Official E3 Thread (I forged the paperwork)

[SonicMage117]

I see this thread has become a war between pc and console lol This is why I own both

 

Anyways...

 

Besides presentations, each game at E3 had a press panel similar to Comic Con on that respect. Which is awesome.

 

One of my favorite is:

 

Travellers Tales showing off how they've created one of the biggest Open World's ever... for Lego Marvel Super Heroes 2. Imagine that!

 

 

Also...

Edited June 14, 2017 by SonicMage117

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

At the same time, I wonder who is supposed to buy the xXx X Box One X xXx.  Who is this aimed at?  Which system is the gamer on the budget going to buy?  The one that costs $500 or the one that costs $100 less right now and likely $150 less when the xXx XXX xxx X Box One X xxx XXX xXx comes out (I'll be shocked if Sony doesn't slash the price on the PS4 Pro about a month before its competitor's launch)?  $500 is a lot for a console, $400 is generally the upper ceiling.  Every console that has launched at above $400 has either outright failed or struggled mightily until a price cut (*cough* PS3 *cough*).  Most people that are willing to spend $500 on a console probably already have a high-ish end PC, which makes the XXXXXXxxxxxxxxXXXXXxxX Box One XxxxxxxxxXXXXXXxxxxxXXXxxx kinda obsolete, since all the games they showed will be on PC also.  Sony has compelling exclusives, Microsoft does not.  I don't like exclusives, I want games on as many platforms as possible, but exclusives are what sell consoles.

A xXx 1070 GT xXx costs about the same as an Xbox One X. Not saying that they are the same but if people are willing to spend 470 bucks ona GPU + Extras then why wouldn't they spend 500 bucks on a console that can play games, ultra hd movies and such right out of the box?!

 

Exactly, XOX is a dedicated gaming PC for a lot less. The $500 price point right now is aimed at the enthusiasts, it will sell out initially so why would MS charge less? It's not a brand new console, there's already a low cost version with XOS, which will probably hit $200 soon. Eventually XOX price will come down as market demands, and it will mostly replace XOS. Apparently MS strategy now is not to come out with new consoles, but simply keep upgrading the existing one, like PC, which I always thought should've been done with the original XBOX. MS also has the big advantage over Sony of 4K dvd support. There's another interesting wrinkle, play anywhere. Right now there aren't many games, but if that really gets going, you could buy a game from Windows store (assuming they match/have sales like Steam) and play on both PC and Xbox. I'd like to play on my new TV, but mostly it still makes more sense to use the PC, so if the new Metro game gets play anywhere support, I'll have to seriously consider my options. Edited June 14, 2017 by Wrath of Dagon

[Terminator]

I see when I talk about hardware it is called offtopic. Graphic cards eventually one die run out of juice. My main problem with consoles generally is the aggressive pricing of games. There does not exist a game that I would pay 50+ euro for. I bought these games for this price:

Battlefield 3: 8 euro, Heroes of Might and Magic VI 10 euro, Pillars of Etenrity 20 euro and a bunch of free MMO: or otherwise legally free games.

 

Oh I did play World of Warcraft and paid the subfee for like 3 years but those days were different had other priorities back then.

 

How about this game then if I want to buy this?

 

It is released 2018. Perhaps I buy it in discount during year 2019. On the positive side I have present card worth of like 40 euro that could make that maybe I buy an expensive game and use that gift card because that gift card is valid only 2 years anyway and I have to use it on something. Example PC game costs 50 euro. I use my gift card worth 40 euro and pay in cash 10 euro.

Edited June 14, 2017 by Terminator

[Belle Sorciere]

It's not that when you talk about hardware it's off topic. It's that coming into a thread which has no connection to hardware discussion and filling it with hardware discussion is off topic.

 

In this thread, the discussion started about Xbox One X's hardware, which is topical to E3 as it was announced at E3. This prompted comparisons and discussion of PC hardware. It's not entirely on-topic but the discussion evolved to that point, rather than simply having it imposed.

[HoonDing]

Only in Japanese games b00bs are still allowed.

[Keyrock]

It's the price point for the X Box One X that's the issue. Historically, every console that has ever launched around that price has failed or struggled until a price cut. All of them: Neo Geo, 3DO, and PS3. I mean, sure, the hardware in the new X Box is really impressive for that price, but so was the original PS3's hardware and that fell flat on its face until Sony gutted it and slashed the price.It also doesn't help that Sony has all the best exclusives. Will the X Box One X be the console that bucks the trend of consoles at $500+ falling flat on their face? That temains to be seen. I have my doubts.

