Gabe Newell: "The industry has a broken pricing model"

There's a article over at the Escapist on an interview with Gabe Newell about the way that games are currently priced. Here's a quick quote:

In a lengthy interview with Develop, Newell said: "The industry has this broken model, which is one price for everyone. That's actually a bug, and it's something that we want to solve through our philosophy of how we create entertainment products."
Rather than pricing a product based purely on what that product is worth, Newell talks about pricing a product based on what the customer is worth as well. "Some people, when they join a server, a ton of people will run with them," Newell continued. "Other people, when they join a server, will cause others to leave."
"So, in practice, a really likable person in our community should get DotA 2 for free, because of past behavior in Team Fortress 2," Newell added. "Now, a real jerk that annoys everyone, they can still play, but a game is full price and they have to pay an extra hundred dollars if they want voice."

Which is a pretty interesting take on the whole pricing system that currently exists, though it opens up several glaring issues that i'm sure you are all immediately aware of.

Firstly, a system like this would be hugely exploitable

and would be consequently exploited. Mercilessly. Communities would group together to either bump or drop individual scores in the name of getting free stuff for themselves or depriving others.

More interesting, however, is the idea of a developer having direct control over how their games are played. What if someone's enjoyment from a game comes from annoying other people who play that game? That might not be particularly honorable, but is that not fair? If they are paying money for the product, aren't they entitled to use it however they want? This echoes the entire "Should people be able to jailbreak their iPhones?" argument that was held not long ago. I seem to remember that the court ruled that once a person has bought a product then they own it and can do with it as they please. Where do you draw the lines?

For example, I sometimes play Eve Online (shaddap), and one of the main sources of entertainment in that game is "Scamming" or trying to embezzle in-game money from other players, which is a legitimate way to play. Doing so is obviously inconveniencing other players of the game, but it's still a legitimate way to play. I appreciate that Eve is a pretty extreme example given the free-from nature of the game, but the fundamentals still hold true.

The other side of the argument is that Valve should have the right to reward their loyal customers. If they deem you a dick there is nothing to stop them from treating you like a dick. If you own a store then you can give personal discounts to your friends while refusing to serve other customers. That's their right as well.

I know people that consider themselves entitled, having paid money for a game, to fair and honest gameplay.

I used to play Gears Of War 2 with a good friend who would rage at anyone who wouldn't work as part of our team. His argument was "I'm paying to play the game, I shouldn't be forced to deal with other who are paying to fuck about". This sense of entitlement is also core to the issue, though this is of course highly subjective. Who is to say that one way of playing the game is better than another? That mentality reeks of the arrogance of Denis Dyack who, after people gave Too Human poor review scores, claimed they "Didn't get it."

I have also had lengthy discussions (arguments) with MattBodega because, having discussed a game I was currently playing with him, he told me I was playing it right. I was outraged at the suggestion that any experience other than the one I was having could be considered anything other than "right". It's my experience within a videogame, something that is personal to me alone. That's the whole point. If everybody was supposed to play in an identical way then we might as well be watching a fucking film. In that sense, is there a wrong way to play a videogame?

Yeah, that's right Bodega! I'm calling you out!

So what does Sweep think about all this?

My own opinion is that; if the game is well made then the incentives of the game should be enough to dictate how the game is played. I shouldn't need to be told, the rewards of fair and balanced play should be all the incentive required. If there is room for others to abuse the scenario in which they have been placed, who is at fault? The developer, who left the game exploitable or didn't give the player enough incentive to not act like a dick, or the player, for finding an alternate source of entertainment.

I can see Gabe looking at the current system and saying "We need to mix things up a bit" and mad respect to him for that, but this does somewhat seem like a slightly idealistic system being applied to a far from ideal userbase. Still, very interesting.

Thanks For Reading

Love Sweep

36 Comments
37 Comments
Edited by Sweep

There's a article over at the Escapist on an interview with Gabe Newell about the way that games are currently priced. Here's a quick quote:

In a lengthy interview with Develop, Newell said: "The industry has this broken model, which is one price for everyone. That's actually a bug, and it's something that we want to solve through our philosophy of how we create entertainment products."
Rather than pricing a product based purely on what that product is worth, Newell talks about pricing a product based on what the customer is worth as well. "Some people, when they join a server, a ton of people will run with them," Newell continued. "Other people, when they join a server, will cause others to leave."
"So, in practice, a really likable person in our community should get DotA 2 for free, because of past behavior in Team Fortress 2," Newell added. "Now, a real jerk that annoys everyone, they can still play, but a game is full price and they have to pay an extra hundred dollars if they want voice."

Which is a pretty interesting take on the whole pricing system that currently exists, though it opens up several glaring issues that i'm sure you are all immediately aware of.

Firstly, a system like this would be hugely exploitable

and would be consequently exploited. Mercilessly. Communities would group together to either bump or drop individual scores in the name of getting free stuff for themselves or depriving others.

More interesting, however, is the idea of a developer having direct control over how their games are played. What if someone's enjoyment from a game comes from annoying other people who play that game? That might not be particularly honorable, but is that not fair? If they are paying money for the product, aren't they entitled to use it however they want? This echoes the entire "Should people be able to jailbreak their iPhones?" argument that was held not long ago. I seem to remember that the court ruled that once a person has bought a product then they own it and can do with it as they please. Where do you draw the lines?

For example, I sometimes play Eve Online (shaddap), and one of the main sources of entertainment in that game is "Scamming" or trying to embezzle in-game money from other players, which is a legitimate way to play. Doing so is obviously inconveniencing other players of the game, but it's still a legitimate way to play. I appreciate that Eve is a pretty extreme example given the free-from nature of the game, but the fundamentals still hold true.

The other side of the argument is that Valve should have the right to reward their loyal customers. If they deem you a dick there is nothing to stop them from treating you like a dick. If you own a store then you can give personal discounts to your friends while refusing to serve other customers. That's their right as well.

I know people that consider themselves entitled, having paid money for a game, to fair and honest gameplay.

I used to play Gears Of War 2 with a good friend who would rage at anyone who wouldn't work as part of our team. His argument was "I'm paying to play the game, I shouldn't be forced to deal with other who are paying to fuck about". This sense of entitlement is also core to the issue, though this is of course highly subjective. Who is to say that one way of playing the game is better than another? That mentality reeks of the arrogance of Denis Dyack who, after people gave Too Human poor review scores, claimed they "Didn't get it."

I have also had lengthy discussions (arguments) with MattBodega because, having discussed a game I was currently playing with him, he told me I was playing it right. I was outraged at the suggestion that any experience other than the one I was having could be considered anything other than "right". It's my experience within a videogame, something that is personal to me alone. That's the whole point. If everybody was supposed to play in an identical way then we might as well be watching a fucking film. In that sense, is there a wrong way to play a videogame?

Yeah, that's right Bodega! I'm calling you out!

So what does Sweep think about all this?

My own opinion is that; if the game is well made then the incentives of the game should be enough to dictate how the game is played. I shouldn't need to be told, the rewards of fair and balanced play should be all the incentive required. If there is room for others to abuse the scenario in which they have been placed, who is at fault? The developer, who left the game exploitable or didn't give the player enough incentive to not act like a dick, or the player, for finding an alternate source of entertainment.

I can see Gabe looking at the current system and saying "We need to mix things up a bit" and mad respect to him for that, but this does somewhat seem like a slightly idealistic system being applied to a far from ideal userbase. Still, very interesting.

Thanks For Reading

Love Sweep

Moderator
Posted by Crono11

Gabe looks like he is looking into my soul and is displeased...

Posted by benjaebe

I don't think Gabe meant that to be taken as seriously as it has been. Rather, I think he's just looking at ways of rewarding people who contribute to the community (i.e. the Polycount Pack creators) since they contribute to making the game a better product.

He's just being Gaben.
Posted by Sweep

@benjaebe: Maybe so, but it's still an interesting discussion to have.

Moderator
Edited by GetEveryone

Hmm. I have issues with your issues, but at least you've considered his argument (and not totally disregarded it for being fucking nuts). If his point had been more on the opposite end of the spectrum, that being the $60/£40 retail model, then I'd have jumped aboard.


One thing this has made me realise is how much I hate the notion and use of 'entitlement'. In the last month or so, it's sprung up all over the boards.
Posted by Sweep

@GetEveryone said:

One thing this has made me realise is how much I hate the notion and use of 'entitlement'. In the last month or so, its use has sprung up all over the boards.

Heh, I don't think that's a recent issue. People are constantly shouting mess because they feel entitled to shit. Remember when L4D2 got announced so soon after L4D1 and everybody was kicking up a fuss because people who bought the first game felt they were being shafted? Yeah.

