"Consoles don't threaten PC gaming"

By Robert Purchese Published 10 June, 2008

But spell death of desktop-exclusive titles.

NVIDIA boss Roy Taylor believes the value of consoles means no-one will make PC-exclusive games any more.

Speaking exclusively to Eurogamer, he said he wasn't threatened by the machines from Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo; instead he sees an "exciting future" of co-existence.

"I think we have to face the facts - the value of consoles is such that no-one is going to make a PC-exclusive game in the future. Why would they? Why would they ignore consoles?" said Taylor.

"That said, PC gaming is changing - and consoles don't threaten PC gaming. They're just different. Adapting to that and understanding that is what I think is really, really important.

"Most PC gamers also own consoles - not all of them, but a lot of them. What we're seeing happen is that, yes, people are developing for Xbox 360, for PS3 - but they're also developing for PC," he added.

The reason Taylor is excited is that PC versions of games, which he says are generally "better", use console code as a baseline, and the better the baseline then the better the desktop conversion.

"The console is now a baseline. If you look at Gears of War or Assassin's Creed, they came out on console and they were great experiences - but the PC versions had additional aspects to them that also made them attractive, whether you owned the console version or not," continued Taylor.

"The PC version was better. That's something that people need to get their heads around - the console is a baseline, the PC is going to be an improved version. That's an exciting future, and that's why I don't see anything threatening about console at all.

Head over to our interview with NVIDIA boss Roy Taylor to see what he has to say about the future of graphics, why integrated solutions are ruining everything, and how the PC installed-base means it will never disappear as a gaming platform.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (44) Latest comment 4 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Dizzy #1 4 years ago

    Like WoW and other small fry.

    But I agree on the baseline... console ports have been better looking when they arrive on PC later.
    Edited by 2 at 10/06/08 @ 12:17

  • ZuluHero #2 4 years ago

    i think mmo's in general are the last bastion of pc-exclusivity though? The exception to the rule?

  • systems #3 4 years ago

    Consoles do threaten PC gaming. I have been a PC gamer since 1993. I stopped when I bought a 360 and a PS3. Most of the people I know have stopped PC gaming too, and now only play 360 (a few play PS3 in addition). So there.

  • paulf #4 4 years ago

    @ mem - consoles don't have caps lock though ...

  • daedaloz #5 4 years ago

    Why would we ignore consoles?

    Well for one.. The graphics are far far superior on the PC

    The controles are better seeing as most games but not all are best played with a mouse and keyboard (look at the amount of FPS games coming out to consoles)

    The opportunities to mod and expand the game is endless, and a large fanbase can do whatever they want with it.

    Sometimes I don't WANT a stupid console port to my PC.. regardless how good it is.. it will never be as good as it could have been.. had it been developed entirely and exclusively to the PC... we see that all the time... the PS3 exclusives being ahell of lot better programmed and executed than say ports of Xbox 360 games.. (haze excepted)..

    PCs can utilize much more areas of gaming and deploy technology not set by a console.. once you buy your console.. you cannot upgrade it graphically etc.. only with more HD which is nice.. but should be redundant.

    With that said... I have no problem with games coming out on BOTH PCs and consoles.. the problem is that it just isn't what I see on a daily basis... I mainly bought a console because I didn't get to play the games on my PC.. or at least not until like 1-1½ later.. which is unacceptable in this day and age. You talk about co-operation between PC and consoles, but really.. PCs are getting the shaft imo :)

  • bad09 #6 4 years ago

    "Consoles do threaten PC gaming. I have been a PC gamer since 1993. I stopped when I bought a 360 and a PS3. Most of the people I know have stopped PC gaming too, and now only play 360 (a few play PS3 in addition). So there."

    Absolutely, I find myself playing less and less PC since 360 arrived. I may pick up the odd cheap game but even though my PC is up to 360 levels in terms of graphics I rarely use the PC for anything other than emulators these days.

  • kangarootoo #7 4 years ago

    MMOs are always come up when comparing consoles to PCs for gaming, and its a reasonable point to make as they are woefully under supported on consoles. I don't see this always being the case though. Once someone gets a decent cross platform MMO out there, the shift will be like a tidal wave and I could see things switching around in just a couple of years.

