Exactly. There are many definitions of art imaginable that would mean most books, films and music aren't art either. So what if most games aren't art, in that case? Movies especially are every bit an industrial product as games are. And indeed, in the early days of the movie industry, it was very much looked down upon. But the medium evolved and matured, and nowadays many movies are considered a form of art. I don't see why it would be any different with games.
What's more: Van Gogh and many other now-famous painters weren't appreciated during their time either. Many new art forms need time before the mainstream will appreciate them. The real problem with games is that it's hard to appreciate old games. They were written for old machines that nobody has anymore (which is why emulators are so culturally important!), and their old blocky graphics and 8-bit color makes them unattractive to look at. Then again, isn't the same true for black & white movies? Or pre-renaissance paintings? Or old books written in archaic language?
Appreciation for games as art will come. People like Ebert and Brian Moriarty are just members of the generation that won't get it yet.
How is this legal? The bribery, the protectionism, and most of all suing fair competition? Aren't there any anti-trust laws in the US? In the EU they'd probably get a multi-million dollar fine (10 years later, because the EU moves glacially, but at least it makes the point that it should be illegal).
It's not obvious to me that we need more human intelligences.
I thought the AI community had abandoned that idea ages ago. We already have plenty of humans. We don't need computers to do the things we're good at, we need them to do the things we're bad at.
The OP is far more correct than you are. If you knew anything about ANN's the first thing you'd know is that they are modeled (by their very design methodologies if not through direct observation and intent) upon the human brain.
Neural Nets work like we thought 30 years ago how human brains might work. But we still don't know much about how the human brain really works. NNs are at best a very rough approximation that falls far short of modeling the real thing. And we can't model the real thing accurately because we still don't know how it works. We know how individual cells sort-of work, and we know what parts of the brain are involved in what sort of activity, but there's an enormous gap in between that we know nothing about.
I agree that the Arm architecture does not prohibit games. But, the Arm processors being stuck in the current trend of laptops and pads don't have the horsepower required to run the games the original post was about. Besides, Arm is a low cost, low power alternative to intel's chips. It doesn't make sense to put a high end graphics card in such a computer. Put differently, why would anybody put a $400+ graphics card in a $200 computer designed for surfing the internet? Even if the card met the requirements for the new games, does the rest of the system (ie. dma, bus width/speed, etc.)
Then why do you think iOS and Android are about to finish off the PC? That was a pretty bizarre claim, you'll have to admit.
Companies may be making billions of PC games, but then they must not be reporting it on taxes. At $50/game, they would need to sell 20 million copies to make just 1 billion.
I believe there's over 10 million people paying $120 a year to play WoW. That adds up to over a billion a year for a single PC game.
Don't get me wrong, I think the PC can be a fine game platform, even superior in many ways to the current consoles. However, it is a niche market compared to all of the consoles out there.
Only in comparison. PC gaming is still huge in comparison to what it once was. Maybe consoles are growing faster (especially the Wii that reached a completely new audience), but that doesn't mean PC gaming is shrinking. It's not a zero sum game.
Put differently, why are their relatively few games for iOS compared to Windows?
It's a much younger platform. Still, there are quite a lot of games for iOS. Mostly small, casual games, rather than the huge hardcore games that favour the PC, but that's because different platforms are suited to different kinds of games.
It's not be cause of the technology, it's marketing and market share. If I can sell more games for the PS3 because a) people already have one and b) they don't have to upgrade anything to play the game, then that's what I'm going to develop for.
And that's exactly why a lot of companies develop for PCs. More people have a PC than a PS3.
Microsoft could have released the kinex for the pc market. They chose the console, instead? I'm sure they analyzed both markets and the XBox 360 was the better choice financially.
Kinect is also coming to the PC, though.
It wasn't too long ago (prior to the PS3/XBox360) that to play the newest game on a PC, you had to also have the latest video card -- and the card you purchased last fall wasn't powerful enough to play the game you wanted this spring.
I don't think there was ever truly such a time. Yes, to play the latest high-end shooter at the highest setting, you need a pretty expensive video card. But most games do not aim for that (rather limited) niche in the PC market, and even those that do, tend to be playable at lower settings too.
I agree that in the past PCs have had plenty of compatibility issues due to non-standard hardware. Some video cards were badly supported, and I remember the DOS days that had several different extended memory standards. But still games thrived on PCs. Because they're powerful, versatile, and everybody had one.
For PCs to become a viable game platform,
It already is, and has been for decades.
Likewise, what consumer is going to want to spend $400 on a graphic card for their PC when they can buy the whole console and a game or two for that price?
Why would you want to spend $400 on a video card when you can buy an excellent video card for $150? People who pay $400 for a video card are people for whom money is not the issue; having the best possible graphics is. And for those people, a 5 year old console doesn't cut it.
'Hacking' refers to modifying something to function in ways not facilitated by the designer. Surgeons don't hack, they fix.
There's overlap between hacking and fixing. Removing an appendix is clearly a modification of the original design. A tiny one, but still. The stomach reduction thing to help people lose weight also definitely sounds a bit like a hack. And what about artificial hearts and other implants that fix/replace/improve functionality?
Of course that's still mostly trying to restore/fix functionality that the body once had or should have had (I'm suddenly thinking about the hacks to restore OtherOS on the PS3), whereas stuff like the body modification scene or people implanting chips and sensors in their body are quite a bit more dramatic. Or maybe prosthetics that are superior in some ways to natural ability (like the cheetah prosthetic legs).
If things like HTML5 become the next great thing, that will further erode what today is considered the PC desktop and laptop markets.
How so? Don't most people use desktops and laptops to access HTML5 stuff?
Consoles killed the pc game market
They didn't. The PC game market is very much alive. Many companies are thriving there. The biggest are raking in billions.
and now it appears that all of these web OSs (iOS, Android, etc.) are trying to finish of the pc platform all together. As arm chips start replacing more and more intel processors in PCs, consoles will be the only serious game platform left.
You're not making any sense here. Are ARM chips in PCs bad for gaming because ARM chips can't handle games? Or are iOS and Android (that tend to run on ARM processors) killing PC gaming because they are good at games?
Either way you're wrong. ARM processors are perfectly capable of running games, and mobile platforms are a very interesting new gaming market. But they have very little to do with PC gaming. Considering their casual nature, they're a bigger threat to consoles, if they're a threat at all. But I just think it's another cool new market, and that's a good thing.
Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft know this and that's why they haven't come up with anything new platform wise.
That also makes no sense. Why would they not come up with a new platform, when there's clearly a demand for higher graphics capacity (which PCs offer), while consoles are, as you suggest, able to defeat PCs? Here's what I think: they're not able to defeat PCs, and have dug themselves into quite an expensive hole fighting each other. Now they need money to get out of there, and releasing a new platform would only cost them more money. Meanwhile iOS/Android are threatening the DS/PSP market, so that requires their attention. In the mean time, PC gaming will continue to thrive.
I don't want to get too off topic, but could there be any relation between pc gamers being more introverted and console gamers being the exoverts?
There is nothing wrong with either one, or either way you play a game. For the most part (for the most part!!!) pc games are more strategy based and require analytical skills which tend to favor the introvert. You could say console games are more focused on the immediate. Be it football, golf, street fighter/tekken type, guitar hero, etc... all of these are things you do with other people.
Sounds very plausible. I like games that engage my mind and imagination. I don't care much about action or party games. And yes, I vastly prefer PC gaming for the simple reason that the kind of games there are much more to my taste.
Also, in CRPGs I also quite like being able to click in the distance and have my guy find his way there automatically, rather than having to steer him there all the way.
You're missing the point that he's emphasizing a different point: that PCs offer a kind of convenience that consoles can't match. Consoles offer a different kind of convenience, but not everybody is looking for the same kind of convenience.
Everyone hear debating is debating via a computer they own.
Not necessarily. It could be their employer's computer.
The question is 'What is the price of a console compared to simply purchasing a $100 video card and maybe another gig of memory?'. They already have a computer. Everyone already has a damn computer. This is 2011!
Now, there are other reasons to get a console, but the comparison isn't '$200-$300 PC' vs the console price...it's a $100 video card for the PC you probably already have vs. the console price. Unless you only have laptops or Macs or something, then, sure, you'd have to build a whole computer, but that's not normally true.
And $100 is plenty fine for a video card, you do not need to spend $250 or whatever 'half a PS2' is.;) I always go somewhere between $100 and $150 when buying a new one, which I have to do about three times a decade.
I agree wholeheartedly. Many gamers spend too much on their video card, but if you've got an otherwise decent PC, getting a $100-$150 video card will turn it into a perfectly fine gaming machine.
You also don't have to worry about spending hundreds of dollars on upgrades in order to play the latest games.
