Jimquisition: Online Passes Are Bad For Everybody

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT
 

cookyy2k:

Catalyst6:

Assassin Xaero:

Something not to be proud of? I'm sorry, but I don't have $60 laying around every time I want a game. I have a car, have to pay gas and insurance, I also have bills... Should I be proud if I skip out on eating for a few days to afford a half-assed 4 hour campaign? I mean, I buy CD's preowned all the time and buy used movies. Artists or directors don't go around complaining constantly about that. They also don't try to screw us over by make 25 minute CD's with half the songs being intros/filler/outros. They also don't make movies that are only 45-50 minutes then released extended parts of it later for a fraction of the price.

If you can't afford the game, then don't buy the game. It's economics. Yes, I like all people wish that games were cheaper and every person could own every game. That would be a wonderful world. But it doesn't work like that, alas, economics gets in the way every time. If it's so "half-assed" that you can't stand to hand over ten dollars to the dev for making it (a fee that many times won't add up to the price of a new copy) then why are you buying it at all?

I can afford the game pre-owned, hence it's bought pre-owned. You keep going on like the new price is literally the only option.

I'm not saying that, although I understand why you might think that. No, I'm just annoyed that people get so uppity at the merest mention of having to throw a few bucks at a group of people that put all the time and effort into making these products. GameStop could be selling chickens that they name after the games for all they care. Ten dollars isn't exactly a breaking point, is it? Is it really that big of a deal? And more to the point, if you're unwilling to give ten dollars to the people that made the game, for one reason or another, then why are you purchasing it at all?

Assassin Xaero:

Catalyst6:

Assassin Xaero:

Something not to be proud of? I'm sorry, but I don't have $60 laying around every time I want a game. I have a car, have to pay gas and insurance, I also have bills... Should I be proud if I skip out on eating for a few days to afford a half-assed 4 hour campaign? I mean, I buy CD's preowned all the time and buy used movies. Artists or directors don't go around complaining constantly about that. They also don't try to screw us over by make 25 minute CD's with half the songs being intros/filler/outros. They also don't make movies that are only 45-50 minutes then released extended parts of it later for a fraction of the price.

If you can't afford the game, then don't buy the game. It's economics. Yes, I like all people wish that games were cheaper and every person could own every game. That would be a wonderful world. But it doesn't work like that, alas, economics gets in the way every time. If it's so "half-assed" that you can't stand to hand over ten dollars to the dev for making it (a fee that many times won't add up to the price of a new copy) then why are you buying it at all?

But if it is used, I can afford to buy it. Why do I not care much to hand money over to devs? Because games are lower quality than they used to be. Games on the PC especially are constantly shafted for the 360, same with single player campaigns for multiplayer. I don't feel bad at all spending half or less of the price to support a local game retail store.

That right there sir/madam, is a beautiful argument.

Noone should have to pay for crap quality gaming.

so, i say this. if you want to focus on the game companies, focus in a positive manner. Let it be known to them that if they split the game down into two seperate areas, and marketed them at a lower price, then you would buy the part of the game you liked. In exchange, they could sell it for 1/3 to 1/2 the price less, and then, the used game market wouldn't look so attractive, would it?

cookyy2k:

Because they apparently have customers willing to put up with their crap, unlike every other industry on Earth.

Unfortunately for us, sir, I believe you are right.

One thing he didn't mention (that maybe someone in the 9 pages of this thread mentioned, although I didn't find it with ctrl+f) is that it also fucks with people who import games.

I imported Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit and I couldn't redeem its online pass because my account was only able to access the Australian PSN store, and not the one in Hong Kong. So I had to make a new PSN account with location Hong Kong, just so that I could play online.

That's just not friendly at all.

I think the idea of rewarding people who buy new games with something makes sense, but you don't want that feature to feel like part of the game their buying. Online multiplayer seems like a bad thing to do this with, even for games that have no reason to have online multiplayer.

I think players need to buy new games to support developers they like, but used games are a way to help get new players to want to support you. Still, I'm not sure an argument that claims it encourages squeals is going to be that popular. It would be better if players were more inform of the developers of games so they would be encouraged to buy games they made, but without the need for yearly repeats of the same game. Then again the second game delivering everything first game promised isn't that bad of a plan for publishers.

Crono1973:

dystopiaINC:

Stall:
The problem with believing that used games are a good way for gamers to test new IPs is that publishers require the sales of the new IP to judge if a sequel is worth it. If everyone buys a new IP used, then it simply isn't going to get a sequel because the publisher doesn't consider it worthwhile since the first game just didn't sell. If someone made a great new IP, but most people bought it used because they are afraid of that fact, then there wouldn't be a chance to BUY a sequel because a sequel wouldn't happen.

EDIT: Also, why do people expect companies to trust them? Do you know the first rule of fucking business? It's that you NEVER trust your customer. When you give a customer trust, even just a little bit, then they will find ways to exploit that trust and fuck you over because of it. Not trusting your customer is good business. It isn't being a dick or being rude. Stop being entitled and expect publishers to trust you, because it isn't going to happen.

I hate the entitlement of so many gamers nowadays.

never trust your customers

Never trust the people giving you money? It's a shame your customers trust you enough to pay you.

This is why customer service is non existent these days, the old slogan "the customer is always right" has been changed to "the customer is a thief and a liar".

i like how you cut my whole post down to quite literally he last line. i made it clear in my original post why i said i don't trust customers, and it was because people were abusing our system, to tell the truth we always WANT to help the customer but they take advantage of that way to often. so like i was saying never trust them. if they can prove to you that they didn't get something or something was off by all means we will do what we can, but don't just implicitly trust them. because most of the time the customer really and honestly is not right. they either misread, misunderstand or are trying to pull a fast one on you by acting ignorant. because it has happened to us.

dystopiaINC:

Crono1973:

dystopiaINC:

never trust your customers

Never trust the people giving you money? It's a shame your customers trust you enough to pay you.

This is why customer service is non existent these days, the old slogan "the customer is always right" has been changed to "the customer is a thief and a liar".

i like how you cut my whole post down to quite literally he last line. i made it clear in my original post why i said i don't trust customers, and it was because people were abusing our system, to tell the truth we always WANT to help the customer but they take advantage of that way to often. so like i was saying never trust them. if they can prove to you that they didn't get something or something was off by all means we will do what we can, but don't just implicitly trust them. because most of the time the customer really and honestly is not right. they either misread, misunderstand or are trying to pull a fast one on you by acting ignorant. because it has happened to us.

So you really believe that most of your customers are thieves and liars? I've worked in fast food and retail and the scammers are in the minority. Most people don't remove the pickles and then complain because they asked for extra pickles, for example.

Loved this episode

it's like paying $60 to get into a art show (cuz games are considered art now)and seeing that half of all the paintings are covered with heavy duty trash bags. when you ask someone whats going on he tells you that the artist wants to make sure that your interested in his painting so you have to pay a little extra to see the whole thing.Now in this situation would,1 go around handing out all your extra dough to see the whole paintings or,2 throw a shit fit and demand your money back.(when i satrted this post i didn't intend it to be this long)

I love how people are trying to paint poor people as inconsiderate, greedy consumers who want to actively screw over developers. The Republican Party would be proud.
I buy new most of the time. If I like a game enough, it goes in my collection, otherwise it gets traded in to fuel further purchases. Someone explain to me what exactly is wrong with what I'm doing?

dbphreakdb:

Mirrorknight:
I have bought two games used. Saint's Row 2 and Call of Duty World at War. I would have never bought them new. I actually got both through GameFly. Ended up liking them and buying them from them. Then I bought all the DLC for both. That's about 30 and 40 bucks respectively. Money THQ and EA would have never had from me if I didn't buy those games used. While I haven't bought another CoD since, I've already got Saint's Row the Third pre-ordered which would have never happened if didn't buy the second used. More and likely I'll buy all the DLC for that as well. Which means THQ probably is going to get all together 120 bucks they would have never seen from me otherwise if I hadn't been able to buy Saint's Row 2 used.

So screw online passes.

I commend your exceptionalism.

As that is apparently not a real word, i will point out to you that the root of it is exceptional, which the root of that is exception.

As in, the exception rather than the rule.

You are indeed a new convert from a used game, and that is to be commended. The crux of the ordeal is that the margins for used to new conversions are very load. Most people who buy used, stay used.

I would like to see the figures and charts and facts that you used to come to that declaration. Not being a smart ass. If you actually have some sort of research you can provide that points to that being true, I'd really would like to see it.

I boycotted EA at about the release time of DeadSpace. I have yet to regret my decision based on their actions.

I'd like to nominate Jim Sterling as the official truth speaker for this site. He's a voice of reason in sea of pretension and sycophancy.

How is it that someone like me who makes $6.00 per hour can still buy new games (in almost all cases they are day 1 releases) and collectors editions of various games (most recent collectors editions were Disgaea 4 and Space Marine). Do you want to know the last time I bought a used game. I have no clue, maybe last generation or the one before.

kiri2tsubasa:
How is it that someone like me who makes $6.00 per hour can still buy new games and collectors editions of various games (most recent collectors editions were Disgaea 4 and Space Marine). Do you want to know the last time I bought a used game. I have no clue, maybe last generation or the one before.

If you choose to buy new then fine, I however choose not to as pre-owned is cheaper. Just because I can afford new doesn't mean I should have to buy new or that I'm going to. It's not just the can't afford argument it's lots of various factors, oh and not wanting to pay twice for something, that's always nice.

cookyy2k:

kiri2tsubasa:
How is it that someone like me who makes $6.00 per hour can still buy new games and collectors editions of various games (most recent collectors editions were Disgaea 4 and Space Marine). Do you want to know the last time I bought a used game. I have no clue, maybe last generation or the one before.

If you choose to buy new then fine, I however choose not to as pre-owned is cheaper. Just because I can afford new doesn't mean I should have to buy new or that I'm going to. It's not just the can't afford argument it's lots of various factors, oh and not wanting to pay twice for something, that's always nice.

From what I remember, I was burned badly by used games so problems like that will affect my purchases and since games are disk based chances are I will get some disk that will be so scratched up that it can not be played (like a copy of Spawn on the PSX I got from Funco Land). Because of tha, for security sake, I only get new.

I'm not too sure what peoples arguments are when it comes to game pricing. The US pays 60 dollah per new title, the UK pays 50 quid pew new PS3 title (Less for PC, dont know about xbox). They are still unreasonable. Anyone who says "Well a third world country pays 100 dollars per game!" is missing the fucking point. That is also unreasonable; but just because your prices are MORE UNREASONABLE doesn't mean anything cheaper is automatically an unreasonable issue to complain about. What it implies is that people can only complain if they live in a third world country, who cares if business is screwing them over? That is a silly stance to take, you should be agreeing with us, like we would agree that the pricing in some countries is EVEN WORSE, which again i point out, doesn't make the fact 50 quid for an 8 hour triple A title is far too fucking much (Unless it's Skyrim, i'd pay a kidney for skyrim)

kiri2tsubasa:

cookyy2k:

kiri2tsubasa:
How is it that someone like me who makes $6.00 per hour can still buy new games and collectors editions of various games (most recent collectors editions were Disgaea 4 and Space Marine). Do you want to know the last time I bought a used game. I have no clue, maybe last generation or the one before.

If you choose to buy new then fine, I however choose not to as pre-owned is cheaper. Just because I can afford new doesn't mean I should have to buy new or that I'm going to. It's not just the can't afford argument it's lots of various factors, oh and not wanting to pay twice for something, that's always nice.

From what I remember, I was burned badly by used games so problems like that will affect my purchases and since games are disk based chances are I will get some disk that will be so scratched up that it can not be played (like a copy of Spawn on the PSX I got from Funco Land). Because of tha, for security sake, I only get new.

Ah, I've never had such problems. My local game retailer always sticks it's pre-owned games through a resurface cycle while you wait and then they give you chance to look at the disk and make sure you're happy, plus you get a 30 day warranty.I know people who've been stung by different retailers though so I suppose it's hit and miss. As I posted earlier though 20 for 3 games is more attractive than 60 for 1.

Slycne:

MatParker116:
I like how Mass Effect 2 handled used games. Hate how THQ and EA do

EA published Mass Effect 2.

true but they had a different and in the end much better system with the Cerberus network.

The one thing I got out of this episode was that I accepted that I'm going to end up poor, ugly and alone once I move out.

Versuvius:
I'm not too sure what peoples arguments are when it comes to game pricing. The US pays 60 dollah per new title, the UK pays 50 quid pew new PS3 title (Less for PC, dont know about xbox). They are still unreasonable. Anyone who says "Well a third world country pays 100 dollars per game!" is missing the fucking point. That is also unreasonable; but just because your prices are MORE UNREASONABLE doesn't mean anything cheaper is automatically an unreasonable issue to complain about. What it implies is that people can only complain if they live in a third world country, who cares if business is screwing them over? That is a silly stance to take, you should be agreeing with us, like we would agree that the pricing in some countries is EVEN WORSE, which again i point out, doesn't make the fact 50 quid for an 8 hour triple A title is far too fucking much (Unless it's Skyrim, i'd pay a kidney for skyrim)

I think the argument is that if we're paying more for the game then things like online passes are even more annoying.
To buy a game, I either save for a month or spend half of my paycheck on it. Not exactly a good idea when you have bills to pay and can barely get yourself essentials.

pretty much agree with him. i have now a bunch of games i dont play anymore or dont like, and i cant get rid of them. simply because of steam or you can use the code only once.
few years ago i had no problems to sell my games to a store, get a voucher and was able to buy a new game i want and save lots of money.
i used to live in australia, and you sure pay a lot for a new game. over 100$ if you like to know. now living in hong kong, the games are really cheaper then even on steam. but the code stuff is again a problem that you cant give the game back to ask for a voucher or something like that.
and then you have this stupid XBOX LIVE shit which is the most annoying crap for pc users. or this DRM from ubisoft.
the stores dont accept anymore used games, especially pc games, just because of the codes you have to enter and the store cant sell them anymore.

because of that, i am really careful now what games i buy.

Online passes? While I support the fact that it shouldn't exist some of the arguments raised for it I disagree with.

Oh yeah, please don't break that item just because you're angry. Please, please, please. I don't care if you hit someone over the head with it; it's only polystyrene and it wouldn't kill but breaking the thing? Oh god no.

Corsion:

Versuvius:
I'm not too sure what peoples arguments are when it comes to game pricing. The US pays 60 dollah per new title, the UK pays 50 quid pew new PS3 title (Less for PC, dont know about xbox). They are still unreasonable. Anyone who says "Well a third world country pays 100 dollars per game!" is missing the fucking point. That is also unreasonable; but just because your prices are MORE UNREASONABLE doesn't mean anything cheaper is automatically an unreasonable issue to complain about. What it implies is that people can only complain if they live in a third world country, who cares if business is screwing them over? That is a silly stance to take, you should be agreeing with us, like we would agree that the pricing in some countries is EVEN WORSE, which again i point out, doesn't make the fact 50 quid for an 8 hour triple A title is far too fucking much (Unless it's Skyrim, i'd pay a kidney for skyrim)

I think the argument is that if we're paying more for the game then things like online passes are even more annoying.
To buy a game, I either save for a month or spend half of my paycheck on it. Not exactly a good idea when you have bills to pay and can barely get yourself essentials.

I was referring to comments in the thread, not the video, the video has it dead on. I guess my mad literary skills fail at 4:30am.

Hey, how about instead of buying used games, you give money to the people who actually created the game. All you have to do is *gasp* buy fewer games! It boggles the mind, doesn't it?

Seriously, though, online passes are a huge waste of time (and indeed insulting), but being cheap because you simply have to have two games at once is retarded.

Why are the online passes even there to begin with? To get the companies more money. Because instead of buying one (1) new game, which puts money ($60) in the hands of the publisher, the developer, the retailer, and everyone else who had anything to do with the game, dumbasses go out and buy two (2) used games (both for $30), both with online passes (so $80 altogether), which puts all of $20 into the pockets of the people who worked on the game. This lower income results in less money being put into games by publishers, which means developers have to do more with less, because the consumers want more, yet the money the receive to do that "more" is a lot less.

hitheremynameisbob:

Mouse_Crouse:
The publishers not seeing any money dosen't hold up either, because EVERY used game anywhere ever, was once a new game that was purchased.

That's just wrong. The point people make when they say that is that the publisher could have sold TWO games, not just one, because two different people bought it. If you couldn't sell used games, some of the people who bought it used WOULD buy it new. Meanwhile, that person who first bought the game which was later sold as used is fairly likely to still buy it - hence two new sales instead of just the one.

Jim is right on the money, though - it's entirely possible that used games are actually making developers money, but it's not because someone already bought the game once - that's a sale they probably would have had anyway. Instead, they make money through more indirect means like bringing people into the franchise so that they'll buy a SEQUEL new. However, unless someone actually does the research on that it's hard to say that with any measure of certainty, which makes Jim's argument a bit flimsy. The point he's trying to make is "it's good for both developer and consumer," but half of that is relying on an assumption that these means through which developers make money off used games are making them more than they're losing. It's undeniable that consumers experience some great benefits by having the option to buy used, but unless you can show conclusively that the developers also stand to gain, it's hard to say that they should just accept it.

Also, this. If there was no used games business, then most people who buy used would have to suck it up and buy new, which would put more money into the hands of the people who work on the games. But because there is a used games business, that money never sees the hands of the people who worked hard on it. Sure, used games might prompt someone to buy a sequel used, and maybe the pre-order bonus' help that decision a bit, but if you don't care about the bonus, then there is zero incentive to buy new, meaning that the publisher, developer, etc, all lose money they could have had. I doubt that the money made by online passes or helping someone into a franchise and them buying new makes up for the original loss of $60 to begin with.

In my opinion, online passes should go away. So should stores like Gamestop and EB games. I think publishers should have their own used games stores. Think about it: it would negate the need for online passes, people could still trade in their games for 1/4 their actual worth, the publisher could still mark it up 150%, and the money would go right back in again.

dbphreakdb:

The company did budget for online access. From a single user.

Alot of people think that game creation is not categorically researched and planned, when it is. The initial purchaser of the game license is budgeted into operating cost, with some fuzzy equations that take into account the variables for diminishing returns on game enjoyment, sequel replacement, and a host of several other semi-predictable normalized variables.

The IT sector is replete with mathematical and theoretical geniuses who actually track these sort of statistical probabilities. Used Games falls outside of a guaranteed services contract, and thus, fall outside of these equations, as they are wildcards that cannot be projected in a consistent manner, due to their very nature.

Also: Selling a ticket for less than what you paid for it, just to get a return is, known as scalping here in the states. Only authorized ticket agents really have the legal right and ability to sell a ticket.

okay first up. If there's only 1 user at any given point at time, Then categorically speaking there is only a single user. There is no spawning of extra copies so that suddenly user 1 is actually 4 people stressing the servers at the same time

As for the budgeting of the server access in the games budget i believe that i had a whole section on that in the first place.

But here's the issue, if they determine that each game only offers 40 hours worth of online play per person on average. A) these numbers will have been based off previous playtime stats which would have included used games sales, so technically speaking the budgeting should already exist to account for used game sales. Secondly if one game only offers 40 hours worth and another 400 hours worth how is it fair that the game asks for the same 10 dollars.

In fact i would argue that if you only have 40 hours of online play average it means that there is an issue with the way you have designed your game and as a result a person was finished with it far sooner than they should have and decided to trade it back in as it was still worth a reasonable amount in trade. If you offer 400 quality hours of play most likely by the time a person is done with those 400 hours of online play the trade in value for that game is going to be so minor that it won't even be worth the effort of the buyer.

As for the whole Scalping issue. It's illegal here to. But you'll note i said give or sell. In this case the better word would have been re-imberse. Ie i bought 2 tickets for me and my GF to go to a concert. Something came up so i gave the tickets to a mate so he could go, and he re-imbursed me for it either via money or by doing something else for me. There's a difference between scalping as a practice in which you buy tickets with the sole purpose of reselling them and handing them off to friends to ensure they don't go to waste.

but guess what, in that case the ticket vendor doesn't get to charge the person you gave the tickets to.

online passes because of Server data is BS. Especially for companies to stingy to run dedicated servers(or even allow their players to).

I think the used games market is something that needs to be abolished but then im a filthy PC gamer who cant resell games anyway's.

Sylocat:

Nurb:
I'm surprised that he hasn't pointed out that there is NO OTHER INDUSTRY that feels entitled to more money when a customer resells their product.

Shit, that's like companies demanding a cut of the sales from ebay.

There's no other industry where CONSUMERS feel entitled to buy a much cheaper used product that is functionally identical to the original.

When you buy a used car, you are accepting that there will be a certain amount of wear and tear, and thus some decreased functionality. When you buy a used book, you are risking page damage. A used VHS will have degraded some, a used DVD will probably have scratches and scuffs. Consumers don't care, or at least they don't blame the manufacturer.

But used games? When you play online, you are using the PUBLISHER's bandwidth. Bandwidth costs money. If you don't pay for the game, you are stealing money from them. Even the tired pirate argument of, "DURR, THEY DONT LOOZE ANY MUNNY FROM PIRACY, LOL!" doesn't apply, because you are costing them money for bandwidth.

You pointed out that used DVDs have scratches and scuffs, but games don't? Are the discs made out of bloody titanium or something?