Edited June 14, 2017 by Keyrock

[SonicMage117]

The value you get with the Xbox One X is impressive no matter how you look at it...

 

You're essentially getting the first console that streams in 4k, plays 4k blu-ray discs, plays games in 4k at 60fps without frame drops, better optimization than pc, I mean... the advantages of the Xbox One X are endless and as it becomes obsolete, the price will become cheaper. I suppose the fact that it's tiny doesn't matter to anyone, but it should.

 

It comes out on November 7th for $499. You can bet that it will have a special sale on Black Friday and cyber monday, don't think it won't just because it's new, it will.

 

Concerning upgrades... nobody really cares if you can upgrade the console (unless its the hdd) because toolkits get better overtime for developers to do more with less. That's also why games like Uncharted and Spiderman look better on PS4 than anything we've seen on pc.

 

That all said, I prefer my pc but that's mainly because my love for indies and versatility. Not for mods or hardware comparisons and things like that. Hardware advantages don't mean what they used to in this era, it's more about the software and optimization which proves to trump horsepower.

[Wrath of Dagon]

It's the price point for the X Box One X that's the issue. Historically, every console that has ever launched around that price has failed or struggled until a price cut. All of them: Neo Geo, 3DO, and PS3. I mean, sure, the hardware in the new X Box is really impressive for that price, but so was the original PS3's hardware and that fell flat on its face until Sony gutted it and slashed the price.It also doesn't help that Sony has all the best exclusives. Will the X Box One X be the console that bucks the trend of consoles at $500+ falling flat on their face? That temains to be seen. I have my doubts.

But again it's not a new console. It's just a premium version of an existing console. PS3 was a crummy architecture compared to the 360 and the cost difference was for the blu-ray, which most gamers weren't willing to pay at that time.

[injurai]

Perusing the web, a wide spread sentiment is that this was a terrible E3. In reality I think it was an E3 low on hype. For whatever reason people that live on forums thrive on hype to an unhealthy degree and I've been there. I'm trying to look at E3 less as a form of entertainment onto itself, and more a of show case of what is upcoming. The games I'm left most looking forward to I either already had seen earlier, or I knew they were in development before the reveal. But I must say, what is forthcoming looks really good and I think overall we are in a good era for gaming.

[Zoraptor]

..plays games in 4k at 60fps without frame drops, better optimization than pc..

 

I'd bet a million dollars that there will be very few games that run at actual 60fps/4k on xbx which aren't Stardew Valley equivalents graphics wise.

 

You need a 1080Ti/ Titan to do that reliably- and even then not that reliably on newer games- on PC, and the xbx's RX580 equivalent just plain and fundamental ain't in those cards' power class. Nor is it, to be fair, in their cost bracket either as a PC card nor as a whole system for xbx. It will inevitably be the same situation as last gen when people thought they were playing CoD Iteration in glorious 1080p but were actually playing it upscaled from somewhat less glorious 960x540.

 

Still, people should as always buy whatever suits themselves best, and for some the xbx will be a good fit. I personally wouldn't buy an xbx, but then I also wouldn't buy a 1080/Ti/Titan either.

[Mamoulian War]

I have finally found something interesting among E3 trailers as well :-D

 

 

[LadyCrimson]

Skyrim is six years old and they are still finding ways to re-package and re-sell it. I guess they will keep yanking on the teat until nothing comes out.

I feel like this is becoming the norm. with most "AA" or "AAA" or whatever it is, gaming. Not specifically re-packaging, but the "games as service" model. Trying to squeeze as much as you can from a single game, for years. I find it all rather disheartening, but then I also worry that type of thing is going to leak into all software, including operating system software. That'll be fun.

 

 

 

[SonicMage117]

I'd bet a million dollars that there will be very few games that run at actual 60fps/4k on xbx which aren't Stardew Valley equivalents graphics wise.

 

You need a 1080Ti/ Titan to do that reliably- and even then not that reliably on newer games- on PC, and the xbx's RX580 equivalent just plain and fundamental ain't in those cards' power class. Nor is it, to be fair, in their cost bracket either as a PC card nor as a whole system for xbx. It will inevitably be the same situation as last gen when people thought they were playing CoD Iteration in glorious 1080p but were actually playing it upscaled from somewhat less glorious 960x540.

