@wicked_laugh: If you look at the trailer closely, his suit is definitely materializing around him. So I think you're right on the money.

Why can’t I find a widescreen trailer?

@zero_juice: It probably means the caching requires these things, which wouldn't be surprising at all.

@zero_juice: Well, the article says "One major roadblock to using Optane Memory is that you will need a seventh generation CPU from Intel (Kaby Lake), which can range anywhere from $117 to $339, coupled with a 200-series motherboard that has an M.2 slot."

It's not the M.2 slot that is the issue.

If you're building a 7th gen PC or upgrading your core architecture to one, why wouldn't you also use an SSD? Seems like an odd market to target.

@nl_skipper: Yeah, map design is probably my biggest complaint about Frostbite era Battlefield games, though there are a number of game mechanics that really bug me. Squad spawning is probably the worst. Used to be a beacon must be deployed by a squad leader for members to spawn. Now any member can spawn on any other member. Coupled with the much shorter respawn timer, and it means a single squad can prove to be unstoppable. Either you wipe out the entire squad in about 5 seconds, or they're just going to keep coming.

But map design... jeez. They're usually all circlejerks. BF4 nerfed the hell out of explosives because of Metro and Locker, but the problem wasn't explosives, it was the map design. You can't design maps like a funnel and expect anything else. Linear maps can work, like Camp Gibraltar and Karkand, but they shouldn't be a funnel.

Then you have maps like Panama Canal, Nelson Bay, and Caspian Border that just lay the posts out like they were thrown at a dart board. It's no wonder players capture a post and just run to the next, never bothering to defend it. The best maps were designed to setup a front for the two teams to push against each other.

I'm not even bothering with BF1. I played the beta. I really didn't like it. But that's more to do with the time period. There's nothing I like about WWI. The weapons felt clumsy. Which I understand is the point, but it doesn't make me want to use them.

@nl_skipper: You're right that conquest has always been this way, but that doesn't make it right. Just familiar. I've been hoping for many games now that Dice would do something about the wandering idiots.

In traditional Battlefield games, you had one attacking force and one defending force. Yes, even in conquest. Tickets were a number of reinforcements. So getting a kill meant burning an enemy ticket. Holding more bases meant additional bleed. Tickets weren't always balanced either, with attackers frequently having more to give them time to push into bases before bleed made the match impossible to win.

In Frostbite era Battlefield games, Conquest is little more than a cluster**** with vehicles. Neither team is attacking or defending, instead two armies decide to meet up at the same time and battle over a patch of otherwise unoccupied land. Yeah... makes sense.

Noo. Conquest is NOT about kills. Conquest is about the objective. Killing is the means to the end, NOT the goal. Kills should not count as points for your team. I guess maybe unless YOU are inside the objective area.

Too many players treat conquest as deathmatch already. This change only supports those players.

@bigdaddyshouse: I do. Most of my games take about 30 minutes to download. And I did say I have the elite console. It's a 1TB. Plenty of space, but I've got more drives laying around if I ever start to run out. Neither bandwidth nor storage space has ever been a concern of mine. Got a fair number of games installed too. Destiny, Titanfall, MCC, Borderlands Handsome Collection, Rare Replay, both Tomb Raiders, Zoo Tycoon (kids)... I'm certain there's more I'm not thinking of.

Hell, you should see my PC. 60GB video files of some gameplay are not out of the ordinary.

@Marky360: Not sure how you consider GameFly a rip off. I'm not a customer myself, as I'm usually a PC player, but when I play on my X1 all my games are digital. But if I liked discs and didn't like to keep my games, you bet I'd pay that price.

As for GameStop, I'm an occasional customer. When the X1 Elite Console was released, they were doing a $250 on X1/PS4 trades. Plus a free controller with any X1 console purchase. I intended to by the elite controller anyway, which was out of stock. So I traded my basic X1 for $250, a some Wii[U] games I didn't like, a physical copy of Sunset Overdrive, and walked away with the elite console for $100 cash. Less than I was planning to pay for the controller alone. And I got a [slightly] better console and new warranty with it.

GameStop works out sometimes, you gotta look for the promotions. But 50% value even during release window? I can't think of any other purchases that depreciate in value so fast. Because they don't. GameStop buys games below market value because they need to make money. All pawn shops do. It may be fast and convenient, but you're paying for it dearly. You can get much more selling direct on ebay or craigslist.