Otherwise known as "beating a dead horse".

My promised blog never came together, due to the fact that working on it caused me anxiety and mild depression. Not kidding.

So instead of bludgeoning you over the head with rhetoric about the state of the industry and yada yada yada, I'll just say that... it's been emotional.

Goodbye Jeff, goodbye Alex, and now, goodbye Ryan.

To the beleaguered crew still here, I wish you nothing but the best.

It's partly in response to that excellent Newsweek article a couple of people have posted about, tossed together with other ruminations on the situation and the state of gaming and media critique in general. Unfortunately, "Gerstmanngate" broke at the totally wrong time for me, as I'm in finals week at college, so it'll have to wait a bit. Right now it's a couple pages of randomly connected paragraphs with half finised thoughts. I'm sure you know the type of document I'm talking about.

Like most gamers, I started following the industry through gaming mags. For me, it was predominantly Electronic Gaming Monthly. Even though over the years the limitations of a monthly publication got really tiresome, I sitll have fond memories of feeling a connection to their staff, namely their Editor-in-Chief, Dan "Shoe" Hsu. Here's a blog post he wrote two years ago about the reaction to one of his editorials he wrote for EGM concerning journalistic integrity in this industry. I thought it merited some attention in the wake of this terrible event. Here's the link:

http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=6228583&publicUserId=5379799

This still seems like a bad dream.

So, all this business about Jeff getiting let go over the Kane and Lynch review... yeah, that couldn't have happened. No, I take that back. It could... but that would be the worst decision CNet ever made. It would destroy gamespot. Not to mention the fact that Jeff would have a very excllent case against CNet in a wrongful dismissal suit.

So, I'm going with a big fat "bogus" on this story. Even if it were temporarily true, the fact that the news got outof the real reason for his dismissalwould most definitely factor into CNet's decisions. Do you really think they can fire the editroial director of one of their most popular sites over an editorial decision that upset one of their freaking advertisers and get away with it? Yeah right. The community wouldn't allow it. Their entire editorial staff would have a decision. Either stay, and be afraid to lose their job over a controversial review (Kevin, quake in your boots, lol), or do the honorable thing and quit in protest.

So, in the highly doubtful event that this story is true and Jeff is gone (seems insane just to write that), then the entire editorial staff should leave tomorrow.

*Update: Gabe from PA posted in a thread claiming that the news is true. Either some serious miscommunication has gone down or the world has just been turned on it's ear. If it turns out to be true, I will never visit Gamespot again. Here's hoping I wake up and find out this is all a big april fool's joke a few months early...

*Up-freaking-date: Jeff's picture was removed from the Xbox Newsletter. This is absolutely insane... This is so wrong... And to think I ever wanted to work for this site after college. Please... let this be a joke. Cnet is getting a really nasty letter next week. The **** is about to hit the fan...

*Up- HOLY F***ING ****-date: A post by one "mosaic" confirms the fact that Jeff has been let go. For those not in the know, "mosaic" is, in fact, Frank Provo, a freelance reviewer for gamespot. He does a lot of the mobile game reviews and about half of the Wii VC reviews. So, against all logic, Jeff Gerstmann no longer works at gamespot. WHAT. THE. ****?

**** YOU CNET!

*Final update: I got confirmation from the man himself. I wrote him on myspace a couple of hours ago, and he actually took the time to write me back tonight. He said he couldn't talk about his time with gamespot other than it's over. His exact words were "**** happens, my man". Classic Jeff. I'd say he'll be missed, but that would make it sound like I'm still going to come here for any sort of editorial coverage. I love keeping up with community blogs, but who knows what the fallout from this debacle is gonna be. It will seem strange to my friends that I'm going to be depressed all day tomorrow, but they just can't understand. This sucks. I don't think any of us on here are ashamed to say that gamespot is an important part of our lives, so for this to happen... Wow.

Here's a screen cap(Warning: Mild Language):

http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/9716/asdye2.jpg

First, a few words of introduction. This paper was written for my freshmanhonors English Composition course. In the course, we are using video games as the medium in which to practice different types of analysis. Ifinished this paper several weeks ago, and am in the middle of writing another paper, which I will post here as well.The writing is rather dry for a blog post, but it'll have to do.

