Don't use framerate for physics factors and we have gsync to deal with tearing/juddering now. Bethesda games feel too laggy.

Tuyrning off vsync causes the engine to freak out once your FPS passes your monitors refresh rate, and results in objects flying all over the place.

1. It is too late for BGS to make a change like that to the game engine. If it ain't been done by now, it ain't gonna get done by November.

2. Not everyone has video cards and monitors that support G-sync or FreeSync.

1. They sold 20 million copies of Skyrim of course they can do it.

2. It doesn't matter, everyone will own a G-sync/Freesync monitor in the future. And they'll upgrade their cards that run them. VSync is outdated needs to go.

I agree you shouldn't tie physics to framerate. But VSYNC works just fine if your graphics card can run games above your monitor's refresh rate without dipping below the refresh rate in FPS ever. It basically locks your FPS to your refresh rate. I game in 1080p on a 60hz monitor, and I use VSYNC to basically lock my framerate at a solid 60fps. You can eliminate nearly all input lag too if you just turn off Triple Frame Buffering. If your card is always cranking out FPS above the refresh rate, you don't need Triple Buffering on anyway.

1. FO4 is literally too far in development to make that change. It goes live on Nov. 11th. If they implement that change now, they have to push back the release date, and WILL loose money if not go over budget.

2. Everyone might have it in the future. But right now, a lot of people don't, and it's not guaranteed that everyone will upgrade. If the game requires a technology that isn't common, that will hurt short-term sales, no two ways about it. And short-term sales after release is where companies get back their investment. Two or three spectacular release-day failures in a row can bury a company, even if game sales afterwards are steady.

And then there's all the people who have systems that don't even clear the refresh rate.

(I know that I was quite happy playing Skyrim with various graphics mods - textures/meshes/ENB/etc - that dropped my FPS from the ~50 I got in vanilla to 35-40. Played just fine.)

Yeah, VSYNC can get a little janky if you can't clear the refresh rate, but I still prefer it to screen tearing.

Really? So those are going to become standards on TVs?

I do really miss the days of PC gaming pushing the envelope in gameplay and really pushing the hardware manufacturers to bigger and better things and when Moore's Law actually meant something within the computing/gaming community. Virtually every 'AAA' release required an upgrade of something (usually your graphics card), though in those days they weren't called 'AAA' lol. And virtually every release was a wow, look how much better that looks/plays than what we were playing 9 months ago, or so.

Unfortunately these days we are stuck in a gaming world being overpowered by (outdated by PC's standards) consoles and the mighty dollar.

folks, turning off vsync is in your graphic card's settings, what's the problem?

I personally hated those days.

I LIKE the way the current console generation sort of "locks" graphics requirements on PC games. Because, you know, I like having money, and being able to build an insane, overpowered rig and have it devour all games like a deathclaw on a molerat. And keep doing that for 4-5 years.

Besides, we can't MAKE the leaps we use to be able to in graphics. We've hit a plateau where graphics have become so good we can only improve them in small steps instead of the giant leaps of yesteryear.

Right there with you.

Look, I don't care if your system IS rocking an ASUS Rampage V Extreme mobo with a Core I-7 5960X, 64GB DDR4 RAM, Four Titan X's in SLI and Four 1TB SSD's in Raid 10, pushing three 4K G-sync monitors, not everyone has $10k to throw at Fallout 4, so don't expect Fallout 4 to give your system a workout.

This is a MASSIVE change. It will NOT be made between now and the release in November. If Fallout 4 does ship without a reliance on VSync, it will be a result of something that BGS did TWO years ago and NOT a request made today.

Do you actually believe that?

They could delay the game another year and still make more money than they spent on developing and marketing it.

I believe that the game is mostly done, especially in regards to it's basic operation, and they're certainly not going to delay it to make minor (but possibly time-consuming) changes. Especially in regards to things that are only important to very small fractions of the playerbase.

Only thing that would delay it at this point is if something major was spectacularly broken. (Actually broken, as in game doesn't function for many. Not annoying bugs for a few people.)

No, they won't. First, they'd have to alter the engine. Then they'd have to make sure that the change did't break anything. If it did, they have to go back and fix that. Depending on what and how much breaks, that could easily set the release date a year or two back. At which point, to stay competitive, they need to improve the graphics, which could push the release date another six months away, if not more. People are complaining about the "bad" graphics of FO4 RIGHT NOW. Think they'll be any good two and a half years from now?

This is not a simple feature that can be added in post. It alters a major component of the engine, and there's less than five months of work left to make the game ready.

Of course, they would still make a profit.

You do understand, that profit alone is meaningless. A company also requires a net positive cash flow to remain viable, and delaying a product only serves to reduce positive cash flow and increase negative cash flow.