What I think is that you didn't think that reply through.
People pay subscription fees to keep the game running. There is no way of playing the game without paying these fees.
People who buy gold do so for selfish reasons. They want the action without the effort that honest players go through. This opens up a market for gold farms running bots 24/7 farming gold, driving down the market prices of commonly available goods, and driving up the prices of desirable items, and hurting the people who play the game ethically in the process. These people have to sell the items they can craft and loot at lowered prices, and buy their gear at hugely inflated prices.
These inflated prices don't exactly hurt the gold farming community, either. I'm all for rewarding time spent in a game, and if you spend 12 hours a day farming gold - go you. If you have bots running chars around in machine farms with the sole purpose of making profit for yourself at the expense of the health of the game economy that *people pay subscription fees to have access to*, you deserve absolutely no sympathy.
While it's evident from your post that you enjoy having enough disposable income to buy gold in MMOs, consider that most people, regardless of their social status, like to play their MMOs like they were supposed to be played. By people. Not bots.
The continuing lack of substance and contrary arguments in your posts really just leads me to believe that you're desperately trying to save face. Stop cluttering my inbox with it.
I'd pray for you, but I'm agnostic, so I'm afraid you're going to have to find a sense of logic and perception of your own.
Your desperate attempt to backpedal and even try to accuse me of changing my position is pathetic. I've argued one thing, and one thing only. I've even had to reiterate. You've said the same thing over and over, and when I present to you indesputable evidence as to why your method would be senseless, you pull something as asinine as this. You've backpedalled, changing it to suddenly having to be two different values, avoided facing my arguments, and now you're chickening out with a pathetic excuse like that.
I don't expect you to concede. You're obviously too caught up in your own opinion to do that. What's pathetic is that you would try to convince yourself that I have at all moved one inch from my initial position.
Read my last post. If all you've been arguing is what you did in your first post, there is no way that we have come to this supposed "agreement", as my parent post argued the complete opposite.
If, however, you feel that we've come to an "agreement", the compromise must obviously have been on your part. Honestly, use your head. It's not that hard.
I see that you obviously have no experience working with networks whatsoever.
First, to address your accusations of presumption, I would like to know how many people you have ever assisted with bandwidth related questions. It is not a presumption to say that people will be confused if they are handed a kilobyte/sec value for their bandwidth that doesn't correspond with the number they will see when downloading things in their browser. This is a well-established fact that I have personally witnessed through many hundreds of conversations with end-users. 9 out of 10 people who have confronted me with questions about their bandwidth have thought that that "1 meg" connection that their friend told them to get would let them download one megabyte per second. There is nothing presumptuous about assuming that the less tech savvy people aren't very tech savvy.
Apparently you advocate a bandwidth number *as well as* an down-/upload number, *both* expressed in bytes/sec. Your argument is that bandwidth should be denoted in bytes/sec because it is easier to manage. Surely if users get a byte/sec value stating their maximum potential down-/upload speeds, this will satisfy the people who have no idea what the difference between a bit and a byte is. Great! That's already being done by many ISPs. There's nothing wrong with that, and obviously my previous arguments would show me to favour this method.
Then you go on to saying that bandwidth should be measured in bytes/sec as well. Let's just quickly go over what the different processes on that level deal with.
Bits:
* Modulation happens per bit. * Ethernet transmissions occur as bit streams across the wire, not byte segments. * Frame/packet headers and trailers frequently use single or double bit fields. * Not all equipment has 8 bit WORD lengths.
Bytes:
* ?
Now, I can't see a single good argument for expressing bandwidth in bytes/sec as opposed to bits/sec. You seem to think that a change like this would be welcomed by the majority. I don't know if you recall, but this has actually been done before. Remember that funny little thing called "Baud"? If you do, you may also recollect which one you heard more frequently. "56k" or "n Baud?
I'm going to refer you to both the reply I just made to the other post, and also common sense. When I'm saying "*colloquially*, not *mathematically*", I mean colloquially, not mathematically. I don't know why I bother replying if, even after something as clearly stated as that, you still reply with mathematical arguments.
>Are you claiming that the conversion of bytes to bits is ambiguous, due to some machines being 9 bit, and others being 32 bit, etc?
Hold on here.
>But you're claiming that colloquial ambiguity is the reason not to use bytes.
Can I ask *why* you need to ask questions that you apparently know the answer to yourself? Never mind that the answer is in the post you're replying to.
>If a byte is 8 bits, then bits and bytes are mathematically (and colloquially) interchangeable.
Let me give you a painfully obvious example here. Liquid gallons and fluid ounces are interchangable. Referring to a "gallon" in speech, you'd automatically assume a liquid gallon, since dry gallons are practically dead. If, however, you refer to "ounces" in speech, you really could mean either fluid ounces or ounces of mass.
Bits and bytes are interchangable. Referring to a "bit" in speech, you'd automatically assume a bit across the wire, since it doesn't really connote anything else. If, however, you refer to "bytes" in speech, there would be considerable confusion, since tech savvy people would associate a byte as 8 bits on the wire, but the less experienced users would associate a byte with one byte of delivered, formatted and error corrected raw data on the wire.
Two units being interchangable does *not* make either unit colloquially unambiguous. Step out of your mathematical box for a second, and think about that without getting stuck on the flawed "but they're interchangable!" argument.
We've already established that bits and bytes are both able to represent the bandwidth of a connection. You really need to get past that. What I'm saying (and have been saying) is that dealing in bandwidth with bytes has a lot more ambiguity than dealing with bandwidth in bits, and the questions I used as examples are the *result* of that ambiguity, so no, they can't be applied to a bit value to the same effect.
You advocate educating the user about overhead. I did that in my -very first reply-, and when doing this, it really is fully applicable to both bit and byte throughput measurements, so you're in effect advocating my idea without presenting any real evidence as to why it would be practical to use an ambiguous and confusing unit to express these values, as opposed to a well-established and relatively unambiguous unit.
I can see how you're getting this wrong. For that analogy to work when dealing with internet connections, you can't deal with the values that gas is sold at. You need to deal with how that gas is used. The speed of the connection is determined by the cabling, and the bandwidth of the connection is determined on how you use the cable, just like the speed you go at in a car is determined by the specifications of the car, but your gas milage is determined by how you drive your car and in what conditions you drive it in.
You commenting on "actual gas milage" with connotations of a determined, invariable value is hugely inaccurate. As I said, overhead changes wildly.
It doesn't matter whether I charge $30/month for a "64kBps" connection or a "512kbps" connection. Those are interchangable. What matters is the percieved bandwidth from the given value. You saying that I claim using bits is advantageous because "ISPs can fail to meet user expectations without it being recognised" is a gross misinterpretation of my previous post. Using bits instead of bytes gives the advantage that ISPs *can* accurately meet the advertised bandwidth in comparably unambiguous terms. When you get 512kbps, you get 2^19 bits through your pipe. When you get "64kBps", what do you get? Effective download speeds of 64kBps? Or is the overhead included? What kind of measuring standard do you go by? Theoretical or practical values? How can you ensure a 64kBps download speed in an environment with different applications and protocols with varying overhead? How can you possibly argue that this is a "meaningful" metric?
The argument here isn't whether or not bits and bytes are interchangable. Of course they are. The issue is how they'll be percieved, and the ambiguity of the terms. If a novice user signs up for a "100kBps" connection, they're going to expect to download at 100kBps. If we assume 15% overhead, their connection will cap out at around 85kBps. These people -will- complain, and I think we can both agree that the massive load of support calls and possible class action lawsuits over misleading advertisement are wholly undesirable.
I'm afraid that you're not getting the point here.
To build on your gasoline analogy, expressing connections in byte ratings is the equivalent of stating a "miles per gallon" value for a car under normal conditions, not maximum potential. While it's fairly safe to assume that this value will be somewhat accurate for a car, it's also important to note that these numbers are calculated in typical driving conditions. Internet traffic, however, has extremely varying overhead, and connections will always be rated according to maximum potential, as this is the only reasonable way to rate them.
Expressing connections in general term such as "bytes per second" is too ambiguous for a user who expects that one byte transmitted across the wire is one byte of formatted data received. This assumption is common, and very far from accurate. When dealing in bit values, things become less ambiguous. The average user does not rate storage in bits, so if you say "100kbps" to a user, they'll ask "how fast will that let me download songs?". If you said "2MBps" to that same user, they'd say "hey neat, half a song a second", because they deal with megabytes on their MP3 players. What happens when they really only get an effective 1.5MBps download speed due to overhead? They complain.
