Talk:The Orange Box/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Peggle? 2 La Boîte Orange section removed 3 Buy Retail boxed or download via steam? price difference 4 Achievements 5 Reception 6 Archived La Boite Orange section 7 Soundtrack listing table 8 Concerned about the notability of this article 9 European release date 10 NPOV 11 links 12 $$

Peggle?

Peggle extreme is effectively a 10 level demo of Peggle Deluxe, with Orange Box themed backgrounds and some sound effects, so I'm going to wikify and link the title to the Peggle Deluxe entry for the time being. Mael-Num 04:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

So why are you posting about it here and not on the Peggle Deluxe discussion page? HoCkEy PUCK 02:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Presumably because of the fact that it came bundled with The Orange Box, so long as you pre-purchased it via Steam. Bilge [TC] 09:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Or after, I didn't preorder and still got Peggle. 72.192.54.23 19:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

La Boîte Orange section removed

I've removed the part about the bundle being called "La Boîte Orange" since it can be argued that most games (not to say every games) sold in Quebec have french packaging for a while now, and that this is "causing both confusion and frustration for English-Canadian gamers" regardless of which game you are refering to. The same goes for movies, and you don't see that comment in articles relating to them. Laurent 10:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was pretty ignorant. It's not JUST Quebec. It's across Canada. Re-added the section, and made the explanation more explicit. 216.234.58.18 18:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hardly notable. Removed.

~~Lazyguythewerewolf . Rawr. 20:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

something that affects an entire country is not notable? Are you even Canadian? Undone and re-added. 99.229.105.239 23:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

~~The issue is that while French is common on packaging across Canada, it is not normally the dominate language in English-speaking Canada. So, for example, I went to buy a copy in Toronto, and the clerk said they only had French editions left. Obviously, that's notable. tromik 22:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

~~These linguinstic details are irrevelant in an encyclopedia. Obviously, some of you guys will fight every day for that detail to be included even though this issue has precedent in the videogame industry. Might I suggest creating a different article on the general topic? Laurent 11:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

More to the point, as a Canadian gamer who bought this game in Canada, I can say that it isn't "across Canada," and it doesn't "cause confusion and frustration." I'm sure it looks quite strange to people in the U.S., but any Canadian gamer who was surprised to find French labelling on a product in Canada must have been living in a cave for the past few decades. Even more, the reference given for that section is invalid: it's an American article written for American gamers, to inform them about a quirk of their neighbours to the north. It doesn't indicate any "confusion and frustration" for Canadian gamers.

I've removed the section again. If you can find a single legitimate reference to support the truth of this claim, go ahead and revert my edit and put that reference in. If not, accept that something that's been going on in Canada for decades is not surprising to Canadians. BMKane 12:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I re-added the section and removed the part about confusion and frustration. That should be NPOV enough for Wikipedia. 216.234.58.18 21:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The confusion stems from the French-prominent labeling on versions found outside Quebec. Obviously you guys have to work on your reading comprehension. If i was looking for insight into why there was French prominent labelling on a package found in Ontario, i'd probably come to Wikipedia. But I guess I can't win this battle against you wiki-nerds who refuse to see beyond your own backyards. Have it your way. 216.234.58.18 13:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

