Sheikah

I've done this but I think as well the other person needs to do this. In my case I simply could not connect to Ville as I think he needed to do this too. I think it's important the host has done this for people to join. Oh @Dcubed I added your friend code a while back, can you add me?

I don't mind who, but someone open their gates. Not one is open! :p

Started this wonderful game earlier. So there's a floating present box and I don't have a slingshot. No worries brah, sure my luck will pick up... Strolling over to Nook's, going to sell my stuff and buy some cool gear... Cool crown! My luck picks up, I'm going to walk around like a boss.... ....

But if someone else took a hit for the queen then they'd be out of the game. As I don't trust him, the person I targeted last night was ReZ.

If Yvonne wasn't killed by the Mafia then that means the Mafia failed to kill.

It reads to me more like Yvonne got killed by the queen - sounds more like they targeted each other. He really should have finished her! @Jonnas can you fill in the alignments

Why... he let her live?? Nande dattebayo!!

Town name: Treno Fruit: Peaches

I think log in to club Nintendo and click the my account section. It should be a banner at the top.

I wouldn't hold your breath. :p

I heard from people who got DKC that the code came out shortly after release (<1 day?). I don't really see why digitally generated codes should take any time to send. Also remember they might be talking about e-mails there. It should appear in our accounts before then.

Because, the point you make above is poor. The fact you spend £350 does not automatically mean people should accept and not question additional 'smaller' charges. Diageo questioned it, as it doesn't work for him. Good for him. For many of us though we're happy with paying for Plus. Also note that despite calling it a smaller charge, since this console will likely have at least a 10 year life you can expect to pay more than the cost of the console again through fees.

To be fair, your original argument was worse.

I agree with you, justifying the worthiness of a cost by looking at other completely unrelated and more expensive costs is a facile way of judging value. People should always question whether something is worth their money, then make an informed choice.

It's worth bearing in mind that it'll probably take a year for there to actually be a reasonable number of games worth putting out though.

Black and white business would be to do all the DRM crap that MS did, yet Sony didn't. You've already said something like more than half get Gold - why not tempt the other half / just under with free games? Whatever way you look at it, it's still a lot better than Gold.

The difference is that you are paying to play online and use Netflix, things that you really shouldn't have to pay for but it's an evil you have to side with. With Plus, most of us here were paying for it out of free will because it meant cool free games. Although I don't agree with online fees, with Plus they're much easier to accept if you're actually getting something with value included, not the simple unlocking of stuff that should already be free. The carrot trumps the stick, as it were. They can't just instantly give everyone a just-launched full game within the Plus subscription or else no one would buy it. The entire cost of the Plus subscription for the year would go to the developers for just that one game. It wouldn't work. It just needs time.

They haven't, he is just making an assumption. That being that because we must now all get Plus, there is no longer a reason for Sony to entice people with good games. Of course I doubt that will be true. A lot of people don't care about online gaming, but could easily still be enticed by lots of free good games. As well as that it has been one of the best things about the PS3, so Sony would be fools to nerf it and they know it.

It's not the same at all. You've only ever had Gold because you need to have Gold to play online. Also, Xbox are only giving away 360 games now that the console is near its end. It's an empty gesture and there's no suggestion that it will continue onto the One. I signed up to Plus because it is awesome. I didn't have to sign up to Plus to get basic functions on my console. Because it is awesome, I will continue to pay for Plus based on its games alone. Thus, if online is packaged into Plus, despite the fact that I don't think this is friendly to a lot of free players, it won't affect me. Thus, I'm not going to rant about it. Also - Justifying Netflix behind a wall, seriously? I doubt very much PS4 will follow suit.

Oh for God's sake. Unlike you, not one person here thinks it's fine/a good thing to pay to play online. I've already stated why most people here aren't that bothered; they're not affected in the slightest because they already have Plus subscriptions.

You have a choice; PS4 or PC. Given our average wage in the UK is higher than in the US, an additional cost of £36 for the PS4 here (as the article suggests) seems rather trivial.

Was going to say that. Did he even look at the GC screenshot before he posted that? :p It's blurred as hell. It looked nothing like that. If that was the feed then it was a very poor representation of the finished article; I'd blame low red screen cap/camera equipment.

Even if there's only one or two games in a 12 month period that you like included in Plus, the £30 is paid off. You'd have to be amazingly critical of gaming in general to not like at least 2 of the games included in Plus.

The problem with this is that Nintendo games rely on...Nintendo. And they're just recycling old content these days, for the most part. They're too conserved.

Well they will have to be very competitive as often on ShopTo you find a game reaching 20 pounds within a couple of months of release.