Try our new beta!Click here
Submitted by stickskills 1075d ago | opinion piece

Cliffy B, microtransactions, and why I’m done with console games writes, "Last night, a blog post by Gears of War creator Cliff Bleszinski ignited the internet. The subject of the blog? That dirty “M” word that men in suits love to spout: Microtransactions. Needless to say, the reaction has been all over the place." (Cliffy B, Industry, PS3, PS4, Wii U, Xbox 360, Xbox One)

Alternative Sources
« 1 2 »
Seraphemz  +   1075d ago
Every console game MUST have a steady stream of DLC because, otherwise, guess what? It becomes traded in, or it’s just rented.” thats a really good point that i never considered as a gamer.

And something to consider, these are all optional things... you dont HAVE to buy DLC or Microtransactions..but once it takes away from the actual game, thats when it becomes an issue with me.
#1 (Edited 1075d ago ) | Agree(27) | Disagree(60) | Report | Reply
cyguration  +   1075d ago | Intelligent
You're ignoring that these microtransactions WILL eventually take away from the actual game.

Do you honestly think that shareholders believe in maintaining the integrity of a game? Or respecting the art or time or effort that the developer puts into the title? You're deluded if you think that shareholders care.

If EA is abusing microtransactions in all their free-to-play games they'll further abuse it in retail games. It's not a matter of "IF" but "When".

Shareholders only care about money and eventually they'll want to make MORE money from every avenue of the industry they can, even if it means selling $10 DLC to get the "true ending."
Seraphemz  +   1075d ago
I make decisions on facts. And I dont speculate what MIGHT happen. Im talking about right now, and right now..they are optional.

If they change that.. then I will react.
#1.1.1 (Edited 1075d ago ) | Agree(19) | Disagree(45) | Report
Ilovetheps4  +   1075d ago | Well said

Have you ever heard the phrase "Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile"? That's going to be the issue here. If we keep giving companies all this leeway, they are going to start abusing it. It's best to just stop the trend right now before they abuse microtransactions. So what happens now affects the future. I would rather be proactive and not buy these games with microtransactions so that they hopefully don't start taking away from the actual game and selling that to us through microtransactions.

EA has already tried taking away from the game in ME3. They then sold the level and character as DLC. So, this is happening now. I don't want to wait until I have to pay for every aspect of a game. I want to put an end to it before it becomes too big of a problem.
Diver  +   1075d ago
As soon as he can't afford the insurance on that crappy Lamborghini he'll come crawling back.
NotSoSilentBob  +   1075d ago
@ Seraphemz

Ubisoft has already cut content out of Assassins Creed II that was resold as Bonfires and didn't add any trophies just game play that was on the DISC. Micro-transactions are taking away from games by allowing less dedicated players to pay to win. Instead of the normal you don't have to out run the lion just the other gazelles.
da_2pacalypse  +   1075d ago
Totally agree with you. Microtransactions are fine when it's for a meaningless hat for your character that adds nothing to your experience of the game other than a visual difference.

When you talk about making microtransactions for actual upgrades in a game that you paid 60 dollars for.... that's pushing it.

Also, @Seraphemz you're wrong. I'm still playing skyrim, I'm still playing Borderlands 2, I'm still playing Dragon Age Origins (there are many more on this list). And this is without purchasing the DLC. The game is good enough for me to replay. Even several years after the game has released.

If you make a strong game, people will replay it... and they will hesitate to trade it in. DLC is good when it's done right, but it doesn't prevent me from trading in a game I don't like.
#1.1.5 (Edited 1075d ago ) | Agree(7) | Disagree(0) | Report
Seraphemz  +   1075d ago
You know what I do about DLC that I feel should be added already??? I dont buy it.

As a matter of fact, I dont buy ANY DLC. Never have. And I would NEVER buy MT's

I just stated that I could see his side how he wants his game to make more money for him.

What people need to do is stop buing DLC's...but they wont. And guess what, companies will still make them as long as they sell...
morganfell  +   1075d ago
Here is the fact no one wants to face. If you do not like DLC you are in the far far minority. It works for the publisher because it is monetarily feasible. So many people buy it that it is impossible to turn down the money angle.

The people that complain about it may seem numerous but they are a drop in the bucket compared to the numbers that purchase that same DLC.

