Rumor: Microsoft Looking to Acquire Electronic Arts, Valve, PUBG Corp

A new rumor is making the rounds that claims tech giant Microsoft is looking to acquire Electronic Arts, and possibly other large gaming-focused companies.

The rumor (via Polygon) cites a “reliable source close to Microsoft” that claims the massive company is eyeing up wholly acquiring Electronic Arts, a bid to help bolster their lack of Xbox exclusives in comparison to the glut of exclusive titles hitting Sony and Nintendo’s platforms.

What’s more, the rumor claims there are “whispers” of Microsoft also looking to acquire the equally massive and profitable Valve Corporation, as well as PUBG Corp, the developer behind the stupidly popular PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds. 

While purchasing Electronic Arts seems ridiculous and impossible, Microsoft has lots of money and they’re not afraid to throw around billions, let alone tens of billions in the case of EA. Back in 2014 they acquired Mojang and their wildly popular sandbox game Minecraft for $2.5 billion without batting an eyelash. They also have a thing for buying up tech companies to own their services.

For now, most of Microsoft’s exclusives are coming from their own Microsoft Studios or their second party developers for games like State of Decay 2, Crackdown 3, Sea of Thieves, and possible new entries for franchises like HaloForza, and Gears of War. Considering how much cash they have in the bank (reportedly over $100 billion), buying EA would be a smaller investment.

As this is a rumor, please take this with a grain of salt – previous rumors like Microsoft buying up chips manufacturer Advanced Micro Devices back in 2015. What do you think of Microsoft buying up EA? Valve? Sound off in the comments below!

Brandon Orselli

About

Big Papa Overlord at Niche Gamer. Italian. Dad. Outlaw fighting for a better game industry. I also write about music, food, & beer. Also an IT guy.

  • Croowe

    Good luck with buying Valve. Gabe already said that he’d rather see his company burn.

  • iswear12

    Do you think Gaben cares anything about his company or his ideals? He’s about the money, the paid mods push twice over should’ve told you that. He’s just a convenient “PC Master race give me your wallets for I give you glorious sales, ignore our flaws” guy, he’s Valve’s Reggie at this point

  • iswear12

    Microsoft, Tencent and EA all end up in this goopy mess of absolute cancer
    I just hope they all end up collapsing each other with the negative, evil energy such collaborations and interactions would bring out, fuck every single one of them, I sort of hope this is true just so that the implosion can begin

  • Mr0303

    So they’ll buy companies that either don’t make games or produce trash. This may not be the optimal solution for the lack of exclusives. Why not put that money into first party studios who can develop game engines that specifically cater to the XBone?

  • tetrisdork

    EA – too insane. The equivalent of Disney buying most of 21st Century Fox. It’s possible that they could buy a studio/IP or two from them, and Phil Spencer is at least more human than every single EA executive. But even I think it is too stupid of a move and be all of our worst case scenarios.

    Valve – On the plus side, the Windows Store would be more user-friendly. And Steam could most likely still exist on other platforms if you look at how they have handled Minecraft. On the negative,Microsoft will own Steam. Whether they buy Valve or not, Half-Life 3 will still never come out.

    Bluehole/PUBG – most likely and a purchase that won’t be at when they bought Minecraft, so PlayerUnknown will have to settle for being a multi-millionaire. PUBG screams like a title Microsoft could eventually own outright.

  • bgrunge

    Steam would start to require a subscription fee like Xbox Live- ugh. What a nightmare scenario.

  • OldPalpy

    Polytrash article reads like a PR fluff piece, sure it throws in some negative bits but the shilliness of bits like this is undeniable “All this brings us back to the potential for an acquisition that might
    give Microsoft a pool of development talent, some great new IP and
    potentially, big new games ready at hand for release on Xbox One”. MS gave them $750,000 when Polycuck was making a documentary about itself.

  • Arenegeth

    Given that this rumor is ‘via Polygon’ and their “reliable source close to Microsoft” I call poppycock on this.

    But beyond that, I don’t think EA or Valve is for sale. I mean Microsoft can buy them, but I don’t think successful companies, that are literally at the top of their field (EA as a AAA Publisher and Valve as the master of the digital marketplace) would be up for sale, well Valve is still private I think, and is more likely but still improbable.

    And if Microsoft wants to have more exclusives, maybe, just maybe they should try investing in actually developing some? That was their problem from the start, they just rest their laurels on Halo, as if it was going to bring in the money eternally (nothing does).

    So yeah, until something concrete comes out about this, I don’t believe Polygon’s bullshit.

  • Ithaca TrenchGun

    Microsoft buying EA would kind of make sense because it means that they can pearl harbor Sony a tiny bit by making FIFA, Battlefield, and whatever the hell else EA makes nowadays exclusive to PC and Xbone. It could also be an easy out for EA’s PR from then on because Microsoft could trot out the “New Management!” argument whenever someone asks about microtransactions in future EA games.

  • InfectedAI

    No it wouldn’t. People would riot. GOG would gain a lot of new users. Not to mention they tried that already with GFWL and it failed miserably.

  • grgspunk

    Microsoft, please oust the fuck out of EA, but don’t you dare touch Valve.

  • JohnnyCageFan2

    I agree with Brown… Bluehole being the most likely one of the lot. Maybe the EA thing is a red herring and it’s only to catch Ubisoft unawares after this Vivendi issue.

  • JohnnyCageFan2

    DO IT. JUST. FUCKING. DO. IT.

  • Eldhin Shichiou

    I don’t think Gaben will ever sell Steam to Microsoft

  • Matz

    My god, when two evil forces unite, the only good thing that would come from a Microsoft x EA thing is that EA’s trash wont be contaminating Playstation and Nintendo shelves in retailers, heck, we might not even be seeing anything EA related thanks to Xbox Game Pass making some retailers angry that they’re starting to remove all Xbox products from their stores

    Bad news for Sony, it’s thanks to FIFA that the PS4 it’s so strong in Europe, Microsoft will make that FIFA and all EA Sports games become Xbox exclusives and the lack of sports game will damage the PS4 sales everywhere

  • Marc Duarte

    I’d definitely be one of them, considering that I’ve currently got 70+ games in my Steam Library.

  • Matz

    I don’t know, there’s a lot of people that praises Valve like it’s the second coming of Jesuschrist, they might start defending Valve’s decision of asking money for online services

  • epobirs

    PUBG is believable in that it’s a fairly small operation revolving around a small IP set.

