Yea, how's that working out for Blizzard? ;)

So, to do business online you absolutely must have at least 2 colocated servers?

I sure hope that its possible for a startup to run their first version(s) on a single server, hosted at one provider.

Why not?

Slap a two-three line comment in above that call that describes whats going on, and I see absolutely no reason to not use code like that?

There's no need to go verbose for verbositys sake, and that piece of script is pretty neat.

If you place a completely green web-developer in front of it, sure, he might have a hard time reading it, but if jQuery is a tool you use, and webdevelopment what you do, then this really shouldn't be much of a problem at all.

It is a funny game, absolutely, but I must admit that the same-ness of the mobs and dungeons got boring after 20 or so hours of playing. (And, I still enjoy NetHacking from time to time)

But the game is well worth the admission, no doubt about that.

Or being in a room, with no computers?

Although limited, I could see this beeing of some use.

No, you have to pay to watch videos that someone else provides for you, in a codec of their choice.

Just as if I provide you with a file in some proprietary format that demands a program that costs money if you want to view it.

It is entirely up to yuou if you want to view the content, convert it, or ask me if I want to deliver the content in another format.

It surely looks like sport.

Or, you need a PC or comparable somewhere on your network to run PS3 Media Server software.

But as a standalone media server, the PS3 really is a pretty bad choice, you'd be much better off with for instance a WDTV, which still costs considerably less.

Valve is paying 1 million dollars for people playing a videogame.

You and your invisible friend Hank does not constitute many ;)

If you're using a controller to play an FPS on PC, then, clearly, you're doing it wrong.

One time validation and offline play != Always on, always validating

Just to set things straight

I fail to see why this is ridiculous? After all, I have bought and paid for a product, even one which may still be available in stores, bargain bins, Steam or something, and then the developer decides to not support a major component of said product?

What about you purchasing a car, and after 4 years, the car vendor simply stops producing spare parts for your car, because you can upgrade to a new car instead.

If you do this, release the dedicated servers, and let the community decide when the game should die, and not some execs that have slapped a II on a new title, and desperately want's to sell you a spit-polished version of a game you already own.

Creating bitcoins with a GPU based miner is a LOT more effective than CPU bound miners.

I'm getting ~4000 on a 4-core HT machine, and in excess of 140k on a 580GTX

Those items are pure vanity items, they make no difference ingame whatsoever, so why would that piss you off so much?

If you don't want a fancy new hat, a little flag, or a new lo-5 gesture, then just don't buy one, and the core game experience will be exactly the same for you and the guy that bought the all-content pack.

While I absolutely agree on paying-for-skills is a bad idea, I have no problems with someone paying 10$ for a new hat, if they want to stand out from the crowd wearing that, and I can't really understand why that would annoy you in any way.

If people are willing to pay, then let them, gives Valve more money to get Ep 3 done :)

What Valve games have paid DLC?

It would be stupid of Steam not to support paid DLC on their distribution platform, as their corporate users are requesting paid DLC, and if you are referring to XBL content, the only reason it costs money there is because of the platform owner, Microsoft, not because Valve chose to take money for it.