why?

Cause it runs terribly in all platforms and I don't like supporting bad optimization?

but its good optimisation for PS4 Pro and PS4

How is it good? Both of them are sub 30fps with ps4 going as low as 19s... Ps4 Pro can't downsample if you have a 1080p TV for some reason but only at 4k mode and neither of them are as good as PC as far as settings go and many other things...

Specially when you consider that the only benefit of Pro is higher resolution when you have games like Rise of Tomb Raider showing what good optimization can really deliver on the Pro...

Seeing the texture quality on X1, 4 and 4P was bad enough to watch, especially for the up close scenes. I find it ballsy of bethesda to keep the price at £40 for the state the game is in.

Ikr. There are always a few games in each generation that screw up the PC port while having the console ports be done well. It is rare that a game fucks up in all platforms. I cannot believe most reviewers do not take performance into their reviews and just be like "oh it will get updated, dw" which is just nonsense imo. Cause when someone buys this and it doesn't run well, it is the consumer who gets goofed and the reviewers failed at their jobs. (Except any who mentioned it obviously)

Oh well, luckly PC has a refund system for cases like this.

The funny thing about those bad port jobs is that at the end of the day, power in tech grows within the PC market by the year, which in turn allows for those bad ports to eventually be overidden with more power from new hardware, on consoles you're stuck with that same level of quality forever with the system. For example, I could go play Rage on the 360, it'll still have the same issues as it has done since 2012 and it'll run exactly the same, but on a decent PC from 2016, it'll run the game that much better than a PC from 2012.

Also it totally is rare to see such a fuck up from AAA devs on this kind of level, all while charging full price throughout the start of it's release. 

Definitely pisses me off to see review sites, especially PCgamer just sitting back, twiddling their thumbs and waiting for the eprformance patch, then reviewing the game, all while looking back with a srhug "runs fine on my system, it's a great game", all while everyone else and consoles are suffering in hell with the game. Like can you be that out of touch and that forgiving?, it hurts the soul to see someone give a game that much time and give it enough passes while shrugging at the same time. The same site that btw thinks Planet Coaster "could be more", and still hasn't gotten that game's review out, yet they managed DH2's review fine and dandy (never been fuming at the site before until last week).

if a game comes out the gate and it needs more than a 500mb patch, then something has gone horribly wrong. In this day and age it's becoming more and more commenplace to just shove a game out all busted and looking like crap, then spending millions on hype marketing while spending little on getting the game running and looking the part of the overall budget (AAA games these days are really looking less like AAA and more AA).

Looking back on that DF video:



How in any way shape or form, is that acceptable?. I've seen lesser games that look better than the screen on the left and even the right.




Let's look at Wolfenstein on id tech 5 at Ultra settings shall we:



id tech 5, megatextures, a load of crap.

I know 4k is getting hype on PC and consoles, but I'd rather 4k textures like I have on Skyrim than 4k res in general. Why stretch a game when you can make it look better visually with better asset quality.

The PS4 and Pro versions are better optimised, but still poorly. The PS4 and X1 versions should both be utilising better assets and running at a stable 1080p/30fps and 900p/30fps, not dynamic versions of both and with considerable frame-drops. The Pro version should be able to hit 1800p/30fps (more demanding titles already are), and a Titan X Pascal should be able to hit 1080p/60fps/max without breaking a sweat.