Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

Halo 3 and the Second Wave of 360 Games 279

Posted by Zonk from the don't-get-too-excited dept.
conq writes "BusinessWeek has an interview with Microsoft Game Studios' Shane Kim in which he discusses the second wave of Xbox 360 games. When asked if Halo 3 is coming out this year, the answer was: 'It depends. If it's the game that everyone is expecting then, yes. For us it's about making a proper impact on the platform. It has to be something with huge significance, so we won't be rushed.'" If you know what that means, I would like to offer you a cookie, because I sure as heck don't.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Halo 3 and the Second Wave of 360 Games More

Halo 3 and the Second Wave of 360 Games

Comments Filter:

  • Obvious (Score:5, Funny)

    by Pi_0's don't shower ( 741216 ) <ethan@isp.northw ... u ['est' in gap]> on Thursday February 23, 2006 @07:00PM (#14788799) Homepage Journal
    It sounds like the clue train is coming in:

    Last stop is you, Mister story-poster.

    Alright, it sounds like he's saying that he "cares" about the "quality" of the "product".

    This might be because he has a "reputation" and he doesn't want to "ruin it".

    Any questions?
    • But you're forgetting he "works" for "Microsoft".

      He has a "job" and doesn't want to "lose it".

      Therefore he'll release it when he's told to.

  • Why is halo so great again? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by IIDX ( 873577 ) on Thursday February 23, 2006 @07:00PM (#14788802)
    I never understood why Halo was so head and shoulders above the other Xbox games. What makes it so great compared to other titles in the library?
    • ...maybe because the other titles in the library are crap?

    • Re:Why is halo so great again? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      This one's actually surprisingly easy to answer. It's the first console FPS that actually managed a default controller scheme that was not only as easy as using a mouse and keyboard; it was easy to pick up, and in some cases provided even -more- manouverability to a casual player than even a seasoned Quake 3 lunatic could manage.

      Other than that there wasn't really much new or interesting about it. Hardcore Halo fans will try to impress you with its "sweeping, complicated storyline," but the truth is no one'
      • Oh, I don't know, I think that there were a couple [deusex.com] of FPS [half-life2.com] games [farcry-thegame.com] that were successful because of compelling story.

      • It's the first console FPS that actually managed a default controller scheme that was not only as easy as using a mouse and keyboard; it was easy to pick up

        I would strongly disagree with this. I distinctly remember playing early FPS: Wolfenstein 3D, Doom, DN 3D, Descent, Quake, Quake II etc. The controls were really easy to pick up back then, in part because there was less to do. Admittedly, everybody took more time adjusting to Descent, but it was sooo cool people were willing to invest the effort. A

        • What I'm saying is that Halo/Halo 2 is, hands down, the worst controlling FPS I've ever played, console or PC.

          I'm with you there. Aiming is truly lousy, and the vehical control is pure drunken-drive. Go-where-you-look is just an incredibly stupid, awkward way to drive.
      • and in some cases provided even -more- manouverability to a casual player than even a seasoned Quake 3 lunatic could manage.

        Bullshit on that one there is no way any "seasoned Quake3" could be out maneuvered by someone using a controller even if its Halo 1 or 2, I have yet to see anyone that good with the controller that could beat someone that is good with a mouse and keyboard. I will agree that the controller is decent but better then a mouse and keyboard? Not a chance in hell.
        • The big problem with the mouse and keyboard is realism. If I'm playing a WWII FPS then it's hardly realistic for my avatar to be capable of lightning fast changes in direction. Using a joystick controller limits the speed at which my character can react, without me having to turn the sensitivity of the game so far down that I have to do the mouse pick up shuffle to turn around.
      • "It's the first console FPS that actually managed a default controller scheme that was not only as easy as using a mouse and keyboard; it was easy to pick up, and in some cases provided even -more- manouverability to a casual player than even a seasoned Quake 3 lunatic could manage."

        They way they made it playable on a gamepad was with generous aim assist. It certainly makes it less frustrating playing with a gamepad, but it takes a lot of the skill out of the game.

        • "It certainly makes it less frustrating playing with a gamepad, but it takes a lot of the skill out of the game."

          Does it really? Why are ultra-competitive Halo competitions so popular, then?

