By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
allblue said:
NightDragon83 said:
allblue said:


Well yes I've never owned a console in my life so I don't have any idea. So I'm honestly asking why there is a downgrade from what they initially promised the customers at E3? If they can achieve what they achieved at E3, why can't they keep it for the launch 8 months later? What's the reason behind it? 

Most likely they had the game running on higher-spec'd dev kits at E3, and to keep the game locked at 60fps in 1080p on the final product they had to sacrifice a couple of things.  It's not that uncommon with consoles.

They could've been total dicks and only showed pre-rendered footage when they showed off the game, and I'm sure if the had done that they'd be the first ones to do so too, right?

So what was shown 8 months ago at E3, was on a hardware that was much more capable than x1? Got it, thanks. 

In the meantime PS4 dev-kits were at the same ballpark as the final HW... maybe MS didn't know they had a weaker HW?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."