Pachter: On-Disc DLC Is "Just Plain Greed"

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Pachter: On-Disc DLC Is "Just Plain Greed"

image

Unlocking on-disc DLC without paying for it may not be illegal.

At least, according to market analyst, Michael Pachter. Developers and publishers argue that locked "downloadable" content on game discs is a response to rising development costs, and that it's a clever way to use developers who would otherwise be sitting around twiddling their thumbs. Pachter disagrees.

"Yeah, it's just plain greed," he said on Pach-Attack. "The answer is that simple. I think that DLC has been so successful that publishers are trying to get a jumpstart and if you put it on the disc it allows them to unlock it when they feel like it."

"Some guys get it right," he continued. "Some guys take a long time to get it out, putting it on the disc allows the publisher to determine the optimal moment to launch it. All DLC is great, games are getting shorter, DLC is keeping people engaged, it's a profit deal. I don't think it makes much difference how it's delivered."

So it makes sense - at least from a business perspective - for developers to create DLC, particularly day-one DLC, which usually sells far better than content released later in a game's life span. But if the content is on the disc,, and you own the disc, is it legal to access said content without paying? Pachter suggests that may be the case.

"The stuff on the disc, some gamers feel entitled to because they bought the disc, so they should have a right to anything that's on the disc," he said. "And that's a dicey one, you actually do own the disc and I think, theoretically, if you could crack the code on the DLC you probably would be allowed to access it without paying. And I'm not even sure that's stealing because you did, in fact, buy the disc. That's about as close as you can get to legal piracy."

Pachter predicts that the practice is on its way out, as gamers will eventually "push back" against practices they consider anti-consumer. If I may grumpily editorialize for a moment: I don't see that as particularly likely. Based on my experience with the industry, the gaming public will accept any hilariously anti-consumer practice provided it's spearheaded by a popular title. Many are point out that Capcom's recent decision to nix on-disc DLC is a step forward, but the company has only said it's reviewing how such content is "delivered." Is there a notable ethical difference between on-disc DLC and day-one DLC? Because I'm not really seeing it.

Source: CVG

Permalink

We all know this, I think the Jimquisition said it best, it's just a way to get more money from you, if they just admitted it...still loving the whole Risen 2 on PC can unlock all DLC for free, jokes on them!

Also, I noticed the I in disk is higher case...

Grey Carter:
Is there a notable ethical difference between on-disk DLC and day-one DLC? Because I'm not really seeing it.

I think the main issue is that on-disc dlc is already done and could be included with the final product there and then. Whereas Day-one DLC can be worked on and finished after the disc content is sent to be certified, which IIRC can take a couple of weeks or more.

Grey Carter:
If I may grumpily editorialize for a moment: I don't see that as particularly likely. Based on my experience with the industry, the gaming public will accept any hilariously anti-consumer practice provided it's spearheaded by a popular title.

Well, he did say eventually, after all.

I'm in a position to agree with Pachter for a change. I may need to take a shower, now, with boiling hot water.
As far as I am concerned, you buy a disk, everything on that disk is yours. What you do with it is your business as long as you don't copy it and distribute it without license.
Now, the grey area might be with digital downloads. I have Saints Row:The Third on my Steam account. That includes a couple DLC packs that was downloaded with the game, but requires me to pay THQ money through Steam to get the unlock code. If I were to miraculously or cleverly come across the unlock code on my own and gain access to the DLC, it may very well be logged on Steam and therefore makes THQ aware of my action, something that probably wouldn't happen with a disc-bought copy of SRTT. THQ could insist to Valve to lock my access to the game entirely, which of course I could probably circumvent if I was already able to unlock DLC already downloaded into my hard drive. Steam could then just block my account, which would effectively cut off any multiplayer access as well as store access through that account. That would be the main thing of what I'd potentially face if I decided I wanted my own Genki Cannon.
However, I could effectively argue that the data is on my hard drive, therefore making it my own property and available to do with as I please as long as I keep it to myself. And yet I face more likely retribution if the publisher/developer doesn't like that. This really opens up the cans of worms of whose game is it anyway. It might be time to really decide that, and the gaming companies may not like the answer, even if it might be in their favor.
So here's the simple answer: if they don't like that unlockable on-disc DLC could be cracked, don't include the DLC with the main game.
If I knew how, I probably would take advantage of it by now considering how long SRTT has already been out. And this is coming from someone who deplores game hackers and pirates. Here, the line is easier to see and there is less ambiguity.
Addendum:

Grey Carter:
Is there a notable ethical difference between on-disk DLC and day-one DLC? Because I'm not really seeing it.

