CliffyB: Microtransaction is Not a Dirty Word, EA is Not The Bad Guy

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT
 

Yes, Valve did put a $100 DLC ring in their game. The ring does nothing except broadcast a single message to everyone that's playing the game. It does not effect the actual gameplay. None of what's sold on the TF2 store is needed to play. Some of the equipped items are nice to have, but they're well balanced so, while the functionality might be different, the penalties make them balance out when compared to the default kit.

Their Mann vs. Machine mode was a **completely free** game mode they added. Yes, there are "tickets" you can by to play on special servers that can earn you special items if you win, but again, these items are merely cosmetic in nature. If you can't make it through, it doesn't consume your ticket. You can still play the standard Mann vs. Machine mode without spending a dime, though. Unless you bought it when it came out on the Orange Box. Which cost $40. Which came with 4 other games.

So in TF2, you have your ability to compete be based on your skill as opposed to how much real money you spent on your kit and you have access to all maps and gamemodes. You don't have to spend a single penny.

EA (and, lets be honest, Ubisoft and Activision deserves flack for this, too), on the other hand, requires you to pay money for extra maps, extra game modes, extra weapons (that are usually NOT balanced to the standard kit), cheat codes, ect ect that DO effect gameplay... AND they still charge the full $60. They leave out sections of the game and then make it Day 1 DLC. They charge for crafting materials for crafting weapons in their SINGLE PLAYER MODE. Yes, you can get the materials without paying, and there's a exploit to get unlimited materials, but I get the distinct feeling that they did that as an out in case it blew up in their face.

EA is basically pushing and pushing and pushing the consumer, slicing bits off of their game and selling them, which over the course of the game's shelf-life, can add up to 20-100 extra bucks, and still expecting people to pay $60. Valve, on the other hand, sells hats in their free game.

On the subject of Origin and Steam, yes, Steam was kinda crap when it first came out. However, they have the excuse of being one of the first companies to really make a dedicated game downloading platform. Mistakes were made, but they were fixed, and now it's the most popular one by a long-shot.

By the time EA came out with Origin, Steam was working at full...well...steam. All the pioneering is done. All they had to do is copy what Valve did and make some small improvement on it. They failed horribly at this. Now, it is better now then when it first started, it's STILL not quite up to snuff, and they don't have an excuse.

EA says they need to make money, but you know what? Valve's making money, and they're doing things that, by Ciffy B's accounts, should've put them out of business. Meanwhile, EA's bleeding out money like a hemophiliac, and one day, they're going to find consumer's "Oh, HELL no." point. CliffyB and his ilk should be fearing that day and doing whatever they can do to get publishers to avoid it. Due to the corporate mindframe, I think it's inevitable, and I'm eagerly making popcorn in preparation. The video game market crash in the 80's was due in part of corporate greed and heavy handedness, and you know what they say what happens if you fail to learn from history.

If videogames cost too much to make then it's the responsibility of a game company to find efficient ways to lower those costs. An example of an efficient way is to create a good, reusable game engine (e.g. Valve) an inefficient way is to repeatedly rehire and fire your development teams at the start and end of your projects (e.g. EA).

Costs are not an excuse to try to bilk your consumers out of more money. The music industry already learned that lesson the hard way with people flocking to itunes or piracy to get their music rather than buy CDs just for one track.

The fact that CliffyB and people like him can't see the difference between TF2's micro and Dead Space's is I think a major reason why EA keeps slipping. TF2 charges a premium for status items to show off to other people where in Dead Space people are handing over money to cut out a tedious part of the gameplay. If people are willing to hand over cash to skip part of your (single-player) game (i.e. resource gathering) maybe that should be a clue to fix that part of the game rather than announce victory for your revenue model.

As for voting with my wallet, I used to be happy to give my money to people like Westwood, Maxis, Origin Systems, etc. but for some reason these companies keep disappearing somewhere...

Lord_Gremlin:

Slave traders needed to make money. And a lot of people worked in that industry. Does that make them not evil?

imagine you grow up in a time and place where your parents, teachers and the priest on Sunday tell you that slavery is good, you never meet anyone who gives you another point of view and you become a slave trader because you need to feed your family. does that make you evil? i mean unless you are some kind of sadistic bastard who gets his kicks out of treating people horribly, that makes you evil even if you raise puppies.

