Perhaps one of the more overlooked problems that could arise out of a bad Net Neutrality decision is the impact to online gaming. In fact, any interactive communications could stand to take a dive (VOIP, streaming video, etc) with the advent of Net Neutrality legislation. RampRate has an interesting look at the possible fallout and where we are headed. From the article: "What will be murdered with no fallback or replacement is the nascent market of interactive entertainment - particularly online gaming. Companies like Blizzard Entertainment, Electronic Arts, Sony Online Entertainment, and countless others, have built a business on the fundamental assumption of relatively low latency bandwidth being available to large numbers of consumers. Furthermore, a large -- even overwhelming -- portion of the value of these offerings comes from their 'network effects' -- the tendency for the game to become more enjoyable and valuable as larger number of players joins the gaming network."

GameSpot reports that GameStop will be resupplied with Wii and PS3 units within the next few weeks. They have some details on how the two console did in comparison (more games bought with the Wii than the PS3), and point out the best sellers for both systems. From the article: "The executives also recapped the launch performances of the two systems. For the PS3, Sony's Resistance: Fall of Man and Electronic Arts' Madden NFL 07 were the biggest sellers, while Nintendo's The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess and Ubisoft's Red Steel stood out from the pack of Wii launch titles ... While GameStop and its EB Games brand collectively account for about 25 percent of the US gaming market, the company believes it didn't receive that much of either system's day-one shipments. Executives said that they've never been satisfied with their launch day allocation of any new machine, but added their main concern now is the flow of follow-up shipments — which both Sony and Nintendo have promised will come at a steady pace."

Slate is running an article lamenting the fact that, despite World of Warcraft's popularity, it is a deeply flawed game. Author Chris Dahlen makes the statement that Blizzard's MMOG should take its cues from single-player RPGs by offering further customization, morality based choices, and dynamic events. From the article: "Blizzard has written new storylines before. Last winter, it challenged players to team up and fuel a worldwide war effort. As a payoff, it unlocked new territory. This was a good example of letting the users drive a story, but Warcraft needs more of them. New wars should break out, cities should rise and fall, and all hell should break loose at least once a month--and the players should be the ones to make it happen. After all, in a world that never changes, you can never make your mark." I want to be snarky and point out that this guy obviously has no idea how these games are designed, but I think he pretty much nails what every MMOG player really wants out of a game. Now, if only it were feasible within the bounds of money, time, and talent.