No other franchise in the video game industry is as divisive or as influential as Grand Theft Auto. A simple Google search for news or scholarly articles related to the series returns thousands of articles discussing the effects of these video games. The most recent iteration, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (hereafter referred to as GTA: SA), came out to much fanfare on October 26, 2004. It was substantially more ambitious than its predecessors; thousands of man hours went into creating one of the largest game worlds ever conceived, with three unique cities, countryside in between, over one hundred different vehicles, and a radio with eleven distinct radio stations. The player was free to roam anywhere they pleased, be it by car, boat, or airplane, and cause as much destruction and mayhem as they saw fit. GTA: SA was well received critically and commercially, and was ripped apart by various pundits for its overt violence and explicit sexuality. Despite being rated "M" for mature (defined as 17 years and up), many public figures decried the game's vicious tendencies as deeply influential to the corruption of our nation's youth. Few video games have ever received this amount of critical attention.

Little consideration was given, however, to a large component of how the game speaks to its players, the soundtrack. GTA: SA's soundtrack is a far cry from the norm. Created as more than mere background noise to the player's destruction and mayhem; the radio stations become part of the living game world that GTA: SA's designers crafted so carefully. It is integral to the overall tone of the game, and is an interesting component to the influences that this game exerts over the millions of individuals who have listened to it. What is most intriguing about the soundtrack are the contrasts between what the game encourages the player to do and the various social messages it sends through the radio stations, particularly in its mock advertisements and news spots.

The game's, and by extension the soundtrack's, primary audience is 16 to 35 year old males; essentially the main demographic of video game players in the United States. Though much of the game's underlying messages about life in the U.S. would not be lost on a woman, the radio has much more impact when listened to by a male. The game's soundtrack resonates especially with men who listened to popular music in the late 80's and early 90's. Also, a player under the age 15 would have difficulty understanding many of the jokes and references made in many of the advertisements and other segments on the radio.

For instance, a 16 to 35 year old male would be much more likely to find the irony in a mock advertisement for "DeKoch Diamonds", where, the advertisement claims "passion... can be purchased". The advertisement promises that a diamond or "ice" will not only assuage a whiny female (who, interestingly enough, has just discovered her boyfriend cheating on her with her sister), but will also predispose her to give you sexual favors. Many of the false advertisements are in this vein, designed to speak to the over-sexed male consumer in the United States.

Depending on ****of play, the player can spend upwards of 50% of their time with the game listening to the radio. There are eleven radio stations, all with unique DJs and playlists. As the game is set in the early 1990's, the playlists are generally composed of hits from that era, along with older songs on several of the stations specializing in ****c rock and hip hop. The song choice on almost all of the radio stations is targeted towards men, with many misogynistic hip hop songs and blaring rock tunes. Interspersed among the DJs banter and songs are over 50 advertisements for fictional products and services, all of which are humorous. Also of note is the talk radio station with different "programs", ranging from a political debate show to a relationship advice program. All of these various parts add up to a highly realistic experience for the player. They feel as though they are actually listening to a radio. This realism, however, stands in stark contrast to the surrealism of the gameplay, which encourages the player to maim and kill for pleasure and profit.

A game's soundtrack is almost never listened to on its own. GTA: SA's gameplay must be taken into account. Perhaps if it were listened to separately from the play experience, then the game maker's overt politicizing and more subtle social commentary would add up to an effective medium in which to challenge traditional U.S. concepts of society and gender. However, messages concerning gun control and consumerism ring hollow when listened to as you seek to gun down police men and civilians for your character's personal gain and your own entertainment. In fact, the only truly effective message the game manages to convey through its soundtrack concerns distrust of public figures and traditional forms of media, as these sentiments are reinforced through your play and other components of the game. It seems as though the only thing the game maker's could wholly agree upon is anti-establishment sentiments.

While many game designers choose to play music in the background of their games to set the mood, GTA: SA's creators restricted access to the radio solely to when the player is in a vehicle, where it is logical that the player would be able to actually listen to the radio in the real world. These realistic restrictions lend a sense of credibility to the soundtrack. The game creates a sense of anticipation for the player every time they get into a vehicle and hear the radio. The various stations, all with critically acclaimed songs and realistic sounding (at least superficially) DJs lend credence to the illusion that the player is, in fact, tuning in to real FM radio broadcasts. The radio becomes such a fixture of the game's structure that the player becomes hardly conscious of it when he has to gun down a rival gang or flee from the police.

The song choice is geared to register with the player's emotions, be it to evoke a time and place or to excite the player into causing more destruction. The presence of easily recognizable hits from across the decades does create the illusory effect of a real radio dial, and it also evokes strong nostalgic emotions from many of the game's older players. Adult players will be taken back when they hear "White Room" by Cream or "Barracuda" by Heart, and the younger generation will be fired up to carjack, thieve, maim, and destroy by the rocking tunes and hard beats served up on this game's soundtrack.

