Batman is exactly why I don't PC game

[Notshauna]

Yeah this game is broken on PC, some are. That's no different than console. When I look into AAA news, I notice the majority of games have day one patches even on consoles. When I talk about broken games I often use Dark Souls as an example. Blight Town is famously awful on consoles with some players even reporting sub 20 FPS during that zone, and that's something that will never be fixed, mean while the PC version (while more broken from the get go) is fixed via DSfix. PCs are what you make of them, they offer a strictly better experience if you put the time in to them.

For what it's worth the PC gaming community can be super elitist at times and fail to express how amazingly easy it is to both build a PC today (and install an operating system) and tweak graphics settings/edit config files to maximize optimization. The same is true about the cost, they're a lot more affordable than you think. It's weird to say this but I actually do believe PCs are for everyone, it's just that there is a lot of groundwork to actually express that.

 

[dragonmith]

A PC that can run the newest games like Witcher 3, Batman, MGS5 (coming soon), etc. at a decent level is a decent gaming PC.

Ahhhh, I see now. My bad, was just a tad confused on your definition. It would indeed take more dosh to run the modern triple A games nowadays.


I guess my last question is what do you think about backwards compatibility? My PC will be able to run AOE for many more years now, hell, I could one day get an emulator for some x-box games, but that $400 X-box 1 will never run Call of duty 32: Mutant wars...

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Mate? Do you SERIOUSLY ask such a stupid question? Seriously?
That i5 COST 200 dollars...
In 2009...

With experience, mods are not hit and miss. Did you not see what I sent you? Or read it?
You havent played any Skyrim mods so I cant take your opinion seriously. Also, I use STALKER as a niche game example and Half Life 2 as a popular game example... not Skyrim...

This is the only place I found to buy that processor:
http://www.amazon.com/Intel-Core-Processor-LGA1156-I5-750BOX/dp/B002KQ5KDY

A game getting mods that enhance the experience but a decent amount is hit or miss. There's not many mods for say Dishonored, Shadow Warrior, and Arkham City. There's no guarantee the games I like to play with have mods that enhance the experience a decent amount. I read through the Skyrim mods, there's nothing there that fixes the problems I have with the game. There was even a thread on here about someone asking if there's Skyrim mods to fix his issues with the game, and everyone said no.

I guess my last question is what do you think about backwards compatibility? My PC will be able to run AOE for many more years now, hell, I could one day get an emulator for some x-box games, but that $400 X-box 1 will never run Call of duty 32: Mutant wars...

I'll copy and paste what I just said about BC from a few replies ahead:
"I very rarely have the need (mainly the time) to go back and play older games. There's too many games that come out already with too little time to play them. I don't get why having basically an unlimited library is so great when I most likely would've played those older games back during their time if I wanted to play those games. Most games really don't hold up that well either. PlayStation has been pretty good with backwards compatibility as PS2 played PS1 games and PS3 can play PS1 games and PS2 games (with the right models). PS3 has a bunch of PS2 games for cheap on PSN, even not-so-popular games like God Hand. Since PS4 switched to PC architecture, it's not surprising it doesn't have BC. I'd think PS5 will have BC for PS4 as why would they switch architecture to something else."

I'm not writing off BC as nothing, it definitely has value, but I do believe most people overvalue it. I had a PS3 that played PS2 games and I don't know if I ever played a PS2 game on it (if I did, I'm sure I can count the times on a single hand).

 

[sumanoskae]

The point is you will experience more issues on PC vs consoles. That's my whole point. Sure, in the end, a game will most likely be superior on PC after official/unofficial patches but you will definitely spend some time fiddling with settings, editing ini files, searching forums for a solution, just plain waiting for a fix, etc. Whereas I will waste less time doing those very things and more time playing games on a console.

"You will experience more issues on PC vs consoles"

You feel like qualifying that statement? I can't remember the last time a PC game broke down on me.

A gaming PC costs at least $500 whereas a Core 2 Duo machine (that can do everything a normal user needs) is probably only $100. You can have both a PC for doing standard work (and then some) and a console for the same price.

So you can either buy two machines for $500 or one machine for $500? Why does it matter, then? A good PC will cost you more up front than a console, but they usually last longer. You can just upgrade your PC with new parts when it becomes obsolete; you don't have to buy a whole new machine whenever Microsoft and Sony decide to stop development for the one you have.

I very rarely have the need (mainly the time) to go back and play older games. There's too many games that come out already with too little time to play them. I don't get why having basically an unlimited library is so great when I most likely would've played those older games back during their time if I wanted to play those games. Most games really don't hold up that well either. PlayStation has been pretty good with backwards compatibility as PS2 played PS1 games and PS3 can play PS1 games and PS2 games (with the right models). PS3 has a bunch of PS2 games for cheap on PSN, even not-so-popular games like God Hand. Since PS4 switched to PC architecture, it's not surprising it doesn't have BC. I'd think PS5 will have BC for PS4 as why would they switch architecture to something else.

This makes no sense; older games are not inherently more time consuming than newer games, nor are they any less worth our time. You want to play an older game? Just put off playing a new one for a little while. And old games most certainly do hold up; there are plenty of NEW games that mimic the style of retro ones. Some of my favorite games of all time are more than ten years old; they didn't suddenly stop being well designed or written when graphics and physics technology evolved.

Besides, even if you somehow manage to never find any game older than 5-7 years that you enjoy, I can assure you that some day you'll want to revisit the games of today, which, if console manufacturers have their way, will become more and more difficult to find. Backwards compatibility on consoles is getting worse and worse; 360's and X-Bones only have it for select games, only certain PS3s have it, and the PS4 doesn't have it at all; these companies clearly do not consider it a priority, because they still treat video games like their toys, to be discarded as soon as a newer model arrives; as if they are nothing more than the sum of their parts, and are not worth preserving.

As a side not, and I can speak from personal experience here, there are plenty of PS2 games that backwards compatible PS3s have trouble running smoothly.

The point of a large library is not quantity, it's quality. Nobody has time to play every game they can get their hands on, but if you have a larger selection, you stand a better chance of being able to find quality games, by the rule of averages. You find more diamonds if you have more rough to sort through.

Personally, I have no idea how you manage to be bogged down with new games; most of them are short, even more aren't worth finishing, and plenty aren't worth playing in the first place. This is just as true for old games, but that's exactly the point; mediocrity is normal, by definition. I'v never found myself wishing I had fewer great games to play.

If I have to force myself to finish a game, it's probably not engaging enough for me to bother with.

But like I said, to each their own; it's your money and your time. If you're so set on consoles being superior to PCs, why do you even want to discuss it?

 

[Neonsilver]

Having a private address (192.168.x.x), which is what NAT does, gives you some basic protection due to not having a public IP address.

Copy & pasted:
"With multiple "internal" computers on the LAN behind the router, the router must know which internal computer should receive each incoming packet of data. Since ALL incoming packets of data have the same IP address (the single IP address of the router), the only way the router knows which computer should receive the incoming packet is if one of the internal computers on the private LAN FIRST sent data packets out to the source of the returning packets."

I use a version of ZoneAlarm (9.2) that's about 5 years old. I'm sure it has a few cracks, and I'm sure a hacker could get through it, but what's the chances of a hacker targeting me (plus, a good hacker can get through most, if not all, consumer-grade firewalls). What I like about the ZoneAlarm I run is that I have full control over which programs have access to the Internet, which the newest versions don't allow you (I actually tried quite a few different firewalls about a year back and none of allowed for full program control). Only the programs I authorize have access and that's it. So if some spyware wants Internet access, ZoneAlarm will prompt me to allow it access and it will almost certainly come off as fishy. The only time you really get prompted to give a program access is when you install a new program or update an existing one so a program asking for Internet access at any other time is rather fishy, and you can google the .exe that asking for access to verify if it's safe or not. Couple the NAT and firewall with something like NoScript for Firefox and you can even go to any site and be safe as any site you haven't gone to before will have all scripts disabled until you enable them. If you have a decent handle of the Internet, it's almost impossible to get a virus.

Seriously? You believe that really does anything? I doubt there are many cases where some pc get's infected because someone carpet bombs the internet by sending data packets out to random IP addresses. It's more likely that you access an infected site and you get a virus as part of a data package of that site.

I'm not sure about the current versions of ZoneAlarm, but I guess you only tried shitty free versions of firewalls. I'm using Kaspersky internet security and it provides the exact same service.

You said, "The gamers don't want a shitty port so they buy a console version instead."

But CD Project Red is a known good PC developer than makes quality PC games. Why would gamers think Witcher 3 would have a bad PC port? Thus, you shouldn't really have PC gamers scared of the PC port of Witcher 3 and buying the console version instead. I can understand PC gamers not buying Ubisoft's PC ports but CD Project Red makes good PC games. So even with a developer known for good PC versions, the PS4 version still outsold it. The only thing to conclude is that more gamers just prefer the console.

Since you apparently ignored my answer to what I assumed was your question, really hard to figure out if you can't even add a question mark at the end, I reiterate my answer. And I try to make it simple and easy understandable.

-New console generation comes out.
-Gamer must decide if he wants a console or upgrade his pc (I assume that most only get one because it costs money)
-PC upgrade would be necessary, because due to the new generation, new games would be made to fit them. So they
would require more power from the pc as well
-Gamer thinks that many developers won't care about PC, so he commits to a console
-Withcer 3 is released
-Gamer doesn't have a PC that could run it on good settings, because he committed to consoles because of other developers
-Gamer buys the console edition

I don't think it has anything to do with CD Project Red, the gamers just committed to a console long before Witcher 3 was released.

Also, how your "question" would have been clear in the first place.

Why did Witcher 3 sell less on PC than PS4, if gamers have good faith in CD Project Red on the PC?

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

"You will experience more issues on PC vs consoles"

You feel like qualifying that statement? I can't remember the last time a PC game broke down on me.

One poster in this thread mentioned that Mortal Kombat X had consoles issues and when I googled "mortal kombat X issues", literally the 3rd result was PC users not being able to play the game at all due to some Steam issue. Splinter Cell Blacklist PC users couldn't play the game either. I've heard AMD graphics users have issues with quite a few games (I'm sure they get sorted). You may have had no issues on PC, but that doesn't mean there aren't issues on PC.

So you can either buy two machines for $500 or one machine for $500? Why does it matter, then? A good PC will cost you more up front than a console, but they usually last longer. You can just upgrade your PC with new parts when it becomes obsolete; you don't have to buy a whole new machine whenever Microsoft and Sony decide to stop development for the one you have.

Usually you do need to upgrade at least the GPU each console gen even if your CPU can handle 2 gens. I doubt a PC that could play PS3/360 gen games decently can play PS4/Xbone games decently well too. If you do build a really nice gaming rig, it may indeed last 2 gens but we are talking about a much bigger upfront cost than just $500 then.

This makes no sense; older games are not inherently more time consuming than newer games, nor are they any less worth our time. You want to play an older game? Just put off playing a new one for a little while. And old games most certainly do hold up; there are plenty of NEW games that mimic the style of retro ones. Some of my favorite games of all time are more than ten years old; they didn't suddenly stop being well designed or written when graphics and physics technology evolved.

Besides, even if you somehow manage to never find any game older than 5-7 years that you enjoy, I can assure you that some day you'll want to revisit the games of today, which, if console manufacturers have their way, will become more and more difficult to find. Backwards compatibility on consoles is getting worse and worse; 360's and X-Bones only have it for select games, only certain PS3s have it, and the PS4 doesn't have it at all; these companies clearly do not consider it a priority, because they still treat video games like their toys, to be discarded as soon as a newer model arrives; as if they are nothing more than the sum of their parts, and are not worth preserving.

As a side not, and I can speak from personal experience here, there are plenty of PS2 games that backwards compatible PS3s have trouble running smoothly.

The point of a large library is not quantity, it's quality. Nobody has time to play every game they can get their hands on, but if you have a larger selection, you stand a better chance of being able to find quality games, by the rule of averages. You find more diamonds if you have more rough to sort through.

Personally, I have no idea how you manage to be bogged down with new games; most of them are short, even more aren't worth finishing, and plenty aren't worth playing in the first place. This is just as true for old games, but that's exactly the point; mediocrity is normal, by definition. I'v never found myself wishing I had fewer great games to play.

If I have to force myself to finish a game, it's probably not engaging enough for me to bother with.

But like I said, to each their own; it's your money and your time. If you're so set on consoles being superior to PCs, why do you even want to discuss it?

I didn't say older games were more time consuming, I said trying to play all the newer games already is too time consuming for most people and they already have backlogs. Thus, people don't have enough time to play current gen games let alone older games.

It is hard to have emulation on current gen due to the switch to PC architecture. I believe it's probably impossible on PS4 due to PS3's architecture; it did take Naughty Dog most of The Last of Us's PS4 dev time just getting the game to freaking play on PS4 so you putting in a PS3 disc into PS4 and having it work isn't possible. I think next-gen could very easily have BC, past PSs have had BC too. There was only a select few PS2 games the PS3s couldn't play, the PS3 model that emulated PS2 vs having the chip actually had slightly better BC.

I still have several PS3 games to play (I even bought Dishonored DLC a week or so back for PS3). It's kind of impossible to play and have beaten Witcher 3 before Batman released with work and all (and I was lucky enough to get 3 days off in a row due to power being out at my job). Current gen games are going to start releasing faster really soon as the beginning of this gen was me mainly playing catch up on PS3 games (which I still haven't done). I still haven't finished Divinity OS on PC or started playing Shadowrun Dragonfall on PC. I even have quite a few PS4 games in my library that I haven't finished like Life is Strange (I'm not caught up at least) and Valiant Hearts, and I need to buy and play Bastion on PS4.

Seriously? You believe that really does anything? I doubt there are many cases where some pc get's infected because someone carpet bombs the internet by sending data packets out to random IP addresses. It's more likely that you access an infected site and you get a virus as part of a data package of that site.

I'm not sure about the current versions of ZoneAlarm, but I guess you only tried shitty free versions of firewalls. I'm using Kaspersky internet security and it provides the exact same service.

There's a reason why it's not at all recommended to put a PC in the router's DMZ.

It's not unsurprising to have a freeware product be better than paid products as freeware is usually less bloated and uses less resources. My ZoneAlarm uses less than 3MBs of RAM for example. There's not much reason to pay for anything security-wise for PC consumers. You can find freeware anti-virus and firewalls that do more than what you need. I have very very little actual paid software on my PC. Outside of games and JetAudio (I gotta have those BBE effects), I literally do not have another paid program on my computer besides Windows.

I'm actually scanning now for the first time in over 400 days with Malwarebytes and it hasn't found anything yet and the scan is past the Windows directories already. If I had anything even kinda bad, it would been found already. For the knowledgeable computer user, you aren't going to get anything. The scan finished and only found a couple shady Weather Channel app things.

-New console generation comes out.
-Gamer must decide if he wants a console or upgrade his pc (I assume that most only get one because it costs money)
-PC upgrade would be necessary, because due to the new generation, new games would be made to fit them. So they would require more power from the pc as well
-Gamer thinks that many developers won't care about PC, so he commits to a console
-Withcer 3 is released
-Gamer doesn't have a PC that could run it on good settings, because he committed to consoles because of other developers
-Gamer buys the console edition

I don't think it has anything to do with CD Project Red, the gamers just committed to a console long before Witcher 3 was released.

It seems to me PC gamers are pretty dedicated to PC gaming, just look at this thread here. A lot of them don't even consider consoles as an option really. I think the average gamer deciding PC or console mainly decides console due to convenience (and playing on their big TV on their couch), plus most gamers don't really care about the improved graphics on the PC (I'm fully satisfied with Witcher 3 on PS4 for example). I don't think the main reason someone would decide PS4/Xbone over PC is bad ports, I think most of the time it's due to other reasons. I really do think convenience is the main reasoning why gamers choose console over PC, I could be wrong though. Even bad PC ports end up being superior versions of the game like Dark Souls.

Have you ever heard of Moore's Law?
That CPU is from 2009. It cost around 190-210 dollars on release. It is NOT manufactured anymore. So brand new ones will be fairly expensive.

However, for 200 dollars you can get a new and MUCH more powerful i5. Or for 100 or less you can get a NEWER lower end CPU that will be the 750's equal.
Or buy one of i5 750 second hand for 50 dollars. As it simply is that effin tough.

Hence, some thought can and will help you when comparing and talking hardware....

I am not TALKING enhanced experiences. I am talking NEW experiences. Brand new. Nothing else like it...

I do NOT know Skyrim's mods. I do know my HL2 and STALKER mods (games better than Skyrim to me). I cant help you. Find my equivalent for Skyrim and ask him/her. Hell ask me and I will do some research if need be. The only real problem of modding is that it requires knowledge from the end user. That is it.

How can I make that PC with the basically the same specs right now? Even going AMD and buying the $100 6-core processor (better than that i5) results in a gaming PC costing $500. I can buy a console 2nd hand too so buying PC stuff second hand is a wash.

Then there's very few games that have mods that offer NEW experiences. Most games don't even have mods than enhance the core experience much let alone yield new experiences. I'm sure those mods you mention are great, but very few games have those kind of mods. Thus, most of the time, there's not much bonus to playing the PC version with mods (as most games don't have those type of mods) vs the vanilla console version.

 

[DerangedHobo]

If I buy a game for a console, it's going to fucking work. I don't have to search forums looking for a fix for an issue instead of actually playing the game.

This is like saying you're a racist because in "x geographical location" not being a racist would get you socially ostracized. You aren't fixing the problem, you're enabling it and companies that will release a shitty product at full price for a whole platform of people will not spare you in the long run, you will just be the next target of their shitty practices.

 

[popa_qwerty]

This thread is completely pointless the OP is not going to magically see the light(sarcasm)and random people on the internet is not going to change the OP's Mind so why not let this thread just Die

 

[Kameburger]

If I buy a game for a console, it's going to fucking work. I don't have to search forums looking for a fix for an issue instead of actually playing the game. I put in the disc and in a couple minutes (at most), I'm playing the game. Time is very important to me as I try to spend as much time enjoying myself as I can as time is limited regardless if it's gaming or anything else I enjoy doing. I'm sure after the game is officially or unofficially patched to fix the issues, Batman would be a better experience on PC but by then, I will have already played and beat Batman. I realize that Batman is not the norm but several games (and big releases) do have such issues that cause many gamers to not be able to use a product they purchased. The pro to having set hardware is shit will work whereas having any hardware configuration imaginable means there's potential for a better experience, but that's not guaranteed either because shit may not work.

With the recent story about Mortal Kombat having problems on Steam and then this as well, combined with the awful always online malfunctions of 2 years ago, I have to say I agree with you. I see why PC is often the best option for quality, but yeah, I've never bought a console game that just flat out didn't work. And for all this talk of Backwards compatibility not being a problem, It took me a long time to be able to play for example the original Deus Ex again cause it wasn't optimized for windows XP. I have a few games that just faded out of my library for similar reasons. I love PC gaming but damn does it have it's problems too.

 

[Valiance]

I find it unfortunate that OP implies that a console release has never been broken.

 

[Zacharious-khan]

Easy way to both PC game and get working games:

DON'T PREORDER

look at any reviews the day the game comes out.

????

profit

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

If I buy a game for a console, it's going to fucking work. I don't have to search forums looking for a fix for an issue instead of actually playing the game.

This is like saying you're a racist because in "x geographical location" not being a racist would get you socially ostracized. You aren't fixing the problem, you're enabling it and companies that will release a shitty product at full price for a whole platform of people will not spare you in the long run, you will just be the next target of their shitty practices.

I'm not trying to fix the problem, just trying to get as much game-time in during my free time.

This thread is completely pointless the OP is not going to magically see the light(sarcasm)and random people on the internet is not going to change the OP's Mind so why not let this thread just Die

So are you trying to say the version of the game that is prioritized and has the same hardware across the board is going to have equal or less issues vs the platform (PC) with millions of different hardware & software configuratoins that gets made as quick and cheap as possible? The fact that the console version is prioritized and has the same hardware guarantees it will have less issues than PC.

I dont see how it results in a more expensive PC.

Second hand consoles here are 340$ (8th gen). Dont know how much they cost where you are at.
The point is that a PC that smacks a console is easy to make and/or acquire. And you dont need much. And it need not be as expensive as a console to beat it.
Whilst still being a PC of coarse. As in, something that you will buy anyway... if you want to be a part of the modern word that is

That list is not that small. Sure as hell is bigger than the amount of console exclusives a console gets in its own lifetime

That may be true but most such games (with some exceptions) are also filth that does not really deserve to be played.
Also, the stupid myths that people use that "mods break the original version wawawa" or "modders cant ever match mah precious Treyarch!!11!!1337!!!!" are a part of a problem.
Lets just say that yesterday I played a really good !NEW! Return To Castle Wolfenstein mini-campaign !

How am I supposed to get a the following build any cheaper? Plus, the build doesn't include a copy of Windows or a KB/M. I wouldn't even buy that cheap Sapphire card either. That build is already up to ~$500 when adding in Windows & a KB/M. How am I supposed to build that computer let alone an i5 computer for $350? It's impossible to build a decent gaming PC for the same price as a console. For the cost it takes to build (not even buy, most people can't build a PC) a decent gaming PC, you can buy a console and $100 desktop that'll do everything you need.
http://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/wiki/builds#wiki_the_next-gen_crusher

Mods I want to play = 0
Console exclusives I want to play = 8 (Bayonetta 2, The Last Guardian, Uncharted 4, Horizon, Wonderful 101, played Bloodborne, played TLOU, Nier 2, )

The only thing I don't like with modding is modding competitive MP, that's really it. Give players any power and they break the balance of MP. I don't really care for Wolfenstein. I liked New Order because of the "what if" scenario but it wasn't that great to me, quality shooter none the less. It could've been something special if you got to use the power suit in the 2nd half.

I find it unfortunate that OP implies that a console release has never been broken.

I've never had game not work dating all the way back to NES.

Easy way to both PC game and get working games:

DON'T PREORDER

look at any reviews the day the game comes out.

????

profit

Buying day 1 doesn't mean I pre-order, I don't pre-order for the most part. I did pre-order Batman literally the weekend before release (and reviews were actually out) just for the bonus content. I'll get MGS5 day 1 and I know it'll work. Hell, MGS4 never even had a patch (besides a patch to add trophies 4 years later).

 

[mrdude2010]

The problem with your position is plenty of big releases on consoles still lag horrifically and have awful loading times. Plus, nowadays you have to spend hours downloading whatever update to get your disk to work. Plus, PC games allow you a much greater flexibility and offer you a much wider variety of feasible genres. Your post kind of reads like it's from 10 years ago.

 

[mrdude2010]

-PC upgrade would be necessary, because due to the new generation, new games would be made to fit them. So they
would require more power from the pc as well

Actually, if you had a pretty decent PC when the next gen consoles came out, you were already running a more powerful system. When the Xbox360/PS3 came out, you would have had to build a pretty expensive computer to match their performance. With this generation, that's absolutely not necessary [http://www.cheatsheet.com/technology/cheap-gaming-pc-builds-to-rival-ps4-and-xbox-one.html/?a=viewall], and it's far cheaper to upgrade that PC in a few years time than it is to buy the next generation of consoles. Plus, you really think you're not getting some extra value out of the increased functionality of a PC?

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

The problem with your position is plenty of big releases on consoles still lag horrifically and have awful loading times. Plus, nowadays you have to spend hours downloading whatever update to get your disk to work. Plus, PC games allow you a much greater flexibility and offer you a much wider variety of feasible genres. Your post kind of reads like it's from 10 years ago.

What console games lag horrifically? None that I've played and probably 99% of the games I play are console games. On PS4, you put in a disc, and you're playing in 2 minutes at worst. Everything from downloads to installs happens in the background. I was playing Batman 2 minutes after putting in the disc.

I'm not at all implying that even a majority of PC games end up like Batman, the point is that they could. The fact that the console version is prioritized and has the same hardware guarantees it will have less issues than PC. I simply spend more time gaming during my game time vs PC.

 

[Zacharious-khan]

Easy way to both PC game and get working games:

DON'T PREORDER

look at any reviews the day the game comes out.

????

profit

Buying day 1 doesn't mean I pre-order, I don't pre-order for the most part. I did pre-order Batman literally the weekend before release (and reviews were actually out) just for the bonus content. I'll get MGS5 day 1 and I know it'll work. Hell, MGS4 never even had a patch (besides a patch to add trophies 4 years later).

Were the reviews for the PC edition?

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Were the reviews for the PC edition?

I don't know as I wasn't buying the PC version. I do remember there being quite a lot of reviews that weekend, which was surprising as most the time reviews come out day of release. But anyways, I didn't need reviews, it's a Batman game by Rocksteady, I know what I'm getting. Just like I know what I'm getting with MGS5 already.

 

[Zacharious-khan]

I don't know as I wasn't buying the PC version. I do remember there being quite a lot of reviews that weekend, which was surprising as most the time reviews come out day of release. But anyways, I didn't need reviews, it's a Batman game by Rocksteady, I know what I'm getting. Just like I know what I'm getting with MGS5 already.

Oh see i was saying that people who do game on pc should wait for a review to make sure it functions when there is a "no refunds" policy in place. It's an old habit.