Sections

Xbox One: Ex-Bulletstorm dev defends Microsoft’s anti-used policies

Monday, 24th June 2013 12:46 GMT By Dave Cook

Xbox One may have had its anti-used policies binned by Microsoft following its seismic u-turn last week, but former Bulletstorm developer and co-founder of The Astronauts Adrian Chmielarz has penned a blog defending the idea of anti-used policies, in which he says if you care about gaming, you will want the pre-owned market to die.

Chmielarz wrote in his Edge editorial, “If you care about video games, you must want this model to die”, in reference to game trade-ins, the $60 price-point for triple-a and the dominance of retailers such as GameStop.

The developer discussed the concept of ‘artificial extenders’ such as DLC, micropayments and other add-ons that extend a game’s life-span and of course, encourage customers to spend more money to prolong their experience.

To this, Chmielarz added, “The problem is: games only got worse this way. Do you think any flesh and blood developer likes working on DLC? Most of the time, no, they don’t, they’d happily move onto the next big thing. Do you think that game designers are happy reconfiguring their mechanics to support micro-transactions?

“No, they’re not, they know these things are not making their game better, and most of them feel dirty for knowing what psychological tricks to use to lure the whales into paying. Do you think that the teams don’t know their game would be better without the filler content or artificial extenders? Trust me, they do.”

Chmielarz suggested that the threat of trade-ins has forced many developers to resort to DLC and game-extenders to keep you from trading in your titles or sharing discs with friends, but conceded that no one really knows how to combat this issue effectively without blocking pre-owned sales entirely.

“To me, it’s that the $60 price needs to die,” he added. “The truth is, no one really gives a crap about ‘the right of first sale’ or ‘sharing with friends’ if the price is low. Unless a movie is bad, no one complains they pay ten bucks to see it, and no one complains they can only see it once for that price.

“But even if the salvation was in the form of the death of the $60 price tag, then …how? With episodic content? Shorter games? Freemium games? Separation of singleplayer and multiplayer? Big games relying on more people buying them because of the lower price? Who knows?

“What we know, though, is that these kinds of experiments can only happen in the digital space. They will not happen at GameStop. GameStop – never was a company named so fittingly – cares only about big expensive games, and used game sales. But we have already established that none of these things results in better games.”

The idea is that because used game sales take money away from developers, that initial boxed cost must stay high, and DLC must remain a facet of the triple-a market, to which Chmielarz added, “as long as the retail box is alive, no big publisher can ignore it.”

Read the editorial in full (it’s a biggie so I won’t post it all here of course). It’s an interesting discussion at any rate.

What do you think? Should used game sales be stunted, is DLC a result of GameStop’s presence in the market – among other stores? Let us know below.

Thanks OXM.

Latest

57 Comments

  1. Animeboy413

    Wow, I’m Speechless ):

    #1 2 years ago
  2. actuallyisnotafox

    i would let it die if you give me a reason to buy new, stop keeping months old games at full retail price or even more when its not even retail >.<

    talking about online, but i guess the same applies for new games, spending £40 on games that last 6 hours just isnt good :/

    #2 2 years ago
  3. GoingPostal13

    All I can see on the link is a tiny violin.

    #3 2 years ago
  4. PS4FANB0Y

    If games could retail for $30-40 I’d be 100% for anti-used.

    #4 2 years ago
  5. redwood

    not again :( … oh well.

    #5 2 years ago
  6. killzone64

    im agree with him

    #6 2 years ago
  7. Dave Cook

    I agree with most of what he says (Fed up of DLC / £50 RRP / I’m also sure devs don’t want to code DLC constantly)

    But, the fundamental issue is imposing restrictions on products people buy and the inability of cash-poor gamers to buy titles used. I think that’s what 99% of gamers against Xbox One’s policies take issue with. It knackers the whole idea.

    #7 2 years ago
  8. CyberMarco

    I wonder if he knows the term of “market over-saturation”.

    Also, in my region games were priced at 60€ from the PS1 days (maybe from NES too, can’t remember). Back then there wasn’t any DLC, micro-transaction or any other bullshit implemented to exploit the consumer.

    All I can understand from this is that the gaming industry was exploiting the market (as every industry) selling 60€ a game (with no viable reason whatsoever, like increased budgets and whatnot) and now have learned new ways to increase its profits with the help of the Internet of course, but tend to find some crappy excuses to justify its doings.

    Typical capitalistic corporations…

    #8 2 years ago
  9. Belazur

    If you don’t make any money because pro-owned games are enough to steal all of your $$$ –> time for you to leave the business. It’s nothing for you, bro!
    Stop making games with a 938438498 Mio. budget.

    There are two reasons for you (as a developer) if you don’t make any money back:
    a) you’re doing it wrong (pumping too much money in one single game)
    b) your game suck

    #9 2 years ago
  10. Hanbei

    May this asshole die like the shit he is.

    #10 2 years ago
  11. deathm00n

    How about we make a return to the old days when a game would take more than a weekend to finish and had replayability?

    #11 2 years ago
  12. merrc

    @3 Lmao

    #12 2 years ago
  13. Dave Cook

    @10 bit strong isn’t it? :/

    #13 2 years ago
  14. TrickyAudio

    It literally is swings and roundabouts with this argument

    However,im getting abit fed up with the whole debate.

    #14 2 years ago
  15. ps3fanboy

    YOU Adrian Chmielarz have shoot yourself in the foot, NO MORE BUY YOUR GAMES EVER!! *flushtoilets*

    #15 2 years ago
  16. PS4FANB0Y

    I think from a 3rd party perspective… Sony screwed them. Could be why we aren’t getting many 3rd party exclusives…

    #16 2 years ago
  17. RandomTiger

    Easy solution, price digital games lower, have digital sales.

    #17 2 years ago
  18. sh4dow

    One should mention that his company will soon release The Vanishing of Ethan Carter.

    The argument about the movie doesn’t make much sense. Because you can also pay ten bucks for a DVD/bluray and then you still OWN it and you can do whatever you want with it.
    As for the rest… there’s a reason why I only skimmed the article and can’t be arsed to say more about it.

    #18 2 years ago
  19. LordDjinn

    This guy is probably still butt hurt from his crappy game not selling well. If i remember correctly he blamed pc piracy too.. The used game market (although i dont use it anymore) allowed those of use that couldnt afford new games buy them, as well as give franchises another customer if said person enjoyed their game. (God of war 1, was enjoyable so i became a fan of the series and have all of them) i got my ps3 first, my sister, little brother, and his friend all got one too, bc they enjoyed the games they borrowed..)

    The used game market is part of the gaming industry, and anyone trying to get rid of it is a fool..

    (he is just butt hurt because his game didnt sell well because it was awful and short..)

    Digital games should be lower in price because there is no distribution fees..

    #19 2 years ago
  20. bitsnark

    @10 No need for that quite honestly.

    The guy is talking about videogames, not about killing your family and fornicating over them before, during and after the fact.

    Games should be fun things; such reckless hatred shouldn’t be part of the equation.

    #20 2 years ago
  21. Madlink

    Like the guy says, publishers experimenting with pricing is the only way we’re going to see this situation change. But I don’t necessarily believe that the only place for these experiments is the digital space. Would Just Dance have been the runaway success it was if it hadn’t debuted at £19.99?

    And there’s obviously a degree of flexibility in even the most hyped AAA games. Both Gears of War Judgement and God of War Ascension have seen massive discounts just a mere 3 months since release with the latter available new for just £14.99.

    I agree with most of his points, but I think there’s more wiggle room with physical than he’s making out.

    #21 2 years ago
  22. Beta

    How many PS*Fanboy accounts are there? XD

    Anyway the used game market may take money away from the makers, but some people simply can’t afford to buy everything full price and imposing restrictions on the poorer gamers is not right imo.

    Scale back on your budgets (a big budget does not always equal commercial success). Or sell the digital version for less. No reason that digital should be as (or more) expensive than boxed.

    #22 2 years ago
  23. LordDjinn

    The used game space doesnt take money away from makers, the game that is being sold used has already been purchased by someone.. meaning they already received payment for that copy.

    #23 2 years ago
  24. Madlink

    @23 “The used game space doesnt take money away from makers”

    I don’t agree with that unless you’re talking about used games that are more than 3 months old. If someone walks into GAME for example just after launch week of any given title, you can pretty much guarantee there will be a used copy available for to purchase and that used copy will be promoted above the new copy by the sales staff, often sitting right next to the new copy.

    Usually, if we’re still within a month of launch, said game will only be at most £5 cheaper. Naturally though, the customer goes with the cheaper option.

    I do think it’s unfair to those that made the game and the publishers who spend millions of pounds on advertising just to have their sale snatched away from them at the last minute.

    Maybe, as well as experimenting with pricing, publishers could experiment with release timings, bringing the digital copy out a month earlier perhaps? I know I’d buy digital if I had to wait an extra month to buy the disc.

    #24 2 years ago
  25. Hanbei

    Sorry Mr. Cook, but these words were the softest I had in mind when I read this. How could a developer talk non-sense like that ? Used games are a huge part of the market, why would the developers want to kill it ? Disgusting…

    #25 2 years ago
  26. manamana

    @10 whats your problem? O_o

    #26 2 years ago
  27. Beta

    @23 It does actually. Because somebody will buy that used version instead of a new one and bingo, a lost sale.

    #27 2 years ago
  28. SplatteredHouse

    I think the worst, most stunting thing for games currently is the $60 or bust attitude. There are lots of things that can be done with $60 (or regional equivalent) only one of which, is to buy their game. Instead of another one – or more! Or, something else altogether!

    They’ve taken away demos in the majority of cases, they’ve definitely cut back on their deployment…Okay. HOW do I know whether what you’re selling matches what you’re asking? I know. Let’s try asking the Press. The same press that are almost routinely tied up in multi-pronged publish embargoes and restricted (this is only getting worse/more common, as media coverage verges towards prioritising video for pre-launch material over the written word) in what they may cover and when – much as I’m even more restricted from seeing what’s on offer before it’s available.

    Try to see the game itself. Try to wrest control back of some of the messaging, press!

    If I can’t see it’s worth that price, and/or not enough is available to where I can feel sure enough that it is, I’m probably not buying it for that price.
    Publishers are responsible for a distinct erosion of trust around games. They over-complicated things hideously, and to daft levels in some cases. I am pleased that some of that is in the process of being reset, though.

    This pricing point goes both ways, though. I absolutely see the point of kickback from publishers such as Activision, when they discuss something like Call of Duty. You know what that tells me, though? They lack motivation! Not to make and publish games. But, to change up.
    They say they’re not feeling the amount of time a player spends on CoD multi is “fair” for a single $60 outlay…So, why are they trying to carry on following that business model, in the new generation?

    There will always be an initial barrier between any player and even reaching the valuable part of CoD: the many hours of multiplayer, ranks, and content associated – publishers can monetarily leverage at that point with all kinds of content to bring them value – enough of a barrier to where, they might not make it to the add-ins and “DLC” content. They haven’t even gone as far as to offer the multiplayer and campaign-based content seperately, yet!

    Does the market fall away, if CoD gives people the game, but insists on people paying to fill it? That’s exactly what I believe ought to happen – If you want ALL of the CoD (just as an example!) then you can buy all of it. Probably for more than now. However, if you just want a tailored CoD that you can hop on once a week and play, then you’re no longer laboured under a $60 outlay to start, you can fill the server, shoot all you like, but your service won’t be as in-depth, your extent of content as rich that the “CoD software platform” gives you access to, as Mrs CoD and all the trimmings.

    #28 2 years ago
  29. PS4FANB0Y

    I agree with the comment above. Price digital games lower. They have the option. Then we can see which is better.

    If then can get digital versions around $40, then I can see digital taking over in the near future.

    #29 2 years ago
  30. Roxor

    @25& @10 You say its non-sense when a lot of developers have said otherwise, and they should know they are in the business(I would take their opinion over yours, because I’m guessing you’ve never created a AAA game in your life).

    His comments (just like all the other developers who have said the same thing) are very rational and if you are old enough to grasp the concept of business you have to agree.

    You can disagree with his solution or his opinion of DLC etc, but when a game can be purchased once and a portion of that goes to the developer, then can be resold numerous times, letting many people play the full game without the developer seeing any additional money, that hurts their bottom line.

    Its amazing how many people get personally offended when someone gives their opinion because it doesn’t jive with your opinion, grow up people, some of these comments sound like he is trying to kill your dog.

    Clearly the gaming population wasn’t ready to go all digital, what I’m sure you’ll see with both Sony and MS is a big push to get everyone to LIKE digital, be it with added features (DLC), cheaper price, sooner availability etc. so the next version when they both are digital devices it will seem second nature.

    #30 2 years ago
  31. MCTJim

    Well, for the life of me, I still dont understand the whole used game market pissing off people since GS gives us crap back for trade ins..but, if I could get new games for 40 bucks..I’m good with that.

    #31 2 years ago
  32. karma

    I really dislike these privileged devs who have no clue about gamers with lower incomes telling us ‘if we care about games, then we should be happy for them to price us out of gaming by accepting used game blocking and DRM restrictions.’

    The fact is, a great many of us wouldn’t be able to game at all if not for the used game market. And there is no way in hell I will ever leave that up to a greedy corporation like Microsoft, who has never had the best interests of its consumers at heart, to decide.

    So no, he is completely wrong.

    And as for microtransactions and day 1 dlc. Those things are the reason people are put off from buying games.

    You want to sell more games? stop including MT’s and day 1 dlc.

    #32 2 years ago
  33. hives

    You know what? I’m starting to just don’t care about biggest triple-A titles… And by that I mean really big franchises, often annualized.

    Especially with so many smaller titles coming up, including potential awesome games from Kickstarter and other big titles but from devs that make 1 game per 4-5 years… I just don’t need new Assassin, new Call of Duty, new God of War, new modern shooter, new slasher that feels like tons of other slashers etc.

    I think it’s interesting time for gaming, and I’m quite happy I’ll focus on PC. I will probably do the same thing I did in this generation – I will buy consoles after X years, when at least 3-4 great exclusives will be avaiable for both (or even Wii U).

    #33 2 years ago
  34. Roxor

    @32 no he is not wrong, you don’t agree with his opinion doesn’t make it wrong, there is a difference.

    #34 2 years ago
  35. karma

    #34: It might be beneficial to privileged gamers like him, but he is completely wrong from my perspective.

    The problem with Microsoft right now is, they seem to be targeting the elitists, money to burn demographic, which must be a very small percentage of the global gaming audience, otherwise we wouldn’t have seen such a huge outpouring of passion from gamers over the xb1′s restrictions. IMO, MS and a few choice developers out there are quite out of touch with the broader gaming audience at the moment.

    #35 2 years ago
  36. WENDiGO

    If you really want digital to take off, make the digital market attractive. Other than not having to use disc and somewhat faster boot up, there’s not much there. Do something about the price of digital releases, make them cheaper…it only makes sense that it would cost less. It takes too long to download a game, that’s probably the worse thing about it. Come up with more solutions for that. The size of these games take up a lot of space on a HDD. You can’t do much about that but many people consider that when they think about downloading games.

    #36 2 years ago
  37. Max Payne

    Maybe if Bulletstorm wasn’t so linear,short,generic,with no replayability ,no competitive mp and without cost of $60 THEN maybe some one would actually bought that game.

    #37 2 years ago
  38. Old MacDonald

    I think a lot of the comments here shows people didn’t take the time to read what he said. Because a lot of it makes sense.

    I am absolutely against measures that limit our freedom to use or resell the games we’ve bought as we wish. Absolutely. But it’s not black/white. I get that the way used games are marketed is a real problem for publishers and developers. Sometimes both sides in an argument may have good points, and when someone articulates them well – like Chiem.. Adrian – they deserve some respect instead of being vilified.

    #38 2 years ago
  39. Maabren

    @ LordDjinn

    Thats right. Almost everyone knows this for a fact, but not those greedy lying asholes telling otherwise. Recon all telling otherwise at this site are employed at MS or EA or family of those. All this BS all over again just fucking our brain.

    #39 2 years ago
  40. SplatteredHouse

    Having read the source article, this report’s own title manages to miss the point altogether.

    It’s neither wrong as it stands, but nor is it that accurate (imho).
    The author isn’t defending anything. Quite the opposite, in fact:

    “Everyone is to blame. Microsoft and its messaging (and, honestly, a couple of indefensible, puzzling Xbox One features). Gamers and their resistance to change the status quo (unable to admit that the box is doomed anyway). Journalists and their inability to stand against the masses (there were lots of click baits and fan service, and not a lot of looking forward and analysis). Developers and their silence (the exceptions were all too rare).”

    He, as I, believes that there are a lot of factors contributing to a damaging situation. One long in the making. Sure, he sees the used-game market as an issue – but, unlike Bleszinski, Adrian’s able to see and communicate the bigger picture: “The problem is: games only got worse this way.”

    So, a little further on, and he suggests that Microsoft were explicitly seeking to do away with retail, with their Xbox One plans, except they made such a godawful hash of selling their intent, that most of that went up in flames. Gamestop’s power holding back a dawn of digital, holding back DIGITAL pricing initiatives.

    Had I known beforehand, that what I would have read had I investigated was a piece discussing the need to alter a common business model, and consumer behaviour, I’d have clicked through all the sooner.

    #40 2 years ago
  41. salarta

    Yeah, I’m not surprised at all that the person behind Bulletstorm would be in support of anti-used policies, what with the game’s account sign-in DRM that made it so I couldn’t fucking play my copy of the game that I legitimately bought through Steam. They can say whatever they want, no matter what gets implemented, their being so obsessed with preventing used and pirated games that it keeps me from actually playing what I buy guarantees I’m not buying anything else they put out. I might have gotten past the login screen eventually, maybe with a full half an hour devoted to it, but frankly when I have other games I want to play that I can get started on in less than a minute, I’m not going to waste more of my time.

    I love video games, which is why I’m all for the used games market. Aside from the obvious of more people being able to play games and the content remaining available into the future, it sounds more and more like it may become the only thing that could get developers and publishers to stop throwing insane budgets at projects to make them “more like Hollywood.”

    By the way, Hollywood’s model is often cited as how ridiculously big budget productions manage to stay alive, through ticket sales at the theaters. It turns out, Hollywood is actually going down the drain too, and it’s been pointed out by a writer at Cracked of all places: http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/4-ways-hollywood-completely-imploding/

    #41 2 years ago
  42. SplatteredHouse

    @41 The used games market is not the problem, but from a consumer perspective, an answer to one. I don’t think it would be good for used to go away. The good thing would have been for publishers to sort their shit out with retailers, and take up the FIGHT themselves for a piece of the pie, aim to leave retailers on the backfoot, and quit throwing purchasing players in to their tiff with Gamestop!

    Still, that’s not taking place. So – what? It leaves with me the impression things can’t be that bad! I don’t see much tooth and nail going on, just a repeat caterwauling between them as the “effort” to get this idyllic future off the ground.
    They’re stuck in such a rut, and its noxious to be in the presence of.

    #42 2 years ago
  43. The_Red

    “he says if you care about gaming, you will want the pre-owned market to die.”

    So the gamers that can only afford second hand games should stop playing and die?

    #43 2 years ago
  44. MCTJim

    I love my job too. I make $82.01 per hour..so I am better than you :P

    #44 2 years ago
  45. salarta

    @42: It just really floors me how developers are behaving. The corporate bullshit appears to have tainted many of them. It’s fine to want to be paid for your work, but now they’re actively campaigning to keep their games out of the hands of gamers no matter what it takes just so they can get their money. Developers actually used to be worth a damn, and have higher ideals than merely “I do work to get paid for it.” Games used to be made in garages with no care in the world to how many copies it sold so long as they could get it out there for people to play.

    The more I see AAA developers make statements like this guy’s, the less respect I have for AAA developers. It makes me want to just not buy AAA games, because that means I’m giving my money to people that care more about getting paid than the medium they’re working on and the audience they’re supposedly making games for. I don’t expect them to make video games for free, but when they start advocating that people should lose their consumer rights just so the developer can make more money off a shitty and flawed system of budgeting, that’s where I draw the line.

    #45 2 years ago
  46. Hellhound30x

    Here how about this? Why don’t you fuckers make a good product that sells? What are you so lazy now that you want every product you make to be successful even if it sucks? Thats bullshit greed!
    “If I care about gaming?”
    What has gaming become? What is it? The titles that are worth the $60 price tag are far and few. Most games that hit retail shelves are worth one play through, maybe two if that. There is no way in fucking hell that I would support either Sony, or Microsoft with this “Anti- used” policies.
    People like this are full of shit.
    Gears of war is made for less than 10 million dollars, and in 3 weeks generates a over a 180 million. How is that for numbers?
    You want to talk about MGS 4?
    The most expensive game ever made wont even come close to the budgets they use for movies like Man of Steel, or The Dark Knight Rises. NOT EVEN CLOSE!
    I really hope you guys don’t believe the spoon fed bullshit these fools are feeding you.

    #46 2 years ago
  47. jasonsantanna

    What MS should have done was expanded on its policies by offering both sides of physical game disc and digital down load:

    For gamers who don’t have internet connection, you can buy physical disc of a game which will require the game to be in the disc drive to play, this could also be traded in or given away or shared , however the consumer wanted.

    For consumers who buy a game thur xbox live digitally the game can be shared thur the policies they had in place and would be 10~15% cheaperto purchase

    #47 2 years ago
  48. Gigabomber

    $60 price point is too high for most of the trash that they pedal. Heck, I even felt ripped off by the borefest of the last of us. The industry itself created this problem.

