@gameroutlawzz: Have you tried the game on a HDD? I had the beta installed on my regular 7200 rpm HDD. Loading times were very short. Much much much shorter than the loading times of Battefield 4 installed on my SSD.
I'm definitely going to install Battlefront on my regular HDD, and not on my 500 GB SSD. Why waste almost 30 GB of SSD space, when the loading times on the regular HDD are THAT short?
Seriously, battlefield 4 on my SSD has loading times up to a full minute. Battlefront on the HDD loaded maps in a matter of seconds.
Also, take in mind that they will release a lot of DLC. And the DLC will include new worlds and maps. So total file size including DLC and patches could easily increase to 45 GB. Or even 50 GB.
@Zinoxy: Well, to be fair, MGS V ran at a solid 60 fps on the current gen consoles. Whereas Fallout 4 frequently drops below its 30 fps target. Those are the type of things that do count towards the grade.
@joshrmeyer: A budget PC with a core i3 processor and a GTX 750ti still performs significantly better in this game than the consoles, with better image quality as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iipDWbd6HNg
You can use that budget PC for lots of other things as well. You can calculate spread sheets, write Word documents, use statistical programs, 3D modelling, video editing, etc etc. So it may cost a little bit more than a console, but it can be used for much more purposes.
My PC is a lot more expensive than a console, but I use it for so much more things than just gaming alone, that the expense was totally worth it.
@peterhorner1867: Provided you have the right hardware, Arkham Knight works just fine on PC (with all patches installed, before that it was a nightmare).
I play Arkham Knight on PC, at 1080p. I haven't changed any of the graphics settings, they are at the default values for my rig (EXCEPT for the fps limit, which I changed from 30 to 60). So all the extra Nvidia stuff is disabled. The game runs at a solid 60 fps, never drops below 60 fps.
@West123: "you must be clinically insane to type all of that....who is it for anyway??" No, I'm not insane. I just had a couple of minutes of spare time and decided to give some consumer advice. Who is it for? It's for consumers. If you still have to make up your mind deciding on what platform to go with, I suggest you pick the PC version. If you've already decided what platform to take, and don't care much about graphics, then pick what you want and you can safely ignore my post. There's no need to call me insane.
@f3kuinth3a55gs: That shows everything doesn't it? Even on a GTX 670 you can get 60fps on at least high settings!! Whereas the console versions frequently drop below 30 fps. Get this game on PC guys!
@julianboxe: "Nowadays Consoles look almost like most PC games on 1080p, difference is in small details and of course on the Frame Rate.
For graphics diff that REALLY show on the eye, only at 2k and above."
REALLY?? REALLY?? Is that so? Then I suggest you watch a much better graphics comparison from Candyland: https://youtu.be/JQ4oz8Y1Z8Q
Watch it from 0:48 to 0:56 and from 1:45-1:55!! Then come back here and tell again that the differences are not MASSIVE! Let me give you a hint of what to look for: twice the draw distance for the PC version for many things like shadows, grass, bushes, etc!
@kenpachi212: No. Simply no. The footage of the PC version is simply taken on a different time of day.
There's a much better graphics comparison from Candyland: https://youtu.be/JQ4oz8Y1Z8Q
You should watch it. It clearly shows far superior draw distances for the PC version. The PC version draws shadows, grass, bushes and other assets at far larger distances. After having seen these large draw distances the console versions look quite ugly in comparison.
I suggest you watch the above Candyland video from 0:48 to 0:56 and from 1:45-1:55! Then please come back here and tell me which version looks better. If you still think the console versions look better than I will eat all of my shoes.
Also note that the console versions frequently drop below their 30 fps target.....
Wiro_'s comments