Question about legality

[Davih]

Downloadable content. Therefore Disk Locked Content cannot be downloadable content, since you are not downloading it. It is just content that, in my eyes, you have already paid for.

 

[Lillowh]

If its done in the manner of project 10 dollar I don't have a problem with it. What I mean by that is that first time purchases of a game get a code that is entered to unlock the DLC without any problems. Preowned buyers would have to spend a small charge (10 dollars) to unlock said content if the code was previously used.

I agree, because at least there you are supporting a cause to get them more money for a specific reason, which is you benefit for being a loyal customer (supporting the developer). Things like Disk-locked content only serves to give the metaphorical finger to your customers because you want to make all the money you can and ignore your consumers (see: Threads about how the TU6 shotgun in gears 2, or the DBS in Gears 3 doesn't function they way that epic claims it [http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii230/Lillowh/Beforelock.png] does and won't admit they were wrong in the face of the irrefutable proof put forth by multiple different videos by different threads, and the threads that break no rules and show overwhelming support with polls instead of a back and forth flame war continue to disappear [http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii230/Lillowh/afterlock.png] and the OP being banned so they can claim that the majority of people like it the way it is because there are no visible statistics)

 

[Chrishu]

Anyone who agrees to paying extra for anything in a game that should be included is remarkably thick.

The licenseing garbage I keep hearing spewed out is just insane. Why give us physical media, then? Physical media has the same laws on it regarding any other item, plus we're all entitled and allowed to make copies of items we've purchased for personal use. I've done plenty of emulation. I've got this.

Why do you think 2K hasn't sued gamestop over their purchasing of licensed content? Because even they know that it's garbage and would never hold up in s court of law.

 

[Epona]

Food for thought:

If you buy a TV and there is an HDMI cable in the box, would it be legal for Sony to try and charge you for the cable after you bought the TV?

 

[Jimmy T. Malice]

Making you pay for something already on the disk really is a dick move. This is why I don't buy DLC (that and my slow internet connection).

 

[saruman31]

They have a saying: consumers are stupid. YOU made this possible by buying stupid DLC. Now don`t complain about it since it will never go back to the way it was.

 

[spartan231490]

I have a question about a trend that seems to be becoming increasingly popular for game companies. I have wondered about this before, but it was on the Xbox.com Forum and no one had a constructive response.

Anyway, the trend is DLC, in the sense of Disk-Locked Content. The most recent example I can think of Gears of War 3's first "DLC", that they are charging $10 for, includes only things that are already on the disk. This includes 3 maps, upgdades for fortifications in horde, weapon and character skins.

I personally don't have a problem with things like project 10 dollar, because, if I rember right, the content they release for Day 1 DLC you have to download, which I figure is legitimate because it's not on the disk.

I do have a problem with Disk Locked Content that you have to pay for however, because If you bought the disk, shouldn't you own all of the content on disk? Is it not like buying a car that has advertised it has "the full experience,". Then after you buy it, you try to roll down the windows and can't. They then tell you they disconnected the wiring and will not reconnect it unless you pay them extra money, and if you try to do it on your own, it will void the warranty to the car and they have the possibility to sue you. Or Buying a Computer that won't let you log in until you pay the retailer an extra 200, with the same consequences for accessing it without paying the retailer or company who made the computer.

Are we, as consumers, really this unprotected from shady corporation tactics such as these? What legal loophole is there that allows such atrocities?

Edit: Also, there is no other possible reason for Disk locked content like this to happen other than to make more money and screw consumers over. How can you be so sure, you ask? Because it can't be to prevent piracy or pre-owned sales like Project 10 dolalr, which seems like a noble program compared to tactics like, because everybody has to pay for it, not just the people who bought it second hand and it hands the content over to pirates for free while everyone else has to pay for it. That's why I oppose this so much. It is not there for any reason other than to squeeze more money out of the consumer.

No, you don't own the code on the disk, you own the ability to play the game as advertised. They never advertised the disk-locked dlc as part of the main game, so you don't own it. It's a dick move, but it's perfectly legal.

 

[Aris Khandr]

On-disc DLC exists as a convenience to you. Let's be totally honest, that stuff was planned as DLC. It was never not going to be DLC. There is no way that they will not ask you to pay for it.

So, your choices are to put the DLC that is ready at launch on the disc, or not. If they don't, then you have to waste your time patching and downloading your brand new game to get it. Or, they can put it on the disc, and you've already got it and are ready to go after downloading a small unlock file. One eats up space on your console's hard drive and your time. The other doesn't.

Convenience to you. That's all it is.

 

[Lillowh]

They have a saying: consumers are stupid. YOU made this possible by buying stupid DLC. Now don`t complain about it since it will never go back to the way it was.

Once again, there is no way to know about this unless you search pretty much that specific question. You will not just stumble upon it while researching the game, and if you already bought it (ala the Season Pass) there is no way you could know through the season pass because that says "downloadable content" in the description and all it does is give you access to the DLC when it's released, meaning you don't know the file size of said DLC's until they release, making it impossible to know that the first content is disk locked unless, like I said, you actually do a search about it.

I also feel sorry for people like you. I am really tired of individuals with the attitude of "don't complain about it" or, in a thread on the Gears 3 forums I was in, "deal with it". It is attitude like this that stagnates society and allows for greater and greater injustices to take place. People with this kind of thinking allowed for some of the greatest injustices in history to happen. Injustices like the taxes and refusal of representation in parliament for the American Colonists, Slavery, Jim Crow Laws, Apartheid, discrimination against women, and Nazi Germany taking over countries and removing people to go to work or death camps. These all would have continued if people didn't stand up and disagreed with how things operated at the time and said "NO". Even the Declaration of Independence sates we should question goings on by saying

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Though since the document had to do with their government they limited it to that topic, but it should apply in all situations.

Sorry to go off on you like this but I am just tired of the "there's nothing you can do about it attitude". I myself am a realist, but I still think that you should stand up for what you believe in even if it might not succeed, because you at least know you tried.

 

[Lillowh]

On-disc DLC exists as a convenience to you. Let's be totally honest, that stuff was planned as DLC. It was never not going to be DLC. There is no way that they will not ask you to pay for it.

Except in this case, that is false. I can't find the video now, but back in June, the videos they posted about the new horde mode featured one of the on disk maps that are being released as "DLC", Azura. You can't find the videos now because they're trying to cover up the fact that the maps have been done for many months now and were not originally planned as DLC by making copyright claims on all the videos of it. Here's [http://gamebattles.majorleaguegaming.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4800430?t=4800430] a thread about it. So your argument is invalid. Like I said, it is an underhanded tactic to squeeze more money out of the consumer. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[StrixMaxima]

Your only protection is not buying said title, or purchasing it after a while in a GOTY format, with everything unlocked for a set, lower price.

The companies do it because:

1 - It is legal and within their rights to do so, and

2 - We, as collective customers, accept this and pay the price they ask.

We cannot do much about 1, but 2 is our best weapon.

 

[Lillowh]

No, you don't own the code on the disk, you own the ability to play the game as advertised. They never advertised the disk-locked dlc as part of the main game, so you don't own it. It's a dick move, but it's perfectly legal.

They also never advertised that there was disk locked content that isn't included in your purchase when you buy the game. They were advertising the game game disk which just happens to hold the content, and didn't tell you that you couldn't use part of your purchase without paying extra. Things like this should be included under the reason why companies say "batteries not included" on their products. It works both ways and changes perspective based on which one is said. Either way, it's still should not be allowed.

 

[Mute52]

When I had learned that the first "DLC" for Bioshock 2 was already on the disc, and that paying extra money unlocked it, i was disappointed. Day one DLC is bad enough, because you know that they had the content prepared to ship, they decided to wait and make users pay for it. They are completely allowed to do it, but it is really just a way to get another $5 or $10 out of your consumer. Downloadable Content should be content made and developed after the game has released. Anything made before then should be available to the consumer, and they shouldn't be charged extra for it.

People over the years have become more and more lenient of what is acceptable for DLC. I'll use Call of Duty as an example. Map packs used to be $10, for 3 maps, just 3. They bumped up the price to $15 when they realized people would buy the content no matter what, without adding any more amount of maps. Now they have managed to offer an entire subscription based service for ONE GAME. And they get away with it, because people buy it no matter what.

I got an entire Co-op campaign and challenge mode for every map in Portal 2 today, for FREE. Console users will continue to be ripped off, and be mostly oblivious to it.

 

[dickywebster]

I dont mind dlc when its add ons, but when its stuff on the disc or stuff to fix bugs they didnt bother fixing before release when they could have, then i get annoyed.
Yes alright some games i play would be better and less glitchy if i got the patch, but i paid for a full game didnt i?, or is paying full price for part of a game the new way to beat the recession?
So yeah, dlc in all its forms are probably gonna get more dodgy as time does on, maybe we wont even be able to get a full game without buying parts of it online or something :S

 

[spartan231490]

No, you don't own the code on the disk, you own the ability to play the game as advertised. They never advertised the disk-locked dlc as part of the main game, so you don't own it. It's a dick move, but it's perfectly legal.

They also never advertised that there was disk locked content that isn't included in your purchase when you buy the game. They were advertising the game game disk which just happens to hold the content, and didn't tell you that you couldn't use part of your purchase without paying extra. Things like this should be included under the reason why companies say "batteries not included" on their products. It works both ways and changes perspective based on which one is said. Either way, it's still should not be allowed.

No it doesn't work both ways. They didn't advertise the disk, they advertised the game, which is the code on the disk as it is written, restrictions and all.

 

[DrOswald]

I don't see the problem with on disc DLC so long as I feel the game I actually paid for is complete. I see absolutely no difference between on disc DLC and downloaded DLC. It would be just as easy for a developer to strip a disk of the DLC and then sell it too you. Would that be better?

 

[Lillowh]

No, you don't own the code on the disk, you own the ability to play the game as advertised. They never advertised the disk-locked dlc as part of the main game, so you don't own it. It's a dick move, but it's perfectly legal.

They also never advertised that there was disk locked content that isn't included in your purchase when you buy the game. They were advertising the game game disk which just happens to hold the content, and didn't tell you that you couldn't use part of your purchase without paying extra. Things like this should be included under the reason why companies say "batteries not included" on their products. It works both ways and changes perspective based on which one is said. Either way, it's still should not be allowed.

No it doesn't work both ways. They didn't advertise the disk, they advertised the game, which is the code on the disk as it is written, restrictions and all.

If you're buying it from a retail store, which with gears 3 you are, they are advertising the product. This includes the disk which has the game on it. They are still selling a physical product, which should means if you buy it, you own it. Here's an example, someone advertises a plot 14 acres of land with a beautiful house in the middle. You buy it, and you try to enter the house, but you can't because its locked. You realize you were never given a key and you call the owner about it. You find out that the house key was not advertised as part of the deal because they advertised the land and the house, but not the key, and you have to pay them an extra amount of money for the house key to be able to get into the house. That's what your saying is allowed. Nobody would disagree that the deal was not legal and the "deal" would never hold up in court.

 

[Twilight_guy]

People keep thinking that once you own the disk you somehow made the company your ***** and own the copyright. You don't, that's why piracy is illegal and why you can't manipulate the data and resell it. Buying a disk does not make the CD suddenly open source. I'll admit that there lots of bullshit being flung around since nobody knows what the hell to do with the uniqueness of digital data and trying to apply conventional laws to it fails miserably but I think that just brings up the issue that we need to establish new rules to avoid lots of threads like this where people just don't know and are angry.

Except that this is different. I said you own the disk. Owning the disk and the content on the disk is, and if it is not it really should be, completely different from owning the copyright for the content. I never said that the content on the disk should be open source since you bought it. They should not however be able to sell you a box of goodies and then tell you you need a key to open it afterwards. Just as you shouldn't be able to buy a lot of cars, remove the Manufacturers and Auto Companies Marks, and sell them as your own brand. Or buy a car, copy the design, build your own and sell it, or distribute it for free.

This is also not the same as Piracy because that's sharing copyrighted data with people who didn't pay for it for free without the Copyright holders permission. That definition of piracy does not apply to this situation in any way. Here you paid for the data and are then told you don't get to access half of it unless you pay them a second time for the content they said you were buying.

Where exactly did you sign an agreement saying that you have access to all content on that disk? The answer... you didn't. It was implied. There isn't a law that states if its on the disk and you buy the disk you own it. Regardless of various metaphors you make to other things you might buy, a disk and its relationship to you and the publisher is different from owning a car or other physical good. The physical part of the good, the disk itself can be treated like a car. You can buy sell trade destroy, etc. the disk and on one cares. Once you start considering the 1 and 0s on the disk then you hit murky waters.

 

[spartan231490]

No, you don't own the code on the disk, you own the ability to play the game as advertised. They never advertised the disk-locked dlc as part of the main game, so you don't own it. It's a dick move, but it's perfectly legal.

They also never advertised that there was disk locked content that isn't included in your purchase when you buy the game. They were advertising the game game disk which just happens to hold the content, and didn't tell you that you couldn't use part of your purchase without paying extra. Things like this should be included under the reason why companies say "batteries not included" on their products. It works both ways and changes perspective based on which one is said. Either way, it's still should not be allowed.

No it doesn't work both ways. They didn't advertise the disk, they advertised the game, which is the code on the disk as it is written, restrictions and all.

If you're buying it from a retail store, which with gears 3 you are, they are advertising the product. This includes the disk which has the game on it. They are still selling a physical product, which should means if you buy it, you own it. Here's an example, someone advertises a plot 14 acres of land with a beautiful house in the middle. You buy it, and you try to enter the house, but you can't because its locked. You realize you were never given a key and you call the owner about it. You find out that the house key was not advertised as part of the deal because they advertised the land and the house, but not the key, and you have to pay them an extra amount of money for the house key to be able to get into the house. That's what your saying is allowed. Nobody would disagree that the deal was not legal and the "deal" would never hold up in court.

No, they are not at all similar. In a physical sale, the physical object is the value. In a game, the program is the value. They still retain all the rights to it, that's why you can't legally copy it and give it out to people, because all you really purchased was the right to play the game, restrictions and all.

 

[Something Amyss]

If they bought the season pass, then it is impossible for them to know that the first dlc is just an unlock key until they download it because, as I said, it is not release until November 1st.

As it's not November 1st and you know, I'd say that's false. There clearly is a way to know. Consumers should research BEFORE purchase, not claim after the fact that they had "no way to know." If there's doubt, don't buy.

I'm not saying what they're doing is right or acceptable, but you have already let them get away with it. Was there some mandatory day one purchase for the season pass, after which it was no longer available?

The information was available through no extraordinary means (teh google).

TBH, I'm not even sure I buy that the public is unaware of the concept, since it's generally discussed to death. So the information is out there, and those concerned should be doing their research before purchase.