Posted Aug 20, 2007 at 07:43PM by Glen D.
Listed in:
Wii,
PlayStation 3,
Xbox 360,
Games for Windows
Tags:
Sony,
Silicon Knights,
Denis Dyack
Ó
|
|
|
|
[Via 1up]
Permalink |
Email this |
Linking Blogs
| Digg It!
Bookmark / Find this article on: |
|
28 Comments
|
 |
by Koru-Kun (Unregistered) - 2007-08-20 |
|
 
|
» i think
That this would be a horrible thing to happen. Loss of competition means loss of quality.
That this would be a horrible thing to happen. Loss of competition means loss of quality.
|
Re: Tyrone (Unregistered) - 2007-08-20 |
|
|
» for sure
It would be stupid if they did this, that's why we have Blu-Ray and HD-DVD because regular DVD sure enough wasn't that great and Blu-Ray is top dogg.
It would be stupid if they did this, that's why we have Blu-Ray and HD-DVD because regular DVD sure enough wasn't that great and Blu-Ray is top dogg.
|
Re: Mustang (Unregistered) - 2007-08-21 |
|
|
» The real path
Loss of competition?
The DVD market has only one platform, the DVD and it has fierce competition. That doesn't stop all DVD software from running in any DVD player.
It's the same basic idea. The hardware will be standard, but manufacturers will compete to put out better quality, lower costs or better cost/benefit, whatever pleases you.
What is true that, increasing costs of game development and increasing costs due to multi-platforming while the gaming userbase is becoming more fragmented(with the Big 3 becoming more balanced) isn't gonna substain this model for too long.
We either evolve or become a sea of casual mini-games for the masses.
Loss of competition?
The DVD market has only one platform, the DVD and it has fierce competition. That doesn't stop all DVD software from running in any DVD player.
It's the same basic idea. The hardware will be standard, but manufacturers will compete to put out better quality, lower costs or better cost/benefit, whatever pleases you.
What is true that, increasing costs of game development and increasing costs due to multi-platforming while the gaming userbase is becoming more fragmented(with the Big 3 becoming more balanced) isn't gonna substain this model for too long.
We either evolve or become a sea of casual mini-games for the masses.
|
by justin (Unregistered) - 2007-08-20 |
|
|
» didnt they try this
with 3DO?
failed miserably. still...itd be kinda nice in many ways...
with 3DO?
failed miserably. still...itd be kinda nice in many ways...
|
by potential (Unregistered) - 2007-08-20 |
|
|
» Open OS required
I don't see how this would work, there would need to be a standard OS that is non proprietary.
MS will never allow anything like this to happen if they don't own and control it. And if it was MS controlled I would never buy it, like EA they screw everything up. $$$$ and quantity over quality is their moto.
I much prefer how nintendo and sony operate
But the concept it good, I do give it merit :) It would save us, the consumer, from missing out on great games without having to fork out for every console
I don't see how this would work, there would need to be a standard OS that is non proprietary.
MS will never allow anything like this to happen if they don't own and control it. And if it was MS controlled I would never buy it, like EA they screw everything up. $$$$ and quantity over quality is their moto.
I much prefer how nintendo and sony operate
But the concept it good, I do give it merit :) It would save us, the consumer, from missing out on great games without having to fork out for every console
|
Re: afiughjsakl (Unregistered) - 2007-08-21 |
|
|
» jkytufgjkl;
Of course it wouldn't MS, it'd be a linux based system, and I think if there ever was a joining of consoles, it'd be between Nintendo and Sony, and MS would continue to make their own product, and eventually one would of the two would be bought out.
Of course it wouldn't MS, it'd be a linux based system, and I think if there ever was a joining of consoles, it'd be between Nintendo and Sony, and MS would continue to make their own product, and eventually one would of the two would be bought out.
|
Re: Mustang (Unregistered) - 2007-08-21 |
|
|
» Both
Microsoft like Sony is aiming toward leveraging their position in the console market to propel their media downloading services, that's the greatest set back.
They won't allow a unified platform, because they would have real competition between their services and not a monopoly acess to their platforms.
Microsoft like Sony is aiming toward leveraging their position in the console market to propel their media downloading services, that's the greatest set back.
