It's so easy to tell when someone has done absolutely no research, but like to talk anyway.

1. If you don't want to play right now you can get a 'free' starter ship in the basic package for $40. The Aurora. Which you can switch out for a Mustang, a more combat oriented version starter ship, once it's available. If you want to play NOW, it costs $45.

2. Uhm. There are tons of videos on Youtube already, and plenty of people playing on twitch. As for content, the game has been in development for not even 2 years yet. Do you hate on other developers/publishers like Blizzard, Ubisoft, Bethesda, etc... that keep you in the dark about the games for 4 years or longer while they are actually making them, and only letting you know they exist 6 months to a year before they actually release?

3. Again, refer to my first point.

For those who say this is 'pay-to-win', what exactly are you winning? What is this supposed 'advantage'? It's an open-world sandbox game. What constitutes 'winning' can literally be different for every single person. They've already determined that they will limit the amount of in game currency you can buy, I wouldn't be surprised if they limited it even further based on how long you play the game.

Well, whatever. Some people will get their knickers in a twist on principal alone, regardless of how right or wrong they may actually be. Just remember that if you feel like playing alone there will be private servers you can create and play with those you want to. It also has a 50 mission single player or co-op campaign. So it's not like your potential $40 to buy the game now would be wasted.

If you really don't want to play on the live servers with everyone else because of what you believe is pay to win, then don't. No one is forcing you. What I see as pay to win and what you see are likely different.

You'll still get a full 50 mission campaign and can play on private servers if you wish. That just means I won't "see you in the 'verse", as it were.

It's hasn't been confirmed or denied yet, which means that it's most likely going to happen at some point. Not guaranteed, but likely. If a company isn't going to release a game on a certain platform, they generally speak up and say that a game will not be available on said platform rather early on.

If a company keeps mum on the topic, or 'cannot comment at this time', like in the case of Bioware and Mass Effect... expect it somewhere else sooner or later.

Besides that, I don't know if it would be a good idea for Rockstar to alienate the fan base that got them started on the PC anyway.

I think that in this time and age, for those of us who have been playing games steadily for the past decade or longer, it's incredibly hard to make a game later on that can meet up to the expectations of any predecessor. Especially games that have a fanatical cult fanbase, like the Fallout series.

Then you just have to ask yourselves, do you just want more of the same (which isn't always a bad thing) or are you willing to give a shot at something a little different from the norm, but manages to remain mostly true to its roots?

There will always be detractors. That's a given. But being able to combine strategy with a good story and a decent amount of eye candy is no easy feat. I think Bethesda will pull through.

I still use XP and have no intention of upgrading in the immediate future.

Since DirectX 11 has been announced, I'll wait to see if the improvements are worth it before I decide to upgrade.

Though I may wait even longer, since it seems like PC's are more readily moving towards 64-bit architecture. Going to see how that pans out through the end of the year.