PC gaming's biggest problem is that it's been an enthusiast market more than a consumer market. There are still tons of gamers that don't know the difference between 2GB ram, and a 2GB hard drive, or 1.21 gigahertz, to 1.21 gigawatts. For these gamers being a PC gamer is nothing but headache and heartache. The don't have a will to learn about the PC, and probably never will. Before buying any PC game, or hardware most PC gamers do some research. "Is it compatible with my current hardware? Do I meet min specs? Any known problems?" Even veteran PC gamers have trouble with some games, and these are smart tech savvy consumers.

Currently PC gaming is in a good place. If you bought a high end gaming pc 2 years ago it's probably still well above recommended specs. Mostly because the hardware race has slowed cause the difference in new tech and old tech isn't really that dramatic of a change when it comes to gaming. This might be due to the economic climate, or just a natural order of things, but it's really helped out consumers who've been trying to keep up w/ the Jones' (AMD, intel, Nvidia, and ATI). Their hardware arms race is one of a few reasons PC gaming has driven away consumers, and developers.

Piracy is a serious issue for developers in this global tech age. While many tend to blow it out of proportion it's still something you have to consider when releasing on any platform not just pc. The DS, and PSP are two other examples of platforms where piracy seems to be a serious issue. On PC piracy is a problem because often the pirated versions of games are cheaper, easier to obtain, and easier to run. Imagine you're 15 years old and want a copy of Bioshock 2 for PC. First off you can't order it from an online retailer like steam since you don't have a credit card, some stores probably have it in stock, but you're 15 so you'll have to ride your, bike or take the bus. If you happen to get it, and it doesn't work on your PC you can't return it. You'll have to figure out the DRM, and if you have the knowledge to fix a problem with DRM you already have more than enough knowledge to get a pirated version which is not going to have any DRM requirements. Who can really blame consumers when piracy meets all their needs, and legit buyers are left in the cold. Steam might be an answer to that. While it's not cheaper than piracy it is much easier to get games on steam, and easier to run steam games than pirated ones. Consumers have repeatedly shown they will pay more when convenient so it's possible to compete with free especially with the shady pirate community, and the amount of personal information people keep on their pcs.

Basically Google probably could of swept this under the rug, and most companies would have. Google on the other hand came out as the only source. There was no accusations, or indication that this information would leak yet Google freely informed the public that this was an accident, and took responsibility. Maybe there was some underlying motive, maybe there's information we don't have, but with all the info that's out right now it seems Google acted as a good samaritan.

I've heard a couple stories about guys that have made video game pitches, but I never hear about the games that actually get made. Two stories that I vaguely remember hearing are 1 of an old man who made a war card game of some sort (like WWII battleships, or planes). Apparently he started crying about 1/2 way through the presentation. The other was a couple of businessmen well dressed, and smooth talkers. They started throwing up profit expectations, market research, and a ton of great stuff that really impressed the developer. As the developer digs deeper it turns out they didn't actually have a game design at all it was just a hypothetical situation on how much money a game could make. I know I've heard more stories, but never actually hear about a game getting made through an external pitch meeting. Honestly I don't even think it happens like this for film anymore.

Today's game industry isn't lacking for ideas so if you're selling an idea then you're out of luck. If you have marketing experience, and can persuade a publisher that this type of game would make them money it's not a bad path, but I'm sure publishers hear the "I've got a game idea that will make you millions" pitch so often they just ignore it. If you really want to pursue it I suggest visiting GDC, and talking with people. Publishers, developers, gamers, press, indie developers will all give you a perspective of what direction to head w/ your idea. You'll probably get farther asking for advice than you would trying to make a pitch at this point.

This seems to be just a jumbling of the numbers to make things look worse than they really are. MS reported that the 360 sold about 30% better using the same sources as the article. Also I'd suggest just looking at what the "Entertainment and Devices Division" (EDD) actually contains. Basically EDD not only contains the xbox 360, but also several projects which are in R&D which won't be making a profit anytime soon. The 2 major known projects right now are Project Natal (motion camera/controller for the 360), and the Microsoft Surface (basically a table computer) which have to be costing the division quiet a bit of money.