They won't allow a unified platform, because they would have real competition between their services and not a monopoly acess to their platforms.
|
by NonPartisanCon (Unregistered) - 2007-08-20 |
|
|
» Wishful thinking
What he really meant to say was "it would make my job easier if I could develop one game and just port it to every platform". I hope we return to the good old days of Sega Nintendo and the Atari when developer just made games for whatever platform caught their interests. No need to throw around $50,000,000 checks to secure the future of a given platform.
What he really meant to say was "it would make my job easier if I could develop one game and just port it to every platform". I hope we return to the good old days of Sega Nintendo and the Atari when developer just made games for whatever platform caught their interests. No need to throw around $50,000,000 checks to secure the future of a given platform.
|
Re: Advertising - |
|
|
|
Re: Thinker (Unregistered) - 2007-08-21 |
|
|
» To NonPartisanCon
>
LOL. My thoughts exactly!
>
LOL. My thoughts exactly!
|
by Quixand - 2007-08-20 |
|
|
» when this happens
i would be too old to even care
i would be too old to even care
|
by hope so (Unregistered) - 2007-08-20 |
|
|
» hoping so
good god it would at least end all this worthless forum debate and ***** if it were to happen, i honestly think about this sometimes.. it would be a good thing
good god it would at least end all this worthless forum debate and ***** if it were to happen, i honestly think about this sometimes.. it would be a good thing
|
by Dragas (Unregistered) - 2007-08-20 |
|
|
» Peter Moore comment
Peter Moore recently commented on this idea in an interview to Nelson over at Achievement Junkie. He basiclly said that the idea was a non starter because of the huge development costs of creating the next "next Gen" console is recouped through selling games.
To develop the next generation of consoles all the major parties like MS, Sony, and Nin would have to pool funds and share profits.
No competition is always a bad thing for the consumer.
Peter Moore recently commented on this idea in an interview to Nelson over at Achievement Junkie. He basiclly said that the idea was a non starter because of the huge development costs of creating the next "next Gen" console is recouped through selling games.
To develop the next generation of consoles all the major parties like MS, Sony, and Nin would have to pool funds and share profits.
No competition is always a bad thing for the consumer.
|
by GamerGuyDude - 2007-08-20 |
|
|
» Nah
This line of thinking implies that there is one market for gaming. Obviously, Nintendo has proven otherwise. Then again that doesn't mean we won't start seeing more synergies in the future, especially things like online play between rival consoles.
This line of thinking implies that there is one market for gaming. Obviously, Nintendo has proven otherwise. Then again that doesn't mean we won't start seeing more synergies in the future, especially things like online play between rival consoles.
|
by kamiboy (Unregistered) - 2007-08-21 |
|
|
» lay off the week
That guy should lay off the weed and instead of producing brain farts try to finish his so called mucho delayed hype inflated trilogy, that is if they do not go bankrupt before then.
That guy should lay off the weed and instead of producing brain farts try to finish his so called mucho delayed hype inflated trilogy, that is if they do not go bankrupt before then.
|
by bobs (Unregistered) - 2007-08-21 |
|
|
» where'd they find this hack...
... yeah right a one console future?... ppl say some dumb stuff. qj shame on you for posting such nonsense.
it'll never happen, when has it ever happened befor? - where ever theres money to be made somone will always be there to provide the consumer with a choise.
... yeah right a one console future?... ppl say some dumb stuff. qj shame on you for posting such nonsense.
it'll never happen, when has it ever happened befor? - where ever theres money to be made somone will always be there to provide the consumer with a choise.
|
by Mentality - 2007-08-21 |
|
|
» NO
This would be ridiculous, standardisation would mean lack of improvement in future consoles.
What keeps these consoles getting better from one era to the next is the conviction to be better than the other guy. And the competition between the companies is healthy and will always make sure we get the best quality gaming available (Besides Xbox 360 who have no quality what so ever, what with them always breaking down.)
Sorry 360 fans had to put that in there, but don't take offence just some friendly banter, at least you know in 5 or 6 years if you last that long your new console might have a better fighting chance ;)
This would be ridiculous, standardisation would mean lack of improvement in future consoles.
What keeps these consoles getting better from one era to the next is the conviction to be better than the other guy. And the competition between the companies is healthy and will always make sure we get the best quality gaming available (Besides Xbox 360 who have no quality what so ever, what with them always breaking down.)
Sorry 360 fans had to put that in there, but don't take offence just some friendly banter, at least you know in 5 or 6 years if you last that long your new console might have a better fighting chance ;)
|
by Fool (Unregistered) - 2007-08-21 |
|
|
» Thick
Consoles are developed at massively high cost to the developers using not todays technology but also in creating tomorrows technology.
