611 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

To frame my ethics argument in ways more people can understand, many (MANY) people consider the banking institutions that lent out sub-prime mortgages, which wound up causing an economic domino effect resulting in a world-wide recession, as unethical.

But what did they do? They offered bank loans to people who applied for them. The person being lent the money asked for an amount, the banks reviewed their finances and (unwisely) gave them that money.

This was totally optional. And only done when the customer actively sought out a bank to do their loans.

The bankers, who have financial prediction models that could see the chance of that person not being able to fulfill that loan, behaved unethically because their actions resulted in extreme harm, both to themselves, the people they lent the money to and the world in general.

But that was a "crystal clear" "optional" business transaction. Therefore, according to the logic postulated by many advocates of things like microtransactions, the banks weren't behaving unethically at all.

[legion999]

^

Nice.

Welp ninja'd.

Modifié par legion999, 07 février 2013 - 10:15 .

[addiction21]

The mental gymnastics going on now is amazing... or maybe appalling. I have yet to decide.

[Fast Jimmy]

addiction21 wrote...

The mental gymnastics going on now is amazing... or maybe appalling. I have yet to decide.

While my explanation may have required me equating video game pracitces with business practices that caused massive levels of economic devastation, it is not my intention to paint anything in a dire or negative light.

But people are WAY to quick to say things are not ethical. The lack of understanding of ethics is very disturbing to me, as it is one of the few standards of practices people participate in besides laws and religion, neither of which are shared by all people equally. 

Just because you can't get thrown in jail or sued for something does not mean it is not unethical. 

[XX-Pyro]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

addiction21 wrote...

The mental gymnastics going on now is amazing... or maybe appalling. I have yet to decide.

While my explanation may have required me equating video game pracitces with business practices that caused massive levels of economic devastation, it is not my intention to paint anything in a dire or negative light.

But people are WAY to quick to say things are not ethical. The lack of understanding of ethics is very disturbing to me, as it is one of the few standards of practices people participate in besides laws and religion, neither of which are shared by all people equally. 

Just because you can't get thrown in jail or sued for something does not mean it is not unethical. 

Understanding of ethics? Possibly the most subjective thing you could ask people to to standardize.

[Fast Jimmy]

^

I'd agree that is true with Applied Ethics, where one has to evaluate the benefit between two negative or subpar issues. But as far the understanding that something that provides harm is unethical, I don't think that's very refutable.

EDIT: And before this goes too far off base, Microtransactions and DLC are also digital products that are completely untransferable or refundable. If you buy a game and feel it is not what you had intended to buy, there are actions you can take to recoup some or all of your losses.

With DLC or MTs, you get what they give you and if you are not happy, too bad. That was your fault for making an uninformed decision. 

To then market both of them in ways that cause emotional choices rather than objective, rational ones is unethical. Plain and simple.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 07 février 2013 - 10:45 .

[AlanC9]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

EDIT: And before this goes too far off base, Microtransactions and DLC are also digital products that are completely untransferable or refundable. If you buy a game and feel it is not what you had intended to buy, there are actions you can take to recoup some or all of your losses.

With DLC or MTs, you get what they give you and if you are not happy, too bad. That was your fault for making an uninformed decision. 

To then market both of them in ways that cause emotional choices rather than objective, rational ones is unethical. Plain and simple.

I really am not following this. It seems to be awfully patronizing to the poor deluded buyers. Gamers are children and need to be protected from themselves?

What sort of marketing are you talking about?

Modifié par AlanC9, 07 février 2013 - 11:21 .

[XX-Pyro]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

I'd agree that is true with Applied Ethics, where one has to evaluate the benefit between two negative or subpar issues. But as far the understanding that something that provides harm is unethical, I don't think that's very refutable.

EDIT: And before this goes too far off base, Microtransactions and DLC are also digital products that are completely untransferable or refundable. If you buy a game and feel it is not what you had intended to buy, there are actions you can take to recoup some or all of your losses.

With DLC or MTs, you get what they give you and if you are not happy, too bad. That was your fault for making an uninformed decision. 

To then market both of them in ways that cause emotional choices rather than objective, rational ones is unethical. Plain and simple.

You can't return a game once it's been opened at Gamestop either. This argument doesn't hold much water. (This is in response to your edit anyways. And there are definitely cases of harm being an ethical option, but let's not get into that fight on this thread.

