OXM: "Fox News doesn't have a monopoly on getting things wrong"
Nice article and random video at the end.
I agree with # 11...
"4. That DLC should have been ours for free" So day one DLC that's on the disc (or put on the store weeks in advance of the game) should not be free? I can see DLC coming out after the fact, but when devs say that DLC released after the game comes out doesn't sell, its bull. Just look at Undead Nightmare or the GTA 4 DLC, they all sold pretty well and came out a while after, though not saying it needs to take that long. Telling devs its OK to cut up their game and lock away content on the disc (cough Capcom - Street Fighter x Tekken cough) to sell day one just screws the customer/gamer over.
Thing is, you don't legally "own" anything on that disc. You're just paying for access to it, as per the terms of the publisher's licensing agreement. It sucks but there it is.
That may be the legal position but if thats the case the law's an ass.
You own the disc and the right to access EVERYTHING ON THE DISC whether or not you own the actual IP. So putting content on the disc and denying you access to it after you bought the rights to access all the content on it is illegal. It's like a car manufacturer making you pay to access the breaks.
Wrong Day 1 DLC is like buying a house and having to pay extra to access the bathroom. Decent DLC, such as the ones Rockstar Release (I.E TBOGT) are more like your building an extension onto your house. I don't understand how anyone could think Day 1 DLC is exceptable.
@DragonKnight You only have the right to access EVERYTHING ON THE DISC if the license agreement stipulates as such. I've yet to come across one that does. Here's a Rockstar EULA, for instance - I've chopped out a couple of key quotes: http://www.rockstargames.co... "Software download, redemption of a unique serial code, registration of the Software, membership in a third-party services and/or membership in a Licensor service (including acceptance of related terms and policies), may be required to access digital copies of the Software or certain un-lockable , downloadable, online or other special content, services, and/or functions (collectively, the “Special Features” "The Software may include measures to control access to the Software, control access to certain features or content, prevent unauthorized copies, or otherwise attempt to prevent anyone from exceeding the limited rights and licenses granted under this Agreement." Like I say: it sucks but there it is. Flawed analogies help nobody.
Yes...there is a very, VERY big difference between DLC that is taken from the finished product and monetized, and real DLC that is released to compliment the finished product.
This article is a bunch of naive corporate coddling crap.
That every gamer is the same as them: And by "them" I mean "hardcore", and so, kiddy games should not exist, just hardcore and mature.
Most of those are horrible. Actually, I think they all are.. 1. Nobody believes that the engine alone is what makes the CoD games all feel the same(as an example). 2. Well, this one is true, to a certain extent. The example used is a horrible one, though, as nobody told NT they had to make it THAT radical. And the response they had to the fan outcry was COMPLETELY in the wrong. 3. Again, no one believes that ALL patches mean a game is unfinished. But it's become far too easy for developers to ship off an unfinished game and then cover that with masses of patches. 4. As mentioned by others, DLC that's out on the first day SHOULD be free, and any DLC left on the disc is ours, legally, anyway. 5. I've never met anybody who thought this. Instead, people seem to have the opinion that you take care of the fans FIRST, before you start going after newcomers. 6. Well, there may be a few people who think this way. 7. Once more, no one thinks ALL reviews are bought. But some consistencies within a reviewer's scores show bias toward one system or against another. 8. This one is just stupid. If you give a game with violent tones to someone who has violent tendencies, of course there's the chance something may happen. But there's the chance for that "something" to happen without the video game, and the game itself isn't the source of the person's inherent tendencies, nor does it CAUSE them to act out. Yeah, pretty bad list.
1. There are gamers that are that ignorant, just do what oxm did and google it. 2.Definitely true that Developers rarely have full control of the game they're developing. 3.Do you really believe that no gamer is stupid? 4.As long as the game is complete and satisfying, the developer has no obligation to give something extra for free no matter when it's created. However it is a little stingy. That's why Valve is so great. 5.It is stupid to abandon fans in favor of others. However there maybe times when it's the right move from a business perspective. 6.Sometimes realer is better. Sometimes it's not. 7.I doubt anyone thinks all reviews are bought. 8.A video game in the hands of a psychopath could potentially be a trigger for them to do something violent. To be clear I don't think that video games make people violent or should ever be blamed for anyone's actions.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.