Mass Effect 3

[SinisterDeath]

youtube.com/watch?v=zRRpGlmtws8

 

Yea, unfortunatley that thing was wrong, as all the data involving the actual 'plot' for the character, was not unlocked via that method.

[A. Pseudonym]

Yes.... but isn't the point of this that you are essentially being asked to pay for something to be unlocked that is already in the game you bought?

[SinisterDeath]

Yes.... but isn't the point of this that you are essentially being asked to pay for something to be unlocked that is already in the game you bought?

 

No, because when you buy it, you still have to DOWNLOAD all that other data. The only thing it included, was the character, but nto everything that went along with the character, like dialogue.

[A. Pseudonym]

And yet there was a character included in the base game, but only available if paying extra. Why was this character not included in the DLC it pertained to?

[SinisterDeath]

And yet there was a character included in the base game, but only available if paying extra. Why was this character not included in the DLC it pertained to?

 

To ease the download on the servers?

 

You do realize, this isn't the first time this has been done? even by EA right?

 

Back To Karakand for Battlefield 3 had 'data' on the initially released game.

Does that mean it was on it? No. Becuase it wasn't complete.

 

Besides, you don't OWN Mass effect 3, contrary to what you might think.

You are LEASING its use from Bioware/EA. So even if it WERE to be (COMPLETELY and not PARTIALLY) on the disc, it doesn't matter. You don't own that disc.

[A. Pseudonym]

To ease the download on the servers?

 

That's absurd.

How big are a few texture/mesh/animation files? Does a character model take up more disk space than an entire DLC? And if it did, why stick it in the base game, where it wouldn't be used but would still be taking up space?

No, that argument doesn't make sense.

 

Imagine if you bought a car and discovered that it was (for the sake of analogy) fitted with nitrous oxide, but that the nitrous oxide was locked out until you payed extra.... well, you might feel a little cheated?

 

You do realize, this isn't the first time this has been done? even by EA right?

 

Back To Karakand for Battlefield 3 had 'data' on the initially released game.

Does that mean it was on it? No. Becuase it wasn't complete.

 

Precedent doesn't make it right, rational or excusable.

 

Besides, you don't OWN Mass effect 3, contrary to what you might think.

You are LEASING its use from Bioware/EA. So even if it WERE to be (COMPLETELY and not PARTIALLY) on the disc, it doesn't matter. You don't own that disc.

 

I'm not leasing it, either. But I enjoy discussing it......

 

Regardless of whether I own the disc or not, I am paying for entertainment and being denied a piece of that entertainment because for some reason somebody thought it was a good idea to put a character from a DLC in the base game yet only make that character available for play through paying extra for the DLC. Now that sets a precedent.

 

At the least you have to admit that this arrangment is stupid and badly planned.

[SinisterDeath]

That's absurd.

How big are a few texture/mesh/animation files? Does a character model take up more disk space than an entire DLC? And if it did, why stick it in the base game, where it wouldn't be used but would still be taking up space?

No, that argument doesn't make sense.

 

Imagine if you bought a car and discovered that it was (for the sake of analogy) fitted with nitrous oxide, but that the nitrous oxide was locked out until you payed extra.... well, you might feel a little cheated?

3d files can take upwards of 700-2gbs of data, animations, around 100-200MBs depending on how many there are.

Audio files are the worst, and depends on how high the quality is, and how many unique version there are of it. it may upwards be 20mbs to 5gbs. (look at Swotr, that games nearly 50GBS!)

 

And no, it doesn't matter if its 'on' the disc from teh getgo anyways.

 

Consider this. If From Ashes was the 'day 1 dlc' that people were griping about. Does it make sense for people to downloads, a 'dlc' that could be upwards of 1gb? or to reduce that in half, by putting the 'basics' in the game, and then include the dialogue/missions in the dlc? EA knows there servers were going to be crushed with Mass Effect 3, taking even 50% out of the DLC from download would have helped.

 

Precedent doesn't make it right, rational or excusable.

 

Also consider this.

Why is it, I own BF3, but not the DLC but I HAVE TO download the DLC content even though I don't own it?

Why?

Because when I play online, I have to be able to 'see' the DLC stuff equiped on other players.

Same with WoW.

Just because you 'have' to download the content from the expansions, and not actually, own them but you 'still' need to see them.

 

I'm not sure how the 'multiplayer' works exactly, but if you can play as a 'prothean' then thats the reason its included.

