Xbox One on the way. DRM removed, more details to come.
- Thread starter kklems
- Start date
- Status
ShockandAww
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 110 (100%)
It would be more awesome if it said "Don't require this thing and I'll consider buying your product"I totally agree that this would be awesome!
Via Reddit...
thenutman69321
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 41 (100%)
You can be anti Kinect and pro X1. They aren't mutually exclusive. I'll be getting an X1 but still absolutely hate the fact that I'm being forced to buy a useless (for me) peripheral I don't want at all. It would be pretty cool if they put some QR codes on things and let you just scan them with the Kinect though. It would be the one and only thing I'd use it for.
The QR thing has been confirmed by microsoft:
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/07/01/xbox-one-kinect-will-scan-redemption-codes
slickkill77
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 78 (100%)
Glad about the code thing. I see that ps+ is getting Battlefield 3 this month and just got Saints Row 3 for free last month. We're getting arcade games and games from 5 years ago 
?
?The QR thing has been confirmed by microsoft:
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/07/01/xbox-one-kinect-will-scan-redemption-codes
Hell yes! Great news!
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/07/01/xbox-one-kinect-will-scan-redemption-codes
Hell yes! Great news!
Glad about the code thing. I see that ps+ is getting Battlefield 3 this month and just got Saints Row 3 for free last month. We're getting arcade games and games from 5 years ago ?
Is this even worth taking about any more?
They are not free they pay for the "free" games. Most of the 360 users signed on about 6 years ago when there weren't "free" games just a dominant online experience. Now PS+ users pay for these games yearly for $50. And we still get the supreme service at around $35 and some "free" games. I'll take Live over PS+ any day. And I have both services
?Is this even worth taking about any more?
They are not free they pay for the "free" games. Most of the 360 users signed on about 6 years ago when there weren't "free" games just a dominant online experience. Now PS+ users pay for these games yearly for $50. And we still get the supreme service at around $35 and some "free" games. I'll take Live over PS+ any day. And I have both services
slickkill77
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 78 (100%)
I'll take live over ps+ any day as well, but that doesn't mean the games they are getting aren't superior in basically every way.
Main reason I put in a pre-order was my preference for Live. Very happy with PS + games, though. Pretty nice value there.
Comparing Live and PS+ is comparing apples and oranges really. With Live we've been paying to play games online, and to access some apps like Netflix they greedily put behind the paywall. Now they're throwing in some free games to try to compete with PS+.
With PS+ we've been paying for the free games, and some extra features like automatic update downloads, cloud saves etc. as the online gaming was always free. With the PS4 it will be a fair comparison since you have to have PS+ to play online.
So very different. I've had Live since getting my 360 in 2007, and it's been a great service--when I was playing online a lot. Cross game invites, party chat etc. Mostly moot for me now though as I'm done playing competitive MP and only go online for some co-op stuff like Borderlands so I'm not getting many invites, party chat isn't needed in co-op games since there aren't randoms you need to avoid hearing etc. I'm pretty sure Sony has confirmed party chat and cross game invites on PS4, so the online experience should be more comparable than it is currently anyway. Having the headset packed in the PS4 should help too, vs. PS3 where most don't have head sets since it didn't come with one.
So overall, I currently get a lot more out of PS+ since I don't care about online gaming anymore really, and as I didn't get a PS3 until 2012 I haven't played hardly any of the free games they've put up so it's been a cheap way to build up a nice backlog for great games to work through. Will help get through the first year lull as there tends to not be a lot of AAA games for several months after the initial launch rush of games. I am skeptical that it will be as useful on PS4 where they obviously won't have a few years of older AAA games that aren't really selling anymore that they can throw up as PS+ offerings. But should still be worth it for the extra discounts on games if nothing else, and will get better over time as they have more and more games they can put up as I'm always behind and can't come close to playing everything as it comes out anyway.
Where the 360 has the biggest leap over PSN for me is just in the overall speed and layout. The PS store is clunky, downloads are significantly slower on PSN vs. Live (or my computers) that are hooked up to the same router. So I do hope that they improve their servers etc. for PS4, especially since PS+ is being required for online gaming and should bring them more revenue.
With PS+ we've been paying for the free games, and some extra features like automatic update downloads, cloud saves etc. as the online gaming was always free. With the PS4 it will be a fair comparison since you have to have PS+ to play online.
