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

Steam Trade Offers Launch

Steam News offers details on a new Steam Trading feature called Trade Offers, which will allow players to package inventory items to offer trades to Steam friends, allowing for asynchronous trading even when one party is offline. They have a FAQ with all the details, and here's the outline:

Today we’re shipping a new feature we’re calling Trade Offers that allows you to send a prepackaged trade to a friend. It’s similar to regular trading, except you propose the items for both sides. You select the items you’re willing to give up from your inventory and what you’d like to receive from your friend, and send it off. Your friend will receive a notification in the green drop down and can then choose to accept, decline, or make a counter offer. Unlike regular Steam Trading, you don't need to both be online at the same time. Plus, trade offers can be sent and received using a web browser.

You can create an offer from a few places: from the Trade Offers page in your Inventory, from a friend’s Inventory, and from any of your badge pages you can send a friend a trade offer based on the trading cards you still need collect.

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

29. Re: Steam Trade Offers Launch Sep 5, 2013, 13:12 Creston
 
ViRGE wrote on Sep 5, 2013, 12:52:
Unfortunately the 24 hour check-in is what makes the whole thing work. You can't have digital resales without a reliable and timely revocation method, otherwise everyone "sells" their game and keeps on playing. So for Steam to offer something like that, offline mode would have to go from months to days.

It's like love and marriage. You can't have one without the other.

Not necessarily. Obviously you need to be online to be able to sell your game, so the moment you sell your game, the sales server sends a command to the 180 to "Uninstall Game X."

The 180 then sends back a command after game X has been uninstalled, and the server proceeds with your payment.

This "having to check in every 24 hours" was just stupidly unneccesary. MS wanted the console to be always online solely so they could serve more ads to it, and make more ad money.
 
Avatar 15604
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
28. Re: I read sept 3 and think Rome II Sep 5, 2013, 13:11 Tim
 
Verno wrote on Sep 5, 2013, 12:37:
They should have simply done day 1 digital for all titles, started offering preloads for large sized games and *gasp* priced things a bit cheaper! That's the Steam formula right there, the community features are just the cherry on top. They could have kept all of the proposed but often nebulous digital features that they hadn't even actually promised to deliver (yet all of the DRM would have been delivered for sure at launch) without sacrificing many of the traditional aspects of physical game media. There was little to no carrot but plenty of stick, they got everything they deserved for that hubris.

Out of interest are Steam titles cheaper for you than physical copies? I ask because 99% of the time they aren't for me (talking about on release) - heck, even if I buy a steam key from another site (Greenman for example) it's usually cheaper and by a wide margin. Steam is great for sales offers etc. but for day one titles it's pretty much one of the most expensive ways to get games in the UK. However, it's super convenient (especially if you're too lazy or impatient) so click click buy buy..

Backtracking a bit - I do disagree on one point MS' did have a very big damn communication problem - their launch message was all over the place as a result of the things you highlight. Which means we agree. So ignore the disagree bit

 
Avatar 15972
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
27. Re: I read sept 3 and think Rome II Sep 5, 2013, 13:08 Creston
 
MindStalker3 wrote on Sep 5, 2013, 13:03:
http://kotaku.com/
rumor-about-xbox-one-family-sharings-downsides-has-fla-534484570

After MS ditched their DRM stuff, this information was put out by something claiming to work at MS. "When your family member accesses any of your games, they're placed into a special demo mode. This demo mode in most cases would be the full game with a 15-45 minute timer and in some cases an hour. This allowed the person to play the game, get familiar with it then make a purchase if they wanted to. "

MS execs said this was false.


Who knows...

These are the same MS execs who didn't know shit about what was going to happen with the 180 when it was revealed, and were constantly contradicting each other.

So, yeah. Easy to decry a stupid system as false after you've already decided as a company to ditch it anyway. I'd say that description from the "heart broken MS engineer" was likely either spot on, or really close to just how limited it would have been.

No publisher would have accepted it any other way. The idea that one guy buys a game that 10 random people can just play for free would have made them completely shun the 180 permanently. If it had worked that way, MS should have called the console the PirateBay One.
 
