Sections

Bleszinski defends microtransactions, EA

Friday, 1st March 2013 01:48 GMT By Brenna Hillier

Gears of War creator Cliff Bleszinski has posted a passionate defence of microtransactions, insisting vocal detractors are a minority and citing investor pressure as the motivating factor for alternate revenue streams.

In a lengthy post on his Tumblr, Bleszinski pointed out that “scumbag EA” and “good guy Valve” use similar business practies, and that the much-criticised Origin currently occupies a similar think space as Steam did back in the day.

“It took Valve years to bang their service into the stellar shape that it is in these days. Yet somehow everyone online forgets this, and they give EA crap about trying to create their own online services. Heaven forbid they see our digital roadmap for the future and try to get on board the ‘games as services’ movement,” he wrote.

Bleszinski said Epic came under similar attack for offering premium cosmetic weapon skins for Gears of War.

“And you know what? In spite of the uproar, people still bought plenty of them. If you don’t like EA, don’t buy their games. If you don’t like their microtransactions, don’t spend money on them. It’s that simple,” he said.

“EA has many smart people working for them and they wouldn’t attempt these things if they didn’t work. Turns out, they do. I assure you there are teams of analysts studying the numbers behind consumer behavior over there that are studying how you, the gamer, spends his hard earned cash.

“If you’re currently raging about this on GAF, or on the IGN forums, or on Gamespot, guess what? You’re the vocal minority. Your average guy that buys just Madden and GTA every year doesn’t know, nor does he care. He has no problem throwing a few bucks more at a game because, hey, why not?”

Bleszinski said that after adjusting for inflation, games are cheaper than ever before from the consumer’s perspective, but cost hundreds of millions of dollars to make when you include the necessary marketing costs.

“The old business model is either evolving, growing, or dying. No one really knows. ‘Free to play’ aka ‘Free to spend four grand on it’ is here to stay, like it or not. Everyone gets a Smurfberry. Every single developer out there is trying to solve the mystery of this new model. Every console game MUST have a steady stream of DLC because, otherwise, guess what? It becomes traded in, or it’s just rented,” he added.

The outspoken developer also reminded readers that games publishers exist to make money first.

“Those companies that put these products out? They’re for profit businesses. They exist to produce, market, and ship great games ultimately for one purpose. First, for money, then, for acclaim.

“And when those companies are publicly traded on the stock market they’re forced to answer to their shareholders. This means that they need to make a lot of money in order to increase the value of the shareholder’s stock. Every quarter.”

“If you don’t like the games, or the sales techniques, don’t spend your money on them. You vote with your dollars,” he concluded.

The full post contains a lot of further discussion and is well worth a read, whether you agree or not. It seems to be a response to outrage over recent news that EA will include microtransactions of some kind in every title moving forward. Activision said yesterday it expects to take a profit hit while it scampers to implement new business models, too.

Latest

48 Comments

  1. Zohar

    He’s right on all counts.

    #1 2 years ago
  2. ps3fanboy

    Bleszinski can talk outta his ass all he wants, this idiot ain’t getting my money…

    #2 2 years ago
  3. Sanwiches

    @2 you have 2 accounts buttboy? ps3 & ps4fanboy?

    #3 2 years ago
  4. heroes159

    I agree with Bleszinski . What he is saying is totally True. EA or whatever company out there need to make money. I really have no problem with EA. I actually really like Origin. People need to stop Boycotting EA & Micro Transaction.

    #4 2 years ago
  5. YoungZer0

    “People need to stop Boycotting EA & Micro Transaction.”

    Er, why?

    #5 2 years ago
  6. Dark

    He’s trying to get hired by EA Lol .

    #6 2 years ago
  7. YoungZer0

    That’s what it sounds like.

    Anyway, I think I’m gonna leave this here:

    http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/6755-Breaking-the-Bones-of-Business

    http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/6814-Companies-Exist-To-Make-Money

    #7 2 years ago
  8. TMRNetShark

    Microtransactions in a free game (like World of Tanks) is a good thing.

    Microtransactions in a $60 game with $50 DLC season passes… not so desirable.

    #8 2 years ago
  9. DSB

    I respect Bleszinski. He takes a lot of shit whenever he opens his mouth because people can’t handle an honest opinion from someone who’s actually confident in what he says, but of course it also doesn’t mean he’s always right.

