137 réponses à ce sujet

[Stanley Woo]

Weiser_Cain wrote...

Remember when you could just about bet your life that a popular game got two full expansion packs? DLC seems to have killed that, now we just get a mission and a handful of items for a fiver a pop.

In my opinion, mainstream popular culture embracing videogames and the increased competition from all sorts of increasingly accessible other media (including movies, online, mobile, tablet, handheld, casual, and on demand products and venues)  is responsible for producers wanting to keep players engaged with their product for a longer period of time before their eyes and minds wander elsewhere.

[Stanley Woo]

Weiser_Cain wrote...

Remember when you could just about bet your life that a popular game got two full expansion packs? DLC seems to have killed that, now we just get a mission and a handful of items for a fiver a pop.

In my opinion, mainstream popular culture embracing videogames and the
increased competition from all sorts of increasingly accessible other
media (including movies, online, mobile, tablet, handheld, casual, and
on demand products and venues)  is responsible for producers wanting to
keep players engaged with their product for a longer period of time
before their eyes and minds wander elsewhere.

Expansions still happen, but until they are ready, you've got DLC to keep you playing the game.

[Stanley Woo]

Weiser_Cain wrote...

No no no, it's more like paying individually for extras on a dvd.

I would accept that analogy if videogames appeared in arcades first before becoming available for home use. but they're not. Generally, DVDs are avilable for those who liked the movie in theatres or those folks who didn't see it in theatres but still want to see it. The DVD extras are an incentive to purchase the physical product after maybe having seen it already.

Videogames are first-run products. Their incentives to buy include... well, the game itself. And now, of course, we have DLC included, vendor-specific items, and periodic DLC later on. Your movie analogy might be more apt if your movie ticket contained an unlock code to watch a featurette online, or if, upon presenting your movie ticket stub, you could purchase the gag reel for viewing on your mobile.

[Stanley Woo]

Dandynermite wrote...

Actually thinking about this a bit harder, there is a line that EA breach in every single game they make with an online mode, and thats giving you a one use code to play online. That is TOTALLY wrong. Say I buy Fifa 12 pre-owned, I pay for my internet, I pay for xbox live, and now I have to pay, to use the game I've paid for, to use the game on the online system I've already paid for, to use the internet I also pay for. If Day 1 DLCs are to combat pre-owned sales, then they need to scrap this online charge. (This isn't a problem with Bioware though, so its a bit irrelevant, but then Bioware is EA, and it's a forum not strictly about Bioware, as it starts with Saint's Row)

Even though you buy a pre-owned Toyota, and having paid for your license and insurance, you still have to pay when you travel toll roads, you have to pay for gas, you still have to pay for the food you get at a drive-through, and you still have to pay for the car wash. And if you want to use Toyota brand parts installed by a certified Toyota-licensed technician, well, I would think they would make you pay for that (assuming it's out of warranty, or course).

Sure, you buy FIFA pre-owned. Who are you paying for it? the game store, not the developer or publisher. Sure, you pay for internet. Who do you pay for that? Your ISP, not the developer or publisher of the game you're playing and whose online features you wish to access, since the internet's a huge place and full of many other things besides FIFA (like the BioWare Social Network). You paid for Xbox Live, awesome, it's a system I like. Who are you paying for that? Microsoft, not the developer or publisher of the game you're playing, since Xbox Live grants access to ALL online features, not just FIFA multiplayer.

So far, I'm not seeing any mention of paying the people who made/published the game in the first place, and you wish to crow about how unfair it all is? I don't mean to sound like a jerkface, but it seems like you're getting all the enjoyment out of the game without the developers or publishers making a cent off of you. Though I didn't see you mentioning that you also had to buy an Xbox and have electricity turned on, or that you also paid rent to have a place in which to play games, or the grocery bills you racked up so you didn't starve to death while playing. As an extreme case, maybe you need corrective lenses to see the monitor clearly. You had to pay for those too, didn't you?