 

Still, people should as always buy whatever suits themselves best, and for some the xbx will be a good fit. I personally wouldn't buy an xbx, but then I also wouldn't buy a 1080/Ti/Titan either.

Why do you think that? Just because it happened with PS4 and Xbox One models when they were aiming for 1080p and 60fps, doesn't mean that they will fail the Xbox One X. It certainly has the power to upscale any game from now and the future in 4k/60fps but most pc gamers tend to forget that the development tools and building softwares are evolving every month, hence the rapid updates. It's just another reason why optimization has and always be much better for console games this generation than on pc.

 

The game play for Destiny 2, Metro Exodus, Forza 7, Need For Speed and Assassins Creed: Origins were all running in 4k @60fps both in the trailers and in the playable demo booths. Point being that the coding for consoles is still more convenient than pc's as it has always been. I'm talking about this in the wrong forum though, I already know thay the majority of gamers here prefer pc over consoles, I just hope nobody takes this the wrong way as me saying that consoles are better than pc.

 

The coding is different, so are the optimization attributes, consoles are not pc and with good reason, even if they use pc parts. We are mid-generation so optimization is far better now. If you're talking about games in 3 years from now, then I guess I can see your point. By then, the PS5 and neXtBox will have made way.

[Azdeus]

AMD's upcoming Vega can barely push Vulcan Doom to 4k/60hz, I doubt that the 580 derivative can match that.

 

Also, you might have seen 4k resolution, but you don't know if it was upscaled and you might not know if there was an actual PC running the game in the background. You know; Like they've done before.

[Zoraptor]

Yeah, an RX580 is able to run something like Twitcher 3 at ~high settings, functionally above 60 fps 1080p, on PC. To get it to actual 4k/60fps you need to ~quadruple its power, which cannot happen no matter how many optimisations are applied. It's like tweaking a Honda Civic with a max speed of 150kph to run at 300kph- you might get it to 200 by pimping it but there's only so far you can go before you hit inherent limitations. 2xA10 processors and an RX580 is not going to get native 4k/60 on demanding games with high settings, it simply doesn't have the horsepower.

 

Upscaling is a decent solution, but while it's far less strain than actual 4k it also lacks its graphical fidelity since it is, basically, using an antialiasing algorithm to predict what the 'missing' pixels would look like rather than actually generating the pixels.

Edited June 15, 2017 by Zoraptor

[SonicMage117]

Well you know, like I said before, optimazation for console is a different beast than pc. The creation tools and development is quite different. Consoles have always been able to do more than less. I'm lookimg back to the early 2000's when games like Soul Reaver looked better on a Dreacast than they did on a top of the line nVidia gpu.

 

I'm sure if these games were running on pc's, it would have already been exposed by now considering how quickly it was fiund out back then. I highly doubt any company would make that mistake again after the social media craze.

 

You guys do realize that this is a 12gb gpu able to do 6tf's at 326gb/s, don't you? Xbox One X is native 4k while the PS4 Pro and Xbox One S are upscaled, I know that much.

[SonicMage117]

Ehhh...

 

I'll just post this here so it proves that I'm not making this stuff up. If you guys won't acknowledge the fact if console optimization being better than pc optimization from me, maybe you'll acknowledge it from a credible pc enthusiasts and trusted site:

 

With desktop hardware, an RX 580 wouldn't be enough to do 4K gaming. But remember that as a console, both software and hardware are tightly integrated and optimized. The operating system is much more optimized than it is on a standard PC. Having a fixed spec also allows game developers to hone in their code, since there's no need to support a wide variety of configurations. Tight integration has always been the console's strength, in exchange for upgradeability.

 

Source here:

http://www.pcgamer.com/heres-how-microsofts-xbox-one-x-compares-to-a-pc/

 

I just like to do my research on optimization, as I have noticed even with my 4k gaming pc, that consoles are and have always been one step ahead.

[injurai]

https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/14/15801280/beyond-good-evil-2-preview-michel-ancel-interview-e3-2017

 

• Only just got the technology up and running that could power Ancel's vision.
• Says BGE2 at "day zero" of development.
• Two weeks ago they had no graphics, right now it's just place holders.
• Wants to do "early access" to develop the game to people's liking.
• Description is basically No Man's Sky but in Cities that have SimCity like features.
• Premise seems like it's Lego Island meets Futurama. Delivering pizza on foot until you build up a space crew and captain a ship.
• Ancel is also busy working on WiLD which he still has to finish for Sony.

