I was even getting annoyed by Leon, while exploring for treasure, super agent Mr Scott getting tired running from one room to another.

I’d really like to think the regulators could see right through how silly it is and actually make a decision based on how it will *actually* effect the market rather than what silly excuse either side can come up with.

I thought Sony only had like a DLC deal with CoD? (Which I think is bullshit by the way, i find that more annoying than full exclusivity even)

It’s a dumb argument no matter who makes it.

And what shit are we talking about here? As mentioned in the article, omitting Nintendo affects the numbers massively and the exclusivity deals are what everyone in the industry does.

For sure.

Im basing this on a year’s worth of statements that suggest they *need* Acti to compete, they have actively put themselves down to put this across.

This rather hilarious situation is another example of Microsoft trying to tell everyone how much they suck.

I have always presumed that was the case, that if they wanted the towns and world maps of previous games they would have to sacrifice fidelity and we know how Square Enix feels about that.

I certainly don’t think you're wrong to worry.

But that’s not revealed at the start of Silent Hill 2. So hopefully its not a bad spoiler free description.

Yeh this article is hipster as shit

Because its a sentance we all understand the meaning of? Do you not?

Yeh. That's the same. 

Yeh it is a great game.

Yeh as we all know, if you stop reading the media outlets and listen to the *players* and their experiences you realise this was overblown by the media.

I can’t fathom mainlining the main quest in any game really, I always try and sample everything the game has to offer.

As a huge fan of both i ceratinly noticed.

Just never really said anything cos it felt like if you ever said that to someone they’d be like: “oh really....that’s...cool............” Top Gun is neither the coolest nor nerdiest thing.

I suppose with Maverick being awesome and all maybe it would feel less spongy to point…

I mean it’s good for the consumer *now*, but the point of preventing a monopoly is so a game company aren’t tempted to suddenly make the only way to play the most popular games is a stupidly expensive subscription in the future. And if a company was the only game in town why wouldn’t they do that?

Oh my, believe it or not that makes it worse, their systems have led to child development teams that overwork themselves for promises of big payouts that of course arn’t likely to happen.