Avatar 15604
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
26. Re: I read sept 3 and think Rome II Sep 5, 2013, 13:03 MindStalker3
 
Tim wrote on Sep 5, 2013, 12:24:
Creston wrote on Sep 5, 2013, 11:56:
That whole share feature was so overblown. What "Share with 10 people!" meant was that you could designate 10 people who then had the opportunity to play a time-limited demo of games you owned. One at a time. As in, if person 1 is playing the time-limited demo of Game A, persons 2-10 had to wait until person 1 was done playing Game A before they could play a demo of it. And all this was only IF the publisher agreed to it.

Is it better than what you have on Steam? Yes. But it would have been so limited as to be almost useless.

I never read anything about the time limit - disappointing and yes this does negate the feature as being useful. I certainly didn't have any expectation of concurrent usage though (and that seems reasonable).


http://kotaku.com/
rumor-about-xbox-one-family-sharings-downsides-has-fla-534484570

After MS ditched their DRM stuff, this information was put out by something claiming to work at MS. "When your family member accesses any of your games, they're placed into a special demo mode. This demo mode in most cases would be the full game with a 15-45 minute timer and in some cases an hour. This allowed the person to play the game, get familiar with it then make a purchase if they wanted to. "

MS execs said this was false.


Who knows...
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
25. Re: Steam Trade Offers Launch Sep 5, 2013, 12:52 ViRGE
 
yonder wrote on Sep 5, 2013, 10:30:
The comments here are exactly why Microsoft's XB1 deal was, minus the horrific 24 hour checkin requirement, so appealing on a certain level.

If they had simply said "like Steam but better" throughout their presentation, it would have gone over so much better. That, plus, the 24 hour thing. Ugh...
Unfortunately the 24 hour check-in is what makes the whole thing work. You can't have digital resales without a reliable and timely revocation method, otherwise everyone "sells" their game and keeps on playing. So for Steam to offer something like that, offline mode would have to go from months to days.

It's like love and marriage. You can't have one without the other.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
24. Re: I read sept 3 and think Rome II Sep 5, 2013, 12:45 Creston
 
Tim wrote on Sep 5, 2013, 12:24:
Well seeing as I didn't mind 1 (point taken if true though), didn't intended on buying 2 and see 3 as a positive frankly (optional hardware gets optional support and i'm not a tin foil hat gang member) I struggle to get very wound up about it.

Which is fine, obviously everyone has different things they will accept or not. But to call people who find the Kinect thing objectionable "Knee-jerking" is a bit over the top. Especially with the NSA thing going on now, and MS has already explicitly come out and poo-pooh'ed it, which likely means the NSA already has the damn thing on their radar. Otherwise MS would never have even said a word.

Btw, MI6 and Scotland Yard will gladly use the Kinect to spy on you as well.

I disagree - it all turned to noise and basically "we want it exactly how it's always been" and so that's what they did.. at least for now.

That's not because of the outrage. That's because Sony was cleaning their clock in pre-orders, and because Sony was smart enough to do it "as it has always been." But sure, part of the internet was just raging. Quite a few parts were also being reasonable. And again, there's no reason why MS CAN'T offer both the digital "benefits" and the disc based stuff as it used to be.

Want to play a disc based game offline? Go right ahead. Want to play a digital game? You need to have checked in in the last 24 hours to make sure you still own this game. If your internet goes down for 24+ hours, you can still play your disc based games, but not your digital ones.

This really isn't hard to implement, but in typical MS fashion, they want to force THEIR preferred bullshit down their customers' throats, because, well, with Windows they've been getting away with that for the past 20 years. Ballmer simply doesn't know how to operate any other way.


It comes down to the fact that MS gambled that Sony would follow along and then publishers wouldn't have a choice, and customers wouldn't have a choice. Their gamble failed, and now they're eating crow.

Well since you've established that there was a time limit well.. I will say that I could see reselling being possible if publishers were offered a cut (and the digital platform owner) - what makes it impossible it's probably the publishers and the platform owner though Both would probably be completely unreasonable to the nth degree.

Yeah, they're probably never going to agree to digital resales or trades. MS was hoping to force them to agree by giving them no other option, but since Sony laughed its way to the bank after MS's PR fiasco, no publisher on earth was going to okay that feature on the 180 anyway.

