Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Playstation 4: Rumors and Speculation, complete with fanboy rage!


  • Please log in to reply
300 replies to this topic

#151 Blaster man

Blaster man

Posted 01 April 2012 - 03:54 AM

so how does every digital download work? You can't resell anything thing on Kindle/itune/XLBA/estore


Why don't you explain to me why all the oil companies can't get together and refuse to sell gas to anyone with a Toyota? It's their gas.

#152 jay_remedy

jay_remedy

    Mila Kunis >

  • Banned

Posted 01 April 2012 - 03:56 AM

Why don't you explain to me why all the oil companies can't get together and refuse to sell gas to anyone with a Toyota? It's their gas.


Not only did he ask you first, but his question is directly related to your point while you're coming up with bullshit hypotheticals that aren't even related.

jayremedy.png29kwg3s.gif

sig.gif


#153 Blaster man

Blaster man

Posted 01 April 2012 - 03:56 AM

What terrible analogies. A better airline analogy would be airlines refusing to let you fly after you bought someone else's ticket off them, which I'm pretty sure isn't allowed since the person's name is on the ticket.


Okay so you think it's perfectly fine and you'll defend your console manufacturer no matter what they do. You could care less if it makes you pay more for games.

I have right of first sale on my products. They are price fixing. You can disagree all you want but if this is true, the justice department will come after them.

#154 jay_remedy

jay_remedy

    Mila Kunis >

  • Banned

Posted 01 April 2012 - 03:58 AM

Okay so you think it's perfectly fine and you'll defend your console manufacturer no matter what they do. You could care less if it makes you pay more for games.

I have right of first sale on my products. They are price fixing. You can disagree all you want but if this is true, the justice department will come after them.


Why wasn't Sony hit with an anti-trust lawsuit when the PSP Go came out? That system did not allow you to play used games.

jayremedy.png29kwg3s.gif

sig.gif


#155 Blaster man

Blaster man

Posted 01 April 2012 - 04:02 AM

Not only did he ask you first, but his question is directly related to your point while you're coming up with bullshit hypotheticals that aren't even related.


That's because there is no possible exact comparison. The home game console industry is run by only a small number of manufacturer's while digital downloads are done on a variety of platforms through many different companies. I can't buy a PS3 disk that was manufactured and sold by Apple.
They ARE the industry. Any type of activity that would limit consumers would be looked at closely.

#156 Blaster man

Blaster man

Posted 01 April 2012 - 04:05 AM

Why wasn't Sony hit with an anti-trust lawsuit when the PSP Go came out? That system did not allow you to play used games.


For one thing, no one probably thought it was worth it to file a complaint with the justice department since it was an obvious failure out of the gate. That said, I have no doubt that if consoles moved to digital ONLY and cut all retailers out of the loop, meaning you can only buy PS5 (or whatever number) games through Sony's download that this could become a problem. I have no doubt that if Apple ends up dominating the tablet market that we'll see anti-trust lawsuits against them in a few years that will force them to unwall their garden or at least allow other retailers to sell codes for apps in it.

edit: The problem here is that you guys are asking for explanations why something is done in a certain way when it's still relatively new. You'd be crazy to think that these types of things would have already been decided by the courts. In another 20 years, yes. It's in it's infancy still.

#157 62t

62t

    Zune Duck!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 01 April 2012 - 04:08 AM

Let me just say this, neither of us are anti-trust lawyers, but MS and Sony does have legal department and know what they are doing.

My trade list: http://www.cheapassg...ead.php?t=42397

Looking for Danganronpa Anime Expo edition.  Please PM me if you have it for sale.

3DS FC 0731-4770-3312


#158 jay_remedy

jay_remedy

    Mila Kunis >

  • Banned

Posted 01 April 2012 - 04:08 AM

For one thing, no one probably thought it was worth it to file a complaint with the justice department since it was an obvious failure out of the gate. That said, I have no doubt that if consoles moved to digital ONLY and cut all retailers out of the loop, meaning you can only buy PS5 (or whatever number) games through Sony's download that this could become a problem. I have no doubt that if Apple ends up dominating the tablet market that we'll see anti-trust lawsuits against them in a few years that will force them to unwall their garden or at least allow other retailers to sell codes for apps in it.


Hahahah, okay.

jayremedy.png29kwg3s.gif

sig.gif


#159 Blaster man

Blaster man

Posted 01 April 2012 - 04:09 AM

Let me just say this, neither of us are anti-trust lawyers, but MS and Sony does have legal department and know what they are doing.


I agree but that doesn't mean that companies with legal departments don't push the envelope and hope for a ruling in their favor, particularly in a situation like this where this is almost certainly no case law. There will be lawsuits when this happens and it will eventually be decided.

#160 Blaster man

Blaster man

Posted 01 April 2012 - 04:11 AM

Hahahah, okay.


Lets put it this way, MS had anti-trust lawsuits about IE and they didn't even charge for that. Give Apple 10 years and if they're 90 percent of the tablet market, there WILL be lawsuits.

So what's next that perfectly fine in your mind? Maybe Microsoft and Sony will put a fingerprint scanner on the console so that the original console purchaser can't resell the console or accessories. Maybe PC makers will do the same, you won't be able to sell your computer's RAM after an upgrade because it will be locked to your iTunes or Windows Live account. Perhaps if you buy a brand new 55" TV, they should force you to log into a user account each time you turn it on and only the actual purchaser will be able to operate it. I'm sure that's okay and perfectly legal in your mind since they're under no obligation to you.

Edited by Blaster man, 01 April 2012 - 04:23 AM.


#161 Thomas96

Thomas96

    I am Thomaticus!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 01 April 2012 - 06:43 AM

April fools!
Posted Image

#162 epobirs

epobirs

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 01 April 2012 - 07:38 AM

GOTY editions essentially punish those who bought and supported the game early though. im not a fan of GOTY editions at all. if anyone should get the complete package, its the people who bought your game early on and supported you.

lets take borderlands for example, i buy the game day 1 at $60, then since i like the game, i actually kept it and i buy all 4 dlcs. thats $100 total. what did borderlands GOTY launch at? $40? $30? to me, thats a big FU to the people who bought the game early and proceeded to buy all the DLC after that.


Nope, you paid for what you got. The game offered on that date for that price. If you chose to wait you would give up being one of the cool kids playing the latest and greatest but you'd save the money. People place a value on status object. Newly released games fall in that category. Perhaps you've heard it before: patience is a virtue.

This nonsense is like the days on Usenet when somebody who bought a Playstation four months before a price reduction starts screaming bloody murder and claim Sony owes him something. Then I would ask how much they used their Playstation in that four months and what it would have cost them to rent one for that same amount of usage.

Very few items increase in value. Most things get discounted if they fail to sell at full price or in the case of digital electronics their price drops as their cost to produce goes down and they seek a wider audience.
If I thought I needed to get out in the sunshine I'd play Boktai.

#163 elessar123

elessar123

    96.5% more WUB WUB

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 01 April 2012 - 08:09 AM

Even if they convert ten percent of the used game market, that's a lot of money.


No, that has to be combined with less incentive for people to buy at full price, because they can no longer trade it in to offset the full price. See my other example; It could potentially have no difference. Say they get back 10% of the $1.8 billion, but they lose $180 million from people who wait for a price drop before buying. Then they still see no money.

As for the piracy thing, I never said they lost nothing. I only said they wouldn't get 100% of it if there wasn't pirating.

#164 epobirs

epobirs

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 01 April 2012 - 08:32 AM

I don't understand you say? You don't understand. Clearly you think that because it's only video game (entertainment) that different laws apply to it than other industries. This is incorrect.

Airlines have no "legal obligation" to let me fly on their airlines yet they can't all get together and decide that all airline tickets have a minimum price of $3,000.

What they would be doing by locking out your right of first sale is a type of price fixing akin to when the CD came out.

Anyway, I'm tired of this discussion with people that will never see reason and don't think it would harm consumers at all. You seem like you would be fine if Sony killed your first born, "Well, they told me they had to do it and besides, it was in the TOS so it MUST be legal murder right?". Don't worry, if by some miracle they are dumb enough to actually put this into the new consoles, you'll see anti-trust suits hitting them. Then of course you'll come out claiming you knew it would happen all along.



Actually, they can all decide to charge $3,00 for a ticket any time they like. They were deregulated in the 80s.

What they cannot do is collude to fix prices across the industry.

If Sony and Microsoft were shown to be in collusion to charge the same prices on games solely available through their platforms, that would be a prosecutable offense. But they don't do that. The XBLA Deal of the Week and the PSN+ equivalent have rarely had any crossover, especially since Sony tries to emphasize items that Microsoft cannot match and vice versa.

A video game console is by its very nature a closed platform and as such the maker is under no legal obligation to bring any intermediary sales channel into it.

The only way consumers would be harmed is if there were no competing game console platforms. There are in fact many such competing platforms. Further, there is the PC, an open platform for which anyone can produce software. You can even treat it like a console with games on a bootable DVD with its own OS on board.

The closest applicable case to this is the nearly fifteen years the Justice Department spent hassling IBM before the Reagan Administration told them to knock it off. The whole business was a huge waste of taxpayer dollars because the free market did more to change how IBM did business that any threat from the government. Other companies, like Digital Equipment Corporation, came along and offered customers a better deal and more open systems.

But that was mainframe and mini computers where the issue was end user ability to create their own software and buy add-on hardware from vendors other than IBM. Trying to apply this to Apple, Sony, or Microsoft wouldn't fly. None of the three can prevent outside vendors from producing unauthorized peripherals and all three companies have programs to assure that vendors looking for approval have a certification they can receive for assuring customers. Likewise, all three companies openly welcome third party software development for their platforms to be sold through their venues.

There might have been a precedent if Atari had tried to kill Activision and Imagic when they started producing VCS games. Atari had no provision for third party software and had designed no security mechanism into the console. Their lawyers quickly told them they didn't have a leg to stand on.

Years later, when Nintendo had revived the industry primarily through their third party publishing model that remains the standard today, companies like EA resisted. They resented paying Nintendo to produce cartridges for them and charging a royalty fee on top of that. But Nintendo's console did have a security system, which EA had to crack to produce non-licensed cartridges. This gave Nintendo (and Sega) the advantage in court. EA spent millions fighting it but eventually noticed that Nintendo's business model was making huge money for everyone involved. EA came around to the idea that a closed platform had its place in the world.

The Nintendo/Sega victory established very well that a platform company can have complete control over what is and what isn't sold on their platform. Precedent allowing a product maker to control its sales channel is also very well established. Ralph Lauren could decide tomorrow that Macy's has cooties and would no longer be offered anything with a Ralph Lauren label. Now, if Macy's obtained the product through a third party that remained in Ralph Lauren's good grace, there wouldn't be anything the company could do about that other than put the third party on the shit list, too.

Put simpler, there are thousands of businesses in the US selling software exclusively through their web sites. Telling Sony that couldn't sell exclusively through their online channel would mean putting all of those companies under the gun as well.

Not going to happen.

Amazon is not going to run to the DoJ and complain if Sony brings out a platform with an equivalent of the iOS App Store. The first question to arise will be, "How is this different from Amazon having exclusive control of the Kindle's sales channel?"

Not going to happen.

Note: You can go to Baen Books and buy a MOBI file from them to use on the Kindle but you must manually add it to the unit via USB. Baen chooses not to sell e-books through Amazon and thus doesn't have access to WhisperNet. This greatly reduces their sales, causing some authors with non-exclusive rights to put their own versions of the books on Amazon. I know about this is some detail because one of my jobs is producing these books. I've done several for Jerry Pournelle and I'm currently doing some Poul Anderson titles.

Google chose to run android as a semi-open platform, allowing for the existence of the Amazon App Store. But this had nothing to do with any threat of government intervention. It's just part of their platform strategy and they can do what they want with it.

Every major retailer in the nation has product lines touted as exclusive to their stores. But their going to try to tell a judge that a console maker cannot do the same?

Not going to happen.

The Apple App Store has been around a few years now and there is no interest at the DoJ in forcing Apple to allow other companies to sell and distribute iOS software.

All of those retailers sell Apple iOS devices. They sell Kindles and Nooks. You can be sure they sell Microsoft and Sony game consoles even if they no longer get to sell the software. The accessory business will still be there and without the software they can change the shelf space to other stuff. It's just another change in a long history of retail and they're used to it. Their CD and DVD sections shrink a little every couple of years as the market shift to other delivery methods. So they bring in more stuff that cannot be sold by that means. Slowly but surely their store starts to look a lot more like stores did before physical media sales became a big business.

The smart ones roll with the changes. The not so smart ones fade away and make room for new ones to take a shot.
If I thought I needed to get out in the sunshine I'd play Boktai.

#165 epobirs

epobirs

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 01 April 2012 - 08:58 AM

No, that has to be combined with less incentive for people to buy at full price, because they can no longer trade it in to offset the full price. See my other example; It could potentially have no difference. Say they get back 10% of the $1.8 billion, but they lose $180 million from people who wait for a price drop before buying. Then they still see no money.

As for the piracy thing, I never said they lost nothing. I only said they wouldn't get 100% of it if there wasn't pirating.


Prices have to drop, full stop. The precedent of the successful game platforms that have no resell of purchased games is far lower prices than the traditional video game market is accustomed to charging.

A 99 cent Cut The Rope on your Android phone may not seem like a worthy comparison to a $60 Skyrim but how many 'event' games like Skyrim appear in any year? The market can support a certain number of premium titles but far too many premiere at $60 that simply don't merit that price. They aren't doing themselves any favor by delaying the inevitable of being a good game at $40 but no higher.

If Cut The Rope had been a DS cartridge selling for $30 in 2005, it probably would have done pretty good business and kept it up as the price crept down with lower ROM costs. Back then, the DS would have been the only platform suited to the game and a cartridge the only option. Modern phones and cheap flash memory have opened up a lot of opportunity for a small developer to offer good little games at very low prices. Meanwhile, something more ambitious like Infinity Blade can do well at $5.99, even though it would have been a full priced hit on the PS2 generation of consoles.

To gain the benefit of eliminating used game sales, the publishers have to offer the consumer something to make them no longer care about the loss. Price is the one thing that will have the most effect. Given a good server infrastructure with lot of regional nodes, a new high demand title can meet a vast amount of demand on the day of release. and if the price is right more people will buy at that time instead of waiting. (Not me but I'm a freak on that issue.)

It has been shown time and again that a lower price point can ultimately produce greater profit. The industry has an opportunity here to do that.
If I thought I needed to get out in the sunshine I'd play Boktai.

#166 8bitArtist

8bitArtist

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 01 April 2012 - 12:57 PM

Nope, you paid for what you got. The game offered on that date for that price. If you chose to wait you would give up being one of the cool kids playing the latest and greatest but you'd save the money. People place a value on status object. Newly released games fall in that category. Perhaps you've heard it before: patience is a virtue.

This nonsense is like the days on Usenet when somebody who bought a Playstation four months before a price reduction starts screaming bloody murder and claim Sony owes him something. Then I would ask how much they used their Playstation in that four months and what it would have cost them to rent one for that same amount of usage.

Very few items increase in value. Most things get discounted if they fail to sell at full price or in the case of digital electronics their price drops as their cost to produce goes down and they seek a wider audience.


you guys really arent getting what im talking about with my goty comment. this thread is partly about how to combat used game sales and the like. a way i suggested to do that was to get a season pass type deal to get all the dlc for free if you bought new. pre order exclusives might help a little on you pre ordering the game, but there is really little to no incentive to actually keep the game once completed.

EightBitArtist.png


#167 elessar123

elessar123

    96.5% more WUB WUB

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 01 April 2012 - 02:51 PM

It has been shown time and again that a lower price point can ultimately produce greater profit. The industry has an opportunity here to do that.


I know, but don't put greed pass them.

The game companies could already use this strategy. How often do you see games launch at a price other than $60 on PS3/360, other than remakes?

How often do you see digital only games on those systems be cheaper than their counter-part?

Now you see my worry?

Obviously, they're doing it out of greed, because they want part of Gamestop's $1.8 billion.

1) They can raise prices, cause they're greedy, and have a monopoly. This is of course, the least likely, but worst case scenario.

2) They can keep prices the same, and less people end up buying, leaving the game companies with the same amount. Gamestop goes under; everyone lose their jobs.

3) They lower prices (I'll believe it when I see it). They sell more, end up with a tiny but significant increase (10%). Gamestop goes out of business; everyone loses their jobs.

4) They lower the prices, and they end up with less money than if they hadn't changed a thing. They lose money, developers and Gamestop lose their jobs. The more likely worst case scenario.

Obviously there are a ton more scenarios, but 3) seems unlikely, given their track record. Just see the Vita's discounts on digital only. What happens instead is that they kill everything to do with the used game model, and cut even more jobs, all for a cookie out of the cookie jar. If you want to support that, be my guest.