Modifié par XX-Pyro, 07 février 2013 - 11:16 .

[Fast Jimmy]

AlanC9 wrote...

I really am not following this. It seems to be awfully patronizing to the poor deluded buyers. Gamers are children and need to be protected from themselves?

What sort of marketing are you talking about?

Are those who ask for loans from banks poor, deluded potential home owners who need to be protected from themselves?

Recent events in the past few years say... yes. Yes they do. 

Now, are gamers dumb, stupid saps who are so innocent and naive, they did not understand what they bought? No. But just because a party (in this case, a game developer) does not have 100% culpability in the actions does not mean they are unethical.

I'll use the Katsumi DLC as an example. This was a short DLC that introduced Katsumi Goto, a futuristic thief character that Shepherd could recruit for the Suicide Mission. It involved roughly three or four extra maps, possibly close to ten conversations and content that could last anywhere between 2 and 5 hours. Its cost was roughly that of $7.

$7 is over 10% the sticker price of the original game. Yet we are not given over 10% of the actual content. Arguably, in a 40+ hour game with dozens upon dozens of mpas, this DLC brought an objective worth of less than a few dollars.

But the DLC sold tens of thousands of copies. Many, many people made the decision that, despite the objective smaller value this brings, I will pay it. And many enjoyed it. Many also expected that this character, a character they had paid premium money for, would be integrated into future installments. When she was not (hardly touched on at all in ME3, like most ME2 companions), many felt that they were misled in their original purchase, that Bioware shouldn't have introduced a character that people paid money for if they weren't planning on giving her the same level of treatment other characters who were in the base game. They felt deceived and that they had bought an implied understanding of how the content they were buying would be integrated into the main game and the main series.

These people have a legitimate complaint that Bioware acted unethically. 

Now, is it a LARGE ethical offense? I don't think so. Do they have legal recourse? Not likely. Were perhaps their own expectations beyond what Bioware had expressly stated? Yes, I'd say that's probably right.

But does that mean that Bioware acted ethically when they caused this harm? No, they did not. If they had been truly ethical, they would have made clear, unimstakable expectations when introducing the character to the larger narrative. The fact that they did not and it resulted in people feeling their investments were not met without any recourse to petition for a return of some or all of their funds is a type of unethical behavior.

XX-Pyro wrote...

You can't return a game once it's been opened at Gamestop either. This argument doesn't hold much water. (This is in response to your edit anyways. And there are definitely cases of harm being an ethical option, but let's not get into that fight on this thread.

You can't return a game to Gamestop that is opened and receive a full refund, that is correct. But you can recoup some of your money selling it as a used game. Heck, if you go online and sell it as "like new" you can sell it for near sticker price. More, if the game is in really high demand. 

But can I sell Omega if I thought it was the biggest letdown ever? Can I ask for a refund, or sell an Ultra Rate item I don't want to a noob who doesn't want to pony up the full dough for a pack or work the time in MP, on a microtransaction? 

No. You cannot. You are enticed to buy products on an emotional basis without clear understandthe sunk expense or transfer ownership to any other party if you feel it did not live up to your implied expectations. That is unethical.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 07 février 2013 - 11:56 .

[XX-Pyro]

Stop flinging the world unethical around, their JOB is to make money. Is this a way people approve of? Personally, at the point it's at I'm indifferent because I can get the content myself, meaning I can control my spending. If you can't, that's lucky for them- and quite frankly is your problem. Is your morning coffee unethical because of its addictive properties? You aren't enticed to buy the products, you have an option to. Once that product becomes content you can only purchase through microtransactions, that's when I'll have a problem. Probably not one day before.

There is nothing enticing to me about purchasing MP upgrades. It's there, it's an option. Great, if you want it, go for it. I don't, so I won't. But don't complain if you can't restrain yourself.

As for the randomness, I used to hate buying packs of Yu-Gi-Oh cards not knowing which crappy cards I would get.

[Fast Jimmy]

XX-Pyro wrote...

Stop flinging the world unethical around, their JOB is to make money.

Technically, it is their job to make video games. If they want to continue to have that be their jobs and also accomodate their lifestyles, they have to make money. I feel dropping the Henry Ford quote about any company whose sole goal of making money is bad here, but I'll refrain.

And just because people have a loaded concept of what the word ethical or unethical means doesn't mean that its true definition and branch of study is somehow invalid. Ethics would state that being less than opaque with customers in regards to the experience they are paying for is unethical.

Is this a way people approve of? Personally, at the point it's at I'm indifferent because I can get the content myself, meaning I can control my spending. If you can't, that's lucky for them- and quite frankly is your problem.

Actions without sufficient thought or course-correction that result in "problems" for others is unethical.

Is your morning coffee unethical because of its addictive properties?

Its not your coffee's fault... your coffee is not sapient. But is the business selling you coffee without informing you of the possible addictive nature of the product or the damage that it can do to the nervous system acting unethically? Well, they certainly aren't acting ETHICALLY by not telling you that. 

You aren't enticed to buy the products, you have an option to. Once that product becomes content you can only purchase through microtransactions, that's when I'll have a problem. Probably not one day before.

So, by this logic, you view all DLC as unethical, since paying extra is the only way you can access that content? Okay... now we are on the right track.

There is nothing enticing to me about purchasing MP upgrades. It's there, it's an option. Great, if you want it, go for it. I don't, so I won't. But don't complain if you can't restrain yourself.

As for the randomness, I used to hate buying packs of Yu-Gi-Oh cards not knowing which crappy cards I would get.

Yes, Yu-Gi-Oh cards, or baseball cards, or comic collector cards... its all the same thing. And notice how it doesn't work with adults nearly as well. Its because children are much more likely to fall into an emotional purchase without proper consideration for the money involved or the reward being offered for it. 

It doesn't boil down to being unable to restrain yourself. It comes down to is a person or an entity deliberately leading someone to making a decision that is not in that person's best interests. 

Would you have felt bad if ME3's MP did not exist? No, you wouldn't have known about its possibility. If no microtransactions were in the game, would anyone have been harmed? No, other than arguably lost time, which is a valid concern, but less so than actual financial impact.

So in either of these examples, less harm is done to the world than we currently see. Is it catastrophic harm? No, I'd seriously doubt it. But is it harm? Yes. And therefore it is not ethical behavior.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 08 février 2013 - 12:13 .

[AlanC9]

Fast Jimmy wrote..
Are those who ask for loans from banks poor, deluded potential home owners who need to be protected from themselves?

Recent events in the past few years say... yes. Yes they do.

The obvious difference is that a mortgage applicant stands in a different relationship to a bank than a typical consumer does to a typical vendor. The bank is purporting to evaluate the customer's suitability for the loan.

$7 is over 10% the sticker price of the original game. Yet we are not given over 10% of the actual content. Arguably, in a 40+ hour game with dozens upon dozens of mpas, this DLC brought an objective worth of less than a few dollars.

Assuming you use a theory of value where objective worth is a meaningful concept, of course.

I'm not too  impressed with your Kasumi argument generally. Does she really have much less ME3 content than the other ME3 companions? 

[Fast Jimmy]

[quote]AlanC9 wrote...

[quote]Fast Jimmy wrote..
Are those who ask for loans from banks poor, deluded potential home owners who need to be protected from themselves?

Recent events in the past few years say... yes. Yes they do. [/quote]

The obvious difference is that a mortgage applicant stands in a different relationship to a bank than a typical consumer does to a typical vendor. The bank is purporting to evaluate the customer's suitability for the loan.[/quote]

True, there is a different relationship. But when the bank ignored their ability to determine who could and could not afford those loans, it resulted in harm. Arguably, when Bioware accepts money without validating if the person can afford such actions, they could be causing harm as well. Harm that is on a much different and smaller scale, sure, but it is still harm. And therefore could be clearly stated as unethical.

[quote]
$7 is over 10% the sticker price of the original game. Yet we are not given over 10% of the actual content. Arguably, in a 40+ hour game with dozens upon dozens of mpas, this DLC brought an objective worth of less than a few dollars.[/quote]

Assuming you use a theory of value where objective worth is a meaningful concept, of course.[/quote]

Who wouldn't?

[quote]I'm not too  impressed with your Kasumi argument generally. Does she really have much less ME3 content than the other ME3 companions? 
[/quote]

From what I have been told, yes. I would defer to others who had actually purchased her DLC and then carried it over into ME3, but I believe she just meets up with Shepherd for one mission. If you did not recruit her/pay for her DLC in ME2, she will be replaced by a Salarian Spectre. It is the mission with the Hanar who is crazy on the Citadel, if that rings any bells.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 08 février 2013 - 12:20 .

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

You are really driving this thread aren't you?