          It seems to me that while the aim assist may take some of the skill out of aiming, it shifts the emphasis to strategy and teamwork. Most of the best Halo matches I've played have been determined primarily by tactics, not by headshot skill. I guess it depends on the player, but I've greatly preferred a more strategy

        • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • It was packaged with a lot of xbox units, so you could be pretty sure that most xbox owners had it, which meant it was easy to get together a big multiplayer multi-xbox halo fest.
    • It's a "complete" game. Story, sound, gameplay, graphics, controls, fun factor. It's got it all and it's polished to the hilt.
    • There are a few reasons I highly enjoyed the game:
      1. Inovative and fun gameplay, you have to make a tactical decision on which weapons to carry, when to take cover so your shields can regenerate and when its worth using grenades. The gameplay is actually very similar to Call of Duty 2 which I have been currently playing.
      2. Easy online play with Xbox live and matchmaking, though I generally don't play with people other then my friends the fact that its a simple way to get together makes it very popular.
      3. A
    • For me it's as simple as the split screen online play. Sure, playing against your friends in split screen is cool, but that gets old after a while. Going against other players online with your friends is even cooler. Halo (& Halo 2) is one of the only games I've ever seen with "split-screen online" play. Yes, most games have split-screen play (locally), and most have online (1 player per console), but Halo lets you and three of your buddies go in together. It's a great party game because of that.
    • I do believe above poster is correct: Marketting. Very specific marketting.

      Let me explain.

      Halo really isn't that great a FPS. I played it, I completed it, and it was fairly fun, but in no way was it "combat evolved". The controls were fine, my girlfriend managed to complete it using a damn poor logitech mouse she scrounged from an uncle. It was simply marketting injection.

      Most children, or, most normal children, before the advent of console online gaming around here had no idea what "playing online" meant,

      • Re:Why is halo so great again? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by AlexMax2742 ( 602517 ) on Thursday February 23, 2006 @08:51PM (#14789442)
        If it truely was a terrible game, it wouldn't have gotten any play past the initial hype, everyone would have moved on to the next 'flavor of the week' htat the marketing execs perscribed for them. However, there are still tons of people playing Halo 2, and even the first game.

        Even with mega-marketing hype, you can only impress the casual gamers for around 15 minutes. After that, you better play well. Take Madden '06 for the 360. It got a lot of hype, but nobody takes it seriously anymore becuase it was a terrible game, missing a lot of the features that made a good football game. If Halo and Halo 2 existed on hype, it would have suffered the same fate. However, you still have tons of people taking the game seriously, hell, even competatively.

        Halo and Halo 2 were both good games. They might not have impressed you or even been your cup of tea, but they were both good games.

        • How does "not that great" turn into "terrible".

          Honestly, I never saw the lure. It looked a lot like UT and played pretty average. Nothing special.

          Of course I never played the console version for more than 5 minutes, being a PC gamer automatically makes a controller awkward.
          • Of course I never played the console version for more than 5 minutes, being a PC gamer automatically makes a controller awkward.

            No, it doesn't. :D

            Only a peculiar breed of PC gamer finds it automatically awkward. Most of us have no problems after a couple minutes of acclimation.
      • This isnt true... most of the people I know never played halo until at least a year after it was released, myself included.. I think it's one of the better games because the features are so easily accessible... Granted the PC version isnt nearly as good (in different ways) as the XBox version. With Halo 1, what drew me in was the fact that you could literally have parties using XBoxes.. Grab 4 boxes and link them up and play 16 person halo... Its a great way to get together with friends, and I think that
      • Have you played a PC FPS game that's done online play nearly as well? I haven't, and to my knowledge, that's because there aren't any out there.

        You don't have to worry about finding the right server to play on, after 15 minutes of getting lists and finding some are running mods you can't play/don't want, others are too slow for you, others don't have enough people, etc, etc. You just say "I want to play free-for-all" or "I want to play team slayer", and they take care of the rest. You don't have to play

    • There are other titles in the library?!?

    • Because they never played Goldeneye :)

  • simple (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Traiklin ( 901982 ) on Thursday February 23, 2006 @07:00PM (#14788803) Homepage
    If the PS3 is released this year, so will Halo 3.

    if it's delayed till next year then you won't see Halo 3 till next year, simple as that.

    notice the timing of these and the way he words it? "IF gamers want it bad enough then it will be released this year." what If is there to it? Halo 2 sold $100,000,000 in it's first couple of days, is he trying to say that people aren't hyped for Halo anymore?

  • Translating... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by RyoShin ( 610051 ) <tukaro.gmail@com> on Thursday February 23, 2006 @07:02PM (#14788828) Homepage Journal
    Babelfish doesn't offer a translation for "Microsoft", but I believe he meant that it will come out this year if it meets everyone's expectations. After all, everyone and their dog is expecting Halo 3 (while I haven't played Halo 2 all the way through, the ending was apparently a complete cliffhanger).

    Basically, he's saying that Bungie (or someone) is working on it, and it could be complete this year, but they're going to give it the time it needs to be a "good" FPS.

    So they're giving it the treatment that Nintendo is giving Twilight Princess, minus the sad fanboys, which is good, as the XBox 360 dearly needs some hit quality games.

    • "The launch portfolio was full of good games. There wasn't anything quirky that might hurt the platform or anything that really rose to the top. It was a level playing field for everybody."

      And hereby Microsoft redefines the word great, as:

      great. n. not great.

      It's actually spot-on. There was no great launch title for the Xbox 360. At most it was Geometry Wars but who in their right mind would pay $400 for a new system just to play a $5 game? I have a friend who is actually so engrossed in it he's planning t

    • Babelfish doesn't offer a translation for "Microsoft",
      I believe the "corporate bullshit" translator works reasonably well.
    • And the tagline for the game can be "It'll be done when it's done".

      -Eric

  • Here's what I heard about the release date (Score:5, Informative)

    by Rude Turnip ( 49495 ) <valuation.gmail@com> on Thursday February 23, 2006 @07:02PM (#14788829)
    I was at EB Games this weekend and saw a mock-up of a Halo 3 box on the "Coming Soon" shelf. I picked up the box to see if there were any screen shots on the back of the box. There weren't any screenshots, but I did find some valuable marketing intelligence. The back of the box said that Microsoft plans to release Halo 3 the same day as the PS3 comes out in an effort to out-launch Sony.

  • Give no bad news, lest customers wait for PS3 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ivan256 ( 17499 ) * on Thursday February 23, 2006 @07:03PM (#14788837)
    If it's the game that everyone is expecting then, yes. For us it's about making a proper impact on the platform. It has to be something with huge significance, so we won't be rushed.'" If you know what that means, I would like to offer you a cookie, because I sure as heck don't.

    It means they don't have a clue if they can finish it on time, but probably not because both of the previous games had historic delays... But please, please, please buy a 360, and don't wait for the PS3.

  • not enough units (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymouse Cownerd ( 754174 ) on Thursday February 23, 2006 @07:08PM (#14788867) Homepage
    It means that there is not enough units out there for them to rush through and release the game yet. Once there are more systems out there, then they'll release the game, and more people will buy, thus higher sales numbers.

    It could also mean that they would release early if the future of the Xbox360 depended on it. Because we all know there are no real hits on the Xbox360 yet, thus noone is purchasing the console.

    • "Because we all know there are no real hits on the Xbox360 yet, thus noone is purchasing the console."

      From the very article:

      "We're working hard to produce as many units as possible. I'm pretty confident we'll catch up with demand in the next few weeks and we'll be able to supply all the demand. Of course we are gratified by the overwhelming demand for Xbox 360 but we would have liked to have sold more units, had they been available. I don't see it as lost sales though, only as a time--shift."

  • After reading the interview, still nothing there (Score:3, Insightful)

    by WillAffleckUW ( 858324 ) on Thursday February 23, 2006 @07:09PM (#14788874) Homepage Journal
    not a single reason why I should upgrade from my xBox, since I'm not shelling out money for HDTV until 2009 when the prices plummet.

    Besides, by then, I'll be able to choose between NR, PS3, and xBox360, with actual real games that aren't just ports or FPS clones.

    Wake me up when they ship Katamari on the 360.

