My disclaimer: I started playing yesterday and only have hit level 6. But I'm loving it. It may not last forever (the love part), but it brings me back to when I first played KOTOR the single player game. It's VERY MUCH like that. And I really like that. What really hit me like a ton of bricks was how much I actually started caring about the story just from watching the opening movie and then the movie that starts up as you play your first character. I felt I was watching a movie that I cared about the characters on the screen (even though it was just a freaking movie). And then when that scene ended, I realized I now wanted to be part of that fight that was taking place, and then boom, I was. THAT alone is exactly what so many MMORPG players have wanted for years. I remember a sense of this when I first started playing Tabula Rasa (caring about the world from watching the opening movie), but then the game became a simple grind, but that was mainly because the developers seemed to stop caring more than they had done something wrong. My other disclaimer: I play WOW all the time, and I still will. There's nothing that says I can't enjoy two games at the same time.

I know this isn't going to be popular with a lot of people who like to be a lot more reactive, but having been screwed by Sony (and its affiliates) in numerous different areas (their tendrils stretch pretty damn deep), I've made all attempts to separate myself from anything that has the name Sony on it. I went into buy a new TV a few months ago, and at the end, I chose a different brand than Sony mainly because it had the name Sony on it. I own a Playstation 3, which I've pretty much stopped using other than to watch DVDs on it. Recently, I bought a non-Sony Blu-Ray player; my Playstation 3 may be disconnected and stored in the closet forever very soon. When this whole EULA thing came along, I just attributed it to anti-customer behavior that Sony has displayed EVER SINCE I'VE EVER DONE BUSINESS WITH SONY. So, little by little, Sony is making it very easy for me to avoid suing them in the future because at every turn, I avoid buying anything with the name Sony on it. Hell, not so long ago, I decided NOT to play an online game that was being distributed by Sony (not made by them, but just distributed), so because their name was attached to a game I thought about playing, I boycotted it instead. May not have hurt them in the long run, but it made me feel good, and in the end, their game tanked as well. Probably not from my actions, but had the name of Sony been better, they would have gotten my business, and maybe (along with many other people) we would have done something about making sure it didn't tank.

While it's not feasible and would be massively expensive, I'd love to have James Bond's car from For Your Eyes Only that blew up when someone tried to smash his window, killing the bad guy in the process. Granted, I'd probably be put in jail for life for it, but that would be the last smash and grab he'd ever do.

When the first Kindle came out, I bought one, mainly because I wanted to read the Washington Post every morning. It was great. I used to bring it to work every day. Then the Ipad 2 came out, and after waiting for availability, I bought one. What I immediately discovered was that for reading books on e-reader, the Kindle was far superior, but I didn't want to lug around two devices. Then Amazon released an Ipad Kindle app, and I've never needed a Kindle again. It just sits on my desk and collects dust. What this did was unbelievable. When the Kindle was only black and white, books now came in color on the Ipad Kindle App. So when I heard about the Kindle Fire, I thought, "why would I need that?" And that's the problem Amazon has right now. They developed such a good alternative "free" market for reading their books that there's no need to actually buy one of their devices. As a devoted Ipad user, there's no way I'd trade down for a Kindle Fire, so all they can do is attract new people who never would have bought an Ipad in the first place (and that number dwindles every year). I'm not even an Apple fanboi, and I love the Ipad (I usually hate Apple).

When Groupon first came out, it had some promise, but so far, especially in my neck of the woods, every time I see something affiliated with Groupon, it's almost always some massively over-expensive product that I never would have bought in the first place, and even with the "deal" have no intention of buying in the future. People sign onto Groupon because of the initial hype, or hear about really good deals in very large cities where it does work, but then read the first few weeks of ads that come through and then immediately delete the app and stop going to the web site.

The company, however, still pushes the idea that it's profitable, even though the only people making profit seem to be the main owners of the company who are basically trying to sell a product that too few people want. Add to the fact that they've hyped the crap out of their initial offerings over and over again, only to pull it back before release, and people now see Groupon as what looks like a scam (even if it's not). So, it's stock is going to come out, go up really fast with the people who seem to think an initial offering is a gold mine, and then tank before disappearing forever.

I totally understand your dilemma, because your dilemma has been my entire adult life. I learned BASIC programming 20 some years ago when I was a high school student and that's all computers could do. Then I went to a community college nearby (while in high school) and learned FORTRAN. After going to West Point for my education in physics (with no computers being used in schools back then), I did my time in the service and learned COBOL on my own. Meanwhile, I taught myself HTML programming so I could create some of the first web pages back in the day. During that time, I created computer games (lots of them) using whatever platform I could find, and they were changing practically every day. Luckily, after my military service, I was noticed by someone at Maxis Software (he played one of my old games programmed in BASIC), and I worked there (and then Electronic Arts) for awhile before realizing that without a computer degree, you really couldn't move anywhere. I was always relegated to the low programming (i.e. glorified tester) positions.

So years later, I ended up being a computer repair specialist, because I was also good at ripping apart a computer and putting it back together again. But trying to get a job in computer programming has been massively elusive for me. However, every time I have gotten close, someone has been interested mainly because of something I was able to show them as "proof" I knew what I was doing. Without that, I doubt they'd even take a second look.

I'll just come out and say it, but being an app designer hasn't made me cooler. Sure, people don't run away when I say I'm an app designer (as they did when I used to say I was a programmer). But when the inevitable question of "so what kinds of things do you design" comes up, no matter how I phrase the answer, they lose interest immediately. The point is: People will act like it's a lot cooler, but they still don't want to hear about the details.

For me, I don't really have a problem paying taxes on stuff I buy on the Internet. Sure, I'd rather not, but I understand that eventually it's probably going to happen. However, where I have the problem is who gets to collect. I mean, if I live in Michigan, a place that has a horrible infrastructure and does so little to create business (other than claim it does a lot while offering very little incentive for businesses), the State of Michigan should NOT benefit from something I ended up buying from a company in California that has the infrastructure to foster an actual business that was able to put the products online. If the State of California wants to charge me sales tax for something I buy from California, then the right entities actually benefit. Some fat cat bureaucrats in Detroit or Lansing shouldn't be benefiting from my tax dollars for doing absolutely nothing to foster business but voting a tax benefit for themselves. Sure, that money COULD help my state, but because my state doesn't do anything to foster business, it WON'T do anything to help my state but will probably end up with more 8 figure salaries for state and local government cronies who serve themselves at the behest of the state citizens.

As a writer who has tried to go it alone (without a publisher), it didn't take long to realize how much harder it is without a legitimate publisher. I had gone the publishing route before, and because I wasn't a household name already, it was a negative experience. But going alone didn't do much better either because I was still required to do practically everything myself, and without the assistance of a staff of people who know what they're doing, it was a lot more difficult. The ebook route has a lot going for it in the future, but until writers can figure out how to get books into bookstores (or at least seen on searches), we're still held back by the power that publishers have over the ability to be seen and observed.

Publishing has never been the problem. The problem has always been after publishing, where most writers end up being as unknown as they were before they wrote anything.

I joined Google Plus with an invite in the beginning stages, and right off the start, I began to realize that no one I knew was on it. There were a couple of high profile people on it, and then there were a bunch of people making names for themselves to up and coming profile people. To this day, I can't find hardly a friend or two on the whole site. Everyone else on the site is unknown or some big time celebrity I don't really care to read their narcisstic posts. I was checking the recommended friends list almost every day and to be honest, I heard of none of them, so finally I just realized that Google Plus might become big one day, but it would probably be without me.

I'm usually not a very reactive kind of customer. I tend to let things go and not really give them much thought. However, I remember some time ago, I got upset that Netflix was raising its prices. So, I switched to only one dvd at a time from three. Quickly, Netflix reversed its decision, and I went back to three dvds. Then they decided to raise prices again and immediately split the company into two. I found myself somewhat insulted by all of the ceo's comments in response, almost as if he was an adult talking to little children. So, I closed out my account and left. Now, they're trying to fix this faux pas again, and unfortunately, many people like me aren't going to come back. It wasn't really the price increase or even the splitting of the company. It was being talked down to like a child by a company I have given business for many years now. I decided they can do well without me. From what I now see, they're realizing they can't. But when you lose a customer, you lose a customer. Sorry, but that's how business works sometimes.

I have no desire for Spotify, so this isn't really in response to that, other than a recognition that I don't like having to use one service in order to do something else I might want to do. However, what I have noticed is that other services have a tendency to want to be linked with Facebook, and that drives me nuts. Goodreads is an example. When I sign onto it, it usually wants to do so by accessing my Facebook profile, and then spams my Facebook account. Yeah, I could configure it not to do that, but who wants to go through that kind of trouble for something so mundane? Recently, I have been writing articles on Viewshound, which ONLY gives me the choice to sign in through Facebook. I really dislike this, but I have no choice as part of my revenue steam somewhat relies on services like Viewshound. I worry that more and more companies are going to go this route. Where it really bothers me is that my workplace has put Facebook off limits, so I have difficulty connecting to a lot of other services I use on a daily basis because I have to sign onto Facebook FIRST in order to use them. Sure, I could be a good soldier and not goof off during the day, but this isn't about being an employee who has no free time at work but about some of the complications for those of us who do have some free time at work.

While I'll never qualify for this, I still find myself having to criticize Comcast for doing everything possible to avoid helping as many people as they can. The very last line of the stipulation is what ruins it for me, when they state: "and they can't have had Comcast Internet in the last 90 days." If people qualify for it because they NEED it, stop doing everything possible to keep people from being able to qualify for it. Having had Comcast in the last 90 days doesn't somehow make someone who is on the list of those in poverty from being any less poor. Just give them the damn benefit like everyone else who falls into the "need" demographic. Yeah, I know no one really "needs" it, but if they're going through and pretending to be helpful, at least be helpful.

I received the same email this morning and immediately thought to myself that this was someone playing damage control, not someone with a plan and vision. I'm currently going through the process of finishing up a season of a television show I wanted to watch. And then I'll cancel both services. This whole Quikster thing rings of desperation, not a solid plan, almost as if they queried the fry guy at McDonalds and asked him what he would choose if he had to come up with something and then went with the first thing they heard. I don't think they realize that their customers are slowly pushing away from them, and that the damage has yet to be felt (it's going to occur during the next few months as the impact of the increase arrives and then the realization that Netflix is no longer the company it once was, as they pay two bills to get the same thing they used to get under one, even if it is the same price).