xamon

A community manager for Capcom posted something on the Steam forum addressing Dead Rising 3 at 60fps. Pretty much running at 60fps should not cause any issue if you have the rig to run it.
 
He also posted 2 videos showing the game running at 60fps and you can download them here:
https://mega.co.nz/#F!G1wXgZAC!aJtEBsc92rCl6dRwb3f31w
https://mega.co.nz/#F!DkIRRI4b!7sunyPNNiXgCE8hZXN5FKw
 
One of the video also shows the option menu. The graphical menu looks pretty good with a lot of option and the game as fully rebindable keys but it is still unclear if it will play well with kb/m.
 
To me it seems as though they didn't want to test 60fps while porting the game and left it at 30fps with an option to uncap the game (I am still not clear if the uncap function is already in the game) while clearing their hand of any issue that 60fps may cause.
 
Here is a link to the thread
http://steamcommunity.com/app/265550/discussions/0/522730535829776687/#p6
 
The released date for the game is also September 5th, while technically still summer I don't think anyone considers it part of summer.

So 2 reviewers gives it a low score (60, Joystiq and Eurogamer) and you agree with this score from watching videos (not playing the game) so they are right, while the multitude of other reviewers that gave it a 7.5 or above are just paid off?
 
You cannot fully judge a game from watching videos and at no point should you tell people not to buy a game just because you think it does not look good or fun while you haven't played said game. You know what it is not the best looking game out there but it looks good, even TB video of the game looks much worst than the game being played. It does have some low texture here and there, mostly on walls, but as a whole it looks good. The game is fun, the story is engaging, the voice acting is good and the game is very atmospheric.
 
The only thing I would say right now to people is to hold off on buying the game until the performance issues are fixed. AMD cards are having a ton of issues with the game and as well as Nvidia (i am using 337.81 and still having issues). On my 770 I was hovering over 30 fps on ultra until it just fixed itself and now I have a steady 60. I had to turn on the option they call "VT Compress" which compresses the textures to be able to play it normally without micro stutters. Until those are fixed, I cannot recommend the game on the basis that it may or may not work. However the game is extremely fun and if you are a fan of the series, a fan of fps with a side of old school run and gun, grab it when everything is fixed.

You know what companies won't stop until they bleed the population dry and the worst thing in all this, the people put in place to defend that population a.k.a the government is the one that allows and mandate rules that allows this sickening exploitation.

You know what companies won't stop until they bleed the population dry and the worst thing in all this, the people put in place to defend that population a.k.a the government is the one that allows and mandate rules that allows this sickening exploitation.

Tbh don't get your hopes up about that new engine part. They did the same thing with Ghost. Just like you said wait for more footage or confirmation that it is not the same 10+ year old engine they are using again.

Found the link to the detailed recommendation for this game http://www.game-debate.com/news/?news=12464&game=Wolfenstein:%20The%20New%20Order&title=Wolfenstein:%20The%20New%20Order%20Minimum%20System%20Requirements
 
The minimum requirements:
OS: Windows 7 64-bit CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo E8200 2.66 GHz OR AMD Phenom II X2 545 RAM: 3GB System Memory GPU: Nvidia GTS 250 OR AMD Radeon HD 6670 DX: DirectX 11.0 NET: High Speed Internet Connection Required HD: 50GB Free Hard Drive Space The recommended requirements:
OS: Windows 7 64-bit CPU: 2.8 GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7-930 or  3.2 GHz Six-Core AMD Phenom II 1090T RAM: 4GB System Memory GPU: Nvidia GeForce GTX 460 or AMD Radeon HD 6850 DX: DirectX 11.0 NET: High Speed Internet Connection Required HD: 50GB Free Hard Drive Space As you can see the u7 is only a 930 so pretty much a i5 by today's standard. The fact that is it not really spelled out on the Steam page is pretty deceptive and I bet it cost them some pre orders/will cost them some sales.

People over at destructoid have leaked the trailer and some new pictures. 
 
http://www.destructoid.com/call-of-duty-advanced-warfare-leaked-see-the-first-video-and-images-274126.phtml
 
I think the story looks like it could be fun if you enjoy these type of games (I so happen to do). Also KEVIN SPACEY!!!!

I came across some similar listings and I burst out laughing. I am going to ask some kids at school if they think the listing is legit, see what they say.
 
