Assassin's Creed 3 coming on two discs on X360!

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#201 Posted by The_Game21x (26342 posts) -

Just came back from being out all day and found this thread ended up in 10 pages. :lol:

Yep, lems are on to something... Always trying to defend their inferior console.

GamerwillzPS

Still trying to justify that PS3 purchase I see.

Don't worry, you'll find a reason someday. :wink:

#202 Posted by Puckhog04 (22606 posts) -

Does it matter? This is old...the next gen starts soon. Get over it.

#203 Posted by DeadMan1290 (15502 posts) -
It takes all of 10 seconds to swap a disc. It takes hours for mandatory installs to play PS3 games. Cows are just showing how desperate they are for anything to claim ownage over in a year where PS3 has zero quality exclusives.JohnnyCageMK
Agree.
#204 Posted by Phazevariance (10936 posts) -

[QUOTE="Plagueless"]

[QUOTE="GamerwillzPS"]

Link.

I've argued with Lems saying the reason that DVD was a big mistake from Microsoft and they refused. Now look at this! :lol:

It's getting out of hand now.

AdobeArtist

How was MS supposed to put something in their console that didn't exist at the time? :roll:

Even with DVD, swapping discs>>>mandatory installs. I like my limited hard drive space for my console to be used for what I want, not for huge GB worth of installs for games that get played once.

What are you talking about? Stand alone Blu Ray players were already on the market in 2005. It's only the PS3 that launched a year later.

yes but those were 1x drives. Not fast enough to run games with decent load times. Even the faster ps3 bluray drive is too slow. So your logic am fail.
#205 Posted by Cheleman (7616 posts) -
Swapping disc is such a turn off here and now, you know... 2012:lol::P Talk about next gen consoles huh :lol: MS needs one... And Fast:P
#206 Posted by Puckhog04 (22606 posts) -

[QUOTE="JohnnyCageMK"]It takes all of 10 seconds to swap a disc. It takes hours for mandatory installs to play PS3 games. Cows are just showing how desperate they are for anything to claim ownage over in a year where PS3 has zero quality exclusives.DeadMan1290
Agree.

To a degree...most installs on PS3 take less than 10 minutes unless it's an MMO (DC Universe). Only one thats above that length of time I can think of is DMC4...and that was nearly a launch game.

#207 Posted by CaseyWegner (70104 posts) -

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

why is it a problem?

tormentos

So is not on your eyes having to switch disc on Mass Effect 3 as much as 10 times.?

that many times? :?

#208 Posted by AdobeArtist (22824 posts) -

[QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

[QUOTE="Plagueless"]

How was MS supposed to put something in their console that didn't exist at the time? :roll:

Even with DVD, swapping discs>>>mandatory installs. I like my limited hard drive space for my console to be used for what I want, not for huge GB worth of installs for games that get played once.

Phazevariance

What are you talking about? Stand alone Blu Ray players were already on the market in 2005. It's only the PS3 that launched a year later.

yes but those were 1x drives. Not fast enough to run games with decent load times. Even the faster ps3 bluray drive is too slow. So your logic am fail.

Of course slow drive speed is the reason HDD installs are required to aid running the game. But the point was, plagueless is saying X360 couldn't have used BR because that technology "didn't exist at time of 360's launch" Which is completely false.

That said, DVD is the better choice this generation because faster drives means that while HDD installs are an option, aren't actually required (and we're not dealing with level instalations midway either), where the space limitations of DVD are easily remedied with an extra disc. And as stated, disc swapping takes significantly less time than mandatory installs.

faster drive speed >> extra storage space

#209 Posted by CaseyWegner (70104 posts) -

[QUOTE="Phazevariance"][QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

What are you talking about? Stand alone Blu Ray players were already on the market in 2005. It's only the PS3 that launched a year later.

AdobeArtist

yes but those were 1x drives. Not fast enough to run games with decent load times. Even the faster ps3 bluray drive is too slow. So your logic am fail.

