▼ Not recommended
18 hrs
It's... mediocre at best. I am this games target audience. I enjoy hardware and software engineering and sim-heavy games of all stripes. The issue isn't that some of the components interact in weird ways or even that you can make a 1000+ watt tdp processor.
The issue is that the 'scoring' system for parts is flat broken. Let me explain.
What would you rate a processor that launches 47% lower cost than it's competition while drawing half the power and providing 220% more compute? 4.7 out of 10 and recommend the more expensive, worse product right? Well that's how this game handles it.
You can release something that crushes the competition at half the cost at each price tier and still get 3 or 4 out of 10... consistently. And the way laptops and complete systems are 'graded' that means you have to build those with subpar systems to get 'ranked' higher. So I can build a laptop of literally the best tech at 70% the cost of the competition and get 5/10, or I can build a laptop on price-parity with the competition using crappier, more expensive components at get 8/10. Make it make sense.
The concept of having a budget, middle, and high-end market is great. I can tell that they tried to build a rating system based on value/price-performance. But they failed miserably at that. I think I'd return it if I hadn't spend enough time in it to be 100% sure this was the case.
Dev Feedback: Ratings should be based on value and sentiment. And the way the market tiers is simulated is strange as well. Think about the real world: If I am a high-end builder I am not going to be upset that the best components on the market are hovering in price around the 'middle" section of the market, I'm going to be elated that I can save money and rate the product even higher than normal - without caring about 'markup'.
Let's take an example.
Low End: Under 300
Mid Range: 300-500
High End: 500+
Infel and AND both have high-end processors over $600. I make one that is 20% better and price it at $475. You call me a mid-range-priceed product, cool, whatever, that's fine. But who in the world is going to overspend for a worse product? Wouldn't that product get, essentially, an instant 10/10 "BUY NOW!" from every tech journalist alive that isn't being paid directly by the two big bois?
Also, forcing a pre-defined production run in my own fab when it might be a year before I make anything else in it is lunacy. You can claim it's for 'balance' but I think there are better ways to handle that.
Until the rating system gets an overhaul, I can't really recommend since it just robs the fun out of the game and makes it thoughtless.
Oh, and give us the choice to default auto-negotiations so that we don't have to power-click through hundreds of notifications when system builders want to use our products.
The issue is that the 'scoring' system for parts is flat broken. Let me explain.
What would you rate a processor that launches 47% lower cost than it's competition while drawing half the power and providing 220% more compute? 4.7 out of 10 and recommend the more expensive, worse product right? Well that's how this game handles it.
You can release something that crushes the competition at half the cost at each price tier and still get 3 or 4 out of 10... consistently. And the way laptops and complete systems are 'graded' that means you have to build those with subpar systems to get 'ranked' higher. So I can build a laptop of literally the best tech at 70% the cost of the competition and get 5/10, or I can build a laptop on price-parity with the competition using crappier, more expensive components at get 8/10. Make it make sense.
The concept of having a budget, middle, and high-end market is great. I can tell that they tried to build a rating system based on value/price-performance. But they failed miserably at that. I think I'd return it if I hadn't spend enough time in it to be 100% sure this was the case.
Dev Feedback: Ratings should be based on value and sentiment. And the way the market tiers is simulated is strange as well. Think about the real world: If I am a high-end builder I am not going to be upset that the best components on the market are hovering in price around the 'middle" section of the market, I'm going to be elated that I can save money and rate the product even higher than normal - without caring about 'markup'.
Let's take an example.
Low End: Under 300
Mid Range: 300-500
High End: 500+
Infel and AND both have high-end processors over $600. I make one that is 20% better and price it at $475. You call me a mid-range-priceed product, cool, whatever, that's fine. But who in the world is going to overspend for a worse product? Wouldn't that product get, essentially, an instant 10/10 "BUY NOW!" from every tech journalist alive that isn't being paid directly by the two big bois?
Also, forcing a pre-defined production run in my own fab when it might be a year before I make anything else in it is lunacy. You can claim it's for 'balance' but I think there are better ways to handle that.
Until the rating system gets an overhaul, I can't really recommend since it just robs the fun out of the game and makes it thoughtless.
Oh, and give us the choice to default auto-negotiations so that we don't have to power-click through hundreds of notifications when system builders want to use our products.
60 found helpful
Steam ↗
