Sjoerd said:Yes that is the same thing...
Which means it is not.
Sjoerd said:Yes that is the same thing...
Sjoerd said:Yes that is the same thing...
Paying for additional stuff is already quite annoying, paying for stuff on the disc is just insane.
Bowen_B said:So accessing it via Action Replay should be legal.
ChrisAllenFiz said:No no no no no. If what you said was true, shareware would not exist.
All this ridiculous posturing. If it wasn't on the disc, they would still have already made it, but would just hold it back to make you feel better. And it would take longer to download. The idea that companies would suddenly decide not to develop DLC at the same time as making the game is laughable. It is the cheapest way to do it, and makes business sense.
WickedAngel said:How about no...
Downloadable content is supposed to extend the game beyond it's normal shelf-life; it isn't supposed to take content that was already supposed to be there to begin with and make it a seperate expense.
It's getting out of hand; instead of getting 100% of the content we would have received before DLC, we're now getting 75~80% with everything else as a pay-to-play downloadable. It's absolute bullshit and should not be condoned. Would you pay for a cheeseburger and expect to have to go back and buy the cheese after the fact?
WickedAngel said:It's absolute bullshit and should not be condoned. Would you pay for a cheeseburger and expect to have to go back and buy the cheese after the fact?
Sysgen said:That's fine if the 360 Marketplace is a fast food restauraunt but it's a market. You buy the burger and if you want to compliment the burger with cheese or ketchup or pickles then you do, if you don't then eat the burger as it comes.I don't eat burgers.
How do you know if the content on the disc was meant to extend the game or it was held back? Over time products and delivery change. By your comment I can conclude that you're wallowing in the past. Time to move on, and if you can't then choose a platform that doesn't have downloadable content.
WickedAngel said:It's getting out of hand; instead of getting 100% of the content we would have received before DLC, we're now getting 75~80% with everything else as a pay-to-play downloadable. It's absolute bullshit and should not be condoned. Would you pay for a cheeseburger and expect to have to go back and buy the cheese after the fact?
patrickthehedgehog said:i'm pissed that all the ultra sweet music from previous ridge racer games for RR6 is so expensive...or costs money at all...
sp0rsk said:What the hell are you talking about? "If you paid for it, how come you can't use it?" Well that is indeed a good question. Why are publishers allowed to get away with selling us content they already sold us? Not putting any sort of language on the box that says "You must purchase additional codes to unlock full game" is flat out misleading the consumer.
When I pay 60 dollars I'm paying for all the content on the disc. If I'm not, it should be written on the box or stated somewhere that I have to pay money to unlock the full version. These companies are just lying to consumers. When (even though I don't) spend money on new content for a game I bought, it better be new content that they made seperate from the disc I paid 60 dollars for. If what we're buying is shareware, then they should state it on the box. That's the problem.
You know that you're paying for that particular version of Vista...plagiarize said:jeez... this thread again and people still don't get it.
all your campaigning is going to do is to ensure you spend more time downloading than before. that's it. Chris gets the message.
once again, for anyone that still doesn't get it.
if you do not get $60 worth of game for your $60 (and by 'game' i don't mean a bunch of data on an optical disk, i mean what you can actually play) then do not spend your $60.
if there is $60 (or more) worth of game, buy it.
who cares if the extra content is locked up on the disk or something that you have to download? it wouldn't change what you got for your money.
this is one of those silly 'principle' arguments that ignores that this kind of thing isn't a new idea. as i've said time and time again, all you will achieve is more of your time wasted downloading things.
HEY DID YOU KNOW THAT EVERY VERSION OF VISTA IS ON THE CHEAP HOME VERSION'S DISK AND IF YOU WANT TO UPGRADE YOU HAVE TO PAY MORE?
ZOMG. THEY IS HOLDING CONTENT BACK FROM YOU.
or maybe it makes it more convenient.
pr0cs said:not really a good analogy, in this case the burger was never advertised to have cheese in the first place.
Night_Trekker said:It was also never advertised as not having cheese, and every time I've gone to that particular burger shack in the past it's come with cheese at the same price. That's deceptive marketing.
It's inevitable perhaps, but it still blows.
procs said:not really a good analogy, in this case the burger was never advertised to have cheese in the first place.
Sysgen said:That's fine if the 360 Marketplace is a fast food restauraunt but it's a market. You buy the burger and if you want to compliment the burger with cheese or ketchup or pickles then you do, if you don't then eat the burger as it comes.I don't eat burgers.
How do you know if the content on the disc was meant to extend the game or it was held back? Over time products and delivery change. By your comment I can conclude that you're wallowing in the past. Time to move on, and if you can't then choose a platform that doesn't have downloadable content.
You're in the dark on it, so you're saying you'd rather waste time downloading it rather than unlocking it? You'd feel a lot better if the stuff was purposely left off the disk? You're not going to know if the stuff was finished before or after the RC of the game (if it was left off the disc) but now all of a sudden because they saved you some time in downloading it you feel some sort of RIGHT of ownership because it was already on the disc?WickedAngel said:Some of you are being extremely ignorant about this. How do I know what should and shouldn't go into the disk? Easy; if there is content to be had when the publisher accepts a final RC, it should be on that disk and accessible without paying twice for it.
again, how do you know the content was finished at the RC of the game or not if they didn't put it on the disc? Cheats and that sort of jazz I agree should come for free but additions and costumes can be argued should be paid for especially if they don't affect gameplay. ala horse armorWickedAngel said:DLC is supposed to be a method of extending the longevity of a game as opposed to a method of gimping what would have been on the disk if the service didn't exist in the first place.
and those will be the same people who don't care if it's on the disc already and are much happier that it takes 2 seconds to unlock the content as opposed to 10 minutes to download it.WickedAngel said:The "Vote With Your Wallets!!111" argument is asinine; most people aren't aware that this underhanded trickery is going on.
G4life98 said:i cant wait till a gameshark or an action-replay comes out and puts and end to this double-dipping.
pr0cs said:You're in the dark on it, so you're saying you'd rather waste time downloading it rather than unlocking it? You'd feel a lot better if the stuff was purposely left off the disk?
pr0cs said:You're not going to know if the stuff was finished before or after the RC of the game (if it was left off the disc) but now all of a sudden because they saved you some time in downloading it you feel some sort of RIGHT of ownership because it was already on the disc?
pr0cs said:again, how do you know the content was finished at the RC of the game or not if they didn't put it on the disc?
pr0cs said:and those will be the same people who don't care if it's on the disc already and are much happier that it takes 2 seconds to unlock the content as opposed to 10 minutes to download it.
The vote with the wallets argument is designed for people like you who bitch and moan and feel some sort of privilege of ownership because you bought the game. Voting will at the very least give the developers and publishers some clue as to what they can charge for and for what price.
You can bury your head in the sand and bitch and moan or you can provide some sort of input by boycotting the whole system or buying stuff that is of value to you. I as a gamer don't really care, if the unlockable adds gameplay to me then I'll buy it, if I was happy with the game as it stands I skip it.. it's really that simple.
D3VI0US said:Anyone who doesn't think this is bullshit is an idiot. I can think of very few legitamate reasons for content already on the disc not to be accessible in game if it's complete. We would've gotten it last gen argument and it was completed before gold. I'm sorry but the free content is especially insulting cause it ****s over the kid who doesn't have his 360 on Live. You have to wonder MS' hand in this as well. If you think about the fact that they know what content is being offered on Live in addition to it's size and their guidelines about having DLC relatively close to the game's release they have a complicity. They certainly have a lot to gain by having more connected consumers. I just wonder how involved they are, do they encourage it, etc. That's the only real interesting part of this debate everything else is rehash. It's the way the industy is goin, vote with your dollars, yadda yadda yadda.
arne said:aren't you splitting hairs there with technicalities inherent to each though?
it's the concept I'm talking about. i believe the concept still applies.
you know what, but you're right, it's asinine. my real point is in the post that was ignored.
ChrisAllenFiz said:Doesn`t matter what you say, its a perception thing. Hold that DLC back and make them download it, people will be happier, even though it practice it makes not a jot of difference!
Crazy world!
ChrisAllenFiz said:Doesn`t matter what you say, its a perception thing. Hold that DLC back and make them download it, people will be happier, even though it practice it makes not a jot of difference!
Crazy world!
DD-11 said:I don't get your point, could you bold a few more lines. thanks.
WickedAngel said:...no, that isn't it at all. Congratulations on completely missing the point though.
Don't hold anything back. Put everything that is complete up to the date it goes gold on the disc and leave DLC for what it was originally intended for; content that is developed after the game ships.
One that, even if it wins, Microsoft will lose.arne said:that will most likely result in a lawsuit imo.
inpHilltr8r said:One that, even if it wins, Microsoft will lose.
and if i bought an EA game with content locked away from me on the disc i'd know i was buying that too.Tieno said:You know that you're paying for that particular version of Vista...
Synth_floyd said:If a studio develops something before the game ships and chooses not to put it on the disc or puts it on the disc as a paid DLC then that's their perogative. You don't have to buy it. Is it nice of them to do that? No, but c'est la vie.
s/Microsoft/the publisher in question/ then, although I figured that MS were one of the bigger publishers on 360. My point was that suing your customers is a bad idea. Mind you, suing GameShark or Datel, or whoever, hasn't exactly had a great track record either.arne said:did you have a point here? i fail to see where MS entered the discussion i was replying to. as any third party will be sure to sue before MS does on having gameshark or someone circumventing locked on-disc PDLC.
WickedAngel said:Wrong, and it's just a matter of time before a court says the same thing. When you buy a game, you buy the license to use everything on that disk.
CrapSandwich said:What license? The imaginary one you made up in your head? What law(s) do you think exist that support your argument?
Who are U??CrapSandwich said:What license? The imaginary one you made up in your head? What law(s) do you think exist that support your argument?
WickedAngel said:The digital license that gives you the right to play the game and it's the same license that makes it illegal to reverse-engineer the title. False advertising would be a good place to start since they're not warning consumers that additional content must be paid for.
CrapSandwich said:Where in what license does it say what you claim it says? And what advertisement misleads you to believe that additional paid-for content is included in the price of the retail copy? I mean, do you have any examples at all?
WickedAngel said:False advertising isn't just saying something is there when it isn't; false advertising can be misrepresenting a product, and by not warning customers that some content on the disk is locked, publishers are doing just that. When you buy a disk, the logical assumption is to assume that everything on that disk that you just bought is unlocked. When additional content on the disk requires payment, it should be advertised (Just as they inform MMO subscribers of the need to pay subscriptions and such). Would you expect to have to pay to unlock certain songs after purchasing a CD?
The digital license keeps us from reverse-engineering it to be what it should've been to begin with (I meant it to be addressing the whole WHERE IS THE GAMESHARK!!! idea but it got mixed in by accident).
WickedAngel said:False advertising isn't just saying something is there when it isn't; false advertising can be misrepresenting a product, and by not warning customers that some content on the disk is locked, publishers are doing just that. When you buy a disk, the logical assumption is to assume that everything on that disk that you just bought is unlocked. When additional content on the disk requires payment, it should be advertised (Just as they inform MMO subscribers of the need to pay subscriptions and such). Would you expect to have to pay to unlock certain songs after purchasing a CD?
The digital license keeps us from reverse-engineering it to be what it should've been to begin with (I meant it to be addressing the whole WHERE IS THE GAMESHARK!!! idea but it got mixed in by accident).
CrapSandwich said:I knew you didn't have any examples. And mark my words: You will never see successful litigation against a publisher for this practice. It's so patently absurd I'm going to have to bow out of this discussion. It's just embarrassing levels of wishful thinking going on with you.
A better argument is that it's unfair and exploitative. Really it's a non-issue because the fact of the matter is that all paid DLC could be eliminated entirely and no one would ever miss it. No one would be claiming they got ripped off if these add-ons were never produced or offered. If you'd like something real to complain about with DLC, it would be Microsoft's ridiculous DRM attached to paid downloads that essentially result in you never actually owning what you 'purchase.'
WickedAngel said:I see that you don't seem to possess any knowledge of false advertising or deception via misrepresentation, so I'll just let it go. You call it "patently absurd" yet you have no proof to back up the insenuation that they are clearly advertising what is being sold here. GG -_-