What's your problem? It makes no sense to want a worse experience.
Why pay for testing when consumers will happily pay the developers to do it? They will even defend your unfinished product for free!
I suppose we could call Cities 'C:S2' and Titanfall 'T2'?
Both are valid, I don't know why people want low framerates when we can have silky smooth ones.
For smooth panning? Why would I want less?
Perhaps that is the case, but it also swings in the opposite direction of games being overpraised when there are glaring issues - see BG3. Bad press usually causes change a lot faster though and I find it refreshing when people actually leave negative reviews with their concerns. Although I agree there are the people who take it too far and just jump on a hate bandwagon, which ruins actual criticisms.
Don't downplay peoples valid concerns, we should strive for better performance in any game. Just because some people can put up with low framerates doesn't mean others should have to. I think 120fps at 1080p should be absolute minimum performance we should accept out of a game given the power of PCs these days.
Of course they do. The S23 for example is smaller than the iPhone 15, was the same price on release (came out Feb 2023) and has features beating the iPhone 15 Pro Max, a much bigger and more recent device. Most features/hardware on the bigger phones exist in smaller phones, most of the extra space on larger phones is usually just taken up by a larger battery anyway. They can go watch some teardowns, look into all the software locked features like with the recent Pixel 8 phones, instead of blindly jumping to the defence of these mega-corporations who only want to upsell.
But yes, obviously some features are a lot harder to fit in a smaller space, but I thought that was the obvious asterisk to my comment. Perhaps they should spend some R&D on figuring that out though, rather than rehashing the same devices year after year which is just leading to e-waste.
(I'd love the 3.5mm port back too, but they all want to sell their wireless 'buds' now, so not going to happen for that reason alone :c)
So yes, it was bait.
This is so incorrect though. Nobody is expecting every game to run on every system at 4K@120Hz. CS has more fidelity and higher framerate than Cities, Rainbow Six Siege has even more fidelity and even more framerate than the both of them (talking like 600+ fps). Cities bottleneck should be CPU as it was in the first game. It should run very well to begin with and slow down the bigger and bigger the city gets, but that's not the case, it runs like ass from the get go. They built it from scratch, which is the best time to make sure it is performant during development, but in most cases devs seem to rush for feature complete instead, especially in the current environment of consumers accepting half-baked games.
It's not entitlement to expect more and it makes no sense to defend lackluster performance in games, if you don't care then just carry on enjoying it and let others ask for better. Again 1080p@120Hz is hardly an ask these days, any GPU/CPU from the last 8 years can handle that shit perfectly fine, hell even mobiles can run that now.
Games should be built to run well on today's hardware, not built to let future hardware take over. Incentivizing upgrades is just going to create more e-waste.