Bioshock Infinite (PS3) Review

"Bring us the girl and wipe away the debt."

Bioshock Infinite (2013) is the third instalment of the critically-acclaimed Bioshock first-person shooter series, developed by Irrational Games and published by 2K Games, a subsidiary of Take-Two Interactive. While not directly related to Bioshock or Bioshock 2, Bioshock Infinite does borrow a lot of gameplay and thematic elements from the previous two games. Before I start the review proper, I should point out that the game has been out for a while and as a result, I'm not going to shy away from spoilers, so be warned for those who haven't actually played the game. Realistically, this is less of a review and more of a one-sided discussion on the game since it's been out for a while and has been the topic of some heated discussion, particularly surrounding the plot. Nevertheless, there will be coverage on the major aspects usually covered in reviews albeit with a little more emphasis on plot rather than gameplay or aesthetics.


Breathtaking. In my mind, that is the only word that can properly sum up my first impression of the game as I stepped through the doors into Columbia proper after a bizarre opening sequence involving a rowboat, a lighthouse, a rocket, a near drowning disguised as a baptism and some really quirky (even ironic) worshipping of Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and Ben Franklin as religious figures by the suspiciously whitewashed and almost overzealous pilgrims. By the time you get to the raffle where everything goes wrong for poor old Booker DeWitt, you realise that there's something not quite right about Columbia, especially if you go around collecting Voxophones and viewing Kinetoscopes (for background knowledge and trophies, of course). Hiding beneath the beautiful visage of a floating paradise is something deeply wrong with the city, a fact confirmed when the prize you get for winning a raffle is to have the first throw of a baseball-stoning (how quintessentially American) of an interracial couple. 
The plot from there expands into a multi-tiered and multi-layered work of art that encompasses a bloody civil war between two equally ruthless belligerents, a simple yet elegant examination of multiple universes and a character-driven experience that follows the growth of both Elizabeth and Booker, all wrapped up in themes of American exceptionalism taken to its most extreme conclusion, racism, religious extremism, blind idealism and a meta-commentary on choice and freedom in video games. This game, I cannot stress enough, is brilliant in its take on storytelling and taking on the most controversial of issues that pervades both modern and past society. What starts off as a seemingly quirky journey to start a long escort mission instead becomes an immersive and entertaining experience that really makes the player think about the issues presented by the game.  At first, on the surface of it, the game revolves around an ex-Pinkerton hired to rescue a mysterious girl trapped in a huge monument to Columbia and to bring her to New York in order to pay his debts accrued by gambling. As the plot progresses though, the plot thickens with the addition of an ongoing and bloody civil war between the Founders (the racist defenders of Columbia's whiteness) and the Vox Populi (a group that has noble values of achieving equality at first but quickly degenerates into anarchism and committing violence for violence's sake). The plot is made more complex by the inclusion of time travel, the manipulation of the space-time continuum and travel between alternate universes. Along the way, we see Elizabeth's rapid growth following her freedom from captivity as she engages with the world around her, moving from a (literally) wide-eyed idealist to a more practical realist that understands the world is not particularly nice or kind, having spent time with Booker but still keeping that sense of innocence and general upbeat attitude that helps to temper Booker's deep cynicism and loathing of the world. 
The storytelling medium used by the game ditches the traditional cutscene expositions but instead uses dialogue and the occasional taking away of the ability to move from Booker to advance the plot (sort of like a cutscene, but you're in character) while voxophones and kinetoscopes provide the bulk of background on Columbia's past and present. This is the kind of storytelling that I think should be in all games. A subtle form of exposition and narrative that allows the player to explore further if they wish to learn more about the game's universe goes a long way in making Infinite one of the best games ever made. The emotional core of the story is also not as heavy-handed as most other story-driven games, with players allowed to develop their own feelings and emotions regarding the whole situation as well as the characters rather than being manipulated from the start to feel a certain way as the developers' dictate it. Emotional manipulation is not necessarily a bad thing but I quite dislike heavy-handed techniques designed to evoke a specific response because I feel it's a little dishonest and quite frankly, I don't like it when people try to pull my strings. Luckily, Bioshock: Infinite isn't too heavy with emotional manipulation except maybe in one or two instances where it's really needed to hammer home a point, such as in the ending where Booker gives little Anna DeWitt away. 
Most of the reality-bending space-time continuum manipulation makes sense, except for one niggling detail that kept bugging me. When travelling through the various tears to get the Vox Populi their weapons, how did Elizabeth and Booker know they were headed into the correct tear? I suppose that could be explained away by trial and error, whereby they just headed into whatever tear was available but if that were the case, it seems awfully convenient for the tears to lead specifically where they wanted it to. Then again, Elizabeth does argue that it is a form of wish fulfillment on her end but like I said earlier, it's a little too deus ex machina for my liking. 
In terms of gameplay, Infinite has its fair share of exciting moments and ridiculously awesome features (like the ability to combine vigors that might possess an enemy then use him as a mobile bomb) but overall, the gameplay does get a little repetitive by the end. Go here, kill a bunch of people, activate a lever or button, kill another bunch of people, explore for weapons, salts and ammo (something I found myself doing quite a lot in 1999 mode) and kill more people! The shooting mechanics are exactly the same as the shooting mechanics in any other first person shooter just punctuated by the addition of vigors which are arguably just a unique take on the secondary weapons/grenades/equipment prevalent in other shooters. While the skylines are a much-touted and extremely fun feature, they don't feature as much as they were advertised and combat on the skylines are much easier than you might think since holding down the aim button has the reticle locking on to the nearest enemy. This is a nifty anti-frustration feature but it feels like a break from immersion especially when you have aim assist off, like I usually do when playing shooters.
Outside of the violence committed by Booker, the game allows you to explore a bit of Columbia as you go along, an especially useful tactic if you're playing the oft-cursed 1999 Mode where every little thing you find goes a long way to helping you survive. As mentioned previously, exploration grants you voxophones and kinetoscopes that help to expand on the story and really fleshes out the universe inhabited by our protagonists. Going back to the topic of 1999 Mode, I'm unsure as to why people have been complaining that it is frustratingly hard. It's a fairly mediocre difficulty and the checkpoints are plentiful, so, any death you suffer or money you lost can be regained by simply using checkpoints rather than letting yourself be "saved". If you explore and pick up every damned thing that shines, then you'll be in good stead. Actually, that's what I love about this game and The Last of Us, my obsession with collecting things and looking everywhere to get them is really rewarded when in other games it just seems like I have a compulsion for hoarding.
Aesthetically speaking, this game is beyond beautiful and the graphics are just superb. However, there are some issues with texture lag whereby the texture takes way too long to load and everything looks really washed out and blurry. I suspect this has to do with a lack of sizeable install which means most of the game is run off the Blu-Ray rather than from an installed file. Other than that though, everything looks fantastic and has this really cool arty yet cartoony yet serious look to it. 
Conclusion: Bioshock Infinite is a rare breed indeed, a game where both style and substance are equally triumphant. Columbia is beautiful to behold even as it descends into darkness and destruction while the plot is as elegantly simple as it is wonderfully complex. Tied to the plot is the wonderful characterisation and character development undergone by the two leads who are by far the two of the most interesting and three-dimensional characters I've ever come across in a video game. The gameplay isn't too much of a deviation from standard shooters but the inclusion of vigors, gear and a selection of interesting enemies makes it one of the more unique shooters in an over-saturated genre. A strong contender for game of the year and definitely one that will go into the history books.

