Support NeoGAF

[StormCell]

You are breaking the law and basically stealing. I don't follow emulation but if you circumvent dlc on disc locking to gain access then you stole it.

Forcing people to download content because they are childish enough to expect that they own everything on the media is stupid

But then what's the purpose of owning the media if you don't actually own the content contained on the media or a right to use the content contained on the media? Fair use allows license holders the right to dump the content from the media and stuff like that. So, basically, I have the right to dump the DLC from the media as well. If modding falls under fair use, I don't necessarily see why the discovery of some bespoke DLC should be exempt from modders.

Just spinning the argument for argument's sake. I understand DLC and content licensing, but I think it's a bad look on the industry when they need special rules to govern consumer use of the product. When I buy software, I like subjecting it to all sorts of unpredictable uses and environments. If I get it up and running in an unintended OS, that's my business.

 

[Arkhan]

Consider how many polls the guy's making, how low-effort they are and how many people are pissed off with them. Hopefully either he calms down, he gains some self-awareness, or the mod team finds a way to manage him a bit.

If you have an issue report it and move on. The mod team are aware of the situation, and there is a currently active thread for members to discuss it. Turning each thread that contains a poll into an off topic mess, mocking the poll and ignoring the discussion, is not productive for anyone.

All members should consider what - if any - value a poll adds to a thread when creating a topic. They can be very useful in gauging a consensus for a question, but can also limit discussion to responses outside of those in the poll, or turn threads into lists with no discussion. Used appropriately though, they can enhance a position or discussion with data directly from our members, and that is of value.

 

[Jigsaah]

I voted yes, but I don't agree with the whole answer....but I didn't wanna say no...because i disagreed with that more....and then there was the neutral on the fence...and that just felt like a cop out.

I think they should give us access to all content that is ready by the release date. Subsequent dlc should be sold as it is developed post release. I feel there should be declarations that are mandatory for transparency. These declarations would signify that works has begun on post release content. Work should be timestamped for verification.

This will never happen, because it's overreaching. I just wish people would stop being so damn greedy all-the-fuck-ing-time.

 

[Hulk_Smash]

Just because I invited you over to my house doesn't mean you can rifle through my fridge.

But what if you BOUGHT the house?

 

[Spukc]

to open the eyes of some of you tits on this forum.
Car manufactures (AUDI) have been doing this for years with heated car seats.
They figured out its actually cheaper to manufacture one type of car seat that includes the heating elements. Instead of two types.

If you opt in for heated car seats you are essentially paying for them to install a button in your car.
Nothing new and certainly not illegal.


captain out

 

[Sakura Doritos]

It should be an industry rejected use case. It should be rejected by customers. But it shouldn’t be illegal. I would rather watch the entire gaming industry collapse under consumer pressure or just not partake in questionable sales tactics than to have the government stepping even deeper into my entertainment companies.

 

[Kamina]

to open the eyes of some of you tits on this forum.
Car manufactures (AUDI) have been doing this for years with heated car seats.
They figured out its actually cheaper to manufacture on type of car seat that includes the heating elements. Instead of two types.

If you opt in for heated car seats you are essentially paying for them to install a button in your car.
Nothing new and certainly not illegal.


captain out

Its also not illegal to isntall the button yourself to use that function though. Some people here seem to argue that identifying on-disc resources and unlocking them without paying is theft.

 

[pr0cs]

But then what's the purpose of owning the media if you don't actually own the content contained on the media or a right to use the content contained on the media? .

The disc is simply a vehicle to deliver the product to you, it in itself has no value. The software is of value.
I would much rather be saved the time and bandwidth charges to download the content than be forced to download it.

Explain how leaving content off the disc is better for consumers.

 

[PseudoViper]

Yes! It should absolutely be illegal!

If it made it to the disc when it shipped then it should have been included in the final product.

 

[StormCell]

The disc is simply a vehicle to deliver the product to you, it in itself has no value. The software is of value.
I would much rather be saved the time and bandwidth charges to download the content than be forced to download it.

Explain how leaving content off the disc is better for consumers.

It's a simpler package to understand. You get what's on the disc. You don't get some of what's on there or most of what's on there. Ownership of the disc translates to access to the disc's full contents. This is what ownership means in the physical world.

It's not even just the presence of DLC on a game disc/cart that I really oppose. I wonder about what's going to happen a decade or more later when there's likely to be no way to unlock that DLC (even if you bought it). This is why I prefer the simplicity of "insert disc = get game". It might be better, in the physical sense, to sell the DLC separately.

Bear in mind, I'm not strongly opposed. I figure most game discs are already like this with loads of content on them that's not available in the game. I just happen to be of the opinion that I should be free to roam that disc's contents to my heart's desire. If they want to pack the DLC on the game disc, they shouldn't be offended when people stumble into ways to access it other than the paid route.

 

[pr0cs]

It's a simpler package to understand. You get what's on the disc.

You're trying to equate software distribution similar to other hard products, that simply is NOT the case. The disc has zero value. The disc is there simply to aid in distribution of the software.

When shareware was available did you believe that you were allowed to crack the game and get the full version because you owned the disk?

 

[Xenon]

There should be no legal limits imposed on what is put on a disk. They can put the sequel on it if they want. I find this concept silly.

 

[StormCell]

When shareware was available did you believe that you were allowed to crack the game and get the full version because you owned the disk?

If through using the Shareware, as intended, I accidentally into the full version of the software, then yes. That's how I experienced Quake to its fullest, actually. It's not my fault that through playing the game I actually made it into parts of the game I was supposed to be locked out of... When you distribute the full code of something, you should never be surprised that people will gain access through methods you didn't intend.

I happen to prefer an older outdated ownership model for software. I understand licenses, but as one of the developers on whatever piece of software I happen to be working on these licenses don't add an extra dollar to my pay. So far, they only serve to add restriction to what I've bought or, as I figure will happen, add a time limit to my ownership. I would rather just stick with the antique model of "own disc get software."

 

[StormCell]

There should be no legal limits imposed on what is put on a disk. They can put the sequel on it if they want. I find this concept silly.

But whatever you put on the disc, you shouldn't have any legal expectation that it will remain secret/unmodified/unused.

 

[pr0cs]

but as one of the developers on whatever piece of software I happen to be working on these licenses don't add an extra dollar to my pay.

Then you are clearly working at the wrong shop, I can guarantee that most houses give pay bonuses for dlc purchased

 

[zenspider]

There is so much unused data on discs - Hot Coffee being the most famous example - it's really hard to distinguish what is 'content' and what is 'content-in-waiting'.

DLC and MTX has been normalized for quite a while now, the whole on-disc argument seems quaint.

 

[Afro Republican]

You're trying to equate software distribution similar to other hard products, that simply is NOT the case. The disc has zero value. The disc is there simply to aid in distribution of the software.

When shareware was available did you believe that you were allowed to crack the game and get the full version because you owned the disk?

This defense doesn't work.

The disc is the product, and those whatever on the disc is also the product. it's why the box advertises the GAME which IS the Disc, and why you need to put the product in another machine you invested in the load the game. It's like how companies have to be careful what they put on the boxes nowadays because if they put a screen of something you don't have access to that's false advertisement by definition, so to try and act like the DISC is not the product and is separate is silly. (especially when DLC used to be added to discs in the past)

I mean you're on the line of basically saying that i can buy Resident Evil 7 right now and then have most of the game inaccessible to me outside the title screen unless I pay $80 which would easily be struck by the court.

 

[Xenon]

But whatever you put on the disc, you shouldn't have any legal expectation that it will remain secret/unmodified/unused.

Secret and unmodified sure. but I think of it more like a virtual mini bar, pay as used.

 

[pr0cs]

This defense doesn't work.

The disc is the product,

It really isn't. The disk is the vehicle that delivers you the product. You are only entitled to how much of that product you paid for.
It has worked this way since software has been distributed.

It would be like saying "I am entitled to steal satellite signals because they hit my house, make them stop hitting my house and I'll stop stealing them"

 

[shark sandwich]

Would you feel better if they kept it off the disc and made you download it instead?

How would that change anything? What an idiotic thread.

 

[Afro Republican]

It really isn't. The disk is the vehicle that delivers you the product. You are only entitled to how much of that product you paid for.
It has worked this way since software has been distributed.

It would be like saying "I am entitled to steal satellite signals because they hit my house, make them stop hitting my house and I'll stop stealing them"

The fact you had to omit the rest of my post shows you know that's not how this works.

