Ahhhh....
That's right, Skate. Thanks for that correction. :)
Same here. I could play Attack & Defend on Calypso Casino for days.
You mean Xbox Live Gold. Live is their online service altogether.
The problem I see with that rationality is PS360 development costs won't magically plummet when their successors arrive (unless the team itself decides there's no need to push these systems any farther).
Certainly a good start. Now to clean up just about everything else.
I'm not contending that those games are exclusive, just the false notion that XBLA titles that have/have had a reserved spot in SOA never go over to PSN like they stated.
From video: "That tends to be the thing, right? Like with SOA it's exclusive stuff that you'll never play on a Playstation, and you'll rarely play on a PC."
You're right. The green text is also a dead giveaway (KOTOR 1's was blue).
@IGN editors in video (doubt they'll see this, but worth a try)
Some of your statements are incorrect:
-Alan Wake's American Nightmare did not release during Summer of Arcade
-There's quite a few older Summer of Arcade titles that have made it over to PSN later on, not just to PC.
Pretty cool. I'm with the author when it comes to costs in paintball. It was fun while it lasted, but the sport can burn through your money in a hurry.
"While the second KOTOR lacks when it comes to storytelling. . ."
Couldn't disagree with you more.
I think they'd shoot that down because of design purposes. It would be a bore for the player to see him work out before and during the beginning of each conversation throughout the entire span of the game. :P
". . .from the dissolution of bubbles to other. . ."
Ahhh shucks...I thought I would be the only contributor to know this secret until it happened. :(
Anyway, thanks for going out of your way to clarify this, Cat.
@romancer
Except higher corporate standards were displayed in previous generations. :/
What platform did you purchase it on? I remember it starting out at $15 on XBLA.
"My point was how can you factor in price of it being high or going multiplat when there was no gameplay shown just an announcement?"
In regards to price: have you still bothered to look at Agent's wikipage I linked above? Take-Two's former CEO recognized Agent as an AAA title (meaning budget) years ago.
In regards to multiplat: I can then SPECULATE why it's more feasible to believe the title would look to release on PS3 at some time gi...
I'm still trying to rack my brain about the point you're trying to get across. I mentioned the probability of high dev costs to put into perspective why it seems a tad silly to think this might not be a PS3 game at all.
Sorcery as an example doesn't really mirror this situation either: it's a first-party developed game and launched at a $40 price point, showing it certainly wasn't a big-budget title like Agent promises to be.
The problem comes in asking this: if MS had not placed such strict rules regarding DLC, would we see this as free across all platforms? I think that's the focus of Majin's post.
Read the link provided in my 2nd comment. R* admitted in Q + A's of Agent being in active development in both 2010 and 2011.
"...because if anyone sorcery for the ps move,what we saw was just a playable proof of concept ."
I don't see how that's a rational counter-argument.
"Number 2."
I think the terminology when describing what Congress can/can't do is a bit broader than that. People stating that aren't exactly saying Congress doesn't have the ability to follow through with this (although recent ruling about 1st amendment protections regarding video games even make this a bit hazy), it's more appropriately the default outrage response to something the public sees regarding unfair government intrusion.