Linux users CRYING cause they don't have STEAM!
Simply PATHETIC!

STEAM represents everything Linux fights against
STEAM is PROPRIETARY, Linux is Open Standards
STEAM is RESTRICTIVE, Linux gives FREEDOM
STEAM is EXPENSIVE, Linux is AFFORDABLE
STEAM is MONOPOLISTIC, Linux gives CHOICE and creates COMPETITION
STEAM represents DICTATORSHIP, Linux represents true DEMOCRACY
STEAM is the "Windows", and Valve the "Microsoft" of PC Games and
yet...
YET Linux users are CRYING like Babies cause TYRANT RUTHLESS DICTATOR
VALVE will not make a Linux version of STEAM!
PATHETIC!
PATHETIC!
PATHETIC!

So the conclusion is clear many Linux users are as DUMB, BLIND and
SHEEP like Windows users are.

Now if STEAM is stopping Linux users from running PC Games under
Linux, which I find totally expected cause leaving out and restricting
is precisely what STEAM does best, the only thing to do is join what
I've been doing since 2004, FIGHT AGAINST TYRANT VALVE and its
DICTATORSHIP PRISON STEAM!

PS: Now if you will use the fact I'm using Windows against me, let me
make this clear, my natural and obvious choice would always be Linux I
just don't use it cause I'm a PC Gamer and Linux is not enough Gaming
platform for me, so again I ask everyone working in the Linux market
to once and for all turn it also into a strong viable gaming platform
so many of us can finally leave Windows and join you, and no I'm not
talking about emulations I'm talking about a true optimized gaming
platform, I'm dying to use Linux, I'm just waiting for you guys to
turn it into a great gaming platform!

pc games wrote:
> Linux users CRYING cause they don't have STEAM!
> Simply PATHETIC!

I presume you're referring to this bru-ha-ha?

http://www.bluesnews.com/cgi-bin/boa...threadid=79480

> STEAM represents everything Linux fights against
> STEAM is PROPRIETARY, Linux is Open Standards
> STEAM is RESTRICTIVE, Linux gives FREEDOM
> STEAM is EXPENSIVE, Linux is AFFORDABLE
> STEAM is MONOPOLISTIC, Linux gives CHOICE and creates COMPETITION
> STEAM represents DICTATORSHIP, Linux represents true DEMOCRACY
> STEAM is the "Windows", and Valve the "Microsoft" of PC Games and
> yet...
> YET Linux users are CRYING like Babies cause TYRANT RUTHLESS DICTATOR
> VALVE will not make a Linux version of STEAM!
> PATHETIC!
> PATHETIC!
> PATHETIC!

People want games on Linux. Most (all?) commercial games are
closed-source. You'll never have commercial games on Linux if you're an
open-source zealot who won't accept compromise, which is why the desire
to see Steam on Linux is fairly strong, since most people are reasonable.

> So the conclusion is clear many Linux users are as DUMB, BLIND and
> SHEEP like Windows users are.

You're generalizing again.

> Now if STEAM is stopping Linux users from running PC Games under
> Linux, which I find totally expected cause leaving out and restricting
> is precisely what STEAM does best, the only thing to do is join what
> I've been doing since 2004, FIGHT AGAINST TYRANT VALVE and its
> DICTATORSHIP PRISON STEAM!

You CAN run Steam in Linux, you just run it though Wine or Cedega. I've
tried it, the client works rather well after a few steps. The popular
stuff like Source/GoldSrc-based games work with varying levels of
success, but I certainly wouldn't recommend it for long-term use.

> PS: Now if you will use the fact I'm using Windows against me, let me
> make this clear, my natural and obvious choice would always be Linux I
> just don't use it cause I'm a PC Gamer and Linux is not enough Gaming
> platform for me, so again I ask everyone working in the Linux market
> to once and for all turn it also into a strong viable gaming platform
> so many of us can finally leave Windows and join you, and no I'm not
> talking about emulations I'm talking about a true optimized gaming
> platform, I'm dying to use Linux, I'm just waiting for you guys to
> turn it into a great gaming platform!

You're a hypocrite. STOP ****ING GENERALIZING!

