@whatsazerg: Don't joke about that; else it's bound to happen.

And, surely this will be better than Elite: Dangerous, right?

It's almost like it re-uses assets for the randomly generated planets like every game that exists. Shocker.

Also, what's a disc?

Looking into fixing a game that ran great on a potato.

What potatoes.

..why are they still selling the original game alongside the game of the year edition?

I don't even..

I'd have rather the game spent another half a year in development with much more fleshing out of its core mechanics and polishing up the awful frankenstein engine.

But.. whatever.

@Prats1993: You mean the completely legitimate problem causing a tripling of latency which renders the game unplayable on a competitive level?

Competitive FPS games are played on high tickrate servers. 60Hz is the minimum professionals use. CSGO uses 128Hz. Overwatch's 20 is a complete and utter joke, even to me who only plays competitive FPS very rarely. It's a night and day difference between both games.

Educate yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHO6Ky-w0UQ

@B1ACKWARRIOR: The 'average joe' has no basis for comparison.

The entire test is flawed from the start.

Anyone shown the actual difference who has some time to get used to it will point out the differences 99% of the time.

And if you're somebody who moved to 120Hz/FPS, playing at 60Hz/FPS will feel like complete and utter shyte.

I myself run 75Hz/FPS (21:9 monitor) and it pains me to drop back to 60Hz for some games that aren't quite compatible with it. The difference is that massive with just 15FPS over 60.

Oh and no, developers don't spend countless hours testing their product (QA teams do). If that was the case, we'd get flawless games. Developers routinely release games with such glaring issues (Arkham Knight anyone?) nobody understands how they even passed QA.

2 directors down; game is still a super casual "we want to you play it our way" mess.

Fun combat, yes, but extremely dumbed down. Maybe the new director will finally bring it back to what it should've been: Diablo 3, not World of Diablo.

...Can always hope, right?

They're actually giving the remasters free to owners of the older games on PC. Wow.

Never though I'd see a AAA company not be money grubbing scumbags and actually treat their fans, their customers, with respect.

I doubt much at all will change with the games, but still.

@kyelo: You need a "remaster" of a perfectly playable game, why?

The whole point of remasters is to bring old games back to life and update them for modern hardware. Bioshock was released with modern hardware. It doesn't equate.

Again, porting them to new consoles is fine; re-releasing them on PC and charging us for it isn't.