I could say that it's a good thing, that console-release-specific bugs have the opportunity to get fixed, but then I'd shoot myself down by realising that those bugs shouldn't be in there in the first place.Rabidkitten said:Remember when console games could not be patched. When a developer couldn't release a horribly buggy game because there was no way to fix it after release. Guess those days are gone.
That said, I bought a PS3 to play Demons Souls because I loved Dark Souls that much. So all it really comes down to for me, whose got the games.
I can understand in the current economy how release dates are important, but publishers do seem to hinge their business on the idea that relatively major things can be fixed post-release (apparently without complaint, in their coo-coo land minds), when such a thing shouldn't have to happen.
PCs are superior, but I'm still firmly a console gamer, I do both, I feel no pride or shame.
In reference to Jim, jimmy jim jim, Jaaaaaymes...
It's true, seeing that publishers and certain developers have made it so that consoles no longer have the advantage of convenience, the hardware is looked upon as the main selling point, and as various sources prove, the hardware pales in comparison to even a mid-range PC.
That being said, it's not even like they're purely for gaming anymore, what with Microsoft/Sony realising that there's more money in the 'multimedia centre' market than there could ever be in the market for actual games. At least with a PC its owner can choose its priorities.
Would it be so much to ask for a console that is only for GAMING? Apparently so.