Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses The Almighty Buck Games

Used Game Penalty Escalates With SOCOM 4 325

Posted by Soulskill
from the blood-from-a-stone dept.
Technologizer reports on this unwelcome development for used game buyers: "SOCOM 4: US Navy Seals charts a new course in punishing used game buyers, and it’s at once better and worse than the status quo of $10 online passes. As described on the official Playstation Blog, SOCOM 4 will let all players access the game’s multiplayer portion — as it should, because online play has always been SOCOM’s main attraction — but used game buyers will miss out on special guns, game types, and other perks to be added later. To get these features with a used copy of the game, you’ll have to buy a $15 activation code. Sony’s spinning this bundle of features, dubbed 'SOCOM Pro,' as an enhancement for new game buyers, rather than a drawback for used copies. It’s semantics, sure, but it’s also the direction in which these used game restrictions should be going."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Used Game Penalty Escalates With SOCOM 4

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    And they will get exactly 0 of my dollars. I once supported the shit out of sony but as of late they lose it all.

  • So what. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 19, 2011 @12:37AM (#35864494)

    How is this any different than PC games that have CD keys that you need to install, and that you key in when you register them? How is this any different than me selling my MMO CDs to a friend and then laughing when he can not get online?

    The game basically is giving you access to an online profile, that when you sell off the disk, if you want your own new online profile, you have to pay $15 for.

    How is this any different than just about every other game with online components? Ten years ago if I wanted to sign into Nova World with a used version of the game, it would have already been registered with that CD key. How is this any different?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      It's not. As usual people on slashdot will cry over something they'll never intented to play anyway, just because it's DRM and about the used games market. It's like game play for these people is crying about it on slashdot rather than actually even wanting to play the game.

      Look, if I want to play the game I can pay the $15 (if I bought a used copy, which I never do).

      • I'm surprised you can still buy used games at all. Considering I only purchase digital copies (perhaps due to my innate fear of leaving my apt, or perhaps the utterly horrible sales associates), I have never partaken in this 'used' video game market.

        Used games will surely disappear in our digital age soon enough, so this is sure to be only be a fleeting policy.

        On a side note, I actually did go into a Gamestop the other day to see if they had splitter for my Kinect (I got the new one with an xbox), so I

        • Re:So what. (Score:4, Insightful)

          by BoberFett (127537) on Tuesday April 19, 2011 @01:35AM (#35864782)

          If the used game market is eliminated entirely, prices will have to fall accordingly or they will simply sell less units.

        • by Kelbear (870538)

          I envision a future where games can only be played on ONE profile.

          To use the disc at all on a second profile, you'll have to pay 5-15 bucks.

          Given that semantics and distribution technology can change to fit the market conditions, the bottom line comes down to: What is the consumer willing to pay? What is the seller willing to accept?

          Really, I appreciate the developer/publisher concern, people are playing the game and they haven't gotten any money from them. The developers/publishers failed to address the us

      • by hairyfeet (841228)

        Because what you seem to be missing is that sites like GS allow someone who has beaten games to trade them towards the purchase of NEW games they would most likely not make without? Aka lets slit our own throats by making our item less attractive then our competitors?

        Plus it is kinda ignoring the elephants in the room which are in no particular order "its a recession dumbass" and "I can get it for $0 dollars!". Hacked X360s? You can get ALL day long on Craigslist for around $100 bucks. Can't play it online?

      • As usual people on slashdot will cry over something they'll never intented to play anyway, just because it's DRM and about the used games market.

        The problem is not whether you want to play that particular game, but that if this ploy works then it will be extended to other games - and eventually all games. When activation started for PC games I stayed away from those titles. Fine, I said, I will just move on to the next game. But then after a while, the next game (and the one after that) started doing the same thing. Now it is hard to find a big-name title that doesn't use it.

        So what happens after people get used to this activation on installation? T

    • Re:So what. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Doctor_Jest (688315) on Tuesday April 19, 2011 @12:46AM (#35864548)

      It's really a fitting analogy, but if only the big game companies (Sony/Microsoft included) weren't so damn pissy about used games in general, this wouldn't be a bother. I cannot stand their tantrums about used sales "killing the industry". As if used car sales kill the automotive industry... or used books/CDs kill their respective markets. It just doesn't happen that way, and their "service without the service" mentality is what is going to cause them to nickel and dime the player until he or she simply tosses the console in the closet and goes back to minesweeper. :)

      The First Sale Doctrine really chaps their asses. This is their way of "play ball with me and I promise I won't shove the bat up your ass."

