Are you really on Slashdot, a site targeted at "Nerds", complaining about having to read? Perhaps Reddit would be more your style.

They would show you zero iotas of loyalty if it was in their best interest. Walk away, take the better job, and don't look back. It's just business. Don't make the mistake of confusing it for something different.

Why is this a front-page Slashdot article? It's ancient tech, closed source, and there's no mention of the vastly superior alternatives out there.

Phew. Guess I'm not either -- late 20s "core" gamer, having played previous games in the series, with disposable income. Can't play it when I am traveling for work? Whatever, Blizzard. I'll just get Torchlight 2.

If you're really interested in where the edges of the industry are being expanded, I suggest checking out the guys at GamersWithJobs.com, especially their weekly podcast. It's the best roundup (on a regular basis, even!) of the industry, with a slant towards this type of non-generic gaming. They also come at it like many of us probably do: slightly older gamers ("alpha gamers") who have been playing since the late 80s/early 90s, and who are as much interested in as they are concerned by the commercial evolution of video games. No affiliation, just a fan of what they do.

I think that familiarity with roguelikes -- at least in terms of general context -- are an assumed part of the Slashdot culture. I hear you on the lack of explanation around obscure references to things that only a select group of folks know, but for those of us who have been around for a while, *hack doesn't really fall into that bucket. That said, the point of the article is that the genre supposedly defies easy explanation; offering a definition would be somewhat contrary to that point.

I don't care for it, but so many people I know use it I have no option.

You do have an option, no matter how many people whom you know use it. Your argument is for the convenience of Facebook, not the necessity of it; you could just as easily use the phone, email, post, or even a personal webpage to stay in touch with your remote friends and family. Perhaps you wouldn't be able to reach out to however many dozens or hundreds of "friends" you may have in your network online, but there's a secondary argument there, hinging on the definition of friend.

These are adults. If they can't figure out when to not be obnoxious, ask them to leave.

Actually, AC, they did NOT state that they would be bringing it back. That's inferred. Quoting from the site, "We're closing down the service and putting this era behind us as new challenges await." That's pretty plain and up-front, despite your polemic against the editors.

There is a good amount of information suggesting that this may in fact be a marketing stunt; have a read of Kotaku's write-up: http://kotaku.com/5642141/what-happened-to-good-old-games. Personally, if this is in fact a marketing stunt, I will -never- purchase from GOG again. Lying to your customers doesn't make them want to spend their money on your products.