The last time I purchased a game from a developer that tanked right before it's release, I was severely disappointed. Once bitten, twice shy. Sorry Saboteur, looks like I won't be putting up with your irish-insulting shenanigans after all.

Why are releases staggered depending on country? I never understood this, given the technological times we live in. What reason could their be to release a product months in advance in some regions, other then to just be a giant corporate dick playing favorites?

But Dean Koontz novels suck...

Wait, so the radio manufacturer is suing the GPS manufacturer over navigation patents?
Uh......?

I bought my sister the Wii fit last christmas. When the game told her she was morbidly obese, she destroyed the balance board by smashing it on the hardfloor. Nothing like a short tempered sibling and a badly translated exercise program combination to completely waste a hundred dollar gift.

Fucking Nintendo.

@Gecko

The hell are you talking about? They went cheap by using the more expensive technology? Bwah? Do you even think before putting fingers to keyboard or what? Verizon gets it's 3G coverage by piggybacking on other carrier's networks, which is, as I said, a tactic AT&T *can't* do, seeing how most GSM carriers haven't upgraded to 3G standards. Again, this is *not* AT&T's fault. CDMA is more common because it is a cheaper technology then WCDMA, and this is an accepted fact everywhere except your head, apparently. AT&T should build more towers huh? What the hell do you think they've been doing for the last two years? When they announce new 3G coverage areas, it is because *they* installed new towers and backends to offer that service. But guess what? That shit is expensive, and getting the licensing and permits from the FCC to do it is even more expensive, and time consuming like little else. As for Verizon having these great standards and being anal about their products, who the hell are you working for? Like I said, I travel a lot for my business, which is in the medical field and owned by me thanks, and my iphone drops maybe half as many calls as my travel partners who get their service from Verizon, T-mobile, and Sprint. Maybe I'm just a lucky bastard, but I'm pretty happy that my calls connect while theirs are getting swore at and threatened.

And yes, roaming is *still* a problem these days whether they talk about it or not. Everytime you make a call off a carrier's native network, they have to pay a fee to whatever partner network you are using. Do this for too long (usually three weeks or so) and you'll get a lovely call from your provider informing you that if you continue, they will cancel your service because it is costing them more money to provide it to you then you're currently paying. Again, despite what that map says, Alaska is off-network for Verizon, and I know several businessmen and military personnel who are stationed here that have gone through this very headache, and Verizon is not nice about it at any point during the process. In some cases, Verizon has even tried to charge them early termination fees (prorated of course, because this is the new nicer Verizon) even though it isn't their fault they were sent here in the first place. As far as Verizon is concerned, they should continue to pay their bill, but must turn off their phones so they don't continue to roam and cost Verizon money.

Long story short, Verizon as a corporation is really no better or worse then AT&T, and it bugs me to see Engadget taking sides like a fanboy instead of calling foul on both companies. If you can't do it fairly, leave this sort of thing to sites that actually have some practice at it like Consumerist, and go back to posting articles about top ten useless USB devices of the week.

@Greg

I never said they hated Apple, but rather, it is because of an Apple product that they hate AT&T. Most of the editors and writers for Engadget apparently A) live in NYC, and B) own an iPhone. It's no secret that AT&T's service in NYC sucks, and they are basing their opinions on the network on their local experiences. This is crap, frankly. I travel all over the U.S., and I get coverage (yes, it's usually EDGE) where my Verizon and Sprint-packing coworkers get a big fat No Service. While I might not be able to get 3G data everywhere I go, the fact that I can place and receive calls when they have to use a payphone just to get their voicemail is a big deal to me. This is mostly in rural areas, which of course, Engadget couldn't give less of a shit about if they tried.

In my local service area, AT&T kicks the crap out of the locally owned and operated CDMA carrier, in both service, rates, and phones offered. You won't see that on those maps though, because as far as Verizon knows, AT&T doesn't even offer 3G service here, even though I'm typing this on my 3G connection on my lunch break. So based on my personal experience, AT&T is the best game around. Problem is, the whole world is a lot bigger then my personal experience, so for me to say that AT&T is better then anyone else is well meaning misinformation at best, and a flat out lie at worst. I can admit that. Engadget? No? Didn't think so.

Anyway, instead of taking on the role of angry consumer, who is annoyed anytime a company tries to stylistically lie to and mislead them, Edgadget prefers to play the part of indignant fanboy, and that both juvenile and just plain lame. If you're going to bash AT&T for focusing on lawsuits instead of improving their service, that's fine, but at least be even handed, and dish some of that back to the "can you hear me now" network, who more then deserves it's fair share of criticism. Sending people breach of contract notices for making calls in areas that are labeled as "in network" on the very maps this whole argument is based on? Sorry, that's a bunch of crap. Either you are on their network, or you're not, and you need to be honest about which of the two is the case.

Verizon's maps in their ads are accurate. FALSE

Verizon claims to offer service in areas where customers would be roaming off-network at best, and the AT&T map they use is from last winter, and doesn't reflect all the markets that were added between February and now, Alaska being one of them. Just a few years ago, coverage maps used to indicate where their coverage was native to their network, and where you would get service, but would incur roaming charges. As carriers began to drop this practice of charging for roaming, thanks to new partnerships among smaller carriers, these maps went away. The problem is, half the coverage on verizon's map falls into what used to be described as roaming, and if you stay in those areas for more then a few weeks, you risk having your service terminated for breach of contract. Moreover, it isn't AT&T's fault that they can't use this similar tactic, as the carriers they partner with couldn't or just didn't upgrade their networks to the much more expensive WCDMA 3G AT&T relies on. The fact that verizon doesn't mention this, even in the small print, is intentionally deceptive and misrepresentative of their and the competition's coverage and service.

Way to be fair and non-biased here engadget. It's no secret you hate AT&T, but come on. Consumers are being lied to, and that's a problem, even if the ads are clever and take cheap shots at a company you hate because of an apple product they paid a buttload to offer exclusively. I know this is asking a lot, but try to leave your bias at home, thanks. The last thing this situation needs is more bullshit.

Who's the Slash Dot Moron? Way to represent gamers there chief.

Why the hell don't they just call it "Battlefield:The Mutiplayer That Should Have Been in MW2"? It's pretty obvious that it doesn't have a damn thing to do with the original, so call it what it is already and lets be done with it.