"Point is, stop hyping over this, internet! You’re going to scare me into doing things secretly instead of being open and transparent via twitter. I am incredibly scared of the very real risk of people feeling let down just because I took a chance at something that doesn’t end up panning out."
As it states, this was the point of his post. His intentions are genuine, but reality is reality, and ultimately it may or may not happen. He's starting to see how this is taking on a life of it's own through the internets hyping and how that can be scary for the person who just had genuine intention but still has to answer to reality despite how overly excited (and then potentially overly devastated) people get with whatever reality dictates happens.
Owen, I'm kind of amazed at how in reporting on that blog post you fail to quote what the guy is saying the point of the post is. Seems like this is just pouring gasoline on the specific fire Notch is trying to say stop pouring gasoline on.
Well, yeah, but then you'd still have to pay the fee to transfer it, so considering they'd still be cashing in there...
I'd suggest not judging an idea on it's worst implementation. Stop going to GS for used games. Try Amazon or Half or anyplace else that isn't doing resale so poorly.
"I also admit that I do get a bit more skilled as time goes on but that just means I manage to kill one, very occasionally two people before i die."
So, what more do you want than a greater than 1 K/D ratio? That puts you at average or above. One player gets a death for every other player's kill. Add that all up and you have a combined K/D ratio of 1 for the entire community.
I understand not liking the games, and I'm not here to defend Modern Battlefield type games against anyone who would dare to talk negatively about them (I'm not a huge fan of them either), but you seem to have a warped expectation of the math involved.
"you've been writing walls of text to everyone who doesn't agree with your stance."
Sorry, I didn't realize you were the hall monitor on who could and could not participate in the discussion. Also, appologies for not being able explain something complex in bumper-sticker brevity.
"You dont understand my premise which is why you ignored it completely so in turn i ignored you."
Actually, I'm pretty positive I do understand your premise, and just think it's flawed and incorrect. Your initial comment was that it was wrong to have to unlock something you already paid for. Only, you didn't pay for it (was my point).
"Had you started your argument with counterpoints i may have taken the time to read another one of your walls of text."
Laughable. Look at the thread again. My first comment in this thread is a direct counterpoint to what you are saying, using the same level of snark, in the same fashion, you used. My second directly addressed what I thought was flawed about your premise (you own whatever comes on the disc regardless of what you were promised or what you understood and intended to buy), and a response to you personally insulting me as a "corporate shill".
You started the ad hominen attacks. And I didn't even really carry them on. "Stay classy" (after you dismissed me without actually reading what I wrote) was all I said. And that came after I was actually addressing your points. You said this was an issue of consumer rights, and I asked you to demonstrate that. Show harm. You responded with "i stopped reading". So how was it that I wasn't addressing what you said directly?
"At the end of the day peoples outrage can be summed up in a few short and simple sentences."
Yeah, and making sense without irrational outrage is a little more difficult. Sometimes you even have to use walls of text to get across complicated concepts or discuss things in detail. Outrageous in and of itself! Making you do all that reading and stuff...
"The next conclusion that can be drawn from that statement is how long until nearly all the content is considered extra..."
I recognize and see the potential for harm...but again, I asked you demonstrate that harm in this case. Can you? Was the main experience in Gears 3 lacking in some way that you feel warrents the level of complainig people are doing regarding this? Again, did you, personally, start complaining about this issue regarding Gears 3 before or after you learned about the on disc DLC? Was that problem actually present here, or did the concept of on disc DLC in itself set off the complaint and bad feelings about the game?
And I did ask those things pretty early on to only have you respond with an insult and condescension. Just look at the thread.
Sorry, I didn't realize you were the hall monitor on who could and could not participate in the discussion. Also, appologies for not being able explain something complex in bumper-sticker brevity.
"You dont understand my premise which is why you ignored it completely so in turn i ignored you."
Actually, I'm pretty positive I do understand your premise, and just think it's flawed and incorrect. Your initial comment was that it was wrong to have to unlock something you already paid for. Only, you didn't pay for it (was my point).
"Had you started your argument with counterpoints i may have taken the time to read another one of your walls of text."