  • That is Not What I Wanted to Hear... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by WeAzElMaN ( 667859 ) on Thursday February 23, 2006 @07:09PM (#14788875)
    "When asked if Halo 3 is coming out this year, the answer was: 'It depends. If it's the game that everyone is expecting then, yes."

    NO! Release a game when it's ready, not when the people want it. Too often, developers are pushing titles out because it's what the public wants right then and now; no more are the days when developers actually released games when they were ready for public consumption. If more developers stick to the "It will come out when it's ready" mantra, we'd have less crap on the market for games these days.

    -WeAz

  • I want that cookie. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by antek9 ( 305362 ) on Thursday February 23, 2006 @07:09PM (#14788878)
    It's rather easy to decode this example of marketing lingo: if the release of Sony's PS3 will take place in 2006, then Halo3 will follow right after, or shortly in advance. Tackling the Playstation launch is the impact he's talking about, is what the rushed XBOX360 launch was all about, so go figure.

    Don't know if this will qualify as being ironic (not in Alanis' sense anyway), but in the end the XBOX and Halo fanboys may thank Sony (or blame them, depending on how playable the game will turn out) for Halo...

  • If it's the game that everyone is expecting then, yes.

    I'm assuming by "everyone" he means the people developing the game, so the translation is "We aren't far enough into development to have done any real play testing, so we don't know if it's any fun to play yet.

    For us it's about making a proper impact on the platform. It has to be something with huge significance, so we won't be rushed.

    In other words, the key to the product isn't whether or not it's a good game in its own right, but whether or not

    • When push comes to shove, the popularity of a game cannot rest on just its name alone, especially if people are considering spending an extra $300 to get the console to play it on. If people hear that it's flashy but not very fun to play, they may have been willing to buy the game at one point, but it's not worth $350 to them. If this was Halo 2, it would be different, since Halo 1 was such a huge hit. But H2 dissapointed a lot of people (everyone I talk to preffers Halo 1 by a large amount), so I think man
  • When asked if Halo 3 is coming out this year, the answer was: "It depends. If it's the game that everyone is expecting then, yes. For us it's about making a proper impact on the platform. It has to be something with huge significance, so we won't be rushed." If you know what that means, I would like to offer you a cookie, because I sure as heck don't.

    It means no.

    Gimme my cookie.

  • It has to be something with huge significance, so we won't be rushed.

    New Microsoft employee? Marketing department hasn't spoken with you yet? Here are Microsoft products are released on a schedule which provides maximum profits and steady revenue. You'll release it when the quarterly financials tell us it needs to be released.
  • I ran the quote through the "Lost in translation" babelfish mangler ( http://www.tashian.com/multibabel/ [tashian.com]) to see if it could offer an clues. It went from this:

    It depends. If it's the game that everyone is expecting then, yes. For us it's about making a proper impact on the platform. It has to be something with huge significance, so we won't be rushed.

    ... to this ...

    It depends. If it is the game, of that one then examines everything. For us he we are extreme giving who we formed to a U.S.ABLE effect in the

  • Explication (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Geoffreyerffoeg ( 729040 ) on Thursday February 23, 2006 @07:24PM (#14788979)
    It depends.

    It won't really be a sequel to Halo 2.

    If it's the game that everyone is expecting then, yes.

    It doesn't even have to be a Halo franchise game - but it will be as good as everyone's vision of Halo 3.

    For us it's about making a proper impact on the platform.

    We need a great game on the Xbox 360 to show off how pwnzor the system really is.

    It has to be something with huge significance, so we won't be rushed.

    Even though we don't need it, we're probably going to use the Halo franchise, simply because people expect Halo 3 to be good - but we're designing it with the attitude of "Xbox 360 killer app" instead of "sequel to Halo 2", because that's what we need to produce.
  • I would LOVE to have your cookie :) But, just so long it isn't one of those that last til 2035, please. Those are wayyyy too tough on my teeth...

  • Halo 3 is guaranteed to be in production... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by atomicstrawberry ( 955148 ) on Thursday February 23, 2006 @07:42PM (#14789097)
    ... but will it actually be developed by Bungie?

    Halo 2 is one of the best selling console games ever, and MS would be insane not to have Halo 3 in development for the Xbox 360. That said, the big question is which team is handling it? After Halo 2, Bungie said that Halo 3 would not be their next title. Gates then came out and said something about Halo 3 releasing with the PS3 (in a more recent interview with him he said he'd made a mistake with that). As a result of that combined with the recent release of the 360, everyone has assumed that Bungie must be working on Halo 3 after all despite the fact that nothing has actually been announced.

    Personally, I'm a long-standing Bungie fan, since I got Operation Desert Storm for my old Mac LC575. For me, Halo 2 was a gigantic disappointment. It is certainly a good game, but it feels almost soulless, lacking in those special, hard to describe qualities that had set their games apart previously. When you look at the dev team that worked on it, the reason is pretty clear: the original team is now far outnumbered by newer talent.

    I would not be surprised at all if Bungie dropped an 'unexpected' bombshell at E3, announcing and demoing a new game that isn't Halo 3, but something completely new. Perhaps an entirely new genre? I'd love to see a talented group like them tackle an RPG, for example. There is absolutely no reason why a separate Microsoft studio couldn't be working on Halo 3 and having some of the Bungie team give them the nod every now and then. It's not unheard of in the game development world after all. For example, Bioware handed off Knights of the Old Republic and Neverwinter Nights to Obsidian so they could concentrate on developing new IP. There's no reason why Bungie couldn't still be involved in a creative capacity as well.

    Allowing Bungie to work on something new while continuing to develop Halo as a brand would make sense in terms of long-term marketing too. MS at the moment have only got a few franchises that they can build on - Perfect Dark, Project Gotham, and Halo are about the shape of it. Bungie have proven that they have the ability to create franchises. If they produce something completely new, then there is a strong chance that it will end up becoming another large franchise for MS. The X360 should have at least another 3-4 years in its lifespan, and having an extra big franchise that they can push down the line when interest begins to wane would be good business sense for Microsoft.

    Personally, I'd be far more interested in seeing something original from Bungie. What did that "Pheonix" project they were throwing around a few years back turn out to be, anyway?
  • If you know what that means, I would like to offer you a cookie, because I sure as heck don't.

    Well, I think it means.. Wait. You don't want to offer me a cookie, so you're going to offer me a cookie?

    If anyone knows what that means, I would like to offer my services as a cookie consumer.

  • Sony's strategy (Score:3, Interesting)

    by 7Prime ( 871679 ) on Thursday February 23, 2006 @07:55PM (#14789166) Homepage Journal
    This is another reason why I think Sony is trying a different (and more intelligent, IMO) strategy by witholding the release date of the PS3 until shortly before its launch. Currently, Microsoft's waiting around for Sony to pin up a release date, so they can prepare the launch of a huge "must-have" around the same time and undermine the system launch. If Sony just keeps quiet, and then suddenly announces that the PS3 will be launched "next week" (a scenario that I think is quite possible), Microsoft will be caught with their pants down. Everyone's expecting Sony to use the same tactics that they have in the past, but if you look at the current situation, it's much different from any of their previous releases. Both the PS1 and PS2 were the first big systems of their generation (except for the Dreamcast, I know, but Sega was already floundering as a hardware company before then, and were of little concern to Sony). Sony was the guy who could step up and offer something far beyond what was currently on the table, and therefor, they boasted about it for months, even years, before their releases. This is a good strategy when you're the first out of the gate, but its not a very good strategy when you're second, because the other guy has a long time to devise a strategy to undermine your launch. Not only that, but you can't hold people's attention for long periods of time by offering them something far beyond what's currently on the market. This is where the N64 failed. Nintendo talked up the new system for over a year before it's release, while in the meantime, Sony and their cronies put forth some of the greatest gaming opportunities in the history of the industry. When the N64 finally launched, the Playstation's developers had had time to get their skills up to almost on par with the new system, so Nintendo had very little to offer in the way of power.
    • Interesting thought.

      However, don't forget that the Saturn undercut the Playstation release date and launched early on 5 / 9 / 95... "Saturn Day." Sony was caught completely by surprise. Retailers were caught completely by surprise. The public was taken completely by surprise. They basically jumped ahead of everyone else and launched before anyone was ready to buy or sell the thing.

      Unless you were paying daily attention to the gaming press, one day you walked over to the store and the thing you were hypi

  • When it's done ... (Score:3, Funny)

    by rlp ( 11898 ) on Thursday February 23, 2006 @08:31PM (#14789350)
    It means that it's coming out some time before Duke Nukem Forever ships.
  • If it's the game that everyone is expecting then, yes.

    Meaning: They could release a Halo 3 that meets consumer expectations soon (i.e. - simply better graphics, better gameplay). Instead, they are working on a game that will 'defy' expectations, so it will take as long as it needs to.

    In the end it's all marketspeak. My hope is that they are sitting on the game while manufacturing gets up to speed. BillG said they'd release it opposite PS3, but I can't imagine why they wouldn't rather come in to the P
  • Sounds a lot like Windows back in 1983

    Announced to kill the competition
    Released as a product three years later with what is obviously not 3 years of work

    http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_1.0 [wikipedia.org]
    Yeah, it's more than it looks like at first glance, but still, THREE YEARS? (From the announcement in 1983, not the start of development in 1981.

  • Thanks for the cookie. (Score:4, Funny)

    by neo ( 4625 ) on Thursday February 23, 2006 @09:27PM (#14789598)
    If you know what that means, I would like to offer you a cookie, because I sure as heck don't.

    Thanks for the cookies.

    Name FRQSTR
    Value 18769010,18769010,18769010,18769010,18769010
    Host slashdot.org
    Path /
    Secure No
    Expires Thursday, September 07, 2006 8:50:27 PM

    Name __utma
    Value 9273847.1215455076.1133154440.1140702135.114074417 3.179
    Host slashdot.org
    Path /
    Secure No
    Expires Sunday, January 17, 2038 7:00:00 PM

    Name __utmb
    Value 9273847
    Host slashdot.org
    Path /
    Secure No
    Expires Thursday, February 23, 2006 8:53:45 PM

    Name __utmc
    Value 9273847
    Host slashdot.org
    Path /
    Secure No
    Expires At End Of Session

    Name __utmz
    Value 9273847.1140489457.171.5.utmccn=(referral)|utmcsr= books.slashdot.org|utmcct=/article.pl|utmcmd=refer ral
    Host slashdot.org
    Path /
    Secure No
    Expires Tuesday, August 22, 2006 10:37:36 AM

    Name user
    Value 4625::iSAyhgYTYUBaSKvyWxs3Ir
    Host slashdot.org
    Path /
    Secure No
    Expires Monday, October 02, 2006 7:30:10 PM

    Name user
    Value 4625::iSAyhgYTYUBaSKvyWxs3Ir
    Host slashdot.org
    Path /
    Secure No
    Expires Monday, October 02, 2006 7:30:10 PM
  • Halo 3 the replacement for Duke Nukem Forever!
  • A few of the comments on here have been saying that the game will come out on the same day as the PS3. Wouldn't it be smarter, maybe, to release it the day before? Then, everyone will have just bought a game, so they won't see the point of buying a whole new console have this new game here to play. This will cause less initial sales, and after the hype has died down, many of the people who would have bought the PS3 the first day will have decided not to in favor of something else. Just an idea.

    By the
    • You... nah, just kidding, you are great, really.

      As far as slashdot goes, I think the general consensus is that it doesn't matter which one you hate the most, just so long as you hate them both sufficiently so as not to buy any of their products.
  • What it means is that they hope that people will forget about the Halo series long enough to create Halo 3 without rushing it to market. If people start demanding it, though, they'll push out another garbage title like Halo 2 that just rehashes the first.

    "I sure hope nobody wants this!"

    "Why's that, Bob?"

    "I want to have time to polish it up so it doesn't suck like the last one!"

    "That makes sense. What happens if people start asking about it, though?"

    "Well, I guess I'll just have to give them what I've got al
  • Is the Xbox 360 coming out this year?
  • What he's saying is that there are more than one Halo franchise game in production right now. The one "everyone is expecting" is the direct sequel to Halo 2 -- a single player FPS with online deathmatch.

    The ones that won't be released this year include the Halo-world RPG and RTS, the Warthog racing game, the Banshee flight simulator, and one that lets you decorate your Pillar of Autumn quarters and socialize with crewmates.

Slashdot Top Deals

Neutrinos have bad breadth.

Close