Now w/ the recent price cut on the ps3 slim Sony is knowingly losing money on the ps3. The ps3 is selling better, and will probably continue to sell well assuming it makes another price cut, and the ps3 continues to release great software.

The Wii however is seeing a decline in sales, and it's not surprising. It's pretty much hit full saturation, and w/out re-releasing a new variation of the console Wii sales will continue to drop.

Sadly w/ some HR people anything can be seen as a black mark. Even things you can't change like your name. Something like gambling probably has a higher rate of hitting people's radar due to it's "shady reputation", but you also have to think about yourself. Would you want to work for a company that wouldn't hire an incompetent worker over one that had worked for a gambling software company?

I can't even access my accounts most of the time! How are much luck are they going to have? "Sir this is ABC Bank we saw some suspicious activity on your online account today. Apparently you logged with all the correct information, and didn't get locked out. Due to the suspicious activity we're going to lock your account."

To me testing a persons skills doesn't seem like a problem for a serious interview, especially w/ how people are encouraged to lie on their resumes. Since you are hiring worldwide though I can't see how you would monitor tests for people that could be from anywhere. You could possibly be weeding out those who are unable to pass such test, but you could be weeding out those that don't feel you're company really knows what it's doing. Anyway one of my favorite interview test strategies is one used by my former employee. It was for an entry level QA position at a game company. Essentially this is like sending a High School student to Grad school. For the interview the prospective employee is basically bombarded w/ question, and tests they couldn't of been prepared for, and have no clue how to answer. It's fairly easy to see where people break down under this type of pressure. Most people walk out thinking they've totally lost any chance getting the job, but mostly what the interview was looking at what how they problem solve in a high pressure, and confusing environment.

I agree it's very likely that p2p traffic stayed the same while other internet traffic increased dramatically (especially flash video based traffic).

I don't see any problem w/ kids texting. It seems like a good way to work on their communication skills, and gets them familiar w/ technology. The problem I see w/ the situation is that introducing these devices at a young age is enabling their addiction. To most people I know a cellphone isn't a convenience device it's a necessity. Take it away and they become lost, and unhappy, like flushing a heroin addicts stash. Do we really want a whole generation hooked on cellphones? I'm not against cellphones at all, but I do believe that most people tend to use them obsessively, and would like it if a whole generation didn't end up like their parents.

Though I finished school a couple years ago getting books anywhere besides the two authorized campus book stores was a huge hassle. First they were the only places that could find out what books are needed for classes. Second they didn't include the ISBN numbers in the print out. Third they wouldn't let you know what books were needed for what class until about a week before classes started. So basically if you wanted to buy your books somewhere else you need to print out a sheet w/ all the books needed for your classes, find the books, and write in the ISBN numbers (or risk doing a title search), and then find them online, and hope your professor doesn't require the book for the first couple of weeks. One time I had a professor tell us to return our books to the bookstore, and buy them somewhere else. Also he said don't tell anyone this because he got into trouble w/ the university last semester since they run one of the bookstores. I don't know how many schools run their bookstores like this but I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of colleges do.

While I'm not saying Wikipedia is more creditable it's not like other sources of information are as reliable as one would think. During my academic days I would find journals riddled with illogical conclusions, misleading facts, and statistics w/ absolutely no citations or indications on where they came from. While tracking some facts down I found surprising evidence against what several highly credited researchers stated in their articles. Now back to wikipedia... at least wikipedia is convenient. I can check out the history see if any weird changes were made, or if there's a discussion on the issue. If I find facts contrary to the original writers I can bring them into the argument, and they can be discussed at length if needed. W/ an academic journal I have to write a review, and most likely get ignored since I'm not really anybody of academic importance.

First you need to ask yourself "do I actually want to become a game designer"? Most people think that the game designer comes up with the idea for the game, and such, but this isn't really the case. Ideas are often a collaborative effort by several members of the team mostly coming from different backgrounds. Yes some studios do it differently, but most of the successful studios make games by committee. Also you need to remember that ideas in the game industry are a dime a dozen so if you think you're an "idea man" then you're going to be worthless to 90% of the industry. Back to the topic at hand. Being a game designer means you hash out all the details of a broad design. You map out how the UI is going to interact, or write how you want a system to interact. You could be part of the level design, or mission design team that helps create the world. Also your work is always at the whim of a rogue artist or programmer who "thought it might work better this way". It seems like most people that don't know much about the video game industry want to design, but few are good at it, and most can put their skills to better use in other fields. While programming is a good/necessary skill to have it always seems like those w/ art backgrounds have a much better idea on how to design things. Most companies can hire a handful of "code monkeys" to do your programming for you, but it's hard to find a good artist, and even then communicating art isn't an easy task. I highly suggest doing art, over programming if you want to move over to design. Next you'll never get anywhere in the game industry w/out experience. Now it may seem like a catch-22, but if you're persistent opportunities will pop up. Also just because it's not professional experience doesn't mean it's not worth trying out. Companies will hire people w/ modding experience over those w/out, and if the mod experience is with their own software then they might take you over somebody w/ professional experience (don't count on it though). Last is do you actually want to work in the game industry. Playing games is necessary for the industry, but just because you like playing games doesn't mean you'll like working on them. First off if you're qualified to work in the game industry somebody else will pay you more outside of the game industry. If you make $60k a year expect to make $30k in the game industry. Second you're going to work much harder in the game industry than anywhere else. Though management in the industry is getting better it's still common for people to sleep at work, or pull 80+ hours in a week. Missing a deadline can be very expensive, and you're working w/ some of the most complicated tech projects in the world. Also just about everything you know now will probably become useless in 5 years. The technology and design in this industry change so fast that being ahead of the curve means you're already late by the time your product hits the shelves. So you'll always be learning in this job, and if you take a break from the field you're probably going to need to start all over again.

I can sort of see where the professor is coming from. This is similar to a student posting scan-tron results from a test, but unlike the scan-tron results this actually has other uses besides cheating. Anyway copying is now an archaic form a cheating, and it seems most students who are going to cheat are moving to outsourcing. Instead of buying an essay that was already written, they pay a professional to write it, or in this case they pay a programmer to write it. Most professors won't do much until it becomes a problem, and even then there's really nothing the school can do until they find the original writer, or the student confesses. Most teachers will just increase the workload trying which pretty much just tortures everybody instead of just the cheaters. Hell about 2 years ago it seems like schools were almost proud there CS students were outsourcing.

You probably don't realize this, but most other goods have a certain wear and tear that video games (and other digital media) don't have. A used car, or TV is not going to be as good as the day it was bought due to everyday wear and tear of the buttons, tubes, engine, and just about every other component. Unlike other goods a video game isn't going break due to it being used therefore a used game is pretty much just as good as a new one (assuming it's fully working when you get it). If this applied to cars, or TVs or any other industry they'd definitely be complaining. Now let's look at the numbers. Currently the video game industry does about $10billion worth of sales per year. Now gamestop's used game sales are about $2billion, and that's just one company. No other industry has 20% of their sales matched by a used market let alone a used market from a single company. With companies like Amazon, and Best Buy are looking at ways to break into the used game market it's pretty clear the used game market is going to be growing, and it's only going to hurt the companies making the games. Now I'm not expecting the game industry to completely dissolve used games (I mean look how well that worked for the PC), but I think there should be some small re-licensing fees associated with used game sales that will help fund new a better games in the future. Hypothetically let's say a company that does over $1 million in used media sales pays a 10% used tax on the sale of each title to the publishers that own the rights to said media. If gamestop passes the tax onto those selling the games (I should also mention a lot of games sold to gamestop are stolen) than they can profit even more. For example let's say they buy a game for $10 with the intention of selling it for $30. If they apply the 10% tax to the seller that would knock the price down to 7$ since the tax is paid at the resale, not the trade in. Now as time goes on the game doesn't sell and the game price drops to $20. If gamespot sells the game for $20 they are paying $1 less tax than originally planed and technically profiting. Now you're probably saying they would of made more had they sold it for $30, but it doesn't work that way tax or no tax.

I've read several articles that tend to ramble about Skype's security. Most of it's speculation though since Skype uses proprietary software. Obviously no program is 100% secure, but I think w/ the millions of accounts, and it's history of running w/ a nefarious crowd if there was a huge security link the shit would of hit the fan by now. Still it's not a bad idea to close skype when you're not using it, and watch your account closely.