Some things wrong:
 
The Nvidia logo was never yellow. Never. In one picture a blue PCB is shown, the next is a red PCB, followed by green. The 780 Ti heatsink is not that crappy. The Nvidia logo is not printed on the PCB above the PCI-E interface connector On the real 780 there are ports on both brackets, this one has it on just one. The picture of the box says "Radeon NVIDIA HD/NV ---" Dafuq? (saw that before you, @xamon. Was typing it when you posted The guide tells you to stick it in an AGP slot. Since when did the 780Ti have only a 6pin PCIE? Since when did the 780 TI use VGA? The text is an image, real sellers would never do that. At the bottom, it says :When recieve the item,please check the item ensuring not demaged by shipment. Not forgot to confirm reciept on aliexpress so that we will be at esay. The real clock is 954 base, 1024 boost, it says that it is 600 base and 675 boost When the fuck did a 780 Ti use GDDR3?  
LOL. This was hilarious.

Congrats. Now you just need to change every password associated with Steam (email, steam account etc)

they are supposed to be due to the fact that you can rebind any action to whatever you would like. Also I believe they have mods out there already for the game that improve the keyboard controls. 

From what I read and watch the pc port is actually pretty good (some claim of crashes for some people but those where in the minority of the complain I saw). As for the keyboard support, it does have rebindable keys but the wasd is still not optimal for the game because it was designed for controller movement. TB also said that the game may have some sort of mouse acceleration but he wasn't sure and I cannot confirm it. But like any souls games, it is designed for controllers making translating it to keyboard less than optimal unfortunately for those that cannot play otherwise. Sorry.

they are supposed to be due to the fact that you can rebind any action to whatever you would like. Also I believe they have mods out there already for the game that improve the keyboard controls. 

I found out that some issues get resolved a lot faster than others through Steam support. Some of the more technical issues does take longer because of the amount of time it takes them to respond, the type of response they give you the first time (usually a canned answer that shows they haven't even read your question) and then repeat those sequences until you get a real answer. This is something that is well known around Steam and something people have been campaigning for a change for a long time but in true Valve fashion has not been changing at all. This follows a long list of issues Valve has and refuse to either acknowledge them or change them in anyway.
 
This is why competition is key. Fanboyism apart, no one would ever want a company to be as monopolistic as what Valve has become on the PC market. It doesn't matter where you buy your games most of them comes with Steam keys, some people want every game to come to Steam only and according to many Indie devs (those that do not have an advertising budget), being able to have your game on Steam is imperative in the current market. This is so dangerous that a single platform has such a high influence on a whole market and that people are so reticent to see it and even go as far as wishing any competition to disappear for the sake of either convenience or seeing other clients as "adware/bloatware etc".
 
The thing is, Steam has a lot of issues. The client is bloated, the community side of Steam is buggy and has been since it was introduced (the same issues still happen to this day, outages are more and more frequent), the library is not well though out and trying to sort it in any way is a pain (try doing any type of sorting when you have 950+ games), the store features are not complete etc. Some of those issue where by third party software such as EnhancedSteam for the store and Depressurizer for the Steam library (to some extent) which just shows that the issues people have can be fixed and that it is not that hard to fix them (both are 1 man team). 
 
When Origin was introduced, they were the only client that could install games on several drives without the use of 3rd party software. Not long afterward Valve added the feature to Steam something that was asked for so long that someone had to make his own software for it. Origin introduced their new return policies (only for EA games as of now) and now Valve offers refunds on pre order but in Steam wallet (a step in the right direction).  I am not saying other clients do not have issues, just saying that if they become more popular they can bring some change in how things are done.
 
Competition is needed. No matter how much good will a company has accumulated at one point or how much loved they are they need real competition to keep them in check. I still cannot even imagine how people still see no fault with Valve with all the issues they continuously have.

Excellent news everyone, i got my steam account back, it's like someone was watching this thread!!!!

Bethesda streamed Wolfenstein for 30 minute on Twitch
 

It is the Pc version though. At the beginning when you see him choosing the difficulty there is an option to "Quit to Desktop". This is a twitch stream and then uploaded to youtube so the compression may make it look worst that it it. It does look kinda low fi. It is using ID tech 5 which was used on Rage and that game looks good. I hope the final version looks better.