Even better I love how many people at Neogaf were complaining about the DLC for Dead Space 3 while acknowledging they purchased the Gamestop or Amazon versions...which came with DLC.

As an afterthought arguing about some DLC is pointless, particularly that in Dead Space 3. Does it really change your experience because you know a 14 year old in Croatia used DLC to upgrade his character faster than you? If so you have issues unrelated to game you need to sort first.

Today on this forum someone was just mad enough to illustrate their anti-DLC stance by remarking that a DLC weapon in Black Ops II unfairly assisted DLC purchasers.

If you are playing Black Ops II you have bigger problems than DLC.
Outside_ofthe_Box  +   1075d ago
***"I make decisions on facts. And I dont speculate what MIGHT happen. Im talking about right now, and right now..they are optional.

If they change that.. then I will react."***

I hate to be so rude about it, but that is a retarded way of thinking.

Prevention is better than a cure.

You have to take a stand now before crap starts becoming the norm. Once things are the norm it'd be very hard to go back as that would require the majority to cooperate. As we know it's very are hard for the majority to deviate from the norm as at that point they'll have the "it's been this way for a while. Why stop now" mentality. At that point it be far too late to 'react.'
knowyourstuff  +   1075d ago
Yeah, don't you love how this "author" considers himself an old school gamer who hates microtransactions, DLC season passes, and has always been a PC gamer who has been "confused" by consoles, also considers himself a game critic with enough authority on consoles to judge their games. If they really confuse you, perhaps you should just stick to playing and critiquing PC games, which even more than consoles have free to play models with tons of microtransactions to make money on.
Britainz-Fin3st  +   1074d ago
I agree with cyguration,

Microtransactions are a way for developers and publishers to keep there hands in your pockets even after you have initially bought there game.

Im not against DLC when it is things like new maps for multiplayer etc but when you take for example BF3, the shortcut to the kits then it is something i dont particularly like, its just a form of "cheat code" only you use money to unlock it imo.

Not only that DLC is becoming more and more common, proving cygations point and the fact we have already had day 1 dlc just proves to me that if they can sell us crap and they can get away with it then there is going to be alot of crap for sale.

Some people say its just keeping the game alive but imo the majority of the time DLC is not good value for money and just a way for cashing in.

Another example of what i mean is take on xbox live, i pay for the yearly subscription but from day one i have had to pay for different themes, gamer pics or even clothes for your avatar, all things which should be free seeing as what it is. What you pay for you get is just a joke.
#1.1.10 (Edited 1074d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(2) | Report
Bimkoblerutso  +   1074d ago
Like cyguration said, you're delusional if you don't see that it's ALREADY negatively affecting the games we buy. Unfortunately, I don't think there's anything we can do about it. Crap like this eventually happens to EVERY medium of entertainment out there.

Unfortunately, most of the more casual gamers and CoD-heads out there don't understand (or even want to understand) what throwing money into these microtransactions is doing to the industry.

Their only exposure to the issue will be when they read some ridiculously biased article from a very high-profile, corporate shill website, or a blog from some washed up dickhole that USED to be a corporate shill (*cough*) and that will be it. Their opinion on the matter will have been fabricated for them. No need to think about it anymore, let the corporations do what they want.
#1.1.11 (Edited 1074d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report
ArronC07  +   1075d ago
Same thing was said about DLC and that has led to day one dlc releases and ultimately to micro-transactions.
camel_toad  +   1075d ago
I still think he just needs his own talk show.
porkChop  +   1075d ago
I'd actually watch it.
OcelotRigz  +   1075d ago
"Every console game MUST have a steady stream of DLC because, otherwise, guess what? It becomes traded in, or it’s just rented.” thats a really good point that i never considered as a gamer."

I dont agree with that statement. I just took a glance at the collection of games in front of me and will name a few of them, Dark Souls, Bioshock, Arkham City, Red Dead, InFamous 2 and GTAIV.
Now i know some of them have dlc, good dlc at that, but still, ive come back to those games a few times before any DLC was released and will do again and again. Why? Because they're great games.
If a game is good enough then you'll never consider trading it in because you know you wouldn't mind playing it again in the future because its so good, not because of DLC.

Dont get me wrong, DLC can add a lot to games and add some more longevity, but developers shouldn't depend on it so their games wont get traded. Just make their games better and add elements to make the replayability factor more attractive.

As for the blog post, it was well written and i agree with some of it, you cant deny some cold hard truths. I dont like EA simply because they are too successful and have too much influence on their developers, as a result you will see less creativity and innovation and more of copy and paste of "whats selling" with their games. Thats why i like developers who genuinely listen to their fans and answer to nobody, theres not many of them (CD Projekt RED from the top of my head), and also why i think the indie scene is very important for gaming.
#1.4 (Edited 1075d ago ) | Agree(9) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
Spookshow  +   1075d ago
I think they tried to add replayability putting crappy online multiplayer on every game ... so far it ain't working...

EditorAtGNG  +   1075d ago
There was a time when a game's longevity depended on QUALITY rather than DLC's. That time wasn't so long ago if you recall.

Cliff is being a moron for comparing Valve with EA. Valve didn't invent DLC's and has never shipped a half-arsed product in their lineup. EA on the other hand is the prime leader of greedy gaming corp. who's only contribution and overall innovation is testing how much they can further push the microtransation system down their consumers' throats before they lose all of them.
isa_scout  +   1075d ago
Couldn't have said it better myself. Valve is far to damn good to be compared to EA. Cliffy, call me when EA makes the next game that is the equivalent of Half-Life 2, and then you can compare EA to Valve...Scratch that, Valve is still to badass for that...You stay classy Valve.
Sephiroushin  +   1075d ago
By that time it will be too late to react!
That's what is wrong with people, waiting for problems to get big to speak up, react & try fix to them when is clearly too late!
So keep telling yourself is just a "might" and try to react when that "might" you refused to see is your present and not a possible future!
OcelotRigz  +   1075d ago
Yeah, the saying "Prevention is better than cure" comes to mind.
Its like these guys are lying on a train track saying "Its fine, no train is going to come and if it does then i'll worry".
AngelicIceDiamond  +   1075d ago
"Why I’m done with console games."

No more Gears? O_o
Perjoss  +   1074d ago
Cliff Bleszinski does not own the Gears of War franchise.
wagnus  +   1075d ago
A steady stream of new content is awesome. But let's let Minecraft & Terraria(to name a few) lead the industry. All new content invokes more sales, and is entirely free. Minecraft is topping PC sales all time with this methodology. They'll never charge a cent for their updates.
ZombieNinjaPanda  +   1075d ago
They need to have a steady stream of DLC? How about making the game replayable. How about making a game people won't want to trade in? But that won't stop people who still want to trade it in.
-GametimeUK-  +   1075d ago
I get Seraphemz point. As it stands right now you don't really need to get DLC. Sure it is overpriced, but it isn't necessary.

But we don't live in an ideal world and we have already seen developers try and take advantage of DLC. Capcom with DLC on the disc, Batman requiring a DLC code for Catwoman was quite cheap in my opinion and Azura's Wrath lololol.

It's sad because people don't realise that this is a stepping stone for bigger and more drastic changes. It is that simple. They WILL try and take all our monies lol. I supported the Dark Souls DLC, but that is about it (and Warhawk in the early days, but it wasn't good enough for me). Dark Souls is how DLC should be done.
showtimefolks  +   1075d ago
just go cliffy no one will miss you, you are nothing more than over rated game director. I don't think these morons realize how much money gaming has made for them and now all of the sudden they want to nickle and dime us

if you are so confident in your game release it free to play and than see if people like it they pay as they play.

talk is cheap actions speak louder than words cliffy

gears of war was made by a huge team with a huge budget from epic/MS yet cliffy acts like he was the sole creator of gears
rezzah  +   1075d ago
So you would wait for an accident to occur instead of trying to avoid one?

I say this based on your comment 1.1.1.

You must at least attempt to see the pros and cons of how you look at things.

I on the other hand tend to look toward the future. In opposition to your views, I would look to the future and adjust the present to abide by the best possible outcome.

Not wait to see everything turn to hell and then make a decision. In some scenarios, your point of view will end up getting someone killed.
LocutusEstBorg  +   1074d ago
That's why consoles shouldn't play used games. All games must be purchased and registered to an account, just like Steam.
#1.13 (Edited 1074d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
die_fiend  +   1074d ago
When did Cliffy B become an industry commentator? Didn't he quit? He's worse than cares what you guys think as you haven't made relevant games in over 5 years. You would both be doing the industry a favour by passing on
GuyThatPlaysGames  +   1074d ago
Gamers are tired of him. He just needs to talk a long walk off a short pier.
T3MPL3TON  +   1074d ago
Cliffy fails to realize that share holders don't care about anything but the bottom line. The bottom line is the game either makes money or it doesn't.

There are plenty of games with none or 1 addon that sell very well. They are maintained by word of mouth. Games don't all need micro and games don't all need DLC. DLC is whats killing the industry not Micro.

Micro says, here is the game for free if you want to get these super powered items that you'd normally have to spend months on earning, right now. Pay $5.99.

DLC says, we're going to make you pay for subpar quality so that you stay interested long enough to care about the sequel we're putting out in 6 months.
liquidhalos  +   1074d ago
Id just like to add one quick point thats been mulling around in my mind for a while. If devs stopped all this twitter and blog posting nonsense and concentrated solely on making good quality games, we as gamers would probably be better off.

I cant speak for everyone but i personally am not interested in how much cliffy b loves ea or how many friends he has in valve. I have consoles and a pc for games, not to hear about some rich game developer trying to justify squeezing every single possible penny out of a game at the expense of us gamers to make him richer.
Abdou23  +   1074d ago
No one cares about Cliff B
roshi1987  +   1074d ago
Besides, inflation has taken away part of their profits. DLC merely acts to get their profit back...and then some.
s45gr32  +   1074d ago
the point being developers have forgotten how to make money in this video game industry. Free to play with the game free and online free and only pay for dlc ok makes sense. But having to pay $60.00 plus tax turn around pay for useless dlc content like horse armor is just bs. We as gamers should not allow game developers and publishers continue with microtransanctions for retail games.
KaBaW  +   1074d ago
Wrong. If the game is good, I keep it. Regardless of DLC 2 weeks or 10 years later.
If the game is bad, that is what will make me trade in a game, or only rent it.

Developers need to create a great game, if they want me to keep it. Simple as that.
Jek_Porkins  +   1075d ago
Cliffy B has kind of lost his mind recently. I kind of understand what he is saying, but very few games that aren't Call Of Duty are going to be played year in and year out. People buy and play the newest and "greatest" thing.

Micro-transactions are basically pay to win. I didn't buy the map packs for Black Ops 2, those who did now have use of a new gun called the Peacekeeper that is an absolute monster. It tears through laggy rooms and gives a clear advantage, that is the model I cant stand.

I realize DLC isn't something you have to buy, but it shouldn't give someone who did buy it an advantage.
#2 (Edited 1075d ago ) | Agree(25) | Disagree(4) | Report | Reply
Cupid_Viper_3  +   1075d ago
yeah I'm with you on that one man. It should be a system that forces you to upgrade or die, when the only means of upgrading is to spend more money.

Surely games can have micro transactions, but to shorten/fragment a game on purpose in order to generate more revenue is straight up disrespectful to the gamer/consumer. And then EA have the Gall to say that "we love this stuff".... I'm steaming over that comment.

And I didn't buy the Black Ops 2 expansion pack, because they've specifically accepted money to delay it on the PS3, then charge the same price for it on release. And that's something I'm not cool with whether it's Sony or Microsoft doing it. But the majority of the blame goes to Devs/puplishers, who willingly accept more money to alienate their own customers.

It's one thing to make a game exclusive to a console, Gears of War for example, meaning that no one on the PS3 is a customer of yours. But when you make a multiplatform game, then you have customers on both sides, and the service to them should be equal, unless it's a console specific feature.
Dark_Overlord  +   1075d ago
"And I didn't buy the Black Ops 2 expansion pack, because they've specifically accepted money to delay it on the PS3, then charge the same price for it on release. "

Its worse than that over here in the UK,

Xbox £31.99 Season Pass

PS3 £41.99 Season Pass
Cupid_Viper_3  +   1075d ago
@ Dark_Overlord

I didn't even know that actually, that's crazy.

I think that the Gaming Industry needs a governing body that goes after unfair practices. Otherwise I think it will go to sh!t really fast.

You know, a place where you can report abuses such as what you just showed me. Forcing them to explain why the same product is priced higher on the PS3, and get fined or sued for it.

Or when GameStop buys a fairly new game from a 12 year old for $8.00 and then turn around and sell it $55.00. If someone took advantage of my kid like that, you'd have to deal with me afterwards.
jc48573   1075d ago | Trolling | show | Replies(1)
IK IR Y IP T  +   1075d ago
All you kids crying need to get a new hobby ! stop feeling so entitled and im sorry but the peacekeeper is not overpowered and it is easily combated pull your panties up ladies !
Stroke666  +   1075d ago
its not really a sense of entitlement this time. its a matter of how far they go to skim a buck, soon in order to finish a board in a game you'll have to purchase the boss key through mt's lol. dlc should remain optional. in a game like bo2 weapons shouldnt be dlc they should be in game upgrades, its like buying a hadoken in street fighter. so long as it doesn't take from the main game dlc is fine with me, but don't give me a game with half the content needed to play is right there on the disc but i have to pay extra to play a complete game
maniacmayhem  +   1075d ago
"I’m against season pass DLC models, online passes, needless collector’s editions, and all the other gimmicks that publishers implement on console games."

I agree with this statement 100%
BanBrother  +   1075d ago
Gears 3 had a season pass. I got the EPIC edition, and while not completely 'needless', it wasn't anything special. They also had disc locked content, which thankfully once caught out gave it to us for free. The 'other' gimmicks that they had for Gears 3 were the day one weapon skin packs for like $20 lol.

Not knocking Gears 3, it was a great game (I have put more than 500 hours into), but most of the things Cliff mentioned were in his game. Maybe it was Microsoft's decision?
maniacmayhem  +   1075d ago
Who knows, I doubt it was MS but more of an Epic decision. But regardless I hate this sort of model that games have adopted.
porkChop  +   1075d ago
Cliff has been saying that he knows these things are problems because he took part in them. He knows he's been guilty of them in the past. I think this is why he's taking a break from game development, it's clear he's sick and tired of all the shit that's happening in this industry.
danitanzo  +   1075d ago
What about games that come with extra stuff for the same price if you pre-order it?...
maniacmayhem  +   1075d ago
I guess that's okay, but just like the author said, don't include game breaking items just because a user payed for an item instead.

Bad design if users have to pay for an item just to be OP and dominate a game.
SJPFTW  +   1075d ago
Day one, on the disc DLC, is terrible. But i don't mind post-launch support and developers creating DLC that expands their game. Dragonborn for Skyrim for example
cjflora  +   1075d ago
Borderlands is another example. They released solid content for each of the games that really is worth picking up to add to the already awesome content that was released.
Kran  +   1075d ago
Isn't it going to be on PC games too? :/
Legion  +   1075d ago
Going to be? I am assuming you are not a BF3 PC player? It happens right now.
Kran  +   1075d ago
I have Battlefield 3 on PC... i just dont play that game any more.
TemplarDante  +   1075d ago
And Cliffy B's what? A guy trying to kiss EA's ass with microtransactions to get hired by them?

If anything, he is hypocrite.

He insulted Saints Row for being immature and childish and yet he made bulletstorm..
And then, theres stereotypical Gears.
Why is he getting this attention he doesnt deserve?
BLAKHOODe  +   1075d ago
I'm probably one of the few that's on the Cliffy B bandwagon, but I don't get all the fuss about this. I read his blog when he first posted it - I'm not going to read it again, but did he even touch on the subject of DLC giving gamers who buy it an advantage? I don't remember. But I do think it's hard to argue his point of "If you don't love it, don't buy it". That's just common sense.. not just in video games, but anything, yet people are complaining about it.. why? Because Bleszinski is the guy saying it? Entitlement? I don't get it.

Anyway, I don't think Cliff is positioning himself for a job at EA where he would have limited creative input, which is why he said long ago he enjoyed working at Epic and the people at People Can Fly are the ones who made Bulletstorm, not Bleszinski or Epic. Epic just published it.
ZBlacktt  +   1075d ago
Cool, see ya Cliffy.
Vithar   1075d ago | Bad language | show
kevnb  +   1075d ago
more and more devs are coming out and saying this. For awhile they were bad mouthing pc, but things have changed drastically. Microsoft pulled the wool over peoples eyes for awhile, but people are not that stupid. There needs to be devs on both pc and consoles, either that or a whole let less devs.
I dont hate consoles, but I hate what microsoft has tried to do and partially succeeded at. They are hurting gaming for everyone big time.
#9 (Edited 1075d ago ) | Agree(9) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
NegativeCreepWA  +   1075d ago
Lmao, of course, it has to be MS's fault.
insomnium2  +   1075d ago
You haven't been paying attention in 2005-2009 it seems.
NegativeCreepWA  +   1074d ago
Sorry, but PC F2P games have pioneered micro transactions. And if you compare MS published games to others like EA, Capcom,and Activision they don't have nearly as many.
cleft5  +   1075d ago
Just read what CliffyB wrote and I am in full agreement with him and that shocks the hell out of me. Before reading this statement I didn't have much respect for his opinions, but he clearly knows what he is talking about.
NegativeCreepWA  +   1075d ago
I don't think many people read his whole blog post here.
HorrorGod  +   1075d ago
Yeah. Too many people thinking the headline is a Cliffy quote. Read the article/Cliffy's blog post, people. Sheesh.
Warj  +   1075d ago
There are great comments here and other places on what constitutes as good or bad extra content. I wish more publishers listened to the potential within them.

In regards to the article, I think the major issue the author missed from Bleszinski's blog is the only reason DLC exists is because people buy it.

I'm not saying it justifies what some companies do, and there are better options, but the point remains they wouldn't do it if it wasn't profitable. Does corporate greed force feed certain undesirable aspects? Yes. Do we still buy their product instead of skipping it? If the answer is yes, then the results are on our heads not the business itself.
KwietStorm  +   1075d ago
Seems like there's another article from him every other day now.
wiseper   1075d ago | Spam
delboy  +   1075d ago
Never bought a DLC or online pass, and never will.
If they cut game content out of game and sell it as dlc,well there are ways to go around it and get it for free.
But if they try to push it even further I will completely go to pc, and we all know why publishers hate pc gamers.
So go ahead and try it, gamers have a option, and it's called pc.
jessupj  +   1074d ago
I'm the same as you. Never purchased a single piece of DLC or an online pass.

Online passes have screwed over the people that rent games. You'd think they would implement an option for renters. How hard would it be to offer a $2 pass for a weeks access?

Lucky for me when I rent games I can always get a code from the rental company as well. Others aren't so lucky.

And don't get me started on over priced DLC. Of this entire generation I can count on one hand the DLC packs that are actually worth the money.

It would have stopped by now if people weren't buying them. It saddens me that uneducated public are enabling this greed.
Summons75  +   1075d ago
you quit the industry so go away, no one wants you...
Dead_Cell  +   1075d ago
Just look at that smug self-satisfied face up there. Look at it.
ssbains  +   1075d ago
Good riddance, disagree on micro-transactions. There is more to games than brainless shooters like Gears
ninjahunter  +   1075d ago
"F*** you PC gaming! Im out of here!"
"Im sorry pc gaming let me come back!"
Npugz7  +   1075d ago
Once again Cliffy B GET LOST! Consoles don't need you and your negativity!
ThatsGaming  +   1075d ago
He wasn't being negative... He was hitting people with a dose of reality...

- Great games usually cost a crap load of money to build
- The people that build games need money to feed their families
- All publicly traded companies have to make crap loads of money or they lose stock price and eventually go bankrupt (Ex. THQ)
- Micro transactions and dlc are ways to make money in a game and are making additional money for companies
- You don't have to buy their stuff if you don't want to
cjflora  +   1075d ago
-Great games will also sell many more copies than those that aren't as good.
-The people that build games aren't getting any extra money from microtransactions or DLC. Likewise they aren't losing money without it unless a company goes under for some reason they get a paycheck.
-Publicly traded companies are rarely coming up with things like this to keep from going bankrupt, they just want their bottom line to get bigger. More profit is what they're aiming for, but they don't have to piss off their customers to do it. They're asking for trouble by alienating them.
OmniSlashPT  +   1075d ago
Peter Molyneux 2.0. Expect this one doesnt hype his games (since he has none now), he just talks shit.
ThatsGaming  +   1075d ago
There are principles that should be abided by:

- No more game pirating (If you can't afford a car, you are not allowed to go to a dealer and jack one without potential consequences, pirating games is the same thing)
- Micro transactions are fine in any game as long as they are optional
- Every gamer should have the right to "pay upfront" for all of the game's content (Past, present or future). I hate buying a game for $60, then paying for DLCs at $10, and avatars, micro transactions, and other crap... I would prefer to pay $100 upfront and get everything
- Games should not be charged for on every platform you acquire them. I should be able to buy PvZ on my Xbox 360 and should be able to request a key to acquire it for my PS3, PS Vita, 3DS, Windows 8, etc.
nypifisel  +   1075d ago
This guy gets way to much attention, on top of that he got some pretty shitty thoughts on things. It's not only about business - well it shouldn't be at least. It's about what's feasible and fair, and companies like vale certainly isn't Only about making money, if that was the case they would've milked the half life cow, which they don't. People like Gabe and Notch run their "businesses" cause they enjoy what they do and to go around is the important thing while giving feasible options for consumers. Fking Cliffy can suck a big one.
JeepGamer  +   1075d ago
Cliffy, go look up the word 'pretentious' then get back to us.
soniqstylz  +   1075d ago
"Cliffy B, Microtransactions, and why I'm done with Cliffy B"
Sheikh Yerbouti  +   1075d ago

I don't buy a lot DLC, nor do I trade in games. But I see his point.
SaturdayNightBeaver  +   1075d ago
this nerd can only suck it..
KillrateOmega  +   1075d ago
I gotta say, I agree with Cliffy here. He made a lot of sense. It was a harsh dose of reality, but just that, reality.
momthemeatloaf  +   1075d ago
Microtransactions are perfectly fine if the things can still be acquired by playing the game.

Like in Fifa. You can either buy Fifa points to get packs in ultimate team, or you can play games and earn coins to get packs.

I'm ok with that.

When it comes to having things in the game that can only be acquired by money then their is a problem.

And I don't agree with him on the used games thing. Used games are extremely important to the console market because not everyone buys used games (used games were once new), but the ones that do are the types of gamers that would go away if they could not get used games.

It's better to have them get used games, purchase a new game and dlc here or there then to not have them at all. Plus used games are a gateway for many gamers to purchase new titles, I am proof of that.

You take away used games and you're left with hardcore gamers that only purchase games they are familiar with or know they like. In return you get a stagnant market and many companies go out business. Only the big dogs would survive. So maybe that's the whole plan, I don't know, I hope not because console gaming would die.
#28 (Edited 1075d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
Dagobert  +   1075d ago
Did this guy even make a single good game yet?
jakmckratos  +   1075d ago
DLC doesn;t really necessitate the need to play it an more. With the exception of a very very few DLC I have felt the need to keep a game and it's typically a game I was in love with already. Undead Nightmare in RDR for example! I could play RDR every day for the next 10 years and Undead Nightmare was fun as hell. I also loved Infamous 2:Festival of Blood..which ended up being it's own game but still I wouldn't have gotten it if I didn't already LOVE the game.

I liked Far Cry 3 a lot and the DLC look suppper boring and so I was done with it after the story mode. A lot of DLC is just stuff that didn't make the game due to it not being a great idea.
« 1 2 »

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login
New stories

Wolves - Majestic, Not Murderous

3h ago - Jake Nichols with writes: "Media has a history of giving the wolf a bad name.... | Culture

Review: Cobalt Sidescrolling Sadness - TiCGN

3h ago - When Mojang announced that they in partnership with Oxeye would release a new Indie title named C... | Xbox One

Gran Turismo SPORT Beta Testing Begins early 2016

Now - Start tracking GTS with's release date alert service and be notified when the GTS beta launches. | Promoted post

Review: Crudelis suffers from technical flaws that ruin its potential | GameCrate

3h ago - GameCrate: "Perhaps if Whiskey Jack Games can add more quests and clean up the performance issues... | PC

Arslan: The Warriors of Legend Review | Hardcore Gamer

3h ago - Arslan: The Warriors of Legend makes the player feel like they’re in the middle of a beautiful, f... | PC

Stardock On Why Ashes Of The Singularity Won’t Get A Strategic Zoom Camera

3h ago - From GameWatcher: "You may think that the RTS genre is all about clicking quicker than your oppon... | PC