Risen 2 - All DLC unlockable using console

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Das Boot:

Lovely Mixture:

Ah-huh, so no modding and no hacking? I don't think you know what you're talking about.

Piracy is file-sharing. If the content wasn't on the disc and I copied it and gave it to someone else that would be piracy.

You are right its not piracy in this case its copyright infringement. You do know that if a developer says no modding its actually illegal to mod the game right?

Thatrocketeer:

Das Boot:

No you didnt. Do you people not even know what the fuck you are buying when you buy a game? You did not buy that content that was advertised as sold seperatly. You bought what they advertised to you and nothing more. You being ignorant is no excuse to be taking stuff that does not belong to you.

If it was advertised as sold separately, and its not, that's not our fault, that may be even considered as false advertising by the developers, though I'm not really entirely sure about that. In any case, the developer's negligence/laziness to separate the DLC itself is no excuse for leaving the content that's supposed to be sold and downloaded separately in the game that I bought.

It is sold seperatly. You see you pay for the game and if you want more you have to pay for that sepperatly. What you get on the disk isnt even the full dlc, its missing at least the audio files. Its still to early to tell if anything else is missing though.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

Das Boot:

You really need to understand what you are buying. You onw the disc and a liscence to use the game. You do not have the right to alter that game or access locked partially finished content. You are not allowed to alter anything unless the developer/publisher gives you permission.

But you are not altering anything. The files remain the exact same.

In a way though you are. You are gaining access to content that you did not purchase. Saying you purchased that content is just idiotic. You might as well be saying that since you bought the game you now own the engine that it was created in.

All of this is irrelevant. Answer this question:
Does buying the game (license) include the on disc DLC license?


or

Irony at its best.

Draech:

Now there is an issue that has some real baring. Sloppy design inconveniences you the customer for no other reason than the developer didn't do a good enough job.

It is an issue none has touched on so far (my self included) because people have been focusing "it is cut content". My question wasn't meant to focus on convenience, but instead on the perceived value of the game.

Let me get it back on track. Does knowing there was more content make the content you enjoyed worse?

People wern't focusing on "they are filling up my HDD". People were focusing on what they decided to be the full exp was more than what the developer decided.

It doesn't make the content worse, but it gives the idea that it could have been better and that perhaps you didn't get your moneys worth.

It's very easy to suspect that the publisher spent the average amount of money needed to make a game like that and then instead of just selling it for $60 like normal they cut out parts and sold them separately in a cash grab.

And i want to go back to the whole HDD space thing. If you buy the disk, you at least own the physical disk. If they put DLC on the disk, and the disk is yours, aren't they putting content on YOUR disk without your permission? Or do you not own the physical disk either?

Holy shit, 6 pages of dancing around a simple point.

Of course legally Deep Silver are fully in their right to do this. But it's completely unethical towards their customers, and more gaming sites should be reporting this.

It's a bad practice, for some reasons publishers have gotten into their heads that it makes games fly off the shelves, it won't stop until they see some massive negative feedback.

FoolKiller:

Irony at its best.

Nice try but that wont work.

You own the physical disk so you can use it as a coaster all you want, I know thats what I use bioshock for. As for the license you own a license for the core game NOT the dlc. That means legally you did not buy a license for said dlc and can not legally access it. Its no different then downloading the game from the pirate bay. You are right in that the license only applies for what you paid for, not what you didnt pay for like you seem to want.

Burst6:

Draech:

Now there is an issue that has some real baring. Sloppy design inconveniences you the customer for no other reason than the developer didn't do a good enough job.

It is an issue none has touched on so far (my self included) because people have been focusing "it is cut content". My question wasn't meant to focus on convenience, but instead on the perceived value of the game.

Let me get it back on track. Does knowing there was more content make the content you enjoyed worse?

People wern't focusing on "they are filling up my HDD". People were focusing on what they decided to be the full exp was more than what the developer decided.

It doesn't make the content worse, but it gives the idea that it could have been better and that perhaps you didn't get your moneys worth.

It's very easy to suspect that the publisher spent the average amount of money needed to make a game like that and then instead of just selling it for $60 like normal they cut out parts and sold them separately in a cash grab.

And i want to go back to the whole HDD space thing. If you buy the disk, you at least own the physical disk. If they put DLC on the disk, and the disk is yours, aren't they putting content on YOUR disk without your permission? Or do you not own the physical disk either?

It isn't that simple when talking software.

You bought what is on the disk? then just copy the disk and do what you want with the disk. After all you bought it. Licensing laws exists because the material on the disk is worth more than the disk.

If it was the way you are assuming right there, then digital distribution would be impossible. It also complete negates the software developers need to patch the given software. If you bought what is on the disk, then that is that.

Licensing is all you deal with when talking software. You have no real physical product.

You bought the software they way they programmed it. And that is what is on the disk.

Thoric485:
Holy shit, 6 pages of dancing around a simple point.

Well it's more than one issue. Also, everyone has their say.

1. Is on-disc DLC ethical? (obviously)
2. What's stopping us from taking it ourselves if it's badly secured? Moral obligation? The threat of legal action?
3. If it's wrong to take it ourselves, then what did we pay for? What WAS advertised in the first place?

I mean unless the file directory is labeled "DO NOT EVEN THINK OF ACCESSING THIS OR WE WILL SUE YOU TO THE 9TH UNDERWORLD." People aren't gonna be aware of what they can and can't do.

Lovely Mixture:

Thoric485:
Holy shit, 6 pages of dancing around a simple point.

Well it's more than one issue.

1. Is on-disc DLC ethical? (obviously)
2. What's stopping us from taking it ourselves if it's badly secured? Moral obligation?
3. If it's wrong to take it ourselves, then what did we pay for?

1. If its on the disk when I buy it, I'm going to use it
2. See number 1
3. See number 1

I don't really think on-disk or first-day DLC is "unethical". I support the right of companies to price/chop up their product however they want. It's their product, after all.

It doesn't seem to be a very sound business practice though. It seems to always immediately come to light and generate a veritable shitstorm of angry backlash and lousy press, the pirates clamber all over the game like starving monkeys, and at the end of the day the developer likely sees a net loss and a reputation hit over just releasing the content for free.

