I've been watching a ton of SC matches too. I love it. I watched a bunch of Youtube video matches, but gomtv.net has the best ones. They're direct and good quality, instead of english commentary recorded on top of Korean commentary videos that were ripped.

I also watch other spectator ESports. It's always best when you can follow teams.

Hey, it's Eskil! This should be a good time.

Yes! Always love (haha!) to here Eskil Steenberg talk about just about anything, he has a great take on game design philosophy that I think a lot of devs and publishers could learn from. Looking forward to listening to this.

I'm about a third of the way through the show, and I'm really liking this guest. You guys should have him on MUCH more often.

EDIT: I just finished listening and I totally stand by my initial comment. Eskil sure does like to talk, but thankfully, he has a lot of interesting things to say. Plus he has a great sense of humor, so like I said, I would love (HA!) it if he were a guest more often. Besides the live show, this was my favorite CC in recent memory. Great job!

Great show! Liked the "industry talk" a lot.

sh*t, I had no idea how awesome Starcraft was.

In re Eskil's rant on GTA, Peggle and game scores/fun/etc.:

Should "we" adopt a review system similar to Pitchfork wherein they adjust album scores based on later works? Or, in this case, re-rate something based on later impressions?

I'm all for it.

I'm also all for game critique and not reviews, so scores are fairly pointless to me, but there is a fairly lacking amount of discussion about a game weeks or months after release outside of forums and podcasts. Is this endemic to gaming sites (by that I mean the Gamespot and 1ups of the world) because they exist to drive traffic their way and FIRST!!!! reviews do that while actual discussion doesn't? Or are forums the place these post mortem discussions are meant to be held?

I also don't understand the arguments about the "hidden" costs of owning a console. Xbox Live Gold is an optional addition to the Xbox 360; it is no more required than a second controller, a hard drive, or a wireless network adapter. I've managed to have a 360 for over a year without having a Live Gold account. If you don't play online multiplayer games, you don't need it, and despite what some people might say, there's plenty of fun to be had from a 360 without ever playing online with other people. It's only a hidden cost for some players (I wouldn't even say "most").

Since Natal tracts movement in infrared, the visual spectrum of what us humans see is irrelevant.

Over/Under on how long before Elysium's new Fallout 3 spiel gets mashed up?

No more than $150 on a video card? Amen.

I would like to offer an additional (admittedly personal) reason that this should be the case. I am on my third card for this system. The only thing keeping this current one running is that I've added a cooling solution and clean the thing frequently.

My recent PC woes have caused me to do some impromptu research. During that time I've learned the other dirty secret about videocards: that they often run much too hot relative to the other components in a PC (Cory, this relates to your comment asking "why is it any different").

I've found that non-video card components (aside from being broadly cheaper) tend to run cooler as related to their "comfort zone" temperature range. Add to that the fact that these things - like all electronic components - are worked heavily by the software, so their effective heat-range gets lower over time.

Video cards? More. Faster. Better. Hotter. I have a stack of about eight video cards from over the years, most of which kicked it far sooner than the other system components.

In addition to Eskil's wonderful comments highlighting why devs might hate the vid-card rat race, I offer this meager observation from the consumer's point of view. Poke holes as you see fit.

Eskil Steenberg is great. I really appreciate his candor, which you get next to none of from the video game industry. I don't agree with everything he says, but I like to hear someone who is so enthusiastic about what they are saying.

Corona barely counts as beer; like the old saying goes, it's like sex in a canoe. It's as close to water as you can get.

I don't know that I completely buy the "no graphics cards over $150" argument. I would agree that paying over $300 is not necessary. I tend to stick with cards between $200 and $250 myself. I would also agree that almost any $150 graphics card would match the graphics capability of an Xbox 360. If I was only running my PC games at Xbox 360 resolutions, we could probably stop there.

I run my Xbox 360 at 720p (= 1280x720 = 921,600 pixels). It also supports 1080i, of course (= 1920x1080 = 2,073,600 pixels per "frame" = interlaced or 1920x540 = 1,036,800 pixels per cycle with two cycles in 1/30 of a second [i.e., 30 Hz]). 720p seems a bit smoother on the projector I have the Xbox 360 attached to.

That said, I run my PC with a 24" monitor at a 1920x1200 resolution (= 2,304,000 pixels or somewhat more than 1080p as opposed to 1080i). If I could afford it, I'd have one of the 30" monitors running a 2560 x 1600 resolution. I found it pretty amazing how much the larger monitors make the game more immersive. Assuming the Xbox 360 isn't replaced for another couple years, it's likely I will be using such a monitor on my PC. I don't think the Xbox 360 could really drive that.

Gotta disagree with Eskil,

When Netflix came out, people did leave video stores in droves, causing me to doubt all of his claims after that.