The point is, none of that really has any bearing to the features of the game you are interested in, and neither the publisher nor the developer receive any monies from you for those things. Yes, it's a pain to have to pay more to access all the features you want, but like many hobbies, videogaming costs money. And at some point, companies gots to get paid.

[KenKenpachi]

Well said Mr Woo, on all points. Alot of the counter points made by others just screams entitlement to me. And with piracy and what not being as rampant as it is, plus publishers getting maybe $15 per game on the FIRST sale alone, its no surprise a game has DLC, or all of these protection features or forcing you to buy normally at a modest price the network to activate the DLC menu for an older game. Next you'll see some on here moaning on having to buy extra controllers.

Everyone's got some mouths to feed. In a manner this allows the publishers to collect a modest amount from used game sales.I think some here forget the millions that go into making a game, people that need to be paid, future projects to be made, past costs to be paid, Rent and Utilities for the office, etc etc. And in the case of larger companies the dreaded Kraken.....well Shareholder. Same thing really.

Modifié par KenKenpachi, 28 juillet 2011 - 10:28 .

[Stanley Woo]

Sorry, Ken, but I'm not going to talk about software piracy or any actual numbers involved in the business, because that's beyond the scope of this thread. I'm just trying to offer a perspective from the other side of the equation, the side of a business that employs a whole lot of people in a highly competitive industry and the kinds of things people don't normally think about because they're so used to the "consumer is always right, companies are always greedy and out to screw us." Before I joined the company, I was right there along with everyone else, and it wasn't until I'd been here a few years and got a couple of projects under my belt that I started to get that the business end of things is necessary, and is not always there to bilk the consumer. Why would it be? It needs to keep consumers, but it also wants to make as much money as possible.

Entire departments of math and money people deal with that sort of thing every day, in any big company. I don't envy them their job.

[stewie1974]

games are already serialized in the form of sequels.... so..

DLC is optional not compulsary.

You get the complete game and then you get the option of extras.

The only complaint I can realistically see is the -don't know exactly what you are getting- when you purchase. At least with video games you can rent them first to see if there is any way around it.

Maybe they should release dlc demo's which are either toned down releases of items..i.e the items expire after one use....

Or in story content the last few chapters are missing so you can get a feel for it...

DLC is a little bit of a gamble and reviews are never ever going predict if you will enjoy them or not.

[KenKenpachi]

Didn't expect you too really. I know there are rules on such things. And its True Companies don't hate you. Or love you. They put out what is a quality product in hopes of a purchase. Or a half assed one with the same hopes. But they need profits of some sort, or doors shut down. Or the programers and the like go to the highest bidder. Its why in Various Militaries around the globe, specialist in various fields are paid more than the Grunt counter part. Pay a guy 8 bucks an hour for a job someone else offers 20 for, and he'll leave. Not many people will make anything to make others happy for a pay day to pay day life. As its like pissing yourself in dark pants. Sure it makes you feel nice and warm, but no one will notice, and you'll still owe the dry cleaners some money. I mean its good to love what you do of course. But happy feelings won't pay the bills.

And yes Pitty the bean counter. And hate the tax man >>.

[bmwcrazy]

Rockworm503 wrote...

 It feels like I'm paying for a full burger and only getting 1/4th of it and then have to pay 3 more times for the other 3 pieces.

Your analogy is flawed. It's more like paying $3 for a quarter-pound cheeseburger with tomato, lettuce, onion, and the sauce. You get what you paid for, it's a complete product but you can still get extra patties with cheese for a dollar each and bacons for 50 cents.

Modifié par bmwcrazy, 28 juillet 2011 - 11:00 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Menthi44 wrote...

With all due respect - DLC is fine to have a price when it's optional; however let's take a look at Mass Effect 2's DLC 'Arrival'. The storyline to this DLC is critical to the entire series, considering that the beginning of Mass Effect 3 is based off the events within Arrival; yet to my knowledge, you still have to pay to aquire this critical section of the story if you really want to know what's going on. (I admit, I haven't gotten around to playing Arrival yet - But I am basing my statement off what I have heard about it.

Literally, of course Arrival is optional - But should such a thing have a price when it's important to the series' main storyline?

Fair enough. And I will ask the following questions not to try and badger you or dismiss your concerns, but to illustrate my point: Should you have to pay for ME3 since it's so crucial the Shepard's storyline? Should ME2 have a cost since it's bridging ME1 and ME3? Should any of the DLC cost anything since it's expanding the lore and the story of Shepard in important ways? What about the novels? Should they be free since you bought ME1? Should they also be free for those who got Mass Effect free with their DA2 purchase? You still have to pay for all of those and yet, according to your definition, these arguably "critical sections of the story" should ideally be free.

Just my opinion here, and as I have not played any of the MEs (yet).

If ME3 was actively referring to actions Shephard had done in Arrival if the PC had not played it, then I would consider it grounds for being seriously annoyed because the DLC is not core content.

This is different to ME3 referring to information that was in Arrival without specifying any involvement of Shephard, because the lore can still exist in that player's timeline. Shephard's involvement is dependant on the player.

Edit for clarity: I don't believe any DLC should be made free simply because it provides additional lore. That's a bonus. For instance, I played Awakening (Dragon Age: Origin's expansion) but had not read the DA novel The Calling (which I now have, and provided lots of insight to the Architect). Do I think the book should have been free? Do I think it was necessary to enjoy Awakening? No on both counts. Unless I want to metagame, my PC was not in the novel and had no way of knowing everything.

Modifié par Shadow of Light Dragon, 29 juillet 2011 - 12:55 .

[Bryy_Miller]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...
If ME3 was actively referring to actions Shephard had done in Arrival if the PC had not played it, then I would consider it grounds for being seriously annoyed because the DLC is not core content.

This is different to ME3 referring to information that was in Arrival without specifying any involvement of S

The level designer I was talking to at SDCC told me that Arrival would be taken into account. I don't know *how*, though, as the end of Arrival pretty much has to lead into your trial.

[Girchou]

I think DLC is great.
I also hate the way people think that developers cut content out of a game and then sell it as DLC.
They might do, for all I know, but they don't.
People seem to think they are entitled to everything.

[bmwcrazy]

Girchou wrote...

People seem to think they are entitled to everything.

Welcome to the real world. Customers only want better products and services for free.

[KenKenpachi]

bmwcrazy wrote...

Girchou wrote...

People seem to think they are entitled to everything.

Welcome to the real world. Customers only want better products and services for free.

Sadly they live in an even more real world, where when they make that remark the owner of the store just laughs and goes "Lulz GTFO HIPPIE!"

Modifié par KenKenpachi, 29 juillet 2011 - 01:15 .

[WeRtheBrox]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

If ME3 was actively referring to actions Shephard had done in Arrival if the PC had not played it, then I would consider it grounds for being seriously annoyed because the DLC is not core content.

This is different to ME3 referring to information that was in Arrival without specifying any involvement of Shephard, because the lore can still exist in that player's timeline. Shephard's involvement is dependant on the player.

As I understand it, ME3 opens with Shepard being court martialed for his/her actions in Arrival.  So yes, the events of Arrival are a part of ME3 whether the player actually played that DLC or no.  It wouldn't really annoy me, though.  I equate it with the short stories that some authors write about events between their books -- you don't have to read those stories to understand what's going on.

[bmwcrazy]

KenKenpachi wrote...

Sadly they live in an even more real world, where when they make that remark the owner of the store just laughs and goes "Lulz GTFO HIPPIE!"

Mom and pop's stores, maybe they'd go "Lulz GTFO HIPPIE!." I highly doubt it especially in this economy.

If you did that at most retailers, restaurants or department stores, I can bet you that 9 out of 10 times the managers would just give you coupons or discounts to please you.

[Homebound]

a bit off topic but i appreciate woo's candidness in this discussion.

[billy the squid]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Dandynermite wrote...

Actually thinking about this a bit harder, there is a line that EA breach in every single game they make with an online mode, and thats giving you a one use code to play online. That is TOTALLY wrong. Say I buy Fifa 12 pre-owned, I pay for my internet, I pay for xbox live, and now I have to pay, to use the game I've paid for, to use the game on the online system I've already paid for, to use the internet I also pay for. If Day 1 DLCs are to combat pre-owned sales, then they need to scrap this online charge. (This isn't a problem with Bioware though, so its a bit irrelevant, but then Bioware is EA, and it's a forum not strictly about Bioware, as it starts with Saint's Row)

Even though you buy a pre-owned Toyota, and having paid for your license and insurance, you still have to pay when you travel toll roads, you have to pay for gas, you still have to pay for the food you get at a drive-through, and you still have to pay for the car wash. And if you want to use Toyota brand parts installed by a certified Toyota-licensed technician, well, I would think they would make you pay for that (assuming it's out of warranty, or course).

Sure, you buy FIFA pre-owned. Who are you paying for it? the game store, not the developer or publisher. Sure, you pay for internet. Who do you pay for that? Your ISP, not the developer or publisher of the game you're playing and whose online features you wish to access, since the internet's a huge place and full of many other things besides FIFA (like the BioWare Social Network). You paid for Xbox Live, awesome, it's a system I like. Who are you paying for that? Microsoft, not the developer or publisher of the game you're playing, since Xbox Live grants access to ALL online features, not just FIFA multiplayer.

So far, I'm not seeing any mention of paying the people who made/published the game in the first place, and you wish to crow about how unfair it all is? I don't mean to sound like a jerkface, but it seems like you're getting all the enjoyment out of the game without the developers or publishers making a cent off of you. Though I didn't see you mentioning that you also had to buy an Xbox and have electricity turned on, or that you also paid rent to have a place in which to play games, or the grocery bills you racked up so you didn't starve to death while playing. As an extreme case, maybe you need corrective lenses to see the monitor clearly. You had to pay for those too, didn't you?

The point is, none of that really has any bearing to the features of the game you are interested in, and neither the publisher nor the developer receive any monies from you for those things. Yes, it's a pain to have to pay more to access all the features you want, but like many hobbies, videogaming costs money. And at some point, companies gots to get paid.

Initially, it was publishers and other large manufaturers who pushed smaller retailers around, yet with the rise of the large retail mergers , publishers can't do that anymore and they don't have the level of channel influence they once had. I find it ironic that publishers bemoan the problems retail chains impose, when they benefited from the fragmented market and are now complaining when playing on a more equal field in terms of business size, Hence the current growth of digital distribution pushed by publishers.

I generally dislike car analogies as they don't tend to fit particularly well. The food I eat, the petrol used, road tax,MoT, car wash don't go towards the upkeep of the manufaturer they are required for the upkeep of the car, the manufacturer has not provided me with continued service, our legal relationship in terms of the sale is over. If I buy a used car from an individual the manufacturer is unlikely to see any profit from it, unless the car is repurchased by the manufacturer's garage in the case of company cars. The same with company shares, they are actively traded and the company will not see profit from the trades it is the subsequent buyer, seller and intermediaries who see the profit

In the case of second hand games, repurchase of the product does not entitle the publisher to funds from me if one treats the product as an item rather than a license to allows use of the said product. Which is were the distinction comes to the crux of the arguement.

Does one treat the purchase as a tangible item, or as a license to use the product. Paticular problems with limited instalation DRM and constant internet connections blur the line on this.

If treated as a product then it is mine to do as I will, copyright legislation accounted for, contract law applies. There has been a sale, the intention to treat was for the product, not for a license for the use of the product therefore the consideration that was given after entering into a legal contract dictates that the product is legally mine and is its full use.

Ipso facto, claiming that online passes are required to use the game precludes me from full use of a product I paid for and constitutes breach of contract as I can't get full access to the features. DLC, remains a seperate issue as it is not part of the original product. Although I would prefer the insentivisation approach rather than some Day 1 DLC which feels more like a gouge than an insentive, Paticularly items such as Arrial where the publisher essentially has a captive audience, true it is optional, in the loose sense of the word, but if the following game continues on from it, then it is pressurisation, rather than insentivisation.
 
A further question is does the publisher developer continue to provide online service for networking multiplayer games, dedicated servers etc or is this done entirely by an intermediary/ third party? If not then the publisher does not provide said service, so why should they recieve funds?

If the networking capability is inherent in the games production and not carried out by the publisher, then the cost of that development would have likely been factored into the game by the publisher to establish a viable profit margin, so why, after this, is the publisher entitled to a further payment for a feature, not the actual networking, say for xbox live, which it has already charged for?

As to company features such as the the BSN, as a company expenditure I would have though that this would have been factored in ot the game's selling price to distributers and passed on to consumers in the ultimate retail price, which is usually how things work. Or is it implicit in the contract of the purchase that players have to pay additional funds for a service which they did not specifically and with full knowledge contract into using?

If the publisher does provide online networking services as xbox live does by connecting players, then yes the publisher should be entitled to renumeration for the upkeep of the multiplayer network such as dedicated servers etc.

It is not so much an issue of the developer getting paid, considering EA's profits went up in the latest fiscal report, you are paid already, aren't you Mr. Woo?  It is that, did my purchase of the product entitle me to the features as explained above, and does the publisher continue to support the feature as in dedicated servers etc. Or do they simply want funds for the use of the feature even if it supported by a third party/ intermediary and the cost is not carried by the publisher, despite the cost being factored into the initial sale value.

The move against the second hand gaming market, looks more like a retreat on piracy and hacking on the consoles, which on consoles remains rampant.  Without condeming or condoning such actions, publishers such as Ubisoft sticking in constant internet access or 3 installation limits on products, does not paticularly endear one to play fair, particularly for single player games. DRM, so long as it does not become excessive, is fine, paticularly to prevent pre release leaks and the initial flurry of sales in the first few weeks, in terms of PC networking in games such as battlefield 3 etc. I would say it is important to prevent the proliferation of hacking etc. which spoils the game for everyone involved. Piracy is always going to a problem, whilst the sheer cost of DRM etc. must be becoming excessive considering by and large it doesn't work properly and is usually cracked within a week or 2.

Modifié par billy the squid, 29 juillet 2011 - 03:41 .

[AlanC9]

billy the squid wrote...

Does one treat the purchase as a tangible item, or as a license to use the product. Paticular problems with limited instalation DRM and constant internet connections blur the line on this.

If treated as a product then it is mine to do as I will, copyright legislation accounted for, contract law applies. There has been a sale, the intention to treat was for the product, not for a license for the use of the product therefore the consideration that was given after entering into a legal contract dictates that the product is legally mine and is its full use.

Yep. If.

If the networking capability is inherent in the games production and not carried out by the publisher, then the cost of that development would have likely been factored into the game by the publisher to establish a viable profit margin, so why, after this, is the publisher entitled to a further payment for a feature, not the actual networking, say for xbox live, which it has already charged for?

I'm not really comfortable with saying "entitled" there. Why isn't a company "entitled" to charge whatever it pleases for those services?

It is not so much an issue of the developer getting paid, considering EA's profits went up in the latest fiscal report, you are paid already, aren't you Mr. Woo?  It is that, did my purchase of the product entitle me to the features as explained above, and does the publisher continue to support the feature as in dedicated servers etc. Or do they simply want funds for the use of the feature even if it supported by a third party/ intermediary and the cost is not carried by the publisher, despite the cost being factored into the initial sale value.

The italed bit is an obvious red herring -- companies don't have to stop making money when you think they've made enough.

As for the cost being factored --- wouldn't that factoring include the anti-resale efforts? That's not going to show up on the company plan next year as surprise money -- they're going to have estimated it.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

The level designer I was talking to
at SDCC told me that Arrival would be taken into account. I don't know
*how*, though, as the end of Arrival pretty much has to lead into your
trial.

WeRtheBrox wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

If ME3 was actively referring to actions Shephard had done in Arrival if the PC had not played it, then I would consider it grounds for being seriously annoyed because the DLC is not core content.

This is different to ME3 referring to information that was in Arrival without specifying any involvement of Shephard, because the lore can still exist in that player's timeline. Shephard's involvement is dependant on the player.

As I understand it, ME3 opens with Shepard being court martialed for his/her actions in Arrival.  So yes, the events of Arrival are a part of ME3 whether the player actually played that DLC or no.  It wouldn't really annoy me, though.  I equate it with the short stories that some authors write about events between their books -- you don't have to read those stories to understand what's going on.

Ahh, thanks, both of you.

Interesting. So Shephard will be on trial for actions the Player may not even know about, save within the context of the trial itself. It may depend on how ME3 handles this, but if I was someone who had played the core games but not the DLC I have to admit I would feel like I'm being none-too-subtly prodded to get the DLC to understand what really went down--even if ME3 gives me a decent summary*. This may, naturally, be the intent. A marketing scheme. Clever. In theory I don't like it, but that's me. And that's also what Youtube is for.

*I admit I'm really picky with RPGs. In my (perhaps outdated) mind, If a core game refers to events the PC was involved in, those events should be contained in core content or not at all. Making DLC content plot-important feels like it risks alienating the fans who don't play, or can't afford, the DLC, and it's only natural that this might feel like some sort of subtle punishment to some of them, even if this is not the intent of the devs.

Modifié par Shadow of Light Dragon, 29 juillet 2011 - 09:02 .

[Boiny Bunny]

Reading over this, I think it is important to bear in mind (from both the perspective of the slightly defensive corporate employee and the disgruntled consumer) that no business or it's model for doing business, can be described in a paragraph. No single analogy is a perfect fit.

We can attempt to aliken DLC to quarters of burgers, or car manufacturing, but the reality is, producing and selling a videogame is an extremely complicated process, with make key players (each of which has different motivations), and thousands of inputs.

The bottom line is, yes we can bemoan the lack of expansion sets nowadays, but companies have found that DLC is cheaper to produce and makes them more money. All that companies care about, and all that they will ever care about, is the bottom line. Profit.

If DLC makes them more profit, they will make DLC. If you as a consumer don't like it, don't buy it. That's all there is to it.

[DreGregoire]

Where do we draw the line? I don't bother with lines. If I want the information, I'll buy the dlc. I really think this Dragon Age II Legacy DLC should have been part of the main campaign. IMO, it is an essential part of the whole story and I want the whole story.

I don't think it's unusual or wrong to use "Lore" from added content in a sequel to a game. A game industry is right to assume that people who enjoyed the game will purchase the lore/story dlc's. Of course it's your choice not to buy the dlc as it is your choice to purchase the game knowing that you maybe confused by the game because you lack the lore. Or you could just find a free walkthrough to view or read to gain that information.

I watched a walkthrough of Legacy before I purchased it because I wasn't sure it would be worth spending the money. Fortunately the walkthrough I watched was a rush through run and didn't share all the Lore so I got to discover new things.

Modifié par DreGregoire, 29 juillet 2011 - 10:40 .

[Deathwurm]

I'm not too happy with DLC's in general, but that is simply my opinion. As others have stated, they've kind of killed the Expansions that I used to love so much.

I think a lot of them are silly...things like Alternate Appearance packs or Weapons Packs just seem like a complete waste to me. I can't see myself ever buying one of those kinds of DLC, but obviously someone is buying them because they keep coming out.

I don't really mind DLC's that present addtional non-Canon content for a Game...Adventures or Missions that add to the Game without putting vital info in. I really enjoyed LotSB and felt it was more than worth what I payed for it, but I was a bit upset that it contained absolutely vital info that Mass Effect fans should have had without having to buy it. (I don't want to give Spoilers, but LotSB answered a HUGE question that really should have been in ME2's release) I haven't played "Arrival" yet, but as a fan of the Mass Effect plot, I know I will have to in order to get the most out of ME3.

Adding things to a Story through DLC's is fine by me, but there are just some things that it's only fair to let us in on if it's Story-Specific.

I did buy the Sebastian DLC for DA2 and I enjoyed it...it added a little more to the Game but would not have taken away from it if I didn't buy it.

The thing I'm most interested to see is if a Devoloper decides to try bundling DLC's together and releasing them as a new form of "Expansion Pack"...it may not be cost effective (not my area of expertise) but I would be interested to see what the reaction from Players would be like.

[KenKenpachi]

bmwcrazy wrote...

KenKenpachi wrote...

Sadly they live in an even more real world, where when they make that remark the owner of the store just laughs and goes "Lulz GTFO HIPPIE!"

Mom and pop's stores, maybe they'd go "Lulz GTFO HIPPIE!." I highly doubt it especially in this economy.

If you did that at most retailers, restaurants or department stores, I can bet you that 9 out of 10 times the managers would just give you coupons or discounts to please you.

Lol here they don't. Most workers at places like Pawn shops or the like act like they seem on TV, border line hostile, and haggelers. Hell I'm friends with some people there and a preferd customer as I know what I want and don't ask any questions. Or so they say.  And Restruants will tend to be civil but as you said but thats given largely to the waste in that sector and small profits. Mom and Pop shops Varies, from some that smile and welcome you, to others who will insult you.

Ironically a used Carsalesmen made alot of sales by being an ass to people, such as when they ask how much a car is he'ld say "What the hell does it matter you ain't got the damn money to buy it!"  To the Military Surplus dealers who are hostiles unless they see your in the military or into military matters, or a returning customer. And they like to talk a bit on political and military matter. Retailers I've seen go from Gamestop level of "Here let me answer every stupid question you have while pretending to care and make small talk with you."  Though I find some of them love working there, though not for the pay. To Wal-Mart level and some fast food chains where you know they obviously either don't have a clue what your asking fo  such as when I went there looking for a GFX Card and called them

"Oh we have plenty of cards with all sorts of letters and numbers!" To which when I went in one guy who knew what I was asking for said we don't carry them. To Radio shack where everyone seems dead. In smaller regions you can be as pick of a dick as you want and as long as there arn't many other stores and low prices, and no broken laws, no ones going to give a ****. More so the mom and pop stores alot of people up north defend, down here I would welcome burnng them to the ground. They only hire family members, at most three people, jack prices up by huge margerines. And if they don't know who you are you can tell they are waching you the whole time. And when a big retialer wants in the town they always block them. Alot of people here have to go way out of the way to find work.

Modifié par KenKenpachi, 29 juillet 2011 - 12:00 .

[billy the squid]

AlanC9 wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

Does one treat the purchase as a tangible item, or as a license to use the product. Paticular problems with limited instalation DRM and constant internet connections blur the line on this.

If treated as a product then it is mine to do as I will, copyright legislation accounted for, contract law applies. There has been a sale, the intention to treat was for the product, not for a license for the use of the product therefore the consideration that was given after entering into a legal contract dictates that the product is legally mine and is its full use.

Yep. If.

If the networking capability is inherent in the games production and not carried out by the publisher, then the cost of that development would have likely been factored into the game by the publisher to establish a viable profit margin, so why, after this, is the publisher entitled to a further payment for a feature, not the actual networking, say for xbox live, which it has already charged for?

I'm not really comfortable with saying "entitled" there. Why isn't a company "entitled" to charge whatever it pleases for those services?

It is not so much an issue of the developer getting paid, considering EA's profits went up in the latest fiscal report, you are paid already, aren't you Mr. Woo?  It is that, did my purchase of the product entitle me to the features as explained above, and does the publisher continue to support the feature as in dedicated servers etc. Or do they simply want funds for the use of the feature even if it supported by a third party/ intermediary and the cost is not carried by the publisher, despite the cost being factored into the initial sale value.

The italed bit is an obvious red herring -- companies don't have to stop making money when you think they've made enough.

As for the cost being factored --- wouldn't that factoring include the anti-resale efforts? That's not going to show up on the company plan next year as surprise money -- they're going to have estimated it.

First it is a question of what the product is classed as, sale Item or license to use the product, so yes, If is appropriate. considering it has had been clased previously as a sale rather than purchase of a license I could have stated it definitively, but as the distinction appears to be unclear at the moment I hesitate to state either way, when I don't think even the companies are clear on were they stand on the issue of sale of item or sale of license.

If a license is accepted as the current standing of the product then it is an issue of the cost of the license, which is inevitabley cheaper than the cost of a product which I do not have exclusive rights to. Should a license position be taken I would be charged for the ownership of the physical product and its full use, but I am being limited by the legal distinction and restrictions which are inherent in a license arrangement and required to pay more, despite the value passed on for physical ownership of the product. Not a great deal for me is it?

As to the second point, read carefully, If the product is classed as an item sale then the item is legally mine as per contract law so I am entitled, in every sense of the word, for its full use. I did not say service, I said feature. Service implies an ongoing service by the developer/publisher which involves cost in its maintanence and upkeep of servers etc. Feature implies a single aspect of the product which was included at sale and does not require the manufacturer to pay for upkeep and the inherent cost in doing so, which can be placed upon a third party/ intermediary ie xbox live which carries the cost of maintaining the service, and so charges for it.

The distinction is that if the company is not incurring cost, by not providing a service and another party has taken over the service provision. Then what basis does the company have to charge additional funds if a service is not being provided and so does not incur costs, particularly when the cost of developing the feature will have already been accounted for in the selling price to the retailer and passed on in the ultimate retail price. I don't believe that companies are in the habit of spending time and money in creating features and then not in the sale price.

The issues of continued payment, as I stated if the company continues to provide a service, ie: secure servers, the yes they should be entitled to take the cost from the consumer for the ongoing service provision. It is likely that this already has been factored into the sale price, but if they did a bad job and underestimated the cost, well thats their problem. If services such as dedicated servers for PC provided, then I would be willing to pay for such a service and the cost of upkeep via online passes/ increase in the base cost, if I am given full access to the service and feature.

Regarding the so called red herring, you missed the point. Companies stop making money on a product when the product is sold to the final consumer. The legal relationship ends there. It is not what I think, it is legal basis, whether they have made enough is completely irrelevant in terms of determinig the basis on which they are charging. What I do with a product after the consideration has changed hands is, up to me and there is no continuing relationship between the publisher and myself as consumer and no basis for them to earn money if a service is not provided.

The cost factoring of anti resale efforts, ignores the point, that publisher if it does not provide an ongoing service at a cost to them, what basis does it have to charge for the reslae of an item which it has no control over. Whether the company actually included anti resale costs in the selling price is neither here nor there.

Publisher see the re sale market as an untaped revenue stream which it can extort, it is business practices, to pad the bottom line, nothing more. Public companies have debt to service, shareholders and acquisitions to fund, so it was only a matter of time for this to happen, it doesnt mean they are not going to hav problems enforcing it. The current situation is a result of large scale retailers standing on a more even footing with the publisher, unable to bend retailers they have gone for the easier option, hence the desire to cram multiplayer into everything and then charge for online passes, This worries me inparticular if I would have to pay for such a pass, simply to acquire patches and DLC (particularly if this was to be paid for ontop of the pass)