>>23163527>why should I accept shit that was not part of games before companies decided to add it for the sole purpose of wringing more money out of people?Arcades existed before home consoles and not a soul had a problem because it taught you moderation, your argument is invalid.
>reread the statement>protip: consider the aspect of challenge vs frustrationSo a detrimental feature isn't a detrimental feature if it goes against your point?
What about the people that poured time into Oblivion only to have their saves destroyed by that glitch that has yet to be fixed, that I know of, in this age of patches?
Of course not, you only care about a wait time that's optional and won't affect you if you're a functioning human or have other games to play.
>and I most likely never will because I don't play intentionally defective gamesHumor me what games HAVE you played? I guarantee that they're defective as games in more ways than one.
Of course you can't complain about it, it doesn't affect you at all.
If you choose not to play it? Fine don't play it.
If you choose to play it? There you go you're playing the game.
If you choose to pay for it? Fine that's your choice.
There's literally no reason to get mad that isn't a slippery slope argument.
>it should not exist in the first placeIt's always existed in this industry either you accept it or do something about it yourself rather than complain on the internet.
>they're also a test runIt's not, they're just used to advertise full games which is why they're so similar to ones already out and still available rather than totally new games.
Also this is what I'm saying about the slippery slope arguments.
