Good Job, Microsoft

suzzopher wrote:Why is this being turned into a console war argument again

What a stupid question. The topic is an attack (fair or not) on MS and the 360. People who like the 360 will defend it. End of.

Death's Head wrote:

suzzopher wrote:Why is this being turned into a console war argument again

What a stupid question. The topic is an attack (fair or not) on MS and the 360. People who like the 360 will defend it. End of.

But there is nothing to defend here. The simple fact of the matter is, the arcade does not distinguish that the 4gb does work as a HDD would for online features. And certain games need to make it clear that they need a HDD. End of story. I have no idea how Rik keeps dragging this out

suzzopher wrote: I have no idea how Rik keeps dragging this out

I just want Rik to answer my question on the previous page about why people buying a 360 should do their homework, but that rule doesn't apply to PS3 purchases.

I remember the days when you'd buy your console, buy your game, plug it into the TV, and play it. And everything would work.

I still don't understand why certain games need a HDD. There's no compulsory installs or anything

suzzopher wrote:

Death's Head wrote:

suzzopher wrote:Why is this being turned into a console war argument again

What a stupid question. The topic is an attack (fair or not) on MS and the 360. People who like the 360 will defend it. End of.

But there is nothing to defend here. The simple fact of the matter is, the arcade does not distinguish that the 4gb does work as a HDD would for online features. And certain games need to make it clear that they need a HDD. End of story. I have no idea how Rik keeps dragging this out

Frank wrote:I still don't understand why certain games need a HDD. There's no compulsory installs or anything

Final Fantasy XI needs 6gb. 4 to start with then 2gbs of updates.

Frank wrote:I still don't understand why certain games need a HDD. There's no compulsory installs or anything

Really, MS shouldn't allow compulsary use of the HD. As they do, it should be written in massive letters on the box so that customers know the score before they even open the box.

Frank wrote:I still don't understand why certain games need a HDD. There's no compulsory installs or anything

So you'll buy one. Simple as that. There's absolutely no technical reason why, just a financial one.

So they can sell more of their overprice hard drives. This thread is getting out of hand. MS should clearly have labled REACH saying it needed HDD that is the only issue here. MS have never stated that the 4GB storage was a HDD so why do people assume it is? Same goes with the reverse argument as well. Looks like they need to market all their packaging more clearly but I guess they have found a loop hole that lets them getaway with it. Funny thing is ODST has been out a year and nothing was raised or moaned about then from Arcader users that I remember.

Exactly.

Somebody Else's Problem wrote:

Frank wrote:I still don't understand why certain games need a HDD. There's no compulsory installs or anything

So you'll buy one. Simple as that. There's absolutely no technical reason why, just a financial one.

And their hard drives aren't cheap........................................

Death's Head wrote:

suzzopher wrote: I have no idea how Rik keeps dragging this out

I just want Rik to answer my question on the previous page about why people buying a 360 should do their homework, but that rule doesn't apply to PS3 purchases.

What question? I missed it.

Somebody Else's Problem wrote:

Frank wrote:I still don't understand why certain games need a HDD. There's no compulsory installs or anything

So you'll buy one. Simple as that. There's absolutely no technical reason why, just a financial one.

I don't buy that, sometimes the technical limitations of the system or team developing the game means they may need a HDD to cache data or to use for extra memory for in game assets.

Rik wrote:
What question? I missed it.

Rik wrote:How is it trolling to point out the obvious.

If you're going to spend a couple of hundred quid on something then at least do your homework on what you're buying

So Rik, bearing in mind you have bought several PS3 and then whinged constantly about features being removed, games not running as well as 360 games etc, can you explain why the above logic needs to apply to purchases relating to 360s but not to PS3s? I mean, you did your homework right? Are you a hypocrit or just one of the world's biggest 360 fanboys?

Somebody Else's Problem wrote:

Frank wrote:I still don't understand why certain games need a HDD. There's no compulsory installs or anything

So you'll buy one. Simple as that. There's absolutely no technical reason why, just a financial one.

So they don't access it at all while you're playing, or save anything onto it?

I know it's Microsoft, but I'm finding that hard to believe.

Suzz's thing about the updates sort of makes sense, but then doesn't when you think that you can plug up to 16GB's of external storage into a 360S, and it apparently still won't work with that.

suzzopher wrote:

Death's Head wrote:

suzzopher wrote:Why is this being turned into a console war argument again

What a stupid question. The topic is an attack (fair or not) on MS and the 360. People who like the 360 will defend it. End of.

But there is nothing to defend here. The simple fact of the matter is, the arcade does not distinguish that the 4gb does work as a HDD would for online features. And certain games need to make it clear that they need a HDD. End of story. I have no idea how Rik keeps dragging this out

The fact it is 4gb or 256mb from the old system isn't relevant, if you don't understand the difference between a HDD and Flash memory then why does the size matter?

It has been the case for FIVE YEARS that the Arcade system does not have a HDD, it has been the case for FIVE YEARS that certain features of a few games were restricted by that fact.

IT USED to be the case that it was very clear on the box what features required a HDD, that is the part that has changed and is wrong and I've said that all along.

Death's Head wrote:

Rik wrote:
What question? I missed it.

Rik wrote:How is it trolling to point out the obvious.

If you're going to spend a couple of hundred quid on something then at least do your homework on what you're buying

So Rik, bearing in mind you have bought several PS3 and then whinged constantly about features being removed, games not running as well as 360 games etc, can you explain why the above logic needs to apply to purchases relating to 360s but not to PS3s? I mean, you did your homework right? Are you a hypocrit or just one of the world's biggest 360 fanboys?

Rik is Steve Ballmer in disguise.

Death's Head wrote:

Rik wrote:
What question? I missed it.

Rik wrote:How is it trolling to point out the obvious.

If you're going to spend a couple of hundred quid on something then at least do your homework on what you're buying

So Rik, bearing in mind you have bought several PS3 and then whinged constantly about features being removed, games not running as well as 360 games etc, can you explain why the above logic needs to apply to purchases relating to 360s but not to PS3s? I mean, you did your homework right? Are you a hypocrit or just one of the world's biggest 360 fanboys?

There is a big difference between moaning about features being removed and not knowing about it when you buy a console.

Somebody Else's Problem wrote:I remember the days when you'd buy your console, buy your game, plug it into the TV, and play it. And everything would work.

That is still the case for Wii and PS3.

Rik wrote:

suzzopher wrote:

Death's Head wrote:

suzzopher wrote:Why is this being turned into a console war argument again

What a stupid question. The topic is an attack (fair or not) on MS and the 360. People who like the 360 will defend it. End of.

But there is nothing to defend here. The simple fact of the matter is, the arcade does not distinguish that the 4gb does work as a HDD would for online features. And certain games need to make it clear that they need a HDD. End of story. I have no idea how Rik keeps dragging this out

The fact it is 4gb or 256mb from the old system isn't relevant, if you don't understand the difference between a HDD and Flash memory then why does the size matter?

It has been the case for FIVE YEARS that the Arcade system does not have a HDD, it has been the case for FIVE YEARS that certain features of a few games were restricted by that fact.

IT USED to be the case that it was very clear on the box what features required a HDD, that is the part that has changed and is wrong and I've said that all along.

Do you think people in Asda will know the difference when using their jobs seekers to pick up a new Arcade? The console needs to say it doesn't work for all features clearly. Surely you are not arguing against a system saying what it can't do on the box?