Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Red Dead 2 Thread?


thefuzz

Recommended Posts

I don't play online all that much...at all really, games are just a way for me to kill time while the wife is getting ready or sleeps in on Sundays or something like that...total time killers.

That said, I don't get excited about new releases like most, and will pick them up off the used pile after a number of months...this is not one of those titles, I'm really excited about this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, 4Corners said:

This game is getting bought. It looks incredible. Pretty excited for it. 

I get super excited just for the single player.    Then I remember a month later the beta for Red Dead online starts, and I get even more excited, because the potential there is pretty high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Porn Shop Clerk said:

I hope so.  I didn't buy GTA V because the first Red Dead didn't come to PC.

Yeah but it probably won't be till next year I'd say, but I don't think it'll take as long as GTA V did to hit PC, there's too much money to tap into now on PC.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I don't think it's any weird or unique clause, it's the offset language, same thing so many contract disputes are over. It just means that including it, if a player is cut and then signed by another team, the original team would be able to subtract how much they're getting paid by the new team from what they still owe him on their guaranteed money. For example, it's why Russell Wilson signed for the minimum last year with the Steelers as that was included in his Denver contract.  So if he signed with the Steelers for $1 million, he'd get $1 million less from the Broncos, if it was $2 million, he'd get $2 million less, basically he couldn't make any more money than he was already going to make, so you sign for the minimum to not take unnecessary cap room from your new team while giving extra cap room to your old one. The problem with trying to include it in rookie deals is that a team trying to include it, it says they think they don't really believe the player will make it 4 years with the team before they cut them.  And this usually comes up with one or two rookies in most seasons, the difference is it's usually handled much more quietly and not as public and ugly as this one. The other difference is that it's happening with the Bengals, which I believe I saw are one of the few (or only?) team that doesn't have protections for rookies in rookie and mini camps to be able to participate even if they haven't signed their contract yet.  The other teams have injury protections that allow them to still play, but the Bengals do not, which is also why this one is so public and ugly, as most the time this happens, the rookie is still participating in the rookie and subsequent mini camps, giving them more time to get the contract done before training camp when they'd then hold out.
    • adamantium? adam? adam thielen super bowl game winning catch ?
    • You're really gonna pass up the opportunity to make a joke about skidmarks in underwear here?  Alright fine.
×
×
  • Create New...