Support NeoGAF

[JaggedSac]

I agree with him pretty much 100%.

 

[Gotchaye]

"If you don't like [part of package], don't buy [package]" is a terrible argument when we're talking about games. It only makes sense when there's a competitive market and consumers can go elsewhere and get a substantially similar product without the bits they don't like. But it's hard to find a good substitute for a particular game. People who play lots of games are probably at the point where they've already played everything that even approaches being a good substitute.

People's problem is that microtransactions are a bad thing, yet they're not so bad that they make games not worth buying. So to the extent that the possibility of later DLC causes changes in the design of the base game, it's just straightforwardly about extracting surplus from consumers. Some consumers pay the same amount of money they always have and get less game (this is just a loss). Some consumers pay more and get the same amount of game they always have (transfer from consumers to publishers). This is something all consumers have a right to complain about, even if they hand over money for the DLC.

The claim is that this is "greedy" on the part of the publishers, and emphasizing that the industry is an "industry" isn't helping the industry. The video game industry benefits enormously from the goodwill of consumers; it's probably a mistake to write a lengthy post saying, essentially, "we'll charge more because we know you won't actually stop buying from us".

Edit: It's also worth pointing out that it's a little silly to talk about how games are cheaper now, adjusting for inflation. That's true, but they also have a much bigger market and the marginal cost of production is nearly zero. (Real) US revenues increased about 3x between 2000 and 2010.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

http://dudehugespeaks.tumblr.com/post/44082100724/the-problem-with-sequels

it is literally impossible for someone to dislike gears of war 2 for legitimate reasons, people can only dislike a sequel because they're huge babies

 

[Tucah]

whatever Cliff i'll buy Jazz Jackrabbit 3 even if its by EA

Gears is good and all but this is all I've wanted from Cliffy for years now.

 

[PedroLumpy]

I don't buy the "it's not an upgrade but a side-grade" thing at all. (Which is how I'm reading your reply.)
Having more options available to the player is an upgrade of the players ability.

Flexibility is an advantage. TF2 is far far far FAR from the worst offender on this sort of stuff, but it still is what it is.

 

[CrunchyB]

Maybe I'm being over analytical here, but I find [games as services] to be disturbing. Is the market even asking for games to become a service, or is this what the big companies want to make even bigger profits?

Nah, it's what developers want, in general. More stable income. That's also why everyone started making MMORPGs a while ago. Players get hooked and you can milk them over a longer period.

In the professional software world this is already much more common. Businesses and governments buy software licenses that last years. Through various methods, IT companies try to lock them in. Developers are no longer forced to deliver the best quality product, because very few customers are actually consumers in the classic free market sense.

I'm a software dev myself. I'm not being cynical here, it makes perfect sense from a business point of view. Same with DLC, why wouldn't you sell incremental upgrades for a lot of money if you can?

 

[Arrogant Menace]

I know, it's like it's a shooter and you're supposed to, like, kill people virtually online.

I guess that falls under your problem with sequels posting lol , I will try it out but I hope its more like 1/2 then 3. Something about 3s multiplayer didn't fit right.

 

[see5harp]

Oh... well that sucks. I really liked how things were in Halo 3.

It's really not much different from Halo 3, and honestly the most popular weapon in Gears 3 is still the gnasher. There's a playlist for classic no stopping power lancer/gnasher fights just like there's a playlist for Halo without ordinance drops. In any case, I'll probably rent Gears Judgement just to get an idea of the MP. I thought Gears 3 was a very good product.

 

[Nokterian]

TOO BAD MOTHERFUCKER!

 

[Kitschkraft]

My issue with it is it's poor preservation of games for the future. When these online services shut down (and they will), all of that content will disappear, and there will be no legal means of acquiring it.

Gears skins? Once Live goes down, that content disappears once you have to replace the Xbox (or in other cases, you can't use things since it requires LIVE auth). You won't be able to resign the keys, so your new Xbox won't be able to decrypt it.

Halo? There's a skull in Halo Anniversary that was only available to preorders and first run copies. It wasn't cosmetic - it actually changed how the campaign plays. This will be lost to the sands of time no matter how many discs you buy once Live goes down, because you won't be able to decrypt the software key that allows the game to use it. Meanwhile, we will be able to access 100% of the original Halo 1's content forever.

