I still think that's a really bullshit stance to take considering Blizzard's history. They've always added expansions, and people would be fucking cheering if they delayed the announcement until after the game was already out. They decide to be honest and say they've got a fuckload of story that they'll be chopping out so the already really slowly released game doesn't take an additional six years to make, and people flip their shit.

 

Except Blizzard haven't always been in the chain of command of Bobby Motherfucking Kotick. Now everything Blizzard says and does is suspect, and for damn good reason.

 

I still have no clue why Blizzard felt the need to merge with Activision who are fast becoming the evil empire of gaming. There was no need for it.

Now they answer to a greedy fucking nut who knows as much about games as you arthritic grandmother.

I'm fucking tired of this shit, if I buy a game I should be fucking able to play it as I feel. Hell, gimme a way to turn off achievements and cheat and we're cool. But fucking banning me from a piece of software I own so you can maintain the integrity of some bullshit currency that gamers seem to be willing to spend endless amounts of time and money on pisses me off.

 

Meh. Guess I just won't be buying Starcraft.

 

I say again, fuck you Blizivision.

Stop fucking modifying goddamn unit stats in SC2, it's starting to get goddamn ridiculous. Newest update completely buttfucks protoss, slightly hurts terran, and gives zerg at least 8+ HP and ability bonuses!

FFS I've already got to deal with these assclowns & their early rush BS, it's going to get even worse now that you've slashed the first air to ground unit I can get that deals with armored enemies well.

 

They're trying to balance the game, man. That's kinda the main way to do it (that and get maps that aren't terrible, but that's not about to happen any time soon).

They did it in the original StarCraft, they did it in Brood War, they did it in WC3 and hell, even WoW. I fail to see why they'd stop now.

 

There's a difference between balancing the game, and completely turning the tide in some cases. Cutting a void ray armor attack in half is ridiculous.

 

Fucking this. I was going to save up for the Collectors Edition, but fuck that. I'll just stick to Minecraft.

 

I actually looked over the patch notes, and wow. That sure is a patch. That being said...at least uncharged Void Rays aren't completely useless anymore. They almost make sense as a unit now, actually.

They just cost way the fuck too much, and I am not pleased at all with the HT nerf. If you have to nerf toss, nerf Colossus, fuck.

 

So I buy Fifa 11 for £32 preowned thinking to myself 'well at least I saved 8 quid' when I get home and out comes this bullshit about an online license for, thats right, 7.99!

Fuck. You. EA.

 

Maybe they hope to get most of those players that downloaded the game, and are not willing to buy the complete version just for the multiplayer part (since those generally don't work on warez versions) but would be willing to pay a lesser price for the added multiplayer function?

Just a wild guess.

 

Much as I'm usually one of the first to get on the EA hatewagon, why the fuck should they spend bandwidth on your presence on their multiplayer service when you haven't given a cent to them? Buying secondhand does nothing for the developer nor publisher, so why should they do anything for you?

 

When you buy secondhand, you remove the game from someone else. This removes their ability to play the game online, which means they aren't using bandwidth they otherwise might be entitled to as buyers of the game. As the new owner, you should now have access to that bandwidth.

I also question whether or not the games they offer use dedicated servers at all, or p2p which is quite dominant with 360 multiplayer titles.


It comes down to whether online play is considered part of the game. I for one would wholeheartedly argue that yes, it is. Companies advertise their games, using multiplayer as a touted feature constantly.

So going along the assumption that multiplayer is part of the game, in the US there's something known as the First Sale Doctrine, which essentially means that in this case, you call sell your games after you buy them.

Now, I'm sure you'll find tons of companies willing to argue that you're not really buying a game, but rather a license to play that game-and that license shouldn't be transferable. However as far as I know, that's not the law.

 

Except the logic is that for each person/family unit that plays the game should equate to one sale's worth of money going to the publisher. I'm not going to pretend that I haven't pirated shit, but likewise I'm not going to pretend that it's morally right to do so. And pirating a game gives the publishers and developers just as much money as buying it secondhand - absolutely jack shit.

I know it's not a cut-and-dried black-and-white argument, but in this case, I'm more against Gamespot and their compatriots than I am for EA and theirs. I can see the other side of this issue - I adore secondhand book stores, and any argument against pre-owned games can be easily applied to secondhand books. But I don't think it's at all wrong for a games developer to try to discourage secondhand sales, just as I think it's wrong for a games developer to try to discourage pirates. The implementation might be (cough Assassins Creed 2 cough), but the attempt isn't.

 

I agree that there's nothing wrong with developers/publishers offering incentives to people if they buy new. That's why I didn't complain when I saw that Mass Effect 2 & Dragon Age both came with free day 1 DLC. It was obvious that the stuff was only implemented so that people would have a reason to buy new instead of used.

If a publisher/developer wants to add additional content to new buyers that otherwise would not have been available in the game, I see nothing wrong that. I'm thinking more along the lines of some free dlc codes, or perhaps some kind of in game armor.

My issue comes in when a core part of gameplay is ripped out of the actual game. The first sale doctrine endows individuals with the right to sell copyrighted media that they own secondhand. If the developer or publisher rips out a portion of the game (IE:Tying online multiplayer to individual gaming accounts), than they are effectively violating the first sale doctrine.

 

Davidson & Associates v. Internet Gateway Inc (2004) ruled that EULAs trump the first-sale doctrine.

 

Which contradicted an earlier ruling (Softman v. Adobe (2001)) which essentially stated that software enjoys the same first doctrine protection as books, movies, or music. The contradictions haven't yet been cleared up by a higher court.

EDIT: It looks like I'm full of shit. A little deeper research brought me upon this.

Not only am I wrong, but now I'm pissed off. If my used game market gets whipped out, I've got a mod chip all ready for my ps3. I'll be fucked if I'm going to pay the prices publishers think is agreeable.

Just for kicks-check out xbox live and it's pricing details. CoD:MW1 is priced at 40 USD. They price it that way because they can get away with it, due to it being a digital market with no competition from used games.

If used games are eliminated completely, you can expect the rest of the physical game market to follow suit in pricing model.

 

Then start buying indie games priced reasonably instead of paying for the latest EA/Activision shovelware.

 

lol @ trainers

Used a memory editor for brutal All In and that STUPID viking mission (where you have to rush to the settlements before they're infested) to give myself 999999 min/gas. Mainly because those missions are impossible on brutal and I wanted the portraits.

I haven't been caught, so it's likely blizzard's sniffing doesn't detect that.

The only achievement that's even remotely satisfying is beating 7 insane computers in FFA, and that's because those assholes love to probe rush you.

 

Oh I do . I just happened to be late in the game in regards to console ownership. I bought my xbox 360 5 years into it's life cycle, and then traded it for a ps3 3-4 months after that.

I either had the option to buy good older games new, which is downright ridiculous when some of them cost upwards of $40-60 for a 2+ year old game, or used for $15-30.

I like my indie games as much as anyone, but I also love my Mass Effect, Dragon Age, and Starcraft II. I'd be dancing on sunshine and shitting rainbows if they were small indie titles-but they aren't. I've got no problem paying a reasonable amount of money for these big titles, but the pricing these publishers want to force on buyers is anything but reasonable.