    EA is publicly traded and has tons of IP but they’ve also done terrible damage to many of those IPs in recent times. It would give Microsoft a lot of console exclusives but many of dubious value. EA’s market valuation has taken a big hit recently but it would still take well over $20 Billion for a straight buyout. Seems like it would be far cheaper to find a bunch of new studios from scratch. A single $Billion could generate a lot of new exclusive IP.

    Valve doesn’t seem likely for numerous reasons. Private and likes it that way. Somewhat hostile to Microsoft. If the acquisition included Steam there would likely be anti-trusters screaming bloody murder. Unless there has been a dramatic attitude change by the principals in the company, I can’t imagine how this would work without an exodus that would take a major portion of the company’s value with it.

  • Wikas12

    PUBG seems believable, but I doubt they would spend this much money to purchase EA or Valve.

  • Uuurgghh… Hope they don’t touch Valve, I wouldn’t want that Steam became part of Microsoft or their Marketplace, that would mean they can force rating on all the products on sale, ESRB, PEGI, Japan CERO, Ausfailia OFLC, Germany USK, forcing even more censorship and less niche games.

    If we already have a hard time dealing with censorship on our weeb games, imagine more pressure from moral groups, feminazis and SJW trash.

  • [Your Unoriginal Name Here]™

    >Polygon
    >A “reliable source close to Microsoft”

    Yeah I wont believe any of this especially coming from Polytrash. So they’re trying to buying a company that makes no games, can only count up to 2 but gains a ton of profit whereas the other one use terrible business practices to fuck over gamers?? I can maybe see PUBG going to MS, I could case less about that buggy mess, Fortnite’s the way but perhaps the better solution than doing all this is to, oh IDK, maybe to put all of that money into making new studios to develop new IP?! MS just stop, if you want games so badly, hire new talents, form a new studio and stop relying on just Halo, Gears and Forza.

  • Uncle Ocelot

    Other than PUBG, which is only a matter of time imo, I don’t see this happening.

  • RichardGristle

    Lack of Maddenbros and FIFAchavs would definitely fuck up PS4 sales even further. But every single year since as far back as I can remember, Microsoft was going to “buy out _____ company!” so, meh.

  • Envy-Noson

    Buying EA is the equivalent of drinking poison.

  • EroBotan

    don’t underestimates normies, they will still buy things from microsoft like crazy

  • EroBotan

    i really hope that the japanese start their own global online store someday.

  • No_Good_Names_Ever

    Wasn’t there a rumor about Vivendi and Activision eyeing EA? Valve seems like too dangerous a game to bother with but PUBG wouldn’t be surprising.

  • s_fnx

    I think the thought of Microsoft buying Valve is a PC gamer’s worst nightmare.

  • Casey

    Microsoft fucking wishes they could buy Valve. They can’t.

  • Casey

    Even if that’s true, there’s no way he’d sell the golden goose rather than take it to the slaughterhouse.

  • iswear12

    What?

  • Lea Pastillaroja

    lord gaven ain’t gonna let go of his chicken of the golden eggs without a fight
    M$ will have to prey it from his cold fat dead fingers
    as for EA, i can see this happening, they’ve been on the mouse shitlist because of the Star Wars shitstorm and with the sports guys having a shitstorm of their own with all that kneeling down during the national anthem shit i can see them as polar bears on meltin ice
    that said, if M$ want’s exclusives i doubt they could do worst than EA’s leftovers
    all this said, i don’t believe a single word that comes outta Polygon

  • PaRaLLaXTHeTiCS

    I just read “Polygon” and thought, “FUCK YOU!”.

  • Tubsiwub

    Holy cow. Wouldn’t this be a good thing since EA is the worst?

    Edit: I was blindsighted by ‘EA’ in the title. No way is Valve for sale.

  • Tubsiwub

    He’s making money by doing little to nothing with Valve. Cashing out would be a one-time payment that ends his near-infinite stream of money.

  • UnpluggedBeta

    buying valve would be a sign of the end times. Everyone, pay close attention to GabeN’s health in the coming months and assume any “suicide” is a hostile takeover play.

  • UnpluggedBeta

    anti-trusters can scream all they want, but this isn’t the 90’s anymore. Google has basically had a free hand in dominating entire markets in ways that “trust-busted” 90’s microsoft could have only dreamed of.

  • UnpluggedBeta

    it’s lovecraftian in how much of a dark terror it is for us; nightmare doesn’t even begin to describe it. Remember GFWL? It was only as user friendly as it was thanks to Valve’s competition; imagine its ressurection disguised as steam “feature enhancements.”

  • UnpluggedBeta

    Exactly, which is why we need to treat any sudden turn of bad health or suicide on his part as microsoft pursuing “aggressive negotiations.”

  • iswear12

    Ah.
    That’s true, though if the payment is big enough (and I’m sure he’d work out a deal or something for him to continue getting *some* stream of income from it) he’d be willing to cave I’m sure, and rest assured Microsoft has that level of cash.

  • Zombie_Barioth

    It wouldn’t, Microsoft’s own services don’t even require it. That was already a thing that they settled back when the cross-buy/play stuff was announced, which people freaked out over, mainly upset PC gamers don’t have to pay. They know it wouldn’t fly on PC.

    The main reason it even works on consoles is Microsoft started that shit back when online gaming (on consoles) was relatively new, so there was little precedence for it.

  • Zombie_Barioth

    Buying PUBG Corp. makes sense, and word has gotten around enough that even Micheal Pachter is privy to it and has brought it up on his show, so that one’s got a bit of credence to it.

    The others sound more like a what-if, and funny enough I’m pretty sure they were questions on Pachter’s show (buying Valve definitely was), which he shot down as possibilities.

    Even if Microsoft wanted to, its unlikely Gabe or anyone else with a stake in Valve would agree to it. EA has no reason to, they have it too good, but its very possible they’re working out agreements for a few exclusive projects.

    Reminds me of how Disney was supposedly looking to buy Nintendo.

  • SLoWMoTIoN🥑

    Im still surprised so many pc gamers bought a beta game. PUBG is a joke.

  • boag

    The only one with enough money to entice gaben would be disney

  • Joe

    Way to go millennial generation, too obsessed with LGBTQ++2=3×4 to notice that giant corporations have gained near monopoly control over large swaths of the economy.

  • Some furf

    My wife’s son’s father works for Windows and he told me they’re already making Steam a core component of Win 11.

