Go **** yourself THQ

Retr0gamer · 06-02-2012 9:31pm

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

If you think we have it bad, go to Japan. Games tend to RRP for 7000-8000 yen, which is in and around 70-80 euro. This is accepted as standard. Sales are rarer and the second-hand industry limited.

I'm not altogether sure but I think selling second hand games is illegal in Japan and with retro shops it's more 'look the other way' or les there's a clause covering it.

johnny_ultimate · 06-02-2012 9:37pm

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I'm not altogether sure but I think selling second hand games is illegal in Japan and with retro shops it's more 'look the other way' or les there's a clause covering it.

I do have a few games I bought second hand in stores over there, and fairly big chains as opposed to small retailers. So not sure if it is illegal. But it, either way, is far less common than it is over these parts.

Gummy Panda · 06-02-2012 9:53pm

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I'm not altogether sure but I think selling second hand games is illegal in Japan and with retro shops it's more 'look the other way' or les there's a clause covering it.

When i use to read NeoGaf, the lads who lived in Japan spoke of gamers trying to complete the game in a week so they can trade back in and get store card points for their next title. This was with the big chains so I don't think its illegal unless it changed within the last two years.

ghostchant · 06-02-2012 10:33pm

Saw 2nd hand games in virtually every shop (both small and large) I went to in Tokyo, they were generally in such good condition it was hard to tell the difference though.

I'm curious to see what Nintendo/Sony will do if MS do go in this direction. Would certainly be a good selling point for their respective consoles if 2nd hand purchases were possible. And if that were the case I wonder if new Xbox titles would eventually be comparatively cheaper than their Nintendo/Sony counterparts, so as to compete with their 2nd hand markets.

Helix · 06-02-2012 10:39pm

its not like thq will survive long enough to see the 720 anyway

but he's right

Varik · 06-02-2012 10:59pm

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I do have a few games I bought second hand in stores over there, and fairly big chains as opposed to small retailers. So not sure if it is illegal. But it, either way, is far less common than it is over these parts.

Gummy Panda wrote: »

When i use to read NeoGaf, the lads who lived in Japan spoke of gamers trying to complete the game in a week so they can trade back in and get store card points for their next title. This was with the big chains so I don't think its illegal unless it changed within the last two years.

It's renting games/consoles that's illegal, but oddly you can rent music on CDs.

There were shops who i think got in trouble or selling consoles with a guarantee to take them back in a week minus a small fee from your refund.

johnny_ultimate · 06-02-2012 11:01pm

You've got to remember we're talking about a country where showing a penis is illegal, but having a female character getting sexually abused by a tentacle is A-OK.

Their legal system is a wee bit eccentric. And I imagine entirely like Phoenix Wright in action.

deathrider · 06-02-2012 11:01pm

I grow tired of this used games vs new games argument that's been springing up everywhere over the last few years, and even more so over the last few months. If the industry is indeed treathened by used games, then there's surely a good solid solution to it that won't burn gamers along the way. I don't believe that the likes of this, or that stunt they pulled with Res E: Mercs on 3DS is the way to go though. If they keep running down this road, then will end up with a built in incinerator in our consoles that will instantly torch our disks as soon as we complete them, so that the game can't be used again or resold.

Nollog · 06-02-2012 11:13pm

gizmo wrote: »

The prices of games hasn't changed since the days of the SNES, if anything they've become cheaper if you take inflation into account. Compare that with the astronomical rise in development costs and your argument is simply invalid.

And as I said above, "THQ" didn't make this comment, one developer did which is anything but insensitive.

Cost of ram (for cartridge) in 1980 was astronomical, cost of a cd now is 0.00000000000001 cent.
Are they passing on that saving?
Nope.

-Just one example.

super_furry · 07-02-2012 12:39am

/\/ollog wrote: »

Cost of ram (for cartridge) in 1980 was astronomical, cost of a cd now is 0.00000000000001 cent.
Are they passing on that saving?
Nope.

-Just one example.

OK then, why haven't game prices increased since the Playstation was launched in 1995? A game then cost £40, a game now costs €50 - roughly the same.

However in that time the price of a pint has risen from €2.50 to €5 and similar inflation has taken place elsewhere.

stevenmu · 07-02-2012 1:16am

F*ck this, if I buy a physical disc I should have the right to sell it on. That's the way it has always been, that's the way it is for music and for movies, and it has worked pretty well so far.

This isn't about impoverished developers on the bread line struggling to eek a living out of their art, it's about big companies looking at other companies making money and thinking "hmm, that money looks nice, but it'd look better in my pocket".

johnny_ultimate · 07-02-2012 1:41am

I'd rather some portion of my money goes to the people who made the game, though, and the company who published it. I'd much rather Sega, Platinum and Gamestop get a piece of the pie than just Gamestop. The developer deserves their share from every sale. Everyone else is of secondary concern. What did Gamestop do to deserve a share other than put it on a shelf?

This only relates to relatively new games, where every sale genuinely matters and can make the difference to a vibrant gaming world. A preowned community is only to be encouraged when the commercial gain for publisher / developer is neligible.

It's frighteningly easy to boil this down to them vs us. And it's great to feel like the little guy from time to time. But it really, really isn't that simple.

Vadakin · 07-02-2012 2:41am

OK then. Should car companies get a cut of the sale if someone sells their car second hand? If a guy builds a house and then sells it, should the new owner give the original owner a percentage if he decides to sell it on himself? Or should people have to hold on to their cars and houses forever, even if they buy new ones because selling them second hand would cost contractors and car manufacturers? See when you make it about something else, it sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?

Games are no different. The argument that Gamestop screws developers over by buying used games on the cheap and selling them for almost as much as a new release holds no water whatsoever. The developer has already made their money on that particular disc. Gamestop aren't screwing the developers. They're screwing the customers with their high prices for used games but that's a different argument entirely.

FIAT get their money from the FIAT Punto bought new. Not on the one bought second hand. If you change the rules for games, surely you have to change the rules for everything else. Do FIAT and Ford and BMW complain that they are losing money for every car used car sold? No. In fact many car companies have taken advantage of the used car market by going into business with second hand dealerships. If publishers want to get money from used games, instead of complaining about lost revenues, they should be partnering with Gamestop or Game or doing something themselves if the retail stores won't participate. Maybe they should offer trade in deals. Trade in Modern Warfare 3 at Activision and get credit towards Black Ops 2 (you know it's coming). If someone wants to pick up a cheap copy of MW3 they can go to the Activision site and pick up a used copy.

If Activision doesn't want to do that, then...tough. The housing market is based on a system of buy low, sell high. If I buy a house for €500,000 and sell it for €1,000,000, do I give the guy I bought the house from initially a share of the profit? No. Of course not.

Our economic system, as messed up as it is, is still based on the basic principle of trade and barter. We use money these days instead of goats and grain but the concept is pretty much the same. You want something, you buy it and you then have ownership of it. If you wish to sell it on, that's your right.

The NeXtbox having some form of anti-used game software is a bit pointless, even putting aside the arguments. The fact is that only half of 360 owners are actually on XBL in some form. Half. Any system Microsoft would employ would rely on connectivity and I'd wager that a significant portion of used-game buyers are people who don't go online. We could be talking relatively poor households or even kids who simply aren't allowed online and buy games used with their pocket money. Until we have 90% of consoles going online, such measures will be irrelevant and utterly pointless.

We have this idea that software is exempt from free trade rights. It isn't. If someone buys a game used, it means that someone already bought that game new. That particular disc has already been paid for. Publishers have no right to demand more.

Does that mean I'm against game codes? No. If you buy a game used and keep it offline, you won't need a code. If you want to take it online you are availing of a service that needs to be paid for. So I have no issue with game codes for online play although I suppose you could argue that paying for XBL Gold in the 360's case should allow you to access those services regardless. I do take issue with PC games that require online activation or even worse, requires an internet connection to actually play the game, even if it's not an online game.

johnny_ultimate · 07-02-2012 3:41am

Vadakin wrote: »

OK then. Should car companies get a cut of the sale if someone sells their car second hand? If a guy builds a house and then sells it, should the new owner give the original owner a percentage if he decides to sell it on himself? Or should people have to hold on to their cars and houses forever, even if they buy new ones because selling them second hand would cost contractors and car manufacturers? See when you make it about something else, it sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?

You're presenting a strawman argument. You're not comparing like and like. A builder needs to sell a house once to make money back and the house is priced accordingly. A car manufacturer needs to sell several thousand units to turn a profit and is priced according. A big-budget retail game needs to sell several hundred thousand, or even millions, of copies and is priced accordingly. If you want to compare, compare something closer to games. Is it normal to sell your cinema ticket to the patron going to the next show? Or how about selling your iTunes downloads on? These are absurd examples, but no more absurd than the housing / car examples.

I don't disagree with the rest of your post entirely. I think a second-hand gaming market is important. But it's evolved to increasingly ridiculous levels, where developers and publishers are increasingly unable to break even because it's mere days before games are on the pre-owned shelves. THQ don't care if The Darkness is being sold second-hand. They've made their money. However, they sure as hell care whether The Darkness II is on a second-hand shelf for a couple of euro cheaper pre-owned a day or two after release.

This has resulted in worse games: superfluous features being added to 'fluff' the game in the desperate attempt to keep new copies selling. Companies are going with safe bets and lazy franchise cash-ins as they're the only ones guaranteed to make a return. And we gamers keep demanding better, because we're annoying like that. Studios are closing all the time, often with little fanfare. Some due to quality reasons, granted, but others - whether it's Bizarre Creations or Black Rock Studios - simply because the marketplace has grown so aggressive. Survival of the fittest, I guess, but it's only the Call of Duties, Marios or FIFAs that are guaranteed sales these days.

I'm sure everyone is glad we can buy retro games on Ebay - stuff that we simply cannot get in a shop anymore. But Gamestop et al have created a very unusual and unbalanced industry, and gamers are suffering (both in terms of cost and quality) as well as the 'big boys'. This isn't a post in favour of draconian measures to protect against second hand sales. But it's more than understandable that publishers are trying to protect themselves in a marketplace gone badly awry.

Liam O · 07-02-2012 5:44am

I think a deal whereby a game can't be sold second hand until it's a couple of months out wouldn't be a bad idea. It would allow a second hand market and yet give a certain amount of time for the initial sales buzz to get the publisher and developer sales.

ShadowHearth · 07-02-2012 8:50am

Wtf is wrong with online pass lads? Let's be honest - it works. Why reinvent bicycle?
Online pass makes second hand games less attractive, so prices on trade ins and second hand sales droping, not growing. That would explain big high street boys having problems too.

CORaven · 07-02-2012 8:51am

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

You're presenting a strawman argument. You're not comparing like and like. A builder needs to sell a house once to make money back and the house is priced accordingly. A car manufacturer needs to sell several thousand units to turn a profit and is priced according. A big-budget retail game needs to sell several hundred thousand, or even millions, of copies and is priced accordingly. If you want to compare, compare something closer to games. Is it normal to sell your cinema ticket to the patron going to the next show? Or how about selling your iTunes downloads on? These are absurd examples, but no more absurd than the housing / car examples.

More realistic examples: The console its self, dvds, computers, furniture, TVs.
It is not too uncommon to find these second hand somewhere and supports Vadakin's argument.

ShadowHearth · 07-02-2012 8:59am

CORaven wrote: »

More realistic examples: The console its self, dvds, computers, furniture, TVs.
It is not too uncommon to find these second hand somewhere and supports Vadakin's argument.

Agree, vadakin did gave a good argument with this. And I am not even fan of second hand sales. Mobile phones can be added to same category. There are tons of them sold second hand and feck all manufacturers getting for it. In fact you can trade them in back and they go back to manufacturers for parts etc.

Great example of trading in your mw3 for mw3.1 to publisher itself.

Steam has some nice idea behind some of the games: if you had red orchestra 1, you would get 20% discount for red orchestra 2.

stevenmu · 07-02-2012 10:39am

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I'd rather some portion of my money goes to the people who made the game, though, and the company who published it. I'd much rather Sega, Platinum and Gamestop get a piece of the pie than just Gamestop. The developer deserves their share from every sale. Everyone else is of secondary concern.

You could always just buy new then, or where possible buy direct.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

What did Gamestop do to deserve a share other than put it on a shelf?

The same thing every other shop does to deserve a share of everything they put on their shelves. They provide the shelves, the shop to hold them, and the staff to stock them and sell the games. They take a cut on everything sold, they take a cut on new games too, the same way Tesco take a cut on every can of beans they sell. And they will get their cut, if they don't get to sell 2nd hand games, they'll just stick a much bigger cut on the new games. Will anyone be happier paying €70/80 for a new game?

You're presenting a strawman argument.

I don't think it's fair to just dismiss the car argument as a strawman argument, especially if you're then going to go and compare selling a second hand game to selling a second hand cinema ticket

If you want to use a movie analogy, then DVDs are much more accurate, you can buy a DVD new, sell it on to someone else, buy second hand DVDs etc. Just like you have always been able to do with games and just like people have always done with games, and the games industry has still been able to go from being a niche market to being the biggest entertainment industry going.

This has resulted in worse games: superfluous features being added to 'fluff' the game in the desperate attempt to keep new copies selling. Companies are going with safe bets and lazy franchise cash-ins as they're the only ones guaranteed to make a return. And we gamers keep demanding better, because we're annoying like that. Studios are closing all the time, often with little fanfare. Some due to quality reasons, granted, but others - whether it's Bizarre Creations or Black Rock Studios - simply because the marketplace has grown so aggressive. Survival of the fittest, I guess, but it's only the Call of Duties, Marios or FIFAs that are guaranteed sales these days

There's no real evidence to suggest that if second hand sales were cut out, the extra money would go into developing more original and unique games. They already know that CoD, Fifa etc are the big money makers, they could just decide to bring them out every six months instead of once a year.

Grumpypants · 07-02-2012 11:43am

Dear Developers,

I will stop trading in my games if you promise to make games that i want to play for longer than one day.

That is all.

Kind Regards,

Grumpy.

Shiminay · 07-02-2012 11:56am

When a car is sold second hand, we accept that at some stage in it's life, there may be need for something on it to be repaired or replaced and the manufacturer supplies these parts and makes a profit selling them. Similarly, game publisher will make future money via DLC/Online passes with second hand sales. However, a Car manufacturer designs, engineers and subsequently mass-produces a fleet of cars, and releases it into the wild. That's it, it's done and they have no more "responsibility" for it. A game publisher has ongoing costs of maintaining its multi-player servers for maybe 3 to 5 years - that's not cheap. Even with the horror that is console based P2P networking, they still need servers to manage that service.

Games, are software and typically, you don't own software, you own a licence to use it. Second hand sales could very easily fall under breach of licence agreements if the publishers went down that road. If Seán Sherlock's nonsense SI goes through, maybe developers could seek injunctions against the second hand retailers or eBay/Adverts/Done Deal/Buy & Sell for allowing breach of their copyright/licencing.

gizmo · 07-02-2012 11:59am

The car manufacturer example, which is used quite often in fairness, isn't as valid a comparison when you look a little deeper. When a game is sold new, that's it, neither the developer nor the publisher will get more money from the title. They also, of course, get no money from the second hand sale of said title. Sure, people can go and download additional content but the revenue stream has now ended apart from that. This is unlike the car industry where the manufacturers still continue to make money money on every car sold, old or new, via the sale of replacement parts for the vehicle. Is it as much as the sale of a new car? Of course not. However there is still an extremely important revenue stream present which is (one of the reasons) why the automobile market is probably happy to let the second hand market exist.

EDIT: Took too long posting and Shiminay got in first with the spare parts point. That being said I disagree with idea that spare parts are the same as DLC, one is to replace something that has broken and the other is new content. A more apt comparison between DLC and car parts would be after market parts however these lie outside the boundary of the analogy imo since you're generally no longer referring to a revenue stream for the original manufacturer.

stevenmu wrote: »

You could always just buy new then, or where possible buy direct.

The same thing every other shop does to deserve a share of everything they put on their shelves. They provide the shelves, the shop to hold them, and the staff to stock them and sell the games. They take a cut on everything sold, they take a cut on new games too, the same way Tesco take a cut on every can of beans they sell. And they will get their cut, if they don't get to sell 2nd hand games, they'll just stick a much bigger cut on the new games. Will anyone be happier paying €70/80 for a new game?

This is just blatent scaremongering. The online stores such as Amazon, shopto et al have long sold games at below RRP and have had no second hand sales system in place. The prices of games aren't just going to magically jump up if such anti-used games measures were enacted.

stevenmu wrote: »

I don't think it's fair to just dismiss the car argument as a strawman argument, especially if you're then going to go and compare selling a second hand game to selling a second hand cinema ticket If you want to use a movie analogy, then DVDs are much more accurate, you can buy a DVD new, sell it on to someone else, buy second hand DVDs etc. Just like you have always been able to do with games and just like people have always done with games, and the games industry has still been able to go from being a niche market to being the biggest entertainment industry going.

