What does this have to do with my post that you've quoted? How do you know this? Until you can provide a source to say this is true, I see no reason to believe it, nor do I see the relevance of it to my post once again. So what you're saying is it's EA's fault that they identified a potential source of sales in a different niche and took full advantage of that because, you know, that's what a business does? If EA saw a potential sales increase but decided, nah we like having a nice single minded player base at the expense of our own profit, they wouldn't be a very good company now would they? Expecting EA to act as if they care about the fan base being at war is pretty naive of you. Ok, and? I really struggle to understand why you had to quote my post here. You don't really address anything I had to say. All that I see here is a series of attempts to tell us the history of need for speed, as well as some unsubstantiated claims about direction changes of previous games, which I see no reason to believe what you have said. Looking at some of your other responses here such as: and It appears that you have retained your originally view point that you were smacked down for previously, which is really unsurprising considering how stubborn you were initially. You use the same language and terminology which really just goes to show how naive you are on the subject you are talking about (I mean, what the does engine blown mean?). You continue to single out Honda, as if they were the sole cause of your so called "ricer" junk and you continue to suggest that NFS should return to a concept that is more than 20 years old at this point. I'm not sure why you continue to bring this up as your arguments are no where near strong enough to convince anyone that your opinion is correct, and you appear to be unwilling to change your own opinion, so again, why do you continue to bring this up?