Where was whining and bitching when it came out in the comics?

Yup, just as stupid in the comics. But like the points, the comics don't matter.

You do realize only a percentage of Star Wars fans actually read the comics right?

Killzone has been objectively beautiful since the second game, wether it wanted to be or not.

I have no problem with stagger release dates based on the platform, but I would say that 6 months would be reasonable. 16 months is a joke.

I guess you're used to crummy console performance then? 'Cause the Ps4 drops to as low as 24 FPS during driving or during hectic scenes, and suffers from low AA and poor AF.

It's not PC owner's faults that Rockstar doesn't know how to make PC games properly and on time.

Well, I'm not sure I would have counted Jan 2015 as on time release for a game that came out 16 months ago. But why not push it out to 18 months to get it just right.

Pretty much all sequels from big studios suck hard these days... Rockstar though, still impresses most people. And probably, that'd be because their not in that situation shown in the image.

Motto for 2015: "Don't Trust [Activision/Ubisoft/EA]"

I am kind of amazed people are still playing this. It really reminds me of Borderlands, but without any of the charm that games has, and everyone just runs around looking like a sea of master chiefs. I don't get why the grind is OK here but not OK with all the other MMOs. If I were to bunch this in with all the other…

You can upgrade one component at a time, making the opportunity cost of upgrading pretty low. The fact that I could play current-gen games with a seven-year-old GPU, while having upgraded other parts two years ago is quite a statement as to why PC gamers love their machines. In the other hand, if you don't dole out…

Why does every single PC requirements thread have a post like yours in it?

I have exactly what's recommended for Ass Unity, more or less (i5-3450, 16GB memory and GTX680) but I still play with setting close to the maximum at 50-60fps, no lags whatsoever. It still gives me better graphics then the console. I guess it's gonna be the same for The Witcher 3. Publisher don't want anymore to be…

For dat subpar experience of 20 to 30 FPS medium settings. Yeah, no thanx.

I think you are the silly one for calling people elitists. Just because they prefer PC's compared to consoles. You pay for a cheap console that will probably run this game at medium settings. To the people that really enjoy high end graphics, they spend the extra dollar to be able to do that.

"Funny, I was just yelled at by a few hundred PC elitists just a few weeks ago how it wasn't necessary to upgrade your PC regularly in order not to get left behind."

Not to be that guy, but:
"I get that you can build a PC and never touch it for 4 years and still play new games, my point was that if you wanted to play those new games at max settings, you have to regularly upgrade your equipment, something that isn't required for consoles."

Sure, but it seems bizarre to talk about Skyrim then go on about how you want more character development, because Skyrim has virtually none. In fact Skyrim is all-round a pretty dodgy game outside of the exploration (esp. without mods). Whereas DA:I is a much more rounded game, with very much better "RPG stuff". You…

You just don't want to lose the argument eh?