I like the free part, but the real price is that a free game attracts any and everybody--noobs, "elites," jerks, griefers, etc. If Valve tries to keep a civil community and has a good matchmaking system, I might take a look.

I'm perfectly satisfied with my PS3 right now, so I won't be looking at a PS4 anytime soon. However, I am glad that they did not go with a download-only model. That would be a deal-breaker for me, as would requiring an internet connection to play a physical disk.

Hot ... very hot.

Better to have it done well than rushed out of the door for a quick profit (*hey, looking at you Skyrim for PS3!*).

I completely agree. Game publishers are pushing the envelope to see how far consumers will accommodate their crass pursuit of profit. First it was you had to register online, then make an account, then activation limits, then always-online DRM, then account banning, and so forth. As long as people keep buying these games, there is no incentives for publishers to be customer friendly. We are at the point that publishers freely state that you are no longer buying a product, but instead a license or a "service" (or as Steam calls it, a "subscription") which can be terminated whenever they decide to ban your account or close down the services. That is, you are playing the game completely at their discretion, no matter how much you paid for it. It all really stinks to me.

But yes, this is an experiment to see how low consumers will stoop for the privilege of buying the next so-called "triple-A" game. Don't be surprise to see this kind of "online-always, no re-sale allowed" model come to the next generation of consoles, at which time I'll be through with video gaming as a hobby.

Really getting tired of overhyped, so-called "triple-A" releases that are really just mediocre games chocked full of DRM, bugs, paid DLC (sometimes already on disk!), and increasingly short gameplay and replayability. With its always-online DRM--even for the single-player game--and money-grubbing auction house, Activision has officially earned a place alongside the most detestable of publishers (*hey, looking at you EA, Ubisoft, etc.*).

Skipping Diablo 3 won't be quite as painful to me as skipping the Skyrim bugfest (on PS3), since I've never thought of any Blizzard game as truly great. However, I must admit that I am again disappointed by the number of fellow gamers who reward companies for minimalist innovation and features and maximalist DRM and greediness. Sadly, I do expect that Gamespot, and others, will fall in line with a glowing review of Diablo 3, even though player feedback across the web has been decidedly mixed. I imagine that it is hard to criticize those who regularly pay for advertising space on your website.

Man, 47 was f'ing people up in that trailer! This is at the top of my game list.

The day that I cannot resell a game or buy a used one will be the day that I give up video gaming as a hobby. Games are generally not good enough, cheap enough, or long enough for consumers to be locked into them in that way. It's pure greed on the part of publishers, nothing more.

The editor is right; just look at the PC market. Steam, EA/Origin, Ubisoft, etc. have locked down games with all sorts of DRM, so that you can't sell them, trade them, or anything else. However, companies are still recycling the same stale PC games, raising prices (even for the digital versions), copy-catting MMOs, and releasing buggy games followed up with endless streams of paid DLC. In effect, killing the used PC game market has done nothing for consumers or the quality of PC games. I predict the same will be true in the console market.

This reminds me that I really need to finish all of the campaigns in CoH: Anthology. Anyhow, I would love to see CoH2 with about 6 armies and a metamap campaign (a la Total War games) that allow you to play through the war as any side.

I'll stick with single-player RPGs, but good luck to Bethesda on this--especially their Q&A department which has never been up to snuff even on single-player releases.