They transformed the game, without losing it. A lot of sequels to good games become crap because they didn't do a good job of realizing their successes, and their failures.

Starcraft 1 isn't fundamentally different now than when it came out, but the direction the multiplayer took on an evolution of its.

Likewise, Starcraft 2 single-player is every bit as fun as Starcraft 1 single player (perhaps moreso), but why start over from square 1, or take a new direction in the multiplayer when they've learned so much?

But then, there is the universal rule of haters gunna hate.

Everyone says that..... until a unit gets abused, and the only way to beat it is to mass more of them than your opponent.

People making the argument you make remind me of people talking about government spending. Everyone wants less of it, but everyone expects the trash to go away when it gets put on the curb. Once you actually get down to the specifics, suddenly this 'competitive balance' is actually what makes the game fun for EVERYONE.

And they are quite fun...

Are professional sports players the majority of people buying base/basket/footballs? I would say no, but the culture created around having professionals generates business.

Are you arguing that, in the end, he didn't help make a fun game?

He said nothing about removing the fun, just having less flexibility in creating it.

Two things:

I would argue that the price for hardware changes more with production cost than the price of software. One is mostly labor, the other is mostly production.

I don't think it was common practice to sell the console at a loss back then. Modern consoles are sold well under cost to reduce the price of admission, and they expect to make it up in game licensing.

In other words, "Get off my lawn with your $60 games"?

Why not? Because you didn't pay that much in the past?

"Accept certain inalienable truths, prices will rise, politicians will
philander, you too will get old, and when you do you’ll fantasize
that when you were young prices were reasonable, politicians were
noble and children respected their elders."

Exactly.

This whole "I would never buy a game over $40 getoffmylawn" mentality is not logical.

At some point, you can't take the trolley downtown AND buy an ice cream cone for a quarter. But, you're also making more money, so who cares?

Depends how you set your standards. I could say $30, as was the cost of games 'back in the day', but am I even keeping up with inflation? Candy bars can't cost a nickel FOREVER.

Monetarily, I tend to have two different rulers: World of Warcraft and movie theater tickets.

Games that go on forever and involve constant content development/support measure against 15$/month for what they offer.

Games that are one-time experiences with the visceral feel of current technology measure against movies

If a movie is 1.5 hours, with the ticket costing 8.50 is 5.6$ per hour. Some movies are 3 hours.

If a game is 10 hours at $60, that is 6$ per hour for entertainment. Some games are 40 hours.

So, how much is it worth to you?

Both points are arguable.

A lot of military spending goes to troops benefits, which high-income people have less personal interest in.

Arts spending, a lot goes to community projects or grants for artists, which may enrich our culture for all, but supports the lives of academics and artists - which probably aren't high income.

This doesn't even go into progams specifically meant to help people.

IMO, people need to be pragmatic about the actual money trail of government spending, if they want to truly make meaningful cuts that don't hurt us. 1.9 million dollars to study ants (for example) sounds like a waste, but you're paying a lot of people in the process, and these people spend their money domestically on goods and services, creating demand for jobs.

Money that very quickly finds it's way to the top of the financial ladder is where the waste is. This money is both horded, and much of it simply put into investment trading or goes overseas. They aren't hiring more people with this money or bringing jobs back to the US, because an influx of cash does not motivate you to suddenly run an inefficient business. But paying it out to shareholders makes your stock worth more.

So, you just need to follow the trails of where money is very quickly going into the pool that simply circulates around the top. A lot of medicare/medicaid results in increase spending through freed up resources to do other things than pay for healthcare, but a lot of it also pretty much goes straight into the business side of healthcare - be it pharma or highly profitable private hospitals, etc. Medicare and Medicaid are very efficiently RUN programs - and even the running of it employs middle-income people, so that probably isn't a loss. You'd need to have true healthcare reform to really lower the costs of these programs in meaningful ways so that a smallwe percentage isn't just going straight to the top. There needs to be a great deal more transparency in the business of providing healthcare.

But for the most part, I would say spending isn't our problem. We're in this situation because of the crowd pleasing policies of cutting taxes and keeping spending. Very nearly all of what the fed spends our money on is either meaninful or unavoidable, and not just wasted - which is why it's so hard to actually cut spending when you get out the microscope. We just need to PAY for 1st world lifestyle that we have, and accept that you can't have what we have in this country for free - it costs a LOT of money.

To say it screws everyone equally is wrong.

Most higher income citizens couldn't care less, personally, about nearly all government programs. They still may support their funding and existance, but they wouldn't personally be hurt much if programs went away entirely.

So no, it is not 'equal screwing' in reality, only politically - and in the end who's politics wins or loses is meaningless.

Look at ANY game. Look at LIFE.

If something is easy to get, everyone will get it. And once they get it, they toss it aside easily.

I got Ashkandi after months and months of raiding; it was a symbol of achievement in both patience and ability. Still keep it in my bags at level 85. All that badge gear? Destroyed.

The actual leveling part of WoW is not very grindy, and the gearing part has gotten MUCH less so but you still need SOME because it teaches you how to play your character and work through your strengths/weaknesses. What if everyone had a max level max geared character of ever class? How boring would that be....

Everyone wants to get to max level in a week and gear up in just as much time, without realizing that is infinitely more boring in the long run.

Problem is, how do you make it 'difficult' without being 'grindy' outside of PvP, and still making it attainable for everyone with the dedication.

It sounds a lot like my experience with Linux.

I hate feeling like I have to turn in my geek card to use Windows, but Linux has always felt like the place for hobbyists-turned-career, while you go with the MS solution if you have other things to spend your time on than coming up with clever ways to make things actually work.

IMHO, of course.