Unless you intentionally buy the BARE MINIMUM components on an upgrade then the PC is going to be good for years likely. So yes, if you go into a PC upgrade with extreme penny pinching then maybe you'll need another upgrade soon. No serious gamer with some discretionary income should be doing that, as that will waste far more money in the long term. Spend on the video card and the box will perform well throughout a typical consoles lifetime (this generation is odd as seen in TFA).
You shouldn't go for the bare minimum, but you shouldn't go for the extreme high-end cutting edge stuff either. That tends to be excessively expensive, and it's just going to last a few months longer than the cheaper brother of that same hardware.
Here's my advice for buying for the long term: * CPU: go for good price/performance ratio, a bit towards the high-end. Don't bother squeezing that extra.2 GHz out of it. In general, CPUs are plenty fast. * Memory: go for bog-standard average stuff. Faster special memory gets very expensive. However, it's worth getting something that will still be available in a couple of years, because you're going to need some extra memory eventually. Quite often, lack of sufficient memory is the real speed bottleneck, not CPU. * Motherboard: take something standard, well-established, but don't skimp on it. Keep an eye on what the future holds for the kind of slots you need, because you're not going to upgrade your motherboard. Everything else is upgradable, but if you need a new motherboard, you might as well buy a new PC. * Graphics card: this is often the big one, especially for shooters and other high-graphics games. Because it's so important, people tend to spend a fortune on it, and a few years later, they need to spend another fortune on it to get the latest high-end stuff again. Do not get the best of the best. Like every other component in your PC, it should cost between $100 and $200. Get the budget version of something good. Something that will find its way in many PCs, so everybody will want to support it. Something that can handle the latest games, but doesn't cost too much. The less you spend on it, the less it will hurt when you upgrade it.
Really, there's only one big rule for buying a PC: no component should cost more than $200. Most components will cost between $100 and $200. $100 gets you an excellent motherboard, $150 gets you an excellent CPU, $150 gets you a very decent graphics card. $100 gets you plenty of memory for now. Add $100 for case + power supply and $100 for harddisk and other stuff, and you've got an excellent gaming rig for $700. When in a few years' time it struggles with the graphics of the latest shooter, spend $150 on a new graphics card. Is it struggling with a big game while you've got a browser open in the background? Buy some extra memory.
(Note: this is all based on my limited experience buying gaming PCs that I'm satisfied with. It's also based on Euro prices that I converted 1:1 to dollars. The exchange rate has gone quite a bit downhill, so maybe you need to add 10-50% to the prices. I'm not making any guarantees whatsoever. But my basic message is: don't spend too much. A gaming rig can be affordable if you want it to be.)
Except precise controls have never been something that most people who play video games cares about. It's really not that much of an advantage except in twitch games like multiplayer COD. You certainly don't need pin point precision for rpg games, platformers, action adventure games, ect. They just need to be good enough.
Strategy games really do require a mouse if you want to select a unit or item without having to cycle through a dozen of them. Also, for some mysterious reason, the best CRPGs seem to be released only for PC. In the CRPG community, a console version of a game is taken as a sign that the game is going to suck.
- No complex strategy games like Civilization, no good RTS games, very few decent RPG games.
This is the big one for me. All my favourite games are only for PC. Consoles may be fine for shooters and platformers, but good strategy games really do require a mouse, and for some reason, good CRPGs only seem to appear on PC. Consoles seem to aim for the more casual market. In fact, an established PC franchise creating a console version is usually a sign that the next version is going to suck.
Mutual monogamy is an excellent protection against venereal diseases. Pregnancy tends to be less of a problem with a stable family to take care of the child. Sickness and death happens to everybody, though.
Even if he's aroused, that doesn't mean he's agreed to have sex. Men do get raped, and they tend to be even more embarrassed about reporting it than women.
I'm hoping that Dragon Age Origins is somewhat affordable now. Last time I looked at it, it still cost €45, which is a bit steep. (I don't doubt the game is easily worth that much if you actually have the time to play it, but my time is limited.)
But The Witcher was so excellent that I'll probably buy The Witcher 2 as soon as it's released. (Possibly on gog.com without any DRM.)
Exactly. The only people killing PC gaming are the former PC game publishers who are now focusing on consoles. Real PC gaming is still very much alive. Healthier than it's been in ages, in fact. Look at the success of Valve and Blizzard.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. There are many definitions of art imaginable that would mean most books, films and music aren't art either. So what if most games aren't art, in that case? Movies especially are every bit an industrial product as games are. And indeed, in the early days of the movie industry, it was very much looked down upon. But the medium evolved and matured, and nowadays many movies are considered a form of art. I don't see why it would be any different with games.