[A. Pseudonym]

And no, it doesn't matter if its 'on' the disc from teh getgo anyways.

 

It does, since your argument hinges on the point of server load with respect to DLC and the attempt to ease that server load, according to you, by including bits of the DLC in the base game. So, there could be an extra GB of data in the base game that's not being used until you pay up, Which is my point.

 

Because when I play online, I have to be able to 'see' the DLC stuff equiped on other players.

 

Now this is a good argument. People need to have the same game version tp play multiplayer. Right.

 

So why not force them to download? Or exclude them from multiplayer games with incompatible versions?

Because the server load or organisational over-complexity. Which means it's EA's problem once again. No matter what way you look at this, it's badly planned.

[SinisterDeath]

And no, it doesn't matter if its 'on' the disc from teh getgo anyways.

 

It does, since your argument hinges on the point of server load with respect to DLC and the attempt to ease that server load, according to you, by including bits of the DLC in the base game. So, there could be an extra GB of data in the base game that's not being used until you pay up, Which is my point.

 

Because when I play online, I have to be able to 'see' the DLC stuff equiped on other players.

 

Now this is a good argument. People need to have the same game version tp play multiplayer. Right.

 

So why not force them to download? Or exclude them from multiplayer games with incompatible versions?

Because the server load or organisational over-complexity. Which means it's EA's problem once again. No matter what way you look at this, it's badly planned.

 

allowing people to play against people with DLC they don't own, but still play with them, just means simplyifying the problem, not making it worse.

 

The only 'restriction' is on your 'account' based on what 'you' can 'buy' and what you 'cant' buy. So you can still get shot in the face with the Omega hyper Unicorn BLaster array 7.0, you just can't use it your self. (well, rather, you can, you can pick it up on their steaming corpse pile, you just can't spawn with it)

 

As for Extra data that you aren't currently using.. So what? As I said, You don't ever actualy 'own' the game, its a legal interpertation the game companies have pushed through. Same with 'software' companies. Its not the first, and a Precedent is very much apart of this issue.

 

 

Remember GTA3?

Remmeber Hot Coffee?

 

Why aren't you pissed at that to?

 

Witcher 2? That included the 'dlc' on the disc, And if you got the collectors edition, you could unlock it, which just included a 1mb dl that unlocked/decrypted the file.

 

Hell, even on the Ps3, twisted metal, dlc isn't out 'yet' but the online play, you hve to input your 'unlock online play' as a 1mb file, attached to your account, allowing you to play online. Theres many many examples of this out there. But from a 'server' perspective, its 'easier' to release a '1mb' download, to 'unlock' the content, and make you pay for it, because htey figure you'll probably buy it anyways.

 

I'm pretty sure FFX13-2 did the same thing, with some minor 'patches' into it. the download for example, o fthe first dlc... was very, very, very small.

[A. Pseudonym]

allowing people to play against people with DLC they don't own, but still play with them, just means simplyifying the problem, not making it worse.

 

The only 'restriction' is on your 'account' based on what 'you' can 'buy' and what you 'cant' buy. So you can still get shot in the face with the Omega hyper Unicorn BLaster array 7.0, you just can't use it your self. (well, rather, you can, you can pick it up on their steaming corpse pile, you just can't spawn with it)

 

That's not my argument. My argument was to separate multiplayer players according to their game versions - ie with or without DLC. That or force them to download the DLC in order to be able to play multiplayer.... thus ensuring everyone has the same version and can see and use all characters and weapons without crashing due to missing data in one guys game.

 

I was asking why they didn't do it this way instead of putting some inaccessible character data on the game disc, which you have to pay extra to unlock..

 

As for Extra data that you aren't currently using.. So what? As I said, You don't ever actualy 'own' the game, its a legal interpertation the game companies have pushed through. Same with 'software' companies. Its not the first, and a Precedent is very much apart of this issue.

 

It doesn't matter whether you own it, lease it, rent it or whatever - what is wrong is that you are paying for the entertainment on a disc; all the data of that game contained on the disc. They cannot justifiably sell you something and say that a portion of it is inaccessible for no good reason until you pay more to unlock it.

 

Think about the nitrous oxide analogy I gave. It's exactly the same situation.

 

And as for your examples, right on. But again: Precedent doesn't make it right, rational or excusable.

[SinisterDeath]

It doesn't matter whether you own it, lease it, rent it or whatever - what is wrong is that you are paying for the entertainment on a disc; all the data of that game contained on the disc. They cannot justifiably sell you something and say that a portion of it is inaccessible for no good reason until you pay more to unlock it.

