most of these games will run on virtually anything, and even "real" games like bioshock will run on $50 each cpu/mobo/vid card.

It's more like a series of improvements on that model. It works really well, though. Cache doesn't seem to help performance as much as you'd think it would, though. There are some core2 cpus described as "pentium dual core" with a fraction of the cache which perform almost as well.

The third core gives a significant performance benefit over two cores, especially since many games were originally designed for consoles and are badly ported to PCs. Unoptimized performance hogs like Grand Theft Auto demand more cores (and can use them). Just today I saw an article on Anandtech describing significant, unexpected benefits from a slower quad core over a newer, faster dual-core in gaming. http://www.anandtech.com/show/3695/the-clarkdale-experiment-mea-culpa

Activision claimed that the bonus pool for Infinity Ward will remain the same and whoever stays will get more money. Not saying it will happen.

They all just randomly decided to quit in a down economy and forgo bonus money + the bonus money owed the two lead devs? Yes, every dev that quits, the bonuses for the remaining ones pile higher. And they're still leaving. Granted, they might believe that Activision are too rotten to pay anyone at this point, but if that's the argument you're relying on..

So do I. I don't compete in tournaments, though. You're talking about people who really care about computer hardware or game casually.

Exactly. People who really care about games are often playing ridiculously low resolutions for the framerate and using low DPI mice they sweep across the desk so they can snipe better. Music? That's off. Graphical effects? Off unless they help gameplay (many hurt).

Exactly. I have a 1366x768 laptop (16") because it was friggin' cheap, I expect any mass market laptop to break and don't want to waste my poor college student money, etc.. it works great, games/movies look great, but getting actual work done is stressful and slow. I think that screen size could handle above 1900x1200 just fine (assuming the fonts were appropriately fixed so they weren't too small).

That's just an issue with font sizes being badly designed. If you could get a larger display with better fonts you could do more at once more effectively.

You're right in a theoretical sense and/or strict logical analysis of what he's saying, but we all know what he means: current displays are way lower than what he'd like. The reason megapixel fanatics are nuts is because cameras have such ridiculous resolution capabilities: usually far too big to be shown without downscaling on 2560x1600 displays, let alone any HDTV.

Maybe you have really bad eyesight? I certainly wouldn't call mine good and I have no problems with 1900x1200 on a 24" display. HDTVs are often a bit ugly compared to my LCD when looking at a desktop or such, I don't know if it's the screen quality or relatively low resolution for their size.

He's not a "normal consumer" so he has different concerns. He's lobbying them as best he can and if you don't share them, maybe you should STFU about him being a whiner? The availability of more 4K displays would not suddenly drive up the price on your 1080p screens so that you could no longer afford to buy a monitor.

not really, because the "lazy leeches" are sometimes huge buyers who are enthralled with having huge legit collections. I know people like this. The problem here is that "huge downloader" and "huge buyer" are more correlated than you'd think.

ripping Blu-Rays is a fairly big PITA. Regular DVDs are simple but 1080p takes forever to convert to high-quality x264 (and most people don't want 30 gig direct rips)

Hey, I'm not going to give my money to any company that does this and I just bought that new breakout clone game thingy earlier today. It's great.