    – Polygon

  • V900

    Because Microsoft has such a splendid track record when it comes to spending obscene amounts of cash, to buy their way out of a problem.

    Remember when they bought Nokia for 7 billion dollars, only to quit cellphones completely a year later?

  • LazyBoy

    If MS buys Valve, Steam would get worse and worse after each update. I bet if this happen Sony will be glad to sell more Playstations.

  • bgrunge

    You underestimate the install base. I’ve got multiple thousands invested in my Steam account by this point- I wouldn’t really have a choice. It would be cheaper to pay a subscription than to try and buy all those games over again. That’s why it’s such a disturbing scenario- effectively, many people would be stuck.

  • bgrunge

    Microsoft basically forced their Win 7 users to upgrade to Win 10 unless you actually went in and disabled updates for like 5 months. They still re-enable all their spy monitoring stuff with every update, making you disable it again and again. You think they honestly give a shit about customer service? They only compromised before because Steam was the competition. If they own the competition they will make Comcast seem benevolent.

  • PChandler

    Is nichegamer censoring posts/users now? My comments here, on this story, are not appearing at all.

  • PChandler

    New Steam (renamed Xbox Live) requirements after Microsoft’s acquisition:

    Windows 13
    Microsoft account
    Paid subscription to play online
    Paid Lync/365 subscription to be able to message friends

    https://youtu.be/kExkrDuMlC8

  • iswear12

    Pretty sure Microsoft has more money though

  • ProxyDoug

    Phil Spencer is out though.

  • tetrisdork

    Nope. He is still “Executive VP of Gaming” at MS and a top exec. Matt Booty, formerly of Mojang, only took over as head of Microsoft Studios, which Phil was running before and after he became the top Xbox guy.

  • Shattno

    What if (although highly unlikely) they buy Valve and let users play (some of) their steam games on the xbox?

  • InfectedAI

    Wouldn’t happen. They wouldn’t try anything as crazy as holding years of purchases hostage behind a subscription. If they were dumb enough to it would turn into one of the biggest lawsuits in gaming history with the odds very much stacked against them.

  • Eli Wintercross

    Yeah, then they will make steam windows exclusive.

  • Shattno

    That’s probably the plan, yeah.

  • ProfessorFluffy

    I can imagine MS looking into all the options possible. Since MS went into this console generation all high and mighty off the 360’s success, they never managed to catch back up to Sony.

    With the Switch being a success, Sony doesn’t have the console dominance they had prior, since many games that would have been Sony console exclusives are being ported to the Switch. As a result Sony is likely going to try to improve itself to outdo Nintendo and vice versa, (unless Sony sabotages themselves again by having their PS3 launch mentality again). With this, the Xbox will become even more irrelevant if MS doesn’t try something.

    Although people might dislike the thought of it, all of these predictions seem possible. Since EA is more about their shareholders than ‘game as art’ now, if the sale is beneficial to them, they’d likely be all in.

    Even the Value idea might not be too far off. People may have forget or not known, but Gabe is linked to MS. His fortune originated from the share he had in MS since he was an early employee there. If Gabe had any interest in selling Valve, aside from the cash he’d get for selling the company, it would be very beneficial for him if he still holds a lot of stock in MS. That said, I’d think it would be more likely MS would try to acquire their IP rather than Steam. Outside of Valve licensing out their IP, most of their titles haven’t seen new entries in ten years. If MS were to get a hold of them and release a Left 4 Dead 3 or a Half Life 3 on their console, people would be jizzing themselves.

  • ProxyDoug

    Oh I see, thanks for clarifying

  • RockstarRepublic

    Paid mod marketplaces were a good idea, it benefited content makers more than it did the publisher. There are a lot of great artist and scripters out there who would get more involved in user generated content creation if they could afford to do so…

  • iswear12

    Thanks for posting this, I haven’t had a chance to mock people like you in a while
    https://webmshare.com/play/Zj0L0

  • RockstarRepublic

    Mockery and ridicule are not an argument, rather they are often used to avoid a proper one.

    Content creators need to make a living, and there are a ton of them out there who simply choose not to pursue content creation due there being no solid market place for such content.

    A lot of work goes into making new assets, some of the software we use (yes I include myself in this) cost well over $1500 per license. So if you want to incentivize content creation, especially from professionals (many who are game devs) who work on the side, then offering some kind of revenue stream is critical.

    User generated content that has some monetary value is a win win for everyone, the games developer, the publisher, the user and the content creators. Only fools seem to think this a bad idea. You can whine about how a market place is poorly executed, but you cannot legitimately make an argument against paid user generated content.

    If you simply believe they cannot do well, then let the marketplace sort that out. No one would buy and thus no revenue stream will support its continued existence… however I feel like you do not feel confident enough to allow such a free exchange.

    Try again.

  • iswear12

    Alright m8, you wanna have a proper go at this? I’d be fine to.

    >Mockery and ridicule are not an argument, rather they are often used to avoid a proper one.

    They are not inherently an argument, but in my case I’m more using them to mock an already destroyed one with a video showcasing the embarrassing effects and consequences of the last time this idea was implemented.

    >Content creators need to make a living

    This premise alone is faulty. Not all content creators want to make a living making mods off skyrim. Nearly all content creation up to this point have been works of passion made for free. I’m sure *some* people would *like* to be monetarily compensated for their work, sure, but if people are discouraged from contributing content purely because they can’t make money off it, I’d argue that their passion for it doesn’t come from the right place, and I and many others would not want their sanitized, cold piece of “work” in the first place.

    >So if you want to incentivize content creation, especially from
    professionals (many who are game devs) who work on the side, then
    offering some kind of revenue stream is critical.

    My latter point goes against this. It would create incentives, yes. It would be a boon to creators who are both passionate, but would also like money for the work they create. In an ideal world I might consider “paid mods” to be acceptable if the quality and effort that went into it is sufficient. But as it is, monetary incentives, especially from authorities like Valve and Bethesda can only invite trouble, especially with the cliques, favoritism, scams and other bullshit they are known for.

    >User generated content that has some monetary value is a win win for
    everyone, the games developer, the publisher, the user and the content
    creators. Only fools seem to think this a bad idea. You can whine about
    how a market place is poorly executed, but you cannot legitimately make
    an argument against paid user generated content.

