I certainly am not privy to the player behavior statistics Square Enix has - but your idea that it "can't hurt them" does definitely interest me.

What I mean is, I actually do wonder if it would be possible for them to somehow implement a system whereby they get a cut of profits for player transactions like that involving actual TIME. When it is gear and gold that's one thing, since they can control drop rates, but when you're talking about paying somebody to play the game for you how would you even enforce that? And why wouldn't a player simply want to go around the issue by conducting the transaction outside of the game so they keep 100% of the cut instead of anything less?

It's an interesting problem.

Well, that is one way of looking at it. Not necessarily an incorrect way.

Another way though is that this is how you pay for these games and the staff that builds and maintains it. Obviously if there is no profit to be had, the game will cease to exist.

I certainly understand your POV on the matter, but I also understand the company POV which is if they freely allow this, they lose a big chunk of money that keeps the game alive in the first place. For evidence you need look no farther than the virtual graveyard of past MMOs that couldn't get a handle on this type of thing.

The more interesting question to me is how you design games that CAN allow this and still be profitable. Diablo 3 is kind of an interesting experiment that way - make no mistake that Blizzard manages that game like an MMO, even if there is no monthly fee. The new Guild Wars is another.

I think the answer is more of a design issue from day one when you are planning how you are going to make money and keep games like these running. As currently implemented, it is easy to see why Blizzard and Square Enix take the stance they do - they don't really have a choice as the games currently exist if they want to keep being profitable.

Great question.

Gamasutra did what I consider to be one of the best analysis of MMO economies back in 2010: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/134576/virtual_economic_theory_how_mmos_.php?print=1 - I linked the printer friendly version so you don't have to page through.

As near as I can tell, the actual company behind the game cares about this insofar as they want you to continue playing the game and spending money on THEIR stuff as opposed to some outside party. Money that goes into a gold farmer's pocket is money that doesn't go into the company's pocket because time = money: on a subscription game, that is less time you'll need to spend that month acquiring the gold. Similarly in microtransaction type games, every dime spent outside is a dime they're not getting.

Obviously the notion of how to maximize profit by separating people from as much money as they will tolerate is at the core of the business, so this keeps evolving in interesting ways.

This is also where one HOPES the Ghibli involvement makes a difference. But we'll see.

Agreed, I still dig this game solo.

Fivethirtyeight got them all right.

All that is left is to see if Nate Silver goes 50 for 50 at fivethirtyeight.com. Florida will pretty much decide that.

Well, this isn't an either/or circumstance. All methods currently available have drawbacks and security holes that make fraud possible.

The point I'm making is simply that mail in voting is far more susceptible to fraud. Both are susceptible, but most of the prevailing evidence suggests very strongly that mail in voting, like they have in Oregon, is way more vulnerable.

I'm not advocating getting rid of it or anything, and I'm certainly not suggesting in person polling is anywhere close to perfect.

Just bear in mind that there are real legit fraud possibilities with mail in voting. There are plenty of places on the internets I'm sure you can find in seconds that explain some of the ways fraud can happen with mail in voting vs. in person polling - not to say it can't happen with the latter, just that mail in voting offers even more opportunities for it.

I bring this up as the reason many states haven't switched to it, not that it is necessarily bad.

I have to walk a block and a half to my polling location here in Delaware. Truly I live in the dark ages.

I do sympathize with the research issue - I am kind of a politics and legal process junkie but I absolutely get that most folks are not. These days though, with all of the google tools available that pull up sample ballots for you and aggregate the candidates and their websites, plus Project Votesmart, etc - there are more resources then ever and certainly plenty of time to put together a cheat sheet.

I always enjoy watching. But then again I used to play Fantasy Congress regularly.

Yes, but does that include a cup of coffee and a ride on the trolley?

I've got one of each class right now with my highest being a 58 Engineer. Still loving it.

I stand by my take on it which is that if you like isometric Action RPGs/loot droppers, you will like Torchlight 2. If you are a dabbler in that sort of game you might not see too much that strikes you as "different" about it, but folks who will pretty much play any game that falls in that category will I think be more likely to see some of the tweaking and improvements that have been done to keep the pace high.

And it isn't perfect. The graphics are fun, but they are not spectacular. And I think the multiplayer match making needs some work. And the best that can be said about the story is it is functional and exists.

But gameplay-wise I really do think this is as good as this type of game has ever been. As with any review, YMMV, but I did try to illustrate these points, often in lengthy fashion.

Plus, $20. I mean at worst you will have missed a night at the movies, and I'm pretty sure you'll get at least a couple hours of entertainment out of it even if you end up hating it.

Raul Ibanez? Really?