Mr Puggsly said:
libellule said:
Mr Puggsly said:
libellule said:
because if the problem is unknow then there is no problem
it is like RRoD : if you already bought the console, then YOU are fucked but, what matters, is that your money is on MS wallet ... so no problem for MS
what matters is MS, not you.
How many Arcade user are aware of this problem ? not many ==> so no problem !
|
Your RRoD analogy is stupid. If it wasn't a problem for MS, they wouldn't have lost over a billion fixing consoles.
Perhaps MS could have slapped a disclaimer on each package saying a HDD is required for online co-op campaign. WIth that logic, Sony should slap a sticker on every PS3 box saying, "Does not play PS2 games anymore." We don't want any consumers confused.
|
wait,
when you buy a game, you expect to be fully able to play it. SO YES, MS should have made a disclamer. I agree.
For Sony, at the opposite, you dont buy a PS3 to play PS2 game. So, if it is not precised, then, he doesnt play them !
And yes, the RRoD analogy is OK. Because they have tried, during some time, to hide it while they were completely aware of this shit.
|
There is a disclaimer on the box. It says some features may require additional hardware.
If you think Reach should have a disclaimer, than the PS3 should as well. It should say, "No longer plays PS2 games" or "Requires addional console to play PS2 games." I mean it plays PS1 games, PS2 is available on some, and ofcourse it plays PS3 games. I'm sure plenty of people were confused by this.
No, your RRoD analogy is dumb. RRoD was not part of the design. Requiring a hard drive for Reach to do a single online feature was.
|
yeah, you are right for the RRoD too.
But, your PS3 analogy is dumb too. Is it written "play PS2 games" on the PS3 box ? If yes, you are right, if no, then u are wrong
