Shagger

I'm going to lock this thread as I feel this can be just easily be discussed on the the thread, "What games do you play at Christmas with family or on your own", a thread you stared. A seasonal event is a reason to play a game at a certain time and a Christmas event is no different. Somebody could go onto that thread and say "I play Fortnite at Christmas because of the event", just like you did here it would be perfectly valid in that discussion, so there is no reason to have entirely separate thread. Not to mention you posted the other thread not even 4 hours ago and has only had one reply so far, give it a chance.

I'm sure I've posted about it before, but what I use is a Logitech G502 Hero Gaming Mouse. A proper, customisable gaming mouse is must for me as I like to transfer as much control over to the mouse as possible. I've been using the same model for a couple of years and I love it. It has removable weights to help you adjust the mouse's physical balance and very easy to use software for button reprograming, although the mouse's internal memory will only store 5 profiles which is a little annoying. 11 programable button controls, adjustable DPI and sensitivity, it's comfortable and works well across a multitude of surfaces.

I'm more of a fan of arcade racers and "kart" racers. It's not like I have anything against driving sim's, I just think that other types of racing games are more creatively diverse and have more to offer.

Perhaps it's the fact that they made a memorable game amidst that calamity that made it successful. Of course COD's gameplay mechanics have been updated and improved since then, it's been over a decade, but with the possible exception of Black Ops III, Modern Warfare 2 was the last COD to have any sense of indigenous identity. Nobody talks about other COD games the same way because there's nothing to say. I agree that there has been better COD games since then in a way can be measured, but none have had such an impact. The IP's monetization has become more predatory whilst the improvements in the gamely only fulfilled the "expected" category, rather than the "revolutionary" status COD enjoyed in it's earlier years.

I think the technology behind WiFi at the time was a little too young. Playing games on a network on console had just barely become a thing on that generation of console, so to expect a wireless home network to work in any that was practical for gaming, especially when broadband internet was also in it's infancy, would have been asking a lot.

Sorry, but as the author of the thread, you have to set clear parameters for the discussion. Either this thread was open to talk about movie licensed gamed on specific consoles or it was not, and what you posted didn't make that clear. As a member, not a moderator, I would like to talk about games like Goldeneye on the N64 on a thread like this, but I was genuinely unsure if a game on that console would be relevant. Don't blame me for your lack of clarity, I'm only trying to help.

I assume you're talking about this ET... As in a game that was on the Atari 2600, not Nintendo NES nor SNES. It's just that the topic itself is a little difficult to reply to when you specify that we're meant to talk about games on those two consoles to then bring up a game that wasn't on either of them. You can accuse me of nit-picking if you want, but it's difficult respond to, much less moderate, a thread whare I don't know the rules.

Sorry, but threads under the "Video Game Deals" sub-forum have to follow a very specific set of rules, rules that both this thread and your thread on Amazon deals do not meet, so I have to lock both of those threads and remove thee links within them. Please review the aforementioned rules before further posts on this sub-forum.

Playing video games will never cure cancer, reverse pollution nor undo Hitler, so like it or not the statement that playing video games is a waste of time rings true, at least to some extent. However, the same is also true of golf, model trains and the effort one puts into building a sex dungeon. In other words, it's a hobby, a pastime, the clue is in the name. I suppose it is possible to achieve great things by being passionate and dedicated to a pastime, but that's not the point of a hobby. For example, the leather pool/snooker cue tip was invented by a bored French prisoner, a prisoner who ended up asking for more prison time to develop his invention. But that's not the point, the point is that whilst hobbies may allow the space for inspiration, they aren't necessarily the drive behind it. They are just ways to amuse oneself. They are not there to hurt anyone, but they are not there to help anyone either. Video games are the same, just like any other hobby. No more, but no less.

We already knew the publishing rights to Tomb Raider were sold by Square Enix, and stupidly so. And given it's still the same developer, for better nor worse I don't expect much to change.

ATTENTION It appears Epic have moved into thier festive period when it come to free games. Thus, this thread will for updated once every 24 hours as that is the time limit to claim free games. If you have an Epic Games account, claim these games as soon as possible to avoid loosing out.

The game is now out. I'm downloading on Gamepass to check it out, but it's not getting an entirely positive reception. Some technical issues and a polarising sense of humour, even amongst Rick and Morty fans, is apparently holding it back. Well, I'll see for myself. I am a little baffled that a 12-15 hour single player fps needs 50gbs of space though.

There is inevitably going to be Xbox Series consoles that are limited editions with special decals inspired by a certain game or sponsorships, especially it its a completion prize r something. Here is one I just found; There cool and all, but it's not something I'd say is strictly necessary for me. I do actually have a Star Wars themed PS4 Pro, but that's only because my PS4 waved a little white flag and died and that was the best I could find as a replacement. EDIT: I just realised this "Celtic Console" isn't actually a console, it's removable decals, but still.