Sound in Video Games

Before we get started on the piece, I'd like to thank our friends over at GamerDino for featuring this piece as a guest post. They've been very kind to feature us there and we'd appreciate it if you give our friends there a visit.

Introduction
Sound. It's always been a key component in video games. Without the technology we have today to motion-capture performances to deliver facial expressions and body language that convey emotion, the game designers of yesteryear had to utilise sound as a means of tugging at the player's heartstrings. From music to voice acting to ambient sound, this article will attempt to explore what makes sound such an important component of the video game experience.

Music
In the early days of gaming (purely text-based games and games with text rather than cutscenes driving the story), this involved using music in a thematic approach in order to elicit specific emotions from the player. For situations fraught with danger and excitement, the music would be fast-paced and present a sense of immediacy in the situation, making the player tense up and ready themselves for a battle. When the situation mellows and players are free to move uninhibited through the world, then a relaxing yet upbeat tone would play, a theme that would inspire the player to explore and relax now that the battle was over. For some players, the transition between musical themes also served a useful function in that it warned them that the situation was changing and they needed to prepare for what was about to happen. For example, in the Splinter Cell series, there would be a dead silence to indicate that you were being stealthy but once the "suspicion" theme started to play, then you knew that the enemy AI was on to you, allowing you time to react and try to become part of the shadows once again. If the enemy did detect you, then alarms would blare and a loud, raucous musical theme would come on, providing a sense of urgency that causes the player's heart to race as they frantically scramble to the nearest cover of darkness and try to shake enemies off their tail.

