Good Job, Microsoft

Gamer buys console whose most significant release of the year doesn't function properly on said console. It's not hard to see other people - particularly those less aware of such issues - falling into the same trap and it leading to disappointment on Christmas morning. Particularly given than the 4GB model is the one they're really pushing for an expanded market with Kinect.

Sure, not many casual players will be interested in Halo, but what about parents getting a console for their kids this Christmas?

Small print doesn't cut it. Microsoft needs to make consumers aware of this issue or face a particularly nasty backlash when the complaints start rolling in.

HSH28 wrote:

Harry Bizzle wrote:All the components are there for it to. Hell, the flash is probably faster than the HDD.

Theres presumably some technical reason why it doesn't work in certain games and modes.

I'm willing to bet that the reason is they haven't bothered putting support in because there's literally no incentive for them to do so.



And the Arcade system has obviously just had a reboot and there is a sea of difference between a piddly 256MB and 4GB.

HSH28 wrote:

pyxl-8 wrote:

HSH28 wrote:Not sure why anyone here would buy a 4GB console anyway really, the HDD one isn't that much more expensive, its going to cost a lot more to buy a seperate HDD when they come out (expect them to be at least £80).

I didn't think I'd need more than 4GB, what with the XBLA filesizes and all my media being housed elsewhere.

You obviously aren't up to date...theres no limit on XBLA games any more. There have been a few recently that have been 2GB in size.

Also installing your games makes a big difference, definitely worth doing, but you'll need the space for it.

I installed a few games on my old 360, but I didn't really feel it was worth the effort (and was informed this new machine was "whisper quiet"), so I didn't have any interest doing it with this.

What XBLA games should I avoid, then? Limbo and Splosion Man were the two I wanted, and thankfully, they're tiny.

satriales wrote:So according to that comparison chart they don't include hi-def cables anymore?

No.

Removed when the price fell on the Elite to £199.

satriales wrote:So according to that comparison chart they don't include hi-def cables anymore?

Again old news.

Seriously, this was all discussed months ago. Presumably its because HDMI is now standard and you can use any old cable you want (or buy one for a few pounds), its not worth them putting one in the box any more.

Rik wrote:

satriales wrote:So according to that comparison chart they don't include hi-def cables anymore?

No.

Removed when the price fell on the Elite to £199.

Oh right, I seem to remmeber my old 360 had a cable that switched between SD and HD but then that was before they had HDMI so I guess everyone uses HDMI cables now.

pyxl-8 wrote:What XBLA games should I avoid, then? Limbo and Splosion Man were the two I wanted, and thankfully, they're tiny.

The new Lara Croft game is the only really huge one that I'm aware of (2GB). Shadow Complex is almost 1GB.

rinks wrote:

pyxl-8 wrote:What XBLA games should I avoid, then? Limbo and Splosion Man were the two I wanted, and thankfully, they're tiny.

The new Lara Croft game is the only really huge one that I'm aware of (2GB).

Dead Rising Case Zero is bound to be pretty hefty compared to normal XBLA games, can't remember the size exactly.

rinks wrote:

pyxl-8 wrote:What XBLA games should I avoid, then? Limbo and Splosion Man were the two I wanted, and thankfully, they're tiny.

The new Lara Croft game is the only really huge one that I'm aware of (2GB).

Shank is 2GB as well.

Zeno Clash is 1.5GB
Deathspank 1GB
Shadow Complex is 835MB

Mafro wrote:

rinks wrote:

pyxl-8 wrote:What XBLA games should I avoid, then? Limbo and Splosion Man were the two I wanted, and thankfully, they're tiny.

The new Lara Croft game is the only really huge one that I'm aware of (2GB).

Dead Rising Case Zero is bound to be pretty hefty compared to normal XBLA games, can't remember the size exactly.

800mb-ish.

pyxl-8 wrote:I installed a few games on my old 360, but I didn't really feel it was worth the effort (and was informed this new machine was "whisper quiet"), so I didn't have any interest doing it with this.

What XBLA games should I avoid, then? Limbo and Splosion Man were the two I wanted, and thankfully, they're tiny.