Much of the soundtrack's most effective content is designed to resonate with the player's logical reasoning, and it is here that the soundtrack makes its most compelling arguments, some of which are truly effective. In one of the many fabricated news stories, a reporter introduces her segment with this, "Here's everything that matters, in simple terms, so you can understand." Many players of the game perhaps never would have thought of the overly simplistic manner in which much of the news is told in today's society. This small, not tremendously subtle witticism from the game designers causes the player to see the world around them in a different light. Indeed, almost every single one of the newscasts subtly challenges cultural perceptions the average U.S. male may have concerning public figures and the nature of traditional media. It is in this logical yet extremely humorous manner that the game designers make their most compelling appeals to the player's awareness of numerous traditions and beliefs that underpin their identities as a male in the U.S. and how they relate to figures of authority. These appeals, largely made through the false newscasts, are the sole examples of truly effective rhetoric within the soundtrack, because the gameplay reinforces these anti-establishment, anti-media sentiments.

While the newscasts tend to speak to political issues or serve to lampoon mass media, the majority of the false advertisements address issues of consumerism and gender. In an advertisement for a cologne, the player is told that "Life isn't about money... it's about having... nice friends and nailing as many women as possible." This obvious logical fallacy causes the player to consider blind consumerism and sexism in their own lives, but this message is undercut when the game encourages you to purchase clothing and houses, and date women solely for the purpose of being invited over to stay the night. While the denouncement of abject consumerism and sexism is fairly obvious and straightforward, the player is left confused as to the game maker's true feelings on these subjects. Perhaps the creators of the radio ads were trying to be ironic in the face of the game's content, but the lack of a cohesive message throughout the game on these subjects greatly hinders its ability to effectively convey meaning to its players.

Also in stark contrast to the gameplay are the anti-gun messages throughout the radio broadcasts. The player of the game is predisposed to be sympathetic to their characters way of life, a life dominated by weaponry and violence. So when the game attempts to tell the player through its usual brand of subversive humor that gun ownership is dangerous, it is hard for the player to sympathize with this sentiment because the player does not relate to the little polygonal people they kill, but instead bonds with their character, and will even come to favor certain weapons over others. If a game's primary play mechanic is to kill thousands of other characters with one's favorite weaponry the player is hardly likely to consider anti-gun sentiments when they have been conditioned to favor weaponry through their play. Whether the game predisposes its player to actually use or purchase weaponry is a related subject on which there is much debate, however this game's soundtrack can hardly be seen as an effective medium in which to promote awareness of gun ownership.

The designers of the soundtrack had any one overarching intention for influencing those who listen to it. To challenge the way the player views fundamental concepts of traditional life in the United States. These challenges, however, were undercut almost every step of the way by the game's play mechanics, and indeed, the game seems unified only in its messages concerning distrust of public figures and conventional media. Because the wholly one-sided manner in which the radio presents its political and social commentary, coupled with the ambiguous, jumbled messages sent through the gameplay, the player is largely left confused as to what the game maker's really meant to convey concerning gender roles and social issues in the U.S.

While my intial impression of Halo 3 still stands, I have to admit I found myself having a hell of a time with Forge mode. I really want to play that with some friends going at the same time. Also, for some reason, I've found the stupid quotient somewhat reduced on average in my Live matches. Maybe 'cause I always make sure to set the tone at the beginning, but I have yet to run into a truly annoying person. Well, there's always the stoner/drunkards who are invariably annoying, but more in an amusing way. And when they're on your team, they think you're a god if you can actually play the game. Happy playing.

Yep, sure is Halo.

I haven't touched Forge yet, and I have yet to play with my friends, so we'll see if this iteration of the biggest franchise on the block can become something truly special. 'Cause so far, well, it's pretty much the exact same game as Halo 2, just with bigger tectures and prettier water. That sounds disparaging, and well, it is. Forge may prove to be extremely entertaining though.

Anyone else notice Alex referred to as "Abe" at the beggining of his demo on the latest episode of On the Spot. Is that an inside joke?

I've been meaning to call attention to this sooner, but it's always fallen to the wayside.

