Quick question, is this stealing?

[zelda2fanboy]

Nope, not stealing. I'm surprised because I almost always go with yes on these types of threads. It would be like if you went and bought a can of soup and picked out all the carrots, dried them, and then put them in another dish. You didn't steal the carrots. The carrots were in the can, even though the creators of the soup didn't intend you to eat the carrots by themselves. They wanted you to eat their soup.

 

[FrostyChick]

I hate to play the devils advocate here. But all of those saying no are wrong. Legally when you are buying a new game, you are buying only a license to use that software, not the actual software itself. If you unlock the content without paying EA you are stealing. There are no grey areas, no if or buts. It is stealing fullstop.

On the subject of DLC on the disc/DLC in new updates. I would like to point out that in the case of multi-player games this is a necessity, else you'll end up splitting your fanbase into "those who can afford DLC" And "those who can't" with little to no interaction between the two. For single player only games, yeah, the practise is completely retarded and should be stopped as it only causes incidents like the OP. Putting DLC on the discs of single player games is like giving a small child a loaded gun without a safety catch. Things are going to get ugly quickly.

Yeah the system sucks, I know that. But when we're talking about tiny little things like character outfits and maybe a new map or two. It really does seem too much like spoilt kids crying that mommy (i.e. the games companies) won't give them new toys for free.

problem is that you actually buy 2 things. the physical container. e.g. the disc. and also a 'you can play this!' note, pretymuch. the gray area stems from the point of you ALSO own the disc. the fact that it has bits and bytes on it that 'magically' tell your pc to do stuff is a nice bonus. that this 'thing' your pc does looks verry muchly so like a game, and that its owner e.g. the 'i' in the story changed some of the little bits and suddly it did something extra is not something illigal. were the owner to NOT have a disc, and downloaded a game, with a note of 'you can only play this bit' THEN it would ahve been different. well. here in the netherlands anyway. but then again, you can legally download games here anyway. just not upload em XD

Er.. No.
Like I said before, you are not buying the software itself. You are buying a software license. To buy the software itself would probably set you back millions.
This is a bit of a misconception amongst consumers. When you purchase any software off the shelf. Be it a game or application package. You are buying a license to use that software, not the software. Sure you own the disc and packaging. But you don't own what's on the disc.

For more on software licenses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license

 

[Darknacht]

If all you did is modify an .ini then no. Things are put in .ini files so that they can be easily changed by the user. You my be violating the EULA if it says that you are not allowed to edit .ini files(which i doubt) but that is all.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Hi everyone, this is about Project Ten Dollar.

So, I recently bought Alice: Madness Returns when it was released some time ago on Steam. Well, I was told there was a neat little DLC that gave me extras. EA pushing Origin so hard and didn't put it on Steam so I couldn't buy it, this DLC is like most/all of EA's, it's following the Project Ten Dollar template.

For those that are unfamiliar with this, it's essentially EA having DLC on the disc/data you purchased. So you still pay for it, but instead of downloading it, they simply 'unlock it' for you. So, as it was, it was actually there, I just couldn't use it. Well, being on PC, I just changed the 'Engine.ini' file to 'unlock' it.

So, I was curious, would you consider this a theft?

I'm not sure what you want exactly.

Do you simply want people to drone on with the "this is the law!" talk? The law will back business interests over yours... There will be plenty of unimaginative people willing to tell you that you are a baddy because you're not seeing eye to eye with the law...the law having a monopoly on morality as it does...

If you want my feelings, for what little they're worth. I wouldn't think any less of you for toying with a file on your disc. It's such a minor ethical infraction, and one that you're clearly comfortable with, and I completely understand.

You could give your lifes-savings to charity tomorrow, and still find a torrent of arseholes that believe they're morally superior to you if you had the nerve to infringe on somebodies copyright that day as well. So I wouldn't beat yourself up about the response you're getting, sorry that your thread has become an avalanche of arrogance and piss-poor(and frankly disingenuous)analogies.

