684 réponses à ce sujet

[chrstnmonks]

Ignore those with toxic responses and comments. To me this is not an old-gen issue but how irresponsible and unfair publishers and developers can be. Worse still is how people are defending them and claiming that they have legal right to do so and people should not challenge them or voice their frustration.

 

200 years ago, slavery is legal. Slavery is essential for the cotton industry they said. It is business they declared. How else can we make more money than we deserve if we abolish slavery they cried. Slavery is legal. Shut up you poor whiners who cant afford slaves.

 

Less than 100 years ago, a mad man attributed all of its nations problem to a group of people, a group he claims to be inferior. This group of inferior people are the source of the country's poor economical state. Many believed his words and it wasnt pretty.

 

Yes, this is just about a game and the examples above are a bit extreme... however... arent the underlying principles the same?

Your comparing not having access to a DLC to slavery!?!No the underlying principals are not the same. One is saying you can own people as property, the other is that your being denied access to a DLC. Seriously?The two sittuations are not comparable. Also no one is saying the people that own a old gen are inferior just their hardware. Big difference

[Roninbarista]

Ignore those with toxic responses and comments. To me this is not an old-gen issue but how irresponsible and unfair publishers and developers can be. Worse still is how people are defending them and claiming that they have legal right to do so and people should not challenge them or voice their frustration.
 
200 years ago, slavery is legal. Slavery is essential for the cotton industry they said. It is business they declared. How else can we make more money than we deserve if we abolish slavery they cried. Slavery is legal. Shut up you poor whiners who cant afford slaves.
 
Less than 100 years ago, a mad man attributed all of its nations problem to a group of people, a group he claims to be inferior. This group of inferior people are the source of the country's poor economical state. Many believed his words and it wasnt pretty.
 
Yes, this is just about a game and the examples above are a bit extreme... however... arent the underlying principles the same?

True, the vitriol should be ignored.

[Roninbarista]

It doesn't help that Bioware literally will not talk about this.  They won't say why or how they came to this decision.  No sense of regret at having to do this (either for technical reasons or a business decision that came from higher up, or some other reason we don't know)  
 
We only know about this at all from what was essentially a throwaway sentence describing the new save transfer feature.
 
Literally the only notice that came of this was when they announced the save transfer feature.  And it was just a throwaway sentence in that too.

I agree, Bioware has been rather cavilier in their announcement. I think after years of telling fans "we hear you," they've fallen back on the fact that they are a company, and have a bottom line. That silence speaks volumes, and I don't know if they can say much after this action that would make it better.

Seriously, all they can do is offer some aloe for the burn they put on us. It's the kind of experience that sours all the enjoyment one could have now, and in the future with their games.

[Cespar]

Your comparing not having access to a DLC to slavery!?!No the underlying principals are not the same. One is saying you can own people as property, the other is that your being denied access to a DLC. Seriously?The two sittuations are not comparable. Also no one is saying the people that own a old gen are inferior just their hardware. Big difference

Agree. Comparing this issue to slavery is going way too far. 

[AresKeith]

Did someone really just bring up slavery over this?

[NextGenCowboy]

They brought up an analogy on why something can be legal, but still morally wrong. Everyone take a step back, a deep breath, and keep calm.

 

The analogy was a poor one, because one shouldn't try to evoke those kinds of emotions. The strawman arguments should also be laid down, because they're condescending, and, although not as poor in taste as a slavery analogy, still rather unneeded.

 

I would like to point out, purely from a historical standpoint, that of course slaveowners would make that statement, it paints them in a better light. That doesn't make it true, the issue's much larger than something that can be summed up in a single paragraph. Some people in each one of the aforementioned groups were better off than others. Some were treated more poorly. That's a discussion for historians to tear into, and one that should be left out of this, even as an analogy.

 

tl;dr: No one compared this to slavery. It was an analogy, but still one in poor form. Also, cut out the strawman arguments, on both sides, please, it does no one any credit. "You have no empathy 'cause you're rich", comes off just as bad "LOL entitled!".

[FNX Finest]

Master level troll.  Nice work.

 

More jimmies will be rustled.

[BansheeOwnage]

So you are doubling down on your arguments that even though your transaction for the vanilla game in no way guaranteed you access to expansions, you should be entitled to it? Do you honestly not see the flaw in your position here?

Someone wrote my response for me:

 

It's pretty obvious you were speaking specifically to me when you quote something and say that I was unhappy with a response, so...

The Condescension is strong in you. It's not unrealistic at all to expect dlc that's announced to be happening. That's actually one of the dumbest things I've ever heard, which is especially ironic giving your haughty attitude. And I've read quite a lot. It has nothing to do with entitlement, and a lot more to do with expectations. It's perfectly reasonable to expect to get the dlc everyone else does at some point. Which is what I said. Notice the lack, in any shape or form, of a single person talking about entitlement but you. Step off that high horse, and you might see that. 

 

It doesn't help that Bioware literally will not talk about this.  They won't say why or how they came to this decision.  No sense of regret at having to do this (either for technical reasons or a business decision that came from higher up, or some other reason we don't know)  

 

We only know about this at all from what was essentially a throwaway sentence describing the new save transfer feature.

 

Literally the only notice that came of this was when they announced the save transfer feature.  And it was just a throwaway sentence in that too.

Something that bothers me in addition to that is the fact that they had to have known for quite a while they were dropping support, yet chose not to warn players as soon as possible. They probably decided it just after JoH, when starting to make the next DLC. That's just a guess though. What I can say for sure, is that they had to know before they put Spoils of the Qunari into certification (which takes a couple of weeks if I remember), since they obviously didn't have to put it through certification for old consoles. So at least 3 weeks ago, most likely a lot more.

[Br3admax]

The devs stated that some things had to be reworked because it couldn't work for last-gen

An attack on the Skyhold wasn't even considered because of it

Because out of everything it takes to code, even that siege of Adamant, an attack on Skyhold or Crestwood would be something that last gen would never be able to handle. M'kay. 

 

I didn't say it wasn't a factor in some of the things listed being cut, but to act like an Xbox or a PS3 can't handle it because BioWare didn't want to take the time to code it is lulzworthy. More effort than it's worth, they might say, but so was the entire port. 

[BansheeOwnage]

Your comparing not having access to a DLC to slavery!?!No the underlying principals are not the same. One is saying you can own people as property, the other is that your being denied access to a DLC. Seriously?The two sittuations are not comparable. Also no one is saying the people that own a old gen are inferior just their hardware. Big difference

It's just an extreme analogy. No one was trying to equate the immorality of the two. I'm not very good at analogies unfortunately, so I can't give you a better one, but basically, if it makes you feel better, ignore it, and take the point from it, which was:

 

Something being legal doesn't mean it's okay, and doesn't mean it should be legal. Lots of things were legal before they weren't. You can disagree that Bioware's tactics are unfair, but don't freak out at analogies, because it shows you're missing the point.

 

Edit: There are a lot of commas in there. Oh well.

[GithCheater]

Empty lip service from the EA CEO:

 

Electronic Arts Aiming to Establish a ‘Player-First Culture’

 

http://gamerant.com/...ure-ceo-wilson/

 

Evidently, discontinuing old-gen DAI support with a flip "marketing speak" statement and without explanation is part of this "Player-First Culture".

 

A policy that requires old-gen DAI customers to buy the game twice to play future DLC is not "Player-First Culture".

 

Based on the empty words of the EA CEO, I had the impression that EA was working toward being a more "customer-focused" quality oriented company.  

 

http://www.businessd...omer-focus.html

 

Evidently EA does not have much in the way of ethical standards. 

[ashwind]

Your comparing not having access to a DLC to slavery!?!No the underlying principals are not the same. One is saying you can own people as property, the other is that your being denied access to a DLC. Seriously?The two sittuations are not comparable. Also no one is saying the people that own a old gen are inferior just their hardware. Big difference

I m not comparing slavery to DLC. Merely stating that those who r defending EA/Bioware on the basis of legality r the same as those slavers who r defending slavery on the basis of legality.

They care not of right and wrong. As long as it is legal, it is ok.

And I have already stated that it is an extreme example. Just using it to hope to remind some that legal does not make right. In fact it can be totally wrong.

[GithCheater]

I once had a Twitter account, but I got anonymous obscenity laced spam e-mails as a result, so I cancelled the account.  However, it might be delightful if unsatisfied customers could respond with the following question at the below link (and retweet):

 

If "Putting Players First" is EA policy, why do old-gen DAI customers need to purchase DAI twice to play future DLC? 

 

https://twitter.com/...538715794964481

 

"Putting players first continues to be our focus at Electronic Arts"

[Iakus]

I once had a Twitter account, but I got anonymous obscenity laced spam e-mails as a result, so I cancelled the account.  However, it might be delightful if unsatisfied customers could respond with the following question at the below link (and retweet):

 

If "Putting Players First" is EA policy, why do old-gen DAI customers need to purchase DAI twice to play future DLC? 

 

https://twitter.com/...538715794964481

 

"Putting  (some) players first continues to be our focus at Electronic Arts"

 

Fixed 

[ashwind]

And the N*zis. (oh forum censorship)

Godwin's Law just mega-evolved.

That being said, this decision still rustles my jimmies.

 

snicker. Again not the point. Just an extreme example to emphasize the worst case scenario of what happened when people believe and support someone(some entity) when all the blame is pin on a small group for all their problems.

 

Oh Siege of Skyhold was not even considered because old-gen. Right...... if they actually made a small scale siege like Adamant Fortress or Haven where Skyhold is under some sort of siege and make players navigate through Skyhold dealing with small pockets of resistant to get to the antagonist it would be more believable.

 

Nope, didnt happen. Simply a green glow from the direction of Sanctuary and suddenly you are facing your final opponent - who is standing in the open... waiting for you. No chase, no urgency, no nothing. Kinda like meeting the final boss of some fighting game like Street Fighter/Mortal Kombat except infinitely less epic.

 

Convenient is it not to blame all this on old-gen now instead of acknowledging that they didnt even try to make it decent to begin with. More mind numbing is how people could buy that and think that eradicating old-gen will guarantee a better future. 

 

Right. I am sure it is also last-gen limitation that made it impossible till this day for me to wear armor when passing judgement. "Last-gen" - the cause of all these problems, tis not because we are lazy. We simply dont have enough resource to fix that on 5 platforms and if the Inquisitor were to put on his armor in Skyhold, the ps3/360 hardware will be so overloaded that it probably explode. It is their fault. It is. 

 

snicker

[chrstnmonks]

I m not comparing slavery to DLC. Merely stating that those who r defending EA/Bioware on the basis of legality r the same as those slavers who r defending slavery on the basis of legality.

They care not of right and wrong. As long as it is legal, it is ok.

And I have already stated that it is an extreme example. Just using it to hope to remind some that legal does not make right. In fact it can be totally wrong.

This statement of yours is very stupid. You are saying that because their are people who agree with old gen being cut off from a DLC that they are as morally bankrupt as a slaveowner. 

I get your point that because something is legal doesn't make it right. But I don't think it applies in this case.

[ashwind]

This statement of yours is very stupid. You are saying that because their are people who agree with old gen being cut off from a DLC that they are as morally bankrupt as a slaveowner. 

I get your point that because something is legal doesn't make it right. But I don't think it applies in this case.

 

No. I am reminding people who defend this on the basis of legality to remember - there were very bad and wrong things that was once legal.

 

Such things will not be made illegal today if people knew that it was wrong but accepted it anyways because legal.

 

And for those who blindly defend things that are legally wrong even when it does not benefit them... well, yes their morality level will be around those slaveowners at most.

[Heimdall]

I m not comparing slavery to DLC. Merely stating that those who r defending EA/Bioware on the basis of legality r the same as those slavers who r defending slavery on the basis of legality.
They care not of right and wrong. As long as it is legal, it is ok.
And I have already stated that it is an extreme example. Just using it to hope to remind some that legal does not make right. In fact it can be totally wrong.

And in doing so you only reveal ignorance as to the historical practice of slacery. Slaveholders didn't claim slavery was moral because it was legal and profitable. Actually they argued that it should remain legal because it was a moral institution, a benefit to the slave and society.

The comparison doesn't work.

[ashwind]

And in doing so you only reveal ignorance as to the historical practice of slacery. Slaveholders didn't claim slavery was moral because it was legal and profitable. Actually they argued that it should remain legal because it was a moral institution, a benefit to the slave and society.

The comparison doesn't work.

 

And... those slavers should be stupid enough to make a public argument saying that tis all about the money even though slavery is immoral?

 

Right, I should believe that is what they truly believ just because they presented it as such.

 

[edit]

The whole point I am making in its extreme is: Just because it is legal does not make it right. Slavery was legal but it is not right. Stop defending publishers on the basis of legality. I just like to use slavers to make my point 

[Heimdall]

And... those slavers should be stupid enough to make a public argument saying that tis all about the money even though slavery is immoral?
 
Right, I should believe that is what they truly believ just because they presented it as such.

Actually they went so far as to claim that it was unprofitable. And really, it wasn't all about the money. Slavery by the nineteenth century had become a cornerstone of culture and many slaveowners were true believers in their paternalistic (And yes, racially demeaning and patronizing) duty to their slaves. They didn't believe slavery was immoral one bit. I've studied this topic in depth. Just because you think something is immoral, doesn't mean another person is lying when they say they believe the opposite.

[BansheeOwnage]

 

Right. I am sure it is also last-gen limitation that made it impossible till this day for me to wear armor when passing judgement. "Last-gen" - the cause of all these problems, tis not because we are lazy. We simply dont have enough resource to fix that on 5 platforms and if the Inquisitor were to put on his armor in Skyhold, the ps3/360 hardware will be so overloaded that it probably explode. It is their fault. It is. 

 

snicker

I really wish you could do that... If I had the game on PC, I could, because people have figured out an easy way to let you wear armour around Skyhold. In fact, it's probably about as easy as you can get when it comes to things Bioware could patch in (it's a toggle), much easier than a tinting table, or a storage chest, or the Black Emporium. But no. That would be awesome and easy, so naturally, they won't do it. Sorry if I sound bitter, but... well, I am bitter about this.

[Br3admax]

It's just an extreme analogy. No one was trying to equate the immorality of the two. I'm not very good at analogies unfortunately, so I can't give you a better one, but basically, if it makes you feel better, ignore it, and take the point from it, that was:

 

Something being legal doesn't mean it's okay, and doesn't mean it should be legal. Lots of things were legal before they weren't. You can disagree that Bioware's tactics are unfair, but don't freak out at analogies, because it shows you're missing the point.

 

Edit: There are a lot of commas in there. Oh well.

Easy. Marrying a high school sophomore in the a good portion of the United States, and the world, is perfectly legal.

 

Though I'm not sure why you two are explaining yourselves. Everyone here with any measurable IQ got the point. They feel like the word slavery is a charged enough word to aid in attacking the argument, which will somehow make their own more valid. It doesn't, but that's the general thinking behind it. Which is also why the responses mostly given have absolutely nothing to do with this discussion besides, "DLC and slavery aren't the same."

[duckley]

When people feel strongly about stuff, they often use over-the-top analogies - at least I do LOL. Problem is, sometimes those over-the-top analogies allows other to dismiss or disregard the essential core of the argument.

 

Does legal = moral? It would take a far more clever mind than mine to wrassle with that one.

[Morroian]

Does legal = moral? It would take a far more clever mind than mine to wrassle with that one.

 

Not really legal does not equal moral.