First thing I noticed too.

For single player, yes. For multiplayer which requires ongoing support? No. The problem is that the game wasn't sold while the owner was at their peak of playing the MP, otherwise they'd never sell it. The cost of servers is factored into the continued purchase, use and respective tapering of use by that user. The use…

I have also heard people say that developers should build in the ongoing support into the price of the game, and budget accordingly. That would be fine, except that multiplayer is becoming more demanding on resources and with the exception of CoD are cheaper now than they have been in a long time.

I'm probably in the absolute minority, but I agree with the use of online passes.

I went to school with Matt Smith, no joke. He was a bit of a dick. Good job I never like Doctor Who, really.

By Steam, of course I mean Valve. I blame the morning.

Marketing it for the modder, hardcore gamer and casual gamer (by which I mean people who pop in and out of gaming, not just family-friendly gamers) is going to be very difficult. The latter being vastly the most lucrative, whatever us gamers choose to believe, and the hardest for someone like Steam to attract given…

You wouldn't troll him during the downfall? You're not history-trolling nearly hard enough, bro.

Ha. No. Just no. For so many reasons.

I'm not bothered by people choosing the PC over any other platform. I choose to use my 360 for a number of reasons, but that's my choice - whatever. And yes, of course it can produce higher frame rates and resolutions.

+1

It began construction much earlier in secret during the Covenant war in the Oort cloud. Which is why Cortana recognises it when she sees it. It spent 3 years or so after the war being upgraded by captured and bred Engineers, who are utterly fast and amazing with technology.

I'm probably the only person alive who thought that a Bioshock-esque shooter set to a suburban 50's alien invasion looked absolutely awesome. As did the freakish oil stuff choking people.

I think you miss my point. Every time my 360 updates through the beta it takes about a minute. My PS3 takes about 15 minutes including a restart - honestly. My net connection out here in the village isn't great which you'd expect to explain that time, but that doesn't explain the disparity between the two.

The UK. Updates are often required before connecting to PSN. If I've got an hour spare for a few games I don't want to spend 15 minutes updating.

The last time my PS3 updated was less than a month ago, and I really don't think I am exaggerating. And I'm by far not the only one that agrees here.

Comparing features isn't quite fair. Consider the quality of those features too. It's a cliché, but I do indeed own both a PS3 and a 360, and while there's nothing fundamentally wrong with multiplayer on PSN I find Live to be a much smoother MP experience. I find matchmaking to be faster and match me better by all…

Agreed. Athletics should be about physical ability first and foremost. With a little bit of thought, planning and strategy thrown in for good measure.

Surely the gaming performance can be attributed to graphics drivers.