So then stores selling the games should have to card people to verify age before they sell it similar to how they sell alcohol or cigarettes. Back decades ago, anyone could buy those items, until pressure caused rules to be put into place. We're just seeing that pressure now about these kinds of things, where companies prey on underage kids who do have access to their parents accounts or parents that don't know the material they are getting into. It's not just 'parents' fault, and its not just 'retailers' fault, but a bit of both and restrictions need to be put into place at both ends where possible.

I'd rather not, this thread feels like an EA advertisement / boost thread. Since EA hasn't purchased the Boost Thread Package, my fav games list will be locked.

Well, considering the PS4 pro was supposed to be the 4k upgrade of PS4, it's embarrassing.

Wallstreet is calculating the game values incorrect. Who plays the same game 2.5 hours per day 365 days a year?

AAA games are fewer and far between, and when they come out, they should be polished and not riddled with glitches or half assed work (IE: Mass Effect Andromeda). Adding in micro transactions should be done in a manor that makes gamers WANT to buy things, not block things behind a paywall and FORCE gamers to pay to win. In BF2 when a gamer decides not to pay the game becomes an un-fun grind with minimal progression. This takes the fun out of the game and I could understand that in a freemium game but not a full blown $80 game.

The way I see it, MT aren't so bad if they are implemented in a consumer friendly way. They should offer extra content to the game, but not be the game itself. This is where EA messed up, they got greedy, they are now getting their hand slapped because of it, and the stock holders are not happy. That's where crap like this wallstreet guy come up and complain about costs being too low with out of context calculations because their shares have dropped in price.

Except that the game gradually increases in difficulty with those last stack of moons, culminating up to that one last moon that is purposefully a test of your skills. I don't think that's bad design at all. (Now that jump rope moon, that is bad design IMO).

Andromeda as dead, the devs do not support that game anymore. No new patches, updates, DLC, nothing.

SWBF2 had backlash but is still selling, and peeps will continue to buy into it if EA 'says' they are changing things (even though that level of micro transaction is a travesty) so ME:A had the worse year.

It really depends on the kind of money you want to spend. If you have the money, get a PC, because it can be better across the board. If money is tight, then just get an X1X and save the rest for a future PC upgrade.

I didn't buy an xbox so there's no justification needed. Just the facts. You can't argue about "building a PC solely to surpass the xbox" if the PC you priced doesn't turn on or can't be used!

RAM argument? My argument was that system resources are gobbled up by the OS on a PC so you actually have less resources for performance of the game when you compare 1:1 hardware specs. So, I'm not sure what part of that confused you.

I neglected the cost of a monitor for PC and the cost of a TV for console so it's even. No display costs were added, but kb+m, cables, fans, etc, are essential to running a PC and thus the costs must be included.

I don't care about heat and size constraints but tell me how you will install Windows without a keyboard or mouse? The argument of an equivalent PC is false if it's not accurate. And even if a PC can do exel and surf the net, with that PC you still won't get current HD audio formats so it's still inferior from a gaming perspective. I mean, i love my PC and would take it over Xbox any day, but apples to apples, there is no way to buy a PC for $500 that will function and be equivalent to the performance of the X1X.

As for upgrades, in a few years you buy a new more powerful xbox for again $500ish and still can play your older games just fine, but on the PC side you can't upgrade the CPU much without a newer motherboard (and often that means new RAM too), and a better video card will costs half of what the new next gen xbox will cost on it's own. No matter how you look at it, the PC argument is crap and based on your response, I think you know it. A high end PC is the best way, but it will cost you. An equivalent PC will work, but it too will cost you more than the console.

Oh, because it's not required to operate the console, they work just with a controller. The whole "i can buy a pc at this price that is equivalent to xbox" argument doesn't work if you aren't pricing out the same requirements, which is all the pieces needed to have an equally powerful working PC.