Game Set Watch

The one with the ST:TOS Enterprise crew and the balding guy reading 'Understanding BASIC' [1] (Future Past / cover of BYTE Dec 1977) is just...classic. [1] http://www.gamesetwatch.com/silly/10.jpg

Atari games were discounted to $1 or $2 and they were stacked to the celling at major retailers. They sat around discount stores for a decade afterward. There's still warehouses full of them.[1] The company produced millions more games than the number of systems they sold, so who would they have given them too? [1] http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2009/02/gamesetinterview_atariclassic.php

Not that I disagree with your point, but I think it's worth mentioning that VGCharts is not a very reliable source for sales data. It's essentially made up, using sources such as guessing, and talking to store employees to estimate their sales at that location and massively extrapolating.[1][2] [1] http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2008/06/analysis_what_vgchartz_does_and.ph… [2] http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2008/06/why-we-dont-ref/

Indeed. http://www.gamesetwatch.com/newzoo_2010spend.jpg shows that traditional non-MMO PC gaming is a larger portion of the market than most consoles, even in the US. Plus with digital distribution publishers get 70-100% of the money customers spend, as opposed to retail's ~30%, so you need to sell half to a third as much as on consoles to make just as much money.

That's funny, I actually found the link in this article http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2010/04/column_diamond_in_the_rough_1.php

Jeb I agree with you that the models are not technically underage. Moreover, I know from previous articles about AA that they make the models sign releases confirming they are of age. However, I think that makes it worse and I'd like to explain why. We already know that what constitutes porn is in fact subjective and was "officially" defined as such by the Supreme Court: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobellis_v._Ohio So what I'd like to point out is that the very reason that AA needs that little signature is because they know they are (1) making pornographic ads and (2) using models that look underage. If either of those two were untrue, the free-wheeling, open-minded people at AA would surely not resort to legal means to cover their ass. As far as not providing evidence, what is harder evidence than actual photos of AA ads? I don't see how it's relevant what website they are posted on. Photos are photos. But hey, I am happy to link to more. If you don't think these are prime pedophile material, I don't even know what to say... you must be one "open-minded" dude. http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2006_07_10_9.jpg http://www.wasuvi.com/images/scan0004.jpg http://www.adrants.com/images/the_tap_panty.jpg http://www.mediabistro.com/agencyspy/original/aaad.jpg http://www.jenisfamous.com/uploaded_images/leggings-720878.jpg http://www.trendhunter.com/images/phpthumbnails/21343_1_230.jpeg