It’s the second part of that dynamic I want to talk about for a second, because as much as it pains the studio, used games are a big help for consumers. Even a brand new title purchased used is still 8-16% off the new price, and older titles sink even further in price.

But if Gamestop goes the way of Blockbuster, and succumbs to the digital age where everything is sent directly to your console, will consumers have any choice BUT to pay full price for games?

At first, the answer would seem to be no. If physical copies of games cease to exist (and within ten years I predict they will), then how does one buy one used? The consumer will be forced to pay full price for every title.

Or will they?

I think there’s a market here that has yet to be smashed open to any significant degree by anyone. Something Netflix, Redbox, Blockbuster and even Gamestop are circling, but no ones figured it out quite yet.

The demand for video game rental is huge. Far larger than anyone realizes. But unfortunately, because there is SO much demand, the supply for such a service is, for lack of a better term, complete shit.

The only real way to rent games now are through Blockbuster, which has about a 10% chance of having the game you want if it’s been released within the last two months, or GameFly, who will impress you greatly by giving you a few games in a timely fashion, but soon it will take weeks or months to get any title you want on the top of your queue.

Good in theory, not in practice.

There is a great need for a timely delivery rental system of games, be it through the mail or via direct download. Mail would be a tricky concept to execute, as Netflix’s “keep it as long as you want” philosophy wouldn’t work here. You’ll probably get around to watching a two hour movie in a week or so, but it’ll probably take you the better part of a month to put in 20-40 hours to beat certain video game titles. This would result in the same shortage that makes Blockbuster’s shelves empty or Gamefly’s lines long.

Rather, I believe in the future rentals should be done via download. If streaming gameplay becomes more of a reality (we’ll see if OnLive delivers), it could be done that way, with a time limit that a player must “insert coins” figuratively speaking if they’d like to keep playing.

The other way to do it, is a kind of self-destructing download, where the game would sit on a player’s hard drive until the rental time period was up. This would seem to be the best solution, but once you start downloading games, piracy becomes an immediate concern. The console industry has avoided mass piracy successfully unlike the movie, TV and music industries because it requires so much more work to execute. You must download and burn games (an ordeal in itself) and then illegally modify your console, the result of which can mean your banishment from your system’s internet forever if you’re discovered, successfully turning your system into a $300 brick.

There isn’t an easy answer to this problem, but it is one that needs answering. The $60 price point for games that’s been unfairly established by a conglomerate of huge corporations is nothing short of price fixing, and there needs to be an alternative to that, whether it’s through used games (which we see currently) or rentals (a market that will hopefully continue to develop effectively).

So to answer my original question, do we need Gamestop? As the industry changes quickly, unless they capitalize on new distribution methods, the answer is no, we won’t, even if used games become a thing of the past. Soon people who still cling to the belief that they need a physical copy of something will be looked at as dinosaurs by the next generation. After the disc, there will be no new physical format, only files and bits of data. The sooner the industry and the public realizes this, the better.

Alright, not really, as these conclusions should be obvious to anyone without a marketing degree. Girls are tired of games being sold to them in a way that appeals to a preconceived notion of what “girliness” is. In fact, they say they wouldn’t mind a little more violence in their titles either.

The study, from Belgium’s Ghent University, found girls were frustrated that there were not enough games designed for their tastes and wanted easier-to-use controls.

Girls reported they enjoyed mildly graphic violent games and were sick of games that were marketed to them like they were interested only in “kittens and pink ribbons”.

Sadly there were no results that boys are interested in anything other than grizzled space marines, so presumably every game aimed at them will still feature those.

I think that besides the violence issue, the note about simpler controls is something to note as well. I’ve tried to teach a range of different girlfriends how to play a first person shooter like Halo or Call of Duty. Even ones that claimed to be “veteran” players of more old school games like those for the SNES, Genesis or 64 could not grasp this new control system of “one stick moves your head, one stick moves your feet.” They’d often just end up staring at the sky, spinning around, or moving awkwardly, only able to employ one stick or the other at a time.

I don’t mean to suggest that all girls are unable to perform such motions, as I’m sure they could all learn if they didn’t get frustrated and quit on me immediately, but it does speak to the rise of “casual” games which have more easy to use controls with only zero or one joysticks to worry about. New players, male or female, are more likely to grasp that kind of scheme quickly.

As for girls wanting their games to grow up, I can’t blame them for that, and someday, I dream of a world where we can put gender differences aside and all frag in harmony.

They’ve done away with anonymity in their forums completely, and in the future, all posting MUST be made using the members RealID, ie. their actual first and last name they inputted with their CD Key when they installed the game. They maintain that the boards have grown too rife with trolls and flamewars, and they believe this move will effectively stomp all that out. Needless to say, this drastic move is…controversial.

Here’s the official word they put out on the forums yesterday:

The first and most significant change is that in the near future, anyone posting or replying to a post on official Blizzard forums will be doing so using their Real ID — that is, their real-life first and last name — with the option to also display the name of their primary in-game character alongside it. These changes will go into effect on all StarCraft II forums with the launch of the new community site prior to the July 27 release of the game, with the World of Warcraft site and forums following suit near the launch of Cataclysm. Certain classic forums, including the classic Battle.net forums, will remain unchanged.

The official forums have always been a great place to discuss the latest info on our games, offer ideas and suggestions, and share experiences with other players — however, the forums have also earned a reputation as a place where flame wars, trolling, and other unpleasantness run wild. Removing the veil of anonymity typical to online dialogue will contribute to a more positive forum environment, promote constructive conversations, and connect the Blizzard community in ways they haven’t been connected before. With this change, you’ll see blue posters (i.e. Blizzard employees) posting by their real first and last names on our forums as well.

I have to be honest, my first, initial, unadulterated reaction to this news was glee. Why? For years now, I’ve been writing with my real name for the various media outlets I work for including this one, and in return for expressing my ideas and having them attached to my own name (in on True/Slant, face), I’ve been endlessly flamed with personal insults from commenters hiding under the veil of a fake username and e-mail address.

It doesn’t seem fair that I put myself out there every day with my writing, only to routinely be torn down by anonymous idiots who I have no recourse against. I’ve long dreamed of an internet utopia where everyone is responsible for what they say, leading to a much more civilized discourse overall. Have you ever read the comments of ANY YouTube video? It’s like if a horny thirteen year old boy was genetically spliced with homeless man with Tourettes. Surely, by forcing users to post only with their real name, stupid people would keep their mouths shut, and the internet would instead be filled with intelligent debate and thoughtful contribution instead of trolling and profanity.

But it didn’t take me long to realize that was just a fantasy, and instead the idea of taking anonymity away from the internet would have very serious consequences for everyone.

If we even just examine the Blizzard situation for a few seconds, problems jump out of the woodwork immediately. Among them:

- Job Hunting: A potential employer could immediately be turned off by the mere fact that you are in fact a gamer, as evidenced by your posting on a World of Warcraft board about raids and mounts and loot drops. It may not be fair, but many companies will have an innate bias against such people, as gamers are still a much maligned segment of the population, despite how much the demographic has grown. A simple Google search could cost you a job just because of a harmless leisure activity you enjoy just because you look like a dork.

Yes, I love this game, but I don't necessarily want the world to know that.

- Vengeance: Many disputes in a game can get people extremely worked up in real life. With the availability of real names, hunting someone down IRL (in real life) would get much, much easier, and I doubt it would be long before virtual conflict led to physical retribution in a way that could range from sending 100 pizzas to you house to actually murdering you in their sleep. And I guarantee both would happen at some point.

- Girls: You think it’s hard to find a girl playing Starcraft now? Just wait until they’re all chased away by the fact that they must now publically reveal their sex to the entire community by using their real name. If you think sexual harassment will be stamped out entirely by this new policy (as the men must use their real names as well), think again, the reverse would likely be true and the potential for real-world stalking grows infinitely higher under these new rules, even if the female in question is merely trying to be an active participant in the community.

A girl? GET HER!

- Slippery Slope: If this policy did catch on with other sites with forums and comments, it seems like the first step in a big brother policy of internet usage monitoring. A Google search would turn up a complete list of the sites you frequent and communities you participate in, and some would surely have info you wouldn’t want others to see.

And that’s really a big issue. I used anonymity as a negative when describing commenters earlier, who use the privilege to insult and slander freely. But what about the flipside of that? What about someone who uses that freedom to say something that’s on their mind and close to their heart, but would never do so if their name was attached to it? What if a closeted liberal in Alabama wants to post anti-war sentiments on a CNN news post without his family seeing? What if the son of hippie parents wants to express his love for automatic firearms on a gun forum without a lecture? Yes, we might slay the trolls, but at what cost to the civilian population?

This issue is splitting many on the internet, and even within Blizzard’s forums. Yes, the majority opinion is that this is an awful idea for many of the reasons I’ve listed above. But some have had enough with the flamewars and think desperate measures like this are in order. Will this work? Honestly, I don’t think so. The official comment boards will whittle down to the die-hard few, with hardly anyone willing to put themselves out there with the veil lifted. Blizzard’s mods will have an easier job, as their community will simply pick up and move to the trillion other sites that still have anonymity intact.

When it comes down to it, I think anonymity is necessary for the internet, even if it does mean venomous comments and idiocy. There’s always the delete and ban buttons after all, and this just seems like a bunch of Blizzard moderators tired of doing their jobs. Jobs that will now not exist after the entire community jumps ship.

I’ve gotten used to the negative comments over the years, and by now they’re just white noise. And really, we may think we have true freedom of speech in this country, but we don’t, not consequence free at least. Anonymity is really the only way to truly let us say anything at all, good, bad or otherwise, and that is a freedom I don’t think we should be forced to give up. Combine this with a set of very real safety and privacy concerns, and this is just a bad policy on every level.

Stay tuned to see how Blizzard handles the backlash.

But with little else to do, I must continue reflecting on Sony’s Move and Microsoft’s Kinect, the two pieces of technology that are essentially replacing the need for a new console generation. At least according to their creators.

As I think about it more and more though, I have to wonder how either system believes it’s going to be a success in the current console climate, and who exactly they’re thinking will be supporting this new technology.

The way I look at it, there are four main groups of people that make up the vast majority of the market who will all not buy Move or Kinect for different reasons.

The Family that Only Owns a Wii – Their kids aren’t that into video games, or else they’d have other consoles. They bought a Wii thinking that it would be a good family activity, but now rarely play it.

Why won’t they bite? – If they don’t care much for gaming to begin with, do you think they’ll really drop $500 for a console, a motion control system and a game? Though these people might have bought into the motion control gimmick initially, you won’t fool them twice.

The Hardcore Gamer – These are the kinds of people (like myself) who own either a PS3 or 360 already, and have been laughing at the Wii for years, or bought one a long time ago for Super Smash Bros. or Mario Galaxy and have not really played it since.

Why won’t they bite? – They think that some of the tech is decently cool, such as voice controlling a DVD with Kinect or complete 1:1 movement with Move, but with the current slate of upcoming games for both devices being mainly Wii Sports clones and dancing titles, there’s no reason to drop $150 at this point. But even once games we like start employing the tech, it’s going to be hard justifying why they’d rather play Gears of War in mime for hours on end rather than simply using a controller.

Yeah, how long can you keep that up?

The Family Who Owns a Wii AND Another Console – It’s clear this tech is aimed mainly at families, so we’ll head back in that direction. Some families are more gaming oriented, and they might actually have sprung for more than one console for their kids

Why won’t they bite? – This might be the group most likely to buy either piece of tech, but I don’t think it will work. If they already own a Wii, it’s going to be hard to justify paying the extra cash for something that is really only a slight upgrade to their existing motion control set-up.

The Non-Console Owner – A family or an individual who has avoided the entire new generation of consoles. Either they’re still rocking an N64 or a PS2, or they just don’t have an interest in games, and Microsoft and Sony are hoping their “anyone can play” systems will lure them in.

Why won’t they bite? – If they weren’t seduced in by the sensation that was the Wii sweeping the nation with its promise of video games for all, they won’t drop double the cash for a similar system now.

So who does that leave? I really only see two groups who will buy either system.

The Hardcore Gamer/Technophile – The gamer with a bit of cash in his pocket who wants to have all the latest tech, regardless of how much he actually uses it a month from now. Has all three consoles already, might as well get all the latest add ons for them.

The Family with Only a 360 or PS3 – Since they don’t have a Wii, they figure it might be a good way to turn their son’s 8 hour Call of Duty binges into family time by purchasing Kinect or Move for a more casual experience. But if they hadn’t gotten a Wii by this point, I don’t think they have much interest in casual gaming, and the parents are content to let their kids do their own thing.

It's totally different, we swear!

But even if these two groups jump on Move and Kinect, the sales of either aren’t going to approach anything close to the numbers the Wii has managed to put up.

This begs the question, how far are Sony and Microsoft willing to go with this tech? Do they truly believe that motion controls are the future of gaming? Will they devote massive amounts of time and resources to make sure that all future games start to move toward using that tech instead of say, focusing on building an entirely new console?

And I think that last part is really the answer. We need a new console generation, or for at least a new console generation to be announced. The Xbox 360 came out in 2005, and it’s clear we’re going to head into 2011 without even a hint that a new version of the 360 or any other console is on the way.

I just don’t see myself, or many gamers like me, ever springing for this tech as an add-on. But make it a standard part of an entirely new console with massive processing power and next-level graphics, and I’m on board, I’d pay $400-$500 for that.

Motion controls have unfortunately stalled what should be the natural evolution of video games, and now we’re actually moving backward in terms of progress. Yes, the tech is a step forward in a lot of ways, but the games themselves are three steps back, and are little more than minigames or party activities at this point. I’m not saying there isn’t a market for that, but it can only take you so far. And once motion controls become a MANDATORY part of our favorite games (like in the upcoming Wii Zelda title), there might be something of a revolt within the industry.

Sony and Microsoft, just be careful not to put all your eggs in one basket. As you’re flailing your arms and legs around in your living room, you might knock it over and crack them all open.

There were two big stories this year at E3, one of them is motion controls, a subject I have beaten to death with a Wiimote for a while now, and the other is 3D. I actually think 3D, when properly done, would be a cool addition to many games, but there are currently two directions the industry is taking with the format.

I want to first examine Sony, which is releasing 3D games in conjunction with their new line of 3D TVs that will be on sale shortly. But since the tech is new, just how much will you need to spend to properly play 3D games in your living room?

40 inch Sony LED LX900 TV ~ $3,000 est.
1 pair TDG-BR100 3D glasses – $133
1 TMR-BR100 IR emitter – $55
1 Playstation 3 – $300
1 copy of Killzone 3 – $60

And if you want a second player?

1 pair TDG-BR100 3D glasses – $133
1 Dualshock 3 controller – $55

And if you want Sony Move capability?

1 Move controller – $50
Second half of Move controller – $30
Sony Eyetoy – $30

And for two players?

1 Move controller – $50
Second half of Move Controller $30

So, final rundown:

3D for just you – $3,548
3D for you and a friend – $3,736
3D with Move for just you – $3,658
3D with Move for you and a friend – $3,871

Give or take a few hundred for when the final price of the 3D capable TV is released.

I understand that Sony is trying to go after early adopters with 3D, and someday, 3D TV will probably be the norm at the current pace, but all of these price tags are far beyond anything the vast majority of gamers can afford, and I have a hunch that they might be in for a world of hurt when all this stuff is launched initially. And people really do still hate those glasses.

Which brings me to my second set of numbers. Nintendo showcased the 3DS at their E3 keynote, a 3D version of their DS that doesn’t require glasses to create a 3D effect, presumably because it is powered by magic.

So how much will it take to experience 3D tech from Nintendo?

1 3DS – $249

That’s it. That price point I estimated, as it hasn’t been officially announced, but Nintendo has never debuted a system above that price, and due to their mountains of cash from Wii and DS sales so far, I highly doubt they’ll start now.

Yes, it’s true, this is a handheld and Sony’s is on a giant screen in your living room, but the price disparity does not narrow that enjoyment gap to a level that makes the PS3’s 3D seem reasonable. Careful Sony, you might be in over your heads here.

[numbers via Engadget]

So far, only Nintendo can really claim that crown. It’s motion control innovation in the Wii, followed by its massive sales year after year have turned the industry on its head, and has Microsoft and Sony both scrambling to catch up.

Now both companies are in full swing with their own variants of the tech. Sony’s Move is more or less a more accurate rendition of the Wiimote, with one to one arm tracking via a camera and a glowing ball on a button-filled stick. Microsoft is going one level past that by ditching the controller entirely, creating a tracking system called Kinect which allows players to communicate with their Xbox and its games and features wirelessly using their entire body.

I reached a breaking point with this tech quite early on, during Microsoft’s keynote. Two players were demonstrating the Kinect equivalent of Wii Sports, and two players were about to do a sprint race against each other. Now, an event like this one the Wii would have players furiously shaking their remotes up and down to get their characters to haul ass down the track, but not so with Kinect.

No, both players busted into a full-on sprint in place, furious pounding the stage and jumping decently high into the air whenever they ran into a hurdle. By the end, the guy beat the girl, but both looked utterly exhausted.

This begs the obvious question, if this is what games are becoming, why not just go outside and sprint against your friend down the pavement? The answer is because that is something that no one really wants to do, and therefore I can’t imagine why anyone would want to do the exact same thing in their living room.

But this opens up a broader question about the future of gaming. It’s clear that every console wants to move toward motion controls for even “legitimate” games (ones that don’t have little cartoon Avatars playing fake sports in them). This was demonstrated most notably with Nintendo’s new Zelda adventure, “Skyward Sword,” where players literally pretend their controller is Link’s sword and shield, and must swing and parry like they were actually in a real sword fight.

This trend is probably good for childhood obesity rates, but we have to think about what its impact will be on gaming itself. Surely, companies want people to be playing their titles as much as possible, but while I used to sink in fifty hours to a Zelda game barely even thinking about it, if I have to mime my way through the whole thing, I’m going to have to take a nap every hour or so to keep up.

I have to wonder about when this tech goes fully mainstream in the industry, when all games are controlled by a player’s entire body and 3D makes the experience even more immersive. Surely this is probably at least 5-10 years away when ALL games would follow this format, but I do see that day coming, for better or worse.

What will it do to, or for the industry? Will video games spearhead a physically fit transformation of our nation? Or will gamers get fed up, and turn to good old fashioned television and movies as a leisure activity where you’re still actually allowed to lie on the couch?

I’m not sure, and once this tech hits for all three consoles, I’ll be patiently waiting to see if there’s any sort of backlash associated with it. All the new systems are quite expensive, and all these demos have done nothing to convince me the tech is truly worth buying yet. Make real games, not merely “living room activities” and you might catch my interest. Otherwise, I’ll be on my couch.

Talented? Sure. An athlete? Far from it

There are a number of people in the gaming community that would argue that top pro players have tuned their bodies and reflexes to such a degree, they should be considered on par with actual athletes. With the amount of coordination and speed that goes into professional play, I can see how this claim might be made, unfortunately, when put to the test, it turns out it’s pretty far from true.

Dr Dominic Micklewright, from the University of Essex, put several ”elite cyber-sportsmen” through their paces to see how they compared to professional athletes.

The head of Sport, Performance, and Fatigue Research Unit also wanted to determine whether video gaming should be classed as a sport.

The cyber-sportsmen had mental sharpness and psychological traits comparable to ‘real’ athletes, and reacted to visual stimuli almost as fast as fighter jet pilots.
But their fitness levels were shockingly low and comparable to people either much younger or much older than their actual age.

One of the test subjects appeared to be a healthy and trim individual, but when put to the test, he had the lung function and fitness rankings of a smoker in his sixties. The reason for this should be pretty obvious. Though mental and hand dexterity are off the charts for pro gamers, there is nothing about gaming at all that is actually exercise for more than one or two parts of the body, unless you happen to be a professional Dance Dance Revolution champion.

The researchers agreed that high level gaming requires a great deal of physical and mental skill, like pro sports, but because of what’s actually demanded of the gamer’s body, there’s nothing that gets them anything remotely close to being in good shape, and because of their sedentary lifestyle, are actually far less healthy than an average active person their age.

The moral of the story? Buy a Wii.

Just kidding. Go outside.

[via Telegraph]

One such example would be that of a young Norwegian boy, who saved his sister’s life during a wild animal attack using skills he learned in World of Warcraft.

Hans and his sister got into trouble after they had trespassed the territory of the moose during a walk in the forest near their home. When the moose attacked them, Hans knew the first thing he had to do was ‘taunt’ and provoke the animal so that it would leave his sister alone and she could run to safety. ‘Taunting’ is a move one uses in World of Warcraft to get monsters off of the less-well-armored team members.

Once Hans was a target, he remembered another skill he had picked up at level 30 in ‘World of Warcraft’ – he feigned death. The moose lost interest in the inanimate boy and wandered off into the woods. When he was safely alone Hans ran back home to share his tale of video game-inspired survival.

Granted, both taunting and playing dead would probably be taught to him in the Boy Scouts, but hey, it’s nice to know that some skills transcend both the real world and the virtual one.

Sadly, the next time he was out in the woods, and Hans tried to summon a fireball to blast away a bear, he was tragically eaten and dropped no loot.

[via NextNature]

It was yesterday that I found myself running around in circles in a backlot in Rundown during a game of Modern Warfare 2. I stopped, and then asked myself, “what the hell am I doing?”

What was I doing? I was trying to crank out the last few miles of the “Lightweight” perk, which mandates that players sprint for 250 miles in order to unlock a little callsign logo that lets everyone know that they ran for 250 miles. I thought doing this in regular games was taking too long, so I just thought I’d bust out the last few miles by just sprint around in the middle of nowhere. Yes, it’s completely ridiculous.

But this is when I realized, are achievements ruining gaming?

There’s no better example of this than in Modern Warfare 2. The game is laid out with pages upon pages of achievements to complete with different guns, different killstreaks and even once in a lifetime scenarios are listed as things you’re supposed to “accomplish.” You could spend your entire life trying to drop a care package crate on someone for the game winning killcam, but you’re probably more likely to get struck by lightning or win the lottery first.

It just seems like people play games less now for fun and more so about what they can accomplish. And this extends far beyond Call of Duty. Grand Theft Auto has secret packages, Assassin’s Creed has hidden flags and the king of them all, Just Cause 2 has an absolutely insane amount of shit to find and/or destroy in the death march toward 100% completion and a few hundred gamerscore points.

I think that Xbox 360s achievement system was the harbinger of all this, as it’s now spawned the similar PS3 trophy system. Before if you did achieved some spectacular feat in a game, that was it. You beat the game on insane, you found all the hidden whatevers, and you felt good for doing it and maybe a few of your friends were impressed.

But now, by making it public record for EVERYONE to see, gamers are now pushed harder than ever to complete menial tasks to receive menial rewards, be they meaningless points or new titles or logos they can use to brag to other internet randoms about how good they are.

"I could shoot him now, or I could crouch behind this table and shoot him through it so I get an FMJ kill which I need to unlock that title! Oh shit I'm dead."

Far too often in Modern Warfare, I find myself yelling, “Ughhh, this gun BLOWS.” The obvious question would be, why are you using it? Well because I need two hundred more kills to get a little banner that shows everyone else how much I use this gun. Which I hate.

Why? Why am I doing these things? I’ve long since felt like I was avoiding the grind of games like World of Warcraft, where people play for days on end to get virtual items that have no real value, but alas, the grind has worked its way into nearly ALL mainstream games, and try as I might, I can’t avoid it, as the philosophy of “grind toward reward” is a psychological concept that it’s nearly impossible to escape from.

I flash back to the days of playing endless hours of Super Smash Bros. or Goldeneye with my friends in my basement. There was nothing to be gained. After the first fifty hours, nearly everything had been unlocked, and there was no “reward” motivation to keep playing. But we poured thousands of hours into those titles, and received something better than callsigns or gamerscore points. Enjoyment. We didn’t worry about getting 500 homerun kills with Jigglypuff or getting 250 headshots with the Golden Gun. We would just play to kick each other’s asses, and have fun while doing it.

Some games still posses that kind of fun, but the last one I can really remember is Halo 3. Sure, there are achievements, but they’re nothing compared to the “job” Call of Duty has become. Team Fortress 2 is similar for online multiplayer and even the Wii, for all its faults, doesn’t have this kind of reward system for most of its games. At least not yet.

You know what the worst part is? No one is making us do these things. I could easily just pick my favorite gun, and play till kingdom come not worry about any of these other achievements and titles I’m not earning.

But I can’t. For reasons seemingly beyond my control, I can’t escape from the fact that I WANT to keep earning these unlockables, and pouring in the hundreds of hours it takes to get to 10th Prestige. But when I get there, will it be because I had so much fun playing the game, or because it was just a goal that could be achieved given enough time and button pressing?

I’m not sure, and honestly, this is why I can’t quite figure out if I like Call of Duty, or if it’s just flipped a switch in my brain that keeps compelling me to play it. And the same goes for a lot of other titles these days.

I think I need a break. Anyone up for some Smash Bros.?

Because of his distaste for gaming, I fully support the use of an Xbox controller to make fun of him, even if I don’t exactly agree with the points being made. Which button vacuums up oil spills? We should probably look into that one.

[via TobyToons]