      • Well I'll hand them one difference and that is that generally when you purchase a used something that something is inferior.

        If I could buy a 'brand new' 2008 car whose owner's manual was wrinkled at 2008 car prices I would happily do it.

        The gaming experience of a used title is identical as a new one the only difference being that Gamestop gets $20 in revenue and the developers get nothing.

        I doubt the developers would be unhappy if gamers sold their games back to the developers for 20% of their purchase pric

        • by silanea (1241518)

          Does not compute. When owner 1 has sold their two games (And where does that stupid part about them pirating anything come from? How can owner 2 buy three games from owner 1 when owner 1 only has purchased two games? WTF?!) they will, in all likelihood, take those $ 40 they saved, put another $ 20 on top and buy another freshly released game. Which they most likely could not afford to do if they could not recover some of the cost from reselling - otherwise they would not need to sell their games at all. Own

        • You forgot to mention that the second buyer usually only gets the game way after it came out (unless piracy was also involved...). That is, first user has to buy game, play it, get bored with it and resell it.

          So not only does the second player get a slightly wrinkled manual, but also he gets a game which is no longer hip. So it's normal that he saves some money on it. No need to "punish" him additionally by crippling the game.

        • Re:So what. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Xtifr (1323) on Tuesday April 19, 2011 @04:41AM (#35865566) Homepage

          The real problem with the used games market is that it's worse than piracy.

          Horsecrap! Lets take a much more complicated scenario, but to simplify it, we'll ignore the details that don't matter.

          A. New game is purchased for $X. Game developers get their cut, $C.
          B. Game changes hands some unknown number of times, possibly with intermediaries involved, possibly not.
          C. Final result, one and only one person owns that one copy of the game which was fully paid for.

          All the other details (how much some hypothetical intermediaries might have made and so on) are completely irrelevant. One copy was sold to one owner, and one owner now owns one copy. That's all the developers can and should care about. The fact that they may be jealous of Gamestop's insane profits doesn't mean they deserve one nickel more money or that Gamestop is doing anything wrong. (Actually, they are doing something wrong, but selling used games is not it.)

          Gamestore through reselling probably made far more in profit from selling used than new copies.

          Gamestop has a near monopoly, and they're abusing it badly. Now, that's still not a problem for the developers (no matter how jealous they might feel about the situation), but it's a problem for us. Unfortunately, the only way to deal with a monopoly is to create competition (or regulate it, and I sincerely hope we don't come to that pass). So the game devs are jealous of all the perfectly legal abusive profits that Gamestop is making? Answer is obvious: open their own stores, and compete on used game prices. If there were competition in the used games market, Gamestop wouldn't be able to charge their insane markups (and they are insane).

          Note that it doesn't have to be the developers competing directly with Gamestop--I only suggest them because they're the ones that whine about Gamestop's monopolistic profit margins. It could as easily be Amazon or Barnes & Noble or Radio Shack. The point is, Gamestop's insane profits don't come because there's something wrong with selling used games; they come because there's no competition, so they don't have to compete on price. Period.

        • by PhilHibbs (4537)

          If I could buy a 'brand new' 2008 car whose owner's manual was wrinkled at 2008 car prices I would happily do it.

          The gaming experience of a used title is identical as a new one the only difference being that Gamestop gets $20 in revenue and the developers get nothing.

          That doesn't make it ok for a game publisher to artificially introduce a degradation just because the laws of physics are different to the laws of information. If you buy a car that's only 6 months old, you're getting a car that is better than if you buy a car that is 6 years old. How should that be modelled in this "emulated degradation" scheme? It's ridiculous. Your example is interesting, but by making piracy easier they would also make re-selling easier, you can't really allow one while disallowing the

      • Re:So what. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by ShakaUVM (157947) on Tuesday April 19, 2011 @01:44AM (#35864826) Homepage Journal

        >>The First Sale Doctrine really chaps their asses

        We really need Congress to step up enforcement of the First Sale Doctrine.

        Perhaps a Constitutional Amendment, even.