 

Yes, yes they can justifiably SELL you something that you can only access PART of whats on the disc!

 

remember windows? that operating system you are using?

Guess what!

That has data for the other version you can't access unless you buy an upgrade!

Bam!

 

And I'm talking Legally, they can do whatever the hell it is they please, because you do NOT own that game THEY own it. If they want you to pay $5 after buying the game to play the ending? They can, its their right. the ONLY rights you have towards the game, is whether you decide to buy it or not to! as they say, you 'vote' with your money.

 

Think about the nitrous oxide analogy I gave. It's exactly the same situation.

Actually, its not. that car? You do actually in legalality, OWN that car. Like the table in your house, or yoru dishes. you OWN those, you are not LEASING them. Think of a video game as an Apartment. You are Leasing/renting it. (Samegoes for the console, or OS) But your house? Your car? Thats property YOU Own. (unless you have a loan on it, then the bank owns it!)

Pow!

 

 

 

And as for your examples, right on. But again: Precedent doesn't make it right, rational or excusable.

Again, precedent DOES matter. Even from a Legal Perspective it Matters. And Legal And Moral Aren't necissarilly the same thing.Is it 'morally right'? No, not really, But is it legally right? Yes, and thats all that matters.

[A. Pseudonym]

Yes, yes they can justifiably SELL you something that you can only access PART of whats on the disc!

 

Nope.

 

remember windows? that operating system you are using?

Guess what!

That has data for the other version you can't access unless you buy an upgrade!

 

You'll have to expand on this point. I'm using XP on this computer. It has nothing on it of Vista or 7. It's a bad analogy anyway: we're not talking about one game having elements of an entirely separate game in it, like them putting say parts of ME4 into 3 and charging you extra for it. This is a DLC. The equivalent analogy for an OS would be security/system/etc updates. Updates that came on the installation disc that you had to pay to activate, rather than free updates that are DLed automatically.

 

Does that sound absurd enough to you yet? That's what we're discussing here, in the context of a videogame.

 

If my installed OS had security updates, say, already installed but not functioning until I payed (even though I already bought the OS) then I would be pretty pissed that I wasn't getting the proper use out of them.

 

The initial payment I make for the product includes the use of everything within the context of that product. Whether I own it or lease it.

 

And I'm talking Legally, they can do whatever the hell it is they please, because you do NOT own that game THEY own it. If they want you to pay $5 after buying the game to play the ending? They can, its their right. the ONLY rights you have towards the game, is whether you decide to buy it or not to! as they say, you 'vote' with your money.

 

I don't live in America, so issues of legality are a moot point. I don't even know if withholding a portion of the data on a disc you sell from it's use by your customer is legal or not, especially in the context of entertainment in the form a character model, rather than an application. In Europe or America. Aside from that, and irrespective of what any law says, I refuse to call it right or justifiable that I am asked to pay for entertainment and then to have a portion of that entertainment denied to me because it was hidden and inaccessible until I was informed that I had to pay more to unlock it.

 

It's as simple as that and I will keep on reiterating it until I get through to you.

 

Think about the nitrous oxide analogy I gave. It's exactly the same situation.

Actually, its not. that car? You do actually in legality, OWN that car. Like the table in your house, or yoru dishes. you OWN those, you are not LEASING them. Think of a video game as an Apartment. You are Leasing/renting it. (Same goes for the console, or OS) But your house? Your car? Thats property YOU Own. (unless you have a loan on it, then the bank owns it!)

 

It doesn't matter whether I am owning it or leasing it or renting or whatever. I am paying for entertainment which I am prevented from accessing. I am paying for the entire use of a product; only the entire use of that product is denied to me because of this DLC business.

Take your apartment. You are renting your apartment but are not allowed access to the plumbing. Or just the shower. Or the television. Or you can't open your windows cos your landlord is an irrational man like a certain videogame company who put stuff on game discs that their customers can't access....

 

And as for your examples, right on. But again: Precedent doesn't make it right, rational or excusable.

Again, precedent DOES matter. Even from a Legal Perspective it Matters. And Legal And Moral Aren't necessarily the same thing.Is it 'morally right'? No, not really, But is it legally right? Yes, and that's all that matters.

 

Yes, precedence matters in court rulings to establish the viability of any action within the law. As you note, the law does not necessarily correlate with what is "right", whatever "right" might mean to you and me (and all that subjectivist/relativist spiel).