Of course slow drive speed is the reason HDD installs are required to aid running the game. But the point was, plagueless is saying X360 couldn't have used BR because that technology "didn't exist at time of 360's launch" Which is completely false.

That said, DVD is the better choice this generation because faster drives means that while HDD installs are an option, aren't actually required (and we're not dealing with level instalations midway either), where the space limitations are easily remedied with an extra disc. And as stated, disc swapping takes significantly less time than mandatory installs.

did you get my PM, adobe?

#210 Posted by Stevo_the_gamer (42638 posts) -

Yeah, but no one made a big fuss out of it for M$ in USA to actually acknowlegde the problems, it took a watchdog from a small population of 16 million people to actually get things done. I'm sure the xbox slim has fixed that problem mostly, but that video is still accurate. If you own a old 360, that miracilously hasn't RROD yet (I believe Jasper and Falcon models), it scratches discs while being STATIONARY. This myth of a xbox not scratching discs has to go. For starters,

I can't even believe a consumer would buy a product that DESTROYS a $60 investment when it slightly moves or shocks. The slims even have a warning-sticker ffs. That aside, I can't even believe the apologists saying it's okay if you don't move it. A product should not destroy your discs AT ALL.

And my PS2 games still work fine, they have small scratches...but this only is a testament to how easily it could go wrong with DVD(9).

DrTrafalgarLaw

Because it was a minor issue that occurred on an ad-hoc basis. The RROD issue was far more severe at the time, and that warranted precedent among any other concerns. Remember, we're talking about launch systems here in that video and at the time of the video--each launch system having varying DVD drives from I believe it was three manufacturers. The DVD drive was the least of the worries. I never had any issues with this with my launch Xbox 360's drive all the way till 2010 before I switched to the new Xbox 360 S. All my disks are in superb condition besides my original Call of Duty 2 disk which the inner ring broke after wear because of the shoddy disk-case system. Luckily, Microsoft replaced that disk of mine with the GOTY version.

Every product has limitations, I wouldn't game on my consoles consistently on the carpet, or in an enclosed environment because that would--in affect--eventually destroy the systems. In all honesty, you are grasping here.

#211 Posted by siLVURcross (26106 posts) -
Multiple discs, that takes me back.
#212 Posted by AdobeArtist (22824 posts) -

[QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

[QUOTE="Phazevariance"] yes but those were 1x drives. Not fast enough to run games with decent load times. Even the faster ps3 bluray drive is too slow. So your logic am fail.CaseyWegner

Of course slow drive speed is the reason HDD installs are required to aid running the game. But the point was, plagueless is saying X360 couldn't have used BR because that technology "didn't exist at time of 360's launch" Which is completely false.

That said, DVD is the better choice this generation because faster drives means that while HDD installs are an option, aren't actually required (and we're not dealing with level instalations midway either), where the space limitations are easily remedied with an extra disc. And as stated, disc swapping takes significantly less time than mandatory installs.

did you get my PM, adobe?

which one? just resend it to me.

#213 Posted by mems_1224 (46606 posts) -
why is this a big deal again? oh yea, cows are so desperate to "win" at something they have to grasp at any straw they can
#214 Posted by GamerwillzPS (8530 posts) -

Had a read through this thread and I have to say that lems' responses are hilarious! "Bu bu bu bu but you cows have mandatory installs!111!!!11"

Think about the PC. The PS3 does something similar to PC - install the games in the hard drive and then that's it, never have to worry about disc swapping again. On the 360, you'll swap the discs ALL THE TIME. PS3 even have upgradeable hard drive which allows you to take up to 2TB, so what's the big deal with all your "mandatory installs" garbage?

Lems, stop the denial and look at the facts. :lol:

#215 Posted by CaseyWegner (70104 posts) -

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

[QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

Of course slow drive speed is the reason HDD installs are required to aid running the game. But the point was, plagueless is saying X360 couldn't have used BR because that technology "didn't exist at time of 360's launch" Which is completely false.

