V da Mighty Taco
- Apr 9, 2011
The problem with both of your arguments is that it's often difficult to know for sure whether it was A or B.Foolproof said:Common sense says B), Entitled whinging says A).Buretsu said:Of course it was made to be sold. There's no question there.The question was whether it was A) made to be sold along with rest of the game, and then removed afterwards to be sold as an extra, or B) made after the game was already finished to be sold as an extra. The companies say B), the consumers say A).Foolproof said:No it doesn't, it provides you don't understand how business works. Even if that content was made before the game was finished, that does not prove it was ever, ever intended to be on the disc. What, you think that a company like EA is going to spend the several million dollars it took to make this content for absolutely no reason? If they could not sell you that content extra, they would not make it. End of story. No further discussion. There is not a single thing you can say that makes the situation any different. The content was made to be sold. If it wasn't going to be sold, it wouldn't be made.Buretsu said:But you have the 1.5L bottle in your hands, and that extra 900mL is already there. Obviously, when it came time to bottle, they made 1.5L, but removed 900mL from the initial purchase to sell it to you later. You paid for "A full bottle" not "A full bottle, minus 900mL".Foolproof said:That analogy has absolutely nothing to do with what EA is doing. If anything, it paints what EA does as even more generous. What we have here is a similar situation to if Coca-Cola charged you $3 (the price of a 600 ml bottle) and then gave you a 1.5 liter bottle, saying you could pay them for the other 900 Ml when you wanted to drink it. You get the exact amount you paid for (the 600 ML you bought) with your disc - all of that content is yours, and you can play it. However, the other content you didn't pay for yet, you need to pay extra to get. Do you get it yet?
And that's the thing. The general consensus (whether it's right or wrong I honestly don't know) is that Day 1 DLC was developed and always intended to be part of the game, but that it was intentionally removed so they could claim it to be bonus content created after the fact, and thus charge extra for it. And the fact that this content is, at least in part, on the disc at initial purchase seems to provide proof to this.
Yeah, lets not say that, because its a fucking stupid argument. Lets instead say that its a remake of SMB, except with ten new levels that weren't on the original game made as paid DLC extras. Thats the one thats in any way like the reality.Okay, putting aside Coke for the moment, let's imagine you're buying a remake of Super Mario Bros for the NES, only in this version, the third Level in each World is locked as paid DLC. You could argue that, yes, even with that bit removed, it's still technically a "complete" game. You still defeat Bowser and rescue the Princess at the end of World 8. But it doesn't change that there's still a chunk of the game that they arbitrarily decided you shouldn't be able to play without paying them extra.And you didn't pay for a "a whole bottle", you paid for 600 ml. That those 600 ML come along with 900 ml you cannot experience unless you pay extra is irrelevant - you get the exact same amount of coke you would have otherwise, and are free to do with it what you want. But you are not entitles to the 900 ml you didn't pay for, and that you are not entitled to.
Your argument is that, because those levels exist, you deserve them, as they are part of the "complete" experience. Except they're not, they're extra levels that were never in the original product that was made without DLC in minjd, they were made specifically to be sold under DLC.
Foolproof, do NOT assume that devs / publishers don't cut out content that was originally suppose to be apart of the main game just so they can sell it later, because it's a fact that some of them do. One shouldn't automatically assume that devs / publishers won't try to screw them over in order to get as much money as humanly possible unless they've proven themselves otherwise. As for your argument about entitlement, I'm personally among the crowd that says that we are indeed entitled to everything that's fully complete and put on the disc. Customers are paying full-price with the expectation that they are getting the full game. It's on the customer's dollar that these business' are running on, therefore the customer does have a right to complain or refuse their business if they feel that said business isn't living up to their part of the bargain.
As for Buretsu, you're ignoring the fact that it can be virtually impossible to tell if content was ever meant to be a part of the game or, more importantly, fully completed before the game went gold. Day-1 DLC can be used to finish up incomplete code that couldn't be finished in time for the game's release. For example, a character and a couple weapon models could be complete, but the bonus missions for that character might still need to be finished up though. In this situation, Day-1 DLC makes since here; since otherwise the missions involving the missing character's missions could've never been completed otherwise and players wouldn't be able to enjoy it as it was suppose to be. It's on this end that I expect that the "entitled" argument stems from, since in this case people are expecting content to be free that the devs had to work on after the game went gold and thus after the point that they were required to even work on the game.
As for my personal opinion on this, it all depends on whether the content was complete before the game went gold. If it was, then the consumer is indeed entitled to it; since it was completed on the game's regular budget and schedule. I must stress that before the game goes gold, all money and time should be put into content for the regular game instead of focusing on DLC. They shouldn't be setting aside DLC budget and manpower before the game even hits gold. On the other hand, If the Day-1 DLC is used to finish off content that simply couldn't be finished within the timeframe or budget, then finishing it up and selling it for a reasonable price is perfectly fair and the customers aren't entitled to it; since extra time and money was required in order to finish said content that otherwise wouldn't have been playable.
For both the customer and the business, the sale of the product or service needs to be a balancing act. The business is giving the customer something they want, and in return the customer pays them and makes said business possible. If either side asks for too much or if one side feels they're being ripped off, then they have the right to say "screw off" and take their business elsewhere. That, my friends, is where both issues lie.