The worst part is that the telcom companies were given millions of dollars in grants and tax breaks to use towards upgrading our infrastructure years ago, and no one seems to know where all that money went. And of course, because we're talking about large corporations here, no one has had to take any accountability…

That pic looks like a bastard child of ET and one of the Spice Girls.

Marfa is also the location of the "Marfa Lights," an atmospheric phenomenon that makes it appear that there are floating lights far off in the distant fields at night. I remember being sufficiently impressed/creeped out by them when I was passing through there as a little kid.

I'm with you.

Wow, thank you for such an insightful response.

Then review the actual game on a console that works, and note in your review that the PS3 version is broken. It's not a review to say "I played one version and it didn't work," and then just not play the version that does.

I was telling him to DO his review, not use PS3 issues as an excuse to just avoid it until it's fixed. It's not as if the guys at Kotaku don't have access to a 360 so they can get their work done.

It's not about entitlement. I don't even give a shit about Disney infinity. But people were asking why he's delaying the review just because the PS3 version has issues, and I voiced my opinion concerning his response: namely that it's a lame response.

I don't want an Xbox centric review. I want a review of the game. If I did 8 hours of work at my job, and it was lost due to technical difficulties, I can't imagine my boss would just say "Oh well, just forget it for now." I'd be expected to redo that work.

Sure I can. But if Kotaku's policy is "we're too lazy, go somewhere else" that's not very professional is it?

I may not be paying them directly, but they are monetizing my readership. It's in their best interest to provide quality content, and as a reader I have as much right to voice a negative opinion about their quality as you do to bitch about whatever TV show you're currently watching.

And that puts his publication behind others in posting a review of the game because he refuses to just review the game on a system where he can play it. That doesn't seem like good business or good journalism. It frankly seems very lazy.

No, I'm not saying the game has to be reviewed on every platform. I'm saying technical issues with one platform shouldn't prevent the game from being reviewed if it's possible to review it on another platform. It's the game being reviewed, not the platform.

Would I want to? No. Would I do it anyway because it's my job? Yes.

Not at all. I don't even personally care about this game, it just seems very unprofessional to just blow off a review because one of the platforms is having problems. His job isn't to review the platform, it's to review the game, and he has a perfectly functional way to do so. There's no reason to wait other than…

Yes, it is. And that should be noted. But the working version should still be reviewed for those who have the working console.

YOu should review the working one for people who have the working console, and you should warn off those who do not. It's not that complicated. The game gets reviewed, and the readers are informed.

Providing reviews is his job. If a simple tech issue forces me to redo 8 hours worth of work at my job, I'm expected to do it, not sit on my hands and wait for someone else to fix things. If it takes them a week to fix this issue is he just going to wait a week before writing his review when there's a perfectly…

Exactly. And he has equipment that he could be using to review that product, and instead he's sitting on his hands until he can review Disney Infinity: the PS3 game.

Not necessarily. A review of a game is a review of a game. There's not much difference between the platforms, generally. I want to know about the game experience, I don't care where they review it. But to simply give up on a review because one platform is having issues when there are other platforms available…