Weirdly, that was also Valve. Spooky.

Moderator
Posted by Bollard
Thanks for this good read Sweep :D I don't really check Escapist that much so I probably would have missed Gabe's statement. Its an interesting ideology but it would never work. 

Also, just so you know there's a tiny typo here (should say "wasn't" right?):

@Sweep said:

I have also had lengthy discussions (arguments) with MattBodega because, having discussed a game I was currently playing with him, he told me I was playing it right.

Posted by Daveyo520

Maybe he needs a laywer!!!????

Posted by LordXavierBritish

I think Valve already does more than enough for the community along the lines of stuff like this.

Steam, as a community, is just extremely interesting in that developers often recognize player contributions as much as other players do.

Posted by Sweep

@Chavtheworld: Nope, that's what he said: "That I was playing it right." My point was that there shouldn't be a way of playing the game that could be deemed "wrong".

Moderator
Posted by nintendoeats

Wow, that's almost exactly the opposite of how the free-to-play model works.

Posted by MideonNViscera

Dumb idea. I shouldn't have to pay more than others just because I don't participate in the community. People who do are already getting more out of the game than I am anyway. I realize it's more complex than that, but that was my gut reaction. Besides, Halo: Reach would cost most people over $1000 if they're charging dickheads more money haha

Posted by Rek503

Pretty interesting but it would never work. Either people would abuse it to the point of breaking it, or just troll it to oblivion. If they had some sort of rating system, what would stop people from just spamming negative feedback for no reason at all? There are just too many damn trolls on the internet.

Posted by Bollard
@Sweep: My bad! I assumed you were talking about when people tell you are playing the game wrong just because you weren't enjoying it. I didn't expect it to be the other way round :P
Edited by c0l0nelp0c0rn1

He talked about said pricing model in this interview, and I think it was more in reference to the Mann Co. Store or the Robot Enrichment Center stores.

Embed for lazies, he starts talking about pricing at about 12:10:
  

Online
Posted by Little_Socrates

Great blog, and I completely agree with you. My biggest problem with Gabe's idea is less with the "reward" concept (which shouldn't be based on playstyle and more on community ideas and popular mods (say, Counter-Strike?)) and more with his idea of punishment. 


I was told I was playing Dead Rising 2 wrong and became furious with my friend. To say there's only one way to play any game (or even a "best" way) is completely absurd and arrogant. It's funny because some people do it so convincingly (even I didn't totally notice when Jeff said on last week's Bombcast "You don't want to play Brink against bots") that it barely registers.

This idea scares me because it makes me feel like those who like some of the games from a developer might be locked out of great content simply because of the loyalty program. Say, for example, I had to show my loyalty to BioWare by beating Dragon Age II in order to unlock a party member and loyalty mission in Mass Effect 3. I would not only be outraged at missing out on important content, but at the idea that I have to be loyal to them even when I don't really like their games. Or, say you only unlock a specific vacation side-mission with Liara if you've remained loyal to her since Mass Effect 1 and there's no equivalent for those who didn't. I'm loyal to Liara so far, but I'd understand people's disappointment in their love interests being marginalized, and more importantly I wouldn't blame them for seeing it as something specifically designed for those who are "loyal" to BioWare and have played all three games.


Posted by SoldierG654342

I agree with the concept of the pricing system for games being broken (we are being charged for games based on the medium rather than the product), but the concept of influencing what an individual pays based on their behavior is a good way to loose business in droves.

Posted by sarahsdad

I'd really like to see more discussion about playing games right or wrong. It strikes me that someone could certainly play a game in a way that makes it much more challenging than it was intended, but curious about "wrongness".

Little_Socrates' example of DR2 struck home for me; I tried case zero when it first came out, and had kind of a miserable time with it. It wasn't until I poked around on some message boards and talked to/with people about. . . .I guess the vibe of the game (mainly the idea that it's expected that you will run out of time, and restart or replay sections of the game) that I went back and was able to have fun with it. Once I realized the mindset, I had a lot more fun.
To me, that means I was effectively playing the game wrong, where "wrong" = playing in a way that made my experience miserable. When I started playing right, or more right, I had a lot more fun with it. And I did it without necessarily having the exact same cookie cutter experience as everyone else who played it.
Posted by LordAndrew

It's about time someone called out Bodega.

