IGN review of San Andreas ( yes I just read it again to post here) states that the game takes 40-60 hours for the main story..( which gives you around 50% completion says the review)

Now you would think that if you believe their estimate for GTA4 you gotta take the one for San Andreas at face value too.

Now  last I checked 25-45 isn't anywhere between a quarter and a half of 40-60......

So make up your mind, either you take IGN at face value or you don't but stop trying to twist what they are saying to try to demonstrate what you want to in regards to the DLC.

So how about you get 100% completion in GTA4, 1000/1000 achievements and then you can come back post here and tell us how fast and easy it was and how eager you are to get the DLC because getting there was so fast and you more ...

He was talking about how someone had said that GTA4 was a game that would take 100 hours to complete.  Or something to that effect.  Even though it was pretty clear (at least to me) that he meant if you wanted to do everything there is in the game (get 100% completion).  Seriously, does anyone expect any game's main story to last 100 hours?  Even RPG's usually have tons of padding with extra side missions/quests/rare items.

You really have to like the GTA franchise to make the DLC the deciding factor to go with the 360 version. REALLY like the franchise because it's hedged upon the assumption (no one knows) that the content is worth waiting several months for as well as paying the DLC fee (which again, no one knows).

Considering I've never finished a GTA game before losing interest in it, the DLC just wouldn't be worth the extra cost to me personally, even though I've bought every GTA game since GTAIII. By Fall when the content is on XBL, there are several full games I'd much rather be playing by then anyway (on both the PS3 and the 360), not that I won't still enjoy the occasional romp through GTAIV for random violence and car chases.

Still waiting for the final word on which version is really smoother (fewer bugs/freezes, frame rate issues, load issues, etc), at which point I'll buy one, but based on the preliminaries, sounds like the PS3 version is the one for me.

Who cares about IGN. Opinions for sale at that site.

*not in anyway trying to undermine Starcrafts topic btw, if you want the 360 version then get it. Just pointing out that IGN sucks balls and they can't be used as an reliable source with all their MS/Sony/Nintendo ads. They have too much money involved with advertisers to extremely criticise them.

I don't mind at all, San Andreas was WAY too long im my opinion, I never even ended up finishing that game after putting in like 60 hours.

The dlc is coming out too close to other big games like R2, LBP, Fable 2 and Gears of war, So may lose a little of its thunder ( I'm not a retard, I know that the DLC is only for xbox, But when I mention PS3 games, I am referring to multiple console owners)

Funny, this "everyone" that you refer to day after day continues to be around 8-10 people, and they continue to shutup whenever any one reasonable poster enters a thread to support me.

You'd think that with all the time you people spend trying to convince everyone I'm the "anti" to PS3's "christ" one of you could have taken the effort to bookmark a single example of my supposedely regular trolling.

What I HAVE said in the past that it is ridculous the disregard some devs have shown for the PS3.  If your going to do a port, you accept the onus of doing it right. 

Please do. 

Why is this thread pointless?  I've clearly identified the 25-45 hour remark as IGN-proven fact, and everything else as rumour.

Is it pointless because it's rumours you don't want to be true?