 

For me, I don't care what the law says. Yours or mine. I just feel cheated. And that there was no reason to put this character on the base game, inaccessible. He should have been kept as a separate download with the rest of his DLC.

 

The precedence that matters, is that now a company has seen that digital information can be sold to a customer (or leased if you prefer) and that some of that product can be withheld until a further charge is levied. Making the customer a cashcow whose enjoyment of the product is secondary to their facility to provide payment - which is typical of EA.

 

My problem with this is that it is a precursor to worse behaviour.

 

Pow! Bam!

 

It is somewhat revealing of you that you choose to punctuate your posts with comicbook sound effects.

Blam!

[SinisterDeath]

Yes, yes they can justifiably SELL you something that you can only access PART of whats on the disc!

 

Nope.

 

remember windows? that operating system you are using?

Guess what!

That has data for the other version you can't access unless you buy an upgrade!

 

You'll have to expand on this point. I'm using XP on this computer. It has nothing on it of Vista or 7. It's a bad analogy anyway: we're not talking about one game having elements of an entirely separate game in it, like them putting say parts of ME4 into 3 and charging you extra for it. This is a DLC. The equivalent analogy for an OS would be security/system/etc updates. Updates that came on the installation disc that you had to pay to activate, rather than free updates that are DLed automatically.

 

 

Uhh no its not a bad analogy, becuase you failed to understand what I was talking about.

 

Windows XP contains data for Windows XP Home, Profesional, And Buisness on tha disc.

Windows Vista contains data for Home/Pro/Buisness/ect on it

Windows 7 Contains dat afor Home/pro/buisness/ect on it.

 

You 'install' it either way, but you can't access it unless you have the upgrade key.

 

Nice try though.

 

 

 

I don't live in America, so issues of legality are a moot point. I don't even know if withholding a portion of the data on a disc you sell from it's use by your customer is legal or not, especially in the context of entertainment in the form a character model, rather than an application. In Europe or America. Aside from that, and irrespective of what any law says, I refuse to call it right or justifiable that I am asked to pay for entertainment and then to have a portion of that entertainment denied to me because it was hidden and inaccessible until I was informed that I had to pay more to unlock it.

 

International Copyright Law is International for a reason. Its leased here, its leased there. It odesn't matter and is never a moot point. If your in sweden, don't believe all that piracy is legal bs, its still bs.

 

Its already been decided both domestic and in foriegn copyright law trials, that you DO NOT Own software, the company does. You don't even own that disc. So its a very valid arguement that your just ignoring. ;)

It's as simple as that and I will keep on reiterating it until I get through to you.

 

Think about the nitrous oxide analogy I gave. It's exactly the same situation.

Actually, its not. that car? You do actually in legality, OWN that car. Like the table in your house, or yoru dishes. you OWN those, you are not LEASING them. Think of a video game as an Apartment. You are Leasing/renting it. (Same goes for the console, or OS) But your house? Your car? Thats property YOU Own. (unless you have a loan on it, then the bank owns it!)

 

It doesn't matter whether I am owning it or leasing it or renting or whatever. I am paying for entertainment which I am prevented from accessing. I am paying for the entire use of a product; only the entire use of that product is denied to me because of this DLC business.

Take your apartment. You are renting your apartment but are not allowed access to the plumbing. Or just the shower. Or the television. Or you can't open your windows cos your landlord is an irrational man like a certain videogame company who put stuff on game discs that their customers can't access....

 

And your own arguement in my analogy fails.

See, not all apartments do you get 'free water' or 'free electricity' or 'free heating', It maybe 'accessable' in those places, but you STILL have to Pay for those things, in a seperate bill, or as part of your rent.

 

Kapow!

 

 

Yes, precedence matters in court rulings to establish the viability of any action within the law. As you note, the law does not necessarily correlate with what is "right", whatever "right" might mean to you and me (and all that subjectivist/relativist spiel).

 

For me, I don't care what the law says. Yours or mine. I just feel cheated. And that there was no reason to put this character on the base game, inaccessible. He should have been kept as a separate download with the rest of his DLC.

Unfortunately for you, EA doesn't care what you think

 

The precedence that matters, is that now a company has seen that digital information can be sold to a customer (or leased if you prefer) and that some of that product can be withheld until a further charge is levied. Making the customer a cashcow whose enjoyment of the product is secondary to their facility to provide payment - which is typical of EA.

yeppers. We already knew ME3 was going to be a DLC cash hog. Day one DLC? Yabetcha!

