Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Quote of the Day

"Piracy these days on PC is probably less problematic than second-hand sales on the Xbox," says lead Fable III combat designer Mike West. "I've been working on PC games for many years and piracy is always a problem. There are a lot of honest people out there as well, and if they like your game they'll buy it." Thanks joao.

View
61 Replies. 4 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 ] Older >

61. Re: Quote of the  Day May 19, 2011, 12:47 Beamer
 
I'm happy this thread didn't occur on Saturday, because if it had I'd be forced to believe all those billboards about the rapture.  
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
60. Re: Quote of the  Day May 19, 2011, 12:34 Jerykk
 
Let me see if I can interpret what you are saying. Your saying, its okay to re-sale cars because it coincidentally helps our environment? I seem to remember someone referring to automobile disposal sites as "junk yards" and I believe they still exists. If we as Americans are expected to recycle oil and tires it wouldn't seem unreasonable to expect that we drive a retired vehicle to a junk yard for parts. I fail to see how that is so impractical.

How many junkyards do you have within a 10 mile radius? How large are they? Now imagine if nobody was allowed to sell their car. They'd have to dump it in the junkyard. With exponentially more people leaving their cars in junkyards, junkyards would either need to grow significantly larger or there would need to be more of them. Expanding or creating new junkyards would cost money and taxes would likely be raised to compensate.

Im not sure why you are talking about car dealers instead of car manufacturers in your third point but even if we equate the two your point doesn't seem to hold any weight.
Your second point fails to realize that there is no "law" that requires anybody to get their vehicle serviced by the same manufacturer/car dealer who they purchased the automobile from to begin with. Any service technician can perform the maintenance. Replacement parts can be purchased from 3rd parties as well. There is no guaranteed source of income from maintenance costs to a specific manufacturer once an automobile has been sold to a consumer.

Replacement parts are usually obtained from car manufacturers. And while you aren't forced to get maintenance from the dealer you bought your car from, that's what people generally do.

I don't justify paying $5 for an old game because I got the game on an old scratched CD-ROM. I justify it because the game itself is "old". The virtual sea of bits used to produce the game is old. That means the experience will probably be less pleasing than a newer game with newer technologies. Therefore, less desirable.

That's completely subjective. I think a lot of old games are well worth $60. Conversely, I think a lot of new games aren't worth $5. Entertainment value obviously varies per person, whereas a vehicle's condition does not. If a car has 500,000 miles on it, it'll have 500,000 miles on it regardless of who drives. You compared used cars to used games but are using completely different criteria to judge their value.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
59. Re: Quote of the  Day May 19, 2011, 10:56 DukeFNukem
 

I'm not sure I'd agree there. There's a very good reason reductio ad absurdum is considered a logical fallacy.

I am not 100% sure but I don't think a reductio ad absurdum argument is inherently fallacious. It depends. You have made this judgement as fact in the case of my argument. *sigh*

1) They get released in theaters. Most movies make back the vast bulk of their costs here.
2) They get released on DVD. By this point sales tend to be gravy. Hundreds of thousands of copies are sold to rental places, as mentioned.
3) The rights get sold to premium cable.
4) The rights get sold to basic cable.
5) The rights get sold to network TV.
6) The rights get sold to Netflix streaming.

And so your point is what? That because game developers have less ways to make money than movie studios therefore they should have special rights? Your against monopolies? Please state your points more clearly so that even I can understand them.

"Piracy these days on PC is probably less problematic than second-hand sales on the Xbox," says lead Fable III combat designer Mike West.

Your right, the developer wasn't equating second-hand game sales with piracy. My mistake. He was implying, financially speaking, that they are worse. I stand corrected.

This comment was edited on May 19, 2011, 11:08.
 
Just because you aren't afraid of something doesn't it mean it can't kill you...
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
58. Re: Quote of the  Day May 19, 2011, 10:07 Bhruic
 
Drawing an argument out to extremes is what philosophy is all about my friend

I'm not sure I'd agree there. There's a very good reason reductio ad absurdum is considered a logical fallacy.

Developers equating second-hand game sales with software piracy.