You're theory would actually allow a company to ship a disc that only has access to the title screen IF they WANTED to. Which would be struck in court guarantee.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

Not being allowed to lock content in a piece of software behind additional payment would have massive consequences for software in general, never mind video games. Take for example an operating system like Windows. I can download that package but need to buy a licence of varying levels to access all of its properties. Instead completely separate versions would need to be produced and sold, and they could not make any of it available before it had been purchased.

Consider trial software in general that unlocks part or whole of a package already installed when purchasing a full licence, or software sold in parts like Adobe products? The majority of phone apps would need to have multiple versions listed instead of one. A trial and a full version. It would be damaging for companies and limiting to the consumer.

If you don't like how a product is packaged then don't buy it. Have some restraint and make your issues heard. Companies will listen when it matters.

 

[pr0cs]

The fact you had to omit the rest of my post shows you know that's not how this works.

You're theory would actually allow a company to ship a disc that only has access to the title screen IF they WANTED to. Which would be struck in court guarantee.

I omitted it because it added exactly zero to the conversation.

You buy what the company says is included. That means THEY dictate what you own, no you, not your ownership of the media. Do you believe that because you have a Windows 10 disc you own all copies of Windows 10?..because that's how they sell their software.

The publisher and developer determines what you actually own and paid for, not you. You owning the disc means nothing

 

[Afro Republican]

I omitted it because it added exactly zero to the conversation.

You buy what the company says is included.

Which many companies don't have on the box, just some description of the game and the title cover photo on the box. So again you're basically saying if THEY decided to ship a disc that had access only to the title screen that's legal. that is relevant to the conversation because on-disc dlc is basically the same thing, restricting access to what's already on the disc.

Do you believe that because you have a Windows 10 disc you own all copies of Windows 10?..because that's how they sell their software.

This doesn't make sense, you buy the windows 10 disc because you want the windows 10 product and once you install the OS you have the fully advertised windows 10 product. With all extras (as described) being extras. You don't install windows 10 and get a prompt you need to pay $400 to unlock the taskbar and start menu.

 

[Schrödinger's cat]

I think it's a very common assumption, particularly when something is tangible, to misunderstand what your money is buying.
Consumers do not buy software. They buy access to software. The access is limited and conditional. Ownership of the software is never transferred to the consumer.

 

[pr0cs]

you're basically saying if THEY decided to ship a disc that had access only to the title screen that's legal.

Absolutely, now if they advertised that you got a whole game and you only get a title screen then that would be false advertising. They aren't doing that though, they say you get the base game and if you want the dlc then you pay for it.

This doesn't make sense, you buy the windows 10 disc because you want the windows 10 product and once you install the OS you have the fully advertised windows 10 product. With all extras (as described) being extras. You don't install windows 10 and get a prompt you need to pay $400 to unlock the taskbar and start menu.

When you install windows the key you are provided dictates how much of that disc you get. The disc is the same if you buy basic or if you buy ultimate edition. You are only entitled to what you paid for even if the disc has every feature they developed. It's been that way for at least ten years now

 

[Afro Republican]

Absolutely, now if they advertised that you got a whole game and you only get a title screen then that would be false advertising. They aren't doing that though, they say you get the base game and if you want the dlc then you pay for it.

This is the issue though, your reasoning doesn't work because they don't advertise what you will get with the game. For a lot of games on the shelf with no to basic descriptions on the back of the box, on shelves RIGHT NOW, they could have, using what you said, shipped the game with only the title screen. That will not hold in court. So on-disc dlc shouldn't either as it's basically the same thing just not as grand.

They also could have just put the part they wanted to charge off-disc, with no real excuse courts would strike down the former.

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

The justification for these laws was to foster the creation of arts and science. We will soon have True Ai, and they will be more than a barrier than an incentive. These laws which basically violate human rights, no one can own a thought or idea, are on tenuous grounds.

Sorry, but this is wrong. You have a licence to use the content as determined by the letter of license, not the quantity of content on the disk. The "product" is the content access as determined by the license, not the delivery mechanism. Just as, when you buy a game on a disk, you own the plastic, you own the paper for the cover, you own the ink used to print it etc. You do not have rights to use the arrangement of the ink (the artwork) in any manner you choose nor do you have the right to the information arranged on the disk in any other way than expressed in the EULA. By your logic, you should have access to all cable channels because they are, basically, delivered to your home but are hidden behind paywalls.

EULA's many of which wouldn't hold a day in court. Claiming thoughts and ideas are private property is ridiculous nonsense. Nonsense which has been embraced to enrich corporations, feeding like zombies from the works of dead artists while prohibiting new blood from doing new takes freely.

Its also not illegal to isntall the button yourself to use that function though. Some people here seem to argue that identifying on-disc resources and unlocking them without paying is theft.

Yes, people don't seem to realize in the privacy of your home, you should be free to crack any security of any product you own. You have no right to restrict the physical actions of someone upon his private property in the privacy of his home on his own private time.

Your freedom ends where that of others begin, and intellectual property laws basically infringe on the natural rights, human rights, innate, freedoms.

 

[pr0cs]

Your freedom ends where that of others begin, and intellectual property laws basically infringe on the natural rights, human rights, innate, freedoms.

Good luck with that weak justification to someone who depends on selling their hard work to feed themselves and their family.

You don't like the rules, don't buy the product, steal it but don't complain when you are prosecuted if you are caught.

People who feel like they're entitled to things without compensating for the efforts are the enemy of progress. I wonder how much you would complain if you were expected to go to work and not get paid.

 

[brian0057]

... sigh.

 

[Oddvintagechap]

I thought the weird pro-Xbox polls were a mess. But I’m starting to think you know what you’re doing.

Anyways I voted no. Just cause I don’t like something, doesn’t mean it should be illegal.

 

[WaterAstro]

A lot of other things should be priority to be made illegal than this trivial matter.

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

Good luck with that weak justification to someone who depends on selling their hard work to feed themselves and their family.

You don't like the rules, don't buy the product, steal it but don't complain when you are prosecuted if you are caught.

People who feel like they're entitled to things without compensating for the efforts are the enemy of progress. I wonder how much you would complain if you were expected to go to work and not get paid.

you know these laws didn't always exist right?

Artists used to live off of donations from wealthy patrons. And even now, you know, if you're popular even doing non-art related stuff you can get quite a bit on donations right?

You calling sharing ideas stealing does not make it so. The law can say slavery is legal, what the law says does not necessarily mean what makes sense or is right.

Right now the corporations have more than a century of copyright protection holding ideas hostage. We need fair use to be vastly expanded and modified for the new era. Copyright reform is necessary.

 

[pr0cs]

You went from

Yes, people don't seem to realize in the privacy of your home, you should be free to crack any security of any product you own. You have no right to restrict the physical actions of someone upon his private property in the privacy of his home on his own private time.
.

To...

you know these laws didn't always exist right?

.

So which side are you on? On one hand you arge you should be allowed to reverse engineer developers hard work and effectively do whatever you want with it. That you should be allowed to bypass any way they have to make money from their hard work. Then seeming to suggest that giant faceless corporations are to blame.

The content creators dictate what you own, you're entitled to nothing. Don't like that, don't buy the product..it's really that simple

It's your job as a consumer to determine if the value of what you get as a base purchase is worth it and if the dlc is nickle and dimeing you to death. If it's blatantly selling an incomplete product in your opinion you make it known and or simply avoid the game and move on. Stealing it just encourages companies to take less risks and continue to mtx everything.

 

[Afro Republican]

Good luck with that weak justification to someone who depends on selling their hard work to feed themselves and their family.

You don't like the rules, don't buy the product, steal it but don't complain when you are prosecuted if you are caught.

People who feel like they're entitled to things without compensating for the efforts are the enemy of progress. I wonder how much you would complain if you were expected to go to work and not get paid.

Come on man, you know that the court would strike down companies sending discs with only title screen access, outside of how excessive it is, it's the same type of strike down on-disc dlc would receive. I have no idea why you are trying so hard to defend these companies and let them abuse you.

 

[pr0cs]

Come on man, you know that the court would strike down companies sending discs with only title screen access, outside of how excessive it is, it's the same type of strike down on-disc dlc would receive. I have no idea why you are trying so hard to defend these companies and let them abuse you.

They wouldn't, not if I advertised that it was only a title screen

I am a developer, I argue that you would rather waste me waste your time by forcing downloading the dlc instead of including it on the disc. That's stupid and short-sighted

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

The content creators dictate what you own, you're entitled to nothing. Don't like that, don't buy the product..it's really that simple

you know as an artist, once I've played a game enough times, it is trivial albeit time intensive to replicate the art and gameplay and improve upon it on my own private time. You do not own ideas, nor my memories, nor skills.

With true ai, replication and reverse engineering will be far faster.

You aim to restrict the power of true ai. But it is true ai that will limit and define the laws.

edit:

btw no one creates only discover, the library of babel might give you an idea of the truth.

Enough computation and the right algorithms and I can recreate all past present future art, artists or no artists at all.

Writes Quine, "The ultimate absurdity is now staring us in the face: a universal library of two volumes, one containing a single dot and the other a dash. Persistent repetition and alternation of the two are sufficient, we well know, for spelling out any and every truth. The miracle of the finite but universal library is a mere inflation of the miracle of binary notation: everything worth saying, and everything else as well, can be said with two characters." -wiki

 

[Afro Republican]

They wouldn't, not if I advertised that it was only a title screen

I am a developer, I argue that you would rather waste me waste your time by forcing downloading the dlc instead of including it on the disc. That's stupid and short-sighted

You cant keep doing this man, they don't advertise you don't have access to the full game on disc, so using your own logic it would result in the court striking it down.

There's no difference between shipping a game with parts of the game product inaccessible and shipping with the title screen only if we go by your previous statement. Games don't advertise on-disc doc, that's why there have been backslashes against it in the past.

 

[#Phonepunk#]

one of my most favorite purchases of all time was this shareware demo of Quake:

the game disc came with the full version on it, as well as a number of other ID Software games. you could buy the games, get a key, and unlock them from the disc. for years this was my favorite disc i owned. so for real, i don't have any problem with the basic concept. besides, making this "officially illegal" seems like too little too late at this point.

it amazes me how willing some people are to be taken advantage of when it comes to the gaming industry

basically it is your responsibility as a consumer to educate yourself. DLC are publicly announced these days, they make a huge deal out of it. if you are blindsided by it, you aren't paying attention. whole threads are made to bitch about early release schedules and product wheels. this isn't some back alley scheme concocted in the shadows.

it has nothing to do with being "taken advantage of". if you personally feel a certain way about a product, there is no need to extend that into a condescension for others. these are not victims, they are consumers. a victim has something unwittingly done to them. a consumer makes a choice in a marketplace. if you hear that a game has DLC and it makes you not want to purchase, exercise your consumer agency and do not purchase.

 

[SonGoku]

Consider how many polls the guy's making, how low-effort they are and how many people are pissed off with them. Hopefully either he calms down, he gains some self-awareness, or the mod team finds a way to manage him a bit.

I think he's taken criticism, his polls are simpler and more objective now
That being said they could still use some work

Pro Tip: If you don't like how polls are written dont vote, that's what i do
If you are annoyed by a topic or think its pointless then don't participate.

the game disc came with the full version on it, as well as a number of other ID Software games.

Bad analogy nowhere near the same, a closer situation would be if some levels required additional license keys

 

[Afro Republican]

basically it is your responsibility as a consumer to educate yourself. DLC are publicly announced these days, they make a huge deal out of it..

I can go grab any box at a game store and it will not tell me that parts of the game already on the disc is inaccessible. On disc DLC is not the same as regular dlc, and we need to stop letting companies confuse people so they can get away with it imo.

 

[Afro Republican]

Well it seems like most would prefer legal changes to prevent on-disc dlc at the end. Gamers should band together to make companies change their abuse on this issues.

 

[Zog]

You know the those terms and agreements that most people ignore and skip right through. That's their right to do that. Now if they lose sales because of it that is on them.

Can I return an opened console game for a full refund if I don't agree?

 

[JoeyWestSide]

Nah, if you can pay for hulu and still get ads, then this isn't any different.

 

[Platinumstorm]

I think you should make that decision with your wallet.

 

[JareBear: Remastered]

I think you should make that decision with your wallet.

Tell me more

 

[PSlayer]

What a coincidence! I was just playing dead or alive 5 on PS3 and thinking to myself how awful the dlc practices in this game are.there is a handful of character that exists in the disc,you can fight against them and yet the only way to use them is by "downloading" it from psn.The same applies for half of the costumes on this game.

It's really frustrating.

 

[Hendrick's]

This is a silly argument. They have every right to legally lock any content they want behind a paywall and we have ever right to not buy it if we choose. As long as this is not done deceptively, there is nothing illegal or even immoral about it.