1311 réponses à ce sujet

[PrinceLionheart]

Ziggeh wrote...

PrinceLionheart wrote...

Depends, will apologists rally behind the mattress company having the artistic integrity to produce it any way they want, even if it is causing their customers discomfort?

If it was causing discomfort, you could return the product. You could recommend that they change it, because it sucked, but they would be under no obligation to do so.

Oh, but considering that they're selling their "art" as a product, they are under obligation to take measures to improve or fix it.

[Jackal7713]

Grasich wrote...

Dreogan wrote...

Jackal7713 wrote...

Art is never finished, only abandoned.
~Leonardo da Vinci

Da Vinci also changed his art several times. This includes the Mona Lisa and The Adoration of the Magi.

So people are saying they can't change the ending because of "Artist integrity"? Interesting

Artistic integrity is a crutch for the artist without integrity.

That needs a Keanu meme.

That is a fantastic quote.

Out of all his quotes that is my favorite.

[MetalCargo999]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

MetalCargo999 wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Dreogan wrote...

Jackal7713 wrote...

Art is never finished, only abandoned.
~Leonardo da Vinci

Da Vinci also changed his art several times. This includes the Mona Lisa and The Adoration of the Magi.

So people are saying they can't change the ending because of "Artist integrity"? Interesting

Artistic integrity is a crutch for the artist without integrity.

Deep.

All this being said though, I don't think the writing staff at Bioware intentionally wanted to give us an ending we would hate.  They did have integrity when making the ending, and I think the fact that they are moving to resolve the issue shows that they continue to have integrity.

Problem is, they aren't really going to resolve it at all, just deflect it using a few bits of clarification.

Obviously.  I still think it's a step in the right direction.

[ashdrake1]

wikkedjester wrote...

ashdrake1 wrote...

withneelandi wrote...

ashdrake1 wrote...

withneelandi wrote...

I don't necessesarily think they should change the ending to mass effect 3. I don't think it was a good ending, but I am uncomfortable with the idea of a writer being presured by the fanbase to change something they have written after the fact.

There are a few reasons I don't think this argument holds up with mass effect 3...

The idea of "authorship" is far more complicated in a game like mass effect than in novel or film in the sense that it asks the player to take part and make choices on how the narrative will progress, the problem with mass effect 3's ending is not that it is bleak, or even that it is open ended, but that it seems to render all the choices the game asked the player to make meaningless. For me looking at the game as a narrative, it sets up a sort of 2 way narative with the player then chooses to ignore that convention at the narratives conclusion.

The idea of amending a text after the fact is not a new one, the idea of the directors cut is long established in "proper" art like movies. Especially where technology or time constraints have curtailed what the director could do. I strongly suspect the ending we got in mass effect 3 was less the creative teams vision and more a compromise of time or tecnology. It would be very hard for the team to state that in public but I that is the impression I get from playing the game. The last section felt rushed and disjointed from the rest of the story.

Finally, I think video games can be "art". I'm not sure mass effect 3 is. One of the things that makes art, art is that the primary motivation is "art for arts sake", i.e not to make profit. I find it hard to let a writer fall back on "artistic integrity" when a game ends with a prompt to buy future DLC.

All that said I am still torn on the idea of an amended ending. I think the end was terrible, but I think it would set a horrible example and would frankly lead to a campaign like this any time a game ends in a well thought out, but perhaps leftfield or unexpected way.

Basically, the end is terrible and I don't think we should defend it on the basis of artistic integrity but while chaning this ending seems reasonable it would set a terrible precident and lead to an internet campain to change the end of EVERY major video game franchise that dared take an unexpected approach. It would have a chilling effect on creativity in viedo game in the long term.

A developer will be wary of sparking such a campaign, and getting bad publicity or paying out the costs of developing new content and so won't take any risks when making games. That is far worse for gamers than this ending being rubbish.

So by that logic you are saying many great film makers do not want to make a profit on their films.  That is ludicrous.  Artist want to keep being able to make art.  They very much would like to turn a profit to enable this. 

Also harry potter is dumb.  Could have used the time spinner to save just about everyone.  I don't demand that be changed.  I hate all of the star wars prequels.  I hate the additions to star wars (btw is exactly what people are asking for.)  I was originally sold a product where Han shot first.  I was lied to by the original film.  I have yet to hear of one FTC complaint for Lucas to fix his endings.  I don't want to shoot the elusive man and hear him scream Nooooo!

I didn't say something that looks to turn a profit isn't art, I was talking about the primary motivation. The point I'm making is that I find it difficult to buy the wounded artist argument from a game with such a strong commercial element. By that I mean the existence of enhanced collectors editions, day one DLC, dlc prompts at the end of a game.

Put simply when the narrative ends with a message about future DLC it becomes hard to argue that this is art for arts sake and defend the artistic integrity of the work.

I honestly think Me3 was concieved as product first art second, not the other way round.

I don't agree with this.  It is a diffrence of opinion.  It also is a precedence to make art less important in games.  Generic story games sell by the truckload.  Look at the modern war series, or even Halo.  Why take the effort to make a compelling story when mass shooter xiii sells just as well or better. 

You honestly don't think the story is important to the company?  There is probably a larger audience for a less intelligent story with the same mechanics.  Why do you think they have the skip RP option.  It's to try and draw in those crowds. 

People start demanding that a company spend money to "fix" a story makes a company take less chances.  Most people like simple stories more.  Last year cars 2 made over a 100 million more than Hugo.  I can't imagine anyone could state cars 2 was a better movie, It just would make zero sense from my perspective, but there it is. 

I agree, but I don’t. it’s a slippery road.

It a  cluster **** of many positives and negatives, and only time can tell what will happen.

On one hand we have the art argument, and you know my views, but in short, with out “this” and many other struggles like ‘this‘, games can‘t be art, it will always set in the we think were art, with out any of the struggle that makes art. . . Art.

We also have the gamer taking back the game. With the mess Capcom is in over their last few games, Marval VS Capcom, UM.v.C, Street FighterXTekken, $30 of day one DLC for Resident Evil ORC. With online passes, and day one single player DLC, with being nickel and dimmed, This is the gamer taking back the game, if we wont let Mass Effect get away with not delivering at least on what was promised, other companies might take pause before doing this same thing.

On the other hand this opens for the possibility of safe games and, lack of innovation.    OR for DC Project Red to make fun of Bioware in a round about way when taking about how the Witcher 2 has 12 more endings than before. So. . . It could like everything go both ways.

I could understand this position if this was a independent studio.  One where responding to such a thing would be a move by the company that was responsible for it, it could be a compromise they would be willing or unwilling to follow through with.  This not the case here.  EA is the devil.  They are more concerned with profit margins than anything else.



This is not a slippery slope here, it is a cliff with sharp rocks at the bottom.  EA owns bioware.  What they say goes.  Fans are going to get what the want here, because EA can see the dollars attached to it.  I just wish they could see at what cost.  This will feel like a victory because fans fought the good fight and took back a game. 

I don't think I am alone here in hearing the resentment in Casey's response to the outcry.  Being forced to change a story they put a huge amount of thought and effort into, is the wrong sort of motivation for deep stories. 

This does not mean I like the ending, but I love the stories bioware tells.  After this, why would they risk trying to do something diffrent?

Modifié par ashdrake1, 24 mars 2012 - 03:01 .

[Kulthar Drax]

Luc0s wrote...

 Because this article has opened my eyes: http://www.pcgamer.c...-writers-think/ 


I've read that article 3 times and I've read really carefully what each developer had to say. Now I have to say that I agree with them, especially this part:

"But things like “cutscenes” and “endings” are completely authored by the developers, and the developers altering the authored content of a game after the fact has nothing to  do with the systemic player-developer collaboration described above. "

I
want to clarify, that I still absolutely HATE the ending of Mass Effect
3, but only now do I realize how silly it is that we demand that
BioWare changes it. That does not mean that I think BioWare shouldn't
change it. I think BioWare should make up their own mind and then THEY
should decide what to do with the endings, NOT US.

So if BioWare wishes to change the endings for us, then I fully support them.
If BioWare doesn't want to change the endings but instead they choose to expand the current endings, I fully support them.
If BioWare decides to do nothing, I'll be hugely dissapoined, but I'll still fully support them.
They are within their right to do whatever they want with the narrative in their games and we players have no say over that.


If we players demanded a change within the gameplay, then I'd fully support that, because that is part of the interactive  relationship between player and developer. The developer creates an interactive product, we as the players interact with it and the result of that interactive relationship is gameplay. 

But is it fair and/or realistic for players to demand a new ending, especially when the ending is a non-interactive part of the game, a cut-scene that is part of the narrative, the story? Are we players within our right to demand changes in that?

Let me ask you this: Are we in our right to demand a new ending for Lord of The Rings? Is it fair if we demand a new ending for Harry Potter?

And before you come with the argument that games aren't the same as movies, I advice you to read my entire post again, until you understand that demanding a different ending in a game is the same as demanding a different ending for a movie. Yes, games are different, but I already explained why an ending or any cutscene within a game is not part of the interactive experience, it's not part of the interactive relationship between the player and developer. A cutscene is an artistic expression and in my opinion, art should not be changed
because the viewer demands it. Art should only be changed if the artist decides that it should be changed.

They are selling a product for our entertainment and amusement. I admit that we may have been entertained for 95% of the product, but as for 5% (the end), we most definitely are not amused and feel the product is broken. Compound that with outright lies and fabrications (even during the post production but pre-release when people had preordered Mass Effect 3 for months) they were advertising the game as doing something they clearly
knew it didn't.

It'd be like taking your kids to see a film that was advertised as family friendly for months and months before it is
released at the cinema, and it has had nice kiddie posters everywhere etc. You watch the film and its an enjoyable disney style film for 95% of it, but in the last five minutes it turns into a hardcore porn scene. People would be outraged and demanding their money back, demanding a new ending, boycotting the studio etc etc, suing for claims of false advertising, internet petitions, you name it. Do we then not have a right to demand the ending be changed? Sure, movie making might be considered a form of art, but that doesn't mean every movie produced is a work of art.

What would happen if the Lord of the Rings trilogy was exactly as it is currently, but the last twenty minutes of the
Return of the King suddenly devolved into a bunch of actors running around in barney the dinosaur costumes singing David Bowie's "Magic Dance" song from the film Labyrinth. Would we be in our rights to think it was a travesty and demand a change? It is a lot harder with films though, as you can't exactly update their endings with DLC or patches like you can with games, which is where the games medium has a clear
advantage.

Also, you have to remember that in films, they are all test screened to audiences to get a feel for the whole film, especially the ending (as nothing ruins a good film quite like a bad ending). If the ending is considered unsuitable or unacceptable, the ending is changed. Many films get their ending changed or altered before release after feedback from the test audiences. If this were a hollywood film, it would NEVER have been released as it currently is.

As for books, well we'll use your example of Harry Potter. Would we be right to insist on a change for Harry Potter if the last five chapters had been left out intentionally? Or everyone in the final battle for Hogwarts suddenly turned into ice skating mongooses and started dancing the bolero? Or Harry Potter died? Well, as it happens J.K Rowling (my brother worked for her, and had many a conversation with her on this subject) decided that keeping her fans happy and providing a book that everyone enjoyed was more important than sticking to any notion of "artistic integrity" and rewrote the ending so that Harry Potter didn't die. Was it a better ending than the one she had? I don't know. I didn't much like the last Harry Potter book anyway, it was a bit boring and stale compared to most of the rest of the series. I did feel it would have been too cliched to have killed him at the end (she killed enough people as it is, that it was a bittersweet ending), and I guess 99% her fans were happy (you cannot ever please 100% of people though).

Her fans are what keeps her rolling in the cash (even though yes, at this point she hardly needs it), and in the end, being a writer is about writing something you love doing in the hopes of entertaining and bringing pleasure to many people. Who cares if you have to change a few bits here or there to ensure the vast majority of people love it? It is hardly a big sacrifice and you continue to sell books and bring your stories to everyone around the world. Don't change it, however, and you run the risk of losing your fans, losing money and not selling any future books, certainly if you intend to continue using the universe your books are set in.

As for computer games, Bethesda changed the ending of Fallout 3 with the much loved Broken Steel DLC (I personally think it HUGELY improves on Fallout 3's overall gaming experience) that is pretty much an expansion pack in its own right, such are the changes it implements, aside from a complete overhaul of the ending. Did Bethesda have to do it? No. But they acknowledged they had fudged up and made mistakes, especially in story narrative and took steps to correct it to the general happiness of all concerned, even the developers. And it was a success. They didn't lose "artistic integrity" over the process, and even improved on their product to make it better
for consumers overall. Did they have to listen to their fans? No. Were the developers in the wrong regarding the complaints? Certainly, yes. The plotholes were atrociously bad, but the developers realised this, confessed they messed up, and went about fixing it. Would you really want Bioware to leave an atrociously bad, plothole ridden ending?

Which brings me to cutscenes. In games like Mass Effect 3, 99% of the cutscenes play out in response to player decisions. They may only change very, very slightly, or they may change quite considerably, but most of them do change. This even goes for the ending cutscenes, which though I hate to admit, do change very slightly (like whether earth gets vaped, whether big ben gets destroyed, whether the reapers fly off or get destroyed. Literally half second to single second differences), but they do change (yay, pick a coloured explosion!). They are supposed to represent player choice at the end of the game, taking into account everything that has happened up until then, epilogue and all. Therefore, they do STILL represent a collaboration between player and studio, as they reflect player choices (many of which were incorporated through player feedback from prior games or during development).

However, when a cutscene or ending for a game commits narrative suicide (and whatever your stance on whether it be changed or not, the ending IS nonsensical in many ways), are we not allowed to voice our dissent on it
and insist on another ending? Could we not be considered the gaming industry's version of a movie test screening audience? It is a big audience I admit heh, but no real way to do it otherwise with games. As
we've seen, many game reviewers don't even finish games before putting out a review so they aren't reliable enough. Books often go through a review system with editors and such, or the author themselves asking for feedback from fans on certain ideas. And if this were a Hollywood  film, they would change this ending based on test screening audience review, just like many Hollywood films do ALL the time before full cinema release.

Well, the "test screening" audience has given its verdict, and now it is time for Bioware to decide whether to listen.

Edit: Did originally post this earlier but deleted it by accident and had to rewrite it XD So hopefully this pretty much conveys what I wrote before. Also corrected the formatting.

Modifié par Kulthar Drax, 24 mars 2012 - 03:05 .

[Aiyie]

aliengmr1 wrote...

Aiyie wrote...

Reptilian Rob wrote...

Well, the problem is that once it leaves the dev's hands and they sell it as a product with ****ING DAY ONE DLC it is no longer art and can thus be changed by consumer demand.

That, and we were blatantly lied to, breaking the reader-writer contract.

soooo...

if i buy a painting by Rembrandt or Picasso its no longer art because i paid for it?

as for the second bit... i can't speak for everyone, but never once did i think to myself that i was lied to.  they sold the illusion of a story that changed according to our actions within in.  it was done well enough in ME1 and ME2 that i could suspend my disbelief... but in the end, the story still played out in ways that i could not change.  no matter what i did, sovereign would still attack the citadel, the collectors would still attack colonies and start making a human-reaper. 

it was always their story, they just crafted it so well that we were able to trick ourselves into thinking it was our story.  knowing that, i can't honestly say that i was lied to about what i was getting.

No, but if you have ownership you can change whatever you want it.

i won't argue that... but in a way you kinda just made my point for me.

Mass Effect and everything related to it is not our property.  We own the disc or whatever that we experience it through, but it's still Bioware's intellectual property.

So yea, in the end... they are the only ones who can change whatever they want.  We can ask and give them our reasons for asking... but the decision isn't ours... and acting like it is is where the "entitlement" insults come from.

[Dreogan]

Ziggeh wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

And they aren't under an obligation to change it here. The point of the pro-enders is that we have no right to demand a change. If I paid for a mattress and couldn't return it, I would have the right to demand a change be made.

Also, again with the broken circular logic.

Firstly: how is the logic circular? You might have to expand on that.

Secondly: I think you'll find that would depend on the specific legal position of the mattress purchase. There isn't some natural law covering consumer rights.

Oh, the natural law exhibited by RetakeME3 is the fact that if the developers do not respond adequately to consumer demand, then they lose the business of the demanding consumers.

They aren't being held at gunpoint.

[aliengmr1]

Shermos wrote...

Luc0s wrote...
They are within their right to do whatever they want with the narrative in their games and we players have no say over that.

This is exactly what I've been arguing from the start. Good on you for changing your mind though .

So if they make a mistake we can't tell them? This happened to the book Deception, is it right to not say anything? We don't have a resposibility to help them improve?

We care, so we do IMO.

[Unit-Alpha]

Ziggeh wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

And they aren't under an obligation to change it here. The point of the pro-enders is that we have no right to demand a change. If I paid for a mattress and couldn't return it, I would have the right to demand a change be made.

Also, again with the broken circular logic.

Firstly: how is the logic circular? You might have to expand on that.

Secondly: I think you'll find that would depend on the specific legal position of the mattress purchase. There isn't some natural law covering consumer rights.

Sorry, I'm using a different meaning of circular logic that's applied to some specific forms of debating.

The FTC deals with consumer rights. That's as close as we are going to get. To say we don't have the right to merely demand that the problem be fixed is like saying that we don't have the right to express grivences. Nobody is planning to literally force them, so the whining over the word "demand" is just based around us airing grievences.

[Grasich]

Opsrbest wrote...

this thread ........ it goes so fast...........

It does indeed. I can't keep up with any others while on this one. lol.

[Lili Dragunova]

Jackal7713 wrote...

Art is never finished, only abandoned.
~Leonardo da Vinci

Da Vinci also changed his art several times. This includes the Mona Lisa and The Adoration of the Magi.

So people are saying they can't change the ending because of "Artist integrity"? Interesting

Not at all, at least not me. I disagree with the "demanding" part of this whole issue, as a demand, and a critique or request are different things. An artist should change his/her art because they want to, and not because it's demanded of them.

[Unit-Alpha]

Aiyie wrote...

aliengmr1 wrote...

Aiyie wrote...

Reptilian Rob wrote...

Well, the problem is that once it leaves the dev's hands and they sell it as a product with ****ING DAY ONE DLC it is no longer art and can thus be changed by consumer demand.

That, and we were blatantly lied to, breaking the reader-writer contract.

soooo...

if i buy a painting by Rembrandt or Picasso its no longer art because i paid for it?

as for the second bit... i can't speak for everyone, but never once did i think to myself that i was lied to.  they sold the illusion of a story that changed according to our actions within in.  it was done well enough in ME1 and ME2 that i could suspend my disbelief... but in the end, the story still played out in ways that i could not change.  no matter what i did, sovereign would still attack the citadel, the collectors would still attack colonies and start making a human-reaper. 

it was always their story, they just crafted it so well that we were able to trick ourselves into thinking it was our story.  knowing that, i can't honestly say that i was lied to about what i was getting.

No, but if you have ownership you can change whatever you want it.

i won't argue that... but in a way you kinda just made my point for me.

Mass Effect and everything related to it is not our property.  We own the disc or whatever that we experience it through, but it's still Bioware's intellectual property.

So yea, in the end... they are the only ones who can change whatever they want.  We can ask and give them our reasons for asking... but the decision isn't ours... and acting like it is is where the "entitlement" insults come from.

Nobody has claimed the decision is ours. People like me just think we have a "right" to a better ending.

[Cyph3rX]

The text pyramids, they are growing.

[Dethead123]

Ziggeh wrote...

Jackal7713 wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...

Grasich wrote...

Assuming you paid for their product, YES YOU ARE.

So if I don't like the flavour of Heinz Tomato Soup, I can ask them to change it, because having engaged their service by purchasing a can from my local Tescos, I have a two way relationship with the company and a say in the product?

I'm sorry but you are really reaching with this. Soup doesn't cost $60 or $80.  Can't compair the two.

That's wonderful.

How about a mattress? If I ask the mattress manufacturer to change his mattress making process based upon my specific requirements? Does the increase in value make my purchase a mattress based service?

If me and everyone in the area came to that mattress manufacturer and said "Hey my ass hurts while sleeping in this bed. If you want future business from me and them fix it." They'll probably do it. Very few of us have said "We hate the endings now fix it this way to my exact tastes." Which is what you're implying based on your analogy.

[Ziggeh]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Uh huh, the point was that you claim that, because it is art, it cannot be changed per consumer demand, but then you say (by comparison) that is is merely a consumer good, which you have claimed it is not. One of the two has to be invalid; you can't have it both ways as calling it art invalidates the "just a good" claim, but the good argument invalidates the art claim.

Where did I say "because it is art, it cannot be changed per consumer demand"? I've said that they are not obliged to do so, and they're not. It would be good PR, good business sense, and basically just nice if they did, but they don't actually owe us anything in a legal sense.

And no, you're wrong, you can have it both ways. "Art" is not a specific thing with a strictly defined set of rules. In this case it is both art and a product. In the same way as all entertainment media.

[Unit-Alpha]

MetalCargo999 wrote...

Obviously.  I still think it's a step in the right direction.

To each his own.

[PrinceLionheart]

SandTrout wrote...

Let me ask you this: Are we in our right to demand a new ending for Lord of The Rings? Is it fair if we demand a new ending for Harry Potter?

Fans did demand a better ending for Harry Potter because the original had Harry dead. The ending got changed, and there was much rejoicing.

No it didn't. 

J.K. Rowling kept making cryptic comments about possibly killing off Harry, but the ending was never revised. The only character that she ever really spared from killing off was Arthur Weasley.

Now, Great Expectations was definitely a novel that had it's ending changed though. I'm pretty sure that hack Charles Dickens went into obscurity after selling out his artistic integrity.

[Grasich]

*cough*

True art:

www.youtube.com/watch

www.youtube.com/watch

www.youtube.com/watch

[Dethead123]

Grasich wrote...

*cough*

True art:

www.youtube.com/watch

www.youtube.com/watch

www.youtube.com/watch

You and Unit are my favorite people in this thread so far.

[Cyph3rX]

Grasich wrote...

*cough*

True art:

www.youtube.com/watch

www.youtube.com/watch

www.youtube.com/watch

No Jacob Taylor? I am disappoint.

[Grasich]

Dethead123 wrote...

Grasich wrote...

*cough*

True art:

www.youtube.com/watch

www.youtube.com/watch

www.youtube.com/watch

You and Unit are my favorite people in this thread so far.

We try.

[Ziggeh]

Dethead123 wrote...

If me and everyone in the area came to that mattress manufacturer and said "Hey my ass hurts while sleeping in this bed. If you want future business from me and them fix it." They'll probably do it. Very few of us have said "We hate the endings now fix it this way to my exact tastes." Which is what you're implying based on your analogy.

I'm not sure the ass hurting was actually my analogy.

But yes, they probably would. But they wouldn't have to. You would be requesting, and they would be seeing the value in doing so. They wouldn't be fulfilling an obligation.

[Unit-Alpha]

Ziggeh wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Uh huh, the point was that you claim that, because it is art, it cannot be changed per consumer demand, but then you say (by comparison) that is is merely a consumer good, which you have claimed it is not. One of the two has to be invalid; you can't have it both ways as calling it art invalidates the "just a good" claim, but the good argument invalidates the art claim.

Where did I say "because it is art, it cannot be changed per consumer demand"? I've said that they are not obliged to do so, and they're not. It would be good PR, good business sense, and basically just nice if they did, but they don't actually owe us anything in a legal sense.

And no, you're wrong, you can have it both ways. "Art" is not a specific thing with a strictly defined set of rules. In this case it is both art and a product. In the same way as all entertainment media.

Um, sorry, that's wrong. The point of the entire pro-ending argument was artistic integrity. Nothing about consumer goods. They specifically contested that it not be considered a product as it would open them up to more holes in their ideas.

Sure, art isn't a strictly defined thing, but the attributes you and the rest of the pro-enders are assigning it are. Artistic integrity is applied to art only, not stuff like a mattress.

Fine, stop using the attributes of art and consumer goods in your arguments, and we're golden.

[Aiyie]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Aiyie wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

We are customers.

We paid money for a product. In the art world, it's called commission. And guess who makes the choices there?

You guessed it, the buyer.

difference is that a client generally specifies his needs prior to paying when he commissions a piece.

if there are no customer specifications, but payment is made prior to seeing the finished product in its entirety... then its entirely up to the artist's discretion if he wants to change it.  and along with that, the artist does not owe the client anything, no refund or anything.

we paid for ME3 based on faith.  that faith was not returned, but thats on us for paying for it without verifying our purchase ahead of time, not on bioware.

Um, wrong, a comissioned piece that is not on par with what was originally agreed upon is subject to refusal without legal repercussions.

agreed. 

so... could i see the contract you, or anyone else, had with Bioware that stated specifically what was to be included, and not included, in the final product you purchased?

if nobody has such a contract, you paid for a product without having any sort of agreement with the manufacturer beforehand.