My XB360 has been busted for years, so I'd need a new one to play TF.

So what is the cheapest unit I can buy. On Amazon for $160 I can get a 4GB unit, but is that enough room? It would be $250+60 to play otherwise...which is more than I'd want to pay for one game and the ability to play my old games.

I think Microsoft woudl be smart to have a 12GB unit like the PS3 used to have, this nonsense of 4GB is silly.

Craigslist...when you have nothing left to lose so you might as well get shot in a parking lot at a meetup to buy $40 worth or garbage.

If you wanna buy used, Craigslist or Ebay. If Craigslist, test the unit yourself to make sure it's not banned from xlive or whatever, and DON'T buy any classic models that are susceptible to the red ring of death, because 5 minutes of testing won't properly inform you that the console works.

But expect to pay around $100, cause if you try to go any cheaper it'll probably be broken/banned.

HOWEVER! The Xbox 360 supports USB flash storage, so you can get the 4GB model then use a usb stick (8gb is $~10) to install titanfall. The Xbone version of Titanfall is 20GB, so expect the 360 version to be less, but how much less, who knows. They haven't announced how big it is.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Electronic-Arts-Titanfall-Online-Game/dp/B00E9G3B48

£33.85

Well, I guess I can wait until people report back on what works and what doesn't for XB360. In the end, I might not even buy anything...could just be best to sit and wait for Titanfall 2.

I could just keep pounding on my first Xbox 360 to make it work. A hard slap and a restart sometimes makes it work.. then get an Xbox Gold card since I will NEVER give Microsoft my credit card again. Geez, the more I think about it the more I just think I should NOT get it - I'd have to find a cheap system, get the game, and maybe have to buy a 3-month XBL Gold card. All this sounds like more work than it might be worth.

PC is not an option.

Oh, well... I guess since TF on Xbox One needs 40 GB of HDD space taht means teh installd for XB360 will be hefty too. It will not fit on my launch 360 even if it was working great, but that also means I'd have to buy a 250GB New EX360 to even play.

Just not worth the expense to buy a new rig for one game. Oh, well.

The Xbox One version is 48.8 GB.

Also...why wouldn't you give MSFT your credit card? Of all the companies on earth, they're one of the ones I trust most - I've never had an issue with them in terms of starting/stopping services or any sort of weird charges in about 8 years of having Gold.

@monkeyking1969: The port also seems to be a little troubled, so I'd wait until we see how it performs. You wouldn't want to buy a 360 and then have a Far Cry 3-esque framerate on your hands.

@believer258: Ugh, Far Cry 3 was absolutely fine. Get those PC-elitist goggles off.

Ugh, Far Cry 3 ran at around 25 frames per second at good times and often dropped far below that. Get those console goggles off, they're clearly covered in filth and grime.

Look, I have seen several people - console people - complain about the framerate in the console version of Far Cry 3. If you are not sensitive to it, then fine, have all the fun you want with it. I won't say anything against that, and never have. But the damn game runs like absolute shit and it makes for a bad experience for a lot of people. I have my suspicions that Titanfall won't run so well on the 360, partly because it's taking so long and partly because it already has optimization issues on the PC and the Xbox One, both of which are several orders of magnitude more powerful than the 360. I thought it was worth mentioning my suspicions to the thread creator before he goes off to buy a 360 and finds out that the game he bought it for is almost unplayable.

I am sorry if you don't hold your games to a performance standard. I do. It's not a particularly high one (I've played a fair bit of GTA V recently), but it is there, and I refuse to play games when the fucking developers or the publishers don't care enough to make it work well.

I'll second this. It was playable but you could tell that Far Cry 3 was designed for consoles that would hit the market one year later.

Oh come off it, Far Cry 3 had some dips in frame rate, but it wasn't that bad at all. The game was more than fine to play.

No, it was playable but it did not play well. The two are very different concepts. Again, if you are OK with playing a game way below an acceptable framerate, that's fine. But don't tell me to "take my PC elitist goggles off" when I'm not even judging a game's framerate from that perspective, I'm judging it from its contemporaries. Those aren't exactly up to par either, but most of the console games released around the same time ran way better than Far Cry 3.

...but while we're at it, Far Cry 3 on PC looks absolutely stunning and you console guys are seriously missing out.

Alright. I'll be sure to agree with someone who clearly didn't play it on the 360.