Qhy indeed.

ಠ_ಠ

ಠ_ಠ

ಠ_ಠ

That would be pointless tho. They need to go after the absolute root cause of piracy: The existence of content to be pirated.

Yeah, sure... your daughter...

They'll get around this by putting a sideways, rounded M next to the titles.

Global Offensive is CS2 dude. CS:S was just a remake of CS on Source Engine. Think of it as Half-Life: Source.

No dude, because CS:S was just a remake of CS. So CS:GO is CS2. Next one is CS3. IT ALL ADDS UP DUDE.

I still say it'll be the Purple Box.

I think you're making assumptions here. All that post amounts to is "I would have expected GTA to have a female playable character by now, when will we see one?", which is far from being a criticism. You're jumping to the conclusion that the poster disapproves of Rockstar's actions, when at most he's expressing…

I see no expression of disapproval there.

He wasn't criticizing tho was he? He just voiced his opinion that he would like a GTA with a playable female character, even if just for the sake of variety. You then came in with a dumb reason why they can't do that. Thing is, they could do it if they wanted, and fans are allowed to voice their opinion that they…

I don't see any reason why a female character wouldn't fit a 'typical' Rockstar story. Really. None. They could even explore new angles that way.

Just for the sake of doing something different perhaps. My point is not that they should do it, my point is that your reason why they are not doing it doesn't make any sense.

What does that even have to do with anything? Why would Rockstar not be able to make something happen just because it hasn't been done before(as far as you know)?

The Wii U will have Monster Hunter. The other two current gen consoles don't have Monster Hunter(at least localized in the west). Therefore, Nintendo wins.

Isn't that an already existing service in japan tho, and not really new nor managed by nintendo?

Edit: Neeevermind, I misunderstood your comment.