In most of Canada (including provinces other than Quebec), The Orange Box cover art features the words "La Boîte Orange" in a large font with only a small subtitle of the original English title, causing both confusion and frustration for English-Canadian gamers.[7] http://www.xbox360fanboy.com/2007/10/12/is-it-the-orange-box-non-cest-la-boite-orange/ Typically to comply with the Charter of the French Language, games have a wrap-around French cover and manual over the original shrinkwrap and this is a clear deviation in that the only cover provided for the majority of Canada is French-prominent. [archival purposes] 216.234.58.18 13:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Look, the only reason I knew that I wasn't buying some weird French translation that Valve made was because I read that part of the article here. It helped me in real life. It should stay. Tromik 15:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You should be bold and re-add the section then. I'm pretty sure the people that are taking it out are either 1) American 2) From Quebec 3) Valve fanboys who don't want any criticism on the article. Perhaps we should have one of those voting discussion thingees. 216.234.58.18 18:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I got La Boite Orange, and I live in Toronto. The only way I knew that it wasn't some french version was because I opened it up and the cd was in english. I was worried though that I got a non-english version, definitely caused confusion for me. It's all good in the end, it's English and I don't really care what the box says, but it did cause initial confusion. This incident is inarguably outside the norm, as anyone that went the extra mile to look at the picture posted above can attest to. This is no "outer removable wrap" like other games, this is the box. I do agree, however, that the wording used in the article could be more objective and less viewpoint-driven —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.245.38.50 (talk) 20:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Not realizing there has been discussion on this before, I have removed the section myself on the basis that it is simply NN. Unless someone can provide a source (and not a fan forum) to indicate that this is somehow controversial, its inclusion is IMO a violation of WP:TRIVIA and WP:NPOV. The fact video games and DVDs are usually released in Canada with French language-variant packaging isn't even considered something of interest to collectors. 68.146.41.232 21:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC) ADDITIONAL: Dammit, I need a new browser. For some reason this one is NOT saving the cookie that keeps me logged in. For the record I'm the one one posted the previous comment and who deleted the section. 23skidoo 21:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The issue does not have to do with French translation. It has to do with French-prominence, and the fact that this was the default cover released across Canada, and that this is the first Xbox 360 game to choose to do so. If you want proof that this is controversial, and that this causes confusion and frustration, simple Google "la boite orange".216.234.58.18 13:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, I don't see how this section fails WP:Trivia or WP:NPOV (especially WP:trivia, perhaps you should re-read that guideline). I removed the initial POV statement about confusion and frustration, and now it is simply a factual representation of a decision by EA to distribute Quebec-law-compliant French-prominent packaging to all of Canada instead of printing wrap-around covers for Quebec. 216.234.58.18 14:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Re-added the section as opinions are about evenly divided. Everyone who is removing the section is simply ignoring the fact that this is the first game that released only French-prominent labelling across all of Canada. If you can point me to any other Xbox 360 game that has ONLY French prominent lettering for Canada, then I will concede. However, since this is the first game to release ONLY French-prominent lettering to ALL of Canada, I contend that this is Notable and a valuable section in this entry. At the risk of repeating myself, in order to drill this into people's heads -- THIS IS THE FIRST GAME WHERE THE ONLY COVER RELEASED TO ALL OF CANADA WAS FRENCH-PROMINENT. The issue is not that there is a french translation, I agree that that is standard. the issue is that the French-prominent cover required to comply with Quebec law was released to all of Canada. THIS IS THE FIRST GAME TO BE RELEASED WITH FRENCH PROMINENT LETTER TO ALL OF CANADA. Kindly read this three or four times until you comprehend. 216.234.58.18 13:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I fail to see why this is encyclopedic material. If the French, the Germans, the Italians, the Japanese, the whatever made a big fuss and edited a Wikipedia article each time something was marketed in English only (or English-predominant) in their countries, Wikipedia would just be a giant repository of such facts. This is probably some mistake by Valve (or whoever is packaging the Orange Box and printing the material going with it, or perhaps some lawyer being overly cautious), and there probably was one or two too many zeros on the order sheet. And the way it reads now, it implies that the Orange Box being in French-predominant packaging all over Canada is a because of a requirement of the Charter of the French Language - which is wrong on account of the fact that the Charter is applicable to Quebec only. The "clear deviation" phrase is also a tad extremist if you ask me, and sounds like a judgment call or as though lives are at stake. I'll think of something else. Nicsilo 18:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I live in Toronto and bought "The Orange Box." The only French on the box was for sections such as system requirements and copyright notices. The article that's used as a source here doesn't have any evidence that the French version was widely released outside of Quebec. All it says is that labeling law covers all of Canada. I think the section should be removed unless a link clearly explaining that the French version was shipped across Canada (intentionally or not) can be found.

Well, the fact that you're in Toronto and got it should lend some support to that, no? Anyhow, if a link to forums.xbox.com would serve as an appropriate source, you can find people in BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and more, telling of how they also got "La Boite Orange". P.S. Please sign your comments. 216.234.58.18 12:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I live in Québec, I'm French speaking, and while I fully understand why the game has to have a french-prominent cover *when sold in province of Québec* I must admit that I don't understand exactly why English-speaking provinces should recieve French boxes (even if the game is in English anyway). As far as I know, the Charter of French Language is legally applied in Québec only, not in Canada. 69.157.155.220 04:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm defending this section until someone provides a legitimate justification as to why it should be removed. 216.234.58.18 12:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It isn't notable, and you're just being stubborn.

