So as most of you know, I'm a vile enemy of Ubisoft's attitude for PC games. I mean, it made me hate Splinter Cell (which I thought was pretty damn impossible :?) and made me skip out on great games over the months (like Prince of Persia) and get them on different platforms...anyway, there's that term "you get what you pay for" that all but determines what I'm willing to put up with.

Anyway, picked up Assassin's Creed 2 off Steam for $15. Yes, the whole :roll: DRM thing is present here, but hence the reason why it took me so long to finally get the damn game. For a quarter of the original price is my final offer to finally play one of this year's most anticipated titles :|.

Which brings me to my next train of thought: Steam sales are a lot like the used game sales in stores like Gamestop. Yes, I've heard countless times about companies bickering that it's killing the market and murdering their overall profits...which it is, I'll admit (and you know me, I'm always down to support the working man). But under rare cases like these, I refuse to support these kinds of habbits. In fact, during times like these, it feels less like "selling out" and more "worth the offer." One man cannot determine the value of a product as a whole compared to how others enjoy it. As such, there's people willing to pay full price for a game on day one, and others who wait it out and buy it at a much cheaper price.

The thing that bugs me is how companies are brainstorming the idea of doing away with the trade-ins, ideas like going fully digital, selling their product on their own conditions, or even offering too-good-to-pass-up free DLC or items, or even accessing the multiplayer without paying anything extra for those who buy the game brand new. The latter I am always willing to support, because I see it as a positive way to counter the used game sales, as well as the "can't complain because you get what you pay for" ideal for those who buy a used copy. Aside from that, there are reasons why some of us wait for a price drop: because dropping $60 on something isn't always worth the asking price.

I mean, in a way, the game is their property, but as consumers we also have a voice that must be heard. Just like how day old bread is dirt cheap at the end of the day, not all games are good. The point of lowering the price on something is to attract people that would've otherwise passed up on that offer. Chances are, if I didn't buy something at market price, I'm still not going to until the price matches how I view the product. Taking away that kind of freedom will just show how companies are too stubborn towards criticism.

This kind of future is a long way off, but the more I hear about businesses attracted to this kind of idea makes me wonder how big a plummet our decisions towards buying a product will have. I mean, can you imagine being forced to "take it or leave it" because there's only one way to buy something? And if you're not satisfied with it, then what? What makes a business circulate is its flexibility. I mean, if there's only one way to conduct a business, expect a lot of "F*** You's" and short term loyalty in the end. No, as much as I do frown upon the used game practices, it's also one of the few freedoms we have to send messages to businesses that we want our money's worth. I mean, we let companies seize control over everything, then we're not deciding anything. No, we're just buying on impulse.