Laughable. Look at the thread again. My first comment in this thread is a direct counterpoint to what you are saying, using the same level of snark, in the same fashion, you used. My second directly addressed what I thought was flawed about your premise (you own whatever comes on the disc regardless of what you were promised or what you understood and intended to buy), and a response to you personally insulting me as a "corporate shill".
You started the ad hominen attacks. And I didn't even really carry them on. "Stay classy" (after you dismissed me without actually reading what I wrote) was all I said. And that came after I was actually addressing your points. You said this was an issue of consumer rights, and I asked you to demonstrate that. Show harm. You responded with "i stopped reading". So how was it that I wasn't addressing what you said directly?
"At the end of the day peoples outrage can be summed up in a few short and simple sentences."
Yeah, and making sense without irrational outrage is a little more difficult. Sometimes you even have to use walls of text to get across complicated concepts or discuss things in detail. Outrageous in and of itself! Making you do all that reading and stuff...
"The next conclusion that can be drawn from that statement is how long until nearly all the content is considered extra..."
I recognize and see the potential for harm...but again, I asked you demonstrate that harm in this case. Can you? Was the main experience in Gears 3 lacking in some way that you feel warrents the level of complainig people are doing regarding this? Again, did you, personally, start complaining about this issue regarding Gears 3 before or after you learned about the on disc DLC? Was that problem actually present here, or did the concept of on disc DLC in itself set off the complaint and bad feelings about the game?
And I did ask those things pretty early on to only have you respond with an insult and condescension. Just look at the thread.
Well let me simplify it for you kagema, your AC analogy doesn't fit the case from a cost or harm perspective (my 2nd through 5th paragraphs), and when it's tweaked to fit there isn't anything to complain about (my last paragraph). The same costs and harms you imply and assume from the AC analogy don't exist in this specific case, so it's flawed in trying to understand this situation. The mini-bar analogy is actually much closer to what we have here (despite it needing to be restocked, which has zero impact on the overall concepts).
If that doesn't clear it up for you, just slow down and read what I wrote without cluttering your mind thinking up all the insulting things you can say in response (at least until you are done reading).
As for the distinction between what is extra and what is the main experience, mcmax3000 says it all. They decide what is the main experience and what is extra and you decide if that makes sense to you and vote with your dollars.
The issue at hand here, specifically in this case, is delivery method. You say anything delivered on disc, regardless of what is the main experience or extra as defined by the dev, should be considered yours for the purchase of the disc. Others, including myself, disagree and say the delivery method doesn't matter; the main experience and what is extra is defined by the dev and how it gets to you is simply mechanics.
Now, can I ask, did you have any issue with the main experience prior to finding out there was on disc DLC? Can you demonstrate harm from on disc DLC?
If that doesn't clear it up for you, just slow down and read what I wrote without cluttering your mind thinking up all the insulting things you can say in response (at least until you are done reading).
As for the distinction between what is extra and what is the main experience, mcmax3000 says it all. They decide what is the main experience and what is extra and you decide if that makes sense to you and vote with your dollars.
The issue at hand here, specifically in this case, is delivery method. You say anything delivered on disc, regardless of what is the main experience or extra as defined by the dev, should be considered yours for the purchase of the disc. Others, including myself, disagree and say the delivery method doesn't matter; the main experience and what is extra is defined by the dev and how it gets to you is simply mechanics.
Now, can I ask, did you have any issue with the main experience prior to finding out there was on disc DLC? Can you demonstrate harm from on disc DLC?
I've been defending Epic's position, and still believe that they have done nothing immoral or wrong here, but I have to say this is the closest thing I've heard to an actual justifiable arguement:
"There was no option to keep the content off the game install on the xbox dashboard."
That demonstrates harm. You are forced to eat up HD space with content you can't use simply because it appears on the game disc and have no option to not install that data.
Now, I have a hunch the reason people without the DLC (humor me for a moment using that term even though you don't like it) are able to play in games on the new maps when the host has the DLC is likely due to this and would likely be a justification for including that data, but I have to give you credit for actually demonstrating a substantive harm done here to people without the DLC.
"Your paying $10 for content an ethical company would have given away for free."
Epic had to develop the the content and pay people to do so. How is it unethical to charge for that regardless of delivery method? It was not part of the base game.
"There was no option to keep the content off the game install on the xbox dashboard."
That demonstrates harm. You are forced to eat up HD space with content you can't use simply because it appears on the game disc and have no option to not install that data.
Now, I have a hunch the reason people without the DLC (humor me for a moment using that term even though you don't like it) are able to play in games on the new maps when the host has the DLC is likely due to this and would likely be a justification for including that data, but I have to give you credit for actually demonstrating a substantive harm done here to people without the DLC.
"Your paying $10 for content an ethical company would have given away for free."
Epic had to develop the the content and pay people to do so. How is it unethical to charge for that regardless of delivery method? It was not part of the base game.
Yeah, so you dismiss me and fail to adress the logic of my arguement because you're above it all, fleeing from the arguement, but then when I comment on you doing that, I'm the one stepping out of the rational argument and can't be abided. Yeah. I mean the thread is right there to demonstrate your actions; I'm happy to let that speak for itself.
"The premise of my argument is, that all data on the disc is mine because i paid for it."
And that premise is plainly incorrect. You paid for the base game and got it (actually just a license for the base game, but we don't even need to go that deep). If you want to show me the agreement you had with Epic that states otherwise, please do.
Or if you are still pontificating about the high moral value of fighting the powers that be and moral rights and all that, hack the included content openly and publicly, proving and demanding that all the data is yours, in a display of true civil disobedience. Go for it.
"The premise of my argument is, that all data on the disc is mine because i paid for it."
And that premise is plainly incorrect. You paid for the base game and got it (actually just a license for the base game, but we don't even need to go that deep). If you want to show me the agreement you had with Epic that states otherwise, please do.
Or if you are still pontificating about the high moral value of fighting the powers that be and moral rights and all that, hack the included content openly and publicly, proving and demanding that all the data is yours, in a display of true civil disobedience. Go for it.
Developing the base game had a number of hours they had to pay people to do the work. Developing additional content outside of what they defined as the base game has a number of hours of labor to be paid also. It doesn't matter what chronological order the two parts are actually completed in, you still have to pay for a certain number of hours of work done.
In this case they completed all that work before publishing the disk and included it all. That doesn't mean it cost less to do that work. The hours on the additional content were not done for free just because they had the time, they still had to pay for them.
"DLC" vs "UC" is a distinction without a difference. Either way there was a number of hours of work that needed to be paid for and the amount of work doesn't change just because they delyed the release and had more time. You still have to pay people to work during that more time. The only thing that changed was the delivery method, not the cost of production.
The additional content didn't just appear magically for free because they had extra time before release. They still had to pay for that. You might be missing that point.
In this case they completed all that work before publishing the disk and included it all. That doesn't mean it cost less to do that work. The hours on the additional content were not done for free just because they had the time, they still had to pay for them.
"DLC" vs "UC" is a distinction without a difference. Either way there was a number of hours of work that needed to be paid for and the amount of work doesn't change just because they delyed the release and had more time. You still have to pay people to work during that more time. The only thing that changed was the delivery method, not the cost of production.
The additional content didn't just appear magically for free because they had extra time before release. They still had to pay for that. You might be missing that point.
They still had to develope it outside the costs of the base game. How could they have gave it for free without it costing them? They could have just given the whole game for free by the same logic.
The analogy to physical products doesn't work directly for the reality here. When you say the air conditioning is already in your car, there are reasons why that is a harm if it's not functional. It has weight so fuel efficiency is effected, it takes up space so may effect other parts in the assembly, etc.
Data has no weight and takes up no space that impacts other things in the function of the game. If you can show the extra data on the disc cause lag or longer load times or disc access times are reduced, okay, you have a harm and a complaint. If you can't, you don't.
You would also have to pay for the inclusion of the physical object being produced for each unit that does not have a functional air conditioning (since it's actually there). With data, there is no such additional cost to copy it millions of times and include it in each unit. So with the car, you are actually paying for something that doesn't work but is included, but with the software you don't pay for it being there. And that's just talking about the manufacturing cost for each unit, not development.
The development cost, to design a car that can accept and air conditioning unit, actually is in every unit with or without a functioning air conditioner. That is actually not the case for the software. The development cost of this on disk DLC in not part of the base game price. It's included in the cost to unlock it which is sepperate. So again, with the car you pay for the development of the AC even if it doesn't work, but for the software you don't.
