| Forum Index > General Games |
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On June 23 2013 05:25 paralleluniverse wrote: You typed those words on a platform with those restrictive policies, doubled. Wrong. What you don't get is that the PC isn't a single platform like the XBox, and yet you are treating it like it is one for the purpose of your arguments. When you realize that this is not the case, your arguments don't hold as much weight. | ||
|
TheRabidDeer
United States3806 Posts
On June 23 2013 05:35 paralleluniverse wrote: Selling games increases the price of games. See this paper previously linked. On June 23 2013 05:38 paralleluniverse wrote: Before it was more restricted. I've called it a half-arsed measure many times. They should have killed reselling games. http://shadowofthevoid.wordpress.com/2013/06/06/are-used-games-harmful-to-the-game-industry/ It is a blog, but appears to use factual information. "But what do these numbers actually mean? Isn’t $2.6 billion still a lot of money? Well, according to an industry analyst, it has been estimated that at least a billion dollars have been paid out in store credit annually at Gamestop, most of which has been spent on new games. According to Gamestop’s own internal numbers about 70% of store credit is spent on new games, and that only 4% of the used games that are sold are titles that have been out for less than 60 days (most popular titles make much if not most of their sales within that span)." Old games translate to a new sale, which may not have otherwise happened. It is like recycling. Sure gamestop makes boatloads of profit off of used game sales, but if that game wasnt available for used it may not have been sold at all and on top of that the consumer that is selling their games to a retailer is buying a new one. Lots of other solid arguments are made in that article as well, and it even links to the study which you linked (which coincidentally says that without used games they MUST reduce the price or they suffer profit losses). I wonder what would happen if they optimally adjust their prices and allow used games. Steam has shown tremendous amounts of value in offering a sale. | ||
|
Lemstar
United States387 Posts
On June 23 2013 05:35 paralleluniverse wrote: Selling games increases the price of games. See this paper previously linked. something something correlation causality | ||
|
s3rp
Germany3192 Posts
On June 23 2013 05:38 paralleluniverse wrote: Before it was more restricted. I've called it a half-arsed measure many times. They should have killed reselling games. Here's the problem they can't do that in for example the EU zone legally. Even Steam lost in courts here. EULA or not doesn't matter when the EULA breaks laws . If they completely kill resales and someone goes to court against them here they would lose and be forced to change it afterwards. http://www.gamepolitics.com/2012/07/03/european-court-justice-ruling-digital-games-can-be-resold#.UcYQZJzcOKI | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On June 23 2013 01:15 paralleluniverse wrote: No, this is a minor issue and it's too troublesome for most people to leave their Xbox One on a single game, without ever using its other features. Every time you used a shared game, you check in. After that, anything besides playing that specific game requires a new check in. This is a minor issue.As you admit, there's nothing stopping people from taking shared games offline and continuing to play them without the 24 hours check-in, so no they cannot keep the sharing feature, without additional forms of DRM. Used games are bad for who? Shared games is bad for who? Used games is bad for everyone except Gamestop. It's bad for consumers who pay higher prices for new games, it's bad for game makers, who get some of their profits leeched by Gamestop. This is the company line. Keep repeating it, Cliffy B. Jr.How is Witcher 2 an example of what Microsoft can't do? You say that Microsoft should do a hybrid where discs are not DRM'ed but downloads are and where downloads can't be shared (oh but you just argued they can be shared, even with the original policy). That's exactly what they're now doing, so you're Witcher 2 argument makes no sense. There's 2 other problems with that argument: 1. it doesn't make clear why physical games should be DRM-free, while it's OK for digital games to be DRM'ed, 2. there's nothing to suggest that what's happening with Witcher 2 can be applied on an industry scale as you recommend for Microsoft. If it's such a good an profitable model, why don't more companies like Blizzard do it? It's like saying Lady Gaga is a popular singer, why can't anyone be a popular singer? In the hybrid system, downloads would be shared. I said they shouldn't because it's a stupid idea that will cost them more money than used games. They can continue with Family Sharing in its current form. That's what the Witcher 2 example contradicts. Should they? No, because it's poorly implemented and will be extremely costly for single player games. Why would 1. not make sense? A disc game would not be tied to your account. You simply insert it and play. A downloaded game is downloaded to your account, thus you need the account to play (and obviously only one person can log into an account at a time.) This is already the standard for downloaded games. Blizzard has an account based system for everything. They're already moving back towards Spawns so that friends can play games together so your point is immediately moot. Microsoft has the ability to move towards their account-based vision, and let people give their discs to other people. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On June 23 2013 05:25 paralleluniverse wrote: You typed those words on a platform with those restrictive policies, doubled. Name me any combination of content delivery and restriction policies/no restriction and I can name you a PC game that matches it. | ||
|
Fruscainte
4596 Posts
The industry does not come first; consumers do. I have no sympathy for a market that cannot properly stumble its way through a secondhand market like every other mature industry in the world. If this industry can't find a way to make money off of the primary market -- even with DLC and exclusive pre-order content and HD re-releases and map packs and online passes and annualized sequels and "expanding the audience" and AAA advertising then, if I may be so blunt, fuck it. It doesn't deserve our money in the first place. If an entire industry has its head so far up its ass focused on short term gains and has embraced such a catastrophically stupid blockbuster business model in pursuit of a stagnant market of harcore 18-34 dudebros that it thinks it has no choice but to take away our first-sale rights as its last chance of, maybe, finally, creating a sustainable stream of profits then it can go to hell. It doesn't need your protection, it needs to be taken back and beaten until it remembers who its real masters are. | ||
|
17Sphynx17
580 Posts
Look, no one is pointing a gun at you to buy the XBone. That is a fact. Requesting a modification for the duration of checkin would at least be a possibility but its complete removal and how it affected other features is for me, understandable. The guys who shouted of injustice couldn't see far enough and wanted to keep the status quo as it stands. Yet now you want a status quo with a forward looking approach wherein you know it can be manipulated. That would be unfair would it not. You still have a choice in the matter when it comes to console, XBone isn't the only console this next gen. You have the PS4 and Wii U for that as well. If the ecosystem was in place and it took a year or two before actual benefits could be felt, wouldn't that have been a better more responsible approach in the matter? But no, immediately scream injustice when you don't even know what it is. Don't buy it if you are hesitant and don't believe it will work. But if you bought it knowing the risks and then complain about it in the end, then that is your fault as the consumer isn't it? It's like ordering food that is hot and spicy when you know you can't handle too much chili in your meals. The industry actually does come first. Where was the market for electric cars? Wasn't the industry created eventhough demand was speculative and you wouldn't know how the market would accept it? | ||
|
sc4k
United Kingdom5454 Posts
On June 23 2013 05:25 paralleluniverse wrote: You typed those words on a platform with those restrictive policies, doubled. 3 critical differences you miss: a) storage space on pc is huge and expandable and doesn't require anything to be stored on the cloud, meaning you are less tied to the servers b) you can play the damn games offline properly c) if you haven't worked out how to share accounts so your friends can play your games on steam then I understand why you don't think pc gamers can't share games... | ||
|
Nilrem
United States3684 Posts
On June 23 2013 18:15 17Sphynx17 wrote: How is it short term when those that couldn't accept a modification of the DRM were the ones who are appearing short sighted? Look, no one is pointing a gun at you to buy the XBone. That is a fact. Requesting a modification for the duration of checkin would at least be a possibility but its complete removal and how it affected other features is for me, understandable. The guys who shouted of injustice couldn't see far enough and wanted to keep the status quo as it stands. Yet now you want a status quo with a forward looking approach wherein you know it can be manipulated. That would be unfair would it not. You still have a choice in the matter when it comes to console, XBone isn't the only console this next gen. You have the PS4 and Wii U for that as well. If the ecosystem was in place and it took a year or two before actual benefits could be felt, wouldn't that have been a better more responsible approach in the matter? But no, immediately scream injustice when you don't even know what it is. Don't buy it if you are hesitant and don't believe it will work. But if you bought it knowing the risks and then complain about it in the end, then that is your fault as the consumer isn't it? It's like ordering food that is hot and spicy when you know you can't handle too much chili in your meals. The industry actually does come first. Where was the market for electric cars? Wasn't the industry created eventhough demand was speculative and you wouldn't know how the market would accept it? You do realize that people following your suggestion is why Microsoft changed their policies. If Microsoft saw still a very high demand for the console even with their original policy, you could count on them sticking with it. But what happened is what you are suggesting, people went to the Playstation 4. Which is what matters most to the company, the financial aspect. So when Microsoft saw that they were doing quite poorly in the 21 countries that were planning to release it this year, they had to make some changes. People's outcries is not sufficient in changing such an integral policy to their system; hell, it is a matter of contention whether or not the quantity of those against the policy would be sufficient in even hurting the sales. What we saw is a systematic dismissal of the policy and their practices, hence their poor preorders. If you want to blame anyone, blame Microsoft for having such a knee-jerk reaction and borderline acting like a child. Oh, people were not buying it in troves as they imagined, so let us just take away all the other aspects out of spite. Fact of the matter is that of the main countries, the Box was not doing well at all and had they stayed with it, their sales would have looked tiny compared to Playstation 4. Even now, since the change, their sales had increased across the boar substantially. They are not at the level of Playstation 4 (and pretty much certain Playstation 4 will outsell the Box), but financially speaking, it was a smart move. People essentially voted with their wallets which is our right as consumer so blame Microsoft, not the consumers. | ||
|
17Sphynx17
580 Posts
On June 23 2013 18:47 Nilrem wrote: + Show Spoiler + On June 23 2013 18:15 17Sphynx17 wrote: How is it short term when those that couldn't accept a modification of the DRM were the ones who are appearing short sighted? Look, no one is pointing a gun at you to buy the XBone. That is a fact. Requesting a modification for the duration of checkin would at least be a possibility but its complete removal and how it affected other features is for me, understandable. The guys who shouted of injustice couldn't see far enough and wanted to keep the status quo as it stands. Yet now you want a status quo with a forward looking approach wherein you know it can be manipulated. That would be unfair would it not. You still have a choice in the matter when it comes to console, XBone isn't the only console this next gen. You have the PS4 and Wii U for that as well. If the ecosystem was in place and it took a year or two before actual benefits could be felt, wouldn't that have been a better more responsible approach in the matter? But no, immediately scream injustice when you don't even know what it is. Don't buy it if you are hesitant and don't believe it will work. But if you bought it knowing the risks and then complain about it in the end, then that is your fault as the consumer isn't it? It's like ordering food that is hot and spicy when you know you can't handle too much chili in your meals. The industry actually does come first. Where was the market for electric cars? Wasn't the industry created eventhough demand was speculative and you wouldn't know how the market would accept it? You do realize that people following your suggestion is why Microsoft changed their policies. If Microsoft saw still a very high demand for the console even with their original policy, you could count on them sticking with it. But what happened is what you are suggesting, people went to the Playstation 4. Which is what matters most to the company, the financial aspect. So when Microsoft saw that they were doing quite poorly in the 21 countries that were planning to release it this year, they had to make some changes. People's outcries is not sufficient in changing such an integral policy to their system; hell, it is a matter of contention whether or not the quantity of those against the policy would be sufficient in even hurting the sales. What we saw is a systematic dismissal of the policy and their practices, hence their poor preorders. If you want to blame anyone, blame Microsoft for having such a knee-jerk reaction and borderline acting like a child. Oh, people were not buying it in troves as they imagined, so let us just take away all the other aspects out of spite. Fact of the matter is that of the main countries, the Box was not doing well at all and had they stayed with it, their sales would have looked tiny compared to Playstation 4. Even now, since the change, their sales had increased across the boar substantially. They are not at the level of Playstation 4 (and pretty much certain Playstation 4 will outsell the Box), but financially speaking, it was a smart move. People essentially voted with their wallets which is our right as consumer so blame Microsoft, not the consumers. Yup I do realize that. I forgot to tag the reply when someone mentioned about "short term gains" of an industry when we don't know that yet. I agree that it "could happen" if it pushed through but the question is "would it"? Region locking didn't help them especially when they were touting family share features + a checkin requirement. That was poor business decision no matter how you want to spin it and I'm glad the region locking is at least out of the picture. I am still curious why they flipped as I am actually in the camp that believes it wasn't through internet outcry. If it was only because of pre-orders, that would be sad that they folded that easily. I wanted modifications not removal as I believe its a quid-pro-quo arrangement. Just give us consumers a more lenient checkin requirement and we get the experience that they dreamed up. | ||
|
Nilrem
United States3684 Posts
On June 23 2013 19:01 17Sphynx17 wrote: I am still curious why they flipped as I am actually in the camp that believes it wasn't through internet outcry. If it was only because of pre-orders, that would be sad that they folded that easily. I wanted modifications not removal as I believe its a quid-pro-quo arrangement. Just give us consumers a more lenient checkin requirement and we get the experience that they dreamed up. I do not think it was folding so easily. Like I mentioned before, preorders are pretty important have although it is not the final verdict, it can set the tone for quite some time. So Microsoft had but 21 countries this year which meant the need to get a good amount of preoders increased. Although it is another topic, I do believe that amount of supply was one of if not the primary reason for the limitation on which countries for this year. Regardless of that, the preorders were showing a pretty bad showing across the boar. This was not simply one country having the Box flling behind, they were stalling for a good portion of them. I had checked all the main Amazon's for the varying countries and at the time, the US was the only Amazon site where the Box was doing better than the Playstation 4. Keep in mind that they only recently surpassed them and that is with 5 versions in the top 10. Now, when you go to the other countries (like UK, Germany, etc), the Playstation 4 would be winning and in some cases, by a landslide. I remember with France, the Playstation 4 was in third place and the Box was in 36th in terms o best selling for game merchandise. Furthermore, that does not include stores like Gamestop where for the most part, Playstation 4 would be completely outselling and with greater supply. Which leads me to the nail on the coffin, the supply. I myself have spoken with Gamestop employees and varying others mentioned their accounts of working at Gamestop. From mine and other examples, the Box seems to only be getting a minor amount of Box in total. I think there was one case where an alleged Gamestop employee mentioned the Box only having around 12 in supply whereas the Playstation 4 had 60. If this is true and it is occurring at a good majoruty of stores, Microsoft is in big trouble. Since with this sort of demand and desire for the next gen console (which has been 7-some years in the making), whomever has the greater supply will most likely win. The first push is important but if you have people going around and are told they are sold out, but the Playstation 4 which is less expensive AND available, there is a high incentive to go with the Playstation 4. This ultimately means Microsoft is potentially very screwed and have many variables working against them. So, they need to do what they needed to do, even though they went too far. There was still a middle area that could have been taken. Slightly off topic but an issue I have with Microsoft. + Show Spoiler + The talking point or catchphrase for Microsoft is prety obvious, future. My issue with Microsoft is how they seemed to be so focused on the future, they had forgotten about reality and how we are living in the present. It is nice and all working and planning on the future, but one must take steps toward it. Playstation 4 arguably could be seen as going too slow but Microsoft pushed too heavily. Focusing on the future should not lead one to forget about the present. For there may not be a future for the console if the present is forsaken. Their vision is fine and to a degree, I am in agreement. But their means of going there was just terrible. Angry Joe Interview It is like with this interview. Near the end of the interview, Nelson became so defensive and did the whole, *looks up and points*--"the future!". Do not neglect the present for the sake of the future when it comes to consoles. /end rant | ||
|
17Sphynx17
580 Posts
On June 23 2013 19:25 Nilrem wrote: + Show Spoiler + On June 23 2013 19:01 17Sphynx17 wrote: I am still curious why they flipped as I am actually in the camp that believes it wasn't through internet outcry. If it was only because of pre-orders, that would be sad that they folded that easily. I wanted modifications not removal as I believe its a quid-pro-quo arrangement. Just give us consumers a more lenient checkin requirement and we get the experience that they dreamed up. I do not think it was folding so easily. Like I mentioned before, preorders are pretty important have although it is not the final verdict, it can set the tone for quite some time. So Microsoft had but 21 countries this year which meant the need to get a good amount of preoders increased. Although it is another topic, I do believe that amount of supply was one of if not the primary reason for the limitation on which countries for this year. Regardless of that, the preorders were showing a pretty bad showing across the boar. This was not simply one country having the Box flling behind, they were stalling for a good portion of them. I had checked all the main Amazon's for the varying countries and at the time, the US was the only Amazon site where the Box was doing better than the Playstation 4. Keep in mind that they only recently surpassed them and that is with 5 versions in the top 10. Now, when you go to the other countries (like UK, Germany, etc), the Playstation 4 would be winning and in some cases, by a landslide. I remember with France, the Playstation 4 was in third place and the Box was in 36th in terms o best selling for game merchandise. Furthermore, that does not include stores like Gamestop where for the most part, Playstation 4 would be completely outselling and with greater supply. Which leads me to the nail on the coffin, the supply. I myself have spoken with Gamestop employees and varying others mentioned their accounts of working at Gamestop. From mine and other examples, the Box seems to only be getting a minor amount of Box in total. I think there was one case where an alleged Gamestop employee mentioned the Box only having around 12 in supply whereas the Playstation 4 had 60. If this is true and it is occurring at a good majoruty of stores, Microsoft is in big trouble. Since with this sort of demand and desire for the next gen console (which has been 7-some years in the making), whomever has the greater supply will most likely win. The first push is important but if you have people going around and are told they are sold out, but the Playstation 4 which is less expensive AND available, there is a high incentive to go with the Playstation 4. This ultimately means Microsoft is potentially very screwed and have many variables working against them. So, they need to do what they needed to do, even though they went too far. There was still a middle area that could have been taken. Slightly off topic but an issue I have with Microsoft. + Show Spoiler + The talking point or catchphrase for Microsoft is prety obvious, future. My issue with Microsoft is how they seemed to be so focused on the future, they had forgotten about reality and how we are living in the present. It is nice and all working and planning on the future, but one must take steps toward it. Playstation 4 arguably could be seen as going too slow but Microsoft pushed too heavily. Focusing on the future should not lead one to forget about the present. For there may not be a future for the console if the present is forsaken. Their vision is fine and to a degree, I am in agreement. But their means of going there was just terrible. Angry Joe Interview It is like with this interview. Near the end of the interview, Nelson became so defensive and did the whole, *looks up and points*--"the future!". Do not neglect the present for the sake of the future when it comes to consoles. /end rant With regards to where MS lacked, I think it really was their poor explanation of the overall vision and why this and that step were taken and closing it off with but we are open to hearing from our consumers as to what they think and we will work with them to develop "the console of the future". I also saw the interview and I didn't like what Major Nelson did in answering. Too dismissive and he was talking down to Joe. Not the way you should be doing it. But still, I hope further development unravel that benefit both consumer and the publisher in a big picture perspective and maybe integration not only to a tablet but a pc. What I would expect actually is that they develop the Xbox Smartglass to connect to a Win7/8 desktop or laptop and that could actually be assigned to manage downloading games onto a hdd. Since their old system did not need to rely on a disc to run, I am sort of under the impression that a "unique disc image" is what would be stored locally from the disc or what is downloaded. The PS4 touts being able to play while download is still in progress so I think this is not via a disc image but actually really installing the files of the game stage by stage. I am still hopeful for future developments and that goes with the PS4 and Wii U as well. A side note for the Wii U below: + Show Spoiler + If say someone developed a game for bluray tech which exceeds disc space capacity of 9gb. Wouldn't it technically still be possible to port it over to Wii U but rely on a download only means of distribution? I am just curious or say hooking up an external blueray drive that a consumer could opt to hook up as an option? Just a thought. | ||
|
Nilrem
United States3684 Posts
The PS4 touts being able to play while download is still in progress so I think this is not via a disc image but actually really installing the files of the game stage by stage. This has become evermore common for new games and massive video games. For Blizzard, it was a pretty big step in the right direction for them to have segmented downloading. So you would download the core and from there, slowly get the content that was not needed at the time. There was the video depicting Playstation 4's social UI and it was pretty neat how for downloading Killzone, the owner can choose to download the Multiplayer or Singleplayer first. But still, we will have to see how things go from here. Supposedly the release of the Playstation 4 will be November 13th so this year is going to be an INSANE blackfriday. Very eager to see the sales figures. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On June 23 2013 19:53 Nilrem wrote: This has become evermore common for new games and massive video games. For Blizzard, it was a pretty big step in the right direction for them to have segmented downloading. So you would download the core and from there, slowly get the content that was not needed at the time. There was the video depicting Playstation 4's social UI and it was pretty neat how for downloading Killzone, the owner can choose to download the Multiplayer or Singleplayer first. But still, we will have to see how things go from here. Supposedly the release of the Playstation 4 will be November 13th so this year is going to be an INSANE blackfriday. Very eager to see the sales figures. Unlikely PS4 especially due to it being a world wide release will be probably sold out just off pre-orders for weeks after release. | ||
|
s3rp
Germany3192 Posts
On June 23 2013 18:31 sc4k wrote: 3 critical differences you miss: a) storage space on pc is huge and expandable and doesn't require anything to be stored on the cloud, meaning you are less tied to the servers b) you can play the damn games offline properly c) if you haven't worked out how to share accounts so your friends can play your games on steam then I understand why you don't think pc gamers can't share games... It's also alot different with Steam and PC's with backwards compatibility. Any old game can still run on every PC regardless of what the system requirements had been when the game was originally released and will allways be in the future. Sometimes you may need a mod or a fanpatch/programm but it'll run afterwards. With consoles thats just not the case you're stuck with having to play the games on the old systems or buy them again if remade . | ||
|
woody60707
United States1863 Posts
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/06/21/on-xbox-ones-social-network-canceled-family-share-demos?utm_campaign=fbposts&utm_source=facebook | ||
|
Hrrrrm
United States2081 Posts
On June 24 2013 05:57 woody60707 wrote: So the whole rumour about the Timed demos on the family share was false. MS has generated so much hate over there XBone, people will believe anything bad about it now. http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/06/21/on-xbox-ones-social-network-canceled-family-share-demos?utm_campaign=fbposts&utm_source=facebook Can we please be honest about this? No one knows anything about the family share thing, I'm even sure MS was even going back and forth on a ton of shit. Which is why they never said anything "concrete" about the feature and you had so many separate things being said about the feature from MS themselves. They never demo'd it in real time and nothing was finalized other than calling it "family share". Nobody will know exactly what it was or is meant to be until they eventually implement. So all the positives and negatives about a system that never existed is completely pointless. That includes people "hating" on it and people now wishing MS continued with it. Everything is PR bullshit until I see a fully functioning system in the hands of the consumer with "family share" enabled. Only then can people make up their minds if it's a positive or a negative. A feature like "family share" sounds absolutely great as a general concept but, the devil is always in the details with programs/features like that. Especially when it could've opened a huge can of worms if not implemented properly. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On June 24 2013 06:16 Hrrrrm wrote: Can we please be honest about this? No one knows anything about the family share thing, I'm even sure MS was even going back and forth on a ton of shit. Which is why they never said anything "concrete" about the feature and you had so many separate things being said about the feature from MS themselves. They never demo'd it in real time and nothing was finalized other than calling it "family share". Nobody will know exactly what it was or is meant to be until they eventually implement. So all the positives and negatives about a system that never existed is completely pointless. That includes people "hating" on it and people now wishing MS continued with it. Everything is PR bullshit until I see a fully functioning system in the hands of the consumer with "family share" enabled. Only then can people make up their minds if it's a positive or a negative. A feature like "family share" sounds absolutely great as a general concept but, the devil is always in the details with programs/features like that. Especially when it could've opened a huge can of worms if not implemented properly. I really hope microsoft backpedals on their DRM and re-visits these features dropped such as disk-less play. Over people fussing over once 24 hour check up deal. Just move the check to whenever you start up a game without a disk you require Internet connection to validate, else insert the disk. | ||
|
Nilrem
United States3684 Posts
On June 24 2013 06:16 Hrrrrm wrote: Can we please be honest about this? No one knows anything about the family share thing, I'm even sure MS was even going back and forth on a ton of shit. Which is why they never said anything "concrete" about the feature and you had so many separate things being said about the feature from MS themselves. They never demo'd it in real time and nothing was finalized other than calling it "family share". Nobody will know exactly what it was or is meant to be until they eventually implement. So all the positives and negatives about a system that never existed is completely pointless. That includes people "hating" on it and people now wishing MS continued with it. Everything is PR bullshit until I see a fully functioning system in the hands of the consumer with "family share" enabled. Only then can people make up their minds if it's a positive or a negative. A feature like "family share" sounds absolutely great as a general concept but, the devil is always in the details with programs/features like that. Especially when it could've opened a huge can of worms if not implemented properly. This is what happens when a company tip-toes with their information. If information is given out in snippets and general confusion as a whole, it will lead to masses of people trying to fill the void with whatever they find. Microsoft could have been more upfront with their information but instead they chose not to and this is the result. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Calm Dota 2 12568firebathero  3531PianO 669Stork  337Leta 298hero 133NaDa 33NotJumperer 26HiyA 19Last 16[ Show more ] Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games Organizations Counter-Strike Other Games StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War |
|
SOOP Global
Spirit vs SKillous
YoungYakov vs ShowTime
Anonymous
SOOP
HeRoMaRinE vs Astrea
BSL Season 20
UltrA vs Radley
spx vs RaNgeD
Online Event
Clem vs ShoWTimE
herO vs MaxPax
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Invitational
Percival vs TriGGeR
ByuN vs Solar
Clem vs Spirit
MaxPax vs Jumy
BSL Season 20
TerrOr vs HBO
Tarson vs Spine
RSL Revival
BSL Season 20
MadiNho vs dxtr13
Gypsy vs Dark
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