On June 29, 2007, IGN.com released a feature titled "Ten Venerable Villains in Movies", it's here: http://games.ign.com/articles/800/800715p1.html?RSSwhen2007-06-29_140000&RSSid=800715

So, other than the rather boring nature of the article itself, I want to call attention to the last paragraph. Yes, that's right, IGN published an article with an advertisement embedded within it. CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT ****? I haven't visited IGN ever since. If you don't understand why I'm so incensed, understand that I've been reading gaming journalism for years. It's one of my possible career choices. So when I see one of the most visited gaming sites on the 'net subverting their journalistic standards by promoting a game and disguise it as editorial content... Well, it rubs me in a very wrong way. What do you think?

So, Rich has taken his final bow and exited our little gamespot second-lives. It's really a shame, but at the same time, somewhat exciting. Not knocking Rich, he did a great job. But when we lost Greg, it felt like gamespot was losing soemthing irreplacable, and it was, but I just don't feel that way this time. Maybe it's because I come for the reviews more than I do for the live content, but when Greg left, that kinda hurt. And now he doesn't even blog, which is lame. But with Rich leaving, it feels like an opportunity for someone fresh. So, here's to the future of GS Live. May it find an amusing, talented host to cover the next four to five years of this generation of consoles. And to Rich, I hope you find what you're looking for back East. Best of luck to you.

I'm generally very reserved when watching a film. I hate it when people are loud or obtrusive in theaters. However, when Megan Fox (who is very foxy, but that's it) turns to Shia LaBeouf (the only good performance in the entire film) and says "No matter what happens, I'm glad I got in that car with you," I burst out laughing and said out loud "God, this movie is AWFUL". That scene encapsulates everything that was wrong with Michael Bay's latest piece of macho porn. Let's dissect that particular moment.

First and foremost, the line itself was a cliched, uninspired piece of writing, a problem the entire script had. But this is a summer action flick, bad writing goes with the territory. People want cliches, right? That's fine, and I'm not so pretentious as to be above enjoying a good old summer popcorn flick. The problem is, if you're gonna use a cliched line like that, you'd better have at least developed the relationship between the two characters to the point that the line at least makes some sort of sense. And that's really where this film faltered. It had WAY too many characters. Do you remember any of the character's names besides Sam? The Air Force guys (played with little to no discernible emotion or talent by Tyrese Gibbons and Josh Duhamel) were totally unnecessary characters, as was the entire side plot involving the attack on the base in Qatar. The random hacker chick and her black friend (who magically understood an alien signal on his home PC. WHAT?) were also unnecessary. If you want to have a love story with Sam and what'shername, then have one. Give them more of a history than "we've been in the same school since 1st grade and you've always been too into dumb jocks to notice me", and don't foist a random backstory on her about jacking cars and growing up on the wrong side of the track. The only thing worse than a completely undeveloped main character is a halfway developed one.

But back to the scene at hand. While Miss Fox was delivering her line (doing her best to make it sound believable. Some lines just can't be saved, sweetheart), the music playing in the background was totally off. As a matter of fact, I had a problem with the entire score. It was erratic and uneven, slowing down at random moments during intense action sequences (of which there were too many, and they all went on for too long), coupled with random slow-motion sequences. Don't get me wrong, the CGI robots were stunning (ILM outdid themselves) but I don't need a slow-mo sequence every time a rocket is fired or someone drops off the highway. They're pretty 3D models; we get it. Half the time, I expected some doves to start flying through the shot, it was such a blatant (and unsuccessful) rip-off of John Woo. And during comedic moments, I don't want squeaks and hops like I'm watching a Tom and Jerry cartoon, alright? That's just weird.

The line also showcased the film's uneven attempts at humor. Was that line supposed to be emotional, 'cause half the theater laughed at it. Maybe my crowd was laughing for the same reason I was, but I doubt it. There were some genuinely amusing moments in the film, but a lot of the jokes fell flat on their face. And when you're ratcheting up and down the adrenaline scale with your action sequences, it really takes you out of the experience when John Turturro shows up and starts playing for laughs. It wasn't a funny character in the first place, and introducing a new menacing agency (the ominous Sector 7) via a character apparently designed for comic relief was just dumb. The entire film felt like that. For instance, early in the film there's a fairly boring firefight with the scorpion robot, and it's intercut with cheap laughs about an Indian call center? Michael Bay, what are you thinking?

The scene also highlighted the erratic editing and cinematography of the film. One second, we have Optimus duking it out with Megatron (the ominous badguy, who's such an amazing badass that he can't catch an 18 year old kid running through a building), and then we cut away to Sergeant Whatever telling Sam that for some reason, he needs to take the all-important AllSpark (the amazing cube that magically transforms MOUNTAIN DEW machines into robots. Real lame.) to the top of a building. Why doesn't the Sergeant take it? He's got better things to do (like survive magical motorcycle slides). And then the girl we're supposed to care about but are too busy staring at her taut stomach to care much about what she has to say randomly pulls Sam aside, during a super loud, hectic scene, to tell him her feelings? Random much?

