It's important that it only makes sense when you're drunk. Having worked with the inebriated often, I have a knack for sensing what someone who is intoxicated would make of something.
It's not double-dipping if they deliver the DLC before the fact; it's just geography. If you were to wait a month and then download it for $5, would you consider it double-dipping?
Nope, then they could have lied plausibly when they referred to it as "post release content".
The explanation in TFA is pretty clear and makes sense, even if it's annoying. Burnout Paradise did the same thing for the same reasons. It's a practical solution to a technical problem. This actually allows "have" and "have-not" friends to play together without forcing them to upgrade as a group. That's actually more generous to the players, not more greedy.
Yes, as a solution to multiplayer and providing the resources for everyone to use it's necessary, I never disagreed with that. The issue is the audacity to suggest this is anything other than an attempt to get more money for something that should have been included in the shelf price, since apparently it was included in the box on the shelf.
But you got the complete game! You didn't expect this additional DLC and if it were delivered over the net you wouldn't have had an issue with it. If you didn't look at the time taken by the installer or the disk space used you wouldn't have even known about it!
Yes, I know I'm basically asking that they try to uphold some masquerade; they've shown a lack of respect for their consumers and audience by taking the "downloadable" out of "downloadable content".
So that would've been ok too? Then you would've had people complaining that they shouldn't have to pay a premium for a feature they didn't want, it never ends. You clearly don't have an issue with DLC or the cost so your only issue is the delivery method...WTF?!
It is an extremely complicated issue, but why should developers ever plan on DLC instead of shelf price as a definite source of income? Where can it stop that a game is endlessly segmented into features "people might not want" while the base package is still 60 dollars and several dozen DLC come out offering to pay for integral parts of the artistic experience that are already given out on the disk.
It's a trudge through muddy waters and 2k just made the water deeper.
Yes, and that's fine, though it may be an indication of the ailing state of game development... the issue here, for me at least, is they won't just admit that.
But you do realise that if, like other companies, they had made you download this then you wouldn't have had a problem with it at all?
I am aware. It is just the sheer arrogance of 2k games that is upsetting.
I'd wager a hell of a lot of DLC is finished before release, but that's another issue. The issue here is that you would've bought the game without that content being on the disc anyway so who really cares, they just saved u the download.
I'm pretty sure a lot of DLC is done or damned near finished before release, but in most cases so far companies have actually tried to hide it by waiting until after launch.
See, a large part of the issue is that the response was this was "post release content", which is bullshit and they knew all along. They could at least have the fucking decency to admit, that yes, this is specifically to get a little more money out of the huge demographic of gamers who play multiplayer.
I don't see a problem with it in a game other than lying about how it works.
The part I have a problem with is the part that they lie about how it works. Well, and the other stuff. If it's such a good feature that so many people are going to buy it anyways, why aren't they charging another $5 on the shelf price?
Because, of course, all the other games cost $60.
Oh boy! I just can't wait until every producer does this!
They abuse the trust of the consumer by misrepresenting the nature of "downloadable content".
The copyright owner is free to license its creation however it wants.
This is not a licensing issue.
How is the physical location of the content relevant at all?
It is extremely relevant; the data should be considered in my possession if it is on my storage medium of choice, regardless of how little work needs to go into its replication. Legal precedence has already decided that would be the case if child pornography, confidential information, "evidence" of misconduct or pretty much any other media involved.
Are you alleging false advertising? Does it say "Sinclair Solutions included" on the package?
The packaging does not say that it is not included. It really doesn't make a difference what the packaging says here.
If so, OK that's fraud and it's unethical. But if you know before purchasing the main game that the Sinclair Solutions multiplayer pack is $5 extra, then you got exactly what you bargained for, didn't you?
So that knowledge is now the responsibility of the consumer, regardless what is given to them?
If you don't like it: don't buy it.
I would probably still buy the game despite the bullshit (in a couple years, used), and I have the freedom to comment on the situation regardless of my decision to purchase the game.
People who don't want the expansion should be happy that they can save $5.
This isn't about how much is saved or spent. This is about the arrogance of 2k games including this "Post release content" and then charging you for it. This wasn't based on how many people wouldn't want it, it was based on the expectation that people who play games usually play online and would be more likely to spend that other 5 dollars.
These days, most people who bought a new car would expect it to come with an FM radio. Providing the car with an AM radio by default and charging another 100 for an FM radio would be an easy way to make extra money, since most people who are in the position to buy a new car would listen to FM radio. Imagine further that it is only possible to install an FM radio if it comes from the manufacturer.
