And you are supporting them terms unconditionally? I hope you never complain about games being capped at 30fps on PC and bad controls, bad optimization. You are not ENTITLE to any of that. You are only entitle to whatever garbage they ****** down your throat. Cheers.
You're right, I'm not. In fact the EULA states that EA is not even obligated to deliver me a working game. That being said, I have no issues with controls and I play the game at 60 fps in gameplay and cutscenes.
What I'm stating isn't an opinion, it's a fact. Secondly, your argument doesn't even apply. It's based on the notion that this was done simply to spite last gen consoles, when in fact it was due to the reasons I outlined above. You're wanting them to justify your bad decision, to buy a game on a console that has been way past obsolete for 2 years. You purchased a license for a specific platform, to play the vanilla game. That is all you are entitled to, until such a time that EA decides for whatever reason to revoke your license which they can do, read the damn EULA.
What is it with you and assuming only last-gen users think this is scummy?
Andrew Wilson, is that you?
I think it's actually Donald Trump. I wonder if this is actually an elaborate trolling attempt.
What I am stating is fact because it is unprecedented for the last gen version of a cross gen game to not get all the DLC. An unspoken expectation was formed and it was a reasonable one. What was done was misleading. Please read my posts more carefully, I mentioned in the first line that I have the game for Xbox One and not last gen, so I didn't make the "bad decision" to purchase it. I also never claimed it was done to spite last gen consoles, in fact I hinted towards my belief of it being a business decision with the line "If anything, they should have announced pre-release that last gen consoles would not receive all the DLC (of course they didn't because that would hurt their sales."
Sales are always that bottom line and I don't blame them for trying to increase their profit margin, I blame them for how they went about it and how unfair they were to a portion of their consumers. No business is going to intentionally do something to anger their customers, at least if they want to stay in business. I find it ironic to be told to read something by someone who didn't read the first line of my last post correctly. For what it's worth, I believe them releasing the vanilla game on last gen was a mistake, but they already went with that, so they should stand by their dump (not the game, but decision) so to speak.
Whether you own the game on the xbox one isn't relevant to your comment, which was "how would you feel if last gen consoles were the only ones to get the dlc". That would never happen, and implies that the decision was arbitrarily made with little to no regard for last gen users. If Bioware hadn't released the game on last gen, you'd still have people complaining, you obviously haven't been on the BSN very long.
What is it with you and assuming only last-gen users think this is scummy?
This is your third (or fourth, I lost count) straw man attempt. You must be getting tired of gathering all that hay.
You're right, I'm not. In fact the EULA states that EA is not even obligated to deliver me a working game. That being said, I have no issues with controls and I play the game at 60 fps in gameplay and cutscenes.
I have no problems with DAI as well. But I am not going to sit by and support them. I am not going to sabotage others when they are complaining about issues that affect them. I dont use tactical camera, I dont tell people not to complain about it if they find it bad. It is common sense.
It is because of people simply accepting all these abusive business practice that publishers like WB starts releasing all sorts of rubbish to the PC gaming community. Twice in less than a year for that matter.
It is bad enough to just suck it up, it is even worse to tell others not to complain because the Lord Publishers say so.
Thus, if you feel that it does not concern you. And the complains others are making does not undermine you, Why? Why are you defending the publishers? Unless of course if they are paying you then you are absolutely right to defend them.
What I'm stating isn't an opinion, it's a fact. Secondly, your argument doesn't even apply. It's based on the notion that this was done simply to spite last gen consoles, when in fact it was due to the reasons I outlined above. You're wanting them to justify your bad decision, to buy a game on a console that has been way past obsolete for 2 years. You purchased a license for a specific platform, to play the vanilla game. That is all you are entitled to, until such a time that EA decides for whatever reason to revoke your license which they can do, read the damn EULA.
Uh, Christmas was right around the corner (at release), so... how can you justify blaming those people for their "bad decision" when someone made the decision for them?
Every time SONY and Microsoft releases an new Xbox & PS they run behind PC in a couple of years. Not sure why peeps are making such a huge fuss over these newest consoles. In about two years, maybe less they'll fall behind.