  • Darren #8 4 years ago

    I used to game a lot on my PC but I find myself buying fewer and fewer games these days, mainly because I'm fed up with the whole upgrade thing and in my experience PC gaming is more problematic than console gaming in terms of getting the damn things to work properly. Not always, granted, but sometimes and enough to put me off gaming on my PC in favour of the consoles. The whole fiasco with DirectX 10/Windows Vista and the fact that Crysis won't even run at 1680x1050 with AA on High settings on any current PC doesn't help either. If I play a game on my PC I want to see it at its best at the native resolution of my 22" widescreen monitor not have to compromise it to get it running smoothly.

    There will come a point where the consoles will look dated alongside the newest state-of-the-art PCs and then I'll likely upgrade and take advantage of the superior technology until the next generation of consoles come along and cycle begins all over again.

  • kangarootoo #9 4 years ago

    "The controles are better seeing as most games but not all are best played with a mouse and keyboard (look at the amount of FPS games coming out to consoles)"

    Its true that the 360 has that issue due to MS being a bit tight over their peripherals, but any dev that wants to include M&K support in a PS3 title can do so (UT3 being the only such title I can bring to mind though), and any company releasing a multi-platform mmo would almost certainly do so.

    Modding is a good point, and thus far consoles have not really supported that aspect of gaming. However, there is no reason why they can't if the vendor/devs are inclined to take that route. A games console is just another PC really, but with a specific technical spec and some business focussed restrictions in place. There is truthfully no modding software on a PC that could not be built for a console. It all comes down to how the vendor sees their platform fitting into the scheme of things.

    Graphical fidelity can be higher on a PC, but only at the bleeding edge. Some people will happily spent dosh regularly for the latest and greatest, and for them the upgradability of a PC is the only route they can take. For a lot of others however,buying a new console every few years is cheaper than upgrading their PC with the same frequency. I stopped PC gaming when I realised the new GFX card I was looking at cost more than an XBox, and would probably need replacing sooner to keep looking cutting edge.

  • Camorrista #10 4 years ago

    Given that consoles have become PCs without the mouse, I think the whole discussion is moot anyway.

  • Dynamize #11 4 years ago

    "I think we have to face the facts - the value of consoles is such that no-one is going to make a PC-exclusive game in the future. Why would they? Why would they ignore consoles?"

    Because the two platforms should sometimes play to their individual strengths as much as possible, without compromising to fit in with the other, perhaps?

    Regardless of what you think of its qualities as an actual game, Crysis was an excellent project as far as exploring technology goes. It wouldn't have happened if everyone went by Taylor's logic. Without the PC, we would've potentially had to wait another console generation. Sadly Crytek have adopted Taylor's idea of no PC exclusives, and I think bleeding-edge advances in graphics and physics will suffer because of this.
    Forging ahead in technology is difficult when you're working on a closed system with static hardware.

  • Eraysor #12 4 years ago

    The only problem with non PC-exclusivity is that it can ruin series. The new Unreal Tournament sucks more than it should on PC due to the fact it was designed for the PS3 foremost.

  • Golgo #13 4 years ago

    The mouse/keyboard interface of PCs is quite good for FPS, but it doesn't quite have the sensitivity or intuitiveness of the wiimote/nunchuck combination I find...
    :)

  • Farfarer #14 4 years ago

    PC gaming, for me, is far superior. Both for controls and immersion (and I own a 360 and a Wii).

    But all these multi-platform games cater for the lowest common denominators - the console and the console gamer. So we've seen interfaces get simplified, inventories and other complex controls which add depth to games get dropped, the "hide in the corner and suck your thumb to regain health" effect... as much as the phrase "dumbed down for consoles" gets bandied about, I can't help but feel it's well deserved.

    Sure, we get better graphcis and higher resolution textures... but in many of the real important ways (i.e. controls and gameplay) the PC gamer gets shafted ever harder with multi-platform games as the games we've been used to get brought down to the level that a gamepad can cope with.

  • The_Programmer #15 4 years ago

    As a software programmer myself, not games, I cannot see why anyone would bother writing games for the PC. There's no common PC platform so you'll spend ages patching to get your game to work on all PC's. Then you have to sell the game cheaper than if it was on console and to cap it all any DLC you make PC owners will expect it for free. I also haven't mentioned that your PC game will be pirated quicker than the speed of light.