On Jul 31, 10:02 am, FoolsGold <f...******.com> wrote:
> pc games wrote:
> > STEAM represents everything Linux fights against
> > STEAM is PROPRIETARY, Linux is Open Standards
> > STEAM is RESTRICTIVE, Linux gives FREEDOM
> > STEAM is EXPENSIVE, Linux is AFFORDABLE
> > STEAM is MONOPOLISTIC, Linux gives CHOICE and creates COMPETITION
> > STEAM represents DICTATORSHIP, Linux represents true DEMOCRACY
> > STEAM is the "Windows", and Valve the "Microsoft" of PC Games and
> > yet...
> > YET Linux users are CRYING like Babies cause TYRANT RUTHLESS DICTATOR
> > VALVE will not make a Linux version of STEAM!
> > PATHETIC!
> > PATHETIC!
> > PATHETIC!
>
> People want games on Linux. Most (all?) commercial games are
> closed-source. You'll never have commercial games on Linux if you're an
> open-source zealot who won't accept compromise, which is why the desire
> to see Steam on Linux is fairly strong, since most people are reasonable.

I'm dangerously close to agreeing with pcgames here. There are
hundreds of games which run perfectly under linux, thousands more
which run perfectly in DosBox, and still more which run with varying
degrees of success under WINE.

I confess to being a bit of an open-source zealot, but even trying to
put that to one side I really don't see the need for Steam. Surely the
issue is that people want their favourite new games to run under
Linux, not that they want to be able to d/l and install them using
Steam?? The lobby for porting games I can understand much more easily,
but I don't see what a Linux Steam client would do for anybody. It
wouldn't make any of the games work any better than they do already.

Personally I already have more games than I will ever be able to play,
even if I never boot into Windows again. But if I wanted more games to
be available, I would want native Linux versions in shiny boxes with
nice manuals. Steam is neither here nor there.

I'd just like to end this post with the disclaimer that I still think
pc games is a complete plonker, even though I feel uncomfortably close
to his position on this one.

CC

magnate <chrisc@dbass.demon.co.uk> writes:

> On Jul 31, 10:02 am, FoolsGold <f...******.com> wrote:
>> pc games wrote:
>> > STEAM represents everything Linux fights against

No it doesn't. Linux is not against protecting against piracy.

>> > STEAM is PROPRIETARY, Linux is Open Standards
>> > STEAM is RESTRICTIVE, Linux gives FREEDOM
>> > STEAM is EXPENSIVE, Linux is AFFORDABLE

Steam is FREE as in "free beer" isn't it? I tried it recently and tried
some videos and game demos. Nice piece of SW.

>> > STEAM is MONOPOLISTIC, Linux gives CHOICE and creates COMPETITION

You don't need to install Steam or play the games. You have a choice.

>> > STEAM represents DICTATORSHIP, Linux represents true DEMOCRACY
>> > STEAM is the "Windows", and Valve the "Microsoft" of PC Games and
>> > yet...
>> > YET Linux users are CRYING like Babies cause TYRANT RUTHLESS DICTATOR
>> > VALVE will not make a Linux version of STEAM!
>> > PATHETIC!
>> > PATHETIC!
>> > PATHETIC!
>>
>> People want games on Linux. Most (all?) commercial games are
>> closed-source. You'll never have commercial games on Linux if you're an
>> open-source zealot who won't accept compromise, which is why the desire
>> to see Steam on Linux is fairly strong, since most people are reasonable.
>
> I'm dangerously close to agreeing with pcgames here. There are
> hundreds of games which run perfectly under linux, thousands more

Hundreds of crap games. A few classic openGL ones such as UT2003, QIV
etc but really, not a lot. Gaming on Linux is decidedly retro.

http://sdl-sopwith.sourceforge.net/sshot.shtml

> which run perfectly in DosBox, and still more which run with varying
> degrees of success under WINE.
>
> I confess to being a bit of an open-source zealot, but even trying to
> put that to one side I really don't see the need for Steam. Surely the

Steam is a SW protection thing isn't it? And a SW library and delivery
system? It seems quite useful to me. A bit like the .deb stuff under
Ubuntu. Doing a bit of reading it also seems to have a done a lot to
curb online cheating in multiplayer games by checksumming the SW
installed. That in itself is a great step forward.

> issue is that people want their favourite new games to run under
> Linux, not that they want to be able to d/l and install them using
> Steam?? The lobby for porting games I can understand much more easily,
> but I don't see what a Linux Steam client would do for anybody. It
> wouldn't make any of the games work any better than they do already.

It would make running them easier since steam would take care of setting
it up to work I would have thought. Having messed around with CEDEGA and
WINE I found it really not to be worth the effort.

>
> Personally I already have more games than I will ever be able to play,
> even if I never boot into Windows again. But if I wanted more games to
> be available, I would want native Linux versions in shiny boxes with
> nice manuals. Steam is neither here nor there.

That aint going to happen. Linux users do not, as a general rule, buy
games. See http://lokigames.com for more details. Its why more & more
games makers are deserting Linux. Of course it doesn't help that HW
OpenGL is still only just working for a lot of ATI card owners and that
the sound sub system is a complete and utter mess between difference
distros.

> I'd just like to end this post with the disclaimer that I still think
> pc games is a complete plonker, even though I feel uncomfortably close
> to his position on this one.
>
> CC
>

--

magnate wrote:
> I'm dangerously close to agreeing with pcgames here. There are
> hundreds of games which run perfectly under linux, thousands more
> which run perfectly in DosBox, and still more which run with varying
> degrees of success under WINE.
>
> I confess to being a bit of an open-source zealot, but even trying to
> put that to one side I really don't see the need for Steam. Surely the
> issue is that people want their favourite new games to run under
> Linux, not that they want to be able to d/l and install them using
> Steam?? The lobby for porting games I can understand much more easily,
> but I don't see what a Linux Steam client would do for anybody. It
> wouldn't make any of the games work any better than they do already.
>
> Personally I already have more games than I will ever be able to play,
> even if I never boot into Windows again. But if I wanted more games to
> be available, I would want native Linux versions in shiny boxes with
> nice manuals. Steam is neither here nor there.
>
> I'd just like to end this post with the disclaimer that I still think
> pc games is a complete plonker, even though I feel uncomfortably close
> to his position on this one.

I've given up caring about a Steam client too though. It would be NICE,
sure, but it's also unrealistic. A native Linux client is useless
without native Linux games to go along with it, and since there's only
about three games I know of on Steam that have Linux versions
(Introversion's stuff), that's stuff-all. So you're right, what's the point?

Like has been said, you can run Steam and some Steam-based games in
Linux, but that's a really bad idea IMHO. When an update to the Steam
client or the Source engine is released, it might work fine in Windows
but **** up totally with Wine, which makes long-term use suck.

On 2007-07-31, pc games <pcgamer23708******.com> wrote:
> Linux users CRYING cause they don't have STEAM!
> Simply PATHETIC!

aburn {afrodita}[~] $apt-cache search steam
steam - Environment for cooperative knowledge management
steam-lib - Environment for cooperative knowledge management (libs)

'nuff said.
--
What a strange game.
The only winning move is not to play.

How about a nice game of chess?

* magnate:

> I'm dangerously close to agreeing with pcgames here. There are
> hundreds of games which run perfectly under linux,

With the majority of them being just plain crap.

> thousands more
> which run perfectly in DosBox,

Yeah, right. DOS games.

> and still more which run with varying
> degrees of success under WINE.

With usually a lot of fiddling and with very limited performance.

Benjamin

Benjamin Gawert wrote:
> * magnate:
>
>> I'm dangerously close to agreeing with pcgames here. There are
>> hundreds of games which run perfectly under linux,
>
> With the majority of them being just plain crap.

When I was running my two-months Linux-only trial, I played a lot of
quite good, free games - particularly FPS. Two things I noticed:

(a) The vast majority of these games used Quake 3 as they engine (not
mods, standalone games)

(b) About 100% of the games I liked playing in Linux had Windows
versions anyway. They weren't Linux exclusive.

>> thousands more
>> which run perfectly in DosBox,
>
> Yeah, right. DOS games.

Gotta LOL at that. :)

>> and still more which run with varying
>> degrees of success under WINE.
>
> With usually a lot of fiddling and with very limited performance.

Some people swear that many games run better in Linux via WINE due to
the lower overhead in Linux compared to Windows. I noticed a similar
situation with HL2 where it did seem to be running faster, until I
realized it was stuck in DX8 for some reason. Apparently you can enable
DX9 mode, but it sucks balls performance-wise, and I don't like the idea
of my hardware not being fully brutalizing.

> Benjamin

Nick (aka FoolsGold.)