Aside from that, my fatty PS3 works flawlessly. Despite suffering from hard shut downs from frequent power outages throughout the house. Why should I replace it when it works so reliably AND many companies were releasing games for it? Whereas newer consoles on release (and a few months afterwards) tend to have a reputation for... well, not working so reliably and have a lackluster selection of games.
I played it safe, stuck with a console I knew works reliably, instead of plunking down a couple hundred for a new system that might not work so reliably AND I (may) have to pay extra to get it fixed? BioWare gets to play it safe, by releasing old gen and new gen DA:I? But I can't? What hypocrisy.
You have to be able to show how it is a reasonable expectation, and you have nothing.
Well, to most people, I don't need to explain why it's a reasonable expectation, because they can reason.
It's not different from platform exclusive DLCs. A developer can choose to support whichever platform they want, you cannot dictate what a game gets released on.
It's pretty different. While I think platform-exclusive DLC (timed or not) is stupid, at least they generally tell you well in advance that that's how it will play out. Fine. But there was no such warning here.
Whether you own the game on the xbox one isn't relevant to your comment, which was "how would you feel if last gen consoles were the only ones to get the dlc". That would never happen, and implies that the decision was arbitrarily made with little to no regard for last gen users. If Bioware hadn't released the game on last gen, you'd still have people complaining, you obviously haven't been on the BSN very long.
This is your third (or fourth, I lost count) straw man attempt. You must be getting tired of gathering all that hay.
It became relevant when you told me that me purchasing it for last gen was a bad decision, which oddly enough I made the comment in the first place to prevent such comments.
As for the: "how would you feel if last gen consoles were the only ones to get the dlc".
"That would never happen"
That's what people thought about the game being released on last gen and only current gen getting all of the DLC and guess what, it happened. If whatever factor that made them abandon last gen had applied to current gen in place of last gen, then it's fair to come to the conclusion that last gen would have got the DLC and current gen would not have. I can only wonder the outrage if the roles had been reversed.
I wouldn't say that the decision was made to spite the last gen users, but I don't think that much (if any) thought was given toward last gen users when they decided to make the DLC current gen only.
Sure people would be complaining about it not being released for last gen, but they wouldn't have spent their money on something that would have unequal content to current gen.
I've been a member for a year come the 26th and had observed BSN -the old one- for a while before that. My length of membership has little baring on this discussion however, because what you describe is not confined to BSN, but is rather a part of human nature.
You're right, I'm not. In fact the EULA states that EA is not even obligated to deliver me a working game. That being said, I have no issues with controls and I play the game at 60 fps in gameplay and cutscenes.
Aren't you proving that just because it's not written in the license agreement, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be expected? Unless you think that them delivering a non-working game is okay. I wouldn't be surprised.
Aren't you proving that just because it's not written in the license agreement, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be expected? Unless you think that them delivering a non-working game is okay. I wouldn't be surprised.
He literally just posted in the save importer thread that last-gen users don't deserve to get patches either. That's the kind of person you're dealing with.
I have no problems with DAI as well. But I am not going to sit by and support them. I am not going to sabotage others when they are complaining about issues that affect them. I dont use tactical camera, I dont tell people not to complain about it if they find it bad. It is common sense.
It is because of people simply accepting all these abusive business practice that publishers like WB starts releasing all sorts of rubbish to the PC gaming community. Twice in less than a year for that matter.
It is bad enough to just suck it up, it is even worse to tell others not to complain because the Lord Publishers say so.
Thus, if you feel that it does not concern you. And the complains others are making does not undermine you, Why? Why are you defending the publishers? Unless of course if they are paying you then you are absolutely right to defend them.
I'm not telling people to cease complaints, only that the basis of the complaint is flawed. You can whine here until the cows come home, it doesn't make a difference to me one way or another. I'm merely amused by people who feel they are owed a next gen copy of the game simply because Bioware has halted support for last gen.
Uh, Christmas was right around the corner (at release), so... how can you justify blaming those people for their "bad decision" when someone made the decision for them?
Every time SONY and Microsoft releases an new Xbox & PS they run behind PC in a couple of years. Not sure why peeps are making such a huge fuss over these newest consoles. In about two years, maybe less they'll fall behind.
