Dichotomy

@Flaming_Kaiser You misunderstand me, perhaps I should have put it as paying extra on top of your broadband bill to play online seems silly to me. I've not seen one valid argument that justifies this cost and a game like Destiny should really highlight why the cost is nothing more than a gaming tax rather than something that adds anything of value to the online experience.

Let my Plus sub slide a few months ago as found I rarely bother with the games any more. Paying more than your broadband bill to play online seems silly to me and I refuse to do it, I see no justifiable reason for this charge and am baffled by people's willingness to accept it. If you're happy with the games then fair enough, but going on most months' comments people aren't and only pay because they want to play online, so this is just a underhanded console tax.

@FaultyDroid The (sensible) mantra for early access is pretty much the same as for 'full' release games - only buy it if you think you would be happy with the state it is in when you pay for it, treat anything extra after that as a bonus. As I said, early access should only be a problem to anyone if they're silly about the way they approach it. Given two of my current go to games are early access releases, I feel the downsides of the method are outweighed by the fact it gives good indie developers a chance to make games they otherwise may have not been able to.

As for early access on consoles, I wouldn't say never for sure, it would require policy changes on the console manufacturers side, but if ever there was enough of a call for those games it would happen. I also think Microsoft were at least trialing early access on a few games last time I looked (wasn't Elite Dangerous one?)

@FaultyDroid Early access is fine as long as you're not silly about it. There are some real gems you can get and have input into how they're developed. Any big game you buy at release these days is effectively early access anyway - you get a huge patch to apply straight away and then usually have to wait a month or two for the game to (hopefully) be fully fixed.

Early access probably won't happen on consoles though just because every update would have to go through a certification process that would take weeks to finish, by which time the game will be on its next build. Apart from slowing the process down, I'm guessing the complaints as to why the PC version has feature X while the consoles are still waiting would be enough of a deterrent away from consoles for any developer who decides they need to follow the early access model to release a game.

I think people misunderstood what this was investigating, it was about the Steam store page misrepresenting the game, nothing to do with anything said before release. Only the stuff that directly advertises the game to sell it will be under scrutiny and all those promises Murray made at press conferences and so forth are not viable to be put forward as false advertising (whether they should be is another topic for discussion).

I'm a bit disappointed by this, I think they should have got a reprimand for their actions. The case mainly hinged on screenshots/videos on the store page that depicted things that were not in the game such as certain biomes and that giant worm creature. In the UK we usually see adverts running with disclaimers for anything that doesn't wholly represent the product on sale, such as 'Not in game footage'. It goes to extreme lengths that if a pack of biscuits has a picture of the biscuits on a plate there is a message saying 'serving suggestion' so people don't complain they didn't get a plate (yes, it has come to this). The fact they didn't do this and got away with it makes the law pretty pointless if it is different for each company.

For those who didn't know all that would have happened if they were found guilty is that they would have had to remove the offending material from the store page (which they might have already anyway) and Steam, being the seller, would have gotten a warning. Of course it would have been interesting to see how Steam went about responding to the red mark against their name in relation to Hello Games.

After reading the first paragraph I felt this article may be provocative and, as it turns out, it seems I was right from reading the comments. If you are a Wii U owner though and feeling a little miffed by this, just remember you at least got games that worked out of the box without a patch and didn't have to pay to play online. In the end there shouldn't be sides, we as gamers should just strive to get the best experience we can and call out the software houses for dodgy practices, not each other.

On the topic of the article, I'm glad less and less games are exclusive as it is good for the consumer. While it seems unlikely we'll see the end of console developer's exclusives (although, having said that, Microsoft seem to have started to move that way and even Sony may do with their PSNow service), it is becoming too costly for the console makers to gain 3rd party exclusivity of any game which is only a good thing.

@get2sammyb This is an argument I often used to explain why no game was taking World of Warcraft's place, but there was a bit more to it than people being content. The reason for it was basically that other MMOs tried to take a slice of WoW's playerbase by offering similar experiences, but obviously there is a time commitment to leveling up and so on, so why put that time in when you have an almost identical game you have already done the same with?