This has symmetry with the argument of why there is a patch on release day. On-disk DLC was pretty much made in the same timeframe as the main game, and so is basically part of the main game, just locked away from us for an extra dime. Day-one DLC can be content produced after the main game went gold, and is therefore not meant to be or going to be included with the main game. I have no problem with that being an extra dime-catcher. On-disk is the real issue, and as I stated above, for once I have no problem with anyone cracking that without paying for it, because as far as I am concerned, they already did pay for it.
Addendumdum:
I'm starting to feel a chorus build on this point.

WickedFire:

Grey Carter:
Is there a notable ethical difference between on-disk DLC and day-one DLC? Because I'm not really seeing it.

I think the main issue is that on-disc dlc is already done and could be included with the final product there and then. Whereas Day-one DLC can be worked on and finished after the disc content is sent to be certified, which IIRC can take a couple of weeks or more.

This basically. Though I think it takes longer than a couple of weeks, closer to a month. Once the disc is sent to be certified, you can't start adding stuff to it, so day 1 DLC is cool, because it's stuff they've added after they've finished the game but before the game is out, while on disc dlc is stuff they've added before they've finished the game, which is a massive dick move.

Richardplex:

WickedFire:

Grey Carter:
Is there a notable ethical difference between on-disk DLC and day-one DLC? Because I'm not really seeing it.

I think the main issue is that on-disc dlc is already done and could be included with the final product there and then. Whereas Day-one DLC can be worked on and finished after the disc content is sent to be certified, which IIRC can take a couple of weeks or more.

This basically. Though I think it takes longer than a couple of weeks, closer to a month. Once the disc is sent to be certified, you can't start adding stuff to it, so day 1 DLC is cool, because it's stuff they've added after they've finished the game but before the game is out, while on disc dlc is stuff they've added before they've finished the game, which is a massive dick move.

Edit: heh, says "this basically" then says the same thing in a longer way. Good job Richard.

I agree with the editor's note; developers do this because there's always someone stupid enough to pay them to. All the crying and screaming people did about Mass Effect 3 and Diablo 3, for example, and the majority of them still bought it the instant it came out, with most of the rest eventually cracking under their own mis-aimed desire, or jealousy of their friends being able to play it.

People need to grow some damn self-respect before most developers will be forced to do the right thing. They don't think of you people as anything but income, and you gleefully encourage it by vomiting up money at the first opportunity. You're not taking a stand by bitching about it on some message board.

Grey Carter:
Pachter predicts that the practice is on its way out, as gamers will eventually "push back" against practices they consider anti-consumer. If I may grumpily editorialize for a moment: I don't see that as particularly likely. Based on my experience with the industry, the gaming public will accept any hilariously anti-consumer practice provided it's spearheaded by a popular title.

image

Yeah, this is a well-known example.

Things have been getting worse. The vitriol spewed over even life's mundane topics (sony vs microsoft) that come out in modern discourse is really quite astonishing.

I think we should waste taxpayer dollars and subpoena the main offenders to stand before a congressional hearing to explain why they feel they can sell us a physical game with pre-loaded DLC, but hold it for ransom until the consumer pays an additional fee.

Hey, if Congress has the time to look into baseball players using steroids, they have time to look at publishers/developers ripping off consumers...

Well I was already to explain the difference between Day-1 DLC and on-disk DLC but everyone's already done that...

Eventually gamers are going to have to find some slightly less submissive relationship. Maybe it's because TV and Films are simpler that they don't try screwy stuff like this? But then people managed to convince iTunes to drop unusable-on-an-MP3-player DRM. But then iTunes isn't the publisher.

It's going to get worse when digital downloading becomes dominant on the consoles and Sony and Microsoft are in sole charge of what sells for how much

The problem is not the DLC being on the disk. The problem is ripping content from the main game and selling it for an additional price, as if it had been developed after the game: see, for example, the Mass Effect 3 DLC, which is even more jarring since what the character in that DLC adds to the universe is (I'd say) imprescindible.

On-disc DLC will stop. The idiot suits at the publishers will manage to burst a couple of neurons and think that hey, they can still rip their own game but not put that content in the disk, just reserve it and make it downloadable later.

It will still be highly unethical. Just look for that picture that defined that perfectly: before, we got a full game, and expansions that added to it. Now, we get 75-80% of the game, and then DLCs that are just reskinned expansions that add nothing new. And we pay more for it.

PS.- What happened Patchy?. Are you getting so burned that for once you're going to side with consumers?. I have to say that I'm surprised.

paketep:
The problem is not the DLC being on the disk. The problem is ripping content from the main game and selling it for an additional price, as if it had been developed after the game: see, for example, the Mass Effect 3 DLC, which is even more jarring since what the character in that DLC adds to the universe is (I'd say) imprescindible.

On-disc DLC will stop. The idiot suits at the publishers will manage to burst a couple of neurons and think that hey, they can still rip their own game but not put that content in the disk, just reserve it and make it downloadable later.

It will still be highly unethical. Just look for that picture that defined that perfectly: before, we got a full game, and expansions that added to it. Now, we get 75-80% of the game, and then DLCs that are just reskinned expansions that add nothing new. And we pay more for it.

^ This.

Is Day-One DLC different in theory? Yes. In practice? Who the hell can say. Fact is publishers can release whatever they want as DLC, whenever they want, and we're clueless as towards when that content was actually made.

Wow, I'm actually finding myself agreeing with Pachter for once...

Well, I guess even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Grey Carter:
Is there a notable ethical difference between on-disk DLC and day-one DLC? Because I'm not really seeing it.
Permalink

I won't repeat what others have been saying about day-one DLC's development process, but I will just add this;

It really depends on the type of day-one DLC that the studio puts out.

If the DLC really has been developed after the game has been sent off to be certified, then that's not an issue for me. The game's done, and the DLC's a nice added bonus, as far as I'm concerned.

If the studio or developers deliberately remove content from the actual game during the development stages, as many conspiracy theorists have speculated, specifically to sell for extra revenue at a later date, then yeah, that's just as unethical as on-disc DLC.

EDIT: Damn, ninja'd.

Richardplex:

WickedFire:

Grey Carter:
Is there a notable ethical difference between on-disk DLC and day-one DLC? Because I'm not really seeing it.

I think the main issue is that on-disc dlc is already done and could be included with the final product there and then. Whereas Day-one DLC can be worked on and finished after the disc content is sent to be certified, which IIRC can take a couple of weeks or more.

This basically. Though I think it takes longer than a couple of weeks, closer to a month. Once the disc is sent to be certified, you can't start adding stuff to it, so day 1 DLC is cool, because it's stuff they've added after they've finished the game but before the game is out, while on disc dlc is stuff they've added before they've finished the game, which is a massive dick move.

While I do agree with the idea that Day-one DLC that's produced while the developers has off-time isn't bad (actually, I think it's good as long as it's decent stuff), I think what the article was talking more about is if the developers produce day-one DLC just like they do on-disk, but make it downloadable instead of on-disk. There's no real way for the consumer to tell the difference either.

Of course, it's important to differentiate 'on-disk DLC,' which is the full DLC simply locked away, with DLC content on the disk. It's possible that they included some aspects of the DLC that, say, certain parts of the team who had extra time while others were finishing were able to produce, or were included to make the DLC easier to add into the existing game. When the full DLC is then finished during the certification/production/shipping period and sold as day-1 DLC. I don't really have a problem with going that route either.

I wouldn't recommend using Pachter as your defense if you decide to go this route. Even if you can make the case that you "own" the contents of the disk (which itself is increasingly dicey), you probably enter into a contract not to "reverse engineer" the game by putting it into your system of choice, and accessing the software by non-approved means may mean that you've effectively done just that.

samsonguy920:
I'm in a position to agree with Pachter for a change. I may need to take a shower, now, with boiling hot water.
As far as I am concerned, you buy a disk, everything on that disk is yours. What you do with it is your business as long as you don't copy it and distribute it without license.
Now, the grey area might be with digital downloads. I have Saints Row:The Third on my Steam account. That includes a couple DLC packs that was downloaded with the game, but requires me to pay THQ money through Steam to get the unlock code. If I were to miraculously or cleverly come across the unlock code on my own and gain access to the DLC, it may very well be logged on Steam and therefore makes THQ aware of my action, something that probably wouldn't happen with a disc-bought copy of SRTT. THQ could insist to Valve to lock my access to the game entirely, which of course I could probably circumvent if I was already able to unlock DLC already downloaded into my hard drive. Steam could then just block my account, which would effectively cut off any multiplayer access as well as store access through that account. That would be the main thing of what I'd potentially face if I decided I wanted my own Genki Cannon.
However, I could effectively argue that the data is on my hard drive, therefore making it my own property and available to do with as I please as long as I keep it to myself. And yet I face more likely retribution if the publisher/developer doesn't like that. This really opens up the cans of worms of whose game is it anyway. It might be time to really decide that, and the gaming companies may not like the answer, even if it might be in their favor.
So here's the simple answer: if they don't like that unlockable on-disc DLC could be cracked, don't include the DLC with the main game.
If I knew how, I probably would take advantage of it by now considering how long SRTT has already been out. And this is coming from someone who deplores game hackers and pirates. Here, the line is easier to see and there is less ambiguity.
Addendum:

Grey Carter:
Is there a notable ethical difference between on-disk DLC and day-one DLC? Because I'm not really seeing it.

This has symmetry with the argument of why there is a patch on release day. On-disk DLC was pretty much made in the same timeframe as the main game, and so is basically part of the main game, just locked away from us for an extra dime. Day-one DLC can be content produced after the main game went gold, and is therefore not meant to be or going to be included with the main game. I have no problem with that being an extra dime-catcher. On-disk is the real issue, and as I stated above, for once I have no problem with anyone cracking that without paying for it, because as far as I am concerned, they already did pay for it.
Addendumdum:
I'm starting to feel a chorus build on this point.

Well, one of the big issues here is that game companies like to argue that you don't own anything. They are giving you permission to play with one of their toys, permission they maintain they can remove or change the terms of at any given time.

Most of the lawyers who are experts in this kind of thing are at least paid enough by the industry to not act against it from a conflict of interests, even if they don't wind up representing the companies. This has lead to most challenges of the gaming industry and things like EULAs being laughable, and based on entirely the wrong approach, and insures that unless the goverment steps in to represent the other side, that the position of the industry is one that cannot be challenged.

I can't claim expertise in this kind of law, but from cases unrelated to gaming I'm aware of it is possible that with a competant lawyer you could actually sue THQ or even STEAM for DLC you can't access being DLed onto your computer along with a game. The reason is simply that their own arguement is that while it's there, it's a seperate product, an add on. It's however a product you may not want or have any intention to buy, yet it's taking up space on your system, hard drive space which isn't strictly nessicary for what you did want and did pay for, and which now you cannot use because of that fat loitering on your system. Such "ride alongs" have been an issue for a number of years, and there have been a few cases (albiet attached to other things as one of multiple issues, as opposed to a case themselves) with companies basically being forced to pay for effectively renting hard drive space to store their data which you did not want.

So technically by say installing "Saint's Row The Third", with the right lawyer you could say present THQ or maybe STEAM a bill for data storage of their expansion packs on your hard drive, and insist that they pay. If they didn't make it sufficiently clear up front this content was riding along (a seperate product by their own arguement), there are other issues involved, as simply putting a program on someone else's system without their knowlege even if it's benign can be an issue. While it to my knowlege has never been done, I believe some colleges used to threaten legal action against students hiding games and such on mainframes, which is similar to what THQ is doing, at the very least they are depriving you of hard drive space by making you store something you can't use and might have no interest in.

I personally wouldn't try and make that the focus of an entire case, but if I had a foothold where I was pushing another issue, I might very well add that to it, as a way of justifying the seriousness of the overall claims, and a large settlement. "Hey, I have a small hard drive and every byte this was taking up prevented me from doing something else with space I thought was taken by by something else I needed. All I want is a modest settlement for $1 a byte.... "

Yes the problem is greed, plain and simple. And its not restricted to DLC. Unfortunately I doubt his words will hold much weight with anyone that can make any real changes.

Therumancer:
Well, one of the big issues here is that game companies like to argue that you don't own anything. They are giving you permission to play with one of their toys, permission they maintain they can remove or change the terms of at any given time.

Well, the thing is that that should be illegal since you sign a contract without ever reading, seeing or even knowing there is one.

I go in a store, buy a game. There is nowhere written that I don't own the game. There is no EULA that I accept.
I see the EULA only once I come home and start the installation of the game. But then if I don't want to accept the EULA, I have no other choice but to say goodbye to my money. I can't use it, I can't give it back.

lotanerve:
I think we should waste taxpayer dollars and subpoena the main offenders to stand before a congressional hearing to explain why they feel they can sell us a physical game with pre-loaded DLC, but hold it for ransom until the consumer pays an additional fee.

Hey, if Congress has the time to look into baseball players using steroids, they have time to look at publishers/developers ripping off consumers...

Baseball is our national sport, to the extent that the Japanese embraced it as theirs during the occupation. The reason there are senate hearings on cheating in baseball is that our national sports reflect, usually very poorly, on us.

Investigating anti-consumer business practices isn't a "waste of taxpayer dollars" because every single penny spent funding anti-consumer businesses is a penny removed from the value-creating economy. When you end anti-consumer practices, especially ones which inflate the cost of goods, people have more money to spend on more economic sectors, thus improving the economy as a whole.

But then, I wouldn't expect anyone who uses the phrase "waste taxpayer dollars" in that context to be able to read this post.

BiH-Kira:

Therumancer:
Well, one of the big issues here is that game companies like to argue that you don't own anything. They are giving you permission to play with one of their toys, permission they maintain they can remove or change the terms of at any given time.

Well, the thing is that that should be illegal since you sign a contract without ever reading, seeing or even knowing there is one.

I go in a store, buy a game. There is nowhere written that I don't own the game. There is no EULA that I accept.
I see the EULA only once I come home and start the installation of the game. But then if I don't want to accept the EULA, I have no other choice but to say goodbye to my money. I can't use it, I can't give it back.

You might think "that should be illegal," but it isn't. So don't use that phrase.

When you talk about the world, or business practices, you need to talk about the world we live in. You can say "We should make it illegal to...", but saying "that should be illegal" doesn't further the discussion.

Callate:
I wouldn't recommend using Pachter as your defense if you decide to go this route. Even if you can make the case that you "own" the contents of the disk (which itself is increasingly dicey), you probably enter into a contract not to "reverse engineer" the game by putting it into your system of choice, and accessing the software by non-approved means may mean that you've effectively done just that.

Please to learn the legal definition of "reverse engineering," kthx.

RvLeshrac:

BiH-Kira:

Therumancer:
Well, one of the big issues here is that game companies like to argue that you don't own anything. They are giving you permission to play with one of their toys, permission they maintain they can remove or change the terms of at any given time.

Well, the thing is that that should be illegal since you sign a contract without ever reading, seeing or even knowing there is one.

I go in a store, buy a game. There is nowhere written that I don't own the game. There is no EULA that I accept.
I see the EULA only once I come home and start the installation of the game. But then if I don't want to accept the EULA, I have no other choice but to say goodbye to my money. I can't use it, I can't give it back.

You might think "that should be illegal," but it isn't. So don't use that phrase.

When you talk about the world, or business practices, you need to talk about the world we live in. You can say "We should make it illegal to...", but saying "that should be illegal" doesn't further the discussion.

Well, it doesn't hold any legal ground in my country.
That's why I said it should be illegal, like illegal on a global level. I know it is legal, unfortunately.

AFAIK, it's barely legal in the EU.

EDIT:
I'm saying SHOULD because I can't do anything to change that in the USA. I'm not a citizen, nor do I want to. I'm just saying that it should be illegal, maybe some people reading that will realize and try to change it.

BiH-Kira:

Therumancer:
Well, one of the big issues here is that game companies like to argue that you don't own anything. They are giving you permission to play with one of their toys, permission they maintain they can remove or change the terms of at any given time.

Well, the thing is that that should be illegal since you sign a contract without ever reading, seeing or even knowing there is one.

I go in a store, buy a game. There is nowhere written that I don't own the game. There is no EULA that I accept.
I see the EULA only once I come home and start the installation of the game. But then if I don't want to accept the EULA, I have no other choice but to say goodbye to my money. I can't use it, I can't give it back.

A valid point, and one I've mentioned before. I was a Criminal Justice major and mostly picked up other stuff about the law in regards to a very specific area (working Casino Security for a long time) but when I was in school we were required to learn a bit about other kinds of law and how they differed and how they generally worked.

Contract law is pretty much it's own little specialization, but just from the basics, in the US what the gaming industry is doing here should be illegal. By definition they should have you sign the contract BEFORE the product is purchused and money changes hands. What's more these contracts are complicated enough where they shouldn't be binding because I don't think they would qualify as being concise enough for the average person to understand. Having them notarized would be a way around that (more or less) but needless to say that doesn't happen. Heck these EULAs also frequently referance laws that it doesn't provide as an attachment to the contract.

I'm not saying you'd nessicarly win on those grounds, just that it seems very dubious, and no challenge I have yet seen has attacked EULAs from those directions. I tend to chalk that up to the lawyers bringing cases against the the gaming industry (when it happens) being out of their element, with most of the specialists who could fight that and win having accepted money so as not to be able to act against the companies due to a "conflict of interests" even if they don't actually represent the companies directly. Not to mention the budget your typical gamer, or even group of gamers (which has been prohibited) has to work with to fight what is going to be a long, drawn out case. Really to have this kind of thing properly heard the goverment would have to get involved and bring the case itself, and that's entirely dependant on the politicians not having been bought off. With states getting involved with game studios nowadays and even investing in them (as we say with 38 Studios and Rhode Island), the goverment rapidly is having no real motivation for seeing the right thing as goverments (state, federal) are rapidly become partners in this garbage.

When it comes purely to the contract aspect of things, digital purchuses are a little differant because at least there it can be argued that you are ageeing to a EULA of some sort as part of the purchusing process (and you frequently have to click on it for the payment to be taken). Of course whether those contracts would pass the basic test of being concise and understandable to both parties is debatable. On merits of sheer length I'd imagine your typical EULA should technically be declared unbinding in court unless there was a lot more behind the agreement (like Notaries representing both parties to act as witnesses to understanding and intent). Every time a EULA has been challenged the avenue of attack has been absolutly borked, and to my knowledge nobody has gone so far as to actually challenge their very right to exist or be considered contracts on a fundemental level, and if they did it, they probably did it badly with a lawyer who had no clue.

Yes it is plain greed that makes them them cut their product in an attempt to inflate value.

But it is also plain greed that makes me want to make it part of the standard price.

I am not going to pretend that I have a moral high-ground when we both are trying to get the biggest piece of the pie.
As long as they are not lying to me I will be able find the value of their product according my personal preferences. I am not going to police how they want to sell their products so long they are truthfully advertising their product. Games can be a rental. Their prerogative. My prerogative is to decide how I use my money. If they can convince me their product is worth the price-tag without lying then everyone should be happy.

Grey Carter:
Is there a notable ethical difference between on-disk DLC and day-one DLC? Because I'm not really seeing it.

I see no difference between day-1-DLC and on-disk-dlc. That is a simply a difference in delivery method. Both had the same method of planning and production. Even later DLC will share planning phases with Day-1-DLC (case and point Katsumi in ME2). I dont see how we who have had no insight of the production of a game can pretend to have an influence what we should be entitled to according production schedule.

I think games of any sort are willing to deal with DLC as long as it feels fair.

PAID day-one DLC (if its seen as typically short and non-trivial to the non OCD-horders) as fair, because most of us have come to understand that there is a time gap between a game finally being "done" to the game being in our consoles.
This time can be used to find last minute bugs, create extra content that couldn't make it in the core game, etc.etc. (but even this is tricky line here between "feels like extra last minute made" and "cut core feature to be sold for extra revenue for the publisher" *cough*Javik*cough*)

On-Disk DLC buggers this fairness line and it just rots as a greedy cash grab. The content was created well in advanced to be shipped along with the core game -- and yet seems to warrant its own price tag? That may not have been their intentions, but that is how its perceived.

The comments on these types of articles are usually aggravating rage-festivals, but you guys are making some good points and keeping things fairly civil. Nice work.

If there's DLC on the disc, I'm not buying it. Plain and simple. Never have, never will.

Even if it was Fallout 4, or Halo 4, or Rainbow Six Patriots, or Far Cry 3, or Bioshock Infinite, or the best game ever made: If it's on the disc when I buy it and the publishers want me to pay extra to access it, I don't want it. Not even if it came with a free bowl of trifle. I'll buy the game, but not the extra (but usually quite profound) content.

I just wish the majority of other gamers followed this mentality of mine, just this once. It would actually do our industry some good for a change. I.E. look at Capcom. they're probably still doing Day One DLC, a fight for another day, but at least you don't have locked-out content on YOUR disc.

Best scenario, drives down production costs, possibly drives down overall retail costs and gives us a full disc of content (optimistically). Worst-case, hardly anything changes from having the disc-locked content that we have now.

Why the fuck do people still listen to this... person?

He doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about. I suspect he picks his opinions on any given subject by throwing darts at a notice board and then just prattling on about what he hits (And automatically reverting to dick-sucking position if the issue involves EA). Even in the seldom cases where he gets something right he doesn't seem to have any understanding of WHY it's right.

Bottom line, the man is a clueless waste of oxygen and I don't understand why people take him seriously.

No offense to Pachter, but maybe he should stick to talking about something he actually knows squat about.

I half agree, and half disagree on this subject. But to me, what this guy is saying is "I don't know shit, but here's how I feel." and not "This is bad because I've done my research."

RvLeshrac:

BiH-Kira:

Therumancer:
Well, one of the big issues here is that game companies like to argue that you don't own anything. They are giving you permission to play with one of their toys, permission they maintain they can remove or change the terms of at any given time.

Well, the thing is that that should be illegal since you sign a contract without ever reading, seeing or even knowing there is one.

I go in a store, buy a game. There is nowhere written that I don't own the game. There is no EULA that I accept.
I see the EULA only once I come home and start the installation of the game. But then if I don't want to accept the EULA, I have no other choice but to say goodbye to my money. I can't use it, I can't give it back.

You might think "that should be illegal," but it isn't. So don't use that phrase.

When you talk about the world, or business practices, you need to talk about the world we live in. You can say "We should make it illegal to...", but saying "that should be illegal" doesn't further the discussion.

It IS illegal, or rather perhaps I should say that it simply, isn't legal, "Illegal" is such a strong word.

EULAs hold absolutely NO power in a courtroom, even in America a judge will not hesitate for a second before declaring a EULA invalid if it is brought before him.

Game companies can't do anything about this, if they try to take someone to court for breaking their oh so precious EULA the judges will laugh them out of the courtroom.

And the companies KNOW this, so they resort to scaring people into obeying their EULAs with empty threats.

WickedFire:

Grey Carter:
Is there a notable ethical difference between on-disk DLC and day-one DLC? Because I'm not really seeing it.

I think the main issue is that on-disc dlc is already done and could be included with the final product there and then. Whereas Day-one DLC can be worked on and finished after the disc content is sent to be certified, which IIRC can take a couple of weeks or more.

It's also worth noting that on-disc DLC isn't really DLC and therefore it trods on the whole "false advertising" thing.

Callate:
I wouldn't recommend using Pachter as your defense if you decide to go this route. Even if you can make the case that you "own" the contents of the disk (which itself is increasingly dicey), you probably enter into a contract not to "reverse engineer" the game by putting it into your system of choice, and accessing the software by non-approved means may mean that you've effectively done just that.

I'll bet you gave away the rights to your TV when you turned it on. LOL @ ridiculous ideas.

Zachary Amaranth:

WickedFire:

Grey Carter:
Is there a notable ethical difference between on-disk DLC and day-one DLC? Because I'm not really seeing it.

I think the main issue is that on-disc dlc is already done and could be included with the final product there and then. Whereas Day-one DLC can be worked on and finished after the disc content is sent to be certified, which IIRC can take a couple of weeks or more.

It's also worth noting that on-disc DLC isn't really DLC and therefore it trods on the whole "false advertising" thing.

Well, getting DLC on the GOTY Edition makes it's what?

If Pachter is saying it you know it must be blantantly obvious.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here