@Crazycrab got in there first, but he is right, that is a lie. I even went through this on my own post that phones need to be unlocked before changing carriers and that an eSIM would only make doing so more difficult if anything. It being the same process is the best you could hope for with an eSIM. Both yourself and the article you links claim that eSIM's allow you to swich carriers more easily, but that just isn't true. If you bought a phone on it's on without a contract you obviously have the option to use whatever carrier you want, but that's true with any phone one buys outright without a contract, whether it takes a regular SIM or an eSIM. Oh wait, not that's not true eSIMs. Most countries by your own admission will only have one or two network providers available if you have an eSIM. In America your choice isn't really a choice either thanks the problems with lack of net neutrality that I brought up earlier, meaning you'll be shoehorned into signing up with whatever carrier that won't throttle your speeds. The article you brought I can now say, having looked into it with more detail, is clearly very bias. Take a look at this section, for example: The part in red is just a flat out lie, you can't just change what provider you use on a whim unless; The phone is unlocked, and it wouldn't be if the phone was purchased through a contract. The lines you're switching to and from are on pay-as-you-go tariffs without contracts. There are problems with this on the iPhone 14 especially because of the massive install price of the phone. It's over £1000 here in the UK for example. The vast majority of customers will buy iPhones through a contract, so this claim you can "switch providers at the touch of a button" is exaggerated for people on pay-as-you-go (you still have to sign up to the carrier) and full on bullshit for everyone else. I suppose as a contract customer you could add a pay-as-you-go tariff to your eSIM, but there's no good reason to do that. The green part speaks the same tone as you, claiming that switching would be easy so long as the service providers "pinky promise" to not lock you onto thier service. The problem with that is that they obviously will. They do that already and have been for years. I don't know planet you're from, but it's obviously not this one if you think for one second that they will allow users on contracts to just switch providers because they're using an eSIM instead of a regular one. That's complete nonsense. The second paragraph may be my favourite part as the "only" and "minor" concern with this from a customers point of view would be not being able to transfer an eSIM into another device. I'll give the Apple shill who wrote this some credit, that is true and a legitimate problem with eSIMs, but as thread is bringing to light, it's hardly the biggest concern. It's the potential ill effect on customers freedom of choice and lack of justification for the removal of feature while price goes up that are the main concerns. Also @Grungie, why do you keep bring phone reviewers? How this affects a portion of people that is almost nobody isn't that important.

I'm struggling to find up to date stats on Horizon Forbidden West sales, but I'll guess the PS4 version has sold more simply because the install base is much larger on PS4 right now. By all means, if you find good stats please bring them to the thread. Either, HFW has obviously sold well enough on PS5 that the making the DLC exclusive to that platform will be profitable, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it.

This is bullshit. The "inconvenience" of using multiple physical SIMs is a very weak justification. Having to go through "the nightmare" that is switching SIM is hell of a lot better than not being able to switch at all. Because that is the reality on these so-called eSIMs. An eSIM is not a SIM, it's a piece of DRM software that loads the data a SIM cards normally holds from a phone's stored memory. The problem with that is that a phones number, IP address, everything that identifies that as phone, not a device, is now hardcoded into the device. You think that they can't restrict you to a single carrier with it, trust me, they can, and they do. Hell, they've been doing that to phones with removable SIM cards for years! That's why you usually have to have a contract phone unlocked before you're able to switch network providers, something that the network providers have trying to stop for just as long. The whole purpose of this is to make the process of unlocking a phone more difficult, if not impossible, and lock people to network providers. As I said, they have been trying to stop people switching network providers on contract phones for as long as contract phones have been a thing, this is just the latest tactic. And like you said, most countries only have one or two carries (if any) that even use this "eSIM" service, so that's already a restriction. The only reason America has more choice is because the choice is irrelevant there as they don't enforce net neutrality (Which is ridiculous, by the way), pretty much robbing Americans of a choice of what mobile carriers and ISP's they want to use based on whare they live. None of this is a coincidence, I mean just think about it. The network providers, the ISPs, Apple trying to popularise this technology and all them them rallying to end net neutrality, they all mesh and it's not a coincidence that they do. It's all about creating a world where these bastards can gouge thier customers for all they're worth. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out.

I did find an article from ScreenRant that contains a very vague "explanation" from Guerrilla about why they are only bringing this to PS5. From the article: "To achieve this grand vision technically and creatively, we've made the difficult decision to focus all our efforts on making an incredible experience exclusive to the PlayStation 5 console." It'll come as no surprise I'm sure that I don't believe a word of it, and I never will until we get specifics of why they couldn't bring this to PS4.

If I were you, I wouldn't throw around your background in technology in a debate like this. For a normal person to not think about this all they way through and miss how obviously problematic this can be is one thing, but for someone with your credentials it's frankly embarrassing. That's the the long way of saying I'm not impressed and couldn't care less as it doesn't explain why you're so keen to defend this practice anyway. In fact, until the last paragraph, you post doesn't address the topic at all, nor did you answer my question. So I'll try this again, and this time please don't reply unless you have answer. What is the benefit of not having a SIM card slot in a phone? The only thing I can think of is that you don't have to put the SIM card in yourself, saving you 5 minutes every couple of years...

What if you're contract is up and instead of renewing it with the same network provider, you wanted to keep that phone and switch to a sim-only deal to save money? Or of you wanted to swich to another provider? Those options are gone with this bullshit. The only option the people conned into this have at this point is to take on an entirely new phone contract. Make no mistake, that is the sole purpose of this, to screw over the customer and remove options. Why can't you see that? You acknowledging the growing list of issues with this. You admit that it's bad for people who travel, you admit it's bad for people who review phones or for one reason or another change phones frequently and it's bad for everyone once thier contract is near it's end. So, and I really do want an answer to this, what is it it good for? I have not seen you nor anyone list a single benefit to this, not one good thing. Apple are beyond scum. They charge people a fortune for mediocre products and customer service that would be considered awful from a thief. Stop being a shill. Being a fan of something means demanding the very best from it, not blindly defending legitimate criticisms. Not that apple would listen, they make thier phones for the benefit of the network providers. Honestly, I can't believe anyone intelligent enough to dress themselves buy this crap.

I have played them both up to earning the platinum trophies. The load times would be pretty much instant on PS5 and the PS5 version would make use the console's indigenous control features through the dual sense controller and obviously the PS4 version would not, but there is nothing in the game that needed the PS5 to work. The technology that actually drives the software is more powerful in the PS5 allowing superior performance, but the architecture is the basically the same. The game would obviously does not run as well on PS4, but it does would run, there is no technical excuse. They got the game to run on PS4 with some compromise, no reason they can't get the DLC expansion to run on PS4 as well. Sony are doing this to ship more PS5's, it's that simple. This was business decision, not a technical one. That is why I hate this decision. If Forbidden West had only been on PS5 only to begin with, this wouldn't bother me even though I don't own a PS5 yet. Like I said in the OP, I don't expect Sony to keep making 1st party games for the PS4 forever, but if they do make games for PS4 it is fair to expect them to be supported. This is, quite frankly, an outrage.

Some PC specifications detail what resolutions the game will be running at using the specified configuration, and quite frankly, we are at a point whare they all should be doing that because that has a massive affect of the load on the hardware. It could be that those specs are based upon running a game at 4K, but there's no way to know. Whatever the case, this could be the most demanding game on PC that we have seen to date, it's certainly the most demanding game on PC that I have seen. It is inevitable for 32GB of RAM to become practically necessary to play new games. I would hold off on upgrading just a little longer, though, see if we get more info on whether or not this applies to full HD of 4K.

Of course they are. Video games are not toys like they were back in the 80's and 90's, they are in entertainment medium, just like movies, music, books and TV. And like the any entertainment medium, any work within it will be aimed at a target audience. If that target audience are adults and/or older teens, there's a good chance there will be content that, for reason or another, may not suitable for young children. Just like movies, video games are rated to help parents determine whether or not a game is suitable for their children. If they decide to buy a game with a more mature rating for a young kid to play, that's thier choice and I would never question it, but any responsibility for that child being exposed to something they would consider inappropriate, whether it be a violence, bad language, sexual themes, drug/alcohol use or whatever, the responsibility for that lies solely with the parents. Any parent unwilling to take responsibility shouldn't be one.

... It's only for PS5! Burning Shores will be set in the ruins of Los Angeles in what has become a volcanic landscape (A strange similarity to the Frozen Wilds DLC form Zero Dawn that was set at Yellowstone.). As you can see in the trailer, it looks promising; And it looks as if we'll see a functioning Horas class titan/ Metal Devil for the first time. The DLC exantion will launch on April 19nth 2023. It's cool, but why is it PS5 only? It's not like I expected Sony to make exclusive games for both PS4 and PS5 forever, but if the original game runs on PS4, why deny PS4 users the chance to play this? The Frozen Wilds was one of the best expansions I've ever played and was so looking forward to an expansion for Forbidden West to then have my hopes crushed like this as I don't have a PS5 yet is really disappointing.

I highly doubt we'll ever see it, but if the di remake Magic Carpet 2, I'd bee exceedingly happy.