Still, we can trade cards..
Whoo.

Come on, be more enthusiastic about it. WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

/stupid cards.
 
Avatar 15604
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
23. Re: I read sept 3 and think Rome II Sep 5, 2013, 12:37 Verno
 
Tim wrote on Sep 5, 2013, 10:49:
yonder wrote on Sep 5, 2013, 10:30:
The comments here are exactly why Microsoft's XB1 deal was, minus the horrific 24 hour checkin requirement, so appealing on a certain level.

If they had simply said "like Steam but better" throughout their presentation, it would have gone over so much better. That, plus, the 24 hour thing. Ugh...

TBH I didn't even care about that. I can count on one finger how many times i've used offline mode in Steam in YEARS of usage.

It was actually better overall - shame that knee jerk reaction to extremely bad PR announcements did so much damage for end users

There was nothing knee jerk about the reactions. Microsofts problem wasn't messaging, it was a poorly thought out scenario that only presented benefits for themselves while being ridiculously vague on aspects that people should actually adopt it for. The amount of "not there yet, maybe after launch" stuff would have been comical if it wasn't for the obnoxious DRM methodology and unnecessary restrictions that they tried to apply to both media formats. Worse yet, Microsoft itself wasn't even fully clear on many parts of their own implementation, this was from engineers right on up to PR and management. Consumer adoption of that idiocy was a ludicrous proposition, they was almost no upside for consumers combined with many negatives.

Microsoft is really good at looking out for Microsoft, they don't have a great history of user beneficial policies in the consumer market to begin with so there's really no reason to just "trust" them or something either.

They should have simply done day 1 digital for all titles, started offering preloads for large sized games and *gasp* priced things a bit cheaper! That's the Steam formula right there, the community features are just the cherry on top. They could have kept all of the proposed but often nebulous digital features that they hadn't even actually promised to deliver (yet all of the DRM would have been delivered for sure at launch) without sacrificing many of the traditional aspects of physical game media. There was little to no carrot but plenty of stick, they got everything they deserved for that hubris.
 
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: South Park, Dark Souls 2
Watching: Enemy, Network, Wer
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
22. Re: I read sept 3 and think Rome II Sep 5, 2013, 12:24 Tim
 
Creston wrote on Sep 5, 2013, 11:56:
That whole share feature was so overblown. What "Share with 10 people!" meant was that you could designate 10 people who then had the opportunity to play a time-limited demo of games you owned. One at a time. As in, if person 1 is playing the time-limited demo of Game A, persons 2-10 had to wait until person 1 was done playing Game A before they could play a demo of it. And all this was only IF the publisher agreed to it.

Is it better than what you have on Steam? Yes. But it would have been so limited as to be almost useless.

I never read anything about the time limit - disappointing and yes this does negate the feature as being useful. I certainly didn't have any expectation of concurrent usage though (and that seems reasonable).


Creston wrote on Sep 5, 2013, 11:56:
So, basically, since your internet is stable enough that the 24 hours thing doesn't matter, therefore everyone who has a problem with it is having a knee-jerk reaction? Okay.

No, that's not what I said. Yes, I've got my own viewpoint (shock) and yes, I don't see it as a problem for me (or my friends) in the UK who generally have decent good internet connections. It wasn't this I was referring to as 'knee jerk' (hence why I said ignoring..). I'm not discounting this as being a problem for people - I don't have that problem, neither do my friends. I never thought of America as being worse off in this respect.. The overall response was 'knee jerk' - as in ALL of the digital aspects were pitchfork worthy. But as I said MS dropped the ball so astoundingly it was probably cause and effect for the most part.

Creston wrote on Sep 5, 2013, 11:56:
No, they weren't. Here's what people wanted:

1) No 24 hour check-in or your console fucking STOPS WORKING bullshit.
2) Ability to trade in disc based games wherever and whenever they want.
3) No mandatory Kinect.

Well seeing as I didn't mind 1 (point taken if true though), didn't intended on buying 2 and see 3 as a positive frankly (optional hardware gets optional support and i'm not a tin foil hat gang member) I struggle to get very wound up about it.

Creston wrote on Sep 5, 2013, 11:56:
Nobody asked for the "Sharing" feature to be turned off. Nobody asked for the "Sell your digital game" feature to be turned off. Tons of people have said "Why not add the disc based stuff back, but KEEP your ideas for the digital content?"

I disagree - it all turned to noise and basically "we want it exactly how it's always been" and so that's what they did.. at least for now.

Creston wrote on Sep 5, 2013, 11:56:
Yet you somehow believe that these exact same publishers would have happily embraced MS's ideas for the 180? Which is it? They're either happy about the idea, or they aren't. They're not going to say "Well, on the 180 it's great, but on Steam it's not." Not even game publishers are that weird.

Well since you've established that there was a time limit well.. I will say that I could see reselling being possible if publishers were offered a cut (and the digital platform owner) - what makes it impossible it's probably the publishers and the platform owner though Both would probably be completely unreasonable to the nth degree.

Still, we can trade cards..
Whoo.

 
Avatar 15972
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
21. Re: Steam Trade Offers Launch Sep 5, 2013, 12:06 jacobvandy
 
There are plenty of things to trade on Steam besides trading cards... But my main concern with this new feature has already been brought up: there are plenty of people out there who friend-request or message strangers because they're interested in trading. Now you'll get unsolicited offers straight away. I could set my inventory to private, I guess, but I don't like being forced to do so because that removes some functionality of anything out there that uses the web API.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
20. Re: I read sept 3 and think Rome II Sep 5, 2013, 11:56 Creston
 
Tim wrote on Sep 5, 2013, 11:04:
Well I suppose that's one way to look at it - or one way not to really understand the point. MS proposed a system where you could 'share' your games - I can't do that on Steam and I see that as an advantage since the games I buy on Steam just sit on my account rotting for eternity (or until I play them.. maybe..).

That whole share feature was so overblown. What "Share with 10 people!" meant was that you could designate 10 people who then had the opportunity to play a time-limited demo of games you owned. One at a time. As in, if person 1 is playing the time-limited demo of Game A, persons 2-10 had to wait until person 1 was done playing Game A before they could play a demo of it. And all this was only IF the publisher agreed to it. (seriously, the people who believed that this meant that one guy would buy the new Call of Duty and 11 people would play it unlimited at the same time were absolutely fucking insane.)

As for the sales feature, you seem to not remember that it was limited to stores that agreed to sign up in the program and were completely at MS's mercy on whether they would be accepted or not (read: the only places where you could have done it would have been big-money shops that could afford the "MS Approved Retailer" fees), and that NO publisher had even given a hint that they were on board with the entire idea.

Sure, you could fantasize that it would have meant that everyone could have bought digital copies of each others' games for 10 bucks a piece and everything would have been nirvana. Or you could be a bit skeptical, figure that this is the game industry, so you would have been able to trade in your digital copy of completely obscure Game A at Walmart for 6 bucks, and then someone else could have bought it for $57.99. At Walmart. And none of the big name titles would have been eligible for it, since their publishers would have said, to a man "Fuck this bullshit."

Is it better than what you have on Steam? Yes. But it would have been so limited as to be almost useless.




Ignoring the 24hour/lack off offline mode ('net is stable for me enough to make this an aside) this made it quite appealing to me, since i've pretty much switch to digital purchasing for PC in entirety.

You'll note that I didn't defend MS' PR at all - they stuffed this up amazingly well (as someone said earlier if they'd said 'like steam, but sharing n' stuff woot!' that would of been a whole lot better). I do think (and I suspect this is what you were specifically replying to) that the reaction of the gaming community (or those bothered enough to write posts on the subject) was 'knee jerk' in that it was poorly thought out and OTT (hence using the phrase 'knee jerk' in the first place!).

So, basically, since your internet is stable enough that the 24 hours thing doesn't matter, therefore everyone who has a problem with it is having a knee-jerk reaction? Okay.

I would have said "maybe people don't like the idea of a games console that turns into a useless brick if their internet happens to go down for a day, which happens with distressing frequency on a large part of the American continent."

That doesn't mean I don't think MS should of changed their offering somewhat, but they were more or less forced into a complete withdrawal

No, they weren't. Here's what people wanted:

1) No 24 hour check-in or your console fucking STOPS WORKING bullshit.
2) Ability to trade in disc based games wherever and whenever they want.
3) No mandatory Kinect.

Nobody asked for the "Sharing" feature to be turned off. Nobody asked for the "Sell your digital game" feature to be turned off. Tons of people have said "Why not add the disc based stuff back, but KEEP your ideas for the digital content?"

But, anyway, I suspect Steam will face fierce resistance from publishers in any kind of trading - be it give away or not.

Yet you somehow believe that these exact same publishers would have happily embraced MS's ideas for the 180? Which is it? They're either happy about the idea, or they aren't. They're not going to say "Well, on the 180 it's great, but on Steam it's not." Not even game publishers are that weird.

 
Avatar 15604
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
19. Re: I read sept 3 and think Rome II Sep 5, 2013, 11:49 Tim
 
Cutter wrote on Sep 5, 2013, 11:43:
Tim wrote on Sep 5, 2013, 10:49:
It was actually better overall - shame that knee jerk reaction to extremely bad PR announcements did so much damage for end users.

No it wasn't better overall. It was much, much worse. It solely favoured MS and the publishers. It was nothing like Steam beyond being a digital distribution platform.

Specifically what though? Steam ties my games to my account, and I can't sell or share them in any way. I've been happy(ish) with that model for a long time - what did the xbone have that was so much much worse? The 24 hour checkin? As I said, that doesn't bother me.


 
Avatar 15972
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
18. Re: I read sept 3 and think Rome II Sep 5, 2013, 11:43 Cutter
 
Tim wrote on Sep 5, 2013, 10:49:
It was actually better overall - shame that knee jerk reaction to extremely bad PR announcements did so much damage for end users.

No it wasn't better overall. It was much, much worse. It solely favoured MS and the publishers. It was nothing like Steam beyond being a digital distribution platform. And MS could still do that if they like, but they won't because they want everything their way. The word compromise isn't in their vocabulary. So rather than doing the smart thing and the reasonable thing they took their ball and went home like some petulant child. And I hope it's going to eff them in the A.
 
Avatar 25394
 
"The South will boogie again!" - Disco Stu
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
17. Re: I read sept 3 and think Rome II Sep 5, 2013, 11:41 Tim
 
I have no idea either. I figured it was for people interesting train spotting or stamp collection*

*if you are either of the above apologies but I just don't understand it!
 
Avatar 15972
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
16. Re: Steam Trade Offers Launch Sep 5, 2013, 11:39 Creston
 
... yay?

The whole cards thing baffles me anyway. Every time I get one, I put it up for sale for 25 cents, and apparently people are fucking murdering each other to try to buy it, because it takes approximately 10 seconds for an email to come in saying that I traded something on the market place.

What's the fucking point of these cards? As far as I can tell, the only thing that happens is that your "Steam Level" goes up? There are really that many people interested in some kind of "level"??

Oh Internets. You used to make sense...

 
Avatar 15604
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
15. Re: I read sept 3 and think Rome II Sep 5, 2013, 11:15 Tim
 
MindStalker3 wrote on Sep 5, 2013, 11:07:
Still though, online buying was their only option, they weren't really offering physical disc sales (which some people, like those in the military need, and it destroys disc rental systems as well) at all. It would have been wonderful if they offered this options for virtually bought games, while keeping the standard disc based games the way they were. But MS basically committed to all or nothing with this system, and everyone choose nothing.

It's a good point, and I don't really think about the perspective of armed forces guys etc. I agree, some halfway house would of been better - no idea if that was down to the publishers or MS itself though. I suspect MS will try and move back towards the online model but far more slowly (cautiously) in time though.
 