Look at FF13-2... They already have somethinglike $30 worth ofDLC on the market..

 

 

My problem with this is that it is a precursor to worse behaviour.

 

Definately, but as long as people keep buying it, 'they' are going to still believe people 'like it' and make 'more of it'.

 

Its exactly the same as with Modern Warfare 3. That made a billion dollars. We are going to see about a thousand MW3 clones in the next 5 years tryign to copy its success, just like mmo companies are tryign to do with wow.

 

Pow! Bam!

 

It is somewhat revealing of you that you choose to punctuate your posts with comicbook sound effects.

Blam!

 

I just felt it necissary as a form of Comedic Relief in this discusion., this isn't Debates & Discussions afterall!'

Come on, you know you want to add comic book sounds everytime you counter one of my points! doooit!doooit!

[A. Pseudonym]

Uhh no its not a bad analogy, becuase you failed to understand what I was talking about.

 

Windows XP contains data for Windows XP Home, Profesional, And Buisness on tha disc.

Windows Vista contains data for Home/Pro/Buisness/ect on it

Windows 7 Contains dat afor Home/pro/buisness/ect on it.

 

You 'install' it either way, but you can't access it unless you have the upgrade key.

 

Nice try though.

 

Okay, so Windows does it too.

 

That doesn't excuse Mass Effect. That Microsoft does the same thing with their OS that EA does with it's game does not make either behaviour acceptable.

 

So we're back at precedence again, which we've already been over several times. No new points here. I wonder why you suggest that the commonality of a practice lends it more weight when considering it justifiable...

 

International Copyright Law is International for a reason. Its leased here, its leased there. It odesn't matter and is never a moot point. If your in sweden, don't believe all that piracy is legal bs, its still bs.

 

Its already been decided both domestic and in foriegn copyright law trials, that you DO NOT Own software, the company does. You don't even own that disc. So its a very valid arguement that your just ignoring. ;)

It's as simple as that and I will keep on reiterating it until I get through to you.

 

Again, it doesn't matter whether I own it or not. This is a non-issue which you refuse to let go.

 

I pay for the entertainment given me by the product and expect to get the full use of that product. We're talking about exchange here. Value for value. Product for money. If I pay for something I want the full use of it. Not to have to pay to unlock stuff I already payed for.

 

We've been over this. Repeatedly.

 

And incidentally, since I now know about Window's shenanigans, I can feel free to torrent a hack for it. Thanks for that.

 

And your own arguement in my analogy fails.

See, not all apartments do you get 'free water' or 'free electricity' or 'free heating', It maybe 'accessable' in those places, but you STILL have to Pay for those things, in a seperate bill, or as part of your rent.

 

Yeah but that doesn't work either because you work that out with your landlord beforehand. You get what you pay for, even if the bills are separate.

 

But with this game you don't get what you pay for. That's my point. It's not false advertising. It's not fraud. It's just cordoning off the use of a certain portion of the product, linking it to an expansion and demanding payment for the expansion in order to use the cordoned-off elements.

 

I'm fine with there being DLC. I'm fine with paying for DLC. What I want is to get what I pay for and it to be clear that what I think I am paying for is in fact what I am paying for.

 

In your analogy it would be like having a bed in the apartment which you've agreed with your landlord the use of which is included in the rent.... but then discover that you are denied the use of the pillow. Or the blanket, or the mattress.

 

I suppose there is an implicit assumption on my part that paying for a thing entitles me to the entire use of that thing.... that that entire thing and all that it may encompass is what I am purchasing. But you seem to be implying that this is not the case. That I part with my money and get in return whatever the other person damn well pleases.

 

Not good enough.

 

Kapow!

 

Wham! Bam! Thank you Ma'am!

 

/irony

 

Unfortunately for you, EA doesn't care what you think

 

They care what my wallet thinks. And my wallet didn't put out for their games. She never does. Girl has standards....

 

I just felt it necissary as a form of Comedic Relief in this discusion., this isn't Debates & Discussions afterall!'

Come on, you know you want to add comic book sounds everytime you counter one of my points! doooit!doooit!

 

It comes across as childish. But that's me. You must continue to be exactly as you are.

[SinisterDeath]

Okay, so Windows does it too.

 

That doesn't excuse Mass Effect. That Microsoft does the same thing with their OS that EA does with it's game does not make either behaviour acceptable.

 

So we're back at precedence again, which we've already been over several times. No new points here. I wonder why you suggest that the commonality of a practice lends it more weight when considering it justifiable...

 

Never argue about something being justified.

You can JUSTIFY ANYTHING. However in this particular case, it has nothing to do with being morally right, wrong, but whether its legally alloweable, and that is what I'm argueing, Its legal, thus they can do it.

 

 

 

Again, it doesn't matter whether I own it or not. This is a non-issue which you refuse to let go.

 

I pay for the entertainment given me by the product and expect to get the full use of that product. We're talking about exchange here. Value for value. Product for money. If I pay for something I want the full use of it. Not to have to pay to unlock stuff I already payed for.

Its very important to the issue. You argue, that 'you' own everything on that 'disc', And I argue, that 'no' you don't 'own' anything, you are 'leasing', ownership =/= leasing.

 

 

 

We've been over this. Repeatedly.

 

And incidentally, since I now know about Window's shenanigans, I can feel free to torrent a hack for it. Thanks for that.

And this is exaxctly why companies are feeling they have to further protect there works, its an endless cycle of shinangins.

 

You feel a sense of entitltement to something you don't own, and thusly, its okay to steal it.

EA/MS legally own their products. They don't like people coming in, and stealing their 'hard' earned product.

So they make it harder to steal.

 

People get pissed that its harder to steal.

So they steal more of it

So They make it harder

And then they steal more of it

See the cycle?

 

 

 

Yeah but that doesn't work either because you work that out with your landlord beforehand. You get what you pay for, even if the bills are separate.

 

Not really, the tenant really has no say in whether or not water/heat/electricity is paid before they sign the lease or not, its not even something you can really 'bargain for', its basically do they do it, or do they not, if they don't, your S.O.L, and have to sign a lease, and then pay your elecftric company/gas//water/ect,

 

Most pay water/garbage as part of rent. Its just easier to service 'that' to everyone, but other utilities? Those can vary from tenant to tenant. the Consumers only power 'in' that situation, is whether they sign the lease or not.

 

 

But with this game you don't get what you pay for. That's my point. It's not false advertising. It's not fraud. It's just cordoning off the use of a certain portion of the product, linking it to an expansion and demanding payment for the expansion in order to use the cordoned-off elements.

Sure you get 'exactly' what you pay for.

You get Mass Effect 3.You didn't pay for ME3 & the DLC, you paid for ME3. It doesn't even matter whats on the disc. what you get, is what you get. Developers have kept 'data' that isn't used in games, on the disc, Since.. well since gaming began.

 

 

 

In your analogy it would be like having a bed in the apartment which you've agreed with your landlord the use of which is included in the rent.... but then discover that you are denied the use of the pillow. Or the blanket, or the mattress.

 

Nope, the one about them forcing you to pay for heat/electricity in that apt. is a better arguement, as the 'bed/pillow/blanket is relaly just a 'silly childish' arguement.

 

 

I suppose there is an implicit assumption on my part that paying for a thing entitles me to the entire use of that thing.... that that entire thing and all that it may encompass is what I am purchasing. But you seem to be implying that this is not the case. That I part with my money and get in return whatever the other person damn well pleases.

 

Sure, but this is the digital age, and not the Physical Age.

If this were an Vinyle Record, and you were told you couldn't flip it over and listen to the other side, without first paying $50, then yea, theres an issue. As far as 'copy' right laws go for that, you 'own' that record, but you don't own the 'song'.

But current ones?

That DVD? That CD? that MP3? You don't even own those, physical version or otherwise.

If they sold an MP3 song, for $0.99 that was 5Mb. but you could only listen to 1MB of it, and had to pay $4 for the other 4 MB,thats well within there legal right.

 

Really, the only thing they 'do' do by including it on the 'disc', aside from, as I said, possibly easing server bandwith, is open it up to piracy, for people to 'access' that content illegally through cracking/hacking the data in the game. (and yes, doing what that guy did, is technically hacking)

 

 

Not good enough.

 

 

 

Wham! Bam! Thank you Ma'am!

/irony

You know it felt good.

 

 

They care what my wallet thinks. And my wallet didn't put out for their games. She never does. Girl has standards....

Again, since neither of our wallets agreed with EA, Ea still doesn't care about what we thought about ME3. ;)

 

 

It comes across as childish. But that's me. You must continue to be exactly as you are.

childish? Who cares! this is entertainment! we need to keep this lighthearted and not scare away the new peoples!

Theres a reason I mentioned this isn't (Debates & Discussions) forum. ;)

[A. Pseudonym]

Never argue about something being justified.

 

Justification is an inherently self-serving act. Of course I will justify everything I do.

 

You can JUSTIFY ANYTHING.

 

Yes.... hence why I mentioned subjectivism/relativism above. I hoped to avoid this tangent. I find such discussions to be based on one's personal response to an indifferent reality and whether this reality should be "corrected" or adapted to. One's values are extremely revealing of one's psychological inclinations and little else. Especially if one derives them from an outside source rather than developing them rationally. They are certainly nothing to base an objective truth upon.

 

In the context of this discussion, what I find unjustifiable is that I am being denied a portion of the product I leased for no good reason.

 

However in this particular case, it has nothing to do with being morally right, wrong, but whether its legally alloweable, and that is what I'm argueing, Its legal, thus they can do it.

 

Nope. It has to do with what the customer will accept from the producer of a product.

 

Its very important to the issue. You argue, that 'you' own everything on that 'disc', And I argue, that 'no' you don't 'own' anything, you are 'leasing', ownership =/= leasing.

 

Show me one quote where I say I own what's on the disc. One quote.

 

This is a straw man of your own invention that you are arguing against. Ownership was never my point. Exchange of value for value was my point. Being arbitrarily denied a portion of that value was my point.

 

I have been nothing but consistent in this discussion, while you jump from fallacy to fallacy erratically.

 

And this is exaxctly why companies are feeling they have to further protect there works, its an endless cycle of shinangins.

 

You feel a sense of entitltement to something you don't own, and thusly, its okay to steal it.

EA/MS legally own their products. They don't like people coming in, and stealing their 'hard' earned product.

So they make it harder to steal.

 

I have my cake and I eat it too. :) I hope you are not going to suggest that all are equal before the law......

 

Thing is, this discussion is not about DRM, game companies response to piracy. It's about the misplaced element of a DLC being in the base game and inaccessible.

 

 

Not really, the tenant really has no say in whether or not water/heat/electricity is paid before they sign the lease or not, its not even something you can really 'bargain for', its basically do they do it, or do they not, if they don't, your S.O.L, and have to sign a lease, and then pay your elecftric company/gas//water/ect,

 

Most pay water/garbage as part of rent. Its just easier to service 'that' to everyone, but other utilities? Those can vary from tenant to tenant. the Consumers only power 'in' that situation, is whether they sign the lease or not.

 

These analogies are getting really strained. To the point where I think you're just being deliberately obtuse in order to not concede the point.

 

In my experience, rent and services bills are agreed to with the landlord ahead of time in order to make it clear to me who has to pay what. Perhaps it's more restrictive in America.

 

Sure you get 'exactly' what you pay for.

You get Mass Effect 3.You didn't pay for ME3 & the DLC, you paid for ME3. It doesn't even matter whats on the disc. what you get, is what you get. Developers have kept 'data' that isn't used in games, on the disc, Since.. well since gaming began.

 

Yes.... and even though I payed and received a product in return, part of that product is inaccessible. The part that is inaccessible is not cut content, but an element of an entirely separate DLC. An integral part of that DLC. Yet for some reason it is in the base game and can be hacked.

 

No reason for it not to be part of the DLC download itself, for reasons we've already been over. See above.

 

Nope, the one about them forcing you to pay for heat/electricity in that apt. is a better arguement, as the 'bed/pillow/blanket is relaly just a 'silly childish' arguement.

 

No, because the heat/electricity in this ridiculous analogy are equivalent to full DLCs for a game. The Prothean character is an element of a DLC so is equivalent to a radiator or mains socket; in other words a part of a whole.

 

In this case, you've got an apartment with a radiator or a socket not connected to anything. Or a blanket without a bed that you can't use even though you're cold because you haven't bought the bed that unlocks it's use.

 

Yeah, really strained. This has got to be the most absurd internet discussion I've ever participated in.....

 

You know it felt good.

 

Not really.

 

Again, since neither of our wallets agreed with EA, Ea still doesn't care about what we thought about ME3. ;)

 

Are you comfortable with being held in such contempt?

No, they care that wallets aren't putting out. Voting with your wallet as you put it.

 

childish? Who cares! this is entertainment! we need to keep this lighthearted and not scare away the new peoples!

Theres a reason I mentioned this isn't (Debates & Discussions) forum. ;)

 

I approach every discussion in the same way. I am very egalitarian in that one, narrow, fashion.

 

Perhaps it would put the lurkers more at ease if I used some emoticons and typed "kawaei desssoo!" in all caps.

 

Perhaps the mods will split the thread if they deem it appropriate.

[SinisterDeath]

Show me one quote where I say I own what's on the disc. One quote.

 

This is a straw man of your own invention that you are arguing against. Ownership was never my point. Exchange of value for value was my point. Being arbitrarily denied a portion of that value was my point.

 

I have been nothing but consistent in this discussion, while you jump from fallacy to fallacy erratically.

 

 

Regardless of whether I own the disc or not, I am paying for entertainment and being denied a piece of that entertainment because for some reason somebody thought it was a good idea to put a character from a DLC in the base game yet only make that character available for play through paying extra for the DLC. Now that sets a precedent.

 

You downloaded it illegally, so you have no disc, otherwise, you would have a disc. You can't recieve that entertainment without access to that disc. Your entitlment to reciving everything on that disc/entertainment comes from the view that you 'own' it.

 

No, because the heat/electricity in this ridiculous analogy are equivalent to full DLCs for a game. The Prothean character is an element of a DLC so is equivalent to a radiator or mains socket; in other words a part of a whole.

 

In this case, you've got an apartment with a radiator or a socket not connected to anything. Or a blanket without a bed that you can't use even though you're cold because you haven't bought the bed that unlocks it's use.

 

Yeah, really strained. This has got to be the most absurd internet discussion I've ever participated in.....

Just remember, you are the one who brought up the apartments heaters/utilities, I was using an example of leasing over ownership in relation to housing. So you can't blame me for this ridiculous analogy.

 

Besides, as was the original case, you said

 

 

Take your apartment. You are renting your apartment but are not allowed access to the plumbing. Or just the shower. Or the television. Or you can't open your windows cos your landlord is an irrational man like a certain videogame company who put stuff on game discs that their customers can't access....

 

So again, that is a valid arguement, You have an Apartment/Disc, You have things inside it, the 'contents' of the apartment/game. Like the rooms, closests, you have sinks,bathrooms, thermastat. And just like with the apartment/game, you can only access 'most' of that content with the initial price. You can't use the 'lightsockets/dlc' that are already present in the apartment/disc, without first paying the electric bill/dlc price. Even though its already there, in the apartment/disc.

 

And I've already stated, I don't believe they are doing the 'morally' right thing, but what they are doing is Legal, so it doesn't really matter. And 'your' non-vote of the wallet, would have been even better, had you not 'downloaded' mass effect 3, becuase EA sees that as 'lost profit' from 'costumers stealing'.And your non-vote? Goes up against the 240 Million Mass Effect 3 pulled in.

And the thing about 'precidence' is? People still bought them, they continued to buy them, and continue to buy it.

[A. Pseudonym]

You downloaded it illegally

 

All that I'm going to say in closing is that I did not pirate Mass Effect 3. I rented it. On PS3. So I couldn't have hacked it even if I'd wanted to.

 

Any potential piracy on my part was towards Windows, which I really couldn't be bothered with.

 

Good discussion. See ya next time.

[Ashaman Kovan]

Yeah, extremely unsatisfying. I definitely prefer ME2. Never played ME1.

[bgrishinko]

Extended Ending is being released next week. I'm super excited.

 

Listen, the ending to Mass Effect 3 wasn't a train wreck that everyone makes it out to be. I played it and loved the ambiguity of it all. I've found that the things people geek out on the most are the things that always let them down the most. I've never seen the public happy with a major ending to something like this.

 

That being said: I absolutely thought that the ending was one of the greatest endings in the history of media endings. Why? Because it is the pinnacle of putting you in a brainwashing situation that you don't know about. If BioWare makes it any more obvious that you are being Indoctrinated, it would not be as good. There are weird piles of bodies that didn't exist before, things don't make sense, sound effects are off, colors are wrong... all kinds of things don't align properly, and it is on purpose. The outrage comes from the fact that people didn't know they were being brainwashed and when they were... it sucked. If you were able to plow through it and finish your objective anyway, you were rewarded with life! There was really only one way to wake Shepard up from total Indoctrination, and it was glorious to behold.

 

Rant at me if you want, but I think that this Extended Edition may make things worse for me and better for everyone else.