[XX-Pyro]

I don't view DLC as unethical because it isn't content I can get in the main game. If DLC didn't exist, I wouldn't get more added to the story. Microtransactions don't add to the story, two different beasts. But putting words in people's mouths when they've explained their positions 500 times is usually a good way to win arguments.

Modifié par XX-Pyro, 08 février 2013 - 12:19 .

[Fast Jimmy]

XX-Pyro wrote...

I don't view DLC as unethical because it isn't content I can get in the main game. If DLC didn't exist, I wouldn't get more added to the story. Microtransactions don't add to the story, two different beasts. But putting words in people's mouths when they've explained their positions 500 times is usually a good way to win arguments.

I apologize. I overstepped my bounds by equating DLC and microtransactions with your quote. They are two different beasts.


That is... unless DLC becomes so small, they can get away with charging a $1 for it. Or whether or not story is experienced is tied to pressing a button, which would charge your credit card and unlock dialogue. 

Where do the lines between the two stop? THAT is a hard question. Much harder than ethics.

DinoSteve wrote...

You are really driving this thread aren't you?

Driving it all the way to deduction town. I've got a full tank of logic to run this reason-mobile on.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 08 février 2013 - 12:24 .

[alhamel94]

i understand where you are coming from but seriously please stop with the slippery slope hypotheticals, it doesnt prove your point and it makes it look like your desperate

[alhamel94]

I'm not too  impressed with your Kasumi argument generally. Does she really have much less ME3 content than the other ME3 companions? 

From what I have been told, yes. I would defer to others who had actually purchased her DLC and then carried it over into ME3, but I believe she just meets up with Shepherd for one mission. If you did not recruit her/pay for her DLC in ME2, she will be replaced by a Salarian Spectre. It is the mission with the Hanar who is crazy on the Citadel, if that rings any bells.

in the kasumi mission she is not replaced at all, the salarian is still doing  his investigation, he is the spectre assigned to apprehending kasumi, this mission while involving no combat is arguabley just as much if not more than most of the other companions, her role is more similar to thane than anyone else, it offers you the chance to get the best outcome if they are there. if kasumi is there you stop the attacker and kasumi stops the hack, if she is not you must choose to stop the hack or save the spectre

Modifié par alhamel94, 08 février 2013 - 01:49 .

[Plaintiff]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Just as an aside, for being a very vocal homosexual player, it seems odd that you seem to focus on the fact that only men would be interested in seeing female nudity.

Correct, but I think it's fairly obvious that The Witcher, like most games, was made for straight men. With very little thought, if any, given to the fact that their audience potentially includes minorities of any kind.

Two: nudity and/or sex scenes do not demean women.

 
I never said it did.

What DOES demean women is promoting a behavior of serializing women to have sex with and move on. It reduces their worth.

But to say that the cards, or the sexual content they imply, is demeaning to women is just not accurate. The poses most of them are in are too mild to make it into Playboy in some cases.

I don't know if The Witcher demeans women or not. I'm only stating why the issues of "The Witcher demeans women" and "Microtransactions" are not at all related, nor are they morally equivalent. Because you seemed to be confused about how a person could argue against one and not the other.

So, if we can come to grips with the fact that it is not the cards themselves (and the optional content they represent) which demeans women, but rather the known fact that a gamer's tendency to collect all things IN CORRELATION to the content of the card is what is morally objectable.

Yes, and the crux of the issue is still the collectibles in question, not the method of delivery. If Geralt was collecting beanie babies or pokemon cards instead, there would be no issue. And there would still be no issue if the player was required to pay real money in order to obtain said beanie babies.

Now  - to be clear - content is fine, but capitalizing on the player's natural tendencies which, in turn, promotes unwanted values - not fine.

I don't see why. Do grocery stores "prey" on our natural tendency to require food in order to live?

So, microtransactions which prey on the impatience of some players, or gear DLC which prey on the collector's nature of some players, or Day One DLC which prey on someone wanting every bit of the story involved with a game... none of the content is inherently bad. And any player does have the option of not pursuing this content.

But the moral being taught here - you can't have all the gear, story or be one of the best players in the online community without paying actual real dollars - is not a good one. I'd wager no one can argue the idea that whoever shells out the most money should have a more complete game experienece is a good concept, in and of itself.

I think it's a fine concept. I have no problem with it all. People pay for as much as they want to play. If they like the product, they can pay to play more of it. If they don't, then they're free to take their money elsewhere.

To recap, the content is there. The option to not do it is there. And the moral apprehension of preying on a gamer's tendency to pursue that optional content and reinforce a negative moral behavior is there.

I don't believe it's immoral. Bioware cannot be held responsible if a customer lacks impule control. The onus is on the player to be aware of his own fiancial limitations, and police himself.

So how is it, in a substantial way, different than the Witcher sex cards?

Still the nature of the content and how it encourages the player to think about women.

There's nothing wrong whatsoever with encouraging people to collect things generally. Pokemon cards, beanie babies and DLC packs are not demeaned if you encourage people to think of them as mere collectible toys, because that is what they are. Women are not collectible toys, and encouraging people to perceive them as such is wrong.

[Gatt9]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

And, epicboot, that's why I compared it to a drug dealer. Both are selling an emotional, impulse driven product for much more of a mark up than it would be worth on paper. And that's not very honest or upfront.

It IS honest and upfront. They're not trying to deceieve consumers. There's no hidden charges or anything like that. The DLC is there if you want it, but you can choose to play the game and earn everything for free.

No hidden charges?  Not trying to decieve consumers?

Do you want me to go find the numerous times that EA stated "You don't need multiplayer to get the best ending in single player" for Mass Effect 3,  and then made it impossible to get the best ending without multiplayer?  Which coincdently costs $10 if you bought it used,  making it not only deceptive but also a hidden charge.  If they hadn't lied to me,  I wouldn't have spent $60 on the game.  I wouldn't have bought a game that required multiplayer so they could force used game buyers to pay them.

Then they've consistently refused to address the issue (To my knowledge) and even kept a stickied post on the top of the boards from the day of release and weeks after,  while refusing to address or even acknowledge the issue.

Additionally,  I'd call it pretty deceptive to tell the consumer at the register on day 1 that if they want the whole game it'll cost $10 more than the sticker price.

Or would you rather talk about Dead Space 2?  I paid $80 for the collector's edition on the PC,  to discover that there were numerous doors with content locked behind them that I couldn't open because I hadn't bought their pre-release DLC (Which wasn't even offered on the PC).  You don't think it's deceptive to sell someone an $80 collector's edition and then let them find out after they got home and started playing that they didn't get the whole game?

EA's nothing but deceptive,  they're specifically designing their business strategy around hidden charges.

[LinksOcarina]

Gatt9 wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

And, epicboot, that's why I compared it to a drug dealer. Both are selling an emotional, impulse driven product for much more of a mark up than it would be worth on paper. And that's not very honest or upfront.

It IS honest and upfront. They're not trying to deceieve consumers. There's no hidden charges or anything like that. The DLC is there if you want it, but you can choose to play the game and earn everything for free.

No hidden charges?  Not trying to decieve consumers?

Do you want me to go find the numerous times that EA stated "You don't need multiplayer to get the best ending in single player" for Mass Effect 3,  and then made it impossible to get the best ending without multiplayer?  Which coincdently costs $10 if you bought it used,  making it not only deceptive but also a hidden charge.  If they hadn't lied to me,  I wouldn't have spent $60 on the game.  I wouldn't have bought a game that required multiplayer so they could force used game buyers to pay them.

Then they've consistently refused to address the issue (To my knowledge) and even kept a stickied post on the top of the boards from the day of release and weeks after,  while refusing to address or even acknowledge the issue.

Additionally,  I'd call it pretty deceptive to tell the consumer at the register on day 1 that if they want the whole game it'll cost $10 more than the sticker price.

Or would you rather talk about Dead Space 2?  I paid $80 for the collector's edition on the PC,  to discover that there were numerous doors with content locked behind them that I couldn't open because I hadn't bought their pre-release DLC (Which wasn't even offered on the PC).  You don't think it's deceptive to sell someone an $80 collector's edition and then let them find out after they got home and started playing that they didn't get the whole game?

EA's nothing but deceptive,  they're specifically designing their business strategy around hidden charges.

So...which was the best ending for Mass Effect 3?

Also, do you know that most games now have a mode where used game sales are locked out of? Remember back in 2010, when BioWare offered free DLC to those who buy into it new, and forced people to pay $15.00 for it used? You also probably know that these modes are always told ahead of time to consumers, in literature, pre-order sales, magazines, gaming websites, videos, promotions, etc. Hell, sometimes you see a "Season Pass" now a days, an extra $30 bucks to buy $40 bucks worth of content in some cases. 

The most important question though, do you know why that is standard in the gaming industry right now? Yeah, it's a rhetorical question because I am going to answer it anyway, i'm just curious to see what you say first though. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 08 février 2013 - 04:34 .

[alhamel94]

Gatt9 wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

And, epicboot, that's why I compared it to a drug dealer. Both are selling an emotional, impulse driven product for much more of a mark up than it would be worth on paper. And that's not very honest or upfront.

It IS honest and upfront. They're not trying to deceieve consumers. There's no hidden charges or anything like that. The DLC is there if you want it, but you can choose to play the game and earn everything for free.

No hidden charges?  Not trying to decieve consumers?

Do you want me to go find the numerous times that EA stated "You don't need multiplayer to get the best ending in single player" for Mass Effect 3,  and then made it impossible to get the best ending without multiplayer?  Which coincdently costs $10 if you bought it used,  making it not only deceptive but also a hidden charge.  If they hadn't lied to me,  I wouldn't have spent $60 on the game.  I wouldn't have bought a game that required multiplayer so they could force used game buyers to pay them.

Then they've consistently refused to address the issue (To my knowledge) and even kept a stickied post on the top of the boards from the day of release and weeks after,  while refusing to address or even acknowledge the issue.

Additionally,  I'd call it pretty deceptive to tell the consumer at the register on day 1 that if they want the whole game it'll cost $10 more than the sticker price.

Or would you rather talk about Dead Space 2?  I paid $80 for the collector's edition on the PC,  to discover that there were numerous doors with content locked behind them that I couldn't open because I hadn't bought their pre-release DLC (Which wasn't even offered on the PC).  You don't think it's deceptive to sell someone an $80 collector's edition and then let them find out after they got home and started playing that they didn't get the whole game?

EA's nothing but deceptive,  they're specifically designing their business strategy around hidden charges.

that ending thing is false you dont need the multiplayer if you do everything right and get maximum assets you can get it at 50% readiness rating

[Dutchess]

alhamel94 wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

And, epicboot, that's why I compared it to a drug dealer. Both are selling an emotional, impulse driven product for much more of a mark up than it would be worth on paper. And that's not very honest or upfront.

It IS honest and upfront. They're not trying to deceieve consumers. There's no hidden charges or anything like that. The DLC is there if you want it, but you can choose to play the game and earn everything for free.

No hidden charges?  Not trying to decieve consumers?

Do you want me to go find the numerous times that EA stated "You don't need multiplayer to get the best ending in single player" for Mass Effect 3,  and then made it impossible to get the best ending without multiplayer?  Which coincdently costs $10 if you bought it used,  making it not only deceptive but also a hidden charge.  If they hadn't lied to me,  I wouldn't have spent $60 on the game.  I wouldn't have bought a game that required multiplayer so they could force used game buyers to pay them.

Then they've consistently refused to address the issue (To my knowledge) and even kept a stickied post on the top of the boards from the day of release and weeks after,  while refusing to address or even acknowledge the issue.

Additionally,  I'd call it pretty deceptive to tell the consumer at the register on day 1 that if they want the whole game it'll cost $10 more than the sticker price.

Or would you rather talk about Dead Space 2?  I paid $80 for the collector's edition on the PC,  to discover that there were numerous doors with content locked behind them that I couldn't open because I hadn't bought their pre-release DLC (Which wasn't even offered on the PC).  You don't think it's deceptive to sell someone an $80 collector's edition and then let them find out after they got home and started playing that they didn't get the whole game?

EA's nothing but deceptive,  they're specifically designing their business strategy around hidden charges.

that ending thing is false you dont need the multiplayer if you do everything right and get maximum assets you can get it at 50% readiness rating

No, that is only possible after it was patched. 

[LinksOcarina]

renjility wrote...

alhamel94 wrote...

that ending thing is false you dont need the multiplayer if you do everything right and get maximum assets you can get it at 50% readiness rating

No, that is only possible after it was patched. 

Again, which ending was the best ending to you all?

[Fast Jimmy]

^

I'd say the ending where the character you spent the last three games playing and acting through survives (even if it is ambiguous what that survival means) should not be surprising that people see as the best ending. It is also the ending that is not obtainable without the Extended Cut, multiplayer or a smartphone app.