Aside from that, my fatty PS3 works flawlessly. Despite suffering from hard shut downs from frequent power outages throughout the house. Why should I replace it when it works so reliably AND many companies were releasing games for it? Whereas newer consoles on release (and a few months afterwards) tend to have a reputation for... well, not working so reliably and have a lackluster selection of games.
I played it safe, stuck with a console I knew works reliably, instead of plunking down a couple hundred for a new system that might not work so reliably AND I (may) have to pay extra to get it fixed? BioWare gets to play it safe, by releasing old gen and new gen DA:I? But I can't? What hypocrisy.
Because it's totally unheard of to return Christmas gifts. Xbox One and PS4 are already behind 5 year old PCs. Xbox One has a whopping 1gb vram, while ps4 has 512mb. Your average gaphics card for the last couple of years has had 2gb vram. I'm not even going to bother getting into the other specs. The functionality of your PS3 is irrelevant, the hardware capabilities are. You can't honestly expect them to release "next gen" games and still support 10 year old hardware which wasn't even the greatest in it's prime years.
Well, to most people, I don't need to explain why it's a reasonable expectation, because they can reason.
It's pretty different. While I think platform-exclusive DLC (timed or not) is stupid, at least they generally tell you well in advance that that's how it will play out. Fine. But there was no such warning here.
Or, you can't provide me with a sufficient answer because there is none. Emotional arguments are not based in fact. You have nothing to support your "reasonable expectations" claim. If you feel otherwise, test your luck in a class action lawsuit. That is provided you can find a lawyer to even take up the case, given you have absolutely no claim whatsoever.
It became relevant when you told me that me purchasing it for last gen was a bad decision, which oddly enough I made the comment in the first place to prevent such comments.
As for the: "how would you feel if last gen consoles were the only ones to get the dlc".
"That would never happen"
That's what people thought about the game being released on last gen and only current gen getting all of the DLC and guess what, it happened. If whatever factor that made them abandon last gen had applied to current gen in place of last gen, then it's fair to come to the conclusion that last gen would have got the DLC and current gen would not have. I can only wonder the outrage if the roles had been reversed.
I wouldn't say that the decision was made to spite the last gen users, but I don't think that much (if any) thought was given toward last gen users when they decided to make the DLC current gen only.
Sure people would be complaining about it not being released for last gen, but they wouldn't have spent their money on something that would have unequal content to current gen.
I've been a member for a year come the 26th and had observed BSN -the old one- for a while before that. My length of membership has little baring on this discussion however, because what you describe is not confined to BSN, but is rather a part of human nature.
Bioware already sacrificed content for last gen console inclusion, they obviously aren't going to compromise any longer. I would say that warrants a great deal of thought and debate. Whether to unleash the games full potential, or keep it bound by last generation hardware capabilities. Naturally given the amount of PC players and console users who have already adopted the next gen models over the past two years, we can see how they came to this conclusion.
Aren't you proving that just because it's not written in the license agreement, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be expected? Unless you think that them delivering a non-working game is okay. I wouldn't be surprised.
Not at all. What I think about the EULA terms isn't relevant, I'm merely stating what they entail. They aren't obligated to deliver a working game, it's in the agreement I sign and is due to the unpredictable nature of hardware and it's various combinations. I'd be lying if I said I'd be fine with a game that doesn't work, however they aren't guaranteed to give me a working game and if I notice it isn't in acceptable condition I can easily return it and get my money back. My opinion on the matter would be more than slightly annoyed, but the fact is that I agreed to an EULA that clearly stated they don't have to guarantee it works on my system.
He literally just posted in the save importer thread that last-gen users don't deserve to get patches either. That's the kind of person you're dealing with.
Yeah... it's really sad. And frustrating. And vexing.
Or, you can't provide me with a sufficient answer because there is none. Emotional arguments are not based in fact. You have nothing to support your "reasonable expectations" claim. If you feel otherwise, test your luck in a class action lawsuit. That is provided you can find a lawyer to even take up the case, given you have absolutely no claim whatsoever.
There is one. And emotional arguments can definitely be based on fact, but this isn't an emotional argument. The problem is that obviously, "reasonable" is subjective. I wish it wasn't, but if you don't think it's reasonable, you probably won't be convinced. A lot of other people (and probably me) have already answered it multiple times, and since I wasn't too keen on rephrasing things all night, I elected not to answer. Reread some stuff, it's there. Or, other people can tell you (again). I need a break from this.
I'm not telling people to cease complaints, only that the basis of the complaint is flawed. You can whine here until the cows come home, it doesn't make a difference to me one way or another.
Well, posting about it this much is an odd way to show it.
Not at all. What I think about the EULA terms isn't relevant, I'm merely stating what they entail. They aren't obligated to deliver a working game, it's in the agreement I sign and is due to the unpredictable nature of hardware and it's various combinations. I'd be lying if I said I'd be fine with a game that doesn't work, however they aren't guaranteed to give me a working game and if I notice it isn't in acceptable condition I can easily return it and get my money back. My opinion on the matter would be more than slightly annoyed, but the fact is that I agreed to an EULA that clearly stated they don't have to guarantee it works on my system.
Well, at least we know where you draw the line then...
Well, at least we know where you draw the line then...
You misunderstand, the purpose of that post was to distinguish between opinion and fact. That is a concept many here are struggling with.
I'm not telling people to cease complaints, only that the basis of the complaint is flawed. You can whine here until the cows come home, it doesn't make a difference to me one way or another. I'm merely amused by people who feel they are owed a next gen copy of the game simply because Bioware has halted support for last gen.
If it were not DAI, I would say that such a request is unfounded. Unfortunately, this is DAI. Bioware made clear that each DA will be its own "story" and come next DA, it will be some other story. Bioware plans to complete the story of the Inquisitor via story DLC. That is the problem because that basically says: You have to pay for 2 copies to play the conclusion of the story you bought earlier.
Does EA/Bioware owe them a copy? Strictly speaking NO. Should they consider giving them a free upgrade in good faith? I say Yes. Look at XBox One - They announced XBox One Backward Compatibility. Look at what Microsoft is advertising:
If it were not DAI, I would say that such a request is unfounded. Unfortunately, this is DAI. Bioware made clear that each DA will be its own "story" and come next DA, it will be some other story. Bioware plans to complete the story of the Inquisitor via story DLC. That is the problem because that basically says: You have to pay for 2 copies to play the conclusion of the story you bought earlier.
Does EA/Bioware owe them a copy? Strictly speaking NO. Should they consider giving them a free upgrade in good faith? I say Yes. Look at XBox One - They announced XBox One Backward Compatibility. Look at what Microsoft is advertising:
- Xbox One Backward Compatibility is available at no additional cost, so you don’t have to pay to play games you already own.
- Keep your game saves, game add-ons, achievements, and Gamerscore.
- Enjoy the advanced features of your Xbox One like Game DVR, Screenshots and Windows 10 streaming.
- Play multiplayer with your friends no matter which console they’re on.
- Xbox One Backward Compatibility works with disc-based and digital games.
Meanwhile in EA
- DAI is available at additional cost so that you can pay to play games you already own.
Then there is also EA Access (which I dont quite know what they offer but I heard tis something similar)
Let them trade in their PS3/360 CD and get a current gen game. They will then buy the DLC because they have incentive to buy a new console. Which means with these new consoles they can also buy ME:A next year.
EA/Bioware on the other hand should seriously consider their request because good PR and future business. At worst it is cheap publicity for EA/Bioware.
You are given equal treatment, you paid for the game just as we all did and got the exact same DAI each and every platform has access to - plus or minus a few graphical features due to hardware restrictions. Your payment towards DAI did not cover DLCs, so you cannot argue unequal treatment for something you do not even own. It's not different from platform exclusive DLCs. A developer can choose to support whichever platform they want, you cannot dictate what a game gets released on. That you would compare this situation to slavery is disgraceful, and shows a severe lack of understanding on your part. If you think this will in any way negatively affect EA, you're only deluding yourself. This is a next gen game, and the developers chose to remove the shackles of 10 year old hardware in order to deliver on that experience. The arguments in this thread are driven by pure emotion, not logic.
That you have to resort to blatant lies in order to argue your point is pathetic. Do you work at MSNBC? Truly despicable.
No, we are not given equal treatment. We get dropped, supposedly due to hardware limitations. BioWare can't have NOT been aware ahead of time that old gen was not up to snuff. Yet they still released DA:I on old gen. They should have never released it in the first place OR put a damn warning label (how hard would that have been?). They gave old gen a shoddy game that hardly functioned for some, AND in order to make it work, cut content and (supposedly) made less than what it should have been for new gen. In my opinion, they've screwed over both groups with their short-term profit scheme.
What's worse, those people who bought the PS3/360 Deluxe Edition have reportedly been unable to transfere their Deluxe Edition save's (via the save importer) extra content, such as the Red Hart etc. Now how can you justify that? When they paid for their extra content on launch and can't even play it without buying ANOTHER Deluxe Edition PS4/ONE. 
That's fine if a company wants to consistently make unpopular decisions. They won't last long. They'll have chased, angered or whatever else people away and whether companies recognize it or not, they need customers to thrive.
And whether you recognize it or not, it's the customer that unltimately has the power, this is especially so when it comes to a "luxury" product. No one NEEDS a damn game. They game because they want to, not out of necessity.
Inequality is inequality. Sure, there are varying degrees, but to stand for any form of inequality is just... despicable. Is any amount of human suffering right/acceptable? Some of us are downright upset, broken up over this. It's a franchise we love, how can you expect us not to care?
Again, a damn gaming company possesses ABSOLUTELY no power over it's customers. It's customers are the only reason they are in operation. The people want it, the company provides. If the customers don't want it, or are chased off, the company dies. It's not a damn food processor, we don't eat games. Games don't provide anything but a distraction from the real world.
Logic vs. Morality, I'd say. Logic isn't always in the right.
Well, to most people, I don't need to explain why it's a reasonable expectation, because they can reason.
It's pretty different. While I think platform-exclusive DLC (timed or not) is stupid, at least they generally tell you well in advance that that's how it will play out. Fine. But there was no such warning here.
I've never had issues with exclusive DLCs myself as I am reassured (in official announcements) that they are to be released eventually, but released nonetheless.
It sucks having to wait, but even Bethesda shoved their PS3 DLCs out when they even stated, they weren't sure if they could.
You misunderstand, the purpose of that post was to distinguish between opinion and fact. That is a concept many here are struggling with.
What about users who's copies have never worked for one reason or another? Some having to pay twice already, just to get a functioning copy? I think this latest patch has even messed up several peoples games. What about those people?
Not guaranteed a working copy? What a load of... no- I'm sorry, that's too much. Even individual sellers on Ebay (the good ones) know better. If you can't guarantee a working product, worth $60+ what reason does a potential buyer have to purchase your goods? People like to be reassured that their money is going to pay for a premium product (even if it may be crap). THAT'S just good business.
What about users who's copies have never worked for one reason or another? Some having to pay twice already, just to get a functioning copy? I think this latest patch has even messed up several peoples games. What about those people?
Not guaranteed a working copy? What a load of... no- I'm sorry, that's too much. Even individual sellers on Ebay know better. If you can't guarantee a working product, worth $60+ what reason does a potential buyer have to purchase your goods? People like to be reassured that their money is going to pay for a premium product (even if it may be crap). THAT'S just good business.
You put your best apples on top so to speak.
He literally just posted in the save importer thread that last-gen users don't deserve to get patches either. That's the kind of person you're dealing with.
No he did not. I just read that thread. He is just stating what is in your EULA.
I don't know why anyone would use an example of "not gauranteed a working copy because it isn't in the contract/policies". If something isn't in a contract, it doesn't void consumer expectations of quality. Big companies aren't the only ones with laws to protect them, there are consumers laws in place to keep big companies from taking advantage. I am not saying this is the case here, but "We didn't promise you a working product!", wouldn't hold up in a court, and thank goodness that there is a consumer expectation for quality. Can you imagine if it weren't?
"I am sorry you're sick, but read our policies! It says you are gauranteed a good tasting burger, it doesn't say you wouldn't get E.coli if you ate it! You're fault for buying cheap burgers!"
Totally agree.
(I actually forgot about there are consumer laws, thank goodness for those!)
I find it odd why someone who seems to value/pride themselves for being logical would use such an argument. It's not logical for a business to NOT produce working products. It's not illogical for the customer to expect a working product. A company doesn't last if it constantly turns out crap products, unless it's purposefully scamming it's customers, but even then, eventually people catch on.
Retour en haut