So very different. I've had Live since getting my 360 in 2007, and it's been a great service--when I was playing online a lot. Cross game invites, party chat etc. Mostly moot for me now though as I'm done playing competitive MP and only go online for some co-op stuff like Borderlands so I'm not getting many invites, party chat isn't needed in co-op games since there aren't randoms you need to avoid hearing etc. I'm pretty sure Sony has confirmed party chat and cross game invites on PS4, so the online experience should be more comparable than it is currently anyway. Having the headset packed in the PS4 should help too, vs. PS3 where most don't have head sets since it didn't come with one.
So overall, I currently get a lot more out of PS+ since I don't care about online gaming anymore really, and as I didn't get a PS3 until 2012 I haven't played hardly any of the free games they've put up so it's been a cheap way to build up a nice backlog for great games to work through. Will help get through the first year lull as there tends to not be a lot of AAA games for several months after the initial launch rush of games. I am skeptical that it will be as useful on PS4 where they obviously won't have a few years of older AAA games that aren't really selling anymore that they can throw up as PS+ offerings. But should still be worth it for the extra discounts on games if nothing else, and will get better over time as they have more and more games they can put up as I'm always behind and can't come close to playing everything as it comes out anyway.
Where the 360 has the biggest leap over PSN for me is just in the overall speed and layout. The PS store is clunky, downloads are significantly slower on PSN vs. Live (or my computers) that are hooked up to the same router. So I do hope that they improve their servers etc. for PS4, especially since PS+ is being required for online gaming and should bring them more revenue.
Last edited by a moderator:
PS+ and Live are definitely going to be a more even comparison next gen, so yes I think it's worth talking about. Also consider that unless you're planning to dump your PS3 & Vita if you have one, your plus membership extends to all three consoles, so even if there isn't much for the first few months on the PS4, you'll still be getting an influx of games for the other two systems. Does anybody know if your Live subscription carries over from the 360 to the X1? I've been wondering since they've been touting this live-in-a-steelbook thing.
Mako1215
Banned
PS+ and Live are definitely going to be a more even comparison next gen, so yes I think it's worth talking about. Also consider that unless you're planning to dump your PS3 & Vita if you have one, your plus membership extends to all three consoles, so even if there isn't much for the first few months on the PS4, you'll still be getting an influx of games for the other two systems. Does anybody know if your Live subscription carries over from the 360 to the X1? I've been wondering since they've been touting this live-in-a-steelbook thing.
I thought they said it would carry over. I hope so since I still have numerous 360 games.
I thought they said it would carry over. I hope so since I still have numerous 360 games.
Definitely a good point about PS+ continuing on PS3/Vita. I'll be keeping my PS3 for a good while as I have a good 10-15 games in the backlog (both disc and PS+ freebies) and growing that I want to get through, so as long as they keep putting up free games there Plus will be a good value even if there isn't much on the PS4 worthwhile for the first year or two.
They did. Live (and PS+ for PS4) subs will carry over.
blueweltall
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 169 (100%)
Live will carry over and you can use it on the both the 360 and Xbox one. You can also have multiple user on one account.
Last edited by a moderator:
When it comes to gaming yes I agree they both will be comparable.
When it comes to everything else I would say they live still has the edge. All of the entertainment, apps, services, UI etc. I believe really puts XBL over the edge.
But if you don't care about those features then yes I would say they are comparable.
When it comes to everything else I would say they live still has the edge. All of the entertainment, apps, services, UI etc. I believe really puts XBL over the edge.
But if you don't care about those features then yes I would say they are comparable.
I honestly dont see how they can be comparable at launch, I really dont.
Simply mathematics would tell you it could not be. We've paid for Live for how long now? Microsoft has used that time to buy servers, among other things. Then they announce they are putting even more servers, to a total of 300,000.
Meanwhile, Sony hasnt said anything other then "Yeah, we are working on it".
It just isnt a fair comparison at launch. I think before we compare, we should give Sony at least a 6 month break (giving them a year in total from the announcement of pay).
That's something we just have to wait and see on. The PS4 UI etc. is totally redesigned from the PS3 one, and the X1 one looks pretty different too--and both companies haven't showed a whole lot of that. Also have to wait and see if PSN download speeds improve or are still very slow compared to Live. Only time will tell on all that. Kind of hypocritical of you to so strongly assume the X1 stuff will still be better, given how you jump on people saying Kinect 2 won't be better than Kinect 1 and telling them they haven't tried it yet etc.
But yeah, I don't care about apps on my consoles. I only use them for gaming, and primarily single player gaming. I use my Bluray player for the Netflix and Amazon Instant Video apps, my DVR has a Pandora app etc. I don't like putting extra wear and tear on consoles as they're more expensive, and they tend to be louder with the fans etc.
blueweltall
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 169 (100%)
I hope both store UI will be better for their next-gen system. Both are horrible to navigate through, especially the redesigned PS store.
Last edited by a moderator:
For sure.
And I hope Sony stream lines a lot of things like background downloads (I'm guessing they have from that demo video of the UI with it downloading while the person played something else).
On the 360 you just check the box to allow downloads to finish then turn off the console when you turn it off during a download.
On PS3 you have to start the background download manually in the store, exit out of the store, go to the shut down option and check a box to turn off the system when it's done, and then hold down the button and turn off the controller. Huge pain in the ass relative to the 360.
So I really hope they improve that type of UI stuff on the PS4.
brandtron8000
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
Entertainment and apps that are behind a paywall that aren't on PSN?
What services are you talking about?
UI is a part of the system itself, so it isn't a part of Live. Unless you mean advertising.
So you paid for Live to use peer to peer connections and you won't even be able to see those benefits until next-gen? Totally worth it.
Show me a link to where it says 300,00 servers in the cloud are actual physical servers and not VMs.
Sony has a history of using dedicated servers already for some 1st party MP games for free. They've even used cloud solutions before MS:
http://aws.amazon.com/solutions/case-studies/naughty-dog/
Last edited by a moderator:
Other then Microsoft saying they would be servers, and having huge expansions in all of their major data centers, costing billions of dollars in total?
You can get plenty of links showing their servers, how many, etc. I guess I can dig them up for you if you are simply too lazy?
As to if Live was worth it, I do not think anyone here can say with a straight face PSN is better then Live. That would be completely idiotic. You'd literally need to live on fantasy island for that to be true. You can clearly say PSN+ delivers far better *games*, while Live delivers better *online play* however.
Your link is talking about *AWS*, not Sony. Unless it's your intention that PSN servers are using Amazon Web Services? Which, well, we know they are not.
Instead of getting butthurt about it, why don't you take a step back, read, and comprehend that I wasnt slamming PSN, I was saying it's unfair to compare them day 1 with the sheer amount of money MS has spent in comparison to Sony in regards to their Azure platform.
I mean, your comparing a company that has around 5 billion dollars invested in the worlds largest data center collection... to Sony, who arent even on the map in terms of data centers. It's going to take awhile for them to gear up and compete.
You can clearly tell from their financial reports that they are NOT doing that right now. They just turned a profit, and it wasnt from their games division which includes PSN. (You'd see it being written off in the quarterly report if they were doing billions of infrastructure spending)
Last edited by a moderator:
brandtron8000
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
Sure, let's look at this one:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-06-19-microsoft-makes-the-case-for-xbox-ones-300-000-server-cloud-but-what-do-developers-think
The only ones saying anything was better was you and WV saying XBL has the edge. They both currently use peer to peer connections so the difference in quality is all relative to the host and everyone's internet connection. So it definitely is not better, it's just the same with a paywall.
Not surprising you didn't actually read the link. AWS is a cloud service, Naughty Dog is a top Sony developer who utilized AWS for Uncharted 3. So yes, some games on PSN have already used Cloud technology, since 2012.
DestroVega
CAGiversary!
Yeah, people need to stop with the "specs" bullshit, you're not going to notice a difference at all. In fact, it's already proven the Xbox One has many more features, isn't that more important?
PSN servers were using Amazon Web Services until the 2011 PSN hack. Sony said after the hack they will be moving their servers offsite to an undisclosed location. Well that undisclosed location would be OpenStack. SEN/PSN servers are now running on the OpenStack cloud platform. Gaikai is just a cloud platform Sony bought to complement the third party cloud services they already use.
Doesn't seem like Sony is the one behind on cloud services, it is just that they are using third party cloud services instead of wasting money building one.
