FredEffinChopin

I remember that story. A bunch of alive children at the end of it, right? Why would you use that as an example in your argument? It highlights why a similar action taken in a society without guns lying around for the picking has a better outcome than the one that forces a national debate. But I'm more interested in the philosophy itself. "Look, crazy shit happens, what are we supposed to do, make an effort to blunt the effects of crazy shit?" Actually, yeah, that's exactly what we're supposed to do. Police haven't made crime extinct, but we still use them. Seatbelts and drunk driving laws haven't made the road invariably safe, but it sure as hell has saved a lot of lives. Can you think of even ONE other problem for which society goes "Well, since we can't completely eradicate it at its roots, we may as well do nothing. Actually, let's facilitate it."? Once you come up with the answer "no", tell me why you think it is that guns are the exception. Labeling something knee-jerk doesn't necessarily automatically make the reaction wrong. It's actually a knee-jerk reaction to plug your ears as soon as something is identified as a knee-jerk reaction. This isn't exactly a brand new discussion, it's just gotten very heated recently. As I pointed out in the posts that you saw fit to mock before dignifying with a response, the problem is much bigger than Sandy Hook, Sandy Hook was just the last straw.

Agreed. I suppose I should be a bit clear about what I think is reasonable regulation too. The gun show loophole is absurd, and people are cartwheeling through it neatly. The rest of the laws mean nothing at all if people can drive to one of those and load up. It basically exists to circumvent the law and get guns into more people's hands. Once laws can't be danced around, I honestly think that guns & ammo (perhaps an emphasis on the latter) should get some variation of the car treatment. Specifics might include anything from periodic check-ins to refresher courses or even insurance. The point is to treat sales/ownership like the responsibility it is, both on the side of the owner, and on the side of the authorities that determine the legal boundaries on the vendors' side. Which also means that even beyond giant loopholes, the industry could use a healthy dose of policing. I would like to think that the matter of trafficking is already dealt with as it is encountered, but I get the impression that much of the industry has been pretty carefree about the way they do business. That's what I think is a reasonable realm of regulation to work towards in this the US. I wouldn't suggest that we try to outlaw sales or ownership, for many reasons. It's not even worth considering. I generally don't see people suggesting it either, but I see a whole lot of people using the threat of it as a reason to get worked up, which is something I find worrisome. I'm pretty sure that in my (first) long-ass post in here I mentioned the fact that I see the NRA as a huge problem, and what I described is part of the reason why. And that silly (and potentially dangerous) ad with Obama's family. Everything is the hate/fear angle with them, and it seems completely clear to me that they are just endorsing a product. At the expense of whatever the hell it might result in.

I can't take credit for that example. I don't watch him, but I saw a clip of Jon Stewart where he offered it in a similar context. I wish I could find it, because it had a funny graphic to accompany it.

That's the thing about most gun analogies. They usually only apply to very specific situations, and never have a counter for the actual uses that the analogy subject has. It's there to kill.

Can you do a drive-by knifing though, where many people in addition to the targets get killed by crossfire? Can you have crossfire at all? Can you assassinate someone from a grassy knoll? Can you cut steak with a gun?

That's what's going on right now, and I approve of it. As I said, it's long overdue. I was careful to make the distinction in my post though (between mental health issues and the issue of firearms in America), because I think one is being used to muddle the other. We can chase kids with Asperger's around all we want, but they aren't a threat if we maybe put a leash on how freely we let guns go into circulation in the country. "IT" is not an issue of mental health when we're talking about gun violence in America. Mental Health can enter this conversation on some level in the case of mass-killings, and certain single murders, but it speaks nothing for the (how many is anyone's guess) many neighborhoods that are overwhelmed by the criminal element who use them as playground with the assistance of good ol' US steel. It's easy to talk about them as a reason for people to stay armed, but I think it's more relevant to talk about HOW they got that way, and maybe put a stop to it. Mental health also doesn't address the many other situations where guns come into play, or how often they are misused either intentionally, or in the heat of some sort of moment. I think Duke had posted an informative link somewhere in here (I could be mistaken) regarding some of those statistics. The gun conversation is much larger than Sandy Hook, Aurora, and Columbine. Those are only the tip of the iceberg in this unique predicament of ours. What I find most discouraging about how frequently mental illness is thrown in the face of gun-control talk is that there are rarely any comprehensive suggestions on how to pursue that problem (which I feel to be only a part of it, as I said) in regards to gun violence. The blame is just deflected, and the response is "Well, until we figure out how to help the situation on a mental health level, we'd like to just keep selling guns the way we always have in the meantime." It makes it seem a lot like heart of those arguments is rooted in "I want my guns." That's obviously not true for everybody who holds that point of view on the topic (I have friend who don't own or plan to own guns that don't think guns need to be touched), but it's hard for me not to start constructing a stereotype after a while. In any news site I've been to since Sandy Hook that has a lively comment section, any individual I've seen expressing a deep concern for mental health, regardless of whether the article being commented on was gun-related or not, has ended up having a comment history full of apologies for guns. It's a nice concern, and I agree with it. It doesn't mean guns should be absolved of their involvement (in gun violence) completely though, and I certainly don't think it means they should be immune from any kind of regulation whatsoever.

