Yeah. SWTOR is working okay on the premise. Runescape also does something kinda similar.

It's very similar to SWTOR in the way that you can play the game for free, but if you want access to the full game (i.e. more zones, more abilities, certain currencies on the stuff you can buy with them) you will have to get a subscription. At least, that's what I'm getting out of it. Seems okay, but SWTOR is free up…

I want more Inhumans. They're my favorite type of super-hero, honestly. I also would love a Black Panther series. This could turn things around enough to potentially build support for the "new" (well, less popular) series and heroes to create huge movie releases.

Cool. I'm just getting to the point in my life where I have the time/want to watch professional fighting game tournaments, and I just assumed due to the 3DS FOR GLORY mode being FD/No Items.

I agree, but at least we know they won't be fighting on some chappy moving stage with only home run bats or something. It'll be FD No Items, and we all know Melee is the fan choice, but NOA wanted to highlight Smash 4. I hope it only lasts this year though and the better one is the only one going forward.

Oh. Then I misunderstood and am not nearly as oksy with that. At least it's only time exclusivity then.

Eh. They have Zelda, that squid game which will surprise people with sales, and a new Star Fox game. That's a good 1st half of 2015. All they need to do is announce a Pokemon Wii U game and they'll be floating in cash.

I'm not really disappointed with either game. Would I live to have Tomb Raider on my PS4? Absolutely. But Microsoft was the one to bankroll the game. I'd rather have a game exist on only one console than not exist. Same for SFV. Even though it'll never see an Xbox, it wouldn't exist if it weren't for Sony funding it.

I would love to be an Assassin/Ninja and have a nice convoluted story line that's all about fighting off Templar Samurai. I'd buy that game.

Thanks.

The biggest thing is they are banning him from online play. The devs feel his inclusion could offend enough people to impact sales. Therefore, he is excluded and they want to keep it that way. You can play as him all you want with three other people on your couch.

Straight contradiction. Perfect grounds for an argument my friend.

No. You count the number of discrete channels. It doesn't matter where they are located. And for a soundbar with a sub, you will pay much more than $100. The cheapest you'll find one with a sub is $150 and that's on Black Friday only. Otherwise, base prices start at $250-$300.

I mostly agree. I'm quite surprised we don't have emulation software on the PS4 to allow us to buy and play PS1 and PS2 classics, and maybe even PS3, although I can see where the that, with its weird architecture and all, could be still in development. Where I disagree is that Sony's devs are either lazy or…

Does anyone know if the subwoofer is wireless to the soundbar or if we have to have a physical wire between the two?

Yeah. Unfortunately, most soundbars cannot be incorporated into an existing system. And if you have decent 5.1, stick with that. The only reason to think about this would be for the computer. And personally I'd use the $140 Klipsch computer speakers over this. I've never heard this, but I'm just guessing.

That's alright. And yeah, I was hoping it would be priced somewhere around $400-$500 to allow for some decent quality, but $200 worth of soundbar isn't all that fantastic.

Simulated 5.1 surround is the real label for it, but, that being said, 5.1 can exist without simulated surround. It only dictates that there be five speakers and a subwoofer. Now, I doubt the simulated surround on a $200 soundbar is anything better than terrible, but on the $699 Sonos Playbar, it's pretty fantastic.

What? $200 is cheap for a soundbar, especially one with a subwoofer. I'm not sure of the quality of the setup, but even if it's mediocre, it's probably worth $200 comparatively.

4" tall for the soundbar. I'd guess 10"+ for the subwoofer. Not small.