Edited by ThatFrood

I think the biggest problem with this is assuming that it's something as simple as a user upvoting or downvoting another user. Valve definitely isn't stupid, and they've shown that they can do incredibly good business and understand the market and community well. Gabe didn't suggest how they would implement the system (if there even is a system), he suggested something more in line with the philosophy that has been coming out of Valve recently: gaming is a social experience. Hand in hand with that idea is that certain users improve the experience for others (let's players, modders, guild leaders) and others worsen the experience (griefers, etc.). Considering that Valve has begun focusing so much on this social aspect, it isn't surprising that they're thinking hard about how to improve that social experience, that's all. We don't know what that means or in what ways this philosophy will come into play, but it already is in play in certain instances, like the example he gave of the polycount people who created new items.

Posted by Bellum

What Valve definitely needs is more power over consumers.

Posted by ArbitraryWater

But isn't there a wrong way to play some games? This may be somewhat asinine, but it's very easy and very possible for a single person to ruin the experience of the rest of his team members if he resorts to griefing or similarly makes an ass of himself. At what point does your enjoyment of a game have to come at the expense of other people's enjoyment? There's a difference between being a burden for your teammates (i.e. sucking) and deliberately being malicious about it. Of course, in an ideal system people would always get punished for such actions and this wouldn't be an issue. But it is. I couldn't care less if you're playing a single player game wrong. If your inability or unwillingness to play it the way the developers intended leads to a negative experience, that's your own fault. If you playing it wrong leads to a positive experience, sure, that's good for you.

Despite this, I find those statements (which are clearly just conjecture) to be sort of silly for the reasons you listed. If there is a way to exploit anything, people will find that way and exploit it. It's interesting in concept, but I don't ever see it being used in practice. Great blog by the way.

Posted by demonknightinuyasha

I half agree, half disagree. 


For single player games I agree. You paid your money you should be able to play it how you want. Kinda the idea of if you find an item duping or infinite money scheme in the game, or even cheat codes or something like a game genie.  Sure, by not playing the game "the way it was intended" by the designer, you may end up having a less than great experience, or you may have a better experience. It seems you run into situations where developers will be salty when a game "not being played the way they intended" makes their review bad, however if that same action led to very enjoyable emergent gameplay that leads to a good review, they have no qualms with taking credit for it and/or praising it. That's just a situation of developers that want their cake and want to eat it to. 

For multi player games I disagree. The experience is not just yours and yours alone. You are sharing that experience with others, who paid the same amount as you did for the game (obviously that can't be entirely true, they could have gotten it as a gift or on sale or whatnot). It would be like if I bought a hunting rifle, went out to the woods and just started shooting other hunters instead of deer. By your logic I paid for the rifle, I should have the experience I want (that and Luchadeer paid me >_>;;; ). Obviously this is an extreme example, but at it's core it's the same thing. I bought a thing so I feel I should be able to ruin the experience of others because that's how I enjoy the use of it. 

I only feel this way with regards to multiplayer for griefing though. If you want to play a shooter and you want to lone wolf it and just do your own thing instead of going for the objectives that's fine. If someone wants to play the game completely serious and use team tactics...well they can go form a team. I think they're called clans now and days. If you find that your "fun" in a game is just to sit there and team kill, well now you're directly affecting that player's experience...and you're a team-killing fucktard (obviously there are other ways to grief besides team killing, this is just a simple example). I think that's the real difference. Once you're in a multiplayer environment it's not necessarily just your experience anymore. There are direct and indirect ways you interact with people, and if your idea of "fun" is to directly ruin someone else's game, then that is wrong. If you indirectly affect someone's game simply because you don't go for the objective or whatnot, then you are not really wrong, you're just not a good team player. As mentioned before though, there are things you can do to get away from those type of people. It's the difference between playing in a soccer (or football, as people who give a shit call it) league and when you played soccer in school for gym class or whatnot. You can either choose to surround yourself with people who are all interested in playing the game by the rules as intended or you play with a mixed bag of people and deal with the hand you've been dealt. 


Posted by Jimbo

So when Gabe goes into a restaurant, he should have to pay about 100x more than everybody else for food?

Posted by Oni

Gabe Newell is generally a pretty smart guy, and I'm shocked that he'd say something like this. It's a dumb idea (though with good intentions behind it, granted), and could never practically work for reasons you stated.

Out of interest, what game were you and Matt talking about?

Posted by Rockdalf
@Sweep: But to Valve, as a developer of video games, there is a wrong way to play their game.  If you're playing a way that's detrimental to other people's enjoyment and are causing people to stop playing, you're playing it wrong to them.  If your playstyle encourages people to play their game, you're the kind of gamer whose friends want to buy your games too so they can play with you, you're playing the game right (for Valve) and they want to reward you for playing that way.  For instance, I bought Halo: Reach on day one, and my friends who have played previous multiplayer games with me (but don't have a vested interest in the Halo series) also bought the game throughout the following week (one in particular buying a 360 as well).  Now we play Halo almost every night and encourage each other to buy the DLC.  According to Bungie, I'm playing the game right for them, because I've brought four other individuals to purchase the game, on the sole reason of HOW I play their game.

Applying this to DotA 2, I probably won't purchase DotA 2.  Not to say it doesn't interest me and it's not going to be a good game, I just have a lot of other games I'm going to buy and it's probably not going to make the cut.  Now if Valve decides to GIVE me a copy of DotA 2, I will most definitely play it.  If it's a good game, like they believe it is, I will most definitely advertise it to my friends and literally sell multiple copies of the game to other friends who wouldn't have bought it otherwise.  Thus, giving me a free copy of the game will return actual profit they would've missed out on.

Can Valve track this accurately?  That's a separate issue altogether.  Let's assume that they can, in which, who does this NOT benefit?  The people whose play style does not encourage other people to play the game, who don't participate in steam events, etc. etc.  Valve isn't punishing those people, but they're not going to give free games out to people who will drive away customers from their game.  In fact, if a player was offensive enough (say a very good hacker), they may convince people to not advertise the game and are thus losing money just by selling these people the game at full price.

Ultimately, I believe this falls in the 'wait and see' category.  I can't deny I'm a Valve fanboy, but I am on good basis.  They are a solid company who experiment in ways to reward customers.  Even if this fails, Valve will learn from it and carry on.
Posted by Oni
@Jimbo said:
So when Gabe goes into a restaurant, he should have to pay about 100x more than everybody else for food?
fucking lol
Posted by Sweep

@Oni: It was Dead Rising 2, I believe. Bodega was commenting on my decisions regarding Zombrex and a certain individual that could have severely altered the ending of the game.

That fucker.

Moderator
Posted by Kazona

While I like the base idea, I think Gabe's version of it is too extreme.

Why not keep prices as they are, and give out free dlc, collector items, and other goodies to those who have a reputation of being helpful to others, be it in the games themselves or on the forums.

And to prevent people from scamming the system, they should put something in place that easily allows them to check past behavior. In that way someone who is always an asshole won't be able to game the system by doing something nice once or twice with a group of friends.

Posted by YukoAsho

Multiplayer games are almost entirely dependent upon the community for lasting value.  There are large groups of people who refuse to play online because of the effects of the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory - racism, homophobia, griefing, elitism, cheating/hacking, etc.
 

Now this clearly effects the bottom line and limits the appeal of multiplayer games - as the fuckwads drive the decent people away, they become the sole audience, limiting sales and causing brand distrust.  It's become a cliche at this point to refer to abhorrent online behavior as "typical" on Xbox Live, and it's mostly because of the Call of Duty, Halo and Gears crowds being staffed completely by assholes.  Now a person who buys a product is certainly entitled to use that product as he sees fit barring public nuisance or violating laws (someone throws a taco at me, s/he's going to jail) - he is not, however, entitled to ruin services that are associated with that product for normal users.  It's well within Apple's right to deny service for jailbroken iPhones (repair, app store, etc), and it's well within the rights of those maintaining a game's multiplayer service to tell fuckwads that they are no longer welcome.  At the end of the day, multi-player is a service, no different than the app store, or a restaurant or bar.  People get kicked out of bars because they're shit-faced and disruptive every night in the free world.
 
That said, tying the price to that is asinine.  Not only are the points you brought up about exploitation fully valid, but it brings an excuse to relax moderation responsibilities.  If someone's paid to be a complete fuckwad, there's no justifiable reason to rip service in turn, because the right to be an asshole is exactly what's being paid for in Gabe's example.
 
Now, considering this can't be applied at all to games with a decent single-player component - such as Gears - does this line of thinking signal the end of Valve as a developer of meaningful single-player games?  I hope not - I rather enjoyed Half-Life 2 and episodes, and would love a continuation.
Edited by ryanwho

"  What if someone's enjoyment from a game comes from annoying other people who play that game? That might not be particularly honorable, but is that not fair? If they are paying money for the product, aren't they entitled to use it however they want?" 
Um no. People aren't "entitled" to ruining the experience for other people. That's like saying true freedom is allowing  me to yell "fire" in a movie theater. But I get a laugh at you acting like people making an experience shitty for other people is fairgame and asking for those shitheads to deal with a bit of karma is "entitlement" on their part. The world doesn't revolve around you. If most people think you're a shithead, the game's mechanics aught to do everything possible to make the experience best for most people. Plenty of games won't adopt this model, feel free to go be a shithead over there. Also
" My own opinion is that; if the game is well made then the incentives of the game should be enough to dictate how the game is played. I shouldn't need to be told, the rewards of fair and balanced play should be all the incentive required. If there is room for others to abuse the scenario in which they have been placed, who is at fault? The developer, who left the game exploitable or didn't give the player enough incentive to not act like a dick, or the player, for finding an alternate source of entertainment.
You're saying if a game can be exploited its the dev's fault, then complaining that a dev is attempting to fix the exploit. Silly shit dude. Its their game, if they don't want you being a shithead on their server they are entitled to tell you to fuck off. Be lucky they're just charging you more. Seems like people have been telling themselves this shit is "fair game" when the reality has only been that devs havent been able to stop certain exploits until now. So no, its not fair game. Its not what they intended. They're paying for the server. Don't like it, go be a pirate and tell yourself the devs made you a pirate.

Posted by ryanwho
@Jimbo said:
So when Gabe goes into a restaurant, he should have to pay about 100x more than everybody else for food?
It would make plenty of  business sense to have fat people pay a premium to partake in a buffet. 
But that doesn't relate back to this at all. An example relevant to this would be a guy who puts his head under the sneeze guard and touches random bits of of buffet food with his hand before making the choice. Because now he's making things shittier for other people.
Posted by YukoAsho
@ryanwho said:
@Jimbo said:
So when Gabe goes into a restaurant, he should have to pay about 100x more than everybody else for food?
It would make plenty of  business sense to have fat people pay a premium to partake in a buffet. But that doesn't relate back to this at all. An example relevant to this would be a guy who puts his head under the sneeze guard and touches random bits of of buffet food with his hand before making the choice. Because now he's making things shittier for other people.
Not directly related, certainly, but it is the natural progression if pricing more for "undesirables" is a norm.  The problem with tying it to price (aside from discrimination on the fat issue) is where the dividing line is.  How big an asshole do you need to be, or how large do you have to be, to be expected to pay the higher rates?  Banning and the like clearly can be done on a case-by-case basis, but persistent things like pricing would have to have minimum standards of some sort.  Just another reason this is a flawed idea.
Posted by CL60

I feel as though I have to post this. 
 

Posted by YukoAsho

Gabe Potter?  OK, I must confess, that's funny.

Posted by ryanwho
@YukoAsho said:
@ryanwho said:
@Jimbo said:
So when Gabe goes into a restaurant, he should have to pay about 100x more than everybody else for food?
It would make plenty of  business sense to have fat people pay a premium to partake in a buffet. But that doesn't relate back to this at all. An example relevant to this would be a guy who puts his head under the sneeze guard and touches random bits of of buffet food with his hand before making the choice. Because now he's making things shittier for other people.
Not directly related, certainly, but it is the natural progression if pricing more for "undesirables" is a norm.  The problem with tying it to price (aside from discrimination on the fat issue) is where the dividing line is.  How big an asshole do you need to be, or how large do you have to be, to be expected to pay the higher rates?  Banning and the like clearly can be done on a case-by-case basis, but persistent things like pricing would have to have minimum standards of some sort.  Just another reason this is a flawed idea.
I imagine they'd keep the process of determining someone's online demeanor secret so it can't just be exploited like some "thumbs up thumbs down" karma system, which seems to be how Sweep imagines it. A force of secret police, if you will. Maybe he's already been doing it for the last 6 months and when people attempt to play DOTA2, they'll find out where they land on the scale.
hitler and nazis, the holocaust, 9-11
Posted by Evilsbane

ALL HAIL THE HYPNO-GABE!

Good read Sweep.