The difference here is that the studios have generally made their money back on the movie by the time it's released on DVDs. From this point on their investment in the product, in this case the DVD, is minimal and so the second hand market wouldn't have such an effect on it.

Grumpypants wrote: »

Dear Developers,

I will stop trading in my games if you promise to make games that i want to play for longer than one day.

That is all.

Kind Regards,

Grumpy.

That you want to play for longer than one day or that actually last longer than one day?

VinLieger · 07-02-2012 12:00pm

I have no problem with this and i cant understand the people who do. These developers arent getting the sales they would otherwise get if 2nd hand sales werent possible of course they are gonna want to see it stopped, their job is to make games and sell them not cater to your every whim and fancy.
If you cant afford a 50-60 euro game on the day of release NEWSFLASH wait a few months for it to go down in price and then buy it.
Because of my current financial situation i cant afford to be going out and buying a new game every week, in fact i usually have to plan out my game purchases months in advance, and in some cases it just so happens i cant afford to buy the 2 games that i really want that come out 1 week apart so ive learned to wait.
For instance i really wanted to get FF13-2 but i want SSX more so im gonna buy that at the end of march and then pick up FF a few months down the line when its dropped in price.
I wont buy 2nd hand because i disagree with it being the only reason ****ty run stores like gamestop can keep afloat and screw devs out of hard earned money.
The celtic tiger strikes again with this sense of entitlement and demand for instant gratification of something someone wants

So i say to the console ppl, welcome to how PC gamers have been living for the last 10 years, its not too bad

johnny_ultimate · 07-02-2012 12:30pm

stevenmu wrote: »

I don't think it's fair to just dismiss the car argument as a strawman argument, especially if you're then going to go and compare selling a second hand game to selling a second hand cinema ticket If you want to use a movie analogy, then DVDs are much more accurate, you can buy a DVD new, sell it on to someone else, buy second hand DVDs etc. Just like you have always been able to do with games and just like people have always done with games, and the games industry has still been able to go from being a niche market to being the biggest entertainment industry going.

It very much is a strawman, and I'm not using the cinema ticket comparison, but since the cinema industry is based around a lot of people going to see one film, it in a weird sort of way is a more valid comparison. You don't buy a car and sell it on days later after you've taken it for a drive or two. You keep it for years. Same with a house. These are long term investments, and incomparable to a piece of plastic entertainment.

There's no real evidence to suggest that if second hand sales were cut out, the extra money would go into developing more original and unique games. They already know that CoD, Fifa etc are the big money makers, they could just decide to bring them out every six months instead of once a year.

There is no definitive evidence, I agree. But look at the huge amounts of unnecessary multiplayer modes and staggered DLC: there's some reasons our games are being shipped like they are now, in some cases incomplete. The second-hand industry is a pretty clear cause of that (out of many other reasons)! One just needs to look at, say, Steam or Xbox Live to show unique games flourishing in a developer friendlier environment.

CORaven wrote: »

More realistic examples: The console its self, dvds, computers, furniture, TVs.
It is not too uncommon to find these second hand somewhere and supports Vadakin's argument.

Again, the latter three are not fair examples, since they're designed to be bought once, and you do not sell them on for a considerable period of time after sale (if at all). DVDs and books are the only really appropriate comparisons, and neither of them have pre-owned markets on anywhere near the scale of games. Books, maybe, but second hand book sales are largely relegated to car boot sales and small independent stores. You don't go into a bookstore and find a second-hand book retailing for just shy of RRP. But it's routine in gaming - I've seen games on sale in CeX for more money than a new copy is on sale around the corner.

I'd like to have this argument. But for the reasons pointed out in mine and other posts, the car argument really isn't the way to have it

And everyone's ignoring the fact we're all arguing in favour of pre-owned games: just not pre-owned games when they're taking away the revenue to the people who deserve it when they really need it (like films, a game's commercial success can almost entirely be judged by the first month of sales).

ShadowHearth · 07-02-2012 1:05pm

Cars is a good example, but not modern cars, which are.ade on purpose to have only 5 year life spam so you would buy new one or spend a fortune on parts from manufacturer.

Car manufacturers spend money on making parts too so it's not like they get them a help of magic wand. Ge developers spend money on making dlcs. Car manufacturers make profit on parts and they keep older cars on road so they can get more money of theyr old product.Game developers make dlc and expansions for games to sell.to keep same game selling and make more profit of dlc too.

Car manufacturers are not after big dealerships which sell second hand cars, so why should developers go after game shops.

The reality is that it's developers own fault that second hand market went so out of control. Gamestops and high street shops get **** all from brand new game now as big share is taken by publishers etc. so like any business game shops went to look for options how to make it profitable for them sell games, not just do a faivor for developers. So here you go, second hand sale.

No, I don't buy used games, but I want developers not to go stupid idiotic ways which won't benefit genuine buyer, just make it more annoying.

ghostchant · 07-02-2012 1:11pm

ShadowHearth wrote: »

The reality is that it's developers own fault that second hand market went so out of control. Gamestops and high street shops get **** all from brand new game now as big share is taken by publishers etc.

...

No, I don't buy used games, but I want developers not to go stupid idiotic ways which won't benefit genuine buyer, just make it more annoying.

I don't think you're making the distinction between developers and publishers. What are the developers doing that's so wrong?

gizmo · 07-02-2012 1:29pm

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Car manufacturers spend money on making parts too so it's not like they get them a help of magic wand. Ge developers spend money on making dlcs.

You think DLC is created with a magic wand?

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Car manufacturers make profit on parts and they keep older cars on road so they can get more money of theyr old product.Game developers make dlc and expansions for games to sell.to keep same game selling and make more profit of dlc too.

Spare parts are made to replace existing parts and are not an option. DLC is new content and is entirely optional, regardless of the quality. The comparison is therefore invalid.

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Car manufacturers are not after big dealerships which sell second hand cars, so why should developers go after game shops.

A few posters have already dealt with this. The reasons (in context) range from car purchases being far larger than a game, to the product being designed to last a lot longer to and most importantly the fact that their existance helps drive the demand for the replacement parts. The markup on which, I can only imagine, is "considerable".

ShadowHearth wrote: »

The reality is that it's developers own fault that second hand market went so out of control. Gamestops and high street shops get **** all from brand new game now as big share is taken by publishers etc. so like any business game shops went to look for options how to make it profitable for them sell games, not just do a faivor for developers. So here you go, second hand sale.

This is total nonsense and again has been refuted in a number of threads. Games have not increased in price yet the development costs have risen astronomically. Therefore the people who are hurting are the publishers/developers as their margins are what is being cut, not the retailers. The larger retailers jumped on the second hand market for one reason and one reason only, massive profits. As has been posted before, Gamestop, one of the biggest culprits in this case, has seen approximately 50% of their profits come from the second hand market. That's two billion dollars. And you want to blame publishers for "pushing" them in this direction?

Grumpypants · 07-02-2012 1:31pm

The used market has been hugely beneficial to smaller studio's and for opening up the market.

How many people here picked up a cheap used game that they would never had bought new, then found it was brilliant and went on to buy further games from that team?

On the other hand i can't remember the last full price game i bought that i didn't know a lot about the team behind it.

wes · 07-02-2012 1:33pm

Well, there more than welcome to do this. I just won't buy the next Xbox if they do something this stupid. Nintendo and Sony will get my money instead.

TerrorFirmer · 07-02-2012 1:39pm

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Wtf is wrong with online pass lads? Let's be honest - it works. Why reinvent bicycle?
Online pass makes second hand games less attractive, so prices on trade ins and second hand sales droping, not growing. That would explain big high street boys having problems too.

I agree actually, with the online pass system. Recently, I borrowed my friends copy of Space Marine, and to progress past an elemental level online, whilst still having complete access to the SP campaign, I had to buy the pass, which was only 800MSP - about 8 euro. To buy the game new, the cheapest I could find was at least double that, so I was happy to pay the 8 odd euro to get full access, and even, to be honest, contribute a little back to a great game. Went on to buy the Chaos Unleashed DLC too, so that's 16 quid spent on a '2nd hand game', and I'll probably end up getting the Dreadnought expansion as well.

Obviously that only suits games with decent MP capability however, which limits it, does nothing to claw back some revenue from games designed around a single player experience.

Go **** yourself THQ

Comments