#168 Blaster man

Blaster man

Posted 01 April 2012 - 05:35 PM

I'm willing to admit that I may be wrong and they will be able to get together and have an industry wide used game exclusion. I for one will not buy such a console. At that point I may as well just have a PC with an Xbox controller attached in my living room. I like to buy games, play them, then sell them to recover some of my costs. Most people that don't care here are OCD hoarders that keep everything and also don't rent or buy used. That's a very small vocal minority.

I doubt Nintendo will be participating in this scheme anyway so most likely that would be the only console I would get.

#169 jay_remedy

jay_remedy

    Mila Kunis >

  • Banned

Posted 01 April 2012 - 06:47 PM

Damn, epobirs killed it.

And Blaster Man is going to refuse to buy a console that doesn't play used games and just play games on his PC, a platform that doesn't play used games. Makes total sense.

jayremedy.png29kwg3s.gif

sig.gif


#170 Blaster man

Blaster man

Posted 01 April 2012 - 07:03 PM

Damn, epobirs killed it.

And Blaster Man is going to refuse to buy a console that doesn't play used games and just play games on his PC, a platform that doesn't play used games. Makes total sense.


Are you really that dense? The PC is a platform that has many many many different companies that sell games for it. That's why Steam and Amazon have such low prices. If you can't understand that the only way you can get a game on the PS3 is through Sony's channels then there's really not a lot of discussion that can be had with you.:applause:

#171 jay_remedy

jay_remedy

    Mila Kunis >

  • Banned

Posted 01 April 2012 - 08:00 PM

Are you really that dense? The PC is a platform that has many many many different companies that sell games for it. That's why Steam and Amazon have such low prices. If you can't understand that the only way you can get a game on the PS3 is through Sony's channels then there's really not a lot of discussion that can be had with you.:applause:


You have been whining about consoles not allowing used games.

Your solution is to go to a platform that does not allow used games.

jayremedy.png29kwg3s.gif

sig.gif


#172 Blaster man

Blaster man

Posted 01 April 2012 - 08:29 PM

You have been whining about consoles not allowing used games.

Your solution is to go to a platform that does not allow used games.


You don't see the difference between the platforms? As soon as that particular platform (PC) requires all downloaded games and applications to be done through Windows Live and all applications/games on disks to be pressed by Microsoft with MS getting a $10 cut of every single piece of software THEN I'll bitch about it as well.:wall:

Do you think that having many different places that sell software independently of each other and with no ties to the hardware or OS is the same as buying a disk for the PS3 or Xbox 360? I'm sure you understand there is a HUGE difference between the two. The day that MS and Sony let someone, let say - ME, make a game for their console, burn it to a DVD or Blu Ray (as appropriate) on my own burner and sell it out of my house on Ebay without involving them at all THEN they can stop allowing used games. So yes, assuming that no next gen console allows used games, I would change to the PC completely. I can buy from any source I want and the huge number of competing sources lowers the price. Shit, I can't buy a playstation game from Amazon and download it FROM Amazon without ever connecting the Sony's network like I can PC games.

I'm just curious, do you think it's a GOOD thing if they stop people from selling their games on Ebay when they're done with them?

Edited by Blaster man, 01 April 2012 - 08:42 PM.


#173 jay_remedy

jay_remedy

    Mila Kunis >

  • Banned

Posted 01 April 2012 - 09:10 PM

You can buy PC games from Steam, Amazon, Origin, etc.

You can buy PS3 games from Target, Amazon, Wal Mart, Best Buy, etc.

Your logic is terrible.

jayremedy.png29kwg3s.gif

sig.gif


#174 Blaster man

Blaster man

Posted 01 April 2012 - 09:24 PM

You can buy PC games from Steam, Amazon, Origin, etc.

You can buy PS3 games from Target, Amazon, Wal Mart, Best Buy, etc.

Your logic is terrible.


Are you just trolling now or did you not read/understand what I wrote?

#175 jay_remedy

jay_remedy

    Mila Kunis >

  • Banned

Posted 01 April 2012 - 10:20 PM

How many times you gonna change your argument?

jayremedy.png29kwg3s.gif

sig.gif


#176 htz

htz

Posted 02 April 2012 - 08:25 AM

Posted Image

#177 smallsharkbigbite

smallsharkbigbite

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 02 April 2012 - 11:51 AM

First off, people need to stop comparing the video game industry to other industries on a 1:1 scale. They're not the same. But anyways:


That seems to me like a cop out. There are ways the industry is the same and there are valid discussions to the like. Might as well say close all the forums because people see things differently so there is no point in discussing. Then to post an answer to my question runs contradictory to what you're saying.