What's more: Van Gogh and many other now-famous painters weren't appreciated during their time either. Many new art forms need time before the mainstream will appreciate them. The real problem with games is that it's hard to appreciate old games. They were written for old machines that nobody has anymore (which is why emulators are so culturally important!), and their old blocky graphics and 8-bit color makes them unattractive to look at. Then again, isn't the same true for black & white movies? Or pre-renaissance paintings? Or old books written in archaic language?
Appreciation for games as art will come. People like Ebert and Brian Moriarty are just members of the generation that won't get it yet.
How is this legal? The bribery, the protectionism, and most of all suing fair competition? Aren't there any anti-trust laws in the US? In the EU they'd probably get a multi-million dollar fine (10 years later, because the EU moves glacially, but at least it makes the point that it should be illegal).
It's not obvious to me that we need more human intelligences.
I thought the AI community had abandoned that idea ages ago. We already have plenty of humans. We don't need computers to do the things we're good at, we need them to do the things we're bad at.
The OP is far more correct than you are. If you knew anything about ANN's the first thing you'd know is that they are modeled (by their very design methodologies if not through direct observation and intent) upon the human brain.
Neural Nets work like we thought 30 years ago how human brains might work. But we still don't know much about how the human brain really works. NNs are at best a very rough approximation that falls far short of modeling the real thing. And we can't model the real thing accurately because we still don't know how it works. We know how individual cells sort-of work, and we know what parts of the brain are involved in what sort of activity, but there's an enormous gap in between that we know nothing about.
I agree that the Arm architecture does not prohibit games. But, the Arm processors being stuck in the current trend of laptops and pads don't have the horsepower required to run the games the original post was about. Besides, Arm is a low cost, low power alternative to intel's chips. It doesn't make sense to put a high end graphics card in such a computer. Put differently, why would anybody put a $400+ graphics card in a $200 computer designed for surfing the internet? Even if the card met the requirements for the new games, does the rest of the system (ie. dma, bus width/speed, etc.)
Then why do you think iOS and Android are about to finish off the PC? That was a pretty bizarre claim, you'll have to admit.
Companies may be making billions of PC games, but then they must not be reporting it on taxes. At $50/game, they would need to sell 20 million copies to make just 1 billion.
I believe there's over 10 million people paying $120 a year to play WoW. That adds up to over a billion a year for a single PC game.
Don't get me wrong, I think the PC can be a fine game platform, even superior in many ways to the current consoles. However, it is a niche market compared to all of the consoles out there.
Only in comparison. PC gaming is still huge in comparison to what it once was. Maybe consoles are growing faster (especially the Wii that reached a completely new audience), but that doesn't mean PC gaming is shrinking. It's not a zero sum game.
Put differently, why are their relatively few games for iOS compared to Windows?
It's a much younger platform. Still, there are quite a lot of games for iOS. Mostly small, casual games, rather than the huge hardcore games that favour the PC, but that's because different platforms are suited to different kinds of games.
It's not be cause of the technology, it's marketing and market share. If I can sell more games for the PS3 because a) people already have one and b) they don't have to upgrade anything to play the game, then that's what I'm going to develop for.
And that's exactly why a lot of companies develop for PCs. More people have a PC than a PS3.
Microsoft could have released the kinex for the pc market. They chose the console, instead? I'm sure they analyzed both markets and the XBox 360 was the better choice financially.
Kinect is also coming to the PC, though.
It wasn't too long ago (prior to the PS3/XBox360) that to play the newest game on a PC, you had to also have the latest video card -- and the card you purchased last fall wasn't powerful enough to play the game you wanted this spring.
I don't think there was ever truly such a time. Yes, to play the latest high-end shooter at the highest setting, you need a pretty expensive video card. But most games do not aim for that (rather limited) niche in the PC market, and even those that do, tend to be playable at lower settings too.
I agree that in the past PCs have had plenty of compatibility issues due to non-standard hardware. Some video cards were badly supported, and I remember the DOS days that had several different extended memory standards. But still games thrived on PCs. Because they're powerful, versatile, and everybody had one.
For PCs to become a viable game platform,
It already is, and has been for decades.
Likewise, what consumer is going to want to spend $400 on a graphic card for their PC when they can buy the whole console and a game or two for that price?
Why would you want to spend $400 on a video card when you can buy an excellent video card for $150? People who pay $400 for a video card are people for whom money is not the issue; having the best possible graphics is. And for those people, a 5 year old console doesn't cut it.
'Hacking' refers to modifying something to function in ways not facilitated by the designer. Surgeons don't hack, they fix.
There's overlap between hacking and fixing. Removing an appendix is clearly a modification of the original design. A tiny one, but still. The stomach reduction thing to help people lose weight also definitely sounds a bit like a hack. And what about artificial hearts and other implants that fix/replace/improve functionality?
Of course that's still mostly trying to restore/fix functionality that the body once had or should have had (I'm suddenly thinking about the hacks to restore OtherOS on the PS3), whereas stuff like the body modification scene or people implanting chips and sensors in their body are quite a bit more dramatic. Or maybe prosthetics that are superior in some ways to natural ability (like the cheetah prosthetic legs).
If things like HTML5 become the next great thing, that will further erode what today is considered the PC desktop and laptop markets.
How so? Don't most people use desktops and laptops to access HTML5 stuff?
Consoles killed the pc game market
They didn't. The PC game market is very much alive. Many companies are thriving there. The biggest are raking in billions.
and now it appears that all of these web OSs (iOS, Android, etc.) are trying to finish of the pc platform all together. As arm chips start replacing more and more intel processors in PCs, consoles will be the only serious game platform left.
You're not making any sense here. Are ARM chips in PCs bad for gaming because ARM chips can't handle games? Or are iOS and Android (that tend to run on ARM processors) killing PC gaming because they are good at games?
Either way you're wrong. ARM processors are perfectly capable of running games, and mobile platforms are a very interesting new gaming market. But they have very little to do with PC gaming. Considering their casual nature, they're a bigger threat to consoles, if they're a threat at all. But I just think it's another cool new market, and that's a good thing.
Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft know this and that's why they haven't come up with anything new platform wise.
That also makes no sense. Why would they not come up with a new platform, when there's clearly a demand for higher graphics capacity (which PCs offer), while consoles are, as you suggest, able to defeat PCs? Here's what I think: they're not able to defeat PCs, and have dug themselves into quite an expensive hole fighting each other. Now they need money to get out of there, and releasing a new platform would only cost them more money. Meanwhile iOS/Android are threatening the DS/PSP market, so that requires their attention. In the mean time, PC gaming will continue to thrive.
I don't want to get too off topic, but could there be any relation between pc gamers being more introverted and console gamers being the exoverts?
There is nothing wrong with either one, or either way you play a game. For the most part (for the most part!!!) pc games are more strategy based and require analytical skills which tend to favor the introvert. You could say console games are more focused on the immediate. Be it football, golf, street fighter/tekken type, guitar hero, etc... all of these are things you do with other people.
Sounds very plausible. I like games that engage my mind and imagination. I don't care much about action or party games. And yes, I vastly prefer PC gaming for the simple reason that the kind of games there are much more to my taste.
DRM problems aren't caused by the PC, they're caused by idiot publishers. Most of those seem to be moving towards consoles, though.
You prefer turn-based strategy with a console?
Also, in CRPGs I also quite like being able to click in the distance and have my guy find his way there automatically, rather than having to steer him there all the way.
You're missing the point that he's emphasizing a different point: that PCs offer a kind of convenience that consoles can't match. Consoles offer a different kind of convenience, but not everybody is looking for the same kind of convenience.
The might blow away PCs of the same price. New consoles are often sold at a loss. PCs never are.
That's a good point. But even laptops can be adequate gaming PCs if you get one with a decent video card. They're harder to upgrade, though.
Everyone hear debating is debating via a computer they own.
Not necessarily. It could be their employer's computer.
The question is 'What is the price of a console compared to simply purchasing a $100 video card and maybe another gig of memory?'. They already have a computer. Everyone already has a damn computer. This is 2011!
Now, there are other reasons to get a console, but the comparison isn't '$200-$300 PC' vs the console price...it's a $100 video card for the PC you probably already have vs. the console price. Unless you only have laptops or Macs or something, then, sure, you'd have to build a whole computer, but that's not normally true.
And $100 is plenty fine for a video card, you do not need to spend $250 or whatever 'half a PS2' is. ;) I always go somewhere between $100 and $150 when buying a new one, which I have to do about three times a decade.
I agree wholeheartedly. Many gamers spend too much on their video card, but if you've got an otherwise decent PC, getting a $100-$150 video card will turn it into a perfectly fine gaming machine.
Unless you intentionally buy the BARE MINIMUM components on an upgrade then the PC is going to be good for years likely. So yes, if you go into a PC upgrade with extreme penny pinching then maybe you'll need another upgrade soon. No serious gamer with some discretionary income should be doing that, as that will waste far more money in the long term. Spend on the video card and the box will perform well throughout a typical consoles lifetime (this generation is odd as seen in TFA).
You shouldn't go for the bare minimum, but you shouldn't go for the extreme high-end cutting edge stuff either. That tends to be excessively expensive, and it's just going to last a few months longer than the cheaper brother of that same hardware.
Here's my advice for buying for the long term: .2 GHz out of it. In general, CPUs are plenty fast.
* CPU: go for good price/performance ratio, a bit towards the high-end. Don't bother squeezing that extra
* Memory: go for bog-standard average stuff. Faster special memory gets very expensive. However, it's worth getting something that will still be available in a couple of years, because you're going to need some extra memory eventually. Quite often, lack of sufficient memory is the real speed bottleneck, not CPU.
* Motherboard: take something standard, well-established, but don't skimp on it. Keep an eye on what the future holds for the kind of slots you need, because you're not going to upgrade your motherboard. Everything else is upgradable, but if you need a new motherboard, you might as well buy a new PC.
* Graphics card: this is often the big one, especially for shooters and other high-graphics games. Because it's so important, people tend to spend a fortune on it, and a few years later, they need to spend another fortune on it to get the latest high-end stuff again. Do not get the best of the best. Like every other component in your PC, it should cost between $100 and $200. Get the budget version of something good. Something that will find its way in many PCs, so everybody will want to support it. Something that can handle the latest games, but doesn't cost too much. The less you spend on it, the less it will hurt when you upgrade it.
Really, there's only one big rule for buying a PC: no component should cost more than $200. Most components will cost between $100 and $200. $100 gets you an excellent motherboard, $150 gets you an excellent CPU, $150 gets you a very decent graphics card. $100 gets you plenty of memory for now. Add $100 for case + power supply and $100 for harddisk and other stuff, and you've got an excellent gaming rig for $700. When in a few years' time it struggles with the graphics of the latest shooter, spend $150 on a new graphics card. Is it struggling with a big game while you've got a browser open in the background? Buy some extra memory.
(Note: this is all based on my limited experience buying gaming PCs that I'm satisfied with. It's also based on Euro prices that I converted 1:1 to dollars. The exchange rate has gone quite a bit downhill, so maybe you need to add 10-50% to the prices. I'm not making any guarantees whatsoever. But my basic message is: don't spend too much. A gaming rig can be affordable if you want it to be.)
Except precise controls have never been something that most people who play video games cares about. It's really not that much of an advantage except in twitch games like multiplayer COD. You certainly don't need pin point precision for rpg games, platformers, action adventure games, ect. They just need to be good enough.
Strategy games really do require a mouse if you want to select a unit or item without having to cycle through a dozen of them. Also, for some mysterious reason, the best CRPGs seem to be released only for PC. In the CRPG community, a console version of a game is taken as a sign that the game is going to suck.
- No complex strategy games like Civilization, no good RTS games, very few decent RPG games.
This is the big one for me. All my favourite games are only for PC. Consoles may be fine for shooters and platformers, but good strategy games really do require a mouse, and for some reason, good CRPGs only seem to appear on PC. Consoles seem to aim for the more casual market. In fact, an established PC franchise creating a console version is usually a sign that the next version is going to suck.
Mutual monogamy is an excellent protection against venereal diseases. Pregnancy tends to be less of a problem with a stable family to take care of the child. Sickness and death happens to everybody, though.
Not every guy is so desperate that he'll jump into bed with anyone, you know.
Even if he's aroused, that doesn't mean he's agreed to have sex. Men do get raped, and they tend to be even more embarrassed about reporting it than women.
I'm hoping that Dragon Age Origins is somewhat affordable now. Last time I looked at it, it still cost €45, which is a bit steep. (I don't doubt the game is easily worth that much if you actually have the time to play it, but my time is limited.)
But The Witcher was so excellent that I'll probably buy The Witcher 2 as soon as it's released. (Possibly on gog.com without any DRM.)
Why the Intel logo for this story?
Because it's about processors, and processors means Intel. Duh.
(I've always rooted for ARM against Intel since the early '90s. The Risc PC, the StrongARM, etc.)
With $30 jammers, who do you think will win that arms race?
Exactly. The only people killing PC gaming are the former PC game publishers who are now focusing on consoles. Real PC gaming is still very much alive. Healthier than it's been in ages, in fact. Look at the success of Valve and Blizzard.
It's going to be driven by a contortionist?