Let it burn …

I’ve already discussed one very painful truth. Big budget AAA gaming as an industry has left the PC as a viable platform and market behind in favor of the console.  There’s no denying it.  I can point at Valve as the sole big name publisher that still produces big name titles optimized for the PC before any other platform.  We’re too small of a market compared to console gaming to attract public Developers and Publishers.

There’s another painful truth that’s coming up, reminiscent of the great console gaming crash in ’82.  Investors are starting to figure out that big money AAA games aren’t nearly as profitable and reliable as other gaming buisness models.  Depending on how this breaks, AAA big title gaming as we know it may die.

I say let it.


With the one aformentioned exception, the PC gaming market is flooded with mediocre ports of console games and shovelware.  There are still a few quality titles being made for the PC, but they’re buried under a mountain of buggy, unoptimzied, or just plain bad games.  And considering that this, coupled with the fact that all sales ARE FINAL and increasingly bizzare and draconic DRM schemes … every single damn purchase of a PC game is a crap shoot.  I’m tired of it.

Please, let the ‘big money’ go elsewhere, leaving the PC market open to those people left who are still interested in making quality titles for this platform. The indie developers are getting more numerous and sophisticated every day. Let the buisness world think that ‘PC gaming is dead’ and let us play and develop our own games in peace.

I’m sick and tired of wading through garbage to find … and buy … a few nuggets of gold. Let’s burn out some of this exploitative underbrush, clear the air for some fresh ideas.

td;lr  The roof, the roof, the roof is on fire, the roof, the roof, the roof is on fire, I don’t give a fark, let the Activisions burn, burn baby burn.

I never really was on your side …

Sometimes it’s hard to appreciate how greatly the English language fails to convey context and meaning behind words at times. I figure that you all would have much less to read here if this was not the case.  Let me give you an example.

I hate the spy class.

It’s not a simple matter of not enjoying the class when I play it, or disliking the class when other people play spy.  I have a deep, irrational hatred and utter loathing for not only the class, but everything it stands for, to the point where I can not honestly justify in any rational terms or argument, any real justification for such hatred.

I think that more than anything else, the spy serves as some kind of freudian object for me to vent dislike and negative emotion into.

With all that said, I’d like to separate all of that from my real criticisms with the class.  Some people who have seen my hatred of the class might be surprised to find that such criticisms aren’t all that great.

As much as I hate to admit it, the spy does have a purposeful role in the game, and is somewhat balanced.  I’d rather not go into too much detail  defining what I feel that role is, preferring to focus more on where he seems to be too strong in the context of spy versus engineer.

First is the revolver.  The revolver is unique in the fact that it is very effective at everything up to very long range.  It is very accurate, holding about the same spread as the pistol, but inflicts around 50-60 damage per shot before damage drop-off.  The shotgun will out-damage the revolver at point blank range, but suffers far more from damage dropoff than the revolver, giving it the edge at close/medium range.

One might point out the engineer’s answer for this is to engage a spy at point-blank, but the engineer rarely engages the spy on his own terms.  Added to this is the fact that all a skilled spy needs at point-blank is a swift strafe movement and a little lag and he’ll get himself a nice side-back stab, rendering the confrontation over instantly.   Defending against a side-stab is almost more a matter of having good ping and luck as it is a matter of skill.  Most good spies I know will simply disengage, heal up and come back again if they don’t find a fight to their liking.

Should they nerf the revolver? I’m not sure.  I just find it very frustrating to usually have myself out-gunned by a class that can disable at-will my primary assets in a game, assets that took anywhere from ten seconds to two minutes to establish.  I would be in much less of a situation to complain if the spy was the only class that was effective in countering a smart sentry setup, but I also have soldiers, demomen and medics who can just blow through my stuff, and for the most part, are supposed to outgun the engineer class.

Fine, so I have to rely on my team to help me kill spies, as I’m not completely balanced to always deal more damage to a spy  than he can to me. I can accept that.