        • Heh, that's what we need....an amendment to the Constitution requiring the government to follow the Constitution.....too bad they'd just ignore that part of it as well.
        • The problem is, the first sale doctrine can arguably be only relevant to the CD and manual, because the wording used when selling these games to users is that you buy the game, but included is only one key for accessing their network, and once used, that key is locked to that user account, and cannot be used to create a new account. The company cannot stop you from selling your CD and manual, but if you've used the one time key, the buyer of your used game is out of luck (unless you give him the username,

      • So by not catering to the market that gives them NO money makes them lose money? Used books/CDs cut into sales, of course, how could they not?

        Comparing physical commodities, like cars, where resale value is a huge buying point, to these digital arts, where resale value is never considered, is nonsensical.

        Perhaps used stereos would be a better comparison, but still, Sony doesn't have to do anything at all if I sell my stereo to someone else. In this case, when I sell my video game to someone else, they

        • by erroneus (253617)

          Now wait a moment. Where the XBox360 is concerned, users pay for access to the multiplayer network. I don't use anything Sony but I think PSN is free though... free to people who own a PS3 or whatever. In either case, the access has been paid for. The game has been paid for. Providing lesser service until an additional cost is paid is a tax.

          While we are at it, let's do the same thing for people who received their game consoles and games as a gift! After all, they didn't pay for them either right?

      • For an extra $1 you can buy the tool that lets you plant a flower x times per game that dies from metal poisoning from the bomb rust into the soil around it!

    • Re:So what. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by BrianRoach (614397) on Tuesday April 19, 2011 @01:48AM (#35864842)

      How is this any different than PC games that have CD keys that you need to install, and that you key in when you register them?

      When it was just that, it wasn't a problem. Most of my old games would happily install on your machine if I sold you the disc and you typed in the key. The keys were stickers on the jewel cases, and there was none of this draconian "You can only install this game 5 times, and only on Tuesdays"

      How is this any different than me selling my MMO CDs to a friend and then laughing when he can not get online?

      Because it's not a subscription service that you could download the client for free anyway unless someone scammed you as in your example? You're comparing apples and steaks here.

      The game basically is giving you access to an online profile, that when you sell off the disk, if you want your own new online profile, you have to pay $15 for.

      How do I access that profile once I sell the game? I bought it, right?

      How is this any different than just about every other game with online components?

      It's not *now*. And therein lies the problem. It's an end run around the first sale doctrine by basically saying, "We didn't sell you that, we "licensed" it to you". Imagine if you couldn't buy a used car without paying Ford a "transfer fee" for the keys.

      Personally ... I've never sold a game in my life, or bought one used for that matter ... the few bucks just isn't worth the hassle. But many, many people do - because they can't afford to buy everything they want new. There is a fairly huge secondary market with console games, and the game companies want to eliminate it because they somehow think people will magically have more money to spend.

      • by AmiMoJo (196126)

        game companies want to eliminate it because they somehow think people will magically have more money to spend.

        To be fair there is some logic in that. If a person has £40 they can buy one new game or three second hand ones. If there are no second hand games then they are forced to buy new ones and the developer profits.

        Of course it is still total bullshit, the second hand market is just a part of business. The developers could even get in on it if they wanted to, say by offering trade-ins/upgrades or making older games available for paid download.

    • by Degro (989442)
      Not being able to resell such software is bullshit though. They only get away with it on PCs because you've always had to install it. Console discs are no different than a movie or music disc or even a book. Blocking resale of this stuff should be criminal.
    • How is this any different than PC games that have CD keys that you need to install, Actually this is more like games where you need to activate in order to play.

      With CD keys, you could sell the CD Key with the original media. With this game, you cannot sell the mechanism to play on-line with the media.

  • So how much... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Leslie43 (1592315) on Tuesday April 19, 2011 @12:41AM (#35864520)
    "it’s also the direction in which these used game restrictions should be going."

    So how much will you pay for the used game knowing you still have to pay another $15 for the content? Not much.
    How about when they decide it isn't enough and want $20?

    It effectively destroys the second hand value and they know it.
    • by MeNeXT (200840)

      It will affect initial sales also. Some people do not have the capacity to buy more games without selling their old games. Since the value of resale is reduced their purchasing power is also reduced and then the trumpets complaining of the PIRATES will emerge demanding more compensation and stiffer laws.

      I spend less with mainstream and more with indies due to DRM. I moved from PC gaming to console due to the cheats only to realize that it's the poor quality of the games that makes it feel that people are ch

    • It effectively destroys the second hand value and they know it.

      Of course it does, and that's the whole point.

      Until fairly recently you could either pay $50+ for a new game, or wait a few months and buy the exact same game for $20 or less. Exact same content. No differences at all. You just have to wait a couple months to play it.

      That was terrific for the buyer... But lousy for the publisher - because the publisher saw absolutely nothing of that second, $20 sale. That $20 sale was entirely between the buyer and whoever it was bought from - Gamestop, or some guy in

  • and with all the crap sony is pulling suing people and hobbling the ps3 why would you?
    • It's not just Sony doing this. EA sells these "online passes" for $10 too, for example to 2nd hand buyers of Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit. It is not just annoying for the used game market, but it also makes it harder to return a new game to the store if you don't like it. I have the luck that the people in my local game shop know me and trust me when i say i didn't enter the key of the supplied online pass, but i might not be so lucky if i buy it at another store. EA could have used a layer of that silver sc
    • and with all the crap sony is pulling suing people and hobbling the ps3 why would you?

      Because no one chose to fight this on the PC, activation has come to the console and unlike the PC, there is no crack that you can use in 10 years time.

      First they forced activation the PC games, but I said nothing because I wasn't a PC gamer.

      Next the forced activation on PS gamers, but I said nothing because I was an Xbox fanboy.

      Then they forced Activation on me, and there was no-one left to speak out for me.

      Fitting no, as a PC gamer I've long realised that what happens on PC, will eventually tr

      • by Ash Vince (602485) *

        This quote was originally made about a nation marching people off to the gas chambers. To use it propping up an argument about not playing a computer game is kind of lame and sullies the memory of the millions marched to their deaths. Losing the ability to play a game (copied or otherwise) is not the same as losing your life.

  • by Dyinobal (1427207) on Tuesday April 19, 2011 @12:44AM (#35864540)
    This sort of thing was discussed recently in the Extra credits (a weekly publication? on The escapist). They purposed that instead of trying to punish used game purchasers while trying to cut out game stop they should encourage them. Sell the game new for twenty bucks, with multi player on the disk but not accessible because hey it's just convenient. Then Sell the multiplayer as an optional online purcahse via xbox live or steam or what ever for twenty bucks. Total game cost for a few game 40 bucks, but the next profit for the game publisher/developer is more because they can charge twenty bucks for multi player and cut out the retailer on new and later used games.
    • by Dyinobal (1427207)
      Damn it's late and I'm tired, lets try again.

      This sort of thing was discussed recently in the Extra credits (a weekly publication? on The escapist). They purposed that instead of trying to punish used game purchasers while trying to cut out game stop they should encourage them. Sell the game new for twenty bucks, with multi player on the disk but not accessible because hey it's just convenient. Then Sell the multiplayer as an optional online purcahse via xbox live or steam or what ever for twenty bucks. Total game cost for a new game 40 bucks, but the net profit for the game publisher/developer is more because they can charge twenty bucks for multi player and cut out the retailer on new and later used games.

      Plus with a lower price on a new game, they are more likely to get exposure to a wider audience, with the possibility for more twenty dollar multi player purchases than if they simply did it to used game owners.

    • by cgenman (325138)

      The funny thing is, this wouldn't be an issue at all if digital copies of games had at least price parity with hard copies. But right now the downloadable full retail titles on PSN, for example, generally maintain full list price while Amazon.com has many retailers willing to sell far below that. If a new physical copy was 60, and a new digital copy was 40, the re-sale market would dry up rather quickly. As it stands, they're trying to use digital to both raise the average price floor and remove second-h

    • by lennier1 (264730)

      This would also offer the benefit that people who don't want to play in multiplayer mode don't have to pay for it.
      But, the gaming industry being who they are, they'd still demand too much for the singleplayer version.

  • by dmomo (256005) on Tuesday April 19, 2011 @12:50AM (#35864560) Homepage

    Used games exist. This means they were sold by someone, at some point, who owned it first hand. I'm curious how many first-hand buyers would be less likely to buy a game that has a largely diminished resell value?

    • Or how many less new games those people will buy because they're getting less income from selling their used games?
  • by dmomo (256005) on Tuesday April 19, 2011 @12:55AM (#35864592) Homepage

    Hard media is slowly going away. Like it or not, one day, games will be all downloaded. For better or worse, it's just more efficient. I don't know when, but that's just the way it will be. I like my hard copies, and you'll pry them from my crusty gout-ridden hands, but I'll be the exception.

    Sadly, "used games" will likely be a nostalgia. Why do they have to fight so hard against the used market. Let us enjoy our bargain bin rummaging.

    • by Hahnsoo (976162)
      Nah, downloading will be the new standard, but for folks who don't like to wait and want to buy a physical copy, they'll have USB drives that are read-only which you can buy at your local WalGameStopBestMart. They'll call them "cartridges". Oh. Wait. Dammit.
    • No, hard media is not going away.

      Only in markets like US and EU, where broadband is mature will download media take over.

      • by dmomo (256005)

        For now. But, over time even to the last mile, it will be more economical to transmit media rather than haul it.

      • by mjwx (966435)

        No, hard media is not going away.

        Only in markets like US and EU, where broadband is mature will download media take over.

        Australia is one of those markets (well almost, NBN will ensure it though) and physical media is going nowhere because the online alternatives are more expensive. When a new release on Steam cost $70-80 to buy and then 24 hours to download, this is compared to $50-60 to buy from Hong Kong and 1 week for shipping. If I'm going to wait 24 hours, I'll wait 1 week.

    • I buy everything on Steam, and only when it's on sale. I haven't paid full retail for a game in years. Most of the time I buy it at 50% off.

      • I buy everything on Steam, and only when it's on sale.

        Does Steam have solid games in all genres, even those not traditionally associated with PCs? Would you be willing to make Steam game suggestions for fans of games like Animal Crossing, Super Mario Galaxy, and Super Smash Bros., who are trying to convert from Wii to PC?

        • I know you can get world of goo. Bejeweled. plants vs zombies. I'm sure it has a load of 2-d adventure games akin to mario as well.

          Dude. Just get the steam client on your PC. Its free and you can uninstall it. I think its www.steampowered.com Yeah, just checked.

          You can see all that they have in the store, check out screenpics and videos, see ratings, etc. Also, it auto-updates all your games that are on steam, via steam, at your max bandwidth, and stands as a game launcher.

          It used to be lightly sig

        • by Splab (574204)

          Steam has a lot of games, just download the client and look for yourself, it's free.

          • by gmhowell (26755)

            Steam has a lot of games, just download the client and look for yourself, it's free.

            Yeah, the first one always is...

          • You don't even need to download the client. Just head to the website and browse.

    • by tepples (727027)

      Like it or not, one day, games will be all downloaded.

      "One day" probably isn't within this console generation, due in part to download caps. In some places, the average residential Internet access plan is satellite with a 10 GB/mo or smaller cap, which isn't enough to download disc-sized games along with the rest of home Internet use.

      • Doh! Just bought Wipeout HD on a PS Store special for $15, then I blew my download cap and got $40 added to the internet bill! What gives?!?!

        One more reason to protest caps, throttling, and anything but 24/7 bandwidth at the advertised rate. Just do easy honest business: that is all we really need.

        • It rankles even more when your ISP specifically advertises that you can download "Games, Music and Movies, faster than ever!"

    • by antdude (79039)

      Ditto. I prefer physical as well. Downloading takes too long especially on slow Internet connections and uses too much disk spaces these days.

  • Let's hope other areas won't adapt that idea.
    If you buy a used car you'll only be able to use 70% of its features while the other perfectly fine working ones are artificially locked, unless you pay a ransom to the car manufacturer.

    • Hey there, consumer, I'm afraid that the ECU firmware is licensed, not sold, and licenses are not transferable. Can I sign you up for a new support agreement?

      I suspect that it would be a riskier move, since it would leave a much larger population feeling alienated; but it isn't obviously the case that contemporary cars would be any more immune to software-licensing related bullshit than would other firmware-dependent hardware devices(the ones with OnStar or equivalent can even phone home...)
  • Seriously. While I can understand Sony's position of "used games = no money" for them, their repeated attempts to stifle user choice pretty much means that unless Sony is THE only option left on earth, you shouldn't be buying from them.

    If someone demanded $300 and then kicked you in the nuts, would you give them more money when they demanded another $50? And then again when they demanded another $10-15? And then again when they insist you re-pay for everything you've bought because they've decided to shi

    • Or will it sink in when they devolve to charging pay-per-play? What? You paid your $5 for a single play and then our servers crashed? Sorry! Pay another $5 for the privilege of getting back on!