Music is still an extremely important part of game design today because the best soundtracks have the ability to elicit a visceral reaction from the gamer. Good music in any form has the ability to make people feel something. Be it making them feel happy because the rhythm is upbeat and the lyrics celebrate the awesomeness of life or making them feel sad because the melodies are depressing and the lyrics even more so, good music has the ability to elicit emotions from a normal human being. When applied within a context, music can be even more powerful. With a good soundtrack, it becomes easier for a player to immerse themselves in the world and develop an emotional connection with the game, replacing pixels on a screen with a whole new virtual world complete with fictional characters you can relate to or bond with. This is of course, before the advent of voice-acting but even today, with voice acting and motion-capture performances, music still plays a pivotal role in bringing the world of the game alive.

Voice-Acting
It's no secret that voice-actors are some of the most underrated performers in the arts, at least, until recently. Before, we couldn't even care who voiced what character but now voice-actors are celebrities in their own right. This recognition of their work is fully deserved and can be seen in the various campaigns to bring back original voices of characters in a franchise such as David Hayter as Big Boss in Metal Gear Solid V or Michael Ironside as Sam Fisher in Splinter Cell: Blacklist.

Without the advanced technological advancements that allow us to capture facial expressions and body language, voice-actors had to do all the heavy lifting when it came to creating emotional performances and really lending depth to a character. While visuals tend to impress people more than audio, for a long time, it was the tireless efforts of voice-actors and their directors that brought our favourite characters to life. Until recently, it was possible to hear the same voices over and over again in various video games as the video game voice-acting industry seemed a little small as evidenced by the large body of work of big names like Nolan North, Laura Bailey, Troy Baker and Jennifer Hale, names you would most definitely come across if you play any AAA blockbuster video game. With video games becoming a multi-billion dollar industry, we're starting to see more and more Hollywood actors making the transition to voice-work and mo-cap performances. That is not to say that the thespians of Hollywood are only in it for the money, it just means that game publishers are now able to afford the price-tag of talented Hollywood A-listers, bringing in a whole new dimension of performances in video games.

With the proliferation of motion-capture technology and the ability to bring characters to life through the mapping of actor's faces, voice-acting may well become a doomed profession as time goes on and game-makers turn to mo-cap and advanced facial mapping. Or maybe not. There are a lot of games out there who still animate faces traditionally and still use voice-actors to convey the character's emotions and little foibles. It's difficult to tell how voice-acting will be affected by this new trend of blending the cinema with the controller because the future is unpredictable, but for now, I think voice-actors are finally getting the recognition they deserve and should continue to do so far into the future.

Sound Design
This part of the video game is probably the least acknowledged component as it is often goes unnoticed. The best ambient sound design is subtle, creating an atmosphere of sounds and noises within the environment in order to create a living, breathing virtual world utilising minute details that people don't tend to notice but really will have a big impact if they aren't there or are poorly done. I'm one of those gamers that loves realism, ironic, I know. Someone who plays games tends to do so to get away from the real world, so, wanting a game to be realistic seems a little silly. But realism really adds to the experience for me as it forces you to confront real(-ish) situations and think up real-world solutions to possible real-world problems. It's a form of learning without actually realising it. For a game to be realistic, it of course has to have realistic sound. That means leaves should rustle in the wind, the ground should crunch when you march through the jungle or snow-infested landscapes towards your objective, water should have a lapping sound when you silently approach a dock as you infiltrate an enemy's base etc. etc.

Good sound design can mean a range of things. It might mean creating all-new sounds to match impossible worlds and impossible things like a space-ship or a steampunk robot or it might mean recording real-world items and the sounds they make and replicating it within a game. For example, Bioshock Infinite features a floating world with wondrous flying buildings and monstrous enemies. The sound design is exquisite for this game as you hear the soft, subtle whine of the buildings as they travel through the skies and the loud and brash mechanical gears that operate the half-man half-machine monsters you constantly face in your attempts to rescue Elizabeth. This lends authenticity to the experience, it makes you feel like such a thing could exist and if it did, it would sound exactly like that.