I cannot accept the dead ringer in its current form.   I would be fine if the spy got away scot-free from the hit that triggered the dead-ringer.  But why the hell does a class have access to the effective equivalent to an Uber shield that lets 10% of the damage through and lasts for six and a half seconds.  To add insult to injury, this shield makes him invisible and allows him to heal himself and recharge said shield from metal pickups.

With enough map knowledge and planning, a spy can antagonize an engineer at his choosing almost indefinitely, given that engineers prefer locations that have plentiful metal drops, usually accompanied by health drops.   It’s hard enough to kill these bastards with a pyro, much less as an engineer.  What incentive does a spy have to take any other cloak when he can simply make himself almost impervious to damage almost limitlesly, given enough thought and metal?

Free Cartoon Shooter … not anymore.

Congratulations EA, you had a good thing going with Battlefield Heros … and you’ve now given it a death sentence.

BFH was a good idea … apply a successful business model that has been applied to a different type of game in foreign markets to one of your successful breadwinning franchises and see if it works for you.  The game caused a serious buzz when it was first announced as a ‘free to play cartoon shooter’ funded by ad support and micro transactions. The advertising was tounge-in-cheek and fairly up front and refreshing.

I played the game for a couple months and I was impressed.  It employed two different currency systems, one you had to pay real money for, and the other you could earn in-game as an incentive for advancement and positive outcome in play.  Each weapon had a ‘middle of the road’ variant that you got by default, and several variations purchasable through the ‘in-game’ currency.   The ‘real money’ currency primarily focused on unique costume items and certain perks.  While you could buy more ‘in-game’ currency if you didn’t feel like grinding, there was no great gameplay advantage given to those who were willing to spend real money on the game over those who were willing to save up ‘in-game’ currency for the same gameplay advantages.  If you didn’t put any real money in the game, your avatar looked rather bland, but you could still compete on a relatively even playing field.

This has changed.  The ‘in-game’ currency prices have been hiked to the point where it is prohibitively difficult to earn the different weapon variants through in-game means without World Of Warcraft scale time investment, that is, unless you spend real cash.

EA and Dice have every right to do this. However, in doing this, they are removing whatever incentive anyone but the most devoted fan had to actually put time into the game.  The graphics are unimpressive, the gameplay is solid, but repetitive and not terribly deep, and there are many alternatives that look better, if not play better.   What incentive do you have to keep playing a game like this when you can take the money required to play at the ‘status quo’  level of gameplay for a few months and buy something such as TF2, or one of the other Battlefield games; being able to play as a naked pirate nazi?

This is all fairly insignificant to me, because I have time and money to invest in my hobby, and I did enjoy the couple months or so I put into the game. However I imagine that many of my fellow PC gamers who don’t exactly have a lot of expendable income were drawn to this game because of its price tag. It’s nice to just throw ten bucks in for a cool hat and an eyepatch even if you still intend to play mostly for free.  I’m sure these people aren’t exactly happy that, while they still can play for free, they’re now at a significant disadvantage to those players who have cash to burn.

It’s one thing to raise or lower the price on something, but it’s another thing entirely to provide a gameplay experience that rewards willingness to spend real hard-earned cash for an edge in a game.  This spits on the name of the concept of ‘fair-play’ and ‘sportsmanship’.  Anyone who has actually played in online multiplayer knows that fairness is more often an illusion than a reality.  But to dispense with any attempt at an even playing field between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have not’s’ alltougether is a bit of a mistake when a majority of your target audience isn’t in a position to pay for a higher standard of game, but still has money to occasionally plunk down for a kilt or some cool sunglasses.

People who play online multiplayer shooters do so for multiple reasons.  The games themselves generally have to be fun to play, but beyond that there is a reward for competing as a part of a team against other human beings as opposed to dumb bots.  Furthermore, there’s a certain purity of knowledge that you lost or won a game on your own merits, and that experience itself provides an incentive to continue playing to improve your own mastery of the game (and/or level up your character).

