Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Almighty Buck Games

EA Flip-Flops On Battlefield: Heroes Pricing, Fans Angry 221

Posted by Soulskill
from the put-your-money-where-your-gun-is dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Ben Kuchera from Ars Technica is reporting that EA/DICE has substantially changed the game model of Battlefield: Heroes, increasing the cost of weapons in Valor Points (the in-game currency that you earn by playing) to levels that even hardcore players cannot afford, and making them available in BattleFunds (the in-game currency that you buy with real money). Other consumables in the game, such as bandages to heal the players, suffered the same fate, turning the game into a subscription or pay-to-play model if players want to remain competitive. This goes against the creators' earlier stated objectives of not providing combat advantage to paying customers. Ben Cousins, from EA/DICE, argued, 'We also frankly wanted to make buying Battlefunds more appealing. We have wages to pay here in the Heroes team and in order to keep a team large enough to make new free content like maps and other game features we need to increase the amount of BF that people buy. Battlefield Heroes is a business at the end of the day and for a company like EA who recently laid off 16% of their workforce, we need to keep an eye on the accounts and make sure we are doing our bit for the company.' The official forums discussion thread is full of angry responses from upset users, who feel this change is a betrayal of the original stated objectives of the game."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EA Flip-Flops On Battlefield: Heroes Pricing, Fans Angry

Comments Filter:
  • EA (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Showing it's true colors, once again.

    Getting "hooked" into a free game by EA is just asking for it. Without lube.

    • by sopssa (1498795) *

      Eh, isn't that the purpose of demos? Getting people like the game so they will buy it? Or are you implying that the game developers should work without income from it?

      This model is actually even better than demos; you get the full game to try out.

      • by kalirion (728907)

        This was never supposed to be a demo, not if you believe all the press releases, previews, etc. They claimed this would be a completely free game, where you could use real money to customize your character's appearance, etc.

        • by sopssa (1498795) *

          Not demo per se, but still a commercial game where you've supposed to spend some money. Just look at how the games are in Korea, they follow this exact route with everything.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by kalirion (728907)

            Which Korean games promised that paying customers would get no advantages over the freeloaders, and then went back on that promise?

  • by saintm (142527) on Wednesday December 02, 2009 @07:56AM (#30295814)

    Well I guess that the 'stated objectives of the game' have changed then.

    Reminds me a bit of 'Ultimate Team' in FIFA09 (and soon FIFA10) where you can earn points to pay the wages of a top team, but realistically you'd have to buy the card packs in order to fund having a top team, making a two tier system where you can only compete by spending real money.

    It sucks, but it is the way it is.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by uganson (1173241)

      The problem with EA/DICE right now is the dishonesty they have shown. They made this change without a warning. They did a BattleFunds sale and bundles offers in other equipment in the weeks prior to this change. Many people who spent BFs this weekend on these items have found now that they have to unexpectedly spend more money to use them.

      And they completely continue to miss the point of all the complaining users. They say that the game is still free, and that you can still have fun without paying a penny.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by sopssa (1498795) *

        They say that the game is still free, and that you can still have fun without paying a penny. The point is that they destroyed the very core claim of not giving combat advantage to paying customers, and backstabbed the whole user community in the process. Still, no one in the dev/mods team has actually acknowledged it.

        This is actually fairly common style with Korean MMO's and multiplayer games. It seems to work good there and players like it, so it's not a surprise companies want to try it on western markets too.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by uganson (1173241)

          This is actually fairly common style with Korean MMO's and multiplayer games. It seems to work good there and players like it, so it's not a surprise companies want to try it on western markets too.

          I agree. It is a game model I don't like, so I stay away from those kind of games.

          When I started playing BFH, this was the main selling point for me. It was a very bold claim, but they said it everywhere. It is on the official trailer. It is on the official FAQ (now updated). They said it in several interviews [youtube.com]. Now, I feel cheated.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Just because it's a model that works in other places doesn't mean it's a model that we should be welcoming with open arms. The idea of a 'free' game that you have to pay real money to not get wtfpwnd every time you play is insane. You'll end up paying over the cost of what a 'paid' game would have been just to stay on an even playing field.
          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by Hognoxious (631665)

            At least if it's free you didn't need to invest any up-front money to get started. You can just walk away and they won't get any [more] money from you.

            Maybe if enough people do the same the penny - or the equivalent in BattleBucks - will drop.

          • by dintech (998802)

            you have to pay real money to not get wtfpwnd every time you play

            Kind of like real war then.

        • This is actually fairly common style with Korean MMO's and multiplayer games. It seems to work good there and players like it, so it's not a surprise companies want to try it on western markets too.

          True enough. However, they should make this clear upfront and not change the model after the fact and expect everyone to be happy. Korean MMOs use this model but they tell you this upfront during development. They don't claim it's free and then do a bait and switch after release and it's now micro-payments. The

    • by sopssa (1498795) *

      Well it's not like games industry is completely changing. Even DICE is still mostly making games that are sold the normal way (bad company 2 in a few months!), but I think this is a venture to see if the korean "offer free game, profit from ingame items" works in western countries too.

      It's not really that bad model either, from customer point. You get to see the game without spending anything, so it's even better than just a demo. But the developers obviously have to cover costs and make income somehow, so

      • by icebraining (1313345) on Wednesday December 02, 2009 @08:58AM (#30296178) Homepage

        Sure, but the problems is the flip-flop, not the model they chose.

      • It's actually WORSE than a demo, because when you're playing, you're grouped up with people who have bought the best in-game items with money, while you haven't paid anything. It creates a negative first opinion of the game.
        • by Chyeld (713439) <chyeld&gmail,com> on Wednesday December 02, 2009 @09:44AM (#30296524)

          Actually that's the perfect demo, just not one that is conducive to EA/DICE making alot of money and building a player base.

          To be honest though, I d/led the game over the holiday and gave up trying to play it after about two hours of trying to find a server I could play on.

          Oh, I could get connected to any number of servers, but each one I'd hit had one or two other players and thus was permanently in 'pre-play' phase and would reboot the map every 30-45 seconds when one of the other players would leave and drop us back below the required player limit.

          I understand how people feel, it's like getting invested in a Joss Whedon/FOX project (or really any Sci-Fi FOX show since X-Files). Do you really want to invest your time and emotion towards something that is doomed to be canceled in a year?

          Similarly, people got invested into BF:H thinking it'd live up to it's promises. Now no one 'owes' them anything in the contractual sense, but a good deal of the effort and interest of the player base was only put forward into this game under the understanding that the game would not be changed to a 'pay to play' model. And without that investment, BF:H would never have gotten enough of a player base to even last this long. So pulling a switchero is a betrayal in a real sense, regardless of what's owed to whom.

          However, on the other hand, EA has a similar reputation as FOX does, and anyone who went into this wide-eyed and dreaming of a bold new world where the game was never going to slide this direction either wasn't paying attention or is new enough to the gaming scene that they legitimately own the title n00b. You don't put your faith in EA. They aren't your friends.

    • by Asic Eng (193332)
      Well, depends if you paid for the game or not. If you paid for a game which you thought would be interesting, then the supplier shouldn't change the game so that it becomes boring. If you didn't pay, then there is no obligation of the company to the player.

      However - regardless whether there is an obligation to the players or not, it's a silly move to make the game boring. There is stuff which you can sell which does not interfere with the game itself: e.g. a nicer user interface, character outfits, access

      • by hal2814 (725639) on Wednesday December 02, 2009 @09:31AM (#30296412)

        "Since the player with the most money wins anyway, it would be too boring for me."

        Maybe too boring for you but the Yankees have proven time and again that such a model does work in professional sports.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by vivian (156520)

          "Since the player with the most money wins anyway, it would be too boring for me."

          How is that any different from "the player with the most spare time" wins? If you don't have the free time available to do the massive grind effort needed to get the best gear to be competitive most of the existing online games, it is terribly frustrating - and franky, I dont really want to burn that much of my life playing a game, due to real world commitments, relationships etc. On the other hand, people that have lots of time to burn playing games are less likely to have the ready cash to buy expensive u

        • by Symbha (679466)

          It works, if you are on the Yankees.

    • by elrous0 (869638) *

      where you can only compete by spending real money.

      Well, in that case, they made it more like real-world sports, didn't they?

      • I think the crucial difference there is that in real-world sports extra money only affords you better players. It's not like an underfunded baseball team has to play with a wiffle bat, while a grossly overfunded team gets to use a bazooka to pitch.

  • Relevant (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGmcVUheFa0
    1:09

    • If I heard correctly, matchmaking ensures you only play against people of your own skill level. So if you don't pay for weapon upgrades, you'll either play against others who don't or people who do, but are worse players than you.

      In essence, players are whining because they no longer get their 1337 epix but the actual game doesn't change at all. Their ranking / points / whatever will be lower than that of people who pay, but they will not be playing against those guys.
      • by dtolman (688781)

        This was previously true. They matched by ELO - so all the sucky players would see each other.

        Now you are matched by "experience" (aka amount played), which most likely means you will have a mix of players who are using the default "lame" weapons, and the paying customers using the upgraded "uber" weapons. Guess who does better?

        Not fun.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 02, 2009 @08:03AM (#30295864)

    Pardon my good sense, but isn't the only real response to this for anyone who isn't satisfied to just stop paying them anything at all and go play something else?

    As with any situation where a dev doesn't give the players what they want, the only way to send a message is to stop paying for a sub-par product and go support something that you enjoy.

    • by Registered Coward v2 (447531) on Wednesday December 02, 2009 @08:09AM (#30295894)

      Pardon my good sense, but isn't the only real response to this for anyone who isn't satisfied to just stop paying them anything at all and go play something else?

      As with any situation where a dev doesn't give the players what they want, the only way to send a message is to stop paying for a sub-par product and go support something that you enjoy.

      Exactly. If enough gamers reuse to buy their stuff; they will either change their model or go out of business. As a side note, I wonder what their reaction would be if players in game asked others not to spend real money and to spread the word to do the same? Their own game could be the used to spread a viral protest against the game.

      • by OverlordQ (264228)

        Exactly. If enough gamers reuse to buy their stuff; they will either change their model or go out of business.

        Dont you mean kill off a once profitable and good game developer that they took over?

        • Dont you mean kill off a once profitable and good game developer that they took over?

          Why does that matter to a paying customer? The only criteria is whether or not something is worth the money you paid for it, who gives a stuff if the developer goes out of business?

      • If people find value and want to spend the money, they're going to spend it. Furthermore if nobody else buys the stuff, then it becomes even more attractive for people to buy it. This happens until equilibrium.

        You can't fight markets.

    • by RobVB (1566105)
      In theory, yes. In practice [imageshack.us], a lot of gamers aren't stubborn enough.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by war4peace (1628283)
      Oh, but you forgot the addiction and competitive behavior.
      I've seen this countless times. Duels, OGame, Popmundo, etc., etc. Producer implements pay-for-advantage stuff, players get angry, they yell, grumble, gnash their teeth then silently go ahead and buy the stuff. It's the addiction and the fear of losing the edge that drives them to buy and buy, just like a herd.
      In Ogame, hardcore players organized special alliances to hunt and destroy those who pay for advantages in game. This lasted for a couple mo
    • Pardon my good sense, but isn't the only real response to this for anyone who isn't satisfied to just stop paying them anything at all and go play something else?

      As with any situation where a dev doesn't give the players what they want, the only way to send a message is to stop paying for a sub-par product and go support something that you enjoy.

      Yes, it is. But, good sense and "real" has nothing to do with a lot of complaints in this type of situation, where a largely free service goes paid. Much of it has to do with Customer Nazi Syndrome and the notion that companies are immediately evil for vulgar displays of seeking profit. After all, if one mentions revenue and such, one must be engaged in ripping someone off.

      In a situation such as this, where there is very little comment necessary other than the negative, it might seem as if they are t

    • by harl (84412)

      Yes that's correct. However gamers tend to fall into the bitch but play it anyways crowd.

    • by Symbha (679466)

      Didn't a bunch of folks buy a game, with a stated pricing and gameplay model?
      And then later, EA changed the pricing and gameplay model to something that makes more money?

      Sounds like classic bait and switch to me.
      They probably need to be sued for this one...

  • So stop playing? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 02, 2009 @08:09AM (#30295896)

    You don't have to play. Ok its fun but if its not worth paying to continue that fun move on to something else. Its not like it does anything new or better than the many many other games out there. This is the one time a boycott of a game would actually make a difference, they don't have your money yet so stop playing and a more amenable pricing policy may be worked out if it isnt there are many other choices out there.

  • So? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Opportunist (166417) on Wednesday December 02, 2009 @08:12AM (#30295906)

    Since EA/DICE are the only makers of FPS, we have to buy this game...

    'scuse me, I'll be in Team Fortress 2 if you need me. There I get weapon upgrades for free and they're more fluff and fun than necessary to be competing. Sorry, but paying to be playing competitively is something I'd expect in a F2P game with an ingame store, but not in a game that I buy at full price. No sale.

    • Re:So? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Narpak (961733) on Wednesday December 02, 2009 @08:19AM (#30295926)

      Sorry, but paying to be playing competitively is something I'd expect in a F2P game with an ingame store, but not in a game that I buy at full price. No sale.

      Battlefield Heroes is more like Quake Live; in that you can play the game for free through a web-browser interface. So you don't buy it "at full price" as such. Instead you create a character, log on, and play for free with some ads on the logon pages and such. However by playing, or paying, you get a type of points that you can use on certain types of items and gear; though these are not essential to playing as it is at the moment.

      I believe that previous stated goal was to finance the game through ads and "micropayments"; so I really can't see why this change comes as any great surprise.

      • by Narpak (961733)
        Should have added that the game is in Open Beta at the moment so changes and rebalancing of both price, stats, levels and etc, is and should be expected.
      • How long until there's a monthly subscription that keeps your ping below 700ms?
        • by b1t r0t (216468)

          I think it's technically possible. Just multi-host your servers with different IP addresses going through different providers. Then make the "deadbeats" connect to the IP address that goes through Cogent.

          The client would automatically know which one to connect, and the server can refuse the connection if you try to hack it otherwise.

          • by TheLink (130905)
            Doesn't have to refuse. Just set the latency accordingly.

            You can increase latency on a per IP basis on Linux or *BSD. The gameserver itself could delay stuff.

            I'm not sure how that will increase long term game profitability though. Not even sure if it will significantly increase short term profitability.
    • by teg (97890)

      Sorry, but paying to be playing competitively is something I'd expect in a F2P game with an ingame store, but not in a game that I buy at full price.

      That's exactly what Battlefield Heroes [battlefieldheroes.com] is - it's free to play. Apparently, the revenue wasn't enough so they are adjusting aspect of the game to get more money.

  • You have to admit that he's right about needing to pay wages and such...but they should have been honest from the start. "Bait and switch" comes to mind here.

    I don't play this particular game and I'm very selective about what I do play for reasons such as this. I was leery about my Steam account before all the crap with Modern Warfare 2 and was annoyed that I had to register for Steam when I bought my copy of Portal off a retail shelf a while back. I had to go online, but was able to tweak the settings s

    • by AdmiralXyz (1378985) on Wednesday December 02, 2009 @09:11AM (#30296266)

      Again, though...they need to be honest from the start and not change things suddenly.

      I don't think it's dishonesty so much as, "we thought this model would make money and we were wrong". Find me a business that continues to keep its promises even when it means pouring money down the drain and I'll show you a business with shitty management. It sucks for the players, but if they weren't generating enough revenue, EA sort of has no choice here.

      One other note: I'm seeing a lot of people here and on the forums saying things like, "This is a terrible decision! They'll drive the players away and lose money!", which is kind of silly logic. They were already losing money. They could either stick with the plan that is unprofitable, or they can go with a new plan that might be unprofitable. Sort of a no-brainer.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by HaZardman27 (1521119)

        It sucks for the players, but if they weren't generating enough revenue, EA sort of has no choice here.

        Thank you for using common sense. So many people are getting irritated about a business no longer giving freeloaders the same priority as paying customers. This is ridiculous. You know how Valve keeps all their customers on the same level? Everyone pays to get in. A company that works for free won't be working for very long.

      • by SharpFang (651121)

        Nobody plays empty MMOs.

        The game is not new, so it's unlikely to attract many new players.
        Old players will just abandon it or continue playing free.