No developer is going to put billions of $$'s into a design to then give the profits of building it freely to any other manufacturer, it would have to be sold for a massive cost to recoup development costs that no-one would agree to. The Xbox360 was about 2 years ago and is still not making any profit for Microsoft, the games are what bring the cash in for them, and the same is true for all next gen consoles.
Therefore who would even want to buy the plans to the next generation console knowing that it is going to be years before it can even conceiveably start making cash, and that's only if it hasn't been superseeded by the next version.
Consoles are successful by their very nature, pushing the boundaries of technology whilst being a loss for the developers who can make the cash on the games under license.
This article is tosh.
The only conglomerate piece of hardware is the PC and it is horrendously expensive to the consumer to buy the individual components to keep abreast of current gaming technology in comparison to consoles which are initially sold at a loss by the developers.
Consoles are developed at massively high cost to the developers using not todays technology but also in creating tomorrows technology.
No developer is going to put billions of $$'s into a design to then give the profits of building it freely to any other manufacturer, it would have to be sold for a massive cost to recoup development costs that no-one would agree to. The Xbox360 was about 2 years ago and is still not making any profit for Microsoft, the games are what bring the cash in for them, and the same is true for all next gen consoles.
Therefore who would even want to buy the plans to the next generation console knowing that it is going to be years before it can even conceiveably start making cash, and that's only if it hasn't been superseeded by the next version.
Consoles are successful by their very nature, pushing the boundaries of technology whilst being a loss for the developers who can make the cash on the games under license.
This article is tosh.
The only conglomerate piece of hardware is the PC and it is horrendously expensive to the consumer to buy the individual components to keep abreast of current gaming technology in comparison to consoles which are initially sold at a loss by the developers.
|
by Advertising - |
|
|
|
by Player97 (Unregistered) - 2007-08-21 |
|
|
» Standardisation is a double edge sword.
Without standardisation, technology would not have been able to progress as fast as it has on the PC, whether it's graphics cards, API's like DirectX and OpenGL (now on the PS3), sound cards, USB etc, technology which has made it's way into today's consoles.
So standardisation actually aids progress, it doesn't hinder it, since it offers a foundation for which hardware and software can be built upon. The only danger I can see hindering progress is backward compatibility within a standardised environment, since the need to offer full BC will impose limitations upon future developement.
Hence if they choose to use the latest technology to create a new console standard every 5-7 years, offering limited BC without compromising the technology in any way, then I'm all for it. :)
Without standardisation, technology would not have been able to progress as fast as it has on the PC, whether it's graphics cards, API's like DirectX and OpenGL (now on the PS3), sound cards, USB etc, technology which has made it's way into today's consoles.
So standardisation actually aids progress, it doesn't hinder it, since it offers a foundation for which hardware and software can be built upon. The only danger I can see hindering progress is backward compatibility within a standardised environment, since the need to offer full BC will impose limitations upon future developement.
Hence if they choose to use the latest technology to create a new console standard every 5-7 years, offering limited BC without compromising the technology in any way, then I'm all for it. :)
|
Re: Not so (Unregistered) - 2007-08-21 |
|
|
» Simplistic twaddle
some software and hardware technologies have been recycled and improved where appropriate in very small areas.
The main functionality has been in the creation of next gen graphics cards (created by current PC manufacturers albeit for R+D cost reasons - but still irrelevant) and the CPU functionality is revolutionary in the PS3.
Just because all the consoles have usb slots and media card slots doesnt mean that they would be better off being standardised where in CPU, graphics etc.
Without competition there is limited innovation.
Twaddle
some software and hardware technologies have been recycled and improved where appropriate in very small areas.
The main functionality has been in the creation of next gen graphics cards (created by current PC manufacturers albeit for R+D cost reasons - but still irrelevant) and the CPU functionality is revolutionary in the PS3.
Just because all the consoles have usb slots and media card slots doesnt mean that they would be better off being standardised where in CPU, graphics etc.
Without competition there is limited innovation.
Twaddle
|
Re: Player97 (Unregistered) - 2007-08-21 |
|
|
» Actually, it is so!
But I 'm not going to resort to insulting your opinions just because I disagree with them (which I do), since it is possible to disagree without attacking other opinions.