 

It's uhh... an interesting pitch. Basically sounds like Ubisoft has a vision for a game and they are letting Ancel keep his IP alive if they make No Man's Sky but good.

 

I wonder how much this is a hail mary by Ubisoft to find investors other than Vivindi to stave off a hostile take-over. Playing on audience fervor, hype, and nostalgia. They want a piece of that "FFVIIRemake, Shenmue III" tease investment boost me thinks.

[Zoraptor]

Well you know, like I said before, optimazation for console is a different beast than pc. The creation tools and development is quite different.

 

Consoles basically are PCs this time around. The xbox dev kits have always been PC based as well*, even when the xbox was using powerPC, and they've always used directX- indeed, that's where the 'X' in their name came from in the first place. That is why you can have show demos that won't work on release consoles, because they're pushed via dev kit PCs.

 

*though you can use an xbox1 as a dev kit it is strongly discouraged, and per above it's basically a PC anyway.

 

You guys do realize that this is a 12gb gpu able to do 6tf's at 326gb/s, don't you?

 

 

It's not a 12GB GPU though, that's unified memory and the bandwidth is shared as well. Everything shares the memory and the bandwidth. It has the same flops as an RX580, unsurprisingly as it basically is one, which is a decent upper mid range PC card but that's it. It's wholly outclassed by anything above a 1070 in PC land despite its high flops because that measure isn't everything performance wise. And I say that as someone who bought a 580.

 

It's not a PC vs console thing, frankly if people are only gaming a console has always been better value unless you're buying loads of games on sale on PC (in which case you can use cheap hardware as well), the big plus for PC has always been that you can do other stuff apart from gaming on it. You can have direct hardware access and a skimline OS all you want and just as much as you can put slimline tyres and nitrous into your Civic, but it won't become a pseudo Ferrari nor will the console become a 7700k/ Titan killer.

[injurai]

The unified memory is much better for performance, but it really limits how much of asset data you can load. Since you can't be swapping with disc on every frame, even culled stuff needs to be rendered again at a moments notice, all that has to be loaded into main memory. With the GPU all you really have to store are assets and shaders, most of the rendering api is hard coded in the hardware. But with the CPU it's a far more generic structure and you'll be allocating a lot of memory for various algorithms. All that GPU asset data cuts into your ability to track dynamic entities and to generate algorithmic data structures. Ideally in next-gen consoles we'll see upwards of 24-32 GB of unified memory.

 

I do agree that optimizing for consoles is a slightly different beast. Of the course of a console the hardware changes drastically less, and the developers become far more intimate with all the nuances of the system. You start to feel where trade-offs can be made, you start to have a much better feel of what sort of in-line asm could be written. Where on PC you might target x86-generic as opposed to native. But yes consoles are more or less PCs these days, save for their APU design which is a sort of game-centric architecture.

 

I just wish that GPUs in consoles move towards a more PC-centric design while still sharing the die. That feels two generations out though. I think we are getting Navi on the PS5 though.

[SadExchange]

Honestly, nintendo took first prize for E3 for me. With Mario Odyssey, Mario + Rabbids, Breath of the Wild DLC, Rocket League, Metroid Prime 4, among a host of indies coming to the system and cross platform play. I can't put the switch down and the mobility is the best part.

 

I will say that lately, mostly due to Nintendo as of late, gameplay has been trumping all and also how/where you can play. Just the ability to take and play games like Zelda, Binding of Isaac or Minecraft has been a good change of pace for my lifestyle lately.

 

One last note. I really enjoy the smart steering in Mario Kart. I finally found something to play with my little ones for now. A good component/option for the game.

[SonicMage117]

Well I will put it this way, although what I state in the following is very true, I don't expect all that great of a reaction from it (probably because of where I am)...

 

I remember a certain ignoanace from a certain E3 going around that featured a major graphics downgrade. Watch Dogs demo by Ubisoft running on a pc, I remember how big of the reaction there was following the game's release where people were saying how "Ubisoft had to downgrade the game due to the low-end laptop gpu'z in the new consoles"....

 

Fast forward a few years and we have the a regular PS4 model running games like Uncharted 4 which is twice more graphically demanding than that E3 High-end pc demo of Watch Dogs was, all with stable framerates, and in case that's thought to be some coincidence, both XB1/PS4 older models have ran much more graphically demanding games since that high-end pc demo of Watch Dogs was shown.

 

What does it all mean? It means that the gpu's of the consoles are not the problems this time around. It means that the dev's programming kits were undeveloped in the first two years and now we're starting to see some real potential in the games being shown. I mean, if we stopped and we took a look at the console exclusives and how much they have changed over the past 3 years, it would indeed be bigger than anything we've seen on pc in terms of graphics and performance. And it will only keep on because the tools are constanly improving.

 

It also means that Ubisoft didn't sacrifice the pc version for parity's sake but because the game engine was unstable. The game engine wasn't optimized for nVidia or amd cards so there was alot of issues, somehow confused people started blaming consoles or rather Ubusoft focusing more on consoles than pc, which wasn't true.

 

The problem with pc as a platform is that the optimization is crap. Just look at how Dark Souls 3 performs on a 970gtx, and how it doesn't look or run as nearly as good as Bloodbourne does on a PS4. Dishonored 2 is another example. That's just two examples of many, I'm going to exclude the Arkham Knight fiasco because the team that coded the pc version was not the same team that coded the pc version is not the same team who worked on the console version so that wouldn't be fair. It's probably the reason why pc gamers are so skeptic of AAA games now days, but it's hard to optimize a game for every hardware variation and on top of that who knows what bloat ware and other type of ware the user might have installed on the pc but won't admit to.

 

I realize that pc does have Crysis 1, 2 and 3 but the engine was so horribly optimized that it can't even run properly maxed out on today's top end gpu's without frame-skips... compare that to Killzone Shadowfall on PS4 at 30fps but consider the hardware - while someone may say "It took consoles this many years to catch up when we had Crysis xamount of years ago" but then when you look at the ancient hardware that PS4 is running, this is truly impressive just what a lowend gpu can do when all the right things are done.

 

In the end though, there is no use for all that horsepower if your alignment is so off that you cannot stay on the track.

 

I think the PS5 just might be the first module console. Meaning it will probably allow you to swap out the gpu without opening the whole system and voiding the warranty (similar to what the hdd is now on the PS4), maybe the ram and cpu as well. It could happen. Now days, the key is to make everything as effortless for the console gamer and accessible to the console gamer so propierty indivual plug and play hardware parts may be the future.

 

On a side note, I'm still very impressed with the graphics and animation that the nVidia Tegra was able to squeeze out in those Switch games. Maybe it's just the bright colors that nobody else is using but the visuals of Mario Oddesy look right up there with a mid-range pc. Crisp, clean graphics and nice rendering. Then again, Nintendo's been masters of optimization since the 80's lol If anyone knows how to milk hardware, it's them.

[Fenixp]

if we stopped and we took a look at the console exclusives and how much they have changed over the past 3 years, it would indeed be bigger than anything we've seen on pc in terms of graphics and performance. And it will only keep on because the tools are constanly improving.

You've not been playing games for very long, have you? :-P

 

It also means that Ubisoft didn't sacrifice the pc version for parity's sake but because the game engine was unstable. The game engine wasn't optimized for nVidia or amd cards so there was alot of issues, somehow confused people started blaming consoles or rather Ubusoft focusing more on consoles than pc, which wasn't true.

The way I remember it, people were primarily blaming Ubisoft for bull****ting them, and many graphical options were unlocked via fairly simple modding within days in Watch_Dogs. Naturally, only high end PCs could run the game with those enabled at the time.

 

Just look at how Dark Souls 3 performs on a 970gtx, and how it doesn't look or run as nearly as good as Bloodbourne does on a PS4.

Bloodborne performing well on PS4? Well that's a nice fairy tale. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBAugV34Xwo Might have been improved in patches, but FROM software has always had performance issues with their games, on all platforms. Incidentally, even running stable 30 isn't what I'd call 'Performs good' any day. Dishonored 2'll run just fine @ 30 frames per second on fairly weak PC hardware.

[SonicMage117]

You've not been playing games for very long, have you? :-P

What makes you say that? Is it because I only mentioned one generation of console? Of course this has happened with every generation of console over time from their arrival the the end of their shelf-life, as I said before we saw Dreamcast running Soul Reaver with much better graphics than pc's high end gpu. But what is new is that developers have even more techniques and tricks than they did last generation and the generation before that. The extent now is even greater.

The way I remember it, people were primarily blaming Ubisoft for bull****ting them, and many graphical options were unlocked via fairly simple modding within days in Watch_Dogs. Naturally, only high end PCs could run the game with those enabled at the time.

 

That's the thing, it wasn't that Ubisoft "Lied", it was that the engine was unstable and they locked the settings. You can actully manually go in the pc version and enable all the settings that the pc E3 demo was runnng, they are actually in the game so it's more of a matter that you have to look for it. Or you can mod it to look better but not even today's mid high-end pc can't handle that at acceptable framerates - again this is because of bad optimization of the engine and coding so the assumptions of the gaming community bit them in the arse.

 

Bare in mind that this isn't defending Ubi, they did a horrible job, very much like they did with AC Unity. By making a new engine, they screwed up the game's fate. Dunia engine for Far Cry on the other hand, is an absolute masterpiece in optimization and graphically goes beyond Crytek's efforts. They just made bad decisions over the years when it comes to Watch Dogs and AC franchise.

Bloodborne performing well on PS4? Well that's a nice fairy tale. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBAugV34Xwo Might have been improved in patches, but FROM software has always had performance issues with their games, on all platforms. Incidentally, even running stable 30 isn't what I'd call 'Performs good' any day. Dishonored 2'll run just fine @ 30 frames per second on fairly weak PC hardware.

Yes, it's a 2 year old video in which had the early development tools, drivers, etc. This what at the time when the XB1 and PS4 were not taken full advantage of. As I said before, fast forward to present day and it's a different thing altogether. The framerates have been fixed while the pc versions of Dark Souls still suffer.

 

But my point is from a low-end laptop gpu, that's still a lot better than when you're getting from a mid-range gpu and also, you're not mentioning that Bloodborne is much more graphically demanding. From Software "always" having bad optimization for their games isn't an excuse. If we keep using excuses to defend poor quality ports and optimization on pc as a platform then we will never see improvements for them.

 

But those are just a couple examples, I could go on naming as there are alot more ports that play better on console and less well on a pc with much better gpu and other hardware. Notably, it's amazing what we're getting from both the lower models of XB1/PS4. Those are proving to be mighty potatoes, just as Nintendo's Switch is proving to be by milking that nVidia Tegra.

Edited June 15, 2017 by SonicMage117

[Mamoulian War]

 

I'd bet a million dollars that there will be very few games that run at actual 60fps/4k on xbx which aren't Stardew Valley equivalents graphics wise.

 

You need a 1080Ti/ Titan to do that reliably- and even then not that reliably on newer games- on PC, and the xbx's RX580 equivalent just plain and fundamental ain't in those cards' power class. Nor is it, to be fair, in their cost bracket either as a PC card nor as a whole system for xbx. It will inevitably be the same situation as last gen when people thought they were playing CoD Iteration in glorious 1080p but were actually playing it upscaled from somewhat less glorious 960x540.

 

Still, people should as always buy whatever suits themselves best, and for some the xbx will be a good fit. I personally wouldn't buy an xbx, but then I also wouldn't buy a 1080/Ti/Titan either.

Why do you think that? Just because it happened with PS4 and Xbox One models when they were aiming for 1080p and 60fps, doesn't mean that they will fail the Xbox One X. It certainly has the power to upscale any game from now and the future in 4k/60fps but most pc gamers tend to forget that the development tools and building softwares are evolving every month, hence the rapid updates. It's just another reason why optimization has and always be much better for console games this generation than on pc.

The game play for Destiny 2, Metro Exodus, Forza 7, Need For Speed and Assassins Creed: Origins were all running in 4k @60fps both in the trailers and in the playable demo booths. Point being that the coding for consoles is still more convenient than pc's as it has always been. I'm talking about this in the wrong forum though, I already know thay the majority of gamers here prefer pc over consoles, I just hope nobody takes this the wrong way as me saying that consoles are better than pc.

The coding is different, so are the optimization attributes, consoles are not pc and with good reason, even if they use pc parts. We are mid-generation so optimization is far better now. If you're talking about games in 3 years from now, then I guess I can see your point. By then, the PS5 and neXtBox will have made way.

Because it never ever happened before, that "vertical slice" trailer on E3 was completely different, from what we got shipped in the end

 

Marketers shove down your throat anything, because no one sued them for false advertising yet...

 

EDIT PS: Ubisoft always lies, because they can get away with it

Edited June 15, 2017 by Mamoulian War