Support NeoGAF

[QisTopTier]

One of the legal issues I could instantly see being argued against Capcom is that the locked characters would be visable to non-purchasers of the content as soon as they played with someone who did pay for the content online. The content would be streaming off the disc that they purchased and thus would be part of the game.

Look at it this way, if someone had hacked the home version of SFIII so that Gil was playable before Capcom made him playable in later versions of the game woul that have been piracy?

What would have made that piracy? If Capcom wanted to charge for Gil?

If gil was a pay to play character, and the game was online and he was usable for those people. Then it counts as pirating as you are using "stolen" property vs people who have not "stolen" the character.

The law doesnt care if you do what ever in private with yourself. The second it hits a public place and involves others, then you play by what ever companies rules or what ever states/countries laws.

 

[toddhunter]

How does DLC makes a game better? From what you're saying the things that it mainly makes better are the publisher's and dev's pockets.

If the game is good it will sell (not always, but most of the time). If a game is lackluster, then yeah, it deserves the low sales. DLC ain't gonna improve that.

DLC may or may not make the game better. The point is if a developer has to invest $X into a game, there needs to be a decision about if they are going to get at least $X back to make it worth while, pay their employees and stay in business.

DLC is a way to minimise the risk. If the risk is too great, games simply will not get funded or made. It also helps to provide an income stream whilst a developer makes their new project. People will expect to get paid every month and development may take years. Capcom have a plan to release DLC in stages to get a return on their investment when they need it. This seems reasonable to me.

Why should gamers care? Well obviously if a developer can't stay in business or it isn't viable, they can't make games at all.

 

[sleepykyo]

They lock away 1/3 of the game I'm sure they can lock away another 5/6 of it away if they think people will pay for it.

Shrugs. If Super SF x T 2 has 100 characters and they decide to lock and sell the first 50 as SF x T 2 ‚ seems fine.

edit: Read it as 1/2 . Jumping from 1/3 to 5/6 is quite a leap.

 

[Imm0rt4l]

wrong thread.

 

[Ogrekiller]

Shrugs. If Super SF x T 2 has 100 characters and they decide to lock and sell the first 50 as SF x T 2 ‚ seems fine.

So when does it become not fine?

When its 70?

80?

99?

 

[Black-Box]

if it is already on the disc, how can they force you to pay for it, just because you want to make smaller downloads, like I understand releasing characters down the line to keep it fresh, but come onn

 

[Saint Gregory]

If gil was a pay to play character, and the game was online and he was usable for those people. Then it counts as pirating as you are using "stolen" property vs people who have not "stolen" the character.

The law doesnt care if you do what ever in private with yourself. The second it hits a public place and involves others, then you play by what ever companies rules or what ever states/countries laws.

You don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. For starters, software piracy is not theft it's copyright infringement.

 

[sleepykyo]

So when does it become not fine?

When its 70?

80?

99?

When the starter cast is below 12. Technically MK started with 8 but BB is more recent.

 

[Woo-Fu]

You don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. For starters, software piracy is not theft it's copyright infringement.

Semantics game that is used by people trying to dodge the point. So familiar, see it in every piracy thread.

 

[ShinobiFist]

Jtag is okay? News to me. Modding a call of duty game to go through walls is okay as well right?

Not the same, and you know it. Hacking a game to do things that wasn't intended and benefits the user, and not others, is not the same as unlocking content that's already on the disc. Horrible comparison my dude.

 

[Gsak]

Semantics game that is used by people trying to dodge the point. So familiar, see it in every piracy thread.

Semantics? It's what the law defines as theft and what as piracy. So, no it's not "semantics" nor something trivial.

 

[QisTopTier]

Not the same, and you know it. Hacking a game to do things that wasn't intended and benefits the user, and not others, is not the same as unlocking content that's already on the disc. Horrible comparison my dude.

Characters are not intended to be played yet. Can be used online vs others. Gives you advantage as only the hacker will know how to use them or defend against them.

Using jack in his current state online would be a straight up slaughter fest.

No one cares if you mod your game to make ryu shoot out flaming penises from his hands and this only effects you. But the second it hits a public domain that's when it maters. The hackers giving out the way for the characters to be used is about on par with selling bootleg dvds in the eyes of the market.

