Well frankly, Sony is being a little evil. They didn't accidentally offer this fucked up terrible anti-consumer deal. They were really hoping to fuck people over, and also hoping no one would throw a fit
I'm not going to read through 40 pages of this but I truly don't see the problem with the pricing. If the issue is with the loss of content not being stated up front then I agree on that end, and hopefully it is pretty clear when purchasing the upgrade that access to the discounted version is tied to your PS+ account being active. As far as I'm concerned, if this is stated clearly, SONY shouldn't reverse course on this at all (perhaps offer it at a discounted price maybe, 10 bucks off isn't quite an enticing "lease not own" price).
If they planned to fuck you over, they wouldn't try to inform you 5 months in advance. Putting up a video like that and "hoping" enough people won't notice is so naive that it's unlikely. Gaf has raised hell for much smaller issues and they know it. We can agree that it was a bad move, but is it with malicious intent? That's debatable. Though I disagree with you, feeling that way is your prerogative. As a customer it is your right to accuse them when you honestly feel wronged. As a seller it behooves them to defend themselves and regain your trust. What they do next will help us gauge their motive. Until then, I'd like to presume innocence. But that's just my way of looking at the world
If they planned to fuck you over, they wouldn't try to inform you 5 months in advance. Putting up a video like that and "hoping" enough people won't notice is so naive that it's unlikely. Gaf has raised hell for much smaller issues and they know it. We can agree that it was a bad move, but is it with malicious intent? That's debatable. Though I disagree with you, feeling that way is your prerogative. As a customer it is your right to accuse them when you honestly feel wronged. As a seller it behooves them to defend themselves and regain your trust. What they do next will help us gauge their motive. Until then, I'd like to presume innocence. But that's just my way of looking at the world
What? Yeah they would. They would tell you what an awesome product you're getting, what a great deal, and how amazing it is just being with you.
In order for them to be able to fuck you over they have to at least take those steps. Don't for a second think any of this has anything to do with something other than fucking you. What's the other reason? The great bargain? Really? They want to keep testing shit, and it's getting annoying having to get up in arms over companies who should be fighting to gain us, not both shooting us and asking who's gun hurt more.
...I must say, "will you still be playing it 2 years down the line" is probably one of the funniest/saddest excuse yet to handwave this whole issue.
It's mind-boggling that anyone can actually possibly conjure up such a reason.
Bingo. I said the same this morning. I think we all can agree this pricing scheme is loony, but beyond that I'll wait before I deem it "anti-consumer". Then again I also didn't believe MS was trying to pull a quick one with the X1.
If you buy DLC for any of your PS+ games you will lose access to that DLC if your sub expires (because the root game is no longer playable). So Sony have already been blocking you from accessing paid content for a couple of years. This is just a particularly large piece of DLC, but I expect it is possible for some people out there to already have >$50 of content spent on DLC across several PS+ games! all of which will be rendered useless if they let their sub lapse.
This problem seems to be because technically this is behaving like DLC. To avoid that, I think they should remove the 'upgrade' and let you just buy the full game with a PS+ discount, like many other games offer.
I think we already had confirmation that saves would move across just fine.
What? Yeah they would. They would tell you what an awesome product you're getting, what a great deal, and how amazing it is just being with you.
In order for them to be able to fuck you over they have to at least take those steps. Don't for a second think any of this has anything to do with something other than fucking you. What's the other reason? The great bargain? Really? They want to keep testing shit, and it's getting annoying having to get up in arms over companies who should be fighting to gain us, not both shooting us and asking who's gun hurt more.
Good luck finding a way to access content to a game that's locked out until you re-sub.That's kind of crazy. I didn't even realize Sony had this system in place with DLC. Methinks it is time for Sony to change how they allow people to access purchased content.
I'm 99% sure Jack Trenton said they would get free Drive Club "PS+ Edition" at the E3 conference last year. I knew that meant we wouldn't get a full game. The 10 cars and 5 tracks is fine with me and probably fine with most people who just want a freebie to check out each month.
Now if I pay to unlock the full game that should be mine forever. If it expires after I stop my ps+ sub then that is bull shit.
If they'd planned to fuck over consumers they wouldn't have told you exactly what happened in the video the other day and in a blog post back in August.
If memory serves me right, when asked if you keep the content after your ps+ sub expires Chris Brown (I believe it was) confirmed this. Apparently this was incorrect and his answer was quickly edited to state you have access to the full version as long as you have an active subscription. The manner in which the news was released gives the impression Sony had to let it be known due to the previous error. In my eyes that is different than giving an impromptu statement revealing the Driveclub ps+ full version paywall.
If they planned to fuck you over, they wouldn't try to inform you 5 months in advance. Putting up a video like that and "hoping" enough people won't notice is so naive that it's unlikely. Gaf has raised hell for much smaller issues and they know it. We can agree that it was a bad move, but is it with malicious intent? That's debatable. Though I disagree with you, feeling that way is your prerogative. As a customer it is your right to accuse them when you honestly feel wronged. As a seller it behooves them to defend themselves and regain your trust. What they do next will help us gauge their motive. Until then, I'd like to presume innocence. But that's just my way of looking at the world
That's kind of crazy. I didn't even realize Sony had this system in place with DLC. Methinks it is time for Sony to change how they allow people to access purchased content.
If they planned to fuck you over, they wouldn't try to inform you 5 months in advance.
So people who are misled (aka falling for it) are mindless automatons? Did anyone suggest that? You are making straw man arguments. If you think there wouldn't be people being misled, walk into a any retail store around you. It happens every day. Doesn't necessarily make the buyer stupid or the seller evil. If there are ways to avoid it and the community, which tends to pay more attention to the details, can help in defining lines that shouldn't be crossed, then that's a good thing, right?
There is a lot of over reaction and hyperbole on the internet. Nothing new there. Best is to filter out the noise and go with the crux of the argument being made.
I still think it was wrong of them to try to revise older Internet postings to pretend that they never promised anything different (specifically, that purchasers would own the full game that's not tethered to their PS+ subscriptions). I don't like the notion of them changing their offer in the first place, but they could have been more open and honest about the whole thing. Editing old statements on the Internet reeks of a "cover-up" scheme, and puts the company's honesty into question.
I don't think it's our job to protect others from being able to spend X amount of money on any game. People spend thousands of dollars on shitty F2P or MMO games that we'd all laugh and point our fingers at and we're not doing anything to stop that from happening. I traded in games for $10 that I spent $60 on. I spent $50 and I don't even own the game anymore, and no one informed me beforehand.
Wow, still no word from Shuhei or Rushy.
The lesson I learned from reading this thread: A $10 discount isn't deep enough to validate putting retail games behind a pay wall.
Instant Game Collection proves that there is a retail-game-price (in this case $0) that people are willing to settle on in order to stay behind the pay wall (maybe it's free, maybe it's more).
This make me think about MMO like Wow, FF14, we buy the main game plus all the expansion, if you monthly sub lapse, we lost access too,
same goes for Titanfall or PvZ:GF, you lost access of the game if your gold run out.
Just because Driveclub have offline mode, we view the ownership with different standard.
The lesson I learned from reading this thread: A $10 discount isn't deep enough to validate putting retail games behind a pay wall.
Instant Game Collection proves that there is a retail-game-price (in this case $0) that people are willing to settle on in order to stay behind the pay wall (maybe it's free, maybe it's more).
The offer wasn't changed. This was explicitly mentioned before in August. What has changed is that the individuals who made contradictory statements are now falling in line with the original offer.
It still doesn't justify a stealth edit.
More then likely planning an official response.
I am literally typing this up in my game room surrounded by hundreds of NES, SNES, N64, GameBoy, Genesis, Sega CD, Master System, PSX, and Dreamcast games.
So, I agree.
Perhaps...but the bottom line is that the offer was changed. They originally promised one thing, and several months later changed it to something else. Whether the declaration of the original offer was done entirely in error is moot.
Agreed, and that's one of the big problems here. If Sony came straight out and said, "We originally planned to do it this way, but for (fill in the blank) reason(s) we had to change our offer", then I don't think the backlash should have been as severe. There would still be some amount of disappointment that the new offer isn't anywhere near as good as the old one, but at least we could appreciate the honest approach. The stealth edits with no subsequent explanation are compounding an already negative situation, and are the reasons why their honesty is now thrown into doubt.
I'm saying it's likely people won't be misled. It does Sony no benefit sales wise to obfuscate so I'm sure they'll make it clear enough before release. Ok, let's say people were actually tricked and Sony made no effort to distinguish the difference between the DLC and regular version. They'd be pissed! And it's highly likely they'll never buy into anything like this again. That kind of thing would never become the norm which is what I'm getting at. It's not good business and the consumer would figure it out fast.
I don't think it's our job to protect others from being able to spend X amount of money on any game. People spend thousands of dollars on shitty F2P or MMO games that we'd all laugh and point our fingers at and we're not doing anything to stop that from happening. I traded in games for $10 that I spent $60 on. I spent $50 and I don't even own the game anymore, and no one informed me beforehand. And there's many others out there who've done the same. You say you want to protect people from bad deals but it doesn't make sense when you think about it across the board and into everything else we spend our money on day to day. Give people options (and some credit of intelligence) and they will actually figure it out. I'm addressing this towards people who don't even want to see this DLC version available at all in any form at any price.
Let's see how this DLC is officially explained. Market forces will see what flies and what doesn't so I'm not worried of any scary tipping point. If people are tricked continuously and deliberately by this "scheme" Sony would eventually lose all their customers, go bankrupt and everyone will move to Xbox or Nintendo. If $50 DLC PS+ gets so popular it becomes the only option to buy games then somehow the collective market must have voted for this with their dollars. These aren't realistic scenarios but they seem to be what people think will happen.
Or better yet if you are really bothered by the precedent this "deal" is setting you don't buy anything, and you especially don't give Sony $10 more than you traditionally had to.If you are really bothered then play the PS+ version, see if you like it, if you do then purchase the retail version.
Yup. And that's fair. That's the premium you pay for the convenience of flexible pricing. There is just a price point beyond which it stops making sense. If they keep that the way it is and fix the "all" option, I don't think people will complain.
Stay tuned because there’s more content coming tomorrow with the ‘Clubs’ video, explaining why they’re crucial to making DRIVECLUB distinctly different.
Friday’s episode is all about challenges – why we love ‘em, what they give you and importantly, how they’ll make the game infinitely more networked and fun to play in your Club.
PlayStationEU: UPDATE> If you have #DRIVECLUB PS+ Ed & upgrade, we'll ensure you keep full game access even if your PS Plus runs out http://t.co/RIjDw6Mzzw
https://twitter.com/playstationeu/status/464729448802041856
I guess today apples are oranges.It's not DLC people. It's an upgrade.
If you bought DLC for a free game like BF3 on PS3 then gave up your plus sub you could go out and buy a used copy of BF3 for a few $ and have access to your DLC again.
This "offer" let's you upgrade to the full retail game. Not DLC. If you let your sub lapse you lose the full game. If you then go out and buy the retail game, your purchased upgrade doesn't add anything and is redundant.
Of course if the retail game is only $15 and also comes with the same 11 tracks etc and you have to pay $40 or so for DLC packs then there's no issue. However the wording of the press release makes this very unlikely.
Comparing the upgrade to existing DLC is apples to oranges.