What does that even mean. Instead of expanding or having actual discourse with people, he posts shitty troll attempts and treats enthusiasts like they're odd for discussing videogames and the industry behind it.
His jokes suck.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Cliffy B says things about microtransactions
- Thread starter Wario64
- Start date
What does that even mean. Instead of expanding or having actual discourse with people, he posts shitty troll attempts and treats enthusiasts like they're odd for discussing videogames and the industry behind it.
His jokes suck.
Aquamarine
Member
It's the quintessential "appeal to tradition" fallacy. The existence of coin-op arcades can NOT be used to justify the proliferation of microtransactions today because of current market conditions.
"Just because the guys in the 80's did a pseudo-microtransaction system...that must mean it's okay to do it now!"
Yeah Cliff. Great reasoning. His article is loaded with all sorts of fallacies.
Here's a couple:
"If you truly love a product, you’ll throw money at it." = No true scotsman logical fallacy (Dismisses criticism by appealing to some kind of purity)
"People like to act like we should go back to 'the good ol’ days' before microtransactions but they forget that arcades were the original change munchers." = Appeal to tradition logical fallacy (Dismisses criticism by using an outdated economic model to support his point)
"And that brings me full circle to my main point. If you don’t like the games, or the sales techniques, don’t spend your money on them." = Red herring logical fallacy (Deflects criticism by falsely connecting your purchase of a game to criticisms you may have with a game)
"But understand that when faced with this issue those that fund and produce those games you love have to come up with all sorts of creative ways for the business to remain viable and yes, profitable." = Appeal to pity logical fallacy (Deflects criticism for horrible business models by trying to get you to pity them)
Etc.
Goodacre0081
Member
Do any of you fuckers still actually play games, or do you just hang out here all day long and play digital fantasy football with the industry?
If he is trolling and being disingenuous to discussion, maybe he should read the ToS and be a bit more sincere.
Case closed.
*reads thread where people tell cliff to fuck off, post pictures of him from ~10 years ago, take snipes at his work*
i can see how this would be hard to differentiate as an asperger myself, but my friends who read this let me in on the joke so i'm what you call "in the know"
Pop-O-Matic
Banned
Is this really Cliffy, or is it a troll account?
Yes I'm sure he cares what his internet audience thinks of him.
Your anger is quite funny though.
Jasper Avenue
Member
Cliff has a hot wife.
Uncle Rupee
Banned
Yeah he seems to be on a kick of comparing the current situation to times gone by as if they are at all the same.
Last time it was Nintendo will go third party because of the supposed parallels to the 80s Atari crash.
As if Nintendo is one step away from having to bury millions of Mario discs in the desert or some shit.
CliffyB said:Do any of you fuckers still actually play games, or do you just hang out here all day long and play digital fantasy football with the industry?
Do you actually want to make games, or just hang out on Tumblr all day long and play digital fantasy football with the industry?
FreeMufasa
Junior Member
Do any of you fuckers still actually play games, or do you just hang out here all day long and play digital fantasy football with the industry?
I feel the same too, just ignore them.
Cliffyb im da biggest gears fan ever, rinsed da hell out of gears 1 and 2. But my 360 broke so I could never play da 3rd game =(. Can u send me a 360 and a copy of gears 3? Even if its da old 360 I don't mind
many places
Member
Maybe try a little less harder next time.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
Yes.
The fact that arcades are pretty much dead should give people pause when they consider making something with a similar business model.
MrCunningham
Member
The way Valve handles DLC is pretty brilliant. They have pretty well kept it mostly out of their retail games and incorporated it into their free to play games. Pretty well everything you can buy in both DOTA 2 and TF2 can be attained through drops (low drop rates) or you can just buy it. It doesn't seem to be intrusive, yet they make money off of it. I guess Portal 2 does have an in game store, but it is mostly limited to skins and wearable objects for your characters. They did balance this out with a level editor for free user made content though.
And even though it's just fun to bash on EA, just because... I haven't really found their DLC to be very obtrusive either. Most of it I just ignore.
But all this talk about "nickeling and diming" reminds me of the days I used to spend 5-10 dollars in change at an arcade in a day and I never used to think about it. And most of those old arcade games, I would get like 5-10 minutes of playtime for games arcade machines that would cost 1 dollar a pop. These days, I can get a 60 dollar game on a Steam sale for 10 bucks, and I have become so price conscience just thinking about it.
soulassssns
Banned
That goes for most on the internet including on Gaf. I thought he brought up some good points.
BlastProcessing
Member
My point is that I can't think of a less fruitful avenue to begin a discourse with someone on a forum, than to lead off by lecturing them on your personal, approved form of discourse. What kind of response do you even expect from such a thing? A humble apology? Even if his jokes suck why, exactly, is that a problem?
Care to substantiate this claim?
He has all the time in the world to do so if he sleeps till noon and plays games more than Gaf. Cliff comes off as someone who feels since he's worked so long in the videogame industry that his own opinion or thoughts hold more weight than others.
Problem with that is they don't. And when he posts really dumb shit on Gaf that makes me take him a lot less seriously. You don't see other people involved in the industry mock it's audience the same way Cliff does.
I'm not asking him for an apology for the stupid shit he posts, I'm criticizing the way he presents himself and his ideas. He's worked in the industry for a while, he should know how to address and debate people without coming off as a child.
I don't know why you're defending him or whatever you're doing.
The Crimson Kid
what are you waiting for
I do find it interesting to see such a full-throated defense of microtransactions from one of the people chiefly responsible for Unreal Tournament 2004, which had enough content in the box to fill several modern EA games as well as (as far as I know) the largest amount of free official post-release content for a game in history. Oh, the times, they are a chaingin'!
While I agree with Cliff's final point, I find his argument here to have several issues. (Can't hate on the dude though, after all, he was instrumental in UT '04 and Gears 3. FYI Cliff, loved all the free support for UT '04, bought the Season Pass for Gears 3, and didn't get any weapon skins. Good and substantial content is worth paying for.)
-First, one of his main points involves Team Fortress 2. While moving the game to a F2P model by introducing cosmetic items and new weapons has made Valve a whole lot of money, it has also resulted in a more unbalanced game. Two of the key pillars of the design of the original TF2 was to have each class play a set role that was balanced towards said role and to have easily recognizable character silhouettes. Since the introduction of the F2P model, both of these goals (that were fully achieved beforehand) have been diluted. Also, the introduction of so many new weapons, each with added bonuses, has made the game balance less even and consistent.
While TF2 is still an enjoyable game that can be played competitively without spending a dime or grinding for new weapons (this isn't the case in many F2P games, including some that EA produces), it isn't as good of a game overall as it was before the introduction of a microtransaction-based model.
While I would like companies that make quality games to do what they have to do to stay in business, as a gamer, I am more concerned with the quality of the experience I have paid for (or provided, with F2P games) than the profitability of the company producing the game.
-Second, Cliff wonders why EA has such a bad reputation and Valve has such a good one, despite both of them dealing in microtransactions. This one is simple.
Valve routinely releases free content updates for their titles to improve their game's value, which EA will never do unless they build in another avenue for extra payment (see Mass Effect 3). Valve allows individuals to submit content for sale in TF2 and these individuals can make money off their creations. Valve allows people to mod and alter their (non-MP) games for free, where EA charges for unlock packs. Valve doesn't produce titles that are "pay-to-win," while EA does. Valve doesn't have a record of withholding content from full-priced games as DLC (Mass Effect 3 did) or inserting F2P mechanics into full-priced games (Dead Space 3). Valve also doesn't have a corporate policy of putting microtransactions into every game they produce, regardless if they work well or not.
-Third, by noting the rising cost of game development/marketing and the cost of living in areas where game development takes place, he frames the adoption of microtransactions in more and more games as a necessary evil to keep publishers in business. The issue here is that publishers have several paths to profitability, some of which don't require microtransactions that affect or impede the core game experience. Instead of requiring microtransactions in every game to cover the massive cost of a bloated and inefficient development cycle (maybe they should use Unreal?!?) situated in an expensive area, the high cost of Hollywood actors and composers or expensive licenses, and a massive blowout marketing campaign, how about they rein in what they spend so they don't have to potentially sully or outright ruin their products out of perceived necessity? In an industry where big-name Hollywood talent get paid millions for sub-par contributions to game, where publishers fund the development of actual weapons that tie into their game just for publicity, and where teams of 500+ people work for several years on mediocre products (Resident Evil 6 and Assassin's Creed 3 come to mind), there is plenty of unnecessary fat to be cut from budgets these days.
Cliff has made some good points in his past two posts, which is why it is too bad that he has repeatedly simplified complex issues to black-and-white issues and lumped large groups of people onto one side to support his argument.
He did it here where he framed everyone that is suspicious of the gradual encroachment of microtransactions in games (for various reasons) as a raging vocal minority that don't understand business realities of the industry and hate all microtransactions. He did it in his post on sequels where he claimed that all every "hardcore fan" of a series wants is the exact same game again and will all endlessly whine about any change that is made in a sequel.
It would be easier for people to consider his arguments, which come from a point of view that has much more experience than most anyone has when it comes to game development, if he didn't resort to such intellectual dishonesty when trying to make a point.
Just because previous parts of the history of gaming were defined by arcade gaming that demanded a steady stream of cash doesn't mean that such an approach should be taken today.
Not only is the hardware today capable of so many more types of experiences than were possible before, the range and vocabulary of game development has exponentially expanded to the point where games can reasonably be appreciated as art rather than just a fun distraction. As the possibilities of games expanded, people started trending from games that valued quick play times and cheap, repetitive cash entry to higher, one-time transactions that enabled deeper, better constructed, and more expressive experiences. Now that big publishers have determined that this model can't sustain their sky-high budgets, they seem determined to merge the repeated small payments into full-price experiences, which threatens to dilute and cheapen the potential of these experiences.
When I have kids, I would like to be able to introduce games to them as a respectable art form on par with music or books. The path that EA would take gaming on would turn gaming into something more comparable to an expensive vapid distraction or gambling than a legitimate art form, and if that approach to games prevails in the marketplace, then out of love for my kids, I would have to shield them from games, refuse to allow them in my household, and direct them towards more productive and intellectually stimulating forms of recreation.
While I agree with Cliff's final point, I find his argument here to have several issues. (Can't hate on the dude though, after all, he was instrumental in UT '04 and Gears 3. FYI Cliff, loved all the free support for UT '04, bought the Season Pass for Gears 3, and didn't get any weapon skins. Good and substantial content is worth paying for.)
-First, one of his main points involves Team Fortress 2. While moving the game to a F2P model by introducing cosmetic items and new weapons has made Valve a whole lot of money, it has also resulted in a more unbalanced game. Two of the key pillars of the design of the original TF2 was to have each class play a set role that was balanced towards said role and to have easily recognizable character silhouettes. Since the introduction of the F2P model, both of these goals (that were fully achieved beforehand) have been diluted. Also, the introduction of so many new weapons, each with added bonuses, has made the game balance less even and consistent.
While TF2 is still an enjoyable game that can be played competitively without spending a dime or grinding for new weapons (this isn't the case in many F2P games, including some that EA produces), it isn't as good of a game overall as it was before the introduction of a microtransaction-based model.
While I would like companies that make quality games to do what they have to do to stay in business, as a gamer, I am more concerned with the quality of the experience I have paid for (or provided, with F2P games) than the profitability of the company producing the game.
-Second, Cliff wonders why EA has such a bad reputation and Valve has such a good one, despite both of them dealing in microtransactions. This one is simple.
Valve routinely releases free content updates for their titles to improve their game's value, which EA will never do unless they build in another avenue for extra payment (see Mass Effect 3). Valve allows individuals to submit content for sale in TF2 and these individuals can make money off their creations. Valve allows people to mod and alter their (non-MP) games for free, where EA charges for unlock packs. Valve doesn't produce titles that are "pay-to-win," while EA does. Valve doesn't have a record of withholding content from full-priced games as DLC (Mass Effect 3 did) or inserting F2P mechanics into full-priced games (Dead Space 3). Valve also doesn't have a corporate policy of putting microtransactions into every game they produce, regardless if they work well or not.
-Third, by noting the rising cost of game development/marketing and the cost of living in areas where game development takes place, he frames the adoption of microtransactions in more and more games as a necessary evil to keep publishers in business. The issue here is that publishers have several paths to profitability, some of which don't require microtransactions that affect or impede the core game experience. Instead of requiring microtransactions in every game to cover the massive cost of a bloated and inefficient development cycle (maybe they should use Unreal?!?) situated in an expensive area, the high cost of Hollywood actors and composers or expensive licenses, and a massive blowout marketing campaign, how about they rein in what they spend so they don't have to potentially sully or outright ruin their products out of perceived necessity? In an industry where big-name Hollywood talent get paid millions for sub-par contributions to game, where publishers fund the development of actual weapons that tie into their game just for publicity, and where teams of 500+ people work for several years on mediocre products (Resident Evil 6 and Assassin's Creed 3 come to mind), there is plenty of unnecessary fat to be cut from budgets these days.
Cliff has made some good points in his past two posts, which is why it is too bad that he has repeatedly simplified complex issues to black-and-white issues and lumped large groups of people onto one side to support his argument.
He did it here where he framed everyone that is suspicious of the gradual encroachment of microtransactions in games (for various reasons) as a raging vocal minority that don't understand business realities of the industry and hate all microtransactions. He did it in his post on sequels where he claimed that all every "hardcore fan" of a series wants is the exact same game again and will all endlessly whine about any change that is made in a sequel.
This perspective may have something to do with having to deal with the backlash to the multiplayer in Gears 2. Now I wasn't a big fan of the MP in Gears 1, but it was apparent to me that Gears 2 was a huge step backwards in competitive MP. There seems to be quite a consensus on the quality of that game.
It would be easier for people to consider his arguments, which come from a point of view that has much more experience than most anyone has when it comes to game development, if he didn't resort to such intellectual dishonesty when trying to make a point.
Just because previous parts of the history of gaming were defined by arcade gaming that demanded a steady stream of cash doesn't mean that such an approach should be taken today.
Not only is the hardware today capable of so many more types of experiences than were possible before, the range and vocabulary of game development has exponentially expanded to the point where games can reasonably be appreciated as art rather than just a fun distraction. As the possibilities of games expanded, people started trending from games that valued quick play times and cheap, repetitive cash entry to higher, one-time transactions that enabled deeper, better constructed, and more expressive experiences. Now that big publishers have determined that this model can't sustain their sky-high budgets, they seem determined to merge the repeated small payments into full-price experiences, which threatens to dilute and cheapen the potential of these experiences.
When I have kids, I would like to be able to introduce games to them as a respectable art form on par with music or books. The path that EA would take gaming on would turn gaming into something more comparable to an expensive vapid distraction or gambling than a legitimate art form, and if that approach to games prevails in the marketplace, then out of love for my kids, I would have to shield them from games, refuse to allow them in my household, and direct them towards more productive and intellectually stimulating forms of recreation.
Microtransactions aren't and were never the issue. This issue is with stuff that fundamentally breaks the game in some way for either the people who don't pay or those who do. This is like the DLC in dead space 3 completely altering the difficulty curve of the game.
No one bitches about valve's microtransactions because they do them right:
They are all basically cosmetic items.
They give the community the capability to participate in the market in multiple ways(creating items, trading items, or even selling items for cash)
You can get it all in game without paying, at least in theory.
Valve as built up a history of trust with the consumer that the digital good they pay for will still be around in the future.
EA only halfway does one of these things (being able to get the stuff ingame through grinding), while completely breaking all of the other rules for player friendly microtransactions. Who the fuck is going to trust EA with buying digital items when they regularly shut down game servers after 3 years? There is absolutely no guarantee your purchased item will even last a whole console generation, much less that it will be transferable to whatever comes next. Items that have a direct effect on gameplay are always gross, especially in multiplayer. Also there is no way for players to trade items, and certainly no way for them to create items. In valve games if you buy a key to unlock a crate and get something you didn't want, you can trade it for something you do. As far as I know if you buy one of the random microtransactions from EA and don't get anything useful, you are shit out of luck, and there is no way to ensure that you will ever get what you want.
That's without even mentioning that comparing a F2P game to a $60 boxed game is fucking absurd, and CliffyB knows that.
No one bitches about valve's microtransactions because they do them right:
They are all basically cosmetic items.
They give the community the capability to participate in the market in multiple ways(creating items, trading items, or even selling items for cash)
You can get it all in game without paying, at least in theory.
Valve as built up a history of trust with the consumer that the digital good they pay for will still be around in the future.
EA only halfway does one of these things (being able to get the stuff ingame through grinding), while completely breaking all of the other rules for player friendly microtransactions. Who the fuck is going to trust EA with buying digital items when they regularly shut down game servers after 3 years? There is absolutely no guarantee your purchased item will even last a whole console generation, much less that it will be transferable to whatever comes next. Items that have a direct effect on gameplay are always gross, especially in multiplayer. Also there is no way for players to trade items, and certainly no way for them to create items. In valve games if you buy a key to unlock a crate and get something you didn't want, you can trade it for something you do. As far as I know if you buy one of the random microtransactions from EA and don't get anything useful, you are shit out of luck, and there is no way to ensure that you will ever get what you want.
That's without even mentioning that comparing a F2P game to a $60 boxed game is fucking absurd, and CliffyB knows that.
You really think the mods would have allowed a troll account impersonating a prominent industry figure to stick around for 8 years? C'mon, son.
The internet audience is the only audience he has. And assuming I'm angry based on my post is hilarious, I'm more in awe that he treats forums like a dumping ground for stupid.
BlastProcessing
Member
Now that is how you raise the level of discourse. Good stuff.
PsychoSoldier
Banned
I'm honestly not sure what's more gross, cutting out main story content to be made into DLC ala Mass Effect 3 or the fawning that happens when a famous person joins in a thread.
How would I? From my knowledge and what Cliff just posted his thoughts on videogames aren't really propounding or new. So being a videogame designer makes your thoughts or opinions on videogames as a whole better?
Why is there videogame journalists/analysts to begin with then?
Killing_Joke
Member
I agree with him to an extent. Fuck DLC and microtransactions, if you don't like it then don't buy it. And when they do stupid shaddy shit like on disc DLC then don't support it. The only reason why they do it is because believe it or not people are paying for this shit. So don't blame the companies for taking advantage of dumb gamers. Just pray they wise up someday.
Laughed my ass off when he brought up gamestop though.
Laughed my ass off when he brought up gamestop though.
Win/10
RurouniZel
Asks questions so Ezalc doesn't have to
Pretty much sums up my feelings on it.
"It may be true that companies exist to make money, but that doesn't protect them. A thing's end-game doesn't protect it from criticism. Class-A drugs exist to make money, Human Trafficking exists to make money, since when did making money become so fucking glorious an ideal you get a free pass?"
The devil is in the details. If the future means no used games and being nickel and dimed at every opportunity then obviously people will be annoyed. If on the other hand they have incentives to buy new games and have microtransactions at the periphery it is a completely different story. Everything else about developers feeding themselves or the good old days is just marketing.
walking fiend
Member
Either a mentally retard, or someone with a clear agenda to land his points, will resort to such an obviously flawed logic as the base of his argument; and then adding irrelevant lines to prevent it from standing out. He's basically saying either shut the fuck up if you are still buying the games despite whatever you find wrong with them or their monetization policy, or don't buy the game.
The thing is that, his basic logic to defend his point can be extended to anything. If you ever have any problem with something, you should completely avoid it. If you think something is wrong with the policy of your country, you should leave!
And hey, when he comes here calling whole bunch of us fuckers, what do you expect? iirc, treating whole GAF, people who are discussing something in a thread, as a hivemind and calling them out is even bannable.
The problem is that it's not really the same at all. Good arcade games are designed to be finished on one credit, and buying your way through actually blocks you off from content like true last bosses, actual final stages, second loops, etc. Comparing it to microtransactions is nonsensical.
The whole "good old days" thing is lol too -- there are plenty of great arcade games to pick from that have come out in recent years.
Hey, remember those other things in Team Fortress 2 that you can buy with microtransactions that aren't hats/misc slot items?
Y'know, the ones that are weapons that have unique properties that change the way the game plays?
The ones that can quite literally take fifteen or more hours of grinding to craft if you don't get a lucky drop?
...yeah, I don't think Cliffy is entirely wrong about people giving Valve a free pass on stuff that they slam EA for.
Holy Order Sol
Member
This made me laugh uncontrollably.
Estocolmo
Member
He makes some good arguments. But I get annoyed by microtransactions when they affect the gameplay in an unbalancing way, like it was in Dead Space 3. Thats when it gets in my way and thats why I can hate it too, even though I never buy micro-DLC.
"If you dont like their microtransactions, dont spend money on them."
Well the weapon- and resource system in Dead Space 3 is completely remade from the previous titles. Its heavily emphasized on constantly findning small parts for building weapons and resources. Its basically made for selling microtransaction DLC, were you can buy these small parts and resources for the weapons.
The price that we non-DLC people have to pay is that the whooole game is formed after this system. The weapons are completely different now from how they were in Dead Space 1 and 2. Secondary firing has been replaced by some Nuts & Bolts mechanism. Were you just can put a shotgun to your rifle and blast your way through the game. It is a game breaker and destroys the originality of the game.
"If you dont like their microtransactions, dont spend money on them."
Well the weapon- and resource system in Dead Space 3 is completely remade from the previous titles. Its heavily emphasized on constantly findning small parts for building weapons and resources. Its basically made for selling microtransaction DLC, were you can buy these small parts and resources for the weapons.
The price that we non-DLC people have to pay is that the whooole game is formed after this system. The weapons are completely different now from how they were in Dead Space 1 and 2. Secondary firing has been replaced by some Nuts & Bolts mechanism. Were you just can put a shotgun to your rifle and blast your way through the game. It is a game breaker and destroys the originality of the game.
This is such an eloquent argument, lovely.
Games in themselves are just entertainment, but with the more egregious examples of exploitative DLC lately (____Ville games, Real Racing 3 as notable offenders) it's definitely the case that the industry cannot exist behind the excuse of 'vote with your wallet' any longer.
I'm glad that people are calling Cliff out on where his argument falls flat. Hopefully he reads these posts and takes them seriously as they are intended.
DJ Crimson
Banned
Most of those weapons are a Scrap Each/2 Craftable Weapons each on the trading market. No way that would take 15 or more hours. If you ask nicely, people would even give you some of those items free of charge since they hold so little value and easy to get. Still a useless argument to use. Cliffy doesn't have a clue on how TF2 microtransactions work.
He probably won't, at least that's what I assume when looking at his tweets:
The only person that can criticize Cliff is Cliff himself.
zerokoolpsx
Member
There are quite a few counter arguments in this thread to the "vote with your wallet" excuse, including to other things he said. It's worth the read.
Lysander91
Banned
The sense of entitlement that some of these posters hold is ridiculous. Some of you are basically arguing that game developers, publishers, stockholders, etc. should take less profit because you are entitled to having a micro-transaction free existence. Have you ever thought that some consumers LIKE the micro-transaction model?
No one has explained to me why pretty much all no-DLC console games (which was all of them) could hit Gamestop bargain bins last generation (the PS2 days) without the company behind them shutting up.
I'm sure those companies still had to pay their employees, were still located in San Francisco, and still had huge development costs.
I'm sure those companies still had to pay their employees, were still located in San Francisco, and still had huge development costs.
Maybe the publisher should stop hiring 300+ people teams, spending tons of money on marketing hoping it's the next hit, and wasting resources on unneeded features to save some money instead of trying to make it back through the sale of stuff a lot of people don't buy.
Some do buy it and enjoy it, but that shouldn't be the method of making back money or making a profit.
CambriaRising
Member
They are not entitled to my money, but they should probably try to please more people so they feel like giving them money instead of being scum bags and creating systems to bleed the ones who don't care to make up for the ones who do.
So true, money talks. I don't hold anything against companies doing microtransactions if people are willing to pay for it. It is their money.
If game companies are responsible for how their product is perceived by the mass market, is it not also their responsibility to ensure that even a vocal minority cannot see the puppet strings?
Isn't stuff like an NPC referring specifically to downloadable content like someone sucking the soul out of your hobby?
Don't game makers have to ensure that even though there has to be DLC, it doesn't have the appearance of a soulless exercise?
Isn't stuff like an NPC referring specifically to downloadable content like someone sucking the soul out of your hobby?
Don't game makers have to ensure that even though there has to be DLC, it doesn't have the appearance of a soulless exercise?
Angry Fork
Member
Problem is 'good business' ends up being a justification for anything. Businessmen use the money barometer to guage how people should react to these decisions. If a company is willing to cut out half of the single player campaign in order to sell it later, and it's financially successful (people pay for it), then it becomes moral/okay, if people are not willing to pay for it then it was immoral.
Obviously games are unnecessary so people are free to choose not to buy them, but that's not much of a fair choice. "Accept what we say/do, we will chop the game up to sell later, don't like it? think it's wrong? fuck off." Just flat out say capitalism does not align with ethical principles, then ask why you'd want to live in that kind of system.
Obviously games are unnecessary so people are free to choose not to buy them, but that's not much of a fair choice. "Accept what we say/do, we will chop the game up to sell later, don't like it? think it's wrong? fuck off." Just flat out say capitalism does not align with ethical principles, then ask why you'd want to live in that kind of system.
Like I said, I'm pretty sure you can enjoy FIFA just fine without FUT (aside from the online pass, unless you buy it digital or cheap new, etc). Once I figured you need micro transactions to keep the mode running, I stopped playing it completely and focused in Career Mode and Online Seasons. It's one of my most played games every year and it works just fine after I pay it's cost on the game shop.
Unless someone brings up the fact that I buy a "gimped game" because I don't touch FUT, but again, I don't care about that mode.
Unless someone brings up the fact that I buy a "gimped game" because I don't touch FUT, but again, I don't care about that mode.