There is nothing more discouraging than being outplayed by someone, not because he played better than you did, but because he had money or time to invest in a form of entertainment that you couldn’t because you need to get to work in the morning, or have enough money to pay your rent.  It’s not enough for me to point out that this ‘isn’t fair’ because real fairness doesn’t really matter as much as the perception of fairness.  I’m not going to have fun if I play a game in which I’m treated as a second class citizen due to factors that may not be in my control, or require me to invest something I would rather put to use elsewhere.  If I’m not having fun, why am I even investing time into something that was supposed to be ‘free’ in the first place?  Nobody likes wasting time simply to participate only as a red-shirt good only for being farmed for ‘victory points’ and xp.

EA isn’t necessarily ‘evil’ for this move … but I would call it a stupid one unless the intention is to milk off a few extra bucks from the diehards before they kill this experiment off.  That’s exactly what this is going to do.  BFH is a decidedly ‘casual’ gaming experience in a genre that is usually classified as ‘hard-core’. In fact, the game is well designed to the point that is has room for players all across the ‘casual’ to ‘hard-core’ spectrum.  Bumping the price on gameplay edge and ditching the even playing field will gut the core of the game’s player community, leaving only those ‘casuals’ who aren’t willing to spend the money to stay competitive or simply don’t care about the lack of options and edge otherwise available to them, and the ‘hard cores’ who care enough about the game to spend the money, even when they could be putting that money to a possibly superior experience.  The majority of the players in the middle of that spectrum will probably find greener pastures.

People will still play the game, but there will a lot less of them now, and the experience will suffer as a result.  Online multiplayer experiences live and die by their communities, and EA has just made a move that will cut the central core out of the BFH player community.

tl;dr: EA just made real money a requirement to play competitively in Battlefield: Heros.  They are allowed to do so but the profit potential, the player community and the game itself will suffer for it.  Smart thinking guys.

Paper or plastic …. or digital?

If I have not already made it clear enough, I am highly preferential to products developed and distributed by Valve.  If you were to accuse me of being a fan-boy for a company and associated products, I would bow and take it as a badge of honor.  This leaves me in something of a dilemma, as this leaves me with a great deal of interest into the new and budding digital distribution market for games, but at the same time, a great deal of personal emotional investment in one of the competing companies in this new market.

You would be right in thinking that this would skew my perceptions of the market, and whereas this doesn’t bother me all that much as I’m here to editorialize, as opposed to simply pump out objective fact, I can still post about this with a clean conscience.  I also want to stay honest and relevant however, and as a result I realize that my own delusion that Steam is the only thing from keeping the Large Hadron Collider from killing us all makes it difficult to see other companies without colored perceptions.

I want the digital distribution platform to gain credibility as a market. When this happens, there will be an upside and a downside.   The downside is that it will attract investors and a lot of money will flow in that will influence the people making my games in ways I may not want.  The upside is that it will attract investors and a lot of money will flow in that will keep the people making my games in business.

It’s not encouraging when the CEO of a well established prior partner to Valve and damn good developer, Gearbox, accuses Valve of holding a monopoly over the market with Steam.  I get mixed feelings about this.  I mean, is this a bad thing? Valve can do no wrong!  … Okay, I’m not that deluded, but I do think that the people currently running the company are smart and trustworthy, and are making money hand over fist not for manipulating the chosen market, but by inventing the market and then proceeding to do better than anyone else.  At the same time, the rest of the real world will have a hard time taking a fledgling market seriously if one company dominates the market, while a couple smaller competitors fight over the table scrap remnants.  Is this the future of software sales or just a flash in the pan? Yes, this is how I see things, and yes, I know it probably isn’t completely accurate.

This all takes me to the article that got me going on this.  It’s no surprise that digital distributors have analyst meetings, what is a surprise is that there’s something of a spat going on over a report published in one of those meetings.  Direct2Drive is disputing a report published by Stardock that breaks down an estimation of the current market share of the digital distribution market.  According to the report, Valve’s Steam platform currently owns close to, if not more than half the market for games sold and revenue collected revenue through Digital Distribution, leaving the rest of the market for the likes of D2D, Impulse and Stardock to fight over.  This makes me feel all well and good, because the company I like is ‘winning’.

But one thing I must ask is whether or not I as a consumer really benefit from such a lopsided market.  Furthermore, petty bickering and accusations of outright fabrication is not unusual for any industry, but does it really improve the industry as a whole?

The only thing that is certain is that where things stand right now, it is difficult to draw solid numbers on sales. No physical products are being sold, and privately owned businesses like Valve have no obligation to reveal sales figures, further muddling the issues, possibly to the company’s own benefit.  I’m not implying wrongdoing, only that Valve’s control over its own company gives it leverage over public companies, compounded by its apparent market dominance.

I will rue the day Valve changes hands, or becomes open to public trading, but as it is now, I feel that the company can be trustworthy to work in my best interest, as I (the paying customer) am Valve’s primary revenue incentive.  That can change.  No good thing lasts forever, I only hope that Valve and Steam last in their current form for a long time.

It’s difficult to say where digital distribution goes from here concerning the PC. I’m no business analyst, just an opinionated consumer.  Digital distribution isn’t perfect for everyone, as not all gamers have access to high-speed broadband, leaving them out in the cold if the retail PC market continues to slowly wither and die like it has been doing.

It is my hope that no matter who comes out as ‘the most profitable’, the ones making and selling games are the people who genuinely care about the quality of the product and the art form that is gaming.

tl;dr: Digital distribution for the PC is a new and expanding market that has yet to define and establish itself. Valve seems to be on top for now and I think that’s a good thing … for now. Where do we go from here?


You’ve got to love the PC vs Console debate, so much angst and gnashing of teeth as to whether or not it is preferable to enjoy the gaming experience on a couch with a controller, as opposed to sitting at a desk with a mouse and keyboard.  Recent newslines in various gaming blogs and other sites have only exacerbated this debate, specifically the launches of Left 4 Dead 2 and Modern Warfare 2.

One phrase I’ve read multiple times … repeated to the point that it sounds like a political talking point is “… PC gamers have such an [adjective] sense of entitlement …”. Being a PC gamer, this grates on me a bit, as I’m being actively called out in a collective statement.

This begs the question however. Do I have a sense of entitlement when it comes to the games I play?  Damn right I do.  I feel entitled to receive a quality product in return for the money I pay, knowing full well that I have little to no options as to return or refund. Furthermore, I’ll be very, very lucky to have an opportunity to play a demo of the product before I make this irrevocable purchasing decisions.  All I have to go on are trailers, game play previews and reviews, none have which have been completely successful at predicting how much I would actually enjoy my purchase.

Let’s put all this into context concerning the two controversy’s that have come up as of late.  I’ll start off by saying that I have purchased L4D2 … and I have not purchased, or pirated Modern Warfare 2.  I refuse to pirate for the simple reason that it would rob me of intellectual honesty when arguing the case for games developed for the PC. Yes, I’m that narcissistic, and I have the money to actually pay for the games I play.  I have not participated in a boycott for either of those games as actions speak louder than words.

When Left 4 Dead launched, I was pleased … the actual game play had the same polish and love that I had come to expect from Valve titles. However, I had some reservations.  It was a Source game that felt like it had been partially redesigned with the console in mind … which it was.  The server browser was gone, replaced by an initially irritating matchmaking system.  The console was still there, and the server browser (albeit modified) and mod support came in time, but there were definite misgivings and alarm about the fact that Valve was starting to cater to the console.

Let me get one thing straight, I don’t hate consoles, but there’s a lot of bad blood with me over the fact that many quality developers who used to make quality games for my platform, had either voluntarily switched to the console gamer as the primary intended audience, or done so at the behest of a gaming publisher.  In too many cases, PC franchises suffered for it.  System Shock to Bioshock, Deus Ex to Invisible War.  At this point there are precious few AAA developers who put a priority into optimizing PC versions of their games.  Valve is at the forefront of those that do … a proverbial last bastion of PC gaming.  ID, Epic, Maxis, Blizzard and many others have switched focus to developing multi-platform titles … with results of varying quality.

The very thought that privately owned Valve might follow in this trend was worrying … as I see very little in the way of PC exclusive content coming out of any of the other AAA developers.  But I kept quiet (for the most part, I still bitched about matchmaking) … I trusted Valve.

Then Left 4 Dead 2 was announced … and oh boy, was that a firestorm of outrage from the PC faithful.

For those of you who don’t understand what all the big fuss was about, Valve takes care of it’s customers, relies on consumer feedback, and takes FOREVER to release a game. I’m talking a five to ten years for a full title launch. Valve had a very clear commitment to quality.  The episodic content for Half-Life was a new and fresh idea that was welcome, as it got good content into our hands much faster and continued the story.  To see a full sequel title announced to launch nary a year after the first game was a surprise. Even bigger was the fact that they would be using the same game engine to simply add more campaigns, weapons and special infected and slapping a sequel numeral at the end of it.

Yes, yes, they promised us support like we were used to receiving for TF2, new weapons and nifty features for free, I got over that “broken promise” in a hurry. What was really troubling was the reason for this move.  Microsoft does not allow content DLC available for XBox 360 titles without forcing gamers to pay for it.

I respected that Valve was trying to co-develop a title for PC and console equally, but in the process it had painted itself into a corner.  Valve would badly damage it’s reputation with it’s core PC gamer consumer base if it started charging for small, incremental updates on the PC. On the other hand, it would not be fair to the 360 players to pay five bucks (or heck knows how many MS points that comes to) for each ‘class update’ equivalent Valve would release if it kept to it’s original plans.  With TF2, PC gamers got quality of service and added content unheard of … we were and still are treated like princes by Valve.  My heart goes out to those who bought TF2 on 360 or PS3, you got shafted.

So, in order to find the best of both worlds, they wrapped up a year’s worth of incremental improvements coupled with a longer set of campaigns than the original, and stuck a big, fat 2 on the end of it.  Not the happiest solution for us PC gamers, but probably the wisest.   I wanted to continue the wacky adventures of Bill, Zoey, Francis and Louis, but with new infected and more weapons … I didn’t get what I wanted. I still got my money’s worth.  L4D2 is an excellent game … an improvement on the original, it’s just a shame that there’s now little incentive to play the original content save for the nostalgia of watching Louis talk about his narcotics habit. Oh, and I may not like the four new survivors as much, but Ellis is so lovable.

In the end, I saw my darling developer make a concession away from the PC gamer, and the thought that this was a beginning of a trend terrified me.  I bitched, I moaned, I joined the mindless throng that erupted into an internet firestorm of protest.  For the record, I did NOT join a boycott. I bought the game, and my enjoyment of it, along with statements from Valve, kept my trust intact. End of story.

Activision coupled with Infinity Ward are not Valve. This much is obvious. Activision is a massive publishing company that rivals Electronic Arts.  Activision is publicly traded, whereas Valve is privately owned.  Activision has a commitment to it’s shareholders, Valve has a commitment to it’s customers.  Get the idea?  It’s not a matter of good versus evil, it’s simply a matter of different priorities.  With that said, the announcement that Modern Warfare 2 would be essentially a direct port of the console version was still such a solid kick to the balls that it made the Left 4 Dead 2 ‘controversy’ look like a weak but affectionate punch to the shoulder. Still, the outrage from the PC gaming community, to me at least, came from the same source.  We had lost another PC centric franchise to the name of profit, completely.

I see a lot of people blaming for Infinity Ward for this … but it doesn’t rub with me. I’ve played Call of Duty 2 and Call of Duty 4, enjoyed them both. A developer like this doesn’t make such drastic changes to a flagship franchise that would needlessly upset the original consumer base without someone or something else calling the shots. I took a good look at Activision and I’m starting to see a pattern.  Paid DLC for aditional optional content in WoW … Starcraft 2 being launched in three parts without LAN support, and now we have Modern Warfare 2 without dedicated servers and no promise of mod support. Then I found this article and things fell into place.

I’m not blaming this on piracy, or on consoles themselves. This all comes from a very painful ‘truth’ that has been slammed in the face of PC gamers for years now.  We aren’t profitable anymore.

I’m going to save you some of my more divisive logic on this subject and simply stick with the simple facts.  AAA titles with massive ad campaigns for well established franchises sell more copies off the shelf for consoles than they do for PC. Far more. Digital distribution and the new face of gaming is just that … new.  Lots of money there but it has still yet to prove itself interesting or compelling to the investor looking to get a return on his money. Statistics for products sold at Wal-Mart or Gamestop can be showcased in analyst meetings and draw more investment money. This is how the business world works, behind the times or not. Unfortunately, being behind the times for big business isn’t hurting the gaming industry nearly as much as it is hurting the music industry … yet.

Don’t believe me? Go to your local Gamestop and look at the proportional shelf space they set aside for PC titles as compared to console titles.  The future of PC gaming is in digital distribution, something that the console market is just starting to experiment with.

Activision is taking a card out of EA’s playbook, and arguably, they’re doing a better, more cutthroat job of it.  Take an established franchise, cut out all unnecessary production costs, spend the money you saved in marketing and it’ll sell off the shelves like hotcakes to those console gamers who don’t know any better.  The product may not be any worse for the intended audience … but I’m still pissed because I’m no longer the intended audience.

Even without this trend with the major publishers, it’s hard to shovel through all the crap to find the good titles for the PC.  The fact that all sales are final and demos are a luxury, rather than mandatory … added to the fact that review scores are of debatable value … and any PC game purchase is a crap-shoot.

We as PC gamers could take all of this siting down, or we could say something about it.  And boy are we … as evidenced by all of the bitching and moaning in the steam forums and at Infinity Ward.  But the investors don’t care about a few whiny geeks who boycott a game and then buy it anyway. We don’t have any damn credibility.

I can tell you with a straight face that I didn’t join any boycotts.  I probably would have enjoyed Modern Warfare 2’s single player, and I really wasn’t interested in the multiplayer to begin with. I didn’t pirate Modern Warfare 2.

I feel that my sense of entitlement to get what I pay for is justified. I also didn’t buy the game.

tl;dr: Big publishers are screwing PC gaming for the sake of more profitable markets. Boycotts are innefective. Vote with your wallet. Make your voice known on the forums, but in a way that lends credibility and maturity. Don’t pirate.  There are a few quality alternatives left. Let’s make those quality alternatives profitable by buying them.

Statement of purpose.

“Put it in a blog.”  Fine, I’ll start one, and I’ll start by telling you who I am and what I’m doing here.

I am C4Cypher … if you know me, you know that I’m an opinionated person. I’m also someone who would like to think that he’s intellectually honest with himself when he isn’t being a raving lunatic.

I am also a PC gamer.  This means that one of the largest hobbies and interests in my life is video games on the PC platform, and to  a somewhat lesser, but related extent, the entire gaming industry as a whole.

I am here to use this place as a platform to share my thoughts on the major issues that affect this hobby, that and stuff that has my attention when it comes to gaming. I am not here to tell you what is right, and what is wrong, only how I see things. It’s up to you to decide whether or not you agree with me.

I’m going to explain in no uncertain terms where I come from when it relates to the subject of gaming, give a background to the positions I will take on the various subjects I address here.  This will mean a lot of self-exposition in crap you may not be interested in.  You’re more than welcome to skip to the next post, but if you want to know who the hell I am to say the things I am saying, I’m putting it all right here.

I’ve been an active gamer since 2002.  Although I have been gaming for far longer than that, 2002 marks the point at which I began funding my own hobby and took complete, adult ownership of such.  In 2002 I became a paying customer to the gaming industry.

My experience up until that point defines my perspective on gaming as a whole, so I might as well share it. During the 90’s I played a lot of PC games, Wolfenstein 3D, Doom, SimCity2000 … I have a soft spot for Borderbund, The Learning Company (rest in peace) and pre-EA Maxis.  I played on both the Nintendo and Sega platforms … when I had the opportunity to visit a friend’s house … and as such, I bore witness to the console wars of those times. Mario is a timeless classic, Sonic USED to be awesome, and Zelda will forever hold a place in my heart.   Then I discovered Half-Life, and it changed my world.  Sadly, I missed the Quake era almost completely, although I feel the influences of it to this day.

From 2002 to 2006 I owned three platforms, four if you count the GBA. Most of my time gaming was on the PC with titles such as Half-Life, Team Fortress Classic, Max Payne and various other shooters, mostly single player.  I’m ashamed to say that I lost two years of my life to World of Warcraft, and I view the experience somewhat bitterly, but with fond memories.  City of Heros was, and still is an excellent game.

I also owned a GameCube and a PS2.  I have mixed feelings about the black sheep of the main Nintendo line, but good games such as Eternal Darkness and Metroid Prime are difficult to forget. I don’t even know where to start with the best of the PS2 catalogue.  The Jak & Daxter Trilogy, Ratchet & Clank series, MGS, Devil May Cry 1 and 3, Silent Hill 2 … need I say more?

Needless to say I loved many of the games available only on the console, and as such I would be a hypocrite to denigrate anyone for owning one, even one made by Microsoft.  My primary vice with the console community today is one of willingness to accept treatment that would be unacceptable as a PC gamer, but that will be addressed later.  Long story short, the consoles are excellent platforms, to which I have certain criticisms.

In 2007 I looked at how much I was playing, and spending, on various platforms, and realized I did not want to bother trying to wade through the associated prices and catalogues of four different platforms when I spent the vast majority of my time playing on the PC.  I got rid of my cube and my PS2 and my television, and I do not own anything from the current generation aside from the DS.

These days I spend most of my time focusing on quality single player experiences on the PC.  I am not good at RTS games but I respect them, my interests lie elsewhere.  I enjoy retro style shooters and platformers, and I’m an avid FPS/3PS player.

For multiplayer I focus mainly on a tight-knit player community devoted to Team Fortress 2 … I also play Left 4 Dead and its sequel.   It is extraordinarily rare for me to enjoy a multiplayer experience for longer than a month before I bore and go back to TF2. The only thing keeping me playing TF2 is the solid community I’ve become a part of. For me multiplayer is less about the game and more about enjoying the game with a set of people you know. This is the reason the concept of dedicated servers is important to me.  Left 4 Dead feels like an enhanced single player experience … I completely fail to enjoy versus mode as a result.

It should be apparent at this point that I’m an avid user and fan of Valve products and the Steam platform.  I would not support Steam to the extent that I do if it were not for the fact that Valve has spent years earning and keeping my trust as a customer.  Steam is a good, convenient platform for gaming, DRM and all.  It’s not perfect and not for everyone, but it fits my needs perfectly.

I think you’ve got a pretty good picture at this point, and it will save me from having to explain some of this later, when I’d rather be discussing a topic at hand.  If nothing else, I’d like to welcome you to my little slice of the gaming world.

td;lr:  I’m C4Cypher, and this is MY HOUSE!