FoolsGold <fg******.com> writes:

> Benjamin Gawert wrote:
>> * magnate:
>>
>>> I'm dangerously close to agreeing with pcgames here. There are
>>> hundreds of games which run perfectly under linux,
>>
>> With the majority of them being just plain crap.
>
> When I was running my two-months Linux-only trial, I played a lot of
> quite good, free games - particularly FPS. Two things I noticed:
>
> (a) The vast majority of these games used Quake 3 as they engine (not
> mods, standalone games)
>
> (b) About 100% of the games I liked playing in Linux had Windows
> versions anyway. They weren't Linux exclusive.
>
>>> thousands more
>>> which run perfectly in DosBox,
>>
>> Yeah, right. DOS games.
>
> Gotta LOL at that. :)
>
>>> and still more which run with varying
>>> degrees of success under WINE.
>>
>> With usually a lot of fiddling and with very limited performance.
>
> Some people swear that many games run better in Linux via WINE due to
> the lower overhead in Linux compared to Windows. I noticed a similar
> situation with HL2 where it did seem to be running faster, until I
> realized it was stuck in DX8 for some reason. Apparently you can
> enable DX9 mode, but it sucks balls performance-wise, and I don't like
> the idea of my hardware not being fully brutalizing.
>
>> Benjamin
>
> Nick (aka FoolsGold.)

Be careful. There are actually some COLA posters who maintain that Linux
is a far better gaming platform than windows. Aside from the lack of
commercial games, the trouble with the ALSA v OSS factions, the
departure of most game developers from OpenGL to DirectX, the closing of
LokiGames, the pisspoor nature of most native Linux games and the
reluctance of Linux users to actually pay for any games they might have
a point.

The majority of Linux users who solely use Linux really have no idea how
far Windows gaming has come or just how powerful the modern gaming cards
are.

Had the Linux community done more earlier to attract Games companies
then it might have been taken more seriously as an option for a home
OS. Unfortunately there is a hard core here who think gaming is for
pre-pubescent teenagers and not for far guys with beards who live in
their mother's basements.

FoolsGold wrote:
> I don't like the idea
> of my hardware not being fully brutalizing.

I have no idea what the hell happened there. That's suppose to say
"fully utilized" at the end. :)

magnate wrote:

>I'm dangerously close to agreeing with pcgames here.
>

*plonk*

--
Those who try to hide behind Godwin are the real net-nazis.
Philosophy: Joking about why we cuss so much.
Learn about spam: http://www.seige-perilous.org/spam/spam.html
[fourth line intentionally left blank]

"pc games" <pcgamer23708******.com> wrote in message
news:1185871091.808720.227080@19g2000hsx.googlegro ups.com...
| Linux users CRYING cause they don't have STEAM!
| Simply PATHETIC!
|
<snip>
|
| PS: Now if you will use the fact I'm using Windows against me, let me
| make this clear, my natural and obvious choice would always be Linux I
| just don't use it cause I'm a PC Gamer and Linux is not enough Gaming
| platform for me, so again I ask everyone working in the Linux market
| to once and for all turn it also into a strong viable gaming platform
| so many of us can finally leave Windows and join you, and no I'm not
| talking about emulations I'm talking about a true optimized gaming
| platform, I'm dying to use Linux, I'm just waiting for you guys to
| turn it into a great gaming platform!
|

And yet... If STEAM was available for Linux users, it would encourage
development of gaming on that platform... And how would you suggest that
the developers that may decide to move to Linux protect themselves from
piracy?

It's never as black and white as you see it in your head, PC... There's so
much gray in the world.

CoinSpin

On Jul 31, 12:00 pm, Hadron <hadronqu...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> FoolsGold <f...******.com> writes:
> > Benjamin Gawert wrote:
> >> * magnate:
>
> >>> I'm dangerously close to agreeing with pcgames here. There are
> >>> hundreds of games which run perfectly under linux,
>
> >> With the majority of them being just plain crap.

By what measure? My guess here is that you mean "the majority of them
don't use the latest resource-hogging eye candy" - which has little to
do with the quality of gameplay. To many of us at least.

> > When I was running my two-months Linux-only trial, I played a lot of
> > quite good, free games - particularly FPS. Two things I noticed:
>
> > (a) The vast majority of these games used Quake 3 as they engine (not
> > mods, standalone games)

This is the source of my guess above. I'm primarily a strategy fan, so
eye candy is less important to me.