On the other end of the spectrum, Battlefield 3 and Medal of Honor: Warfighter have both taken the sounds that real weapons make and put it into their games to give a sense of character to their weapons and vehicles. The roaring 7.62x51mm NATO round in battle rifles and sniper rifles sound heavier and more distinct from their smaller 5.56x45 mm NATO round cousins in smaller, more compact assault rifles, giving you a sense that these weapons are really different. In both games, the level of detail in sound design is just bonkers as firing in confined spaces, guns sound deafening and really block out other noises while in wide-open spaces, you can happily fire away without feeling your ears might fall off from all the noise. Another good example would be Gran Turismo 5 where all the cars sound fantastic. They really sound like cars and they give off the impression that they have an individual character, letting you hear the difference between a straight-six engine, a V6 or a V8. And the squeal and screech of tortured tyres as you will yourself around a corner too fast, letting your back-end slide as you attempt to push in to first place.

The point is, all these little details that the developers and sound designers focus on tends to go unnoticed but it does play a very important role in making your experience just that much better. If you take a run-of-the-mill average shooter (not naming names), the guns all feel the same and have that same laser-weapon like quality to the sound. It's not something a lot of people care about but for me, it goes to show how much the makers of the game care about the product when they pick up on the really fine details and work on them exquisitely even though most people couldn't care less.

Conclusion
Please remember that I'm no expert in sound design or sound engineering or music or any of the like, I just wrote this piece up as a tribute to one of the cornerstones of a good video game, hoping to raise awareness about how important sound really is and how good it can make a game, and by extension, a gamer, feel when used properly. For those reading through my convoluted mess of nonsense, thanks for tuning in.

Xbox One Reveal Impressions

Xbox One, more like Xbox None? Am I right? Also, as a name, Xbox One kind of seems weak in comparison to Playstation 4. Someone could easily make the joke PS - 4, Xbox - 1. I hope Sony uses that as marketing. I think that's pretty hilarious. Terrible jokes aside, the Xbox One seems like a bit of an interesting play being made by Microsoft. Personally, I'm not really blown away by the technical specifications, the design or anything they featured on it but it is a fairly important announcement, so I'll comment on it to the best of my ability.

Aesthetically, I find the design a little underwhelming since it looks pretty much like an oversized DVD/Blu-Ray player more than a console. I'm not entirely sure why Microsoft lost the sleek design they had with the Xbox 360 but I suspect it's to be more in line with the general square motif they've had going on lately with Windows 8 and the redesign of their logo. On the flip side, the controller looks pretty cool but a bit bulky. Additionally, I haven't been able to get my hands on it (not that I will any time soon, unless I buy one when it's released) but it seems a little disproportionate with the body being far bigger than the grips (those little leg things, I'm not sure what they're called). The Kinect 2 seems to be following the new design principle of squares and rectangles with the general shape being a long rectangle.

In terms of technical specifications, I'm not a tech wizard guru or anything but it seems like it shares the processing power of an upper-middle range computer and seems to share a lot of similarities with the PS4. I've read a few articles online explaining that the PS4 is slightly more powerful because the processor has more cores and doesn't have to run 3 separate operating systems simultaneously. Again, I'm not too sure why it has to run 3 operating systems but apparently it has to do with the way the console works with the start/dashboard using a cut-down version of Windows 8 then it has some sort of dedicated Xbox OS and uses Windows RT for something else. Seems a mite complicated to me, also, wouldn't that technically eat up a lot of memory and processing power?

The Kinect 2 seems pretty impressive in terms of announced specs and the apparent features that Microsoft has declared but I'm not liking the fact that it is required for the Xbox One to work (NOTE: unconfirmed, some sites say that a Kinect is required for you to play, some claim that it is not required, Microsoft hasn't been forthcoming). On the subject of the Kinect 2, I'm a generally paranoid person with issues regarding my privacy and security. The Kinect 2's insane ability to track you to such an accurate extent may not seem like much of a security or privacy issue but I'm just concerned that it could be used to spy on me in my own home. Arguably, the same can be said for webcams and built-in cameras for laptops and I share concerns for that to. Also, apparently it can read your heart rate? I'm sure that's probably for sports games and the like but seriously, that's going a little far, isn't it? It's extremely sensitive and apparently can read facial expressions. The most concerning thing about the Kinect 2 is that the microphone is always on, meaning it's always listening to you. All these features are really cool but a little worrying in the sense of how powerful it is in being able to collect information on you. If someone can hack into it and use it against you, they could do quite a bit of damage.

