@reincarnator07 @TheOnlyConan @naryanrobinson @juno21 To some extent you are right, but on the other hand, he isn't suggesting that modded Skyrim is the best game visually. I have an OCed GTX 470 and it is able to run heavily modded Skyrim just fine, texture packs and all.

@Joutja Yes. Once a skill reaches 100, you are then refunded that tree's points and the skill is reset to 15 (only numerically, but it is still considered a 100 point skill). You can then either put the perks right back where they were, or spend them somewhere else, but the perks don't remain unless you reallocate them back. Sort of a strange way to allow that skill to still net you XP since once you get to 100 it no longer grants you progress toward the next level when using that skill. It is very odd, and I might not be 100% correct on this, but from what I have read, that is my assumption.

They still need to make some of the uniques improvable. Some are, but it is annoying when you cannot. The shield of Ysgamor for instance is pretty worthless other than the enchantments because even an Orcish large shield has better armor, especially when improved. To me, that is more important than follower equipping something or not.

After playing a game like LA Noire, it is hard to go back to bad lip syncing and zero facial expressions. This would be a welcome addition to all new games.

Saying that this is where the market is heading is ludicrous. If I only offer you one option, of course that is where you have to head in order to be a part of my market. There is not a direction the market is heading, only a market that is being forced on us. I cannot stand it when companies try to make it sound like the majority of people are for something, when in reality, it is the only option. No, this is not where the market is heading, this is the market EA is forcing on us. Lets get that straight.

If people really want to pay for things that are purely cosmetic, or help get through a game easier by avoiding grinding, fine. But the problem with that is, the developers will make it excruciatingly hard to get through the game without being tempted to just pony up some cash. For instance, Diablo 3 has items that drop so rarely, that you either have to be extraordinarily lucky, have LOTS of free time to grind, or you are going to have to pay for it. It is done intentionally to drive sales. THAT is the inherent problem with the microtransaction system. It isn't just a tool that casual players can use to surpass difficulty or time consuming chores, it is also a mechanism that griefs legitimate hardcore gamers out of a fun experience.

EA is acting like it is a good thing for everyone, but the fact of the matter is, it only exists to make them more money than a flat sale price on a game, otherwise they wouldn't do it. They have done their research, and they know that certain people with disposable income (or just those that are super addicted to a game) will spend way more than 60 dollars on in game items. When averaging out what players spend, including those that spend nothing, it comes out to more than 60 dollars. There have been players that spend over 1000 dollars, and in fact one article I read indicated that a player spent 2000 dollars or more. That means that 32 other players could have spent nothing, and that one player bumped the average spent for those 33 players to just a shade over 60 dollars.

It is just a matter of time before our games are like an arcade, and you have to authorize a small withdrawal from your account every few minutes. I used to love the arcades when I was a kid because they had such better games than the Atari and NES. Now, PCs and consoles have made arcades pretty much obsolete, but EA is trying to bring back the quarter pumping idea. I hope that this business strategy falls flat on its face, but unfortunately, there will always be those that spend ludicrous amounts of money, and thereby screw over the average users.

Nine days is a quite generous estimate on the time it takes to die from dehydration. Of course there are lots of factors, but generally speaking, 3-5 days would be more likely. Sure there are those that have survived for up to 2 weeks without water, but 9 days is a better estimate for lack of food than water.

@guitarist1980 @doraemonllh1989 Yeah, I was always on edge durning DS1, but DS2 and 3 were less scary basically because you expect certain things. That is why DS1 will be the best one for the majority of us, even if the next couple got a bit of an upgrade. DS2 was a good game, but it will never top the first one just for that factor alone. DS3 was good too, but I felt like the game kinda dragged on once you got past chapter 10.

@Patchezs Right, but it isn't murder we are talking about here, it is use of the service and game as outlined by them. It is pretty hard to overturn something like that in court because the judge and attorneys will just say, "You didn't have to accept the terms, and could have chosen to not use our service/game if you didn't agree with the EULA."

Think of it like signing a waiver to appear on a dangerous TV show. They aren't forcing you to do it. I am not advocating poor service, but I am just saying that they probably covered all the bases pretty well in the EULA while also taking precautions to not shoot themselves in the foot.

@FlyingAce1016 Unfortunately, they are so loaded that the best thing you can hope for is downsizing and selling off some assets and studios to other publishers. It is almost like hoping that Donald Trump goes bankrupt soon, but he just keeps acquiring new properties. EA is too big a giant to be slain in the near future.