I got the Half-Life GOTY edition when I got a new pc with windows 98 to replace my old P1 133mhz windows 95 machine. I spent so much time playing and replaying half-life that I was worried my monitor was going to burn in the HUD on the screen. I decided to give multiplayer a shot and my first HL deathmatch map was the kitchen rats map. I had no idea what to do but I was having so much fun I never wanted to quit. Half-Life, Half-Life 2, Ep. 1 & 2, and all of the mods and total conversions ate up a huge chunk of my gaming time.

I don't buy fighting games anymore simply because of the characters you have to pay to unlock. I don't buy games that have DLC that is important to the main story line. I paid $50 or $60 or more if its a Collectors edition for a game. I expect a 100% complete game for that price. If your game isn't going to give that to me I'll skip it. The solution is to get rid of DLC. If you want to release and expansion pack like studios used to that's awesome. They were more than a new character or an hour of extra quests. They actually added something new to the game that didn't ruin the vanilla game experience. So if you didn't buy the expansion you still enjoyed the 100% full game that you bought. I'm not going to buy a multiplayer map for $5. I'm not going to pay several dollars for a new gun or armor. Anything that is part of the main story or point of the game if its multiplayer should be included on the disc free. If your business model is to release half a game and then nickel and dime gamers to death with bullshiat DLC then frak you. This is just like the game companies crying about used game sales. I'm wondering if gamespot has secretly been bought by EA or Activision or if it's just individual "journalists" that are being bought out.

I would love to get a PS Vita. I'm not going to because I cant play my psp games on it. I've got nearly 100 psp games. I'm not going to buy a Vita for $300 and then have to pay for digital versions of games I already own so I can play them on a new console. Console makers pay attention. There is no reason not to include backwards compatibility in a new console. I skipped the PS3 for the same reason. My metric ton of PS2 games would only work on the 60GB version which was nearly impossible to get when it came out. You dont want to allow used game sales but you also dont want the old games to work on a new system. Does that sound about right? Just seems like a money grab to me. Maybe I'll pick up a Vita once someone hacks it and I can load all my PSP games on it. Until then goodluck not selling anything.