If i didnt tag you was because my comment wasnt directed to you. I've tagged you before, why would i stop doing that?

Im sure you have supported shitty business decisions in the past, maybe without knowing it, maybe ignoring the fact that it was indeed a shitty business decision, but you have done it before.

Why would you stay away from a greatly improved game, critically well received, because of something that happened years ago? It's like me dismissing Nintendo nowadays for their 80's and 90's tactics. It is silly.

Lastly, im not ridiculing anybody and much less calling people idiots. I dont know what road you are talking about my friend, im just having fun discussing videogames with you guys. You dont have to take it so seriously.

Then why treat those that boycott the game with ridicule?, why has it got to be the notion of supporting the bad practice or being made fun of?.

No, i'm aware of what I support because I look into what the the company is implementing into their games. If a game updates some time down the road and employs crappy tactics, then I'll simply stop playing the game and uninstall it from my HDD, I did this with Fallout 4 when Bethesda released their creation club onto the game, with the company having content downloaded to my drive without my say so.

Trying to claim my partaking of a bad practice to equate me to blame isn't a good way to go about a discussion.

@ bolded: This makes me think that you want to further defend your stance on calling others silly and stupid for not wanting to support somethign that you think is fine or "done with", that doesn't mean to say that it's alright for everyone, I'm not you and thus I do not have the same level of what is acceptable and what isn't.

Not sure how it's fun and games to call people silly and stupid for not wanting to support a bad business practice.

If video games were considered more important and had respect of other mediums. These kind of practices and companies who do that would get sued to oblivion.

Alas we can't even come together on this tiny little site with active userbase of like 50-60 people. Around 100-200 if you want to really stretch it. The thread became about Sony and Microsoft, rather than focusing on the absolutely terrible practice. 

Just want to say that Splinter Cell, Mass Effect and Dead Rising weren't moneyhatted. In fact, most games that people assume were moneyhatted weren't in reality; PS3 just made hell for some developers to port games and consequently they didn't bother at all with it, or took more time to re-release them than they would have thought in the first place. Not justifying the games MS did purchase timed exclusivity, but just wanted to state this.

It's also the reason why games like The Witcher 2, which were thought to be released for PS3 as well, couldn't. It wasn't because MS bought an exclusive port to their consoles or something like that, it was because the developer couldn't be bothered with the PS3 architecture.

Because we are playing videogames, not playing business.

If a skin and a map is that important to you, then i dont know what to say.

Like people say around here, we will have to agree that we disagree with each other position and call it a day.

Not once did i try to make fun of you tho, nor did i call you stupid like you said. Lets make that very clear.

its a shitty practice, but to act like only Sony does it is hilarious. Tomb Raider Underworld had DLC that never came to the PS3 version, and all the DLC that released exclusively to 360 versions of Call of Duty first. Whoever is on top has the upperhand, it is what it is