PC Gaming is Cool And All... But...

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Most threads I've seen start with the premise that X hates Y.
Posters 2-5 say they don't, they just think either X or Y has the advantage.
Poster 6 says YES, I'M X and I HATE Y.
Poster 7 says I'M Y AND I HATE X.
Poster 8 brings in one of the jpgs.
In poster 9, WAR WAS BEGINNING.
Pages 2-13 will be repeated arguments of "Well, I like X because of ...", "Well, I have X and Y", "Poster 6 was being sarcastic", "Poster 7 was being sarcastic", "I hate X and Y after this thread"

Been there, seen that, got the badge. New balls please.

PC Gaming : Older; more versatile; more complex; less intrusive; smaller, harder to please fanbase
Console Gaming: New/Exclusive releases; more stable; plug and play; Corporate Controlled (Linux on PS3, Microsoft points), player base ranging from morons to professors.

Cost is the only ongoing argument that hasn't been solved, and it usually depends on what bargains you can find. PC for long run, Console for short term.

 

[mrwoo6]

snip

snip

snip

All I have to day is look at the mobile market. That is the harbinger. Mobile operating systems that work on anything from phones to tablets are taking away from what was a huge market for Nintendo and a lesser degree Sony. Operating systems and hardware advances that allow gaming on a multitude of devices are something that scares companies like Nintendo and Sony. Microsoft is trying to be a part of it and they don't rely on their console as much, but you can already see how Nintendo took a big hit on their 3DS and the pricing of the Sony Vita.

People are starting to want something that works across all their platforms, from their desktop to laptop to tablet to phone. That is something consoles do not offer by being such a closed source. They are trying to branch out into offering things you find on PC's, but it's still really limited.

Well sure, but that still doesn't make "PC gaming" a dent in consoles by a long-shot. That makes portable gaming a dent in consoles, that has nothing to do with us, In-fact i'm sure portable gaming takes some revenue from casual players whom would have otherwise got there fix from PC's.

 

[Waaghpowa]

It comes down to personal preference.

This whole argument is moot, unless you only own one or the other, and I'd bet almost everyone here is using a pc to post - probably one that cost more than mine, which plays Dirt 3 just fine and without any trouble.

Any argument about simplicity is negated by the fact that you can do anything else on a computer. If you can update software, you can update a game. If you have an ipod and keep your music organized, congratulations, you're beyond what is usually required to work a game on a pc.

Citing simplicity is simultaneously saying you're too big a moron to understand that all programs, even games, work the same way on a computer.

Since you're posting on a computer anyway, all you can do is claim your opinions as fact to justify the extra expense of a console.

QFT.

I would also like to add, in case a mod comes in here and gives me a warning for low content, that you can't use your opinion to counter fact. I don't care if you prefer one over the other. I care if you can provide sufficient evidence to support your claim.

 

[scott91575]

more functional

You were being sarcastic right? PC games require like 5 minutes of checking every time you want to play, you're usually reliant on other companies servers. The downloading, installing, updating always take longer than consoles. Consoles are FAR more functional than pcs.

I don't know what games you are playing. Dedicated servers are in no way a bad thing. Being reliant on one company's server is not a good thing. Although, on PC, if you want, you can still stick to the developer's/publisher's servers (in many games it is just like consoles where there are not any dedicated servers, and something many PC gamers hate).

If people want to make a legit point about PC multiplayer, I will hand one to you. It's much easier to cheat on the PC. That is the one thing I do not like.

I meant like ubisoft servers that went down and screwed over people. I recently got ME2 because I had it for xbox 360 and wanted to play it again (it was that free deal). You had to download the game, and each individual DLC seperately. They were also on different pages. You then had to install the dlcs in the correct folder and registering them to your account. You also had to sign in like 3 times in the specific site, the ea site, then again when you got everything to confirm. For witcher 2 I had to create a GOG account, log in download it, confirm the paypal account, register on the witcher 2 site then after loading it up multiple times for patching and troll dlc.

If any of that was on a console it would consist of putting in the cd and click update, download dlc while inside the game without even having to exit.

You forgot to mention you had to go to the store, wait in line, pay for the game, and drive home instead of downloading it on PC. You more than likely had to pay much more for the console game too. Why wasn't ME2 free on console? That, or order it online (which would require paypal or inputting your credit card) and wait 2 or 3 business days.

