Here you go, this guy makes a quite impressive comparison, so the three most interesting techs get taken out, as every other focking time, Ubi is sh!t. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uv5OXQayi2o As much as i really like this game, i won't buy it. My last Ubi game bought was Splinter Cell and it will be the last one until they stop this sh!t.

very informative, thanks for the link just saddens me to be honest, this world goes 3 steps back for every 1 forward, see another similar issue, we now have 20mp cameras on normal phones, and we see them in all their glory at 640x640 on social media, back when we barely had 2mp cams it was the norm to share it on native resolution, so we actually stepped back there imo

lol lol lol How about watching the video and figuring out for yourself if anything is improved or not. 2 secs in and already you can see the baked reflections on the water.

exactly.

Maybe it's because I'm watching on a tablet, but I just dont see it in the new video. Will check again a larger screen. Wish i was enthusiastic about the game though, visually it looks like the best thing so far on consoles, even on the rather weak X1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgQ867fuRHU&feature=youtu.be

This is the main reason why i am getting fed up with PC Gaming. We're always promised some mind blowing new game that will be available 'soon' and then when you get it, the graphics are not even comparable to their initial E3 Press release or whatever medium they are using. I've been saying this for years now, games are not developed for PC's anymore, or very rarely. They are developed for 'this years latest generation of consoles' which are about 2 years behind current PC tech. Then, if there's interest, they 'port' an inferior version over to the PC, completely un-optimized and try introducing resource heaving processing effects to make the game look 'better' when they should clearly be making everything for PC's and then 'downgrading' everything to console versions. You CANNOT port something to a PC and expect it look and run as rich and as efficiently as possible without first developing it for the PC as the primary platform. Every attempt at this is clearly noticeable by anyone who has attention to detail and understands what they are looking at, and i don't mean the game, i mean the small components that make up the entire thing. Clearly these people think we are all zipped up the back. From their initial E3 video, the differences are staggering compared to their latest footage. Definitely a Watch Dogs follower. Well that's my rant over, thanks for reading and apologies for offloading lol Aaannndddd immmm speennntttt :banana:

All those posts about graphics... While it is unfortunate, that IQ may be reduced, Games are not about graphics. Why people here are not concerned about game features and richness/complexity? All those who can judge baked shadows, reflections, ... Did someone thought that adding Open World Team vs. Team to Borderlands would make this game obsolete before launch. In the end it is 4-player coop game. What features/ideas make it stand out above other games? I was quite happy for someone bringing Team open World game with TvT. But R6:Siege will do that better (while differently as it does not use cover system and is not Open World game). In Division encounters with enemies will happen in many different places, giving combat more variation. But is there anything more to the game? And I do not mean story. I mean fun element, will players keep on playing or will they drop it 2 months after start as it will be repetitive and boring? Will there be bigger battles over something of importance? Like Castles in Lineage 2? Or Battles over access to World Boss? I am afraid that this hardcore concept of taking something of great importance from other players is lost to Western "MMO" games.

All those posts about graphics... While it is unfortunate, that IQ may be reduced, Games are not about graphics. Why people here are not concerned about game features and richness/complexity? All those who can judge baked shadows, reflections, ... Did someone thought that adding Open World Team vs. Team to Borderlands would make this game obsolete before launch. In the end it is 4-player coop game. What features/ideas make it stand out above other games? I was quite happy for someone bringing Team open World game with TvT. But R6:Siege will do that better (while differently as it does not use cover system and is not Open World game). In Division encounters with enemies will happen in many different places, giving combat more variation. But is there anything more to the game? And I do not mean story. I mean fun element, will players keep on playing or will they drop it 2 months after start as it will be repetitive and boring? Will there be bigger battles over something of importance? Like Castles in Lineage 2? Or Battles over access to World Boss? I am afraid that this hardcore concept of taking something of great importance from other players is lost to Western "MMO" games.

Graphics downgrade, while it sucks, doesn't bother me too much. It will happen anyway, always does. What has me concerned is the uplay network. Just look at all the matchmaking issues R6S beta had. All the issues with AC Initiates/Companion App/Unity. I don't trust the game to be up long, nor to have a stable connection. And since it's an online only game...