We're talking about someone who's (former) company had two games legally deleted from existence, I already see what side of game preservation they stand on. And it's not a good one. Microtransactions of actual in game content (cosmetic or not) is going to eventually create a lost history of videogames. Microtransactions should be geared more towards service-based items (buy this to get more EXP, buy this to increase your storage space, etc).

Amirox made a topic about this about a week ago that sort of touched on this.

Regarding DLC...I personally just feel like we've gotten less bang for out buck this gen than last...I feel that DLC is partially a reason for this, and I feel like the industry is heading down a direction where we will eventually be paying for every single thing we do in a game.

Cliffy's "vote with your dollar" argument (And ANY time this argument is used for any subject) means jack to me, because I can't control what everyone else does. I DO vote with my wallet, I don't buy horse armor or extra map packs or skins or avatar clothes or expansion packs. But I'm still going to end up paying for the final level of a game next gen because of what everyone else does.

 

[smik]

Cliffy is going hard

not really,

he is replying to the easy post that get a cheap laugh, not really replying to any of the shady practices
of Disc locked content which Cliff and EPIC Games have been apart of.

GOW3 had a pelthora of disc locked content

Weapon Skins/Character Skins/Multiplayer Maps, and they have all been sold to us, through Microtransactions and "free" DLC

GOWJ is already following this trait, pre fucking releasing.

 

[Madouu]

Sure.

But I will also complain to anyone who will listen.

No reason not to do both. The video game industry is, as you say, simply an industry, that does nothing to diminish my multifaceted abilities as a consumer. They can be out to take all the money they can from me and I can be out to tell them to fuck off both with my wallet and with my pen.

I was about to write pretty much the same thing.

 

[Kusagari]

http://dudehugespeaks.tumblr.com/post/44082100724/the-problem-with-sequels

Link to the articles where you admitted the sawed-off was a mistake.

 

[aliencowz7]

Trying to get hits on your tumblr? Nice try big red

If hit farming was the end goal, the microtransaction post he made getting put up on IGN is probably moving the plan along rather well.

 

[Salsa]

Right, but Valve's still interested in the ideas of games-as-services, which bothers me (yesterday, I picked up Unreal and started playing it again--if it was a game-as-service, would I be able to do that? Of course not. The servers might be down or what have you).

Do you know where an increasingly large portion of television's revenue comes from? Rentals and disc purchases. Not ads, not "television as service," but buy people buying or renting the product as a product.

There was a time when television was a service that people had to subscribe to (if cable/satellite). They'd have to sit there and wait for the show to come on and watch it on its terms. This actually impacted the quality of the shows (because cliffhanger every week!). Netflix has discovered people like to watch a show all in one go--a rather different viewing habit.

Television-as-service removed audience control. Television-as-product has boosted revenue for people. Most of Netflix's income actually comes from people watching television shows online at their convenience.

Developers trying to do games-as-services are basically trying to jam the MMO models onto games where this doesn't necessarily fit. Unlike television, however, they're tying this stuff into services that might not be up in some years.

(sorry if this is disjointed, there are conversations going on around me and it's hard to focus)

Movie money is made through tail sales. Movies don't lose money anymore. It's not possible. Whether through ticket sales, rentals, television viewings, or whatever, movies always make their money back.

Imagine movies that can no longer be watched when the service they're attached to dies.

That's what games are doing to themselves. They're tying themselves to services that may or may not exist in the future. Essentially, game developers and publishers are creating products with expiration dates on them that only appeal to a limited audience pool.

Sure, that pool spends money, but A) they're ignoring the MASSIVE appeal that products with no strings attached have (this is why I believe I'm not a member of a vocal minority--people buy rarely buy individual episodes of a show, because they prefer to buy entire seasons) and B) they're eliminating the ability to make sales in a long tail (console publishing as a whole does this--a System Shock 2 on GoG type situation isn't possible with consoles.

Screw it, I'm too unfocused to keep writing. Hopefully this makes sense.

thing is: the PC as a platform needed to get reworked. Steam brought a lot of attention and basically made publishers/devs look at PC again in terms of getting some major sales.

Even when I dont believe in the "PC gaming was dying" thing, it.. kinda was. To a point. Or at least it was left behind when it comes to how popular it was among developers and publishers willing to spend their money in getting their games out there as much as possible.

Not to mention that the game-as-service works in bringing the games to a much wider audience (as opposed to a disc, no strings attached based format). You could put up your game as a bunch of downloadable files, DRM-free up there online, sure, but Steam's whole thing was how it helped those games gather attention, at the expense of the least-instrusive DRM out there.

what im getting at: I get what you mean and the few issues I have with Steam relate mostly to what you're saying; but it's a sacrifice that im willing to make given the results so far. PC gaming is fucking booming right now, and it's because of the game-as-service model.

 

[LiK]

Sure.

But I will also complain to anyone who will listen.

No reason not to do both. The video game industry is, as you say, simply an industry, that does nothing to diminish my multifaceted abilities as a consumer. They can be out to take all the money they can from me and I can be out to tell them to fuck off both with my wallet and with my pen.

i like this post.

 

[Sentenza]

That was exceedingly uninteresting, all things considered.

"They made things for money, you know"
"The cost of living is very high and caviar doesn't come cheap, neither"

Well, why should we care, exactly?

 

[benny_a]

Flexibility is an advantage. TF2 is far far far FAR from the worst offender on this sort of stuff, but it still is what it is.

Yes. I didn't mean my reply to come off as that it was among the worst offenders. I'm just saying that Valve wasn't the perfect F2P-developers right out of the gate.

It was just in contrast to DOTA2.

DOTA2 can't get enough praise in this industry. It does everything right from a monetization perspective without affecting gameplay one iota.
I'm sure Valve is losing money out of going that way, which is all the more reason to evangelize this game every chance you get.

 

[Emitan]

Do any of you fuckers still actually play games, or do you just hang out here all day long and play digital fantasy football with the industry?

I beat Mega Man X for the first time last night. It was fun.

 

[noobasuar]

I played the hell out of that game during development and I approved of every change that was made.

Well since your here and answering questions....what the hell happened between gears of war and gears of war 2? How much coke did you guys do to change the multiplayer from near perfection to absolute garbage?

 

[DocSeuss]

What was the reality check? He says:



Since when do we equate quality to budget? You can create a great game for much less, but the gaming industry seems obsessed to pretend like it's the film industry by churning out tons of "cinematic", overly hyped and most of the time barely interactive games.

Production quality? In gameplay terms, you're right, but by all other metrics, money's kinda important.

Maybe a crash is indeed what this industry needs. Maybe then we can go back to what really matters and stop spending ridiculous amounts of money on crap.

I'd like to see it happen. Not because I want people to lose their jobs, but because of all the dangers I expressed in my previous post.

This comparison is just absurd. He compares a cosmetic item, that doesn't affect gameplay in any way, for a free-to-play game, to EA's intent of adding microtransactions to full $60 dollar games. Microtransactions that, if Dead Space 3 and Mass Effect 3 are any measure, do affect gameplay in a very real way. And you call this a valid thing?

They're still microtransactions, and they're all bad. Valve, by using behavioral conditioning, is one of the most evil developers in the business.

Not to mention that he really has no right to criticize Valve. At a time when the whole industry was determined to drive PC gaming to the ground, Valve helped it fight back. CliffyB was all too eager to pile on the pressure.

No offense, but that's a logical fallacy. If CliffyB was dissing Valve for the way they treat PC games, you'd have a point, but he isn't. He's talking about the hypocrisy of Valve's fans.

 

[vidcons]

CliffyB needs to think long and hard why Valve's DLC is usually met with a warm reception.

HINT: Its not marketing.

Those who play games will know the answer quite easily and those who play Fantasy Video Game Manager 2013 all day on GAF will not.

because a bunch of weird fuckers got duped into creating their own market value on digital hair accessories and get so wrapped up in branding that they vote a game developer worst company because of the mass effect 3 ending

guess what? SYSTEM SHOCK2. BATTLEFIELD. LOTR: RETURN OF THE KING. CRYSIS. MIRROR'S EDGE. BEJEWELED. BULLETSTORM. BATTLE FOR MIDDLE EARTH 2. STRANGER'S WRATH. ALPHA CENTAURI.

HALF LIFE 2 IS FUCKING TRAHS.

THIS IS MY MELTDOWN

 

[Thug Waffle]

http://dudehugespeaks.tumblr.com/post/44082100724/the-problem-with-sequels

Could you answer my questions and the concerns of others regarding your apparent stance on Pay for Cosmetic Items = Pay to Win? Why are those the "same thing?"

I believe that winning is part of the fun in competitive games. I believe that allowing rich kids and adults to pay for better equipment alienates the less wealthy players and severely diminishes their potential to have enjoyable experiences with the game.

Everyone looking cooler because they're rich is not as damaging to the lower-income player as everyone being superior players/competitors solely because they paid extra money.

 

[spindoctor]

I sometimes wonder why the industry doesn't look to Valve (who have 2 supremely successful microtransaction based products) for lessons on how to deal with microtransactions.

It's because doing right by their community is pretty high up on their priority list, right next to making money. They never let these things affect the game design. Their microtransactions involve letting players wear funny looking hats in their games. If they sell weapons, they give players 3 more options to acquire those same weapons without paying for them. TF2 launched with 6 maps in 2007 and today it has 50 official maps with many new game modes, and all this was added for free. Over the years, the game has had over 250 patches which add features and balance. They support mods and custom servers for all their games, they share profits with map makers and content creators, they engage their community with tournaments and ingame events. This is why they have communities for their games 10 years after they released. They don't abandon their games after 2 patches and start working on the sequel.

Cliff, if you're wondering why gamers consider them Good Guy Valve, this is the reason.

 

[Hermii]

So Cliff, you are saying GAF is the vocal minority ?

Who knew ?

*sarcasm

 

[Dance Inferno]

Microtransactions that, if Dead Space 3 and Mass Effect 3 are any measure, do affect gameplay in a very real way.

If you're talking about the multiplayer microtransactions then I personally think that's one of the best ways to handle them - the people who buy those items subsidize free DLC that keeps the non-paying customers playing, who then keep the playerbase high, which keeps the paying customers playing and buying items. I don't see the problem with this.

 

[ThaGuy]

Im getting a real kick out of this thread lol. I wonder what Cliff thinks about the 720/Ps4/Wii U?

 

[CliffyB]

not really,

he is replying to the easy post that get a cheap laugh, not really replying to any of the shady practices
of Disc locked content which Cliff and EPIC Games have been apart of.

GOW3 had a pelthora of disc locked content

Weapon Skins/Character Skins/Multiplayer Maps, and they have all been sold to us, through Microtransactions and "free" DLC

GOWJ is already following this trait, pre fucking releasing.

You should read your End User License Agreement next time.

 

[vidcons]

GAMES SUCK. FUCK YOU GABE. TAKE MY... NOTHING. HAHAHA, FUCKING OWNED YOU SICK MAGGOT

}/\SLIPKNOT/\{

 

[la flama blanca]

Do any of you fuckers still actually play games, or do you just hang out here all day long and play digital fantasy football with the industry?

I'm beating my fucking dick right now, get on my level.

 

[Salsa]

cliffy you gave vidcons a stroke I hope you're happy

 

[alexandros]

I especially liked this part of Cliffy's post:

I used to be offended by Gamestop’s business practices

But why, Cliff? After all, making money and running a business is not inherently evil. It creates jobs and growth and puts food on the table. This country was built on entrepreneurship.

If you don’t like Gamestop, don’t sell your games through them. If you don’t like their business practices, don’t help them make money. It’s that simple. Gamestop has many smart people working for them and they wouldn’t attempt these things if they didn’t work. Turns out, they do. I assure you there are teams of analysts studying the numbers behind publisher behavior over there that are studying how you, the developer, distributes his games.

Why are you offended then? Oh I see, because it's not some anonymous mass of consumers that has to pay the price, it's you and your company. Funny how that changes things.

 

[dave is ok]

If EA released a AAA quality game for free, but loaded it with microtransactions (what Valve is doing with Dota 2/what Riot does with LoL/what Blizzard presumably is doing with Blizzard All Stars) - people wouldn't hate them for it. They would lavish praise upon them just the same as they do those other companies.

People just hate the $60 PLUS microtransactions shit.

 

[CliffyB]

Production quality? In gameplay terms, you're right, but by all other metrics, money's kinda important.



I'd like to see it happen. Not because I want people to lose their jobs, but because of all the dangers I expressed in my previous post.




They're still microtransactions, and they're all bad. Valve, by using behavioral conditioning, is one of the most evil developers in the business.



No offense, but that's a logical fallacy. If CliffyB was dissing Valve for the way they treat PC games, you'd have a point, but he isn't. He's talking about the hypocrisy of Valve's fans.

You're confusing "evil" with "fucking brilliant businessmen." And I wasn't dissing Valve, thanks for the support there. I'm a big fan.

 

[PedroLumpy]

Yes. I didn't mean my reply to come off as that it was among the worst offenders. I'm just saying that Valve wasn't the perfect F2P-developers right out of the gate.

It was just in contrast to DOTA2.

DOTA2 can't get enough praise in this industry. It does everything right from a monetization perspective without affecting gameplay one iota.
I'm sure Valve is losing money out of going that way, which is all the more reason to evangelize this game every chance you get.

Absolutely I completely agree.

TF2 just does so much other stuff right, I feel bad whenever I make that complaint.

 

[orznge]

Guy Who Produces Games For Corporations Weighs In On What Consumers Have The Right To Complain About

 

[MegaKungFuRadio]

Changed my mind. I'm not touching this.

 

[nckillthegrimace]

The B stand for "big business booster."

 

[Zeouterlimits]

You should read your End User License Agreement next time.

You (the royal you) should try to make a digestible version of it and present it in a manner that encourages people to read it when you know 99.9% of people won't.

 

[Tawney Bomb]

I agree with him. Sometimes people overreact to the smallest things.

 

[Norse360]

I laugh at people that don't want to hear what Cliffy B says and still enters a thread named "Cliffy B says..."

I've yet not played a game where I've felt the need to make some micotransactions, and I play a ton of EA games. If someone wants to pay for a shortcut or a hat, be my guest. I don't care as long as I can finish a game without micotransactions. If you don't like microtransactions you should stay far away from iOS games, that's microtransaction heaven (or hell).

Is paying for a Team Fortress hat any better than paying for a shortcut in Dead Space 3? In my world no. The shortcuts in DS3 at least would give me something of value IMHO.

 

[civilstrife]

They need to eat and feed their families. (Something that the hipster/boomerang kid generation seems to forget all too often.)

Hey Cliffy,

Fuck you.

Signed,
Everyone coming out of school since 2008.

 

[Mithos]

They're still microtransactions, and they're all bad. Valve, by using behavioral conditioning, is one of the most evil developers in the business.

I looked up the list of DLC/microstransactions for Dead SPace 3, I only found 1 possibly 2 in the list I'd consider "microtransactions" everything else was $3-$10 (and thas't not "micro")

If you're talking about the multiplayer microtransactions then I personally think that's one of the best ways to handle them - the people who buy those items subsidize free DLC that keeps the non-paying customers playing, who then keep the playerbase high, which keeps the paying customers playing and buying items. I don't see the problem with this.

I hate that multiplayer has an effect on my singleplayer though for ME3.

 

[Tain]

CliffyB calling arcade games coin munchers. :[

I mean, in a sense he is right (a harder game will take more cash to both learn and credit feed), but I hate the term because it suggests that most arcade games are somehow "unfair" when many are anything but.

oh yeah, DLC. DLC is exactly as reasonable as the results.

 

[Kade]

GAMES SUCK. FUCK YOU GABE. TAKE MY... NOTHING. HAHAHA, FUCKING OWNED YOU SICK MAGGOT

}/SLIPKNOT/{

I think you need to relax, vidcons. Gabe is not here.

 

[Scrabble]

Didn't Jim Sterling already refute this "they are a business" argument in a very recent Jimquisition?

yes and I encourage you guys to watch it. The notion "their a business and need to make a profit to be able to have food to eat" is not only bullshit, but as a consumer we have every right to voice our complaints, and obviously a company like valve must be doing something right to have garnered such well interest. Obviously company's need to make profit, but it's up to the company's to facilitate ways of making profit that benefit the consumer as well, that's what makes a business a good business.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

http://dudehugespeaks.tumblr.com/post/44082100724/the-problem-with-sequels

I am unsure of the argument here.

You're coming at this solely from the perspective of a creator and seeing a Funzo issue here: people want something new but also want more of the same. Sure, fine. I can see how that is totally valid and frustrating when you are the person reading criticism of your work.

But it's overly general. There are many sequels that do what the previous game did, but better, while also making it feel fresh. The two first Mario sequels are almost classroom-worthy study of this. SMB2j was, for all intents and purposes, an expansion pack. Even after the game got demystified and there was no longer any hushed whispers about the supposed Lost Levels, the game is not held in nearly as much reverence as Mario 1 or, my other example, Mario 3.

Fundamentally, Mario 3 is the same as the previous game, but so is Mario 2j. The difference is that Mario 3 was bursting with creativity, changing what felt old to make it fresh. The early Mario games were about jumping - you jump to reach things, you jump to attack, you jump to defend, you jump to aim your shots, you jump to explore. Mario 3 pushed that by allowing limited flight and Mario World pushed that by allowing more air control. They challenged the bases of the previous games and produced better sequels because of that.

The point I'm getting to is this: the conflicting goals of sequels do not create the conundrum you are positing they do, at least not inherently. It is more than possible, which is to say, it has already been accomplished before, to use a sequel to bring fresh new ideas that still play off the original's ideas without feeling bogged down by them.

It is a tall order, that is for sure. But if I'm being asked to spend a non-trifling amount of money on it, I am going to be critical about whether that goal was achieved to my satisfaction.

 

[DocSeuss]

thing is: the PC as a platform needed to get reworked. Steam brought a lot of attention and basically made publishers/devs look at PC again in terms of getting some major sales.

Even when I dont believe in the "PC gaming was dying" thing, it.. kinda was. To a point. Or at least it was left behind when it comes to how popular it was among developers and publishers willing to spend their money in getting their games out there as much as possible.

Not to mention that the game-as-service works in bringing the games to a much wider audience (as opposed to a disc, no strings attached based format). You could put up your game as a bunch of downloadable files, DRM-free up there online, sure, but Steam's whole thing was how it helped those games gather attention, at the expense of the least-instrusive DRM out there.

what im getting at: I get what you mean and the few issues I have with Steam relate mostly to what you're saying; but it's a sacrifice that im willing to make given the results so far. PC gaming is fucking booming right now, and it's because of the game-as-service model.

Steam as service is not games as service. Steam is like Netflix, and that's fine.

I'm talking about online-only, always-connected games. I'm talking about gutting single-player elements and focusing on multiplayer. Valve's suggested they may stop doing SP-only games in the future, and always include some element of MP in everything they do (heh. Nobody got nearly as angry about this as they did when EA said it).

SimCity is a game-as-service. World of Warcraft is a game-as-service. Team Fortress 2 is a game-as-service.

We still need discrete games. I don't need to let everyone know that I just beat a level of Tropico 4, for instance (and it's neat to note that Haemimont removed the Facebook/Twitter functionality for Omerta).

yes and I encourage you guys to watch it. The notion "their a business and need to make a profit to be able to have food to eat" is not only bullshit, but as a consumer we have every right to voice our complaints, and obviously a company like valve must be doing something right to have garnered such well interest. Obviously company's need to make profit, but it's up to the company's to facilitate ways of making profit that benefit the consumer as well, that's what makes a business a good business.

They have hired a psychologist to make sure that your brain is emitting dopamine at the right amounts (Jon Blow may sound pretentious at times, but his talk on this is spot on) for you to enjoy their games.

I am not sure I'd say that it's obvious they're something right. People are just jonesing for another hit. Valve's seen as a benevolent dealer who gives the hits for free.

 

[vasametropolis]

Cliff's a champ and I always thought he was one of the most easy devs to relate too. I hope he understands that many of us do not inherently loathe everything about microtransactions. Personally, my major concern is that certain publishers will not implement them wisely and the actual design of the game will suffer a tremendous blow to the point the game becomes worthless.

Riccitello was once recorded suggesting that gamers be charged a dollar every time they wanted to reload in Battlefield. While I don't think even he's crazy enough to follow through with that (and it might have even just been a sadistic brainstorm), having that kind of person as the head of the publisher is eye-rolling at best. It's a poor attitude and would actually decrease the value of the product, instead of increasing it as probably intended.

Our doubt comes from the almost undeniable fact that more publishers will fail miserably implementing this than those that succeed.

Edit: Also, single-player experiences will almost definitely continue to suffer from microtransactions. If not directly, it will be the result of a shoe-horned multiplayer attempt.

 

[Dance Inferno]

yes and I encourage you guys to watch it. The notion "their a business and need to make a profit to be able to have food to eat" is not only bullshit, but as a consumer we have every right to voice our complaints, and obviously a company like valve must be doing something right to have garnered such well interest. Obviously company's need to make profit, but it's up to the company's to facilitate ways of making profit that benefit the consumer as well, that's what makes a business a good business.

Uhh, if the microtransaction doesn't "benefit" you then don't buy it. No one is sticking a gun to your head.