If you are willing to open up your handheld and do the repairs yourself then you could always replace any broken parts for far less than the cost of the console. You can get replacement parts for handhelds for pretty cheap from places like eBay or Amazon. Last I checked a replacement stick for a PSP went for about $10. Replacement parts for the newer consoles will probably be about the same. Of course, if you are uncomfortable doing the repairs by yourself you could always go to a repair shop. They will probably charge you about $30-$60, but that's still cheaper than replacing the whole thing.
So....Why don't they outsource the port? It's common practice after all. And while it usually leads to horrible case of console portitis, a poor port is better than no port at all.
I'm probably not going to buy a Vita until around the end of the year - it's simply too low in my leisure budget priorities at the moment (behind a phone upgrade, a tablet purchase, and possibly a video card upgrade) - but when I do get one I'll be sticking to retail purchases for both price and "ownership" reasons.

I'll probably still end up buying a Vita memory card though (some games require it, right?), but by then I'm hoping that the price will have gone down, or at least that there will be a few cheap knockoffs on the market.

So this game has got a lot of drama behind it, then. Both sides should pick new names then. It wouldn't even be that hard. If they want a name that still ties into the old one they could just replace the word "Defense" with something else:

Rise of the Ancients
Conquest of the Ancients
Power of the Ancients

Not that hard, and fairly lawsuit free ^_^

Don't the developers of DOTA work at Valve now? I understand Blizzard's arguments, and I might agree with them otherwise, but if the DOTA guys are at Valve, Valve should probably get the trademark.

Of course if I'm wrong and the DOTA guys aren't working at Valve then both should be forced to choose a new name. At this point DOTA could probably be labeled as untrademarkable simply because the name has been out there unpatented and untrademarked for so long.

Right now there are a number of films in stores sold in packages that include the movie on Blu-Ray, DVD, DigitalCopy, and UltraViolet. Nothing is really stopping people who buy those releases from splitting the discs, but most don't. The question is not really whether publishers will find a way to stop sharing, but whether the games industry is too paranoid over possible lost sales, or so penny pinching that they won't allow this because of the slightest chance that a few users might share. The film industry sure doesn't seem to be.
That would be awesome. You would get the best of both world there. That's one of the reasons I enjoy purchasing SteamWorks games.
Meh. $3-$5 isn't enough of a discount to get me to buy digital. I can get that much or more off in a sale. I'll be sticking to physical copies when I get my vita.
Well if we got those 2 journalist out of North Korea a few years back we should be able to get this guy out of Iran.

Personally, I don't think Iran really wants to start shit with the US. The way I see it, most of what they do and say concerning relations with the US and the rest of the world is an attempt to act tough and appear unafraid. They have been on the defensive and posturing ever since Bush called them out in his "Axis of Evil" speech.

Amir Hekmati's arrest and conviction had more to do with Iran's nuclear program and the recent talk of sanctions than anything he ever did or might have done, and that's why they haven't killed him yet. They want to say "Here's what we think about your sanctions, America," but their not really willing to pull the trigger and commit themselves to something that might end up having serious ramifications for their country. They're probably hoping the US sends someone to take this problem off their hands and maybe get a little something in return.

But whatever. What's important is getting this guy home. It's time to send Big Willie over there to see if he can make lightning strike twice ^_^

Nice price. I'm still gonna wait for the hardware revision with the built in right analog stick before I bite, though.
The only "downside" I think you'll run into, other than maybe a little bit of discomfort, is that since console games are designed to be viewed from a few feet away, sitting up close, the interface for some games might appear a bit larger than you're used to. Not much of a problem really. Nothing you won't get used to eventually.

Some suggestions. Get yourself a nice comfortable office chair. Something with plenty of padding, a high back, and a star shaped wheel base for easy movement. These can get expensive, but if you are going to be spending lots of time at your desk your back will thank you for it. Costco makes a decent office chair that'll run you about $100. It's not bad, but get better if you can afford it.

As for a desk, I suggest just getting a plain, large flat desk with no shelves or drawers. A plain desk without all that extra stuff to clutter it up provides plenty of desk space and lots of leg room. Avoid hutches or corner desk. Well, corner desks aren't so bad, but you will definitely be more comfortable and have more room with a regular desk. I got a plain old compressed wood desk at Ikea a few years back for $75. I also purchased an optional glass top for it for an additional $25.

What I'm arguing is that rather than focus their efforts on punitive measures that end up affecting their legitimate customers as well (regardless of how large or small that effect is perceived to be), EA, Sony, et all should instead try to find other ways to make extra profits from those who buy their games used. Selling aftermarket content that adds value to the originally purchased product (i.e. DLC) is just an example of how they could do this. An example that wouldn't negatively affect those who buy games new.

Also, Coke gives a shit what you think about their commercials. That's why they show you the advertizements in the first place, in the hopes that you like their advertizement enough that you will go buy a coke. The advertizements aren't for loyal customers, because those customers would keep buying coke even without the ads.

Thinking that the opinions of those who buy games used don't matter is a lot like saying "We don't want your money. Ever." Just because someone bought used one time doesn't necessarily mean that they will by used again. But if a person feels slighted by a company or a game franchise - say because the game they just bought is withholding content from them unless the pay and extra fee - then it's less likely that they will be willing to pay full price for the sequel (hence why EA is trying to avoid any hard feelings toward Syndicate).

Except Online Pass isn't aimed against piracy, it's aimed against people who buy used games.
...Why is this on Kotaku?

I don't mean to sound like the "I don't want to read anything except game reviews and release date updates" guy that Kotaku Core was built for. I read a wide verity of articles on Kotaku, including some of the past crime articles. So when I clicked on this I expected to read about a crime that was somehow related to video games, but that's obviously not the case here. Videogames play such an insignificant role in the story being reported here that it's laughable for this story to be cover on Kotaku. The headline implying that videogames played some important role in the crime involved is ridiculous as well given the actual content of the article. You might as well start rebloging all of The Huffington Post's articles if you think it's appropriate to post stuff like this on Kotaku. I can't wait to read Kotaku's in depth breakdown of Mitt Romney's economic policy titled "Boy Plays DS During Speech"

Except that this article had nothing to do with game culture either. Not to mention that the headline kind of implied that videogames were somehow an important part of the story. I mean, if Kotaku is going to cover this, then they might as well start covering the 2012 election too, as well as any other story huffpo covers.
It's a detriment to more than just people buying used games. People borrowing or renting games will be affected by this too. I, like many other gamers, often use rentals or borrowed games to help me make purchasing decisions. Online pass limits the features I have access to when I'm trying out a game this way.

Also, if I were to lend out a game to a friend so he can try it out, and his access to certain features he might find interesting was blocked because of an online pass, I would be upset.

As for people who buy used games not being a true customer of that games publisher, this implies that used game buyers don't also purchase DLC for their games. Because if they do, then they are indeed customers spending money on that game they bought used. Money that goes to that game's developers.

And that's the rub of it. This is the problem I have with online passes. If publishers want to make money off of people who buy used games then should focus on adding perceptible value to their DLC so that gamers are willing to buy more of it, not trying to somehow punish used game buyers, as well as others who are affected by this, by trying to levy a fine on them.

No other form of media puts any form of similar restrictions on their second hand market. Universal doesn't block access to deleted scenes, or commentary, or to BD-Live if you buy one of their movies second hand. Book publishers don't withhold a few extra pages of back story from you if you buy used. No one else does this, and games and game publishers should not be excused for this kind of behavior, no matter how much you love games.

PS. I buy all my games new, except for those that are long out of print, so I guess that means my opinion must be incredibly important >_>

I'm not dismissing the idea simply because its EA that's pushing it forward. If this article had been about Sony's Play Pass I would be calling them bastards instead. This isn't about the company for me, I have purchased and enjoyed EA games before and hope to continue doing so, this is about online passes in general. Online passes provide no benefit whatsoever to the consumer, and serves only as a detriment to consumers.
Valve tested a new way of selling and delivering games to PC gamers. They were trying to see if consumers were willing to bite on a new purchasing option. Something they should be commended for.

Sony tested the marketability of a digital download only console with the PSP Go. Though that test ultimately failed, they should also be commended for trying to drive technology and gaming forward (even though I dislike the idea of digital download only).

EA is testing how far they can push consumers with extra, possibly hidden (if you don't know a game comes with online pass), charges in the name of making larger profits for themselves. They should not be commended. They are bastards.

I take this to mean that EA thinks Syndicate won't sell too well? I figured this was supposed to be a big game (at least among gamers) but it seems like EA doesn't want to risk lowering the sales numbers with Online Pass.

Still, it kinda puts the lie to the whole "We need Online Pass to stay profitable" thing. Apparently that only applies to the big name AAA must have titles where people will grin and bear it rather than do without.