It's time to critique some business decisions using nothing but sheer speculation and what if's, but hopefully still makes sense.

As most everyone who follows video game news knows, Watch Dogs has been delayed until June. (June 30th if the Amazon release date is to be believed). There's speculation as to why. Some say quality issues, some say graphics problems, while others say it's to stay away from GTA V. It may be for none or all of those reasons.

By doing this, Ubisoft missed a huge opportunity of having a blockbuster game coming out on day one of the new console generation. The list of new games and new IPs for both the Xbox One and Playstation 4 are lacking. Watch Dogs was going to be the game to buy. The game to say "Hey, this is what new consoles are capable of." But that was lost. However, there was a crucial decision made by Ubisoft very early in Watch Dogs' development cycle that may have been the cause of the delay.

That decision? To have Watch Dogs come out on Xbox 360 and PS3.

My question is: Why did they decide to do this? To have the game come out on as many consoles as possible, of course. To sell as many copies of Watch Dogs as they can. But was it the right decision? I say not.

Imagine if Watch Dogs was exclusive to next-gen platforms (including PC). It would be a new IP for a new generation. It would be a reason to upgrade. There would be no comparison of the same game between generations, limiting the amount of "Is it worth upgrading?" questions, something that is bound to come up for other titles such as Battlefield 4 and Assassins Creed IV.

What worries me about the delay is that Ubisoft looked at both versions and said "There's not a big enough difference for people to buy the next-gen version," then proceeded to take out certain features of the current gen and add just a bit more to next gen. If they were just focusing on next gen, then all of they're resources could have been poured into making a great next gen game and not worry about the comparisons. I bet that it would have not been delayed. However, this is all in hindsight and easy to say now, but there is one thing for certain: Ubisoft missed a huge opportunity to establish a top selling IP for a new generation, and delaying it just adds to disappointment and dampens the excitement to own a next generation console.

Here is my analysis. Don't take it too seriously.

This must be a screenshot for preseason. Cause that's Tebow, and there is no way he is starting.

Don't take this the wrong way, but is it me, or are there a lot of African American fans in the stands?

C'mon, now. Rex Ryan is NOT that small.

Pretty realistic, since this is about the only way the Raiders score.

I'm pretty sure that ref in the top left is reaching for his flag for something against the Bills.

Oh no! Another season of Bills QBs throwing to the wrong guy.

That's it for this round!

Remember the older days of PC gaming? And by older, I don't mean playing Doom, Duke Nukem, Myst, or even Starcraft. I'm talking about the days before . Remember those?

There was no logging in just to play a game, no internet activations, or mandatory patches just to play the single player. All that you had to do was buy the game at a local store (perhaps even used!), pop the disc in, type in the activation code on the box or instruction booklet, and the rest was history. No hassle. You just had to make sure the disc was kept in OK condition.

Turn to today and DRM, more specifically SercRom, has basically ruined some games. Games that were supposed to be blockbuster were anything but. A perfect example was Spore, as word quickly spread how terrible the DRM was, and sales were way below expected.

Now, I understand that companies want to protect their material, but how much is too far? Limiting to a ridiculously low number of installations? Forcing massive, 2 GB updates just to play? Now, Ubisoft's new DRM forces you to be connected to the internet THE WHOLE TIME!! Not just to install or finish, but to play through the game! If you lose connection for any length of time, then the game immediately stops and you lose anything not saved! What if your router hiccups for a second? What if your internet goes out? Sorry, no gaming for you. This is just ridiculous. Piracy is a problem; always has been and always will be, but if this keeps going, it will only encourage people to find away around it and pirate it more.

One company that I do not mind is Steam, as it seems fairly flexible. As long as you log in to Steam and install, you can play it on that PC, internet connected or not (not quite sure what the limit is, though, if ther is one). Another game that I thought used DRM in a decent way was THQ's Company of Heroes, and it became more apparant in the expansion, Opposing Fronts. You could choose to login, but you could also let the disc in and have it validate that way. Nothing too intrusive. Another company that really gets this is Stardock. They actually reject the idea of DRM. No hassle. Just install and play, and I love it. But these companies are few and far between.

If this keeps up, no wonder people are saying that PC gaming is on its last legs. If I had to choose between the console and PC version of the same game and the PC game is riddled with DRM, I would certianly choose the console version. Developers must stop with intrusive, annoyting, infuriating DRM. A little bit is fine, and I guess logging in is OK. But where it's headed is not in the right direction.

Sometimes reviews are out of hand and do not make sense. Sometimes there is a game which gets a wide variety of reviews, and I applaud Gamespot for putting up a "Critic Score" and listing what each magazine/website gave, along with a link. I also like the "user" score. It shows what the collective gaming community thinks. That being said, it also shows how Gamespot can miss some scores for some games. The Godfather II received a 4.5, while the average is a 7.8. Another game is Halo Wars: Gamespot gave it a 6.5, while the avg. critic score was an 8.2. While I realize that it is good to have a differeing opinion on games and that scores can vary, such differences are a little alarming.

I saw the score for The Godfather thinking "I guess it's not such a good game," then I see crtics and users give it a much better score. I'm not saying the Gamespot needs to go with the crowd (that's bad), but I think they drop the ball sometimes when it comes to rating games. Every site and magazine now and again gets one of those, but it seems to be happening a little more often now. If it happens too much, Gamespot will lose all of their credibility.

I play video games on a daily basis, mainly because I just think they are fun, and there are few alternatives that really interest me and are accessible. For instance, watch primetime TV or play Gears of War? No contest. Sleep or play Civ IV? That might be a little harder depending on how tired I am. Watch a good movie, or play GTA IV? That's a toss up. But there are only a few times a year when gaming drops down on my leisure time list, and that time is almost here.

It is almost March Madness time! Even if I was offered to play God of War III instead of watch March Madness, there is no way I turn down the tournament. For you, it might be different. However, as a sports fan, nothing can beat the madness in March, and it is more than okay not to game during this time of year.

If the economy was based on video game sales, the stock market would be soaring ever higher. Cars are not being bought, houses are being foreclosed, but Rock Band is being sold in huge numbers, along with other, crazy, blockbuster titles. In this day and age where consumers are paying more attention to money and value, video games seem to be doing very well.

At first, paying $60 seemed a little excessive and a little controversial. Now, games are being bought left and right. People may buy just  two games instead of three, or wait and save to buy Rock Band, but in general, strong sales numbers prove how popular and alive the video game industry is. Whether you have a 360, PS3, Wii, or tricked out PC, the number of games (and good games at that) is pretty astonishing. Who would say no to Fallout 3 or Far Cry 2 which offers hours of gameplay, or GOW2 or SOCOM that offer great multiplayer? I think we are beginning to see just how great these next gen platforms are, and we are seeing that the extra $10 we pay is being well spent. And if the economy keeps going down, that's all the more reason to stay home and give a beat down to your friends.

I recently played through Medal of Honor: Airborne on my PC, and it was a pretty decent game. In fact, it has been the best MOH in quite a while. Pacific Assault was pretty good, but that came out quite a while a go. As for consoles, Airborne was the first major release since European Assault. While "open environment" combat is interesting, you still feel that you have to go to certain locations in order to complete the job. I wish EA would go back and do a game similar to MOH: Frontline. That was the WWII game that got the ball rolling, and turned the WWII genre into the powerhouse genre that it is today.

What was so great about Frontline? Well, the action was basically non-stop, but the kind of action and the surroundings varied. Whether it was sneaking around in the Manor House or fighting on a bridge, the combat never seemed to get stale. Also, the storyline in each mission varied as well, and the main story helped to move things along. Looking back, "timed events" were what made the game so good. Developers are now focusing on spontaneus events that the player controls and making everything open world. While that works and is fun, there is something about timed events and a storyline that can add to the fun of the game. In Frontline, you were able to infiltrate a bar and start a fight. While this was scripted, it was no less entertaining. With controlled events, developers are more able to depict what works and what does not.

MOH: Frontline, in my opinion, was the height of the MOH series as well as WWII games in general. It may not have been totally realistic seeing one man do everything, but it was still fun. Games that focus on realism are also fun, but games that take realism to the edge are even better. One man going through an entire German base and then stealing a plane? Not too realistic, but a whole lot of fun to play. If EA can capture the Frontline experience and add next gen graphics to it, it could add a breath of fresh air in series as well as the genre as a whole.

Grand Theft Auto IV came out Tuesday, making it harder and harder not to just give in and buy a next gen console. But there seems to be a big problem with frame rates and stuttering. While I think that Rockstar should have addressed these issues in the first place, could they have really known this? I understand people's frusration. But if Rockstar actually delayed the game again, people would have been up in arms. Then, people expect a patch release just two days after the game was released. It's not a matter of making something in an hour to fix it. It might take a week or two at the least, and this further indicates that they had no idea this problem would be this widespread.

Looking at some of the comments were also disturbing. Someone even said, referring to the 12 step process "Wow.. would they like me to do anything else maybe? Kill my firstborn son? Turn lead into gold?" Now I enjoy sarcasm as much as anybody, but really, it's just a flippin 12 step process. It's just a game. I would be as frustrated as anybody if it stopped working after 35 hours of gameplay, but it's a part of new releases. In such a huge game with so much coding, there was bound to be problems.