    As far as I can see if you want to make a decent profit then console gaming is the way to go.

  • smoison #16 4 years ago

    "Eraysor" hit the nail on the head, if its being made for consol's first, then the PC version is almost always a shitty port.

    (IE Assins Creed, UT, Gears of War, Vegas 2) All suffered from a shitty consol feel on PC.

  • Killerbee #17 4 years ago

    PC gaming is great and given the choice I'd always play any FPS game on my PC with a mouse and keyboard than on a console with a pad. Strategy and RTS games also work far better on a PC. On the other hand, platformers, racing games, sports and arcade adventure stuff is usually more suited to a console. There's a place for both of them.

    If there's one thing that's really harming PC gaming, it's the limited period exclusivity that console manufacturers seem to be willing to shell out for. There's no one there doing that for the PC and Microsoft has sorely neglected PC gaming whilst they focus on the 360. If a game is released on console and PC at the same time (e.g. Bioshock) then the PC version stands a good chance of selling well. If it's delayed by a number of months as so often is the case, the hype will have died down, gaming will have moved on and sales will be poorer. The main tragedy is that this simply feeds the opinion that PC gaming is dying out.

  • Tetragammatron #18 4 years ago

    It's pretty hard to threaten something non-existent.

  • captaineurogamer #19 4 years ago

    I think with next generation the graphics will really be pushed and it slowly wont become as important as other aspects, PC gaming would be of less importance.

  • Benno #20 4 years ago

    "BECAUSE YOU CANT UPGRADE GAMES CONSOL LIKE YOU CAN WITH PCS.BUT PEOPLE PREFER GAMES CONSOLS WEN IT COMES TO GAMEING HASSLE FREE THE GAMES RUN NO PROBS WERE WITH PCS YOU HAVE SPEC PROBLEMS ALL THE TIME HAVEING TO BUY A NEW GRAPHICS CARD EVRYTIME GAME COMES.CONSOLS RULE GET IT.PCS ARE GREAT FOR ONLINE AND PROGRAMING AND OFFICE WORK THATS IT....."

    This had me laughing out loud, absolutly brilliant mate, haha

  • Nithron #21 4 years ago

    Just to add an anecdote that goes against the trend - I have a friend who recently sold all his consoles so he can just play PC games. In fact, I have a 360 and haven't actually played it properly in about four months because I just don't see the need, I have a decent gaming PC.


    I personally prefer PC gaming because, quite frankly, every game I wanna play on consoles(except MGS4.. Grr) eventually comes out on PC, and looks better. On the other hand there's games I want on PC that I simply cannot get on a console, like Stalker.

    It's worth noting that some games, even though they later get console ports, would simply not exist without the PC as their initial choice of platform. Half Life 2 and all it's expansions would never have been produced without Valve having the freedom that comes with running their own digital distribution system, something that couldn't happen on a console.

  • skillian #22 4 years ago

    My PC is connected to my TV, plus a wireless 360 controller - it's the best console out there.

    Same here.

    When I moved into my own house, I kept my PC in the bedroom upstairs but realised I'd need something for the living room too. Rather than buy a console I bought a second PC, rather than a console. It does gaming, hi def TV and movies, PVR duties, all my music, internet, email, video editing and a whole lot more besides, so buying a console would have seemed like buying a PC but with all its most useful functions stripped out.

    I do miss out on a few console exclusives, but the advantages make up for that ten times over.

  • QPRHOOPS81 #23 4 years ago

    I got assassins creed recently on the PC. It looks so much better than the console version, i use a pad too (360 one pluged in). The problem i find with it is the horrible menu system. They have left the shitty console feel to it and you have to faff around every time you want to exit the game. Also they left the crappy screen aspect size which cannot be changed so you get borders. If the console version hadnt existed it would be a far better game. GOW also suffered greatly due to being a 360 port with the shitty Live crap. Im really hoping Mass effect will fair better but not going to bet on it.

    On the whole though the games on PC do run alot better with less glitches and better graphics (have recently built a new PC). Its just a shame there arent more PC only games being developed.

    One thing against people moaning about price is that you can happily build a pc for under £400 that will run anything currently out. Then you get the benefit of cheap games/more functions.

    I think there is room for all forms of gaming be they console or PC, we just need more respect for each of them. Im going to get a PS3 soon (no point with a 360 as i have a PC). Consoles are far better for gaming with friends round, with things like rock band/singstar/pro evo.