Notable exception to this is the Sims, which is just naked greed on display from day 1 and no one seems to mind. "$1 for a hat!?", they say. "Where do I enter my credit card information!?".

I do wish more companies took the CD Projekt route and heaped free updates and content on their customers instead of squeezing them for every nickel. But then, not too many people even bought and played the Witchers. I blame you guys.

Das Boot:

FoolKiller:

Irony at its best.

That means legally you did not buy a license for said dlc and can not legally access it.

And this is a logical fallacy. Granted, one that the publisher/developer would and should use and may even win in court (although I have a couple of real great arguments to fight that), but it still is incorrect.

My point was that accessing the content is not a violation of the licensing agreement as there is no agreement involved. You may think otherwise but I think we will just have to agree to disagree.

The developers love to say that the consumers get a license to use the content. And I agree with them. Because piracy, for the most part, is detrimental to the industry that gives me my primary hobby.

But I also do not agree with many of their business practices which seem less than honest. When I install a game, I plan on using that content. Locking it away is essentially them using my hard drive for storage without my consent.

Someone else had a batteries not included analogy so I shall go with that. The batteries come with the item, but you are not allowed to use them. And they come in a box that is car battery size, and you have to store this box even if you don't intend on using it. Now my closet is overflowing with batteries as I have several items and am having trouble hanging up my coat.

This is one of my issues with on disc content that is locked away.

I'm shocked to see people defending this, how can you defend DLC that's on the disc? Yes for like Street Fighter where there's optional costumes...sure whatever that's cosmetic bullshit. But like missions, weapons? That's ...just bull.

That's like buying a car and having the radio there but there's a plastic cover on it that says please call [car dealer] to remove plastic for 10USD!

You bought the whole package, it's yours to rip apart if you want. Just don't expect to be able to play online or whatever.

Draech:

It isn't that simple when talking software.

You bought what is on the disk? then just copy the disk and do what you want with the disk. After all you bought it. Licensing laws exists because the material on the disk is worth more than the disk.

If it was the way you are assuming right there, then digital distribution would be impossible. It also complete negates the software developers need to patch the given software. If you bought what is on the disk, then that is that.

Licensing is all you deal with when talking software. You have no real physical product.

You bought the software they way they programmed it. And that is what is on the disk.

huh? I'm having a hard time understanding the wording.

How would it make digital distribution impossible? When you buy a game you should have everything you need to play it. Nothing more. Anything else takes up unnecessary hard drive space.

Why would it negate the need to patch? Every time you patch they already ask your permission to download it. There's nothing on your HDD that you don't want.

And yes it does have a physical side. The software itself may be information but it's on something physical. Usually something physical that belongs to you.

I don't think anyone would argue about what licensing is. We all know what it is. Most people are arguing about what licensing should be. If they should be allowed to do things like this where they take up our hard drive or disk space for their own convenience instead of adding to the product we already bought.

Draech:
snip

Small note; It's not the developer's decision/idea but that of the publisher.

There should be a note, warning or even an option while installing the game to store the content of the "DLC" already on your harddisk. (for PC atleast)
There should be something written in the lines of that the content is only partially and can't be accessed until you buy and download the rest of the DLC.

Nuku:

Draech:
snip

Small note; It's not the developer's decision/idea but that of the publisher.

There should be a note, warning or even an option while installing the game to store the content of the "DLC" already on your harddisk. (for PC atleast)
There should be something written in the lines of that the content is only partially and can't be accessed until you buy and download the rest of the DLC.

To be honest they should just find a better way of doing it. It is sloppy to say the least. And that you can just access it as easily as you can just screams "Unprofessional"

Wow. Oh, wow. I almost can't believe people are flipping their shit and screaming piracy over someone accessing something via a console command.

Draech:

Adam Jensen:

Draech:

They did for a fact not include batteries.

They made a point out of selling that stuff separately. You hacked the game so you have access to it is no different than hacking steam servers to have access to dlc there. "it is on the disk" carries no more weight than "it is on the server".

And because of people like you, this kind of shitty business practice continues.

People like me?

Yeah people like me who realise that shit doesn't get programmed from nowhere?

People like me who have 2 braincells to put together and can see what they are selling and determined value according to what they are selling, rather than what I think I am entitled to?

Yeah thats people like me.

And you know what. Its people like me who pay for games, so that you can stomp your feet and be sad when you dont want to pay for them.

If they don't want you to have it, then they shouldn't include it on the disk - it's not illegal to "Crack" a game. What's illegal is distributing the cracked game.

Playing around with files and having fun with the Console are ASSUREDLY not Illegal.

However... now we can see just how "Finished" the DLC really is - Be on the lookout for things like Placeholder Textures and Models.

Scow2:

Draech:

Adam Jensen:

And because of people like you, this kind of shitty business practice continues.

People like me?

Yeah people like me who realise that shit doesn't get programmed from nowhere?

People like me who have 2 braincells to put together and can see what they are selling and determined value according to what they are selling, rather than what I think I am entitled to?

Yeah thats people like me.

And you know what. Its people like me who pay for games, so that you can stomp your feet and be sad when you dont want to pay for them.

If they don't want you to have it, then they shouldn't include it on the disk - it's not illegal to "Crack" a game. What's illegal is distributing the cracked game.

However... now we can see just how "Finished" the DLC really is - Be on the lookout for things like Placeholder Textures and Models.

It is illegal to crack a game. Dex already has the link on the previous page clearing up the legislative part of it.

More importantly. It is not up to you to decided what is sold as a full product. It is up to the producers. You only get to decided what is bought as a full product.

If they sell half the game as the full product, then that is your option. If you find that awful then walk away. You do not have the authority to decide for them what is the full product.

Draech:

Scow2:

Draech:

People like me?

Yeah people like me who realise that shit doesn't get programmed from nowhere?

People like me who have 2 braincells to put together and can see what they are selling and determined value according to what they are selling, rather than what I think I am entitled to?

Yeah thats people like me.

And you know what. Its people like me who pay for games, so that you can stomp your feet and be sad when you dont want to pay for them.

