I don't know about you, but I've only found it necessary to patch one game, and that was just to get an achievement. Otherwise I beat it just fine :). if you choose to patch that is up to you. 

....sorry, but if you're willing to buy a game on a console device, you deserve to be conned.

You'll have to learn to forgive people if they prefer to have games that they can pick up and play easily instead of setting up a huge tv and have to sit through endless of patches and cutscenes and other bullshit just to get to the "Gameplay" 

See, your argument is just a one way street, people don't deserve to be conned, because they don't like what you like.

its like me saying Tadpole deserves to burn in hell for liking my little pony and being an adult (i think?) ....

wait he does! jk

i have a lot of games , A LOT! , and each time I bring a friend/Relative over to play, we face another patch and we cancel our play because the patch is mandatory, and then end up playing Wii Party or some other Split Screen game, Patches annoy the crap out of me, this is not what consoles are mean't to be, its okay for games that have optional updates, but some games you can't play until you patch (like most games that have online multiplayer)

oh and by the way don't read the post below this one please =D

They should at least introduce a patch so you can play it on your phone without an internet connection.

"Thanks for rocking out with us!"

Usually PC exclusives are the ones that are mostly riddled with bugs (pretty much every RTS, MMO and some RPGs) , making them unplayable with certain GPUs or other hardware combinations.
On consoles the only mandatory updates are for online play (which is normal). The rest is not nearly as buggy as you claim them to be. I play through all of them without any patches and they work just fine.

I don't have steady framerates either on PC because I like my games to look as good as possible with my hardware and when it's running between 27 and 40 FPS, it's fine.

Then you fail to see that splitscreen games have actually increased by a large margin compared to last gen. And then the usual "everything was better in the past" crap. "unoriginal"... yeah every game was "original" back then. Except that every game within a genre looked the same.... just like today and most even play alike... just like today.

Final Fantasy (2D) for JRPGs, Baldurs Gate for WRPGs, Quake and Half-Life for FPS, Warcraft for RTS etc.
All of them have tons of "copycats" and those copies are still considered very good and probably even original by your standards.

Some people hate EA just because, some people because they learned from other players, and some other (and older *cough*) people have seen EA devour studio after studio and kill games in the process. Among a huge load of other crap.

So this is not new, it's just another way of doing the same.

But it is still very .i. and EA-ish.

That seems rather like BS.

I'd understand if online support was ended and games were unlocked to not require online connections to play. But, to actually remove the content in the first place... is this like an MMO rockband or something? Do you not own a core set of gameplay that requires no real network use?

EA buys and closes or destroys the IPs of my favorite devs, Maxis (i remember the days of there will be more simcity 4 updates), westwood studios, pandemic, ect

they monopolized the NFL license (i blame the nfl too but still) just as the 2k series was providing real competition.

they shut games down on live since they do not run them on pier to pier play always off servers, and shut them down to early.

when they release form the back catalog they do not clean up known bugs or if its a collection at least reduce the number of keys you have to put in, im looking at you command and conquer first decade