In the same way each of those games were the first to get into people's minds on PS4 and any similar game now has to have a compelling reason to pull a player away. While you can argue those games offer enough variation to keep people satisfied for a long time, each of them also carved out a niche to be top of their class. So new games could sell if they were either significantly better or were original, but too often we get games released mimicking the market leader to try to get a share of its market instead of actually evolving the genre. As with most things, if you want to sell well you have to stand out from the crowd.

I personally have experienced very little excitement over this generation's games which is probably a side effect of how last generation played out. We are fed sequel after sequel with very little originality fed to us, the release schedule is filled with products that people who don't fully understand gaming decide on to make money. I'm guessing a lot of people are getting burnt out on playing the same games with minor alterations.

On top of this we have bugged releases and people realising that waiting a couple of months nets you a working product for half the launch day price. I also wonder if the reduced number of games getting an early enough review for people to get hyped about a game is having an impact.

Another concern is, with the console manufacturers releasing new hardware, people may be waiting until they pick a new console up before investing any further in gaming - if you are going to be able to play a game in a better state with new hardware in the next year, why not wait and experience it like that?

But, as I said, for me it is just the lack of anything new in the AAA market that is making me apathetic towards buying new games. Given 90%+ of my gaming time in the past couple of months has been spent on a £15 indie game with pretty much nothing released or releasing in the AAA market making me pay attention, I think software companies need to be more open to taking risks to get people's attention back.

@wiiware Since the days of the Gamecube Nintendo have been a great second system pick-up though - you have your primary system for third party games and then, if you're after a second system, the Nintendo one is always a great choice. Most people considering the Pro will already have a PS4, X1 or PC meaning the Switch is a viable choice even without 3rd party stuff as you already have access to it.

As for the Mario/Zelda game thing that gets wheeled out all the time, I think it is just brought about by people's need to justify their purchase over that of a Nintendo machine. Even if we accept that all is ever released is Mario and Zelda games, the diversity in Mario games alone means you are just picking out the mascot rather than the game. He's in platformers in 2D and 3D, racing games, tennis games, RPGs, fighting games, football games, puzzle games, party games and probably others I've missed. So a Mario game is an ill defined concept.

The fact the Wii U is getting one new Zelda game is another thing that makes it odd to pick out this franchise as Nintendo's go to (it is equivalent of picking out Smash for instance). Then of course there are a load of other games such as Xenoblade, Splatoon, Wonderful 101 and Pikmin that don't fall in to the same category. I think Nintendo get a bad rap for doing a lot of things better than their competition and it is unfortunate people only pick up on colourful visuals, assuming the game isn't mature enough for them. If they manage to get enough people to see what they've really been doing in the industry (releasing games that work out of the box, not charging for online, keeping local play a thing and so on) and forget for a moment about processing power they might do pretty well.

Aside from all of this they do very well in the portable market and, depending how they push the switch, it could well be a hit with those gamers that like to take a dedicated device with them. If we got the best of both worlds - Nintendo's first/second party console games and their big handheld games - the system could be a phenomenal success. Arbitrarily ruling them out though would be a mistake.

@wiiware What you have to remember is you are arguing against Nintendo on the aspect of power, but not mentioning exclusive, but then you are arguing against the Scorpio based on exclusives and ignoring power.

While I'd not expect the switch to be a powerhouse, there is too little concrete information to judge its exact power yet. Given the Wii U showed you could have good looking games running at 60fps on weaker hardware I think Nintendo at least got the message to some of us that good design and optimisation should be part of making games. That brings me on to the other point, I would love it if console manufacturers turned around and said games had to be released finished on their machines. Day one patches being a potential problem highlights a problem with the industry and not Nintendo (although I'd expect patches may work by flashing the cart with the latest build). Despite everything though, ignoring the fact it is a portable console is the biggest issue here - even if it comes in behind the X1 it is still going to be something you can use in places you can't use the others.

