Wednesday, August 23rd 2017
AMD to Give Away Adobe Creative Cloud Subscriptions and Games with Pre-builts
AMD is preparing to extend its tradition of giving away games with its hardware; to productivity apps. In a bid to boost sales of pre-built desktops and notebooks that feature AMD processors and/or graphics cards, the company is giving away Adobe Creative Cloud subscriptions, besides games by Square Enix.
The new "AMD4U" offer by the company, which is limited to certain products sold through participating retailers, gives you up to three games by Square Enix, and/or a 2-month Adobe Creative Cloud subscription, or a 3-month subscription to Adobe Creative Cloud Photography plan. The combinations of what you get is decided by what product you buy. Something like a high-end gaming notebook, which features both a Ryzen processor, and Radeon RX 500-series graphics, should give you both games and CC subscription, while value desktops should feature any one of them. Find details in the source link below.
The new "AMD4U" offer by the company, which is limited to certain products sold through participating retailers, gives you up to three games by Square Enix, and/or a 2-month Adobe Creative Cloud subscription, or a 3-month subscription to Adobe Creative Cloud Photography plan. The combinations of what you get is decided by what product you buy. Something like a high-end gaming notebook, which features both a Ryzen processor, and Radeon RX 500-series graphics, should give you both games and CC subscription, while value desktops should feature any one of them. Find details in the source link below.
20 Comments on AMD to Give Away Adobe Creative Cloud Subscriptions and Games with Pre-builts
Rubbish promo. 2 months subscription? Seriously?
I can't stop thinking the only point of this is for geeks to benchmark they'll "productivity" PCs.
Also, I kind of hoped for Bethesda bundles, not Square Enix. Again, why this studio? Because some of their games work better with AMD gear?
No thanks....
There's also smartphones coming with "free" Dropbox/OneDrive storage and crap.
SAAS is here to stay, and it's not all bad IMO. Have fun setting up your servers so you have data parity across a bunch of different devices and have the same software on all of them to boot.
I'm way more interested in the Adobe part. Sometimes camera manufacturers bundle Adobe software (or a different paid one), but that's either a lifetime license or a fairly useful 12-month subscription.
2 or 3 months is good for what? You'll suddenly decide you want to be a photographer?
On the other hand, it seems pretty pointless for Adobe, so this only leaves an option that AMD wanted this to happen. Actually RoTR seems better on AMD according to tests that I've seen.
Check RX580 vs 1060 vs 980Ti here:
www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Sapphire/RX_580_Nitro_Plus/21.html
(average scores: www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Sapphire/RX_580_Nitro_Plus/30.html)
But sure, it's not as obvious as with Hitman. Very few?
Basically all students will find it useful (if not essential). Then we have that "very few people" who use MS Office at work and might want to have it at home as well - we're talking hundreds of millions worldwide (possibly more than 10% of population in developed countries)...
And as it was already pointed out: even if you don't need any of Office's applications, it's still possibly the cheapest cloud storage.
In Europe a 5-user license costs €100 yearly. Of course you can use few of them yourself. Each one comes with 1TB storage.
So I've just checked Dropbox and a single 1TB account costs... €99. :-D
Office is a nice piece of software for... office use. For home use, you really don't need 90% of the functionality it offers while alternatives become increasingly more attractive.
People doing all kind of economic / financial / business courses are using Excel, because that's the main tool in the industry. It can't be replaced by anything else (not just because everything else really sucks).
I also haven't used MS Office during my studies (I've used LaTeX for the thesis, obviously :-D), but I did use it at home. Today I use even more and for all kinds of things - from research to planning shopping. What's wrong with that? You've never wanted to finish something from work? Or improve your skills in the tool you're working with? Or you're just so used to the tool you're looking at for those 8+ hours a day, that learning something else seems pointless?
If I was a programmer, I would use the same IDE that I use at work. If I was a data scientist or database admin, I would use the same database. If I was a cook, I'd use the same pans. Why make things harder? I find the "90%" argument pretty bonkers. How much potential of your PC do you use most of the time? E.g. during writing posts on TPU?
We don't buy computers and software for what we need most of the time. We buy them for the potential they offer => for the things that they make possible.
And of course it all depends on what you use it at home for.
Excel is simply the only spreadsheet that works. "Alternatives" are so lame and slow that they're really only good for simple and tiny calculations. I couldn't have used anything else for my home stuff.
Other applications in the package are more or less replaceable, but still: if you're used to their interfaces from work (I use Word and PP for around 1h/day each, on average), why learn anything else? And of course MS Office apps are quite well integrated - something that really can't be said about free alternatives...
Sure, Office is a paid option, but it's money you spend also on not having to learn anything else. :-)
I agree with you on the IDE argument. Unfortunately my employers always go for free IDEs (productivity be damned), so I don't need to pay for an IDE to improve my skills. Most people don't buy Office for its potential, because they don't even know what potential is there. Try to ask people to see how many know to generate ToC in Word (maybe 50%) or know how to define a style (less than 10%). And these are some of the more useful features. And again your argument hinges on people needing to do advanced stuff in Excel.
Sure, you don't need MS Office for those things, but they're the most polished and easiest to use variants. This becomes even more important if you're not very experienced and you just want a tool to do the job. If you're required to work at home, he should provide the tools. But if you just want to finish something (which is not legal on a home license - BTW) or train, he won't. And honestly, it's very unlikely that you'd be given time during working hours to just practice your Excel skills or something. So maybe you just underestimate the importance of MS Office? I knew switching to something "more serious" will do the job. :-P Define "advanced".
Yes, some people (even doing typical financial jobs at banks and insurers) use Excel just for data input and simple algebraic operations. Even something as basic as vlookup makes them confused.
But in time every person will get to know something useful - mostly thanks to how easy to use Excel is.
Example? It's quite easy to teach someone using pivots. And it is easy, because of how really well they're implemented in Excel. Other suites (both paid and free) are nowhere near. Current LibreOffice implementation reminds me of Excel 97.
But I've just checked Google Sheets and pivots there are easily the worst I've seen, ever. Even the first implementations (by Lotus in early 90s) were better. It's just like if pivot was some experimental feature: hidden deeply in the menu and unneeded. Totally shocking. :o
But it's not even the "advanced" analytical stuff that is easier or more powerful in Excel. As @Frick pointed out: it's also the basic stuff like formatting tables.
I've been using Excel for around 20 years and I've experienced the evolution that they invested in to make this the most comfortable spreadsheet available. And you can really see that most of the features are beautifully polished.
But occasionally I have to use a free alternative and the simple fact is: they don't change at all. They all look and feel (and perform...) like Excel did when phone display resolution was measured in lines of text.
I guess you might be more of a gamer than a number cruncher, so how would you feel if a game released in 2017 look like that from 2000? It's not like old games aren't playable or fun, but it's not what you'd expect, right?