144 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Its fine to have exclusive games and exclusive content bundled with games. Timed exclusives of FULL games are also fine. BUT when you sell a game on multiple platforms its reasonable to assume that any and ALL DLC would be released at the same TIME and on the same platforms as the game was. Its immoral to only release content to a select group of people when everyone paid for the full game and everyone should be treated equal. This is actually a form of "bait and switch" and if this was any other industry it would probably be illegal.

At least you're unbiased. Your complaints about mods suggest you're a PC gamer, so you actually get early access to the DLC, but you're complaining on behalf of the downtrodden.

You're wrong, though. The release of DLC has no moral relevance.

[Iakus]

It's not immoral.

 

People should have been complaining since E3 when Microsoft said they had first dibs

I was.

[Saphiron123]

First world problems, OP... First world
Problems.

Meh, it's annoying but whatever. A company has to make a buck, and I don't begrudge them that if they deliver a great story driven experience.

I do begrudge the fact that the dlc is apparently the hinterlands 2.0. I might pass, which bums me out becuase I never skipped a bioware dlc before, but it had nothing to do with having to wait.

It's like a month. I'm an adult. And man calling it out as immoral shows an amazing lack of perspective about real world problems.

[Dubya75]

Exclusivity deals are for people who don't have the game, not people who already own it.

 

Really.....then explain to us how come PS4, PS3 and XBOX360 did not get the DLC the same time as PC and XBOX ONE?

[SofaJockey]

I don't even get what they are trying to achieve with these timed exclusives? Do they REALLY think people are going to run out and buy an XBOX ONE and a new copy of the game because they have to wait for the DLC to come out on their PS4 for a game they already own?

 

[edit]

 

And to the people being so jerkish to the OP's frustrations - shame on you! Next time you are going to express frustration about something and people are going to treat you the same way.

 

You're right, I think the gain for Microsoft is largely in the perception of exclusive content rather than actually shifting consoles.

 

As for any jerkishness which I agree is not nice, in part the robustness of any thread reaction is usually proportionate to the hyperbole in the OP and successive posts. However, your call for people to 'play nice' is valid and reasonable to make.

[Maker Be Damned]

I don't have a problem with the tone in which anyone has responded. I'm happy its stayed on topic.

[Iakus]

First world problems, OP... First world
Problems.
 

 Pointless insult

 

 

Meh, it's annoying but whatever. A company has to make a buck, and I don't begrudge them that if they deliver a great story driven experience.

 

Kinda sleazy to make a buck by giving preferential treatment to certain platforms though

 

 

I do begrudge the fact that the dlc is apparently the hinterlands 2.0. I might pass, which bums me out becuase I never skipped a bioware dlc before, but it had nothing to do with having to wait.

Your opinion, but that's fine.

 

 

It's like a month. I'm an adult. And man calling it out as immoral shows an amazing lack of perspective about real world problems.

You don't know it's a month.  Part of this "timed exclusive" is apparantly not telling the other "peasants" when it will be made available to them

[Maker Be Damned]

since DLC was never promised to you or anyone else when we purchased the game

It's reasonable to assume that my copy of the game would get content updates at the same time as everyone else who bought a copy of the same game regardless of which platform they bought the game for.

[rigron]

It´s called competition and it´s not inmoral by any definition of the the word "inmoral".

[Maker Be Damned]

Please explain to me why its unreasonable to assume that all content updates will be released to all platform at the same time.

To do otherwise is dishonest and immoral.

[Farangbaa]

It's reasonable to assume that my copy of the game would get content updates at the same time as everyone else who bought a copy of the same game regardless of which platform they bought the game for.

Well, apparantly not.
 

Please explain to me why its unreasonable to assume that all content updates will be released to all platform at the same time.

It's dishonest and immoral.

Because Microsoft payed good money for that to happen.

This isn't difficult.

And how the hell is this dishonest? The exclusivity deal has been known for like a year. That YOU didn't know of it, yeah well, that's on you.

[Icy Magebane]

It's reasonable to assume that my copy of the game would get content updates at the same time as everyone else who bought a copy of the same game regardless of which platform they bought the game for.

That comment was made in response to your idea that an immoral business practice or "bait and switch" had been conducted on the part of EA, Bioware, and Microsoft, and that point stands.  There was never a promise to provide you or anyone else with the opportunity to purchase DLC at all, let alone according to a specific release schedule... The fact is that whether you agree with this policy or not, it isn't immoral and the companies involved never tricked or misled you.

[AlanC9]

Please explain to me why its unreasonable to assume that all content updates will be released to all platform at the same time.

To do otherwise is dishonest and immoral.

How is it dishonest? They've been telling everyone about doing it for months. It's not like this is a secret. Microsoft wants people to know that the exclusivity exists. Otherwise how would it help them sell XBones?

[Maker Be Damned]

I don't care if 99.99999% of all people knew about it. I didn't know about it. If my version was inferior to other copies of the exact same game, I would have liked to know.

[o Ventus]

I don't care if 99.99999% of all people knew about it. I didn't know about it. If my version was inferior to other copies of the exact same game, I would have liked to know.

Your version of the game isn't inferior to anyone else's. It's the exact same. You aren't even complaining about the DLC at this point as much as you're whining about some perceived inferiority compared to other people and their games. You sound like a 7-year old complaining to his mom that his older brother got a toy before he did.

[AlanC9]

I don't care if 99.99999% of all people knew about it. I didn't know about it. If my version was inferior to other copies of the exact same game, I would have liked to know.

So your problem isn't with the exclusive, it's with not being informed about it?

OK, but I'm not sure how any company can communicate 100% of its information to 100% of its customers.

[Farangbaa]

I don't care if 99.99999% of all people knew about it. I didn't know about it. If my version was inferior to other copies of the exact same game, I would have liked to know.

Maybe they'll call you next time.

[Zeratulr]

Just you wait till Princess Kenny hears about that, just you wait!

 

[Maker Be Damned]

Well if I knew before I bought the game then it would be silly for me to be upset now. They could put a sticker on the game or a warning label in the description of the digital copy. BUT I'm NOT suggesting they do that. What i'm suggesting is that they don't sign exclusive platform rights to DLC leaving those people who bought a copy of the same game feeling left out.

If they are going to do such a pratice they need to either bundle the content with the game or literally give a warning lable saying "blah blah first DLC to microsoft blah blah" BEFORE the game is paid for by the customer.

[AlanC9]

Why would they need to do that? Nobody's being promised anything, ever. We didn't even know this DLC existed a couple of days ago. For a long time the only reason to be certain that any DLC was coming at all was that we knew about the exclusive.

[Kantr]

Really.....then explain to us how come PS4, PS3 and XBOX360 did not get the DLC the same time as PC and XBOX ONE?

I think he means it's to entice people to those platforms.

[Iakus]

It´s called competition and it´s not inmoral by any definition of the the word "inmoral".

It is pretty sleazy, though. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Please explain to me why its unreasonable to assume that all content updates will be released to all platform at the same time.

Because there's no basis for the assumption.

All assumptions are unreasonable without some support for them.

To do otherwise is dishonest and immoral.

This is the leap you need to explain, though.

There was no deception, so how is this dishonest?

And what cause do you have to ascribe moral value to any of this? I'll grant this is kind of a sore point for me. I may well have more training in moral philosophy than anyone else here, and to see it misused really irritates me.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I don't care if 99.99999% of all people knew about it. I didn't know about it. If my version was inferior to other copies of the exact same game, I would have liked to know.

It's their job to tell you what you're getting, not what you're not getting.

You agreed to pay the listed price for a product. There was no promise that there would ever be DLC. It was a voluntary exchange.

[Il Divo]

That comment was made in response to your idea that an immoral business practice or "bait and switch" had been conducted on the part of EA, Bioware, and Microsoft, and that point stands.  There was never a promise to provide you or anyone else with the opportunity to purchase DLC at all, let alone according to a specific release schedule... The fact is that whether you agree with this policy or not, it isn't immoral and the companies involved never tricked or misled you.

 

Not to mention, other instances where promises/comments are later contradicted. I recall DA:O's promise of 2 years of dlc being one of those instances where they broke off early.