I don't really care about the fact that there's a half naked character in the game. What bothers me is that the game developer is actually presenting it as a game feature. Is that what game developers think of us? That we will more than likely buy their games if they add naked chicks to it, that they actually boast about it?

I don't think it's offensive to women, I think it's offensive to gamers.

Anyone knows if Darren Korb is composing music for this as well? Because that's a huge thumbs up for this game if he is, in my opinion.

@adroge1 @Mevrick

Oh sorry, I thought you meant you got all DLC for "another 40$"

@kagento @DarkSaber2k @CCGR_Pheonix

What you say is all nice and well if you don't own Enemy Unknown, but don't tell me you won't feel like an idiot having to pay extra to get a game you already own?

@adroge1

Seriously the dlc for consoles costs 40$? Because it's 12$ on steam for PC.

@schitzonix @Mevrick

I've seen F2P games that allow you to buy high lvl gear(for example), that would otherwise take long to get, or would require some tough fights. But I haven't encountered a game that lets you buy gear which is better than anything that can be gained via gameplay.

If there are games like those, then you are correct - it's a stupid model

@schitzonix @Mevrick

I wouldn't call it pay to win exactly, I'm talking about restricting gameplay like not allowing you to enter certain area or participate in certain events - basically offering you about 60% of the game.

I think F2P games should only charge money for cosmetic\customization options, but not limit gameplay. If you limit a game's gameplay(Like certain abilities or places to explore), then it's not really F2P isn't it? It's more like an extended demo. The Old Republic comes to mind, with a very limiting F2P model which makes it much less enjoyable as a F2P game(Gear is limited, questing areas are limited etc).

There are enough people out there that enjoy the little cosmetics and such to further make their character unique that the F2P model can survive on that alone I believe, that would be very great in my opinion.

@Joutja @Mevrick

An 8 years old knows what death is. He sees it in movies, and even children's cartoons(Like Bambi or Lion King or something like that), he is not as oblivious to something like that as you portray him to be.

He has a good enough idea of what would happen if you point a gun at someone and shoot(enough idea to know it's a bad thing to do anyway).

In the end, if 8 year olds didn't know the difference, you would have seen a LOT more of these cases, since there are probably a lot of children this age who play violent video games. The fact that these cases are a few should indicate that the problem is(mostly) with the kid, and not his activity.

@Joutja @Mevrick @PeejayYeh

I agree that some aspects of morality are learned through your environment, but I believe that something as drastic as randomly killing someone seems naturally immoral to a normal person, regardless of what goes on around him.