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
I think there may be a better way to promote new game sales, the publishers should make GS or any resellers put a red "USED" stamp on the dics and artwork.

This way, people like me would spend the extra money to not have the stamp.
And other people who don't care can buy a used copy. They would be able to play and/or get the same content, but they disc would look ugly.
 
I keep hearing bad things about the online play anyway, so if you are on the fence about buying this just for the multiplayer, I wouldn't.

UFC 2009 had a fun, yet repetitive, campaign which was also bugged to the max because there were ways to get your fighter rating over 110.

A friend of mine said that the multiplayer for 2010 is already full of over 100 ratings and people who just get you to the ground and do a move in the game that makes it so you cant roll over or get up. Also, a few people on twitter have been saying that the servers are really bugged right now, just trying to get the the main menu of the game takes 2+ minutes because it forces you to try to connect forever.
 
I'm not a big fan of used games but if you want to buy used, I have no problem with that. I disagree on your reasoning but that's your own preference.

And I agree with your oversaturation driving profits down.

All I'm saying is that if one does buy used, one shouldn't bitch about not getting everything as in new. Because used isn't new. and that publishers have a very real reason to incent people to buy new. That's why they're constantly trying to figure out how to package new games to be the one the public buys instead of a used copy. (dlc content, graphic novels, free mail in games.)

Yes, the bottom line is they're trying to make money. But it's not like they're trying to figure out how to turn a $1B profit into $2B. They're trying to get out of the red. If you like video games, I suggest that it's in your best interest that the publishers make enough money so they can stop laying off people who make those games, especially new IP.
 
[quote name='confoosious']How easy do you think that is to do? If they could do it, they'd have done it by now.

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.[/QUOTE]

Wii shovel ware. Publishers should let every jackass make a game?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Readthepost']Wii shovel ware. Publishers should let every jackass make a game?[/QUOTE]

I don't even understand what you are trying to say.
 
[quote name='Readthepost']Maybe they should try to reduce the amount of flops (wasted resources).[/QUOTE]

[quote name='confoosious']How easy do you think that is to do? If they could do it, they'd have done it by now.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Readthepost']Wii shovel ware. Publishers should let every jackass make a game?[/QUOTE]

[quote name='confoosious']I don't even understand what you are trying to say.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, what I was trying to say is that a lot of publishers let a lot of designers make these games when these jackasses lack either skill or knowledge or both. Hence the Wii shovel ware. Why should we pay for all these flops?....these games shouldn't have made it pass phase 1 of development. (like Rogue Warrior.....they even spent more money on advertising it).

I agree that we might miss the next big hit, but publishers need to be more strict.
 
[quote name='Readthepost']Sorry, what I was trying to say is that a lot of publishers let a lot of designers make these games when these jackasses lack either skill or knowledge or both. Hence the Wii shovel ware. Why should we pay for all these flops?....these games shouldn't have made it pass phase 1 of development. (like Rogue Warrior.....they even spent more money on advertising it).

I agree that we might miss the next big hit, but publishers need to be more strict.[/QUOTE]

ahhh, the wii shovelware is a different issue. that's a nintendo problem. I'm focusing on real developers and not fucking Zoo Games and their bullshit Bumber Shoot XTreme and Corn Holing 2010 titles.

Yes, there are flops because of bad quality. It happens. Things get greenlit because someone made a bad decision, assembles the wrong team, or gets short scheduled (MLB 2k9).

What I am trying to say is that in a world where the publishers are losing money (and they are losing money), the head of development has to make a choice. And sometimes that choice isn't between quality title A and quality title B. The choice is between a title that is new but has a lot of potential and something like marvel ultimate alliance 2 because they think it will sell well based on sales of the first game.

This happens not because people are stupid (although some of them are) but because they need to make the "safe" choice. And established franchises are a safe decision. Nobody wants to lose their job. It's easier to make some money than to take a risk and potentially lose a lot of money. As gamers, the safe choice means we end up with regurgitated crap instead of highly inventive games.

If the publishers were making money, they might be more willing to take risks on unestablished franchises. Of course, we don't know whether they will or whether they'll just make BF:BC14 but I know that they are less likely to take a chance if they are losing money and laying people off by the hundreds.

Just look to hollywood as an example. Someone could write the greatest script ever and it may never see the light of day because romantic comedies with male lead x and female lead y are always going to do 50M plus worldwide.

This is straying way too off tangent.

My main point is: if you buy used, fine, but stop bitching about whats lacking in the used game. 1) used new and 2) publishers need to make money too. 3) i'd rather the publisher (who creates things) make money than gamestop (who makes nothing).
 
[quote name='confoosious']My main point is: if you buy used, fine, but stop bitching about whats lacking in the used game. 1) used new and 2) publishers need to make money too. 3) i'd rather the publisher (who creates things) make money than gamestop (who makes nothing).[/QUOTE]
Fine, I'll agree. ;) Especially with 3.
 
[quote name='soopermv']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?[/QUOTE]

Yes they can/and should release ufc every year. I owned 09 and immediately bought 2010, because they improved it in so many ways its crazy. It like they skipped a year and released 2011 early (i took that quote from one of their programmers, but its true). This isnt some madden update, most peoplle saying the changes are minimum prob. just looked at the screenshots and didnt play the game, because anyone who knows undisputed or mma, will see that even just the addition of cagework and faster paced gameplay things have changed a great deal.
 
[quote name='OddLogik']I keep hearing bad things about the online play anyway, so if you are on the fence about buying this just for the multiplayer, I wouldn't.

UFC 2009 had a fun, yet repetitive, campaign which was also bugged to the max because there were ways to get your fighter rating over 110.

A friend of mine said that the multiplayer for 2010 is already full of over 100 ratings and people who just get you to the ground and do a move in the game that makes it so you cant roll over or get up. Also, a few people on twitter have been saying that the servers are really bugged right now, just trying to get the the main menu of the game takes 2+ minutes because it forces you to try to connect forever.[/QUOTE]

i'd believe it, btu it should be patched and working good soon. ALl games have a rough start online the first week or two, i mean look at red dead. Still good games...although if the multiplayer is still this bad after a patch or 2 then we will really have a problem
 
[quote name='confoosious']ahhh, the wii shovelware is a different issue. that's a nintendo problem. I'm focusing on real developers and not fucking Zoo Games and their bullshit Bumber Shoot XTreme and Corn Holing 2010 titles.

Yes, there are flops because of bad quality. It happens. Things get greenlit because someone made a bad decision, assembles the wrong team, or gets short scheduled (MLB 2k9).

What I am trying to say is that in a world where the publishers are losing money (and they are losing money), the head of development has to make a choice. And sometimes that choice isn't between quality title A and quality title B. The choice is between a title that is new but has a lot of potential and something like marvel ultimate alliance 2 because they think it will sell well based on sales of the first game.

This happens not because people are stupid (although some of them are) but because they need to make the "safe" choice. And established franchises are a safe decision. Nobody wants to lose their job. It's easier to make some money than to take a risk and potentially lose a lot of money. As gamers, the safe choice means we end up with regurgitated crap instead of highly inventive games.

If the publishers were making money, they might be more willing to take risks on unestablished franchises. Of course, we don't know whether they will or whether they'll just make BF:BC14 but I know that they are less likely to take a chance if they are losing money and laying people off by the hundreds.

Just look to hollywood as an example. Someone could write the greatest script ever and it may never see the light of day because romantic comedies with male lead x and female lead y are always going to do 50M plus worldwide.

This is straying way too off tangent.

My main point is: if you buy used, fine, but stop bitching about whats lacking in the used game. 1) used new and 2) publishers need to make money too. 3) i'd rather the publisher (who creates things) make money than gamestop (who makes nothing).[/QUOTE]

:applause:I appluad you sir. Finally someone that gets it, that realizes that people need money from games to live, people that develop and program these games and work 60+ hours a week to make things for OUR entertainment. I feel like we have gamers have been a little to selfcenter and feel like we are way to entitled to things. I completely agree with everything you said (i usually argue the same things i was just far to lazy to on this thread), and i am not a fan of buying used at all (unless its some out of date or rare game, because really who can find a copy of folklore new these days), and ive never understood how people can complain about stuff like this and how thq and ea are fighting against the used market when you usually only save 5 DOLLARS ANYWAYS. And before people argue that it will drop the trade in value...how can you care now they will only give you 15 dollars for the game week of the release trade in value when before gamestop was only giving you 20. Im a cheap gamer and bargin hunter just as im sure most people are here (hence the name of the website) but seriously if your that hard up or bent out of shape over that $5 dollars, you need to reevalute things and if you REALLY need the game that bad.
 
[quote name='confoosious']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.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I was wrong about them not losing money. My point still is they are not justified in locking on disc content. My OPINION is that no game should ever have content that exists on the disc that can only be unlocked by purchase. Your whole argument has been based on EA, not THQ. I did not forget that THQ made this game, seeing as after you brought up they made it the first time, I remembered that this is one of two franchises they have that people actually care about. Anyways, you would defend a publisher to lock their content just to make sure that people buy new? A good amount of new purchases would never be made if the used game market didn't exist. Trade in credit fuels sales. These big companies have yet to accept that and think that the majority of used copies sold would have been sold as new had there been no used game market. There are other ways for publishers to protect their interests besides locking stuff on the disc. Yes, I was incorrect in assuming EA's financial situation, but this does not justify their actions.
 
