Tell Us Dammit: Is There Any Game You Won't Buy For Non-Gaming Reasons?

This one goes beyond the normal, "My spouse hates how much time it takes". For some, an actor's verbal gaffe can put them off watching any movie or show they take part in. A company's practices or policies could turn people off its products forever. It's hard to be a good citizen in the digital world these days, but what do you avoid for non-gaming reasons?

While keeping track of everything that's in or out of the ethical zone is tough, there's also no lack of games vying for your time. Even if you only consider the good ones, you won't have enough time to play them all.

The fact that you're reading this now implies the use of tungsten, tin, or gold. Nobody is perfect - we all just choose the issues we want to champion - and this post is only a curious prod, not a judgemental probe. I could give several examples but don't want to limit thinking. I'll keep it vague because I'm genuinely curious.

This question arose out of an office conversation about the latest FIFA scandal, in which we were wondering if the brand is, in fact, untouchable. One sex scandal was enough for Tiger Woods to quietly recede, but FIFA is not one person. If Sepp Blatter were caught in a brothel tomorrow (let's be honest, that could totally happen), I wouldn't put money on any sponsorships being pulled.

In our realm, what would it take for FIFA to become EA Football? What's the bet that tomorrow's FIFA 16 reveal is just business as usual? We're all football fans, and we let the blowhards at the top play their silly politics because we just want to watch football. Though, to be fair, while Tiger Woods' scandal was his own personal business, in the world of FIFA, vast amounts of money are being wasted. People are dying:

Maybe we should embrace it, and just have the next FIFA include a Manager Mode in charge of FIFA itself? Sepp would be a great boss battle.

The football world aside, is there anything you avoid for reasons other than it just not being your gaming cup o' tea?

Photo: PaddyPower


Comments

    I refuse to play "Pepsiman" because I like Coke.

      I didn't even know this existed. I would refuse to play that on a whole lot of grounds, not just because I prefer Coke =P

    I don't think I need to support games that go overboard to license real-world firearms, e.g. the last Medal of Honor game that cross promoted with gun magazines.

    FWIW, apparently EA has discontinued that sort of gun fetishism since then.

    Call of Duty. Ever since they started paying war criminals to publicise Black Ops 2, I haven't been able to respect the studio, publisher or the players of that series.

      There was that game about the guy who ran Blackwater too.

      Absolutely. Those games always had a pretty creepy agenda, but actually hiring Oliver North ... nope. Not paying to support that.

    Fez, because Phil Fish is a sanctimonious douchebag and I can't bring myself to give him money. I don't really care if it's a great game or not, I just can't reward his ego and his tantrums with my money.

      I got it free off PS+, so all good :P

        Well, not really, you still paid for the subscription and you don't get to keep the game when that expires.

          Actually you do get to keep the games you've downloaded after the subscription expires, you just don't get access to games after..

      I got around this with one of the humble bundles and 100% to charity option.

      While I agree the Phil Fish is a massive dick, you still should take time to play Fez, as it is amazing.

      I bought the game but Phil Fish certainly lost any future sales when he threw his big hissy fit - even if he hadn't quit game development. I haven't finished Fez yet or even played it to any great extent, I kind of never went back after encounting some bugginess early on.

      It's funny, I stopped watching Marcus Beer because he was a bully to Phil Fish! I note he is no longer on GT so it's possible a fair proportion of his audience felt the same way!

        I don't know Marcus Beer, but bullying isn't something that should be accepted, whether it's Fish that does it, or Beer, or anyone else. On the other hand, I think rational criticism is fair play, and many of Fish's actions (and maybe Beer's too) are certainly worth of criticism.

          He was some ex-PR rep who had an op-ed show on GameTrailers "Annpyed Gamer" his attack on Fish was straight out of the Kyle Sandilands playbook

      Fish reacted terribly to relatively minor comments and criticisms, but I feel there was something else at play. In Indie Game: The Movie he seemed kind of unstable and very insecure, I felt a bit sorry for him to be honest, and he was under a lot of pressure (although of course a lot of that was self-imposed and there have been many other devs to have undertaken similar workloads and handled them significantly better than Fish, Tom Francis of Gunpoint for example). He definitely didn't need to react the way he did which was undeniably stupid, but none-the-less, I feel like he had a few issues that exacerbated his reaction.

        You're thinking mental illness or something along those lines?

          Yeah, he exhibits a lot of signs in that doco/ film that I've seen quite a few times.

        Totally agree. He's definitely been quick to react, and in a big way, but... audiences in the gaming community are extremely quick to judge too. It's not an easy environment for someone who is dealing with any anxieties or possibly depression.

        Also I think having your personal details like bank accounts and such posted for the world to see isn't exactly a small thing, as some people put it.

    I would never buy or play a game like Hatred (if it ever even comes out) because I cannot condone profiteering from sheer vitriol and malevolence.

    I dont buy Ubisoft games any more because they cant be trusted and their CEO is giant fucktard. I also havent brought anything from EA in long time either. and the only games that i buy from activison now are blizzards games. Last activision game i brought was prototype 2 (note i found it to be a good fun game)

    2kgames is very close to being added to that list as well because of blatant price gouging tactics.
    I will also point out that i also wont even pirate games made by those publishers either because it just gives them more reason to not change their ways. yes they loose out on some cash, but they know that they can still get away with their practices because they know they still have their hooks in deep

      But if you don't pirate the game you just make it look like people aren't interested in that developers game and they just fire the developers and go on their merry way.

        That's a pretty specious reason to pirate a game

          You could have put in a bit more effort on which part of what I said was wrong.

          The only other option is to complain when a company sets out to screw their own customers but then you get just as many people coming out and saying "Dont like it, dont buy it" and the cycle continues as you watch the hobby you adore get slowly crushed.

          What do you suggest?

          Last edited 28/05/15 2:21 pm

            Because pirating isn't going to be a huge factor on to whether a developer is supported?

            Pirating a major release is much, much more likely to get major companies looking into how they can stop piracy, through DRM or otherwise, rather than whether they should commission a sequel to a pirated game or re-comission developers to do another game. I'd say you're better off waiting until games are cheaper, in a steam sale or humble store or whatever, and buying them then if you really want to send a message about a game, rather than pirating it on release.

            The message of piracy isn't "we like these guys/this game but don't like you, publisher, nyer nyer nyer" if you pirate, your message is "I am stealing this game nyer nyer nyer"

              I had a think about this over lunch and I think that I agree with you.

              Also I think that it would have been more effective in a time when there was a good game that was wrapped in some sort of obstructive layer like uPlay where as these days they don't have the outer layer, they build all the awful stuff right into the game so taking off the DRM doesn't really help you.

                I think we've actually seen some of the big players walk back their DRM schemes anyway- you hear less and less about people getting locked out of content, and stuff like GFWL has bitten the dust.

                Now, if your problem is with the way games themselves are built, then you'd be better off just not playing, but that's a taste thing.

                  I was very happy to see GFWL die, uPlay would be the next one id like to see go.

                  I got a free copy of Far Cry 4 with my video card and I still felt cheated by the time I had finished setting up uPlay.

              The message of piracy isn't "we like these guys/this game but don't like you, publisher, nyer nyer nyer" if you pirate, your message is "I am stealing this game nyer nyer nyer"
              No it's not. This is where publishers, pundits, distributors, content-creators/rights-holders make their biggest mistakes in how they respond to piracy: in jumping to exactly that incorrect conclusion. Fortunately, not all of them do, and manage to find more insightful meaning. You have savvy ones who listen to piracy as something other than assuming it's a message saying, "I am stealing this, nyer nyer," and instead hear different messages. Messages like, "The price is too high," or, "Accessibility is poor," or, "Localization isn't good enough." And lo and behold, they hear these messages and they change something and then they notice a different result in their piracy rates! Amazing! It's almost as if the message WASN'T just that they're stealing for the sake of stealing!

              Anyone who reduces piracy-as-protest to simply assuming that it's theft never learned a god damn thing about statistics or willingly decided to ignore what they learned for the sake of their personal politics. Basic stats: the fact of piracy doesn't show motive... it shows that it happens. It shows demand. That's it.
              If less-savvy publishers then actually hear pirates explaining their motivations and choose to re-interpret it as 'I'm jut going to steal because I can', then that's a very special kind of bull-headed desire to cling to their precious philosophy.