Games-wise, I think Microsoft made a major error in featuring so few games. Fans will argue that they're saving up for E3 and that's fine but I thought mentioning more games that they had in the pipeline would've done a lot more to swing some undecided customers. Plus, personally, I'm not really interested in what they have on offer right now in terms of exclusives. There's a lot of third-party games being published for the PS4 as well and I'm content with that. The only real thing I feel I'm missing out by being a Sony gamer is Halo. And maybe Forza but the next Gran Turismo could probably outclass Forza.

The stuff about the One being an entertainment console is pretty interesting, not really my thing but I can see where they're going with it. Microsoft seems to be trying to wrestle away some customers from Nintendo in making a more family-friendly console, one that's more powerful than the Wii U and offers more services and capabilities that appeal to a hardcore gamer as well. Like the Xbox 360, Microsoft appears to be gearing towards US audiences once again, which annoys me to no end as a gamer living outside of the US. The live television stuff is really awesome but I'm pretty sure I won't have any access to it because of my geographical location. It's also annoying that Microsoft hasn't been forthright about the issue of internet connectivity. They're claiming that you don't always have to be online but the console has to be connected to the internet at some point  every 24 hours which means you do need an internet connection to play, which is stupid if you just want to play single-player games or maybe watch a movie, you know, activities that don't traditionally require an internet connection.

Overall, I think the Xbox One is an interesting product particularly as an entertainment console but unless I see more, I can't really pass judgement on it. For now though, based on the information out right now, I'm not really impressed since I was expecting a games console with added entertainment features, not an entertainment console that can play games.

Reviewing the Reviewers: Introduction

Hello readers and welcome to the introduction to a new and permanent segment of the blog called Reviewing the Reviewers, if you didn't notice the title. Which you might not have although you'd be pretty silly if you missed the big shiny title but read this part.

Anyway.

One of the reasons I started this blog was the dislike I developed for video game journalists on account of their pretentiousness and inability to publish anything worthwhile when it comes to reviews. While the business of reviewing a product is inherently biased, the problem I find is that many reviewers are unable to step back and list their likes and dislikes in order to allow their readers to make an informed decision. Granted, reviews are basically opinions but if reviewers want to claim that they are experts that provide a legitimate and reliable information, then they should at least try to act like it. The problem I find is that a lot of reviewers walk into a game with a closed mind and will only point out the flaws of the game without really pointing out its merits as well. Basically, I have an issue with the balance of most pieces written by game reviewers. Sure, if I dislike a game, I will criticise it endlessly but I can recognise its merits and (rather begrudgingly) can respect it for what it does right. Same goes with games that I do like. While I will drone on and on about how much I love the game, I recognise that no game is perfect and that the flaws they have, while they may not matter to me, may matter to someone else. That's why I try to give my reviews balance. 

Furthermore, the problem with video game reviewers on the big professional sites is that they present themselves as experts and don't necessarily acknowledge that their reviews are merely their opinions of a game. To the contrary, there are many reviewers that consider their reviews as fact and that if they didn't enjoy it, no one else will. This clearly isn't the right way to do things as people are different. 

In keeping with the theme of balance, I will recognise the merits of opinion-based rather than fact-based reviewers and their reviews. Just by reading their reviews, it's easy to see that reviewers are passionate about video games. That probably why they got into that profession in the first place. This passion is great when they approach a game with their full attention. They pay great attention to the things that make a game great and will nitpick on the smallest details. However, the fact that passion trumps reason is something to worry about as it leads to unfair biases and in a field that claims to provide expert advice to consumers, that's a problem. Considering as well that they have a wide audience of people who listen to them without a shred of independent thought (maybe a bit harsh, let's call them sheep instead) and make up their mind solely on reviews. 

On a less serious note though, the reviews I give of reviewers are meant purely for comedic effect and may not actually represent the person I am critiquing. For all we know, they may be nice people (probably not, but still). Furthermore, I'd like to clarify that this is once again just my opinion and should be taken as such.

What's Wrong with the Video Games Industry Today?

Simply put, gamers.

Before I go on, let me just clarify that this is wholly my opinion and in no way should be taken as fact. There will undoubtedly be criticism (if anyone actually finds this blog while exploring the vast wilderness of the internet) directed at my point of view and that's fine. I feel that everyone should be entitled to their opinion, unless it is clearly a significant deviation that most people would not be able to take seriously. To reiterate, this post and any post that follows it will merely be my opinion and should not be interpreted in any other way.

Back to the business at hand. Yes, you read it right, the problem with the gaming industry nowadays, I feel is the customer. Not the large corporations like EA, Activision Blizzard and Ubisoft. I know it's popular to hate on publishers and declare that they're killing the industry in the search for profits and making a quick buck. Well, I feel that that is simply untrue.

Before we can move on, I'd like to explain what most people mean when they say that the industry has gone wrong. Usually, they are referring to the lack of originality, the saturation of certain types of genres with hundreds of similar games and the increasing costs of being a gamer. To bring it back to the matter at hand, I'm contending that all these problems are caused by gamers themselves.

The Power of the Consumer
Why do large companies like EA, Activision and Ubisoft publish hundreds of games every single year that could easily interchange names and no one will notice? Because gamers buy their games. Simply put, companies are out to make a profit. That is their sole purpose. Undoubtedly, there are developers that are genuinely passionate about making games but let's not forget that they need money just like the rest of us to survive and if they want to keep making games. But back to the point at hand, which is that companies are solely there to make money.

Now, this is where people will claim that companies are evil and probably point out that EA is considered the most evil in the world. Interesting conclusion, considering EA is a fairly benign publisher that occasionally resorts to a few money-grubbing tactics while other types of companies such as Private Military Contractors lease out mercenaries to wreak havoc in whatever part of the world that they've been contracted to operate in. But let's not dive into the misguided understanding that people have of amorality versus immorality.

So, how do these companies make money? By publishing games that consumers are willing to shell out money for. And because people keep buying certain games year after year after year, these publishers are obviously going to keep selling them. Now, there are complaints about a lack of innovation and the repetitiveness of games nowadays but let's not forget that there is a market for formulaic games (Do I have to tell you which franchises I'm referring to? Let me give you a hint, one's a first person shooter published by Activision and the other is a sports game published by EA) and that's why we see them year in and year out. It is a legitimate complaint and one that I agree with but gamers tend to forget that it is their fellow brethren that keep these franchises alive.

Sure, there will be those that claim it's the fault of the publishers for not doing anything about the staleness of the industry and the saturation of the First Person Shooter (FPS) or Role Playing Game (RPG) genre. However, we're not looking at their side of the story. Like every other type of corporation, video game publishers play it safe. They'll publish games that they know will sell. There's no incentive for them to take a risk and run with something different as there is no guarantee that they can make a profit. And since there is a virtual guarantee that certain types of games will sell, the market becomes saturated with said similar games.

Now, I'm not suggesting that everyone should up and boycott games in order to teach them a lesson. That's a difficult, probably insurmountable task. I don't claim to have any answers, I'm just here to point out my view that gamers themselves are killing the industry.

Piracy
Another problem with the industry, as most people articulate it, is that gaming is becoming an increasingly expensive hobby. Games are expensive, consoles are expensive and add to that DLC which is bleeding the honest gamer dry. And inevitably, the blame rests with companies wanting to make money any way they can from the gamer. But let's examine why. Piracy, which I don't condemn, takes profits away from companies. And when the bottom line starts getting threatened, companies pull out all the stops to increase their profits. And some pissed off gamer will shout out, "Damned publishers trying to make a quick buck off gamers. Why can't they just leave us alone?"

Well, it's because piracy is becoming an increasing problem for that. I understand that there are those that resort to downloading video games because they cannot afford to buy video games but I'm more than willing to bet that there are those who can afford video games but are unwilling to shell out money to buy even some video games. This creates a vicious circle as prices rise and more people turn to downloading in order to escape the increasing costs.

Sure, people will attack me and point out statistics that demonstrate that piracy doesn't hurt profits and I don't contest that. I'm merely stating that from a deductive point of view, one would arrive at the conclusion that each person that pirates video games will logically lead to companies losing out revenue.

Once again, let me reiterate that this is merely my point of view and finish off this rant with a clarification that I neither work nor am paid by any companies (I wish I were) to defend them and their activities.