Instead of dumbing down a rating affected by many variables that cannot all be guaranteed, I think it's more prudent to either educate the end-user, or let the professionals deal with the technical aspects.
I don't know where you're from, but around here, bytes are only dealt with in storage. Audio, video, networks, and pretty much everywhere it's applicable and correct, bits are used. As they should be.
If you sell someone a 500KB/sec connection, they'll expect their IE download window to say 500KiB/sec. What you'd actually be getting, after PDU overhead and error correction, assuming that you'll even be able to max it out, would probably be closer to 450KB/sec. That's false advertisement. If they sell you a 5Mbps connection, you don't have the percieved promise of a fixed (in lack of more current terms) Baud rating on your connection, and as long as the ISP is shovelling (2^20)*5 bits down your pipe, no amount of overhead or errors can make them responsible for your final, application layer download speeds.
Replacing a sensible measure with a dumbed down illogical one isn't a noble endeavour, it's perpetuating ignorance, and do you really want your consumers to remain ignorant considering the cost of user support?
It's a somewhat obscure feature that isn't really documented, but Opera does on-the-fly useragent spoofing and saves the working useragent to a file which the browser will check against on all subsequent visits. A copy of this file (override_downloaded.ini) is, or at least was, maintained by Opera and freely available for download. Opera will automatically identify itself as IE or Mozilla to many major sites such as some parts of yahoo.com and most all airline sites.
You can check for yourself which useragent Opera is reporting for the sites you go to. If you're on Windows using Opera 9, you'll normally find the file (override_downloaded.ini) in C:\Documents and Settings\user\Application Data\Opera\Opera\Profile\.
The IDs are:
1 = Opera
2 = Mozilla
3 = Internet Explorer
4 = Mozilla (No Opera mention)
5 = Internet Explorer (No Opera mention)
".. and with OSs like Ubuntu becoming so good nowadays, there is a real alternative: even for average Joe."
I don't think Average Joe would want you to talk about what's right for him if you're going to say something as completely and obviously unrealistic that. No flavour of Linux, no matter how you twist and turn it, even comes close to being an alternative to Windows. It isn't happening, and it likely won't until Microsoft stop releasing new versions. There's no need to argue why, 'cause the reason is obvious to anyone willing to take their OSS glasses off for a second and see the world from a realistic perspective.
These stories are always accompanied by glorious tales of the 100Mbit FTTH connections that are apparently installed in every home in Europe. This is far from the truth. I'm paying $65 USD for a 4Mbit/386kbit connection here in Denmark, just like the the average person anywhere else.
Actually, from what you said in your previos post, it isn't. You are arrogant, and they do obviously have more insight. Anyone with any sort of experience knows better than to write off anything before having tried it, which you seem to do repeatedly without even knowing the fundamentals.
VALVe are always very thorough with what they put into Counter-Strike, and chances are very high that they'll have measures in place to prevent any sort of exploitation that you were thinking of when you made that post. They've been in the business for a while.
Y'know, saying that "Valve is about to learn..", as if they didn't have infinitely more insight into gaming than you as a person do, without knowing any details about the algorithms they use, is pretty arrogant.
I don't think it's the games getting worse. CS:S was a worthy second to CS, WoW and Guild Wars satisfy MMO needs on both sides of the camp, and there have been some solid RTS releases in the past few years aswell.
I think people are getting tired of the interface. For how many years have we been sitting with mice and keyboards? The games may be different, wrapped in prettier colours every year, but the interface is the same. Gaming is fighting a downhill struggle in that it not only has to deal with exhausted genres where it has no option but to repeat the fundamentals of the past three big releases, but it also has to deal with the inevitable fact that people will get bored of physically doing the same thing over and over.
I think that's another reason why PC is losing ground to the console. Each iteration brings a host of new peripherals, and while they may just be new takes on old fundamentals (Wii excluded), it's still something new, and new is the only reason why we buy games in the first place.
Alternatively, it could just be me being too eager for VR gaming.
Slashdot Mirror
What I think is that you didn't think that reply through.
People pay subscription fees to keep the game running. There is no way of playing the game without paying these fees.
People who buy gold do so for selfish reasons. They want the action without the effort that honest players go through. This opens up a market for gold farms running bots 24/7 farming gold, driving down the market prices of commonly available goods, and driving up the prices of desirable items, and hurting the people who play the game ethically in the process. These people have to sell the items they can craft and loot at lowered prices, and buy their gear at hugely inflated prices.
