CliffyB Thinks Used Games Are Bad, Sony is "Playing Us"

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

My favorite memory of Cliffy B was when he said "We're not making Gears of War 2/3 on PC because of all the pirates", then Gears 3 was leaked and being pirated months before it was out shortly after that.

OT: I see his point here, though. With all the babies complaining all the time about how graphics/animations are bad, I can't imagine how much they spend making the game look "nice", just to have the same people complain that it doesn't have graphics from 20 years from now. I miss the days when people played games for fun and didn't care about what they looked like.

You're right - the numbers don't add up. So lower your own budget expenditures -- that's totally within a publisher and developer's own power. Don't expect customers to silently solve the problem for you at your own expense. I'm not just going to pay $60 for every single game rather than say $40 or $30 just because some developers don't want to make any decisions about how to balance the books on their business operations. It's totally within the power of Microsoft to create to tools to obstruct and mark up prices on the used game market and to developers to use those tools on the Xbox One and within their legal rights to do so. Just don't try to think that potential customers have to buy your products.

I could make out great by selling these glasses of lemonade for $100 each because I$70 a cup. It's totally within my rights to aim for the profit margin of $30 but people aren't going to buy at that price just because I scream at them that's the only price I can make the money I want at. They're all going to tell me to stop being so stupid and find a way to make lemonade for cheaper.

Fix problems on your own end, don't expect people to put up with restrictions and controls to force them to your solve problems for you on their end.

Used games is a thing.

I don't understand why companies like Sony and Microsoft don't just accept that and instead of trying to clap down on it, embrace it. With the digital market growing at the moment why not make it possible for players to trade games over an online auction. Sony and microsoft will handle it and take a small cut of every transaction (5%-15%) and the rest is then shared between the original owner and the publiher/developer. Here is how I think it should work:

- Give the power to set this sharing percentage to the pubblishers/developers.
- Give the power to set the starting price to the seller.
- Give the Publisher the power to set a minimum listing time (within reason)
- Give the Publisher the power to set a "buyout" price.
- Make sure the seller can see all these factors.

Retailers won't be happy though.

Except Cliffy, no one cares about the visuals and feature sets. A bloated budget is NOT a good thing. All we want are good games in an industry that can support its own weight. But apparently, that's too much to ask for.

NKRevan:

OK...

No, dev's are not innocent. Like I said, a lot of developers are overspending and that NEEDS to change.

But contrary to what you are saying, I do believe that there is some pressure from the outside to deliver high end graphics, animations and more. Someone earlier mentioned game Journalists focusing on graphics quite often. Reviews DO take graphics into account and if your game doesn't get a certain score, your game won't sell and then you have problems. I am, however, not saying that the consumer alone is to blame. All I tried to communicate is that there is more to this situation than the simple "it's the developers fault" that has been said here.

Yes, a lot of developers need to start planning better. But they will still need hundreds of millions to make certain games work. And that's where the debate about used games comes into play. Like I said, I do not know what would be a good solution. I hope we find one soon.

Well the expectations of the customers for a certain product are usually set over time by the supplier of said product. Developers and publishers are the ones that started sticking "SUPER REALISTIC VISUALS" on the box to try and turn it into a selling point. People didn't just woke up one day and started demanding realistic visuals.

But this does not matter all that much in the topic at hand. Visuals do cost alot but that is not where the majority of money goes into. The problem is developers have certain unrealistic expectations from their sales so they go on and spend acording to those expectations. When faliure becomes obvious they look for someone else to blame insted of admiting that they might have went a bit over the top with the budget.

So maybe a solution would be to lower these expectations from both developers and consumers, because in the end creating that perfect game with half a bilion dollar budget is pointless if no matter how many people buy it, you are still losing money. And if the industry keeps losing money then they will stop making games which in turn will affect us. But in order to lower expectations those that set them so high in the first place would have to make the first step.

Used games are just a temporary scapegoat and once they have dealt with them they will just move on to blaming something else. Maybe the "small" prices of games, so they will raise those and it will become normal to pay 100$ for a game or maybe the fact that you only have to buy the game once, so they will put a yearly "tax" on games if you still want to play them.

Maybe someone once told CliffyB that budgeting is for suckers and he now bases all financial decisions on that.

These are the people who believe that they should be able to make a profit if they only spend enough on the development without doing any real market research. Their forecasting department is filled with all n00bs who genuinely think that any game is capable of making COD money if you throw enough money at it.

At least when those companies fall, their IPs will be up for sale to more capable publishers who actually understand how to make money.

Azwrath:

NKRevan:

OK...

No, dev's are not innocent. Like I said, a lot of developers are overspending and that NEEDS to change.

But contrary to what you are saying, I do believe that there is some pressure from the outside to deliver high end graphics, animations and more. Someone earlier mentioned game Journalists focusing on graphics quite often. Reviews DO take graphics into account and if your game doesn't get a certain score, your game won't sell and then you have problems. I am, however, not saying that the consumer alone is to blame. All I tried to communicate is that there is more to this situation than the simple "it's the developers fault" that has been said here.

Yes, a lot of developers need to start planning better. But they will still need hundreds of millions to make certain games work. And that's where the debate about used games comes into play. Like I said, I do not know what would be a good solution. I hope we find one soon.

Well the expectations of the customers for a certain product are usually set over time by the supplier of said product. Developers and publishers are the ones that started sticking "SUPER REALISTIC VISUALS" on the box to try and turn it into a selling point. People didn't just woke up one day and started demanding realistic visuals.

But this does not matter all that much in the topic at hand. Visuals do cost alot but that is not where the majority of money goes into. The problem is developers have certain unrealistic expectations from their sales so they go on and spend acording to those expectations. When faliure becomes obvious they look for someone else to blame insted of admiting that they might have went a bit over the top with the budget.

So maybe a solution would be to lower these expectations from both developers and consumers, because in the end creating that perfect game with half a bilion dollar budget is pointless if no matter how many people buy it, you are still losing money. And if the industry keeps losing money then they will stop making games which in turn will affect us. But in order to lower expectations those that set them so high in the first place would have to make the first step.

Used games are just a temporary scapegoat and once they have dealt with them they will just move on to blaming something else. Maybe the "small" prices of games, so they will raise those and it will become normal to pay 100$ for a game or maybe the fact that you only have to buy the game once, so they will put a yearly "tax" on games if you still want to play them.

If both dev's and consumers would lower their expectations, then maybe we could get somewhere. But I don't see that happening on both ends sadly. All these comments on here that "no one cares about visuals and sound" are ridiculous. If that were true, everyone would be happy playing Pong-style games. And no, that's not the case.

There are many reasons why used games are being discussed. The single purchase model for games is unlike other entertainment media and it gives customers, currently a usually unparalleled amount of bang for their buck. Consider the 200 hours people spend in skyrim. The 100s of hours in Mass Effect. The hundreds in RDR or other games. And for those hundreds of hours, they ONLY pay 60 bucks. That's unique (and sometimes, it's not the same value, but this is why I think the single price model is bad).

And people demand more entertainment, more "value" from their games. People are telling me that they wouldn't buy a game that delivers 20 hours of content for 60 bucks, because that's just way too little. That's just unrealistic. Producing 50+ hours of content takes a lot of time and effort, yet the payout is the same as if you produce 20+ hours of content.

So maybe we need a different approach there. Different prices for different entertainment. I don't know the solution, all I know is that it can't work this way much longer and that the problem lies in expectations and behavior on both ends.

klaynexas3:

Even so, with $60 per copy of a new game, and how many games are sold within a week of AAA releases, there is a profit somewhere, and I don't know if Cliffy is hiding it somewhere, but he's making more money than he cares to confess.

Cliff Blizzizzard is an executive. He makes money if a project FAILS. Not just "didn't meet our unrealistic expectations of 50 million copies sold in the first week," but outright fails. This is America, where we pay executives money after they tank the company (or even the economy).

I take your point, but it remains entirely within the realm of possibility that a game isn't making money because of the enormous up-front costs associated with it.

By way of example and also using your movie analogy, take the Last Airbender. This is a movie that grossed over 300,000,000 USD worldwide? Why did that sequel never get made?

Well, it cost 150 million to make. Then there was the forced upconversion to 3-D. Then there was a promotional campaign which is said to run in excess of 100 Million USD. If we assume the bare minimum of 100 Million, that's 250 million, leaving about 50 million to go around. But the LA Times gave the total number of 280 million, which leaves about 20 to go around. They had banked on a big market and got spanked because of it. The possibility that the movie sucked, BTW, is completely irrelevant; it is merely about over-estimating your audience's size.

And not knowing your audience brings me to....

FizzyIzze:

It's amazing just how little these companies understand the people they're selling their products to. Sometimes it seems that the business majors are calling the shots in terms of game play--and the game developers are pretending to be finance majors.

Meant no offense about Gears by the way. Six million customers for Gears 1 is pretty impressive.

What amazes me is how many of the industries that are in trouble are the ones that have basically thrown away fairly straight-up notions about the consumer. Instead, they seem to think that they can just throw more money at something an expect a bigger return. This works in Game Dev Story, but not so much in the real world. Customers are a finite resource with finite resources, and even the ostensibly recession-proof entertainment industry can get hit. It's about knowing your limits and having reasonable expectations for one.

Most hardware still operates on the loss-leader ideal, where you take a hit with the hardware to sell the software and accessories and whatever else. This may not be true of the current gen, but it's hard to tell at this point. If gamign companies applied the same mentality to hardware as they do to software, they'd probably close up shop. I mean, each Xbox takes money out of our pockets! NEGATIVE SALES! THIEVERY! PIRACY! (somehow).

The fact is, gaming has tried to increase the burden on us to sustain their own business model, so it's hard to believe they don't KNOW it's unsustainable.

Nonetheless, you can't argue with the success of man's games...

You may be right, but then, comic book writer/artist/no talent hack Rob Liefeld was successful during that lovely period of comics called the 90s. Look back, the majority of us regret that we willingly gave this dipshit our money and attention. And I'm pretty sure, as time passes, we'll feel the same way about you Cliffy... ya shit-spewing cunt!

So... he sees that there is there is a problem. He also sees that there are two sides to it(problem X exsists because element A cannot coexist with element B therefore problem X has 2 sides).

Industry cannot sustain under current model

ELEMENT A

High Budget Games

A practice of investing obscene large sums of money into a game as well as advertising so enough (key) demographic(s) are hit to ensure the investment is as safe as possible. Safe being not only an immediate recoup of investment + profit 2 weeks-1 month after launch, but also safe in that they can launch immediately into production of the sequel knowing their current userbase is the minimum to expect for the next release.

This practice has produced games products that have grossed so high that it seems pointless to make a product that doesn't in some way aim at the demographics the product leader has attracted.

It seems to have lead to misguided assumptions of the way competing product should be made. That a product that covers the same ground, has more features and functions better will either succeed above the leader on the merits they have over it, be as successful as the leader or at least fracture the leaders userbase.

These competing products all have a similar times where their target audience has been known to spend money on products like theirs and if they miss it, profit forecasts fall dramatically. This leads to an expensive advertising competition that raises the budget even more and every time you increase the budget, you increase your projected sales so investors don't get nervous.

Now you're in a situation where every lost sale hurts you.

So you compete over the people who already have what they wanted hoping they all collectively decide to move to your product for the same/similar fix.

But whatever, those are your cards to play. Just realize this is the active side. Choosing to go lower budget with a particular, under served niche in mind is also an option. Not company shatteringly risky however profits are lower.

ELEMENT B

Used Games

A practice where the consumer decides to sell their product when the value of keeping the product is lower the value of money amounting to a fraction of what they purchased it for.

There are many reasons for doing this from reasons like quitting the hobby and trying to recoup investment to getting enough cash for a new release to "I finished it" to many other things. The timeframe from release varies as wildly as the amount of reasons for selling.

Retailers, seeing this trend, set themselves up as a hub for first sale and resale. The amount of profit made on resales had investors pushing for rapid expansion that can no longer sustain itself without pushing item resale(reminds me of another business grasping beyond their reach...). This business doesn't just rely on the people who make the product, this relies heavily on the consumer who decides the product is not worth keeping, the consumer who didn't rent the game but bought it and resold it after a weekend.

While this product can be sold repeatedly without loss of quality, it still needs every owner of said product to trade it in, and trade ins matter most in the short term...

If resold products are such a problem in the space of 2 weeks where it cripples profits... there might just be something wrong or missing with your product.

Element B is passive, it's the natural result of a consumer weighing what they paid against what they got and coming to the decision that half or even less than half the money back from the initial purchase is worth not having that experience with that product in the foreseeable future.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Yes, I agree, these two things cannot coexist.

Element A needs Element B gone so they can get larger investments by ensuring investors that consumers won't be able to resell the product. Whether that will actually help them or make people buy less new games a year, no idea.

If the reliance on blockbuster tentpole go big or go home was at least lessened, then used games would remain one of the key things that keeps our player base large. A player base that includes people who buy used because that's their financial level but then trade them in so they can get into a new release's multiplayer with their friends so they won't enter it when their friends outlevel them greatly, or worse, have stopped playing.

He just took that side because he was an active part of element A, a lower budget would be a nightmare for him. The successful franchises he's been a part of has isolated his perspective in a strange way.

Or here's an idea; how about giant corporations stop making terrible business decisions, and then trying to force everyone to change their behaviour so that those dumb decisions make them even more money. I mean you do realise Cliffy that it's exactly this kind of attitude that's resulted the current economic crisis, big business expecting the citizenship to support them in the destruction of civil liberties and economic freedom. Seriously Cliffy, fuck you.

So let me get this straight. The former head of a company that made big exclusive for Microsoft's consoles is speaking in support of Microsoft?

Colour me surprised.

He is right, though. The used games market won't be able to support the sky-high cost of AAA development.

He is wrong, however, about why that is and what should be done. The cost of AAA development is high due to poor management, shoehorning in more crap so the games have (insert Jim Sterling mockery voice) "broader appeal", and having unnecessarily famous people doing voice acting and motion capture.

The answer is not to get rid of a market that hugely benefits the consumer, it is to cut the cost of AAA development by refining the focus of the games, not shoehorning crap in, better project management, and not having famous people play parts in games. I'm sure there are more.

The fault is not on our end, Cliffy, it's on yours. Get your act together.

Sounds like a former head of Epic Games that I once read, speaking on how cartoony games don't work and that only "realism" matters, back in 2010.

This despite the fact that at that time? The absolutely undisputed leader of the consoler market... was the Nintendo DS.

Wait, was it... Ah, no, it was Mike Capps. Sorry, had to check. The guys at Epic have been playing the broken record for so long they all sound the same now.

Captcha: Only way to be sure.

I know right?

Mr. Q:

Nonetheless, you can't argue with the success of man's games...

You may be right, but then, comic book writer/artist/no talent hack Rob Liefeld was successful during that lovely period of comics called the 90s. Look back, the majority of us regret that we willingly gave this dipshit our money and attention. And I'm pretty sure, as time passes, we'll feel the same way about you Cliffy... ya shit-spewing cunt!

It's worth noting that both Cliff and Rob have been involved in their fair share of fails.

Arguing someone's success is valid when they cannot extend themselves, and that's irrespective of whether they're actual artists (which Liefeld is in only the same sense as your average kindergartener).

Izanagi009:

Ronack:
This guy's blog articles have more holes in it than a fishing net, and now you're taking him seriously enough to post an article on? What, are you going to post a PeterMolydeux article next?

Yeah, about that

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/124958-Molyneux-Microsofts-E3-Conference-Was-Unprofessional

It's actually somewhat reasonable

Actually, Peter Molydeux is a parody twitter account ... :P

Okay then CB, if Used games are such a problem and gaming companies just HAVE to have the production budget of a movie why don't we just emulate Hollywood even more and open up more social gaming clubs for the peons to gather and call them gaming theaters? Oh wait, that only really works with OFFLINE multiplayer games. If anything developers and publishers could stop trying to be Virtual Hollywood and make games that people would actually want to buy. And consumers, stop being entitled little pricks about everything when it comes to games. If anything, the corporate side and the consumer side of this industry needs to have a sit down to discuss the best course of action for this industry because it's very blatantly obvious that what we have going on does not fricken work!

Okay, so he says "Budgets are too high for Used games to exist!" ... Why not lower your budgets? Why do you have to screw over people who want to buy used games in order for you to basically bankrupt yourself?! What is wrong with game developers today? No one stops and thinks "Hmmm, you know what? This costs us way too much money and will probably not sell as many copies as we think it needs to... Maybe we could cut the fat off our game?" But why is that? Even movie makers cancel projects that go way past their budget!

It's rather obvious Cliffy B took computer classes in college and skipped any and all business classes. If he hadn't someone might have explained to him this thing called market forces. And that consumers will place money where they perceive value for the price. Used game sales, rentals and piracy all exist because the routine pricing for AAA games is quite frankly too high. That's it. That's the entirety of it. The root pricing model has crossed the threshold were a substantial portion of the consumer does not perceive a value for the product at the price being offered. The customer currently takes steps to alleviate this somewhat themselves via trade ins or rentals. Both being mechanisms whereby the customer can effect the relative price of a new game and bring it down to their value threshold. Cutting out those buffers will not put more profit in the hands of developers. It will put more games above the value threshold for which customers are willing to pay. In short it will decrease sales. This is especially true for fun but short or low life expectancy games like Cliffy B tends to make. (Short intense single player campaign, a few weeks. Of multiplayer with friends then on the heap it goes like a rotting fruit.)

The solution is not to eliminate used game sales, rentals, trade ins etc. these are tools that the customer uses to bring the cost of ownership of the product down below their perceived value threshold. The solution is to actually price that new product below that threshold to begin with. $19 - $29 and the issue of used sales or rentals will disappear. As will most piracy (save that done for geographic reasons). Don't believe me? Go ask Apple. Or Steam. They work not because of there DRM digital delivery. They work because it is easier and cheaper to buy new than it is to use other methods. He costs equal the perceived values.

But instead of seeking to fix the actual problem, Cliffy chooses to go full on Don Quixote and charge the customers. Attacking the things that they need to do in order to attempt to feebly bring value to his product. Well done man.

Zachary Amaranth:

Mr. Q:

Nonetheless, you can't argue with the success of man's games...

You may be right, but then, comic book writer/artist/no talent hack Rob Liefeld was successful during that lovely period of comics called the 90s. Look back, the majority of us regret that we willingly gave this dipshit our money and attention. And I'm pretty sure, as time passes, we'll feel the same way about you Cliffy... ya shit-spewing cunt!

It's worth noting that both Cliff and Rob have been involved in their fair share of fails.

Arguing someone's success is valid when they cannot extend themselves, and that's irrespective of whether they're actual artists (which Liefeld is in only the same sense as your average kindergartener).

Lets not compare Liefeld with kindergarteners. At least kindergarteners tend to improve in their artwork as oppose to Rob Liefeld, whose creations seem to suffer from massive deformities (I.E. oversized thighs, number of teeth that outnumber the attendance record for a Justin Bieber concert, tiny feet, etc.).

I'm beginning to wonder if Microsoft is pulling on any developer/publisher that they have any pull on to get them to start speaking out for them.

I do find it remarkable that EA hasn't spoken out by saying that we should all be in love with these changes. But I also think EA has come to the realization that they need better PR. We may actually see a better EA in a few years and if this really slams Microsoft then we could see a better overall market that knows that the customer base is able to get information readily enough to punish negative decisions.

The preorder market has side stepped this in a lot of ways. But maybe things as pricey as consoles can't get around it since we have to know what we're buying before we buy it.

Steven Bogos:

Microsoft's decision to redefine the concept of "game ownership" and Sony's decision to ridicule that decision had many people praising the PS4 developer. Cliff "CliffyB" Bleszinski, former bigwig at Epic Games and creator of the Gears of War franchise, was not one of them. "You cannot have game and marketing budgets this high while also having used and rental games existing," he said via Twitter. "The numbers do NOT work people."

Alternatively, don't burn through money like no tomorrow.

Wyvern65:
Cliffy B's entire argument is "games are so expensive we have to hurt consumers to pay for them, suck it up."

Amazing how he doesn't even seem to consider that game devs could, I don't know, stop making games that cost more than the market can bear. It's like Michael Bay saying we need to eliminate sales of used DVDs in order to have more explosions in film.

Not interested in being held responsible for your excesses and inability to realistically budget and control costs on your projects.

EXACTLY!

A second-hand market is an inevitable part of a capitalist system UNLESS you crack down on consumer rights and freedoms; and even that won't stop it, it will just suppress it and drive it underground.

So... IF CliffyB is right (notice he cites no evidence or numbers for his claims), then either the industry will adapt itself to the existence of a second-hand market (just like movies, books, etc), or the industry will have to crack down on consumer rights and freedoms which are the absolute greatest and most essential parts of living in a thriving capitalist system.