No one was harmed, nothing illegal was done, but it's a Dick Move because it goes against the common expectation of the consumer. Sure, it benefits the people who don't listen to FM radio or any radio at all because they "save" a hundred dollars, but the number of people who don't purchase the proprietary FM radio would be very few.
So it's just a profit deal?!?! DIABOLICAL!!
Seriously, how does this juvenile rant get +4 insightful? Get out your drinking straw.
Do you believe then that it was acceptable that 2k games included all of the necessary information to use this content in the release, suggested this was a post-release feature, and then charged consumers for something they already technically had?
I'll ask again... at what point does the experience start to belong to the consumer? What is the exact point of demarcation?
Actually something similar to this is common practice: hotel room mini-bars. I've paid for the room and they've placed content in that room, but if I want to make use of that content... I have to pay.
So... installing a game on my computer installs a hotel room on my computer?
This is why I don't play MMOs. If I pay $60 for a disk, I better get a game on it. If I then have to pay $15 a month to play the game I own, then it's a scam. If you want me to pay $15 a month, that's fine. Give me the game for free.
You agreed to pay for content X. Then they offer you access to content Y for an extra sum. When they wrote Y, and how they deliver it to you is _none of your business_.
But it's already on my computer, does that too mean that what is on my computer is of no relevance to me?
In fact, by paying for expansions I think you encourage developers to continue popular games. But, as technically irrelevant as the notion of *where* the expansion content lives before you purchase it is (how is it any different from a locked demo?) this does have a bad air about it to the layman. I'd consider this more of a marketing fail.
What this does sort of say is they weren't concerned about impressing the customer at all, just buy the fucking game.
Wasn't this the same basic concept behind "shareware?" I vaguely remember Wolfenstein 3d doing this to me a few times, many years ago. So long as the game is complete, and the DLC treadmill is plainly advertised on the box, does it really matter where the data comes from?
--
Toro
Not quite, at least not always. Many games, like Wolfenstein, didn't have the resources available and buying the complete game provided those resources. A lot of shareware software worked differently where a registration code was all that was necessary to make existing content available.
What is unique about this particular event is that there was an expectation for a complete game, but part of that game was intentionally "held hostage" until you paid for it. In essence, you have to buy the same thing twice, like when you "upgrade" Vista/Seven.
The part that's bullshit is they seem to think it's cool to play it like this. If they thought it was such a wonderful feature in the first place, they ought to have just charged 5 more dollars for the game in the first place.
They charged a non-competitive price for the game, and then turn around and expect people to pay even more than the typical price of a game to get something that wouldn't take any more work to create and distribute.
So your game doesn't support playing with people if they don't have the exact same code?
This isn't really as far-fetched as it sounds, and the key here is having the resources available for all players. For example, if I had a big, silly hat on that I paid for because I wanted others to see it in multiplayer, without that resource on your game installation you wouldn't be able to see it and I wouldn't get to show off. This is the case with the costume packs in RE5.
The issue here is not that there's some inconsistency, but that this stuff was already complete and available at an additional fee. This wasn't a patch introduced later, it was already done.
So they're probably telling the truth in every way, and that's where the bullshit lies.
Personally I think it should be illegal to make someone pay for a bit of game they already have on the disk.
This is technically impractical, considering all sorts of resources might and often do end up on a game that aren't actually used. The "coffee" scene in GTA3 comes to mind.
So, if they still made DLC alongside the actual game itself but instead downloaded a 180KB key file + 20MB dummy file that went straight to/dev/null it would be ok?
They wouldn't have gotten caught and the question would never have concerned us. That makes it difficult to discuss what could have been.
In retrospect, it would have been the same bullshit, it just wouldn't have stirred the outrage.
Well, they did sell a functioning product, and what they essentially did was lock out an existing feature. No one really complained when GTA3 didn't have access to "coffee", but they didn't release a DLC the same day allowing you to unlock that "existing feature" in the game.
Slashdot Mirror
Fuck this niggershit of putting half a sentence in the subject line. IT'S FOR NIGGERS. Quit doing it.
[citation needed]
That's simply disgusting...
It's important that it only makes sense when you're drunk. Having worked with the inebriated often, I have a knack for sensing what someone who is intoxicated would make of something.
It's not double-dipping if they deliver the DLC before the fact; it's just geography. If you were to wait a month and then download it for $5, would you consider it double-dipping?
