@doccobb: I appreciate the offer but I've since switched to PC gaming, my Ps4 is a family entertainment unit now, but I'll add you anyway the next time I log on to watch a movie lol

@thetruth239: Sorry, no. I'm not into pre-processing information to make it easily digestible. Either it's worth the 3 minute attention span required to understand a thing, or it's not.

@Slinqy: Thanks I try. I forgot the kind of people trolling GS when I posted it, I keep thinking there are people out there capable of conversation and having an attention span past 11 characters.

@furryraccoon: I was super psyked about Destiny back in the day, then it launched and I found out that Bungie, the guys who invented matchmaking for console games, had put in ZERO match making. I don't have any friends, literally zero, so I played for about a month and quit, never to go back, and I had bought the season pass mind you. So I felt ultra swindled. Luckily they have this 'guided games' things and in game clan system which sounds like it will essentially cure the problem of people who don't have friends to play with. I just hope for PC everything is done through Destiny and doesn't require Discord. I hate having to use 3rd party mic software to communicate in a game.

@Daelusca: PC can do 60, I've read it's actually an uncapped frame rate so it can theoretically go beyond 60. However all consoles will do 30 FPS locked. So I guess Sony didn't have so much impact if all the consoles are locked. Just reading around though it is strange, it seems all the consoles are locked at 30FPS and they'll only be running at 1080p, NOT the 4k the newer consoles have been boasting they'll play games at. So it's weird the PC will offer better visuals AND an uncapped framerate while the consoles are essentially locked in the lowest visual standards available.

This is understandable. From what I understand the PC version is FPS uncapped, has extra graphics features the console won't and is full HDR 4k, the last one I'm not sure about with the Xb1x. However, I've also read that the PC version is actually being built from the ground up, it is not a port. Well kind of. That's a bit of a lie because it was made very clear in this current console generation that both the Ps4 and Xbox consoles were going to PC coding formats and giving up their unique proprietary coding structures to 'simplify' the process and lower development costs. This means that essentially the game is made on PC first (which is technically kind of always was) and then merely grafted onto the other consoles OS's. But PC's have their own needs, like driver support, got to make sure it works on Multiple versions of Windows, which means multiple versions of DirectX which means some features won't be there and need to be removable and it means optimization needs to be done for both formats and then you have Graphics solutions, are they a Nvidia 10XX series or older cause their GPU architecture is pretty drastically different, or (god help them) are they running a AMD graphics solution? How about multi-card setups? Sheesh. Making a game for PC is a lot like making a game for multiple consoles when you think about it. The delay sucks, I can admit that myself. I'm a bit bummed, however I'm not in a huge rush, I barely played Destiny 1 and from my understanding there will NOT be cross platform play for Destiny 2 at this time, so the console guys won't be getting a head start on the PC players. Not to mention, while I WAS seeped in anticipation for Destiny 2, i recently saw this other game called Anthem... I may not even bother to get Destiny 2 depending on the reviews it gets from console at this point. Unless it blows people away, much more so impressive than the first one, I may skip it entirely and just wait for Wolfenstein 2 and Anthem next year. I'm also not thrilled to be forced onto the Battle.net or Blizzard App or whatever they're calling it now, I wanted it on Steam.

@Triton: If you know how to build PCs yeah. For instance over the last 4 years I've probably spent around $800 on my pc, currently my PC is more powerful on paper than the Xb1x (not accounting for optimization which is way better for consoles). All told my PC is worth between 1200 and 1400 dollars. But thats because of how I build PCs, 5 1/2 years ago when I first built it, I invested heavily on the motheboard and CPU, I got stuff specifically to upgrade the RAM, HDD and Gfx around it for years to come. And that's exactly what I've done. Since then I've upgraded the Graphics card twice and the RAM once, and switched to SSD for OS and Games with a HDD for bulk data like music and videos. Because of Newegg I've managed to keep those upgrade costs at right around $800, maybe closer to $900. If you consider how much cheaper my software costs are, since I use Steam, I've spent about the same amount of money overall, the hardware is a tad more expensive, but luckily Steam and Humble Bundle balance that by selling me software that on console goes for $40 to $60 for less than $30 in many cases (new releases of course not included). Not to mention a TON more games that are brilliant that simply aren't on consoles or are on PC long before console, Ark for instance, I had played it to death before it even hit consoles and from my understanding it never played as well as PC. So yeah, there are benefits to a PC, and with M$ tossing a new console iteration out almost every year at this rate, it might not be a bad idea. Just realize you'll need to pre-plan how you are going to 'keep up' hardware wise OR you won't be in a much different boat than buying a console, and if you aren't going to build your own PC forget about it, prefab PCs are stupid expensive, especially the gaming rigs.

Funny thing is Xbone launched at $500, did it hurt them? Sure, but because the Ps4 was literally a more powerful piece of hardware for $400, that's why I switched over. After the Wii did SO well against the 360 and Ps3 they wanted in on that. See the industry used to work on the same idea as the scorpio now, you sell hardware, either at break even pricing or even at a loss (like the 1st Xbox classic). But then you sell software, oodles of it. That's where you profit. That was always the deal in most cases, until they started doing renditions, Ps1 Mini and anything called Slim is a profitable hardware sale, they don't remake a console just for consumers they do it because making the same console with newer hardware a year or more later is cheaper, hence they can drop the price and still make profit. But the Wii came around and made a killing with low end hardware and low end software, the proved to the console companies you don't have to make a good anything to make a killing, you just have to market the hell out of whatever you're doing and convince people it's awesome and combine it with some exclusives that people really really want and you're gold. So this new generation went for it, everyone made hardware to sell at a profit. The thing is, that's why the 'generation' gap wasn't a huge leap like previous console generations, it was just a few steps further. So they kind of learned from the mistake, after two bad console iterations M$ finally said "ok fine", they have the money and the negotiating power to get good hardware and sell it at a break even, so just do it and deal with not making profit from every single direction of the market. Besides the goal is to get people onto the UWP anyway so you can turn games into a 'service' like Netflix instead of selling people games like a product anyway. So they went with a 10 year plan again, it worked for the 360. However... like Bethesda with all their 3D everything at E3, they aren't taking into consideration that economy is not actually getting better, that statistics are formed from averages containing outliers and that while general signals say "people have money" the reality is, people do NOT have much money. A $500 console + a $500 3D headset? hahahaha. NO. Not Happening. A few rich kids will buy into it sure, but the old "We're aiming for a Billion console sales" goal is not happening, I mean they could always lump multiple iterations of a generation together to play the averaging game themselves, but that's just folly and won't work as a business model. EITHER way, believe what you may about M$ and their plans for your consumer rights, the Xb1X is a decent piece of hardware. Even though I'm a PC guy (and my PC is better than this) I'm still tempted just because it isn't an entirely shameful console again, and I'm not sure if my PC can run Anthem, while it's more powerful there is optimization AND DX12. I stayed on 8.1 (again not supporting microsofts intention to get me into a monthly fee situation for my OS OR force me onto Windows store), and we didn't DX12 (got Vulkan though). Dx12 is a cheat for performance, like Vulkan. When Doom (4) came out with Vulkan drivers it almost tripled my performance with the game with no hardware changes. As I understand it the Xbone original doesn't use DX12, but I don't know about this new iteration. Either way companies always work harder to optimize console editions as to PC because with PC they figure if we can't run it we'll just buy better hardware. Now if Anthem turns out to support Vulkan, I won't bother. But if it doesn't, well we will see. The idea this will 'fail' doesn't make sense, simply they'll slowly stop selling older consoles and drop the price. Basically they'll make sure the Xbox brand never drops below $300 except for MAYBE holiday sales. When the Xbone original gets cheap enough, they'll just drop it and say the Xb1s is now the standard and drop it to the price point the Xb1 Original used to hold the line at. Then the Xb1X will drop to the old Xb1s pricing. There really isn't a 'loss' to have happen unless these console iterations begin outraging consumers to the point that they begin dropping the xbox for the Ps4, which I highly doubt, many Xbox users from my experience don't even consider buying another product, the next Xbox could be a rock with some wires duct-taped to it and they'd buy it if M$ pushed it hard enough and promised new Halo, Gears of War and CoD on it. The real issue will be when they begin dropping the older iteration those will essentially become 'obsolete', under the new things that everything will be backwards compatible, the notion probably is it won't be hard to get consumers to upgrade more often year over year if they get to take all their old games with them and even their hard drives. Basically it's like a PC, but you're only transplanting the HDD from hardware to hardware like a glorified memory card. The idea will be you're not changing hardware generations, you're just keeping 'up to date' with the current generation or something. But yeah, they'll play it off quietly, cause while for now they're saying everything will play on all the systems, we've been told for years (and it makes a lot of sense) that the issue with things like HDD's and internet access and Kinect, was sub marketing, if the hardware isn't standardized then when a company makes a game they have to consider "how do I make my product for the largest audience?" Simple, you make it for the most basic format on the market. So devs won't have a huge incentive to make Xb1X games until the Xb1s is the bottom form on the market, because as it stands there will be TWO lower options when the Xb1x releases, so CoD and such they may gimmick the Xb1x in and toss a few features onto the next CoD because it's easy on Dx11.x, but overall any investment on the Dev's end has to be incentivized to get them to support anything but the widest consumer base available. Even if they make it like a PC game, and build for the top and then simply remove features as they go down the hardware list, there's time and development costs for it and overall that just isn't worth much to a Dev, especially since the idea of a game being viable "years from now" is hoopla, great games are viable years later cause they're made well, not because they are graphically awesome and the Xb1x is not ahead of the curve, lets be clear on that, again MY PC is more powerful than this thing, optimization can go a long way, but by this time next year that gap will grow and by the year after it'll be a good deal behind my PC. It'll be cheaper to upgrade my PC every year or so instead of buying a new console every year.

So paid mods, but separated from free mods, essentially instead of being the bad guy and forcing all content be paid for they're going to give Mod developers the ability to be the bad guy instead and let them choose to make paid mods or not. Cute. I also enjoyed the talk about VR, especially when he said "We just seems to have so much stuff going on" Well YEAH, you've got like 3 or 4 different rehashes you're putting together for VR, I mean forget NEW content, why bother with that when you can just slap VR onto a thing and re-sell an old product for a new product price??? Capitalizing baby yeah! I also loved him saying "I've actually had some people tell me they've converted over to VR entirely, they just don't play games the old way." Ohhh, you and your rich friends, probably the most worthless testimony possible. Let's see, am I going to pay $500+ to be able to re-buy a game I already have for $65+ (cause hey how long till they raise the price of games again like they did years ago from 49.99 to 59.99) just so I can get 3D? No. No I am not. And a LOT of people won't be. The insanity that game companies are pushing 4k AND VR, what world of 'everyone's rich' are these idiots living in? Have they no idea of the state of economy or is Bethesda just not interested in poor people buying their stuff anymore? I was already put off when I realized Fallout 4 was the Fallout 3 Engine, but this line up is just a joke to me, EVERYTHING is a re-release, there is nothing new other than some 3d Gimmicks. Yeah yeah, you can interact and aim at two things at once. I'm just not seeing the 'vision' here other than recycling old stuff with new gimmicks to get rich kids to buy stuff again. And while they Push VR they're totally neglecting that 4k has a higher adoption rate and is way more realistic of a price point, yeah sure a good 4k starts at around $1200, but an entire family can watch movies, play local multiplayer games and other such on it together, for $500+ with VR you have entertainment for one person and at best in 1080, not in 4k. Clearly Bethesda has a different direction they want to go, forget 4k and hey here's VR. But the 'adoption' of VR is very sketchy at best, while plenty of people are talking about it, there aren't many actual groups publishing sales numbers to verify this, and Steam who has the largest number gathering around it, has published numbers that show VR is a very very niche group of wealthy people. I think the problem here is these rich CEO's, VP's and other such guys are just living in a different world than the rest of us. They and their buddies all have the tech and since they represent the entire world to them, hey adoption rates must be great. The only worth while thing out of Bethesda was Wolfenstein 2 and Dishonored, the only 2 NEW things they had to offer and I'm grateful they didn't cram VR into those as well. I mean, I get the idea of having to push the tech to push adoption, but VR just isn't super user friendly. First off you need 90+ FPS to avoid the motion sickness thresh hold, while PC and maybe the Xb1X can do this, everyone else will not. Even so I know plenty of people who have tried 3D in multiple styles from the HTC to just 3D in movie theaters and it just isn't impressive to them. Finally the entry into 3D is prohibitively expensive. Google 'card board', Samsung VR and Sonys versions are all below standard, they don't have the processing power or the FPS to execute proper 3D, so if you drop below the $500 point you aren't getting the 3D these guys are trying to push nor are you getting an acceptable 3D in general. 3D TV's with glasses counterparts, eh, maybe. But this headset thing is a joke, it's just expecting too much money out of people for an entirely singular for of entertainment. And lets not forget software LOCKING, some games are software locked to only run on certain headsets, a handful of titles I've read can ONLY be run on the Oculus, not due to some hardware problem but because it's been programed not to. With content already having platform exclusives, you're looking at fragmenting a partial market into a sub market. New game on the Xb1x, awesome, OH but that pricey headset is a HTC and this is Oculus only, too bad for you. So I've got to own a specific platform AND a specific piece of peripheral hardware? I know Bethesda doesn't intend to do such a thing, but right now it's how the industry wants to conduct its business long term and I just don't see buying into this as being worth it or beneficial to the Consumers side of the industry. 4k, with higher frame rates, lets boost it to 120FPS. That will be awesome. OR just double down on 60FPS with something like G-Sync or whatever Gsyncs competitor is on the market (I forget the name). Let's try to do what we're already doing perfect before just jumping to the next buzzword ploy.