Because MW2 decided to charge $60 for the PC version of their game, and he wanted to spite Activision of their full money's worth.DaxStrife said:I'm impressed by the statement he made, but why $60? If he was upset over the PC version of MW2, why did he pay the console price of $60 when it's usually $50 for PC?
Sales Tax.DaxStrife said:I'm impressed by the statement he made, but why $60? If he was upset over the PC version of MW2, why did he pay the console price of $60 when it's usually $50 for PC?
fixed the quote for the annoyed forum posterThe_root_of_all_evil said:Well, I was going with the "always" part of the quote, but then we could bring in all the Arcade FPSs, Unreal, Turok, and a number of games that have had a far superior single player game than multiplayer.MetallicaRulez0 said:Right, because the first 2 FPS games ever (Wolfenstein and Doom) should negate the fact that the majority of FPS games have been a multiplayer haven for the past 20 years.
That's before we drag up Duke Nukem, Blood, Redneck Rampage, Rise of the Triads, Descent, Star Wars: Dark Forces or Hexen.
Or let's look at Doom 3 or Bioshock. Not renowned for their multiplayer, are they?
You had to buy DLC to get an edge in BC?AceDiamond said:So wait, he sends the money to a company that made games where you had to buy DLC to get an edge (i.e. the first Bad Company) to protest the business choices of Activision/Infinity Ward who are also after your money?
...I don't think he thought this through.
Because their 5 hour long single player would help?Lvl 64 Klutz said:I see this whole controversy as just more proof of the sad, sad fact that multiplayer makes the game these days.
gof22 said:So instead of buy BF BC2 when it comes out for $60.00 he sends DICE $60.00 instead and will pry have to pay another $60.00 when BF: BC2 comes out? I don't think Eddie thought this through that well.