Ever since Capcom's recent announcement that Mega Man and Pac-Man would be joining the already impressive roster of characters in Street Fighter X Tekken, Mega Man fans have been irate. You might think that they'd be happy, as the surprise inclusion of Mega Man in Street Fighter X Tekken would seemingly make up for his absence in both Marvel Vs. Capcom 3 and Ultimate Marvel Vs. Capcom 3. But you'd be thinking wrong.

You see, while Capcom's inclusion of Mega Man may seem like a gesture of good will towards fans to those of us who aren't crazy, a few sharp tacks out there have managed to see the truth behind Capcom's actions. They've grown wise to the fact that this was not intended as a gift to Mega Man fans, but rather as a blatant attack on them.

For you see, the Mega Man that Capcom has chosen to include in Street Fighter X Tekken is not the particular version of the character that fans wanted, but is instead a different version of the same character. What the fuck, Capcom?! How can you do this to Mega Man fans after how loyal they've been to you? They've stood by you through your most difficult times. They were the ones there for you when you were getting those death threats for cancelling Mega Man Legends 3. Sure, they were the ones sending the death threats, but the point is that they were there.

Even if you're not a Mega Fan(as Mega Man fans are commonly referred to by me just now), surely you can relate to the Hell that they must be going through. We've all been through similar situations at some point or another. We all know what it's like to have a friend go out of their way to get us a Starbucks latte, only to find out that they got us caramel when they know we like chocolate! We all know what it's like to start up our copy of Super Smash Bros. Brawl for the first time only to find that, to our horror, they used the Twilight Princess Link when we wanted Wind Waker! We all know what it's like to have to smash said copy of Super Smash Bros. Brawl into pieces in a fit of rage, only to feel stupid later when we find out that Wind Waker Link actually was in the game as an unlockable character!

Well I for one am tired of being made to feel stupid! It's time we stood up to bullies like Capcom and let them know that we aren't going to take it anymore. It's time we threw that latte right back in Capcom's face, and told them that they'd better go back to Starbucks and get us chocolate Mega Man like we asked for! (I mean this figuratively, of course. Mega Man fans might hang themselves if they made Mega Man a black guy.)

Because, if we don't take a stand against this sort of thing now, then where does it all end? Mario Kart with blue Yoshi instead of green? Soul Calibur with skimpy outfits that are pushing it instead of skimpy outfits that are going too far? Glover with memorable parts instead of referrences that escape me at the moment?!!

We have to take a stand here and now. This is where we draw our line in the sand. It's time that we told Capcom that we aren't going to support Street Fighter X Tekken under any circumstances. Unless Blanka is in the game. In that case, you're on your own, Mega Man fans. Blanka is way better than Mega Man. He's like a combination of The Hulk and Donnie from the Wild Thornberrys. Plus he can make electricity. None of the other characters can do that. You don't count, guy from Infamous. I don't get why you're even in the game.

I just got through watching the latest Jimquisition about piracy, where Jim Sterling argues that the problem is publishers not making their content available in a way that is convenient for consumers. While I agree that this is part of the problem, as Jim made evident by pointing out that piracy has gone down in instances where it's become more convenient for people to purchase content, I still don't believe that this is the main issue.

While it may be the case that a lot of people pirate content because of convenience, I would guess that a lot more people pirate content because they want to have that content without having to pay for it. So why not just give it to them? No, I'm not some crazy hippy who thinks that we should do away with currency and that everything should be free. I just don't think that things have to always be done the same way through out all of eternity. Just because we've always done something one way doesn't mean that that's the only way of doing it, or that it's even the best way of doing it. It may have been the best way of doing it at one point in time, but things change.

Perhaps there is another way for artists to make money off of their content besides making the consumer pay for it. So I thought I'd share an idea I've had for a while now. I'm probably not the first one to think of it. In fact, I know I'm not, because the pirates have already been doing it for a years now. It's just that it's not an idea that doesn't seem to get brought up very often when discussing the issue of piracy, and I think that it should be.

Is there any reason why artists can't make money the way that most blogs and other sites do? Why can't they just make their content available for free on their own sites, and then make money selling ad space. The more popular their material is, the more hits their site will get, and the more money they'll make selling ad space. This would eliminate the need for a middle man entirely. The artists themselves would be the first place to get their material, and it would be free. So there'd be no reason for people to go anywhere else for their content.

This is basically what South Park does already. You can go to South Park's website and watch pretty much any episode of South Park you want at any time you want. Why couldn't this work for other things. It seems like this would be a much simpler and more affective way of dealing with the piracy problem, and no one would have to go to prison for 50 years.

It may be the case that someone else could come up with a much better solution than this, and it may also be the case that there are some major flaws in this idea that I hadn't even considered. Perhaps this idea wouldn't work at all. The point is that it's time to start considering new things. If you decide that X has to be the answer no matter what, you eliminate a lot of other possibilities from the equation.

Even if my idea isn't the answer, we know that passing bills like SOPA and PIPA(and whatever variations of those bill that we can inevitably look forward to down the road) aren't the answer, and we know that locking up the owners of websites like Megaupload isn't the answer. We know this because we can look and see how other cultural issues that the government has declared war on have worked out. I'm pretty sure that drugs and poverty are still a problem. So why should we expect the government's war on piracy to turn out any differently?

All you're going to accomplish by passing harsher laws against piracy is that you'll get some 15 year old girl to think twice about uploading the latest Lady Gaga video to her Youtube channel, and you might convince some guy who works at a movie theater to not record the trailer for The Dark Knight Rises on his phone and put it on his blog.

You aren't going to stop the people who are actually making a living off of pirating copyrighted material. They have an invested interest in continuing what they're doing, and they aren't going to give up that easily. They're just going to come up with newer and more creative ways of getting around the laws. Which is kind of sad when you consider the fact that the pirates are actually more creative when in comes to finding alternative solutions than the people who are supposed to be selling the content legitimately.

By making it so that the pirates no longer have to compete with that 15 year old girl's Youtube channel or that guy from the movie theater's blog in terms of distributing free content, you're just sending more traffic their way, and helping them make even more money pirating content illegally. Which, in turn, just gives them even more incentive to keep doing it.

Is it really so much to ask that the people who sell creativity for a living be more creative than threatening people with lawsuits and prison sentences when it comes to solving their problems? Because, as it stands now, it seems like the pirates are more creative than the people who legally hold the rights to the copyrighted material in question. So you could actually make the argument that the pirates deserve to profit off of it more. Maybe the pirates should try passing a bill that goes after copyright holders for taking away their business.

I'm bored; so I figured I'd write a blog about my thoughts on how SOPA will turn out. Warning, possible spoilers lie ahead.

SOPA won't pass, because too many people are against it since it allows the government to do X, Y, and Z. That's way too much power for them to ask for all at once. However, at some point in the future, someone will propose a watered down version of SOPA that will only allow the government to only do X. People will be less resistant to this bill, as it will seem less scary, and people will buy into the propaganda that piracy is a major problem and that only government regulation can stop it. This version will end up passing.

Then some time will pass, and the government will have failed to stop online piracy(like it fails at everything), and we'll be told that they can't win the war on piracy with just X; they need to be able to do Y. People will think, "Well they can already do X. What's the harm in letting them do Y?" So they'll end up getting the power to do Y.

Then some more time will pass, and the government will still have failed to stop online piracy. So they'll tell us that they can't stop it with just X and Y, they need to be able to do Z. People will think, "Well they can already do X and Y. What's the harm in letting them do Z?" Then they'll end up getting the power to do Z, meaning they'll have eventually gotten everything they wanted to get with SOPA anyway.

Then some more time will pass. Piracy will be as rampant as ever, and somehow the free market will be blamed for it. By that time, the government will be using its authority to do X, Y, and Z for things that have absolutely nothing to do with piracy. Some people will argue that we need to get back to the "good old days" when the government only did X and Y, and others will say that X, Y, and Z can work if they just had more funding. Someone will question whether or not the government should even have the authority to do X, Y, and Z in the first place, and they'll be called an "extremist", since, by that time, most people won't be old enough to remember the government not having that authority, and they'll have been fed a bunch of horse shit about how the sky would come crumbling down and we'd all die if the government didn't do X, Y, and Z.

Hi, pals. This is Mr. Plow.

This is a new reoccurring bit I'll be doing until I get bored of it(meaning this will probably be the last one) called Q&Aaay. The way it works is people, usually ones made up by me, send me questions(or 'Q's), and I respond with answers(or 'Aaay's).

Today's Q comes from Fakey Madeupstein.

Q: Is it normal for people over 30 to listen to cunts?

Aaay: No, that's weird... Kathie Lee Gifford.

If they're listening to cunts with their kids, that's different. I'm talking about the ones queefing out ridiculous nonsense on day time talk shows. At 30, you should have more on your mind than stupid cunts on TV who can go fuck themselves.

Wow, I can't believe I'm right about everything. I'm gonna go sing some song that has nothing to do with anything.

If you'd like your Q to be Aaay'd on the next Q&Aaay, please send it to ThisIsntARealThing@MadeUp.com. Or, if you'd like to ask directly, message @michaelpachter on Twitter and I'll get to as many as I can't.

Until next time, fellow scabies.

Dead Space 2 is a game I played. I'm going to write about its cool things, scary things, and sexy things. The first time I beat it my brother played all the hard parts for me. Then I played it again and beat it all by myself. I've beaten it like a billion times since then. I'm the best at my school at Dead Space 2.

I got Dead Space 2 for Christmas. My mom said I could pick out two games. So I got Dead Space 2 and Mario & Sonic At The Walk For Breast Cancer Awareness. Plus I got NAMBLA Vs. Capcom: New Age of Consent from my Uncle Tod. My Uncle Tod always makes me sit in his lap. He's kinda weird. I think Dead Space 2 was originally 'spose to be called Dead Space, but that name was already taken by this other game. Dead Space 2 is the sequel to Killzone, which was the sequel to Murder Area.

You play as this dude called Isaac, and you get this awesome weapon called a Diamond Cutter. You have to fight off all these scary guys who are trying to kill you. This one time I brought it over to my friend Billy's house and he watched me play it and my friend was all like "Whoa! That's cool!" and I was like "I know, right?" Then my friend's mom got us McDonald's on her way home from her job in the mall. This one time we got to go with her to work and we got to hang out in the mall all day. It was so cool.

There are all these scary parts to Dead Space 2. I have to sleep with my night light on because I played it so much. This one time I had this scary dream that my Taylor Swift doll came to life and was finally able to press charges against me. My friend Billy I was telling you about before has this cool dog named Rosco. I asked my dad if we could get a dog and he said maybe for my birthday. If I do get a dog I'm gonna name it Dead Space 2. Dead Space 2 is just that good(Editor's note: The game; not Craig's future dog).

Dead Space 2 is the best haunted house ever! Games can count as haunted houses, right? I'm pretty sure they can as long as they're scary. I'll ask my grandpa tomorrow cause he's super smart. Dead Space 2 is way better than this haunted house I went to with my friend Billy. Not the one who has the dog, but this other friend I have whose name is Billy too! I have two friends named Billy. It's so weird. Sometimes I'll be like "Hey, Billy!" and they both answer me at the same time. It's so funny. There's this other kid at school whose name is Billy too, but I barely even know that kid. One time I had a class with the Billy who had the dog and the other Billy who I'm not really friends with and our teacher would always get their papers mixed up. And the Billy who had the dog had another class with the Billy who I went to the haunted house with and I wasn't in that class, but they said that teacher did the same exact thing!

Also, my teacher has a dog named Billy! Isn't that funny? I asked my dad if we could get a dog and he said maybe for my birthday. If I do get a dog I'm gonna name it Dead Space 2! Or I might name it Bandit. I can't member if I already told you guys about that. Anyway, you guys should definitely get Dead Space 2 cause it's freaking sweet. Oh, and you should also get Madden 2011 too!

9/10 ABC Editors' Choice

As you all know, there's a huge controversy going on over Nintendo's plans to open up a new Nintendo Store near ground zero. People are upset because Nintendo's use of motion controls in video games is insensitive to the fact that the planes that brought down the towers on 9/11 were also in motion. Many have pointed out that the other consoles are just as bad, and that Sony and Microsoft have also stepped into the world of motion controlled gaming, but critics still argue that the most extreme examples of motion controls across the world still come from Nintendo.

Jerry Tones, president of a small Microsoft fan club, is planning a burning of hundreds of copies of Kirby's Epic Yarn on November 19th, the anniversary of the Wii's American release, unless the store is moved. This is obviously a situation that we should all take seriously, as well as one deserving of lots of media attention and commentary from the president. And it goes without saying that anyone who would even suggest that all parties involved are equally ridiculous, including Nintendo fans who would be offended by something so stupid, is clearly just bigoted against Nintendo fans.

Incidentally, a similar controversy that you may not have heard about is that some nut in Gainesville, Florida was planning on burning a bunch of Korans on the anniversary of 9/11. Greg Miller, who writes for IGN.com, commented on my Facebook status basically calling me a bigot because I dared point out that some of the things written in the Koran are infinitely more offensive than anything that could ever be done to one. I'm sorry, but if your holy book says that I deserve to burn in Hell, I have a hard time sympathizing with you being offended by someone burning it.(I'm aware that not all Muslims/Christians believe that everyone who disagrees with them deserves to go to Hell, but I'm guessing that they don't lose a lot of sleep over the fact that many people do believe that. So hopefully you can understand why I'm not losing any sleep over someone burning your stupid book.)

I explained to Greg Miller that I feel exactly the same way about the Bible, and that I would be equally unsympathetic of Christians who were offended by someone burning it. That didn't seem to matter though, since he apparently already concluded that I was a bigot and deleted me from his friends list. Of course, he has every right to do so, just as I have every right to say that Greg Miller, from IGN.com, is a douchebag. Also, I hope that Taylor Swift gets interrupted during every award show for the rest of her career.

Also, I have no problem with any religious person, regardless of what their religion is. My problem is with the religions themselves. I'm aware that many(probably even the majority) of religious people don't even believe in the most objectionable parts of their religion. To paraphrase Christopher Hitchens, the best thing you can say about religious people is that most of them are hardly religious at all.