If the air conditioner that doesn't function until you have the unlock code in your car were weightless and infinitely small and didn't add to the cost of the unit you are buying (like this data on the Gears 3 disk), the analogy would work much better. But that's not the case. Your analogy supports the arguement you want to make, but it's flawed in relation to what you are talking about so...
But even if it did line up, with a tiny weightless AC that was included and didn't work in the car you bought, and had no development or manufacturing costs associated with cars sold with non functioning units...how would you justify being upset about that? If it's inclusion was not what you were promised and you didn't pay for it and caused no harm to you, how do you justify being upset about that?
You bought the car with the expectation that it did not have AC. You found out it actually did have an AC unit that did not function, but did not have to pay for development of that AC or manufacturing of that AC, nor had any negative consequences of the AC actually being there, and additionaly had the option to activate it at a later date simply by paying for it's development cost...how on earth is that a problem for you?
Data has no weight and takes up no space that impacts other things in the function of the game. If you can show the extra data on the disc cause lag or longer load times or disc access times are reduced, okay, you have a harm and a complaint. If you can't, you don't.
You would also have to pay for the inclusion of the physical object being produced for each unit that does not have a functional air conditioning (since it's actually there). With data, there is no such additional cost to copy it millions of times and include it in each unit. So with the car, you are actually paying for something that doesn't work but is included, but with the software you don't pay for it being there. And that's just talking about the manufacturing cost for each unit, not development.
The development cost, to design a car that can accept and air conditioning unit, actually is in every unit with or without a functioning air conditioner. That is actually not the case for the software. The development cost of this on disk DLC in not part of the base game price. It's included in the cost to unlock it which is sepperate. So again, with the car you pay for the development of the AC even if it doesn't work, but for the software you don't.
If the air conditioner that doesn't function until you have the unlock code in your car were weightless and infinitely small and didn't add to the cost of the unit you are buying (like this data on the Gears 3 disk), the analogy would work much better. But that's not the case. Your analogy supports the arguement you want to make, but it's flawed in relation to what you are talking about so...
But even if it did line up, with a tiny weightless AC that was included and didn't work in the car you bought, and had no development or manufacturing costs associated with cars sold with non functioning units...how would you justify being upset about that? If it's inclusion was not what you were promised and you didn't pay for it and caused no harm to you, how do you justify being upset about that?
You bought the car with the expectation that it did not have AC. You found out it actually did have an AC unit that did not function, but did not have to pay for development of that AC or manufacturing of that AC, nor had any negative consequences of the AC actually being there, and additionaly had the option to activate it at a later date simply by paying for it's development cost...how on earth is that a problem for you?
And they still do. Games are updated for free all the time. Also, the maps from the DLC we are talking about are all going to be free for download shortly. Just FYI.
"Why charge you for something that's on the disc you paid $60 for?"
Because you didn't pay for "the disc". You paid for Gears 3. And got it. Are people really of the opinion the base game was not a complete polished product worth the price on it's own had the DLC never existed? I'd disagree. The DLC is not required, and it seems the complaints are simply over the delivery method of it.
"Why bother releasing it as DLC if it's done, written to disc and shipped at time of the game's launch?"
Because it still cost time and resources ($) to produce and was always planned as additional content at an additional price.
"There was no nickel-and-diming people 10-15 years ago."
And there was no additional content. The DLC everyone is complaining about would never have existed in planning for the game and would never have appeared on disc then. Those days gone by are still here if you simply refrain from purchasing it. Gears 3 is still a complete robust game on it's own.
Because you didn't pay for "the disc". You paid for Gears 3. And got it. Are people really of the opinion the base game was not a complete polished product worth the price on it's own had the DLC never existed? I'd disagree. The DLC is not required, and it seems the complaints are simply over the delivery method of it.
"Why bother releasing it as DLC if it's done, written to disc and shipped at time of the game's launch?"
Because it still cost time and resources ($) to produce and was always planned as additional content at an additional price.
"There was no nickel-and-diming people 10-15 years ago."
And there was no additional content. The DLC everyone is complaining about would never have existed in planning for the game and would never have appeared on disc then. Those days gone by are still here if you simply refrain from purchasing it. Gears 3 is still a complete robust game on it's own.
