IMO, as someone who moved from Doom through Quake to Half Life and then Halo, the only people who make a big deal about the tedium of Halo are those who've never sat down IN THE SAME ROOM, at the same screen, as a bunch of friends, and had an enjoyable couple of hours blasting things together. Halo stood out for its built in co-op for me. Sadly 2 and 3 didn't really add anything to the promising start.

You sir, must be a rich man, with ideas like that.

But that's trying to have it both ways isn't it. Either they can have legal protection, which says 'we'll let you have this game of "licensing" it, but that license doesn't last for ever, and then you have to let people do what they like. Or they can accept that they're selling me a product, and I can do what I like with it. The horrific thing is this having their cake and eating it place we've ended up in. Incidentally, as with so many people here, I'm a software developer for one of these 'big corporations'. And I honestly don't believe my world or my livelihood would be shaken to their roots if these blatant injustices were fixed.

No, you have missed the point of my post. It is mine. The bits are stored on hardware which I own. You may have some legally protected rights over what I can do with it, such as passing it on to other people, and I can accept that, even if I think those laws are flawed. The software itself, in any sane understanding of the technology and morals involved, must be mine after I buy it from you, to do with what I will within my own home. And on this I do not give a monkey's what the law says.

It. Is. My. Software. Once. It. Is. On. My. Computer.
If you do not want it to become my software, do not sell it to me. You may maintain copyrights over it, but the bits are mine. Let me use them.

Or to look at it another way, an XBox is a tightly specified closed platform and so waaaaaay easier to do proper robust testing on than the plethora of possible hardware combinations in the generic PC market.

Argh. That's exactly the misunderstanding at the root of this. It doesn't MATTER whether it's a nod to the works of PKD (I think Google have even said as much). The point is, would anyone in their right mind think this phone was the product of, or endorsed by, Dick or his heirs? If not, as neither word is a protected Trademark, particularly in the realm of mobile communication devices, they have no legitimate complaint.

Seriously, this is the way it goes:

• Kid - pocket money + xmas presents, little knowledge - consoles
• Student - loans + part time job, knows enough to throw a rig together, happy to pirate all software - PC
• Working Adult - disposable income, what little time available for hobbies precious, DOES NOT WANT THE HASSLE: back to consoles

That's the path that I and most of my peer group at work (for major IT name) have followed, and I'd give 50:50 odds you're in the middle segment at the moment. When you realise that you just cannot be bothered fighting whatever copy protection is stopping you playing that legally purchased disc in your hand, and you've got too much to lose to torrent the new release of Windows, maybe things will look different.
Maybe I'm wrong, and the upgrade cycle is really your hobby, with gaming an occasional bonus - that's the other way to go.

It absolutely isn't in the UK. If the product does not work as expected, the vendor (not the manufacturer) has a liability to provide a full refund if demanded. Course, IANAL.

I'm afraid you missed my point entirely. I'm not trying to debate the source of morality. I'm just pointing out that the English word 'right' has more than one meaning and in this context means 'something which the state has determined all its citizens should have'. Some other people think the sole meaning is 'something which it was preordained all human beings should have'. This is causing tedious flame wars throughout this thread.

All of this is nit picking over the definition of the word 'right'. It has more than one meaning! Generally, the precise meaning is determined by who we are saying is 'giving' the right - and in the case of 'basic human rights' we usually imply that either 'the natural order of things' or $DEITY 'gave' the rights. All rights do not have to be innate though - I can contractually give you a right of access across my land. In the case of TFA we are talking about a government / constitutionally granted right. Ok? Can we all stop arguing semantics now? Kthx.