korolev

Sites put up the ads that people pay them to put up. The Democrats paid money for Gamespot to host those ads. The Republicans didn't. It's that simple.

As a general rule, younger voters these days tend to vote democratic. And although the demographics are shifting, the majority of video game players are under 40, and are more likely to be liberal. The Democrats put political ads on Gamespot to remind potential voters to vote, and because they feel that they have a greater chance of convincing the users of Gamespot to vote democratic. The Republican party knows full well that most gamers will not vote for them, and that any ad is unlikely to sway Gamespot users to vote for Romney. Romney and the Republicans aren't poor, but they don't have infinite money, so paying for ads on Gamespot would not be wise. There are other sites and publications that cater to an older, more conservative crowd (gun-websites, ammo-websites, religious websites, business websites), and it would be far more cost-effective to put ads for Romney on those sites instead of Gamespot.

I am 100% sure that Gamespot would run Romney + Ryan ads if the Republican party was willing to pay them. I don't think Gamespot really likes Obama or Romney - Gamespot likes MONEY. All big sites do. And there's nothing wrong with that, that's how businesses work. But it's not some sort of scheme to thwart Romney or affect the 2012 election. It's not a political statement. It's simply the fact that the Republicans don't think Gamespot is a good site for their ads. And they're right.

Steel Battalion, undoubtedly. Although... that South Park game.... that's a close contender.

I like the design. So far what seems to be on the site isn't bad. Time will tell how well it performs, but from what I've seen, it's alright.

One or two of the images on the reviews are far too large. Other than that, it looks okay. Will visit from time to time to see how it is.

Because I felt like they needed it when they were independent. But even though they are owned by a large company, I continue to support them, because I feel that they've earned my money. They have made me laugh very hard during some pretty stressful times. That is worth the equivalent of one night's dining out.

Casual gamers move from one thing to the next very quickly. They treat every game as a fad. There's definitely money to be made in the casual market - Angry Birds is testament to that. But Zynga was trying to treat the Casual Market as a Market of regular game players. Most people that played Farmville? They've stopped and moved on to something else.

If they ask nicely, then yes, usually, if I can spare some. Don't usually get that many homeless people asking for money where I am from. If they look hard-done-by, I usually give them some change. Sure, they might be faking it - in fact, I'm sure some of them are. There are "professional" panhandlers who have jobs but dress up shabby and ask for money.

But you know what? I'm wiling to take the risk of giving my money to someone who doesn't deserve it, if it means that occasionally I give it to someone who does need it. Maybe they're fakers, maybe.... but maybe they're not. Maybe they really do need help.

It doesn't happen frequently and I can spare a couple of dollars that I would have blown on a candy-bar anyway (candy bars are expensive where I come from).

Not allergic to anything that I know.

I am not 100% certain there is no afterlife, but I already live my life as if there was not an afterlife.

How do I live my life?

Very......very...... carefully.

All of those games look fun, except for Duke Nukem Forever.

I suppose it only cost 5 dollars, and you can say you played it. I suppose it will be an 'experience'.

Oh well. I guess I'll just have to enjoy this awesome site without you. A shame. Really. Heartbroken.