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

[ArmyTanker8402]

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

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

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

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

This is what I'm doing from now on. I did it with the Fallout games and will be doing it in the future for games of that sort where DLC content is coming.

As for the article I happen to agree its pure greed but its also greed on my part of not getting what I expect for what I pay for.

 

[Covarr]

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

Not necessarily. Sometimes it's just wrong. This one is obvious, though.

P.S. Thanks

 

[Evil Smurf]

Just because it is greedy, does not mean corporations will not do it. They exist to make money!

 

[Epona]

Just because it is greedy, does not mean corporations will not do it. They exist to make money!

They exist to serve the public and to make money.

 

[Evil Smurf]

Remember the days when you walked into a store dropped your cash and got YOUR GAME.
Those days are gone.

Today we pay as much money as we once did, but now get less and less game.
Its like buying a car but having to pay to have the AC vents unplugged.

The vents are RIGHT THERE, but you have to pay someone to remove the plug that the developer put there. But somehow its illegal to remove said plug yourself, when its RIGHT THERE.

Then again you know its right there BEFORE you buy it (From Ashes anyone?), so you buy said car knowing it has plugged vents.

I just want to go back to the days when I got to buy 100% of a game at the store, not 90% at the store, then 10% at home for stuff I got at the store.

If they want DLC they should make the games $10 dollars.

 

[Sylveria]

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

Then you're not very observant. Imagine this; You buy a house and decide you want to buy a shed that was built to add to the house, but wasn't part of the original sale as opposed to you buying a house with a bunch of locked rooms inside that you have to pay extra to get the keys for. That's the difference. In one case you're getting something additional, in the other you're paying to gain access to areas you already own but can not enter.

 

[Iron Criterion]

"The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works." ? Michael Douglas (Wall Street)

I couldn't agree more with Pachter right now. In the past when I bought a game, I could access 99% of it (the 1% being unused code); now I'm lucky if it is 90%. Dragon Age Origins has probably the worst use of DLC I've ever seen - a guy at the camp initiates a quest with you, tells you the backstory of it, etc, only for a text box to come on screen stating; "Buy the DLC to continue, *****."

And I'm normally a big lover of DLC, they are the logical successors to expansion packs, but only when they are appropriately implemented.

 

[RvLeshrac]

Just because it is greedy, does not mean corporations will not do it. They exist to make money!

They exist to serve the public and to make money.

No. They solely exist to make money.

We lost any pretence of "serving the public" when morons started defending anti-consumer actions.

 

[Epona]

Just because it is greedy, does not mean corporations will not do it. They exist to make money!

They exist to serve the public and to make money.

No. They solely exist to make money.

We lost any pretence of "serving the public" when morons started defending anti-consumer actions.

LOL, true that. So sad that so many believe games to be worthy of eliminating consumer rights.

 

[galaxygamer]

Oh, lord, here we go again.

DLC is outright greed. I've been saying this since 2006, at the beginning of this generation of video game systems. DLC was *the* reason why I dropped the newest systems, in favor of my old, retro systems. You read that right: I sold my PS3 because of Resistance 3. Fuck that game for making me type in a goddamn multiplayer key just to access a feature I fucking paid for! Outrageous!

You know... my SNES doesn't force me to buy extra shit just to fully enjoy "Super Mario RPG" or "Super Metroid." My PS2 doesn't ask for extra money from me just to access advanced features in "Shin Megami Tensei: Devil Summoner."

Just so you know, extra game modes and avatar models (palate swaps) used to be called "Easter eggs" in previous generations of this medium. I remember when I could choose the different costumes my "Tekken 3" fighters would wear simply by pressing either the triangle button, or square button. Now you have to pay for shit that used to be unlockable after one play-through.

The video game genre is dead to me. I have my NES, SNES, PS1 and PS2. At least the games that belong to those systems are as complete, and as glitch-free, as they can be -- without the extra $$$$, or fucking day-one patches to fix fatal glitches.

Fuck Microsoft and Sony for forcing PAYING CUSTOMERS to watch commercials before, and during, game play in certain video games. I'm looking at you, "Wipeout HD".

You know, people, WE have the ability to dictate HOW game producers and publishers create, and distribute video games. WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO CHANGE THE MEDIUM BY HOW WE SPEND OUR MONEY! If a game is NOTHING but nickel-and-dime bullshit...JUST DON'T BUY IT! But yet the hardcore gamers gobbled up the vomit that was "Diablo 3," with it's always-on DRM. The gamers took it up the ass when they WILLINGLY PAID FOR stripped games, only to be forced to pay for DLC because the games they bought were stripped of content.

Fuck this medium for falling so far astray as to what it could have been -- its potential to tell great stories in an interactive way. Now we have to deal with FUCKING COMMERCIALS, broken games that require patches to fix FATAL GLITCHES, and incomplete games that we have to pay to fully realize.

 

[rembrandtqeinstein]

IMO Day 1 DLC on disk or not and even pre-order bonuses are pretty scummy. Basically is denies game content to legitimate purchasers for the purpose of market segmentation which has always been a crappy practice.

Things like that make me not bother with any "industry" titles anymore. BTW Binding of Isaac DLC came out today for $3. And I bet I'm going to get 30 hours out of it.

 

[tautologico]

Although he may be morally right about the owner having the right to access content on disk, I think this falls under the DMCA, so it's not legal. But I'm not a lawyer, and not even from the US, so I may be wrong.

 

[4173]

IMO Day 1 DLC on disk or not and even pre-order bonuses are pretty scummy. Basically is denies game content to legitimate purchasers for the purpose of market segmentation which has always been a crappy practice.

All sorts of stores have offered promotions along the lines of "buy X, and we'll throw in a free Y!" Are they all scummy? Off-disc day 1 DLC CANNOT be "game content", because the creators get to decide what the game is, and what is additional content. If they want to release the game as consisting only of a title screen, then that's the game. It would be a pretty awful game, but that is beside the point.

There is no incorruptible divine form of "game."

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

Considering there are no ethical issues* involved whatsoever with day-one DLC, I'd think there difference is quite notable. The only exception is potential false advertising, or sale under false pretenses.


*As far as the consumer is concerned. There may be ethical concerns relating to employees or stockholders or contracts with other businesses/organizations.

 

[I.Muir]

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

It always has been but hes an 'expert'
In his expert opinion the consumer is in the right

Suppose we have to take whatever experts opinions we can get because we don't buy ours

 

[punipunipyo]

DLC is bad, ineffective, waste of money (at the expanses of the buyers), unethical, and just plan stupid; the crackers are STILL going to crack it (in fact, after they crack them, they won't even say "play it, if you like, go buy/support it" instead they will usually say "DRM, screw them, don't buy it"... DRM makes paying costumers feel like crap, and it DOES NOT EFFECT THE PIRATES! YES! COMPLETELY UTTERLY IN VAIN!~ if ANY of the companies EVER READ THIS, please NOTE THE LAST PART, DRM DOES NOT WORK IN YOUR FAVOR AT ALL, IF ANY THING< IT BACK FIRES!~ I like "free DLC", to keep your faithful costumers NOT WANTING TO SELL/TRADE IN your games, YES! you want a favor from us? GIVE US FREE STUFF! like maps/mods/upgrades! heck, look at skyrim, and it's AWESOME updates! THEY KNOW HOW TO KEEP THEIR COSTUMERS! DLC, as a promo item, YES!~ DLC as DRMs... bat form...

 

[Callate]

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

If lawyer can argue the only way to subvert the processes that protect on-disk content amounts to reverse engineering the user entered a legal agreement not to perform, you might be surprised to discover you fit it.

A defendant might offer that they weren't themselves the person responsible for the examination of the protection, but simply used software someone else devised in order to break that protection. They would be unlikely to find this an effective defense, any more than a thief arguing that the person responsible for their actions was the one creating their lockpicks.

If you have something to offer other than suggestions that people learn definitions you show no particular evidence of yourself understanding, please share.

This might be a good place to start:

Bypassing anticircumvention devices, however, is a separate no no. Section 1201 of the DMCA forbids reverse engineering if it involves circumvention of a technological protection measure, with limited exceptions, such as for encryption research and security testing.

http://lwn.net/Articles/134642/

 

[Callate]

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

I envy you if you still believe ridiculous ideas have no overlap with "law".

 

[Niccolo]

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

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

I know the metaphor is overused, but I'm tempted to sell these guys a fancy car, but disconnect the air conditioning (since it's typically an extra, not a requirement). "oh, you want to be cooled? You have to pay for the unlock code, sorry."

 

[Epona]

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

I envy you if you still believe ridiculous ideas have no overlap with "law".

You probably think every EULA is legally binding too don't you?

 

[ecoho]

a good example of both on disc and day one DLC can be seen in bioware games.
day one DLC - dragon age origins shale: this was a who character and quest that was cut from the game because of techical issuses(shale was getting stuck in doors) that they managed to fix as the game was being ship and as such they sent it out as free to new buyers day one dlc.

on disc DLC- dragon age 2 exciled prince: this is there only for money reasons hes on the disc, you can talk to him without the dlc you just cant take him out fighting with you, and why would you want to? hes out classed by varric in every way and hes not even likible.

please bear in mind i love both of these games for different reasons.