If they don't want you to have it, then they shouldn't include it on the disk - it's not illegal to "Crack" a game. What's illegal is distributing the cracked game.

However... now we can see just how "Finished" the DLC really is - Be on the lookout for things like Placeholder Textures and Models.

It is illegal to crack a game. Dex already has the link on the previous page clearing up the legislative part of it.

More importantly. It is not up to you to decided what is sold as a full product. It is up to the producers. You only get to decided what is bought as a full product.

If they sell half the game as the full product, then that is your option. If you find that awful then walk away. You do not have the authority to decide for them what is the full product.

I read what he posted. Seems that there might be a case against unlocking it, but the courts have ruled that, with the exception of Decryption, it only applies when dealing with Copyright Infringement, which is pretty much restricted entirely to distribution of content. The DMCA has no power when Copyright Infringement is not happening, which this is not.

In a few European countries, it is illegal to "distribute (even for free), sell, manufacture, develope or advertise tools or software utilities that allow circumventing copy protections." From that, the only people the Developers/Publishers could sue is themselves, because they were the ones to supply the "tools" and "software utilities" to circumvent the locked content.

^ For example, the Senate Report on the DMCA states that "[i]t is anticipated that most acts of circumventing a technological copyright protection measure will occur in the course of conduct which itself implicates the copyright owners[©] rights under title 17. This subsection is not intended in any way to enlarge or diminish those rights. Thus, for example, where a copy control technology is employed to prevent unauthorized reproduction of a work, the circumvention of that technology would not itself be actionable under 1201, but any reproduction of the work that is thereby facilitated would remain subject to the protections embodied in title 17.

So, if you distribute the accessed files, then the DMCA can try to do something to you. Otherwise, all they can do (and you get to do back to them) is stand and point saying
"I'm not touching you!"
"I'm not touching you more than you're not touching me!"

Also, the law does NOT prohibit cracking Software and removing DRM to stop it from being a pain-in-the-ass of software licenses you own. So feel free to remove the Steam requirement from games like Skyrim, and those monstrosities from Ubisoft games. http://downloadsquad.switched.com/2010/07/26/judge-rules-that-circumventing-drm-is-not-illegal/

Scow2:

Draech:

Scow2:
If they don't want you to have it, then they shouldn't include it on the disk - it's not illegal to "Crack" a game. What's illegal is distributing the cracked game.

However... now we can see just how "Finished" the DLC really is - Be on the lookout for things like Placeholder Textures and Models.

It is illegal to crack a game. Dex already has the link on the previous page clearing up the legislative part of it.

More importantly. It is not up to you to decided what is sold as a full product. It is up to the producers. You only get to decided what is bought as a full product.

If they sell half the game as the full product, then that is your option. If you find that awful then walk away. You do not have the authority to decide for them what is the full product.

I read what he posted. Seems that there might be a case against unlocking it, but the courts have ruled that, with the exception of Decryption, it only applies when dealing with Copyright Infringement, which is pretty much restricted entirely to distribution of content. The DMCA has no power when Copyright Infringement is not happening, which this is not.

In a few European countries, it is illegal to "distribute (even for free), sell, manufacture, develope or advertise tools or software utilities that allow circumventing copy protections." From that, the only people the Developers/Publishers could sue is themselves, because they were the ones to supply the "tools" and "software utilities" to circumvent the locked content.

^ For example, the Senate Report on the DMCA states that "[i]t is anticipated that most acts of circumventing a technological copyright protection measure will occur in the course of conduct which itself implicates the copyright owners[©] rights under title 17. This subsection is not intended in any way to enlarge or diminish those rights. Thus, for example, where a copy control technology is employed to prevent unauthorized reproduction of a work, the circumvention of that technology would not itself be actionable under 1201, but any reproduction of the work that is thereby facilitated would remain subject to the protections embodied in title 17.

So, if you distribute the accessed files, then the DMCA can try to do something to you. Otherwise, all they can do (and you get to do back to them) is stand and point saying
"I'm not touching you!"
"I'm not touching you more than you're not touching me!"

Also, the law does NOT prohibit cracking Software and removing DRM to stop it from being a pain-in-the-ass of software licenses you own. So feel free to remove the Steam requirement from games like Skyrim, and those monstrosities from Ubisoft games. http://downloadsquad.switched.com/2010/07/26/judge-rules-that-circumventing-drm-is-not-illegal/

Again we are moving into territory I dont feel comfortable in. Law isn't my field of expertise, programming is.

The thing is you can slip alot by me and I wouldn't be able to check up on it. What I do severely doubt is that gaining access to copyrighted material (the DLC in this case) by going around the security set in place to protect said material is legally justified.

Dexter111:
So apparently both story islands and the pirate clothes DLC are already part of the game:

The only thing happening when one downloads/activates a DLC by buying it, is that it gets activated within the game and a respective "dialogue_language_dlc3.pak" gets downloaded to be used for the spoken dialogue (the Treasure Island DLC for instance is only 48MB big as far as I know).

Some people found a way around this in the Test Mode of the game, one can enter a Test Mode by blindly typing "pommes" in game, it should display "TestMode Activated" and enable the console which can be opened with the "^"-key left of the "1", after that apparently spawning "DLC helpers" seems to work:

spawn dlc1h
spawn dlc2h
spawn dlc3h

After activating the DLCs they are fully functional (even the one that was exclusive for the "Stahlbart's Schatz" edition of the game) aside from missing voice overs for those parts of the game.

So there goes any doubt that the DLCs weren't "cut out" from the game.

this was entertaining and everything but you forgot to mention that risen 2 is a pile of shit to begin with. You couldn't pay me enough to play that abortion of a game, let alone the abortion of the abortion that is the dlc

Draech:

Scow2:

Draech:

It is illegal to crack a game. Dex already has the link on the previous page clearing up the legislative part of it.

More importantly. It is not up to you to decided what is sold as a full product. It is up to the producers. You only get to decided what is bought as a full product.

If they sell half the game as the full product, then that is your option. If you find that awful then walk away. You do not have the authority to decide for them what is the full product.