I don't think the NY restrictions are being given enough credit by either side of the discourse. The way I see it though, it's fairly harmless to gun legit owners/purchasers, and has potential to corral some of the loosely regulated areas of the trade that have created giant loopholes for people to exploit. The ammo thing is the easiest to poke at for being ineffective, and for serving as more of a superficial pacifier than an effective change, but I think it can make a small difference. The theory is that having to reload more can prevent one from going on as bad of a spree, and can be the opportunity for someone else to intervene and stop one. An argument can easily be made that it's very rarely going to come into play and make a real difference, but I think that works both ways; It's not really harming anyone who uses weapons recreationally or for self-defense. The ban list of people with certain conditions/history is a given in my opinion, and is overdue. I also think it's reasonable to have background checks for people who are buying ammo, as is keeping tabs on people who are buying crazy amounts of it. Honestly, when you compare guns to cars (since the comparison is used in defense of guns so often), it's FAR easier to buy a firearm illegally than it is a car, and it's because guns sales haven't been as heavily regulated as car sales. That is silly to me. Hell, if I want to sell a game at Gamestop I have to provide ID, divulge my SSID, blood type (and a sample), and next of kin. Not really, but still. It's ridiculous to me that if one takes the right drive to the right spot, they can get a gun without giving up as much info as a Radio Shack customer does for marketing purposes. This is the exact way I see it. You can't even mention helping anyone out in this country nowadays (unless we're talking about banks) without being called a Marxist, liberty-hating, Muslim/Maoist. It's terribly ironic that the people who are being dragged kicking & screaming to accommodate "Obamacare" (when they aren't outright saying "No fucking way") are suggesting public health measures be taken on a federal level to curb the problem of gun violence in America. I have zero problem with the idea of a growing awareness of the needs of people who suffer from any one of the many varieties of mental illness, but it's mostly being brought up as a diversion in this discussion of how we've managed to arm the country (citizen and criminal alike) to the teeth. Nobody gave a rat's ass about them until gun trade/regulation came under heavy scrutiny enough times. Ironically, those same NRA supporters might happily point out to you that much of the gun violence in America is a result of inner-city criminal activity; yet never turn the conversation never turns towards improving those environments. Mental illness is the choice scapegoat because it speaks to the events that have angered the American public to the point of action, and have turned the discussion towards guns. By action, I'm referring to voicing their opinions, which has been a far more effective weapon against our own government than firearms have ever been. So yeah, mental health is something to be given attention to, but it's a public health issue, and only tangentially related to how freely we've been handing out weapons to the country. That (ugly) public health conversation is separate, and in a way has been going on for a while.

It's possible I'm mistaken, but I'm pretty sure Sleeping Dogs has been on sale for several times at around $15 on Steam. I don't know if it's a mistake or what, but as Steam kicks into the "Encore" leg of it's sale, Sleeping Dogs is displaying at $4.49. I jumped right at it, even though I have a borrowed PS3 copy here. Figured I'd give you all a heads up. *edit* It's also the last day to get Hitman: Absoution on PC for $20 on Amazon.

Omfg already... It's been stuck in my head for the past few hours. This game is leaving me no choice but to go back and play some more.

Sometimes youtube doesn't have what you need and you need to take matters into your own hands. http://youtu.be/Vmv2J6sz6j4 I'll prob have to fill in some other gaps from this classic album... Another day.

It's so weird, I had exited twice without any of the usual syncing, and the support page seemed to be down too. I guess it must've been a traffic issue. The last exit got a successful sync in though, and upon reboot, life is back to normal. That was scary for a second there. Thanks man.

Umm... Has anyone else ever seen this with EVERY game they're trying to run? I've seen it a couple of times before, when recovering from a crash (and Steam did crash in the background of Dungeon Defenders last night, though I didn't know until it was time to exit the game), and I just ran the game. This time when I tried to continue one, it seems all my savegame data for that game is gone.... Oh yeah, Merry Christmas.

Your most welcome! That wishlist totally had it coming.

I know I have a knack for missing things right in front of my face, so pardon me if there is a more appropriate thread for this. I want to shoot off my mouth on gun control, and I'm hoping the fact that I'm punning this early is a good sign for the quality of my post. This will be really long, so the thrust of it, if you don't feel like reading is: gun control = good First-off, I'd like to speak about how gun control fits into my personal life, because no matter how much a discussion that a discussion on this topic should be sterile, anyone who holds a position on it is going to question the motive of another person who attempts to speak persuasively on the topic, especially if that person disagreeing with their basic beliefs. I've live in Queens, and have lived in various areas of it in my whole life. It's a large borough with many neighborhoods, almost all of which (in my opinion and experience, as this all will be) are pretty tame when we're talking about that roughest NY has or had to offer. Despite that, as a child and teenager I saw a pretty good number of guns. Sometimes flashed by someone, usually toward someone else. Sometimes passed around a group of awestruck teenagers. Sometimes flashed or aimed at me in a robbery for the money I had (or didn't have, when the laugh was on them once). I was in the 6th grade the first time I saw a gun, briefly, before it was pressed against my forehead, at which point I promptly handed over the $13 that my mother gave me for my graduation cap & gown. My own fault in part, for forgetting to hand it in at school that day. Not much has changed in that respect. It was a harsh first experience, but it at least served to damper every instance that came after, though in fairness they weren't all threatening. Generally speaking, I haven't had any serious trouble in my adult life involving them. Very occasionally I hear of someone I know-of getting shot, and sometimes I'll even come across a scene, such as last week when my block was closed off on one end where a shooting had occurred, and a (pretty cool-looking) investigation was taking place. On even rarer occasions the acquaintance has been the shooter. Most notably this guy, who I wasn't friends with, but was friendly with, and who I saw on a regular basis. A couple of my friends and I used to jokingly call him Luca Brasi, as he was strongly reminiscent of the character as portrayed in The Godfather. If you're seen the wedding scene at the beginning of the movie, you know all you need to know. Also like Luca, he was/is a hulk of a human, and we also used to joke about how we pitied the guy who ever tried to do something wrong to his girlfriend. Part of the joke too, was that he was really nice, at least to everyone I knew. Hell, he used to bring his snowblower down after storms, and take care of all the sidewalks in front of the local stores, no charge. Anyway, I'm rambling, and I'm only at the beginning of this, so let me corral it into a fucking point already. When people talk about "the criminals with guns" that honest citizens need to defend themselves against, we're talking about people who I feel that I am closer to than most of the country is, especially the portion of it that fights the hardest against there being any kind of regulation on the way guns are sold, and which guns are sold in this country. If those guys are worried about me, I'd appreciate it if someone got this message to them ASAP: I'm ok, really. I don't want a gun. I don't have a fantasy of someone pulling a gun on me, and me pulling one on them and saying "So what's it gonna be, chump?" Maybe since the reality of it might be me pulling out my gun and getting a hot one through the eye. I also don't have fantasies of me (or the teachers of this country, as some of the most extreme gun supporters have suggested) turning into a soldier when someone randomly starts firing, and jump-sliding over a desk while headshotting the fiend before his swinging arm manages to aim at me. Maybe because the reality of it might be me fumbling the gun, or missing the guy and hitting the person (it really doesn't have to be a child for us to be concerned about them getting killed, either) behind him. Trained officers in NY have been known to pump an outstanding number of bullets into a single unarmed suspect (with just handguns), so I don't know what the average gun owner's reaction is expected to be when they're simultaneously shocked and frightened, let alone the previously uninterested people who some are suggesting we should arm for safety now. Potentially (though I wouldn't suggest consistently, and it could swing the other way in certain scenarios), that mentality would see a lot of scenes become bloodbaths that would not have been otherwise, and leave a lot more people with the overwhelming burden of guilt that comes from taking an innocent life. Or even a guilty life. Situations that might have been fist fights. A person who hates me or/for what I'm saying but has still read to this point might be fuming about the examples I just gave, because they're not only extreme, but they are using situations that are suggested by the most extreme end of the gun support spectrum. Unfortunately though, that is the problem; that the moderate isn't even represented much anymore. The membership be damned, the leadership will say what the leadership says, and if there was any doubt about it, the NRA proved today that nothing, and this is nothing, will be discussed if it involves even a slight change to the way gun sales and ownership are treated in this country. They will deflect, point fingers, dodge, and incite, but they will not entertain even the slightest possibility that there just might be a connection between the fact of gun violence as a national issue that needs addressing, and the fact that we're armed to the teeth over here. They are an extremely powerful group, and it seems like their leadership currently only has one general goal, which amounts to "hands off my guns." The bottom line is that just about everyone believes in gun control. Unless you're reading this and you think it would be ok for me to buy nuclear weapons (and stuff to shoot them with....), you believe in gun control. Lord knows that this country and the UN are known to police it on a global scale without hesitation, but that's beside the point... kind of. It's arguable (as it's being argued all over the internet right now) that the 2nd Amendment does not intend the right to bear arms to be guaranteed to any particular extent, or in any situation. When it was written, it's pretty safe to say nobody saw this coming. Times have changed, and the same way that horse troughs have become gas stations, muskets have become assault rifles. I can't offer a specific suggestion of where I think our gun laws should end up, but when discussing the 2nd Amendment and why it is so defended, perhaps it's time we reestablished our collective idea of what an armed militia is, or at least what its intended purpose is. I hate to sound like I'm just trying to moot the entire thing in one fell swoop, but every scenario I come up with in which the people might take up arms against the government ends in the people that choose to do so being slaughtered. If there is any kind of coup or defiance or anything like that, it's going to be accomplished with bodies and voices; we have a lot of both. If the military gets involved, we won't be in any gun fights. Unless you have something out of Mordecai's stash, and think you can hit a drone at however-many thousand feet it's flying, the military will kill us with remote controls that might as well have thumbsticks and a start button. I don't like that reality, and if we could be a people that could successfully overthrow the government should the need ever arise, I would have a slightly different stance on this topic. Unfortunately, that ship has sailed, and in the meantime the right to bear arms continues to become increasingly abused over time as we find ourselves in the awkward position of being the only one of the world's most prosperous nations that just can't stop shooting each other. One thing I do know is that the 2nd Amendment doesn't say a word about the NRA. I honestly apologize to any members who might be reading that are offended. I don't lump all gun owners into a group of crazies, and have (admittedly few) relatives and friends who own firearms. The NRA has a face though, and today was clear as air. For the sake of industry (and let's face it, that's all that this, and what the vast majority of our corrupt politics comes down to), the NRA has been using the right to bear arms as a reason to find more ways to sell deadlier weapons to more people. There is a gun culture in this country that I feel they have played a much larger role in facilitating than any video games or lack of supervision that they frantically point at whenever everyone is staring at them. Never mind the fact that a crazy person who doesn't have access to a weapon can't pound more than sand. And then when lax gun laws see illegal guns turning up all over the place, that's more reason to get more guns, to be safe from the criminals that the circulation of guns allowed in the first place. Then when a responsible owner has her gun taken from her before she and many others are murdered by it, they come on TV and take a tough tone on everything but guns, while encouraging... you guessed it. Don't get me wrong, I don't think having police around schools is a bad idea (though armed guards at elementary schools is too much and will never fly), but I think that that should be going on anyway, and the police don't need the NRA's assistance in figuring out how to allocate their force. That's not what the public wants to discuss with the NRA though. I know that many, if not most legal gun owners are responsible people, and it sucks for them to have (arguably, what they feel like) their rights being violated, but that just doesn't hold water anymore; enough bad apples will ruin the bunch. Pardon my saying so, but it didn't take a bunch of children being killed for it to not-hold water, but now there is absolutely no ignoring it for more people than ever. The fact of the matter is that whether we're talking about the NRA, the gun industry at every level, or to some extent gun owners, the gun population have proven that collectively, they are exactly not responsible enough. Do I think the assault weapon ban will change much as far as overall gun violence? Outside of (potentially) mass-killings, probably not, and especially not quickly. But it's excessive, and it's time some kind of measures are taken to regulate it. What I can't understand is why there are so many ways of accessing guns legally through gun shows, or why other loopholes and dishonest business transactions aren't being tracked more closely. I understand that guns are smuggled, but there is no denying that many of these illegal guns that the NRA seem to imply just materialize out of thin air are coming from legal sources. I'm sick of hearing "out of my cold dead hands". That translates to me as "No, you don't have a solution, because WE WON'T FUCKING LET YOU HAVE ONE!" I'm also sick of hearing "Where does it stop, my knife?" Stop it. If it ever gets to the point of an all-out weapon ban in the US, it will be in a long time, and it will be because society has worked itself towards that, not because of overnight legislation. Every time I hear silly arguments though, it highlights the length to which the gun culture is aware of it's role in this problem. Just some fucking acknowledgment. Some regulation. Some concern for something other than your fucking right to own a gun, even if it infringes on freedoms of speech by demonizing the media and the artistic community. While a world without guns in the street is a fantasy in my mind, I wouldn't propose that we just start yanking everyone's guns from them. I do think it's time that gun enthusiasts start examining the cost of their "freedom" on society though, and estimate its value against it, instead of angrily denying that there might be a problem. I have enough reason to fear gun violence, and feel I have a better chance of getting hit by a bullet that a good deal of the country. Still though, I walk pretty much anywhere. If my destination is a rough area at 3am, I walk right on in, and it's not that I'm tough or brave, or any of that. I get scared, but I'm not going to let fear push me to do something that I could well wind up regretting. I keep a baseball bat at home, and sometimes think of how futile it would be if someone were to break in with a gun, but I'd rather take the risk than live life with a pistol under my bed. Perhaps I'll buy a stun gun one day, or some shit. Progress! hehe. Ok, I think I'm done.

Was rushing when I posted earlier, and hadn't read the thread and noticed this hehe. It's my pleasure, I'm very appreciative of the effort, and I probably speak for most, if not all of us when I say that. Oh, and: Dean, you truly are Santa, and not just a skeleton in his clothes Thank you kindly, sir.

Woohoo! Thanks a bunch Dean! I should be doing some work before I go to work, but eff all that noise. I have to procrastinate at least a little bit today with Sine Mora. Now it's Christmas!

Aww, Big Picture Mode has snowflakes falling in the background in celebration.

I don't see why there isn't room for another living room experience. Everyone has to start somewhere, and while Valve isn't the household name that Apple is, they certainly have made their bones in the video game world. There are far crazier choices for someone to sneak into living rooms from behind. As far as being invested in a console, I'v been invested in my PS3 since 01/07, and it didn't stop me from growing a large Steam library quickly. Once I had a (dedicated, as in to my TV) setup that I felt could run things, at least. There have been solutions, or *a* solution, which is to hook a PC up to a TV. That connection in itself hasn't been the sole deterrent to stop console gamers from playing PC games (the idea of having a platform for a kb/m is a more likely individual deterrent than making the connection, IMO), though, and I believe Valve understands that now, and is trying to bring a new audience within their reach. It sounds like your argument right now is against the practicality and/or wisdom of a Steambox, or that people don't need/want a Steambox when they should have already gotten involved in the PC. You might have a point and end up being right as far as demand for this type of product goes, but you might be underestimating it too. The same way Valve released BPM long after people started PC-gaming on TVs, only to find that the demand was not only there, but far stronger than they expected it to be; so much so that it has pushed them into talking about hardware for the first time. I know offering myself and some people I know as examples might not seem like much when making an argument for the existence of a potential market, but something is definitely going on here. It seems like I'm not that isolated of a case, and there is kind of a demand from people who are or would like to PC-game on a couch. Yes, and I've done exactly that before, but then we're talking about upgrading PCs again, which is not the context in which I brought up the crappy hardware. We were talking about how simply an affordable rig can be obtained by someone who is not comfortable tinkering around inside of a PC. I was saying that affordable pre-built setups are often too crappy for gaming, expensive ones are expensive, and custom one requires someone willing to build it for you. As far as Valve selling hardware at cost/loss, it doesn't seem quite that ridiculous to me. I think the potential difference between Vale and other suppliers isn't that Valve can work out a more economic approach to getting a unit together, but that they don't need to manufacture it with the purpose of making a profit on the hardware. Dell and HP will sell you scrap for $400, and while I can't say this with authority, I'd assume that any Alienware rig is sold for far more than the sum of its parts' cost, fancy casing and all. The hardware sale is the beginning and end of that transaction, though. While the math you presented paints an admittedly bleak picture, it is using the PS3s cost/retail. As you said, the new blu ray technology was a large part of that, as well as the EE and the cell, while Valve's box would (theoretically) be working within an existing framework. I don't think they would have to incur a $300 loss in order to offer a capable machine. As far as the DD cost discrepancy between them & Sony, I can't offer an explanation as to the why of it, but I can say that as it stands, Steam seems to be making Valve money. I can't imagine the business model would last otherwise, discounts and all, if it wasn't keeping them rich. I'd also say that with the gift-giving that goes on in Steam, the average $ brought in per user likely goes up exponentially. I'm totally guessing there, I don't really know. It's working for them somehow, though. Which I guess is what's at the heart of my optimism. Why would they take on hardware at all if it didn't seem like it would end up being profitable? The announcement could just be a knee-jerk reaction to the positive response of BPM, but I'm more hopeful that they have something smart in mind. Gabe seems to be thinking it'll happen within the next year too, which makes it sound to me like he has something in mind that is in the realm of concrete. It's possible that it could wind up being totally underwhelming, and that'll suck if it is. I feel like they are well-poised (time-wise) to do something that shakes things up though. I hope they take advantage of it properly, assuming that they can.

