Damn it, Bleszinski. Just because you have the highest Super Mario score in the world does not mean you just can defend EA like that ;_;

I definitely agree that Valve is given much better treatment for exactly the same restrictive (online required, no used games) and exploitative (TF2 hats, intrusive social media) practices.

TF2's original art design with distinctive looks and roles for each class has been destroyed by itemisation and skins. It's possible to not do this and still make money, see LoL.

I was never a huge fan of Valve games, but whenever I buy stuff from them, I never feel screwed over. "No used games" can be forgiven by many of us if prices are drastically reduced, which is what we see regularly on Steam. I spend a hell of a lot less money on Steam than on consoles, even though I regularly buy used and sell any unwanted games. Not sure how bad online requirement games get, I've never experienced that problem, since I'm always online (not defending it, but yeah).

As for TF2 being ruined, I never considered that, since I don't play it. Maybe a "use default skins" option would work well for people who don't want to partake in it? (for people that pay a price, anyway, since it'd be a completely free game otherwise)

As for LoL, I love the optional skins, it's one of the few micro-transaction models I'd get behind. Unfortunately, that very same game follows practices I despise, with the way they lock out champions, and runes (pay to win) costing tons of IP. It's a lot more subtle than other games, since the overall effect is smaller, but it's there.

Okay, Cliffy, now you're really starting to fall from my pedestal... Hell, I keep playing my games that actually has replayability. The only ones I trade or sell off are the ones that's not my taste and plays crap!

Wich reminds me, I still a have a debt to owe to a friend of mine that I basicly coersed into buying a game I thought would blow his mind before the review came out and bloody hell was it full of bullocks... *_*

I agree. However the IP you gain before you reach Lv30 and are able to join ranked games is sufficient to buy a few champions that you would want (and in the weeks it takes to do so you'll have tried out 50+ champs during their free weeks to decide) and rune sets for them. Runes are far from pay to win because free players can afford a complete set for 1-2 champs by that time.

In South Korea you pay for LoL game time at PC cafes but then all champions are unlocked. A subscription version like that ought to be worldwide, it then being no worse than WoW.

The problem I have with Riot is the cost of rune pages that limits your ability to freely choose between champion roles in character select unless you realistically pay money.

Yeah I've watched my brother play TF2 and, while the game is stil playable, it's a multicoloured mess and people have certain OP weapons (because it's not meticulously balanced) just by having paid.

It appears my EA hate has spread. More gamers are finally seeing EA in their true light. I don't even have to try and spread the word because EA does a fine job at making themselves look bad.

Video game fans (the forum dwellers) are some of the bitchiest, whiniest, most self entitled people in the world.

Right on Cliffy.

They are a company Tam tam taaaaaaam. We should burn them alive.