UFC Undisputed 2010 Used - $45

M

-Mystery-

CAG Veteran
Gamestop's already got the game used for the Xbox 360. $45 but $40 after EDGE and if you've got one of those nifty little $10 coupons, only $30. Yes, get the game for half off on release day. Insane.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Already dead. They only had 4 copies.

Edit - Nevermind. Seems to be an issue adding the game into the cart, but still available.
 
Keep in mind when buying this, if the key on the manual is used, you will not be able to play online and will have to shell out an extra $5 for an online key.
 
Erm wut? Maybe the mangers were playing it and traded it in on day 1? or maybe they took the copy's from all the events? This is fracking crazy! :p
 
I went to Best Buy used the fry's add got the XBOX360 game for 49.99 and the Best of 2009 Blu Ray for 9.99 Total was 64.55 not bad. I was wondering though how different the PS3 and 360 copies are also whats the pass code for the exclusive 4 fighters from gamestop thanks.
 
Kinga what are you asking on the back end of your post? You only get the code for gs and the exclusive 4 if you preorder it and they are one time use codes I believe.
 
[quote name='AceSXE']Kinga what are you asking on the back end of your post? You only get the code for gs and the exclusive 4 if you preorder it and they are one time use codes I believe.[/QUOTE]

O thanks on that but does anyone still know the difference between 360 and PS3 exclusives thanks.
 
PS3 is the only version that has exclusives .

3 exclusive Legends fighters (Royce Gracie, Jens Pulver, Dan Severn), exclusive Ultimate Fights and some of the greatest fights in UFC History on Blu-ray.
 
[quote name='aeolus88']Keep in mind when buying this, if the key on the manual is used, you will not be able to play online and will have to shell out an extra $5 for an online key.[/QUOTE]

are you serious? more developers are using this type of game registration tactic.....i think that's the same thing with Battlefield BC2......
 
[quote name='gshell']are you serious? more developers are using this type of game registration tactic.....i think that's the same thing with Battlefield BC2......[/QUOTE]

But at least Bad Company 2 you can play online without the code. This code-required-to-play-online nonsense that THQ and soon to be EA Sports are requiring is really making me wonder why we have to pay for Xbox Live again...?
 
[quote name='gshell']are you serious? more developers are using this type of game registration tactic.....i think that's the same thing with Battlefield BC2......[/QUOTE]
After EA announced it, they decided to do the same last minute. The code for BC2 was just to be a VIP and get all the free dlc btw.
 
[quote name='RaidenMGS3']But at least Bad Company 2 you can play online without the code. This code-required-to-play-online nonsense that THQ and soon to be EA Sports are requiring is really making me wonder why we have to pay for Xbox Live again...?[/QUOTE]

Soon to be EA Sports? NCAA and Madden already had this. And as much as I'd rather companies not do this stuff, it's their idea of "fighting against" the used game industry. It insures that they'll still see some money if someone buys the game used. And it allows them to boast to customers that there's a "great incentive" to buying the game new. It's lame. But ultimately, it really doesn't affect that much. If you're buying the game new, nothing changes. If you buy it used, you're just getting $5 less of a deal. It sucks, but it's not terribly surprising.

Honestly, the reason they're doing this is because of threads exactly like this one. The same day the game releases, we're talking about being able to get it for $34 (if you use CAG16, EDGE, and SAVER). Even WITH the $5 to THQ, that is still an amazing deal for a game that literally just came out (my overnight/release date delivery copy from GS.com hasn't even come in yet). And with deals like that available, nobody would buy the game new. But I took advantage of one of GS.com's many recent online coupons and pre-ordered the game for $45 a month ago. If you're smart, crap like this shouldn't affect you at all.
 