1. But don't car manufacturers run/license these dealers? Every Honda dealership I see has a large used car lot right next to the new cars. Mercedes and other luxury brands runs ads on TV specifically for their used cars. They obviously benefit from the used car market in a way that Capcom/Sony/Activision/EA/etc. don't.


Nope, not the way it works. Honda licenses car dealers to sell new cars. Lots of used car dealers have no affiliation to a manufacturer. Honda needs a network to sell its new cars, thus they license new car dealers. In an effort to increase profits, car dealers also buy/sell used cars. This has nothing to do with Honda at all and is much the same used game sales work. Sony needs a retailer network so they give Gamestop a fee to sell their products. Gamestop in an attempt to make more money buys/sells used games. It's actually the exact same model exact that cars are clearly more valuable.

Capcom/Sony/Activision/EA do benefit from the used game market. You get back into that grey area. Do they benefit more than it hurts them? Maybe not but there are no specific facts to determine.

1. Most gamers have limited amount of resources. Thus, selling used games gets them additional monies that "surprise" sometimes they do use on "new" games.

2. Sometimes gamers don't have much interest in a game until they can get it for $5 used. Then they become hooked and want to purchase the sequels at launch. Thus, expanding a market they wouldn't have.

3. Much like used cars, used games have a residual value. So I don't feel bad about spending $60 on a game because if it's atrocious, I'll get some sort of refund via selling the game used. Take away residual value and number of people willing to spend $60 on a game will drop. Now if they drop the price of games, this becomes less of a point.

4. It fuels the addictive gamer which drives more revenue in the future. Most gamers pick up the habit in high school or earlier when they don't have alot of money. Thus, used games are their only option for gaming. If they don't have that outlet they spend their time doing other things and then they never truly become addicted to gaming. Then they aren't going to spend $600 for the PS4 when they get better cash flows. Then they aren't willing to spend $60 and wait outside a store on release night.

2. You downloading songs and giving them to your friends isn't the same as stores selling used products,

Never said they were the same, and I don't do that. My point was that someone said the digital distribution model shown by the music industry would be ideal for video games. My point was that this could still result in a bunch of people playing games they didn't pay for.

3. That's another good point as to why the video game industry is much different. They are able to affect the used game market because there are only three video game system providers.

If that's your point, then this definitely opens them up to litigation. They can't say there are only 3 of us, let's push things on the market.

The bottom line in this whole debate is if the market supports it, it will continue to happen. Everyone was up in arms over $15 DLC map packs for COD, yet they ended up being the biggest selling DLC items. If people support a console that doesn't use used games, then it will happen. If not, then it'll go back to the way it was.

That is true, and I do believe that they will find a way eventually to lock out used game sales. But they should be careful what they wish for. PC gaming has been on life support since DRM came out. So they shouldn't just simply equate every used game as a sale at the price they want.

Edited by smallsharkbigbite, 02 April 2012 - 12:07 PM.


#178 Jodou

Jodou

Posted 02 April 2012 - 03:19 PM

Can you guys stop writing blogs? I want to keep up on the drama but JFC TL;DR every post.

JodouKastBizmuth.jpg


#179 lokizz

lokizz

    Go $$$$ Yourself

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 02 April 2012 - 04:36 PM

the lack of bc isnt that surprising though it costs money to do that and why bother with it when they can just sell you all those games again on psn. about that too i think its shit you have to pay again for games you own in psp disk form if you want them on your vita and why the Fuck cant you gift things from the psn store the way people can on xbox live? i dont think well ever see any significant improvements on psn this console generation but that damn thing needs an overhaul for next gen.

#180 pharmacrest

pharmacrest

    #poppinpills

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 02 April 2012 - 06:05 PM

Posted Image

I love it. This is what I have been doing after reading the last couple pages to catch up on this argument. I am almost ready to put gettinmoney in the same category as IATCG and confoosious. Everytime those guys comment on something I love watching the ensuing argument/bitching.

Tyler hates me. 

 

Wrencrest.png