By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
theprof00 on 21 February 2010
Edit Thread
johnsobas said:
theprof00 said:
johnsobas said:
are people honestly that lazy? It just blows my mind that it really bothers people that much. Maybe if the game was more than 3 discs it would start to get annoying, but any game that is over 10 hours and 3 discs or under i don't see any reason to make such a big fuss over it. Do people honestly spend 4 hours without getting off the couch?

the argument isn't that it is a big deal, the argument is that it's better.


well of course it is better, nobody in here is arguing that, nobody.  The problem is that when we're talking about blu-ray, something that made the ps3 cost way more than it would have otherwise and lost Sony boat loads of money disc swapping seems like an extremely petty thing to do in comparison.

this was from the OP:

I’ve seen some of the recent debate over which is the better multi-platform (Xbox 360 and PS3) version, using the number of DVD's to a single Blu-ray as a factor of argument on this site.  Sadly, it has been blown out of proportion for the most part, and there is a reality everyone needs to face.

  

It’s just a fact that one disc as opposed to several is a convenience no matter how small of a convenience it is.  And do some blow it out of proportion?  Yes.  But what’s even more annoying is the “we’ve changed discs before back in the past” argument.

 

-yes, nobody is arguing over it here. But everywhere else they do. I think the part that annoys jordahn the most is that people say "we don't care, it's what we're used to", but in reality, everyone would prefer 1 disc (or even less!).

 

I think it's great myself. It's nothing to write home about, but it's also just one example of many downplaying the ps3 features. Like I wrote above, the same people will say, "there is no difference between SD and HD" or "buying rechargeable batteries is just as good as having a rechargeable controller".