Editorial

Top 10 Most Optimized PC Games Of 2015

162 Comments

2015 is almost over and it’s time for our annual article, announcing the top 10 most optimized games of 2015 for the PC platform. For this list, we are focusing on how the games work in their 2015 final version (final patched version), whether they scale on multiple CPU and GPU cores, their graphical options and overall visual quality, as well as whether they justified their system requirements.

But what do we consider great examples of optimized PC games? Let’s clarify on this before continuing. In our opinion, a game that has been optimized for the PC is one that can scale on multiple CPUs cores and multi GPUs, that is not plagued by ‘console-ish’ side effects (like really low FOV, controller only on-screen indicators and mouse acceleration/smoothing issues), that packs a respectable amount of graphics options to adjust, and that also looks and runs great.

In short, we’re examining a game’s technical aspect, meaning that not only must the engine scale well on modern-day hardware, but also that the developer must ensure that things like PC specific graphical features, PC technologies (like SLI and Crossfire) and PC controls are properly implemented.

10.) Project CARS

Project CARS - PS4/XB1/WiiU/PC - By racers 4 racers (UK Launch trailer)

Project CARS is easily the most impressive – visually – racing game on the PC. Not only that, but it’s one of the few titles that saw noticeable improvements thanks to numerous patches, Slightly Mad Studios has managed to implement various performance improvements, slightly resolve the game’s CPU issues, and add some new rain effects that come a bit closer to those found in Driveclub. The game packs a lot of graphics options to tweak, supports a wide variety of wheels and scales well on multiple CPU cores.

“Project CARS packs incredible car models (on Ultra details each car is made of 200-300K triangles), sports detailed deformation and destruction systems, has an amazing lighting system, and most of the stages are packed with high resolution textures. There are some LOD issues even on Ultra settings – we did notice some distant pop-ins – but that’s a really small gripe.”

Pages: 1 2 3 4

162 thoughts on “Top 10 Most Optimized PC Games Of 2015”

    1. To be fair, there isn’t much to optimize in MGS V. It’s a freaking desert. Just like Mad Max, it’s easy to render. It would get high framerate without much optimization. The Witcher 3 however has wide vivid landscapes with forests, villages and whatnot. TW3 is better optimized.

      Reply

      1. isn’t Mad Max locked on 30 fps on consoles? if it was that easy to optimize a game in a desert i am sure Mad Max could have 60 fps on console hardwares just like MGS V. (it seems MGS V has 60 fps on consoles) i don’t remember how much better or worse Mad Max looked compared to MGS V, but i remember it wasn’t enough to justify it’s shortcomings performance-wise in comparison. it felt optimized though, but not as optimized as MGS V. with MGS V you can reach 60 fps on ultra on PC way too easily.

        The Witcher 3 certainly looks better than MGS V, but i am not sure if this is the best they could do even though they even downgraded the game.

        i am of course gonna respect DSO’s judgement and i am sure they have their own reasons and i am probably by no means an expert in this matter in comparison. i am just happy when games are optimized on PC since i prefer to play on PC in my spare time whenever i am not forced to play on consoles.

        Reply

      3. And is it just me? Or whenever there is smoke in the game my framerate drops to single digits? And i have a 970 too. Whenever my vehicle skids this always happens. And a couple cutscenes also suffers this problem for no apparent reasons too.

        Reply

        1. You have your special effects set at VERY HIGH. Thats the only setting you must lower a notch. It only seems to affect shadows on smoke (you still get them on HIGH) and reflections (these only show up in cutscenes). All in all you wont notice the difference.

          Reply

    2. Witcher 3 is well optimized game. It’s just more demanding than MGS V, which is cross gen game with empty sandbox levels. Witcher 3 is living breathing Open World game. It takes full advantage of the hardware it’s running on.

      Reply

        1. Ha, that was funny fnd! I like to think some believe Witcher 3 is literally a living, breathing world. It’s not just software!!

          But in seriousness, MGSV is way more optimized than Witcher 3. Um, are people forgetting over 8 huge patches that all included optimizations?

          Witcher 3 at launch had a ton of optimization issues. MGSV, on the other hand, required basically no optimization patches because Kojima Studios did an insanely good job with it.

          Reply

      2. …. Because there’s a global consensus that the majority of PC Gamers have DX12-compatible GPUs, AND the Software required to run DX12 (Windows 10) in the first place?

