You shouldn't have to have two or more bricks that are almost exactly the same just to play certain games.

I see where you're coming from, but the reality is that MS/Sony want their games to be good because they'll sell consoles that way. It's fucking bullshit that we have to go through so many hoops for publishers to care about quality, but I'd rather have 2 consoles and lots of good games than one console with very few good games.

They should reveal the stats of the ballot. I'd like to see what people voted for.

Looks like I'm not buying a Wii-U for awhile.

OH MY GOD

That was the most disgusting Knuckles costume I've ever seen.

Limiting any game to one console is never a good thing.

I literally just demonstrated when it could be a good thing.

More exclusive titles isn't a good thing.

It is when in-house studios are given more creative freedom than a 3rd party publisher.

If EA, Activision, and Ubisoft allowed developers to control their own trailers, timetables and release dates, I'd obviously advocate for multiplat games.

This close to Christmas there's obviously going to be an influx of new players. They're exploiting the ignorant.

Good point.

So was everybody blindsided by this or something?

Well I mean, yeah. You think it's okay because Halo does it.

But at the end of the day: where is the impact on gameplay?

Effect on gameplay is not inherently bad, it's only when it creates a directly unfair advantage on other players that it becomes a bad thing. This new microtransaction is just that -- it doesn't create any directly unfair advantage for one player over another, and it isn't mandatory.

It's why you didn't respond to those parts of my argument. Because the fact that they don't effect gameplay ultimately means that complaining about them is (mostly) meaningless.

Um, no. I didn't respond to those parts of your argument because they're not relevant; the REQ Pack system provides no advantage over another player in Arena the same way the Warlock subclass booster provides no advantage over another playing in Destiny.

I also don't give a shit about Warzone, but it's funny: the REQ Packs directly give players unfair advantages over another in that game mode, so I wonder why you even bring that up. It works better for my argument.

It lets you skip past the progression, essentially making your character better than anyone new to the game who doesn't want to spend the HORRID price of $45.

The person can either spend 10 hours getting to maximum level or spend $45 to get their instantly. That's NOTHING. If you want to skip all that shit and be a retard, that's your prerogative. You're going to have a hard time convincing me that this price-point is a bad thing when it covers MY free content updates.

You acknowledge that there is very little value here, yet you support the practice?

Why wouldn't you? I just don't understand the mindset. I, and anyone else with a brain, aren't going to spend $45 on 10 hours of easy progression, yet those who do decide to spend the money end up paying for EVERYONE's free DLC.

And huge amounts of content? The only content being added (from my knowledge) is iron banner (modified tdm again) and sparrow races (which don't actually add content, and will be gone in two weeks). If Bungie has a more elaborate plan for future events that I don't know about, then please point me in the right direction, but nothing that I've seen recently points to "huge amounts of content".

I was under the impression that there was a TDB-sized DLC coming for free soon, but it appears that was unfounded.

Regardless, the Sparrow Racing is new content, whether you want to admit it or not.

They already have, they went from selling $5 emotes to selling $45 player progression.

That's not a slippery-slope. You implied that this practice was going to get "worse", and it hasn't. There is no difference between a $5 microtransaction and a $45 microtransaction besides the price. One is not "worse" than the other. They both offer nothing that will provide unfair advantages to players who buy them.

The only way things could get "worse" was if they actually started selling exotics or other things that directly give you advantages over others. That would be "worse."

I mean, if I were to adopt, I'd imagine they'd already have a name, right?

Some people decide to put their kids up for adoption when they're pregnant, so not necessarily.

In my opinion, the problem with the games industry nowadays is that gamers didn't want to start paying more for games than they were used to, so companies had to resort to nickle-and-dime practices just to cover costs. Once they realised how effective this was at generating revenue, they abused the fuck out of it. Hence, season's passes, disc-locked DLC and microtransactions up the ass.

If game prices had remained consistent with inflation and publishers were fair about their prices, we'd be paying $90-120 a game anyways. I'd prefer that, to be honest, but the vast majority of people wouldn't.

Hahaha

"It's okay for Halo to do this because it's Halo, but as soon as Bungie does it I hate it because the Bungie hate machine is fun to be a part of."