    It’s a pretty well known fact that focus groups and market research is often wrong. It’s ordered by companies, on their terms, and it tells them exactly what they want to hear. It’s a way to remove anxiety for suits who don’t know their audience.

    If EA are doing micro-transactions, then micro-transactions are going to poll well. It’s old news. Doing the focus group, pop-psychology shit is absolutely no match for leaders who have actual vision, and lock down their products according to what they believe is quality, and what they believe is right.

    Even if focus grouping worked, it would only tell you where people are now, not where they’re gonna be. It’s nothing to steer by.

    #9 2 years ago
  10. xXNapsterManXx

    I’m no fan of F2P games when they turn the game into Pay to Win through Micro-transactions or when they are built around micro-transactions like Real Racing 3 is where the Micro-transactions break the entire game.

    If it’s Micro-transactions like in Mass Effect 3 MP where you can buy the cases with real money for a boost and those help fund the free DLC i’m on with it, But Micro-transactions like in FIFA 13 Ultimate team where if you so please you can spend 50$ and get the Packs often resulting in Decent players that can be used or sold resulting in a lot of coins.

    #10 2 years ago
  11. Rosseu

    @3
    It’s off topic but I saw ps4fanboy thanking him for the idea of the username in one of the previous articles

    #11 2 years ago
  12. Ballisticon

    Wow, a lot of fan boys on this thread. Let’s get a few things straight. First of all, games are NOT less expensive to purchase compared to the past, inflation included. A game in 1981 that cost 19.99 USD (that is what they cost) equates to 49.72 USD in 2012 dollars. Big games cost 20-24.99 and that equates to about 50-60 USD…the cost of today’s games.

    But, back then and throughout the 80s and 90s, you paid your money and got the WHOLE game, all the levels, all the weapon skins, everything. Now, you pay more than before (inflation adjusted) for EVERY game you buy and you then need to pay upwards of $60 for a season pass for the DLC and to buy costumes and characters.

    So, not only do you pay more for less content but you then pay twice as much as you used to pay in the past.

    Cliffy saying games are cheaper is a lie. At least admit it and say the games are super expensive to make and they have to deliver multiple pay options to recoup their investment. Pay 60, get the game. Pay another 30 and get 3 DLCs. Pay another 30 in skins and characters. Total 120 USD. You have effectively paid double for the product. The cost of games is DOUBLE what they used to cost.

    Whatever makes you sleep at night ya ginger.

    #12 2 years ago
  13. mreko3230

    @12 I don’t think he was shooting all the way back to 1981. Some N64 Games were $70 at launch. Also, are you actually going to compare the cost of what it took to create and market a game in 1981 to now? Come on.

    I don’t think you can lump everyone’s DLC into the same category. Some of it is used to expand your experience of a game’s universe and other times its an obvious money grab. Saying all DLC is bad just isn’t true. And, I’m sorry, but I have played very few games where I was done and said to my self “Shit, now I have to buy the DLC to get the whole experience.” I know some people felt that way with ME3, and I can see their point, but most games I play finish the way I expected them to. If I want to expand the experience I do- If I don’t I don’t. I’m not forced to pay more than my original $60. I’ve never played a 20 Chapter game and had to pay for Chapter 20 to finish the story.

    You could argue movie trilogies have been doing this for years. They’ll actually have story cliffhangers so you will come back in 2 years to catch the rest of the damn story. Also, if you’re willing to pay $120 on a game and its DLC, then you must really like the game.

    #13 2 years ago
  14. FerretPersona

    @12
    Using 1981 prices is probably a bad example considering the market was over saturated with poor quality titles being pushed at low prices, which some have argued was a major contributory factor in the Video Game Crash a couple of years later.

    When the NES was first released in the US, some low-budget games were retailing for $19.99, however most first party titles and big budget titles were being sold for around $50-70. This pricing trend continued well into the 90s too for a lot of regions and countries.

    Nowadays there’s less difference in price between the big-budget titles and the lower end stuff, but all in all it’s much cheaper than it ever has been.

    Now, that being said I’m still completely against microtransactions in full price games. If you pay for a game, that’s the game you should get and to be honest, for the most part it is. If others want microtransactions, then that’s cool.

    At the end of the day it’s another way for the developers to make money and if it works for EA, good for them. The only time this is going to affect me is if and when those microtransactions become required in order to complete a game I’ve already paid full price for.

    #14 2 years ago
  15. redwood

    blezinski talking out of his ass here, and defending EA’s shit. I am in the game dev buisness and this IAP crap is a bit of a problem for the design people. It kills innovation by making people conform to trends and bend the UX to make the user pay the $.
    and it’s really not an honest opinion, he knows the power EA has over the industry, with EA publishing the greater majority of games out there both in the AAA section and the indie circle (via chillingo), so no, what he is saying is “fuck off we are gonna do what we think is right, and not care about what you think or want” . Also i don’t see any IAP in naughty dog’s games? and/or any AAA UBI game, but am sure if EA leads the charge on this others will follow suite. I just can’t imagine what my next DMC will be like if it’s priced at 30$ and than i “have to” buy this cool sword to get past the 3rd boss, other wise am shit out of luck.
    Problem with IAP’s and micro-transactions is basically the way they are right now. Blizinski should have said “hey we know you don’t like this, but we will make sure that your experience is not modified by this huge step that we’re going to take” instead he is telling the gamers to GTFO .. so no, not an honest opinion..

    #15 2 years ago
  16. mreko3230

    @14 “The only time this is going to affect me is if and when those microtransactions become required in order to complete a game I’ve already paid full price for.”

    That’s what everyone though “Dead Space 3″ was going to do. And after playing and finishing the game on Hard for 20 hours, I can tell you buying those microtransactions were 100% unnecessary. All but a few cosmetic pieces of DLC were available in game by collecting and using in game currency and not real-world currency. If all future EA games keep that model- I’m all for it.

    I know everyone is worried about that slippery slope, but I can’t see a game saying “This is the end of the level, please pay $5 for the key needed to open the door to finish the game.” Thats just silly and I just don’t see it happening unless we are talking episodic content like “The Walking Dead”.

    #16 2 years ago
  17. redwood

    and this IDEA that they have to do this cause they are short on $ is also not honest, the fact behind the games as service is that they are much much much cheaper to make… and are fairly low risk. so the honest opinion would be “we think there is much more money that can be made via this model than the conventional model, so we are gonna switch to that, everything else is secondary” … next up GOW casino :D

    #17 2 years ago
  18. redwood

    also this whole Minority issue keeps coming up everytime the game industry finds a way to maximise it’s audience AKA engage the gran-ma, it happend with wii, than with the iOS and now it’s happening again. i can’t say where this will go but here is hoping that if there is a bubble somewhere, it bursts sooner than later, and that things end up good for the gamers and the devs alike

    #18 2 years ago
  19. The_Red

    He doesn’t get it, does he? Yes, we CAN choose not to pay for tiny consmetic micro transactions but they are already stealing GAMEPLAY elements. Then what? There are a few decent models but what EA and many others are pushing for, is incorporating the current money grabbing schemes into very basic and essential gameplay elements.

    Also, the very fact that they are charging 60 DOLLARS and then MORE MICRO is the problem.

    #19 2 years ago
  20. Phoenixblight

    @19

    Valve did the exact same thing for Portal 2 the day of launch. Did you get pissed at them as well?

    People like the EA hate bandwagon but are totally Ok with it when its Valve who employs 300 or so people and are worth as much as EA. Its ok right because they are the good guys? *rolls eyes* People and their double standards.

    #20 2 years ago
  21. mreko3230

    Once again, I’m seeing lots of accusations of things with no clear-cut examples. What “gameplay” elements are being stolen that you are being made to pay for with microtransactions?

    All of this is coming from EA’s first successful attempt to do this in the game “Dead Space 3″. That is a real, actual AAA title with microtransactions published by EA, and I’m telling you none of the fears about microtransactions you guys are speaking of are in that game.

    You don’t have to buy anything to finish the game and NO GAMEPLAY elements are left out that you have to pay for. Not saying they won’t try or discuss other methods, but there is just a lot of “the sky is falling” fears that have no basis in reality.

    #21 2 years ago
  22. FerretPersona

    @21
    Absolutely agree. I’ve not seen nor heard of any actual examples of gameplay elements being “stolen” by microtransactions.

    I’m not saying that I think EA will cross the line into “pay2win”. I’m fairly confident they wont, but if they or anyone else did, with a full price game, I’ll take issue then.

    Right now, DLC suffers from poor descriptions/lack of information up front and the pricing model seems quite off in SOME cases but other than that, I think DLC is only a good thing and, in fact I think more games should be supported with a decent, long-term DLC release schedule. I like having the option of purchasing extras or cosmetic changes if I want to.

    The thing is, of course that these microtransactions aren’t technically DLC but rather time savers. Ways of forking out cash to take away some of the grind for people who want things without the work. If it stays like that, it’s all good.

    #22 2 years ago
  23. lostcause

    This guy just doesn’t get it. He says I’m gonna write a blog about microtransactions to stir up crap, and then he doesn’t even have the balls to do it where people can respond to him.

    I don’t buy EA games, and that’s not going to change. So you don’t have to tell me twice.

    These idiots don’t realize you don’t need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to make a good game, and then go on to bleed your fans dry. The model is changing? you don’t say?

    They’re out of touch, and in it for the wrong reasons.

    Watching the making of Star Wars: The Old Republic. LOL. How much money was wasted on that epic piece of crap? Vids of devs getting Star Wars tattoos and high fiving each other. So out of touch and you make your fans pay for it? LOLNO

    #23 2 years ago
  24. manamana

    “… If you don’t like EA, don’t buy their games. If you don’t like their microtransactions, don’t spend money on them. It’s that simple,” he said.

    Microtransactions per se are not the problem. The way games are designed around them will be one. For all of us.

    #24 2 years ago
  25. redwood

    here is an example, and yes there are NO real AAA examples right now, but I fear the AAA will take this route too

    http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-02-28-real-racing-3-review

    #25 2 years ago
  26. laggass

    the main reason for all this mirco transaction crap is to make up for the loss of revenue from piracy but for me personally, im much more likely to “acquire” a game from non legit sources if you only get half a game when you purchase it and then have to pay up again for the rest. It was only a few years back that you could buy a game and it would be complete with one dlc coming every 6 months or so nowadays there is 10 DLC’s available from launch. How can they justify not including that dlc with the game itself its madness and i think its just another nail in the coffin for the games industry.

    #26 2 years ago
  27. redwood

    @23 agreed!

    #27 2 years ago
  28. The_Red

    @20
    I was seriously angry at Valve when I read about it around the release time. The difference here is that when I tried the game, I didn’t see any “Micro signs” inside the game (Or at least they didn’t grab my attention the way a certain Dead Space game did).

    #28 2 years ago
  29. mreko3230

    @25 I seen that earlier today. Thats a good example and from the looks of it so far- it isn’t working. Critics are slamming the hell out of that game for its monetizations. That game definitely shows the wrong way to go about it.

    #29 2 years ago
  30. mreko3230

    @26 You’re right, but the problem is,they were finding out that people didn’t want to hold on to a game for 6 months to play DLC. They usually traded it in and never bothered to return to the game to play/pay for the DLC 6 months down the line. A ton of DLC day one probably isnt the answer, but at the same time they don’t want to wait to long either. Its a tricky balance.

    #30 2 years ago
  31. mreko3230

    Here’s a generic vid showing a little bit how the microtransactions worked in Dead Space 3 and speaking a little to the EA s**tstorm.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7xv9QG9t2o

    #31 2 years ago
  32. OmegaSlayer

    I’m ok for microtransaction to unlock stuff quickly.
    I buy a FULL product, I need x hours of play to unlock item y.
    If I want item y playing x/80 hours of play I pay € z.
    It works, for casual and hardcore gamers and for devs/publishers.
    Everyone win imho at the condition that I players not willing to pay moneyt can unlock stuff just playing

    #32 2 years ago
  33. Edo

    Leave EA alone!

    #33 2 years ago
  34. LifeCarrier

    Lol he believes the Madden buying gamers are the ones complaining…how cute. It’s the more savvy, “hardcore” gamers that care about the quality of a game and these kind of schemes’ implications on gameplay and game design. I don’t even believe he buys that about the madden/sports games crowd being the same complaining, and last time I checked these weren’t minority either.

    Why should every company have their own online distribution service? How does that benefit us gamers? What is EA offering that tops or improves what Steam is offering? microtransactions? Day-one dlc? Homogenization of games? No, thanks.

    Not all games have to be visual masturbatory affairs with bloated budgets, focus on gameplay not visual fidelity.