 

[Saint Gregory]

Semantics game that is used by people trying to dodge the point. So familiar, see it in every piracy thread.

Okay then, explain to me what the gamers using these characters did wrong legally.

Did they copy the characters illegally? We have no evidence of that.

Are they using the characters in ways other than what was intended? They're using them to fight other characters so no, they aren't.

Basically what this boils down to are people, like yourself, trying to defend Capcom's attempt to sell other people the same content twice. If they package the DLC on a disc and sell it seperatly at least then its a seperate product from what they already sold in SFxT.

 

[Gsak]

Characters are not intended to be played yet. Can be used online vs others. Gives you advantage as only the hacker will know how to use them or defend against them.

Using jack in his current state online would be a straight up slaughter fest.

I agree. Using them online is unfair, yes. But on the other hand it is a slap to Capcom's face.

 

[QisTopTier]

Are they using the characters in ways other than what was intended? They're using them to fight other characters so no, they aren't.

They are using them in ways that were not intended. The characters are not intended to be played.

 

[Saint Gregory]

They are using them in ways that were not intended. The characters are not intended to be played.

Somehow I actually think that you believe this. Again, I've found nothing legally that protects these characters from being used in the game that they were developed for. DRM and copyright infringement weren't meant to be applied in cases like this where there's no clear agreement between the publisher and consumer as to what content was granted at point of purchase.

 

[QisTopTier]

Somehow I actually think that you believe this. Again, I've found nothing legally that protects these characters from being used in the game that they were developed for. DRM and copyright infringement weren't meant to be applied in cases like this where there's no clear agreement between the publisher and consumer as to what content was granted at point of purchase.

The characters are ment to be played right now? Oh sweet let me go hop on and play as them. OH FUCKING WAIT... I can't.

If it's okay for them to be used and all that, why are videos of them ripped from the web using violation terms and copyrights. But videos of the current normal cast allowed?

 

[Zoe]

Somehow I actually think that you believe this. Again, I've found nothing legally that protects these characters from being used in the game that they were developed for. DRM and copyright infringement weren't meant to be applied in cases like this where there's no clear agreement between the publisher and consumer as to what content was granted at point of purchase.

Does modifying the game not require you to make a copy of it first, which would require breaking the DRM?

 

[Saint Gregory]

Does modifying the game not require you to make a copy of it first, which would require breaking the DRM?

I'm fairly certain that consumers are allowed to make copies of content for backup purposes so long as they don't distribute it.

The characters are ment to be played right now? Oh sweet let me go hop on and play as them. OH FUCKING WAIT... I can't If it's okay for them to be used and all that, why are videos of them ripped from the web using violation terms. But videos of the current normal cast allowed?

Again, all I ask is that you or anyone provide the legal basis for why this is wrong. I'm not unreasonable and willing to see this as a crime if anyone can show that what these gamers did was illegal. MS banning them or Youtube pulling videos means nothing since they can pull whatever they choose from their services.

 

[NoirVisage]

Game has locked DLC on disc. Everything is there: story, characters, move lists, sound sets etc.

You paid for a 100% game yet can only use 70% of it. You will have to pay again for the rest 30%.

Hackers don't pay. They play.

in a nut shell.

 

[QisTopTier]

I'm fairly certain that consumers are allowed to make copies of content for backup purposes so long as they don't distribute it.

Again, all I ask is that you or anyone provide the legal basis for why this is wrong. I'm not unreasonable and willing to see this as a crime if anyone can show that what these gamers did was illegal. MS banning them or Youtube pulling videos means nothing since they can pull whatever they choose from their services.

I'm not sure a case has been presented in court for it yet. But it would be interesting to see how it goes down. The closest thing is the whole hot coffee mess.

 

[Zoe]

I'm fairly certain that consumers are allowed to make copies of content for backup purposes so long as they don't distribute it.

Not if DRM is used according to the DMCA.

 

[QisTopTier]

Not if DRM is used according to the DMCA.

Console games don't have DRM yet. Well besides some random psn games that I know of.

 

[Gsak]

And people using this as a defense ASSUME this as well. No evidence that those characters would never exist just like Javik from ME3. In fact early designs and planning on both cases point the other way. Hell Cody and Guy were in that Poison reveal trailer way back at SDCC.

