@warhawk-geeby Your statement didn't say anything about Skylanders specifically. It was just a general statement implying that all the comapnies are screwing us every way they can. That is an absolute, and absolutes are by their very nature false, as context changes things more often than not. Yes, the content for Skylanders is on the disc. So what? When you purchase the game, you automatically get three figures, and from what I understand that is enough to provide many hours of entertainment. The other figures are a bonus that we can CHOOSE to have if we want. And by the way, when "DLC" is already on the disc, it saves a hell of a lot of hard-drive space, no? Has anybody considered that if we had to download all the stuff they lock on the disc, we'd have run out of free space months ago, and we'd be complaining about THAT? I don't like the practice personally, but it's their right to do it. When your mother tells you that you can come in the house but can't visit the basement or the attic, is it a legitimate gripe to whine about how it's OUR house and we should be able to go where we want? Of course not. The same applies here. It is the property of the developers, and they can lock whatever doors they want. If we don't like it, nobody is keeping us from moving.

@warhawk-geeby Pardon me, but Iraq wanted to get nuclear weapons without us even realizing, correct? Hence why it was justified to invade Iraq, correct? Oh wait...maybe the reason we don't "realize" it is because IT'S NOT ACTUALLY HAPPENING.

@dutchgamer83 (cont) Yes, this is not true for all economic transactions. Necessity items like food and gas are likely to be purchased regardless of price because people need them to get through the day. (They call this "inelastic demand.") But video games are about as necessary a purchase as hair gel. Hence, if we continue to purchase this stuff, we are showing we value it more than the money, and the way to discourage these practices is to start valuing the money more than the product. If we do that, eventually they will stop charging so much. As a final note, I'm not someone who purchases games day one. In fact, I have a fairly strict rule that I will wait for games to hover around $20 before I purchase. That said, I enjoy most of what the industry provides, which puts me at odds with most consumers for some reason. But I'm not going to apologize for enjoying things more than other people. Far as I'm concerned, having low standards is a blessing, not a curse, and the easiest way to make our industry "good" again is for us to learn how to live with less. Lesser graphics, lesser sound quality, and lesser gameplay. If we can find ways to garner enjoyment out of these things, we will be more satisfied. The boy who only enjoys playing baseball is not going to have as much fun as the boy who enjoys baseball, football, soccer, and hockey.

@dutchgamer83 Okay I respect that you have evidence. I still disagree though. The vast majority of stuff I hear gamers complain about in the DLC department is stuff that is unnecessary and we can do without. How long is Arkham City without the on-disc DLC that everyone is complaining they can't access? Still 8-10 hours. How long is Mass Effect 3 without the on-disc DLC? Still 20 hours. Those sound about as complete as any other games that have been released in the last 20 years. If we were talking about TWO hours of gameplay and the rest locked out, THEN we'd have a problem, but that's not the case. I honestly wish people could get some economic perspective on these things. When demand is high for something, the price goes up. It does this because companies want to see how much we value the products over the money. Because that's what a transaction amounts to: you value the product you're purchasing more than the money you purchase it with. By increasing the price, companies try to find out how MUCH we value the products over the money, and when they find the point where we no longer want to purchase, they stop. That coupled with the costs of development is what gives games their prices. The fact we continue to purchase them indicates that WE STILL VALUE THE "HALF-ASSED" GAMES MORE THAN THE MONEY WE PURCHASE THEM WITH. (TBC)

@Darnasian Have you never heard that phrase? The majority of curse words in the English language are 4-letter words like hell, damn, $#!&, etc. Hence, when people continue to act as if an idea or word is somehow evil by nature, we can use the metaphor "It's a four-letter word." Here, everyone acts like a company pursuing profit is something inherently bad. Hence, it is treated like a 4-letter word. My comment was sarcastic and trying to combat that idea. Making money is NOT a bad thing. Not trying to be rude at all. Just clarifying it for you. :)

@Chaos_Dante_456 Are we talking about the same company? The SEGA I know has published most games by Platinum, which have largely been nothing but quality. And it's gotten Sonic back on track with Sonic Colors and Generations. Hell, even Sonic Unleashed wasn't that bad. Not to mention PSO2 around the corner. And contrary to your apparent view of things, Sonic and Sega All Star Racing is regarded as high quality. If people want to leave before the 9th inning is over, they'll miss the amazing comebacks. SEGA isn't doing that bad right now. Yes a few years ago they were screwing up Sonic and putting out some games that dishonored their prior legacy (like Golden Axe: Beast Rider), but that's in the past. Far as I'm concerned, anybody who actually plays the games they make instead of ridiculing them from the sidelines knows that things are different now. But you're entitled to your opinion.

@dutchgamer83 It's a "fact" eh? Got any figures to back that up? Or any examples of only 10% of the content being available other than Spyro? Cause by and large, all I see is small insignificant crap being locked out that gamers want to complain about just because they like to complain. And I'm sorry, but I'm fed up with this extreme characterization of "destroying" our industry. Quality games still get produced regularly and in spite of all the complaining, gamers still praise the hell out of the stuff. You wanna know what would REALLY destroy the industry? Closing down all these giants. Thousands suddenly unemployed, fewer products, and eventually nothing getting released at all. Except of course in the "independent" division, which is guilty of the same garbage people accuse corporations of, particularly imitation. Truth is, people like indie games just because they're hot right now. In a few years, everyone will start saying they are too samey and have ALWAYS sucked, with absolutely no regard to their own hypocrisy. Such is the way with gamers.

Not to mention that it COSTS MONEY to make those figures. Everyone acts like the publisher doesn't incur costs whenever it locks out content or makes something to UNlock it. I'd love to see an actual developer comment on this and PROVE this is the case. It's like complaining that you have to pay more for a 20 oz milkshake than a 10 oz one. If the 20 oz one is too much for you, just buy the 10 oz one! And if you don't like either, take your money somewhere else. But no, gamers are entitled to get EXACTLY what they want anytime they spend any sort of money on a product. Hence why it is "justifiable" to complain that 1% of the content is locked or a difficulty curve is to high or any other BS they feel like pissing and moaning about. If ANY of these gamers actually worked for one of these companies, they'd defend them in a heartbeat, but because they don't, they can act like it's okay to demonize companies that employ thousands of people and keep the economy from collapsing anymore than it has. PERSPECTIVE IS NEEDED.

Yes Mr. Sinclair. As we all know "profit" is a four letter word. After all, everyone is REQUIRED to purchase games that make use of this technology, just like everyone is REQUIRED to purchase games with On-Disc DLC. And given that people usually KNOW about these unfair practices prior to purchase, clearly they are victims...of their own stupidity that is. I fail to see how this technology is any less innovative than the other "innovations" that have been so prevalent in the last few years. How can one argue that regenerating health in FPS games doesn't amount to "maximizing profit" since it makes the games easy enough for almost anyone to play? How can one argue that almost any innovation is not in some way meant to draw in consumers? THAT amounts to maximizing profit, no? (TBC)

@Chaos_Dante_456 Same reason a baseball player doesn't quit playing the game cause s/he misses a home run. You don't give up just because something is hard.