                But that's what we've seen- companies will double down on DRM long before anything else. Now we've seen bettr localisation and globalisation of game sales, whether it's Steam in Russia or launching in more languages, but a pirated copy of a game is still a datapoint- heavily pirating something doesn't magically make publishers go "Oh, lets give dev team x more stuff." it says "Oh, game x didn't sell well and is being pirated, lets cut our losses"

                  I completely disagree. People don't see pirating as a sign to run away, cut their losses and get out. Never have. They see dollar signs that 'should be theirs'. And they try to get it. Sometimes they try it a consumer-friendly way, sometimes they don't. But outside a handful of insignificantly small players, they don't cut their losses.

                  Fears about doubling-down on DRM might've been prescient ten years ago when that's exactly what started happening, culminating in Ubi's 'always online single-player' no lipstick on the pig DRM at its zenith (or nadir, depending how you look at it), around 2010. But that didn't work. It was a colossal failure. The shift is away from that, now. "Games as a service" (which conveniently requires or strongly encourages an online connection). And that's got so many other benefits (to publishers, not consumers) tangled up in it that it's the next point of exploration. They're feeling their way around it.

                  Film and TV are way behind the curve on this one, aiming to try get governments to serve in a legislation-and-enforcement-as-DRM role, which is preposterous and will be abandoned in probably another 5 years once the futility of it and the failure of the status quo shifting sinks in.

                  But no sane person in business sees datapoints of massive demand as a reason to cut and run. No-one.

        This is Ubisoft though - they have kinda pulled bait-and-switch tricks and spoken out against decent brackets of their customer base to push them to piracy, and then use it to justify pulling support or messing with more dysfunctional DRM!

        I may not be a fan of 2K's pricing policies, but I just find good discounts because some of their devs really deserve the support... Ubi on the other hand I think needs to let some studios go so they can head to Kickstarter and pitch solid spiritual successors to what they're good at - like what's happened with some of the Japanese studios, rather than keep getting bogged down by Ubi's internal issues.

    Okay okay, a real answer.

    I don't because where do I stop?
    Where do I draw the line?

    Buying physical games is helping support the use of petro chemical foulness & slowly strangling the planet.

    Going all digital helps support this backward thinking that large corporations can revoke shit you played good money for.

    Ps4 not being backward compatible & Sony reselling the same games that have barely been on my shelf a few years through that despicable streaming service sends a very clear message that Sony want to control purchases.
    this seeds a future where than can be no small business, because everything I buy must come straight from the source, no middle man.
    Which of course leads to bigger prilofit & more control for them.

    All this before you consider the fact that as we move away from hard copies of things we are having to rely more & more on electricity. Who profits from that? Not the average Joe.

    You can try and boycott the odd thing in the name of ...I dunno, whatever.

    It's a losing battle, you can't afford to take on corporate giants, they do what they want.

    So indulge yourself, buy the physical copy, chomp down on your corporate logo covered burger & buy another iPhone.
    this shit is just getting worse.

      TL:DR- I'd rather be happy than bring myself down worrying about things I can't change.

      Two age old addages in a single post eh jimu =p The "I'm too small to make a difference" and the "taking a stance eventually makes you a hypocrite".

      I would respond to the first by saying that if enough people reacted then change can happen; however enough people can only react if a single person is willing to.

      With regards to drawing moral boundaries; I think it comes down to the strength of your conviction. For example I refuse to support Village Roadshow and boycott the movies every chance I get; but would I risk missing out on the next Avengers because they're the Aussie distributor? No. Seems hypocritical for sure but I'm not perfect and the stance I want to take against an organization I don't believe isn't going to be perfect either. But as long as it does some damage I'm happy. A capitalist democracy means the only way we can vote is with our wallets.

        But so few do vote with their wallets & as new generations get spending money they won't support you because they don't know of a time when things were different.
        all you would accomplish is making your life harder/ more boring.

        Corporate wins again.

          That's only working under the assumption you don't have a size-able wallet =P

          I guess I can only counter with another age ol addage - Silence is compliance, if people do nothing to change things they don't agree with they have no place disagreeing. I'd like to think humanity's somewhat better than just rolling over for the sake of comfort and convenience. That said I could also be completely delusional believing that =P

          Edit: And you're right new generations will forget to vote with their wallets but only if the older generations stop educating them. They'll trip up make mistakes and the generations that precede them will learn the hard way.

          Last edited 28/05/15 12:16 pm

            Not buying is close enough to silence without backing it up somehow.

            Who knows what they'll think ruined sales if nobodies being the squeaky wheel.

              That's a bit of a stretch isn't it? Financially supporting an ideal/organization vs not supporting it is the same thing?

              And voicing your opinion I think comes down to how big an impact the boycott in question is likely to have or how much it matters to the person; e.g. a few dollars vs a few hundred. Like how I boycott financially predatory F2P games, these are dime a dozen and I'm not about to tell these companies why I'm not playing.

              And giving some thought to your initial moral quandary about where to draw a line; you're right you couldn't concievably boycott everything you didnt agree with. However if every person picked 3 concepts/ideals important to them and stood by those ideals financially I think it would make a difference and not likely to cause as large an inconvenience.

                I don't mean it's morally the same, I mean the outcome is the same.

                  The outcome being I take my business elsewhere? Financially the outcomes are very different. Morally as well. If you're asking if it will do anything to inspire change well that depends purely on the volume of financial/social pain it causes. For example I know that Destiny's devs have been keeping their ears to the ground to hone in on the reasons they're bleeding players. Cause enough financial pain and the companies in question starting chasing the reasons they're losing customers. Cause no financial pain because of convenience or because people feel it makes no difference and then it really makes no difference.

                  You're stating that inaction and action are the same thing effectively; just because a drop in a lake doesn't create a ripple large enough doesn't make the drop or said ripple any less significant.

                  @pupp3tmast3r

                  Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Except I believe losing a few sales to the minority isn't making change.

        Also, fooling no one Puppet master, stop pulling my strings! :p

      tl;dr: Can't fix everything therefore don't try to improve anything.

    Anything in the same vein as That Dragon, Cancer.

    Don't get me wrong, the man behind that game deserves a medal for the backbone it needs to put such a theme into the interactive medium.

    Games like that are just too close to home for me so I simply applaud from afar.

    There are numerous indie developers I won't buy the games of because they tend to have attitudes and egos that rub me the wrong way. Also, excessive or unnecessary use of sex, violence or profanity will instantly rule a game out for me (It's a personal tolerance scale based on what I can agree with, not what makes me squeamish). It usually tends to be Eastern developed games that trigger the "erotica" tolerance and Western games that trigger the violence and profanity tolerances.

    Last edited 28/05/15 12:01 pm

    My boycott of the phantom pain upset people, haha

      Why'd you boycott it, out of curiosity? I can't really see a legitimate reason why people should be pissy about someone choosing not to buy a game.

        Well, from what we've seen, there is a torture scene, though I expect Kojima to be a bit more nuanced in how it actually plays out.

    Not really. I don't think I really care about most things unless they affect me directly, and that translates across to games too. I refuse to buy digitally distributed games mostly because of paranoia and distrust, especially on consoles. And mostly thanks to a 3DS bricking incident that showed the eggs-in-one-basket case for what it really was. I make an exception for Humble Bundle stuff, since I can just jump on the site and buy the games and don't need an account (go away I don't want to create yet another account with yet another password just to play your stupid game) and the installers are all piled up there ready to be used again whenever. I picked up Blood Dragon because I found that there was a crack you can use to play it without Uplay. And hunted down a PC copy of Mirror's Edge because it predated Origin so just worked straight off the disk. That Hitman Collection when it was going cheap at EB didn't have any mention of Steam requirements, so that was a go :P

    That's pretty much the limit of it for me. If it needlessly relies on outside services then it can go jump, I'll just not play it. I don't really care what people do or say, if their game's good then that's irrelevant (not a direct response to ZombieJesus, although I do quite love Fez and have never gotten the hate for Phil Fish).

    Edit: Oh yeah and fuck "remasters". I'm not paying you lazy shits to play the exact same game I've already been through. If I want to do that again it's right there on my shelf. If you're going to remake a game, do it properly like Metroid Zero Mission did.

    Last edited 28/05/15 12:07 pm

      I think Phil Fish hate is overdone. And Fez was fucking great.

        Did you figure out the black monolith room? I don't think I ever ended up getting it. Might've been the last thing I had left to do, and I didn't really want to look up the answer for it.

      Upvote for the remasters comment =P

        @mrtaco

        Personally I'm down with remasters. There's been a number of times where I was able to play a game I originally missed & when they do them on handehelds I'm quite happy to replay old classics on the crapper.

        I feel like people dislike them because of the perspective they're coming from. Maybe that product just isn't *for* you.

        Last edited 28/05/15 12:59 pm

          (I had a smily face in there that autocorrect ruined)

          The main thing that bothers me is when they don't really add anything to it. For me, the Wind Waker remake looked worse than the original (like smearing vaseline all over the screen, stupid ugly bloom) and the Majora one just recently? UGH. That could have been a gorgeous Wii U remake that was really something special, but instead was a slapdash fart onto a 3DS cart that also managed to look worse than the original and change a bunch of other things for the worse too.

            Yeah, I loved MM 3D, nothing slapdash about it. I played it back in the day but never bought my own copy so I was first in line.

            WW I didn't play because I chose PS4 over wii u.

          I'm not fussed if the remaster actually serves a decent purpose, like when GTA only released on last gen consoles I waited for the re-release on current-gen.

          The problem is companies use the sales from remasters as an excuse to just re-release anything and everything, hoping to cash in twice for the same cow. While there are situations where it makes sense; but the broader trend has been moving towards lazy remakes cashing in on people's nostalgia or sentiment.

            I've only seen a few really bad remastered. Silent Hill 2&3 were ruined & Prince of Persia is as buggy as shit.

            That said, I only played attention to the games that interest me.

              Autocorrect fucking loves me today

            Yeah similarly I got Tomb Raider and Dark Souls II because I waited.

          I completely agree. I do get annoyed when they're a bit half assed, but being able to replay Metal Gear Solid Peace Walker on a console with proper networking and party chat was a godsend, and I'm always down for replaying MGS3 (and occasionally MGS2). I grabbed the Devil May Cry collection because my last PS2 died years ago and I never got to play DMC2 (kinda wish I hadn't now, but I still had DMC1 and 3 to smash through). I never would've gotten the chance to play a legitimate copy of Symphony of the Night without the re-release on 360, and now I'm a massive Castlevania convert. I'd rebuy Street Fighter 3 Third Strike on every platform ever if it showed Capcom that they should take some cues from it for their next Street Fighter game.

          There are certainly remasters/re-releases that I won't touch out of a lack of desire to play them (I enjoyed God of War 1 and 2, and thought 3 was okay, but I don't really have a desire to replay them, for example), and some I'll try to avoid because I don't want to support shitty ports (I really wish I hadn't grabbed Master Chief Collection in good faith, for example) but in general, not every re-release is supposed to be for me, and that's all good.

      I'm generally like that with remasters, but there's one I'd jump at in a heartbeat if it came up, I'm ashamed to admit.

      The Mass Effect trilogy remastered so I could play on my PS4, especially if it was with all DLC included. In a heartbeat.

        Since I don't believe in DLC I'm all about waiting for the GOTY edition. IE the complete game :P

        That's another one actually. If a game is announced to have a whole bunch of extra stuff coming then I just won't bother with it, I'll wait til they release the full thing. And then if they never do? Well, I've forgotten about it by then so who cares.

      I don't understand the remaster hate. No one forces you to buy them. Releasing a remaster doesn't stop your old version from working.

      They're just a way for new audiences to get in to the game, or for old fans to relive the experience with a new lick of paint.

      And if they make money for developers so they can afford to bring out new IPs, then I'm all for it.

    I have a problem with the "good guys" using "enhanced interrogation techniques" in video games, movies and life generally. Bad guys can do what they want........cause they are bad......

      That bit in GTA V killed my enthusiasm for it.

        It wasn't exactly pro-torture. Based on the scene they probably just killed some random guy from the intel. It felt more like they were trying to make a political point against torture and use the emotion from the player's involvement to make it more impactful, although they obviously didn't nail it.

          I just didn't need it to be a) so graphic, b) unavoidable, or c) delivered with the tone it was delivered. GTA has always had a "ooh, snarky satire dark humour" thing going, but all you were doing was interactively terrorising some poor bloke while the game was mugging to the camera and saying "aint america and violence bad, kids? Now goo shoot some fools"

    Anything Ubisoft cause their games have been shit since PoP and they're a bunch of dishonest, cash hungry scumbags who sell broken games hyped up with false footage and information. I'd rather give Activision money for CoD.

    Call of Duty, Simply because i have no interest whatsoever to play it really, Plus all the fanboyism saying it is the greatest thing since slice bread (although this has died down a LOT).

    Up until AC3 i stopped buying overly violent games due to my kids but now i just play them when they are not around. This could be the reason i dislike COD so much as i never played it when it was massive.

    I refuse to use certain teams in sports games if i know they have a dodgy player or some dubious legal issues in the past.

    Last edited 28/05/15 12:24 pm

    I don't eat Wheet-Bix or Drink So Good while playing games because they are made by Sanitarium which is owned by a church (Seventh day aventist I think), and due to that reason don't pay company tax.
    That seems like a stretch that the tax exemptions provided to religious groups also extends to a commercialised product that they produce.

    From a game standpoint, I'd just like my console of choice to actually be supported in order to be able support the developers/publishers, indie or otherwise, in return. So by default I kind of have to boycott a lot of games because they don't provide a means for me to be able to play it on the Wii-U.

      *mumble grumble Capcom something or other*

      Yeah, I really wish this wasn't the case, because Sanitarium makes some really great stuff - especially as a vegetarian.

      We switched to Vita Brits in our house for the exact same reason. Game-wise, I bought Child of Light not realising I needed UPlay and I didn't install it for months in protest. I gave in just the other day. It's a decent game... But UPlay...

      Last edited 28/05/15 10:42 pm

    When on-disc DLC was still a new thing i avoided those games. But these days it's harder to find times when that's not the case. So i pretty much buy whatever i like.

    Duke Nukem Forever... and I'm not even sure why. Saw it for $2, still thought to myself "could be cheaper".

    Its not just because its shit, I've got (and played) some real class acts like Colonial Marines, Ride to Hell: Retribution and countless unfinished and abandoned indie titles.

    Been anti Ubisoft for along time, for most reasons already stated by others above.

    Battlefield games have also lost me.. I was a diehard bfbc2 player and jumped at bf3 only to be let down severely. BF4 i bought hoping they'd turned the franchise around.. *rolls eyes*
    Fool me once, fool me twice ......

    Cancelled my Witcher 3 CE when they announced platform exclusive content (physical Gwent decks).

    Don't touch anything by Gearbox any more since the sheer disdain they showed for their customers by pushing Aliens Colon Marines out the door and lying about it.
    If Randy Pitchford publicly apologised for expecting consumers to literally pay for their mistakes, then sure, maybe I'd get back on board.

    For a long time, if the product was a Steam key, I'd sigh and move on. I like to have copies of my games. Freakin' love GOG. I've cracked in the last year or so.

    I won't play FIFA 15 because it's not as good a game as PES 2015.

    I have a pretty strong moral code.

    I don't buy any Arkham games. I played & loved Arkham City until one day it just wouldn't launch after an update. Emailed WB, told them my system specs (I was playing on mac full disclosure) that were more than adequate to run the game, and then waited like a week for them to respond. The guy who emailed back asked me to go to a folder and delete a file which I did - didn't help. Emailed him, waited another week for a response, he told me he'd pass me to his manager, waited two weeks for his manager to email me, and when he did he asked me for my system specs again. I told him, waited another 2 weeks, and then - a month and a half after my initial email detailing my system specs - he told me they don't do customer support for mac and that I'd have to take it up with Feral (who did the port).

    That's not an unreasonable policy, but them f*cking me around when in EVERY SINGLE EMAIL it said I was playing on mac was ridiculous. I was pretty pissed off, cause after 6 weeks of waiting my game still wasn't working and they had been completely unhelpful and unresponsive the entire time so I asked them what they were gonna do about it - anything from them talking to Feral on my behalf or giving me a free dlc or just AN APOLOGY. Literally anything at all to try and redeem their terrible customer service. And the response I got was "If you have any other issues we're happy to help, otherwise have a good day".

    Since then I've never played an Arkham Game or bought one. I was so happy when Arkham Origins got shitty reviews.

      I bought the first on Steam and it never worked - thanks for reminding me to chase them up for a refund!

    Sounds like an endorsement on multiple levels. Winning respect from gammas said no one ever.

    Didn't buy Mass Effect 3 because I don't want to use origin. If a physical copy would work without origin maybe I'd buy it, if it were available on steam, I'd buy it, but I refuse to use an inferior service to the service I have now grown accustomed to. Also I'm not the biggest fan of the way EA tends to do business, but then again who is?

Join the discussion!