That said, DVD is the better choice this generation because faster drives means that while HDD installs are an option, aren't actually required (and we're not dealing with level instalations midway either), where the space limitations are easily remedied with an extra disc. And as stated, disc swapping takes significantly less time than mandatory installs.

AdobeArtist

did you get my PM, adobe?

which one? just resend it to me.

done. thanks.

#216 Posted by Stevo_the_gamer (42638 posts) -
PS3 even have upgradeable hard drive which allows you to take up to 2TB, so what's the big deal with all your "mandatory installs" garbage?

Lems, stop the denial and look at the facts. :lol:

GamerwillzPS
So you need to purchase an accessory in order to fully play lots of games? That's ironic.
#217 Posted by delta3074 (17906 posts) -

Had a read through this thread and I have to say that lems' responses are hilarious! "Bu bu bu bu but you cows have mandatory installs!111!!!11"

Think about the PC. The PS3 does something similar to PC - install the games in the hard drive and then that's it, never have to worry about disc swapping again. On the 360, you'll swap the discs ALL THE TIME. PS3 even have upgradeable hard drive which allows you to take up to 2TB, so what's the big deal with all your "mandatory installs" garbage?

Lems, stop the denial and look at the facts. :lol:

GamerwillzPS
your whole point was destroyed by the very article you posted, the article itself states that there will be no disk changing during the actual game 'Pressed on whether Assassin's Creed 3 simply comprises a one-time disc-swap half-way through the game, Cooper added: "No, it's not even that. We won't talk about how it's done... but don't worry about it, you won't be jumping back and forth."' So if it's not even a one time disc swap halfway through the game there is no disk swaaping within the game itself, i suggest you look at Resident evil 6, the second disk is only required if you don't understand english, andd you obviously have no reading comprehension, people where talking about the time issue with mandatory installs not the space issue, it takes longer for a mandatory install than it does to change a disk= FACT, and you can fully install your games to the 360 just like the PC which is far more similar to the PC than mandatory installs,lol
#218 Posted by CaseyWegner (70104 posts) -

Had a read through this thread and I have to say that lems' responses are hilarious! "Bu bu bu bu but you cows have mandatory installs!111!!!11"

Think about the PC. The PS3 does something similar to PC - install the games in the hard drive and then that's it, never have to worry about disc swapping again. On the 360, you'll swap the discs ALL THE TIME. PS3 even have upgradeable hard drive which allows you to take up to 2TB, so what's the big deal with all your "mandatory installs" garbage?

Lems, stop the denial and look at the facts. :lol:

GamerwillzPS

how about from somebody who's not a lemming? you ask "what's the big deal about mandatory installs" but honestly what's the big deal about disc swapping? it takes next to no time at all and it's not like you have to do it in the middle of a boss fight. it's usually at an appropriate time.

#219 Posted by GamerwillzPS (8530 posts) -

[QUOTE="GamerwillzPS"]PS3 even have upgradeable hard drive which allows you to take up to 2TB, so what's the big deal with all your "mandatory installs" garbage?

Lems, stop the denial and look at the facts. :lol:

Stevo_the_gamer

So you need to purchase an accessory in order to fully play lots of games? That's ironic.

Prepare to get owned.

:cool:

Oh the horror! Let's your denial begin... or you can go and make some charts... to help yourself to sleep better tonight, son. :P

#220 Posted by coasterguy65 (5883 posts) -

[QUOTE="Plagueless"]

[QUOTE="GamerwillzPS"]

Link.

I've argued with Lems saying the reason that DVD was a big mistake from Microsoft and they refused. Now look at this! :lol:

It's getting out of hand now.

GamerwillzPS

How was MS supposed to put something in their console that didn't exist at the time? :roll:

Even with DVD, swapping discs>>>mandatory installs. I like my limited hard drive space for my console to be used for what I want, not for huge GB worth of installs for games that get played once.

Talking about ignorance... Read what AdobeArtist said.

Actually the Xbox 360 released November 2005, the first commercially available Blu-ray drive released in June 2006. Although there were prototypes around since 2003. Microsoft probably could have included one if they really wanted to spend the money on an unproven technology. I doubt it was worth the risk to them. Sony only included the player in the PS3 because they were pushing their own format.

I do think that MS should have put a Blu-ray drive in the 360S when it came out though. They should have pulled a Wii-U. Beefed the 360 up a little, added blu-ray, and wireless networking, and changed the SKU. That being said DVD was hardly a mistake. It allowed the 360 to launch cheaper, and stay cheaper for most of the generation. Other than a few games recently one DVD has been more than enough for most of this generation. A generation that I'm sure no one expected to last this damn long. Also swapping a disc once during a game is really no big deal, well except to PS3 fanboys that is.

#221 Posted by WilliamRLBaker (28360 posts) -

[QUOTE="Phazevariance"][QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

What are you talking about? Stand alone Blu Ray players were already on the market in 2005. It's only the PS3 that launched a year later.

AdobeArtist

yes but those were 1x drives. Not fast enough to run games with decent load times. Even the faster ps3 bluray drive is too slow. So your logic am fail.

Of course slow drive speed is the reason HDD installs are required to aid running the game. But the point was, plagueless is saying X360 couldn't have used BR because that technology "didn't exist at time of 360's launch" Which is completely false.

That said, DVD is the better choice this generation because faster drives means that while HDD installs are an option, aren't actually required (and we're not dealing with level instalations midway either), where the space limitations of DVD are easily remedied with an extra disc. And as stated, disc swapping takes significantly less time than mandatory installs.

faster drive speed >> extra storage space

actually when 360 was in R&D no bluray didnt exist in the consumer market which is the time when they would have put it in during its R&D.
#222 Posted by Stevo_the_gamer (42638 posts) -

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"][QUOTE="GamerwillzPS"]PS3 even have upgradeable hard drive which allows you to take up to 2TB, so what's the big deal with all your "mandatory installs" garbage?

Lems, stop the denial and look at the facts. :lol:

GamerwillzPS

So you need to purchase an accessory in order to fully play lots of games? That's ironic.

Prepare to get owned.

:cool:

Oh the horror! Let's your denial begin... or you can go and make some charts... to help yourself to sleep better tonight, son. :P

That was quite the sidestep. That wasn't even in the ballpark of a retort, you're barely in the parking lot across town.
#223 Posted by Gxgear (10425 posts) -

[QUOTE="GamerwillzPS"]

Had a read through this thread and I have to say that lems' responses are hilarious! "Bu bu bu bu but you cows have mandatory installs!111!!!11"

Think about the PC. The PS3 does something similar to PC - install the games in the hard drive and then that's it, never have to worry about disc swapping again. On the 360, you'll swap the discs ALL THE TIME. PS3 even have upgradeable hard drive which allows you to take up to 2TB, so what's the big deal with all your "mandatory installs" garbage?

Lems, stop the denial and look at the facts. :lol:

CaseyWegner

how about from somebody who's not a lemming? you ask "what's the big deal about mandatory installs" but honestly what's the big deal about disc swapping? it takes next to no time at all and it's not like you have to do it in the middle of a boss fight. it's usually at an appropriate time.

It is painfully annoying, from my recent experiences with redeeming golden keys on Borderlands 2.

#224 Posted by Haziqonfire (36344 posts) -
Changing discs is too hard.
#225 Posted by drinkerofjuice (3169 posts) -

I like disc swapping. It makes me feel like I'm in for something special. But that's partially due to them Squaresoft RPGs years back.

#226 Posted by caseypayne69 (5388 posts) -
Just sucks for the producer because he has to sale the game at the same $59 whether it's one disc or three. He has to pay for the extra discs.
#227 Posted by -Patrick_92- (2168 posts) -

As someone who will be buying his copy on PS3 anyway, this is so stupid to act like this is ownage. It's just a minor inconvenience, not a big deal.

#228 Posted by tagyhag (15867 posts) -
Always found it funny that people now complain about having 2 discs. You can tell those are the people that started gaming this gen and thus, are not important. :3 On an unrelated note, as a PC gamer, It has been a looooooooong time since I even needed ONE disc. So I guess PC wins?
#229 Posted by Silenthps (7275 posts) -

I own 150+ PC games that came on zero discs.

PS3 and 360 owners am cry!

Ly_the_Fairy

#230 Posted by Tessellation (8797 posts) -
yet is probably going to run and look better on 360 n thats going to make you butthurt.
#231 Posted by ShadowMoses900 (17081 posts) -

Yes DVD is outdated now. But that's not the only reason why the 360 version is inferior, it's also not getting the over an hours worth of extra content like the PS3 version. This means the people that buy the 360 version are not getting the full game, that's not very fair IMO.

In terms of performance and graphics, they will be identical so this is not that big of a deal really. But having your games on one disc is more conveinant and the fact that the 360 still needs mulitple discs in 2012 is a sign of it getting outdated.

I recommend the PS3 version because of the extra content and one disc is more convienant.

#232 Posted by MonsieurX (29579 posts) -

Yes DVD is outdated now. But that's not the only reason why the 360 version is inferior, it's also not getting the over an hours worth of extra content like the PS3 version. This means the people that buy the 360 version are not getting the full game, that's not very fair IMO.

In terms of performance and graphics, they will be identical so this is not that big of a deal really. But having your games on one disc is more conveinant and the fact that the 360 still needs mulitple discs in 2012 is a sign of it getting outdated.

I recommend the PS3 version because of the extra content and one disc is more convienant.

ShadowMoses900

As as multiplats,amiright?

#233 Posted by mems_1224 (46606 posts) -

Yes DVD is outdated now. But that's not the only reason why the 360 version is inferior, it's also not getting the over an hours worth of extra content like the PS3 version. This means the people that buy the 360 version are not getting the full game, that's not very fair IMO.

In terms of performance and graphics, they will be identical so this is not that big of a deal really. But having your games on one disc is more conveinant and the fact that the 360 still needs mulitple discs in 2012 is a sign of it getting outdated.

I recommend the PS3 version because of the extra content and one disc is more convienant.

ShadowMoses900
the extra content will probably be useless filler missions and not anything vital to the actual game.
#234 Posted by Tessellation (8797 posts) -
ohh because changing a disc takes so much effort.. keeps proving my theory..basement dwellers n fat asses :lol:
#235 Posted by TintedEyes (4769 posts) -
it's so sad this is so common nowadays, real shame.
#236 Posted by CaseyWegner (70104 posts) -

Yes DVD is outdated now. But that's not the only reason why the 360 version is inferior, it's also not getting the over an hours worth of extra content like the PS3 version. This means the people that buy the 360 version are not getting the full game, that's not very fair IMO.

In terms of performance and graphics, they will be identical so this is not that big of a deal really. But having your games on one disc is more conveinant and the fact that the 360 still needs mulitple discs in 2012 is a sign of it getting outdated.

I recommend the PS3 version because of the extra content and one disc is more convienant.

ShadowMoses900

mean, old sony?

#237 Posted by RR360DD (11622 posts) -

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"][QUOTE="GamerwillzPS"]PS3 even have upgradeable hard drive which allows you to take up to 2TB, so what's the big deal with all your "mandatory installs" garbage?

Lems, stop the denial and look at the facts. :lol:

GamerwillzPS

So you need to purchase an accessory in order to fully play lots of games? That's ironic.

Prepare to get owned.

:cool:

Oh the horror! Let's your denial begin... or you can go and make some charts... to help yourself to sleep better tonight, son. :P

Waoh, so 7 years into its lifecycle, and the 360 finally gets a game with a mandatory install. I'd say if anything, this is good timing. Just proves that Blu Ray wasn't needed this gen, and that only now, on the verge of next gen consoles being released, is more storage becoming necessary. The next Xbox will have blu-ray. Problem solved.