I read what he posted. Seems that there might be a case against unlocking it, but the courts have ruled that, with the exception of Decryption, it only applies when dealing with Copyright Infringement, which is pretty much restricted entirely to distribution of content. The DMCA has no power when Copyright Infringement is not happening, which this is not.

In a few European countries, it is illegal to "distribute (even for free), sell, manufacture, develope or advertise tools or software utilities that allow circumventing copy protections." From that, the only people the Developers/Publishers could sue is themselves, because they were the ones to supply the "tools" and "software utilities" to circumvent the locked content.

^ For example, the Senate Report on the DMCA states that "[i]t is anticipated that most acts of circumventing a technological copyright protection measure will occur in the course of conduct which itself implicates the copyright owners[©] rights under title 17. This subsection is not intended in any way to enlarge or diminish those rights. Thus, for example, where a copy control technology is employed to prevent unauthorized reproduction of a work, the circumvention of that technology would not itself be actionable under 1201, but any reproduction of the work that is thereby facilitated would remain subject to the protections embodied in title 17.

So, if you distribute the accessed files, then the DMCA can try to do something to you. Otherwise, all they can do (and you get to do back to them) is stand and point saying
"I'm not touching you!"
"I'm not touching you more than you're not touching me!"

Also, the law does NOT prohibit cracking Software and removing DRM to stop it from being a pain-in-the-ass of software licenses you own. So feel free to remove the Steam requirement from games like Skyrim, and those monstrosities from Ubisoft games. http://downloadsquad.switched.com/2010/07/26/judge-rules-that-circumventing-drm-is-not-illegal/

Again we are moving into territory I dont feel comfortable in. Law isn't my field of expertise, programming is.

The thing is you can slip alot by me and I wouldn't be able to check up on it. What I do severely doubt is that gaining access to copyrighted material (the DLC in this case) by going around the security set in place to protect said material is legally justified.

let's say you bought a chocolate bar, but you can only eat 80 percent of it because the candy maker wants you to pay them an extra dollar to finish it. If you don't want to pay, do you just throw it away, or do you just eat it? Its essentially the same thing as the sit. Here because there is no real barrier to the content.

Perchance do you happen to be one of the risen devs? Bc if so, change up the combat for cs sake its the same crappy battle mechanics as in gothic one. Lazy european arpg devs

rippersez:

Draech:

Scow2:
I read what he posted. Seems that there might be a case against unlocking it, but the courts have ruled that, with the exception of Decryption, it only applies when dealing with Copyright Infringement, which is pretty much restricted entirely to distribution of content. The DMCA has no power when Copyright Infringement is not happening, which this is not.

In a few European countries, it is illegal to "distribute (even for free), sell, manufacture, develope or advertise tools or software utilities that allow circumventing copy protections." From that, the only people the Developers/Publishers could sue is themselves, because they were the ones to supply the "tools" and "software utilities" to circumvent the locked content.

^ For example, the Senate Report on the DMCA states that "[i]t is anticipated that most acts of circumventing a technological copyright protection measure will occur in the course of conduct which itself implicates the copyright owners[©] rights under title 17. This subsection is not intended in any way to enlarge or diminish those rights. Thus, for example, where a copy control technology is employed to prevent unauthorized reproduction of a work, the circumvention of that technology would not itself be actionable under 1201, but any reproduction of the work that is thereby facilitated would remain subject to the protections embodied in title 17.

So, if you distribute the accessed files, then the DMCA can try to do something to you. Otherwise, all they can do (and you get to do back to them) is stand and point saying
"I'm not touching you!"
"I'm not touching you more than you're not touching me!"

Also, the law does NOT prohibit cracking Software and removing DRM to stop it from being a pain-in-the-ass of software licenses you own. So feel free to remove the Steam requirement from games like Skyrim, and those monstrosities from Ubisoft games. http://downloadsquad.switched.com/2010/07/26/judge-rules-that-circumventing-drm-is-not-illegal/

Again we are moving into territory I dont feel comfortable in. Law isn't my field of expertise, programming is.

The thing is you can slip alot by me and I wouldn't be able to check up on it. What I do severely doubt is that gaining access to copyrighted material (the DLC in this case) by going around the security set in place to protect said material is legally justified.

let's say you bought a chocolate bar, but you can only eat 80 percent of it because the candy maker wants you to pay them an extra dollar to finish it. If you don't want to pay, do you just throw it away, or do you just eat it? Its essentially the same thing as the sit. Here because there is no real barrier to the content.

Perchance do you happen to be one of the risen devs? Bc if so, change up the combat for cs sake its the same crappy battle mechanics as in gothic one. Lazy european arpg devs

Its not that simple.

When you buy software you are not really buying a physical product. You are licensing use of the software. This is why copyright law exists. You are not paying for the chocolate bar. You are paying to get eat X amount of said chocolate bar. This is why there is an install limit on your windows. You paid for 1 use.

And no I had nothing to do with the development of any games you probably know. Games I have helped make are calender games at Xmas for public Tv stations websites, teaching tools for the elderly and dyslexics. Main part of my exp is a lot more basic than what you would call game programming. I am originally educated in low power electronics (not sure what the direct translation is in English) so my main exp is in programming the software that controls your hot water heater. When I got laid off at Terma I spend 2 years studying and landed the job where I am now.

Draech:

Again we are moving into territory I dont feel comfortable in. Law isn't my field of expertise, programming is.

The thing is you can slip alot by me and I wouldn't be able to check up on it. What I do severely doubt is that gaining access to copyrighted material (the DLC in this case) by going around the security set in place to protect said material is legally justified.

It's interesting that you've used analogies to physical objects such as a house or a burger in your dicussion so far.

Basically what I think you are saying is:
Even though you purchased the CD legally, with all the content on the CD; you only own the physical CD and not the 'content' that resides on the CD. This is due to various licensing agreements, EULA's, as well as potential copyright and DRM laws. I think you've probably also noted that this is a legal grey area which it appears that no one on this forum is able to define for certain. Either way, the legality of what you actually own when you buy a CD most likely differs from country to country.