[quote name='Bronson-Lee']Remember, there's a 5$ fee to play online with this; keep this in mind when you buy it used![/QUOTE]
Wow that's bullshit
 
yea just pre-ordered mine for $40 yesterday well $46 stupid refurb fee from GS.. went to blockbuster checked out some used games..bought some .. then earlier this week i saw the $40 cred towards UFC and RED DEAD promotion. so i traded in those games i bought from blockbuster which i bought for less than $40 btw. So Really each game only came out to $20 at gamestop .. but if i add the cost i spent at blockbuster comes out to $40 total spent on each (red dead and UFC) of these 2 games. RED DEAD is great btw.. and cant wait to play ufc later today
 
I talked to the guys down at Gamestop, and they said the CEO of the company said that they will be reducing the used prices for the titles that use this online registration tactic by $5-$10 depending on how much each game charges to gain access to the online multiplayer. Case in point, UFC 2010 being $45 used on the site rather than $50, which means if you find it in store, you should see it come up as $50 instead of $55. Say what you will about Gamestop, but they sure as hell know how to level the battlefield when publishers do this shady stuff.
 
[quote name='AFarewell2Arms'] Say what you will about Gamestop, but they sure as hell know how to level the battlefield when publishers do this shady stuff.[/QUOTE]

The publisher isn't being shady. They're protecting their interests. If they don't make money, they don't make games. It's not like if you buy it new you have to pay $5 to play online.
 
Its a good thing this was never live for the PS3, because I nearly had to change my pants. I just bought a copy of the game new (shamefully I must admit, supporting this sick "online pass" stuff) at Fry's for $55 out the door including tax. Best deal I could find.
 
Used already??...Sum1 must have gotten frustrated at title mode championship bout like I did LOL, A few tough matches in-route to the title bout and then an imposable title bout(maybe its just me & I ended up with a tough match-up but I was getting pissed!!)
 
It kills any used copies being sold when games hit the 20 or 30 dollar price point as you would end up paying the same used as brand new. Hopefully they will make it so after a year or so its no longer needed but I highly highly doubt that will be the case.
 
[quote name='confoosious']The publisher isn't being shady. They're protecting their interests. If they don't make money, they don't make games. It's not like if you buy it new you have to pay $5 to play online.[/QUOTE]

It is pretty shady when EA really hasn't been losing profits and they are trying to kill Gamestops with locking on disc content.
 
[quote name='AFarewell2Arms']It is pretty shady when EA really hasn't been losing profits and they are trying to kill Gamestops with locking on disc content.[/QUOTE]

dude, wtf are you talking about?

Have you read EA's latest quarterly report?

Edit: UFC is actually published by THQ and they lost a ton of money last year too.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='confoosious']dude, wtf are you talking about?

Have you read EA's latest quarterly report?

Edit: UFC is actually published by THQ and they lost a ton of money last year too.[/QUOTE]

You got me on the THQ part. I was just thinking about EA announcing that it would charge for online multiplayer for all of its sports titles. EA is still a successful publisher, and they are not losing any more money than the next publisher due to used games. Not to mention that EA puts out a good amount of day one releases a year (i.e. Madden). And again, locking on disc content is a shady tactic no matter who you are. If you want to encourage new sales, put out more exclusive DLC. Or even offer some premium DLC for free to people who buy new. Mass Effect 2 was a prime example of this. It worked well. They put out a lot of great content that you either had to buy new to get it or fork up the $15. However, all of these things were add-on's, and did not exist on disc already.
 
My point wasn't that you were wrong on the THQ part. It doesn't matter. Whether it's EA or THQ, you need to read their quarterly reports before you say they are making a lot of money so they shouldn't try to "kill gamestop."

Gamestop is killing them. So they need to encourage people to buy new. That's not shady, that's trying to run a business. You want the new car smell that come with the new car? buy new.
 
These publishers are not dying. I think it's time to stop blaming the used game market for every little financial issue. Yes, the used game market has put a dent in new sales to an extent. However, the economy is not what it used to be. If it weren't for used games, a good amount of people probably wouldn't even be buying these games. It's hard to find a decent sale on a new game. On top of that, you would have to expect that sales might be down across the board (new and used) when you figure in that without a used game market, people wouldn't have trade in credit to purchase these games, whether they are new or used. THQ and EA don't understand this, and they think that every penny made from used sales could/should be going to them, when in fact it doesn't work like that. Without a used game market, the video game industry will effectively alienate a large portion of their consumer base by taking away financial alternatives to purchasing the stuff they put out.
 
[quote name='confoosious']let me know when you read the quarterly financials.[/QUOTE]
Why do you read the quarterly financials for video game publishers? I feel like you might need to spend some time away from video games, get outside a bit?
 
[quote name='soopermv']Why do you read the quarterly financials for video game publishers? I feel like you might need to spend some time away from video games, get outside a bit?[/QUOTE]

You mean there is an outside???
 
[quote name='soopermv']Why do you read the quarterly financials for video game publishers? I feel like you might need to spend some time away from video games, get outside a bit?[/QUOTE]

You ever stop to think that perhaps some of us do certain things for a living? Sorry, we can't just sit around reading Maxim all day long.

I don't make it a habit of reading random quarterlies (such as THQ) but I do read EA's because I have contacts there.

I don't expect anyone else to either. But if Farewell2 Arms is gonna talk about how much money EA is making, he should at least read their financials before spouting nonsense, right?
 
[quote name='confoosious']let me know when you read the quarterly financials.[/QUOTE]

Let me know when the general gaming population thinks it is acceptable for content that is already on the disc to be locked. I don't have the time or the patience to look through EA's or any other company's quarterly financial report. I read what is on the news sites and that is about it. I have yet to hear anything about EA bleeding money to the point where they need to take these extreme measures. Hell, if memory serves me correct, EA has already had two blockbuster releases this year in Battlefield Bad Company 2 and Mass Effect 2. Both of those games, incidentally, I bought new. Forgive me for not analyzing their quarterly financial figures before I post my OPINION on a forum. Even if they were losing a substantial amount of money, locking content that is already on the disc is no way to do business in this industry. 2K got hell for doing this with Bioshock 2, and now EA is getting it. I can't speak for anyone else, but I am getting increasingly frustrated with the state of the industry, and this is one more thing that I think we should not have to suffer. Enough with the locked on disc content, day one glitches and crashes, overpriced DLC (that in turn doesn't always work on day one either). I'm not targeting EA specifically, as they are not the only ones who are guilty of such things. Don't take up cause over defending EA because you have contacts there. Even they probably know that this is wrong. And if they don't, then they are trying just as hard as you are to ignore the real problem at hand.
 
[quote name='AFarewell2Arms']Let me know when the general gaming population thinks it is acceptable for content that is already on the disc to be locked. I don't have the time or the patience to look through EA's or any other company's quarterly financial report. I read what is on the news sites and that is about it. I have yet to hear anything about EA bleeding money to the point where they need to take these extreme measures. Hell, if memory serves me correct, EA has already had two blockbuster releases this year in Battlefield Bad Company 2 and Mass Effect 2. Both of those games, incidentally, I bought new. Forgive me for not analyzing their quarterly financial figures before I post my OPINION on a forum. Even if they were losing a substantial amount of money, locking content that is already on the disc is no way to do business in this industry. 2K got hell for doing this with Bioshock 2, and now EA is getting it. I can't speak for anyone else, but I am getting increasingly frustrated with the state of the industry, and this is one more thing that I think we should not have to suffer. Enough with the locked on disc content, day one glitches and crashes, overpriced DLC (that in turn doesn't always work on day one either). I'm not targeting EA specifically, as they are not the only ones who are guilty of such things. Don't take up cause over defending EA because you have contacts there. Even they probably know that this is wrong. And if they don't, then they are trying just as hard as you are to ignore the real problem at hand.[/QUOTE]


Great Post, AFarewell2Arms! :applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause:
Not only does this effect GS, but Gamefly and Blockbuster too.

I'm not surprised with EA, they nickled and dimed us last year with Madden and NCAA content for offline use and online franchises.

It also effects consumers, what about the ones who want to trade their old games? I expect trade-in values to fall as more publishers follow suit. What about people who share or give games? In this state of the economy, I have shared/gaved/received games with many of my friends.

EA is just DOUBLE DIPPING!

imagine reselling a car and having to pay Honda $3 grand even after buying the car.

My rights are transferred to the person I sell it to. Since I can no longer play or use the item, everything is transferred over.
 
[quote name='confoosious']The publisher isn't being shady. They're protecting their interests. If they don't make money, they don't make games. It's not like if you buy it new you have to pay $5 to play online.[/QUOTE]

i wouldn't say driving people away by adding unnecessary costs is protecting their investment. it's stupid to do because you just look more like a money hungry company than a company for the people. Then why would i spend more money on dlc if i just spent it on just having to play the game. This is the first step of companies going over the line and i hope someone stops them soon.
 
