Either I'm blind or the pixelation doesn't show on my end. Can you give a time mark on the videos and maybe where in the picture the pixelation is occuring?
Considering what they're trying to do... pushing game rendering through internet pipelines as streaming video, while offering very low lag... I'm actually fairly impressed. It certainly looks better than a non-gaming rig could produce. I'll have to try it out soon.
It's not pixelation, it's artifacting, such as you'd see in heavy JPG or MPG compression on movies or images.
Those are NOT crisp like they are running natively at 1080p.
You get blockiness and blurring along edges of objects. It's ugly.
I agree with Q on this one. I wasn't able to pick it out. Your pointing it out helped, but I guess my eyes aren't that good on things that are moving on screen. Maybe it'd be different watching on my TV, but on a 22" monitor it just doesn't bother me.
I agree with Q on this one. I wasn't able to pick it out. Your pointing it out helped, but I guess my eyes aren't that good on things that are moving on screen. Maybe it'd be different watching on my TV, but on a 22" monitor it just doesn't bother me.
Prime? What size monitor/TV where you viewing this on? I viewed it on a 19" wide screen monitor and even looking at it a second time I did not notice anything glaringly out of place.
How are we supposed to judge this while watching a video through youtube?
That's why I'm asking to watch it full screen 1080p; the experience that you get from that is the exact same that you get from playing OnLive. I compared the two several different times.
Prime? What size monitor/TV where you viewing this on? I viewed it on a 19" wide screen monitor and even looking at it a second time I did not notice anything glaringly out of place.
24" 1920x1200 Samsung
It's not an eyesight thing; you either notice it and it bothers you, or you don't.
The artifacts are definitely there. In motion is it horrible? I'm not sure it bothers me that much, but guys, I grew up playing stick figures on the Atari 2600 so my standards are a little lower. Still its pretty obvious that they have to do it to compensate for bandwidth limitations. This is the future, and frankly, I'm amazed they got it this far already. I figured we were at least a couple years away from a service like this.
Think about this guys, its AAA 3D gaming on demand, no download, no trip to the store, a consistent experience without hardware, as broadband speeds improve and this concept matures its going to change everything.
Everyone wonders, why no new consoles at E3??? This is why, consoles as we know them today are not the future of gaming content delivery. Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo are already keen to this reality.
Folks, the last generation of console hardware is here, there will never, ever be another dedicated home gaming console. No PS4, no Xbox 720, no Wii 2, nope, this is it. Sure, there may be a box, that gets you online to receive certain constant that operates using certain peripherals, but its all going to be based on this model. It eliminates their inventory expense, it gets rid of the middle man and it gives them real time marketing data, heck in some cases it may get rid of multi-platform development costs. Its a brilliant model for them, there is zero reason why they would want it to continue as it is. Sure, there will be some expense for them up front in developing the cloud, but they all sort of have it now with various online services, and building a super computer does not cost what it used to... Everyone who wants a future in the gaming business will do this.
In fact, I'd bet in ten years, this kind of functionality will just be built into every TV people by. It will just be in the TV, wanna download a game from Nintendo, have their controller, an account and a broadband connection, no need for serious hardware on the client end, it will all be in the cloud.
Sony and Microsoft have already committed to another console when the 10-year lifecycles of the current generation is up. No new consoles were announced because we're just barely half way into the lifetime of what we have now.
There will be more consoles. The world does yet have enough edge servers or bandwidth to make this a reality for eleventy billion console gamers.
Cliff, I think your predictions, while ultimately feasible, are off by at least 10, more likely 20 years. Console manufacturers think globally; only the very top tier of the developed world has the broadband infrastructure to get the kind of market penetration they currently have with hardware consoles.
We are standing at the edge of a broadband revolution and Google wants a cut of everything that runs through it. The investments will be made, broadband speeds will sky rocket and prices for access will fall. Broadband is going to be like a utility that people take for granted.
Do I know exactly how long that will take? I'm not 100% sure, but I think its sooner than later. I really do, call me an optimist, but controlling this infrastructure is going to guarantee decades of outstanding business prospects. Top men are looking into it, top men.....
It's not an eyesight thing; you either notice it and it bothers you, or you don't.
Consider yourselves lucky. I can't un-see it.
It's a similar situation with DVD upscaling. I cannot watch DVDs on my TV because the upscaling still leaves large blocks in the video. Ruins the movie for me, but not for the wife.
I guess for games my focus is on different things.
Folks, the last generation of console hardware is here, there will never, ever be another dedicated home gaming console. No PS4, no Xbox 720, no Wii 2, nope, this is it.
Your list of benefits for cloud-based game computing are all perfectly legitimate. It does offer a consistent experience, extremely fine graphics for a budget, etc etc.
What you fail to realize is why the current console generation we are currently on is having a much longer lifespan than ever before. It's not because there is no more consoles in line. It's because gamers just aren't as demanding for hardware upgrades as they have been before.
Think about it. The jump from the Atari 2600 to the NES was huge. The next leap to the Genesis and the SNES was also big. Then came the leap to 3D, which the PS1 and N64 did an adequate job of. PS2, GameCube, and Xbox brought 3D to a level that looked fairly realistic. The current generation brought it to a whole new level of shine.
But then what? What's next? A few more levels of anti-aliasing? You can't bump the resolution up, 1080p is as high as TVs go right now. You can't up the number of colors on them, either. Sure, you can increase the poly count, maybe have a few more on-screen particle effects. But at the end of the day, the discernible upgrades that the average gamer will notice is dwindling. There are marginal diminishing returns for graphics hardware compared to the visual effect on people.
And that's the reason I keep hearing for why we don't have a newer set of consoles just yet. People paid through the nose for their PS3's, and they aren't quite so willing to plunk down another $600 for the next wave if it came out just a few years later if it's not going to have as noticeable upgrade as before.
Back to "consoles are dead", they aren't. Speaking for myself, I will not buy into a service that is totally dependent on them existing to survive. At least with Steam I can download all the games then go offline if Steam ever died. I like owning physical hardware. I like the idea of going back and playing older classics without paying for them again. Because it's physical and I have it in front of me.
Plus, what about people with poor internet connections? People in Arkansas can still play Final Fantasy XIII just as well as someone in silicon valley. Couldn't have the same thing if games went fully internet-dependent. Even though a good percentage of gamers do have broadband, and some companies may settle for leaving behind potential customers with poor internet solutions, consoles today can still penetrate to get anyone with a TV and live power outlets.
Again, your points about the benefits of cloud-based AAA-title gaming are indeed good. But do not discredit consoles as forsaken so quickly.
Again, your points about the benefits of cloud-based AAA-title gaming are indeed good. But do not discredit consoles as forsaken so quickly.
This completely ignores my arguments for the business model being better long term.
We have to think about the future here. 100 megabit internet, its going to happen, and I honestly believe (some would say optimistically) that this is going to happen in the next five years, there are just too many good reasons to make the infrastructure investments. If not Google, the fear of them doing it will drive Verizon, AT&T and/or John Q Taxpayer to foot the bill. A competitive economy as a whole is going to largely be dependent on the growth of internet commerce, and the increased computational power that the cloud is going to afford the world. Heck the future of the whole global economy is at stake. When you think about it, its the solution to Moore's law no longer holding weight (a major economic driver the last 30+ years). Scalable cloud computing, for everything, and when people can have it on demand in real time, its going to change everything.
When this happens, the console business model will die because it will no longer be the best model to make maximum profit. Don't think the people at the helm of the gaming industry will be as slow to adapt as the people that run music and film, they will be on the ball and ready to move where the market takes them (its just a more forward thinking bunch), and everyone will make more money by actually charging less because the delivery model will support it on multiple levels. Its going to make everything easier, delivery of content, no hardware to sell as a loss leader, no need to pay a middle man to carry product, no inventory cost, no warranty centers to support millions of red ringed consoles, less development cost, more efficient development systems supported by the same cloud people will play on, its a forward thinking businessman's wet dream. A penny saved is a penny earned. It will make everything better.
Maybe five years is a little optimistic, but if onlive can do this with crappy broadband, what do you think is going to happen in five or ten years? More consoles??? For real???
Everyone is a skeptic when we are talking about real advancement, Itunes had its critics, God, remember the Steam Launch with Half Life 2, the only people that saw the potential were working at Valve, I mean everyone, absolutely everyone hated Steam at first.
I stand by my prediction, consoles as we know them are on their last leg. Now, there may be different competing content delivery systems, but they are all going to leverage this cloud gaming model as soon as there is enough bandwidth to support it. Its not going to take 20 years, because global broadband and cloud based computing systems solve problems that are far reaching and they are problems that will simply make or break the global economy. Its that important, and there are allot of investors that know this. The infrastructure needs building, its just a matter of who will foot the upfront costs. As far as gaming goes the US is the largest market, and we are #17 in the world in broadband speed. So you do the math, trust me, every market that really matters to the gaming market will have it because they are all in the same boat, unlimited broadband is critical to future economic development, it just has to happen.
Until then, your right, people are plenty happy with the current crop of consoles because they are all pretty fantastic (even the 360 when its not on the fritz). But I'm telling ya, mark this post, when they finally announce what they are going to do next, don't be amazed that its a cloud based content delivery system because you saw it here first.
I really believe that. American ISPs are going to fight tooth, claw and nail to keep our infrastructure in the dark ages; it suits their bottom line and philosophy perfectly.
Cliff, I agree with Thrax wholeheartedly on this one; Our broadband infrastructure absolutely sucks. Competing standards, competing companies, no national leadership on the matter, and a freaking ENORMOUS country that just so happens to have two states that are thousands of miles from the mainland. Add to that a group of policymakers who think the INTERNET IS A SERIES OF TUBES, and what you end up with is a nation in the broadband infant stages who is sitting there with a shitty digital diaper while smaller, more progressive, more agile nations leap lightyears beyond us.
Who's the Icrontic optimist of the day,,, this guy... :bigggrin:
We will get it done, because we have to. In a few years we are going to hit a wall on silicon chips. We just wont have a way to make them go any faster. Nanotechnology is the next step, and honestly, thats more in the twenty year time frame than 100 megabit broadband for all. Universal 100 megabit broadband is necessary to advance computing power and re write Moore's law so we don't grind to an economic stand still. Economists know this, world leaders know this, even the bureaucrats that cater to the special interests know this. There are too many potential pitfalls to just ignore the problem.
Trust me, someone is going to flinch. Google may not want to make the infrastructure investments, but have them make a small investment to get into the game, and watch how fast Verizon and AT&T freak out and start upgrading the infrastructure, or effectively make the case that the government needs to have a unified infrastructure project that flows across the same fiber for all networked traffic. I once read a report that the cost for 100 megabit universal broadband access essentially comes down to an investment of a little less than a hundred dollar bill per taxpayer. Sounds massive? Really, when you think about it, its not, its what I pay for two months of Verizon FIOS at 20 megabit.
I don't deny that there are not special interests that are terrified of what the changes might bring to their current business model, but when you weigh all the potential risks of sitting still on this issue (I'm not kidding here, I'm talking total economic meltdown) then it becomes clear, even to the current powers that be that something has to be done.
Its the logical next step in advancing the computing industry. Silicon is nearly tapped out, nano-tech is not ready, so a bigger pipe for the cloud is our only realistic option. It will happen sooner than later because it needs to. Our economic growth depends on it.
Nice to be an optimist but you are missing the big picture. Access, transit and peering & global reach. The technology is not restricted by moores law or any presented limitations in existing DWDM/transmissions systems, it's down to cost. Lots of costs. Costs you don't feel or even see.
1terabit transmission systems exist right now. Beautiful layer 1 optical core transmission systems by ciena, nortel and the like. Accompanying core routers at layers 2 & 3 exist (cisco CRS-3) for wireline and IP routing services. But it's not just about running fiber to your door and giving you a £50 router.
Building a massive transmission network can be done. Great until you look at logistics of permission to dig where no ducting is available. Who owns the fiber if unlit fiber is there? Commercial lease required and not all fiber will belong to a US company wanting to sit in your proposed national consortium. That's at the core of the network.
Contract terms? Who is the designated owner? How do you want to split the ownership? Geographically?
Now consider that all service providers will need to upgrade optical transmission, core routing (P routers), edge routing (PE routers), access loops (copper won't cope so replace all with fiber and HFC mix). Then all peering traffic exchanges need updating. Add in some new submarine cables..... And then ask everyone to agree to take a hit by peering (mutual agreement to swap traffic between autonomous systems) and not sell wholesale transit to each other (wholesale transit is gonna be pricey to get the money back on the hundreds of millions of dollars investment)....