These inflated prices don't exactly hurt the gold farming community, either. I'm all for rewarding time spent in a game, and if you spend 12 hours a day farming gold - go you. If you have bots running chars around in machine farms with the sole purpose of making profit for yourself at the expense of the health of the game economy that *people pay subscription fees to have access to*, you deserve absolutely no sympathy.
While it's evident from your post that you enjoy having enough disposable income to buy gold in MMOs, consider that most people, regardless of their social status, like to play their MMOs like they were supposed to be played. By people. Not bots.
LoC/sec would that be? C'mon, we need a meaningful metric here!
Great. Good luck with life. You'll need it if you're incapable of conceding.
The continuing lack of substance and contrary arguments in your posts really just leads me to believe that you're desperately trying to save face. Stop cluttering my inbox with it.
I'd pray for you, but I'm agnostic, so I'm afraid you're going to have to find a sense of logic and perception of your own.
Your desperate attempt to backpedal and even try to accuse me of changing my position is pathetic. I've argued one thing, and one thing only. I've even had to reiterate. You've said the same thing over and over, and when I present to you indesputable evidence as to why your method would be senseless, you pull something as asinine as this. You've backpedalled, changing it to suddenly having to be two different values, avoided facing my arguments, and now you're chickening out with a pathetic excuse like that.
I don't expect you to concede. You're obviously too caught up in your own opinion to do that. What's pathetic is that you would try to convince yourself that I have at all moved one inch from my initial position.
Read my last post. If all you've been arguing is what you did in your first post, there is no way that we have come to this supposed "agreement", as my parent post argued the complete opposite.
If, however, you feel that we've come to an "agreement", the compromise must obviously have been on your part. Honestly, use your head. It's not that hard.
I see that you obviously have no experience working with networks whatsoever.
First, to address your accusations of presumption, I would like to know how many people you have ever assisted with bandwidth related questions. It is not a presumption to say that people will be confused if they are handed a kilobyte/sec value for their bandwidth that doesn't correspond with the number they will see when downloading things in their browser. This is a well-established fact that I have personally witnessed through many hundreds of conversations with end-users. 9 out of 10 people who have confronted me with questions about their bandwidth have thought that that "1 meg" connection that their friend told them to get would let them download one megabyte per second. There is nothing presumptuous about assuming that the less tech savvy people aren't very tech savvy.
Apparently you advocate a bandwidth number *as well as* an down-/upload number, *both* expressed in bytes/sec. Your argument is that bandwidth should be denoted in bytes/sec because it is easier to manage. Surely if users get a byte/sec value stating their maximum potential down-/upload speeds, this will satisfy the people who have no idea what the difference between a bit and a byte is. Great! That's already being done by many ISPs. There's nothing wrong with that, and obviously my previous arguments would show me to favour this method.
Then you go on to saying that bandwidth should be measured in bytes/sec as well. Let's just quickly go over what the different processes on that level deal with.
Bits:
* Modulation happens per bit.
* Ethernet transmissions occur as bit streams across the wire, not byte segments.
* Frame/packet headers and trailers frequently use single or double bit fields.
* Not all equipment has 8 bit WORD lengths.
Bytes:
* ?
Now, I can't see a single good argument for expressing bandwidth in bytes/sec as opposed to bits/sec. You seem to think that a change like this would be welcomed by the majority. I don't know if you recall, but this has actually been done before. Remember that funny little thing called "Baud"? If you do, you may also recollect which one you heard more frequently. "56k" or "n Baud?
I'm going to refer you to both the reply I just made to the other post, and also common sense. When I'm saying "*colloquially*, not *mathematically*", I mean colloquially, not mathematically. I don't know why I bother replying if, even after something as clearly stated as that, you still reply with mathematical arguments.
>Are you claiming that the conversion of bytes to bits is ambiguous, due to some machines being 9 bit, and others being 32 bit, etc?
Hold on here.
>But you're claiming that colloquial ambiguity is the reason not to use bytes.
Can I ask *why* you need to ask questions that you apparently know the answer to yourself? Never mind that the answer is in the post you're replying to.
>If a byte is 8 bits, then bits and bytes are mathematically (and colloquially) interchangeable.
Let me give you a painfully obvious example here. Liquid gallons and fluid ounces are interchangable. Referring to a "gallon" in speech, you'd automatically assume a liquid gallon, since dry gallons are practically dead. If, however, you refer to "ounces" in speech, you really could mean either fluid ounces or ounces of mass.
Bits and bytes are interchangable. Referring to a "bit" in speech, you'd automatically assume a bit across the wire, since it doesn't really connote anything else. If, however, you refer to "bytes" in speech, there would be considerable confusion, since tech savvy people would associate a byte as 8 bits on the wire, but the less experienced users would associate a byte with one byte of delivered, formatted and error corrected raw data on the wire.
Two units being interchangable does *not* make either unit colloquially unambiguous. Step out of your mathematical box for a second, and think about that without getting stuck on the flawed "but they're interchangable!" argument.
Oh god.
Read my posts. The ambiguity I'm referring isn't mathematical, it's colloquial.
I'm sorry, but are you reading my posts at all?
We've already established that bits and bytes are both able to represent the bandwidth of a connection. You really need to get past that. What I'm saying (and have been saying) is that dealing in bandwidth with bytes has a lot more ambiguity than dealing with bandwidth in bits, and the questions I used as examples are the *result* of that ambiguity, so no, they can't be applied to a bit value to the same effect.
You advocate educating the user about overhead. I did that in my -very first reply-, and when doing this, it really is fully applicable to both bit and byte throughput measurements, so you're in effect advocating my idea without presenting any real evidence as to why it would be practical to use an ambiguous and confusing unit to express these values, as opposed to a well-established and relatively unambiguous unit.
I can see how you're getting this wrong. For that analogy to work when dealing with internet connections, you can't deal with the values that gas is sold at. You need to deal with how that gas is used. The speed of the connection is determined by the cabling, and the bandwidth of the connection is determined on how you use the cable, just like the speed you go at in a car is determined by the specifications of the car, but your gas milage is determined by how you drive your car and in what conditions you drive it in.
You commenting on "actual gas milage" with connotations of a determined, invariable value is hugely inaccurate. As I said, overhead changes wildly.
It doesn't matter whether I charge $30/month for a "64kBps" connection or a "512kbps" connection. Those are interchangable. What matters is the percieved bandwidth from the given value. You saying that I claim using bits is advantageous because "ISPs can fail to meet user expectations without it being recognised" is a gross misinterpretation of my previous post. Using bits instead of bytes gives the advantage that ISPs *can* accurately meet the advertised bandwidth in comparably unambiguous terms. When you get 512kbps, you get 2^19 bits through your pipe. When you get "64kBps", what do you get? Effective download speeds of 64kBps? Or is the overhead included? What kind of measuring standard do you go by? Theoretical or practical values? How can you ensure a 64kBps download speed in an environment with different applications and protocols with varying overhead? How can you possibly argue that this is a "meaningful" metric?
The argument here isn't whether or not bits and bytes are interchangable. Of course they are. The issue is how they'll be percieved, and the ambiguity of the terms. If a novice user signs up for a "100kBps" connection, they're going to expect to download at 100kBps. If we assume 15% overhead, their connection will cap out at around 85kBps. These people -will- complain, and I think we can both agree that the massive load of support calls and possible class action lawsuits over misleading advertisement are wholly undesirable.
I'm afraid that you're not getting the point here.
To build on your gasoline analogy, expressing connections in byte ratings is the equivalent of stating a "miles per gallon" value for a car under normal conditions, not maximum potential. While it's fairly safe to assume that this value will be somewhat accurate for a car, it's also important to note that these numbers are calculated in typical driving conditions. Internet traffic, however, has extremely varying overhead, and connections will always be rated according to maximum potential, as this is the only reasonable way to rate them.
Expressing connections in general term such as "bytes per second" is too ambiguous for a user who expects that one byte transmitted across the wire is one byte of formatted data received. This assumption is common, and very far from accurate. When dealing in bit values, things become less ambiguous. The average user does not rate storage in bits, so if you say "100kbps" to a user, they'll ask "how fast will that let me download songs?". If you said "2MBps" to that same user, they'd say "hey neat, half a song a second", because they deal with megabytes on their MP3 players. What happens when they really only get an effective 1.5MBps download speed due to overhead? They complain.
Instead of dumbing down a rating affected by many variables that cannot all be guaranteed, I think it's more prudent to either educate the end-user, or let the professionals deal with the technical aspects.