Don't believe the hype.

 

[Aprilgold]

As far as I care, you stole from a stealing thief named Eletronic Art. Seriously, EA is the biggest thief of the video game industry, constantly trying to FIGHT USED GAMES which could be done by simply stop giving games to Game Stop and choosing another retailer, used games will never, EVER stop happening, so just choose which ones don't give you money from used titles, and choose a different retailer.
And its not stealing because you payed for the contents of the game, and since the DLC is already IN the game, you technically own it, therefore, you shouldn't have to pay anything for it. Changing the Ini. file so you can use what you payed for is something that every PC user has the right to do, every console gamer has to learn to jack off to the big gaming giants because changing a disk is harder to do then hacking into the federal data base of ZARDON!
To clarify, you did nothing that could be clarified as stealing since you own the contents of the game, consolers, if your sick of day one DLC, simply stop buying games from the publisher, those guys will milk the living shit out of it until theres a law put up against it. And yes, there are ways for Day One DLC and Publisher's used games not getting money from retailer when bought used, can be put into a federal court and made a law.
Rest is just reply.

Spoiler

The thing is you already know the answer to this question, don't you? Otherwise why would you ask us? You know that it is dishonest and you are getting content for free that you should be paying EA for the experience of using. The only reason you are asking this is to get some comfort from the people saying, "Oh EA are all evil turds, you deserve this content you haven't paid for, and they don't deserve to get money for their work". And if 10 people said it was wrong to do so, and 1 person said it was right, you would ignore the 10 people in favour of the 1 who was telling you what you wanted to hear.
Take the content if you want, but don't pretend it isn't wrong to do so, or you are somehow justified.

I didn't ask because I feel bad about it. It's actually way common to go into .ini files to alter the game. I really asked, is it really stealing when the 'activate DLC text' is right by where I put my screen's resolution. Actually, Alice had some hidden options only in the .ini file like a 'Mature Language Filter' and an extra high option for Phsyx. I don't care whether it's supported or not. I already did it, beat the game, and moved on. I mentioned this to a friend and he questioned me if that was stealing and I was curious what the community thought.

If I did something to make EA cross, have them take it up with me.

Your right on, you can read all of my explanation on how in the jest you are, but its true, day one DLC is a criminal act in several ways, the Publisher's not getting money from the Retailer because of used games that the Publisher made is also a huge against the law thing.

I hate to play the devils advocate here. But all of those saying no are wrong. Legally when you are buying a new game, you are buying only a license to use that software, not the actual software itself. If you unlock the content without paying EA you are stealing. There are no grey areas, no if or buts. It is stealing fullstop.

On the subject of DLC on the disc/DLC in new updates. I would like to point out that in the case of multi-player games this is a necessity, else you'll end up splitting your fanbase into "those who can afford DLC" And "those who can't" with little to no interaction between the two. For single player only games, yeah, the practise is completely retarded and should be stopped as it only causes incidents like the OP. Putting DLC on the discs of single player games is like giving a small child a loaded gun without a safety catch. Things are going to get ugly quickly.

Yeah the system sucks, I know that. But when we're talking about tiny little things like character outfits and maybe a new map or two. It really does seem too much like spoilt kids crying that mommy (i.e. the games companies) won't give them new toys for free.

problem is that you actually buy 2 things. the physical container. e.g. the disc. and also a 'you can play this!' note, pretymuch. the gray area stems from the point of you ALSO own the disc. the fact that it has bits and bytes on it that 'magically' tell your pc to do stuff is a nice bonus. that this 'thing' your pc does looks verry muchly so like a game, and that its owner e.g. the 'i' in the story changed some of the little bits and suddly it did something extra is not something illigal. were the owner to NOT have a disc, and downloaded a game, with a note of 'you can only play this bit' THEN it would ahve been different. well. here in the netherlands anyway. but then again, you can legally download games here anyway. just not upload em XD

Er.. No.
Like I said before, you are not buying the software itself. You are buying a software license. To buy the software itself would probably set you back millions.
This is a bit of a misconception amongst consumers. When you purchase any software off the shelf. Be it a game or application package. You are buying a license to use that software, not the software. Sure you own the disc and packaging. But you don't own what's on the disc.

For more on software licenses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license

My only thing to put up against this is that the data is on the disk, if I bought the contains of the disk, then the DLC is on the disk, I own the DLC. Companies are truly ripping people off, and it is true that you could say that ITS STEALING, but thats not the case, if I buy a game through steam, its the same if I buy a game from Game Stop, I own the contents to run the game, therefore, the DLC is within the content, I own the game and the DLC. If it didn't UNLOCK it, but instead downloaded it, then it would be reasonable. Hes asking if doing this is stealing, since its Day One DLC, and its not a download thing, but an unlock, then theres 0 stealing.

 

[imperialreign]

This gets into some pretty grey, fuzzy legal matters here . . .

Although it was originally avaialable on the disk, it was kept from you during install. Simply because you can modify an .ini file to unlock it doesn't make it right. You agreed to the EULA when installing, which means that you own the right to use the product, not change it. You don't "own" the product.

Technically, this falls into the same categories that a lot of modding does - we're not really supposed to be doing this stuff, but as long as we're not trying to turn a dollar, and are helping to support and promote the game, the devs don't really care. Legal could still step into the community and serve everyone a nice, fat "cease and desist," but they tend to realize the benefits of letting the mod communities continue their work as long as they're not up to any shenannigans - the possibility still exists, though.

What I'm getting at is that although it's easy for you to "mod" your game to unlock said content, and as long as you're not doing anything illegal, I don't personally see anything wrong with it (as this is from a modder's standpoint) . . . although what you're doing is still technically, by the EULA, wrong.

 

[ResonanceSD]

Hi everyone, this is about Project Ten Dollar.

So, I recently bought Alice: Madness Returns when it was released some time ago on Steam. Well, I was told there was a neat little DLC that gave me extras. EA pushing Origin so hard and didn't put it on Steam so I couldn't buy it, this DLC is like most/all of EA's, it's following the Project Ten Dollar template.

For those that are unfamiliar with this, it's essentially EA having DLC on the disc/data you purchased. So you still pay for it, but instead of downloading it, they simply 'unlock it' for you. So, as it was, it was actually there, I just couldn't use it. Well, being on PC, I just changed the 'Engine.ini' file to 'unlock' it.

So, I was curious, would you consider this a theft?

I'd call it more a mod, it's there to be unlocked and EA is trying to make microtransactions bigger. Go nuts. Unless it gives you an Unfair advantage in multiplayer, all's fair.

 

[Blastinburn]

I can understand putting the data on the disk and just unlocking it, prevents long downloads and doesn't take up space on whatever storage device you use. But including the DLC in the data of a downloaded game is just stupid, it needs to be downloaded and uses up space even if the user doesn't buy the DLC.

If they are stupid enough to include the DLC in a downloaded title that just needs to be unlocked on the PC I say go for it, but understand this:
If you are caught you will have ABSOLUTELY NO (legal) ground to stand on.

Captcha: Congrés herfun

 

[Infinatex]

Yes. You bought a licence to play the game, not a licence for the DLC. Simple as that.

Though lets be honest... the real crime is that you actually bought that game!

 

[Sikratua]

When I saw the title of this topic, the very first thing that popped into my head was "If you have to ask this question, then yes, it's stealing."

Having read your post, my answer hasn't changed. So, yes, it's stealing. But, more on point, did nobody pay attention to Sony v. Hotz? You don't "purchase software." You purchase the ability to use software. There is a HUGE fucking difference.

theft requires that you must take something from somewhere so it doesn't have it, the whole "piracy is theft" campaign is silly because by
definition it isn't... however still illegal

This logic astounds me. A person sees something that doesn't belong to him/her. That something costs money. The person acquires that item, without paying for it. And, it wasn't a legally obtained gift. How the fuck is that not theft? Seriously, you "Piracy isn't theft" people sound like the guys from Office Space.

Here's a quick checklist.

Was what you acquired legally distributed, free of charge?
If Yes, you're good to stop here. If No, proceed to the next question.

Did you pay for the acquisition in question?
If Yes, you're good to stop here. If No, proceed to the next question.

Was the acquisition in question given to you as a gift by someone who obtained it legally?
If Yes, you're good to stop here. If No, proceed to the next question.

In making the acquisition in question, did the seller of the item in question receive compensation, at some point, for the EXACT item in question?
If Yes, you're fine. If No, you're a fucking thief.

Any questions?

 

[Robert Ewing]

Nope, you bought the software. It's up to you if you mod it or not. However it is against their terms and conditions to share how you edited the .ini file. So don't tell us how you did it, and you're fine. But to be honest, you might as well. If EA made a system as bad as this, they deserve to be punished.

 

[Sammaul]

I bought a Snickers today, but the lady at the counter told me I wasn't allowed to eat any of the peanuts before I payed extra.

See where I'm going?

No, because the nuts are part of what makes a snickers a snickers. A DLC is an added extra. If a store let you buy a game, but then refused to put in a graphics engine or sound, then that would be analogous to a nutless snicker's bar. A better analogy would be buying some groceries, and then expecting to be allowed to take home the metal grocery basket as well, seeing as how it was already in your hand when you bought the goods.

You payed for the goods, not the basket as well. Just because you have it in your hand does not mean you are freely entitled to it.

Ehm, I can not see where your example works better than mine here.

On-disc DLC; Information ON the physical disc that I bought and took out of the store, nobody stopped me from taking the 'extra' information.

Nuts; In the Snickers.

Shoppingbasket nowhere to be seen...

I understand there are 'legislative' concerns here, but these are nothing but ways in which customers are getting screwed over, any and every profit-seeking company will try bullshit-shenanigans like this if they think they can get away with it/don't piss off too many people to put a dent in sales.

Tell me with a straight face that that is not true.

 

[hitman_7]

probably yes.
But then again EA are greedy bunch so it doesnt count lol

 

[SeriousIssues]

...yes, that is stealing. Avoiding paying for something by just taking it.
But, Project 10 Dollar is shitty, despite making a lot of sense in a way.

But also, think about this: For 1-3 months before a game is released, it is already completely finished and is going through beta testing. That is the game you purchased. The DLC could be produced during the 1-3 month span, or the developer is particularly douchey, they could just withhold content anyways. I don't think it really justifies stealing no matter how asshole-y the company is being.

 

[TheMann]

Nope, not stealing. I'm surprised because I almost always go with yes on these types of threads. It would be like if you went and bought a can of soup and picked out all the carrots, dried them, and then put them in another dish. You didn't steal the carrots. The carrots were in the can, even though the creators of the soup didn't intend you to eat the carrots by themselves. They wanted you to eat their soup.

To extend on this analogy: To me it's as if you bought that can of soup, opened it up, and found another sealed compartment in the bottom of the can. You took some random tool, cracked open the compartment and found the carrots inside, which you then proceeded to mix into the soup. Then the company that manufactured the soup complained that you were you were supposed to buy a special can opener from them in order to have carrots in your soup, even though you bought the whole can and found a way to get to the carrots using your own devices.

Basically, all you did was access game assets that were included on the disk that you legally purchased. This is EA's fault for not using true DLC and effectively handing you content that they wanted you to pay for. Is it technically illegal? Maybe. Do I have any moral qualms about what you did? Nope, not at all.

Off topic: Is Madness Returns any good on a PC? I've been wanting to get it but heard the gameplay is a little shaky on the mouse and keyboard.

 

[Reallink]

This gets into some pretty grey, fuzzy legal matters here . . .

Although it was originally avaialable on the disk, it was kept from you during install. Simply because you can modify an .ini file to unlock it doesn't make it right. You agreed to the EULA when installing, which means that you own the right to use the product, not change it. You don't "own" the product.

Technically, this falls into the same categories that a lot of modding does - we're not really supposed to be doing this stuff, but as long as we're not trying to turn a dollar, and are helping to support and promote the game, the devs don't really care. Legal could still step into the community and serve everyone a nice, fat "cease and desist," but they tend to realize the benefits of letting the mod communities continue their work as long as they're not up to any shenannigans - the possibility still exists, though.

What I'm getting at is that although it's easy for you to "mod" your game to unlock said content, and as long as you're not doing anything illegal, I don't personally see anything wrong with it (as this is from a modder's standpoint) . . . although what you're doing is still technically, by the EULA, wrong.

The difference here though is that while the person in question is not profiting, they are accessing paid content without paying. So while your point about modding is a fair one, this is just backdoor entry to paid content.

My problem with this situation is what people would do if the DLC was then released on Steam. I would guess most players who obtained the DLC through the .ini file would fall in two categories:

1. I already have it, why should I pay for this?
2. It wasn't that good, they don't deserve my money.

Which is the type of approach that a lot of people (at least that I know) have to downloading music. These are additional products that should be paid for. Just because they were already on the disc (or downloaded) doesn't change much to me.

 

[PatSilverFox]

I'd consider it modding your game. You didn't take anything from anywhere you didn't already own, right? As in, no additional content was illegally transferred to your computer so you really didn't steal anything.

Yeah.
Just modding.
You are smart so you don't have to pay, unlike the people who don't realize what is actually happening with project $10.

 

[templargunman]

Legally, yes, but don't worry about it, I don't think too many people would consider that morally wrong, and you'll never get in trouble for it.

Stealing as defined by whom? Laws are made by people. People are dumb, panicky animals. So are so many of the laws they make.

My answer? Don't give a damn about the ethical implications of the situation and enjoy yourself.

I like how you assume that you're better than everyone else by classifying people as "dumb, panicky animals."

 

[FrostyChick]

Somebody actually gets it. How nice. RFI approves +12. I may not agree with the practice of including DLC on the disc but I respect the letter of the law. Hell, I make games for a living and I think putting DLC on the disc is a terrible idea but I'm not going to turn around and steal because I disagree with somebody's manufacturing and marketing strategies.

Besides, let's be honest for a moment here: would people rather have draconian DRM or Project Ten Dollar's DLC-on-disc? It's going to be one or the other in the end and it's not that hard to tell which is the lesser of two evils.

Naturally, this will queue the "but gamers are honorable people and don't need to be bound by DRM or DLC-on-disc" argument but that's a spectacular fail of a lie. Stardock made the effort to release DRM-free games and what did they end up with? An 8-to-1 ratio of pirated to legitimate titles activated on their servers. Very honorable, my fellow gamers. So very, very honorable.

As least someone else out there knows their stuff.

It's almost saddening for a perspective games designer like myself. All these thinly guised cries of "give me stuff for free". It's sickening, and yet they wonder why companies smack them in the face with DRM.

If I could, I would do my best to remove this day-1-DLC, DLC-on-disc for single-player games and DRM nonsense. But given the Stardock example, I would rather be able to put food in my mouth than rely on the general gaming public.

I guess it's just the gaming industry that has this problem. Amazon MP3 is doing pretty good, I buy most of my music from there. And it proves that DRM free is possible, if only its success could be moved over to the gaming industry too.

 

[blankedboy]

I'd say you're okay. If it's in the disk/data files, then technically, it's yours to edit and mess with. So long as you don't distribute it, you'll be okay in my books.

I reckon this will fit in. If you want you can check out their EULA and see if it speaks against it, otherwise there's really nothing they can legally do about it. They gave you the files, the files are now yours. You effectively signed that contract by agreeing to the EULA :|