We got a little off topic, with my "pie in the sky" predictions about broadband, but lets just see if we agree on this.
OnLive did this with pretty crappy broadband, even with compression artifacts, aren't we all pretty impressed? From a technical standpoint this is pretty impressive stuff.
That was more or less where I meant to go with it, if they can do this today with crappy broadband, just imagine what the future will bring. It will get there I say sooner, some say later, but it will happen. Just look at what they did here with crap tools? Its very impressive (at least to me).
I've been playing Borderlands for a couple of weeks now on 2 different systems, and haven't noticed any significant issues with either of them:
System 1: C2D E7200 (clocked @3.1GHz), 8GB RAM, Radeon 4670, Win7 Ultimate x64
System 2: Dell P4 3.2GHz, 2GB RAM, Intel GMA, Win7 Ultimate x32 (no Aero).
There is no discernible difference in quality during gameplay between the two (aside from System 1's 25" 1080p LCD vs System 2's 17" 4:3 LCD) systems for me.
While I do see artifacting now and then, it's nowhere near as significant as what Brian is seeing, and completely invisible at least 90% of the time.
For a service I won't be paying more than $50 for over the next 2 years (founding member, what?), that's pretty impressive.
Cliff, think outside the box (the 'box' being the USA) and you will see that a prediction of 100Mbps within 5 years is wildly off the mark, certainly on a worldwide scale which is the only scale you can consider when talking about the death of the console.
Until most i.e. nearly everyone in the developed world, people in the world have a super fast connection there is absolutely no chance of the console dying.
One question from me, in the "Is Console Gaming Dead?" article, why does it say "People in rural Wyoming" instead of "People in Arkansas" as in this thread???
primesuspect
Beepin n' BoopinDetroit, MI Icrontian
Comments
Those are NOT crisp like they are running natively at 1080p.
You get blockiness and blurring along edges of objects. It's ugly.
How are we supposed to judge this while watching a video through youtube?
That's why I'm asking to watch it full screen 1080p; the experience that you get from that is the exact same that you get from playing OnLive. I compared the two several different times.
24" 1920x1200 Samsung
It's not an eyesight thing; you either notice it and it bothers you, or you don't.
Consider yourselves lucky. I can't un-see it.
We just need to have reasonable expectations. The average broadband connection in the US is at 3.9 mbps. That goes up, artifacts go away as they can stream more data per frame.
Think about this guys, its AAA 3D gaming on demand, no download, no trip to the store, a consistent experience without hardware, as broadband speeds improve and this concept matures its going to change everything.
Everyone wonders, why no new consoles at E3??? This is why, consoles as we know them today are not the future of gaming content delivery. Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo are already keen to this reality.
Folks, the last generation of console hardware is here, there will never, ever be another dedicated home gaming console. No PS4, no Xbox 720, no Wii 2, nope, this is it. Sure, there may be a box, that gets you online to receive certain constant that operates using certain peripherals, but its all going to be based on this model. It eliminates their inventory expense, it gets rid of the middle man and it gives them real time marketing data, heck in some cases it may get rid of multi-platform development costs. Its a brilliant model for them, there is zero reason why they would want it to continue as it is. Sure, there will be some expense for them up front in developing the cloud, but they all sort of have it now with various online services, and building a super computer does not cost what it used to... Everyone who wants a future in the gaming business will do this.
In fact, I'd bet in ten years, this kind of functionality will just be built into every TV people by. It will just be in the TV, wanna download a game from Nintendo, have their controller, an account and a broadband connection, no need for serious hardware on the client end, it will all be in the cloud.
There will be more consoles. The world does yet have enough edge servers or bandwidth to make this a reality for eleventy billion console gamers.
We are standing at the edge of a broadband revolution and Google wants a cut of everything that runs through it. The investments will be made, broadband speeds will sky rocket and prices for access will fall. Broadband is going to be like a utility that people take for granted.
Do I know exactly how long that will take? I'm not 100% sure, but I think its sooner than later. I really do, call me an optimist, but controlling this infrastructure is going to guarantee decades of outstanding business prospects. Top men are looking into it, top men.....
I guess for games my focus is on different things.
Your list of benefits for cloud-based game computing are all perfectly legitimate. It does offer a consistent experience, extremely fine graphics for a budget, etc etc.