#238 Posted by ClassicRockFTW (994 posts) -

2 disks

as opposed to hours of installation of disk, downloads and updates.

#239 Posted by RR360DD (11622 posts) -

Yes DVD is outdated now. But that's not the only reason why the 360 version is inferior, it's also not getting the over an hours worth of extra content like the PS3 version. This means the people that buy the 360 version are not getting the full game, that's not very fair IMO.

In terms of performance and graphics, they will be identical so this is not that big of a deal really. But having your games on one disc is more conveinant and the fact that the 360 still needs mulitple discs in 2012 is a sign of it getting outdated.

I recommend the PS3 version because of the extra content and one disc is more convienant.

ShadowMoses900

"the fact that the 360 still needs mulitple discs in 2012 is a sign of it getting outdated."

Huh? You're wording is way off. What do you mean still? And whats 2012 got to do with it? Because no doubt there'll be a game down the line that requires more than 1 Blu Ray.

Multiple discs is not an issue, its just cows being stupid. The DVD has coped perfectly fine this gen, and the next xbox will have blu ray (when its actually needed) so no problem there.

#240 Posted by ShadowMoses900 (17081 posts) -

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

Yes DVD is outdated now. But that's not the only reason why the 360 version is inferior, it's also not getting the over an hours worth of extra content like the PS3 version. This means the people that buy the 360 version are not getting the full game, that's not very fair IMO.

In terms of performance and graphics, they will be identical so this is not that big of a deal really. But having your games on one disc is more conveinant and the fact that the 360 still needs mulitple discs in 2012 is a sign of it getting outdated.

I recommend the PS3 version because of the extra content and one disc is more convienant.

mems_1224

the extra content will probably be useless filler missions and not anything vital to the actual game.

Maybe, maybe not. Regardless the PS3 version gives you more for your money, if you have $60 and two products are identical but one gives you extra stuff, then why would any logical person turn it down? You should get the most for your money.

Lems made the same excuse you are using when Joker was on Batman Arkham Asylum. We all know how that turned out.

#241 Posted by ShadowMoses900 (17081 posts) -

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

Yes DVD is outdated now. But that's not the only reason why the 360 version is inferior, it's also not getting the over an hours worth of extra content like the PS3 version. This means the people that buy the 360 version are not getting the full game, that's not very fair IMO.

In terms of performance and graphics, they will be identical so this is not that big of a deal really. But having your games on one disc is more conveinant and the fact that the 360 still needs mulitple discs in 2012 is a sign of it getting outdated.

I recommend the PS3 version because of the extra content and one disc is more convienant.

CaseyWegner

mean, old sony?

It is not right that they stop extra content from being on the 360. Perhaps this is due to DVD being outdated and they can't fit the extra content on the disc, but the least they could do is give them a code they could download to get the extra content.

I don't think it's right Sony does that.

#242 Posted by CaseyWegner (70104 posts) -

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

Yes DVD is outdated now. But that's not the only reason why the 360 version is inferior, it's also not getting the over an hours worth of extra content like the PS3 version. This means the people that buy the 360 version are not getting the full game, that's not very fair IMO.

In terms of performance and graphics, they will be identical so this is not that big of a deal really. But having your games on one disc is more conveinant and the fact that the 360 still needs mulitple discs in 2012 is a sign of it getting outdated.

I recommend the PS3 version because of the extra content and one disc is more convienant.

ShadowMoses900

mean, old sony?

It is not right that they stop extra content from being on the 360. Perhaps this is due to DVD being outdated and they can't fit the extra content on the disc, but the least they could do is give them a code they could download to get the extra content.

I don't think it's right Sony does that.

considering it's already on two discs, storage isn't the issue. sony probably just made a deal.

#243 Posted by Tessellation (8797 posts) -
bonus content that is going to get ignored and yet the xbox 360 version is going to sell more :lol:
#244 Posted by ShadowMoses900 (17081 posts) -

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

mean, old sony?