You're demonstrating the same kind of attitude I find irritating when gamers are discussing console technology, where each are out to prove one is better than the other. So for me, this is another reason why I would be happy to see standardisation within the console industry.
Your assertion is that innovation is limited without competition. I believe that to be a false assumption.
But I 'm not going to resort to insulting your opinions just because I disagree with them (which I do), since it is possible to disagree without attacking other opinions.
You're demonstrating the same kind of attitude I find irritating when gamers are discussing console technology, where each are out to prove one is better than the other. So for me, this is another reason why I would be happy to see standardisation within the console industry.
Your assertion is that innovation is limited without competition. I believe that to be a false assumption.
|
Re: Henry (Unregistered) - 2007-08-21 |
|
|
» Agree with Twaddle
I have to agree with Twaddle. Look at the 360, no motion sensing of any sort. Look at Wii, and PS3. Why do they have motion sense? they want to get ahead of microsoft. As the Wii demonstrated, it doesn't need superior graphic. It just need innovation which i think Microsoft highly lacks due to their greed for money. As for Sony, they are trying hard, once they release the rumble motion sensor remote (hopefully soon), i would say 360 is completely done for (if not already due to the red ring). Microsoft like most American companies are pretty conservative. They do not change and go with standards. As Nintendo demostrated with the DS and Wii, they took a gamble with trying something different then most people's "standards".
I have to agree with Twaddle. Look at the 360, no motion sensing of any sort. Look at Wii, and PS3. Why do they have motion sense? they want to get ahead of microsoft. As the Wii demonstrated, it doesn't need superior graphic. It just need innovation which i think Microsoft highly lacks due to their greed for money. As for Sony, they are trying hard, once they release the rumble motion sensor remote (hopefully soon), i would say 360 is completely done for (if not already due to the red ring). Microsoft like most American companies are pretty conservative. They do not change and go with standards. As Nintendo demostrated with the DS and Wii, they took a gamble with trying something different then most people's "standards".
|
Re: Player97 (Unregistered) - 2007-08-21 |
|
|
» ^^^You're falling into the same trap...
...of making this a console arguement instead of discussing the pros and cons of standardisation.
Put aside your preferences and console predudices for a moment and try to see this from an objective point of view.
Let's imagine for one moment that this gen consists of a standard console created by the big three (Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo). Between them, they've come up with a machine where IBM and Sony have provided the Cell processor and Blu-ray, ATI and Microsoft have provided the GPU and software developement environment, and Nintendo has provided the unique motion sensing controller (but the standard controller is still available).
The cost of developing this console has been split between all three companies, therefore making it cheaper and easier for them, with less risk for each. Such a console may sell for a price somewhere between the 360 and PS3.
So think of this as the ultimate games console, consisting of all the best elements seen in today's current generation of PS3, 360 and Wii.
My question is...Why is such a console a bad thing for all three companies? Why is it bad for the industry?
With such a console, gamers no longer need to worry about which console to buy, since they can by just ONE console and have ALL the best games from the world's best developers.
To get the same today, gamers have to buy ALL THREE CONSOLES. So how many gamers reading this post have more than one console, or are planning to buy a second console in future? How many have a 360 and a PS3? How many have a Wii as well? How much has it cost you to get the best from this generation when one standard console would have cost you a fraction of what you've paid in total for a machine equally as powerful and equally as innovative as today's consoles (if not MORE so)!
So why is this such a bad thing for gamers? Why is it better to spend up to 3 times as much on multiple consoles to get the same experience possible from just one standard console?
Now look at it from a developers point of view. No longer do they have to split their resources to support multiple machines. No longer do they have to spend years learning to push 2 or 3 consoles, often succeeding in some but not in others. Instead, they now have just ONE console for which they can put ALL their resources into getting the best out of the machine. Now they are on a level playing field with ALL other devs, and have to show innovation and creativity within their GAMES to stand out from the competition. So it's less about what the hardware can do for them but what they can do with the hardware.
Again, why is that a bad thing for developers? Why is that bad for gamers?
Like I said, there are pros and cons to standardisation, and yet whenever the subject arises, the only thing gamers seem to think about are the cons. :|
IMO, the pros outweigh the cons. I can't see it happening for quite some time, but I would like to see it happen in future for the reasons I've given.
Hopefully someone can respond to this post without it becoming an issue about which company is or isn't innovative or making it a battle between good and evil, but instead will consider this issue from the point of view of the companies creating the console, the developers creating games for the console, as well as the gamers. :)
...of making this a console arguement instead of discussing the pros and cons of standardisation.
Put aside your preferences and console predudices for a moment and try to see this from an objective point of view.
Let's imagine for one moment that this gen consists of a standard console created by the big three (Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo). Between them, they've come up with a machine where IBM and Sony have provided the Cell processor and Blu-ray, ATI and Microsoft have provided the GPU and software developement environment, and Nintendo has provided the unique motion sensing controller (but the standard controller is still available).
The cost of developing this console has been split between all three companies, therefore making it cheaper and easier for them, with less risk for each. Such a console may sell for a price somewhere between the 360 and PS3.
So think of this as the ultimate games console, consisting of all the best elements seen in today's current generation of PS3, 360 and Wii.
My question is...Why is such a console a bad thing for all three companies? Why is it bad for the industry?
With such a console, gamers no longer need to worry about which console to buy, since they can by just ONE console and have ALL the best games from the world's best developers.
To get the same today, gamers have to buy ALL THREE CONSOLES. So how many gamers reading this post have more than one console, or are planning to buy a second console in future? How many have a 360 and a PS3? How many have a Wii as well? How much has it cost you to get the best from this generation when one standard console would have cost you a fraction of what you've paid in total for a machine equally as powerful and equally as innovative as today's consoles (if not MORE so)!
So why is this such a bad thing for gamers? Why is it better to spend up to 3 times as much on multiple consoles to get the same experience possible from just one standard console?
Now look at it from a developers point of view. No longer do they have to split their resources to support multiple machines. No longer do they have to spend years learning to push 2 or 3 consoles, often succeeding in some but not in others. Instead, they now have just ONE console for which they can put ALL their resources into getting the best out of the machine. Now they are on a level playing field with ALL other devs, and have to show innovation and creativity within their GAMES to stand out from the competition. So it's less about what the hardware can do for them but what they can do with the hardware.
Again, why is that a bad thing for developers? Why is that bad for gamers?
Like I said, there are pros and cons to standardisation, and yet whenever the subject arises, the only thing gamers seem to think about are the cons. :|
IMO, the pros outweigh the cons. I can't see it happening for quite some time, but I would like to see it happen in future for the reasons I've given.
Hopefully someone can respond to this post without it becoming an issue about which company is or isn't innovative or making it a battle between good and evil, but instead will consider this issue from the point of view of the companies creating the console, the developers creating games for the console, as well as the gamers. :)
|
Re: 5678-Jump (Unregistered) - 2007-08-21 |
|
|
» ^^^ Very good post Player97
My gut reaction has always been against a standard console, but you do put forward a very good case for it.
My gut reaction has always been against a standard console, but you do put forward a very good case for it.
|
by Mr. Common Sense (Unregistered) - 2007-08-21 |
|
|
» BAHH!!
I HATE JEWS!!!!!!!!!
I HATE JEWS!!!!!!!!!
|
by shanghai360 (Unregistered) - 2007-08-21 |
|
|
» standard
I think we need to look at what standard might mean.
Take HiFi for example. The consumer can choose from a wide range of products and brands but they will all play a CD. I do agree that right now the effort to capture market share is pushing the developers of the console technology to new levels and at the same time different strategies are being utilized. Yes PS3 is cutting edge whearas the 360 is based upon a more readily available technology.
However 360 is very strong in its online and live market place strategy.
I agree that at some point the technologies will fuse together. The Cell in the coming years may be developed to a point where it makes sense for all console makers to use it. Regardless of this an ultimate end situation will be that games are developed and all platforms will play them. It will be in the smaller differences that consumers will make a descision just as with HIFi we can choose Sony Denon Quad and a hundred different other brands. The MS Nintendo and Sony camps will be just as the major record producers who have contracts with their respective stars and superstars. This will not stagnate development but in my opinion boost it. Why? back to the record company situation, the Punk revolution the independent labels etc. In the games world it will be the Homebrew crews that push the experience and ideas further. Yes their will be a lot of crap produced just as their is a lot of crap music but just like music we can now already download direct to our consoles demos of games we may find interesting.
The ability for developers to write once for all platforms mean less risk of betting on the wrong horse so therefore the competition moves from the console maker to the software houses and this is good for the consumer, after all we buy a console for the games. Net result is better games because of tougher competition and a continual developement of hardware as each manufacturer will try to convince us the consumer that their console play the latest and best games better. IMO Oh Yeah! long live the future and a console that works with any game i want.