What you fail to realize is why the current console generation we are currently on is having a much longer lifespan than ever before. It's not because there is no more consoles in line. It's because gamers just aren't as demanding for hardware upgrades as they have been before.
Think about it. The jump from the Atari 2600 to the NES was huge. The next leap to the Genesis and the SNES was also big. Then came the leap to 3D, which the PS1 and N64 did an adequate job of. PS2, GameCube, and Xbox brought 3D to a level that looked fairly realistic. The current generation brought it to a whole new level of shine.
But then what? What's next? A few more levels of anti-aliasing? You can't bump the resolution up, 1080p is as high as TVs go right now. You can't up the number of colors on them, either. Sure, you can increase the poly count, maybe have a few more on-screen particle effects. But at the end of the day, the discernible upgrades that the average gamer will notice is dwindling. There are marginal diminishing returns for graphics hardware compared to the visual effect on people.
And that's the reason I keep hearing for why we don't have a newer set of consoles just yet. People paid through the nose for their PS3's, and they aren't quite so willing to plunk down another $600 for the next wave if it came out just a few years later if it's not going to have as noticeable upgrade as before.
Back to "consoles are dead", they aren't. Speaking for myself, I will not buy into a service that is totally dependent on them existing to survive. At least with Steam I can download all the games then go offline if Steam ever died. I like owning physical hardware. I like the idea of going back and playing older classics without paying for them again. Because it's physical and I have it in front of me.
Plus, what about people with poor internet connections? People in Arkansas can still play Final Fantasy XIII just as well as someone in silicon valley. Couldn't have the same thing if games went fully internet-dependent. Even though a good percentage of gamers do have broadband, and some companies may settle for leaving behind potential customers with poor internet solutions, consoles today can still penetrate to get anyone with a TV and live power outlets.
Again, your points about the benefits of cloud-based AAA-title gaming are indeed good. But do not discredit consoles as forsaken so quickly.
This completely ignores my arguments for the business model being better long term.
We have to think about the future here. 100 megabit internet, its going to happen, and I honestly believe (some would say optimistically) that this is going to happen in the next five years, there are just too many good reasons to make the infrastructure investments. If not Google, the fear of them doing it will drive Verizon, AT&T and/or John Q Taxpayer to foot the bill. A competitive economy as a whole is going to largely be dependent on the growth of internet commerce, and the increased computational power that the cloud is going to afford the world. Heck the future of the whole global economy is at stake. When you think about it, its the solution to Moore's law no longer holding weight (a major economic driver the last 30+ years). Scalable cloud computing, for everything, and when people can have it on demand in real time, its going to change everything.
When this happens, the console business model will die because it will no longer be the best model to make maximum profit. Don't think the people at the helm of the gaming industry will be as slow to adapt as the people that run music and film, they will be on the ball and ready to move where the market takes them (its just a more forward thinking bunch), and everyone will make more money by actually charging less because the delivery model will support it on multiple levels. Its going to make everything easier, delivery of content, no hardware to sell as a loss leader, no need to pay a middle man to carry product, no inventory cost, no warranty centers to support millions of red ringed consoles, less development cost, more efficient development systems supported by the same cloud people will play on, its a forward thinking businessman's wet dream. A penny saved is a penny earned. It will make everything better.
Maybe five years is a little optimistic, but if onlive can do this with crappy broadband, what do you think is going to happen in five or ten years? More consoles??? For real???
Everyone is a skeptic when we are talking about real advancement, Itunes had its critics, God, remember the Steam Launch with Half Life 2, the only people that saw the potential were working at Valve, I mean everyone, absolutely everyone hated Steam at first.
I stand by my prediction, consoles as we know them are on their last leg. Now, there may be different competing content delivery systems, but they are all going to leverage this cloud gaming model as soon as there is enough bandwidth to support it. Its not going to take 20 years, because global broadband and cloud based computing systems solve problems that are far reaching and they are problems that will simply make or break the global economy. Its that important, and there are allot of investors that know this. The infrastructure needs building, its just a matter of who will foot the upfront costs. As far as gaming goes the US is the largest market, and we are #17 in the world in broadband speed. So you do the math, trust me, every market that really matters to the gaming market will have it because they are all in the same boat, unlimited broadband is critical to future economic development, it just has to happen.