Graphics downgrade, while it sucks, doesn't bother me too much. It will happen anyway, always does. What has me concerned is the uplay network. Just look at all the matchmaking issues R6S beta had. All the issues with AC Initiates/Companion App/Unity. I don't trust the game to be up long, nor to have a stable connection. And since it's an online only game...

Matchmaking in R6:S was player based. It did pick host and if that left, match ended. In time of beta, I was host 4 times and each time I did host for like 2~4 hours and people did stay usually for like 1 hour, some even more. Hosts leaving just after you joined lobby... that's because noobs wanted to check unlockables. That will be problem for 1st few weeks. But in Beta I had 12 of 14 operators, 2 which I had fully customized including weapon skins. That's in very short amount of time. (And it is something easy to solve by having statistics of average hosting time per host session, percentage of matches quit as host and so on.)

Matchmaking in R6:S was player based. It did pick host and if that left, match ended. In time of beta, I was host 4 times and each time I did host for like 2~4 hours and people did stay usually for like 1 hour, some even more. Hosts leaving just after you joined lobby... that's because noobs wanted to check unlockables. That will be problem for 1st few weeks. But in Beta I had 12 of 14 operators, 2 which I had fully customized including weapon skins. That's in very short amount of time. (And it is something easy to solve by having statistics of average hosting time per host session, percentage of matches quit as host and so on.)

Host based was VoIP/chat only (VoIP which didn't work for me anyway). The games were on dedicated servers, so what you said is incorrect and has no bearing on the connectivity. I had everything unlocked for all operators, and a few weapon skins. Thing was it was like ~1 hour of fail matchmaking to get 1 match (Which wasn't guaranteed to be 5v5 or a new game).

Host based was VoIP/chat only (VoIP which didn't work for me anyway). The games were on dedicated servers, so what you said is incorrect and has no bearing on the connectivity. I had everything unlocked for all operators, and a few weapon skins. Thing was it was like ~1 hour of fail matchmaking to get 1 match (Which wasn't guaranteed to be 5v5 or a new game).

While most matches made it look like we were playing on servers and everyone had similar ping, but I had matches where everyone except one person had ping over 1000ms. And even if that was on dedicated server, people all around got kicked from matchmaking/matches with message like: "Host has left the session." And if that was due to voice Hosting, then it is still reason for calling entire gaming session as p2p bound with non-transferable host. There are quite some threads like this one. http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1278681-PC-Peer-2-Peer-hosting-and-connectivity-will-end-R6-Siege-before-it-even-releases-Forums Maybe you have other explanation joining to already running match and then being kicked from game lobby before next match with message similar to above. And maybe they hybridize dedicated+p2p hosting wrongly. I hope I'll have no reason to cancel my pre-order. But this matchmaking is real concern regardless type of hosting.

While most matches made it look like we were playing on servers and everyone had similar ping, but I had matches where everyone except one person had ping over 1000ms. And even if that was on dedicated server, people all around got kicked from matchmaking/matches with message like: "Host has left the session." And if that was due to voice Hosting, then it is still reason for calling entire gaming session as p2p bound with non-transferable host. There are quite some threads like this one. http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1278681-PC-Peer-2-Peer-hosting-and-connectivity-will-end-R6-Siege-before-it-even-releases-Forums Maybe you have other explanation joining to already running match and then being kicked from game lobby before next match with message similar to above. And maybe they hybridize dedicated+p2p hosting wrongly. I hope I'll have no reason to cancel my pre-order. But this matchmaking is real concern regardless type of hosting.

Oh I know most of those issues and even posted in some of those P2P threads myself on the beta forums. Fact remains that UBISOFT themselves posted multiple times that all games are on dedicated servers and only voice/chat were P2P. Which gives me no faith in their network (along with the Assassin Creed issues as well) and makes me cringe when I think what The Division will be like. My friends and I have been waiting to play it since it was first announced.

I just read something on The Division FAQ:

Do I need an Xbox Live Gold or PlayStation®Plus membership to participate in the beta? Xbox One and PlayStation®4 system owners will not need an Xbox Live Gold or PlayStation®Plus membership to access and play the beta. However, there are some game modes that require such accounts. More details on this will be released in the future.

Wonder if there is some kind of similar restriction on PC.