The mental gymnastics people play to justify their favorite companies is getting ridiculous. Look, you want to buy the DLC, go ahead but the defenses used for this are weak thats why this argument is ongoing and never ending. And people are going to continue to bitch and call companies out on this as consumers fighting for what rights we have left. I mean FFS at this point

1) we don't own that actual disc we bought
2) we don't really own the console we bought
3) we shouldn't rent or trade in or buy used those games we don't really own
4) on top of xbox live you pay for an online pass, either by getting said game new or paying $10 because they can shut those online servers down at anytime
5) you don't get to play everything on that disc you bought
6) anything else they forgot to limit or take away from us they can just by inserting words in the EULA agreement
7) If you bring up or try to question any of this you are a whiny entitled prick

Look at the EA online pass shutting down servers thread. Here is a hint GAME COMPANIES ARE NOT YOUR FRIENDS. They don't require your defense, they are not your buddies, they are not going to come to the hospital when you are sick and they are not going to reward you for your patronage and fighting for them. Their "community managers" are not there out of the kindness of their hearts and by the grace of the company. Ono does not have a twitter account out of pure love for you and the fans. They may have some fun doing it but IT IS THEIR JOB!

They want your money, they are a business, and they want your money. End of story, no bromance or hidden agenda. PR people are there saying whatever they need to say to diffuse a situation. This is the biggest problem with gaming communities so close to gaming companies and I think it the only industry out there capable of it, maybe to an extent the music industry. They use it to gauge what the hell they can get away with and this generation they have found they can pretty much get away with most anything. I'm honest to goodness terrified of what next gen is going to end up being.

And this doucebag has the audacity to call the gamers who unlocked these on-disc characters "ballsy" Look at your damn selves Capcom.

This: /thread.

 

[Saint Gregory]

Not if DRM is used according to the DMCA.

I've never tried to copy a 360 game before. Is there actual DRM in place on the disc to prevent copying or is the copy protection built into the console?

Console games don't have DRM yet. Well besides some random psn games that I know of.

Answered. Unfortunately cases like this are probably going to lead to DRM on console games and ridiculous EULAs before you can play them. At that point I'll become a retro only gamer.

PS3 games are encrypted. I have no idea about 360 games.

There's an encrypted key to start the games but I don't think that the actual discs are encrypted.

 

[Zoe]

Console games don't have DRM yet. Well besides some random psn games that I know of.

PS3 games have DRM. There's a reason people hadn't been able to play burned games before the jailbreak. I have no idea about 360 games.

 

[Loofy]

For all the people arguing for DLC made during the games initial develepment. Youre basically arguing that $60 is too little for a retail game. In the case of SFxTekken, the full game needs to be worth $106 to support development.

Yeah..

 

[QisTopTier]

For all the people arguing for day DLC made during the games initial develepment. Youre basically arguing that $60 is too little for a retail game. In the case of SFxTekken, the full game needs to be worth $106 to support development.

Yeah..

Just 80, I don't care about costumes. well maybe 2 or 3. Ok so 83 dollars for a game that will last me over 1000 hours. Cool that's a lot of uncharteds. Oh and still cheaper than playing the same game in the arcade for a year.

 

[duckroll]

For all the people arguing for DLC made during the games initial develepment. Youre basically arguing that $60 is too little for a retail game. In the case of SFxTekken, the full game needs to be worth $106 to support development.

Yeah..

That sounds about right to me! MvC3 got a base game with terrible online features for 60 bucks (for 70 bucks you get 2 extra characters!). But with the extra injection of 40 dollars from UMvC3, they could afford to patch the game with better features and more characters, making the game complete! Only 110 USD!

 

[Mandoric]

That sounds about right to me! MvC3 got a base game with terrible online features for 60 bucks (for 70 bucks you get 2 extra characters!). But with the extra injection of 40 dollars from UMvC3, they could afford to patch the game with better features and more characters, making the game complete! Only 110 USD!

We are all importers now?

 

[alstein]

Old model (What a lot of gamers are suggesting is a better approach):

* Gamers want games.
* Developers make games
* Developer releases game, game doesn't sell as good as it needs to
* Developer goes out of business
* Gamers no longer have games.

Note that under this model when you do get games, you can bet they will be heavily weighted to the big selling genres without niche or risky games because of the huge costs.

How Capcom are looking at it (which some gamers clearly disagree with):

* Gamers want games.
* Developers make games.
* The business model of developer makes game, release game, gamers may or may not buy the game is no longer viable due to the risks.
* Developers try alternate models to stay in business like making extra content to sell as DLC later on to provide continued income to help with things like cash flow
* Developers stay in business, make more diverse games like fighters.
* Gamers whine and complain
* Gamers get games.

I'm fine with how Capcom are going about it. I'm sure they will adjust things as they get feedback from fans and see how their revenue streams adjust. At the end of the day they made a great game in SfxT which is what it ultimately is all about.

What's really happening:

*Gamers want games
*Developers make games for publisher
*Publisher is tired of folks enjoying their games for 200+ hours and only getting $60 for it
*Developer tries to find ways to squeeze more money out of gamers with alternative business models
*Developer makes more profit as they know their audience won't bail
*Games whine and complain, but fail to support alternative products with better model
*Gamers buy fewer games due to income effect, which puts smaller devs out of business, as gamers have less money to take risks on more innovative games.


This is not about anything other then Capcom trying to get $80-$100+ for their $60 game.
If you feel SFvsTK is worth $100, then paying the DLC is fine. If you think it's not worth $60, you'll wait or skip. It's the folks who value the game between 60 and 100 who should be upset.

This is why I wish to trade the game once Skullgirls comes out for a PSN card. I'm just viewing it as an extended rental.

 

[Ogrekiller]

We are all importers now?

We are all free more like.

Well not free but you get the drift.

 

[Kurod]

For all the people arguing for DLC made during the games initial develepment. Youre basically arguing that $60 is too little for a retail game. In the case of SFxTekken, the full game needs to be worth $106 to support development.

Yeah..

You must not be familiar with the fighting game community. With each game there's usually a new $100-$150+ stick released to go along with it. They wouldn't keep making them if people didn't keep buying them.

 

[Mandoric]

You must not be familiar with the fighting game community. With each game there's usually a new $100-$150+ stick released to go along with it. They wouldn't keep making them if people didn't keep buying them.

And then $25 for the replacement Sanwa mechanism, and then $3 each for the replacement Sanwa buttons, and $3 each for the replacement Seimitsu buttons, and $30 or $50 for the replacement board, and OH GOD IT ALL MAKES SENSE.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

So you prefer that they make you download it instead?

If they create content for a game and finish the content in time to put it in the game then I expect it to be in the game. Hell some of the DLC guys were in some of the first teasers IIRC.

 

[Night_Trekker]

I think it's safe to say the term dlc has transformed to something much different then just downloading new content. It's been over 10 years since it came into heavy use on the major consoles. It's evolved, or devolved depending on who you talk to, into a whole different beast. From hence forth i shall refer to it as ExC, extra content.

Every gamer with a brain knew this was coming and called it early on.

 

[behem0th x]

All things considered, I'm finding it extremely hard to feel bad for capcpom in regards to this, they should just admit they were in the wrong here.

My guess is they won't ban anyone... if they can't figure out how to add support for 2-players on the same xbox to play online (like tons of other games already do), then there is no way in hell they're going to figure out how to operate a ban-hammer properly.

 

[scytheavatar]

I'm not sure that I understand how you're applying this concept. Capcom's work is protected and well as derivatives of that work but where did they explicitly state that they were only selling one part of their work on SFxT and not the rest when people purchased their game?

Just because they're selling an unlock code six months from now doesn't establish that. Other publishers have been selling unlock codes for content that can be unlocked through gameplay all generation so IMO all these "hackers" did was stymie Capcom's attempt to block content from them that they already paid for.

Yes they did but I gave up arguing with the wilfully ignorant.

http://www.capcom.com/capcom/legal_privacy/online_eula.html

5. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, we hereby grant to you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, revocable license to use the Software solely in connection with playing the Game via an authorized and Account. You may not copy, distribute, sell, auction, rent, lease, loan, modify or create derivative works, adapt, translate, perform, display, sublicense or transfer all or any portion of the Software. You may not copy any of the written materials accompanying the Media. You may not reverse engineer, disassemble or decompile the Software except to the extent that this restriction is expressly prohibited by applicable law.

It's explictedly written in the EULA, you are not allowed to modify or create derivative works. Just because you brought Capcom's game doesn't mean they give you the permission to change the contents of the game you brought.

 

[VALKYRAY]

im glade im not payin anything for this bullshit. will buy when its dirt cheap. like below 10 bucks

 

[ShdwDrake]

If its on the disc I can do what I want f an EULA.

 

[rCIZZLE]

If they create content for a game and finish the content in time to put it in the game then I expect it to be in the game. Hell some of the DLC guys were in some of the first teasers IIRC.

Exactly. This is just them working the system and I'm glad it's backfiring. This is why I wish PC was the platform of choice for the games I enjoy. If they tried doing this on PC then everybody would have the characters for free.

 

[zoukka]

That sounds about right to me! MvC3 got a base game with terrible online features for 60 bucks (for 70 bucks you get 2 extra characters!). But with the extra injection of 40 dollars from UMvC3, they could afford to patch the game with better features and more characters, making the game complete! Only 110 USD!

Compare that to waiting for sales and buying the ultimate version for 20 bucks.

 

[CamHostage]

DRM and copyright infringement weren't meant to be applied in cases like this where there's no clear agreement between the publisher and consumer as to what content was granted at point of purchase.

Who told you Digital Rights Management wasn't "meant" to be applied to portions of content on a product? DMCA allows for whatever portion of anti-circumvention provisions added to a product to be protected in its copyright. If a DVD movie allows you to install a screensaver or MP3 soundtrack that's not wrapped in copy-protection, that doesn't void the copyright for the entire product. DRM is just a catch-all term for a method (with some legal backing) for managing the access rights of a digital product, it says it all right there in the name.

Again, all I ask is that you or anyone provide the legal basis for why this is wrong. I'm not unreasonable and willing to see this as a crime if anyone can show that what these gamers did was illegal.

There, I agree with you. t'd be hard for Capcom to prove that it did not exclude the on-disc content as part of the "purchase agreement" upon sale, and the Hot Coffee case will be easy ammo against them for trying.

 

[fresquito]

Some people are born to be slaves, aren't they?

How could some defend Capcom otherwise and think people are doing wrong by using the content they already paid for?

 

[AB12]

Some people are born to be slaves, aren't they?

How could some defend Capcom otherwise and think people are doing wrong by using the content they already paid for?

Some will defend anything.

 

[Kokonoe]

Isn't this no different than Game Genie?

 

[Chev]

It's explictedly written in the EULA, you are not allowed to modify or create derivative works. Just because you brought Capcom's game doesn't mean they give you the permission to change the contents of the game you brought.

Most cases where EULAs have been challenged legally have ended up with the EULA being invalid. Technically the only things EULAs can legally impose on you are the ones that already are in the law.

 

[abstract alien]

Some people are born to be slaves, aren't they?

How could some defend Capcom otherwise and think people are doing wrong by using the content they already paid for?

Is anyone really "defending" it though? Just seems some are just saying it's lawfully wrong, which seems to be a valid point. You paid for what they gave you the right to use, regardless of what is on the disk. One's morals really have no merits legally, and they are bound by what they agreed to. By purchasing it, you agree to what capcom has previously decided is ok, right? I mean, I would rather them not do it, but they are in no way wrong. They used their own money to create a product and put it up for sale, so they can sell it however they like the same way you could, had you made it...correct? I'm really confused by this topic on an objective level. The subjective really didn't matter honestly.

 

[Metal Gear?!]

Isn't this no different than Game Genie?

Effectively, yes.

Two things however:

1) Using a game genie/gameshark online was always a dick move

2) No one tried to monetize secrets hidden away on cartridge/disc before this gen

 

[Chev]

No one tried to monetize secrets hidden away on cartridge/disc before this gen

Not completely true. Including near-impossible to find items/characters/special moves/cheats solely in order to be able to sell official/sponsored guides used to be a common strategy, though gamefaqs put somewhat of a damper on that.