General Discussions

We're trying to determine how many people actually base (at least some of) their game purchases on whether or not we have produced a trainer for it. I know it sounds kind of backwards, but I just wanted to see.

I've used maybe one trainer ever since I've been here since 2004 (and even though both the game and the trainer are really old it surprisingly still worked). Other than that, I mostly buy games for online game play content (and I really look down on cheating online). In fact, the only games I play nowadays (with the exception of FFXIII) are online play exclusively.

I've never bought a game because there's a trainer for it, but occasionally I don't buy a game because there isn't a trainer for it.

I second this sentiment.

I have never bought a game based on the presence of a trainer, but I have not bought a game based on the lack of a trainer.

who voted WTF is a trainer?

I agree. Same here.

If the game is great (8+ out of 10), I would get it even if it has no trainer, but it should have some cheats...And at least should be easy for me to train.

But otherwise, yes I do check whether the game has a trainer or not, and then only buy it. Cause games like Gears of War are too damn difficult for me to pass. And then why should one buy a game he cannot complete?

Sports games are exceptions here. I don't use trainers when it comes to games like FIFA, Cricket or even NFS (Except I use the Unlimited Nitro option, but not others like Money or "Always Come First"), cause they end up ruining the fun in the game.

[Edited by HonestGamer, 3/11/2010 10:11:29 PM]

No. But i think you should keep your good works.