166 réponses à ce sujet

[Phaedon]

Xerxes52 wrote...Not at all. They can put whatever content they want on the disc, but when I buy a game, I have a reasonable expectation that I am paying to access the contents of the disc (of course, you can't even read the license agreement until after you have purchased the game and entered into the contract, so a reasonable expectation might be too much to hope for).
 
It's about paying for the content twice (the initial purchase plus whatever they decide to charge for the unlock key). I know most EULA's are packed to bursting with legalese, so game companies can legally get away with it, but it's still a slimy move and it just kills any respect I had for publishers.

It would be like buying a touring motorcycle (or in this case, buying a license to use the motorcycle according to the rules of the company) and finding out you have to pay an additional $500 to access and use the trunk.

It seems to be the trend now that game companies offer disc locked content for free if the game is bought new. I would be fine with that, it helps companies recoup their losses from second-hand sales and I usually buy my games new.

Everything that is in the physical disk belongs to you?

No, not at all.

Just because the code is in the disk, it doesn't mean that I can use it somewhere else.

[efrgfhnm_]

If a Day 1 DLC is free, then I am fine with it. I see the sense in trying to stop piracy and the used game market. But DLC included on the game from the start, that is just activated, and has to be paid for is ridiculous. Despite what is said, it was content ready when the game was shipped, and deliberately removed from the game unless EA recieves more money from people who have already brought a new game. It is ridiculous

[Aradace]

While I dont agree with companies that employ this sort of method and agree that it's kind of "dirty" for them to do it, I do have to agree though with you Phaedon that just because the code is in the disc, that it doesnt mean I can use it somewhere else.

[CaptainZaysh]

KainrycKarr wrote...

I've actually enjoyed most of Bioware's DLC. The only thing I'm concerned about is making increasing a DLC's ratio to the original game.

If a game is about 40 hours of content, about costs $49.99, then a DLC of about 2 hours, should NOT cost $10.

That's the Marxist theory of value.  We have dismissed that claim.

Since you paid for it, it obviously wasn't really too expensive in your opinion.  If it were too expensive, you wouldn't have bought it.

[Gatt9]

Phaedon wrote...

Xerxes52 wrote...Not at all. They can put whatever content they want on the disc, but when I buy a game, I have a reasonable expectation that I am paying to access the contents of the disc (of course, you can't even read the license agreement until after you have purchased the game and entered into the contract, so a reasonable expectation might be too much to hope for).
 
It's about paying for the content twice (the initial purchase plus whatever they decide to charge for the unlock key). I know most EULA's are packed to bursting with legalese, so game companies can legally get away with it, but it's still a slimy move and it just kills any respect I had for publishers.

It would be like buying a touring motorcycle (or in this case, buying a license to use the motorcycle according to the rules of the company) and finding out you have to pay an additional $500 to access and use the trunk.

It seems to be the trend now that game companies offer disc locked content for free if the game is bought new. I would be fine with that, it helps companies recoup their losses from second-hand sales and I usually buy my games new.

Everything that is in the physical disk belongs to you?

No, not at all.

Just because the code is in the disk, it doesn't mean that I can use it somewhere else.

Actually,  according to fair use laws,  it does mean you own everything on the disc.  Software companies have been trying to claim you're "Leasing" it for years,  but that's never been upheld in court to my knowledge.

If it did go to court,  I doubt it'd come down on the side of game makers.  You're getting hit for $60 and if you want everything on the disc you've gotta fork over more without any sign on the box that this is the case at the time of purchase?  That wouldn't go over well,  likely on the side of either Fair Use violation or False Advertising as the box doesn't tell you that you have to pay extra to access all the content included in what you just purchased.

[Il Divo]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Hmm, kinda hard to tell regarding Zaeed and Kasumi. I mean Casey did hype ME2 to be the gaming equivalent of the Dirty Dozen, and at the time, I didn't expect that to be in the LITERAL sense. I mean, sure, the lack of dialogue trees may suggest Zaeed and Kasumi being built differently, but Kasumi WAS found in hidden files (how else did we figure out Conrad Verner was glitched?)

While this is true, I don't recall anyone mentioning that the entire Kasumi dlc was complete at the time. The KotOR II Restoration project was based entirely around incomplete hidden files found on the disc, which just never happened to make dlc.

[Il Divo]

Gatt9 wrote...

Actually,  according to fair use laws,  it does mean you own everything on the disc.  Software companies have been trying to claim you're "Leasing" it for years,  but that's never been upheld in court to my knowledge.

If it did go to court,  I doubt it'd come down on the side of game makers.  You're getting hit for $60 and if you want everything on the disc you've gotta fork over more without any sign on the box that this is the case at the time of purchase?  That wouldn't go over well,  likely on the side of either Fair Use violation or False Advertising as the box doesn't tell you that you have to pay extra to access all the content included in what you just purchased.

I'm surprised, Gatt. This now makes two posts in less than a week that I agree with you on.

[l DryIce l]

 It doesn't bother me one bit. I didn't feel like I did not get my $60 worth out of ME2. If I think DLC is worth the money, I buy it. If not, I don't. 

I also think incentives for buying on day 1 or preordering are great. It's not like they changed the game in any significant way. 

[JayhartRIC]

Il Divo wrote...

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Hmm, kinda hard to tell regarding Zaeed and Kasumi. I mean Casey did hype ME2 to be the gaming equivalent of the Dirty Dozen, and at the time, I didn't expect that to be in the LITERAL sense. I mean, sure, the lack of dialogue trees may suggest Zaeed and Kasumi being built differently, but Kasumi WAS found in hidden files (how else did we figure out Conrad Verner was glitched?)

While this is true, I don't recall anyone mentioning that the entire Kasumi dlc was complete at the time. The KotOR II Restoration project was based entirely around incomplete hidden files found on the disc, which just never happened to make dlc.

Yea, maybe KotoR 2 would have been complete if dlc was used more often back then(I know that was Obsidian, but still.)

[Il Divo]

JayhartRIC wrote...

Yea, maybe KotoR 2 would have been complete if dlc was used more often back then(I know that was Obsidian, but still.)

As crazy as this sounds, I would have gladly shelled out another $50 for Obsidian to reinclude all the incomplete content that they had been working on. Imo,KotOR 2 was full of potential and it still was a great game...unfortunately, it was too flawed to compete with its predecessor.

Modifié par Il Divo, 21 juin 2011 - 04:50 .

[AlanC9]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...
Hmm, kinda hard to tell regarding Zaeed and Kasumi. I mean Casey did hype ME2 to be the gaming equivalent of the Dirty Dozen, and at the time, I didn't expect that to be in the LITERAL sense. I mean, sure, the lack of dialogue trees may suggest Zaeed and Kasumi being built differently, but Kasumi WAS found in hidden files (how else did we figure out Conrad Verner was glitched?)

I never heard that Kasumi had anything to do with Verner. What was found on the disc?

[AlanC9]

Gatt9 wrote...

Actually,  according to fair use laws,  it does mean you own everything on the disc.  Software companies have been trying to claim you're "Leasing" it for years,  but that's never been upheld in court to my knowledge.

If it did go to court,  I doubt it'd come down on the side of game makers.  You're getting hit for $60 and if you want everything on the disc you've gotta fork over more without any sign on the box that this is the case at the time of purchase?  That wouldn't go over well,  likely on the side of either Fair Use violation or False Advertising as the box doesn't tell you that you have to pay extra to access all the content included in what you just purchased.

Itals mine. Once again, you've simply assumed what you're trying to prove. What the customer is actually buying is the substance of the question. As for false advertising, I think that's the wrong term. Nobody's actually advertising that you're buying all the information on the disc in the box. The question is whether the customer is allowed to simply presume that when he buys a physical disc he's buying a right to all the information on it. (You can make a respectable economic argument that this presumption is more efficient, since it pushes the transaction costs to the party best organized to handle them)

Anyway, this is not a moral argument. And should your position prevail, the outcome would be worse for everyone, not better. Companies would yank all the content from the discs even if it was ready to go. The companies would then pay for more bandwidth, and customers with download limits would have to burn some of that capacity to get the DLC.

[JayhartRIC]

l DryIce l wrote...

 It doesn't bother me one bit. I didn't feel like I did not get my $60 worth out of ME2. If I think DLC is worth the money, I buy it. If not, I don't. 

I also think incentives for buying on day 1 or preordering are great. It's not like they changed the game in any significant way. 

This is the way I feel about it.  I'll buy what I want to buy when I want to buy it.  If I didn't buy the game at launch, I probably won't care about the dlc anyway.  I reward those who give me good value with more business.  Those who try to nickel-and-dime me won't get anything from me.  

[nitrog100]

Cerberus Network was nice. It would have been nice if the bonus weapons, armor, and appearances were free, but it didn't feel like they overdid it. *cough* CallofDuty! *cough*

[vader da slayer]

Gatt9 wrote...

Actually,  according to fair use laws,  it does mean you own everything on the disc.  Software companies have been trying to claim you're "Leasing" it for years,  but that's never been upheld in court to my knowledge.

If it did go to court,  I doubt it'd come down on the side of game makers.  You're getting hit for $60 and if you want everything on the disc you've gotta fork over more without any sign on the box that this is the case at the time of purchase?  That wouldn't go over well,  likely on the side of either Fair Use violation or False Advertising as the box doesn't tell you that you have to pay extra to access all the content included in what you just purchased.

actually according to ToU's and EULA's you don't just like characters on World of Warcraft. With toons on WoW you (the creator/player of said character) don't own it, Blizzard owns every character you or anyone makes and is the reason why selling characters is a breach of the EULA. if in the EULA (end user LICENSING agreement) it says "end user (ie the player) is allowed to play all accessable content on disk but not locked content without purchase of said content key" guess what. the court you just went to to try and get your free content will rule in favor of the game maker.

[Il Divo]

AlanC9 wrote...

Itals mine. Once again, you've simply assumed what you're trying to prove. What the customer is actually buying is the substance of the question. As for false advertising, I think that's the wrong term. Nobody's actually advertising that you're buying all the information on the disc in the box. The question is whether the customer is allowed to simply presume that when he buys a physical disc he's buying a right to all the information on it. (You can make a respectable economic argument that this presumption is more efficient, since it pushes the transaction costs to the party best organized to handle them)

While I fully support the developers' rights to create/sell dlc, the problem this creates is that developers could (theoretically) place only half the game's content on the disc, claiming the other half for themselves as dlc.

Admittedly, I don't think it will ever reach this point (it would entail developer suicide amongst gamers), but I think the principle is important to consider; it is presumed that in purchasing a game with a disc that the player has the right to play the content contained within that disc.

[Legbiter]

If the sofa cushion change that each DLC costs is too rich for you then go without. Or, do like yours truly, pick out the good DLC and forget about the rest.

[AlanC9]

Il Divo wrote...

While I fully support the developers' rights to create/sell dlc, the problem this creates is that developers could (theoretically) place only half the game's content on the disc, claiming the other half for themselves as dlc.

What's "the game" mean there? All the content available when they burn the disc? If not, then.... what?

Admittedly, I don't think it will ever reach this point (it would entail developer suicide amongst gamers), but I think the principle is important to consider; it is presumed that in purchasing a game with a disc that the player has the right to play the content contained within that disc.

And again, it doesn't matter. If we own everything on the disc then the companies will simply keep the DLC content off the disc, and we all eat a deadweight loss from the bandwidth on the DVD that isn't being used for anything anymore.

Modifié par AlanC9, 21 juin 2011 - 09:13 .

[Skirata129]

It is the companies right to sell the game however they want, but if they do it the wrong way they can easily ****** off their fan base and lose customers. Case in point, Lionhead with Fable 3. In fable 2 you had different dyes to customize your clothing. Black dye was the most popular. In Fable 3, every dye was present except 1. Black. Black dye was accidently released day one as the "long awaited" black dye dlc, and removed again a few hours later when they realized it had slipped out. plus they had an empty space in the dye cabinent if you didn't buy it so it looked as though something was missing.

on top of all this, they had an unremovable character in an unavoidable location that could not be silenced telling you every time he saw you that there were new items availible for purchase from the xbox marketplace. Lionhead will never get another dollar from me.

Just something game devs should be aware of.

[Il Divo]

AlanC9 wrote...

What's "the game" mean there? All the content available when they burn the disc? If not, then.... what?

I wouldn't say it's 'all content available', but rather 'all content they choose to place on the disc'.

If I purchase a car, I am getting everything contained within the vehicle. If the car has an engine, then I have paid for the engine. I, the buyer, do not pay for the car, then offer additional payment to make use of the engine (already paid of). If there is some other attachment I wish to add, I assume it is not immediately contained within my purchase. 'Sold separately'.

Following that, I (the customer) had to pay for the disc, which contains all the content to the game. Then I paid again to access certain parts of that content?

[JayhartRIC]

So then they will just keep it off the disc. That doesn't help anybody.

[Paulinius]

I love DLC. If you like a game, don't you want more content for it? Plus, you have the option to buy it or not. I know people wouldn't be complaining if all DLC was for free, but hey things cost money in the real world.

Think of it as buying a house. You have the shell out the money for house and you get to enjoy and us it as is. DLC is like remodeling: you can put in marble floors, a new kitchen, and a home theater. It's an option and not a requirement.

[CannonO]

The issue here is that traditionally, we get the entire game when we go to the store. They made it all for us and we get everything. The skins, costumes, and weapons were generally on the disc, so it is hard to believe that suddenly it should be okay this far from release or even just before release, for something that can clearly be put on the disk to be left separate for extra profit or some sort of push to make you pay full new price on the product. I think if it is ready in time to be on the disk, then it should be. Don't keep it as a separate DLC just because it is a way to cash in in the modern industry model.

[Guitar-Hero]

I agree that if you are going to pay a certain ammount for a product you should atleast get the finished product, a lot of gamers seem to forget the power we as consumers have, so i would definately boycott a game if i felt i was being treated unfairly. However i would be vocal about it and let them know that this is unacceptable.

[AlanC9]

Il Divo wrote...
I wouldn't say it's 'all content available', but rather 'all content they choose to place on the disc'.

If I purchase a car, I am getting everything contained within the vehicle. If the car has an engine, then I have paid for the engine. I, the buyer, do not pay for the car, then offer additional payment to make use of the engine (already paid of). If there is some other attachment I wish to add, I assume it is not immediately contained within my purchase. 'Sold separately'.

Following that, I (the customer) had to pay for the disc, which contains all the content to the game. Then I paid again to access certain parts of that content?

All you've really got here is an intuition about how the transaction should be structured.

As for your car analogy, you paid for the engine because..... the transaction just has to work that way? That's not exactly an argument. There's no good reason to not sell the engine with the car, but if a company found one, you're saying they should not be allowed to do it. Because it conflicts with your intuitions?

Modifié par AlanC9, 21 juin 2011 - 11:18 .