      Isnt that how arcades work?

      Why cant the same apply to multiplayer games if the servers are provided by sony?

      • The fundamental difference is that I didn't outlay $600 for the console then another $100 for a game when I was playing in the arcade. I just shoveled "quarters" into the machine.

        The WoW model works well - you buy the game disc (albeit at a fairly discounted rate) or download for free and then pay a monthly subscription to play. Seems a lot of people shovel money at that model. I don't get why the /. community is up in arms about what is essentially a variant on the WoW model, but with the "subscription" in

    • unless Sony is THE only option left on earth

      Sony Music has a monopoly on Rickrolling, for one thing.

  • by ArundelCastle (1581543) on Tuesday April 19, 2011 @03:02AM (#35865156)

    I genuinely hope this progresses to the logical extreme of "buy multiplayer direct from us", because then I won't have to subsidize/pay for something I don't use. And the publishers will realise how lousy the carbon copy multiplayer side of their tired franchise is when it's reviewed separately, and stop stapling it on to a watered down campaign just to keep a game in people's disc trays until the DLC comes out or the servers shut down. I've never played a SOCOM game in my life, and I bet that I'm not missing out on much compared to say, the very first chapter of Dead Space 2?

    I would have bought Starcraft 2 on launch day if Blizzard sold a $30 version without multiplayer (I heard they do have separate digital SKUs in Korea). Those cyborgs can have their battle.net, I want the story and maybe I'll feel like playing it again in a year's time. $30 would be worth that for me, I don't want to pirate it, I want some god damn consumer choice! (andfirstsaledoctrinethanksverymuch)

    Seems to me Bungie has a good thing going. Once in a while I think about getting a Bungie Pro account because, y'know, lookit-mah-space-lazorz, but then I get distracted by other games for 6 or 7 months. I play games like other people read novels. Multiplayer shooters are the trashy romance side of the industry, a cash cow with puerile thrills and little substance.

    • by mjwx (966435)

      I would have bought Starcraft 2 on launch day if Blizzard sold a $30 version without multiplayer (I heard they do have separate digital SKUs in Korea). Those cyborgs can have their battle.net, I want the story and maybe I'll feel like playing it again in a year's time. $30 would be worth that for me, I don't want to pirate it, I want some god damn consumer choice! (andfirstsaledoctrinethanksverymuch)

      $30 version of Starcraft 2, not bloody likely.

      A large part of the 100 mil that went into making it was the sheer amount of CGI and voice work that went into the pre-rendered scenes in the single player. A lot of games only have a few minutes of CG or none at all because it's so damned expensive to produce. that being said, I like multiplayer starcraft but haven't played a single on-line game of SC2.

    • If I want story I'll read a book or watch a movie or TV show. Games are for playing, and playing with other people far outclasses AI. Replayability is king.

      Just my opinion, of course.

  • We all know where this is leading: game developers are going to end up locking games to the system on which they're installed, and refusing to allow installs to new systems. Console engineers will make this as easy as possible because they only make money when you buy a new game too. This will of course destroy the used games market, which is the only reason they're delaying, because it would piss off their retail partners.

    Pirates, of course, will still have access to everything.

  • by spagthorpe (111133) on Tuesday April 19, 2011 @06:50AM (#35866040)

    Really, what do you expect from Sony. Given that I decided to boycott Sony and affiliated products a while ago because of their business practices, this will never matter to me. I suggest you adopt a similar strategy. After all, it's just a game.

  • by Lumpy (12016) on Tuesday April 19, 2011 @09:52AM (#35867360) Homepage

    If this drives used copies of SOCOM4 down to $0.99 then I'm ok with it. IF not, then I will not be buying anything in the SOCOM franchise anymore.

    It's getting bad everywhere in gaming. Halo:Reach was a incredibly short game that can be finished on Normal setting in a single weekend, it sold for full retail prices. Dragon Age II is 1/2 a game and requires you to buy all the DLC separately to get the whole game making it a $120.00 game.

    Honestly, I'm done buying any video game new. IT will be used and after the ass-baggery that the game maker pulled has been revealed so I can avoid it.

    Hear that gaming industry? You will not get any money directly from me anymore, I'll buy used and steal money from your babies mouths!

A sheet of paper is an ink-lined plane. -- Willard Espy, "An Almanac of Words at Play"

Working...