SeriouslyNow

In short the sales are down by some 10-11% and it's because of tablets.

Wow, a whole 10%? Shocking! And this is while Windows 8 has flopped in the market. Which means, to anyone with the capability to think beyond the short term, that PC gaming sales have only been MARGINALLY affected by Windows and PC desktop downturn. Or, in proper perspective, the absolute failure of Windows 8 to capture new market share has barely had any effect on PC sales and PC gaming. 14% of New PC sales over a period which was recorded in the from 2011 to mid 2012 and reported in MARCH of THIS YEAR.

In other words, this is marginal at worst and more importantly, OUT OF DATE and OUT OF CONTEXT reporting.

You know what else was happening in 2011 and 2012? The American Dollar was in the toilet. A 10% slump in LUXURY PRODUCT SALES in that sort of economy is actually indicative of the continued success of products which weren't affected more dramatically.

What rubbish.

Taswell 4ever.

Go Great Leader, Go Great Leader, Go Great Leader Goooo!

"Guns don't kill people, fictional video game characters do."

Pretty sure this is a complete list.

@Little_Socrates: You mean that they have a similar bassline riff for three chords.

@Demoskinos said:

@Animasta: Difference is Beiber and Gaga are actually going to have long lasting careers. No effing way this guys ever tops this. Sure, he will probably sell records in South Korea but I can't see him doing anything in North America outside of this song.

There's a Gangnam Style app on Google Play now. It's selling in record numbers. It's a phenomenon. It crosses cultural and lingual barriers.

Dad Hard.

@Milkman said:

Romney came off as a thousand times more likable in his concession speech than he ever did during the campaign. Funny how that works.

He's more moderate than his party dressed him up to be and he's probably glad ti's over to be honest.

@pwnmachine said:

@SeriouslyNow: That is an extremely naive way to look at it. I never said ALL poor people are "lazy" or "evil" however there are a lot of Americans for whom it is much more beneficial to stay on welfare rather than going out and putting in a hard day's work. This is the wrong type of incentive you want to set, sure they will go out and spend that welfare money on products and services to stimulate the economy. But honestly how long is that sustainable for? How long before the cost for these programs and the actual revenue streams catch up with each other? The key here is sustainability, you need Americans to get back on their feet not set an unhealthy standard...The money being spent on these programs has far better uses than a bottom up approach.

Show me proof of your claim because the economics say you're wrong. Every US regime which implemented some form or another of 'Trickle Down' (piss on the poor) economics has not worked. Please keeping using words like revenue and naive while you sit in a country which relies on socialised care programs to feed, clothe, house and otherwise handle its constituents. Economics in developed nations MUST be geared to work from the bottom up, People who tell you otherwise are liars who are taking advantage of your naivete, not the other way round.