~~Lazyguythewerewolf . Rawr. 18:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, really. Rehevkor 18:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Meh. You guys win, but it's really people who are looking for information on this travesty who are losing. Kudos on making Wikipedia a less informative place to visit. 216.234.58.18 15:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Buy Retail boxed or download via steam? price difference

In India, it is cheaper to buy retail boxed Valve games from the store, as opposed to purchasing it through Steam. The difference is substantial. Orange Box is available for US$49.95 (approx Rs 1973) on steam. A Boxed version of the same title is available in India at a Max retail price of Rs 999 (approx $25.29). Counter strike 1 Anthology is available on steam for US$19.95 (approx Rs 788), whereas the same title is priced Rs 499 (approx US$12.63) at the store . Is this the same trend in other countries. It would be useful if we could bring up this point in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.211.153.72 (talk) 15:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Steam almost always follow US price. Local retail price varies from country to country. It might actually be more expensive if there is a heavy sales tax. I believe the games are identical after you purchase it. I bought the UK version of Counter-Strike: Source because it was cheaper, and it just show up like all other games I have on the list. --Voidvector 20:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Achievements

"achievements are game guide material and not appropriate for WP" <- are you sure about that? Surely listing the achievements isn't anything wrong and serves only for information purpose. I would say we could add an achievement list to the articles of each game. They are unique for the set, because I don't remember too many PC games having achievements like the Xbox 360 games. gracz54 ^(talk) 20:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Mentioning them and the fact of their rarity in PC games is appropriate. But not listing them, it's too game-guidey. Rehevkor 21:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe just listing the names of the achievements, and not the explanation? The names themselves aren't game-guidey for me. ;) gracz54 ^(talk) 22:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

What re you talking about, game-guidey? That's like saying you can't have chart positions on an album page. You woldn't see achiecements in the instructional game guide of the book. -^Violask8₁₉₇₆ 20:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This article mentions 'achievements' as if it was obvious what they were. To someone who hasn't used an xbox, it really isn't at all. As this is a general article about the game, I think reference to this should be removed, or at the very least a link put in to an explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.200.62 (talk) 12:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Reception

Look, reviews are still coming out so don't assume that any place in Game Rankings will be long lasting... wait until its got like over 40 before going that far. Stabby Joe 11:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Archived La Boite Orange section

Since the consensus is that this is non-notable (see removal discussion above), I'm archiving the section here so that people who want to know will know.

La Boîte Orange In most of Canada (including provinces other than Quebec), The Orange Box cover art features the words "La Boîte Orange" in a large font with only a small subtitle of the original English title. (ref - http://www.xbox360fanboy.com/2007/10/12/is-it-the-orange-box-non-cest-la-boite-orange/) Typically to comply with the Charter of the French Language, games have a wrap-around French cover and manual over the original shrinkwrap and this is a clear deviation in that the only cover provided for the majority of Canada is French-prominent. The disc included is the original English version without French text.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.234.58.18 (talk) 15:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Soundtrack listing table

When i was translating this article for Polish Wikipedia, I found a track listing presented in that way. Now can anyone tell me why it was changed to present form? I mean, Is there any guideline I don't know about or sth? Hołek ҉ 13:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

it doesnt relly matter it's just that this is a small page so we dont need to squish down anything. and from the above diusstion this is ment to be a world wide article so dont get boged down in each languge that the game is in. canada hs games in french if that is relly important thin give it its own page. not everyone is from canada.(Ralon silver 23:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC))

I wasn't talking about Canadian release, merely about soundtrack table formatting earlier and now. Hołek ҉ 14:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Concerned about the notability of this article

I'm concerned that this article may not be notable. I do not argue that the contents of it are notable: Episode Two, Portal and Team Fortress 2 all have different claims to fame and notablility, but I can't really see how the package itself is notable. Let's run down the list of content in this article:

• The Black Box is worth a mention, but isn't so notable that it needs its own section. It could easily be covered in the development sections of Episode Two, Portal and Team Fortress 2, or in Valve's article.
• Promotional information regarding a discount on pricing isn't really relevant.
• Reception is far better covered in the articles on each of the indivdual games.
• The region-specific stuff is relevant to Valve as a company and could be merged there.
• Soundtrack information could be merged into Episode Two's article.

I'm not going to shove a {{notability}} tag on at the moment, but this article is just a mish-mash of various pieces of information that could be dealt with far better in the articles concerning the actual content of the package and the developer. The package itself is not really notable, it's the contents that matter. -- Sabre 11:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with you 100%, I nominated it for deletion a few months ago but the consensus was keep. Although perhaps your better knowledge of the notability guidelines will help this this time around. Rehevkor (talk) 15:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Most mags and sites reviewed the compilation as one. The scores wouldn't make sense in seperate articles. People bought TOB to get many things in one place. The article should be the same.

17:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Of the three major online reviewers - IGN, GameSpot and the collective effort of magazines that is CVG - only GameSpot reviews them all at once. That justification is not valid, as even then it nicely breaks up the review per game. Plus, quick searches on Gamerankings and Metacritic reveal numerous reviews which did not cover the games as one. The scores are ultimately irrelevant as opposed to what the reviews actually say, but a review of all three as one just means that the score applies to all three games - GameSpot gave the Orange Box 9.5, so Team Fortress 2, Episode 2 and Portal can all be listed as being awarded 9.5 by GameSpot in their articles - it makes perfect sense. The view that people bought the Orange Box to get them all in one place is original research and possibly not of a neutral point of view. Sorry, that argument falls flat on its face. However, if this article does remain it should at the very least it needs a brief overview of the games in it - for example of what I mean, look at what Halo series does for the game in the series. The content of the package is far more notable than the package under any circumstances and needs more coverage than it has at present. -- Sabre (talk) 16:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The only problem is the games aren't available individually for xbox 360 or PS3. I didn't buy Half-Life 2 or Portal or Team Fortress 2, I bought The Orange Box. I agree more coverage of the individual games should be included, but if the individual games are notable, then why wouldn't the only package they're available in for a significant portion of the market be notable too? Mad031683 (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Arguments like "x is notable so why shouldn't y" don't really fit in here, y should be notable on its own merits and not piggy back on the notability of x. Rehevkor (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Normally I'd agree with you, but in this case they're inseperable, if someone is talking about Portal, they're also talking about TOB. You can't have sales figures for Team Fortress 2, because how can you say how many people just got that because they wanted to play Episode 2? None of that matters anyway, because there are plenty of sources already cited in the article about TOB as a whole to prove its notability. Mad031683 (talk) 00:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is 110% notable. TOB (the total package) is nominated for Game of the Year. 216.234.58.18 (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

European release date

I know a lot of places still list it as December 14th, and that is because in the middle of November, EA announced that it would be released on December 14. But, in early December, EA changed this release date (and I think Valve did the same for other versions of the game too) to December 11.

“

Electronic Arts today has officially confirmed The Orange Box on the PS3 will arrive on December 11 in North America and Europe — GameSpot

”

As the news is relatively recent, many sites have not changed the dates they list to reflect this new information, as per usual. But then again, that is why Amazon is not considered a reliable source. For release dates, I should think that only press announcements are reliable, as online stores even make up release dates before one is even announced.

So to summarise, in November (about the 17^th), EA said it would be released December 14. But in December (about the 3^rd), EA said it would be released December 11, moving up the release date. The release date is cited in the article. With two citations. So, can we please stop this reverting the date to the 14th? Thank you. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 18:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

ZOMG NPOV in the PS3 section I don't think so —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.85.164 (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Reyn116, you cannot keep inserting and rving to the edit you're making.

1. WP:UNDUE : You're overemphasising the PS3 version's problems. It is already dealt with in the Critical Reception section. And you're overemphasising the view that the PS3 version is "unplayable" or has "major technical issues", which not all reviewers agree on.

2. Repetition. You're even repeating phrases that are already in the Reception section. And I put together, in my edit of your edit, a paragraph containing the important quotations from the interview you quoted. So why do you keep rving me?

3. Wikipedia is a link-dump. You can't copy-paste articles directly into Wikipedia. You have to work the key information into existing articles.

So please stop reinserting your sections. If there is some key piece of information in those articles you are copy-pasting from that you want to insert, let's discuss it and figure out how to incorporate it. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 18:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

i bleve it should stay but to avoid bias the 360 concetion proplems as well as extreem lag that would tell people about what vlave thinks of ps3 orange box and what gamer think of 360 orange box. and including some negitve PC comments goes without saying (58.104.178.121 (talk) 10:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC))

links

should some clear links to main articles about HL2 TF2 ect. be in cluded under CONTENTS just to be clear and obious —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.104.178.121 (talk) 10:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Aye, the article does not cover the contents. It needs a basic summary of each of the games in the package at the start of the article. Take a look at the Games sections of Halo (series) and StarCraft (series) for a rough idea of what is needed. -- Sabre (talk) 14:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

And Half-Life (series).. Rehevkor (talk) 15:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