    It is not a win for the user. A new cost has been added where there was none before. It is mainly a win for the publisher and the developer, especially in Valve’s case, or did you not see the portion of the webM where it stated the percentage that the content creator received for his work?
    Bethesda getting money for people fixing, improving and outright making their game better and *they* get the money from it while they pay out a pittance to the people who worked hard to create it? Its clear who profits from that relationship.
    Paid user generated content is not *inherently* bad. I never stated that and I won’t argue against it, but I can argue against what *has* happened in the past *twice* when valve attempted to set a precedent for it and failed miserably. Scams were everywhere. Ripoffs were everywhere. Low-effort content was flooding in to attempt to make a quick buck (that ironically, Valve and Bethesda took most of anyways). High effort content that was free made the scam mods look laughable, and those were *not* made with monetary compensation in mind.

    The marketplace *did* sort that out, and guess what? Users spoke out *overwhelmingly* against it both times that valve and bethesda tried to push it. Maybe in some free market paid mods could work, if the companies did not have as much power and take as much revenue as Bethesda and Valve did, but for the foreseeable future I don’t see it in the works. There’s no Itch.io for paid mods.

  • RockstarRepublic

    “I’m more using them to mock an already destroyed one”

    Not destroyed at all, rather that is simply your confirmation bias. You do not like to spend money on things you feel entitled to for free. That is not destroying anything, but merely fulfilling your own personal projected prophecy.

    You can attack the implantation of a market place, but not the fact OPTIONAL content is being sold. It is insane to suggest otherwise. Are you choosing to be insane?

    “Not all content creators want to make a living making mods off skyrim.
    Nearly all content creation up to this point have been works of passion
    made for free.”

    Not all content creators want to work for free, not all content creators create content without the incentives to do so (especially game developers with their free time).

    By your very own logic, or attempt at it, you ignore the fact that some will want to put in more work for some financial return, some could even make it their full or part time job.

    You also INTENTIONALLY ignore that content provided at a price is OPTIONAL. The same ones you claim want to do it for free, STILL CAN.
    Who is stopping them? No one. Just people like you who demand they only do stuff for free… because you feel entitled to it.

    You must really hate the free market.

    “but if people are discouraged from contributing content purely because
    they can’t make money off it, I’d argue that their passion for it
    doesn’t come from the right place, and I and many others would not want
    their sanitized, cold piece of “work” in the first place.”
    ” It would create incentives, yes. It would be a boon to creators who are
    both passionate, but would also like money for the work they create. In
    an ideal world I might consider “paid mods” to be acceptable if the
    quality and effort that went into it is sufficient.”

    So which is it? You seem to only care about “passion”? which is absurd. It is subjective. You can get just as much passion from doing something you get returns on, or can live off of, than you can when doing so on your free time with no expectations at all. Its a nonsensical word to use, its mere projection with no objective basis.

    Not being able to bring in some revenue is not the same as being discouraged. If X causes an incentive, that does not mean a lack of X creates discouragement. If I could live off of making paid mods, that would be an incentive as it would say adhere to what I want to do. If I have to do another job and barely have time to create content for free, that is not discouraging me from doing so as much as its just not feasable or other areas deserve my time. Its going to boil down to time management + real world scenarios. If you empower a content creator via revenue (which is what we need to live in most places) and time = money (value) therefore you simply create incentives for more of what you value.

    In short, you both claim its discouraging to not obtain financial revenue for their work while also admitting that sure, it creates incentives but some how its still bad. You then project your own assumption that the content is some how “stale” because finances are involved. Funny… the game they are basing it off of also requires finances and developers to make it for money. Do you even know what game devs have to go through and what kind of industry it is?

    I suppose by your logic so far, that indie game makers can only offer “sanitized, cold piece of “work” which you would not want, simply because it cost money. Right? There is NO difference between an indie game maker and say a mod maker. Only the scale and scope of the project changes.

    There was simply no marketplace available for content creators to make new content for existing (licensed/copywritten) games, as the publisher would have to legally allow it.

    Thats what you seem to forget. Skyrim does not belong to you. You license the right to play it (see that EULA?). It is software. THEY have to be the ones, legally, to set up or allow for financial revenue to be gained with user generated content that relies on THEIR property (aka the game).

    At the end of the day, the free market dictates that YOU can choose to buy or not buy content that is sold. Stick with the free if you only want free, but it is extremely insulting to demand that only content should be free and the options for paid user generated content cannot or should not exist.

    It screams entitlement, nothing more.

  • RockstarRepublic

    Continued…

    You say:
    ” Valve and Bethesda can only invite trouble, especially with the
    cliques, favoritism, scams and other bullshit they are known for”

    No, they cant. That is confirmation bias on your part. They can offer something, you are free not to buy. It is that simple. It sorts it out on its own. The only one causing trouble are those demanding everything be free, because its what they expect. You are essentially working against “choice”.

    You say
    “It is not a win for the user. A new cost has been added where there was
    none before. It is mainly a win for the publisher and the developer,
    especially in Valve’s case, or did you not see the portion of the webM
    where it stated the percentage that the content creator received for his
    work?”

    It is a win for the user, its also easy to prove. More content has been added to Dota due to the valve’s item workshop. Additionally, sales from that content was also able to go to open source projects as well as charities at the authors choosing.

    Valve paid out millions to content creators who created content, which generated revenue for everyone in the process. Users get way more content to pick from than they would originally have access too and the quality of that content went up.

    In fact I know of some former and current professional game artist who chose to create new content on their spare time for Dota via the item workshop. Due to the revenue they were able to start on their own projects or continue making far more high quality assets for the workshop.

    Supposedly this is bad for the user? Really? No its not. Everyone wins. When a game goes gold, and it ships, developers are often shifted to new projects or let go. Depends on the project and the publisher. This means you rarely ever get new content for a post release game unless the developer has already planned DLC/expansion packs, and that is rarely with the full team that developed the game.

    If they can bring in revenue and keep a game alive longer due to a healthy high quality content creation scene, they have more incentive to make content creation easier. The user gets more options, more content to pick from and more games build with user generated content creation in mind. Content creators also can start developing content on their own, even make a living off of it full time.

    You said:
    “The marketplace *did* sort that out, and guess what? Users spoke out
    *overwhelmingly* against it both times that valve and bethesda tried to
    push it.”

    Yes and no. A bunch of entitled gamers threw a fit (they did the same when DLC was happening too… maybe you are too young for it, but DLC also used to be free).

    This is why you can attack or criticize the marketplace or execution of how it was handled but not the concept of paid user generated content. It works. There were no scams, and rip offs are subjective. If it cost too much, dont pay for it. Simple.

    The problem with attempts you are specifically referencing was due to existing mods being taken off modnexus to be resold online. Seems kind of foolish to take something you offered for free, only to then resell it. This applies to everything out there. Marketplaces like this will do better with NEW content, not existing content, and newer games with the user generated content markets in mind.

    This should have been a duh moment, right?

    Look I don’t think your intent is necessarily in the wrong place but you are being a bit too prickish over it. You started right off the bat with claims of mockery, which is never a good start as it also connotes that you assume to know more about it than those with a different perspective. That is what I am offering you, a move away from certain confirmation baises based on a smaller hyperbolic group reaction, and a more accurate perspective on why content creation that involves revenue gain is a good thing.

    You have confused a poorly executed marketplace and target with the concept of paid user generated content itself. I have no problem with you going after some poorly executed marketplace, but I do take issue with you attacking the freedom and ability to sell ones work properly.

  • iswear12

    You and I come from entirely different realms of thought here.
    You see “additional content” and immediately think “oh, more content is objectively a good thing, having it exist is worth the cost of everything wrong with the systems allowing it to exist “. I see “additional content” and I think “oh boy more microtransactions and garbage to deal with, this business model is cancer to the idea of video games, which *should* be complete experiences on their own”.
    It is because of your mentality, your fucking “gamers are entitled” mentality, that games are allowed to be microtransaction-riddled, half-broken pieces of shit that are relied on the community to fix half the fucking time. Skyrim is quite the fucking example of this, but go look at the majority of western games and tell me that isn’t the case with them. I dare you.
    You can accuse me of confirmation bias and entitlement all you like. I don’t think that anything worthwhile would come out of a paid mods system, I don’t think any content produced by someone that wouldn’t have been produced had it been free would’ve been worth having or playing anyways, and I don’t believe that there is a chance of a paid mods marketplace for one of the simple reasons of a publisher having all the power and the revenue, taking it from their community oftentimes for fixing stuff that *they* should have been doing.
    It is this kind of mentality that allows for the “games as a service” shit to even exist, because customers have no standards and are willing to throw their money away on anything, including hot garbage.

    >Yes and no. A bunch of entitled gamers threw a fit (they did the same
    when DLC was happening too… maybe you are too young for it, but DLC
    also used to be free).
    Wew, mr. “your argument is subjective but my blanket statement of calling everyone here entitled is totally objective” tries to prove a point, and call me underage as well.
    I wonder why DLC started being paid?
    Maybe because people like you, a customer waiting to be fleeced and having no backbone, enabled these companies to go out with their greed in mind? If I *was* too young, then the fault would lie with you for allowing this to happen, would it not?

    >If they can bring in revenue and keep a game alive longer due to a
    healthy high quality content creation scene, they have more incentive to
    make content creation easier. The user gets more options, more content
    to pick from and more games build with user generated content creation
    in mind. Content creators also can start developing content on their
    own, even make a living off of it full time.

    This is fucking pathetic. This is literally corporate cocksucking. I’ve heard this described to me by a friend on the Blizzard forums for Starcraft 2 (Used to play it and be part of the community, stopped and I’m glad to have). They pretend that the game is going to die so they try to convince people to buy meaningless cosmetic microtransactions in the hopes that blizzard “keeps it alive”. Its dead for a reason, Blizzard mismanaged everything into the ground and screwed up their game, I won’t go into the postmortem of it, but their “content” doesn’t amount to anything but fucking emojis and voice announcer packs, or if you want to argue some “meaningful content”, the co-op commanders and Nova missions, which are grossly overpriced. The game’s numbers continue to dwindle, why? Because of Blizzard’s failure as a company. I doubt much of those emoji cash funds go at all to Carbot, the person who’s responsible for some fanmade content on youtube for Starcraft 1 and 2, and even if it did, its just a poor substitute for actual, meaningful content. They fucked up with the base games of HotS and LotV and they hoped to rely on tertiary content to carry them through, but I guess people were too “entitled” to feed them money after they wasted their money and time making hot garbage.

    Speaking of the steam market, its a hot fucking mess. Good for your friend, I’m sure he’s happy making assets for a company for free and is content with his pittance from Overlord Valve. I’m sure they’re happy to have him as their ~sweatshop employee~ oops, I mean, ‘dedicated community member’. Let’s look at this joke of a market, where skins for fucking electronic knives in a video game can cost upwards of 700$. Truly, meaningful content right? The free market at work? What an amazing thing indeed! I’m happy to contribute to Valve, they’re *such* an ethical company.

    There is no company, I believe, that can pull off a paid mods market successfully. Partially because mods are based off a published game and thus, a publisher would be involved (and those are almost always inherently cancer when it comes to things like that), and partially because of what likely would be the parent company’s greed. If they see an opportunity to take as much money as they can, they will.

    >Valve paid out millions to content creators who created content, which
    generated revenue for everyone in the process. Users get way more
    content to pick from than they would originally have access too and the
    quality of that content went up.

    Right, I’m sure a chinese sweatshop will pay its 50,000 workers “millions” while they (the higher ups) keep the hundreds of millions. Truly everyone wins!

    Paid mods will *never* work. I don’t see it happening without a ruining, destruction, and decline in quality of the modding scene and community as a whole, which at that point I think I can argue that paid mods were a failure. I *don’t* want the modding scene to end up like the current video game industry. So you can fuck right off.

    >No, they cant. That is confirmation bias on your part. They can offer
    something, you are free not to buy. It is that simple. It sorts it out
    on its own. The only one causing trouble are those demanding everything
    be free, because its what they expect. You are essentially working
    against “choice”.

    “J-just don’t buy it!”
    “DLC used to be free you know”
    Yeah, I’ll mock and complain about it like an “entitled” gamer because I have higher standards for the companies I purchase from. I’d rather “entitled” people look out for my interests than a company or a CEO who views me as a either a number, or a beast or drone who they must make a challenge of extracting money out of as efficiently as possible.

    Have fun though.

    Last point I’ll address in this post:
    >I suppose by your logic so far, that indie game makers can only offer
    “sanitized, cold piece of “work” which you would not want, simply
    because it cost money. Right? There is NO difference between an indie
    game maker and say a mod maker. Only the scale and scope of the project
    changes.

    Its funny. Indie games are what’s hot right now funnily enough. Publishers (almost all of them AAA), while they provide funds, often screw things up or hurt the indies in some way. Same applies to AA companies as well, they are still capable of making good games.
    Western AAA is not, and Japanese AAA only somewhat so.
    Platinum games is self-publishing now, and I have a feeling their games will only get better in quality, and won’t have Denuvo like Squeenix forced on them in Nier Automata.
    Sega forced Denuvo on Sonic Mania, made by a fan-team.
    Cuphead is an indie game that’s enjoying massive success and it was all hand-drawn, you could tell the amount of passion that went into that sort of thing,
    Its funny how many high quality indie games come out now that prove my point about passion, its the publishers screwing things up for them.
    So yeah, I’m not for the “free” market if you wanna say that. I’m for a regulated market, or, if the market must be free, I’d want consumers to be ethical, responsible, informed and have a fucking backbone.
    Hollow Knight was made by 4 people on a shoestring budget, and its a beautiful game that’s also a hit now.
    Axiom Verge was made by 1 person.
    Owlboy made by an indie studio as well.

  • boag

    went to check, youre right.

  • iswear12

    For stuff like this, I wish I wasn’t…
    Fuck microsoft

  • RHELSAGE

    And nothing of value will be lost. Also “Polygon.” I wasn’t aware that a publicly traded company could become ‘wholly owned’ by another. Mergers happen, acquisitions happen, but Dell was the only major company in recent history that went from publicly traded to private ownership. There are ways to buy out publicly traded companies, but its not cheap.

  • Zombie_Barioth

    Of course they care, that doesn’t mean they don’t try to get away with as much as they can. That’s the thing about controversies like that, in most cases not enough people care enough to complain, they’re the silent majority.

    PC gamers aren’t nearly so passive, if Microsoft had the audacity to try and put their online games behind a paywall you can bet your ass there’ll be a title wave of backlash when suddenly nobody can play until they cough up more money.

    And suppose that Microsoft did buy Valve, they would still have plenty of competition, just as Valve does now. GOG, EA, Ubisoft, Amazon, Activision/Blizzard being the most prominent.

  • RockstarRepublic

    Thats a whole lot of posturing just to say you refuse to accept choices in the marketplace.

    You said:
    “It is because of your mentality, your fucking “gamers are entitled”
    mentality, that games are allowed to be microtransaction-riddled,
    half-broken pieces of shit that are relied on the community to fix half
    the fucking time.”

    That is a cute straw man argument you have there… but the point you are missing is that… ready for it? IF THE GAME IS BROKEN… DONT BUY IT.

    If it has microtransactions and you don’t like those… guess what? DONT BUY IT.

    This is so amazingly simple… so it boggles the mind that you skip over such an obvious response.

    The nice thing about how our markets work is… no one forces you to buy the said product. No one has a gun to your head saying you have to purchase the said product… nor do you need it to survive (its not a utility champ). ..If its riddled with bugs, it wont do well…

    Don’t tell me you are one of those people who feel they must buy everything thrown at them and as a result have no sense of self control (aka impulse control).

    You are also not buying the game, remember that, you are buying the license to run the said software (which what games are). No one says you have to like it, but that is reality. Would be nice if you could live in it first, as that would go a long way in fixing some of that hyperbolic world view of yours.

    -“It is this kind of mentality that allows for the “games as a service”
    shit to even exist, because customers have no standards and are willing
    to throw their money away on anything, including hot garbage.”

    So you are saying that since consumers cannot choose wisely how to spend their money, and that it shouldn’t be up to them but rather your dictates on what you think is correct? What are you, some kind of gamerNAZI? A technofascist? I mean it takes a lot of balls to suggest that you know better and that what they choose to purchase should be regulated…and yes you did insinuate such “regulation” in an earlier comment.

    Do you realize how… nutty, you sound?

    -“I don’t think any content produced by someone that wouldn’t have been
    produced had it been free would’ve been worth having or playing anyways,
    and I don’t believe that there is a chance of a paid mods marketplace
    for one of the simple reasons of a publisher having all the power and
    the revenue, taking it from their community oftentimes for fixing stuff
    that *they* should have been doing.”

    This quite literally is your own confirmation bias on display. You wonder why I keep bringing it up? Its because you are literally doing it, textbook style.

    You “dont believe” yet 1) market places for user generated content already exist and they are successful 2) there are plans to continue finding ways to better offer such market places.

    Users generate content all over the place, though most of the ones being sold are not via mods but via assets. A mod is simply packaging those assets within the framework of an existing product and game engine. This can also extend to scripts among other things. You can buy scripts individually in game engine market places as well. Everyone wins over there.

    You simply are just living in a little bubble with no idea of whats going on around you. Its odd but you seem to think that game studios retain their full team after a game goes gold. It does not always work that way, especially for that particular project.

    You want to help developers escape from bad publishers? Well allowing them to make a living away from the publisher owned or controlled studios is a good start.

    Furthermore, if the publisher takes too big of a cut, then the authors of that content will not see enough value in it to put it on the market place.

    You also seem to ignore the fact that for 3D artist, myself included, we have to spend thousands of dollars on software, often times annually. You think we just do this to make free mods? You think that is sustainable? My 3D modeling package retails for $1800, texturing applications (such as substance designer and painter) run for about $250-300 a year (subscription) and thats only for the indie license. Zbrush, which most artist do their digital sculpting for use in baking down details into game assets… well that runs for $800. Graphics tablets? Anywhere from $50 to well over $1000 depending on the brand.

    So sure, you can have some mod makers working with free or existing assets, scripting with some world builder software provided by the developer, but you really do lose out on a lot of content creators with the professional software who are more than willing to make AAA content if there was a market place for them. But yeah, sure go tell them to go away because you find the idea of anyone paying for their work repulsive or somehow aiding poorly made games.

    Its such an absurd argument you are making, it really boggles the mind.

    At the end of the day, we are always back to the reality which is a free market, in so much that you can choose to pay for what you find value in. If the value is not there, don’t pay for it, and the market will sort itself out. I am really glad people like you do not control the market though, because what you are suggesting is literally in line with the core of fascist ideology, which is complete state control over 1) economy and 2) peoples lives (including how they spend their money and what they must spend it on). Don’t be the guy demanding that such markets should fall under your dictates because you believe it “harmful”.

    Also, if you hate the idea of paid DLC, well I hope you never bought a used game… because that’s what triggered the rise of paid DLC, as it was meant to directly combat massive losses via game consoles used game industry. Buying games used meant the developer and publisher got nothing from that sale, so paid DLC was meant to get those people to pay for something. Cause and effect champ.

