@fullxtent I intentionally omitted the last part of the quote for brevity, and not to imply that Valve will be releasing a "pay to win" game. Sorry for the confusion.

My comment was intended to be a friendly jab at the announcement of "free to play with microtransactions" - that's what many of us expected, and it's the same business model already in use by DOTA2's competitors. If Valve wants DOTA2 to be popular or have longevity, I don't think they had any other choice.

@Landsharkk The real question is "which game are your friends playing?" The major MOBAs are all far more similar than they are different (nearly identical maps, similar hero abilities, same core gameplay conceits (ie "last hitting", "jungling")). Other than visual presentation, the various games don't really differentiate themselves until you get to high-level play (the point when you're calculating gold/DPS ratios and which character builds to use based on the opposing team's roster.)Some games limit the available "free" heroes, and others have a larger roster - these are marketing decisions that help the game make money.

Personally, I prefer more variety in maps/gamemodes than is offered by most MOBAs. LoL has Domination, which is a significant (welcome!) departure from the pack. Rise of Immortals (which feels like an average entry in the MOBA genre) has an interesting 3vE mode. Demigod (rarely discussed when talking MOBAs) has only a handful of heroes but a number of maps, and supports AI teammates. There's also Heroes of Newerth, Super Monday Night Combat, DOTA2, and (of course) the original Defense of the Ancients custom map for WarCraft III (look for "DOTA: All Stars")

"Dota 2 will be free to play.

[Valve] also announced the inclusion of an in-game store, where players will be able to buy gear and customise heroes..."

In other news, the sun is expected to rise tomorrow.

But making all heroes available, all the time, is a happy divergence from the current MOBA design standard.

Selling the game through Steam is good news, but it doesn't mean that they are dropping the GFWL component. There are a number of other games already on Steam that also require the installation and use of GFWL: Street Fighter IV, Batman: Arkham Asylum, GTA: IV, Fallout 3.

@demonic_85 Just because it is on Steam doesn't mean they are dropping the GFWL component. Case in point: Street Fighter IV.

@moonlightwolf01 I agree with most of your points, but I disagree with the following statement: "anyone who...spent money in/on it has...had their money stolen by EA"You can never "own" anything that you purchase from an online game*. The real question is whether those purchases have a good entertainment/cost ratio. $2.50 horse armor = no. $10 General Knoxx DLC for Borderlands = YES! I feel the better comparison to paying for items in an online game is seeing a movie in a theater - I spend my money, hopefully was entertained, but there's nothing to call "mine". (*except /pizza, of course...)

@ocsgabe Guilty, as charged! :)

Let's not forget the main reason a bunch of folks played Dragon Age Legends: to unlock exclusive items in Dragon Age II!I had a pleasant enough time with Dragon Age Legends. It eventually became too difficult to proceed without looping in my Facebook friends or partaking in micro-transactions. (Never actually bought anything, and never pestered my friends who weren't already playing it.)EA is giving us a little bonus: we'll be able to download and play the game offline. I'd like to finish the game without having to deal with daily turn limits and other micro-transaction-inspired nonsense. It'd be super-nice if they could also provide my saved game, but I'm sure that'd be a major headache for them.

@HonorOfGod ...and still raging. :)

This is the reality of the "games-as-a-service" model. For what it's worth, this isn't the first time that EA has shut down servers/services for various games - it's not even the first time this year! (http://www.gamespot.com/news/ea-shutting-down-over-a-dozen-game-servers-6366856, also reported by Eddie Makuch) It's understandable that EA wants to shut down these systems - operational costs eventually exceed the generated income. We've seen this numerous times from other companies as well: many MMO's have had server merges or been taken offline. I think the public's indignation over this particular incident stems from a few main sources: - relatively short lifespan of the game (less than 3 years) - relatively high cost of the game ($10) - many "casual" gamers never knowing this could happen - singleplayer is also unavailable when the multiplayer servers are shut down - it's EA ...speaking of EA - stuff like this makes it look like they are campaigning to retain their status as Worst Company in America.