Shank and Lara Croft are both 2GB, Deathspank is 1.5GB. Zeno Clash is 2GB I think.

That is kind of the top end, but there are quite a few in the 500MB-1GB range (Dead Rising Case Zero, Monday Night Combat, Risk Factions, Shadow Complex, Toy Soldiers, MI2, B1943, Portal, etc.)

Then you have DLC, which has never been restricted.

Seriously unless you hardly use the thing, you'll need a HDD.

EDIT - Oh and installing makes a huge difference on how loud (and quick loading) games are. Its worth noting that to solve everything bar the games that need a HDD for online play, you could buy a cheap USB memory stick or external HDD.

Rik wrote:You can access Xbox Live without a HDD, you can play online multiplayer without a HDD, you can't play co-op.

Yeah, that's perfectly clear to a customer who reads that chart.

HSH28 wrote:

satriales wrote:So according to that comparison chart they don't include hi-def cables anymore?

Again old news.

Seriously, this was all discussed months ago. Presumably its because HDMI is now standard and you can use any old cable you want (or buy one for a few pounds), its not worth them putting one in the box any more.

Or alternatively, because it is 'standard', they should be in the box. Moreover, the fact that they can now be bought for such as low price means that it wouldn't cost MS too much to do so.

Chris wrote:

HSH28 wrote:

satriales wrote:So according to that comparison chart they don't include hi-def cables anymore?

Again old news.

Seriously, this was all discussed months ago. Presumably its because HDMI is now standard and you can use any old cable you want (or buy one for a few pounds), its not worth them putting one in the box any more.

Or alternatively, because it is 'standard', they should be in the box. Moreover, the fact that they can now be bought for such as low price means that it wouldn't cost MS too much to do so.

I think its a bit petty to complain about something that makes so little difference to most people now.

HSH28 wrote:

Chris wrote:

HSH28 wrote:

satriales wrote:So according to that comparison chart they don't include hi-def cables anymore?

Again old news.

Seriously, this was all discussed months ago. Presumably its because HDMI is now standard and you can use any old cable you want (or buy one for a few pounds), its not worth them putting one in the box any more.

Or alternatively, because it is 'standard', they should be in the box. Moreover, the fact that they can now be bought for such as low price means that it wouldn't cost MS too much to do so.

I think its a bit petty to complain about something that makes so little difference to most people now.

Complaining? Not, really. Just pointing out that there is a flip side to both of your points.

HSH28 wrote:

Chris wrote:

HSH28 wrote:

satriales wrote:So according to that comparison chart they don't include hi-def cables anymore?

Again old news.

Seriously, this was all discussed months ago. Presumably its because HDMI is now standard and you can use any old cable you want (or buy one for a few pounds), its not worth them putting one in the box any more.

Or alternatively, because it is 'standard', they should be in the box. Moreover, the fact that they can now be bought for such as low price means that it wouldn't cost MS too much to do so.

I think its a bit petty to complain about something that makes so little difference to most people now.

Petty or not, but not packing in any sort of HD cable with an HD console is a bit ridiculous.

Chris wrote:

HSH28 wrote:

Chris wrote:

HSH28 wrote:

satriales wrote:So according to that comparison chart they don't include hi-def cables anymore?

Again old news.

Seriously, this was all discussed months ago. Presumably its because HDMI is now standard and you can use any old cable you want (or buy one for a few pounds), its not worth them putting one in the box any more.

Or alternatively, because it is 'standard', they should be in the box. Moreover, the fact that they can now be bought for such as low price means that it wouldn't cost MS too much to do so.

I think its a bit petty to complain about something that makes so little difference to most people now.

Complaining? Not, really. Just pointing out that there is a flip side to both of your points.

I agree that they should include a HDMI cable but then Sony doesn't include one either. It can't save them more than a quid per console but I guess it all adds up and they probably make a load from selling official HDMI cables.

Mafro wrote:Petty or not, but not packing in any sort of HD cable with an HD console is a bit ridiculous.

I don't agree.

If you had to use a priority MS cable, or we weren't as far into the HD (and HDMI) generation then I'd agree, but you don't and we are.

I agree with Hugo on the cable issue

Okay