    #48 2 years ago
  49. Francis O

    These developers would have a longer life span for their games if they were actually any good. Learn how to make games better so people don’t want to trade it in.

    Instead you guy 100 developers all working on shooters over and over again. Of course people are going to trade it in.

    #49 2 years ago
  50. BD

    Fantastic arguments Bulletstorm developer.

    Allow me to present a rebuttal or a complement.

    Yes, the $60 price tag as well as the used games market is complete and total bullshit, where the developer gets shafted, as well as the consumer.

    But you see, what Microsoft had in mind, was to fuck the customer over, instead of fucking Gamestop over.

    The RIGHT thing to do, is to tell it like it is; it is Gamestop that’s seeing revenue they should not, and the system should change in the interest of the consumer. Don Matrick should have come on stage, and said “Gamestop is a monster that has to be stopped, so from now on, all Xbox games will cost $30-40, and this following DRM scheme will be implemented to support it”.

    But that did not happen.

    Under NO CIRCUMSTANCE should Microsoft’s solution be painted as a “good” attempt to transition into something better. The only transition that was on offer was for the consumer-publisher contract to be worse for the consumer, and better for the publisher.

    The status quo is bad, but it is better than the future in which the customer gets even more fucked in order to compensate for Gamestop’s revenue stream.

    You do not get to have your cake and eat it too. You either choose the customer, or you choose Gamestop. They’re choosing Gamestop. Microsoft’s offer was one where they threw themselves and publishers into the mix, so that both Gamestop and themselves are represented at the cost of the consumer.

    The only logical answer to that, is Get Fucked.

    #50 2 years ago
  51. onefivefive

    I care about gaming, and I want the used-game market to die. I think both Sony and MS had an opportunity to combat it by blocking used games on their new consoles (thus forcing Gamestop to cease their shady practises) and the short sightedness of most gamers today prevented that. The future is looking very digital as a result.

    #51 2 years ago
  52. LordDjinn

    @52 1/3 of the gaming industry is made up of used games. It allows consoles to sell, brings new people into new franchises, and allows those less fortunate to afford new games who otherwise wouldnt even be able to enjoy, your short sidedness is what the gaming industry doesnt need, you, MS’s anti consumer Drm, and this whining bastard is what the gaming industry doesnt need..

    #52 2 years ago
  53. onefivefive

    NONE of the game industry makes money from used games and they syphon money from potential sale of new games. If you can’t afford a game, don’t buy one.

    #53 2 years ago
  54. onefivefive

    Also, *sightedness.

    #54 2 years ago
  55. Lengendaryboss

    @53
    HaHa :)

    #55 2 years ago
  56. LordDjinn

    @54 The gaming industry is made up of Gamers, Game developers, and Used games. If one of those things disappears because publishers are greedy, the industry will forever be ruined. Developers have already made money if a used game goes into circulation, and if the game isnt worth getting new why bother.

    Nintendo said it right the first time. “We’re more worried about piracy and we think used games are a whole other story. In fact, from our perspective you want to create a game that people will want to keep and keep playing for a long time,” he continued. “That’s the approach that we always take and that’s the best way to avoid used games.”
    Read more at http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/124927-Nintendo-Says-Used-Games-Arent-An-Issue#4gRQGWOCZkZt1fzW.99

    Rather you like it or not there are people that enjoy games but cant afford new all of the time thus the used game market allows them to enjoy the medium.

    Like already said, “The used game market (although i dont use it anymore) allowed those of use that couldnt afford new games buy them, as well as give franchises another customer if said person enjoyed their game. (God of war 1, was enjoyable so i became a fan of the series and have all of them) i got my ps3 first, my sister, little brother, and his friend all got one too, bc they enjoyed the games they borrowed..)

    The used game market is part of the gaming industry, and anyone trying to get rid of it is a fool..”

    #56 2 years ago
  57. Keivz

    I agree with him. Except that I think the $60 price tag is fair (games are cheaper today than in the past due to inflation). And a gamer on a budget can go for older titles (game prices drop dramatically after 8-12 mos… and who is caught up on their backlog anyway?). The PC market figured this out (albeit forcefully) a while back, it’s just not big enough to have a significant impact on the gaming market. Viva la steam.

    #57 2 years ago

Comments are now closed on this article.