No, his suggestion is equivalent to satisfying yourself with masturbation because you can't watch other people having sex.

Breach. Not bridge.

You pay money for a sporting event, yet you don't get to choose how the teams play.

You pay money to watch a movie, yet you don't get to change the dialogue.

You seem to be stuck on the fact that the only way to innovate and be inventive is to modify someone else's work. News flash: you can create stuff yourself. You just need an artist, a developer, and a sound guy.

Is a walled garden better than a wide open desert? I think Stallman doesn't realize not everyone is a camel herder.

I think the crux of your problem is you don't like the methods companies have chosen to ensure that their games aren't stolen. That's the main reason for many of those things.

Stallman is the foremost champion of the rights of Stallman. I'm really surprised it isn't that blatantly obvious to people. He calls his movement "free" and yet the restrictions he wants to impose on people can be just as limiting as any proprietary software.

Everything he says is from the eyes of someone who wants to tinker with everything. He does not think about things from the perspective of people actually wanting technology and software as a tool to actually go about their daily lives.

You tell a kid whose parent died that you're not glad the parent is dead, but you're glad they're gone. See how well that works for you.

What? Though since you've never played online you probably don't know that RMT exists in Diablo 2 as well, and this is an effort to combat the most negative associations that go along with RMT (cheating/hacking/scamming).

Also, I think you are mistaken by assuming that the majority of D2 players didn't play online.

Least of all the ones running Ubuntu.

From a cost per playtime standpoint, I'd reckon that Warcraft is a pretty good deal for $150/year. If the average gamer completed one new game per month or played only Warcraft in that entire year, they'd "save" about $600 in that year (assuming $60 for a game) by playing Warcraft.

Now if you played the game as much as you'd play a single typical offline game (and still paid for the year), then yes, it's a very expensive game.

I'm not really sure if you know what you're talking about. Xbox Live has been around in its current incarnation for 5 years. Not only can you digitally buy the smaller online games, but they even sell (some) 360 games that way now. That doesn't seem to be crashing and burning. I don't think Sony had any major problems before this current one, either.

Also, id as a major company? They make great tech, but as a game company they've been a nonfactor for a very long time.

The reason they do this is to prevent their employees from competing against the company. WP7 apps that get put on the WP7 app store would compete with Microsoft's own apps.

What if your free time was spent creating an Office-style suite that would directly compete with Microsoft for dollars. Should they just turn a blind eye to that?

That might be misconstrued as tinfoil, if, you know, H.264 wasn't an already popular video encoding format.

Oh wait, it is already popular.

All those games listed except for Demon Souls are made by Sony, so it's kind of like saying "You can't play Super Mario Bros. on your PS3."

And the sequel for Demon Souls will be available on the 360.

Torchlight didn't have, as far as I know of, a compendium site that listed every possible drop you could get. I've recently come to the realization that that is one of the major differences between Diablo (2) and it. Having a list of what you could get gives you goals that keep you playing.

Instead I played through the main "story" of Torchlight and stopped right after. Random dungeons with unknown loot was not a good enough reason to keep playing.