[quote name='fokis02']:applause:I appluad you sir. Finally someone that gets it, that realizes that people need money from games to live, people that develop and program these games and work 60+ hours a week to make things for OUR entertainment. I feel like we have gamers have been a little to selfcenter and feel like we are way to entitled to things. I completely agree with everything you said (i usually argue the same things i was just far to lazy to on this thread), and i am not a fan of buying used at all (unless its some out of date or rare game, because really who can find a copy of folklore new these days), and ive never understood how people can complain about stuff like this and how thq and ea are fighting against the used market when you usually only save 5 DOLLARS ANYWAYS. And before people argue that it will drop the trade in value...how can you care now they will only give you 15 dollars for the game week of the release trade in value when before gamestop was only giving you 20. Im a cheap gamer and bargin hunter just as im sure most people are here (hence the name of the website) but seriously if your that hard up or bent out of shape over that $5 dollars, you need to reevalute things and if you REALLY need the game that bad.[/QUOTE]

I agree that people (who worked on the game) need to make money and live off of their work. However, people at these companies do not realize that the used game market could be helping their sales due to people using trade in credit. How many games sold as many new copies as they do now back on the SNES and Genesis? And as far as your "only saving $5 anyways" logic, if you buy online then you are generally saving at least $10. And if you have an Edge card, there's an extra 10% off. Yes, at its core, you are technically only saving $5 on the newer releases in store, but I think that the majority of people here are smarter than that and save at least $10-$15 ($15-$20 based on Gamestop's new approach to this locked multiplayer). I'm not playing the blind consumer who wants everything for nothing, I just ask that these companies take a more honorable approach to encouraging new sales. I have bought more new games this year than used, but most of these new purchases were made via trade in credit. But don't the publishers get their money either way when they ship these titles to retail? Yes.
 
[quote name='AFarewell2Arms'] But don't the publishers get their money either way when they ship these titles to retail? Yes.[/QUOTE]


Are you serious?

I'm so happy with the TRU sale I'm not even gonna flame you for this idiotic statement.

Leaving now -- can't argue with logic like that!
 
[quote name='confoosious']Are you serious?

I'm so happy with the TRU sale I'm not even gonna flame you for this idiotic statement.

Leaving now -- can't argue with logic like that![/QUOTE]

Sorry. Phrased that wrong. They get the money for the games that sell at retail.
 
[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]

THQ already made their money when they sold the game new. Now they're trying to make more money for selling the game twice.

It's garbage. The online for UFC Undisputed doesn't even work. Laggy as all hell.
 
[quote name='NoHo']THQ already made their money when they sold the game new. Now they're trying to make more money for selling the game twice.

It's garbage. The online for UFC Undisputed doesn't even work. Laggy as all hell.[/QUOTE]

How much money does THQ get for the used copy that gamestop sells?
 
[quote name='confoosious']How much money does THQ get for the used copy that gamestop sells?[/QUOTE]

I think they get 1/2 of the used price. :cool:
 
[quote name='confoosious']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.



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.[/QUOTE]


This isn't a car, and when you buy a used car it does come with a new car smell if you buy from a respectable dealer that cleans the car before they deliver it. It's a cheap tactic that will drive down online communities faster because less will be willing to buy the game period knowing you have to pay extra on top to get full use out of it. You don't see Valve and Sony doing stupid crap like this and are they struggling? Nope, they are actually doing better than most publishers and have a lot more respect for their consumers.
 
[quote name='Readthepost']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.[/QUOTE]

Um...when did Honda start paying for highways? Apparently, some of you have never gone through a toll booth...
 
[quote name='n8rockerasu']Um...when did Honda start paying for highways? Apparently, some of you have never gone through a toll booth...[/QUOTE]

read the thread he was trying to make an analogy of Game Publishers forcing used game
owners to pay for online use.
 
[quote name='finstersucks']read the thread he was trying to make an analogy of Game Publishers forcing used game
owners to pay for online use.[/QUOTE]

No shit. Comprehend what I'm saying. Many people do pay extra to drive on highways, dumbass.
 
[quote name='n8rockerasu']No shit. Comprehend what I'm saying. Many people do pay extra to drive on highways, dumbass.[/QUOTE]

No shit you CUNT. Read the thread and comprehend what we are saying. All you keep saying is people pay extra for tolls and Honda don't pay for highways, we know that you cocksucker. It has nothing to do with cars, it has to do with ownership and transfering ownership rights.
 
Alright the car analogies don't really work. When you buy a used car, chances are you're going to have to pay a little extra. The cars are going to need more time in the shop as surely they have miles on them. That or the car's gonna have broken air conditioning, stains on the seats, etc.

And besides that the two aren't even that comparable, a disc never changes so essentially if it is sold it could pass hands a million times. A car on the other hand will not last forever, generating constant buying of new cars.
 
The car analogy really doesn't work.

But I basically used it to say that when you buy used, you can't expect the exact same thing as when you buy new.

And someone actually said dealers could put but a new car smell in used cars. #-o

Can someone answer this simple question: what product in life do you buy USED where you have a reasonable expectation that it's in the exact same condition as when you buy NEW?

That's all this is. When you buy used, you don't have a code to play online. Because the manufacturer wants you to buy new. What the hell is so hard about that?
 
[quote name='confoosious']But I basically used it to say that when you buy used, you can't expect the exact same thing as when you buy new.

Can someone answer this simple question: what product in life do you buy USED where you have a reasonable expectation that it's in the exact same condition as when you buy NEW?

That's all this is. When you buy used, you don't have a code to play online. Because the manufacturer wants you to buy new. What the hell is so hard about that?[/QUOTE]
I was trying to stay out of this, but man, you are crazy. OKay, forget the car analogy.

Here's the differences that I expect when I buy a used game.

New Game-I expect the disc to have NO SCRATCHES or fingerprints, the artwork, manual and case to be in perfect condition (there are no folds, bends or tears). And that the game is Factory Sealed.

Used Game- I expect there may be some scratches on the disc, the artwork and manual (and bonus materials) maybe be damaged or missing.

So I ask you, how are we expecting that same thing from a used game as from a new game. I don't expect the same conditions from used games.

What the publishers are doing is removing or disabling a part of the original game function. What would you say if they decide to disable a few weapons/perks if you buy a used game? What if a used copy of COD MW2 is missing the sniper rifles and ninja perk?

Please reread what I'm saying...When buying a used game, missing exclusive bonus for pre-ordering is OK, but removing or disabling features is WRONG.
 
complete edit:

the difference between used and new is not up to YOU to dictate. Sure, you can vote with your wallet. But you can't say that it's unacceptable that a used product have a feature you want when that feature goes away by being used.

The company has designed the product so that a used game does not have the DLC code (whether the code is used to open up online play or add some golden guns or an extra map doesn't matter, it's all the same -- it's an incentive for you to buy it NEW.)

Just like you can't buy a used game and say "but I wanted it in shrinkwrap." No, that's not what the company has designed. If you want it that way, buy something else.

Let's say you buy a used pair of jeans. Well guess what? That pair of jeans doesn't have a big tag on it anymore. The Levis tag was designed for the first wearer to rip off. Just cause you want that tag doesn't mean you can demand it. If you want the tag, buy it new. But how does one buy a pair of used jeans and bitch that there's no tag on it?

Again, nobody is forcing you to buy anything. You don't like it, don't buy it. But I think it's foolish to complain about a company designing a product in such a way so that it helps them make money. Especially when they are losing money.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='confoosious']It's very simple. Here are the default conditions of the product:

A) A new UFC game comes with a code to play online

B) A used game doesn't. (unless the original owner didn't use it but no one would bitch about that)

All good so far?[/QUOTE]
No, the used game might be have a used code inside. Why? Because it's on the manual and the original owner is selling the game and has no intention of playing online without the game itself.

[quote name='confoosious']You're buying B and expecting A. Hence you're buying a used item and expecting it to be exactly the same as a new item. Or at least a difference that YOU are dictating. When the fact is that what separates used from new isn't what you dictate, it's what the product dictates. You don't like it in the second state? Buy new.[/QUOTE]
No again, if I buy a used copy of
iconps3.gif
Batman, I expect to be able to play as the Joker just like as if I bought a new game.

[quote name='confoosious'] But you can't buy B and bitch that it's not A. It's not like you don't know you're buying B.[/QUOTE]
I'm not bitching about this as you think I am. I'm bitching about the fact the online code is a one-time code. And the fact that the UFC game itself doesn't say so on the package. We CAGs know, but most people don't until they buy it and try it.

[quote name='confoosious'] There is no other product in the world where you could buy used and complain about the fact that it isn't exactly like the original item.[/QUOTE]
Who is arguing with this statement. USED is not the same condition as NEW. But you still expect to work as intended, correct?

[quote name='confoosious'] When you buy used, you expect that it's cheaper and used (collectibles aside) so that there is something about the product that means it's not the same as new. Whether it's a missing manual or a missing cover or missing DLC code or the shrink wrap, you can't complain about it. Because you're buying used.[/QUOTE]
I agree, but what if the code is in the used case and it doesn't work? Why is the code a one time use and why is it not stated on the game at all?

[quote name='confoosious']Why is this so hard?[/QUOTE]
:wall:
When I buy a used copy, I expect it to work as intended.
Who buy a game knowing that parts of it isn't going to work?
Maybe the publishers should put a code (for new buys only) that let you face and fight the final boss.:roll: All used games need to pay a fee to be able to fight the final boss.

Do you even own the UFC 2010 game?
 
LOL

All of this fussing over being able to play online.

If you don't want to pay a fee to play online if you buy a game used, either buy it new or don't play online. The majority of us grew up without online gaming, I don't think it will kill you.
 
[quote name='Readthepost']No, the used game might be have a used code inside. Why? Because it's on the manual and the original owner is selling the game and has no intention of playing online without the game itself.


No again, if I buy a used copy of
iconps3.gif
Batman, I expect to be able to play as the Joker just like as if I bought a new game.


I'm not bitching about this as you think I am. I'm bitching about the fact the online code is a one-time code. And the fact that the UFC game itself doesn't say so on the package. We CAGs know, but most people don't until they buy it and try it.


Who is arguing with this statement. USED is not the same condition as NEW. But you still expect to work as intended, correct?


I agree, but what if the code is in the used case and it doesn't work? Why is the code a one time use and why is it not stated on the game at all?


:wall:
When I buy a used copy, I expect it to work as intended.
Who buy a game knowing that parts of it isn't going to work?
Maybe the publishers should put a code (for new buys only) that let you face and fight the final boss.:roll: All used games need to pay a fee to be able to fight the final boss.

Do you even own the UFC 2010 game?[/QUOTE]

All I'm hearing from you is "I expect."

And that's the whole problem with your argument.

You can expect all you want. But what you're getting is UFC without a certain functionality because you bought it used. If you want it with everything, you have to buy it new.

But you can't buy USED and expect everything that YOU want that was in the NEW package. Again, the difference between the two states is not for you to decide. It is what it is.

It's not what you expect, it's about what you get. Nobody is tricking you. You buy what you want to buy.

Don't like it? Don't buy it.


"When I buy a used copy, I expect it to work as intended. "

It does work as intended -- by the publisher -- no online play for you.

I'm tired of this argument. Keep buying used and keep bitching. I don't care.

[quote name='KingofOldSchool']If you don't want to pay a fee to play online if you buy a game used, either buy it new or don't play online. .[/QUOTE]


I can't believe something so simple as what KingofOldSchool is saying requires repeated explanation.
 
[quote name='confoosious']The car analogy really doesn't work.

But I basically used it to say that when you buy used, you can't expect the exact same thing as when you buy new.

And someone actually said dealers could put but a new car smell in used cars. #-o

Can someone answer this simple question: what product in life do you buy USED where you have a reasonable expectation that it's in the exact same condition as when you buy NEW?

That's all this is. When you buy used, you don't have a code to play online. Because the manufacturer wants you to buy new. What the hell is so hard about that?[/QUOTE]
I was trying to agree with you man....
 
Did not read through to see if this happened to other people, they sent me a used copy of 2009. The receipt shows 2010 though and the numbers show the same so I shouldnt have a problem with the return.
 
[quote name='AceSXE']Did not read through to see if this happened to other people, they sent me a used copy of 2009. The receipt shows 2010 though and the numbers show the same so I shouldnt have a problem with the return.[/QUOTE]
I just got my order today and I also received UFC Undisputed 2009. I went to a couple stores to see if I can get any help, but all they told me was that I needed to call customer service. I'll be mailing back the game as soon as I receive the return label from them. Seemed too good to be true.
 
[quote name='JohnnyDrama']I just got my order today and I also received UFC Undisputed 2009. I went to a couple stores to see if I can get any help, but all they told me was that I needed to call customer service. I'll be mailing back the game as soon as I receive the return label from them. Seemed too good to be true.[/QUOTE]

Hey bro, not surprised to see that I wasnt the only one this happened to. Newegg has the game new for 40 now so I will probably go that route. I took mine back to the store and they gave me my money back and apologized. Sorry the store would not work it out for you, hope the process isnt too bad man.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top