I play on both PC and PS4,

and 30fps on PC bothers me so much! But I'll be playing Destiny (beta a couple years ago) and I didn't even know it wasn't 60 because the feel of the game was so good.

And a host of other PS4 30fps games and it's fine. But if I'm playing on PC I NEED it to be 45+

I think you can use it for the framerate with  those monitors, sadly i dont have one so i cant confirm if theres any problem

Yeah some people cant stand 60, im fine with 60 im a peasant :p

YMMD! Soooo funny!

Lol i actually have no problem with 60 on console since i have plasma tv :P

as someone has pointed out before, it's connected to the inputs. using a mouse on a game that runs at 30 fps is much more disturbing than using a controller. the quickness of reaction you can get from the mouse is at odds with the blurry effect and image stuttering of 30 fps. With a controller, due to slower movement overall, the impact of low fps is somewhat minimized, especially in fps games.

so in the end it will look a lot worse for the user to play (insert random fps game here) at 30 fps on PC than on console.

hope it helped :)

Frostbyte is the best game engine easily. Not only best looking, but also performs so well - and all in multiplayer!

Yes, those features you list that makes it perform so well, I think DICE are better at it than anyone else. 

Battelfield looks unbelievably good. It's almost photorealistic on PC and PS4 Pro. No other game comes even close today.

Battelfield 1 will outsell COD.

I'll play the real version later, I'm not waiting.  If square wants me to beta test for PC then I'm doing it, lol.

Cool! You do not totally disagree.

I saw those truly photorealistic pics you posted earlier, and it was unreal, and obviously Battlefield is quite a bit away from that, I know that and I admit that.

But in a way it looks "almost" photorealistic... What I mean is, that when playing the beta it was the first time that I can remember, that a game truly gave me the feeling of "wow, so is this how photorealistic will look in a video game?" (SW: Battlefront did too, but in far fewer moments)?

I know that high profile programmers like Tim Sweeney say that you still need maybe 10 times more powerful hardware for moving landscapes to look photorealistic, and if we take into account everything, like closeups on human skin and everything, we ned maybe 30 times or even 100 times more powerful hardware depending on who you ask. 

But still, Battlefield 1 is the first game to me that really brings that photorealistic feeling in the sense that I constantly compare it with reality while playing, and that I'm very immersed even if it's not virtual reality.

I never thought this generation would bring these graphics, and I may have to retract what I said about diminishing returns earlier.

Damn it's amazing to live in this era, to see that it's finally coming! Just to fantasize in your bedchamber if you understand what I mean, and actually being able to guess and estimate the years and hardware generations (GPU-wise) until photorealisic games might be here.

The question will be wether you are still able to play the real version or if the eye cancer has already robbed you of your sight by then.