114 réponses à ce sujet

[log1x_dr4g0n]

AngryTigerP wrote...

log1x_dr4g0n wrote...

For myself and others who paid for the CE...
You paid an extra $10 for the following: an art book, the first issue of the comic book Mass Effect: Redemption, a making-of DVD, and exclusive in-game weapons and armor...also it's in a tin can.
The art book, if it'll be available in stores later on, would be like...$4 or something. I'm not sure what it looks like yet. I'll have to wait until later this morning to find out. The comic book...how much are they these days...? $2? DVD...I dunno...how much content it has and such..I'll make a guess..$10 or something if it were available in a store? The armour...I'm sure is a free bonus for those who got it, and would probably be free for those who didn't get the CE later on. It's $70 for all of that...probably is that much the most because of the tin can it comes in too.

It's funny because I paid for two of them. One for me and the other for my brother so he we can play it on our own xbox's, and you don't see me complaining about the little mix up, which is all it is. It happens, but it is rare.

If someone were to get all the things in the Collector's Edition, they would be paying more than us. Seriously, you only paid $10 extra than the regular edition. It's not like you played a ridiculous amount, like $100-something for the CE.

I knew this would come up.

British buyers had to pay almost double for the CE. So for them, everything that set it apart from the standard edition would be important, I think.

I'm guessing you're from the UK then?

It's actually the publisher who sets the prices.

I do believe that the armour and weapon were free. If they weren't free then on the marketplace, it would've had a price, which it said it was free. I remember when GoW2 came out, and those golden lancer codes came with it. I never paid extra.

[Matt VT Schlo]

Ok, is the ingame armor different than the Gamestop one? I am confused.....

[AngryTigerP]

Fastin wrote...

AngryTigerP wrote...
I'm not saying they should get legally prosecuted -- nowhere did I say that. If there were a way to forcibly remove DLC from someone while allowing them to keep everything else that they correctly attained, I would go for that. For now, though, all I can do is give them mean looks while I wait for the next 16 or so hours to pass by.

Well then stop using the words: theft, thief, etc.  Those words constitue that an individual should be legally prosecuted.  Unless it's of your opinion that individuals who engage in theft shouldn't be prosecuted.

AngryTigerP wrote...

Fine, you think you're talented, or
skilled, or even just fortunate. You were successfully able to abuse an
error that TECHNICALLY gave you something for free that you know would
have otherwise neccessitated a purchase on your part. Am I supposed to
clap for you? Perhaps I should praise you for your exploit? None of
your explanations will change the fact that you were following the
game, and you knew that this was supposed to be exclusive to the
Collectors' Edition. You knowingly took something that you weren't
entitled to.

You had me until the end there.  He was entitled to it considered it was marked FREE.  He was given the right to claim a good that was marked as such.

AngryTigerP wrote...

The possessor was also drunk when he
said it, and later comes back (sober) to say, sorry, I messed up, I
didn't mean to make that deal.

EDIT: Don't start talking about sobriety, I'm merely talking about how MS didn't know what they were doing.

If you don't want me to talk about sobriety then don't mention it.  I'll ignore this comment for the most part because we both know it's another failed analogy.

No. Microsoft made a deal to give you something in exchange for nothing (for free) and later realized that they hadn't meant to do so. It stands just fine. The fact that you were going to attack it, as usual, for some completely unrelated reason to try to discount it only highlights the futility of trying to make forumgoers -- hell, most internet users in general -- understand the concept of morality. You've gotten so used to exploits, hacks, cheats, and all these other 'accidental benefits' that you just see this as another opportunity to score sw33t l00t. You don't care that, for the people who were entitled to it -- that is, bought the COLLECTORS' EDITION for EXCLUSIVE COLLECTORS' EDITION ARMOR AND GUN, before you try semantics again -- this is a slap in the face because we're watching people cash in on the same extraneous content as ourselves without having had to commit themselves as thoroughly to ME2 as we had to.

To get away from any possible references to the artbook, DVD, etc., consider this: Let's say that for Assassin's Creed 2's upcoming DLC... Ubisoft decides that you will unlock a level that you can't otherwise unlock by buying a new Ubisoft game released in the meantime, as opposed to buying just the DLC pack from XBLM. When DLC day comes, though, the DLC pack contains this 'exclusive' level due to technical errors, and before it can be pulled off of the server as it should be, people are able to download it for free. Can I stop them? No. Can Ubisoft stop them? No. Can MS? No. For what it's worth, though, I think less of those people for exploiting the system unfairly... and it's not really worth much of anything at all.

I think people wouldn't be so eager to exploit glitches like this if internet anonymity weren't preserved most of the time.

[Fastin]

Matt VT Schlo wrote...

Ok, is the ingame armor different than the Gamestop one? I am confused.....

There are a few different sets of 'special' armor.

Inferno Armor is simply a pre-order bonus that was given out to those that pre-ordered it at numerous retailers/etc.

Terminus Gear is a Gamestop exclusive to those who pre-ordered the game from them.

CE gear is an exclusive to those that purchased a CE edition of the game from any retailer/etc. pre-order or not.

[Fastin]

AngryTigerP wrote...

No. Microsoft made a deal to give you something in exchange for nothing (for free) and later realized that they hadn't meant to do so. It stands just fine. The fact that you were going to attack it, as usual, for some completely unrelated reason to try to discount it only highlights the futility of trying to make forumgoers -- hell, most internet users in general -- understand the concept of morality. You've gotten so used to exploits, hacks, cheats, and all these other 'accidental benefits' that you just see this as another opportunity to score sw33t l00t. You don't care that, for the people who were entitled to it -- that is, bought the COLLECTORS' EDITION for EXCLUSIVE COLLECTORS' EDITION ARMOR AND GUN, before you try semantics again -- this is a slap in the face because we're watching people cash in on the same extraneous content as ourselves without having had to commit themselves as thoroughly to ME2 as we had to.

Projection much?  I think what you meant to say is people don't understand your concept of morality.  You don't know me so don't state that I have gotten so used to exploits, hacks, cheats, etc.  Have you been reading what I wrote at all?  I alreadly stated that I find it unethical and wouldn't participate.  The only difference is I don't run around waving my arms tossing baseless labels on those people I disagree with.  My only issue with you and others is you feel it's acceptable to label these individuals as thieves.  But I think we finally got down to the actual issue at hand here.  You're bitter that someone was able to get something that you got without having to do exactly what you did.  While understandable it is a bit puerile.  Maybe MS/Bioware will be able to rectify the glitch and remove the mistaken downloads.

Damned semantics!  They always get in the way of a person trying to make an erroneous argument. 

[AngryTigerP]

Fastin wrote...

AngryTigerP wrote...

No. Microsoft made a deal to give you something in exchange for nothing (for free) and later realized that they hadn't meant to do so. It stands just fine. The fact that you were going to attack it, as usual, for some completely unrelated reason to try to discount it only highlights the futility of trying to make forumgoers -- hell, most internet users in general -- understand the concept of morality. You've gotten so used to exploits, hacks, cheats, and all these other 'accidental benefits' that you just see this as another opportunity to score sw33t l00t. You don't care that, for the people who were entitled to it -- that is, bought the COLLECTORS' EDITION for EXCLUSIVE COLLECTORS' EDITION ARMOR AND GUN, before you try semantics again -- this is a slap in the face because we're watching people cash in on the same extraneous content as ourselves without having had to commit themselves as thoroughly to ME2 as we had to.

Projection much?  I think what you meant to say is people don't understand your concept of morality.  You don't know me so don't state that I have gotten so used to exploits, hacks, cheats, etc.  Have you been reading what I wrote at all?  I alreadly stated that I find it unethical and wouldn't participate.  The only difference is I don't run around waving my arms tossing baseless labels on those people I disagree with.  My only issue with you and others is you feel it's acceptable to label these individuals as thieves.  But I think we finally got down to the actual issue at hand here.  You're bitter that someone was able to get something that you got without having to do exactly what you did.  While understandable it is a bit puerile.  Maybe MS/Bioware will be able to rectify the glitch and remove the mistaken downloads.

Damned semantics!  They always get in the way of a person trying to make an erroneous argument. 

Or a person intentionally avoiding the issue at hand.

I'm afraid I don't understand how "Don't take things that you know don't belong to, and SHOULDN'T belong to, you" is my concept of morality, and not one traditionally taught in, as far as I know, all of civilized society. Stealing is bad. How many millions of kids around the world are taught this simple axiom? Are you really going to try to tell me that what is considered a fundamental ethical standard is my personal concept? I mean, maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that you're suggesting 'stealing is bad' is not accepted as a tenet of moral propriety. And if you're so obsessed with "OMG THIEF IMPLIES LEGAL STATUS", fine, call them "opportunistic takers", or maybe "situational stealers". They aren't NORMALLY thie-- uh, 'takers' or 'stealers', but they take advantage of a situation when they know or should know that they shouldn't.

Modifié par AngryTigerP, 26 janvier 2010 - 10:17 .

[gondrin]

Ok, to those using a grocery store example, I work in one. We had one of these types of examples actually happen a few months back with a product.

Said product was labeled at something like $1.40/lb or somewhere in that area(I forget, item was pork lions and were about 10 - 15lbs each). Well, there were a few that were mislabeled at $0.14 each. You want to know something, people bought them at $0.14 each as that is what they were advertised as. It is called Truth in Advertising and it is a law. If something is labeled as such, even if it is mistaken, it has to be sold as such to each person that found it like that. Otherwise it is known as a bait and switch. This is what happened with the DLC that was labeled as free(yes, if you don't believe me, go look on kotaku's website entry for this very subject as they have screenshots of said stuff) and was accessable without the need for any codes.

Regardless of how it is obtained, the moment it can be downloaded on XBL without the need of any codes means that it is available to anybody till it is taken down. Does that mean that it can't be taken away or disabled? No. In fact, they can send an update to disable anyone who downloaded it without the need of a code or other type of thing from using it. Will they do it? Who knows. To say it is illegal is naive at best as it wasn't gotten through hacking of XBL or any other means that would have meant breaking into something that was secured through various means.

Bioware has stated in the past that most of the items that were to come as preorder bonuses were to be distributed at a later date for a cost. The only thing people paid extra for is to get an early start with said items over others.

[AngryTigerP]

gondrin wrote...

Ok, to those using a grocery store example, I work in one. We had one of these types of examples actually happen a few months back with a product.

Said product was labeled at something like $1.40/lb or somewhere in that area(I forget, item was pork lions and were about 10 - 15lbs each). Well, there were a few that were mislabeled at $0.14 each. You want to know something, people bought them at $0.14 each as that is what they were advertised as. It is called Truth in Advertising and it is a law. If something is labeled as such, even if it is mistaken, it has to be sold as such to each person that found it like that. Otherwise it is known as a bait and switch. This is what happened with the DLC that was labeled as free(yes, if you don't believe me, go look on kotaku's website entry for this very subject as they have screenshots of said stuff) and was accessable without the need for any codes.

Regardless of how it is obtained, the moment it can be downloaded on XBL without the need of any codes means that it is available to anybody till it is taken down. Does that mean that it can't be taken away or disabled? No. In fact, they can send an update to disable anyone who downloaded it without the need of a code or other type of thing from using it. Will they do it? Who knows. To say it is illegal is naive at best as it wasn't gotten through hacking of XBL or any other means that would have meant breaking into something that was secured through various means.

Bioware has stated in the past that most of the items that were to come as preorder bonuses were to be distributed at a later date for a cost. The only thing people paid extra for is to get an early start with said items over others.

Yes, they paid extra... including the cost of the DLC. Assuming that Bioware does release this stuff later -- at a cost -- that doesn't change the fact that, independent of purchasing the CE or expending the MSP, these people got the content for free AND earlier than many other people.

You're right, truth in advertising is a law, but I would not mind MS taking heat for messing up. They're not going to do anything, though, simply for that reason -- they don't want to get sued by all the opportunistic forumcrawlers who happened upon the error. So instead they'll just cop out and say, "Oops, we messed up, but we can't really change anything. People who exploited this error should be ashamed, though > " but they can/will take no action.

[HF100]

AngryTigerP wrote...

Fastin wrote...

AngryTigerP wrote...

No. Microsoft made a deal to give you something in exchange for nothing (for free) and later realized that they hadn't meant to do so. It stands just fine. The fact that you were going to attack it, as usual, for some completely unrelated reason to try to discount it only highlights the futility of trying to make forumgoers -- hell, most internet users in general -- understand the concept of morality. You've gotten so used to exploits, hacks, cheats, and all these other 'accidental benefits' that you just see this as another opportunity to score sw33t l00t. You don't care that, for the people who were entitled to it -- that is, bought the COLLECTORS' EDITION for EXCLUSIVE COLLECTORS' EDITION ARMOR AND GUN, before you try semantics again -- this is a slap in the face because we're watching people cash in on the same extraneous content as ourselves without having had to commit themselves as thoroughly to ME2 as we had to.

Projection much?  I think what you meant to say is people don't understand your concept of morality.  You don't know me so don't state that I have gotten so used to exploits, hacks, cheats, etc.  Have you been reading what I wrote at all?  I alreadly stated that I find it unethical and wouldn't participate.  The only difference is I don't run around waving my arms tossing baseless labels on those people I disagree with.  My only issue with you and others is you feel it's acceptable to label these individuals as thieves.  But I think we finally got down to the actual issue at hand here.  You're bitter that someone was able to get something that you got without having to do exactly what you did.  While understandable it is a bit puerile.  Maybe MS/Bioware will be able to rectify the glitch and remove the mistaken downloads.

Damned semantics!  They always get in the way of a person trying to make an erroneous argument. 

Or a person intentionally avoiding the issue at hand.

I'm afraid I don't understand how "Don't take things that you know don't belong to, and SHOULDN'T belong to, you" is my concept of morality, and not one traditionally taught in, as far as I know, all of civilized society. Stealing is bad. How many millions of kids around the world are taught this simple axiom? Are you really going to try to tell me that what is considered a fundamental ethical standard is my personal concept? I mean, maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that you're suggesting 'stealing is bad' is not accepted as a tenet of moral propriety. And if you're so obsessed with "OMG THIEF IMPLIES LEGAL STATUS", fine, call them "opportunistic takers", or maybe "situational stealers". They aren't NORMALLY thie-- uh, 'takers' or 'stealers', but they take advantage of a situation when they know or should know that they shouldn't.

The concept of theft has to change when the item is potentially infinite. It only leaves the moral aspect, which in this case you believe I have personally wronged you by taking something that I didn't earn, I can understand that. But from my perspective I didn't set out to cause harm, mischief or pages of arguments, I was linked a page and followed the directions because i could see personal gain. That probably sounds bad but it's as honest as I can put it.

[gondrin]

AngryTigerP wrote...

gondrin wrote...

Ok, to those using a grocery store example, I work in one. We had one of these types of examples actually happen a few months back with a product.

Said product was labeled at something like $1.40/lb or somewhere in that area(I forget, item was pork lions and were about 10 - 15lbs each). Well, there were a few that were mislabeled at $0.14 each. You want to know something, people bought them at $0.14 each as that is what they were advertised as. It is called Truth in Advertising and it is a law. If something is labeled as such, even if it is mistaken, it has to be sold as such to each person that found it like that. Otherwise it is known as a bait and switch. This is what happened with the DLC that was labeled as free(yes, if you don't believe me, go look on kotaku's website entry for this very subject as they have screenshots of said stuff) and was accessable without the need for any codes.

Regardless of how it is obtained, the moment it can be downloaded on XBL without the need of any codes means that it is available to anybody till it is taken down. Does that mean that it can't be taken away or disabled? No. In fact, they can send an update to disable anyone who downloaded it without the need of a code or other type of thing from using it. Will they do it? Who knows. To say it is illegal is naive at best as it wasn't gotten through hacking of XBL or any other means that would have meant breaking into something that was secured through various means.

Bioware has stated in the past that most of the items that were to come as preorder bonuses were to be distributed at a later date for a cost. The only thing people paid extra for is to get an early start with said items over others.

Yes, they paid extra... including the cost of the DLC. Assuming that Bioware does release this stuff later -- at a cost -- that doesn't change the fact that, independent of purchasing the CE or expending the MSP, these people got the content for free AND earlier than many other people.

You're right, truth in advertising is a law, but I would not mind MS taking heat for messing up. They're not going to do anything, though, simply for that reason -- they don't want to get sued by all the opportunistic forumcrawlers who happened upon the error. So instead they'll just cop out and say, "Oops, we messed up, but we can't really change anything. People who exploited this error should be ashamed, though > " but they can/will take no action.

The fact is though is that, regardless of who got what when and for how much or how little, it isn't theft as it was labeled to sell as free, regardless of if it is actually free or not. Yes, Microsoft is the one who would have to take the heat for it because of the mistake, as that is what it was, a mistake at best.

Theft would be if someone got access to a game on XBL Arcade and found a way to hack into it and take it without paying when it is labeled has having a cost of 400/800 or however the amount points.

Since it is labeled as free, regardless if it was intended to be free or not, it cannot be constituted as theft because of that.

I understand that people would be upset about it but in the end, is anyone getting anything TAKEN away from them that they previously had because of this, because as I see it, if I pay extra for something and find out someone else got it for free, I may not be happy but wont care in the end as I got it also.

[Fastin]

AngryTigerP wrote...

I mean, maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that you're suggesting 'stealing is bad' is not accepted as a tenet of moral propriety.

No that is not what I'm suggesting at all.

And if you're so obsessed with "OMG THIEF IMPLIES LEGAL STATUS", fine, call them "opportunistic takers", or maybe "situational stealers". They aren't NORMALLY thie-- uh, 'takers' or 'stealers', but they take advantage of a situation when they know or should know that they shouldn't.

Semantics, pedantic, etc. you're doing it again.  Stealing, stealers, etc has a distinct definition.  What was done does not constitute stealing, thievery, etc.  This is what I was referring to when I stated 'your concept of morality'.  You are making an objective statement about a subjective matter.  It is our notice I say our subjective view that accepting something that is marked FREE when we believe it isn't intended to be FREE is wrong.  That doesn't however make it objectively  wrong, illegal, unethical, immoral, etc. it only makes it those things to us.  It is our tenet of morality that if something is to be good to be true it probably is.  Don't confuse stealing with taking advantage of an offer.

Modifié par Fastin, 26 janvier 2010 - 10:52 .

[Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien]

Darth_Trethon wrote...

Oh look....PC gamers crying. Give it a rest....the PC always pirates all the preorder content all the time and nobody whines...look at DAO you get the PC pirate versions of all the preorder and CE in-game items right in the wikia and BioWare isn't running to lock those links or fight piracy in any meaningful way when it gets to preorder and bonus items on PC but now that for ONCE the 360 gets a head start all the PC gamers act like someone shoved a stick up their behinds. Plus the content can no longer be downloaded without codes...so go screw yourselves.

I bet if the situation was reversed you would have been whining your pathetic arse off, so seriously grow up.
Also has it ever occurred in that thick head of yours that it isn't just PC owners that are pissed off about this? Or are you really this stupid?

Please insert your brain for what I am about to say.

THERE WAS A COLLECTORS EDITION FOR THE 360 AS WELL SO PEOPLE WHOM PAID FOR THAT ARE LIKELY TO BE JUST AS PISSED OFF

Does that compute in that tiny little head of yours?

[Matt VT Schlo]

Fastin wrote...

Matt VT Schlo wrote...

Ok, is the ingame armor different than the Gamestop one? I am confused.....

There are a few different sets of 'special' armor.

Inferno Armor is simply a pre-order bonus that was given out to those that pre-ordered it at numerous retailers/etc.

Terminus Gear is a Gamestop exclusive to those who pre-ordered the game from them.

CE gear is an exclusive to those that purchased a CE edition of the game from any retailer/etc. pre-order or not.

Ok, cool. So with the Ce edition and getting it at gamestop, I got two out of three..nice...Thanks

[Chris Priestly]

That was a very temporary misteak that has since been fixed.

This:devil: is no longer an issue, so it is closed.


LOCKDOWN!