I don't, and I imagine most people don't, have a problem with free-to-play games as long as it is done in one of the following two ways. Either the things you purchase have no consequence on the challenge in the game (I think dota 2 does this with skins etc.) or you pay for additional content (levels, maps, etc.) which again don't affect the challenge.

Another thing to consider is that free-to-play is less of a risk than a $60 game. Most game purchases happen in the first week and if it doesn't sell well then publishers lose a lot of money. However, if you release your game free-to-play, and publishers don't spend as much money to start with, then the developer can release additional content the more people buy and play your game and it generates money over a longer period.

The problem obviously is that the game might not be as good as a full release at the start, might be buggy with there being less testing done, and a game, that you might like does not end up getting all the content they promised because not many people downloaded it and bought the additional content (whereas you would have all this content with a full release regardless of how well it has done).

If you're not bothered about her negative comments about the game, then you just add another 1 on the score and it get's a 10. That's it, that's how a review works, if you agree with all the points raised then that's the score, if not adjust in your own head accordingly.

@Dark_Mits Only 1 in 1000 people will play local multiplayer on their PS4? That's an interesting statistic.

If they believe his comments are genuine they must think he is mentally ill so why would they send him to prison for 10 years instead of a psychiatric hospital.

Did this guy review resident evil 6?

I feel he's probably been rather too negative about the game. His main two gripes are unsympathetic characters and combat exploits, but these have featured in plenty of other games (gta4, fallout 3 for example) and these games have scored higher. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating.

@gFog34 to get a fairly decent PC that will run games (from almost scratch) will easily cost $600+, you'll need to get another motherboard, processor, at least 2 gig ram for gaming, graphics cards ($150+ for a decent gaming card), a new hard drive for games that take 11 gig up these days, vista ($50), any other new software you might need (+$) (and buying second hand electronic equipment is a little risky). There's also all the hassle of installing, maintaining a PC and don't forget that your PC, no matter how fancy it is has to run windows (or other OS) in the background (and don't forget windows is a system hog) - but the PS3 and xbox 360 do not have to run an OS in conjunction in the the background. It will still be sometime before the PC cost for gaming is better than PS3 and xbox 360.

Look, there is no winner here, to me the pictures look the same. Plus, do people want there to be a clear winner in the market? do you want microsoft to annihilate the competition? Then microsoft will become the only company in the market and sell its consoles at high prices, no, the best idea is for everyone to buy the consoles (PS3,xbox,wii) in equal measure (hopefully) and appreciate that they are good in their own ways.