DarkBlade2117

Ram can ALWAYS be upgraded later. It's more feasible to upgrade from 8GBs of RAM to 16 then fro a 1070 to a 1080. Get 1080 + 8GBS and in a month or two upgrade to 16GBs.

Ram can ALWAYS be upgraded later. It's more feasible to upgrade from 8GBs of RAM to 16 then fro a 1070 to a 1080. Get 1080 + 8GBS and in a month or two upgrade to 16GBs.

Ram can ALWAYS be upgraded later. It's more feasible to upgrade from 8GBs of RAM to 16 then fro a 1070 to a 1080. Get 1080 + 8GBS and in a month or two upgrade to 16GBs.

Ram can ALWAYS be upgraded later. It's more feasible to upgrade from 8GBs of RAM to 16 then fro a 1070 to a 1080. Get 1080 + 8GBS and in a month or two upgrade to 16GBs.

Ram can ALWAYS be upgraded later. It's more feasible to upgrade from 8GBs of RAM to 16 then fro a 1070 to a 1080. Get 1080 + 8GBS and in a month or two upgrade to 16GBs.

because it wasnt meant to?

I personally really enjoy this. It's not something new, in a few Ubisoft games to get skins or whatever for say Rainbow 6, you have to own The Divison or Wildlands. 
To get this "revolver" you literally just have to have your Social Club account linked. It takes less than 30 minutes to do and boo fucking hoo, they're rewarding players who own GTA V.  It's a fucking weapon skin.

Reduce the settings, especially the texture and anti-aliasing levels
 
performance is comparable because it is based on the same architecture
 
Ngreedia wont give a full card without a full price
 
I know that, as well as RX 480 undercutting it at $200 back then. I'm not the type of people who keep on saying 'in the past blah blah blah'. The 1060 3gb isnt a good card to buy when it was first launched, but thanks to not having enough VRAM the miners ignored it, so now potential 1050ti ($150 each) buyers can get 40-50% extra frame rates by spending another 20% of their money.

I hope people start to push for SLI to be more widely used and efficient. Not the second GPU only using some of its power, 1:1

I'll describe it again since you're thick headed. The fortnite map is a quarter of the size. Their loot system is far lessing demanding as loot spawns in the same spot every time. Their gun play is extremely simple. The graphics which may be more polished are another reason it runs better.
Have you touched the RECENT test servers for PUBG? Probably not because your head is so far up your ass you dont have a damn clue what you're talking about right now. ARK, runs like shit. The FPS I'm getting in test servers MUCH better than Live servers. And Ill state this again in caps, FRIENDS WHO PREVIOUSLY COULD NOT PLAY THE GAME CAN NOW PLAY THE GAME ON TEST SERVERS. These are friends who have never taken care of their PC, on of them has a FX 6300 and GTX 1050. One an 860k and R9 270x. A friend with an i7-960 and 560Ti RAN THE OLD UPDATE but the NEW UPDATE, ON TEST SERVERS runs smooth. The only issue now is servers which HAVE BEEN IMPROVED A TON.

The ignorance in these few words is funny. So, all the pros suddenly aren't getting 100-140FPS on Test Servers? I'm not getting a STABLE 60FPS with dips hitting at minimum 45? And that is in the lobby, where 100 people are all running around? All of my friends who can't play the game on live servers due to FPS can't suddenly play it now because they now are able to load in buildings when dropping before they hit the ground and are getting 30+ FPS compared to the old 15? Ya, ok. It runs like shit and "hasn't been optimized". Believe what you want.

I hope people start to push for SLI to be more widely used and efficient. Not the second GPU only using some of its power, 1:1

I hope people start to push for SLI to be more widely used and efficient. Not the second GPU only using some of its power, 1:1

It's funny my cousin's 660ti rig still runs the game like shit (he just played the game the other day, so my knowledge is definitely up to date), which is better than a 270x and a HELL of a lot better than a 560ti. And I know a 560ti cannot run it acceptably, I built my cousin that rig not even quite a month ago and a 560ti was actually my first choice for the rig, if you think 40 fps lowest settings with heavy stuttering is acceptable then you just have low standards. With the 660ti, the game is playable (50s) at medium settings, but still looks like dog shit and has random frame dips and stutters. Still not an experience I'd call "good". AND YES, my cousin played the damn test servers, so drop it.
 
The game has no excuse to run that poorly. Huge maps and lots of players should NOT LAG if the graphics look like Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 4. Hell, there's minecraft servers a thousand players and those worlds are infinite... And at least Minecraft's graphics are intentionally bad. Yeah yeah, here comes your hair splitting "MINE CRAFT IS SO MUCH MORE SIMPLE BLAH BLAH BLAH PUBG IS SO MUCH MORE COMPLEX YADAYADA", but we're still talking hundreds of players with infinite worlds running perfectly on old 7950GTs and Pentium Ds so no matter how you swing it that's what actual optimization looks like.
 
Do you actually think the gun play or loot system has any noticeable effect on the game's performance? I really hope you don't actually believe that.
 
Maybe when the game is actually finished and doesn't run like shit, then MAYBE I'll have some respect for it. I'm done arguing by the way. Internet debating is not usually an activity I partake in these days.
 
PS: To be clear, not saying PUBG is the worst optimized game ever, duh it's not even close to that. Just acknowledging the fact that it is generally poorly optimized.

The ignorance in these few words is funny. So, all the pros suddenly aren't getting 100-140FPS on Test Servers? I'm not getting a STABLE 60FPS with dips hitting at minimum 45? And that is in the lobby, where 100 people are all running around? All of my friends who can't play the game on live servers due to FPS can't suddenly play it now because they now are able to load in buildings when dropping before they hit the ground and are getting 30+ FPS compared to the old 15? Ya, ok. It runs like shit and "hasn't been optimized". Believe what you want.

You can find 750Tis for $60

They go for that all the time on /r/hardwareswap and a max of $70 on eBay (anything higher should be avoided)

Can only get so diverse with the basic concept being a number of people, 50, 100, 200 whatever, get put into an area, they get stuff and last one standing wins. Fortnite does a good job being different from PUBG for example.

Can only get so diverse with the basic concept being a number of people, 50, 100, 200 whatever, get put into an area, they get stuff and last one standing wins. Fortnite does a good job being different from PUBG for example.

Can only get so diverse with the basic concept being a number of people, 50, 100, 200 whatever, get put into an area, they get stuff and last one standing wins. Fortnite does a good job being different from PUBG for example.

The idea of running around an 8km x 8km map that can be going smooth as butter and change in an instant. The thrill of running around an area with 15 people dropped and knowing you have a chance to be the one alive out of it. It's what you make of it. In the end, it's a 1v99 or 2v98 or 4v96. The fact that you have the ability to overcome dozens of other people is amazing and learning tactical strategy and the gunplay is simple, Pull down to compensate for recoil, hitting that 400m Headshot with a KarK or the thrill of going to a crate KNOWING someone is very likely waiting for you to stop moving to hit you with a head shot.
 
When was the last game most of you even touched the game? How do you think a GTA V Survival mode would be like with 100 people running around all picking up guns, ammo, armor ect. The current live servers have been hardly touched, some minor network and anti-cheat changes, nothing major. The Test Servers, with my 6700k WITH HT OFF and an R7 360, taking into consideration that my PC is bloated to all hell and has been managed well, can get a MINIMUM of 35FPS which is DURING the initial drop which many of you should know, when 100 people are all jumping out, landing, picking up loot and having gun fights, driving vehicles ect, the strain that puts on a network ESPECIALLY considering if you believe for one moment that they expected even 1/4 of the fame they have gotten, you are wrong. In NO WAY shape OR FORM were they prepared to tackle AN AVERAGE of 1-1.4 MILLION people playing since October, hitting 1.5  million concurrently back in September. Is the game perfect? No. Though, they have taken great steps and have as far as I am concerned, kept their word on further optimization, new guns, a new map for the 1.0 Release. You all bitch and moan but be happy this isn't another DayZ, or Rust or countless other EA titles. They are using UE4 yes, how many games on UE4 are an 8 km x 8km map, with 100 in at once? Fortnite? The style of fortnite is extremely cartoony, they don't have vehicles, the amount of items that spawn isn't nearly as many as PUBG as they a lot of the items are put in "chest" and loot for Fortnite is the same every game, if a gun spawns in one location, SOMETHING will spawn there next game and it isn't as diverse. The size of their map isn't NEARLY as big as PUBG's. Run from N - S or E - W in PUBG, then do it in Fortnite. It is much quicker in Fortnite.
 
This is why it is on whatever preview thing Xbox uses, to get feedback. It is clearly stated the game isn't done and the feedback you give them is worth more than the hundreds of people bitching on reddit.
 
It's a damn shocker it ran to begin with and it shows that there is PLENTY of improvement to be made. "GAME PREVIEW EDITION" clearly on the box PUBG is sold on. "GAME IS A WORK IN PROGRESS" is clearly on the box. A ton of AAA games that ARE WELL OPTIMIZED and release with few issues, take 3-5 years to develop. Many games that have been in development for less than that, release a ton of game breaking bugs, poorly optimized ect (AC is a big example of this), Mass Effect:A being another. PUBG has been in develop for I believe 2 years, it's been in Early Access for just under 9 months and I don't know how long the Beta/Alpha was. The only questionable thing they have done is Gamescon crates, they went a period ONCE where they weren't communication with us and were giving us nothing and people complained about that, since then they have been clear of issues, what they WANT to do and they have given us what they said they would for 1.0 release. "BUT BUT IT'S BEEN DELAYED" Oh, so AAA games haven't been delayed before? In terms of optimization and such, check the quote above.
 
I have friends who 3 months ago couldn't run the game with an FX 6300 and GTX 1050. Now, he runs the game just fine. It shows they are making steps to optimize, test servers are running GREAT on PC. I highly doubt many of those optimizations have made it to Xbox. Microsoft has provided them the resources needed to make the game run well. Maybe it won't run well on the original Xbox One, but the Xxox X is very likely to get a steady 30FPS by "Full Release"
 
How long did you put into the game? 12 hours? It takes hundreds of hours for people to become good at games. "Full on suicidal or a god". I'd not consider myself good by any means but I can drop School, a place where often 10 people drop and come out alive. It's what you make it to be. If you think your win with 2 kills is an accomplishment, good on you. If you think any win with less than 10 kills was a waste of time then you have great goals. "Beating" the game? You don't "Beat" PUBG. How many competitive games have you actually played?
 
I'll again state that live servers aren't in any terms what the 1.0 release will be like. Test servers are running "smooth as butter" in terms of FPS. Fortnite, as above was stated is an extremely small map in comparison and the way their system of looting works, no vehicles and the simplicity of the weapon tiers make it run this good. There is a group of people who like fortnite, there is a group of people who like PUBG. Though I'll state, Fortnite has reached a max of 1.3 million, maybe 1.4-1.5 after the Game Awards playing concurrently. PUBG has averaged 1.3 million for months, peaking 2.95 million and I'll be shocked if it doesn't hit 3 million this weekend.
 
Since you seem to have little in terms of knowledge of the development of PUBG, Dec 20th is the release date. Test servers in terms of optimization are FAR SUPERIOR to what the game was months ago. Servers are likely to get better for the 1.0 release. The past week PUBG Corp has made great advancements in how the game runs, bug fixes and more.

It's not like it's a case like bf3, bf4, bf1 and r6 that launched as full AAA titles and had a fuck ton of problems after being developed and tested for years but ya know you forked out $60 for a triple A title so it's K, but fuck the indie guy who has his game in early access

Can only get so diverse with the basic concept being a number of people, 50, 100, 200 whatever, get put into an area, they get stuff and last one standing wins. Fortnite does a good job being different from PUBG for example.

Can only get so diverse with the basic concept being a number of people, 50, 100, 200 whatever, get put into an area, they get stuff and last one standing wins. Fortnite does a good job being different from PUBG for example.

Can only get so diverse with the basic concept being a number of people, 50, 100, 200 whatever, get put into an area, they get stuff and last one standing wins. Fortnite does a good job being different from PUBG for example.