  • Katsumoto #24 4 years ago

    Before the inevitable "LOL PCS COST 2000 QUID AND OYU HAVE TO UPGRADE THEM EVERY 6 MONTHS" crap gets too far off the ground:

    [link url=http://www.chillblast.com/product.php?produc tid=18412&cat=262&page=1
    ]hla laalla[/link]

    Ok thanks. 500 quid, will play anything out at the moment on high settings. Carry on.
    Edited by 1 at 10/06/08 @ 14:31

  • fattulip #25 4 years ago

    Remembering that the plural of anecdote is not data I have to report the same experience as many people here. I used to keep my PC as close to the cutting edge as I could. I got fed up with the cost, the troubleshooting and, after coming out of a 2 year warcraft coma, suddenly noticed that consoles are where the games. In the last year I've bought a xbox, a Wii and a ps3, the amount of money i've spent on the PC in the same period is around £0.

  • Darren #26 4 years ago

    @Katsumoto - The problem with paying £500 for a PC is that it will need upgrading sooner rather than later. I hardly think a single GeForce 9600 graphics card is cutting-edge!!! LOL

    Besides, show me a PC that can run Crysis at 1680x1050 with 2X AA on maximum settings at a decent framerate as that is the minimum I'd demand. What's the point in buying a PC game if you cannot see it at its best? OK so hardware gets more powerful, meaning the game will then run better, as happened with Far Cry and F.E.A.R., but the problem is that by that point the game is starting to look dated and you're long bored of playing it. Let's face it, most of the time you're buying new hardware to make up for the fact the games themselves aren't really optimised to use the hardware you already have!!! It's a constant cycle of upgrade or else compromise on your graphics settings... you just don't get the same sense that developers are pushing PC hardware because they probably expect people to rush out and upgrade to better hardware as I'm sure happened with Far Cry, Doom, Crysis, etc., etc. ;)

  • Katsumoto #27 4 years ago

    heh, well, I take your point, that isn't uber high end. But at the same time, people argue like if they aren't at the very bleeding edge of pc gaming then there's no point, which I disagree with.

    I agree that it's annoying to finally have a PC capable of pushing something out in ultra-high only for that to be several years down the line and ultra-high doesnt look so good anymore ;) Only really a problem with Crysis at the moment though. Any other game out right now will run on a decent (but not ridiculously good) specced pc. I think Crysis is giving the pc a bad name in that respect alone :)

    edit: worth pointing out ive never been a pc gamer for the graphics. More for the controls, the mods, the multiplayer and the diversity of the games catalogue. Plus all my mates are pc gamers.
    Edited by 1 at 10/06/08 @ 14:53

  • Darren #28 4 years ago

    Well I used to buy new graphics cards so I could run all my games on maximum settings with some AA and at a decent framerate (25+ fps). The problem was that it was great for six months then a new game would come that meant I had to compromise and drop down the settings meaning that I wasn't seeing the game at its best. So I'd buy a new graphics card until the next game came along that required another upgrade. At one point it seemed like I was doing it every six months so I took the decision to stop buying games for the PC and buy more for the consoles.

    When you get games of the quality of Virtua Fighter 5, PGR 4, The Darkness, Kameo and FIFA 08 on the Xbox 360, which either aren't available or not as good on the PC, it seemed like a very wise choice really. I only really use my PC for internet browsing these days and haven't upgraded in well over two years. It actually feels liberating but to be honest there less and less of interest on the PC these days beyond the odd RTS game and MMORPGs (the best being World of Warcraft which isn't a resource hog anyway); most of the interesting stuff IMO appears on the consoles. I will buy a new PC at some point but only when my current one stops working, not because I need one to play a specific game.

  • daedaloz #29 4 years ago

    Well I used to buy new graphics cards so I could run all my games on maximum settings with some AA and at a decent framerate (25+ fps). The problem was that it was great for six months then a new game would come that meant I had to compromise and drop down the settings meaning that I wasn't seeing the game at its best. So I'd buy a new graphics card until the next game came along that required another upgrade. At one point it seemed like I was doing it every six months so I took the decision to stop buying games for the PC and buy more for the consoles.