        Also, I wonder about aftermarket for items the hardcore players already got. "Not gonna grind another 1000 hours to get X, but I have Y which suddenly costs good $50. So let's sell it to some sucker."

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by dtolman (688781)

        The problem here is that they continue to insist nothing has changed - while it is quite clear that the new business model is completely different. Thats what is so infuriating - the refusal to admit that anything has changed, while the core philosophy of the game is completely different.

        Previously you could only buy "fluff" (emotes, costumes, skins for your weapons) - and they asked you to spend your $$$ to "help the game".

        Now the in-game currency you could earn from play is worthless, no one can afford to

      • by Dunkirk (238653) *

        The only way to get different outfits in the game is to buy them. Nearly everyone but myself seems to do this. I guess they weren't making enough with that approach. Maybe you should need to rent your clothes?

    • by teg (97890)

      "Bait and switch" comes to mind here.

      "Bait and switch" [wikipedia.org] would mean that there are malicious intent behind it. I find it more likely that they tried the revenue model, found that it doesn't provide enough money and are tweaking the game to make it more attractive to send them money. The alternative, eventually, would be to shut it down - or at least put less developer effort and/or servers at it.

      As users haven't invested anything in the product - just played which is supposed to be fun - I don't think "

      • Point taken.

        "Bait and switch" was possibly the wrong term to use.

        Again...I'm on the outside with this game. Do players have to purchase anything to get started playing it? If it's a totally free game, then paying extra for more stuff seems fair to keep the game servers alive. However, if they had to purchase the game and then pay MORE to get fancier stuff on top of the original purchase price (after being told that they wouldn't have to), then that does get close to a "bait and switch", even if they had

        • by dtolman (688781)

          It was free to start, but players were - even last week - told that they could buy (and spend) "Battlefunds", but never to buy in game advantages. So there are many players who spent money on clothing, when they should have saved their $$$s for weaponry. Definitely a bait and switch.

          From their own FAQ (with my updates):

          Quote:Battlefunds can NOT be used to buy yourself a real advantage in the game. I.e. you cannot buy bigger, better weapons with Battlefunds

          OUT OF DATE - weapons c

  • in order to keep a team large enough to make new free content like maps and other game features we need to increase the amount of BF that people buy

    So people have to buy stuff from you to get free content?

    Run that by me again?

    • by shmlco (594907)

      They have a development staff that needs to eat. People don't pay. They don't eat. If they don't eat, they don't develop and expand the game. If the game doesn't expand, people leave.

  • We have wages to pay here in the Heroes team and in order to keep a team large enough to make new free content like maps and other game features we need to increase the amount of BF that people buy.

    By earning more money of some players they will be able to release "free" content?

    Battlefield was a really nice game ... but with Version 2 they have screwed up. DICE released unfinished addons for half the price of a new game (1-2 new maps, 1-2 new weapons). The addon's were bug ridden (more than the origina

  • Forcing those in charge of the troops to spend massive amounts of money-- well beyond initial estimates-- in order to properly arm and care for those troops?

    Sounds like they're getting the "realistic" part into the combat simulators after all.

    (Except for that you can still buy armor)

  • I'd be much more willing to start paying a monthly fee for game access if the company were going bankrupt than to tolerate corruption of the game by allowing externalities like paying real money for game advantage.

    Losing to someone not because you play worse or you have bad luck, but rather because that guy simply outspent you, is just completely demoralizing and I'd abandon any competitive game that allowed this.

    A monthly access fee seems fair and equitable, though. They're providing you a valuable entert

  • I play another EA game that has free components (BattleForge) and I'm always worried that they're going to shut it down because it's not making enough money. There are a lot of Free 2 Play people on and I sometimes wish they were spending just a bit more money since I understand about costs of keeping up servers and releasing new cards (it's a trading card RTS). So I can't blame EA too much for trying to snag a little revenue out of one of their investments. In BF there's a market for trading gold, which is
  • This is some new definition of the term Free Content that I wasn't previously aware of.
  • Once upon a time there was a saying "May the best player win". I think we need to amend that saying to reflect the new corporate model "May the richest player win".
  • Too bad you can't just get a bunch of other noobs together and gang mug some player for his shiny new toys. That would be hilarious to watch play out in a real world courtroom.
  • Battlefield Heroes is a business at the end of the day and for a company like EA who recently laid off 16% of their workforce, we need to keep an eye on the accounts and make sure we are doing our bit for the company.'

    You know, most businesses take a step back to figure out why they had to lay people off. If EA took a moment to figure out that customers don't like it when they get screwed and pirate their games in vengeance, then maybe they'd be doing better. I don't know about you guys, but I'm still sore about the whole DRM thing.

    Sorry, I guess this is a redundant comment for "EA strikes again".

  • by LordZardoz (155141) on Wednesday December 02, 2009 @10:26AM (#30296940)

    Electronic Arts has an internal mandate to have about 15% or more of the games revenue happen from online activities. The top management does not care too much about how this goal is acheived. For some games, this is from premium content (extra levels). Some games get more creative with it.

    Multiplayer FPS games though are in a bit of a bind. The point of such games is to make sure you can play with anyone else who is online. The most popular levels will never be premium content that you had to pay to own. But powerups that anyone can use in any map? Those are something you can try to monetize.

    As a player, I am not convinced that these sort of powerups are the optimal way to monetize that content. There is just too narrow a window for the power and utility of those power ups. If they are really worth paying for, then the rest of the customers become 2nd class players. If they are not very powerful, who the hell would actually buy them?

    If they catch enough blowback on this, they will probably abandon this type of effort and try to come up with a better idea. But everyone knew that this particular kind of fee based content had to be tried at least once, and even 8 years ago, you would probably have guessed that EA would be the first company to actually try to do it.

    I am not really annoyed that they tried this. I just hope it does not become an industry wide trend to let customers buy an advantage against the other players.

    END COMMUNICATION

    • Why don't they just make the items look really cool but give no real advantage? You say people won't buy them, but there are plenty of business models that do exactly that and are quite successful. I think it just is against American culture to do something like this. We like to believe that hard work, time, and effort should be rewarded. Letting only the wealthy compete makes the game undesirable to us (even if that is how it really works in the real world anyways, we like to delude ourselves in to bel
      • by dtolman (688781)

        They did this model and people were buying. Lots of people actually.

        This was a profitable venture. The engine was developed years ago. The paid staff for this game is less than 10 people. Possible closer to half a dozen full time people. So the question isn't about being profitable, but about being MORE profitable.

  • (1) Attract users with free content and paid content.
    (2) Develop a game culture/ecosystem.
    (3) Dump the freeloaders.
    (4) Profit?

    From TFA, you only rent assets? What binds you to the game then? Stupid rank is no big deal once you've already made the max.

  • I downloaded and played this game a bit when I was on the road a couple months ago. The game was so buggy and full of connection issues I didn't play it again. Next we'll hear about them shutting the game down.
  • Users or potential customers who now will not buy the game? EA doesn't care; they already sold all their copies to game stores; they just want to kill the title as fast as possible to shift the Heroes team to other products.
  • Without players (paying and free alike), there won't be enough people in game. Sell the initial game, allow players to set up their own servers and mod content. It worked for Valve.
  • EA just does not get it. If you make the games fun then people will play them and you will make money. When you constantly piss off your Customers they see EA on the box and don't even bother to look if they might want to play the game. I have not bought an EA game in years and instantly move on to the next one if I see EA was anywhere involved with it.
  • Charge for a Client or a Subscription, NEVER BOTH, and not for anything else. One or the other. The occasional expansion is OK.

    i don't play any games that allow player trade or have currency. When i have, i found it to a be dick in the eye when someone would buy what i spent hours earning. i quit WoW the day i had my credit card in hand about to buy gold.

    Howabout this, let's allow football teams to field as many players as they can afford. The teams that try to play honestly will find themselves outnum

  • Game developers are getting away with this because the consumers let them. For every gamer outraged there are two others pouncing on him with criticism. Those others are perfectly comfortable and more than happy to part with their money. They're the sort of people who value entertainment more highly than principles.

    If there were solidarity amongst the gaming public where everyone stood up against this these practices would end overnight. But what do you expect from a segment of the consumer population that

"People should have access to the data which you have about them. There should be a process for them to challenge any inaccuracies." -- Arthur Miller

Working...