I don't know where you're from, but around here, bytes are only dealt with in storage. Audio, video, networks, and pretty much everywhere it's applicable and correct, bits are used. As they should be. If you sell someone a 500KB/sec connection, they'll expect their IE download window to say 500KiB/sec. What you'd actually be getting, after PDU overhead and error correction, assuming that you'll even be able to max it out, would probably be closer to 450KB/sec. That's false advertisement. If they sell you a 5Mbps connection, you don't have the percieved promise of a fixed (in lack of more current terms) Baud rating on your connection, and as long as the ISP is shovelling (2^20)*5 bits down your pipe, no amount of overhead or errors can make them responsible for your final, application layer download speeds. Replacing a sensible measure with a dumbed down illogical one isn't a noble endeavour, it's perpetuating ignorance, and do you really want your consumers to remain ignorant considering the cost of user support?
I think you missed the "on-the-fly" part of my post.
It's a somewhat obscure feature that isn't really documented, but Opera does on-the-fly useragent spoofing and saves the working useragent to a file which the browser will check against on all subsequent visits. A copy of this file (override_downloaded.ini) is, or at least was, maintained by Opera and freely available for download. Opera will automatically identify itself as IE or Mozilla to many major sites such as some parts of yahoo.com and most all airline sites.
You can check for yourself which useragent Opera is reporting for the sites you go to. If you're on Windows using Opera 9, you'll normally find the file (override_downloaded.ini) in C:\Documents and Settings\user\Application Data\Opera\Opera\Profile\.
The IDs are:
1 = Opera
2 = Mozilla
3 = Internet Explorer
4 = Mozilla (No Opera mention)
5 = Internet Explorer (No Opera mention)
Liar. In Webdings it's a desert with a cactus, a megaphone and a set of railroad tracks. Phony.
..
...
Yeah, that's pretty much it.
".. and with OSs like Ubuntu becoming so good nowadays, there is a real alternative: even for average Joe." I don't think Average Joe would want you to talk about what's right for him if you're going to say something as completely and obviously unrealistic that. No flavour of Linux, no matter how you twist and turn it, even comes close to being an alternative to Windows. It isn't happening, and it likely won't until Microsoft stop releasing new versions. There's no need to argue why, 'cause the reason is obvious to anyone willing to take their OSS glasses off for a second and see the world from a realistic perspective.
These stories are always accompanied by glorious tales of the 100Mbit FTTH connections that are apparently installed in every home in Europe. This is far from the truth. I'm paying $65 USD for a 4Mbit/386kbit connection here in Denmark, just like the the average person anywhere else.
I'm fairly sure that the majority of the people buying Alienware systems don't frequent this site too often. Now, if it was at MySpace..
Parent is right. By the way, spread firefox! http://www.spreadfirefox.com/ http://www.spreadfirefox.com/ *minimalistic buttons* Spread Firefox! .. http://www.spreadfirefox.com/
Actually, from what you said in your previos post, it isn't. You are arrogant, and they do obviously have more insight. Anyone with any sort of experience knows better than to write off anything before having tried it, which you seem to do repeatedly without even knowing the fundamentals. VALVe are always very thorough with what they put into Counter-Strike, and chances are very high that they'll have measures in place to prevent any sort of exploitation that you were thinking of when you made that post. They've been in the business for a while.
Y'know, saying that "Valve is about to learn..", as if they didn't have infinitely more insight into gaming than you as a person do, without knowing any details about the algorithms they use, is pretty arrogant.
I don't think it's the games getting worse. CS:S was a worthy second to CS, WoW and Guild Wars satisfy MMO needs on both sides of the camp, and there have been some solid RTS releases in the past few years aswell. I think people are getting tired of the interface. For how many years have we been sitting with mice and keyboards? The games may be different, wrapped in prettier colours every year, but the interface is the same. Gaming is fighting a downhill struggle in that it not only has to deal with exhausted genres where it has no option but to repeat the fundamentals of the past three big releases, but it also has to deal with the inevitable fact that people will get bored of physically doing the same thing over and over. I think that's another reason why PC is losing ground to the console. Each iteration brings a host of new peripherals, and while they may just be new takes on old fundamentals (Wii excluded), it's still something new, and new is the only reason why we buy games in the first place. Alternatively, it could just be me being too eager for VR gaming.