Everything was just "off" about pretty much every aspect of the film. If I hadn't been with a bunch of friends, I would have left halfway through it to get my money back. If you enjoyed the film, more power to you. For instance, every single one of my friends who went with me came out saying how much they loved it (three of them went to the midnight showing the night before, and came to see it again). I didn' deride them for their opinions, but I explained why I thought it was so terrible. To a man, they thought I was just being snobbish and didn't understand the film. Oh, but I do. I know what makes an enjoyable summer flick, and this one just hit so many false notes that I couldn't enjoy it. I refuse to turn off my critical mind while watching movies. Maybe if they'd cut out about half an hour of unnecessary side plots and CGI sequences it would have been a better film, but as it stands, it was excessive, loud, uneven, and painfully dull.

...about this new review system they'regoing to be rolling out. I like their system. It works. It isn't convoluted or in anyway opaque. THey just assume you're actually going to read thetext of the review. What a concept. I trust Gamespot, but I don't see the need for a change in their review department. Maybe in the preview department, where they make every game sound like a shining beacon of glorious gameplay goodness when you know the game will suck, but the reviewson the site are, and always have been, top-notch. Here's hoping whatever the change is, it's not too drastic.

Last weekend, I had a couple of my buddies over to play some games, just like we've been doing since we were ten.  I really just noticed this on this past get-together, but we have a noticably better time when playing the Wii  then any other console.Even though we still play Halo 2 and Gears of War and the like, it's when we play Wii Sports or Rayman Raving Rabbids that we all have goofy smiles on our faces instead of the joyless "gamer face" you get when playing Halo. We've begun gravitating more towards boxing and bowling with Wii Sports then fragging on Halo ever since the Wii came out.

Maybe our gaming tastes have changed, but I think it shows just how much fun you can have with a Wii compared to any other console in a party setting. It's just so much more engaging, and more entertaining for others watching. You kinda feel lame for commenting on a person's strategy when watching them play Halo, and most people don't want you to talk anyway because they're concentrating on the next kill. But when I play Wii Sports with friends over it's a totally different experience. We get rowdy, we yell, we laugh, we talk mad trash, and interestingly, nobody gets pissed off just because they're "having an off-night" like when we play Halo.

I actually hardly if ever play console video games unless my buddies are over, 'cause the PC is a vastly superior platform for online gaming, so I'm really glad that Nintendo launched the Wii. With more and more console games eliminating single console multi-player, it's looking like the Wii will be the last bastion for traditional multi-player gaming. Here's to Super Smash Bros. Brawl and Metroid Prime. If they suck, I will never forgive Nintendo.

For those of you who blog on other sites other than gamespot, you probably, like me, hate the gamespot blog form. Well, lament no more, because the new filmspot.com blog form is vastly superior. So, use it to post your gamespot blogs from now on It's not like I blog a lot, or even do anything beyond basic text on here, but still.

I would venture to guess that many gamespot users have only been around for about two years (at least, according to alexa.com), so for those of you who weren't around, say, four years ago like me, then this will be totally novel to you.

http://www.gamespot.com/gamespot/features/all/gamespotting/040603/

Obviously feel free to watch all of the videos on that page, they're all pretty much great in their own way. (Of note: Rich Gallup is an intern) The video I want to call attention to, however, is Jeff Gerstmann, in which he humorously laments the demise of the "arcade scene". First of all, his hair used to have a dyed blondish-orange streak, as was fashionable back then... or something. Anyway, near the end of the video (about 6 minutes in), he suggests that it would be a good idea for someone to create a service for gamers to enjoy the arcade experience without having to put up with nasty ghetto arcades. The reason I found this noteworthy should seem fairly obvious, considering that Jeff essentially predicted Microsoft's own strategy with Xbox Live Arcade. He even asks for Joust and Smash T.V., which, if memory serves, are both available on Live.

 I hadn't watched those videos in years, and I have no idea why I stumbled across them again, but I'm so glad that I did. You should watch them, just to get a sense of how gaming continues to change, even in as short a time as four years.

1. Why does Nintendo, with its massive backlog of high-quality games, release trash like Baseball on to the Virtual Console? Seriously.

2. Now that Greg has left GS, who is going to be Editor-in-Chief?     

I've played TWP for about twenty five hours now, and I have to say that Jeff's review was spot on. The game is fairly derivative, and seems like a missed opportunity. For the amount of time and money put into this game by Nintendo, I would expect an orchestral score and voice acting, but these are presentational issues. The main issue I have with the game is how much it feels like an N64 game. I can't get Ocarina out of my head. I don't give a crap how great Ocarina was back in the day, the fact of the matter is that TWP plays almost identically to Ocarina, which is a major disappointment. Look, I'm not saying the game isn't great, because I'm having a lot of fun with it. But it deserves the score Jeff gave it.

What should be decried is the way Nintendo managed this franchise. From a financial standpoint, it makes perfect sense to port the game over to the Wii, even if it is painfully obvious that it was designed as a GC game. It even looks exactly like a GC game. It plays like a GC game. I booted up my Wii, and played Wii Sports first, and I had a blast. It was a revelatory moment, that justified the $250, just on concept. Elated, I booted up Zelda, expecting a similar "wow" feeling. I didn't get it. The game just isn't that innovative or intriguing. Is it good? Heck yeah. Is it great, even? Yes. But it is not superb. I honestly wish that Nintendo had released this game last year, when it was supposed to be released, on the GC. Then they could've designed a Zelda game from the ground up for the Wii. It would've looked great, had a great score, voice acting, etc, and most importantly, have a total reinvention of the series designed around the Wii's unique controls. They would already be 8 months into the development cycle, and it would be ready for the 2008 holiday season. Then again, I wouldn't have bought my Wii if it weren't for Zelda, but that was Nintendo's aim all along anyway.

Imagine being lucky enough to be an editor for gamespot.com. You get to play with the newest stuff more than a week in advance, then you get paid to write about it. Awesome, right?

Well, maybe not so awesome when you're Greg Mueller, and you have the unfortunate duty to review GT Pro Series for the Wii and Mobile Suit Gundam for the PS3, two of the worst launch titles available for their respective systems. Seriously, even the new guy Aaron got to play better games than that. Oh well, it's all part of the job, right?    

A simple yet effective title for a simple blog. Sony recently filed several lawsuits against the famous import site Lik Sang.  You've all read the news, but most of you probably never shopped at Lik Sang, a highly trustworthy retailer that provided Western gamers with fascinating niche items from all parts of Asia. Lik Sang is based in Hong Kong. Hong Kong's laws state an item can be traded freely once it appears in a market anywhere in the world. End of story.

Sony gets pissed off that Lik Sang is selling their consoles to the world before their official release in that region. Why Sony is mad about this, I'll never know. The sales numbers have got to be minimal, and the market "damage" dpesn't exist. If a guy in the UK wants to pay the premium mark up price to get his hands on a PSP early, then why the heck shouldn't he be able to? Their have been import shops for decades, but now Sony decides to squash the little gy by taking them to court. I'm no Sony basher, and I'm no idealist that sticks up for the little guy just because he's the little guy, but seriously folks, what Sony did here was wrong. Plain and simple. And the judge got it wrong. Dead wrong. I'm sure some of will say "But how do you know? You don't have a law degree." I might not, but my dad sure does. He happens to be a practicing lawyer in international trade, and he's quite familiar with Honk Kong trading laws as well as copyright laws. He says he would love to see that judge's statements on the case, because as it currently stands in the books, Lik Sang selling PSPs or any other Sony product, is perfectly legal.

So what's got Sony all knotted up, anyway? Does anyone know? Now, simply because Sony had a small thorn in their side and a couple thousand bucks to spare, we gamers are out of the best import source around. Sure, there's still play-asia (which hasn't been taken down yet, knowck on wood), but Lik Sang was the best. For shame, Sony.

If it weren't for the fact that I don't really care about my user
level, I might be more pissed off at the fact that I was moderated for
doing the exact opposite of what the moderator said.
I suppose it must be some sort of policy to moderate anyone that posts
in a moddable topic, but I'm getting ahead of myself.



Last month, I noticed a message on a PSP game's message board saying how awesome the game looked, and how they couldn't wait for the game to come out so they could download and play it for free (as is possible by any tech savvy PSP owner with a big enough memory stick.) Well, I cried foul, and told the topic creator off for killing the PSP by not purchasing software. SO what do I get modded for? That's right, for, and I quote, "Illegal Activities -- e.g. Begging and/or Providing ROM/Warez/MP3/Cracks/etc". Is that some BS, or what?