Last edited by a moderator:
Agree on the first. If any thing maybe some first party games will look a little better on PS4 than the X1 exclusives (just like this gen)--but not enough for anyone to care about. I mean yea, Last of Us looks better than anything on 360, but it's not leaps and bounds better or anything.
For the second point, that's just up to the individual. I don't care about features as I only use my consoles for gaming, and mostly single player gaming. So all the extra bells and whistles are just lost on me as I really don't want to do more (other than the occasional online co-op game) with my consoles today that I did with my NES and other consoles back when I first started gaming.
Of course, the features are a huge plus to others who want the TV stuff, who use apps on their console rather than a bluray player or roku box, or do more online gaming etc.
Last edited by a moderator:
So, I guess your taking that negatively? Oh wait, you are. Your awful silly sir.
I implied XBL would have the edge day one because of it's extensive history behind the pay wall as compared to Sony. I also said it would be unfair to compare them at launch. However, if you feel that both PSN and Xbox Live offer the exact same quality right now (which is laughable, but apparently you feel that way..) then sure, let's compare them on day 1. I know who my money is on.. the company with billions invested in their data center, as opposed to the company who dosent even pull in a billion profit per year.
As to the article, I of course read it. However, if you knew anything about the PSN network, you would know they do not use AWS anymore due to the massive security attack. That includes first party developers. If however you are attempting to imply that somehow Sony was using dedicated servers before Microsoft, you sir are batshit crazy. Microsoft was using dedicated servers as early as the mid 90's with their MSN Games service. Of course, you might say "but nuh uh, not on consoles!" to which I'd say companies for both consoles were releasing games with dedicated server support before naughty dog. Even Warhawk (2007) had dedicated servers (2 years before Naughty dog did it btw..).
Openstack is a software solution, you know that right?
It is what runs the data center, not actually "the data center". That would be like saying I'm selling my car and going to OnStar. While OnStar is in a car, it certainly is not "the car", it's software solution in the car.
Companies like Metacloud, etc are actually behind the data centers..then offer them at reasonable prices for other companies.
SEN/PSN itself no longer use AWS but developers are still allowed to use AWS to host their games. Naughty Dog, Ubisoft, and Media Molecule are just some examples.
I never said it was the data center, I know it is software.Openstack is a software solution, you know that right?
It is what runs the data center, not actually "the data center". That would be like saying I'm selling my car and going to OnStar. While OnStar is in a car, it certainly is not "the car", it's software solution in the car.
Companies like Metacloud, etc are actually behind the data centers..then offer them at reasonable prices for other companies.
From articles I had read at the time of the attack, Sony was severing all ties to AWS. (Ubisoft is not a first party developer by the way, they are what's called a third party developer)
You can get that sense in the comments: "Evans says, “AWS is certainly something that we will consider for future projects.”"
So far, none of Sony's first party studios have said any game is being hosted on AWS, but if you have a article please feel free to link
You actually did...
"Sony said after the hack they will be moving their servers offsite to an undisclosed location. Well that undisclosed location would be OpenStack."
That undisclosed location CANNOT be Openstack, because its a SOFTWARE SOLUTION.
Here's a link that actually knows what they are talking about
https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2011/05/02/sony-to-reboot-playstation-psn-in-new-data-center/
Thanks
Last edited by a moderator:
Ok, you got me on the "location" slip up. I didn't proof read my reply before I submitted that. I had it in my mind as suggesting Sony moving from one service to another.
I never said first party developers, I just wrote "developers can still use AWS". Naughty Dog is still using AWS for Uncharted 3. Uncharted 3 came out at the end of 2011 which was months after the hack.
http://aws.amazon.com/solutions/case-studies/naughty-dog/ "Added August 1, 2012"
http://aws.amazon.com/solutions/case-studies/mediamolecule/ "MediaMolecule will likely continue to use AWS. Evans says, “AWS is certainly something that we will consider for future projects." ”Added January 23, 2012"
I never said first party developers, I just wrote "developers can still use AWS". Naughty Dog is still using AWS for Uncharted 3. Uncharted 3 came out at the end of 2011 which was months after the hack.
http://aws.amazon.com/solutions/case-studies/naughty-dog/ "Added August 1, 2012"
http://aws.amazon.com/solutions/case-studies/mediamolecule/ "MediaMolecule will likely continue to use AWS. Evans says, “AWS is certainly something that we will consider for future projects." ”Added January 23, 2012"
Last edited by a moderator:
DestroVega
CAGiversary!
Agree on all points
Well, I said specifically first party developers. I did not mention third, because Sony has absolutely no control over what Ubisoft does. (Since we are talking about them, change your uplay password, I'm sure its been posted here, but the more that see it..)
As to Naughty Dog, you and I both know that there would not have been enough time to change it's development.
A more telling example would be The Last of Us. Which does not use AWS. It uses P2P. Ask yourself why if Naughty Dog has been using AWS for all of their releases, why would the Last of Us be different? Because they no longer have a relationship with AWS.
thenutman69321
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 41 (100%)
Most aren't going to ever notice a difference but the differences are there this gen (again most won't notice) so there's no reason to think they won't be there next gen.
As for the features, imo no. I personally get consoles for games. Every other feature, app, etc on consoles I can already do on multiple other devices or don't want at all.
They are definitely close enough spec wise that the slight differences shouldn't really be taken into consideration in a purchasing decision though imo.
Last edited by a moderator:
brandtron8000
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
Yeah, because the idea that it is completely unfair (to Sony) to compare them at launch because MS threw lots of money at a cloud system of their own with 300,000 (still not confirmed to be actual physical) servers has no Microsoft bias or negative connotation. Right. They have an extensive history of locking out media features and using peer-to-peer connections behind a paywall, that surely means better stuff is coming.
Prove to me how a normal match of COD on XBL is superior to the same match on PSN. Cross game chat? That's it?
Well according to you, you've already read the link:
http://aws.amazon.com/solutions/case-studies/naughty-dog/
The PSN hack was April, 2011
"From articles I had read at the time of the attack, Sony was severing all ties to AWS."
Well, I said specifically first party developers. I did not mention third, because Sony has absolutely no control over what Ubisoft does. (Since we are talking about them, change your uplay password, I'm sure its been posted here, but the more that see it..)
As to Naughty Dog, you and I both know that there would not have been enough time to change it's development.
A more telling example would be The Last of Us. Which does not use AWS. It uses P2P. Ask yourself why if Naughty Dog has been using AWS for all of their releases, why would the Last of Us be different? Because they no longer have a relationship with AWS.
Does it even matter if you meant first party developers? I just proved to you Sony is not severing all ties to AWS. First party developers are still using AWS for their games including LB2 and Uncharted 3.
Even Media Molecule has stated they will consider AWS for future projects. I'm not even sure Last of Us is P2P, I thought UC2&3 were P2P but apparently they were hosted on dedicated servers in the cloud. You have a source to back-up that statement Last of Us is P2P?
Last edited by a moderator:
It wasnt a slam against Sony. Jesus, I thought I was a fanboy. God damn son.
I'll stand by my statement that it's unfair to compare them. While you say what difference in a CoD Match, I'd ask.. firstly.. how long did it even take to download COD's updates? It's clear that Sony's services are not at the same level as Live's.. just from download speed alone, which is the #1 complaint about PSN. (Slow, slow download speeds) When you are actually *in the match* there is little difference because CoD is P2P, thus its purely based on your host.
However, we know that next gen titles are seeking to get away from P2P and go more toward dedicated servers. The question to ask yourself is.. who is in a better position, initially, to finance such things? The answer is obviously Microsoft. It's fair to give Sony some leeway in that regard because they have not had a mandatory pay wall to help finance such things, nor do they have a massive software business that is going into the cloud. (Office) Again, that's not a slam to Sony, that's simply facts.
If me saying dont judge Sony based on day 1 performance, but give them time to catch up is slamming Sony, I don't know what to think anymore :/
As we've already discussed for the article, it would have been far too late to change their multiplayer at that point in time. See my response below, to further see Naughty Dog is not using AWS anymore, but has went to a more traditional P2P.
http://forums.naughtydog.com/t5/The-Last-of-Us-Multiplayer/Does-this-game-have-dedicated-servers/td-p/40658725
^ What happens when your host disconnects. This does not happen in dedicated servers. Specifically Evang's post, who is a developer confirms its a host to host (p2p).
He can't because COD servers on XBL are the same as PSN. Activision uses demonware for all online matchmaking for all of it's online titles.
http://www.demonware.net/tech
Demonware are the core of Activision’s Central Technology online group. We provide software and services for all Activision’s online titles, which means:
- we consult with studios on their online strategy (incl. use of 3rd party APIs, web, cloud, CDN, etc.)
- develop custom features
- integrate our client-side tech into a studios engine
- hire and train network developers and place them in studios
- we host all of the matchmaking, leader boards, social media and gameplay data…
- assist & support studios integrating our tech into their own pipelines
- …on large scale infrastructure
- we provide secure 3rd party platform gateways
- provide Big Data warehousing & analytics services
Have you ever played the Uncharted games? it does the same thing also, which is why I was surprised Uncharted 2&3 were hosted in the cloud via AWS.
Last edited by a moderator:
I have not. I assumed you guys did your fact checking, but apparently you have not. Therefor, I've went ahead and done it for you. (/sigh)
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/311253/no-dedicated-servers-in-uncharted-3-multiplayer-naughty-dog-explains/
Apparently UC2 did not have dedicated servers either.. so uh, yeah? Struggling to find a link for it specifically however, but comments on various forums are all saying the same thing.
Notice how he never confirmed it was P2P? The fact they can fix this in a patch should indicate this is not really P2P.
The company has since debuted both Uncharted 2 (2009) and Uncharted 3: Drake’s Deception (2011) with all online components supported by AWS. In fact, the Beta version of the latter was debugged live in AWS. Naughty Dog fixed all of the major bugs in only sixteen hours.
Although both titles utilize AWS in a similar manner, the company refined its architecture for Uncharted 3.
http://aws.amazon.com/solutions/case-studies/naughty-dog/
Last edited by a moderator:
Uh, what?
How so? The very fact that they would need to patch the game shows its P2P. If it was a dedicated server, they'd push a patch to the server, restart late at night and it will be fixed.
Your assuming he meant a server patch, when it was not. It was a CLIENT patch to fix P2P.
http://www.joystiq.com/2013/06/29/the-last-of-us-patch-1-02-removes-sex-hotline-numbers-includes/
(Direct link: http://www.naughtydog.com/site/post/the_last_of_us_patch_102/ )
It cannot get any clearer that it is P2P. It really cant HTZ, you know that, use your head a little. It's using the exact same system as UC3 for god sake's, where a developer *CLEARLY* says its P2P.
Last edited by a moderator:
When players start a new game on their PS3, they receive a page of instructional information that is stored and delivered from Amazon S3. Profile changes and customized options are also stored in Amazon S3. If players want to join live multiplayer games, they are routed to an Amazon EC2 “matchmaking” server, which connects them with games currently in progress.
How do you know that patch to fix matchmaking is not something wrong with code in the game(client) instead of the servers? Maybe they did roll out a server patch on the same day as the client patch to fix single player issues like in 1.02.
Last edited by a moderator:
brandtron8000
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
Firstly, I'd say I had PS+ update it for me overnight. And secondly about "in the match," that's entirely my point.
So you're basically saying the XBL advantage is update speeds? The kind that until recently cost so much it caused a game like Fez to never be fixed?
I say go ahead and compare the shit out of them on launch day. It will be the first time they will both be on the same paywall required playing field.
And I never said Uncharted used dedicated servers, only that they used cloud solutions. But again, your article is dated July 2011 and the AWS article is from 2012.
Last edited by a moderator:
Which, again, is not dedicated servers. It's using P2P hosting, with your MP data saved on the cloud. I guess if you want to believe its dedicated go ahead, but I'll take the word of the developer of the game. I cant even believe your attempting to argue it is dedicated.. I really cant. Like, I'm baffled, since I know your far smarter then that.
Gotcha, so, to get around the slow download speeds of PS+, you must have the foresight to actually log into the game you wish to play tomorrow and make sure the updates get downloaded. Hmm ok
As to Fez, Phil Fish can suck it personally. Hes a massive douche-bag who thinks his shit dosent stink. If he had released Fez on the XBL Indie section, it could have gotten updates. However, he was not happy with that and wanted it on XBL Arcade... that was clearly his choice.
Which was 100% correct
You even quoted a article from it, albeit one that had numerous errors. I quoted a correct one PSN Servers are not using AWS anymore, and we know that because they announced it..................
It's getting far off field, and is not even about X1. If you two would like to continue, we can create a thread over on the PS3 section as its more appropriate there? Let me know
- Status
bread's done