Some of the login stuff from companies is a little bit much. Of course once you do it the first time for any of the publisher's games it's as simple as clicking a button after that (I already had my EA login for ME). I'm sorry, but you cannot convince me digital downloads are inferior to disc, nor is installing. You are including steps that it takes to get the game (which are one time things) but not including what it takes to get a physical copy. Heck, I bet the next generation of consoles will have all of that stuff. Why? Because it's better. Installing reduces load times by a ton. Consoles don't do it because they don't have the hard drive space. Digital download is the way of the future, and those same things you see on PC today will be there for the next gen consoles.

As for patching, on Steam it does it for me automatically. I don't even need to open the game. Not true for consoles.

 

[JET1971]

BTW...PC gaming is a $16+ Billion industry and growing at a 20% rate. If anything, consoles are scared by the fact computers are taking new forms and stealing away huge chunks of their revenue.

I was agree with you, right up until you had go and say; BTW...PC gaming is a $16+ Billion industry and growing at a 20% rate. If anything, consoles are scared by the fact computers are taking new forms and stealing away huge chunks of their revenue.

Sure we do take some of there revenue, but "huge chunks?" That's just laughable. PC gaming doesn't even slightly scare consoles in terms of revenue.

I think its more of a threat from the emerging market of tablet computers and smart phones are quickly gaining power and will soon have enough to take a huge chunk of business away from them. As well as Laptops are getting powerfull enough to perform as well as a desktop rig and dropping in price compared to 10 years ago making them more and more affordable each year.

then you have streamlined OS' compared to XP or win 98 alongside easier installs and a far greater update systems with Steam and now Origin. driver installs is a no brainer these days that a monkey could do it.

The big one is an affordable entry, and presently consoles are cheaper to start although over the long term more expensive. with gaming capable laptops going from 2k to sub 1k in cost the past 3-4 years they have allot to worry about. when they get to around $500 then the game market will go from console to PC because more people will rather have a portable game system that does everything any console can do plus the versatility of a PC.

I would hazard a guess as to say this gen of consoles will be the last traditional consoles(not counting Nintendo because they lost the plot with the wii). the next gen will be more PC than console without the benifits of hardware upgrades and open choices on programs and services, and that will be the death knell for console systems because the PC market will have cheaper laptops and tablet computers will have gained its place in gaming.

 

[scott91575]

BTW...PC gaming is a $16+ Billion industry and growing at a 20% rate. If anything, consoles are scared by the fact computers are taking new forms and stealing away huge chunks of their revenue.

I was agree with you, right up until you had go and say; BTW...PC gaming is a $16+ Billion industry and growing at a 20% rate. If anything, consoles are scared by the fact computers are taking new forms and stealing away huge chunks of their revenue.

Sure we do take some of there revenue, but "huge chunks?" That's just laughable. PC gaming doesn't even slightly scare consoles in terms of revenue.

I think its more of a threat from the emerging market of tablet computers and smart phones are quickly gaining power and will soon have enough to take a huge chunk of business away from them. As well as Laptops are getting powerfull enough to perform as well as a desktop rig and dropping in price compared to 10 years ago making them more and more affordable each year.

then you have streamlined OS' compared to XP or win 98 alongside easier installs and a far greater update systems with Steam and now Origin. driver installs is a no brainer these days that a monkey could do it.

The big one is an affordable entry, and presently consoles are cheaper to start although over the long term more expensive. with gaming capable laptops going from 2k to sub 1k in cost the past 3-4 years they have allot to worry about. when they get to around $500 then the game market will go from console to PC because more people will rather have a portable game system that does everything any console can do plus the versatility of a PC.

I would hazard a guess as to say this gen of consoles will be the last traditional consoles(not counting Nintendo because they lost the plot with the wii). the next gen will be more PC than console without the benifits of hardware upgrades and open choices on programs and services, and that will be the death knell for console systems because the PC market will have cheaper laptops and tablet computers will have gained its place in gaming.

Yes, that was my point (I mentioned that in an above post).

 

[Manji187]

Take a PC when you want capability, take a console when you want convenience.

I'm not entirely sure just how exactly this is a topic worthy of any real discussion.

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. If you want to make the most of the capability of a PC though, you will have to put in some effort(gain knowledge of hardware/ software).

 

[JET1971]

Take a PC when you want capability, take a console when you want convenience.

I'm not entirely sure just how exactly this is a topic worthy of any real discussion.

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. If you want to make the most of the capability of a PC though, you will have to put in some effort(gain knowledge of hardware/ software).

Funny my grandmother who was 70 when she passed away knew diddly squat about hardware or software and she did just fine installing things and playing her casual games on a PC I gave her. I might add the casual games install the same as a AAA title back then.

 

[Anthony Wells]

more functional

You were being sarcastic right? PC games require like 5 minutes of checking every time you want to play, you're usually reliant on other companies servers. The downloading, installing, updating always take longer than consoles. Consoles are FAR more functional than pcs.

I don't know what games you are playing. Dedicated servers are in no way a bad thing. Being reliant on one company's server is not a good thing. Although, on PC, if you want, you can still stick to the developer's/publisher's servers (in many games it is just like consoles where there are not any dedicated servers, and something many PC gamers hate).

If people want to make a legit point about PC multiplayer, I will hand one to you. It's much easier to cheat on the PC. That is the one thing I do not like.

I meant like ubisoft servers that went down and screwed over people. I recently got ME2 because I had it for xbox 360 and wanted to play it again (it was that free deal). You had to download the game, and each individual DLC seperately. They were also on different pages. You then had to install the dlcs in the correct folder and registering them to your account. You also had to sign in like 3 times in the specific site, the ea site, then again when you got everything to confirm. For witcher 2 I had to create a GOG account, log in download it, confirm the paypal account, register on the witcher 2 site then after loading it up multiple times for patching and troll dlc.

If any of that was on a console it would consist of putting in the cd and click update, download dlc while inside the game without even having to exit.

You forgot to mention you had to go to the store, wait in line, pay for the game, and drive home instead of downloading it on PC. You more than likely had to pay much more for the console game too. Why wasn't ME2 free on console? That, or order it online (which would require paypal or inputting your credit card) and wait 2 or 3 business days.

Some of the login stuff from companies is a little bit much. Of course once you do it the first time for any of the publisher's games it's as simple as clicking a button after that (I already had my EA login for ME). I'm sorry, but you cannot convince me digital downloads are inferior to disc, nor is installing. You are including steps that it takes to get the game (which are one time things) but not including what it takes to get a physical copy. Heck, I bet the next generation of consoles will have all of that stuff. Why? Because it's better. Installing reduces load times by a ton. Consoles don't do it because they don't have the hard drive space. Digital download is the way of the future, and those same things you see on PC today will be there for the next gen consoles.

As for patching, on Steam it does it for me automatically. I don't even need to open the game. Not true for consoles.

i dont use aim assists in my console fps's and i find a mouse very spastic and unreliable. personal experience aside i can see how a mouse and keyboard should work better but in my personal experience i cant stand them...the keyboard hurts my fingers afer extended play and the mouse isnt reliable enough for me. and as i said i dont use aim assist on my fps i havent found a difference when i do or dont. so i turned it off out of it not helping me.

 

[Snotnarok]

Can someone explain to me this myth of having to constantly upgrade your PC on a daily basis? I've been running the same machine for years and it's running todays games just dandy. However my xbox has been replaced 7 times so whatever do those numbers mean?

 

[scott91575]

snip

snip

snip

All I have to day is look at the mobile market. That is the harbinger. Mobile operating systems that work on anything from phones to tablets are taking away from what was a huge market for Nintendo and a lesser degree Sony. Operating systems and hardware advances that allow gaming on a multitude of devices are something that scares companies like Nintendo and Sony. Microsoft is trying to be a part of it and they don't rely on their console as much, but you can already see how Nintendo took a big hit on their 3DS and the pricing of the Sony Vita.

People are starting to want something that works across all their platforms, from their desktop to laptop to tablet to phone. That is something consoles do not offer by being such a closed source. They are trying to branch out into offering things you find on PC's, but it's still really limited.

Well sure, but that still doesn't make "PC gaming" a dent in consoles by a long-shot. That makes portable gaming a dent in consoles, that has nothing to do with us, In-fact i'm sure portable gaming takes some revenue from casual players whom would have otherwise got there fix from PC's.

Yet PC's, that can use the same operating systems or similar ones, can work seamlessly in the future across platforms. Consoles are a closed off source. With more and more mobile platforms gaining in hardware that can play top level games, people will want something that can be used across platform. Sony and Nintendo do not have that capability. Microsoft might be able to pull it off.

You cannot really look at the current gen consoles. Many people bought them when integration between devices was really poor, so buying a console made sense. Now with people already having consoles, they have a built in advantage in today's market. Yet with newer generations people will again have choices for what hardware to buy. With consoles companies will more than likely stick to their same style of a closed platform with a few extras added in (like Netflix). Yet the growing market is integration across platforms. That is something the PC does better at offering, and is quicker to adapt to. Plus, mobile gaming is reaching the point in laptops where even low end laptops can play like the current consoles (onboard graphics is jumping by leaps and bounds). More and more that will grow and move into more mobile devices. Again, that is not something consoles offer.

So today, sure, consoles have a huge market share. Yet they are more than aware of the growing market and realize consoles could go the way of desktop computers. So I suppose it's what you consider the PC market. I include Apple, Microsoft, and Android systems that will also be developed for PC's along with tablets and phones. Sony and Nintendo will not be a part of that, and Microsoft may include their console in the mix but many people will forego a console when they already have a laptop or other device that can do multiple things on top of playing games. That was not true when this current gen of consoles was launched.

 

[Avaloner]

The only real difference here is basically in the shape or form of the controlls, I could care less for graphics and for example the Wii, as the least graphic enhanced console on the market currently, still makes games like red steel 2, no more heros and Metroid look good enough, I can enjoy graphics nonetheless so who cares about graphics or fps rates..oh wait yes only those who got no other selling point.

I for once think that the mouse and the keyboard are simply "stronger" than the gamepad, except for action games like devil may cry, street fighter or your normal sidescrolling action game, heck I would even say that certain Rpg's, lets say either round based combat or action based combat ala old games like secret of mana or Terranigma.

However for almost every other game, might it be a puzzle, RTS, FPS or anything that requires shooting or pointing a mouse will always be faster and more precises than any analog stick.

However I understand people complaining about consoles for getting more games that would also be suitable for pc's, yes rockstar I'm looking at you, but I guess its much easier to produce a console game, where the hardware has only one configuration, than building an engine that supports the thousands of different possible hardware configurations on the pc, alone the crapload of graphiccards avaible is astounding.

I guess another huge plus is simply that pc community can actually change a game, make older games look better, iron out bugs that were never patched, include new things into the game and so on, I like my games vanilla normally, but hell do I like to patch broken ass games and yes no need to look away and act innocent when I'm talking to you Bethesda.

 

[scott91575]

Can someone explain to me this myth of having to constantly upgrade your PC on a daily basis? I've been running the same machine for years and it's running todays games just dandy. However my xbox has been replaced 7 times so whatever do those numbers mean?

you don't have to, and it's a myth for two different reasons.

1) In past years, when graphics were getting better in leaps and bounds, it was fairly common for people to have to upgrade often. Yet this was also true for consoles. That has slowed down in recent years on both ends.

2) Many PC gamers get caught up in getting the latest and greatest in order to play at higher resolutions with more eye candy. People see that and assume it's needed to play PC games. It simply is not true.

I have a 4 year old computer that can play any game out today in 1920x1200 resolution, and I am sure that will be true for years to come. Of course I also have one that is less than a year old with the latest and greatest hardware. Yet that is not only used for games, hence the upgraded hardware.

The only game I can think of that will require people to update on PC, but will be fine for consoles, is Battlefield 3. That is due to the need for DX10 or DX11, which means Vista or 7 and a card from the last 5 years (which is a very similar time frame to the current gen consoles). Sure, you may have to go with 768 or similar resolution, but the same is true for consoles. Console games may state 1080p, but many of them are not 1080p.

 

[JET1971]

snipage

I consider laptop systems to be included in the PC market, and Tablets and smartphones both have strong connections to PC's and as they mature some more those connections will become stronger. right now I can sync an Ipad or Iphone with a PC, same with an android. Aps will become more cross platform friendly considering thats already started. So you will have your ultra portable device like a smartphone, and a semi portable device thats more comfortable to use with a laptop. But eventualy those smartphones and tablet systems will take over the PC market as well. but that may take another 20 years or more. long after consoles are obsolete and a thing of the past. And Sony and MS better get in gear and make the next gen because that noose is getting tied as it is now.

I give desktop systems about 10 more years after consoles die out, theres still too much of a market for them in business and government as well as enthusiast. but thats because of the ease in wich they can be upgraded or repaired. financialy it is cheaper to buy a fleet of desktops for everyone in the office who does not leave a desk and laptops for those that require more portable systems. plus theres the whole security aspect of secretary cannot pick up a desktop rig and shove it in her giant purse to deliver it to a competitor.

 

[Aprilgold]

I never had to change my graphics card, ever, literally... And I had this computer for about 5 years. Consoles has a MAJOR downside PC's don't have to deal with which is the manufacture, you see. In order to play online, you have to use your online subscrbition / account to play online. Now, as demonstrated by the PS3 hack are a little bit less stable then the PC Steam, if anyone can inform me of a PC Steam hack as big as the PSN hack, I would love to know. Check it myself, but I'm getting a kick ass mod, and I want to try it out.

Console, PC.

Ain't nothin but forks and spoons. There are things eaten with a fork, things eaten with a spoon, some things can be eaten with either, but no real conflict amongst silverware.

How dare you neglect to include chopsticks in your analogy! What? Are my chopsticks not good enough for this community you utensil elitists?!

HOW DARE YOU DEGLECT SPORKS, YOU HIPOCRITS!?!?!@? Ah that was fun. But what can Consoles do better then PC? I'm been debating this in my head, to be honest, nothing. The only thing that came to me were rentals.

Can someone explain to me this myth of having to constantly upgrade your PC on a daily basis? I've been running the same machine for years and it's running todays games just dandy. However my xbox has been replaced 7 times so whatever do those numbers mean?

I'll answer this simply, because someone hasn't told them that the myth is incorrect and presented proof. If they don't believe the proof and continue to carry the myth on, they'll be arrogant for ignoring facts. I too have a 4 or 5 year old computer and that GOES with the graphics card. To be honest, I never, once, had a problem with it. But I had to replace my 360 3 times, FUCKING, 3 TIMES! And no, they were all beyond repair, so I had to buy 3 FUCKING consoles in a row. Thats more expensive then my computer if I remember correctly. My computer can't run Crysis, but I think it can run anything else.

 

[scott91575]

more functional

You were being sarcastic right? PC games require like 5 minutes of checking every time you want to play, you're usually reliant on other companies servers. The downloading, installing, updating always take longer than consoles. Consoles are FAR more functional than pcs.

I don't know what games you are playing. Dedicated servers are in no way a bad thing. Being reliant on one company's server is not a good thing. Although, on PC, if you want, you can still stick to the developer's/publisher's servers (in many games it is just like consoles where there are not any dedicated servers, and something many PC gamers hate).

If people want to make a legit point about PC multiplayer, I will hand one to you. It's much easier to cheat on the PC. That is the one thing I do not like.

I meant like ubisoft servers that went down and screwed over people. I recently got ME2 because I had it for xbox 360 and wanted to play it again (it was that free deal). You had to download the game, and each individual DLC seperately. They were also on different pages. You then had to install the dlcs in the correct folder and registering them to your account. You also had to sign in like 3 times in the specific site, the ea site, then again when you got everything to confirm. For witcher 2 I had to create a GOG account, log in download it, confirm the paypal account, register on the witcher 2 site then after loading it up multiple times for patching and troll dlc.

If any of that was on a console it would consist of putting in the cd and click update, download dlc while inside the game without even having to exit.

You forgot to mention you had to go to the store, wait in line, pay for the game, and drive home instead of downloading it on PC. You more than likely had to pay much more for the console game too. Why wasn't ME2 free on console? That, or order it online (which would require paypal or inputting your credit card) and wait 2 or 3 business days.

Some of the login stuff from companies is a little bit much. Of course once you do it the first time for any of the publisher's games it's as simple as clicking a button after that (I already had my EA login for ME). I'm sorry, but you cannot convince me digital downloads are inferior to disc, nor is installing. You are including steps that it takes to get the game (which are one time things) but not including what it takes to get a physical copy. Heck, I bet the next generation of consoles will have all of that stuff. Why? Because it's better. Installing reduces load times by a ton. Consoles don't do it because they don't have the hard drive space. Digital download is the way of the future, and those same things you see on PC today will be there for the next gen consoles.

As for patching, on Steam it does it for me automatically. I don't even need to open the game. Not true for consoles.

i dont use aim assists in my console fps's and i find a mouse very spastic and unreliable. personal experience aside i can see how a mouse and keyboard should work better but in my personal experience i cant stand them...the keyboard hurts my fingers afer extended play and the mouse isnt reliable enough for me. and as i said i dont use aim assist on my fps i havent found a difference when i do or dont. so i turned it off out of it not helping me.

I think you quoted the wrong one, but it's cool.

Anyway, I think it's mostly a comfort thing for many people. Basically what they are used to. Yet if someone picked up both at the same time, a mouse would be seen as more precise. There is a reason it's still the major interface on PC's. If joystick/analog stick like device was more precise on computers, it would be the major interface. The reason it's used on consoles is consoles were always for people to use on their family room tv sitting on the couch or a comfortable chair. A mouse is rather unwieldy in that environment (I personally have setup on a big screen where I use a mouse on a table that works well with a recliner I have, but that is unusual and it's not my living room). Anyway, the point being if you have the choice without having something you are used to, the majority of people would always choose a mouse. Of course with PC's you can use a controller with analog sticks if you want. I played Arkam Asylum on PC with a XBox controller (controllers are much better with beat em up type games). I can't play with a keyboard and mouse on a console without doing some modifications and praying it works correctly.

 

[scott91575]

I never had to change my graphics card, ever, literally... And I had this computer for about 5 years. Consoles has a MAJOR downside PC's don't have to deal with which is the manufacture, you see. In order to play online, you have to use your online subscrbition / account to play online. Now, as demonstrated by the PS3 hack are a little bit less stable then the PC Steam, if anyone can inform me of a PC Steam hack as big as the PSN hack, I would love to know. Check it myself, but I'm getting a kick ass mod, and I want to try it out.

Console, PC.

Ain't nothin but forks and spoons. There are things eaten with a fork, things eaten with a spoon, some things can be eaten with either, but no real conflict amongst silverware.

How dare you neglect to include chopsticks in your analogy! What? Are my chopsticks not good enough for this community you utensil elitists?!

HOW DARE YOU DEGLECT SPORKS, YOU HIPOCRITS!?!?!@? Ah that was fun. But what can Consoles do better then PC? I'm been debating this in my head, to be honest, nothing. The only thing that came to me were rentals.

I don't know of any major Steam hack. Plus, with their new system, as long as your login and password are not the same as your email account (not true for many) and you use paypal (also with a different login and password) no one can steal your account or get financial information. There were issues with people getting their accounts stolen, but I don't believe that was a Steam hack. Now if someone tries to use your account they need to verify it through an email. Much safer.

 

[Throwitawaynow]

You forgot to mention you had to go to the store, wait in line, pay for the game, and drive home instead of downloading it on PC. You more than likely had to pay much more for the console game too. Why wasn't ME2 free on console? That, or order it online (which would require paypal or inputting your credit card) and wait 2 or 3 business days.

Some of the login stuff from companies is a little bit much. Of course once you do it the first time for any of the publisher's games it's as simple as clicking a button after that (I already had my EA login for ME). I'm sorry, but you cannot convince me digital downloads are inferior to disc, nor is installing. You are including steps that it takes to get the game (which are one time things) but not including what it takes to get a physical copy. Heck, I bet the next generation of consoles will have all of that stuff. Why? Because it's better. Installing reduces load times by a ton. Consoles don't do it because they don't have the hard drive space. Digital download is the way of the future, and those same things you see on PC today will be there for the next gen consoles.

As for patching, on Steam it does it for me automatically. I don't even need to open the game. Not true for consoles.

You can get games delivered to your house, PSN and XBL have digital downloads. But comparing new releases where downloading, installing and patching a new PC game takes at least an hour I'm sorry but there is no comparison.

It doesn't only happen once, you're constrained by your hard drive space and wanting to uninstall something you don't play anymore. My hard drive failed recently and had to install everything all over again. Not to mention corrupted files, etc. (With my new hard drive space is no longer an issue but I still uninstall games I don't play anymore.)

But a PC game on disk is way less functional than digital, you even sometimes get it earlier which is awesome.

My current addictions are wow and lol. But if I had to play a game as soon as possible it is quicker for me to play a console game. Wow and lol both require log-ins, wow has a loading screen, and LoL has a queue.

I think I'm missing some other points I was meaning to make but I'm too tired to try and go over what I was thinking again /yawn lol.