Draech said:
You are forgetting security circumvention law
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/29592/US_Govt_Loosens_Up_Security_Circumvention_Laws_For_Games_iPhone.php#.UIMZm2cW_O0
You think I'd wade into a discussion like this without checking my sources first? The changes to the DMCA a couple years back exempt video games from it, operating on a "good faith" principle that basically boils down to "the customer can screw with the files however they wish, provided they don't start selling it." Doesn't change my original point.
You are also mistaking holding a producer responsible for content up disk VS Holding producer responsible for functionality they didn't sell you.
Semantics. On-disc DLC, regardless of who put it on (the developer or publisher) is still unethical. It doesn't change the argument that I, as a consumer, have an ethical and physical right to access whatever data is on the disc I paid money for. Whether or not the publisher/developer reveals content that was on the disc after the fact doesn't change the argument. I'm not blaming anyone, just noting that you (as a consumer) can access whatever's on your disc without fear of retribution. Why you're trying to argue otherwise is beyond me (and, frankly, anti-consumer).
Now I am glad you make an effort to point out this is your personal preferences with "I won't support them" rather than a moral base line. I am not here to tell you how to use your money.
Well, thank you, Mr. Omnipresent Authority Figure.
I am just saying from a use perspective there is no difference between it being on the disk to be played or it being downloaded to be played.
Again, semantics. If I buy SFxT and I find out afterwards that 12 characters were on-disc, there's a difference between "well, these weren't on the disc, and we made them after the fact so you can buy them" and "they were on the disc the whole time, but now you have to buy them because it's easier for you".
Because I more or less buy all my games Digital these days I dont see the ethical difference.
Of course you don't - publishers want to move everything on digital because:
a) It would circumvent the first-sale doctrine, and give them the ability to control the content however they please. This, in turn, has started being struck down in part in several other countries - it was recently ruled that you can resell digital copies in Germany, for instance.
b) They've tried to justify anti-consumer practices in physical copies, and the only reason they haven't been called out yet is because the entire practice hasn't hit its peak yet.
I cannot go demand everything that is on the server now can I? I cant demand everything that was produced before release, because how would I judge that according to how much it would have cost to produce it? Am I allowed everything one team produces before the deadline? What if what they produced where significantly more/better than their peers? Am I not the greedy one if 80% of the work is still significantly more than 100% of other offers?
Obviously, the issue should be subject to significant industry oversight.
This is not just an issue of ethics, but it's also a slippery slope. We're in an age where companies (like Bioware/Capcom/Gearbox) are putting out full-fledged DLC's either on launch day or within two weeks of release.
Obviously, we know that there's a period of time (certification phase) where the companies test the product and move employees onto post-launch DLC, but really, it's hard to know what is and isn't beyond the word of a publisher, and even word means little nowadays.
You can, and should, demand better from developers and publishers, because they are going to continue cutting out content pre-cert, sticking it on-disc and selling it back to you at ridiculous prices. Like I said before, I care little if a company cuts something out a game and revisits it post-launch, uses cert time to create DLC, or just the concept in general. I have a problem when glorified unlock keys are being sold to me to access content I already physically own.
Anyone who argues otherwise is being anti-consumer.
I can however judge the game after my personal preference when it comes to Quality and determine its value accordingly. Look at what offered regardless of how much DLC that exists. Would Skyrim have been any less of a game if Dawnguard had been Day one DLC? No. I bought it on the premises that it was sold on and I received in full.
Maybe, maybe not. In either case, I still would have criticized if there was a giant chunk of the game that was sitting on my disc that had to be unlocked. I would have gone and modded it to get access to the mission - after all, the current DMCA allows me the right as a consumer to do that. I know that the breadth of the expansion, and the fact that there was nothing mentioning it on the game disc, means they either didn't build the setup files during the game's production, or they created it in the cert/post-cert phase, which is fine with me.
The problem is with gullible consumers who are all too happy to let companies trample all over their rights as a consumer and sell them games piecemeal.
While the Locked content was without a doubt part of why the game did badly you are drawing a conclusion without the proper support. How much content as well as a lot of other variable goes into this.
It was pretty cut-and-dry. I mean, there was the Cross Assault controversy, but that was practically a drop in the bucket compared to the DLC fallout. I believe there was a sales chart posted a while back that showed Capcom's diminishing sales over the past couple years, due at least in part to their consumer policies.