I've been saying the exact same things as Jim Stirling for a while. And knew exactly what he was going to say before I watched the video.

And I completely agree on all accounts.

Thmmm I think some people have missed Jim's point it doesnt matter if his reasons are weak and you think its only a slight nuscence, his true arguement is that you should stand up for consumer rights. Also people cannot afford to buy everything new as stated countless times. I suspect that if used games were to disapear though Jim is probably right that less new games would be sold due to less trade in credit.

Sucal:
Just pointing out, that any american who complains about $60 games should come buy games in Australia.

Yes, because if your hand gets burned off, you're not allowed to show any sign of pain, because a guy got his legs blown off.

Azuaron:

The game is a product. Online play is a service. If you want the service, you have to pay the people who are providing it, not Gamestop.

Or, in the used vehicle analogy of which people are so fond: the warranty only applies to the first owner; manufacturers provide no warranty for vehicles sold used. Why? Because they only provide a warranty to people who are actually their customers.

Actually this isn't true-- or rather, it isn't completely true. Some car manufacturers do provide a warranty to used vehicles sold through their certified pre-owned program. In addition, the customers know that they're getting a car that has passed an exhaustive inspection system and that are guaranteed to have fewer than a set number of miles. I'm also thinking of a similar kind of thing where you can buy refurbished, used copies of things like smartphones for a cheaper price than brand new.

I've had issues with GameStop games freezing or skipping or not working properly, and them being nasty when you try to return them (or not having another copy of the game in stock). I'd be willing to buy used games directly from the publisher if they were cheaper than new and I knew I'd be getting a working game from a trustworthy source. I'm definitely one of the "bought a game used or old-therefore-cheap on Amazon and then went on to buy the sequels at full price" people Jim mentioned, so they'd get a loyal customer with me if they did that. Even better, I can order online and save the bother of having to drive to a retail store (and back when the fucker doesn't work right). Also, I don't generally play online content, so they'd be making zilch out of me as a used-game buyer who isn't interested in the pass.

Christ, he delivers such great points yet the visuals are so utterly repulsive. It's really kind of a shame. :/

Online passes are not simply bad for business, they are anti-ethical. If I paid for a game, it is mine. If I want to resell it, and you get in my way, you are interfering with my property rights. If you prevent me from selling my used game, you are stealing from me.

EverythingIncredible:

Sylocat:

Nurb:
I'm surprised that he hasn't pointed out that there is NO OTHER INDUSTRY that feels entitled to more money when a customer resells their product.

Shit, that's like companies demanding a cut of the sales from ebay.

There's no other industry where CONSUMERS feel entitled to buy a much cheaper used product that is functionally identical to the original.

When you buy a used car, you are accepting that there will be a certain amount of wear and tear, and thus some decreased functionality. When you buy a used book, you are risking page damage. A used VHS will have degraded some, a used DVD will probably have scratches and scuffs. Consumers don't care, or at least they don't blame the manufacturer.

But used games? When you play online, you are using the PUBLISHER's bandwidth. Bandwidth costs money. If you don't pay for the game, you are stealing money from them. Even the tired pirate argument of, "DURR, THEY DONT LOOZE ANY MUNNY FROM PIRACY, LOL!" doesn't apply, because you are costing them money for bandwidth.

You pointed out that used DVDs have scratches and scuffs, but games don't? Are the discs made out of bloody titanium or something?

I've been saying the exact same things as Jim Stirling for a while. And knew exactly what he was going to say before I watched the video.

And I completely agree on all accounts.

What she said. I once bought a used copy of Jak X and the disc was so bloody scratched that I couldn't get past the starter screen. NOT titanium then.

I also agree with Jim Sterling. Although I don't play online, so my beef is more when they cut single-player content. Why the hell should I pay extra for that!?

I'm quite enjoying Jim's videos now BTW; after a very shaky start (IMHO), he's grown on me and now I watch his videos every week. His persona - fake though it is - still rubs me the wrong way sometimes though =P

I love how people bitch and moan about gaming customers being "entitled" when it's the same entitlement bullshit from the publishers whining about "losing a sale" to a used game purchase. Since when did I lose the right to sell off MY property if I so choose?

I agree 100% with you Jim. Some people who can't think for themselves just follow TotalBiscuit's thoughts on used games, but at least you know how annoying publishers can be with them.

(Not disrespecting TB though, I agree with almost everything else he talks about)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here