trunding along listening to you do your old shit."

Not only should artists create, they should want to create. This is why Slash and Duff have down their own albums. But having no intention to create and dictating decisions based on financial implications/incentives is an artistic void. 

10 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

What is not to understand? I think you are overlooking the fact that the current setlist already contains plenty of deeper cuts and covers that are not part of the band's nostalgia, and that they can't really strip away the nostalgia songs because then fans wouldn't attend the shows. So the best I can see is that they replace some of the deeper cuts with some other deep cuts, and replace some of the cover songs. Expecting them to break away from the nostalgia theme is, in my opinion, not very realistic. Not even if they release new music do I find it very plausible that they will discard the AFD and UYI hits that draws the crowds. 

My issue with the setlist is less-so about the structure (although, get those ridiculous covers out of there) and more about the fact that it doesn't really get changed over the course of a 3 year tour. On the UYI tour, you had a decently different set each night. Slash (pre 2018) would change his setlist every night. There was mystery to going to those shows, both for the first time and multiple times after. But with GNR now, you know exactly what you're going to get, except maybe you'll get lucky and Steven is there (which he hasn't been for any of the shows I've attended). GNR have been touring the same markets with the same setlist for close to 3 years (much longer if you count pre-reunion), and the addition of extraneous and irrelevant covers makes this worse.

9 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

I think it is fairly obvious that when 99.9% of people say, ''new album'', they don't mean covers albums or live albums. 

Yup.

9 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

It doesn't really matter, nor interest me, what your thoughts are on what other people think. 

What I also find funny here is that since you reject CD as a GN'R album it must mean that you don't accept that GN'R existed in all of those 28 years you used as "evidence". So you are basically arguing that a now revived band can't possible release again because it didn't release anything when it was dead. That is funny 

This is more of a fundamental reply to your comments, but I'm interested in seeing your response to this: GNR didn't really exist in all of those 28 years and they are currently in a gray area. GNR was a blues influenced, punk infused rock n' roll band. That band dissolved in the 90's. Axl formed his own group under the name, and he then pursued his industrial/modern/whatever-you-want-to-call-it type rock with an ever-changing cast of (very talented) musicians. It's a good album, but it has little to do with GNR.

1 hour ago, Aien said:

"War" by Joe Satriani from his 1992 album, "The Extremist". An amazing song, you should definitely check it out.

Not a huge Satch fan, but Motorcycle Driver from that album is awesome.

Last song I learned was either Kill the King or Take No Prisoners, did both as covers in a band and I don't recall which I learned first.

I'm a big fan of Game Informer's Rapid Fire Questions videos and I pretty much watch them all, even games I have no intention of playing. If you haven't checked 'em out, it's pretty entertaining stuff and usually includes decent info about a game.

They just posted one for The Outer Worlds, and it's probably my favorite yet due to the personalities of Tim and Leonard and my personal hype for the game. They posted another short interview with Tim and Leonard, which can be found on GI's YT page.

I'm replaying Dragon Age: Origins and I was enjoying it quite a bit, but for some reason I haven't loaded it up in about a week and I don't really feel compelled to do so. I've played through several times before, and while I tried to shake things up with a lot of mods, I'm finding myself doing a pretty similar playthrough (in regards to choices/factions) that I do every time.

I know of the Gothic series, and I am thinking of getting Gothic 3 and modding it to make it a bit more modern. Anyone play those games?

I did try ELEX (same studio as Gothic, I believe) and I did not like it at all, but I didn't give it that fair of a chance either and my expectations weren't aligned with what the game turned out to be.

Really cool. You should have done this around 06/07 based on the leaks and said, "Fuck GNR, the fans want Chinese Democracy? Well here it is!" 

Interesting changes you've made to some of the songs. I like how Sorry sounds without the drums, really lets the bass set the tone.

What recording/instrument gear did you use?

1 minute ago, Derick said:

This was not all of a sudden! If you realize it, he gradually began to reduce delays well before NITL.

I saw them in 2006, twice. Both times they took to the stage well past 11PM, probably around midnight. I then saw them in 2011 (or 2012? it's in my signature) - I'm pretty sure they came on at 11PM and at the time that was considered "on time." If it wasn't 11PM, it was no earlier than 10PM. I didn't see them in 2013/2014, but I'm assuming it was much of the same.

Coming on at 8:30/9PM has only started in NITL.

4 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

There have been some cases. AC/DC, for example, where only the Young brothers were always the only partners (and now it's only Angus) and all the rest were/are employees. 

I think Van Halen too - I don't know much about them, but they're called "Van Halen" anyway.

And in the Stones, Mick Taylor was a salaried employee, and so has been Ron Wood, I guess.

Good examples, I believe Pink Floyd at one point had Nick Mason as a salaried employee, or the keyboard player, don't remember. Not sure about VH, I assumed the original 4 were partners until the lineup dissolved.

But while there are examples, I still posit it is a minority of rock artists that relegate contributing members to salaried status. For AC/DC, I'm thinking that has to do with who writes the music/songs?  

3 hours ago, Gibson_Guy87 said:

I think it's important to note that they can still live comfortably playing arenas. They were making $1M-$3M a night playing US arenas in 2017 

They could still live comfortably doing literally nothing (no tours, no music, no merch) for the rest of their lives. Well, the hired guns would have to find new work, but it wouldn't be tough and I'm betting they're in pretty solid financial places too.

17 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

Amazing opinion based on nothing 👍

Fortunately, you really have no clue what's going on, and are just wildly speculating... In the last few years things In the gnr world have changed, it is entirely possible the guitar player in gnr is better informed than a forum user. 

Nothing may happen, but I'd guess that he would only talk about about plans like this if he was directly told that was the plan. Judging by how shy he is with details through the years, I'd also say all the other times he teased a record, he did so because he was told it was imminent.... Now that's my guess, and as good as yours, so do and say what you want with it.

I'm pretty sure there are multiple documented cases of TB not giving the salaried musicians info on what's next/when. Didn't Bumblefoot (and Stinson?) both say at different points - "yeah I haven't heard from management, no idea what's going on."

Given how we've seen TB operate, it does not surprise me that the musicians we consider to be "in the band" are treated as pawns - remember how poorly Bumblefoot was treated? Axl, Slash, and Duff are the partners in GNR (I'm assuming that is, if Slash and Duff settled for less than that, they got ripped off) - I doubt anyone else is a partner. And no, for a rock band it is not common to have majority salaried and only a few partners. For nostalgia acts, it is more common, but for true bands, salaried hires are reserved for extraneous keyboard sections, session musicians, backup singers, etc.. GNR doesn't operate as a rock artist, they operate as a business.

3 hours ago, rocknroll41 said:

Wow that story about how he rigged the system to cross the canadian border is pretty cool! Never knew that about him. RIP.

Yeah, didn't know that either. Interesting story.

I like my CryBaby Classic a lot and I pretty much exclusively use Dunlop gel picks. Looks like he lived a long, rewarding life.

9 hours ago, DeadSlash said:

I wouldn't do either a 2080 upgrade, or a second 1080 card.

The 2080 is an underwhelming card and it really doesn't do much.   

SLI is just going out of style or some such, because most games don't launch with SLI support, and some never get it (although AAA titles usually do)  SLI just isn't worth it anymore.  I'm kind of happy, because 10 years ago, I anticipated needed quad SLI by now.  I'm super glad that was wrong.

When the 30 series comes out, I think the 2080 will be garbage.  I concur with Oldest Goat, wait for the 30 series.  The 20 series is a generation to be skipped.

 

I used to build from scratch all the way, and frequently.  As I got older, lazier and richer, I began buying premade builds and modifying/upgrading them.  The reason I'm telling you this is because there was a time when I could tell you exactly what to get, and how to build it, now I can't BUT - between how to videos on Ytube, and forums like https://forums.guru3d.com/

and surprisingly Steams hardware discussion forum https://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/11  I can get all the info I need when it's time for an upgrade.  Most of Steam is a mess, here I consistently get good info on how to, tips and tricks.

Another must use site imo is although it doesn't sound like you would need this because all you are really adding in is the case and not new hardware   https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-RTX-2080-vs-Nvidia-GTX-1080-Ti/4026vs3918 Here you can compare any hardware you want and get math results instead of opinion.  This particular link is for you too Omar, this compares the benchmark of a 2080 to a 1080ti.

 

14 hours ago, Oldest Goat said:

Don't do that. Make do and wait for the 30 series.

I'll upgrade my 2700x to a 3850x and wait for the 30 series. When I do that I'll get a 144hz monitor too. I'll make do with my GTX1080Ti for now

The GTX 30XX won't be out for at least another year, so I won't wait for it, though I may upgrade to it when it drops. And yeah that's why I'm hesitant about SLI, seems to not have become as mainstream as NVIDIA hoped.

Getting a 1080 Ti for this new build isn't a bad idea though, if I can get a solid used price and flip my 1080 toward it. One 1080 by itself is probably not going to cut it for newer games at 1440p.

Frank Levi died yesterday. Most people have never heard of him, but he is the reason Slash has such an iconic sound on Appetite for Destruction. The amp that Slash famously used for AFD and then tried to steal for himself - it was an old Marshall head that Frank Levi rewired and modded. Frank worked on amps for a number of artists, including George Lynch and Warren DeMartini, but he never really got recognition for his contributions to these players' tone. A 2014 interview with Frank details his experiences.

Quote

I met Slash before GNR became famous…he used to bring me his amps (Marshalls & Boogies) after his gigs. Unfortunately, we lost touch around the time I was leaving SIR. I was kind of disappointed that I didn’t hear from him or Marshall during the development of the AFD100. To date I have not been inside an AFD100 to see exactly how it is put together. BTW I remember that Slash used pedals on his recordings, but I don't recall what pedals.

Kind of sad that Frank was forgotten by the industry as time went on. The AFD100 was based on the Appetite tone, but Marshall didn't involve the tech who was responsible for it. 

(With GNR news being slow, I figured this was appropriate for the main forum, but if a mod wants to move it elsewhere I wouldn't be offended.)

With Anthem and Metro just around the corner, I've just realized this will be the first time in several years I'm not able to play the newest games on completely maxed out settings.

I could use 1080p instead of 1440p, but I think pixels are more important and most of the changeable settings in a game. Will be interesting to see how these run on my system. I expect fairly decent performance and to be using a mix of medium/high settings, but probably not ultra/very high.

Think I'll do a new build in the spring. Question is, do I sell my 1080 and get a 2080, or do I get a second 1080 for SLI? I'm leaning the former. Rest of the build I pretty much know what I'd want, but if anyone has recommendations on anything, feel free to mention.