Again, can you point to any developers doing that? What I see is a developer saying that second-hand sales are a problem. Not that they are equivalent to piracy. And from a revenue perspective, I can see why they would consider them a problem - while not every pirate would spend money on a game they can download for free, everyone buying a used copy of a game has demonstrated that they are willing to spend money on a game - just money the developer isn't going to see.

If I purchase a ball ping hammer and use it for awhile and then sell it used, the manufacturer of the hammer loses a new sale, right? The manufacturer of the ball ping hammer has to produce them one by one.

Ok, this is true. Now, can you point me to any major hardware stores that primarily focus on used hammers? And can you account for the ratio between new and used hammers?

I think developers are right to be worried about used sales. As long as they figure out a way to solve the problem in such a way as to not inconvenience gamers, I'll support it wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, the only "solutions" so far don't meet that criteria.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
57. Re: Quote of the  Day May 19, 2011, 09:46 Beamer
 
And please, for the love of god, stop comparing video games to movies.

How do movies make money?
1) They get released in theaters. Most movies make back the vast bulk of their costs here.
2) They get released on DVD. By this point sales tend to be gravy. Hundreds of thousands of copies are sold to rental places, as mentioned.
3) The rights get sold to premium cable.
4) The rights get sold to basic cable.
5) The rights get sold to network TV.
6) The rights get sold to Netflix streaming.

How do video games make money?
1) They're sold to users.




Do you see why the video game industry is so much more protective of this market than the film industry? Or are you too stupid to actually look at bigger pictures and instead stuck on "well, they're both shiny round things with holes in the middle!"
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
56. Re: Quote of the  Day May 19, 2011, 09:43 Beamer
 
I already covered how used cars and used videogames aren't at all comparable on page 1. But I can give you an extremely long list of reasons why I'd rather have a new car than a used one. If you can give me a single reason why a new game is better than a used one I'll give you a cookie.



The simple fact that Jerykk, Verno and I all seem to be in a somewhat generalized form of agreement on some of this should speak volumes.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
55. Re: Quote of the  Day May 19, 2011, 08:48 Verno
 
Or as Rush Limbaugh would say, "illustrating absurdity by being absurd".

Yeah I'm not sure you want to be quoting Rush Limbaugh when people are accusing you of being troll.

Developers need to adapt.

You don't seem to be very knowledgeable on this topic to be honest, that's not a personal attack it's just what I infer based on what you have posted. You're certainly welcome to your opinion but you seem to be drawing it in a very roundabout way without a lot of detail.

Developers typically don't have the money to adapt by the way, you're thinking of publishers. They tend to bankroll the overwhelming majority of work done by developers.
 
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: Divinity Original Sin, Destiny, Fire Emblem
Watching: Continuum, Star Trek TNG, Haunt
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
54. Re: Quote of the  Day May 19, 2011, 08:12 DukeFNukem
 
And this is another good example of why someone might confuse you with a troll. You're drawing the argument out to the extreme (in fact, it's a logical fallacy known as reductio ad absurdum).

Drawing an argument out to extremes is what philosophy is all about my friend. It is done to illustrate the absurdity of the situation at hand. Or as Rush Limbaugh would say, "illustrating absurdity by being absurd". What is the absurdity I am trying to illustrate? Developers equating second-hand game sales with software piracy. What makes game developers so special that "used" video games should be treated differently than any other used item on planet Earth? If I purchase a ball ping hammer and use it for awhile and then sell it used, the manufacturer of the hammer loses a new sale, right? The manufacturer of the ball ping hammer has to produce them one by one. A developer has an infite supply of a product he only created one of. So, developers are special people who transcend all other humans? Maybe the high price of games is what created the used-games market to begin with.

Anyway, I've stated my position and I don't want to beat a dead horse so I will rejoice in the knowledge that you generally agree with me. Developers need to adapt.

This comment was edited on May 19, 2011, 08:29.
 
Just because you aren't afraid of something doesn't it mean it can't kill you...
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
53. Re: Quote of the  Day May 19, 2011, 07:42 Bhruic
 
To the bozo who is crying "troll"

Another good example, yes. Maybe if you cut out the pointless insults, people would be inclined to take you more seriously.

The developer never gets paid if I want a game and never purchase it because of high prices. In essence, having the same effect as piracy, right?

No, because you never played the game. With both second-hand sales, and piracy, you end up "consuming" the publisher/developers product without paying them. Are the situations identical? Of course not, second-hand sales are legal, piracy is not. And while you aren't paying the publisher/developer with second-hand sales, you are still paying someone who legally purchased the game. But that doesn't change the original fact.

Of course I wouldn't argue that a game that has been out 2-days on the retail market has lost any resell value at that point, other than the fact that the material CD or cartridge has a slight wear'n'tear. All that is irrelevant. What makes software better than almost any other used good?

If you wouldn't argue that, why are you bothering arguing about 10 year old software? Sure, you make a compelling argument against paying full price for 10 year old games, but since no one was suggesting you should, that's an entirely moot point.

Why don't we just make it illegal in the United States of America to sell anything used(besides automobiles of course because thats 'eco friendly'? Would that make the developers happy?

And this is another good example of why someone might confuse you with a troll. You're drawing the argument out to the extreme (in fact, it's a logical fallacy known as reductio ad absurdum). No publisher or developer is advocating for making it illegal to resell games, let alone "anything". And the person in this article is most certainly not suggesting that. All they are doing is pointing out, probably legitimately, that they lose more money from second-hand sales than they do from piracy at this point.

Ironically (in the Alanis Morisette definition of the word), I actually generally agree with your position. I don't have a tremedous amount of sympathy for developers and publishers complaining about second-hand sales. I think, as you apparently do, that they should look at what they can do to work within the system.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
52. Re: Quote of the  Day May 19, 2011, 06:05 DukeFNukem
 
To the bozo who is crying "troll". I'll let my posts speak for themselves as to whether or not Im trolling. Im expressing my opinions about a subject I have a strong opinion on. In fact, I could just as easily accuse you of 'trolling' by insinuating Im a troll. My arguments are logical and well stated.

To the other poster:
And as I said already in this thread. The developer never gets paid if I want a game and never purchase it because of high prices. In essence, having the same effect as piracy, right? So I have the same effects on a developer as a blatant pirate if I simply do not buy his software. Should I be prosecuted for not buying the game? No money in the developers pocket. Why even make silly statements like "second-hand sales have the same effects as piracy". Yeah, and how does it strengthen the argument to stop second hand sales? It just confuses the real points to be made.

Of course I wouldn't argue that a game that has been out 2-days on the retail market has lost any resell value at that point, other than the fact that the material CD or cartridge has a slight wear'n'tear. All that is irrelevant. What makes software better than almost any other used good?

Im curious if anyone defending the developers on this has the same perspective when it comes to the movie industry. It only takes 2 hours to watch a new movie release and then sell it on EBay. Why don't we just make it illegal in the United States of America to sell anything used(besides automobiles of course because thats 'eco friendly'? Would that make the developers happy? Why don't we make it illegal to rent movies. Every $4 rental at BlockBuster is a lost 'new' sale to another person, right? Why don't we make it illegal to rent a DVD and invite friends over? Because everyone who watches that $4 rental is a criminal, thats a lost sale, right? And of course, it should be illegal to show UFC PPV fights in public bars right? God only knows how many lost sales occur as a result of that. People have to be reasonable about their expectations of what can and cannot be done in the laws of the physical universe. There are some aspects of life you just cannot control and if you attempt to do so you look stupid.

If I buy a $60 XBOX 360 game and finish it two hours later and sell it back to a GAMESTOP the same day I bought it then I no longer have the game. I can never play the game again. People pay good money for games. If they want to play them over and over then the buy them. if they want to play them a few times or just once they rent. The did it legally, they paid a price however small it is. The developer sold one unique license in the physical universe for $60 and his ass did it willingly. And there is only one physical copy of that game that is playable at a given time in the universe. The developer agreed to that. Well, of course we see that changing now days with stupid ideas like putting a limit on the number of installs on a machine. That doesn't stop pirates, it infuriates people who purchase their software legally.

I guess my advice to the developers complaining about second-hand game sales is you can keep bitching and whining about it or you can say, "This is the world we live in, what can I do differently to maximize my profit margins that is reasonable." The keyword is reasonable expectations.

I think people get greedy and their expectations start to become unrealistic.


This comment was edited on May 19, 2011, 06:35.
 
Just because you aren't afraid of something doesn't it mean it can't kill you...
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
51. Re: Quote of the  Day May 19, 2011, 05:44 Bhruic
 
You simply choose to ignore my point by re-gurgitating what consumers have to hear from whiny game developers all the time. "My product should costs just as much as it did today when it was released ten years ago, because were selling you the experience and the experience will be the same when you buy used as it would be if you bought it new".

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you aren't simply trolling. But with that being said, have you bothered to read anything written in this thread? Please show me where anyone has said that games that are 10 years old should sell for the same price as they released at.

What you would find, if you did in fact choose to read the thread, is that the issue is with resale of games relatively immediately after a game release. That is, within a few days. Someone who buys the latest CoD, plays through the single player campaign, and quickly resells it. With the single player campaigns generally being < 10hrs these days, that can easily be accomplished in a day or two. Surely you wouldn't be so silly as to suggest that the bits on the "used" dvd aren't worth as much as they were at release because they are 2 days old.

Its hilarious in your post how you try to distinguish the differences between automobiles and video games in your post but then make statements about the condition of a 1990 disc compared to a 2010 disc as though they were the same as automobiles.

Actually, careful reading of his post would quickly point out that he's actually saying they are not the same as automobiles. CDs/DVDs don't have the same usage degredation issues that cars have. Which is why making the comparison between them is a poor choice.

And to equate second-hand game sales with piracy, as one boob in this thread did, is just asinine.

There's a difference between saying second-hand sales are the same as piracy, and saying that second-hand sales have the same effect as piracy. The latter statement is certainly an arguable point, ie, in both cases the developer doesn't directly get paid by the individual using the game.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
50. Re: Quote of the  Day May 19, 2011, 05:29 Bhruic
 
There is no incentive to buy new if the manufacturers themselves sell used.

So why sell used? Buying previously owned games doesn't mean you have to get in the market of selling them. Give people the option of returning their games for some amount ($10) or whatever that is credit towards another game. Heck, pay exactly what Gamestop is going to give them. But only if they bought the game new. So instead of all the money (and profit) going to Gamestop, the publishers get a percentage of the profit - and a relative guaruntee that the person will buy another one of their products.

Sure, they are effectively discounting their software, but only at the expense of what would have been resale units - which they wouldn't have seen any money from anyway.

Basically what it comes down to is that you can either try and eliminate the problem in one of two ways - making things more and more difficult for people who want to sell their games, or work with people who want to sell their games. A smart company would do that latter. I'm sure most of the current publishers will do the former.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
49. Re: Quote of the  Day May 19, 2011, 03:07 DukeFNukem
 
Jerryk,

Let me see if I can interpret what you are saying. Your saying, its okay to re-sale cars because it coincidentally helps our environment? I seem to remember someone referring to automobile disposal sites as "junk yards" and I believe they still exists. If we as Americans are expected to recycle oil and tires it wouldn't seem unreasonable to expect that we drive a retired vehicle to a junk yard for parts. I fail to see how that is so impractical.

Im not sure why you are talking about car dealers instead of car manufacturers in your third point but even if we equate the two your point doesn't seem to hold any weight.
Your second point fails to realize that there is no "law" that requires anybody to get their vehicle serviced by the same manufacturer/car dealer who they purchased the automobile from to begin with. Any service technician can perform the maintenance. Replacement parts can be purchased from 3rd parties as well. There is no guaranteed source of income from maintenance costs to a specific manufacturer once an automobile has been sold to a consumer.

My logic regarding the falling values of a software product over a given time period are not flawed. You simply choose to ignore my point by re-gurgitating what consumers have to hear from whiny game developers all the time. "My product should costs just as much as it did today when it was released ten years ago, because were selling you the experience and the experience will be the same when you buy used as it would be if you bought it new". Well, in fact, no it won't. Because, as I stated, nobody wants to pay $60 for a game thats ten years old. They don't give a frogs fat ass whether the bits are exactly the same or not. There is a much, much, much, much smaller demand for games as they age. The older the game becomes, the less desireable it becomes, the less value it has.
Its hilarious in your post how you try to distinguish the differences between automobiles and video games in your post but then make statements about the condition of a 1990 disc compared to a 2010 disc as though they were the same as automobiles. CD's cost how much these days? A dime? A nickel in bulk?
I don't justify paying $5 for an old game because I got the game on an old scratched CD-ROM. I justify it because the game itself is "old". The virtual sea of bits used to produce the game is old. That means the experience will probably be less pleasing than a newer game with newer technologies. Therefore, less desirable. Developers are bitching about losing money to second hand sales when they should be lucky that anybody even wants to play their games as they age, let alone purchase them once they reach a certain age.

Its funny because at the same time developers are screaming piracy everytime the winds blow, much as democrats scream racist everytime Obama gets criticized for driving the country into a ditch, they implicitly show by way of their actions the same thing I am having to explain to you. As games age they aren't worth as much. They themselves know this(at least some do). "Medal of Honor:Airbourne" was on sale on Steam the other day for $2.50 which is a very reasonable price considering its age. But I still didn't purchase it. Why? Because of its age. Because there are a slew of newer better funner more technologically advanced games either here now or coming that I have to choose from.

My last point was simply that people who make their living writing software have to deal with the pros of the profession as well as the cons. Pro:If a developer writes a good game he can become a millionaire over a relatively short period of time, overnight. Cons:some people pirate software. Pro: Unlimited inventory of product since it relies on virtual infinitely reproducible sequence of virtual bits. Piracy in my opinion, is much more worthy of crying over than second-hand game sales. And to equate second-hand game sales with piracy, as one boob in this thread did, is just asinine.

If a consumer makes ten copies of a game on release day and shares it with ten of his friends then a developer has a legitimate reason to cry. If, however, the same game is sold ten times to ten different people, but only ever played on one machine at a time, thats not software piracy. That is people just being smart, thrifty. Being smart shouldn't be a crime.

This comment was edited on May 19, 2011, 03:42.
 
Just because you aren't afraid of something doesn't it mean it can't kill you...
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
48. Re: Quote of the  Day May 19, 2011, 00:13 Jerykk
 
And how is this different from buying a used "anything". Automobile manufacturers don't see a penny from second hand car sales.

There are a number of differences.

1) Cars are a much larger investment compared to videogames. We're talking at least $15k for a new car. With that kind of investment, expecting some sort of resale value to help recoup the cost is not unreasonable.
2) Cars are difficult to dispose of. They take up a lot of space, are very, very heavy and consist of materials that will last for over a century. If resale were not an option, everyone would either have to find some way to store their old cars or they'd have to take them to a disposal site. Neither method is very practical.
3) Car dealers make the bulk of their profits from maintenance. Used cars will need more maintenance, so they provide a steady source of income for car dealers. Replacement parts are typically obtained from the car manufacturers, so they profit as well.

So the argument becomes that a used-car isn't worth what it was brand-new. The same thing could be argued about a used video game. Not because of the experience, but because of the fact that the older the game gets the less desireable the game is. Does anybody here want to pay $50 for a game thats ten years old? Not me.

That's a flawed comparison. Used cars have more mileage on them than new cars and will break down sooner. The lower pricing of used cars reflects the condition they are in and how long they are expected to last before needing repairs. This obviously does not apply to videogames. A disc printed in 1990 is not going to break down noticeably sooner than a disc printed in 2010. If a disc has tons of scratches and smudges, it won't read as well but such wear and tear is completely avoidable and not an inevitable result of usage. The same can't be said of cars.

I could open up a whole new debate on whether it is even ethical to charge $60 to a million different people, a million different times for a product you only, theoretically ever produced, just once.