    I understand why having a monopoly on digital distribution can be bad, but so far steam has done a good job on providing good value for us gamers, the moment they don’t is the moment they fall from grace.

    Only thing I agree on is perhaps the rental part, but there are ways, not money grubbing greedy ones, mind you, that they could use for ensuring we hold on to our copies. How about the promise of good free DLC at set intervals after release? And how do rentals work btw? can’t they raise the amount required in royalties or something, truth be told, I do regret it when I hear people rent a great 8 hour long game because it makes more sense financially.

    #34 2 years ago
  35. Tearsir

    Ea will never have my money on dlc, microtranshit, ruined games and franchises (Es.Dead Space).

    #35 2 years ago
  36. Samoan Spider

    Well as this mirrors almost exactly what I’ve said before now, whilst the slipper slope is undoubtedly upon us, you cannot deny that this guy speaks the truth and that the game is changing. So long as it remains that I can choose to play 100% of my game without paying, I will never be against it. Same for not having it rammed down my throat that paying is an option. Keep the Dead Space 3 model and I’m a happy gamer.

    #36 2 years ago
  37. ultramega

    The difference is that Valve does not nickle and dime people. Their viewpoint is to get a game into the hands of as many consumers as possible, and from there, people can spend money if they wish, or play to earn things if they don’t. They also don’t have a long track record of releasing half complete games, or games requiring microtransactions, if they’ve already been purchased. They also release free DLC over and over, and open their games up to modding. So there’s a reason Valve has a “good guy” image. Besides that, they also are not a publicly traded company, so people know that they rely on goodwill and great treatment of their fanbase to flourish. They have no shareholders to answer to. And the extraordinary treatment of their fanbase still stands strong to this day, with all their varying success.

    And no, I didn’t read the full article on his Tumblr, I’ll have to in the morning. Too tired right now.

    #37 2 years ago
  38. Creepy

    The absurdity of DRM gave birth to GOG and DRM-free movement, so I say go for it, EA, charge for every bit of fun like there’s no tomorrow!

    #38 2 years ago
  39. Gadzooks!

    I totally agree with the Cliffster.

    My main experience of microtransactions is through Forza Horizon. Every time I go to buy a car with in-game credits I am presented with ‘Press A to buy with credits or press X to buy with tokens’.

    Tokens cost real-world money. I have never been short of in-game credits, so no need for me to spend real cash.

    There are more cars and roads in the box than I will ever have time to collect/explore, so I do not have a cut-down game in any way whatsoever.

    MT’s have no impact on me at all.

    #39 2 years ago
  40. The Auracle

    Cliff is right to point out the double standards that gamers have. People will get butthurt about it but their hurt feelings won’t take away from the fact that Cliff is making a very valid point and a plain-as-day observation.

    #40 2 years ago
  41. Joe Musashi

    Unsurprisingly, I also don’t take issue with what Cliff is saying. It echoes my comments of the last couple of days pretty much to the letter.

    I’ve played and completed Dead Space 3. I’m even 4 chapters into New Game+ mode. I’m aware of the microtransactions around to buy in-game resources. But, by doing no more than playing the game, I happened to acquire more resources than I needed to explore the game’s superb weapon-crafting features (I can highly recommend crafting ‘Heavy Metal Thunder’, adding ‘Acid Bath’ enhancement and upgrading the top weapon with as many +Damage upgrades as you can).

    At no point in my full playthrough of the game was it ever apparent that my experience was compromised because gameplay had been deliberately witheld in favour of microtransactions.

    (Or “stolen” as #19 so melodramatically puts it. (Funny how piracy isn’t stealing but something even less tangible such as ‘gameplay’ can be stolen. Double-standards much?))

    On the contrary, if the introduction of the weapon-crafting system in Dead Space 3 was all so that microtransactions could be leveraged then I’m all for it. It’s a fantastic element to the game. It’s a huge improvement on the (perfectly fine) weapon upgrade systems of DS1 and DS2. And it even makes sense narratively because the guy you control is a flippin’ engineer!

    So, once again, I find myself in total agreement and admiration with #39′s view!

    Or “stolen” as #19 so melodramatically puts it. (Funny how piracy isn’t stealing but something even less tangible such as ‘gameplay’ can be stolen. Double-standards much?)

    Remember, people: this is happening because it works. It works because people hand over their cash. Freely. When enough people stop doing that, things will change.

    JM

    #41 2 years ago
  42. Gadzooks!

    #41

    These are strange times are they not? :D

    But yes, I pretty much agreed with everything you said in the other microtransaction thread, the gamers sense of entitlement included.

    #42 2 years ago
  43. karma

    Never liked DudeHuge, never agreed with him on anything he has ever written or said. As far as many of us were concerned, it was a good thing that he left the games industry. As for his opinions, not surprising. This is a “dude” who never cared about building something he could take pride in, only how much money and fame it would bring him. Don’t get me wrong, he’s a smart guy, but he only applies that intelligence to personal gain and ego boosting. I mean why does he think folks nickname him DudeHuge, lol. Fact is, guys like him are nothing but damaging to the games industry. All they ever bring is linear corridor shooter after linear corridor shooter. They think targeting the weak points in humanity and filching them out of the hard-worked for money is what creativity is. Personal vision, innovation and creativity aren’t even words in their vocabulary, or they are but completely misunderstand the meaning behind them.

    The more the games industry evolves down this path of microtransactions, paymium, surcharges, pre-orders etc, the lower gamer expectations of quality will sink. There will be more copycat franchises, and yearly iterations of the exact same titles. Heck they’ll probably even do away with new game releases entirely and we’ll be paying $70 dollars for updates to the same game we already own. Sure it will start of small with just microtransactions for cheat codes like DS3, but as publishers always do, they’ll keep moving that goal line further forward in subtle increment until only the most basic tools are provided to play the games we purchase. And if we want to have fun, we will have to invest all of our money in that game. We wont be able to afford to play anything else. This will force genuinely creative people like Ken Levine out of industry, unless they are able put their vision and creativity on hold and instead switch their ingenuity over to thinking up new ways to create features and gameplay that make money. And these two opposing ways of thinking do not go hand in hand.

    We will end up with less truly original and fun games, it’ll just be a mass of pointless, empty experiences that all use the best money making mechanics and that prey on the weak of mind. You can already see this on the smaller scale in the android and app store were its just a never ending sea of empty pointless games and apps, that all copy the exact same money making mechanics and formula. Anyone who supports this, must not really care about games at all.

    #43 2 years ago
  44. DrDamn

    @43
    “I mean why does he think folks nickname him DudeHuge”

    I had never heard that one for him, so I googled. He asked to be called it after a spelling mistake in a Kotaku article.
    http://kotaku.com/5023709/cliff-bleszinski-huge-kojima-fan?comment=6605625#comments

    Don’t normally agree with him, but think he’s spot on here. These things aren’t intrinsically bad. You can get bad implementations of them, but as mechanics in themselves they can be useful to both devs/publishers and consumers.

    #44 2 years ago
  45. Hellhound30x

    Hey everybody lets just bend over and throw are money at the publishers! I mean why not? *TOTAL SARCASM!*

    “There’s a sucker born every minute” – P. T. Barnum (or so they say.)

    #45 2 years ago
  46. DSB

    Hellhound said it, and by association that means EA thinks their customers are suckers.

    Also, lulz.

    #46 2 years ago
  47. salarta

    I have to call bull on the part where he boils the weapon skins issue down to “if you don’t like them, don’t buy them.” It’s not that simple. Money that went to creating those weapon skins could have gone to creating content with far more substance and value. Furthermore, NOT complaining is in effect supporting such practices. People are typically not set in stone on all their views; one person’s complaint could be what it takes for someone that would buy such things to realize why doing so is bad for the industry and quality of games.

    He makes a decent point about Origin in terms of it not being on par with Steam, which is something I hadn’t thought of before, but he’s entirely off-base about the issue of microtransactions and complaints about them. Complaints are not only acceptable, they’re necessary. How the hell else is anything supposed to improve if complaints are not allowed to be leveled?

    Just because something works does not mean it should be done. Shooting a criminal in the head on sight is pretty damn effective at stopping them from committing future crimes, that doesn’t make it the right course of action. The Milgram experiment is also a pretty good example of how wrong Bleszinski is here.

    #47 2 years ago
  48. noamlol2

    fuck microtranactions

    they ruin games and make it like a shitty PAY2WIN MMO

    but hell with EA
    i will never buy their games

    #48 2 years ago

Comments are now closed on this article.