137 réponses à ce sujet

[Kidd]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

I've never got why store-specific DLC is frowned upon. I mean, unless it's an MMO.

Because some of us don't live in North America and thus cannot receive those items even if we were willing to pay 200USD for them. Well, unless some kind soul sell their DLC code on eBay for extravagant sums of money, I guess.

I'd much prefer to give BioWare 5$ than to give a random American 20$ for the same content. BioWare makes money off me, I pay less money, I don't have to deal with eBay to get what I need. Everyone wins aside from that random person who sold their code on eBay, but really, is that behaviour we should endorse? ^^;

As for day one DLC, I think people give it too much hate. It takes months in between when the game finishes until we get it in our hands. Should developers sit on their laurels and do nothing during that time? I'm sure their publishers don't want to pay them salaries for doing nothing =) Sometimes this leads to the company creating DLC as soon as the game finishes. They may very well finish a week before or the day before the game comes into consumer hands - it doesn't matter. It will be DLC sold on day one, but if DLC wasn't possible then that content would -not- be on our discs anyway. Is it wrong to give us extra content on day one?

[KenKenpachi]

Well thats what you get for not living in America! Kidding...

Though I think it has more to do with if the retailers wanting to offer it or not, and some games like SRTT is offering its content globally, even for those who don't preorder, but in the last case at a price of course.

As to the DLC hate, or auto updates, have we all forgotten the old games? The bug riddled, peices of crap, that you could beat in one day and no matter how many times you replayed it, it would always be the same. Or how we used to **** at how long it took expansions and would go "This should have been in the game anyways!!!!!"

Thats why in part I have a mostly good out look on DLC. Sure some of it is crap and pointless (looking at you Ace Combat and you many 4-5 dollar plane skins) but you don't have to buy it. I don't. And then we get things like Overlord and Shadow Broker for ME:2, for 10 bucks most of the time. Its a good value, and so I get it. The fact it helps the Developer stay open and make more games for me to play while not selling the ones I own after a week is a plus.

[AlanC9]

billy the squid wrote...

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 

Huh? When was that true? Companies have been saying that software is licensed for decades. Have you not been reading your EULAs?

Which means that this:

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.

Is indeterminate. There are no game sales, so there's no comparison to make.

Unless the publishers loas a big one in court someday. It's conceivable, but nobody seems to really want to try it.

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.

I didn't miss the point; I denied it. The terms under which you acquire software simply aren't as you describe them.

Sure, you can argue that the publishers should face a big class-action suit and lose it, but until and unless that happens, these things are enforceable. How do we know that? Because they're enforced. 

Winning that suit would be difficult. As currently constituted the US legal and political system is very friendly to publishers. Maybe Obama's appointments have switched the Supreme Court on the matter -- I don't know their stands on IP matters -- but even if you win in the SC Congress would probably just put licensing back.

Modifié par AlanC9, 29 juillet 2011 - 01:50 .

[foogoo]

At least for me:

Full expansion = 100% buy
DLC = 0% buy, 100% wait for "ultimate edition" that is on a discounted sale, 100% buy another game while waiting.. most likely the ones on sale (steam).

[In Exile]

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?

The opposite side of the coin, though, is that if I paid for story-based DLC... then I want my story-based DLC to actually count for something. 

[MassFrost]

Blastback wrote...

Where I'll draw the line is if I find out that a company has removed parts of the original game to sell as DLC. Do that, and I'm not buying your product. Otherwise, I'll atleast look into it.

That's pretty much the only time I'll actually get aggitated with a developer over DLC. It's easy enough to just ignore DLC if you have no interest in it, but when you know that you've had something intentionally pulled from the base game in order to be charged for it later? Yeah, leaves a bit of a bad taste in your mouth.

[Merci357]

In my opinion it all depends on the DLC at hand, simple as that.

