wasnt it rockstar that sed themselves that becuase of the xbox 360 that cuts have to be made to grand theft auto due to the dvd9 and lack of hard drives on the consoles? thank you ms, very very much
wasnt it rockstar that sed themselves that becuase of the xbox 360 that cuts have to be made to grand theft auto due to the dvd9 and lack of hard drives on the consoles? thank you ms, very very much
starcraft said:
You blatantly ignored the crux of my point. By your logic, MS must have had a TONNE of leverage over TT, which means they probably got some AWESOME DLC. In any case, I thought you were getting this game for the 360?
|
Yeah, since it's all that I have.
I just love the principle of the fact that they could have paid to have another version turn out well.
While the crux of your argument is Rumor and Speculation, since R* doesn't want to release what the EEC is, while mine is truth and logic, since the PS3 has been stated the reason for delay, and the 50 million has been stated as truth.
leo-j said: What? Is this a joke? |
It's certainly a passive-agressive burn to MS fanboys, imo, lol.
I don't need your console war.
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor.
You're power hungry, spinnin' stories, and bein' graphics whores.
I don't need your console war.
NO NO, NO NO NO.
lol the 50m was not a loan it paid rtoo make the DLC exlusive......
at the same time thay shot them selfs on the foot :P
rockstar made the ps3 side run faster andlook better :)
and yes thank microsft for makeing impoisble for the next gta too come out on the 360 no HD and lack of dvd space :P
but hey you get too buy a new xbox in 2 years when the next exbox comes out.......
5 year life spand isnt bad right?
mgs4 will sell 2.4m week 1
japan:500k
others: 1m
NA:900k
AAA (90%+) games (metacritic):
nintendo:65
Xbox: 42
playstation: 98
DogWeed said: wasnt it rockstar that sed themselves that becuase of the xbox 360 that cuts have to be made to grand theft auto due to the dvd9 and lack of hard drives on the consoles? thank you ms, very very much |
Blame Rockstar for bringing the game to the 360 then if you truly believe that. They didn't have to develop the game for 360, but they did.
I believe I remember reading that the $50 million was *originally* to buy an exclusive window and when it finally came out that the game wasn't anywhere near ready for prime-time, R* changed the deal with MS to developing exclusive content... I may be wrong, though. If that is the case, then R* played MS for a complete fool. $50 million was probably more than the entire budget of the game so basically R* used MS's money to develop a game for both leading platforms... I believe it goes something like: outplay, outwit, outlast... or something like that. Well Played, R*.
They must be hating themselves right now! IGN gave BOTH the 360 & PS3 versions a 10, so the 360 MUST be in the inferior version.
And when it comes down to exclusive DLC for the 360 version... poor, poor MS...
Gesta Non Verba
Nocturnal is helping companies get cheaper game ratings in Australia:
Wii code: 2263 4706 2910 1099
shams said: They must be hating themselves right now! IGN gave BOTH the 360 & PS3 versions a 10, so the 360 MUST be in the inferior version. And when it comes down to exclusive DLC for the 360 version... poor, poor MS... |
PS3 fans can laugh all they like. 360 fans will be busy playing that DLC in the meantime. ^_^
shams said: They must be hating themselves right now! IGN gave BOTH the 360 & PS3 versions a 10, so the 360 MUST be in the inferior version. And when it comes down to exclusive DLC for the 360 version... poor, poor MS... |
Lol. Thats a good point huh? In the past, IGN have given different scores to different versions of games when they were better on the 360.
The difference here must be so minute if they still gave them the same (perfect) score.
starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS
Now there would be something to argue if the same game got a different review, but there isn't.
I don't like the attitude of this thread full stop.
Be thankful to Rockstar.