[IheartApplesDix]

>But you do pay for the internet, cable TV, Netflix, Hulu Plus, going to the movie theatre, buying DVDs/BluRays, and many MANY other things which essentially open you up to be advertised to.

That is not true in the slightest, even if it were, it has nothing to do with this topic. besides you still really haven't addressed the issue directly. Instead you're just attacking those who are complaining.

The fact remains that the money spent on entertainment was diverted into fund raising, diluting the product. This is a breach of the trust I place (hahaha) in EA. It shows me that my interests are not their interests and I should avoid doing business with them. They aren't spending money on making new entertaining experiences (obviously).

[mirashii]

> That is not true in the slightest,

I don't see how this isn't true. Care to back up your statement of fact with evidence.

> The fact remains that the money spent on entertainment was diverted into fund raising, diluting the product.

Or, none of the money you spent on the game was placed into the development of this DLC, because it was entirely sponsored by Nissan. Hell, for all we know, this DLC was Nissan's idea to begin with.

> It shows me that my interests are not their interests and I should avoid doing business with them.

Of all the recent EA drama over the years, this is one of the few things which is probably the least indicative of such a thing.

> They aren't spending money on making new entertaining experiences (obviously).

This isn't obvious. They spent millions of dollars building a game which, other than the DRM drama, has been fairly well-received, and is considered by many to be entertaining.

[UnoriginalGuy]

> That is not true in the slightest, even if it were, it has nothing to do with this topic.

Sure it does.

You said:

> It doesn't matter that it's optional, the fact is I (didn't) pay for a game to be a advertising platform.

So I raised other examples where you would be "paying to be advertised to." If you're paying for any one of them or any other example which I'll name as needed, your point is incorrect since you would, in fact, pay to see adverts.

> besides you still really haven't addressed the issue directly

I directly addressed your issue head on twice. I pointed out that it is free, and opt-in. That addresses your issue. Your issue is you don't want to pay money and then get advertised to, so "fine," I say and then point out that that isn't what is going on here - twice.

> Instead you're just attacking those who are complaining.

I haven't attacked anyone in this thread. I have brought up facts that counter people's points. I might be attacking their argument but I am not attacking people on a personal level.

That's what you do in a discussion or debate. One person makes a statement, either the other person agrees with that statement and consensus has been reached, or they disagree and then that person needs to make a statement which counters the original statement.

That is what is going on here. You said some things, I said some things which counter your points, and now you counter my points until consensus has been reached.

> The fact remains that the money spent on entertainment was diverted into fund raising, diluting the product.

You'll need to cite something to show that that occurred.

[IheartApplesDix]

I don't use those services and I have no obligation to provide you with proof.

>You'll need to cite something to show that that occurred.

See TFA. Remember, this game is always online.