Sections

Oliver: Pre-owned bigger threat than piracy on consoles

Wednesday, 12th May 2010 10:34 GMT By Patrick Garratt

usedgames

Blitz’s Andrew Oliver has told Develop he believes the secondhand games market is a greater threat to the industry than piracy.

“Arguably the bigger problem on consoles now is the trading in of games,” he said.

“I understand why players do this. Games are expensive, and after a few weeks of playing you’ve either beaten it, or got bored of it so trading it back in to help pay for the next seems sensible when people are short of cash.”

Oliver added that the “money going back up the chain is a fraction of what it was only a few years ago.

“This is a much bigger problem than piracy on the main consoles.”

Oliver’s comments come as EA is implementing a $10 “Pass” to allow to play EA Sports titles online in an obvious effort to draw extra revenue from used sales.

More through there.

[Pic]

Latest

44 Comments

  1. NGCes26294BIV

    “money going back up the chain is a fraction of what it was only a few years ago.”

    That’s because a few years ago we were being ripped off even more.

    #1 5 years ago
  2. manamana

    Hate the Pass. So next time I’m buying a used car, I have to give a, say 500€ Pass, to the maker, or what? I hate EA for that showpiece. Nothing will be as it was. Plus goldmemberships and monthly fees and DLCs and what not. Its not that the games are a bargain, you damn suckers.

    #2 5 years ago
  3. Gheritt White

    It’s not a rip-off. Games are horrifically expensive to make and devs really rely on their bonuses for a significant wedge of their income – which is no use if your game doesn’t sell or acheives a low Metacritic score (i.e. 70% + of all games out there). Saying “well you should have made a better game then” is small consolation to (for example) a lowly artist or tools coder who had no input to design decisions but still has a family to feed.

    If retailers were to offer publishers even a tiny slice of the profits from used game sales all this would be sorted. Say, a 2 – 4% cut from each used game sold. Then devs would have greater job security and more cash to invest in R&D. The real greedy ones aren’t the publishers (Bobby Kotick aside), it’s the retailers.

    #3 5 years ago
  4. AHA-Lambda

    “If retailers were to offer publishers even a tiny slice of the profits from used game sales all this would be sorted. Say, a 2 – 4% cut from each used ganme sold. Then devs would have greater job security and more cash to invest in R&D. The real greedy ones aren’t the publishers (Bobby Kotick aside), it’s the retailers.”

    IMO THAT is what should be done then! I am sick of the effect a consistent online nature has had to this generation of consoles. Yes we can play online and all and it does outweigh the good.

    But achievements/trophies? DLC that in 95% of cases is a total rip off? DLC that we have to pay the $2 privelige for that 5 years ago would have been a FUCKING UNLOCKABLE in our games but now we need to pay? Cheats in games have disappeared entirely now because of achievements and the fact that again dlc of similar (not exact) effect can now be bought!

    I totally understand EA’s sentiments with project $10 but I am sure this will bite them in the ass cos these games garner a much more casual audience than say mass effect 2 or dragon age did. Plus they were only dlc not for online play.

    #4 5 years ago
  5. absolutezero

    I recall saying something pretty much exactly like this a little while ago and being completely shouted down for it.

    Looks like im not the only one that thinks the Second Hand market is a massive threat. I personally get a little aggrivated by those that only buy cheap games second hand thinking they are somehow above pirates and that they are contributing to the industry. If you are willing to pay for a game but not give either the dev or the publisher money for it you might aswell pirate it, at least that way you are not lining the pockets of Game or Blockbuster.

    #5 5 years ago
  6. Blerk

    This seems like a bit of a silly thing for him to say, that’s practically a mandate for users to go and pirate games rather than pick them up second hand.

    That said, I agree with Gheritt totally – it’s the retailers who should be stepping up here. They’re already selling us second-hand stuff for hugely over-inflated prices compared to the amount they give back on a trade-in, it’s about time they put some of that pure profit back into the industry which funds them.

    That said, who could ever force such a thing to happen? The retailers surely aren’t going to do it off of their own backs.

    #6 5 years ago
  7. Robo_1

    I agree with Gheritt here. Game shops have put the spotlight so firmly on second hand stock, that it’s almost as if they begrudge having to stock new games at all.

    It’s a complete slap in the face to the folks who work hard on these games, that neither they nor the publishers see a fraction of the profit from the people playing their games, and I don’t begrudge EA or anyone else for that matter, experimenting with ways to re-level the playing field.

