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!

     

Gaming Sh*t


davos

Recommended Posts

So, I've never been into the whole video game thing since N64 but am considering changing my mind after seeing how these new ones have netflix and all these other snazzy things. I would prolly only get Madden, Nascar, & Fifa....So is it worth it? If so, XBox v. PS3 v. that little white box made by Asians

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah it seems you would be interested in multiplatform gaming, you might as well get a 360. Unless you want a Bluray player with your console.. get a PS3.

PS3 comes with everything, you don't have to buy a bunch of add ons. So for value wise, get a PS3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can stream Netflix to all three systems. Your gaming preference is important when it comes to which system. All 3 have pros and cons

Wii

Pros-

Free online play

Large library

Casual gamer appeal

Internal memory upgradeable with SD cards

Backwards compatibility with Gamecube games, memory cards, and controllers

Cheaper controllers

Fun to play with groups of people

Low failure rates

Lower price

Cons-

Comes with have the controller required for some games

Shovelware

Casual gamer appeal

Online service lacks depth

DLC isn't supported as well as other consoles

Controllers aren't rechargeable

PS3

Pros-

All-one-media player with Blu-ray player

Upgradeable internal memory with laptop hard drive

Rechargeable controller

Backwards compatible with PSone games (Launch systems are PS2 compatible)

Free online play

Bluetooth supported accessories

Blu-ray discs have large storage space

Cons-

Weak launch library (this has gotten better)

Online gaming services lacks compared to XBox Live

Some games aren't ported well

XBox 360

Pros-

Backwards compatible with XBox games

XBox Live is the most expansive online service

Large library

Cons-

Proprietary memory upgrade

Lower end models require upgrades to connect to internet

Launch systems had high failure rate (this issue seems to been have addressed)

Controllers aren't rechargeable (this is upgradeable)

Online service carries a fee

There are more than what I have listed, but I am trying to keep from flaming one system over the other

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
    • Get any shot you can at humane society, so much cheaper
×
×
  • Create New...