Yeah, you're right. Why argue with reason when you can just dismiss people you disagree with. You learn so much more that way. Stay classy.
"Had you included a robust experience and content people would have gladly purchased the DLC just like they did after Gears 2."
Do you not think they did just that? I'd say Gears 3 is rather robust and polished and stands quite well on it's own without any DLC additions. Just my opinion there, but I'm not hearing here that the problem was the game was lacking and the DLC is required to compliment the experience to an acceptable level, and therefore it's immoral to make people pay for on disc DLC explicidly included thusly to patch a broken game.
I can see the danger of that happening with games and developers selling an incomplete game to force you to buy DLC that makes up for that and thereby ultimately charge more for a game, but I don't see that in the specific case. The fact DLC was on disc is starting this fire, not any shortcoming of the actual base game.
What I'm hearing is it's just immoral to have on disc DLC regardless of how good the base game is, and people feel entitled to additional content they were never promised just because it's there.
Do you not think they did just that? I'd say Gears 3 is rather robust and polished and stands quite well on it's own without any DLC additions. Just my opinion there, but I'm not hearing here that the problem was the game was lacking and the DLC is required to compliment the experience to an acceptable level, and therefore it's immoral to make people pay for on disc DLC explicidly included thusly to patch a broken game.
I can see the danger of that happening with games and developers selling an incomplete game to force you to buy DLC that makes up for that and thereby ultimately charge more for a game, but I don't see that in the specific case. The fact DLC was on disc is starting this fire, not any shortcoming of the actual base game.
What I'm hearing is it's just immoral to have on disc DLC regardless of how good the base game is, and people feel entitled to additional content they were never promised just because it's there.
"We're arguing over distribution method...you are spending money in exchange for someone else's work (NOT for the bits on the disc)...I understand that sentiment, but to act like this is some sort of injustice or that Epic betrayed us is laughable. This is a discussion over business, not human rights."
Sorry, for not adding anything, but just had to cut-n-paste those thoughts because they make way too much sense in the sea of irrational complaining. Thanks.
Sorry, for not adding anything, but just had to cut-n-paste those thoughts because they make way too much sense in the sea of irrational complaining. Thanks.
I'm 100% behind consumer rights. Where are they being violated here? You did not buy the disc with the intention of all the data being yours to use functionally. Be honest. You bought Gears 3. You got Gears 3. Were you promised any more than what you got, you have a point. You were not, so you do not.
If you can show harm, or show how you were promised more than you got, or you can show the base game was incomplete and required the additional content to be complete, those are all demonstrations of your rights as a consumer being violated. Show me that your rights have been violated. I'm not shilling for anyone or anything other than reasonability.
"If it's on the disc it's mine."
Okay, so hack it and use it. If you are arguing that it's the code on the disc and not the functioning base game that you purchased, then you again have no complaint. It's up to you to utilize the code then, so go for it. You should be happy they've given you easy access to the code instead of just the base game. I think if you are being honest, you'd admit that what you bought was the functioning base game. And they delivered that in full, so it's hard for me to see what you are upset about.
You say this is a violation of your consumer rights. Okay, show that. Right now your are arguing that you are entitled to more than what you bought into (the base game) simply becuase of the mechanics Epic used to distribute their additional content for the game. You thought it was fair to pay what you did for the base game, and you got that. Now that you find out there is additional content, you feel entitled to that also. I don't see that as being reasonable.
If you can show harm, or show how you were promised more than you got, or you can show the base game was incomplete and required the additional content to be complete, those are all demonstrations of your rights as a consumer being violated. Show me that your rights have been violated. I'm not shilling for anyone or anything other than reasonability.
"If it's on the disc it's mine."
Okay, so hack it and use it. If you are arguing that it's the code on the disc and not the functioning base game that you purchased, then you again have no complaint. It's up to you to utilize the code then, so go for it. You should be happy they've given you easy access to the code instead of just the base game. I think if you are being honest, you'd admit that what you bought was the functioning base game. And they delivered that in full, so it's hard for me to see what you are upset about.
You say this is a violation of your consumer rights. Okay, show that. Right now your are arguing that you are entitled to more than what you bought into (the base game) simply becuase of the mechanics Epic used to distribute their additional content for the game. You thought it was fair to pay what you did for the base game, and you got that. Now that you find out there is additional content, you feel entitled to that also. I don't see that as being reasonable.
Epic promised a product that they delivered. Cut and dry. You intended to buy what they promised (Gears 3) and you got that in full. Downloaded or not the additional content was not promised as part of the base game which you purchased.
There is no deception or lying or any other immoral action here. There is just whining over an irrational sense of entitlement to that which you were never promised for what you willingly agreed to pay for.
Having the additional content on disc is simply about delivery mechanics. The development of the main game and any additional content for it are sepperate in terms of scheduling and costs and all other factors. They may be under one large project umbrella within the company, but they are planned as sepperate pieces. The additional content was never promised or planned as part of what would be the final base game product. The fact they delivered some of this extra content on disc (which gives everyone involved either benefits or at least causes no harm) is meaningless.
Did you have a complaint about the base game? Was it lacking in some way or broken or short on content to the point that had this additional content never existed, you'd be complaining as vocally as you are complaining now about that deficiency? Did you percieve an issue with the base game prior to finding out about the additional content on disc?
There is arguement against Epic doing anything wrong here. They haven't. People got what they paid for, and are now complaining about not getting more which they were never entitled to or promised or even felt they were lacking simply on the basis of how Epic is delivering that additional content.
If you can say you were promised the additional content at the base price, you have a complaint. If you can say the base game was lacking and incomplete and broken without the additional content, you have a complaint. If you can say the delivery method of including the additional content on disc cause some sort of harm or is a nuisance (longer load times, lag, etc.), you have a complaint. You can't say any of those things, so there is no valid complaint here.
There is no deception or lying or any other immoral action here. There is just whining over an irrational sense of entitlement to that which you were never promised for what you willingly agreed to pay for.
Having the additional content on disc is simply about delivery mechanics. The development of the main game and any additional content for it are sepperate in terms of scheduling and costs and all other factors. They may be under one large project umbrella within the company, but they are planned as sepperate pieces. The additional content was never promised or planned as part of what would be the final base game product. The fact they delivered some of this extra content on disc (which gives everyone involved either benefits or at least causes no harm) is meaningless.
Did you have a complaint about the base game? Was it lacking in some way or broken or short on content to the point that had this additional content never existed, you'd be complaining as vocally as you are complaining now about that deficiency? Did you percieve an issue with the base game prior to finding out about the additional content on disc?
There is arguement against Epic doing anything wrong here. They haven't. People got what they paid for, and are now complaining about not getting more which they were never entitled to or promised or even felt they were lacking simply on the basis of how Epic is delivering that additional content.
If you can say you were promised the additional content at the base price, you have a complaint. If you can say the base game was lacking and incomplete and broken without the additional content, you have a complaint. If you can say the delivery method of including the additional content on disc cause some sort of harm or is a nuisance (longer load times, lag, etc.), you have a complaint. You can't say any of those things, so there is no valid complaint here.
But everyone who bought the product, got the product. The question isn't about the product people intended to buy and were promised (they got that). It's about the delivery of additional content that was never promised.
Were you promised the additional content as part of what was sold, you have an arguement. Since you were not, you do not.
Were you promised the additional content as part of what was sold, you have an arguement. Since you were not, you do not.
I'd ask what you don't get about the distinction you are making being meaningless. Is it just a breach of etiquette then? No substance, just kabuki? And you think that's worth complaining about?
They could easily have withheld the extra content on not put it on disc (which has benefits over making you download it for everyone involved, or at least causes no substantive harm to those who don't want it). That would make it all cool for you? How does that matter one tiny bit? Again, you think this is just a breach of etitquette and that is the outrage instead of there being a real issue here?
Show some substance in terms of harm that the delivery path they chose causes and you have an arguement. Failing that, you are complaining about ether.
They could easily have withheld the extra content on not put it on disc (which has benefits over making you download it for everyone involved, or at least causes no substantive harm to those who don't want it). That would make it all cool for you? How does that matter one tiny bit? Again, you think this is just a breach of etitquette and that is the outrage instead of there being a real issue here?
Show some substance in terms of harm that the delivery path they chose causes and you have an arguement. Failing that, you are complaining about ether.