No, Half-Life (series) is not a good example of how to quickly summarise a game. "Half-Life 2 is the sequel to Half-Life set in and around City 17, in the near future." is hardly a complete yet brief overview of a game, its development, setting and reception. The games sections in the two articles I referred to are. -- Sabre (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Why does it need a summary of the games when the first paragraph includes a link to each of the games included? This page is not comparable to a series page because the reason (presumably) a page on the series includes short plot synopses is to communicate the overarching narrative and how the plot has been developed throughout the series (i.e. compare the plot summary of a single Sopranos TV episode vs. the summary of the show's entire season.) This does not apply to The Orange Box. I think plot summaries would just needlessly lengthen the article with redundant information. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 18:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The article says absolutely nothing about the games and the mere fact that its got the links in is inconsequencial. The contents are the core notable component of the package and as such it is necessary to include a brief summary of the game for the contextual benefit of the reader, as the article is pointless without any substantial information on the contents and may as well be deleted without them. The contents of the main articles is of no relevance to how it is summarised. And I didn't say "plot summary", I said "summary". If you'd actually properly looked at the article sections I pointed to you would realise this - the fact they are series articles is irrelevant. I wasn't pointing to the narrative-dealing plot sections of those articles, I was pointing to the games sections of the articles, which provide reasonable examples of how to summarise a product quickly for the benefit of the reader. That means a brief overview of:

• What the game is - genre, setting, technical information.
• Who developed it.
• Where/when it was developed.
• How it was received critically, what its cultural impact is.

I did NOT say a plot summary. A sentence explaining the setting of the game may be required, but a full summary of the story is not needed under any circumstances. Please actually read and fully comprehend what was said. -- Sabre (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Woah, no need to get your knickers in a twist. "The game tells the story of the Pillar of Autumn, one of the few surviving human ships carrying one of the last known SPARTAN-II supersoldiers - the "Master Chief", as the crew discovers a strange ringworld orbiting a gas giant- which the Covenant call "Halo". The player assumes the role of the Master Chief and descends to the ring's surface to fight the Covenant and discover Halo's secrets" seems like a "short plot synopsis" to me...

In any case, the article can't be deleted just because it doesn't have summaries, because the package itself is notable on account of winning awards. Technical info, developer name, and critical reception in the summary would be redundant. If you want to write it, go ahead. No one is stopping you. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 21:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

To summarise something that contains plot you will probably need to touch on the setting briefly, as I said above. Look at the rest of the section. More specifically look at the Halo 2 section: very little of it involves the plot. And none of it is redundant, although it is rather long for its purpose. The information in a summary of that sort is rarely redundant, and it wouldn't be in this case. Regardless of whether the package has awards, it doesn't explain why - what is in the package that warrants this reception? Imagine if Half-Life 2 was nothing but its critical reception, soundtrack and source code leak section, or if The Lord of The Rings was only its critical reception section. Sure, it establishes notability, but it would tell you absolutely nothing about the products and encyclopedically that is useless. That is the situation here: What is the Orange Box? Its not the Black Box, its not the promotion of the Orange Box, its not the development of the PS3 version. The actual nature of the Orange Box is not addressed. -- Sabre (talk) 14:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Usually compilation packs don't get wiki pages because all the information on it would be redundant or non-existent (i.e. just a series of links.) That's why this one was nominated for deletion, but it was kept because the compilation won awards, not just the individual games included. Again, why are you still trying to persuade me? Go ahead and write it. I promise I won't rv you. (-; If you write it, I'll help edit it for brevity. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 17:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

$$

Does anyone want to check how its sales were? It seems like an important fact to be missing. Yaksar (talk) 01:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Information is scanty. NDP group usually reports this but Orange Box dropped off the top 10 in November, so the only sales information we have is from the month of October (VGChartz is not considered a reliable source and all other sales information being reported is from that site.)

Here are two links for the sales in October: 1Up.com & Wired

238,400 is not a lot, and it's not up-to-date (with November's data) so I don't know if it should be inserted. What do you think? clicketyclick_yaketyyak 18:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I agree, its not really necessary. Plus, I don't think those included anything but the 360 sales. Yaksar (talk) 03:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No kidding. And I don't think it sold too shabbily on PC, so it's probably a big number that sales figure is off by. Hopefully, in a few months, Valve will list how much it sold on its site. By the way, thanks for rving that Sony fan's attempt to 'de-bias' the page. Funnily enough, I was accused of being a Sony fanboy in another article for what I wrote in it. I guess that means I'm unbiased on average, right?? clicketyclick_yaketyyak 17:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

NPD doesn't count copies sold via Steam, or the total no. of copies sold worldwide. And NPD's figures aren't that accurate when it comes to the PC. speaks rohith. 20:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course. Since things like that balance out and everything. Its a whole mathematical system.

But anyway, there isn't anywhere that we could get the PC sales figures? If not, I guess its fine.Yaksar (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.