OOH! Where shall I begin....DRM....Lousy story...DRM...Badly programes games...Games that you buy as finished buat that you still have to download 2 or 3 patches for it to work...DRM...Internet authentication (What if I don't want/don't have internet??)...DRM.
Well to sum it up, basicaly what everyone hae said previously and whatever everyone will post next.
Did I mention DRM?

What you call paranoid drivel is just my opinion and I do believe its quite ok for me to have one.
I'm no Anti-MS zealot, rather a user since MS DOS, but nothing wrong with diveristy. Favorite modern day OS: Microsoft WIndows XP Professional.
I don't really see the big deal about typing M$. Its just a nickname and not a negative one, nothing wrong with making a buck. Still I don't think their strategy lately are the best one for the future of PC gaming.
EDIT: Dude you are the one raving about platform wars and whatnot. All I did was list the benefit to having a company that are willing to develop games that are accessible to everyone using the free technology called OpenGL as one of the positives about idsoftware. Choice is a good thing. choice is freedom.
As for the part about disregarding enjoyment I did type gamers, not you in particular. It isn't a requirement for a great gaming company for you or me for that matter to have enjoyed the games.
Peace out.

Why bother mentioning Microsoft and their supposed lock-in of DirectX or how they're supposedly bringing down the PC gaming industry? Honestly, there's no need. It makes it look like you're just preaching. Microsoft has no relation to what I was saying about id. They use OpenGL... it's no big deal. It's a fine API, I've used it myself on many occasions (now the Tao bindings for .NET/Mono - .. don't get me started).
Why not just say, "- They use OpenGL so they're available on all platforms."? No Microsoft, no mention of how their evil monopoly is going to eat our souls.
I'm aware you typed gamers. Am I not a gamer too? As for the requirement part - what? Who's saying it's a requirement? Sorry, I don't follow your logic there. As you said - I have an opinion and I'm entitled to it. My opinion is that their games suck. Yours is that they don't suck. We're both entitled to our opinions. I certainly can't prove to you that they indeed suck. No more than you can convince me otherwise. Note, I'm not trying to convince you that their games are ass. That'd be like kicking a mountain, it's not going to do much and just hurt my foot. We can, however, agree to disagree.

What part of the locking of Directx 10 to vista is supposed ? Who says MS are bringing down the PC game industry ?
Why bother bringing in availability a cross different plattform as a postive ? Why not.
I'll be the judge of whats needed when I type my posts and you will be the judge of how many times you want to include words like vomit and ass when you type yours.
I will definitely agree to disagree with you.

Alright I had this long rant that I wanted to get out there to refute all the drivel in this thread, but I got tired halfway through so I'll just say one thing. What really annoys me the most about the gaming industry are the people annoyed by the gaming industry who really have no right be annoyed.
Seems to me the people complaining the most are the ones doing the least in contributing to the development process. I know fans should express their opinions and concerns, but many people seem to think they're entitled to be entertained exactly the way they demand without actually doing anything useful like modding or creating user content to fix these issues.
So they start threads on messageboards about the annoyances of the industry feeling justified after bashing on problems they know nothing about.

Tape Worm, you do realize that by saying that IDs games are only loved for their tech ("They were a diversion when they came out because of the "OH WOW" factor, but that's it.") is basically saying that their fans are idiots who were somehow fooled by ID into liking these shallow games. You can not like them, but stop saying that their games are bad on some objective sense. They aren't, they just aren't your style, espectually since you don't like multilayer games. Quake wasn't just great because they developed these internet technologies, it was also because the impeccable design of the online gameplay that made it possible for people to play it over and over and still find new ways to make it fun (like hay, pro gamers). Hell, the fact that mods were part of what made it fun for so long makes your dismissal of mods equally unfair.
You say over and over that people who like ID can agree to disagree with you, but really you aren't making the possible with the way you are arguing.
Also, it's not just online games that ID does well. I actually really liked Doom 3. It's no half-life, but even beyond the amazing tech (still, actually) it was really fun.

I still liked Doom 3 despite people who criticized the closet monsters and simplistic gameplay. One of the few games that made me dread the dark. And even after I stopped being scared of the "Boo!" moments, I only felt even more badass because I felt like I was toughened by the whole experience. You became hardened through battle and faced the monsters fearlessly. Awesome old school run n' gun shooter dressed with impressive graphics at the time.

The reason I fixated on that one line is that it really was the only thing you said about the games themselves, and it was phrased in a very insulting way. And yea, it is very dismissive of people who like their games, and considering that you also dismiss mods and multiplayer as reasons to like their games you obviously aren't giving them their fair shake.
Also:
Bwahahaha. Okay, basically what you did here is akin to like saying you didn't like a game you played on god mode on because it was too easy. The people who made that mod totally missed the point of the game, which was to make you this big badass that was still vulnerable because he couldn't see and shoot at the same time. I thought that was brilliant, but obviously you knew better right? I'm sorry to laugh, but this is really funny to me.
So yea, if you played Ids games as they are meant to be played and still didn't like them I can totally agree to disagree with you. And I actually would agree with you on some point, as a lot of their older games haven't really aged well but were groundbreaking at the time they came out for reasons beyond graphics. But right now I find that hard to do as you obviously haven't played the best game they ever made because you don't like mulitplayer and you ruined their most recent single player game with an ill-advised mod.

And why should everyone that's complaining about an issue/issues have to learn to mod? Why should they have to 'fix' anything? The whole point of complaining is because something needs to be fixed that, in their opinion, shouldn't have to be in the first place.

Yeah, having to switch to your flashlight is a feature not a hindrance. Id knew what was what, a flashlight was a standard feature in most FPS games that you could turn on or off without switching weapons. Meaning that you had to only have one at a time in this game, added to the fear element, which is what the game was going for. Now I'm not particularly a fan of scary games, but I can respect the Genre, Silent Hill 2 has some of the best survival horror righting around, and I've never had as much fun playing a survival horror game as I did when I played Resident Evil 2, but again I can't really get into them that much (mostly because I'm a scaredy cat), but I respect the position. Just because the genre isn't for me, doesn't mean I feel it's a bad genre or that there is more they could do, to get my interest. Some people just don't like being afraid, and to them that's not entertainment.
I didn't Vote for Barack Obama, but I respect the position and I respect the man. Could I ever become President Elect? I highly doubt it. Could I ever become the first Black president? Heck no.
Anyway, my point is, you may not like something, but at least respect it's position, the FPS genre may not be something you're into, but there are millions of gamers world wide who do enjoy the FPS genre and when you say something negative about it, even if it is your opinion, you're going to have people who disagree with you and will fight you on their points. Because the FPS genre is a respectable genre wit

I've played these games in network matches (obviously except wolf 3D), I don't like them. I don't know what else I can do to give them "a fair shake". As for mods, yeah I dismiss them because they don't have any appeal to me. Again, iIt's -MY- opinion. I'm starting to think no matter what I say, you won't be happy until I say these games are the greatest thing since sliced bread.
OK. I'm dealing with a fanboy here. Your leaps of logic are really awe-inspiring.
I did one mod. Wow. So, adding a little light to the scene (and I do mean little, it was a 64x64 lightmap that didn't show THAT much let me tell you) changes the game so radically? I don't think so buddy boy.
I've played Wolf 3D, Doom, Doom 2, Doom 3, Quake, Quake 2, Quake 3, and even Quake 4 (which wasn't even id). And all with the exception of Doom3, they were all played clean. I disliked them all. But somehow my using the one mod on the one game makes my point invalid. Nice leap of logic genius.

i seem to be having difficulty accessing this thread through any browser. no issues with any other threads however.
EDIT: it appears fixed.

Wow, for not liking FPSs and Id you sure have played a lot of their games :p. Why did you keep buying them if you really think that they are basically tech demos? I really want to know :p.
But yea, I can't believe we are still arguing about Doom 3. You modded the game in such a way that made it easier in a way that the developers obviously didn't plan on you doing, so you are in no position to judge it. The amount of light the flashlight put out was enough to see what you were doing when you shoot, and the point of not making the flashlight on all the time is that you weren't supposed to know. It was a risky decision on id's part, but one that ended up making the same old shooting that ID has always done exciting again. Guess what happens when put the duck-tape mod in?
Also, what is this crap about me being a fanboy? What, because I liked one of their games that you didn't? You get mad for dismissing your opinion on a game that you made worse by modding and then you dismiss mine for being a fanboy? And this is after I said "a lot of their older games haven't really aged well." I'm far from an Id fan boy, and besides Quake 3, Doom 3 and a couple hours of Doom on my cousins computer when I was like 5 I haven't played all of their stuff. I don't know, maybe there is something in the single player quakes that is just so damn terrible it makes the fact that I like what have played of theirs a lot irrelevant, but I doubt it.
Look, I'm obviously not getting through to you, but here is the point: ID is not one of the things thats wrong with the game industry, which is the claim you made that started this whole thing off. A lot more goes into one of their games than just great tech, and the fact that you don't like their games doesn't change that. Stop acting like it does.

here's my list (some may have already been mentioned):
1. the tendency to blame all problems with PC gaming on piracy
2. copy-protection in any form
3. the assault on the secondhand market
4. online activation
5. online accounts attached to games
6. EULAs and software as a "license"
7. micro-transactions and subscription-based models
the industry's tendency to assume that piracy is the cause of lost sales is annoying, considering that i've yet to see any gaming publisher/developer come out with some hard numbers proving without a doubt how much money they are really losing. i'm not convinced by showing the number of downloads or users logged onto servers with a cracked key-gen. the industry has yet to prove that those who have shared copies of the game would have purchased the game if file-sharing were not an option. the only informal study i've seen, by casual games developer reflexive entertainment, showed that increasingly difficult to crack DRM did not result in more sales. it resulted in fewer people playing the game online.
i don't agree with copy-protection because it is futile. any copy-protection will be cracked because copy-protection is essentially encryption. the difference with placing encryption on digital content is that in order for the consumer to be able to read that content, the copy-protection has to provide the key as well as the lock. the tools to crack any copy-protection exist within the protection itself.
related to this we have online activation and online accounts. online activation is an extra burden on the user that is not necessary. the same protection can be provided by online registration, which wouldn't require the user to be online every time s/he wants to play the game. online accounts are related to my next point about the assault on the secondhand market.
with online accounts, the resell value of a game is effectively zero because the online account is non-transferable according to the EULA. even worse, some online accounts will tie in all purchases of games to the same account, meaning that you cannot resell any one individual game. and epic's and EA's recent comments regarding the secondhand market are troubling. epic in particular seems to think that they have a right to make money on any copy of their games every time the product changes hands. if these companies are successful in diminishing the secondhand market, i hope they're not surprised when fewer new titles fly off the shelves -- a lot of people use the trade-in value of games to buy new games. additionally, used games lower the barrier of entry for young kids with zero/limited income.
EULAs are problematic because they have created this sort of legal grey area, at least in the united states. some courts have ruled them legally non-binding, while others have ruled them to be binding. many EULAs actually force users to sign away their consumer rights in order to use the software. it's this slow encroachment that i find troubling.
finally, i don't like micro-transactions or subscription-based business models. micro-transactions introduce an element of classism into the game -- only those who are willing to spend a lot of real-world money on in-game assets can compete effectively. those who don't purchase a lot of in-game assets are effectively regulated to the sidelines. subscription-based models annoy me because i don't have the time i used to to play games. locking myself into a monthly-fee means that i may be wasting my money during a month that i play little or not at all. i understand the reasoning (server costs/support/etc), but i'm just not sold on the whole concept. add to that the fact that these models really push the "software is a license" perspective, and i'm even more put-off.