    Its easy to skip out on games or services you find is ruined by poor decisions, try it some time. Do not be entitled to the free labor of other peoples work… do not rob them of an opportunity to sell their work or have incentives to do so if they CHOOSE to.

    Choice, good.

  • iswear12

    >Also, if you hate the idea of paid DLC, well I hope you never bought a
    used game… because that’s what triggered the rise of paid DLC, as it
    was meant to directly combat massive losses via game consoles used game
    industry. Buying games used meant the developer and publisher got
    nothing from that sale, so paid DLC was meant to get those people to pay
    for something. Cause and effect champ.
    This is a false marketing narrative and I’m unsurprised you’d have fallen for such a thing anyways. I wouldn’t be surprised to see you defend a lack of backwards compatibility as well as DRM in games because “muh piracy kills sales”, right?

    >Its easy to skip out on games or services you find is ruined by poor
    decisions, try it some time. Do not be entitled to the free labor of
    other peoples work… do not rob them of an opportunity to sell their
    work or have incentives to do so if they CHOOSE to.
    wew, fuck off mate. I’ll be happy with some fucking regulation.
    Everything bad that has occured in the industry hinges on gamers not being entitled and you call my argument a strawman? What a fucking joke. You have no fucking argument, you’re repeating yourself and spouting “logical fallacy” buzzwords to avoid the fact of it. You can’t argue that people who aren’t “entitled” (nice attack buzzword by the way, are you going to call me “alt-right” next?) are the ones who have allowed for these shoddy business practices to happen? ‘Don’t buy them’ doesn’t work when we have literal shills like you running around, demanding gamers stop being “entitled”, lower their standards and allow companies to literally milk them and thank them for the pleasure of it. There’s a reason that video game companies are going after younger, more impressionable audiences as time goes on, I wonder fucking why?

    >You also seem to ignore the fact that for 3D artist, myself included, we
    have to spend thousands of dollars on software, often times annually.
    You think we just do this to make free mods? You think that is
    sustainable? My 3D modeling package retails for $1800, texturing
    applications (such as substance designer and painter) run for about
    $250-300 a year (subscription) and thats only for the indie license.
    Zbrush, which most artist do their digital sculpting for use in baking
    down details into game assets… well that runs for $800. Graphics
    tablets? Anywhere from $50 to well over $1000 depending on the brand.

    Impressive. Your anecdotal evidence has convinced me! Well here’s an argument from my side to yours. If its too expensive for you and the payoff is too little, stop making content. I’m sure people would be fine without your contributions to the gaming industry, however you want to suck corporate cock in your own way.

    And by the way? Regulation isn’t “fascism”. Regulations are what prevent monopolies from being cancerous and from companies from abusing employees and consumers. I suppose going against railroad barons would be a “fascist” move then? Oh, I’m sorry. Fascism can only occur under a government, just like censorship right? Corporations are free to do as they please? Even take on the role of a pseudo-government once they develop enough power and pull enough strings?

    Fuck off with this shit.
    >Don’t tell me you are one of those people who feel they must buy
    everything thrown at them and as a result have no sense of self control
    (aka impulse control).
    See: my point about companies going after impressionable audiences like children and teenagers with their parent’s money. I wonder why lootbox regulation is getting so much attention by lawmakers? Truly a success of the free and unregulated market!

    >You are also not buying the game, remember that, you are buying the license to run the said software (which what
    games are).

    >No one says you have to like it, but that is reality. Would
    be nice if you could live in it first, as that would go a long way in
    fixing some of that hyperbolic world view of yours.

    Oh criminy, you can play semantics all you want, this is literally irrelevant in every way.

    >The nice thing about how our markets work is… no one forces you to buy
    the said product. No one has a gun to your head saying you have to
    purchase the said product… nor do you need it to survive (its not a
    utility champ). ..If its riddled with bugs, it wont do well…
    Ah, right. The “don’t buy it argument”. I have never purchased a microtransaction in my life. Plenty of people have not just as I have. Guess what? it didn’t stop companies from growing ever more toxic with their business models. Would you say gacha is a success of the free market in video games? How about a loot crate system, even better when combined with an inane key system? How about the stupidly high value of meaningless cosmetic goods, and said value increasing the urge for people to gamble in a toxic system like it?
    How is this is a victory for the free market? Because companies know which audiences to target?
    Do I need to remind you of how many multiplayer games work? How “whales” are the way that a lot of these companies survive? You don’t see that as exploitative and toxic?
    Capitalism needs appropriate regulation to thrive so that this shit doesn’t happen, but go ahead, call me a “technofascist” with your utter lack of an argument once evidence has been presented to you, buzzword spouting shill.

  • RockstarRepublic

    “….”technofascist” with your utter lack of an argument once evidence has been presented to you, buzzword spouting shill.”

    Hahaha nice way of running away from my argument. The fact is you have no argument, which is why you keep trying to switch everything around.

    It is you, not me, who basically said people shouldn’t be allowed to spend their money as they see fit because they do not know better. You are saying that YOU of all people should be the deciding factor on how the economic model must work and what people are allowed to spend their money on. Kid, that is the very basic for fascist ideology, thus “technofascist” moniker you rather lavishly present yourself with.

    Don’t try to hide from your lack of education and knowledge on this subject.

    “This is a false marketing narrative…”

    No, its not. Its common knowledge to anyone who has been paying attention to the industry… as Epic Games Rod Fergusson explained, “In a used game culture that you have to actively fight against, I think DLC is one of the ways that you do that.”

    Quantum Dream’s Guillaume de Fondaumiere lost millions in royalties due to the used game market affecting their sales. They are best known for the game Heavy Rain. Game’s like heavy rain already have a tough time getting publisher funding, in large part due to the fact that they quickly end up getting traded in quite quickly after purchase.

    Lionhead Studios Mike West “…second-hand sales cost us more in the long-run than piracy these days”.

    Activision’s COO (back in 2010) “We are still evaluating various possibilities for greater
    participation in the used-games business. What’s been working the best
    so far is providing additional content and therefore limiting the supply
    to used games… So that’s a proven strategy that we
    will continue. And any other initiatives, we will be talking about when
    we get closer to it.”

    There is a direct coorelation between the used game market and all these reactionary methods to not only gleam sales from used games being sold, but to hopefully keep used games from quickly ending up on the shelves.