Avatar 15972
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
14. Re: I read sept 3 and think Rome II Sep 5, 2013, 11:07 MindStalker3
 
Still though, online buying was their only option, they weren't really offering physical disc sales (which some people, like those in the military need, and it destroys disc rental systems as well) at all. It would have been wonderful if they offered this options for virtually bought games, while keeping the standard disc based games the way they were. But MS basically committed to all or nothing with this system, and everyone choose nothing.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
13. Re: I read sept 3 and think Rome II Sep 5, 2013, 11:04 Tim
 
Kajetan wrote on Sep 5, 2013, 10:53:
Tim wrote on Sep 5, 2013, 10:49:
It was actually better overall - shame that knee jerk reaction to extremely bad PR announcements did so much damage for end users.
And i thought that MS offerings were just not very attractive. Here i learn, that reacting to these offerings make them look bad. Well, good luck in your reality distortion field!

Well I suppose that's one way to look at it - or one way not to really understand the point. MS proposed a system where you could 'share' your games - I can't do that on Steam and I see that as an advantage since the games I buy on Steam just sit on my account rotting for eternity (or until I play them.. maybe..). Ignoring the 24hour/lack off offline mode ('net is stable for me enough to make this an aside) this made it quite appealing to me, since i've pretty much switch to digital purchasing for PC in entirety.

You'll note that I didn't defend MS' PR at all - they stuffed this up amazingly well (as someone said earlier if they'd said 'like steam, but sharing n' stuff woot!' that would of been a whole lot better). I do think (and I suspect this is what you were specifically replying to) that the reaction of the gaming community (or those bothered enough to write posts on the subject) was 'knee jerk' in that it was poorly thought out and OTT (hence using the phrase 'knee jerk' in the first place!).

That doesn't mean I don't think MS should of changed their offering somewhat, but they were more or less forced into a complete withdrawal (remembering that behind the scenes it's a delicate negotiation between publishers AND MS) which I, in my RDF as you put it, thought was a bit of a shame. Given the amount of posts I've read from others sharing this correlative view that's not unreasonable of me..

But, anyway, I suspect Steam will face fierce resistance from publishers in any kind of trading - be it give away or not. They've already shown their hand in wanting percentages of the physical copy resale market. The cruel twist is that if MS did (or still do) get some kind of trading/sharing thing in the XBOne then there would be some pressure on Steam/Publishers for the PC..

This comment was edited on Sep 5, 2013, 11:11.
 
Avatar 15972
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
12. Re: I read sept 3 and think Rome II Sep 5, 2013, 10:53 Kajetan
 
Tim wrote on Sep 5, 2013, 10:49:
It was actually better overall - shame that knee jerk reaction to extremely bad PR announcements did so much damage for end users.
And i thought that MS offerings were just not very attractive. Here i learn, that reacting to these offerings make them look bad. Well, good luck in your reality distortion field!
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
11. Re: I read sept 3 and think Rome II Sep 5, 2013, 10:49 Tim
 
yonder wrote on Sep 5, 2013, 10:30:
The comments here are exactly why Microsoft's XB1 deal was, minus the horrific 24 hour checkin requirement, so appealing on a certain level.

If they had simply said "like Steam but better" throughout their presentation, it would have gone over so much better. That, plus, the 24 hour thing. Ugh...

TBH I didn't even care about that. I can count on one finger how many times i've used offline mode in Steam in YEARS of usage.

It was actually better overall - shame that knee jerk reaction to extremely bad PR announcements did so much damage for end users.
 
Avatar 15972
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
10. Re: Steam Trade Offers Launch Sep 5, 2013, 10:36 gray
 
Dagnamit wrote on Sep 5, 2013, 10:01:
Dev wrote on Sep 5, 2013, 09:50:
Valve,
Please tell me that random people who are NOT my friends can't send me trade requests. Because I get enough friends invites from people who are only wanting my Bill's hat already.
RaZ0r! wrote on Sep 5, 2013, 09:44:
Tim wrote on Sep 5, 2013, 09:28:
I want to trade games, or give them away to friends when I no longer need them.

Please?

Unfortunately that is up to the publishers, not Valve or Steam. Also, Valve allowing game trading is probably not really in their best interest either. With AAA games going as cheap as two bucks on sale nowadays I'm not sure they are worth trading.
And there's another twist too, the whole germany thing and used games. Who knows whats going to happen there.

No one is going to be selling games there. That's what.

It's not just Germany, it's the whole of Europe.
 
Avatar 54867
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
49 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 2.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo