1.0 link Rainbow Dash Network http://rainbowdash.net/ Cloud Kicker (critialcloudkicker) http://rainbowdash.net/critialcloudkicker http://rainbowdash.net/notice/3713010 @<span class="vcard"><a href="http://rainbowdash.net/user/798" class="url" title="Redredred-red Red-redred"><span class="fn nickname mention">redenchilada</span></a></span> @<span class="vcard"><a href="http://rainbowdash.net/user/4320" class="url" title="RDN's Lucifer"><span class="fn nickname mention">nerthos</span></a></span> I guess I have come to see your point. 40 GB is quite hefty when the &quot;average&quot; for games comes areound 8GB by sheer force of numbers. ( footnote, I do not know who coined &quot;8GB&quot; nor is it important. But <a href="http://pny.lv/631e" title="http://pny.lv/631e" rel="nofollow external">http://pny.lv/631e</a> and <a href="http://pny.lv/631g" title="http://pny.lv/631g" rel="nofollow external">http://pny.lv/631g</a> do not seem to agree with that, regardless, not what the discussion was about ). I am however on the side of progression, not regression. People want better graphics, a better and longer story to thrill them, and while we are at it loads of different sights to behold. Some companies utilise this to make better and greater. I think that with this &quot;growth&quot; in requirements and offered incremental increases, the customer should grow with it. I am a firm believer that games like Watch_dogs ( 20 GB ) Titanfall ( 48 GB ) Destiny ( 40 (?) GB ) whom hopped console generation barriers are causing the games-industry to be held back. Yes you can mention that they are big, but you are probably part of the problem if you openly complain.