Just for clarification...

The 3 monitor approach is a 'spanning' approach, this is supported in the engine and is pretty simple by drivers and obviously some tuning and art development for it by the devs.
http://www.nvidia.co...technology.html

Now what others are asking for, having "true" multi-monitor support for 2 monitors would take a lot of development work (one monitor game, other minimap, etc)
True multi-monitor support takes a lot of development time and is quite doubtful here at this stage.

Although, outside of CryEngine3 supporting spanning 3 monitors, Cryengine 3 supports stereoscopic 3D, so if you like 3D, who knows, someday you might get to enjoy 3D stomping mechs.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned this yet.

3 Monitor Support Is CONFIRMED!

Quote

Nvidia is a partner, so it only stands to reason they are using NVIDIA's solution.

Frostiken, on 07 June 2012 - 02:04 PM, said:

Are you serious???

Your Tribes:Ascend hate is obvious from your bad 'personal preference' experiences!
Like not liking the physics comments, obviously unrelated.
Funny, I bought the original Tribes the first day on shelves 11 years ago, and ran a Tribes server.
I never complained about the wonky physics, nor do I feel the need to run around the web and trash them.
They shipped a pretty polished product for this model which is also rare, we'll see if PGI can be close to that on release.
People saw what happened with the plasma rifle release, they patched it in a day, wasn't a reason to jump ship.

Tribes is indeed one of the better/best F2P models and games that translated well, even as limited/flawed as the F2P model is by needing to generate fairly consistent streams of revenue.

I would rather have had a retail AAA Tribes, but alas, I have to deal with a lesser evil, at least lesser than 95% of others.

Hi_Rez motivated me to give them $30 for the quality of their game, after about a week or two of playing.
No other motivations were present, nothing was trying to coerce me by way of the game f2P mechanics.
I wasn't being bribed, no carrots dangling for me, not made to feel less complete, no greener grass that I had to get to, and no real "grind" to speak of.

There was nothing I really "NEEDED", or even wanted all that much, that I didn't have for free.
I didn't NEED it just because I didn't have it yet and it was locked, LOL!
It takes dozens of hours, if not hundreds, to get skilful at playing a particular class/weapon, sounds like you needed more practice.

I wanted to just support them for a polished release that was fun and wasn't reaching into my pocket, that is rare and was well worth it.
I still don't have or need most of the upgraded weapons/gear because the game is about skill.
Practicing players with base weapons will easily own you even after you spend a 100 hours in the game, because it's practice and mindset, not OP weapons.

The next patch, dramatically changing the way XP works in the game, will tell us the way Tribes is going, better or worse.

Quote

BTW, everything PGI told you about MW:O, and how their F2P model will actually work, is subject to change.
Feel better?
This is just an anti-Tribes post, sry it didn't stand up to the previous ones 4 you.
Although, you may want to retort regarding tribes, I'm not going to try and convine you of anything, undeniably one of the better F2P models, as of today, tomorrow anything can change with F2p.

AussieGiant, on 06 June 2012 - 12:29 PM, said:

I'm sure they are spending time on their product, don't tell me beta work shut down for the event.

I already knew they had no big publisher and already assumed they won't be doing a big reveal like the rest, this game is a different model.
E3 is a money pit waste.

I just wanted to clarify I wasn't cooking anything. Just a real time event that took place, on more than one occasion.
An explanation was given.
No riots or uprisings necessary, nor should there be any to quell.

Paul Inouye, on 06 June 2012 - 12:01 PM, said:

It took me about a day to realize you guys were their for the business side of things, rather than media without a stage/booth.
So it sounds like showing the game in there booth was just part of an agreement, not something you guys are proactively showing.

I don't think it's unreasonable for fans to think you guys are going to expose something to media at E3, that's the prevalent expectation when a developer mentions on several occasions to fans they are going, without the stipulation for business only.
Hopefully you guys didn't let fans think you have assets to actually 'show' the media at E3 if you don't.
You have a couple days left still.

Back when there was a real E3, I think the consensus became if you only have little to show, better to show stuff at the end so it's remembered.

Thanks for commenting and shooting straight.