Ubisoft: "If Players Didn't Buy Loot Boxes/Crates, They Would Not Be Added"

N4CR

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
4,921
If it's only cosmetics, I could give a fuck about lootboxes.

Used to be in multiplayer, everything was available for everyone; no progression, grinding or other BS.

Then, it became an ordeal to get to where the game was playable. Doom was this way; I refuse to grind to get normal hit probabilities, so I play Arcade mode, that doesn't use that hit mechanism.

You could pay more money for the game to be what you thought you bought, but you didn't know that going into it.

I'm sure he's all good with raping players wallets, that's how they get their bonuses.

What the Fuck happened to the people on the leaderboard were actually good, and did't pay $500+ to get there?

That's when I quit preordering games, and Pay to win meant more money in my pocket, because I sure as fuck wasn't spending it on games.

I bought a Eaton M112 blower for a year's worth of games, lol.

I bought Crysis 1,2 and 3 and the other fun stuff in between, but the later far cry games are a torturous experience, and I work as hard as possible to fuck over the "normal" outcomes as possible.

I killed all the leaders in FC4, it made the game much better. :) and I bought it on sale for $20.

I'm waiting for FC5 to hit $20, and I'll rape it too.

If gamespy were still up, none of the new games would sell at all.

Fuck ubisoft, I hope they get raped to death by one of their faggy characters.

Hah! Was a similar choice for me, spend shitloads on DDR4 doing a full upgrade (want at least 64gb this time around) or spend it on something for the race car. What's that M112 in?

And lol you like to break games too, EvE was great for that as it was steered mostly by whatever the players did typically.. will have to try FC4. And 3-1 (barely touched 1).
 

RPGWiZaRD

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 24, 2009
Messages
1,217
I've played several games with loot boxes, I've never and probably never will purchase some ingame transaction stuff. I'm curious as to others, is it because the ingame skins or whatever you purchase makes your gaming experience that much better or why do people pay for loot boxes. I just don't get it and want to understand why ppl spend money on this crap (5-7 yo kids who just got their phone and don't have any self control I can understand but I'd think parents also try to stop the kids from doing that) for someone who boycotts loot system. If everyone would be like me the system would disappear quickly.
 
Last edited:

DeathFromBelow

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
7,316
If it's only cosmetics, I could give a fuck about lootboxes.

Monetization of cosmetics inevitably gives way to removal or monetization of modding without actually improving the product.

Madoc hit the nail on the head:
I *can* argue their point. I can argue their point as a gamer, since I am *not* a share-holder for Ubisoft or anyone else. I am paying money because I want a good game, not because I want to be a means of income for some corporate executive or shareholder. Things, for example, that break immersion, screw up the flow of the game, or otherwise decrease my enjoyment of what I'm doing... yes, I can argue against their point. I can fault them for including something whose sole purpose seems to be to make them more money, not improve the quality of the game I've purchased.

This is is a deeper issue that reaches further than trivial complaints about the latest video games. Unchecked greed harms society in a variety of ways, just look at the American health care industry. Triumph of Justice over Avarice for the public good was an important development of Renaissance philosophy and was enshrined by the early European merchant republics as well as the later American revolutionaries.

I'm getting off the rails here, but I find the widespread incorporation of gambling mechanics into 'AAA' video games (and the pathetic response from industry and the ESRB) to be particularly disgusting.
 

Patton187

Gawd
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
669
If it's only cosmetics, I could give a fuck about lootboxes.

Used to be in multiplayer, everything was available for everyone; no progression, grinding or other BS.

Then, it became an ordeal to get to where the game was playable. Doom was this way; I refuse to grind to get normal hit probabilities, so I play Arcade mode, that doesn't use that hit mechanism.

You could pay more money for the game to be what you thought you bought, but you didn't know that going into it.

I'm sure he's all good with raping players wallets, that's how they get their bonuses.

What the Fuck happened to the people on the leaderboard were actually good, and did't pay $500+ to get there?

That's when I quit preordering games, and Pay to win meant more money in my pocket, because I sure as fuck wasn't spending it on games.

I bought a Eaton M112 blower for a year's worth of games, lol.

I bought Crysis 1,2 and 3 and the other fun stuff in between, but the later far cry games are a torturous experience, and I work as hard as possible to fuck over the "normal" outcomes as possible.

I killed all the leaders in FC4, it made the game much better. :) and I bought it on sale for $20.

I'm waiting for FC5 to hit $20, and I'll rape it too.

If gamespy were still up, none of the new games would sell at all.

Fuck ubisoft, I hope they get raped to death by one of their faggy characters.
You get a like for the use of 'raped to death'
 

Dekoth-E-

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
7,599
The problem is that you can empty a clip into his head from 3 feet away, and he will take No Damage.

That's why I quit playing these games, there's no skill involved, it's how much you've grinded or paid.

Fuck that.

Talking pure cosmetics only. I will absolutely not play any came that is P2W.
 

Youn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 22, 2007
Messages
5,931
Is there some sorta game morality chart, that sorts games based on crappy things loot boxes, etc... I wanna clearly avoid the crap without having to read too many reviews... would be cool if they gave awards to those games who have good morality standing

fortunately I've been able to avoid such games but the thought of accidentally coming across these things makes me fearful... let us not be duped, please, I feel I can't even trust most reviews anymore because we might be slowly becoming complacent!
 

Rizen

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2000
Messages
9,487
P2W games aside, I don't really understand the concern over loot boxes.

I've spent money on Overwatch loot boxes (probably $100). I understand what I am buying, and it's purely cosmetic content that doesn't impact the way the game plays for anyone else. I know that some people have some concerns over the gambling nature of loot boxes and that's a valid/fair complaint, but unless developers are paywalling maps, weapons, characters, or other functional components of the game, I don't really see a problem.
 

Rizen

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2000
Messages
9,487
And regarding the monetization of games, most games haven't gone up in price since the 90s - or cost less. SNES and N64 games I regularly paid $70 for back in the 90s. PC games I usually was paying $50. Most PC games these days cost $60 on release, despite the fact that development teams are far larger and costs are far higher, plus inflation. Yes, the market is larger and many games are cross platform, but if games tracked with inflation they would be a lot more expensive than they are today. Gamers don't want to pay that increase, so the money is being raised elsewhere.

The financial aspect of game development is more complex than a lot of people acknowledge.
 

vegeta535

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
8,522
Ubi been generally fine with MT in recent time but EA hasn't been. If it is just cosmetic and can also be unlocked with out forcing a huge grind then fine. EA has studies and stuff on how too entice people to spend money.
P2W games aside, I don't really understand the concern over loot boxes.

I've spent money on Overwatch loot boxes (probably $100). I understand what I am buying, and it's purely cosmetic content that doesn't impact the way the game plays for anyone else. I know that some people have some concerns over the gambling nature of loot boxes and that's a valid/fair complaint, but unless developers are paywalling maps, weapons, characters, or other functional components of the game, I don't really see a problem.
How about just letting people buy what they want? It is retarded that you could drop $100 and not get the skin you want. Sure you might be able to buy it after all the duplicate skins get turned to coins but still bullshit. It is predatory tactics to make you spend more then you should.
 

hlfbkd420

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 16, 2017
Messages
280
I'll be one of those guys.... I buy Keys in Rocket League every once in awhile.. But then again.. I only paid $9.99 for the game in 2016... Spent about $75 on boxes.... $85 on a game over 2.5 years isn't making me lose sleep...

It is the only game I have ever bought 'crates' from though...
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
29,735
Whose idea? Yours? Is that why you buy their games, to give them money?

This sort of thinking drives up up the wall. The way of thinking that this is all about money. About business. It is not. That might be why the people in charge of Ubisoft have someone make the game: for them to make money selling it. But that IS NOT why I buy a game, and I doubt that many of those in charge of making games do it for that reason, either. Do artists create art to make money, or do they make money because people appreciate their artistry? Do artists take pride in their skill? Do coders, masters of game mechanics, voice actors, and all of the people who put forth their efforts in creating a game do it solely to get paid? I don't think so, though I expect some do.

So, to get back on topic, I *can* argue their point. I can argue their point as a gamer, since I am *not* a share-holder for Ubisoft or anyone else. I am paying money because I want a good game, not because I want to be a means of income for some corporate executive or shareholder. Things, for example, that break immersion, screw up the flow of the game, or otherwise decrease my enjoyment of what I'm doing... yes, I can argue against their point. I can fault them for including something whose sole purpose seems to be to make them more money, not improve the quality of the game I've purchased. In fact, I think I just did.

For all your sophistry about artistry, no AAA game is made simply for artistic value. It is made to make fucking money. It's really that simple. Why do you have a new "Call of Duty" every year, but you only ever had one "Shaq-Fu"? Because COD makes money, and not even Shaquille O'Neal could save Shaq-Fu. Now the individuals making the game are artists in their own way, but they are getting paid by a company that is trying to make money. If the company didn't pay them, they wouldn't do it. They aren't hawking their wares on the corner of streets or selling on Etsy. Video games are a business. If they ceased to make someone money, no one would make them. The artistic value and care taken to increase playability and visuals isn't strictly for your enjoyment. It is to sell more games. You don't like it? Don't buy their games.

I don't buy games to give people money, I buy them for my enjoyment. That being said, I'm not naive enough to believe that people are making them out of the kindness of their hearts because they want to express their creative visions. Be more realistic.
 

Domingo

Fully [H]
Joined
Jul 30, 2004
Messages
20,685
Every time I see the phrase "vote with your wallet" I roll my eyes.
Literally every single time that phrase has been used it has been a lost cause.
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
29,735
Every time I see the phrase "vote with your wallet" I roll my eyes.
Literally every single time that phrase has been used it has been a lost cause.

That's because it's used by a vocal minority. The passive majority just goes with the flow. Case in point: Nvidia. Nobody likes their business practices. Nobody likes their pricing. But people buy their stuff anyway because it's somewhat better than their competitor rather than "voting with their wallets."
 
Last edited:

Rizen

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2000
Messages
9,487
How about just letting people buy what they want? It is retarded that you could drop $100 and not get the skin you want. Sure you might be able to buy it after all the duplicate skins get turned to coins but still bullshit. It is predatory tactics to make you spend more then you should.
Yeah, I agree, that would be a better solution that would be a lot more fair to consumers.

I really think the Path of Exile model is the best I've seen for selling cosmetics. It's exactly as you describe.
 

tetris42

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 29, 2014
Messages
4,518
i've not bought any ubisoft games in years and they still keep making them.

voting with my wallets not working.
Actually it's working exactly as intended. Whoever spends the most money has the most influence. With microtransactions and lootboxes, now there's not much of a limit for how much individuals can spend. In the old days, all people could do is buy a copy of the game, so they had to appeal to masses. Now they just have to appeal to people with the most money. It's the "vote with your wallet" end game.
 

Advil

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
2,036
In short, charge what the game costs up front. If the game needs recurring revenue, charge a subscription or make it clear you are selling in game items and list their prices.

If the game can't survive doing that, then it isn't good enough to exist.

When you have to resort to creating gambling addicts to make a game popu
I'll be one of those guys.... I buy Keys in Rocket League every once in awhile.. But then again.. I only paid $9.99 for the game in 2016... Spent about $75 on boxes.... $85 on a game over 2.5 years isn't making me lose sleep...

It is the only game I have ever bought 'crates' from though...

I've owed Rocket League a little more money for a while now. I've played... a lot of games of RL. So I have no problem giving them some money to keep the servers up and the lights on. But opening the crates just pisses me off. I have hundreds of crates.

I was fairly happy when they released the last season pass. I could still care less about almost all the cosmetics but it let me pay them straight up another $10... for a a set of items that was mostly listed and known and I could be assured that I'd get those items if I played the game. There's still too much unknown in the list and ? (unknown until you unlock it BS) but it was a step in the right direction.

I played Mechwarrior Online for a while. That had it's own issues and the mechs cost way, way too much money when the sales weren't on but all of us who played understood it was a niche market game. We all bought a few mechs per year to keep the game alive. It was a form of voluntary subscription and we all knew it. Stop buying from them entirely and the development stops and the servers go dark. I fell away from that game only because I didn't care for the way they were adding content ad not because I couldn't tolerate the model. It was a little bit P2W depending on which mechs the meta favored at the moment, but they actually tried to make sure there were always free mechs that could stand toe to toe with the paid variants.
 

iissmart

Weaksauce
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Messages
93
I'd be fine if they sold cosmetics in an in-game market. But by bundling them into loot boxes and not telling the user what they're getting, it's gambling and I hate it.

Forza 7 recently removed loot boxes from the game entirely. I don't think enough people wrote articles about that rare moment.
 

DNMock

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 16, 2015
Messages
399
And regarding the monetization of games, most games haven't gone up in price since the 90s - or cost less. SNES and N64 games I regularly paid $70 for back in the 90s. PC games I usually was paying $50. Most PC games these days cost $60 on release, despite the fact that development teams are far larger and costs are far higher, plus inflation. Yes, the market is larger and many games are cross platform, but if games tracked with inflation they would be a lot more expensive than they are today. Gamers don't want to pay that increase, so the money is being raised elsewhere.

The financial aspect of game development is more complex than a lot of people acknowledge.

https://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/ea/financials?query=income-statement

Yup, they totally need to raise their prices and try and siphon out every penny they can cus those rising production costs are gonna put them out of business....

I think prices are just fine, if anything they could stand to come down a bit.
 

Aioeyu

Weaksauce
Joined
May 24, 2017
Messages
71
Haven't bought a game from EA, Activision, or Ubisoft in years. Have several titles I got from them for free laying around, and still don't play them. I wish more people would vote with their wallets, but we're trained to be consumer sheep who don't think about spending from an early age. I routinely watch my friend's kids spend hundreds of dollars per month on mobile gambling, i.e. loot boxes, and the parents are so oblivious they don't even notice, and still think it's harmless when I point it out to them. Some have come to me after their kids spent hundreds of dollars on loot boxes asking how to stop their kids from blowing their cash, since I'm their "tech savvy friend." My first inclination is to respond "parenting," but since I don't want my friends going bankrupt over loot boxes, I show them how to set up parental controls. I don't have kids, I just borrow theirs, so who am I to judge.
 

Rizen

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2000
Messages
9,487
https://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/ea/financials?query=income-statement

Yup, they totally need to raise their prices and try and siphon out every penny they can cus those rising production costs are gonna put them out of business....

I think prices are just fine, if anything they could stand to come down a bit.
What is your point? That EA is a profitable business? No shit.

They are profitable because:

1) They take very few risks.

2) They monetize the shit out of all of their games.

Think about most big AAA games now vs the 90s/00s, and you're basically making my point. It costs a lot of money to produce a modern game, because of development costs, and the less mainstream appeal the game has the worse it's going to sell. Gamers won't pay increased prices to support that, so here we are, where most AAA games are sequels of existing franchises, or take very few risks in gameplay.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
33,859
And regarding the monetization of games, most games haven't gone up in price since the 90s - or cost less. SNES and N64 games I regularly paid $70 for back in the 90s. PC games I usually was paying $50. Most PC games these days cost $60 on release, despite the fact that development teams are far larger and costs are far higher, plus inflation. Yes, the market is larger and many games are cross platform, but if games tracked with inflation they would be a lot more expensive than they are today. Gamers don't want to pay that increase, so the money is being raised elsewhere.

The financial aspect of game development is more complex than a lot of people acknowledge.

This is very true. Back in the 90's you didn't have an orchestra recording your soundtrack, it was some guy programming midi. You didn't have a cast of voice actors, all you needed was a guy typing text. Coding and artwork were also simpler as the the hardware of the time was limited as to what it could run.

On the flipside - however - the market is also orders of magnitude larger today than it was in the 90's. The same amount of effort goes into developing a title whether 1,000 or 10,000,000 people buy it. Today because of digital distribution the costs of selling the titles is also very low.

I'm not convinced that continuing to produce games the old fashioned way with a single upfront cost is necessarily not possible anymore. I think the sales volumes across multiple platforms make up for the added project scope and costs of developing a title. I just think the studios see free money, and are going for it. Their philosophy is probably that if people are stupid enough to pay real money for virtual in-game items, let them.

I hate it, but you can't fix stupid :(
 

DNMock

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 16, 2015
Messages
399
What is your point? That EA is a profitable business? No shit.

They are profitable because:

1) They take very few risks.

2) They monetize the shit out of all of their games.

Think about most big AAA games now vs the 90s/00s, and you're basically making my point. It costs a lot of money to produce a modern game, because of development costs, and the less mainstream appeal the game has the worse it's going to sell. Gamers won't pay increased prices to support that, so here we are, where most AAA games are sequels of existing franchises, or take very few risks in gameplay.

I'm just saying that studios aren't good guys because they haven't raised their prices on games lately. They are doing quite fine with the current standard sale price.

As for risk taking, no company ever takes risks they don't have to, so no big name developer is gonna do anything innovative unless they are forced to. Hell, look at AMD and Intel. Intel hasn't had to take any major risks for a while and they haven't. AMD did. AMD rolled the dice and the industry is moving forward. It wouldn't matter if AAA developers sold an identical number of games at 1,000 per title, the innovation wouldn't happen anyway. Push their back against the wall though and that innovation may well spring forth.
 

dgz

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 15, 2010
Messages
5,838
Unless loot boxes are necessary to progress in the game, or offer some kind of competitive advantage, I don't see what the problem is.

Well, I certainly agree in principle. Any business will naturally go where the money is. Problem is, money seems to be in loot boxes these days. And that sucks.
 

aliraz

n00b
Joined
Sep 14, 2015
Messages
13
If you legitimately have a problem buying purely cosmetic lootboxes akin to gambling or crack, then the real asshat idiot who needs a major intervention in their life and has completely failed society is not the company selling them, it's you. You're the problem.

Stop being a loser, snowflake, and man the F up. You will not make it in this world if a purely cosmetic lootbox is crack for you. Please step away from the internet, anything tasty, good food, art, the preferred sex, and everything else. You can't handle it. Somewhere, your parents failed you, miserably. Seek help immediately.
 
Joined
Aug 3, 2017
Messages
794
And regarding the monetization of games, most games haven't gone up in price since the 90s - or cost less. SNES and N64 games I regularly paid $70 for back in the 90s. PC games I usually was paying $50. Most PC games these days cost $60 on release, despite the fact that development teams are far larger and costs are far higher, plus inflation. Yes, the market is larger and many games are cross platform, but if games tracked with inflation they would be a lot more expensive than they are today. Gamers don't want to pay that increase, so the money is being raised elsewhere.

The financial aspect of game development is more complex than a lot of people acknowledge.

not this again. Sale numbers have offset any issues caused by rising development cost. You have to look into the ROI and the profit figuers . (ROI might be 2x, but that 2x could be USD200m) but the corporate side of the gaming industry is insane right now. Investors want to see continued increase in profits y-o-y. They don;t care if they have made double over costs, they don't care if they have made enough to make two new games out of the profit....

On indie development costs, it has been calculated and presented clearly on Kickstarter , and none of those made any justification for raising product prices.
 
Last edited:

rudy

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 4, 2004
Messages
8,704
The problem is there are enough people with money to burn that just don't give a fuck.

Why is it a problem they essentially bank roll the games for us. As long as lootboxes are cosmetic only I don't care, in fact I invite them I think its great that some person who cares is blowing $200 on lootboxes. My favorite example is fortnite, they game is completely free and yet completely profitable. You can enjoy the game fully for free as a no skin. How is that not an amazing time for gaming?
 

rudy

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 4, 2004
Messages
8,704
I've played several games with loot boxes, I've never and probably never will purchase some ingame transaction stuff. I'm curious as to others, is it because the ingame skins or whatever you purchase makes your gaming experience that much better or why do people pay for loot boxes. I just don't get it and want to understand why ppl spend money on this crap (5-7 yo kids who just got their phone and don't have any self control I can understand but I'd think parents also try to stop the kids from doing that) for someone who boycotts loot system. If everyone would be like me the system would disappear quickly.


I personally have bought lootboxes for my kids. Part of the reason is because in this day and age that is what they enjoy the most. I mean what other item are you going to buy them a Barbie? Is that really any better?

Second I don't have a problem with it because I am rational enough to understand that people pay for all sorts of equally material and consumable items and that is just a fact of life. Every time you see a starbucks loaded with people buying coffee its just a consumable. Every time you see people go to a movie or rent one, its just a consumable, what about a museum, park, etc.... The question is not is something consumable or useful its more how much money are you spending in exchange for how much enjoyment. And to be fair $20 in lootboxes or vbucks is really really really cheap entertainment and will last them for months or maybe longer in the game. The dollars per unit of emotional entertainment and value is very cheap.
 

rudy

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 4, 2004
Messages
8,704
I hate it, but you can't fix stupid :(

I think one of the most ignorant things you can say is that, assuming the person is stupid. I don't know the first thing about your life however I bet if I did I could point to several consumable items you spend money on that have no long term value and are really no different virtual goods in games. The mistake is assuming that people who do this are ignorant or stupid, sure some may be but many have actually thought about what they are doing and decided that the price and risk is worth the reward to them. Assuming they are not destroying their family or financial security its not a problem and they aren't stupid.
 

Laowai

Gawd
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
534
I think one of the most ignorant things you can say is that, assuming the person is stupid. I don't know the first thing about your life however I bet if I did I could point to several consumable items you spend money on that have no long term value and are really no different virtual goods in games. The mistake is assuming that people who do this are ignorant or stupid, sure some may be but many have actually thought about what they are doing and decided that the price and risk is worth the reward to them. Assuming they are not destroying their family or financial security its not a problem and they aren't stupid.
I certainly don't speak for him, but I don't think anyone really cares about cosmetic items in general. However, if you have cosmetic items in loot boxes which are random...that's a no-no. Not because of the items but because of paying for randomness. If you want to buy a Hat of Stupidity and the game is supported by micro-transactions, you should be able to buy just that. You shouldn't have to buy shitloads of loot boxes until you get said hat, if ever. Hence, the core problem with loot boxes is that it's an awful lot like gambling.

Hell, there are games like Hearthstone that are nothing but money grabs based on loot-box gambling mechanics and unlike actual physical items, you own exactly nothing. They spit out expansions and new cards at a high rate regularly. That game is a f'n goldmine like nothing else I've seen.

That said, I don't think anything should be banned or made illegal. Let people do what they want. That includes their right to spend so much money on virtual items of very subjective value until they lose their damn house. Do what you want, but pay the price for poor decisions.
 

Tsumi

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
13,538
Why is it a problem they essentially bank roll the games for us. As long as lootboxes are cosmetic only I don't care, in fact I invite them I think its great that some person who cares is blowing $200 on lootboxes. My favorite example is fortnite, they game is completely free and yet completely profitable. You can enjoy the game fully for free as a no skin. How is that not an amazing time for gaming?

There are a few examples of well done games with lootboxes, though I still firmly believe that you should be able to pick and choose what you buy. In this sense, I like the World of Warships model, where crates earned in game can net you premium stuff, while you're still given the option of buying the premium stuff outright.

On the other hand, there are plenty of games that don't do it right. I believe the majority of the outrage stems from taking beloved franchises and turning them into lootbox money making machines. See Diablo and Command and Conquer for the most recent examples.
 

Youn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 22, 2007
Messages
5,931
its gambling. they make money off little kids gambling with parents money.
2n0r4x.jpg
 

Cerulean

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 27, 2006
Messages
9,476
All it takes is tapping into the hedonistic aspects of people and then money shall be made. With shortened attention spans due to conditioning from the performance improvements in technology and from cash cow business operation, an addiction is there to be taken advantage of! The only way not to play the game is ditch the games that are considered "fun" but the majority, and take to games that require longer attention spans, intellect, and thought (ie. chess). Good old fashioned games!

The reason the industry has continued to go the way it has is because people HAVE been voting with their wallet. So all y'all who have been saying 'vote with your wallet', you're request has been granted! Take the butthurt and flush it. :D Go find something else to do.
 
Top