What I think most other people are trying to say is:
Basically whatever is going on above with the licensing is bullsh*t. For a consumer, if they purchase a physical item, they should own that item without the burden of any additonal legal intagibles. i.e. I purchased the CD, whether or not the developer meant for the content to be accessible, I own the CD, I own the 1's and 0's - I can do whatever I want with it.

And to be fair, the way the licensing laws seem to be these days, they do seem to be skewed in favour of the parties with the most resources - the corporations. So its more than understandable why you are getting called a 'corporate apologist'. People like to buy stuff and do whatever they want with it, I think thats human nature.

Is it ethical for consumers to 'hack' data on a CD that they have legally purchased even if when they purchased it, they didnt know it was there? On the other hand, is it ethical for corporation to try and control the use of products after they legally sell them to a consumer?

To use your house analogy, sure, I can sell someone my house. But if they discover the hidden room full of game consoles under the house when they are performing renovations some time later, the law is pretty damn clear I can't go back to the house and demand money for them to use the room that was part of a house that they legally purchased (even though the room and the contents weren't on the building plan or the list of chattels). Sure software law does differ, but its debatable whether this benefits the consumer or the corporation. You may note that when it comes to piracy, corporates seem to like to have thier cake and eat it too - is software data (and can be 'licensed')? or is it a physical object (that can be 'stolen')?

TL;DR - All I'm getting is that your normative view on this particular set of ethics differs from many others - and I also understand there's no way any one is going to change anyone elses mind in this discussion.

djtim_3000:

Draech:

Again we are moving into territory I dont feel comfortable in. Law isn't my field of expertise, programming is.

The thing is you can slip alot by me and I wouldn't be able to check up on it. What I do severely doubt is that gaining access to copyrighted material (the DLC in this case) by going around the security set in place to protect said material is legally justified.

It's interesting that you've used analogies to physical objects such as a house or a burger in your dicussion so far.

Basically what I think you are saying is:
Even though you purchased the CD legally, with all the content on the CD; you only own the physical CD and not the 'content' that resides on the CD. This is due to various licensing agreements, EULA's, as well as potential copyright and DRM laws. I think you've probably also noted that this is a legal grey area which it appears that no one on this forum is able to define for certain. Either way, the legality of what you actually own when you buy a CD most likely differs from country to country.

What I think most other people are trying to say is:
Basically whatever is going on above with the licensing is bullsh*t. For a consumer, if they purchase a physical item, they should own that item without the burden of any additonal legal intagibles. i.e. I purchased the CD, whether or not the developer meant for the content to be accessible, I own the CD, I own the 1's and 0's - I can do whatever I want with it.

And to be fair, the way the licensing laws seem to be these days, they do seem to be skewed in favour of the parties with the most resources - the corporations. So its more than understandable why you are getting called a 'corporate apologist'. People like to buy stuff and do whatever they want with it, I think thats human nature.

Is it ethical for consumers to 'hack' data on a CD that they have legally purchased even if when they purchased it, they didnt know it was there? On the other hand, is it ethical for corporation to try and control the use of products after they legally sell them to a consumer?

To use your house analogy, sure, I can sell someone my house. But if they discover the hidden room full of game consoles under the house when they are performing renovations some time later, the law is pretty damn clear I can't go back to the house and demand money for them to use the room that was part of a house that they legally purchased (even though the room and the contents weren't on the building plan or the list of chattels). Sure software law does differ, but its debatable whether this benefits the consumer or the corporation. You may note that when it comes to piracy, corporates seem to like to have thier cake and eat it too - is software data (and can be 'licensed')? or is it a physical object (that can be 'stolen')?

TL;DR - All I'm getting is that your normative view on this particular set of ethics differs from many others - and I also understand there's no way any one is going to change anyone elses mind in this discussion.

I dont agree on every licensing law out there and it is a murky territory.

I do hold my viewpoint because if it wasn't for the way licensing law works me getting paid to make what will become a million dollar product wouldn't work. This is a product that had an incredible cost to make, but almost no cost to recreate. Of course you are going to want to limit its uses unless you want to sell it as a whole for its actual cost. The idea of selling this million dollar product 50$ without any strings attached is insanity. Yes the consumer has rights and needs to be ensure he doesn't get cheated, but the producer needs protection as well.

Where the line goes should be up to the individual consumer. I do think we are generally well protected, even thou society is moving a bit to slow on the legislative part. I dont believe companies should get away with doing false advertising, and I do generally think they cant. The consumers however needs to educate themselves as well. I remember reading that some state (think it was California) would require games that had DLC to say so on the box. I got no problem with that. They shouldn't be trying to hide it.

But to say to say "because it is on the disk it is mine and I have the right to it" is in my mind a great over simplification of a system. Licensing laws exists not just because publishers are greedy, but also because their investments needs some sort of security. Otherwise no one would invest.

Draech:

I dont agree on every licensing law out there and it is a murky territory.

I do hold my viewpoint because if it wasn't for the way licensing law works me getting paid to make what will become a million dollar product wouldn't work. This is a product that had an incredible cost to make, but almost no cost to recreate. Of course you are going to want to limit its uses unless you want to sell it as a whole for its actual cost. The idea of selling this million dollar product 50$ without any strings attached is insanity. Yes the consumer has rights and needs to be ensure he doesn't get cheated, but the producer needs protection as well.

Where the line goes should be up to the individual consumer. I do think we are generally well protected, even thou society is moving a bit to slow on the legislative part. I dont believe companies should get away with doing false advertising, and I do generally think they cant. The consumers however needs to educate themselves as well. I remember reading that some state (think it was California) would require games that had DLC to say so on the box. I got no problem with that. They shouldn't be trying to hide it.

But to say to say "because it is on the disk it is mine and I have the right to it" is in my mind a great over simplification of a system. Licensing laws exists not just because publishers are greedy, but also because their investments needs some sort of security. Otherwise no one would invest.

I'm 100% in support of copyright laws - and I agree that used well these laws do encourage investment in the creative arts. However I personally think that the laws have gone too far in favour of the corporations (life + 70 years?! how does that benefit anyone apart from corporate shareholders) - particurlarly when all creativity is in some way, shape or form, built upon all the works that have come before. It's also very debatable that sans copyright laws, people and or companies, would just stop producing full stop.