    --------------------------

    But uhm.. remember... even IF you cannot run the newest games in the highest possible quality with a 6 months old video card... it will STILL look way better than what consoles like xBox360 and playstation 3 can offer even on medium quality.. and that should do your framerate fine on the old card.. while still looking nice and smooth in new games.
    I mean a new GFX card today would probaly look better than most console graphics 2-3 years ahead.. given that console graphics GPU's are static.. and not changeable.. right?


    example... take GTA 4... I would bet you 100 $ dollars.. that a PC with a year or more old graphics card and CPU would be able to run GTA 4 just as good if not better than xbox 360 and playstation.. and still look the same.. had it been developed exclusively for PC.. giving time to optimize.. see the problem?
    Edited by 3 at 10/06/08 @ 15:35

  • Maximilian #30 4 years ago

    I just don't buy these types of opinions. Frankly I put more faith in comments like those made by Valve recently. The rise of digital distribution is causing a drop in retail numbers and it seems to be leading people to conclude PC gaming is dying.

    I don't buy it at all. I don't see an end to PC exclusives only either, since they develop the bloody games on them anyway.

  • Nithron #31 4 years ago

    What gets me is, that people complain about the cost of PC gaming, then when you point out a low-cost PC gaming rig, they complain that it doesn't run everything at 1920x1080 with 8xAA and anisotropic filtering up the wazoo.

    Thing is, they're comparing the cost of a PC that can run a game at a resolution higher than reality with post-processing that would make supercomputer from a few years back wince, with a console that runs games at resolutions which range from 630p up to about 720p with 2x AA if you're lucky and maybe texture filtering if the developers are really good.

    Why the double standard, people?

  • Freek #32 4 years ago

    "The PC version was better. That's something that people need to get their heads around - the console is a baseline, the PC is going to be an improved version. That's an exciting future, and that's why I don't see anything threatening about console at all.

    Says it all, really

    Only if PC gamers can get over the fact that something is released on a console first, wich they can't. Gears was a big deal on 360, but by the time it got to the PC nobody seemed to care. Despite the fact that it had an extra couple months development time to add in new features and levels.

  • Pulsar_t #33 4 years ago

    See how PC gamers quickly bring up graphics as their "cutting edge".. Bah! I plan on playing Yakuza 2 on the PLAYSTATION 2 and I don't care about the jaggies. The console cycles cover the graphic fidelity issue nicely. You don't have to be on the fecking edge all the time! PC gaming won't die, but it's becoming more and more a shadow of its former self, due to obvious reasons.

  • daedaloz #34 4 years ago

    @Freek

    Ok so let's say MSG 4 was developed for PC only first.. and released to PS3 a half a year later.. BUTOH ! you get more levels and shit on the PS3 version !? which one do you care most for? isn't it obvious? PS3 gamers would be fucking furious if that were to happen wouldn't we.. same thing happens with PC gamers in effect..

    And yea Nithron you have a point man... ppl keep giving PC's negative comments becaues they cost more and needs upgrades.. but the fact they don't realize is that a PC 2 years old could probaly run the same kind of resolution and AA that consoles NOW are dishing out :p

    I mean... framerate issues and 720p.. MAYBE 1080p on xbox360 and PS3.. is THAT next-gen graphics compared to PC? cmon :D
    Edited by 1 at 10/06/08 @ 16:20

  • hiddenranbir #35 4 years ago

    Duh.

    There will always be desktop exclusive titles. They'll just come from younger, newer, exciting developers that haven't been fatigued by big publisher BS...


    Edited by 1 at 10/06/08 @ 16:55

  • hahayou #36 4 years ago

    The_Programmer: PC games are cheaper at least partly because console games include a 5 or so quid license fee that goes to the platform holder (and retailer mark-up is higher on a higher base price).

  • Laika #37 4 years ago

    As long as Valve stick with it, I'm fine.

  • kangarootoo #38 4 years ago

    @Maximilian

    "The rise of digital distribution is causing a drop in retail numbers and it seems to be leading people to conclude PC gaming is dying."

    But devs get their numbers straight from the horses mouth. I.e. number of units sold by whatever means. If a dev says they are pulling out of PC exclusives because of lower sales, why shouldn't we believe them. They of anyone are going to know how many copies they have sold. They don't have to ask the highstreet shops, they just look at their own charts.