As for exclusivity on the Xbox, they did well last gen with arguably (definitely, but using this to be objective) weaker exclusives than Sony and the Wii U tanked this gen despite having more and generally better exclusives than the other two combined. So far Sony has released little in the way of quality exclusives this generation, but has shown that it doesn't really matter as long as you have 3rd party support and can push your console on being more powerful. It is unfortunate, but resolution and a few frames per second have become more of a talking point than good games and fun.

As I said though, we shall see how it all plays out in the next year. I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss any party though as this round has just begun.

@JoeBlogs I'm not so sure you can dismiss the Switch so easily, I think a lot of gamers who already have a base PS4 would think very carefully as to whether to get the Pro or Switch if they had to choose or find it hard to justify extra purchases.

Then on the other side you have the Scorpio which Microsoft only announced so early to throw a spanner in the works for Sony. The closer it gets to releasing the more the people who want the latest cutting edge gadget will hold off for it and given that is a huge chunk of the market for the Pro it makes Sony's position wobbly at best. The flip side is, as a PS4 owner, you could argue that you'll get all Sony's games any way so it might be better to get a Scorpio over a Pro if you don't already have an Xbox1.

As we've seen many times, a console maker only stays in pole position until someone else offers something the consumer likes more. Sony ran away with this generation early on due to Microsoft's inability to see what they were offering was not what people wanted, now though Sony are getting a fair few pieces of bad press and Microsoft are being careful to woo any potential customers. The balance could shift at any point if Sony are not exceptionally careful. I expect an eventful 2017 either way.

It will be interesting to see how the sales go after the initial early adopter rush finishes for both this and PSVR. The release windows of both being relatively close to Christmas doesn't help with getting a good feel for how successful either item is though and I'm guessing it will be a full year before we have a decent idea of how well either has done.

Having said that I also wonder what impact both the Switch and Scorpio will have on sales after the initial burst. I think from a business perspective Sony will want to get as many units out before Christmas as possible, as the competition ramps up next year. My feelings about the Pro aside, I think it is a very volatile period coming up for Sony that may backfire on them if they're not careful.

@get2sammyb It's funny, every time I read a comment on the differences between the Pro and PS4 I come away feeling like the first part of the comment is assuring those without the Pro they're not missing anything, but the second part is shouting about how much better the Pro experience is. It is like being talked to by someone who is trying not to hurt anyone's feelings

@leucocyte I asked this in another article, but it wasn't answered. Found the answer on Eurogamer though, they tested out Project Cars as part of their Pro review and reported back there was absolutely no difference between the Pro and PS4. I think when the Pro runs in base mode everything is clocked back to PS4 levels on top of switching off half the GPU, so without a patch to tell the game to run in Pro mode there will be no difference in unsupported games. If you read closely in this review there is also a brief mention of this in the sentence
"Titles also need to be patched in order to take advantage of the specification boost; this is to maintain compatibility with the console's library, but it means that many big games like Bloodborne and The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt see zero improvements."

I'm not going to retread old ground with my feelings about the Pro (and Scorpio), but I would reword the paragraph where you say the new console delivers the exact same experience and then go on, in the same sentence, to list a series of improvements which kind of contradicts the beginning of the sentence. I think the general spin on that part is using fundamentally the same experience and not exact.

Have Uncharted to play and wouldn't mind playing Ratchet and Clank from this list. Also haven't played the new Doom so may pick that up for a bit of Christmas gaming.

Guessing this was pretty hard to score, the game itself is a certified classic, but the creaky old engine that Bethesda keep using makes the remaster of questionable quality. Definitely shouldn't be skipped though if you've never played it before or only played it in the original PS3's form.

For me the combat is fine, not great, just fine, stealthy bowman and mage both play pretty well - I much prefer it to the Witcher 3's combat - it may have been more twitch based, but it felt very dull for the most part, a sort of poor man's Dark Souls combat that lasted far longer than was welcome. Before anyone thinks I'm committing sacrilege to many people's GotY, remember this is only my opinion and I fully accept that

@get2sammyb Have been having a discussion elsewhere about the Pro and unsupported PS4 games running on it. It is my understanding that if there is no Pro patch for a game then the Pro will run in a 'base' mode that makes it effectively a base PS4 so the game will be indistinguishable between the two systems. It has been suggested to me though that the Pro will still run the game better, so we would have more stable frame rates etc even without the Pro being supported. I don't think this is true, but can you confirm it for me?

Reading the comments it's nice to see there is such a range of RPG experiences to suit everyone. I'm one of those strange ones who could never get into the Witcher 3, but Skyrim is still one of my go to titles on the PC (thanks in part to the excellent mod support it has received from the community).

@GamerDad66 I might be wrong, but usually new classes come with new slots so you don't have to delete anything. Of course you only get one extra per class so if you want two of the same class for some reason you're probably out of luck.

I think anyone who put money down on this game or has an interest in making the gaming community a better place has a right to voice their displeasure over everything that has gone on with this game. I see so many people defending what has gone on with things like 'games change in development'. Yes they do, but given how vocal Murray was about the features in the game, but didn't say a word when they were removed shows a definite favouring of sales over openness.

With the multiplayer thing he was still being vague just after release, not giving a definite answer. The reason for this is the Steam version was still to release and they feared it might hurt sales. You can argue they made mistakes, but the truth is those supposed 'mistakes' drove expectation and therefore sales.

The way they have gone silent since release is also a kick in the you know whats for people who bought there product. Going from being in the media and tweeting all the time to nothing only allows rumours to circulate. A simple 'hey all, we're still working on new features' once a week would at least reassure those people still hoping they'll get a decent game at the end of this.

These tweets are just another nail in the Hello Games coffin.

Bit of a surprising misstep in the souls series. Do you not even get faction rewards from the arena pvp? I think I'll wait for the entire season pass to release before deciding whether or not to drop money on this.

This is a completely anti-consumer move by Bethesda (I know other companies are doing the same, so I aim this at them as well). The reasoning of making out like they are doing us a favour by putting code in the hands of the public at the same time as the media is just wrong on so many levels.

I am actually hoping that this backfires somewhat on these companies with review outlets going into great detail over the negatives of a game. So rather than maybe getting a sentence on microtransactions we get a paragraph on their impact and potential future impact once patches come out. Also a thorough and detailed section on the bugs that are in the game from day one. If the review is going to be late anyway there is no reason to worry about upsetting software houses, just purchase a copy for review if they get funny.

Due to the fact games used to have to be finished before going gold we used to get reviews in magazines before release and now we can't even get them online where there is no printing or monthly release date of the media outlets who review games. It is a sad joke and I personally will continue to wait for a decent amount of information before committing to a purchase.

I know you guys are going to work through this, but it is a threat to you too and I sympathise with you over what is going on. Dealing with this, the fact companies actually target sites for review code because they think are more likely to give positive reviews and the 101 youtube reviewers must be both worrying and heartbreaking. I urge people to realise this is the impact of the pre-order culture in gaming and send a message to software houses that you are not happy with this move by stopping this practice

Definitely shady, but this entire generation seems to be one shady move after another. Until people wake up and stop pre-ordering this kind of thing will continue. Personally I'll wait for reviews, but after a week a lot of the hype dies down anyway so it will be easier to wait for game of the year editions with this. I hope reviewers start being truly critical again though and call out companies on practices like microtransactions and still buggy day one patches.

@kyleforrester87 Maybe, I'm just a bit of a cynic and know that people in positions like his are always very careful about what they say. By giving vague answers they protect themselves from being quoted in the future, but the flip side is I always wonder what they are avoiding saying

@kyleforrester87 Yeah, I'd heard that, but it made for an easy to work out example in my head. The entire quote is a bit meaningless though as it is just too vague, either he's being non-committal or there was visual context in what he was saying which doesn't translate into just writing up what was said ('these projects', what projects? and the bit I already mentioned about 'some of them' stand out).

Bit confused at a bit of the quote

and it's 0.2 or 0.3 per cent for these projects – some of them.

What exactly does the "some of them" part mean? Also if we take something like Destiny and assume the rumours of a $500 million budget are true, then even 0.2% is $1 million. So if the some of them part refers to games like destiny it is still beyond most smaller developers and indie developers. I have a calculator too

They also did a promotion for Fifa 17 where the best goal scored (or fastest or something) won a copy of the game. Seemed like a decent promo to get people in the shop and try the game until I noticed the £1.50 entry fee. It isn't a good way to promote your shop.

@Alphastorm900 Game bought out Gamestation and then proceeded to close them down, so they were only the same company in the end. There is one other game shop on the high street though, at least around here, Grainger Games (I think they are prominent in the north), although they have a habit of trying to sell you unsealed games as new...

@Rudy_Manchego If by adult gaming you mean games that should only be played by adults (Just because there isn't swearing or gore in something like Pikmin or Mario doesn't mean I, as an adult, can't enjoy them more than those 'adult' games) then yes, we still would have had those games. They were around on computers with games like Doom releasing in 1993 and being very popular. If Sony hadn't tried that market, someone else would have - people growing up with consoles like the NES, Megadrive and the like meant there was an obvious market to tap there. Sega would likely have gone that way had they not had a few poorly timed console releases and pretty terrible marketing.

I'm not going to jump on the hateful side here, I'd like to think we might have had the best of both companies - games released in a finished state that don't need large day one patches, DLC kept to a minimum and microtransactions non-existent, a variety of new IPs that catered for a mix of ages, the best of what Japan has to offer while still catering to 3rd parties. It could have been great.

Either that or people would have recognised the genius that was the Dreamcast

I don't think the Vita proved people don't want AAA games on the go, just that they didn't want watered down versions of their AAA games. My Vita will still be used though as I'm not going to get retro PlayStation games on Nintendo at the very least.

The big red mark against this game for me is the inclusion of microtransaction, there is not a hope I'd knowingly pay full price for any game that contains them. I've already skipped SFV and Deus Ex this year because of them, two games that I've really enjoyed previous titles of and, from what I've read, the grind in this really is a grind without the microtransactions. It is probably a remnant from the fact it was free with Oculus, but they have no place in a game you already have to put down £40 for entry.

@TeslaChippie That in itself is worrying given the NX is supposed to release in March and game development takes 1.5 years or more in a lot of cases these days (and even bug testing on an open world game can run for 6 months). I heard rumours that games will be easy to port to the system, but they are just rumours so far. I'd really like Nintendo to become competitive again as their games deserve a larger audience, but little things like this don't inspire confidence

On top of no PC announcement, there is also no Nintendo announcement. Might not seem like news, but with the NX out by then it seems a little worrying that there will once again be a lack of 3rd party support on the system.

As to the people gloating over the fact there is no PC release, that makes you pretty much as bad as the people you dislike on the PC that wind console users up. You get a vocal minority of cretins in any group, don't be one of them and understand they never represent the overall majority of any community.

The imminent release of the Pro seems like the most likely candidate for the current drop in sales, but I wouldn't rule out that people are getting a little fed up of Sony due to the current run of negative press surrounding them. A combination of increasing the price of Plus, the No Man's Sky debacle which also brought back into focus Sony's draconian store policies, the denial of mods for Bethesda, charging for PS2 games rather than implementing BC like their competitors, many exclusives not appearing in their release windows leaving the line up a little sparse in that respect and probably a few things I'm forgetting (takes a breath) could well also be contributing to these decreased sales.

I'm not totally convinced the Pro will fly off the shelves, but that is probably because I'm dead against this mid generation refresh anyway. It tends to be the consoles which aren't leading the market that are the ones with the most consumer friendly features and due to that last gen we saw the PS3 catch up in sales to the X360, it is quite possible the turn around in Microsoft's policies may see that happen in reverse by the end of this gen.

@JoeBlogs I can only assume that people are suckers for hype since there have been so many complaints about the state games launch in from people who pre-ordered, yet they still do it. If you are willing to wait a week though, with a combination of reviews and gameplay footage on sites like Youtube it is very easy to figure out if a game is for you without spending a penny.

I've gone the other way and usually wait for a GotY edition of something I'd like to play, that way I get a fully patched game with all the content on a disc, something that will still work should Sony's servers ever be taken down. As you say, there are so many games so what's the rush

I find it a bit sad it has sold so well, it shows how little people value reviews any more. I've said on another site that I'd be wary buying it before its been out a few days as at least one of two things will probably be true - it will be buggy or it will seem polished for a few hours play and then the cracks will show. It seems both things are true from what I've read after release day. Much like No Man's Sky, I'm giving this one a miss.

@Frank90 So what you're saying is if someone buys cod and/or FIFA that makes them casual gamers? As I said, the entire idea of having these two classes of gamers is just another form of elitism in a community. I cringed when they stood on stage for the Pro/Scorpio reveal and marketed it as a device for hardcore gamers. I have no intention of buying the Pro so I guess that makes me a casual gamer? Personally I prefer to see myself as just a person who has a hobby of playing games.

@SnowstormX Maybe the people who had a go at Sony for not allowing mods are the ones who got them to back down on the issue? It still isn't perfect, but do you think Sony would have done anything if there wasn't a PR nightmare going on in the community? It is pretty much true of any company that if enough people don't accept their bull then they will change their stance.

Would really like to see House of the Dead brought back and put in VR, the stories may have made no sense, but the level design was always very tight. It was a good example of why a short game could be worth full price and encourage multiple playthroughs. It sounds like Rush of Blood could have benefited from cutting out the filler and being more focused too. Still, in the absence of HotD I'd still like to try this out.

@Frank90 Can we stop using the labels casual and hardcore gamer? They are ill-defined titles at best and are just another form of elitism. I can agree VR may well not gain a foothold in the gaming community as a whole, but it would be a sad day if that was because people decided it was not in their perceived class of gaming rather than them actually trying it and not liking it, or it being outside their budget.

@get2sammyb I know someone who had it on preorder, so hoping they still get it. Only problem for me though is I couldn't call at their's and then spend the next 2 hours isolated in VR (I'd feel a bit rude doing that), instead I'll wait until I get a chance to borrow it for a night or two. Most things don't make me ill, for instance stereoscopic 3D is fine for me, I've never had a headache using the 3DS for example. I do suffer from motion sickness in moving vehicles though and wonder if that will have any effect on me.

One other weird thing that crossed my mind was, as a kid, I had some Tomytronic games and, being a kid, I never thought I was seeing them differently from other people I just thought everyone saw the two men you controlled. For whatever reason, instead of merging the left and right eye image as was supposed to happen to give a 3D effect, I saw both sides separately. I hope that isn't an issue for me with VR (I doubt it will be, but I found the memory a little funny).

@get2sammyb Nice write up, sounds a lot like what I expected. My only worry would be that, as pointed out in the review, this is a first iteration sporting problems that should be fixed in future revisions of the device. Many may wait for the second generation of VR, but Sony aren't known for supporting their hardware that performs poorly regardless of hype (I mean, didn't this site used to be Movemodo?).

I know you've touched upon not experiencing nausea with PSVR before, but just a couple of questions about it from someone who can suffer from motion sickness in a car/boat/plane etc. Have you tried out Oculus/Vive and experienced nausea with them (especially the games that are rated as more likely to make people uncomfortable)? Have you heard of anyone who has found PSVR makes them feel sick after prolonged use? It is likely to be my biggest concern when deciding whether to pick one of these up, so it is a pretty important problem for me.

For me this type of game suits a handheld far better than a console so it will stay a Vita title for me (unless it is crossbuy, since I'll have it by default then). Couldn't really imagine putting a game like this (or any of the other visual novels) on in the living room though for some reason.

Great game, I still play it on PC now so I hope it sells the deserved number of units on consoles. I did have a few problems with the game though, namely the use of timers on a lot of the missions and the fact that a single attack from stealth reveals your entire team's location to the enemy. The former problem means that you often have to forego tactical planning to rush an objective before you run out of time. The latter problem means stealth mostly feels like a way to position your troops at the beginning of a map (and with time constraints you tend to pick the first decent spot, not the best).

It's also a bit of a shame Sony seem hellbent on not allowing mods as they add quite a bit to the game and increase its replayability by a magnitude, hopefully they will hear the outcry from their users and reverse their policy.

Even with all of the above problems though it is still worth getting if you like a good turn based strategy game.

And people say PCs are complicated

Very strange and confusing problem from Sony thanks to their pushing of HDR on the Pro (and base PS4 after the patch), but at the same time having it as a barrier to using PSVR. Could potentially see a few Christmases spoilt by this as people hook up everything and think there is something wrong with one of the components - won't somebody please think of the children!

While exclusives have never been consumer friendly, there is no denying they do help shift consoles. In the case of VR though I doubt exclusivity will do much this early in its life other than annoy people. Oculus has already seen what consumer backlash does to confidence in a new platform when you make bad decisions and, while this is a bit different, I doubt there was much point in this move. It almost feels like the decision to pay for exclusives was done out of habit by a company that doesn't fully understand the PC market won't care.

The entire No Man's Sky release has been both a farce and a disgrace. To anyone who is still trying to defend this game's marketing I'm sure you are also supporters of snake oil sellers The fact Sean Murray was so vocal before the release and yet he (or pretty much anyone else in the company) hasn't said a thing for weeks shows both contempt for Hello Games' customers and agitates the situation further.

As for the ASA investigation, it is a pretty straight forward case as the game is misrepresented by its store page and only the blind would think otherwise. However, for anyone baying for blood, you will be disappointed as all that will happen is the ASA will demand any false representation of the game be removed from the store page and that they should not do it again under threat of further action. The one interesting thing will be to see how Valve react to the warning since it is their store and their responsibility to make sure what is advertised is representative of what they sell. They will not be happy about any red marks against their name due to another company's actions.

One thing that seems abundantly clear, though, is anything said that's not directly linked to the sale of a game will not be grounds for any sort of legal action. It is unfortunate as I'd much prefer it if, when talking about a future game, companies were held accountable for what they said is in a game and therefore either have to use phrases like 'we hope to implement...' or at least release statements before a game's launch to make clear what got cut. Without that what we see are games that get more attention due to their botched PR than the game itself. Yet still people pre-order.

Enjoyable game, but people seriously need to stop buying remasters/makes and spend their money on something new to send a message. This really is just a generation were it feels like game makers have run out of ideas.

If anyone is still looking, people are reporting that Asda are also doing the deal, PS4 + Fifa 500GB/1TB for £150/£180 when scanned through the till, although the ticket hasn't been changed in a lot of Asdas apparently. Good luck

As much as I'm not a fan of the Pro, I totally agree with Sony's decision to not put a 4K drive in the console. Looking back to E3 2013 when Microsoft was championing TV,TV,TV! and Sony focused on gaming, everyone agreed Sony did the right thing. There was barely even a murmur when the PS4 released without CD or 3D support because we all wanted console primarily for the games. This is just a continuation of that, keeping the price low by focusing on the primary use for the device.

Most people are only confused by the move because they are not factoring in the extra £50-100 they'd have to pay for the console if it did have this feature. The £350 price point is a pretty strong one, but when you start pushing into the £400+ price range it becomes a bit less of a price most people can comfortably spend on the occasional month. The only thing I might say could have been done different was maybe release a deluxe edition sporting the drive for people who want to pay that premium, but I guess that may just confuse the market more.