        Oh, right……

        As for Mantle, it’s not an AMD Game, & it’s not an OpenGL Engine, so it wouldn’t have Vulcan anyway.

        Reply

  2. Best optimized is the biggest disappointment gameplaywise. Looks awesome, sounds awesome, everything else is garbage.

    Reply

          1. No. He was talking about the best optimized game which is SW:BF. So Witcher 3 doesn’t have anything to do with the topic, which I am pointing to you 🙂

      6. Hi, I currently have a huge sum of money but it’s trapped and I need your help. It’s urgent one of my family members is depending on us.

        Reply

    1. I dont think Project Cars should be on the list. That game ran so poorly on my computer,while every other game that came out ran perfectly fine, yes even the Batman game ran with 40 fps.

      This game runs with 15-25. Poorly is barely describing it

      Reply

        1. i dont know but i know that Project Cars made news because of the amd issues because of nvidia’s forced PhysX.which you couldnt turn off.thats the only reason it became news in the first place

          Reply

          1. 1) PhysX in Project Cars has nothing to do with bad performance of this game.

            2) PhysX in Project Cars runs only on CPU. There is no way how it can influence any GPU you have in PC because it is not running on GPU.

            3) PhysX in Project Cars is used only partially and the game used developers own physics API for the most physics computations.

            4) You can’t turn off PhysX used by CPU if you don’t have other solution. This usage of PhysX depends only on CPU so it can’t influence performance on any GPU because simply it is not running on it. What you don’t understand on this simple fact? You obviously don’t understand how these things work. I guess you don;t know nothing about programming and game development.

            Please stop spreading your false and nonsence information.

        2. If games use PhysX as their physics engine then its CPU bound meaning itl run exactly the same whether you have an nvidia or amd gpu. Project cars runs like a*s on my 980 ti as of now and thats just sad.

          Reply

          1. Exactly. Nines, hvd hvd and others like them are people who don’t understand PhysX at all. They spread false information which are completely wrong. BTW Project Cars is not build on PhysX at all. It uses PhysX only for few things (around 10% of calculations). The most calculations are based on developers own solutions. But these people see PhysX in description and are clear what is wrong (according to their imagination, not real facts).

        3. On the other hand, if you have a proper CPU, it should handle it fine. If you have an olden gen’ AMD processor, no doubt you’re in trouble.

          Reply

          1. yep.nvidia physx is there just to screw over amd cards.its also present in just cause 3 as well if you look at amd vs nvidia performance.

          5. in the df videos they tested both amd/nvidia gpu’s one the same cpu.
            and amd still suffered compared to nvidia.consoles are suffering because they are amd gpus and amd video cards are getting hit.just nvidia cards run this game great.

          7. No doubt. PhysX isn’t meant to run on CPU but you CAN do it. It was designed from the get go to be handled by another processor (AGEIA)

        5. PhysX is one of the best physics APIs nowadays. If it’s used as a core physics API of the game, this is running on CPU. So you can’t turn it off. If you would do that, you would turn off physics of the whole game. It’s like you want to turn Havok or Bullet off. It’s nonesence. This is valid for CPU PhysX.
          GPU PhysX features are proprietary and they run on GPU. These can run only on NVIDIA GPUs and they are optional. You can turn them off. That’s the differnce.
          Many people don’t distinguish between these 2 simple facts because they don’t understand it. And because they think they do, there is no way how to explain it to them.

          Reply

          1. CPU PhysX from SDK 3.x is well optimised. That’s PhysX integrated in Unreal Engine 4 and Unity 5 and it’s used in new games. It’s goog scalling across multiple CPU cores and is using modern instructions.
            Could you tell me how is CPU PhysX unethical? It runs the same on all platforms (dependly on strength of that platform of course).

          2. “It does not run the same on all platforms”

            Yes it does. Tell me on which platform it doesn’t run or doesn’t run well. We are now talking about CPU PhysX, not GPU which runs only on NVIDIA GPUs.

            “PhysX SDK 3.x was released in 2011. I’ve played games with PhysX made after that date and they’ve run extremely poorly when using GPU-enabled effects only on the CPU (eg:particles), as expected. ”

            Just check which version of PhysX used the games you played. The most of them used old engines with old PhysX SDK. But games with modern engines used new PhysX SDK. For example see Metro Last Light Redux or Lords of the Fallen. On Metro Last Light you can see it very well. Basic game used PhysX SDK 2.x and Redux used SDK 3.x. Redux version with PhysXs on CPU scale great on multiple cores and can be completly runs on CPU (of course you need to have strong CPU, not some mainstream or lowend).

            BTW DX12 was released this summer. It doesn’t mean that all games after its release date are using DX12 right?

          3. “as it’s more than obvious on which DX platform a game runs”

            As it is known for PhysX too.

            “is English even your native language”

            No it’s not. But I speak English enough to see that you know nothing about PhysX, only general claims based on hgate of AMD Fans.

            PhysX wasn’t crap at all never. This API wasn’t worse than other middleware physics APIs, which were used in games.

            I reccomended you to read these articles direct from core PhysX developer, who worked on this API even before AGEIA took it:

            http://www.codercorner.com/blog/?p=1129
            http://www.codercorner.com/blog/?p=1140

            And look at this comparison test:

            http://www.codercorner.com/blog/?p=748

            I reccomended this articles to every Phy

        6. Isn’t every game with Havok guilty of having forced Havok? 🙂 Did you see the game which allow you to turn Havokj off? Did you see the game which allow you to turn whole game physics off?

          Reply

          1. So you know nothing about SW development as I assume before.

            “Havok wasn’t optimized for a particular brand of GPU”

            CPU PhysX wasn’t either. Because it is running on CPU. There are some features which are implemented for CPUs and GPUs, but most of the PhysX features runs only on CPU and they are optimised in this way.

            “and wasn’t artificially gimped on CPU”

            PhysX wasn’t artificially gimped too. Do you know that Havok didn’t have native multithreading too?

            “Of course they seem to have no interest in backporting this to the older versions of PhysX”

            Did MS backport DX12 features to DX11? Didi developers of 3D Studio, Maya and others backport new features to older versions of their SW? This is calling SW development and evolution.

            All you know are only general claims of people who know nothing about programming or game development at all. Can I know what are you doing for living?

  6. Not a bad list but yea, MGS5 was pretty amazing in terms of optimization. No really, it was shockingly good. I didn’t see this coming.

    For me however.. the award goes to The Witcher 3.

    Reply

    1. What? I never drop below 60 fps with a 970. Just turn off all the Hairworks settings and lower the shadow and vegetation settings one notch below ultra.

      Reply

        1. He’s dead on about his Witcher 3 settings. I ran the exact same settings with SweetFX & Turbo Lighting and only dropped below 50 FPS in large settlements… on a GTX 960. GTX 970 would be a walk in the park.

          Enthusiast level options are proof against a console port if anything; Witcher 2 had the same complaints & it was a PC exclusive at the time. I find it interesting no one has this complaint about GTAV when all they did was hide the options in a separate menu just so people can claim to run it “maxed out” when they clearly don’t.

          Reply

    2. I was very angry with witcher 3, until i tested it myself:

      fx8350, gtx 970, 8 GB ram:
      1680×1050, everything in ultra but draw distance,grass, and shadows (in high), HairWorks AA at 2x.
      game plays great. hitting easily 60 fps, with drops to 50-55 in high grass density areas. the major frame drops are in the villages, when it can drop at almost 40 🙁

      i think is pretty well optimized.

      Reply

      1. no just that though AMD isnt even developing the driver anymore so no optimisations whatsoever for future games

        Reply

        1. you still dont get it. The mantle driver will still be included because of games like BF4 but the driver will receive no optimisations at all. Now the performance now can only be improved game side not driver side.

          Vulkan still isnt close to final BUT games built on DX12 will be very easy to port to vulkan because end of the day the graphics backend will be really really similar and thats all that matters becauselow level, mutlthreaded shaders (async shaders) async compute etc ect the calls mayvbe different but the underlying way of doing stuff is still pretty much the same

          Reply

          1. No you don’t get it. Even though its low level it still needs optimisations, AMD had stopped all that drop whereas right now it bought still be ok in thy future it will be crap

        2. dx12 was similar to mantle and amd wanted mantle.they droped it when dx12 came out.amd runs great with dx12 if you havent seen it.

          Reply

    2. That Mantle thing, not going to happen, Mantel “as we knew it” is dead and gave it’s place to DX12. Anddd that’s for the best.

      Reply

      1. That is simply not true. Performance from DX9 to DX10 actually took a hit. Then DX11 improved some things significantly but most games still run almost as well in DX9 without a noticable hit to the graphics. Actually play some of the games you think look so great in DX11 mode and turn down the settings to DX9. Does some aspect of the game look drastically worse than you’re used to? Not likely. Not in any game I’ve played. DX = MS’ way to establish new Windows version among gamers, and for nvidia and AMD to sell more GPUs. Marketing, pure and simple.

        Reply

          1. There’s also no tesselation in any DX10 games, despite it being supported in theory. And tesselation hasn’t been used well in any game I can think of. Name a game that turns rough geometry into beautiful detail at almost no performance costs. That’s what they originally pretended tesselation was going to be and instead we got “slightly rounder NPC heads” and significant performance impact. And that’s the one genuinely new feature that you can’t replicate in DX9, allegedly.

          3. Most games right now still run DX9. Even the ones that don’t usually look like DX9 games any way. Graphics have hit a wall with most engines still NOT doing the following things properly:

            >indirect lighting
            >giving surfaces depth, be it via parallax mapping or tesselation – even games that claim to feature one or the other usually have ugly flat surfaces everywhere, so much for DX11 benefits
            >HDRR

            The only interesting developments are PB materials and SSR. And these were doable in DX9. So gulp down your marketing induced trust in “new = better” and actually consider what we’ve gained since DX9. Basically nothing.

          4. “most” games use DX10/11. No new games are still just DX9 man. No idea wtf planet you’re on.

          5. You can port any DX9 game you want to DX10 or 11. It will show up as a DX10/11 game in any utility you use to check, your computer will think it’s running DX10/11 and yet it won’t use any exclusive DX10/11 features. Plenty of devs do this to appear cutting edge by “supporting” new DX versions, without actually taking advantage of them. There is little reason to because new DX isn’t all that great. But the sheep will always believe new equals better. I’m sure you can think of some other classic products (outside of gaming) that haven’t changed in a noticable way, and yet they frequently ship with a “New!” label. Software is no different from other markets. “New = better” works on people like you so it’s used a lot. Ubisoft, Activision and EA have been shipping the same games for years in a row, using this strategy. EA arguably pioneered it with FIFA but Assassin’s Creed and Call of Duty surely deserve mentioning as well.

    3. When was the last time you tried playing the patched version on an AMD? I personally compared FPS with the same CPU (FX 6350) but different GPUs (GTX 670 vs Sapphire HD 7950 Boost Vapor-X 1100/1400 MHz) and the fps on one track straight were 30 for 7950 and 70 for GTX 670 at launch. After the patches, both GPUs get 80 FPS there.

      Reply

  12. is DSOG even a PC gaming site anymore??? games like cities skylines, kerbal space program, elite dangerous horizons and dirt rally which are mostly “pc first, console second” should be on that list instead of those console centric multiplatform games!

    Reply

          1. I’ve heard the performance problems, but I’ve also heard that they improved a lot, also seeing a lot of videos lately of the game running just fine.

            Still, it has objectives, it has mechanics and even with the lack of history and focus on simulations still a game for me. 🙂

  13. Project CARS? Are you f’ing drunk?

    You should the title to “Most patched games to make them actually playable a few months later”

    Reply

  14. Dying Light had many issues on launch but they fixed most of them, BFHL was a mess on launch on PC according to DF, Project Cars still having issues with AMD hardwares but still the best looking racing sim out there, and SWBF have no destruction environment like latest BF games. the rest minus witcher 3 are not that great looking games 😀

    Reply

    1. [Dying light, Witcher 3, Project cars] these games should not be in this list. they were horrible at launch at least on my last graphics card which was 280X.

      Also they are all Nvidia GW titles what a coincidence!!!

      Reply

      1. They was fixed in 2015 wasn’t they? So why shouldn’t they be part of the list then? Which also shows it got little with gameworks to do, and more with developers. Witcher 2 ran a poop show until they fixed it as well.

        Reply

  16. I don’t understand this statement about Witcher 3:

    “thanks to NVIDIA’s GameWorks players can destroy various objects (that’s of course only if you enable Hairworks)”

    How hairworks influence object destruction? It’s only hair and fur simulation…

    Reply

      1. The destruction is not “Gameworks” SDK like Hairworks is. It’s just based off PhysX physics like how Havok is used in games. This has been done in 360/PS3 games to now in many games Physics engine.

        Which is why it works well on AMD gpu’s. XD

        Reply

    2. While what they say is very… idiotic, and it got nothing to do with Hairworks, it’s due to PhysX SDK.So they are right, like 50%. At least they got the company right.

      Reply

    3. While what they say is very… idiotic, and it got nothing to do with Hairworks, it’s due to PhysX SDK.So they are right, like 50%. At least they got the company right.

      Reply

    1. well it was ea that said by the end of 2016 they want win 10 and dx12 to be required to play their games. win 10 is free now there is no point not to upgrade.

      Reply

      1. Also no point in upgrading since DX12 is another marketing bubble that bursts as soon as some devs actually release games in it and you realize it brings nothing of value. Remember DX10 (nothing at all, no DX10 game did proper tesselation), remember DX11 (nothing but slightly improved performance).

        Reply

        1. its a marketing bubble because its win 10 only or because intel/nvidia are doing poorly wit it?.i hope ea makes all their game require dx12 by the end of the year.

          Reply

          1. It’s a marketing bubble because the benefits are, as always, vastly overstated. Microsoft and both GPU vendors have an interest in people falling for this marketing because it means you will feel obligated to buy a DX12 GPU. Maybe you already bought one and that’s why you’re so invested in the idea of DX12 being used by some games soon. It won’t be. I mean, they’ll give you an option to run the game in DX12 but it won’t offer any benefits and they’re less likely to patch issues with it than with the DX11 version. It’ll take MASS adoption of DX12 hardware before any dev can afford to put time and effort into using those features. You won’t see genuine benefits from DX12 before 2017/18.

  18. Star Wars: Battlefront may have good graphics and good sound and it might very well be well optimized too. It still is an awful game, its like a hot blond bimbo that you bang but she is not marriage and family material because she is too stupid.

    Reply

    1. it sold 10m on consoles. only place it was bad was on pc. it sold as much as cod bo3 on consoles.. lol. so now maybe they will be smarter and concentrate on console gaming.. lol

      Reply

          1. lol idiot, 1st it’s vgchartz, it’s unreliable as f**k.

            2nd it wont track digital sales. the game was a flop, yeah specially on PC. guess only peasant buying it cuz they deserve s***ty games.

  20. Glad to see games that used SDK are in your list. Like I been saying since this all started with SDK. Good Developers do good things. SDK from Nvidia/AMD will have a performance hit. But that alone does not make them unoptimized. If a game at it’s core is not optimized then SDK will only hurt performance even more dramatic.

    And just keep in mind current gen consoles are barley getting 1080p 30 fps in any of these games on the list… You can play these games with a much older I5 or AMD CPU equiv paired with a 750/750ti or a 260/260X and get much better performance with visuals as well as frames per second over the current gen consoles..

    I hope one day people will understand that. And it don’t matter who’s Logo pop’s up on the load up. If a developer does a great job then it will show. Star Wars is a amazing optimized game and glad it won for DSO’s Optimized Game Of The Year.

    Reply

        2. like pc’s get 1080p/60fps ALL the time?unless you got the hardware they dont.you know this if you dont have a gtx 970 you git to turn down settings if you want to run it with out drops.

          there is a big gap between the 960 and 970.a gtx 960 in gta 5 wont keep a sloid 60fps it will drop and you know this.you act like pc always hit 1080p/60 all the time lol.

          Reply

          1. Did I mention PC games get 1080P/60 fps all the time… No I did not. Seems you just want to make arguments out of thin air.

            But let me break it down really simple for you. When a game is a console port and is well optimized any person with a I5 / 750 TI for example should get 60/fps 1080P no problem.

            And I am not acting like anything. You just sound like a typical newbie. A well optimized game can have the Perfect 60 give or take by dropping down graphic options with the right hardware in mind. Not saying a PC gamer will have 60FPS @ 1080P with a Intel HD4000 series IGPU but I am sure you know what I mean.

          1. it’s not the platforms fault if my weak PC (in your re*arded case, your laptop) can’t handle it, but whatever, you own an xbone and choke on M$ d**k peasant. you earn it.

    1. Well if you read the article it states games from release/current patch. And if you think about it Witcher 3 scales very well from it’s low settings on older I5’s with a GTX 480 for a example getting better visuals and performance over consoles. To using it’s highest settings even with Gameworks features on with mid range cards to flagship cards scale very well I think.

      Reply

      1. I don’t know, I could play at phantom pain at almost maxed, only AA slightly lower, at a pretty locked 60fps at 1080p. I can’t get 60fps at 1080p at minimum settings. Around 35-52. Granted I understand it isn’t as good looking or as a detailed world, but still…

        Reply

        1. Yeah but Phantom Pain is not that much of a demanding game at all. Just because a game runs well on your system does not make it a optimized game. Just makes it a good port to PC.

          Reply

          1. I understand that, but still it’s not that much better looking than the witcher 3, or that much more detailed world either. I just don’t get the enormous difference there.

          3. Sorry meant other way around, witcher 3 at max isn’t that much better looking, or have a more detailed world than MGS V.

      2. “Witcher 3 scales very well from it’s low settings on older I5’s with a
        GTX 480 for a example getting better visuals and performance over
        consoles”

        So what? Do you have any idea how much better that is than Xbone or PS4 hardware? It HAS to run better on post-2010 hardware. It’s like you’ve forgotten that both current-gen consoles were outdated at launch. A GTX 480 runs Crysis maxed, 1080p, close to or over 60 fps. Current-gen consoles literally couldn’t. With the advances in shaders some games look better than Crysis now but the Xbone or PS4 will never exceed Crysis in any real sense. Ever wonder why no good looking games on consoles do 1080p@60 fps? There’s your answer. The resulting games would look last-gen because MS and Sony both decided that an office laptop CPU + a low-end GPU would be good enough for people who survived 8 years of Xbox 360. And the plebs proved them right. All it took was “EIGHT GIGABYTES OF MEMORY!!1!” Nevermind that PC had 8 GB of just RAM long before, plus 2-4 GB of video memory… For once consoles weren’t shorted on memory – just everything else.

        Witcher 3 performs badly.

        Reply

        1. So what? lol you say SO WHAT!?!?! it still runs the game better then consoles with that hardware looks better and has a better frame rate…

          Reply

          1. Did you even read the rest of my post? I explained to you that consoles are much weaker than a 480 so the game has to perform better on the 480. It’s not an accomplishment in any sense. If I make a game that runs better than consoles ON A NASA COMPUTER does that mean I optimized my game well?

  22. Project Cars – terrible performance on AMD systems
    Rainbox Six Siege – Terrible servers and hitreg issues
    MGSV – 60fps cap, optimization issues regarding effects and really low quality textures
    Dying Light – CPU optimization problems on release, noticeable stutter

    I wouldn’t particularly agree with these choices.

    Reply

    1. They go off from release to current patch…

      Project cars just needed better drivers from AMD… Wccftech even had a article on it….
      Rainbow Six Siege Had a wonderful Patch on PC that no only took care of the issues you mention but even added a Ultra HD Texture Pack…
      MGSV-60 fps cap is due to it’s games Physics. But can be unlocked. And scales well from low end to high end hardware from 1080P to 4K
      Dying Light plays amazing now.

      Again read how they came up with the Top 10 Optimized games of 2015. XD Also 7 out of 10 are Nvidia games… And 5 of them use Gameworks… So much for being cripple works.

      Reply

  23. As far as I know, GTA V still suffers from mouse sensitivity issues, sensitivity basically depends on your FPS. Higher FPS = higher sensitivity, which is unacceptable.

    Reply

  24. I don’t agree with Witcher being on the list. It’s a downgraded console port with mediocre performance, all things considered: You can’t say it looks better than Watch Dogs which was also open world and targetted the same platforms AND last-gen consoles! In other words, Witcher 3 failed to impress even on consoles. How could it still be a well optimized PC game? Its performance would have to be magnificient, it would have to run well on 2008’s hardware to justify looking worse than a last-gen-derived console game. Does it? LOLno. You’ll have trouble running it on a GPU from 2010. Your CPU should be even younger. Witcher 3 runs poorly on every platform.

    The rest of the list is solid. Good read.

    Reply

  25. Mantle was left by the wayside ever since Vulkan was announced. AMD must have known this would happen and accepted it.

    And DX12 is BS. Any year without a new DirectX is a good year.

    Reply

  27. wow re*ard, no that site is not reliable and who the f**k get it’s source from g2a etc ? stay ignorant, your xbone is dying and no one cares.

    Reply

  28. Just because they aren’t legit doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be included.
    Italy for example include prostitution in their GDP figures despite it being illegal.

    Reply

      1. The fact they’re not legit isn’t in question.
        They should be included as people still use the games purchased. If they’re not included you are leaving out a large percentage of the market.

        Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *