HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Non-Sports > Geek Emporium
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Geek Emporium Discuss computers, hardware, software, electronics, video games, internet, etc.

EA being EA....

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-10-2010, 07:33 PM
  #26
Kestrel
Registered User
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrFeelgood View Post
I am by far against the used game market mostly because I just can't support something that takes the money out of a hard working developers pocket. I am a member of the industry and know how much work goes into each game and to think that retailers such as Gamestop are turning such huge profits on someone else's hard work actually infuriates me to no end.
I just wanted to comment on this. Being against the used game market is somewhat akin to being against the used car market, because it takes money away from the manufacturer - and dealerships buy the cars for nothing, and sell them for outrageous prices. I suppose someone can make that stand, but I see the used game market being no worse than the used anything market.

Kestrel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 07:34 PM
  #27
DrFeelgood
Chairman Meow
 
DrFeelgood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: San Jose, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 19,827
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandV View Post
Keep in mind I'm talking about older games here. If I want to play an old PC game like Knights of the Old Republic, I'm fine because I can get it on steam for $10. If I finally get myself a PS3 and want to play something like Valkyria Chronicles, I'm not going to find it new on a retail shelf and the game has devalued enough that if I can find it used I'm hardly getting a deal. Now if it was today I wouldn't even bother with EB Games, I'd just buy it new on Amazon or something with my credit card. When I was in college 6 years and without a credit card however I would be browsing the used game shelves hoping to find it. I wouldn't be concerned about who gets the money but rather I just want to play the game.

Now the services you're talking about are more to do with online multiplayer which is another matter entirely, though a growing one as more and more AAA titles are using it. Even then it's kind of debatable... if the initial purchase bought the bandwidth to play on the server, then even if the physical copy of the game changes hands it's still only providing online access to one customer. It's kind of a wierd setup, you purchase a game new and gain a physical copy of the game and the rights to play online, yet you can resell the game but the online rights remain in limbo?

Personally what I think this is about is the game companies dipping into the Game Stop 'Used games for $5 below new prices' sales revenue. With EA games that feature online content, Game Stop can no longer sell that game used for $5 less because as soon as the customers realize they have to spend another $10 to get online paying more in the end, they're going to get pissed off and eventually stop buying used. So now Gamestop is basically going to have to cut the used price to about $15 less than retail, as the game developers are taking $10 for themselves.

So in reality its kind of a cut throat corporate vs corporate move, that shouldn't really have much effect on the gamers. Personally I kind of like it, Gamestop and the like went for the eye gouge on developers with there new release used game sales, and the developers are now responding by kicking them in the balls. My own concern is that it doesn't effect budget gamers that rely on paying less for older games, not necessarily because its used vs new but rather just because its old.
As much as a part of me wants to, I can't really argue with what you've said.

I applaud you for being objective Honestly, I was expecting to get flamed by people for supporting EA and any other developer that adopts this practice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
I just wanted to comment on this. Being against the used game market is somewhat akin to being against the used car market, because it takes money away from the manufacturer - and dealerships buy the cars for nothing, and sell them for outrageous prices. I suppose someone can make that stand, but I see the used game market being no worse than the used anything market.
In theory, they are the same thing. However, when selling a used car, you typically don't sell it for 1-5% under the retail price, do you? There are a lot of things about retailers that I don't like in the game industry, the used game market is just one of their huge money schemes that I am very very against.

DrFeelgood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 07:45 PM
  #28
hlundqvist30*
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,520
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrFeelgood View Post
I am by far against the used game market mostly because I just can't support something that takes the money out of a hard working developers pocket. I am a member of the industry and know how much work goes into each game and to think that retailers such as Gamestop are turning such huge profits on someone else's hard work actually infuriates me to no end.

However, I do understand the approach from the budget gamer that doesn't necessarily have the money. I have no beef with the budget gamer, all of my beef is with the retailers that are taking money from the developers pocket. However, if you're getting a deal on the game you're playing, don't cry about having less services than full paying customers. That's just stupid, you should never expect to get more while paying less.
And I am a member of the consumer market, and I hate to see more money belonging the average person going to an industry already generating millions upon millions of dollars. You think this is extra money in "hard working developer's pocket"? Bull ****. We're just paying for some millionaire businessman's new Ferrari for the same product we've already been provided with. Combine that with the fact that EA basically has a monopoly in the field, and it's borderline violation of Antri-Trust laws.

hlundqvist30* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 07:48 PM
  #29
DrFeelgood
Chairman Meow
 
DrFeelgood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: San Jose, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 19,827
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hlundqvist30 View Post
And I am a member of the consumer market, and I hate to see more money belonging the average person going to an industry already generating millions upon millions of dollars. You think this is extra money in "hard working developer's pocket"? Bull ****. We're just paying for some millionaire businessman's new Ferrari for the same product we've already been provided with. Combine that with the fact that EA basically has a monopoly in the field, and it's borderline violation of Antri-Trust laws.
Rarely do games make millions of dollars, most games barely make up for development cost. Only games that sell well make that much money.

And I can tell you as someone that works for a company that has lost a ton of money over the last few years due to games not selling very well, it affects the entire company. Not just the man at the top.

DrFeelgood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 07:54 PM
  #30
SniperHF
Global Moderator
steppin' into the
 
SniperHF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Country: United States
Posts: 20,808
vCash: 500
Once this stuff penetrates over 50% I'll probably quit playing top tier titles. Maybe there will be some new form of entertainment I will like better in the coming decades. I was early on the gaming side and I'll just move over to whatever else comes next.

Also to those against used gaming market. There are two main points. 1. Demand for games at full price could potentially go down because people know they may have a harder time selling it after they are done; my brother falls in this camp for sure. 2. How about used other things? Used cars for example. GM doesn't get any money for a 2002 Trail Blazer sold on craigslist. Don't they deserve a cut? This extends to everything. Maybe I should pay 2$ fee to the artist to activate a used CD. How about designer shirts? I understand supporting developers, but only to a point; especially when some of these large companies stomp all over developers.

EA or whomever can do this, I don't really care that much. But I won't be buying.

SniperHF is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 08:02 PM
  #31
Kitten Mittons
Registered User
 
Kitten Mittons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Francisco
Country: Armenia
Posts: 48,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Bourdain View Post
EA really struck a great idea, for them of course.

Usually when you buy a product, all of the features of the product belongs to you. You can re-sell the product (and all of its features) in its entirety.

However, EA has separated the online features and made it its own product. It happens to be a "one time only" type of product, which you can't re-sell. In the end, all you can re-sell is the singleplayer features, and everyone must buy their own copy of the multiplayer features.

They're so smart.
It has nothing to do with EA - it has everything to do with PC gaming, since it can be pirated so easily, so the only thing of worth left is the actual cd-code.

EA would be smart if they created Steam-like service on their own website and were selling games for around $20. After all, it's all they're getting from retailers anyway.

Kitten Mittons is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 08:09 PM
  #32
senate
Registered User
 
senate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Country: Micronesia
Posts: 666
vCash: 500
How dare a company want themselves and not a third party to make profit off of their own products! I am outraged!

senate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 08:39 PM
  #33
Bruins4Lifer
Registered User
 
Bruins4Lifer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,213
vCash: 500
Doesn't bother me. I haven't bought used since last gen. I'm actually a bit disgusted at how much Gamespot/EB Games charges for some used games so I could almost say I approve of this.

Bruins4Lifer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 10:06 PM
  #34
RandV
It's a wolf v2.0
 
RandV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,878
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by SniperHF View Post
Once this stuff penetrates over 50% I'll probably quit playing top tier titles. Maybe there will be some new form of entertainment I will like better in the coming decades. I was early on the gaming side and I'll just move over to whatever else comes next.

Also to those against used gaming market. There are two main points. 1. Demand for games at full price could potentially go down because people know they may have a harder time selling it after they are done; my brother falls in this camp for sure. 2. How about used other things? Used cars for example. GM doesn't get any money for a 2002 Trail Blazer sold on craigslist. Don't they deserve a cut? This extends to everything. Maybe I should pay 2$ fee to the artist to activate a used CD. How about designer shirts? I understand supporting developers, but only to a point; especially when some of these large companies stomp all over developers.

EA or whomever can do this, I don't really care that much. But I won't be buying.
The difference between use cars and the current used game market is that the game market directly undercuts the sale of new games. Used car are sold on used car lots and people shopping there understand what they're going to get. To make it equivilent to the video game industry, you'd have to go to a new & used car lot, where a customer about to purchase a new Ford for $20,000 gets redirected by the salesman that for $18,000 they could get the same car that's just as good as the new one except it has 1000KM on it already. A car which they paid no more than $5,000 to purchase off the seller.

This is how they do it at Gamespot/EB Games, it's easy to see first hand. Mom brings a new $55 copy of Saints Row 2 up to the counter to purchase for her son, geeky EB employee tells her she can get it used for $50. Mom shrugs and buys the used copy, no difference to her. It's a direct point of sale undercutting tactic they use, denying the developer a sale and creating direct profit for them. The only way the game developers get anything out of it is if the original buyer that traded it in used the $10-20 or however much he bought to buy another used game.

RandV is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 10:12 PM
  #35
Kestrel
Registered User
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandV View Post
The difference between use cars and the current used game market is that the game market directly undercuts the sale of new games. Used car are sold on used car lots and people shopping there understand what they're going to get. To make it equivilent to the video game industry, you'd have to go to a new & used car lot, where a customer about to purchase a new Ford for $20,000 gets redirected by the salesman that for $18,000 they could get the same car that's just as good as the new one except it has 1000KM on it already. A car which they paid no more than $5,000 to purchase off the seller.

This is how they do it at Gamespot/EB Games, it's easy to see first hand. Mom brings a new $55 copy of Saints Row 2 up to the counter to purchase for her son, geeky EB employee tells her she can get it used for $50. Mom shrugs and buys the used copy, no difference to her. It's a direct point of sale undercutting tactic they use, denying the developer a sale and creating direct profit for them. The only way the game developers get anything out of it is if the original buyer that traded it in used the $10-20 or however much he bought to buy another used game.
The only difference you pointed out is how high a return the used game sellers get on used games. That's a supply/demand issue, not really anything else. Buying a used car instead of a new car still undercuts the manufacturer just like buying a used game undercuts EA.

Kestrel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 10:31 PM
  #36
Static
Registered User
 
Static's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: SoCal
Country: United States
Posts: 21,489
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Static
Obviously that has to do with intended use. Cars and video games have a totally dissimilar life expectancy and risk involved. The thing with used games is that they work exactly the same as the new, there generally is no risk.

The only difference between new and used games is psychological.

Static is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 10:31 PM
  #37
Jill Sandwich
Master of Unlocking
 
Jill Sandwich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Arklay Mansion
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,874
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Jill Sandwich
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krejci46 View Post
I'm really starting to get sick of game developers charging you extra for content that is already on the disc...
That's not what's happening. And what's "on the disc" really has no merit anyway. But that's another argument that some people will never understand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hlundqvist30 View Post
And I am a member of the consumer market, and I hate to see more money belonging the average person going to an industry already generating millions upon millions of dollars. You think this is extra money in "hard working developer's pocket"? Bull ****. We're just paying for some millionaire businessman's new Ferrari for the same product we've already been provided with. Combine that with the fact that EA basically has a monopoly in the field, and it's borderline violation of Antri-Trust laws.
Monopoly in what field?! Video games? Sorry, cousin, that's not remotely true!

Also, what consumer is being hurt on this? The game is still 60 dollars. They haven't changed the suggested retail price at all. Perhaps the people you want to take this up with is Gamestop. Marking a 5 dollar discount on a used game is obviously unacceptable. Why is your rage as 'a consumer market member' being directed at a publisher, and not a retailer?

Hilariously, this topic is called EA being EA, and EA has been a model citizen for a few years now. And have had massive firings to compensate.

Quote:
1. Demand for games at full price could potentially go down because people know they may have a harder time selling it after they are done; my brother falls in this camp for sure.
Video games are an entertainment form, not a commodity. Also, if your brother is buying games with the full intention of trading them in soon after, he should be renting.

And this car argument is one of the craziest things I've ever heard. During the next argument about hockey, I'm going to start talking about baseball players. They have as much to do with hockey as cars have to do with video games.

Quote:
You think this is extra money in "hard working developer's pocket"?
Employees of developers will generally make a living wage, leads and designers will make a professional's salary. What sales do for developers is allow them to continue making games. Big sales are not a matter of a developer becoming rich, it's a matter of a developer being budgeted more money to continue having jobs.


Last edited by Jill Sandwich: 05-10-2010 at 10:37 PM.
Jill Sandwich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 10:37 PM
  #38
Oilbender
Registered User
 
Oilbender's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,829
vCash: 500
Gotta make up all that money lost in Warhammer Online somehow.

Oilbender is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 10:48 PM
  #39
MikeyMike01
U.S.S. Wang
 
MikeyMike01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 7,436
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to MikeyMike01 Send a message via MSN to MikeyMike01
While it sucks as a consumer, it's perfectly understandable that they have to do something about used games, which halve their profits (or perhaps even third or quarter it).

For the people that fail to understand that, lets say that on a $60 game they make $30 (totally made up by myself). Person A and Person B walk into a store and both buy a new copy of the game. That's $60 profit. Person A buys it new, sells it to Gamestop, and Person B buys it used. That's $30 profit.

In my opinion, it's far more money lost than piracy, because in this case someone with actual money was willing to pay for the game, which is not the case with a pirate.

I really don't care, since I do my best to not buy anything at Gamestop since becoming aware of their awful business practices.

MikeyMike01 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 10:51 PM
  #40
Kestrel
Registered User
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire Therrien View Post
And this car argument is one of the craziest things I've ever heard. During the next argument about hockey, I'm going to start talking about baseball players. They have as much to do with hockey as cars have to do with video games.
Umm... how so? If you need to compare hockey players to something else for an intelligent conversation, are you going to compare them with gold fish? Cars are a very commonly resold possession. There is a manufacturer, there is a middleman. Games are a very commonly resold possession, there is a manufacturer, there is a middleman. In both cases, the middleman makes money on the used sale that the manufacturer doesn't. What would YOU propose using as a comparison?

Kestrel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 11:01 PM
  #41
Cone
Registered User
 
Cone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Irvine, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,227
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Cone
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire Therrien View Post


Monopoly in what field?! Video games? Sorry, cousin, that's not remotely true!
well they are the only company allowed who can make nfl video games.

Cone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2010, 12:02 AM
  #42
Le Tricolore
Boo! BOOOOO!
 
Le Tricolore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Montreal
Posts: 31,914
vCash: 50
The only used games I've bought have been older ones that cost less than $20. Games I'd never buy for full price, anyway. I normally buy games the first week they come out if it's something I'd buy new anyway.

Le Tricolore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2010, 02:21 AM
  #43
SabresCanScore
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Buffalo
Country: United States
Posts: 1,104
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrFeelgood View Post
Personally, i'm just waiting for everything to go digital. Hard drive spaces and internet speeds going up the way they are, we'll be into that territory in no time.

Being able to download games straight to your xbox/ps3 would avoid this problem altogether. No more used game sales (which is fantastic, **** the used game market) and piracy takes a hit due to better encryption and inability to copy discs (piracy will never go away completely). Steam is a fantastic model for this on the PC side and in theory, wouldn't be too hard to implement on console side.
I disagree with your take on this. Especially when ISP's start to cap internet usage.

I enjoy building PC's it's my hobby and I'll never go to internet hard drives. Steam is good because it is convenience. Also once you have bought something on steam you can re download it anytime you want all you have to do is sign in to your account. I GUARANTEE you if steam type platforms go mainstream then companies like EA will not let you do that and in fact if you want to say build a new computer they'll make you buy the game again.

So be careful what you ask for, you might just get it.

SabresCanScore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2010, 02:26 AM
  #44
SabresCanScore
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Buffalo
Country: United States
Posts: 1,104
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrFeelgood View Post
I am by far against the used game market mostly because I just can't support something that takes the money out of a hard working developers pocket. I am a member of the industry and know how much work goes into each game and to think that retailers such as Gamestop are turning such huge profits on someone else's hard work actually infuriates me to no end.

However, I do understand the approach from the budget gamer that doesn't necessarily have the money. I have no beef with the budget gamer, all of my beef is with the retailers that are taking money from the developers pocket. However, if you're getting a deal on the game you're playing, don't cry about having less services than full paying customers. That's just stupid, you should never expect to get more while paying less.

This is very absurd, If ONE disk gets sold then EA gets money for that one disk that got sold. What you are asking for is getting money for one disk multiple times. That is basically money out of thin air. You didn't sell 2 disks, you sold one disk, after you sold that disk the person who bought it owns that physical disk, they may sell it as they see fit.

The "first sale" doctrine says that a person who buys a legally produced copyrighted work may "sell or otherwise dispose" of the work as he sees fit


This is a legal concept that is upheld in court. consumers have a legally protected right to resell stuff they buy.

SabresCanScore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2010, 02:30 AM
  #45
SabresCanScore
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Buffalo
Country: United States
Posts: 1,104
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverSeven View Post
Used games are really starting to become a MAJOR problem in the gaming industry. This practice is going to be commonplace in a year or two. It sucks, but I would rather people who buy it used pay $10 than a smaller fee for everyone (new and used buyers).
Used games cannot be a problem because only one disk is being sold. That is one disk that the publisher... (and btw you say the money should go to the developers yet you support jackass publishers like EA who actually screw the developers over) gets the money for.

EA doesn't get credit for the used game sale because its not a transaction that involves them. It would be like me asking to get a cut of your garage sale revenue.

SabresCanScore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2010, 06:35 AM
  #46
Evil Ted
Registered User
 
Evil Ted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,684
vCash: 500
What a joke this is, EA just rehashes the same games year after year removing and adding features acting like they invented the wheel and now they do this? greed.

Evil Ted is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2010, 07:12 AM
  #47
Dylonus
Registered User
 
Dylonus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: United States
Posts: 11,501
vCash: 500
Uhhhh... hey guys...


They were already doing this.... this past year (especially for Madden 10!) plus, who buys Madden 10 NEW at this point? or even used for that matter? Especially cause they shut down the online play for older games after awhile...

In case anyone didnt know, unless you bought Madden 10 new this year, you had to pay 9.99 to play online...

So yeah, this is old. Besides, most EA games new come with other exclusive DLC. I bought Dragon Age : Origins NEW for 5 more bucks than it was used... and what do you know! I got DLC for the game which was 15 bucks! So I saved 10 bucks by getting it new.....


It only makes sense if you ask me...

Dylonus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2010, 08:59 AM
  #48
Frankie Spankie
Registered User
 
Frankie Spankie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Dorchester, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 10,950
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrFeelgood View Post
Has nothing to do with charging for content on the disc, this is charging for people playing online that don't buy the game at retail, but buy it used.

It's to encourage people to buy games new and support the publisher/developer, rather than buying used and giving all of that $40-50 to the retailer.

To play devils advocate of sorts, you are playing on EA servers for sports titles, owned and kept by EA and all of that good stuff. Why should EA let you play on their server for free when they didn't see a single cent of your money when you bought it?
1) Yes, it is charging people for content on the disc already. The multiplayer part of the game is on the disc and they are preventing you from using it by forcing you to pay for the pass.

2) EA should let you play on their server because it's not that you're playing without giving a penny to EA, it's that EA has servers built for all the games they sold to. It's not as if people are making copies of the games and are flooding EA's servers. If they have a server that can hold 1000 games, and out of those 1000 games, the game has changed hands between 10,000 different gamers, it is by no means putting any extra stress on their servers because at any given time, it is only supporting those 1000 games.

This just isn't the way to discourage used games sales. If they want to discourage used games sales, do something like the Golden box for Bad Company 1 where you get a couple extra guns from the start. This gives you incentive to buy the game new and if you buy it used, you can still unlock them, it will just take a lot more time.

Frankie Spankie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2010, 09:14 AM
  #49
guinness
those were the days
 
guinness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Missoula, Montana
Country: United States
Posts: 13,338
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrFeelgood View Post
I can't speak for the third, i'm not a lawyer and I don't want to try to touch on customer rights.

As for the other two:

first: the publisher/developer only see's the money from the original sale to the retailer. If you buy the game, resell it back to the retailer and they go to resell it. Every time the retailer resells that game it is pure profit for the retailer. The publisher/developer does not get any piece of that pie.

second: thats an xbox live subscription service, has nothing to do with supporting EA's (or other companies for that matter) costs for upkeep on a server. That's paying for Microsoft's service upkeep for your gamertag, stats, etc.
Nope, I only have Live Silver, and I have all the gamertag stuff; paying for Gold gets you online multiplayer, and stuff like Twitter, Last FM, and Netflix, if you also subscribe to their service.

I can see EA charging on PSN, as that's free, but Live isn't, at the least it should be less on 360. It just seems like EA is double-dipping, but them along with Sony are trying really hard to hamper used sales.

guinness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2010, 09:38 AM
  #50
Sizemore24*
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Brossard
Posts: 2,063
vCash: 500
Renting game form them become useless now...I guess i'll take a pass on NHL 11. Usuaully I buy my nhl after christmas because the EASHL only become revelant after december.

Sizemore24* is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:04 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.