    As a general note, given the way this discussion is heading, for me the onscreen resolution is about the least important stat of the lot. Detail of textures, number of onscreen assets, poloygon count in models, frame rate... all these things are important when assessing how good something looks on screen. Whether it runs at 720p or 1080p is barely relevant.

  • AlphaOmega #39 4 years ago

    If we stop getting PC exclusives, it means we stop getting simulation oriented games, stop getting true RPGs, stop getting games that aren't piss tested and focus grouped. It means the death of gaming itself. Luckily eastern/central europe has kept the flame alive for the time being by shipping a couple titles with a modicum of soul and ambition. Lets throw Stardock in there as well.

    Look at the fall of Bioware. The initial impact of Mass Effect is astounding, but by the midgame and onwards the limitations of its lead platform and audience really start kicking in. Having played Deus Ex for the first time right after finishing Mass Effect the direction that things are going is painfully obvious to me.

  • FooAtari #40 4 years ago

    Yawn

    PC v Consoles argument no. 1,234,543,56755

    They are both different, both have advantages and disadvantages. There is room for both.

  • AOFanboi #41 4 years ago

    Crysis is a good example on why "top-market" PC gaming sucks. The publishers complained that people downloaded it for free, but the reality was that they DID pay for the game - but the money went to nVidia and ATI for new hardware necessary to run it...

    PC gaming success is called online poker. And you do not need a great rig for that...

  • Nikanoru #42 4 years ago

    What if, for each and every single movie you wanted to watch, you had to first wait for 10 minutes until it installed on your DVD player, then you had to update your DVD player's drivers, configure your 1200-button remote (because every movie came with retarded standard settings), change your screen settings until the movie stopped stuttering like hell, resolve a hundred goddamn little problems that made the movie reset halfway through or some shit, and then even in then end if you finally got to properly start watching, you wouldn't even be sure whether what you were watching was actually the same movie that the director intended to film?

    I'd stop watching movies.

    Analogy nr. 2: it's as if buying a car required mechanic skills by default just to get it to run. People just want to drive their damn car.


    I (and many others) don't buy big budget PC games anymore because I feel like a complete idiot putting up with bullshit like that, all for the sake of playing something that wasn't made for my system to begin with (no matter how powerful - no PC game is made for any single hardware configuration). And let's face it: your PC games are nothing special to begin with. A hundred keys on a keyboard do not make games better, they make me feel like I'm doing fucking office work instead of playing (oh, and RSI? No thanks). Something like 90% of the best games this decade have been on consoles.

  • QPRHOOPS81 #43 4 years ago

    As there seem to be PC owners with there PC hooked up to their TV's, i have a question. Do any of you do it through wireless? ive seen those signal sender things and with my wireless 360 pad am very tempted. Ive got my Pro Evo game patched with all the championship teams and it looks beautiful far better than my console version due to smoothness and all the real kits. Was thinking about hooking the pc up so i can use it when mates are round. For me though my PC is in a different room so without lugging around the wireless sender is one of the only ways. Just wondereed what the quality is like.

    Other option i saw was something called "stream my game" which lets you, with a linux installed PS3 play your PC games over your wireless internet through the PS3. This would be another way i could get superior graphics in my living room without the faffing of carting my PC around.

    Has anyone tried either of these options and if so what was it like?

  • C2Etothemax #44 4 years ago

    I wouldn't count consoles out completely as a potential threat to PC gaming. In my opinion, PC gaming has slowly been on the decline for years, especially with the advent of the Playstation 2/3 and the Xbox/Xbox360. Of course, the online multiplayer capabilities of next gen consoles only compounds the growth of console gaming vs. PC gaming. What the consoles do really well (and why they are so popular) is that they make gaming accessible and appealing to a much wider audience. If anything, with their robust hardward platforms, they are basically standardizing the gaming industry. What I think gets gamers thinking twice about switiching to console from PC gaming is when games like Crysis are released and require you to have a monster PC that many can’t afford.

    Frag On.


    Check out my latest blog post:
    [link url=http://blog.extremegamefaces.com/archives/pwnage -20-%e2%80%93-signature-taglines-and-moves-why-every-online- gamer-needs-one/
    ]http://bl og.extremegamefaces.com/archive...[/link]
    Edited by 1 at 11/06/08 @ 15:27