Nope, then they could have lied plausibly when they referred to it as "post release content".
The explanation in TFA is pretty clear and makes sense, even if it's annoying. Burnout Paradise did the same thing for the same reasons. It's a practical solution to a technical problem. This actually allows "have" and "have-not" friends to play together without forcing them to upgrade as a group. That's actually more generous to the players, not more greedy.
Yes, as a solution to multiplayer and providing the resources for everyone to use it's necessary, I never disagreed with that. The issue is the audacity to suggest this is anything other than an attempt to get more money for something that should have been included in the shelf price, since apparently it was included in the box on the shelf.
But you got the complete game! You didn't expect this additional DLC and if it were delivered over the net you wouldn't have had an issue with it. If you didn't look at the time taken by the installer or the disk space used you wouldn't have even known about it!
Yes, I know I'm basically asking that they try to uphold some masquerade; they've shown a lack of respect for their consumers and audience by taking the "downloadable" out of "downloadable content".
So that would've been ok too? Then you would've had people complaining that they shouldn't have to pay a premium for a feature they didn't want, it never ends. You clearly don't have an issue with DLC or the cost so your only issue is the delivery method...WTF?!
It is an extremely complicated issue, but why should developers ever plan on DLC instead of shelf price as a definite source of income? Where can it stop that a game is endlessly segmented into features "people might not want" while the base package is still 60 dollars and several dozen DLC come out offering to pay for integral parts of the artistic experience that are already given out on the disk.
It's a trudge through muddy waters and 2k just made the water deeper.
Yes, and that's fine, though it may be an indication of the ailing state of game development... the issue here, for me at least, is they won't just admit that.
But you do realise that if, like other companies, they had made you download this then you wouldn't have had a problem with it at all?
I am aware. It is just the sheer arrogance of 2k games that is upsetting.
I'd wager a hell of a lot of DLC is finished before release, but that's another issue. The issue here is that you would've bought the game without that content being on the disc anyway so who really cares, they just saved u the download.
I'm pretty sure a lot of DLC is done or damned near finished before release, but in most cases so far companies have actually tried to hide it by waiting until after launch.
See, a large part of the issue is that the response was this was "post release content", which is bullshit and they knew all along. They could at least have the fucking decency to admit, that yes, this is specifically to get a little more money out of the huge demographic of gamers who play multiplayer.
Would you pay a dollar for a BluRay that showed 30 minutes and if you liked it you bought a key that played the rest?
I'm afraid I can't see the analogy.
Just because it shipped simultaneously doesn't mean the dev resources existed to justify finishing it.
Then, perhaps, this is more an indication to the poor state that game development is in.
I don't see a problem with it in a game other than lying about how it works.
The part I have a problem with is the part that they lie about how it works. Well, and the other stuff. If it's such a good feature that so many people are going to buy it anyways, why aren't they charging another $5 on the shelf price?
Because, of course, all the other games cost $60.
Oh boy! I just can't wait until every producer does this!
How on earth is this "unethical"??
They abuse the trust of the consumer by misrepresenting the nature of "downloadable content".
The copyright owner is free to license its creation however it wants.
This is not a licensing issue.
How is the physical location of the content relevant at all?
It is extremely relevant; the data should be considered in my possession if it is on my storage medium of choice, regardless of how little work needs to go into its replication. Legal precedence has already decided that would be the case if child pornography, confidential information, "evidence" of misconduct or pretty much any other media involved.
Are you alleging false advertising?
Does it say "Sinclair Solutions included" on the package?
The packaging does not say that it is not included. It really doesn't make a difference what the packaging says here.
If so, OK that's fraud and it's unethical.
But if you know before purchasing the main game that the Sinclair Solutions multiplayer pack is $5 extra, then you got exactly what you bargained for, didn't you?
So that knowledge is now the responsibility of the consumer, regardless what is given to them?
If you don't like it: don't buy it.
I would probably still buy the game despite the bullshit (in a couple years, used), and I have the freedom to comment on the situation regardless of my decision to purchase the game.
People who don't want the expansion should be happy that they can save $5.
This isn't about how much is saved or spent. This is about the arrogance of 2k games including this "Post release content" and then charging you for it. This wasn't based on how many people wouldn't want it, it was based on the expectation that people who play games usually play online and would be more likely to spend that other 5 dollars.
These days, most people who bought a new car would expect it to come with an FM radio. Providing the car with an AM radio by default and charging another 100 for an FM radio would be an easy way to make extra money, since most people who are in the position to buy a new car would listen to FM radio. Imagine further that it is only possible to install an FM radio if it comes from the manufacturer.
No one was harmed, nothing illegal was done, but it's a Dick Move because it goes against the common expectation of the consumer. Sure, it benefits the people who don't listen to FM radio or any radio at all because they "save" a hundred dollars, but the number of people who don't purchase the proprietary FM radio would be very few.
So it's just a profit deal?!?! DIABOLICAL!!
Seriously, how does this juvenile rant get +4 insightful?
Get out your drinking straw.
Do you believe then that it was acceptable that 2k games included all of the necessary information to use this content in the release, suggested this was a post-release feature, and then charged consumers for something they already technically had?
I'll ask again... at what point does the experience start to belong to the consumer? What is the exact point of demarcation?
Well, that's better than 60 I suppose.
Well, now that I know that I'm pissed about that too!
I suppose no more so than it installs a cup holder with a lock on it.
Ouch. I got served.
I believe the DLC was introduced with a patch.
Actually something similar to this is common practice: hotel room mini-bars. I've paid for the room and they've placed content in that room, but if I want to make use of that content... I have to pay.
So... installing a game on my computer installs a hotel room on my computer?
I guess the difference is with Microsoft you kind of expect to get fucked in the ass.
This is why I don't play MMOs. If I pay $60 for a disk, I better get a game on it. If I then have to pay $15 a month to play the game I own, then it's a scam. If you want me to pay $15 a month, that's fine. Give me the game for free.
EVE Online does.
You agreed to pay for content X. Then they offer you access to content Y for an extra sum. When they wrote Y, and how they deliver it to you is _none of your business_.
But it's already on my computer, does that too mean that what is on my computer is of no relevance to me?
In fact, by paying for expansions I think you encourage developers to continue popular games. But, as technically irrelevant as the notion of *where* the expansion content lives before you purchase it is (how is it any different from a locked demo?) this does have a bad air about it to the layman. I'd consider this more of a marketing fail.
What this does sort of say is they weren't concerned about impressing the customer at all, just buy the fucking game.
Wasn't this the same basic concept behind "shareware?" I vaguely remember Wolfenstein 3d doing this to me a few times, many years ago. So long as the game is complete, and the DLC treadmill is plainly advertised on the box, does it really matter where the data comes from?
-- Toro
Not quite, at least not always. Many games, like Wolfenstein, didn't have the resources available and buying the complete game provided those resources. A lot of shareware software worked differently where a registration code was all that was necessary to make existing content available.
What is unique about this particular event is that there was an expectation for a complete game, but part of that game was intentionally "held hostage" until you paid for it. In essence, you have to buy the same thing twice, like when you "upgrade" Vista/Seven.
The part that's bullshit is they seem to think it's cool to play it like this. If they thought it was such a wonderful feature in the first place, they ought to have just charged 5 more dollars for the game in the first place.
They charged a non-competitive price for the game, and then turn around and expect people to pay even more than the typical price of a game to get something that wouldn't take any more work to create and distribute.
So your game doesn't support playing with people if they don't have the exact same code?
This isn't really as far-fetched as it sounds, and the key here is having the resources available for all players. For example, if I had a big, silly hat on that I paid for because I wanted others to see it in multiplayer, without that resource on your game installation you wouldn't be able to see it and I wouldn't get to show off. This is the case with the costume packs in RE5.
The issue here is not that there's some inconsistency, but that this stuff was already complete and available at an additional fee. This wasn't a patch introduced later, it was already done.
So they're probably telling the truth in every way, and that's where the bullshit lies.
Personally I think it should be illegal to make someone pay for a bit of game they already have on the disk.
This is technically impractical, considering all sorts of resources might and often do end up on a game that aren't actually used. The "coffee" scene in GTA3 comes to mind.
So, if they still made DLC alongside the actual game itself but instead downloaded a 180KB key file + 20MB dummy file that went straight to /dev/null it would be ok?
They wouldn't have gotten caught and the question would never have concerned us. That makes it difficult to discuss what could have been.
In retrospect, it would have been the same bullshit, it just wouldn't have stirred the outrage.
Well, they did sell a functioning product, and what they essentially did was lock out an existing feature. No one really complained when GTA3 didn't have access to "coffee", but they didn't release a DLC the same day allowing you to unlock that "existing feature" in the game.