> > (b) About 100% of the games I liked playing in Linux had Windows
> > versions anyway. They weren't Linux exclusive.

The discussion is not about how many Linux-only games exist, it's
about how many games run well under Linux. The existence of a Windows
version is neither here nor there.

> >>> thousands more
> >>> which run perfectly in DosBox,
>
> >> Yeah, right. DOS games.
>
> > Gotta LOL at that. :)

Why? They must be crap because they run in DosBox? We clearly have
totally different concepts of quality. Many superb games run in
DosBox: X-Com, MoO, MoM, Fallout ...

> >>> and still more which run with varying
> >>> degrees of success under WINE.
>
> >> With usually a lot of fiddling and with very limited performance.
>
> > Some people swear that many games run better in Linux via WINE due to
> > the lower overhead in Linux compared to Windows. I noticed a similar
> > situation with HL2 where it did seem to be running faster, until I
> > realized it was stuck in DX8 for some reason. Apparently you can
> > enable DX9 mode, but it sucks balls performance-wise, and I don't like
> > the idea of my hardware not being fully [utilised].

What's interesting here is how you came to realise that it was stuck
in DX8. Did it look noticeably less impressive? Or were you
consciously checking to see whether your hardware was fully utilised?

This thread - and indeed quite a lot of debate about Steam - seems to
be of interest mainly to people who want FPS eye candy games.

> The majority of Linux users who solely use Linux really have no idea how
> far Windows gaming has come or just how powerful the modern gaming cards
> are.

Again, it's all about the eye candy your GPU can offer. If that's your
measure of "how far Windows gaming has come", that's pretty sad.

> Had the Linux community done more earlier to attract Games companies
> then it might have been taken more seriously as an option for a home
> OS. Unfortunately there is a hard core here who think gaming is for
> pre-pubescent teenagers and not for far guys with beards who live in
> their mother's basements.

?? That sounds like you believe that gaming is for fat guys with
beards who live in their mothers' basements. Very odd.

The Linux community doesn't need to attract games companies. Linux is
free (both gratis and libre), and it would make little sense to try
and attract games companies who want/need to make a profit. There are
a ton of open-source games, which are the sort most ideologically
suited to the Linux environment, and of course the sort that run best
on Linux and have the best support.

Hadron wrote:
>Steam is a SW protection thing isn't it? And a SW library and delivery
>system? It seems quite useful to me. A bit like the .deb stuff under Ubuntu.

Linux doesn't need Steam either, for the same reasons. As a "content
delivery system" it has nothing on the package management systems of
most Linux distros. Ditto its library function. Linux systems do not
need "SW protection" because the software is free.

>Doing a bit of reading it also seems to have a done a lot to
>curb online cheating in multiplayer games by checksumming the SW
>installed. That in itself is a great step forward.

Well, this is obviously of huge importance. Good call.

CC

magnate <chrisc@dbass.demon.co.uk> writes:

> On Jul 31, 12:00 pm, Hadron <hadronqu...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> FoolsGold <f...******.com> writes:
>> > Benjamin Gawert wrote:
>> >> * magnate:
>>
>> >>> I'm dangerously close to agreeing with pcgames here. There are
>> >>> hundreds of games which run perfectly under linux,
>>
>> >> With the majority of them being just plain crap.
>
> By what measure? My guess here is that you mean "the majority of them
> don't use the latest resource-hogging eye candy" - which has little to
> do with the quality of gameplay. To many of us at least.

No. The majority are plain crap. Don't play the eye candy line.

There are some good ones of course - well, ok ones, but dated. The best
action games being from ID and Epic.

>
>> > When I was running my two-months Linux-only trial, I played a lot of
>> > quite good, free games - particularly FPS. Two things I noticed:
>>
>> > (a) The vast majority of these games used Quake 3 as they engine (not
>> > mods, standalone games)
>
> This is the source of my guess above. I'm primarily a strategy fan, so
> eye candy is less important to me.

What strategy games do you play? Loki ported Alpha Centauri and went bust.

>
>> > (b) About 100% of the games I liked playing in Linux had Windows
>> > versions anyway. They weren't Linux exclusive.
>
> The discussion is not about how many Linux-only games exist, it's
> about how many games run well under Linux. The existence of a Windows
> version is neither here nor there.

Not many. Sorry.

>
>> >>> thousands more
>> >>> which run perfectly in DosBox,
>>
>> >> Yeah, right. DOS games.
>>
>> > Gotta LOL at that. :)
>
> Why? They must be crap because they run in DosBox? We clearly have

Pretty much. People stopped developing DOS games eons ago. Games
developed for DOS are pretty rubbish by todays standards. There are a
few exceptions but not many.

> totally different concepts of quality. Many superb games run in
> DosBox: X-Com, MoO, MoM, Fallout ...

Yes, all very old and "been there done that". All very good in their
day.

>
>> >>> and still more which run with varying
>> >>> degrees of success under WINE.
>>
>> >> With usually a lot of fiddling and with very limited performance.
>>
>> > Some people swear that many games run better in Linux via WINE due to
>> > the lower overhead in Linux compared to Windows. I noticed a similar
>> > situation with HL2 where it did seem to be running faster, until I
>> > realized it was stuck in DX8 for some reason. Apparently you can
>> > enable DX9 mode, but it sucks balls performance-wise, and I don't like
>> > the idea of my hardware not being fully [utilised].
>
> What's interesting here is how you came to realise that it was stuck
> in DX8. Did it look noticeably less impressive? Or were you
> consciously checking to see whether your hardware was fully utilised?
>
> This thread - and indeed quite a lot of debate about Steam - seems to
> be of interest mainly to people who want FPS eye candy games.

Steam is nothing to do with eye candy.

>
>> The majority of Linux users who solely use Linux really have no idea how
>> far Windows gaming has come or just how powerful the modern gaming cards
>> are.
>
> Again, it's all about the eye candy your GPU can offer. If that's your
> measure of "how far Windows gaming has come", that's pretty sad.

It's a measure. And pretty sad that you even think to deny that the
advances in graphics have added a total new dimension to gaming. or are
you one of these nerd types who can "picture the dungeon in your head"
and plays D&D with the computer rolling the dice?

>
>> Had the Linux community done more earlier to attract Games companies
>> then it might have been taken more seriously as an option for a home
>> OS. Unfortunately there is a hard core here who think gaming is for
>> pre-pubescent teenagers and not for far guys with beards who live in
>> their mother's basements.
>
> ?? That sounds like you believe that gaming is for fat guys with
> beards who live in their mothers' basements. Very odd.

Learn to read. I was referring to the Linux gamers ... :-; "Here" being
COLA.

> The Linux community doesn't need to attract games companies. Linux is

No : it does. As people of all ages like to play games -whether flight
sims or fps or strategy or rpg or ....

> free (both gratis and libre), and it would make little sense to try
> and attract games companies who want/need to make a profit. There are

Why? So you admit Linux users do not pay for SW? A lot of people will be
pissed off to hear that as they consider releasing commercial ports of
the SW. Whoops. Another bit of crap advocacy.

> a ton of open-source games, which are the sort most ideologically

Mostly complete crap.

> suited to the Linux environment, and of course the sort that run best
> on Linux and have the best support.

Mostly complete crap. Sorry. But even most HW zealots would admit that
the games simply are not there - forget about the reasons why. We know
the reasons why.

>
> Hadron wrote:
>>Steam is a SW protection thing isn't it? And a SW library and delivery
>>system? It seems quite useful to me. A bit like the .deb stuff under Ubuntu.
>
> Linux doesn't need Steam either, for the same reasons. As a "content
> delivery system" it has nothing on the package management systems of
> most Linux distros. Ditto its library function. Linux systems do not
> need "SW protection" because the software is free.

You clearly have no idea of the real meaning of OSS. OSS is not
necessarily "free" as in "free beer". Go read up on it.

>
>>Doing a bit of reading it also seems to have a done a lot to
>>curb online cheating in multiplayer games by checksumming the SW
>>installed. That in itself is a great step forward.
>
> Well, this is obviously of huge importance. Good call.

It is if you like gaming. Which clearly you don't as you appear to know
sweet **** all about gaming, graphics, standards, cross platform games,
delivery systems, OSS games, and quality levels of modern releases.

>
> CC
>

--

Quaestor wrote:

>magnate wrote:
>
>>I'm dangerously close to agreeing with pcgames here.
>
>*plonk*

Hehe...