People need to take their own opinions out of a story and learn to see something objectively. The hate for EA is blinding some.
 
The comment made by the CFO of EA has some merit. GTA V was a disrupting force during a transition period. During that transition you had
Gamers that were getting ready to switch to newer consoles and were saving money.  Gamers that only buy a select few games at launch during what publishers will see as a launch window (around 60 days). Gamers that only buy 1-2 select games a year Gamers that bought into the hype and went and bought GTA V and continued to play it without buying any other games etc All those people could have gone and bought GTA V and were set with games for the rest of the year.​ ​With that in mind, saying that GTA V sucked money out of the last gen of console (X360 & PS3, OP you should change your title to reflect what is actually said) can be accurate. Lastly he was congratulating the success of GTA V, if you read the article he is not saying that GTA V hurt EA.

Just because the company is full of assholes doesnt mean you get to not pay for it... If you want to make a moral stand against their policy you dont get to play their content, you cant have it both ways. You cant justify piracy by saying that the company is bad, so i should get all their stuff for free.

I believe those are in game. Arkham games renders look leagues ahead of those shots.

I had the same talk with some people on my Steam friend list. I am calling it now, even if the game is optimized, it will still be called unoptimized by some because they have an idea of what their card should be able to do and the reality might be very different.
 
I don't know  why some think that because the game is coming to the last gen of console it means that it cannot require an i7 processor, Crysis 3 is on console and requires a beefy graphics card to run even The Witcher 2. Being on last gen console does not mean that a game cannot be very requiring on other platform it just means that it will be seriously nerfed for last gen consoles. Also the game is made for the PC (it is the lead platform) and any other version are ports. We don't even know how populated the world is, how demanding it is to run the algorithm that is powering the random even, the A.I or other things CPU bound like the wind simulation and everything it interacts with (trees, aiden coat, table and such).
 
Personally I don't know how real the requirements are, if it is due to unoptimization or if it really is that demanding thus I am waiting for the game to come out. One thing I know is that more games coming forward will start to have seriously high recommendation just like this game (Batman Arkham Knight, AC Unity and any other that is developed for next gen)

There's no pleasing you guys. 
 
Makes easy to run games -> "stupid console port, not pushing my pc enough"
Makes demanding games -> "stupid unoptimized bs of a game. Should've run max with my pc"
 
The minimum requirement seemed fair to me. This just mean the game can scale very well like the original crysis.

You cannot really compare an Open world game with closed off arenas (like in fpses). At graphical parity, an open world game will be more demanding than a fps.
 
I would say just wait and see. They do have things in the game that are quite demanding on CPU (A.I, wind simulation, size and density of the city) and also GPU bound (density of the city, draw distance). For example in past open world games, in order to get reasonable framerates the npcs usually had a lower polycount and looked much worst than the main character(s). If this game has the same polycount in npcs as say current gen open world games and the main character is higher, then it will be hard to push on any gpu whether the rest of the game looks good or not.

First releases and exclusives are not the biggest reason to buy a console. People buy consoles for convenience (plug and play), the ease of use and the price. Exclusive come into play when they have to choose which console to get. Taking away exclusives and first release will not diminish the amount of console gaming. Something like a Steam machine if it end up working perfectly and has a low enough entry price with no issues (i.e automatic drivers update, games work out of the box etc) can move some console gamers to the PC. Publishers creates exclusive because they get into a contract with a console maker. They agree to it because the console maker (Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo), agrees to finance some of the game (or all of it) or give a large sum of money. This reduces the amount of risk that is well known to exist in the AAA market. 
 
Which leads me into my other point. The biggest thing that is holding back progress is the budget at which those games are being developed. Because of those budget, companies needs a large install base and needs to create a game that can appeal to the largest amount of people. Innovation and imaginative new games are curbed to the side due to the risk they can cause in favor of safe and iterative games. Console themselves have nothing to do with it, they are only the platform with the largest installed base. Without the install base of console, we would have never gotten most of the games we have the way they are (AC, Mass effect for example). Companies just would not have invested in them and game developers would have to resort to something like what Star Citizen did, which is to take the risk out of it upfront by having a massive crowd funding,  which is rare (so rare that they are the only one who did it)
 
Crysis and AC are hits beside their graphics only. In the case of AC, one of its biggest attracting point is its gameplay. The PS and Xbox are not casual gaming machine. How casual a gaming machine is is not defined by the fact that they use controllers (guess what some PC gamers use controller exclusively too, its a question of preference, and not I am not saying the controller is empirically superior than the mouse and keyboard), or by the level of graphical fidelity they can push.  The reason why the console market is thriving and getting games first and exclusive is purely business. They have a larger install base, they are known to spend more money on game thus we (being the company) will spend the bulk of our budget attracting them to our game. Now that PC gaming is in a revival, you are seeing companies doing the same thing again on PC, spending more money on their game, making the PC version the best. But again here they are being hindered by the PC market itself.
 
And here is my last point, the PC market is not uniform, we are not all enthusiast nor does every one has the money to be. The majority of PC gamers do not have the means to afford enthusiast grade hardware. Looking at the top gpus used on Steam (the survey has a good enough sample size) most people use sub mid range graphics and close to 47% still have dual core CPUs. In the case where a company would spend its own money to make the game, they would have to take into account those gamers too. I would say that you somewhat hit the nail on the head with this "If they updated their hardware more often they could keep up with PC's but then most people would never buy them which wouldn't make the console industry profitable" but you seems to not understand the consequence if this happens. More hardware update will just separate and create a bigger diversity in the console market just like on the PC. The difference here is that unless those different machines are compatible, some will be release and developer will not support them because there will not be a big enough install base (something similar happened during the gaming crash in the 80s). This will not lead to them flocking to the PC nor make games better, believe me on that.
 
People need to understand that we are not in competition with the console market. The biggest reason we have to wait, have bad ports and the likes was only a business decision. We were not worth it because those companies felt like they would not get a return on their investment. In the past few years though, they saw the worth of the platform and are now working in a way that they can capitalize on it. That is it, its all about money. If the money trail comes exclusively on PC, you will see more game on PC. If that company has to gets more money on console, they will spend more money on their console port, if the PC is their bread maker, they will spend more on the pc. That is it.

First releases and exclusives are not the biggest reason to buy a console. People buy consoles for convenience (plug and play), the ease of use and the price. Exclusive come into play when they have to choose which console to get. Taking away exclusives and first release will not diminish the amount of console gaming. Something like a Steam machine if it end up working perfectly and has a low enough entry price with no issues (i.e automatic drivers update, games work out of the box etc) can move some console gamers to the PC. Publishers creates exclusive because they get into a contract with a console maker. They agree to it because the console maker (Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo), agrees to finance some of the game (or all of it) or give a large sum of money. This reduces the amount of risk that is well known to exist in the AAA market. 
 
Which leads me into my other point. The biggest thing that is holding back progress is the budget at which those games are being developed. Because of those budget, companies needs a large install base and needs to create a game that can appeal to the largest amount of people. Innovation and imaginative new games are curbed to the side due to the risk they can cause in favor of safe and iterative games. Console themselves have nothing to do with it, they are only the platform with the largest installed base. Without the install base of console, we would have never gotten most of the games we have the way they are (AC, Mass effect for example). Companies just would not have invested in them and game developers would have to resort to something like what Star Citizen did, which is to take the risk out of it upfront by having a massive crowd funding,  which is rare (so rare that they are the only one who did it)
 
Crysis and AC are hits beside their graphics only. In the case of AC, one of its biggest attracting point is its gameplay. The PS and Xbox are not casual gaming machine. How casual a gaming machine is is not defined by the fact that they use controllers (guess what some PC gamers use controller exclusively too, its a question of preference, and not I am not saying the controller is empirically superior than the mouse and keyboard), or by the level of graphical fidelity they can push.  The reason why the console market is thriving and getting games first and exclusive is purely business. They have a larger install base, they are known to spend more money on game thus we (being the company) will spend the bulk of our budget attracting them to our game. Now that PC gaming is in a revival, you are seeing companies doing the same thing again on PC, spending more money on their game, making the PC version the best. But again here they are being hindered by the PC market itself.
 
And here is my last point, the PC market is not uniform, we are not all enthusiast nor does every one has the money to be. The majority of PC gamers do not have the means to afford enthusiast grade hardware. Looking at the top gpus used on Steam (the survey has a good enough sample size) most people use sub mid range graphics and close to 47% still have dual core CPUs. In the case where a company would spend its own money to make the game, they would have to take into account those gamers too. I would say that you somewhat hit the nail on the head with this "If they updated their hardware more often they could keep up with PC's but then most people would never buy them which wouldn't make the console industry profitable" but you seems to not understand the consequence if this happens. More hardware update will just separate and create a bigger diversity in the console market just like on the PC. The difference here is that unless those different machines are compatible, some will be release and developer will not support them because there will not be a big enough install base (something similar happened during the gaming crash in the 80s). This will not lead to them flocking to the PC nor make games better, believe me on that.
 
People need to understand that we are not in competition with the console market. The biggest reason we have to wait, have bad ports and the likes was only a business decision. We were not worth it because those companies felt like they would not get a return on their investment. In the past few years though, they saw the worth of the platform and are now working in a way that they can capitalize on it. That is it, its all about money. If the money trail comes exclusively on PC, you will see more game on PC. If that company has to gets more money on console, they will spend more money on their console port, if the PC is their bread maker, they will spend more on the pc. That is it.

First releases and exclusives are not the biggest reason to buy a console. People buy consoles for convenience (plug and play), the ease of use and the price. Exclusive come into play when they have to choose which console to get. Taking away exclusives and first release will not diminish the amount of console gaming. Something like a Steam machine if it end up working perfectly and has a low enough entry price with no issues (i.e automatic drivers update, games work out of the box etc) can move some console gamers to the PC. Publishers creates exclusive because they get into a contract with a console maker. They agree to it because the console maker (Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo), agrees to finance some of the game (or all of it) or give a large sum of money. This reduces the amount of risk that is well known to exist in the AAA market. 
 
Which leads me into my other point. The biggest thing that is holding back progress is the budget at which those games are being developed. Because of those budget, companies needs a large install base and needs to create a game that can appeal to the largest amount of people. Innovation and imaginative new games are curbed to the side due to the risk they can cause in favor of safe and iterative games. Console themselves have nothing to do with it, they are only the platform with the largest installed base. Without the install base of console, we would have never gotten most of the games we have the way they are (AC, Mass effect for example). Companies just would not have invested in them and game developers would have to resort to something like what Star Citizen did, which is to take the risk out of it upfront by having a massive crowd funding,  which is rare (so rare that they are the only one who did it)
 
Crysis and AC are hits beside their graphics only. In the case of AC, one of its biggest attracting point is its gameplay. The PS and Xbox are not casual gaming machine. How casual a gaming machine is is not defined by the fact that they use controllers (guess what some PC gamers use controller exclusively too, its a question of preference, and not I am not saying the controller is empirically superior than the mouse and keyboard), or by the level of graphical fidelity they can push.  The reason why the console market is thriving and getting games first and exclusive is purely business. They have a larger install base, they are known to spend more money on game thus we (being the company) will spend the bulk of our budget attracting them to our game. Now that PC gaming is in a revival, you are seeing companies doing the same thing again on PC, spending more money on their game, making the PC version the best. But again here they are being hindered by the PC market itself.
 
And here is my last point, the PC market is not uniform, we are not all enthusiast nor does every one has the money to be. The majority of PC gamers do not have the means to afford enthusiast grade hardware. Looking at the top gpus used on Steam (the survey has a good enough sample size) most people use sub mid range graphics and close to 47% still have dual core CPUs. In the case where a company would spend its own money to make the game, they would have to take into account those gamers too. I would say that you somewhat hit the nail on the head with this "If they updated their hardware more often they could keep up with PC's but then most people would never buy them which wouldn't make the console industry profitable" but you seems to not understand the consequence if this happens. More hardware update will just separate and create a bigger diversity in the console market just like on the PC. The difference here is that unless those different machines are compatible, some will be release and developer will not support them because there will not be a big enough install base (something similar happened during the gaming crash in the 80s). This will not lead to them flocking to the PC nor make games better, believe me on that.
 
People need to understand that we are not in competition with the console market. The biggest reason we have to wait, have bad ports and the likes was only a business decision. We were not worth it because those companies felt like they would not get a return on their investment. In the past few years though, they saw the worth of the platform and are now working in a way that they can capitalize on it. That is it, its all about money. If the money trail comes exclusively on PC, you will see more game on PC. If that company has to gets more money on console, they will spend more money on their console port, if the PC is their bread maker, they will spend more on the pc. That is it.