Hey, remember a time when games look like pixel blocks and controlled with just a joystick and a single button? We should cut Aliens Colonial Marines some slack because that's how things were back then!

**** NO! Standards have changed. Valve has set the bar higher and you can't release bull**** like this and just say "Well Steam started this way too."

If Origin was released at the same time as Steam, then they might have been able to get away with it. Might have. But now we live in a day and age when Steam is filled with awesome and chocolate. Deal with it.

While I don't see Valve as a company that can do no wrong, I also see EA as a company that willing screw it's customers for the sake of making more money off of them. The whole thing of charging full price for video games and then nickle and diming the players at every turn is what is driving the hate train to EA. Now EA isn't the first developer to do this of course, but they are the publisher that is now making it a requirement of every game they produce along with everything to have a multiplayer component.

As in regards to Bleszinski once again doing his best job of being a douchebag, his little speech reminds me of Colin Moriarty, another douchebag who takes up residence at IGN (big shocker). Cliffy is out of touch with gamers and it shows with his main statement toward those who have problems with EA's business model to be "just don't buy their games." The big issue is that gamers like the developers of the games that EA publishes, but they hate all the nonsensical components and actual parts of the game being stripped off to be sold separately that EA requires of them all for the sake of bleeding the customers of more money.

The only thing Cliff Bleszinski seems to have accomplished from his little blog is to reaffirm that he is still a douchebag and he looking for a job at Electronic Arts.

I'm glad someone's pointing out the hero-worship/demonization cognitive dissonance that's going on in regards to Valve and EA.

That said, microtransactions are still a pile of horseshit.

If you can't make the bottom line profitable on box sales alone then you need to re-evaluate how you're making use of those development resources. (hint: good game design does not cost hundreds of millions of dollars)

While CliffyB seems to be ignoring the vast difference in how EA & Valve handle DLC & microtransactions, I have to applaud him for one statement that I've been banging on about for a while now:

"If you don't like EA, don't buy their games,"

As much as gamers love to bitch about EA, often with good reason, they sure don't seem to mind making them rich for doing the things gamers seem to hate.
I take issue with many things in Origin's EULA, which I express by not using Origin
You want publishers to stop nickel'n'dime-ing us with DLC? THEN STOP BUYING THE DAMN DLC!

Ranting about it on forums doesn't change the fact that you keep giving them dump trucks full of money

Cliff, Mr. Blez...uh, Blizin...er...Cliff, if you're tired of EA being seen as "the bad guy," maybe they need to stop BEING the bad guy. TF2 is free to play and any of the sidegrade items you can craft or find as drops with the store being a way of guaranteeing you get what you want. The store is there to supplement the game. EA, however, is putting in microtransactions as the preferred way to get upgrades in the multiplayer add-on to a single-player focused game. There, the store is there to be the full focus of the side game.

As for the whole "vote with our wallets" thing, I agree with that, which is why I haven't bought any of the Gears of War games. Ah, gotcha! You should see your face, Cliffy. Yes, I can see you right now. I am an internet wizard, you know, we have mystical cyber-scrying powers. It involves rythmic chanting into our webcams, but I can say no more lest I incur the wrath of the Internet Wizard Secret Enforcement Commission (we're working on something catchier). Back on topic, though. Really I think it comes down to "maybe we would if Corporate would stop thinking about short-term numbers and care about long-term gain." I hate to drag this one out of mothballs, but remember Psychonauts? Awesome game, great premise, sold terribly, incredibly beloved by fans. Took a shot, didn't pan out monetarily. That's just how it goes sometimes. What I'm saying is maybe someone could come up with a business model where you make these big AAA games that are going to make oodles because that's what the online multiplayer crowd wants (Gears of War, for example) while you've got subsidiary companies making the deeper games that aren't going to break first-day sales records but are going to be held up as much-loved examples of triumph in video game storytelling. Yes you can make the AAA oodle-making games deep and tell complex stories, we're not going to begrudge you for that. Just leave some space on the "good story" shelf for the little games too.

I can agree with Cliffy's thoughts towards Origin to an extent. Once upon a time Steam was a terrible little program I wish I didn't have to put up with in order to play Half-life 2, but eventually it grew up and became a great service and wonderful conveniance. With enough time Origins could make a similar rise and become a steady competitor.

Valve exists to make money.

EA exists to make money.

However, they do these things in very different ways. Dear Mr. B. Please refer to Jimquisition Episodes "Why do People Hate EA" and "Games Need to Make Money"

K? K.

"If you don't like EA, don't buy their games,"

I'm more tired of you Cliffy, and I don't buy your games.

RatherDull:
Hey, remember a time when games look like pixel blocks and controlled with just a joystick and a single button? We should cut Aliens Colonial Marines some slack because that's how things were back then!

I think Evil Otto had better pathfinding AI than the aliens, too.

Lt. Rocky:
I can agree with Cliffy's thoughts towards Origin to an extent. Once upon a time Steam was a terrible little program I wish I didn't have to put up with in order to play Half-life 2, but eventually it grew up and became a great service and wonderful conveniance. With enough time Origins could make a similar rise and become a steady competitor.

EA's answer to Steam came out two years after Steam was released. They've been trying to make Origin 'good' for eight years now. How much more time do you think they need?

Andy Shandy:
The reason Valve gets away with it because they sell novelty items, stuff that isn't particularly helpful, just stuff that's sort of neat.

EA's way of doing it on the other hand come across as trying to grab as much money out of people's wallets as quick as they can. So long as EA keeps treating their customers as money harvesters instead of actual people, they'll be seen as the bad guy.

To be fair, you do have to buy keys to open crates in TF2, and crates are the most frequent random drop. Most people who have a lot of items in TF2 got them from crates. Very rarely do hats and guns actually appears as drops. This seems to be the point that everyone in this thread is ignoring with TF2. If you have an ass load of TF2 items, chances are you've spent about the same amount as buying an EA games and then some on just keys. And that's before just buying items straight up.

And also, most of the items you get in TF2 have some kind of effect that makes them better than the base weapons, so saying that TF2 items don't effect the game is a lie. TF2's advantage is that its F2P, but let's be real here, it tries to grab your money in a more aggressive fashion than most EA microtransactions. TF2 items sets come out and are hunted down like Magic Card sets. Its quite ravenous and quite lucrative for Valve. So much so that Valve has added a Steam Market that only sells TF2 and Dota 2 items and gets a cut off of each sale. I can't really get mad at EA for trying to sell me microtransactions of weapons in the Dead Space series when TF2 was a)doing it before it was F2P and b) released before the majority of these bullshit microtransactions on story driven games happened.

This seems to be looking more like, once again, people getting mad at EA and Cliffy B because of EA's bad marketing and the fact that people don't like Gears of War. EA sure as hell didn't invent the microtransaction. Hell, that was around back in the days of Runescape and Habbo Hotel. I get that EA doing it after charging people $60 and then $10 for a season pass is pretty shitty though. EA just handles things in a worse manner every time. I just think its hypocritical to exclusively be mad at EA for doing what a big chunk of publishers do. No one raged with Square Enix did it with Sleeping Dogs. Very few were vocal about when Saints Row the Third did it under THQ.

Rogue 09:
"If you don't like EA, don't buy their games,"

I'm more tired of you Cliffy, and I don't buy your games.

Is that all of his games, or is it just Gears of War hate like the majority of people on this site that like to pretend they never played Unreal Tournament.

Wow, I'm so glad Cliffy B ditched Epic so he has more time to offer his enlightened views to us plebeians from his soapobox. [/sarcasm]

...Let's see... Casual, sneering and unwarranted dismissal of the opposition as "the hipster/boomerang kid generation", check... Usual well-established hooey about companies existing to make money, check... Failure to understand issues with Origin, check...

Basically, he says two things right, they're going to be ignored because he says them in an arrogant and condescending way, pads them with bullshit, and those two things kind of contradict one another.

One, EA needs to make money. As I said elsewhere, EA has lost over 2 billion dollars in the last three years. If they would own up to that rather than continually telling us that their day-one DLC, microtransactions, digital distribution policies etc. were about giving us what we want, maybe we could come to a compromise rather that seeing them as a bunch of perfidious scum-sucking vermin.

Two, we should vote with our wallets. I do. Which is why EA hasn't gotten any money from me in quite some time. But I can either ignore EA's actions or vote with my wallet, Chuckles, I can't do both.

Go back to game design, Cliff. You're almost as bad at this public statement thing as EA's own hacks.

I don't mind microtransactions. I also don't think EA are doing a bad thing at the moment, in fact I entirely support their model. I don't however buy any of their microtransactions, or at least haven't done so yet.

Don't get me wrong, I dislike some of the choices EA have made (Im not happy with them for the shafting of Black Box and how they overstretched the NFS franchise, coupled with their latest choice to hand the arcade NFS line over to Criterion) but ultimately I quite like most the games that come out with the EA badge on the cover.

This just in: Out of work game developer defends games company.

This doesn't invalidate all his points, but one should keep in mind Cliff was part of one of those companies.

loa:
EA doesn't make games, they are a publisher so "if you don't like them just don't buy *their games*" is a pretty retarded thing to say.

Firstly, EA does make games. They own quite a few development teams and companies. Anything which is a wholly owned subsidiary of them is going to have to do what they say. Period.

Second, don't buy their games still works. Even when they are just acting as the publisher on a game, they likely have a good deal of control since they control the purse strings. So if they release a game that does something you don't like, don't buy it. They get to foot the bill on the development and reap less of the sales if you do that. I'm not sure where you get the idea that not giving them money for being idiots is somehow "retarded."

Whelp, there go the days where I didn't mind CliffyB.

I think Cliff's got a fair point. I have no problem at all with the Origin game service - it's actually been pretty good for me. I never understand why it comes in for so much baseless criticism. It's always being updated, it always remains stable and wholly functional for me. It's just nonsense to pretend that it's anything other than a perfectly serviceable digital game service.

In a way I kind of agree with him, it's completely optional so yes it's down to the consumer to make the decision. And yes, companies need to make their money.

But the gripe I have is people at the top of a big companies food chain are getting paid ridiculous amounts of money, and then coming out and complaining about lack of sales, trying to justify cutting corners, shitting on their consumers, and then sacking the hard working people that actually make the fucking games, after paying them a shitty fucking wage.

You don't see Gabe Newell coming out and saying they NEED to sell at least 5 million copies otherwise things are going to get dire. And then if those predictions aren't met, just sack the lowest employees.

Plus the aforementioned TF2 being FREE TO PLAY.

I'm not saying EA are "evil", and I'm not saying Valve are "benevolent", but look at their history and you'll find out why people prefer one over the other. Yes people take things to their extremes, but ignore those people.

Daystar Clarion:
Difference being, Valve didn't charge me 40 quid for TF2.

Microtransactions are fine in F2P models, but when you charge full price for the game, it gets a little sketchy...

You're implying TF2 was always free which is an outright lie

Akalabeth:

Daystar Clarion:
Difference being, Valve didn't charge me 40 quid for TF2.

Microtransactions are fine in F2P models, but when you charge full price for the game, it gets a little sketchy...

You're implying TF2 was always free which is an outright lie

No, I was implying that I didn't pay 40 quid for the game.

Don't presume to know my intentions.

Lono Shrugged:
Jeez Cliffy, since you love EA so much why don't you drop that 100 bux and ask it to freaking marry you.

I swear...

I actually think that's what he's doing. He's backing EA in the hopes he can get a new publishing contract with them for his new studio.

It doesn't matter how good Origin will be, or how bad Steam was. I am not having Origin (or Uplay for that matter) on my computer.

I already have Steam, and it has most of my games on it, so I'm not having another piece of bloatware clogging up my computer just so I can play EA games.

Daystar Clarion:

Akalabeth:

Daystar Clarion:
Difference being, Valve didn't charge me 40 quid for TF2.

Microtransactions are fine in F2P models, but when you charge full price for the game, it gets a little sketchy...

You're implying TF2 was always free which is an outright lie

No, I was implying that I didn't pay 40 quid for the game.

Don't presume to know my intentions.

If your only comment was on your personal experience is one thing, but when you imply that TF2 fits into the "F2P" model and always has you're misrepresenting the facts deliberately or through an inability to communicate

It's akin to me saying "Well EA didn't charge me 60 bucks for Mass Effect 1, so you know, EA is awesome." and then I neglect to mention that I bought it 2 years after release and it was originally 60 bucks.

Akalabeth:

Daystar Clarion:

Akalabeth:

You're implying TF2 was always free which is an outright lie

No, I was implying that I didn't pay 40 quid for the game.

Don't presume to know my intentions.

If your only comment was on your personal experience is one thing, but when you imply that TF2 fits into the "F2P" model and always has you're misrepresenting the facts deliberately or through an inability to communicate

It's akin to me saying "Well EA didn't charge me 60 bucks for Mass Effect 1, so you know, EA is awesome." and then I neglect to mention that I bought it 2 years after release and it was originally 60 bucks.

I'm not in the mood to have another semantics argument over the internet, so please, just it leave it there.

RatherDull:
Hey, remember a time when games look like pixel blocks and controlled with just a joystick and a single button? We should cut Aliens Colonial Marines some slack because that's how things were back then!

**** NO! Standards have changed. Valve has set the bar higher and you can't release bull**** like this and just say "Well Steam started this way too."

If Origin was released at the same time as Steam, then they might have been able to get away with it. Might have. But now we live in a day and age when Steam is filled with awesome and chocolate. Deal with it.

This is where my problem lies. I still have a myriad of problems with Steam. From not being able to play a legally purchased game because it's DRM at it's core. To the offline mode being half broken.

Never encountered any of these problems with Origin. Part of this is function of I have more games on Steam than Origin, but that doesn't excuse Steam in the same way the stuff CliffyB said doesn't necessarily excuse EA. Origin has never mysteriously needed to 'complete the install' on a game when I'm in offline mode, then play it fine when I'm online again, despite doing nothing at all on half my games.

Oh the excuses, they are overwhelming. We left out a couple things there didn't we?
Let's see, the ring for example was and idea from the TF2 community and not from Valve themselves or most items that Valve charges in their games are cosmetics, while EA tends to charge weapons and other things like that or TF2 is ftp and the only source of income are the items, while EA charges for everything, including weapons and DLC even though the game is full price and let's not forget that TF2 has grown more than double its size since release without ever having to pay additionally for it whatsoever. Should I go on and mention all the bad things that EA has done to earn their reputation?
I'm sorry but when the company does often bad things and another one does good things then they simply will be treated differently. If you do something that's considered to be bad but usually do good things, then people are much more likely to forgive you for those actions because you've also done many good things. If, however, you usually do bad things, then they just stack and people are less likely to forgive you. What for? You generally do only bad things, one good thing won't change that.
It's EA's own fault so quit your whining, they brought it upon themselves. When EA started to get better a few years ago, like releasing games like Mirrors Edge or Dead Space and stopped those bad practices of them for a bit, gamers showed that they're willing to change their attitude towards EA but then EA's own actions changed that again. If you start doing many good things, people will eventually forgive you, IF you start doing good things. It's not the gamers, it's EA.
Sheesh, he sounds like a little kid that doesn't understand why he's disliked. I mean, he bullies the other kids, that's no reason to dislike him, right?
Seems to me like after he quit, he didn't get the attention that he wants anymore and writes something like this to be in the news. Then again, I've never had a good opinion of Cliffy C.

Daystar Clarion:

Akalabeth:

Daystar Clarion:

No, I was implying that I didn't pay 40 quid for the game.

Don't presume to know my intentions.

If your only comment was on your personal experience is one thing, but when you imply that TF2 fits into the "F2P" model and always has you're misrepresenting the facts deliberately or through an inability to communicate

It's akin to me saying "Well EA didn't charge me 60 bucks for Mass Effect 1, so you know, EA is awesome." and then I neglect to mention that I bought it 2 years after release and it was originally 60 bucks.

I'm not in the mood to have another semantics argument over the internet, so please, just it leave it there.

It's not a semantics argument, it's about you basing your opinion of a company based on personal experience rather than looking at the situation objectively with you know a reasoned, mature perspective.

Team Fortress 2 was 60 bucks at launch in orange box
Mann Co store opened a year before TF2 became free to play

So to imply that TF2 falls under what is commonly understood as the "Free to play" model is not accurate.

Valve was charging for the game and then later began offering optional people micro-transactions within said game. Just like Dead Space 3 was released at full price, and offers players optional micro-transactions within the game.

This constant grasping at straws by gamers to justify what are obviously skewed perspectives is laughable at best.

Akalabeth:

Daystar Clarion:

Akalabeth:

If your only comment was on your personal experience is one thing, but when you imply that TF2 fits into the "F2P" model and always has you're misrepresenting the facts deliberately or through an inability to communicate

It's akin to me saying "Well EA didn't charge me 60 bucks for Mass Effect 1, so you know, EA is awesome." and then I neglect to mention that I bought it 2 years after release and it was originally 60 bucks.