I don't really understand your logic. Are you saying that only one customer should be charged per game and that everyone else should get it for free? You do realize that games cost more than $60 to develop, right? Game budgets these days typically range from $10-30 million, with an additional $10-40 million in marketing. Unless a customer is willing to pay at least $20 million for a game, your plan isn't really going to work.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
47. Re: Quote of the  Day May 18, 2011, 23:29 Dades
 
Second hand games sales are equivalent to piracy? LOL. Please put down the crack pipe.

There's a fair argument to be made towards that if you've been paying attention. Someone buying a second hand title at least has some buying intent in the first place so Gamestop selling them the $60 game for $58 is taking a customer from the industry. With piracy there is no guarantee that the downloader had any purchase intent or placed any real value in the download. The obvious choice here is to just sell games for cheaper prices but that's no guarantee and has backfired in many cases.
 
Avatar 54452
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
46. Re: Quote of the  Day May 18, 2011, 23:23 PHJF
 
Then wait 6 months and it'll be $10-$15 less and still go to the dev. Or wait a year and it'll be $19.99.

In six months the game will have been considered financial failure and the dev house shut down.
 
Avatar 17251
 
Steam + PSN: PHJF
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
45. Re: Quote of the  Day May 18, 2011, 22:23 DukeFNukem
 
And how is this different from buying a used "anything". Automobile manufacturers don't see a penny from second hand car sales. So the argument becomes that a used-car isn't worth what it was brand-new. The same thing could be argued about a used video game. Not because of the experience, but because of the fact that the older the game gets the less desireable the game is. Does anybody here want to pay $50 for a game thats ten years old? Not me. So, if I wait until ten years from now to buy Starcraft 2 am I engaging in software piracy? I have to side with the people calling it like it is. Software developers being whiny little bitches who don't want to accept reality as it is. Stop whining, things are what they are.

I could open up a whole new debate on whether it is even ethical to charge $60 to a million different people, a million different times for a product you only, theoretically ever produced, just once. Of course, in a capitalist system, this is perfectly legal. Just as second hand sales should be.

Not buying a game in the first place also has the same effect on a developer as pirating the game. So I guess all the games I want but never purchase makes me a pirate. My soul is damned to hell.

Second hand games sales are equivalent to piracy? LOL. Please put down the crack pipe.

This comment was edited on May 18, 2011, 22:36.
 
Just because you aren't afraid of something doesn't it mean it can't kill you...
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
44. Re: Quote of the  Day May 18, 2011, 22:10 Beamer
 
As for dropping game prices to "compete," it's been tried in the past. But you need to remember two things first:

1) There are extremely detailed Excel models that go into how many more sales would be earned by dropping prices vs how much revenue/profit is lost. Even a drop of $10 at launch is significant. A drop to make GameStop quit isn't even possible.

2) Do you know what games that come out at cheaper prices are called? Value games. People naturally assume cheaper products are cheaper for a reason. It's happened time and time again in many industries that something launching at a lower price point actually sells worse because people feel it's inferior. A few video games that could have sold for AAA prices have launched at $29.99. These have been unsuccessful experiments.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
43. Re: Quote of the  Day May 18, 2011, 22:06 Beamer
 
So what if a book degrades over time? So does the frickin' game CD. Is the book still readable even if it's tattered? Yep. Is it any less enjoyable? Nope. Same for the media the game comes on.

Books have a useful life time of at least a few decades, whereas the game and the system it was written to run on might last ten years if extremely well cared for


Ug. I've done used books. I tend to read either in bed or on a couch, i.e. intimate places. Know what I usually find in used books? Hair. Coffee stains. Boogers. Do I want random people's hair/coffee stains/boogers in bed with me? No. So I tend to buy new.

Do you get these on DVDs? Nope. Do game DVDs degrade in any way? Not really, they're either playable or not. Is your console an intimate place? Nope. Do you look at your DVD often enough to care about its condition? No, you just throw it in the machine.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
42. Re: Quote of the  Day May 18, 2011, 22:04 Beamer
 
People without a constant $60 to throw around are just swine. I mean who are they to question MSRP and the value of a product.

Then wait 6 months and it'll be $10-$15 less and still go to the dev. Or wait a year and it'll be $19.99.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
61 Replies. 4 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 ] Older >


footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo