That's a valid point, and I think it also solves the issue of a lack of interesting formats- Games Night, which was a discussion programme, performed better than Playr (review show) does now, despite being in a much more (for want of a better word) hostile environment- Playr's current channel has a much more full and diverse schedule than Games Night's ever did, and only had a new episode every fortnight, where Playr is weekly.

I think a major problem with games TV is a lack of support for shows- by and large we've only ever had one programme at a time across all of television to cover the entire form. At best we've had two programmes at the same time that are fundamentally the same: at present, we have Playr on Film24 and GameFace/Ginx Files on Bravo, which in terms of format are all but identical, so they both wind up showing a lot of the same content, as opposed to one show being about games in one way, and the other in another way, the same way Top Gear and Fifth Gear co-exist. As such, one show can only really be watched at the expense of the other, and neither really get to go in depth about anything in particular enough to maintain anybody's interest.

What doesn't help is that these programmes are both produced before reaching a network, and are little more than filler, networks not really being willing to put production resources into anything interesting. The only time it does happen is when a dedicated channel launches, and then either due to a lack of funding or simple lack of effort the channel simply doesn't get enough content on-air to support being a channel- as was the fate of xLeague earlier this year, which despite a few decent programme ideas was only ever showing about seven or eight hours of new content a week- leading to the channel's owners to give up after only a few months broadcasting.

Games TV can- and indeed will- work, but it involves effort and a long-term plan- two things lacking in pretty much every attempt so far.

"Theory: Games on TV will never work because why on Earth would gamers watch programmes about games when they could be playing them instead?"

I know the channels in question aren't on the subject of games, but on the same principle, have you seen some of the channels in the 900+ range on Satellite?

How ironic that the subject of cultural acceptance comes up when nobody complains about a docusoap/reality show just because it's on BBC Four.

Anyway, I agree wholeheartedly with the article- it's easy to criticise game(r)s for being anti-social when you see that it tends to be the geeky ones that are the less popular, usually due to being mocked and ostracised for liking something that isn't football.

If you're one of those who seem to think that gaming makes people anti-social, and more importantly feel the need to vocalise that to every gamer you meet, then really you have to ask yourself a question- is it that gamers don't want to socialise, or that they just don't want to socialise with you?

Fable II: Game Episodes provide the same Achievements [...] as the disc-based game

...if you pay for one of the episodes. Otherwise, you just get told you would have an achievement if you'd only pay for the next part.

EDIT: Which makes me sound like a massive achievement whore, doesn't it? Oh well.