Support NeoGAF

[Sjoerd]

Yes that is the same thing...

Which means it is not.

 

[Dr_Cogent]

Yes that is the same thing...

Paying for additional stuff is already quite annoying, paying for stuff on the disc is just insane.

I'm assuming this is sarcasm.

 

[Bowen_B]

GTA:SA was re-rated due to content that was on the disc as the user could access it...
So accessing it via Action Replay should be legal.

 

[The Innocent X]

So accessing it via Action Replay should be legal.

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]

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.

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?

 

[Sysgen]

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?

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.

Spoiler

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.

 

[pr0cs]

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?

not really a good analogy, in this case the burger was never advertised to have cheese in the first place.

 

[Kabuki Quantum Lover]

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.

Spoiler

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.

Thank you very much, Chip Lang, for that amazing post.

Tune in next week where we continued to get ****ed in the ass.

Tune out, and good night.

 

[The Innocent X]

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?

How the hell can you even measure that? 75-80% You have no idea what the company "would have spent" and you never can.

There will always be people who rip people off via DLC, as well as those who reward via DLC. The ONLY choice you have, is to only buy whatever is worth the money to YOU, regardless of when it was made, where it was downloaded from, and what marketing has been applied.

 

[K' Dash]

i'm pissed that all the ultra sweet music from previous ridge racer games for RR6 is so expensive...or costs money at all...

3 Easy steps:

1. Download the sountracks

2. make a playlist

3. Enjoy

 

[Dekelia]

I really don't think this is a big deal. Microtransactions are mostly annoying now but once the market becomes more mature it will actually help quite a bit because it provides additional revenue sources therefore making games more profitable/flexible, therefore making sure good games get produced and extended.

If companies continuously leave too much off of the disc that it is no longer worth $60, then fewer people will buy it, forcing publishers to put more content in that $60.

I wouldn't be supprised to see in a few year where games are only $20 but a large portion of the content is unlocked by purchase. It creates a small buy-in price, reduces money lost from used game sales, etc. It is an obvious extension the shareware/demo template.

The only real worry here of course, is if the market decides that games are way underpriced and the game companies will be able to charge $60 for very little content with lots of microtransactions. That will suck, but it is a free market economy afterall.

 

[plagiarize]

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.

 

[M3Freak]

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.

I smell a class action suit down the road. The fact that the game box doesn't say the complete game isn't accessible until the consumer pays more money is misleading.

I hope a suing type is reading and runs to his/her lawyer right now.

 

[Tieno]

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.

You know that you're paying for that particular version of Vista...

 

[Night_Trekker]

not really a good analogy, in this case the burger was never advertised to have cheese in the first place.

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.

 

[pr0cs]

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.

Viva Pinata costumes for example... on the box does it say "comes with all the costumes"?
Do any of the game's advertising, boxes, manuals state "Game comes with 35 options" and then lie that you only get 30 but you have to pay extra for the other 5?

If that was the case then I'd agree with you but none of the do, THAT would be false advertising.

Just because you own the media does not mean you have rights to it's contents.
As it was said before, vote with your wallet, if no one buys the stuff then they will either drop making the content altogether or will start including it with the game.

 

[suEcide]

I remember downloading additional maps for Return to Castle Wolfenstein on the XBox and finding out all I downloaded was keys to unlock the content on the disc.

It was rather disconcerting that I was given this illusion that the developers were toiling in a sweaty office somewhere creating extra content for my benefit when in reality it was in front of me the entire time.

 

[WickedAngel]

It's pretty sad that some of you are so willing to line up to get screwed and then defend the service that is screwing you. Take your blinders off for a minute and think with your brains instead of your knee-jerk reactions to defend a certain company. I'm an avid fan of Microsoft and Nintendo; that doesn't mean I'm so much of a loyalist that I can't smell bullshit when I step in it.

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.

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.

not really a good analogy, in this case the burger was never advertised to have cheese in the first place.

orly, because I remember some very specific examples (Such as horse armor for Oblivion) of games being advertised with content long before release that was held back as "premium" content that we would have to pay extra for.

The "Vote With Your Wallets!!111" argument is asinine; most people aren't aware that this underhanded trickery is going on.

Their are legal standards that retailers are measured by, regardless of what you may think. Some of you seem to believe that this is OK because they're not saying what is specifically in the box (As if they could ever actually fit every miniscule feature, item, and character onto the packaging). If games were limited to what is listed on the boxes, we'd be participating in a very bland industry.

 

[AdmiralViscen]

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.

Spoiler

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.

wtf

 

[pr0cs]

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.

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?

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.

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 armor

The "Vote With Your Wallets!!111" argument is asinine; most people aren't aware that this underhanded trickery is going on.

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.

 

[G4life98]

i know everyone wants a healthy industry and to protect devs...but this shit is indefensible and if it is going to start being common practice to "gimp the disc" there should be a warning on the box or a listing of how much of the content is "pay to play".

devs and pubs should not be able to hide the fact that you are paying for content twice....and for those making a vista comparison when i buy a specific version of vista, i know exactly what im getting and i am able to make an informed purchase.

i will make sure that devs who do this wont get my money.

i cant wait till a gameshark or an action-replay comes out and puts and end to this double-dipping.

 

[arne]

i cant wait till a gameshark or an action-replay comes out and puts and end to this double-dipping.

that will most likely result in a lawsuit imo.


anyway, this thread is interesting. and I know I'm going to be seen as the waver of the XDF-microtransaction squad here, but the sense of entitlement is flabbergasting.

i still don't personally know where i come down on all this stuff beyond I buy what I think is a) not ridiculous and b) it's of value to me. that will mean i've liked those silly 108kb downloads of Viva Pinata hats. but (not that I own the godfather) but i wouldn't pay to unlock in-game cash. *shrug*


I look at the list in the OP, and there's one thing I think vis a vis WickedAngel's argument.

The majority of these items don't really extend the life of the game.
The ones that I consider to do really be categorized as DLC to extend longevity are maps and so forth. And so far those have all seemed to be full downloads.

 

[WickedAngel]

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?

No; I'd feel better if all the content that was finished by shipping time actually shipped with the game.

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?

Um, yes, you are going to know what is on the disk by looking at the size of the files (...you might try reading the original post). Paying for a 108kb key is paying for content that is already finished, pressed, and sitting on the disk with the rest of the game that you've already paid for.

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?

Because these 108kb keys are just that...keys. The content is on the disk, which means IT IS FINISHED.

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.

The rest of your post really is nonsense; you're the perfect consumer. Buy now and ask questions later. If you want to pay for content twice, that's fine; the rest of us will "bitch and moan" until something gets done about it.

Those people don't realize they're paying for things that they've already paid for which is why they're still doing it.

 

[D3VI0US]

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]

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.

I lived in a 3-flat apartment with an attached 3 car garage. There was only 1 car per unit allowed. but only if I paid an extra $25-$50 a month for a spot in the garage.

noone was ever going to support my bitching and whining that I was entitled to the garage as part of my base rent because "it's already on the property, it's already been built and paid for."


is that bullshit too?


i'm asking f'reals.

 

[WickedAngel]

Comparing property rental to videogames is beyond asinine, arne...for multiple reasons.

If you want to know what exactly comes with your property rental, you ask your landlord. Try calling EA and asking them to list every single feature, character, and item for each game you own and see if you don't hear laughter on the other end.

 

[arne]

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.

 

[DJ Sl4m]

It's not as cut an dry an issue as many would like to believe.

If everything shipped with the game, then there would be no such thing as extra content, or ideas to add after the game is don't and about ready to ship.
Products can almost always be improved on, maybe some of this stuff was added to the disk at the last moment before they went to print ?

If it's Extra content I don't mind it coming from the disk, in fact it makes more sense that downloading it and wasting my HDD space.

If anything I think HDD install piss me off more, why don't devs start streaming content more and leave my HDD space for my demo, extra content, vid and patch downloads ?

 

[Odrion]

I was looking forward to downloadable content as a way to extend my game. But making me pay in addition for content already on the disk feels like I'm paying for what I should already own.

 

[The Innocent X]

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.

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!

 

[arne]

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!

well, I understand that and I agree how that distinction would make a world of difference to some people.

but seriously, right now everyone is arguing about content that -- all things being said and equal -- doesn't actually extend the life of a game in any significant way.


Let's revisit when those COD3 maps that were re-released recently came on the disk in the first place.

 

[WickedAngel]

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!

...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.

 

[Vilix]

I don't get your point, could you bold a few more lines. thanks.

The point is there used to be a time when if you were good enough to reached a certain level in a game you could open up new things that would expand your interest to keep playing. It's what developers used to increase replayability.

 

[Synth_floyd]

...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.

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.

 

[inpHilltr8r]

that will most likely result in a lawsuit imo.

One that, even if it wins, Microsoft will lose.

 

[arne]

One that, even if it wins, Microsoft will lose.

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.

 

[plagiarize]

You know that you're paying for that particular version of Vista...

and if i bought an EA game with content locked away from me on the disc i'd know i was buying that too.

how is it any different to having to pay extra if you want media center in your vista? media center is ON THAT DISC you bought, but you knew when you bought it that you weren't going to get it.

it just means that if you decide to upgrade you can pay the difference and get it without spending hours downloading a new version or without going to the store.

DLC is and has always been intended as an alternate revenue stream.

every game that's ever had pre order exclusive stuff, or limited edition with extra content has held content back from people that was finished before the game went gold. no one complained about that.

when EA or whoever make a game that is stripped down and bare bones and sell it for $60 with a bunch of extra content on the disc you have to buy, then come let me know.

heck you won't need to come let me know because they'll get roasted for it all over the press.

save your energies for when that happens. complain when appropriate. complain when it's going to actually achieve something that benefits you instead of just making you spend more time downloading.

when sony were going to do that crap with gran turismo hd and we all bitched about it and got it turned into what it is now... that was great. if we start complaining about any old stupid shit then why are they going to listen to us in future?

all we'll be able to do then is not buy and hope that enough people follow suit.

complaining about this is a waste of time and energy.

 

[WickedAngel]

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.

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.

 

[inpHilltr8r]

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.

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.

 

[CrapSandwich]

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.

What license? The imaginary one you made up in your head? What law(s) do you think exist that support your argument?

 

[WickedAngel]

What license? The imaginary one you made up in your head? What law(s) do you think exist that support your argument?

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.

 

[RavenFox]

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??

 

[G4life98]

companies should have to let you know if there is "pay to play content" on the disc...something about the practice of locking you out of content you already paid for just doesnt seem right.

its just bad faith on the part of pubs and devs.

 

[CrapSandwich]

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.

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]

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?

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).

 

[D3VI0US]

It's bullshit cause even the stuff devs had done on day one and should have been free is locked on the disc. Even in the case where the content itself is free it still requires you to jump through the hoops of being connected to Live. Downloadable content isn't just stuff that extends the life of the game, quit it with your technichalities arne. Fact of the matter is they could just charge more for the discs and make the content directly accessible and not dick over all their consumers who aren't online.

 

[CrapSandwich]

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).

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.'

 

[Ryudo]

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).

As long as they tell you the number of levels, missions etc that you get when you buy the game (and you actually get them), then you really have legal leg to stand on.

You dont own the content, you own the right to use it as the developer sees fit. I think its a stupid practice to do this (especially charge for the content), but in some instances like Gears Of War, they could have made it a really cool feature where shit was unlocked on the emergence day.

 

[WickedAngel]

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.'

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 -_-

 

[arne]

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 -_-

have you started litigation? seriously. if you're so sure, then wasting your breath on folks that will only argue against you is a waste of time. just a thought.

that way you can just win the argument and they have nothing to debate against.