Bang for the buck. Generally, already-built PCs that are worth anything game-wise aren't especially affordable. A reasonably-priced Dell (or similarly branded) PC struggles to play games that are old for the time it's released; I've tried. Many of these things have integrated graphics that you can't really do a whole lot with. While the "Steambox" might not be a console per se, I think the whole point of releasing one, and with coming out with BPM, is to streamline the experience for people, and make as accessible as a console. Steam itself (in its way) unifies the gaming platform, BPM makes it available in an environment that doesn't require a kb/m, and the Steambox gives a solid price point at which buyers can be confident that it'll run everything. Also, I'd imagine that I Steambox would aim to go even a step further and be entirely controller-friendly. Of course we don't know that yet, but I think it would be a really smart move if they can swing it. It effectively is a console if they do that, and can appeal to a broader audience. *EDIT* @FDS I feel like my use of the term was pretty clear in its purpose, but I see your point. I have mostly used it to designate a type of gamer, rather than a type of game though; and in turn, reference games that appeal to the experienced gamer as "hardcore". In other words, yes, I equated hardcore with non-casual. If we're talking about how hardcore a game can be, then perhaps I am throwing the word around a bit liberally.

@Ethan Yeah, I'm sure you're right about a huge portion of the library not supporting controllers, especially older titles. The newer stuff does largely support it though, enough so that I've barely touched my kb/m in-game @FDS My point isn't to sit here and make claims about what is included under the umbrella of "hardcore". Perhaps the people feel like ME is a bit hand-holdy, but I mention it because it's certainly within the sights of what is called a hardcore gamer's interest; the series if not the game. My point is that she plays plenty of games that aren't marketed towards her, or treated as mom games in some way. @TN That same argument would go for any console-owner who decides to start gaming on the PC (if one is looking for reasons not-to game on the PC), so I'll offer myself as an example. The sales were the #1 deciding factor for me, but there are also a good deal of games that wouldn't be available to me on the PS3, and since most of those on Xbox are also on PC, it made sense for me. It's mainly the cheap games, though.

Because it's easier to play a game than it is to put together a PC to play one. I never said that she plays Farmville. She plays plenty of titles designated as "hardcore" (I believe she is playing Mass Effect 3 atm). Not well, but she plays and enjoys them. She's never thought about a Steam console, and never will if it isn't brought to her attention. I might buy it for her though, if it seems to be something that might be suited to her. She appreciates cheap and plentiful games just like anyone else.

I wasn't going to mention her on a forum, but to drive a point home that nobody seems to want to acknowledge: My mother does some gaming. My mother cannot program her favorites channels on cable; I assure you, she cannot assemble a PC. I need to check on her PC periodically just to make sure that she hasn't ruined it by interacting with it on a software level. It's a disaster. She's not an isolated case either. She's not an idiot by any means, she's a professional, educated woman. It's just not within the spectrum of her experience, and it's unlikely that she's about to start learning; certainly not for the possibility of playing more games. She has never had the realistic option of PC gaming, in other words. I didn't need to go to an extreme by bringing her up, as I have friends my age who are similarly unequipped for such activity (and as I don't like opening my mother up to discussion), but again, I want to drive the point home that there are definitely entry-level requirements to PC gaming that many people cannot, and likely will not meet. Those people have traditionally gamed on consoles. BPM does some of the job of bridging that gap by creating an interface with which you don't need a physical platform in front of you (for the kb/m) to interact with your games library in a living room setting. If a Steam platform were to release that behaved like a console, they will have succeeded in making themselves available to an entire new audience that has been sitting under their noses all along.