I think we need to look at what standard might mean.
Take HiFi for example. The consumer can choose from a wide range of products and brands but they will all play a CD. I do agree that right now the effort to capture market share is pushing the developers of the console technology to new levels and at the same time different strategies are being utilized. Yes PS3 is cutting edge whearas the 360 is based upon a more readily available technology.
However 360 is very strong in its online and live market place strategy.
I agree that at some point the technologies will fuse together. The Cell in the coming years may be developed to a point where it makes sense for all console makers to use it. Regardless of this an ultimate end situation will be that games are developed and all platforms will play them. It will be in the smaller differences that consumers will make a descision just as with HIFi we can choose Sony Denon Quad and a hundred different other brands. The MS Nintendo and Sony camps will be just as the major record producers who have contracts with their respective stars and superstars. This will not stagnate development but in my opinion boost it. Why? back to the record company situation, the Punk revolution the independent labels etc. In the games world it will be the Homebrew crews that push the experience and ideas further. Yes their will be a lot of crap produced just as their is a lot of crap music but just like music we can now already download direct to our consoles demos of games we may find interesting.
The ability for developers to write once for all platforms mean less risk of betting on the wrong horse so therefore the competition moves from the console maker to the software houses and this is good for the consumer, after all we buy a console for the games. Net result is better games because of tougher competition and a continual developement of hardware as each manufacturer will try to convince us the consumer that their console play the latest and best games better. IMO Oh Yeah! long live the future and a console that works with any game i want.
|
by skyler (Unregistered) - 2007-08-21 |
|
|
» no
never happen
never happen
|
by Fiberwire (Unregistered) - 2007-08-21 |
|
|
» no!
taking away choice from the consumer is never a good business move! a monopoly is never good for the economy just because the production cost is low because it's shared between the three companies doesnt mean they will sell it for a low price. there is no competition so they can charge any price they want, pushing gamers to the pc market! if and when this standardization occurs, there will be a company to step in and offer us consumers a choice of what to play and how to play it!
taking away choice from the consumer is never a good business move! a monopoly is never good for the economy just because the production cost is low because it's shared between the three companies doesnt mean they will sell it for a low price. there is no competition so they can charge any price they want, pushing gamers to the pc market! if and when this standardization occurs, there will be a company to step in and offer us consumers a choice of what to play and how to play it!
|
by Advertising - |
|
|
|
by i hate you alll (Unregistered) - 2007-08-21 |
|
|
» qj net is so stupid
why would anyone think that a one console future is so imminent, i agree with the fact that its not good for the economy, but as i learned in econ class that monopoly's are illegal if anyone remembers.
so i don't see how this is going to happen. and it never WILL
why would anyone think that a one console future is so imminent, i agree with the fact that its not good for the economy, but as i learned in econ class that monopoly's are illegal if anyone remembers.
so i don't see how this is going to happen. and it never WILL
Contact Us:
|
The QJ.net Network |
|
| Site | Feed |
| QJ.NET | RSS |
| Nintendo DS | RSS |
| PlayStation 3 | RSS |
| PSP Updates | RSS |
| Wii | RSS |
| Xbox 360 | RSS |
| MMORPG | RSS |
| Personal Computer Games | RSS |
| iPhone - iPod Touch | RSS |
| QJ.NET Forums | RSS |
Add QJ.NET
User Favorites - November
| Most Commented | |
| (136) | |
| (57) | |
| (45) | |
| (43) | |
| (39) | |
| (36) | |
| (31) | |
| (30) | |
| (29) | |
| (29) | |
| (26) | |
| (26) | |
| (25) | |
| (25) | |
| (24) | |
| (23) | |
| (23) | |
| (22) | |
| (22) | |
| (21) | |
User Favorites - November
Apple
(3236)E3
(752)Gadgets
(3645)Games for Windows
(6714)iPhone
(651)MMORPG
(7941)Mobile
(2790)News
(871)Nintendo DS
(8542)Opinions & Analysis
(93)Photography
(453)PlayStation 3
(18340)PSP
(17311)Rumors
(169)Science
(2794)Site News
(52)Tabula Rasa
(421)Wii
(14092)World of Warcraft
(3730)Xbox 360
(18410)
Archives
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
May 2005