Just look at the Fallout: New Vegas DLC, bundle up Dead Money, Honest Hearts and Old World Blues, and you'll pay 30$ for all three together. About the price of most expansions, I'd say. However, the amount of content in those three DLC is also dozens of hours of playtime, they add new zones, quests, lore, so I'd say it's also on par with a expansion. What's there to complain about?
Sure, you don't get all this content at once, but over the course of months. This could be a drawback as likely as it could be an advantage. For me content for games I really like, offered on a regular (serial) basis is preferable to waiting a year for a full blown expansion. Both worlds together would be the ideal situation, though.

[lobi]

Vote with your wallet if you feel strongly. I was considering buying Legacy but then I remembered DA2 was already uninstalled and it's not worth redownloading the whole game just for a a bit of DLC. Which is really handy, because now when I say I am not buying the DLC it sounds like a protest. I'm so hardcore.

Modifié par lobi, 29 juillet 2011 - 04:04 .

[Nerdage]

I don't see why talking about DLC pre-launch is bad. Not everyone at the developer can be working on the game right up until it's shipped. Say the writers finish their work on the main game months before the other departments, you don't want to pay them to sit on their hands until the next project comes along, but they're wage-taking employees and you can't just lay them all off, so you need to put them to work on something. Starting them working on add-ons for the current game seems like a good idea. An over-simplified example, perhaps, but I'm pretty sure the principal's there.

And "The line" is where ever you want it to be. As has been said a million times before here; if you don't want it just don't buy it. I generally like DLC, but I never bought Darkspawn Chronicles because I wasn't interested. I decide what DLC to buy based on content, not on principal.

[billy the squid]

sorry browsers mucking up again.

Modifié par billy the squid, 29 juillet 2011 - 05:34 .

[In Exile]

billy the squid wrote...
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.

There's the theoretical problem of non-physical IP, though. And the legal theory is a cluster****. What exactly does it mean to own intellectual property, and how do you sell the property? 

I don't agree with characterizing software as a lease, but I don't think treating it as a traditional physical product works either. 

[Nizzemancer]

Blastback wrote...

Where I'll draw the line is if I find out that a company has removed parts of the original game to sell as DLC. Do that, and I'm not buying your product. Otherwise, I'll atleast look into it.

this.

[billy the squid]

I explained it more clearly in the post above, before my browser went daft.

The sale of the item, rather than the IP, remains a sale transaction. The terms of use are that of a licence. Both run parallel to one another ie: I can purchase the software and sell it on should I choose to, but I cannot use it without accepting the terms of the licence, digital distribution throws a massive spanner in the works with the legal theory.

The purchase of the item will only entitle you to its use if one accepts the EULA which is mainly to prevent liability for the damage or improper use and copyright. It is becoming a problem as companies are extending the terms of the contract beyond what was envisioned by copyright law and essentially resticting the use of the physical product despite the sale transaction which makes the item legally mine and the acceptance of the licence which allows the holder to use the item without infringing copyright laws.

As to the online play pass, it remains a seperate issue from the quasi sale/ licence of retail transactions. The issue is more of what basis is such a charge to be levied. If the publisher provides a service which incurrs cost then I have no issue in paying the cost for online services, such as multiplayer/ secured networks etc. via an online licence. Yet, if the publisher has hived the service provision off to the third party who then incurs the cost, what basis does the publisher have to charge the consumer if they are not incurring the cost of providing the ongoing service.

As a subsidiary issue, the online passes are likely to be associated to an individual gamertag for consoles, so the implication is that the limitations imposed are, again, beyond the peramiters of the copyright as the online play passes limit the game to a to a single user. As such potentially it means that every user will require a seperate copy of the game or purchase a online pass for that game, which has be purchased for private use in accordance with copyright laws. Which is a backdoor way of implementing the intrusive measures in the EULA which attempt to dictate usage rights beyond the limitation imposed by legislation. I don't have anymore information on something like this, so I would have to wait as to how the passes would be implemented and how it would affect online access to DLC and patches.

Modifié par billy the squid, 29 juillet 2011 - 06:05 .

[mousestalker]

To the OP:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I just drew the line.

In all seriousness, if you don't like the way DLC is being done, don't buy it. The best way to influence a company's decision making process is with your money.

[In Exile]

billy the squid wrote...
But the sale of the item, rather than the IP, remains a sale transaction. The terms of use are that of a licence. Both run parallel to one another ie: I can purchase the software and sell it on should I choose to, but I cannot use it without accepting the terms of the licence, digital distribution throws a massive spanner in the works with the legal theory.

The item itself, though, is meaningless to us. What we are interesting in is the use of the software itself. That the physical disk (and even the technically physical data) is yours is immaterial to that, because it was never the disk or the data that was of interest; it was the content - the experience, so to speak.

The purchase of the item will only entitle you to its use if one accepts the EULA which is mainly to prevent liability for the damage or improper use and copyright. It is becoming a problem as companies are extending the terms of the contract beyond what was envisioned by copyright law and essentially resticting the use of the physical product despite the sale transaction which makes the item legally mine and the acceptance of the licence which allows the holder to use the item without infringing copyright laws.

The EULA is a contract of adhesion, though, and as far as I know US courts have had a mixed reception to some of its terms. 

What we need is a strong demarcation - a legal test that alows to say "when" a product is completed. If we had something akin to a reasonable person standard (call it a reasonable product standard, say) then we would have a framework for enforcing consumer rights without messy regulation, with the opportunity for action against developers who try to screw consumers. 

[billy the squid]

In Exile wrote...

billy the squid wrote...
But the sale of the item, rather than the IP, remains a sale transaction. The terms of use are that of a licence. Both run parallel to one another ie: I can purchase the software and sell it on should I choose to, but I cannot use it without accepting the terms of the licence, digital distribution throws a massive spanner in the works with the legal theory.

The item itself, though, is meaningless to us. What we are interesting in is the use of the software itself. That the physical disk (and even the technically physical data) is yours is immaterial to that, because it was never the disk or the data that was of interest; it was the content - the experience, so to speak.

The purchase of the item will only entitle you to its use if one accepts the EULA which is mainly to prevent liability for the damage or improper use and copyright. It is becoming a problem as companies are extending the terms of the contract beyond what was envisioned by copyright law and essentially resticting the use of the physical product despite the sale transaction which makes the item legally mine and the acceptance of the licence which allows the holder to use the item without infringing copyright laws.

The EULA is a contract of adhesion, though, and as far as I know US courts have had a mixed reception to some of its terms. 

What we need is a strong demarcation - a legal test that alows to say "when" a product is completed. If we had something akin to a reasonable person standard (call it a reasonable product standard, say) then we would have a framework for enforcing consumer rights without messy regulation, with the opportunity for action against developers who try to screw consumers. 

IP's are difficult, different legal system in the Uk to the US. Possibly, that if you are paying for the right to use the intellectual property indeffinately, the physical object is a way of distributing the information, rather than what you are actually paying for in and of itself. The licence, the EULA is granting those with the right of use, due to the consideration of the sale, the use of the IP, but subject to the caveats of the contract, including limiting liability and the copyright legislation.

I don't think that there has been any precedent set as to the limits of the clauses in the EULA, which has allowed the expansion beyond the scope of copyright laws, which is causing problems. As the user does not have indefinate usage rights, subject to clauses, but is restricted further in individual use of the product.

Modifié par billy the squid, 29 juillet 2011 - 06:38 .

[JPWriting]

I don't mind DLC, but many publisher are starting to take it to excessive levels, which instead of enticing me to buy more content is driving me away from certain franchises and even new releases.

IE the direction BioWare has gone: why pay full price for a game consisting of content chopped up into bits you have to acquire here and there rather than to wait and buy the complete experience for much much less. Maybe I'm in the minority on this, but constantly having pieces of the story attempted to be sold to me much later when I have already moved on to other games is just an annoyance not a benefit. I'd gladly pay the full price up front and be done with it, but this jigsaw puzzle DLC scheme does not appeal to me at all.

As a result, I've not played a significant portion of the BioWare titles DLC content that is available simply because I lost interest and it become more of a hassle than anything else. Another impact it has is In the future I'm much more apt to just let the release date slide by and pick up other games until the title is complete on the cheap.

Modifié par JPWriting, 29 juillet 2011 - 07:55 .

[Stanley Woo]

Let's try to rein it in and get back on topic, please. The discussion of whether software is a service or a product is not within the scope of this thread or this forum. Thank you.

[slimgrin]

DLC is worth it if it's priced right. Most of the time it's not.

[AlanC9]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Let's try to rein it in and get back on topic, please. The discussion of whether software is a service or a product is not within the scope of this thread or this forum. Thank you.

Not relevant to the thread, sure. There's nothing DLC-specific about that topic.

But how come such matters are OT for the forum? I've never really been clear about what's OT for the OT forum. Are legal matters considered to be political questions?

Edit: Well, come to think of it, I guess I put politics in play myself when I stated that the US courts and Congress would do whatever they have to do to protect the interests of publishers.

Modifié par AlanC9, 29 juillet 2011 - 08:37 .

[akselic]

Aside from very very few occasions DLC has appalling cost-value ratio. After my experience these days I just don't buy DLC at all or if I do then it's via game of the year edition or something similar.

It sucks though, it really does. If a game comes out that I've really been waiting for I don't always want to wait half a year or more to buy it and if I pre-order or buy a game at release then I don't get the same amount of content as others unless I'm willing to spend 5-10 euros for half a hour of more content. Bottom line is this: games these days aren't worth 60-80 euros (full retail price + all dlc over say half a year) even with all the DLC. I don't support this kind of ripping off so I miss out.

[AlanC9]

Sure, DLC has a rotten cost-value ratio compared to full games. OTOH, even DLC is a much better value than most any other entertainment you can get with that $5.

Though I get the feeling that people who buy DLC don't bother trying to work that out. A few times a year you spend $5 -- it's just not worth it to calculate how much value you're getting out of that $5. Maybe it'd be worth worrying about if you spent that much every day, but there isn't that much DLC.

And even on an every-day basis, it would still be no worse than having a Starbucks habit.

[Deathwurm]

In Exile 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?

The opposite side of the coin, though, is that if I paid for story-based DLC... then I want my story-based DLC to actually count for something. 

A terrific example of DLC that "counts for something" was Overlord.

I was very pleased with it...I thought it was a good Mission that had some great moments (the end is pretty sad) It added to my Game but in no way presented info that had impact on the overall arc of the ME Trilogy.

I think ultimately everyone is Voting with their wallets. It will be interesting to see what Developers see as "Good" vs "Bad" DLC for their business models...

[Stanley Woo]

AlanC9 wrote...
Are legal matters considered to be political questions?

Edit: Well, come to think of it, I guess I put politics in play myself when I stated that the US courts and Congress would do whatever they have to do to protect the interests of publishers.

Since very few of us are lawyers arguing this case in a court which could potentially affect how these things work in the future, it's rarely productive to have such debates. No matter who ends up "winning" the discussion here, nothing is changed. That's the danger of having debates on legality here, not to mention all the armchair lawyers jumping into the fray with their two cents. Better to keep it casual and friendly, I say.

[akselic]

Deathwurm wrote...
A terrific example of DLC that "counts for something" was Overlord.

I was very pleased with it...I thought it was a good Mission that had some great moments (the end is pretty sad) It added to my Game but in no way presented info that had impact on the overall arc of the ME Trilogy.

I think ultimately everyone is Voting with their wallets. It will be interesting to see what Developers see as "Good" vs "Bad" DLC for their business models...

Overall I think that a lot of the DLC for Mass Effect 2 was very good. Overlord definately, Lair of the Shadow Broker.. even Arrival to some extent. With the DLC for ME2 I felt much more comfortable than most DLC I've bought for different games.