I'm not in the mood to have another semantics argument over the internet, so please, just it leave it there.

It's not a semantics argument, it's about you basing your opinion of a company based on personal experience rather than looking at the situation objectively with you know a reasoned, mature perspective.

Team Fortress 2 was 60 bucks at launch in orange box
Mann Co store opened a year before TF2 became free to play

So to imply that TF2 falls under what is commonly understood as the "Free to play" model is not accurate.

Valve was charging for the game and then later began offering optional people micro-transactions within said game. Just like Dead Space 3 was released at full price, and offers players optional micro-transactions within the game.

This constant grasping at straws by gamers to justify what are obviously skewed perspectives is laughable at best.

Okay, scratch that, I'm not in the fucking mood to get into another fucking argument over the fucking internet, period.

Yes, the game wasn't F2P originally, but it also only charged for cosmetic items, the point is that it's F2P now.

Beryl77:
Oh the excuses, they are overwhelming. We left out a couple things there didn't we?
Let's see, the ring for example was and idea from the TF2 community and not from Valve themselves or most items that Valve charges in their games are cosmetics, while EA tends to charge weapons and other things like that or TF2 is ftp and the only source of income are the items, while EA charges for everything, including weapons and DLC even though the game is full price and let's not forget that TF2 has grown more than double its size since release without ever having to pay additionally for it whatsoever. Should I go on and mention all the bad things that EA has done to earn their reputation?
I'm sorry but when the company does often bad things and another one does good things then they simply will be treated differently. If you do something that's considered to be bad but usually do good things, then people are much more likely to forgive you for those actions because you've also done many good things. If, however, you usually do bad things, then they just stack and people are less likely to forgive you. What for? You generally do only bad things, one good thing won't change that.

Yes the excuses for Valve are overwhelming.
Team Fortress 2 was released as a retail game like any other. It was available for 60 bucks, full priced game.
You saying that spending money on stupid cosmetic crap is better than spending money on items that'll help you finish the game faster? Really?

Also you can't directly compare EA DLC to TF2 updates. DLC is made and then sold. Whereas I would suspect in TF2's case, Hats are bought and then updates are created. Those updates are "free" but they'd paid for with microtransactions so they're not really free at all. If no one was buying do you think there'd be as much new content? Of course not.

The Mann Co store generated 2 million in revenue in its first year. Incidentally, roughly a year after Mann Co store was released TF2 became free to play. Coincidence? When players are willing to spend 2 million bucks on useless cosmetic items why charge for the game any further? Why not give the game away for free so more players will spend money on hats.

Seriously people think Valve does things for your benefit, it's the other way around.

Microtransactions in the right place fine - in a $100 game, GTFO

Im also sick of $100 games being vessels to sell me DLC thats getting worse and worse

Daystar Clarion:

Akalabeth:

Daystar Clarion:

I'm not in the mood to have another semantics argument over the internet, so please, just it leave it there.

It's not a semantics argument, it's about you basing your opinion of a company based on personal experience rather than looking at the situation objectively with you know a reasoned, mature perspective.

Team Fortress 2 was 60 bucks at launch in orange box
Mann Co store opened a year before TF2 became free to play

So to imply that TF2 falls under what is commonly understood as the "Free to play" model is not accurate.

Valve was charging for the game and then later began offering optional people micro-transactions within said game. Just like Dead Space 3 was released at full price, and offers players optional micro-transactions within the game.

This constant grasping at straws by gamers to justify what are obviously skewed perspectives is laughable at best.

Okay, scratch that, I'm not in the fucking mood to get into another fucking argument over the fucking internet, period.

Yes, the game wasn't F2P originally, but it also only charged for cosmetic items, the point is that it's F2P now.

So what if it only charges for cosmetic items? Dead Space 3's microtransactions are for the single player game. Again, you're implying it's "pay to win" which is bullshit. It's "pay to get through the game faster" and completely unnecessary from what I understand.

Charging only for cosmetic items is irrelevant. People are still being charged for a game that some of them purchased (for 60 dollars at launch).

And if you're afraid of being forced to change your mind by arguing, then don't post your opinion.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here