[quote name='oldboy26']i wouldn't say driving people away by adding unnecessary costs is protecting their investment. it's stupid to do because you just look more like a money hungry company than a company for the people. Then why would i spend more money on dlc if i just spent it on just having to play the game. This is the first step of companies going over the line and i hope someone stops them soon.[/QUOTE]

they aren't adding unnecessary costs! If you buy the item new you get to play online. Just like if you buy a car new, you get the new car smell. Feel free to buy it used but then you don't get all the perks of a new item. this is so simple.

oh well, i don't care. I hope publishers keep doing more of this because I like games.

[quote name='AFarewell2Arms']Let me know when the general gaming population thinks it is acceptable for content that is already on the disc to be locked. I don't have the time or the patience to look through EA's or any other company's quarterly financial report. I read what is on the news sites and that is about it. I have yet to hear anything about EA bleeding money to the point where they need to take these extreme measures. Hell, if memory serves me correct, EA has already had two blockbuster releases this year in Battlefield Bad Company 2 and Mass Effect 2. Both of those games, incidentally, I bought new. Forgive me for not analyzing their quarterly financial figures before I post my OPINION on a forum. Even if they were losing a substantial amount of money, locking content that is already on the disc is no way to do business in this industry. 2K got hell for doing this with Bioshock 2, and now EA is getting it. I can't speak for anyone else, but I am getting increasingly frustrated with the state of the industry, and this is one more thing that I think we should not have to suffer. Enough with the locked on disc content, day one glitches and crashes, overpriced DLC (that in turn doesn't always work on day one either). I'm not targeting EA specifically, as they are not the only ones who are guilty of such things. Don't take up cause over defending EA because you have contacts there. Even they probably know that this is wrong. And if they don't, then they are trying just as hard as you are to ignore the real problem at hand.[/QUOTE]

oh i got you. so when you realize you were talking out of your ass, you change your tune from "not losing profits" to not "bleeding money." I didn't realize that your OPINION meant you could just say whatever you wanted without any basis in fact. If that's the case, no point in arguing with you. Don't know how to read a quarterly report? That's fine. But don't spout horseshit like you actually know even the basic financials of a company of whether they are in the red or black.

And I'm not defending EA here am I? You can't even remember a simple fact from 4 posts ago: this is actually a THQ game. I'm actually defending THQ. Just like I would defend all publishers their right to incent people to buy NEW and not used.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='AFarewell2Arms']Let me know when the general gaming population thinks it is acceptable for content that is already on the disc to be locked. I don't have the time or the patience to look through EA's or any other company's quarterly financial report. I read what is on the news sites and that is about it. I have yet to hear anything about EA bleeding money to the point where they need to take these extreme measures. Hell, if memory serves me correct, EA has already had two blockbuster releases this year in Battlefield Bad Company 2 and Mass Effect 2. Both of those games, incidentally, I bought new. Forgive me for not analyzing their quarterly financial figures before I post my OPINION on a forum. Even if they were losing a substantial amount of money, locking content that is already on the disc is no way to do business in this industry. 2K got hell for doing this with Bioshock 2, and now EA is getting it. I can't speak for anyone else, but I am getting increasingly frustrated with the state of the industry, and this is one more thing that I think we should not have to suffer. Enough with the locked on disc content, day one glitches and crashes, overpriced DLC (that in turn doesn't always work on day one either). I'm not targeting EA specifically, as they are not the only ones who are guilty of such things. Don't take up cause over defending EA because you have contacts there. Even they probably know that this is wrong. And if they don't, then they are trying just as hard as you are to ignore the real problem at hand.[/QUOTE]

oh i got you. so when you realize you were talking out of your ass, you change your tune from "not losing profits" to not "bleeding money." I didn't realize that your OPINION meant you could just say whatever you wanted without any basis in fact. If that's the case, no point in arguing with you.

And I'm not defending EA here am I? You can't even remember a simple fact from 4 posts ago: this is actually a THQ game. I'm actually defending THQ. Just like I would defend all publishers their right to incent people to buy NEW and not used.
 
Confoosious, gamers will just not understand the reasoning behind these measures even if all the costs and risks that go on behind the scenes were to be disclosed.

You can't just look at the performance of one game without considering the whole portfolio. Blockbusters pay for not only their costs, but the costs of other games published by the same house.


Companies are still closing down and laying off teams. Another major one is rumored to be on its way out. If you guys are passionate about game company health, then buy New when you can. Games are better, bigger, and costlier to develop than ever. What you get for $60 is a bargain and thanks to this site the price we pay for New is oftentimes better than used.
 
[quote name='finstersucks']EA is just DOUBLE DIPPING!

imagine reselling a car and having to pay Honda $3 grand even after buying the car.

My rights are transferred to the person I sell it to. Since I can no longer play or use the item, everything is transferred over.[/QUOTE]
Finstersucks :applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause:

If we compare cars and EA's games, what EA is saying is:

Buy a new car- you can drive on local streets and highways.
Buy a used car- you can drive on local streets, but you need to pay extra to drive on highways.

That's BS.
 
Japakneez - I think that's what it comes down to. If you like games and you like playing them, you have to support the publisher by buying new. Buying used from gamestop is fine if that's what you want to do but 1) you're stifling new projects because of it and 2) you don't get to bitch when you don't get everything that's in the new package.

Also, buy new IP to support creativity. The industry leans towards franchises (not talking yearly refresh sports games) because they know they'll sell well. So they cancel new games that might be kick ass because they know it'll sell poorly/less than something that you've heard of before in the title. I'm not saying buy a shit game to buy a shit game. But something like Bayonetta is well worth $40 (going rate) in my opinion. Meanwhile, something like MUA2...


----------

How about the Singularity deal coming out. If you buy Singularity new, you get Prototype for free. (Actually +$5 s/h but we'll ignore that part.) How is that different from buying UFC new, you get to play online for free? Oh, because it's a free game for you? Well, if you look at the reasoning behind it, the free Prototype is to get you to buy the game new instead of used. But I don't see people bitching about the shadiness of whoever publishes Singularity. In the end, it's more content for buying new. Someone tell me the difference?

__________


The car analogy is just ridiculous. Because the automotive industry has a whole different business model. Ahh fuck it, I guess there's no point discussing business models without anyone who would think that analogy is good.
 
[quote name='Japakneez']You can't just look at the performance of one game without considering the whole portfolio. Blockbusters pay for not only their costs, but the costs of other games published by the same house.


Companies are still closing down and laying off teams. Another major one is rumored to be on its way out. If you guys are passionate about game company health, then buy New when you can. Games are better, bigger, and costlier to develop than ever. What you get for $60 is a bargain and thanks to this site the price we pay for New is oftentimes better than used.[/QUOTE]
I get what you are saying about the blockbusters paying for other games, but this fact is true in all other businesses. So why are they trying to recoup dollars from used game buyers. Maybe they should try to reduce the amount of flops (wasted resources).

I hate comparing the auto industry to this, but I never heard of GM openly trying to hurt the used car industry. Imagine what would happen if GM said all newly bought cars can go over 45mph, but used cars need to pay X amount to do the same.
 
[quote name='Readthepost'] Maybe they should try to reduce the amount of flops (wasted resources).
[/QUOTE]

How easy do you think that is to do? If they could do it, they'd have done it by now.

I'll assume that most people here are more on the hardcore game side of the spectrum and have played many many games. How many great games have you played that did poorly in sales. And how many great selling games suck ass?

But if the publishers don't make money, which games do you think get cut first? The new ones that they aren't sure of. Yeah, that's gonna be awesome when we get Bioshock 15: Rapture in the '80s. Meanwhile, the second coming of Bioshock 1 never sees the light of day.
 
The reason publishers are finding themselves in a financial downtrend is that the market is too saturated right now... too many AAA games come out every month so publishers have to drop their prices very quickly because so many people want that shiny new rushed release and they forget about games that came out 2 months ago. It's not the used game market's fault. Plus, many people, like myself understand how many resources go into making products like video games. If I'm going to play, I'll play used, it's too wasteful otherwise.

Also, is it necessary for THQ to release a UFC game every year? I realize that the feel the need to take the air out of the EA MMA balloon but how many people that own '09 are going to bite on '10? There are some improved options but still?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top