CaseyWegner

It is not right that they stop extra content from being on the 360. Perhaps this is due to DVD being outdated and they can't fit the extra content on the disc, but the least they could do is give them a code they could download to get the extra content.

I don't think it's right Sony does that.

considering it's already on two discs, storage isn't the issue. sony probably just made a deal.

The way I see it, if it's the same game then just give everyone the same content. They pay full price for it, if the 360 version isn't going to get the content then they should lower the price of the 360 version. It makes sense.

#245 Posted by Cloud567kar (2656 posts) -

And im going to have none for PC woohooo!

#246 Posted by MonsieurX (29579 posts) -

[QUOTE="mems_1224"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

Yes DVD is outdated now. But that's not the only reason why the 360 version is inferior, it's also not getting the over an hours worth of extra content like the PS3 version. This means the people that buy the 360 version are not getting the full game, that's not very fair IMO.

In terms of performance and graphics, they will be identical so this is not that big of a deal really. But having your games on one disc is more conveinant and the fact that the 360 still needs mulitple discs in 2012 is a sign of it getting outdated.

I recommend the PS3 version because of the extra content and one disc is more convienant.

ShadowMoses900

the extra content will probably be useless filler missions and not anything vital to the actual game.

Maybe, maybe not. Regardless the PS3 version gives you more for your money, if you have $60 and two products are identical but one gives you extra stuff, then why would any logical person turn it down? You should get the most for your money.

Lems made the same excuse you are using when Joker was on Batman Arkham Asylum. We all know how that turned out.

But they are paying for 2 dvds,it's all good.
#247 Posted by ShadowMoses900 (17081 posts) -

bonus content that is going to get ignored and yet the xbox 360 version is going to sell more :lol:Tessellation

Ignored? I'm going to buy the game and play the extra content. So will every PS3 owner. I don't see your point.

And what does having more sales matter? How does that affect you? Here is your logic: "Oh PS3 guys get bonus stuff at no additional cost, but my copy will sell more so my version is better because it sells a little better".

Sales do not affect your enjoyment of game or not. This is terrible damage control, even for you.

#248 Posted by MonsieurX (29579 posts) -

[QUOTE="Tessellation"]bonus content that is going to get ignored and yet the xbox 360 version is going to sell more :lol:ShadowMoses900

Ignored? I'm going to buy the game and play the extra content. So will every PS3 owner. I don't see your point.

And what does having more sales matter? How does that affect you? Here is your logic: "Oh PS3 guys get bonus stuff at no additional cost, but my copy will sell more so my version is better because it sells a little better".

Sales do not affect your enjoyment of game or not. This is terrible damage control, even for you.

So you personally know every PS3 owners? How do you know they will even touch the extra content?
#249 Posted by marklarmer (3883 posts) -

Just came back from being out all day and found this thread ended up in 10 pages. :lol:

Yep, lems are on to something...Always trying to defend their inferior console.

GamerwillzPS

Mmm so inferior to the PS3 infact that it can't even play the Dawnguard DLC for Skyrim and barely skyrim itself.........oh wait. But as i've already pointed out that's just those darn 'lazy devs' again right? At least AC3 is being released on the 360 without a delay. Because its a relatively easy issue to get around.

#250 Posted by CaseyWegner (70104 posts) -

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

It is not right that they stop extra content from being on the 360. Perhaps this is due to DVD being outdated and they can't fit the extra content on the disc, but the least they could do is give them a code they could download to get the extra content.

I don't think it's right Sony does that.

ShadowMoses900

considering it's already on two discs, storage isn't the issue. sony probably just made a deal.

The way I see it, if it's the same game then just give everyone the same content. They pay full price for it, if the 360 version isn't going to get the content then they should lower the price of the 360 version. It makes sense.

definitely but that might seem like less of an incentive to get the ps3 version if you're a mutliplat owner. extra content has historically been nothing spectacular.