    Console publishers are also starting push things towards where the PC market is, which means NO used games at all. Account based purchases with no possibility for used games. Additionally they can offer download only games as well. Is this what you want? If not, stop buying used games.

    You must think its crazy that game developers and publishers have to make a profit. Perhaps you think game dev is a charity? The people who get screwed over the most are game developers, since the publisher protects themselves from such losses. Game Studios often rely on royalties and bonuses if a game sells a certain amount of copies.. but hey if people are buying used, that doesnt count as an actual sale as the only one benefiting from that transaction is the retailer.

    Perhaps this is a bit too much for you though? Your mentality when it comes to this subject is quite literally a cancer for the industry and the marketplace. Not only do you demand that people shouldnt have choices or let the market sort itself out, but you don’t even put the developers, those people who literally slave away to make the crap you enjoy, in your sight. Its pathetic.

    You: “You have no fucking argument”
    I have them, have made them, and continue to make them. You simply are going through a phase of cognitive dissonance, refusing to recognize the arguments in front of your face. For what its worth, its quite obvious what you are doing.

    You: “nice attack buzzword by the way, are you going to call me “alt-right” next?”

    Cute, but didn’t you whine about semantics? Whining about “buzzwords”, which is not even a real argument, is making an argument over semantics. Did that fly over your head, or what? Tagging a word to describe behavior as some how a “buzzword” thus magically worth dismissing is simply not an argument. Hell, you even claiming “buzzword” as though it means something is also a … ready for it… “buzzword”. According to your logic, your comment should be dismissed because “muh buzzwords”.

    Funny you threw in alt-right in there as well. Are you some how foolishly conflating the alternative right with national socialist and italian fascist? hahaha… they are objectively not even in the same ballpark bud. I wouldnt call you alt-right simply because you do not deserve such a compliment. For the record, many in the alt-right do not see Spencer as legitimate, the term comes from paleoconservative professor, Paul Gottfried. Anyways thats neither here or there.

    You: “Well here’s an argument from my side to yours. If its too expensive
    for you and the payoff is too little, stop making content. I’m sure
    people would be fine without your contributions to the gaming industry,
    however you want to suck corporate cock in your own way.”

    Nice again spoken like a cute little authoritarian who dons their gaming fascist arm band. You are attacking the makers of content as well as those who spend money on content you believe is bad. Truly, an argument for class warfare, next up I’m sure you will start spouting Marx’s conflict theory to excuse your heavy handed regulation on what people should continue to buy, and what content creators are allowed to make and for how much.

    Simply put, it is not up to you to decide how much a content makers work is worth. Its not up to you to tell the content creators to stop doing that kind of work because you get angry when seeing them want to charge for it. Yes, they must work for free right? Give you content for free? And if they don’t they should not even participate… right? Everything boils down to big bad corporations vs you, the little guy with entitlements… dear god. You really a little “Nazi”, well in all but name.

    I think you need to get a better education, preferably one not based on sentiment.

    You: “Do I need to remind you of how many multiplayer games work? How “whales”
    are the way that a lot of these companies survive? You don’t see that
    as exploitative and toxic?”

    The massive generalization on how multiplayer games play out is hilarious…

    Stop believing you are the target audience for every single product out there. If mobile games which to offer some kind of optional microtransactions, then that is up to the people who value that to choose if and when to spend money on it. Just because YOU choose not to participate does not mean they have to do as you do. Value and what is seen as value is not dependent up on you, but each individual with their own interpretation of what value is.

    Money is value, it is merely a tool for the exchange of value. It holds no other meaning.

    You wish, like a little technofascist, to control what people are allowed to buy, what kind of games are offered and what kinds of market places are allowed to exist… rather than doing what you SHOULD be doing if you fee strongly about that, and that is to advocate for consumers to value their spending more. Instead making an argument to the consumers, who you seem to think are dumb as bricks, you would rather approach everything like an authoritarian in charge of a regime, with total control over the market and people’s spending choices.

    If you think all those people spending money on cosmetic items to look better in a game they like, despite the fact it may bring them joy or even some kind of social capital within that game space, then go make an argument to those people that its not worth it rather than act like a bloody dictator.

    You are the definition of toxic… Fin!

  • iswear12

    >technofascist
    >quoting Activision’s COO while pretending to be on the side of “developers”, totally not appealing to corporate authorities (let alone activision as a company is one of the biggest cancers in the gaming industry now)
    >can’t decide if I’m a fascist or a marxist
    >Epic Games, now a subsidiary of Tencent who’s engine is fully owned by the chinese and their games are the definition of cancer in terms of business models
    >consumers, who “I” seem to think are dumb as bricks
    >Quantum Dream’s Guillaume de Fondaumiere lost millions in royalties due
    to the used game market affecting their sales. They are best known for
    the game Heavy Rain. Game’s like heavy rain already have a tough time
    getting publisher funding, in large part due to the fact that they
    quickly end up getting traded in quite quickly after purchase.
    >QTE games don’t make a lot of money because most of the time they’re hot garbage “cinematic masterpieces” masquerading as games, what a surprise, the game type most similar to movies make the least amount of money due things like used games markets and piracy
    >You are saying that YOU of all people should be the deciding factor on
    how the economic model must work and what people are allowed to spend
    their money on. Kid,
    >Yes, I said I am the prime authority. Clearly. Me, and me alone. Nobody agrees with me, democracy and the will of people who want this shit regulated before more people get fucked with truly didn’t have any impact on this. I’m sure everyone loves EA’s business model right?
    >Stop believing you are the target audience for every single product out there. If free to play mobile games which tend to offer some kind of optional microtransactions, then that is up to the people who value that to choose if and when to spend money on it. Just because YOU choose not to participate does not mean they have to do as you do. Value and more specifically, what they see as value is not dependent upon you, but each individual with their own interpretation of what value is.
    Yes. Ignore that companies are targetting the impressionable. I’m sure there shouldn’t be rules against minors doing anything either, like driving right? Why would companies go after them? Because maybe older people are more “entitled” and its easier to draw in the young with slimy marketing tactics? What a fucking surprise
    How’s about you kill yourself, disingenuous, goal-post moving, corporate cocksucking shill

  • RockstarRepublic

    “How’s about you kill yourself, disingenuous, goal-post moving, corporate cocksucking shill”

    …Not an argument kiddo. Thanks for the laugh though.
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5284b118de4f7fd98c6419fa00494d18736982c749dc3a566e16f1cedb132fa3.jpg

  • iswear12

    >memegenerator.net
    Pathetic