Alternatively, the industry can crash and publishers can learn the hard way.

If you honestly believe that suppressing consumer rights and freedoms in a capitalist system is a good thing CliffyB, then I have nothing else to say to you.

No love lost here.
Aside from pointing out that there's no way PS4 games will be DRM free the man has done little else than contribute to the architecture of our shitty industry.

The solution is control your bloated budgets. Celebrity cameos and spending millions on superbowl ads don't sell games, quality and value do.

I rent a game to try it out before I buy it because I've been burned too many times on marketing that makes a game look amazing, but the actual game is a waste of my time and money.

Well then cut your stupid budget? Austerity is much in vogue all over the world.

Stop looking for other people to blame for somehting you have a hand in as well.

While Cliffy B may very well be correct about Sony "playing us" (and he might, hell Sony already did say that there might be a framework for 3rd Party Devs to implement anti-used game policies) but overall Nintendo has the best thing to say about this matter...

When I LOVE a game I keep it... like... for good, but what happens in several years when you can't acquire a cult classic game anymore because no new copies exist... I have the feeling that this is going to create an INSANE collectors market at some point as only new copies are viable and when you want one of those games a few years down the line... watch out...

Edit:

Hell if you don't believe me go and look up New/Sealed games for the PS1 and PS2... anything that was popular and not produced in insane numbers is usually upwards of $100.

Says marketing and dev costs are too high. Clearly, the problem must be the public and their darn property rights. Logic.

/facepalm

The issue is, and always has been, piracy. A recent social experiment[1] indicates that it's not a bad estimate to say 90% of people of play an indie game pirated it. I'm sure this figure is less for triple-A games (or I would hope), but still, they're losing money off those pirates. A lot of money.

Wyvern65:
Amazing how he doesn't even seem to consider that game devs could, I don't know, stop making games that cost more than the market can bear. It's like Michael Bay saying we need to eliminate sales of used DVDs in order to have more explosions in film.

Not interested in being held responsible for your excesses and inability to realistically budget and control costs on your projects.

A compelling argument, to be sure, but that's regrettably not how the industry works. If one developer started producing lower-budget games, they would in all likelihood be crushed by their competitors. It's a brutal kind of escalation - every big publisher wants to be bigger and better than every other - and stakes only go up, never down.

"We don't know how to keep making games with a sustainable system, therefore we're shoving our production costs and issues on you. Deal with it, because it's not our fault we can't run a business."

This is getting a bit into entitled territory, but game publishers are always telling us used games are evil, but they aren't giving people any reason to buy NEW instead of used.

Well I can think of one surefire way of lowering the outrageous production costs of making new games. They need to fire this asshole.

Mr. Q:

Lets not compare Liefeld with kindergarteners. At least kindergarteners tend to improve in their artwork as oppose to Rob Liefeld, whose creations seem to suffer from massive deformities (I.E. oversized thighs, number of teeth that outnumber the attendance record for a Justin Bieber concert, tiny feet, etc.).

I admit, I was unfair to kindergartners. They at least make an effort.

AHHHHH
is Wittle Cliffy B Upset that his precwous gears of war franchwise won't sell on the Xbone?
Boo-F*cking Who

Lunar Templar:

If they didn't spends millions upon millions more then they needed to on marketing, for games most people have already made up there minds on no less, no one would even care about 'the evils of used games'

They can't simply stop marketing if every other company continues to do so. That would be financial suicide. The problem is the marketing campaigns have grown to big for what they're selling.

Ex. Dark Souls recently clocked over 2 million copies, and is considered a financial success because the marketing for it (which was not very much compared to other games) was the right amount.
Call of Duty can do the massive marketing campaigns because it can afford it.
Most games market themselves like Call of Duty, yet sell like Dark Souls. As such, they fail.

So while they need to sell themselves, they need to find ways to innovate and capture the attention of gamers without competing with CoD, because that is a battle they will not win.

I think CliffyB is a great developer with a lot of imagination and a love for what he does, but he is the undisputed champion of foot-in-mouth PR.

The poor sad sack doesn't even seem to understand that games don't have to be triple A titles costing the GDP of a small country to be worth playing. Either that or he does and he's just denying reality because he knows when the triple A market crashes he's likely to be one of the first to go. Either way he's talking out of his arse

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