Until then, your right, people are plenty happy with the current crop of consoles because they are all pretty fantastic (even the 360 when its not on the fritz). But I'm telling ya, mark this post, when they finally announce what they are going to do next, don't be amazed that its a cloud based content delivery system because you saw it here first.
You don't really believe that. Troll harder
We will get it done, because we have to. In a few years we are going to hit a wall on silicon chips. We just wont have a way to make them go any faster. Nanotechnology is the next step, and honestly, thats more in the twenty year time frame than 100 megabit broadband for all. Universal 100 megabit broadband is necessary to advance computing power and re write Moore's law so we don't grind to an economic stand still. Economists know this, world leaders know this, even the bureaucrats that cater to the special interests know this. There are too many potential pitfalls to just ignore the problem.
Trust me, someone is going to flinch. Google may not want to make the infrastructure investments, but have them make a small investment to get into the game, and watch how fast Verizon and AT&T freak out and start upgrading the infrastructure, or effectively make the case that the government needs to have a unified infrastructure project that flows across the same fiber for all networked traffic. I once read a report that the cost for 100 megabit universal broadband access essentially comes down to an investment of a little less than a hundred dollar bill per taxpayer. Sounds massive? Really, when you think about it, its not, its what I pay for two months of Verizon FIOS at 20 megabit.
I don't deny that there are not special interests that are terrified of what the changes might bring to their current business model, but when you weigh all the potential risks of sitting still on this issue (I'm not kidding here, I'm talking total economic meltdown) then it becomes clear, even to the current powers that be that something has to be done.
Its the logical next step in advancing the computing industry. Silicon is nearly tapped out, nano-tech is not ready, so a bigger pipe for the cloud is our only realistic option. It will happen sooner than later because it needs to. Our economic growth depends on it.
Have some faith guys
Lobbying has won.
Nice to be an optimist but you are missing the big picture. Access, transit and peering & global reach. The technology is not restricted by moores law or any presented limitations in existing DWDM/transmissions systems, it's down to cost. Lots of costs. Costs you don't feel or even see.
1terabit transmission systems exist right now. Beautiful layer 1 optical core transmission systems by ciena, nortel and the like. Accompanying core routers at layers 2 & 3 exist (cisco CRS-3) for wireline and IP routing services. But it's not just about running fiber to your door and giving you a £50 router.
Building a massive transmission network can be done. Great until you look at logistics of permission to dig where no ducting is available. Who owns the fiber if unlit fiber is there? Commercial lease required and not all fiber will belong to a US company wanting to sit in your proposed national consortium. That's at the core of the network.
Contract terms? Who is the designated owner? How do you want to split the ownership? Geographically?
Now consider that all service providers will need to upgrade optical transmission, core routing (P routers), edge routing (PE routers), access loops (copper won't cope so replace all with fiber and HFC mix). Then all peering traffic exchanges need updating. Add in some new submarine cables..... And then ask everyone to agree to take a hit by peering (mutual agreement to swap traffic between autonomous systems) and not sell wholesale transit to each other (wholesale transit is gonna be pricey to get the money back on the hundreds of millions of dollars investment)....
... And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
OnLive did this with pretty crappy broadband, even with compression artifacts, aren't we all pretty impressed? From a technical standpoint this is pretty impressive stuff.
That was more or less where I meant to go with it, if they can do this today with crappy broadband, just imagine what the future will bring. It will get there I say sooner, some say later, but it will happen. Just look at what they did here with crap tools? Its very impressive (at least to me).
System 1: C2D E7200 (clocked @3.1GHz), 8GB RAM, Radeon 4670, Win7 Ultimate x64
System 2: Dell P4 3.2GHz, 2GB RAM, Intel GMA, Win7 Ultimate x32 (no Aero).
There is no discernible difference in quality during gameplay between the two (aside from System 1's 25" 1080p LCD vs System 2's 17" 4:3 LCD) systems for me.
While I do see artifacting now and then, it's nowhere near as significant as what Brian is seeing, and completely invisible at least 90% of the time.
For a service I won't be paying more than $50 for over the next 2 years (founding member, what?), that's pretty impressive.
Until most i.e. nearly everyone in the developed world, people in the world have a super fast connection there is absolutely no chance of the console dying.
One question from me, in the "Is Console Gaming Dead?" article, why does it say "People in rural Wyoming" instead of "People in Arkansas" as in this thread???
~Cyrix