Software licensing I'm a bit more wary about - ownership as a concept, is a key tenet of a free society. The concept is as ancient as early civilisation, it is tangible and easily understood. The thought of a future where I don't actually 'own' anything I just 'license' use of whatever product from a large corporation, is pretty scary. I like owning stuff - most humans do.

Dexter111:

It's more like people like you that haven't the faintest clue of programming, yet believe everything publishers and PR say, taking it as universal truth in an argument.

People like you that don't realize that business practices can be changed by consumers and seem ignorant enough to not only give in to them, but defending and helping to propagate them so you won't have 3 pieces of content cut out of your game next time but 5, and 7 after that.
Luckily there seems to be a rather large pushback regarding these issues and people like you don't seem to be the majority.

People like you that use the word "entitled" instead of "consumer feedback" as if that means anything because you read it on IGN once and would likely accept them selling you a 2 hour long game for full price so they can continue selling you 2 hour bits of it every week as "DLC" if they sculpt you enough.
People like you that don't seem to realize that because a company can DO something doesn't mean they should or that it's even the best possible way to increase that shiny profit and that you're actually arguing against your own good and your rights as a consumer.

That's people like you :P

>Implying that a knowledge of programming is relevant. Also, how would you know whether or not he had a knowledge of programming. He didn't say that you should take the Publishers word for it. He said they have the right to price as they like. Of course, as consumers, we have the right to not buy stuff from greedy pigs. See how that works?

You're not "Fighting Back" by taking the cut content back. You're still buying their game, and what you've done is indistinguishable from piracy. If your conviction is deep enough that you feel you're being betrayed, price wise, the moral course of action would be to not buy it at that price, rather than take what you want later.

>Implying he takes his cues from IGN, etc. Then more unsubstantiated ad hominem. Finally makes a point which fails to illustrate your claim. If they sell a game, for more than it is worth, then you do not buy it. That's the way things should work. It's the reason my car's a piece of crap that's older than I am and it's the reason I don't live in a mansion. If something is priced beyond your means, or beyond what you are willing to pay for it, you don't purchase it. Especially if it's a luxury. No actually, he doesn't have to be against his own rights as a consumer to be against unlocking stuff like this.

You can still think it's greedy, sneaky, and underhanded to sell things like this, and to keep charging ridiculous sums for games, without automatically thinking that taking without paying is right. You've falsely dichotomised the situation, and generally just spewed ad hominem and logical fallacies in an attempt to support pigeonholing him.

I've no problem with either of your sides, just terrible logic. *Fixed.

djtim_3000:

Draech:

I dont agree on every licensing law out there and it is a murky territory.

I do hold my viewpoint because if it wasn't for the way licensing law works me getting paid to make what will become a million dollar product wouldn't work. This is a product that had an incredible cost to make, but almost no cost to recreate. Of course you are going to want to limit its uses unless you want to sell it as a whole for its actual cost. The idea of selling this million dollar product 50$ without any strings attached is insanity. Yes the consumer has rights and needs to be ensure he doesn't get cheated, but the producer needs protection as well.

Where the line goes should be up to the individual consumer. I do think we are generally well protected, even thou society is moving a bit to slow on the legislative part. I dont believe companies should get away with doing false advertising, and I do generally think they cant. The consumers however needs to educate themselves as well. I remember reading that some state (think it was California) would require games that had DLC to say so on the box. I got no problem with that. They shouldn't be trying to hide it.

But to say to say "because it is on the disk it is mine and I have the right to it" is in my mind a great over simplification of a system. Licensing laws exists not just because publishers are greedy, but also because their investments needs some sort of security. Otherwise no one would invest.

I'm 100% in support of copyright laws - and I agree that used well these laws do encourage investment in the creative arts. However I personally think that the laws have gone too far in favour of the corporations (life + 70 years?! how does that benefit anyone apart from corporate shareholders) - particurlarly when all creativity is in some way, shape or form, built upon all the works that have come before. It's also very debatable that sans copyright laws, people and or companies, would just stop producing full stop.

Software licensing I'm a bit more wary about - ownership as a concept, is a key tenet of a free society. The concept is as ancient as early civilisation, it is tangible and easily understood. The thought of a future where I don't actually 'own' anything I just 'license' use of whatever product from a large corporation, is pretty scary. I like owning stuff - most humans do.

The thing is as we develop a more complex society Idea's, concepts and knowledge gain more value than actual than an actual physical product (the "how to fish" is potentially worth more than "fish"). It may be a scary thought, but it is a necessity if we are going to pool our resources and make something that exceeds the of what it is sold for. You can still own items. Just a lot more expensive.

That's nice, but I have no interest in playing Risen 2 anyway. Piranha bytes are massive decline.
Gothic 2 was good. Everything form then on gradually gets worse.

Now they cut DLC from the finished game to charge gamers over $60 for the full experience, but they do an incompetent job and hide everything on the disc anyway. I have no pity for them.

FoolKiller:
And this is a logical fallacy. Granted, one that the publisher/developer would and should use and may even win in court (although I have a couple of real great arguments to fight that), but it still is incorrect.

My point was that accessing the content is not a violation of the licensing agreement as there is no agreement involved. You may think otherwise but I think we will just have to agree to disagree.

The thing is you DID buy a license. The only way to argue against that is if you are mentally retarded or something. That is how all software works. Hell it even says that on every single box. Due to the nature of software it actually HAS to be that way.

Das Boot:
You are right its not piracy in this case its copyright infringement. You do know that if a developer says no modding its actually illegal to mod the game right?

Lovely Mixture:
At least you are beginning to understand what we're saying. It might be illegal, but that doesn't make it right (different argument though).

It's not piracy, it's not copyright infringement, it's not illegal in any way and it's not even modding, it's just using the in game console to execute a command like a cheatcode. If they didn't want players to use it they could as well have disabled it.
You could as well argue that the developers didn't "want" you to use the jump-button in the game, although they didn't expressively forbidden it. What you are trying to claim now is basically that using the jump button is somehow illegal because the developers didn't want you to.
What you are saying makes you sound slightly insane to anyone with the ability of rational thought on their side.

I went over this already near the end of this post and I really don't want to reiterate: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.374019-Risen-2-All-DLC-unlockable-using-console?page=4#14484200
Also an "EULA" or "License Agreement" isn't in any way sort of form a law, so even by infringing against it that wouldn't make it "illegal", no matter how much "Das Boot" wants to lose his rights and transfer them to companies to decide about, but a violation of a License Agreement. If anything was "illegal" or not has to be proven before a court of law on a case by case basis

djtim_3000:
And to be fair, the way the licensing laws seem to be these days, they do seem to be skewed in favour of the parties with the most resources - the corporations. So its more than understandable why you are getting called a 'corporate apologist'. People like to buy stuff and do whatever they want with it, I think thats human nature.

Not that there's NOT something seriously wrong with Copyright laws as there is, in the US for instance they've managed to pass 15 Acts of decreasing the consumers rights more and more through increasing lobbyism. The first ones that blew up in their face in a major way are SOPA/PIPA and soon also likely the International Trade Agreement ACTA (they've moved from lobbying locally constrained to the US to lobbying globally to take everyone else's customer rights away too, even in countries where there is no annoying "fair use" clauses to protect said consumers.
There's an article about said laws being passed over here: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120215/04241517766/how-much-is-enough-weve-passed-15-anti-piracy-laws-last-30-years.shtml

1. 1982: Piracy and Counterfeiting Amendments Act: Increased criminal penalties for infringing records, tapes and films from $25k & 2 years in jail to $250,000 and 5 years in jail. Also... made it so that first-time offenders could get the maximum.
2. 1984: Record Rental Amendment of 1984: Outlawed music rentals (have you ever wondered why there were no Blockbusters or Netflixes for music?)
3. 1990: Copyright Remedy Clarification Act: Allowed copyright holders to sue states for copyright infringement (before that, states could claim sovereign immunity)
4. 1990: Computer Software Rental Amendments Act: Outlawed software rentals
5. 1992: Audio Home Recording Act: Mandated DRM on certain digital audio devices (mainly DAT), added a royalty on such devices.
6. 1994: Uruguay Round Agreements Act: Not only did it seize works out of the public domain and put them under copyright (this was what was challenged in the recent Golan case), but it made it a criminal offense to bootleg concerts (audio or video).
7. 1995: The Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act: Created a new "performance" right for copyright holders concerning digital "performances."
8. 1996: Anticounterfeiting Consumer Protection Act of 1996: Expanded racketeering laws to include criminal copyright infringement, as well as "trafficking" in computer software, documentation or packaging, as well as trafficking in movies or audiovisual works. Also let the government seize property associated with these activities (precursor to domain seizures...).
9. 1997: No Electronic Theft (NET) Act: Decreased the threshold for what counts as criminal infringement (such as taking out the monetary profit requirement).
10. 1998: Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act: You should know this one. Expanded copyright terms by 20 years.
11. 1998: Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA): Again, you may have heard of it. Created anti-circumvention rules and the notice-and-takedown system for online infringement, among many other things.
12. 1999: Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999: Massively increased statutory damages for infringement
13. 2004: Intellectual Property Protection and Courts Amendments Act: Set up penalties (civil and criminal) for counterfeit labels, documentation and packaging in association with copyrighted goods (yes, separate from the content itself). Also lowered the bar to show willful infringement.
14. 2005: Family Entertainment and Copyright Act: Criminalizes recording of movies in theaters and also lets theaters detain people merely suspected of recording in theaters. Criminalizes releasing a work online before it's been officially released (if it's "being prepared" for commercial distribution).
15. 2008: Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property (PRO-IP) Act: Increased civil penalties for infringement. Increased government seizure & forfeiture powers (which is how the government currently justifies its questionable domain seizures) and created a job in the White House to focus on greater enforcement.

Now for some people like "Das Boot" or "Draech" that's apparently not quite enough rights being taken away and punishment being handled out (notice that every respective act detailed was legal until said laws were passed even in the US, haven of the IPR-laws. So they're basically passing laws criminalizing more and more people and then they're "crying rape" when people do what they've been doing so far and showing statistics how "piracy has increased" or something). They apparently want companies to be able to write laws themselves through their EULA, otherwise they don't seem to be happy just yet.

Draech:
I do hold my viewpoint because if it wasn't for the way licensing law works me getting paid to make what will become a million dollar product wouldn't work. This is a product that had an incredible cost to make, but almost no cost to recreate. Of course you are going to want to limit its uses unless you want to sell it as a whole for its actual cost. The idea of selling this million dollar product 50$ without any strings attached is insanity. Yes the consumer has rights and needs to be ensure he doesn't get cheated, but the producer needs protection as well.

I don't think water pump control software is that highly sought after by the "evil freeloading pirate thief mongrels" or whatever the new official word is.
Using any of it on a commercial scale is another thing entirely, but you should really watch this: http://www.everythingisaremix.info/everything-is-a-remix-part-4/ (and maybe the other parts after that, but especially that one.), there's huge, big, major civilization-blocking problems with copyright and patent laws as they are today and something IS going to have to give in the next 20 years or so.

djtim_3000:
You're not "Fighting Back" by taking the cut content back. You're still buying their game, and what you've done is indistinguishable from piracy. If your conviction is deep enough that you feel you're being betrayed, price wise, the moral course of action would be to not buy it at that price, rather than take what you want later.

I didn't buy the game, where did you get the idea that I would?

I haven't bought a single "AAA" game so far this year actually, it's mostly been things like Dear Esther, Stacking, Might and Magic: Clash of Heroes, Trine 2, Legend of Grimrock, several Indie Bundles and I put a bunch of money into KickStarters.

Games that I was initially interested in but eventually lost all interest because of scummy business practices are increasing e.g.:

Mass Effect 3 --> Day1-DLC, Origin-only, lots and lots of other "DLC"
Risen 2 --> 3 major Day1-DLCs
Diablo 3 --> Always-Online DRM, No SinglePlayer/LAN

At this rate, either they change their mind at some point and do things more like CDProjekt, Valve or similar companies (for instance Bethesda seems to have been alright with their DLC policy even though they were the first out with a "Horse Armor", they've shown considerable restraint or inXile) or I'm going mostly Indie/KickStarter etc. and they can screw themselves for all I care :P

What I did was spread available information being discussed in a German forum to other people so they know the deal and can make their own purchase-decision based on that.

The "pricing" also didn't have much to do with my decision, for instance I was more than happy to put down $100 for Wasteland 2 even before knowing how the game will look because I trust them to not pull anything like this and believe they could make a great game. Companies shouldn't be absolved from moral/ethical obligations of screwing over their customers just because they can.

Also, they patched out the DLC helpers in a Cloak&Dagger Patch-Action like two days ago, but I think there might still be ways of activating with more detailed console commands that do what the NPCs would basically have done.

Well this is heated. Ho hum.

Anyone remember James Pond? I think it was the Amiga/PC version. In the demo they left all the levels in there and locked them off after the first. They also left in the level skip cheat, if you skipped to level 2 you could just carry on for the whole game.

That was funny.

Dexter111:
It's not piracy, it's not copyright infringement, it's not illegal in any way and it's not even modding, it's just using the in game console to execute a command like a cheatcode. If they didn't want players to use it they could as well have disabled it.
You could as well argue that the developers didn't "want" you to use the jump-button in the game, although they didn't expressively forbidden it. What you are trying to claim now is basically that using the jump button is somehow illegal because the developers didn't want you to.
What you are saying makes you sound slightly insane to anyone with the ability of rational thought on their side.

I went over this already near the end of this post and I really don't want to reiterate: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.374019-Risen-2-All-DLC-unlockable-using-console?page=4#14484200
Also an "EULA" or "License Agreement" isn't in any way sort of form a law, so even by infringing against it that wouldn't make it "illegal", no matter how much "Das Boot" wants to lose his rights and transfer them to companies to decide about, but a violation of a License Agreement. If anything was "illegal" or not has to be proven before a court of law on a case by case basis

You really are insane arnt you. You cant compare two completely different things and go hey look see im right. Anyways I am done with this thread since trying on this topic you are acting about as intelligent as a brick wall.

Dexter111:

Draech:
I do hold my viewpoint because if it wasn't for the way licensing law works me getting paid to make what will become a million dollar product wouldn't work. This is a product that had an incredible cost to make, but almost no cost to recreate. Of course you are going to want to limit its uses unless you want to sell it as a whole for its actual cost. The idea of selling this million dollar product 50$ without any strings attached is insanity. Yes the consumer has rights and needs to be ensure he doesn't get cheated, but the producer needs protection as well.

I don't think water pump control software is that highly sought after by the "evil freeloading pirate thief mongrels" or whatever the new official word is.
Using any of it on a commercial scale is another thing entirely, but you should really watch this: http://www.everythingisaremix.info/everything-is-a-remix-part-4/ (and maybe the other parts after that, but especially that one.), there's huge, big, major civilization-blocking problems with copyright and patent laws as they are today and something IS going to have to give in the next 20 years or so.

Dont forget the GPS software we made at Terma.

I am sure there is no reason to safeguard that. Thats not a giant market at all. I mean we spend a fortune making our own software we should just have bought that for a few 100$. Who was the deluded one again?
But yeah I am used to you trying to twist this into something ridicules. Maybe if you looked past your own "needs" for software and looked a bigger picture.

Draech:
Dont forget the GPS software we made at Terma.

I am sure there is no reason to safeguard that. Thats not a giant market at all. I mean we spend a fortune making our own software we should just have bought that for a few 100$. Who was the deluded one again?
But yeah I am used to you trying to twist this into something ridicules. Maybe if you looked past your own "needs" for software and looked a bigger picture.

Why buy something for 100$ if you can have it for free?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/29/technology/companies/29gps.html
http://www.navmii.com/navfree/?country=GB

They should be sued for disrupting and destroying your business and costing you a fortune!

I'm looking at the "bigger picture" and I genuinely believe that if IPR laws are allowed to continue in this kind humanity might be fucked and it endangers free information and technological progress of our civilization, I also genuinely believe that it'll self-regulate within a few years though.

On that note I would NEVER want to see "copyright" on the principles of code or algorithms, that would be akin to copyrighting basic math or physical principles to be able to use only under the permission of "copyright holder X" and the European Court Justice did have a legal decision I would consider good on that matter not long ago: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/03/wpl_vs_sas_eu_court/

WPL had gotten under SAS's skin by buying a copy of its software and creating a feature by reading the description of the feature in the manual, and writing its own code.

SAS had attempted, in English courts, to get a finding that WPL had violated its copyright. In 2010, that led to a British High Court decision that copying the manuals violated copyright, and that WPL had violated its license agreement - but decided to refer the matter to the European Court to settle the copyright questions in light of EU intellectual property directives.

The court has decided that functionality, absent any viewing or copying of code, cannot be protected by copyright: "to accept that the functionality of a computer program can be protected by copyright would amount to making it possible to monopolise ideas, to the detriment of technological progress and industrial development," the judgment states.

The more control and "copyright", the better for single monopolies. The less control and more free information the better for society as a whole.

No what would be great ? If this worked for a good game .

Draech:

Kahunaburger:
Hahahahaha that's beautiful. Apparently "on-disc DLC" is rapidly coming to mean "free DLC."

That is the idiocy of the whole thing. Just because it is on the disk doesn't mean it was free. It is their prerogative on how they will sell their games.

That it uses batteries does't mean "batteries included". Capcom did a somewhat crappy thing of making a lot of commercials and trailers without telling that the chars shown are sold separately, but when we are informed of what we are and arn't buying I dont really see the problem.

Are you actually trying to tell someone that if you walked out to the store, bought a copy of Risen 2 that some of those files on the disk are not yours?
What world do you live in?

Do you buy a bar of chocolate only to be told you can have the wrapper but not the actual bar itself?
I'm sorry but you're just flat out backwards, they intended to sell unlock codes for the DLC and not the DLC itself, the consumer already has that.
Someone has found a way to open it via ingame console commands, no hacking just using an ingame tool readily available for public use.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked