I can't believe people actually prefer Bad Company 2's locomotion over recent Battlefield games. Map design, weapon balance and stuff I can agree with, but playing BC2 after years of BF4 feels awful. Mostly because you can't strafe while sprinting.
I don't want to feel like I'm running through sand when I'm trying to dodge tanks and air strikes.
It's like you've never played a Battlefield game before.
Use your brain, Shuvam. It's really not that hard to process.
Takes some getting used to but I'm way better with the track pads than with analog controllers.
The extra buttons on the back of the controller and the triggers are extremely handy in games like Rocket League too.
It's more fun to hear the bitching and moaning from the anti-SJWs on N4G to be honest.
You're not gonna find that in a $200 GPU just yet. It could probably manage that in older games though.
No multiplayer game will ever be as refined as TF2 was when it launched. When TF2 launched, every class had one set of weapons so you knew exactly what each enemy was packing before engaging with them.
In Overwatch there's a lot more to keep track of cus there's 21(?) heroes, each with their own ultimate.
That'd be unnecessarily complex for developers to utilize. The Cell was best used when it could offset the comparatively weak GPU the PS3 had.
There's really nothing you can do with the Cell that couldn't be achieved more easily by putting more and faster clock speeds cores in an AMD APU.
Spinning what? I'm not a Microsoft supporter lol. It comes after the Xbox One, which is an 8th gen console, making Scorpio and NX 9th gen consoles.
The whole 'gen' schema is becoming pretty meaningless at this point though.
It is a 9th gen console.
MS tried that already and it failed. PC gamers don't want to pay for walled gardens.
How would that be a conflict of interest?
If Microsoft are stupid enough to charge PC players for Live, then this is all for naught.
The reason Xbox players still have to pay for Live is because Microsoft essentially subsidizes (or offsets) the cost of the hardware. On PC, you provide your own hardware.
What difference does it actually make to you? You're still getting the same games, they're just aiming to increase the size of their market.
Exclusive games still exist as a selling point for specific hardware or services, but most people play a lot more than a few exclusive games every year.
4k60 isn't likely unless you're rendering simplistic graphics.
Take a look at what the GTX 980/1070 can do in 4k benchmarks. That's about where Scorpio will be.
When has Battlefield ever been historically accurate? The games are grounded in their respective settings, but DICE still takes liberties for the sake of design and fun.
The difference there is that Microsoft can exist without Xbox/gaming. Sony without PlayStation would be on the verge of bankruptcy.
Sony's valuation, all things considered is about $24 billion dollars (that includes their movie, music, consumer hardware and gaming sectors). Meanwhile, Microsoft dropped $26 billion dollars this week on LinkedIn.
"like saying MS Edge explorer is probably the best internet explorer. X'D"
Irrelevant, but okay. I'd say Edge is the best version of Internet Explorer. When was the last time you actually used a version of IE that wasn't complete crap?
If you the capacity for critical reasoning, everything Spencer has been saying makes total sense.
This is honestly the first time in like ten years that Microsoft actually seem to have a good plan.
People around here can't see past the tips of their noses. I've never been a fan of Microsoft, but this is by far the smartest move they've made in the gaming space in well over a decade.