    Indeed I’d like to see the complete separation of online and single player game pricing. Ideally, I’d like to see games sold at 10 pounds less (so 29.99, day 1, new) with the further option of going online, and unlocking the online part of the game for 10 pounds.

    As a mostly single player game man, this would save me money and ensure the publishers an income for maintaining the servers and developing patches, whilst being directly funded by the people who actually make use of them.

    #7 5 years ago
  8. pleasant_cabbage

    @5
    Oh plz. If people want to buy games second hand that’s their right. It isn’t illegal and so by default is on a far higher plateau of rightness that pirating a game. If the dev/pubs get nothing out of it that’s their problem, not the consumers. Blerk is spot on it’s the retailer & dev/pub relationship that has to change.

    #8 5 years ago
  9. Harry

    My experience in retail (albeit in the 90s) was that many people just wouldn’t be able to buy new games if it wasn’t for the ability to trade in older ones. Take the second hand trade away and you may see a dip in new game sales. I was at a midnight launch for MW2 and I’d guess over a third of the people there were trading in at least one game.

    I can see an argument for retailers paying back the industry a little with each used game sale, but the industry is going to have to grow up and realise it’s no different from people who sell anything.

    Once we own it, we can sell it to someone else. Same with cars, houses, kettles and cameras.

    I don’t hear Canon going “Wah wah, Harry sold a lens on Ebay and we didn’t get a cut, boohoohoo.”

    #9 5 years ago
  10. NGCes26294BIV

    Used game sales are retail’s key source of revenue, and will be until they become defunct and redundant by the adoption of digital sales as the primary method of game distribution.

    Oh, and I’m sorry, but when a store sells a DVD second hand, it doesn’t pay the producers a cut. Games are no different.

    Everyone here should take a look at the music industry, who have been forced to adapt to a new model of revenue generation (significantly less lucrative than a decade ago) because users have changed the way they consume music.

    The games industry needs to find new ways of providing good content at reasonable prices. It can’t just cut up things they’ve already provided for free in the past in order to imrove their profit margins because consumers aren’t prepared to pay the extortionate RRPs.

    Oh, and @9 +1 Take trade ins away and you’ll get fewer new game sales. Fact.

    #10 5 years ago
  11. VIP0R

    I don’t see what all the complaints are for really.

    If you buy a used copy, chances are it’s been a while since its initial release so it is usually around the same price new.

    When you trade in games you usually only get paid half of what the retailer might end up selling it for which is why they push & push & push the used copies.

    ‘Oh we have this Cheaper if you buy it pre-owned.’

    It isn’t as if EA will make Billions off this idea, it’ll just take a few costs off keeping servers running a tad and that’s about it.

    I just hope EA don’t turn off the servers to play online and you can still purchase the Pass.

    #11 5 years ago
  12. skuphundaku

    I think many of you are losing sight of the big picture here: The devs and the publishers SHOULDN’T have any say in what happens to the game after the first sale. I know that this is a mostly UK site, but in the US there is this nice little thing called “the first sale doctrine” which, putting it simply, says that after the initial sale (from the producer to the initial buyer) is completed, the producer has no business sticking its nose into what the buyer does with the product. The fact that the devs/pubs feel entitled to more revenue doesn’t change that. If those people wanted to gain more money, maybe they should have planned their career better or chosen a different career altogether. Nobody else is obligated to make sure you’re living your dream life. You have to take care of that yourself, and if your desired lifestyle can’t be supported by your business model, then tough luck and welcome to the real world!

    If you start going around this with all kind of bulls**t like “this software is just licensed to you so you don’t really own it” etc., the you’re going down a really dangerous path of erosion of one’s property rights. I am acutely aware that something like 99.9% of the people playing games don’t know or don’t even want to know about concepts like property rights and many other thorny issues that surround the whole games/software issue, but they should.

    #12 5 years ago
  13. Old MacDonald

    The devs and publishers are absolutely right, it is a massive threat to the industry. Very convenient and nice for individual gamers, but that doesn’t change anything.

    #13 5 years ago
  14. loki

    LOL Make good game without PC port, and you will got good sales

    #14 5 years ago
  15. WizardWeb

    All that’ll happen is the price of 2nd hand games will drop by about $10 or whatever EA charge to soak up the cost. this will give the shops less, EA more and for the customer it’ll be the same – or near enough. So far as i see it, the software companies are doing over the shops that sell their games. they do make a fair bit from 2nd hand games but this is propping up their businesses at a time everything is moving to the net.

    If the shops do what the publishers want and stop selling 2nd hand games, their business will suffer and we’ll just sell our games on ebay or Amazon marketplace.

    I do like the comment someone made earlier about buying a 2nd hand car and still having to give the manufacturer money. It’s true. When you buy a house, does the original builder still get a cut? Nope.

    #15 5 years ago
  16. KAP

    So lemme get this straight then:

    I buy FIFA world cup preowned for say £29.99 then have to pay for that dreadful £10 pass which brings the total to £39.99? a price for a brand new copy?!… defeats the purpose right?

    EA reinforces the fact their greedy money hungry cunts!
    It only makes sense there the only one complaining!

    #16 5 years ago
  17. Gheritt White

    @ 10: Stores wouldn’t ever need to give movie studios a cut of second hand DVD sales, as movie studios can rely on a potentially very profitable run in the cinema first. Games have no analogous equivalent of a theatrical release ahead of DVD sales – all games are straight to DVD,m if you like.

    There are ways of reducing the cost of making games (the primary factor in why they cost so much), but that would lead to either (a) *much* shorter play experiences 9say three to four hours) or (b) a huge reduction in the quality of all visual assets, from textures and model poly-counts right the way through to animations and environments.

    Why are games so expensive to make? Because the tech employed in the last ten years is much more expensive to make/use/buy, both in terms of cash and manpower. We all expect a huge jump in graphical fidelity each gen, and this comes at a very real cost, which hasn’t really been passed onto the consumer since the end of the 32/64-bit eras. Realistically, games would be priced at 70 quid a pop otherwise.

    #17 5 years ago
  18. Eregol

    Funny.
    It was never a threat when people sold their games through Free-ads or whatever.

    At the end of the day:
    Person A buys game. Profits go to the publisher/developer
    Person A sells game to Person B. Profits go to Person A while publisher and developer still retain the same number of players.

    I understand that the second hand market in game stores is getting rather stupidly large. But EAs solution doesn’t even allow for people just selling or swapping their games with their friends.
    I used to do a lot of swapping back in the day. Why should my friend have to pay just to play online from a swap?
    I’d end up having to give him money so he didn’t lose out. Cos I’d get a full game and he’d only get half of one.

    Maybe they could make the ‘pass’ about £2.

    #18 5 years ago
  19. AHA-Lambda

    @16 basically yes but that game specifically doesnt use the pass system i believe

    @17 I would rather have a small increase in game pricing to say £50 than to put up with all of this nickel and diming shit that goes on tbh

    #19 5 years ago
  20. skuphundaku

    @17: The much vaunted visual quality can… strike that… should go away anyway because most of the games that are created nowadays are superficial eye-candy without any kind of depth. Don’t even get me into a talk about gameplay, because gameplay is dead, especially on the consoles, and moribund on the PC if you’re not looking at the indie scene. All that money invested (I prefer “thrown out the window”) in the so-called AAA titles could have been used much more soundly than creating yet another FPS or Action title in this or that franchise which has nothing going for it except shiny visuals.

    #20 5 years ago
  21. Filofax

    @5 No wonder you were shouted down for such a stupid bloody comment, the problem of second hand games sales is not a consumer problem. Most game retailers in the UK pay very little when you trade even the newest of games in, then they sell the same game second hand for maybe £5 less than new.

    I do agree with Gheritt White about the cost of game development, but at the same time some developers/publishers are making a pretty penny with the never ending DLC train.

    #21 5 years ago
  22. Gheritt White

    @ 20: Are you so sure you want to go back to this just so that you can get £20 – £25 games?

    The fact is, many (if not most) gamers expect (if not demand) movie CG quality graphics on their consoles and PCs these days. In real-time, no less! We all know how much a Pixar movie costs to make and how many people are required to make it, I find it hugely naive on the part of the consumer to assume games would be any different.

    @ 12: Pleasant_cabbage said it best – it’s the retailer and dev/pub relationship that has to change, it’s not the consumers problem really.

    All this will be resolved when all videogame distribution goes purely digital. However, by resolved I unfortunately mean bricks0-and-mortar specialist stores pretty much going out of business. And that will be a very sad day.

    #22 5 years ago
  23. NGCes26294BIV

    @ 17

    On the contrary, many studios release films straight to DVD – there’s whole subset of the market that is catered towards non-theatrical releases. And how about DVD releases of TV/mini series’? They have a non-profit run on television and then rely on DVD sales. Again, there is no second-hand profit-wrangling in that market.

    If I buy a product, I should own it. If EA want to separate the product and services (online and offline), then I want to see an offline-only version on the shelf with £10 off the RRP.

    If they aren’t prepared to do that then it only vindicates the notion that it is nothing more than a ploy to prevent second-hand sales, the sale of which they have no legal or moral right to benefit from.

    #23 5 years ago
  24. theevilaires

    #1 is so right man, I remember when they cracked down on the music industry for selling CD albums for way to much profit. The cost on the consumer was a fucking straight up rip off.

    Now look at the music industry. Struggling to sell those damn CD’s while most people only buy the songs they want on stupid itunes. A brand new album is like $9.99 now compared to $21.99 in the fucking late 90′s.

    EA will fail hard and that new MOH will fail just as hard! People on XBL have to pay $50 as it is and most people buy their games used at $45-$50 because they really can’t afford that extra $10. Oh well as long as its just EA.

    They are now running their fucking mouth hoping Sony,M$,Acti, and others jump on the band wagon. They will fail and they are starting what could be the end of our great hobby.

    #24 5 years ago
  25. gaz

    Games are so expensive to develop now that the developer and publisher need to guarantee a return on their investment in order to reinvest and start the cycle over. Fair enough no one wants sequel after sequel, but if the return is only sufficient to allow them to produce a sequel (Guaranteed sales based on past product performance) then the chances of them investing in new IP reduces somewhat. Used game sales efefctively reudce the chance of some publishers producing new IP. Maybe if the overall price was reduced by about £10 then they’d sll more new games, but I assume the retailers would just lower the used price…

    #25 5 years ago
  26. Gheritt White

    @ 23: All straight to DVD releases are very cheap to make – much cheaper, I’d wager, than even an average videogame. This is without exception.

    Also, TV miniseries definitely do make a profit from their television run – the channel on which they’re broadcast pays the production company for the right run the show. Often there is a bidding war – e.g. LOST. I’m afraid you’re mistaken if you think that shows like LOST or Friends don’t make a profit on their television runs. It is far more analogous to cinema releases than to videogames.

    I fully support your idea of having two different game SKUs – one for online and one for offline play only. However. bear in mind that if it was to be priced fairly, you’d be looking at £50 for offline and £60 for online play. It’s either that; shorter gameplay experiences; Dreamcast-quality graphics; or exclusively digital distribution.

    One thing is for certain: the current model has to change and it shouldn’t really be the consumers who have to pay for it.

    #26 5 years ago
  27. skuphundaku

    @22: No, I want to go back to this, this, this and this so that I can get some real gameplay out of the games I play. Maybe it’s just me, but for me gameplay trumps visuals in 10 out of 10 cases.

    As for the 100% digital distro… I am certain that digital distribution will increase in report to bricks-and-mortar distribution, but it will never completely replace it. That’s my opinion at least.

    #27 5 years ago
  28. NGCes26294BIV

    @26

    Would love to know how you decided on £50 and £60 as ‘fair’ prices… Surely it depends on the overall quality and content of the game, as well as the additional services on offer?

    Scaling pricing models will come into play eventually – although probably not until DD becomes the standard. It’s been part of the PC market for years.

    You simply cannot justify charging the same price for Iron Man and Modern Warfare, for example.

    #28 5 years ago
  29. theevilaires

    Gherritt you are a dumb ass I swear. Shut the fuck up man. You make no sense. This is all about them not reaching higher profits from the previous year. These people are in love with money period. They don’t give a shit about you.

    Give these assholes an inch and they will take a fucking mile!

    So any asshole who is in favor of this go to HELL!

    #29 5 years ago
  30. Gheritt White

    @ 28: Fair as defined as reflecting the real cost of production. As I said, videogame prices haven’t really gone up all that much since the N64 era, however cost of production has soared. But yes, I would agree that it’s unfair to charge the same for Iron Man 2 as CoD:MW2, as the latter probably cost more to make.

    @ 29: Thanks for your input TEA, immensely valuable as always. The fact I seem to have irked you has made my morning.

    #30 5 years ago
  31. manamana

    Oh well since buying used games equals piracy:
    1. I download a game at some criminal server
    2. Pay 10bucks to greedyEA
    3. Have nothing to sell, which results in one less gamer online
    4. I have less money for the next game, so I start at one

    See, it cannot be the problem of the consumer.
    Btw.:
    Who makes gameprices anyway?
    Why are they priced like they are?
    Which calculation leads to the “59,99€”?
    Are the developers payed enough and if not,what would be fair to get them going?
    Recently publishers are the ones gaining immense and holding money back under dubious reasons …
    And what if I rent a game?

    #31 5 years ago
  32. NGCes26294BIV

    @30

    So prices should be set according to the production budget and not the content and quality of the product?

    Mmm. Not sure about that.

    #32 5 years ago
  33. Gheritt White

    @ 32: Quantity of content, yes. Quality, however, is subjective. Logic dictates the only hard and fast measure would be how expensive something costs to make.

    That said, I did just finish reading a book about Bertrand Russell so currently logic is at the forefront of my thinking.

    #33 5 years ago
  34. theevilaires

    I could have chose anyone but I chose you because of you are the leader in posting stupid shit. Morons like you will turn this industry into something far worst than it is now.

    #34 5 years ago
  35. blackdreamhunk

    ahahhahahah look at this I am right agin! console game devs are going bankuprt because of consoles more proof and we have not even got into rented games

    #35 5 years ago
  36. Eregol

    Will someone please! Think of the children!!!

    #36 5 years ago
  37. skuphundaku

    @33 & 32: Well, truth be told, the “real” price of any product is set in a completely free marketplace. Imagine the stock market if you will, in a time when it wasn’t rigged up to the gills, unlike nowadays, or eBay.

    In the stock market, you have the sellers that ask for a price (ask price) and the buyers that are willing to pay another price (bid price). The ask price is always higher than the bid price in the stock market and you have the specialists which intermediate between the sellers and the buyers and keep the spread (difference between the ask and the bid prices) as their profit. Also, the specialists perform the function of price discovery, which, in a stock market that hasn’t been tampered with, reflect the true value of the traded asset.

    On eBay, you don’t have the specialists to do price discovery, so the sellers either hope for the best and start auctions of their items, or list their items with a Buy price, wait for buyers and, if they feel it’s appropriate, they can lower or raise the prices by relisting the item, and thus adapt to the evolution of demand. The eBay buyers, on the other hand, they can either buy paying the asked price, shop around or wait for a price cut, thus adapting to the evolution of offer.

    So, the conclusion is that, if you want to find out the real price (as in price that reflects the value) of any game at any given point in time, check the eBay listings, not the online or offline shops. Those are just the ask prices and they are quite removed from reality in many, if not most, cases. So, Gheritt, the costs incurred by the devs/pubs are completely irrelevant for the buyers. If the product is under par, that’s the devs/pubs’ problem. As I was saying earlier, if they’re not good enough at what they’re doing, then they should either get out of the way or stay in the game and get crushed, but not start begging for handouts in form of more laws and monopolies to support their incompetence.

    #37 5 years ago
  38. CroMagnon

    I’ve never really understood the benefit of the immediate trade-in market for the consumer. So you get a brand new game for £10 if you give them a game that’s max. 2 months old (don’t forget they’re particular about which games they accept)? Then rinse and repeat for every new release?

    If you do that repeatedly, you’re out of pocket without actually owning anything. It’s like renting a flat/house vs buying and paying a morgage – you might be paying a little less every month but at the end of the day you don’t own the property. This system is essentially the most expensive way of renting games.

    While I’m not thrilled by EA’s method, think of it like the government giving tax credits to first time property buyers. I might not think that’s fair – but I’m not in the market for a house. Once I am, I’ll be damn glad of it.

    #38 5 years ago
  39. reask

    Problem been the longer you hold on to the game the less valuable it becomes.
    In saying that the prices they offer for your game is ludicrous.
    I trade in very little now because of it.
    Still its unlikely I will ever play any of them again so lose lose really.

    Mind you I popped in COD2 only yesterday and had a few games on-line.
    I was amazed the servers were still open I mean its 5 years old.
    It was the first time I had played it on line and it was actually good fun.

    #39 5 years ago
  40. one million

    First they make regular console game boxes look as uniform and dull as possible, then they wonder why no one wants to hold on to them. If I had enough motivation, I’d trade and swap the shit out of my games.

    #40 5 years ago
  41. Kerplunk

    Whilst installing a game onto my 360′s hard disk I read through the manual – even as far as the agreement right at the back. In capital letters, it stated that what I had acquired was not software, but a non-transferable licence for the software.

    Now, I’ve not read every manual to every game I have and I should point out that the game in question was published by Activision.

    But assuming the statement is standard in all games, then it shifts the perspective on this ‘right’ to sell on games back to retailers that many people talk about.

    Games, and the games business, is constantly evolving. Whilst gamers enjoy better visuals, new types of controls and the benefits of online it would be unreasonable to expect other aspects of the industry to stay standing still – such as the way(s) revenue can be leveraged from the products they create.

    #41 5 years ago
  42. theevilaires

    Here’s the solution, you want better profits then put out a quality fucking game the first time. Word of mouth will ensure your game does succeed and use proper advertising.

    COD4 is a prime example! That game was so good that it broke records on its sequel. It was word of mouth that made that game sell so damn well. They could have advertised like hell but if that game sucked *cough MOH airborne cough* then it would not have sold as well as it did.

    Madden is the same shit every year and I’m sick of it. I hate Madden games and I don’t even play football. They exploit the shit out of it every year (they fucked PS3 owners the first two years) and nothing improves drastically for a worthy $60 purchase in the first place! Then you have the balls to bitch about used game sells?!

    FUCK YOU EA!

    I will be paying close attention to your stock as it falls. To the gaming community please don’t allow this shit to happen. Stand up and fight these capitalist greedy pigs. Mother fuckers want to talk shit when they’re pockets are hurting but have the balls to try and corner the fucking football gaming market by buying the NFL license rights to be the only publishers to make an official NFL game.

    (and yes I’m really in a bad fucking mood today! :D )

    #42 5 years ago
  43. OlderGamer

    But ya know what? Yearly sequal are also to blame. Why should I buy this years Madden whne it truth last years madden is practicly the same game experience? And the massive amount of old sports games in print and circulation feeds the fire.

    To some degree EA created its own problem.

    That being said Second hand game peddlers are ripping off the industry. No doubt about that. If their was a fee that was paid to the publishers/Developers of each used game sold…some sort of royalty fee. Things would even out.

    But in truth the current biz models for the game industry is antiquated and failing.

    Look, if EA made a Madden game that sold in stores for 60usd. The game has no version or number on it. It is just Madden, not a yearly update. Then the game was placed in your system. The game then automaticly updates itself to the newest version via Free DLC(comes with the purchase of said Madden game). Then the following season, instead of buying a new Madden, the game offers you DLC updates for say 20 or 30usd. The very same DLC/Updates that come for free if a gamer goes to the store and buys the Madden game. Each year the game offers updates that can be downloaded for a fraction of the cost of the store copy. This would drasticly reduce the number of trade ins. Now make it so that store bought copy of Madden only works for the purchasers account, and your golden. No more sports trade ins.

    Yes there are holes in that plan. But fill them in. Fix it. It is just one idea to curb trade ins, lower price for consumers, and at the same time lost revenue from second games is recovered and thus the DLC updates could be lowered in price and proffits would still be high.

    In truth that idea won’t happen.

    Digital sales will most likly replace brick and morter sales. And second hand games are the number one reason why. If and when Cloud based gaming sees the light of day that too can be a game changer.

    The thing that game pubs need to keep in mind is that we are still in a rescesion/depresion. And video games are stupidly expensive. Movies are around 10/20 usd and yet a video game is 3/6times that amount. Most big budget movies cost more then big budget games.

    Games don’t need to cost as much as they do. Honestly I have more actual fun playing games that cost a fraction of what some of the big boys cost. Be it Castle Crashers, Shadow Complex, Puzzle Quest, or smaller budget games like Civ Rev, or whatever. Not every game needs a Halo or CoD sized budget. Some of the blame should be placed on the game devs/pubs themself. If you can’t break even unless you sell 1.5M copies, your an idiot. Bring dev cost down.

    Alot of things go into this topic. Lots of angles. But punnishing the consumer, ala EAs Pass, is dead wrong.

    #43 5 years ago
  44. xino

    Is this guy f*king crazy?

    bigger problem is trading in games?
    how da fark can I go back and play Halo Combat Evolved? Ninja Gaiden Black? Marvel vs Capcom 1 etc and all these old games. Whereas new games keep coming out ALL the time!

    I don’t even have time to go back to my old games because of new titles, so I sell my old games! Not to mention leaderboard games. If a new game comes out with leaderboard ranking, and I’m still playing old trash games, how the hell will I get on top of the leaderboard if I’m still playing old trash games?

    Who the hell wants to build up a farking game collection when you don’t even farking have time to play all these old games? we have life, we can’t even play old games because of new games coming out. And this sucker expects people to keep games.

    Maybe I should freaking switch to piracy if that’s not the big issue here:/

    #44 5 years ago

Comments are now closed on this article.