Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 57

Thread: What do you still think about ROTTB being an exclusive?

  1. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    17

    Default

    i actually still don't get what is the Timed exclusive mean? how long is the time? 1 month, 1 year? forever?

    for that i still pissed, I mean how long i have to wait? whatever i preorder the TR9 but this time i will just wait until rise of tomb raider PC version (if there is one) like 5 dollar to pull the trigger, it is like they make me wait for PC, I will let them wait for my money.

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    5,466

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by motoleo View Post
    You don't have to get an Xbox One. But if you want to play Tomb Raider, and the other next generation games coming out in 2015, you'll have to upgrade at some point.
    ok, so the ps4 is clearly better performance wise than the crapbox. so i would say that the crapbox is a downgrade towards the ps4 and pc.


    Quote Originally Posted by liujeffqi View Post
    i actually still don't get what is the Timed exclusive mean? how long is the time? 1 month, 1 year? forever?

    for that i still pissed, I mean how long i have to wait? whatever i preorder the TR9 but this time i will just wait until rise of tomb raider PC version (if there is one) like 5 dollar to pull the trigger, it is like they make me wait for PC, I will let them wait for my money.
    no one knows besides CD/SE and M$.
    but im sure it will take some time. M$ to make sure that they sell more crapboxes. they want to break everyone. knowing just too well how popular TR is.
    signature image

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    1,347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Metalrocks View Post
    ok, so the ps4 is clearly better performance wise than the crapbox. so i would say that the crapbox is a downgrade towards the ps4 and pc.




    no one knows besides CD/SE and M$.
    but im sure it will take some time. M$ to make sure that they sell more crapboxes. they want to break everyone. knowing just too well how popular TR is.
    Ok, we get your opinion of the Xbox One. You don't like it. Fair enough. You are never going to have anything good to say about it as a product. But you know what, lots of people do like it. More people have bought PS4's, that is true, but everyone has their reasons for buying a platform. A lot of people in my gaming community are increasingly disappointed with the PS4 experience and are selling them for Xbox Ones so graphics aren't everything and its a personal experience that is as important.

    MS want to make a short-term gain winning over casual buyers next Christmas. This deal isn't aimed at gamers who post on these kind of forums so of course no-one here is going to rush out and buy an Xbox One. It won't do either MS or SE any favours if they make the exclusivity period too long. As someone on the forum who works in the retail game industry has said, 90 days is the MAXIMUM period anyone would see any benefit to this kind of deal at retail so all those casual buyers in the Christmas market ARE the target. Why would SE want to push it for longer if after 90 days there is little or no return?

    People can be and can stay annoyed, but using reason to deduce a likely outcome seems to be ignored and countered with MS hate which just keeps people annoyed.
    Gamersrespawn 21+ Gaming Community Fun Play Enjoy Respect
    signature image

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    River Ridge, LA
    Posts
    1,749

    Default

    I would likely have an Xbox One if M$ hadn't pulled their shenanigans.
    I'm sure it's a good console, but it is my trepidation of the future that prevents me from getting one.

    However, if you would like to hear about the hypocrisy of some Xbox One gamers....over at the Bungie forums, Xbox One gamers are complaining about Destiny's prime content going to PS4, while they have to wait.

    Really?

    Microsoft engages in "content found on Xbox 360/One first" all the freaking time....so why are they complaining about Destiny's good stuff going to PS4/PS3 first?

    They're even decrying Bungie for doing so, since the Xbots are saying: 99 percent of your (Bungie) fanbase is on Xbox! Why are you turning your backs on Xbox players and giving Sony all the love?

    And you wouldn't believe how many people are saying the same thing I always have: Bungie got out from under M$'s thumb.
    Shanghai! Hong Kong! Egg Fu Yung! Fortune cookie always wrong!

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    1,347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Martok View Post
    I would likely have an Xbox One if M$ hadn't pulled their shenanigans.
    I'm sure it's a good console, but it is my trepidation of the future that prevents me from getting one.

    However, if you would like to hear about the hypocrisy of some Xbox One gamers....over at the Bungie forums, Xbox One gamers are complaining about Destiny's prime content going to PS4, while they have to wait.

    Really?

    Microsoft engages in "content found on Xbox 360/One first" all the freaking time....so why are they complaining about Destiny's good stuff going to PS4/PS3 first?

    They're even decrying Bungie for doing so, since the Xbots are saying: 99 percent of your (Bungie) fanbase is on Xbox! Why are you turning your backs on Xbox players and giving Sony all the love?

    And you wouldn't believe how many people are saying the same thing I always have: Bungie got out from under M$'s thumb.
    Exactly! Its the same thing. Sony did a deal. MS didn't. Fans of any game on any platform would be unhappy about such a deal. This situation isn't just exclusive to RotTR. Xboxers are unhappy but they'll get the content eventually. In this case its a lot longer than people will be waiting for RotTR on PS4 and PC. I would be more annoyed about Destiny's poor storyline though and paying 20 quid for measly DLC.
    Gamersrespawn 21+ Gaming Community Fun Play Enjoy Respect
    signature image

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bournemouth, UK
    Posts
    5,325

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tecstar70 View Post
    Exactly! Its the same thing...
    Is it though? I mean, a game does not equate to DLC. Well, it might to MS, but not to actual people

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    5,466

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tecstar70 View Post
    Ok, we get your opinion of the Xbox One. You don't like it. Fair enough. You are never going to have anything good to say about it as a product. But you know what, lots of people do like it. More people have bought PS4's, that is true, but everyone has their reasons for buying a platform. A lot of people in my gaming community are increasingly disappointed with the PS4 experience and are selling them for Xbox Ones so graphics aren't everything and its a personal experience that is as important.

    MS want to make a short-term gain winning over casual buyers next Christmas. This deal isn't aimed at gamers who post on these kind of forums so of course no-one here is going to rush out and buy an Xbox One. It won't do either MS or SE any favours if they make the exclusivity period too long. As someone on the forum who works in the retail game industry has said, 90 days is the MAXIMUM period anyone would see any benefit to this kind of deal at retail so all those casual buyers in the Christmas market ARE the target. Why would SE want to push it for longer if after 90 days there is little or no return?

    People can be and can stay annoyed, but using reason to deduce a likely outcome seems to be ignored and countered with MS hate which just keeps people annoyed.
    but i think you have to agree that what M$s original plan was with the box is wrong. trying everything possible to convince people its not as bad as it sounds. in the end they were forced to change their plans since sony clearly was the winner.
    and now this stunt with being exclusive is just another desperate attempt to sell their product. not that i blame them for it but still aggravating regardless.

    of course now with xmas coming up, they would sell more boxes. there are enough people out there who have idea about the original idea of M$ or simply dont care.
    signature image

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Rhode Island, USA
    Posts
    496

    Default

    I feel like they should have gone a different route, not MS personally but in general. Like all the systems get the game but each system gets their own DLC or something and maybe one can be better than the other, such as awesome outfits or weapons to make people want to get it. This may just be me speaking, because I don't have an XBox but I don't have a PS4 yet either.
    signature image

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,227

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lara_Fan_84 View Post
    I feel like they should have gone a different route, not MS personally but in general. Like all the systems get the game but each system gets their own DLC or something and maybe one can be better than the other, such as awesome outfits or weapons to make people want to get it.
    Eh... That would be a pretty bad idea.

    If Crystal D really needs this money I'd say they should have tried to make a deal with another company that is not game related, but who's product will then appear in the game. Product placement in other words. Like Legend was sponsored by Ducati and thus the motorcycle and the biker clothing were from Ducati.

    The reason why I wouldn't mind - and in fact even would like, believe it or not - product placement, if done right and kept within reasonable bounds, is that it makes the game feel more connected to the actual world, when stuff from the real world appears in the game... Like the reference to Gordon Ramsey did as well.

    So if Lara would go to a bar and drink a bottle of Coca Cola there, at least three people would be happy: mister Coca Cola for having his product in the game and now everybody will start drinking Coca Cola as well after having seen Lara doing it - Crystal Dynamics, for having received a boatload of money from mister Coca Cola to make the game awesome - and me, for having a reference to a real world thing in the game, as well as having a more awesome game that Crystal Dynamics could make because of the boatload of money from mister Coca Cola.

    So who wouldn't be happy about that? Other than mister Pepsi...

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    5,466

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jurre View Post
    Eh... That would be a pretty bad idea.

    If Crystal D really needs this money I'd say they should have tried to make a deal with another company that is not game related, but who's product will then appear in the game. Product placement in other words. Like Legend was sponsored by Ducati and thus the motorcycle and the biker clothing were from Ducati.

    The reason why I wouldn't mind - and in fact even would like, believe it or not - product placement, if done right and kept within reasonable bounds, is that it makes the game feel more connected to the actual world, when stuff from the real world appears in the game... Like the reference to Gordon Ramsey did as well.

    So if Lara would go to a bar and drink a bottle of Coca Cola there, at least three people would be happy: mister Coca Cola for having his product in the game and now everybody will start drinking Coca Cola as well after having seen Lara doing it - Crystal Dynamics, for having received a boatload of money from mister Coca Cola to make the game awesome - and me, for having a reference to a real world thing in the game, as well as having a more awesome game that Crystal Dynamics could make because of the boatload of money from mister Coca Cola.

    So who wouldn't be happy about that? Other than mister Pepsi...

    like the idea and sounds better as well. even when i dont ride a bike and most likely never will, i had to smile when i saw ducati written on the bike.

    also in splinter cell 3 we had airwaves gum. even sam took one which was amusing as well. seeing any particular famous brand in a game is amusing at times. ho knows, maybe we could see a jeep product in a future TR game.
    signature image

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    River Ridge, LA
    Posts
    1,749

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tecstar70 View Post
    Exactly! Its the same thing. Sony did a deal. MS didn't. Fans of any game on any platform would be unhappy about such a deal. This situation isn't just exclusive to RotTR. Xboxers are unhappy but they'll get the content eventually. In this case its a lot longer than people will be waiting for RotTR on PS4 and PC. I would be more annoyed about Destiny's poor storyline though and paying 20 quid for measly DLC.
    Well, not necessarily. Remember, Bungie was a "first party developer" for M$. Bungie might have dev'd the game, but M$ maintained almost total control.

    Now, Bungie is a third party dev who can seek out their own choice of publisher and make their own deals. I think their giving exclusive content to Sony was sort of their middle finger to M$.
    Shanghai! Hong Kong! Egg Fu Yung! Fortune cookie always wrong!

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    1,347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Metalrocks View Post
    but i think you have to agree that what M$s original plan was with the box is wrong. trying everything possible to convince people its not as bad as it sounds. in the end they were forced to change their plans since sony clearly was the winner.
    and now this stunt with being exclusive is just another desperate attempt to sell their product. not that i blame them for it but still aggravating regardless.

    of course now with xmas coming up, they would sell more boxes. there are enough people out there who have idea about the original idea of M$ or simply dont care.
    MS screwed up at E3 2013 no doubt about that. Whatever market research they did was flawed (if indeed they did any!). They clearly did not have a good enough grip on what the consumer wanted and they paid the price.
    Looking at it objectively I think MS took a route that was too early for the marketplace. If you go diskless play, you have to have DRM otherwise everyone would share one disc and you wipe out the gaming market. That was the reason, as far as I can tell, for the always on approach. Now there may well have been other things tagged on to the always on DRM check, such as Family Sharing etc but the biggest stinker for me was the inability to sell your old games in the same way as we do now.

    I don't buy in to all that spying nonsense going over the level of what Google are already doing. I would be happy to go diskless play and have DRM checks for it, but not to the extreme of what MS were trying to do. Its funny because if Sony did it we would probably having the reverse conversation with Sony as the bad guy and MS as the white knight. If (for whatever mad reason) the marketplace embraced MS's approach Sony may well have been implementing it themselves.

    On your last two points, yes and yes!
    Last edited by Tecstar70; 11-03-2014 at 11:19 AM.
    Gamersrespawn 21+ Gaming Community Fun Play Enjoy Respect
    signature image

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    1,347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Martok View Post
    Well, not necessarily. Remember, Bungie was a "first party developer" for M$. Bungie might have dev'd the game, but M$ maintained almost total control.

    Now, Bungie is a third party dev who can seek out their own choice of publisher and make their own deals. I think their giving exclusive content to Sony was sort of their middle finger to M$.
    So by doing something because they wanted to they have angered a large number of fans and Xbox owners, and they did it despite that.

    Sounds familiar to me!
    Gamersrespawn 21+ Gaming Community Fun Play Enjoy Respect
    signature image

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    River Ridge, LA
    Posts
    1,749

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tecstar70 View Post
    So by doing something because they wanted to they have angered a large number of fans and Xbox owners, and they did it despite that.

    Sounds familiar to me!
    Well.... Perhaps I should've ended with "in my humble opinion". Only Bungie knows why Bungie did what Bungie did. . But it seems logical enough.

    In truth, Bungie tried to do something so radical with Destiny that gamers on all consoles are rather irked that they felt like they didn't get the game they were promised.

    -"If you can see it, you can get to it.". Meaning if you saw something in the landscape, you could get to it and interact with it. Scale tall buildings, etc. That has not proven to be the case.

    -"Become Legend!" Well, the story mode seemed (for some) to be very bare bones. The special missions, raids, and strikes are nothing more than elements of story missions you've already played through, but harder, with more mutators (Mission parameters that make the mission harder), with raids requiring a minimum of 3 players in a fireteam. However, I am thinking that the "Become Legend" aspect lies largely with its raids and competitive online multiplayer.....and that's stretching ita bit.

    -Vast and rewarding loot system. More like random and often frustrating reward and loot system. Thanks to some gamers exploiting the original loot system, which had them basically waiting outside of caves for a loot chest to appear, and grab potentially high value gear, and ending up with more HVG than Bungie had planned, Bungie made a patch to reduce those probabilities considerably. Also, before a recent patch, the reward system was frustratingly random. You could get a Legendary engram (high value), and only get a Rare, or lesser valued weapon or piece of armor....or a piece of currency that you couldn't use until later. Now, with the patch, an engram WILL yield an equivalent (or rarely better) item, or good currency. However, the probabilities are far less now. Honestly, I have not done too badly at all in the many hours I've put into the game, and I never used any glitches or exploits. I have all Legendary and Exotic weapons and armor. I have 5 Exotic (best quality) weapons of across all levels (Primary, Special, and Heavy), and three Exotic helmets. Everything else, weapons and armor, is Legendary (second best quality).

    Gamers also keep complaining about an unbalanced weapons system....how it seems almost too much like "rock, paper, scissors", and not enough like "how good are you with a given weapon". Now, good weapons are getting "nerfed" (reduced in effectiveness). However, two weapons I despise in multiplayer are sniper rifles (which, in real-life, are not run'n'gun weapons, even though I know this is just a video game). And yet cowardly players use them for their stand-off, often "one hit kill" capabilities, or will run around with them, getting close enough to players that they just squeeze the trigger when in an enemy player's face, without aiming down scope, and getting the one hit kill. And shotguns, which are ridiculously powerful and twitchy. Players will run around with them, just twitch firing them at point blank range, and getting one hit kills cheaply. At least the weapons I userequire a modicum of skill, and I can take actual pride in the kills I score. . However, even though I feel strongly about snipers and shotties, I do not complain to the Bungie forums about them because I can usually hold my own in multiplayer. The key is to keep practicing with your weapons of choice, and getting good with them so that the cheap players are not so much an irk to get your undies in a bundie about.


    Lots of players on all consoles have walked away from Destiny, dejected with its product. But most still stick with it, enjoying the multiplayer, and new players are constantly joining. However, I have a feeling when Call of Duty Advanced Warfare releases tomorrow, there'll be a fundamental shift of multiplayer power.


    Now, going back to the "sounds familiar" schtick.... I separate publishers into tiers. Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo are both "console manufacturers" and " publisher/developers". They are what I call "first tier". They are the ones using the golden rule to its fullest. ("He who has the gold makes the rules."). They are the ones who make the deals for exclusivity, and also negotiate deals for first party developers (Bungie--which is now its own developer, and 343 Studios for Microsoft, Naughty Dog and Guerilla Games for Sony, and whatever first party devs Nintendo has in its pockets,.) Why? They have consoles to sell.

    Then there are the "second tier" publishers like Atari and Sega. These companies used to be console manufacturers, and have now simply gone to publishing (and occasionally developing) games. From what I've seen, they are not targets of opportunity for "console exclusives" because of their middle ground, almost independent status. (personal observation only....not sure how factual that surmise is.)

    Then there are the "third tier" publishers.... Square Enix, Eidos, Activision, and EA Games come to mind....who were developers that grew into publishing. These are usually the ones that the "first tier" publishers will target because of the epic quality of the games they publish to try and get the third party exclusives. Right now, Square Enix/Crystal Dynamics' Rise of the Tomb Raider is the hot topic of contention among gamers regarding exclusivity for a title that is well known to be "cross-console".
    Last edited by Lord Martok; 11-03-2014 at 08:07 AM.
    Shanghai! Hong Kong! Egg Fu Yung! Fortune cookie always wrong!

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    1,347

    Default

    Thanks Martok. I get the distinction between the tiers. It's still a situation that's causing ire among fans of each franchise though, even if this distinction applies.

    Thanks also for your breakdown of Destiny. I am a late starter with a lot of games - I've only just bought Titanfall! (and loving it).

    I was very hyped for Destiny before it's release but as time goes on I am wondering if I should bother. People still say its a good game though, just not as great as expected.
    Gamersrespawn 21+ Gaming Community Fun Play Enjoy Respect
    signature image

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Mater Urbium
    Posts
    19,834

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tecstar70 View Post
    Its funny because if Sony did it we would probably having the reverse conversation.
    Completely baseless assumption. And most likely wrong.

    Driber.net | Forum Thumbnailer | Driber Wagon™ | RAWR! | TR Ancient Legends III - Lost Chambers | -- .- .-. .. . / .. ... / -.-. ..- - . :-)

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    1,347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Driber View Post
    Completely baseless assumption. And most likely wrong.
    What I meant was that we would be mad at Sony for trying to introduce DRM and not MS. Is that what you thought I meant? I have just re-read my post and maybe I wan't clear in that bit.
    Gamersrespawn 21+ Gaming Community Fun Play Enjoy Respect
    signature image

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Mater Urbium
    Posts
    19,834

    Default

    It indeed wasn't clear. From the way you phrased it, it seemed like you were claiming that Sony would have been praised for what MS has been hated for. I think the "reversed" part in particular threw me off. Thanks for clarifying, heh.

    Driber.net | Forum Thumbnailer | Driber Wagon™ | RAWR! | TR Ancient Legends III - Lost Chambers | -- .- .-. .. . / .. ... / -.-. ..- - . :-)

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    1,347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Driber View Post
    It indeed wasn't clear. From the way you phrased it, it seemed like you were claiming that Sony would have been praised for what MS has been hated for. I think the "reversed" part in particular threw me off. Thanks for clarifying, heh.
    No, sorry! That's what I thought you thought I meant! My wording wasn't great, I admit. I'll look to change it.
    Gamersrespawn 21+ Gaming Community Fun Play Enjoy Respect
    signature image

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    River Ridge, LA
    Posts
    1,749

    Default

    If Sony had tried all that stuff that M$ tried, and M$ didn't, I'd probably be playing Xbox One instead.
    But Sony still believes in gaming. M$ wants to be Big Brother.
    Last edited by Lord Martok; 11-03-2014 at 04:17 PM.
    Shanghai! Hong Kong! Egg Fu Yung! Fortune cookie always wrong!

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    1,347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Martok View Post
    But Sony still believes in gaming. M$ wants to be Big Brother.
    Depends what you mean by Big Brother. Whether you use the internet or not data is collected about you every day. Customer data is used to increase profits for most large organisations from the supermarket loyalty card to Google click throughs. I am pretty sure that Sony collect just as much data from their console users as MS do. They want to know whos buying what, when and how so they can maximise their store front.

    Of course if you are talking about the Kinect in terms of Big Brother, well I haven't been able to take any of the conspiracy theories seriously enough to worry about that. What about the PS camera? Are there similar conspiracy theories about that too?
    Last edited by Tecstar70; 11-04-2014 at 02:45 AM. Reason: spelling
    Gamersrespawn 21+ Gaming Community Fun Play Enjoy Respect
    signature image

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    River Ridge, LA
    Posts
    1,749

    Default

    Oh, I'm sure that there are as many CT's about Sony's eye camera. As there are for Xbox One's Kinect.

    Thing is, Sony didn't try to say, the Camera must be used with the PS4. M$ did try that...and folk were not happy about it.
    Shanghai! Hong Kong! Egg Fu Yung! Fortune cookie always wrong!

  23. #48
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    1,347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Martok View Post
    Oh, I'm sure that there are as many CT's about Sony's eye camera. As there are for Xbox One's Kinect.

    Thing is, Sony didn't try to say, the Camera must be used with the PS4. M$ did try that...and folk were not happy about it.
    That is true. I love the Kinect personally. It's not perfect but its a lot better than the first Kinect. Commands work well. "Xbox on" turns on my Xbox and TV and "Xbox Turn Off" turns them both off. "Record That" captures clips. "Mute" for when the phone goes. The auto-sign in is great and using it for Skype video calls with the family is great too. I can see why MS wanted it part of the Xbox experience but if people aren't concerned about this stuff I can also see why they view it as an unnecessary expense. Whether they make it more useful than the first version going forward we will see.
    Gamersrespawn 21+ Gaming Community Fun Play Enjoy Respect
    signature image

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tecstar70 View Post
    MS screwed up at E3 2013 no doubt about that. Whatever market research they did was flawed (if indeed they did any!). They clearly did not have a good enough grip on what the consumer wanted and they paid the price.
    Looking at it objectively I think MS took a route that was too early for the marketplace. If you go diskless play, you have to have DRM otherwise everyone would share one disc and you wipe out the gaming market. That was the reason, as far as I can tell, for the always on approach. Now there may well have been other things tagged on to the always on DRM check, such as Family Sharing etc but the biggest stinker for me was the inability to sell your old games in the same way as we do now.

    I don't buy in to all that spying nonsense going over the level of what Google are already doing. I would be happy to go diskless play and have DRM checks for it, but not to the extreme of what MS were trying to do. Its funny because if Sony did it we would probably having the reverse conversation with Sony as the bad guy and MS as the white knight. If (for whatever mad reason) the marketplace embraced MS's approach Sony may well have been implementing it themselves.

    On your last two points, yes and yes!
    You DO realize that diskless means 20-50GB downloads right?? Most of the top big budget games on PSN and Live are huge..with the state of broadband int he US (and potentially worse if the FCC allows ISP's to go usage payment routes which would effectively kill the downloading of games or streaming music or movies for the average person)
    Diskless is a bad idea any way you look at it

  25. #50
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    1,347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by medievil View Post
    You DO realize that diskless means 20-50GB downloads right?? Most of the top big budget games on PSN and Live are huge..with the state of broadband int he US (and potentially worse if the FCC allows ISP's to go usage payment routes which would effectively kill the downloading of games or streaming music or movies for the average person)
    Diskless is a bad idea any way you look at it
    Yes I am aware and you are right, for people without decent broadband this would be a nightmare. Even now despite broadband availability and the higher price of games over retail there are some people who do go diskless.
    Gamersrespawn 21+ Gaming Community Fun Play Enjoy Respect
    signature image

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •