Zieglobaz

If there's a rift amongst gamers, I'm going to venture a guess it's because of this right here, an intelligence gap. There is a monumental frustration within me that I can't even begin to express, over the immediate assumption you made that the Pro hardware is holding back the game, and not vice versa. I'm seriously at a loss. And to top it all off, we're stearing the topic back towards this "consoles vs PC" bullshit that has absolutely no relevance. Don't sit there and say "If you care about framerate, place on PC" and then bitch at me about creating a rift between gamers. What do you say to people on console who care about framerate? Are they just shit out of luck? Either buy a PC, or stop worrying about FPS? How about we support devs that can make every version of the game great, that's a win-win situation.

Spoilers it's an action game with a dialog wheel.

Look, just because your eyes are bad doesn't mean the rest of us should have to suffer. 60fps provides better look and feel, especially for an action game. There's no excuse to lock games at 30, especially with new hardware coming out. Stop making excuses for lazy devs.

I would imagine the mod community as a whole took a big hit after the paid mods debacle. First you have Bethesda saying you deserve to get paid 25¢ on the dollar, then you have thousands of players saying you deserve nothing. I don't blame the modders for losing interest in it.

Haha, the battlecry of the appeaser. How many times has "it's only a beta" turned into "oh it's broken on release?" Why would you trust a company that has already told paying customers to fuck off, but changed their mind due to a Twitter poll?

I think people that type "gg ez" are jerks, but I think people who get offended by it are pussies. And at the end of the day, it's easier to convince a jerk to be nice than it is to convince a pussy to stop getting offended, especially if it's something as harmless as this.

This is really a lose-lose situation for them. If they put out they game on time but with a big day 1 patch, they get blasted by 1) people with bad/no internet, 2) reviewers who get the unpatched version and complain about all the bugs, and 3) people who are going to claim it's DLC that should have been on disk. But if they do delay it, they get static from 1) people who say they don't care about bugs, 2) people who think every problem should have been fixed months/years ago due to how long it's been in production, and 3) their shareholders who want to see sales money coming in. Personally, I'm glad they chose to delay. Too many companies are relying on that "eh we can patch it later" mentality and pushing crappy rush jobs out the door. To quote Shigeru Miyamoto: "A delayed game is good eventually, a bad game is bad forever."

I never got over the horror stories from 2-3 years ago. Not being able to launch games, getting kicked out (of single player games!) if their servers went down for a second, people crying rootkit, etc. Also, I thought this was funny, taken from the wiki: The always-on requirement was quietly lifted for existing Uplay games towards the end of 2010, being changed to a single validation on game launch.[9]However, the always-on requirement made a return in 2011 with the releases of Driver: San Francisco[10]and From Dust, the latter having been explicitly stated by Ubisoft prior to release to only require a one-time online activation on install.[11] From Dust was later patched to remove the always-on requirement.[12] In September 2012 Ubisoft employees confirmed in an interview that no further Ubisoft games would be using the always-on requirement, instead opting for a one-time activation of the game on install. HoweverThe Crew required the player to be always online in order to play.[13]

You're making a lot of assumptions based on virtually no information, drawing your own conclusions based on unofficial second-hand information. Let's settle down and see what actually comes out before we start saying "X is better than Y."

I probably won't switch, because I'm not that much of a hardcore Doom fan, but I like that they did it.

No, it means modding is an easier process, but the game is still being published by EA. Don't expect to see it on Steam, and don't expect mods.

Doom for $35 is an instant buy for me. I'll probably pick up Dead by Daylight (I think that's the correct name) since my friends all bought it and want to play. Also just FYI, anyone considering something from the Sonic franchise should check out Humble Bundle before buying from the Steam sale.

No one should underestimate the power of the damn porn industry. Do you know who determined the winner of VHS vs betamax? And for that matter, Blu-ray vs HD-DVD? Do you know who propelled the internet from a relatively exclusive communication system to a media distribution platform? Do you know who pushed for higher bandwidth and better video encoding to making streaming services viable? Spoilers it was the porn industry. While it's not the sole factor of why each thing above succeeded, the porn industry is very effective at laying the groundwork that other companies can build on. But getting back to the actual topic, Gabe's sentiment is nothing new. Palmer Lucky, the main guy behind the Oculus Rift, said pretty much the same thing (that making things exclusive to one headset or another would be hurt the business in the long run) during the Rift's development, but that didn't stop them from adding DRM to stop Rift games from playing on the Vive shortly after release. The moral of the story is that people can say whatever they want, judge them by their actions instead. Let's see what Steam VR looks like in a year, and see if they're encouraging exclusives then. I have a feeling they won't, since they don't seem to encourage "Steam exclusives" the same way Origin does, but you can never trust a company. (Also Apex, you might want to clean up the first post a bit. Oculus (Rift) = Facebook = Palmer Lucky, which is separate from Vive = HTC = Gaben/Steam. It's highly doubtful that Oculus is paying devs to make games exclusive to the "Vive store," aka Steam.)

Someone proclaiming a game to be overhyped after watching the trailers and realizing it's a genre they don't like. Internet in a nutshell.

I don't think this is surprising at all. The first (reboot) game did very well on consoles. I'd also like to point out that the article is incorrect in saying the series was PC only in the 90s. The original X-COM: UFO Defense/UFO: Enemy Unknown came out on PC 1994, and then came to PS1 as X-COM: Enemy Unknown in 1995. Sorry, I'm a stickler for details on one of my favorite series.