It is rendered at it's native rendering resolution. (This instance I assume native 4k. - Haven't looked to heavily into it.)
Downscales to 1080P.
Then... Upscales to my panels 1440P.

This goes for every game. Thus every game thus looks soft/blurry.

There is a patch coming, but I have already waited 6+ months, what's another 6 months? :P

We will just have to wait and see, which is what this thread is for. ;)

The gave gaming publications a tonne of time in the game, in addition to all the betas and alpha.

At the end of the day, whether the game is good or bad, it was never going to be possible to comprehensively review it without a viable population on a real-world server.

It would be if you give review copies to like 100-200 reviewers and let them play at the same time (final build of game, not beta's with missing content), and told a few of them to group up.

^ usually doesnt happend, if a developer is secure in its ability to gain good review scores.
MS might not be expecting such good reviews (and not wanting to to tank pre-orders/early adopters).

I see what you mean, but what a logistical nightmare.

You'd have to tell them to be on at exactly the same time. What if some are happy to review after 6 hours but others want 20? What if they are in different timezones etc.

Don't get me wrong, I am a huge opponent of review embargoes, and personally am highly unlikely to purchase an unreviewed game. Hell I will be automatically biased against a game with a day-of-release or day-before embargo as I'll assume they are hiding something. But in this case, I can sort of understand it.

Its not really hard to give people a time & date, and say this is when you can play&review it, and thus ensure that they ll be on then.
Its hardly a logistical nightmare.

And yeah.... I assume that developers that do this, do so because they are hidding things.
Their affraid review scores will drive people away, so instead of giveing reviewers fair time to review their games they dont.

They know reviewers want to rush and get first reviews up, so this limited time leaves them less time to go do all the things they want too do ingame.
While if they had had a few days, they might have done everything to do in game and made a review saying "its low on content".
Now there will be less reviews, that are more postive because reviewers wont have had time to run though everything and reach the conclusion  that game might not have enough content to do in it.

82 is my prediction.

Had to cancel my pre-order.

Game costs 79.99 if I buy it brand new right now. I got it back when it was still listed as 39.99 (CAD, of course.) I was having a hard time convincing myself to buy it at $39.99, but Amazon's system messed up and won't let me update my payment (the old credit card's expiration date has passed and I didn't renew the card), so Amazon is trying to make me pay full price for a game I struggled to find the motivation to buy at half price.

So I went ahead and cancelled it. Will pick it up on PC...maybe...if it ever makes it to steam instead of being held hostage on the Microsoft store.

Furthermore, this was the last game that had me keep my Xbox One. Now there's literally nothing for me on that system. I'd sell it but I paid nearly 500 for it when I got it, I bet I'd get like 75 bucks out of it if I sold it. Well, Microsoft, it was a rocky few generations, but I'm seeing other console manufacturers. It's not me, it's you.

78 because it is a new Microsoft IP.
If it was a Nintendo game, the very same game would score around 94/100 average.

What are you talking about? 

Arms got like 77, and Splatoon got 82. Respectable numbers, but not the 94% you seem to imply. There's no bias here </sarcasm>

82