Bioshock 2 DLC was already on the retail disc, gamers find

[dirt_empire]

Hmm, didn't Bungie do something really cool for people who bought the DLC Maps? THey creted new playlists when the released it! That way people who never had the DLC could still play with people who did have it, though on the original maps, and people who had the DLC Maps could play with OTHER people who had DLC maps. Seems like a simple solution that cou;d've solved this before it started.

As for the fact that they put this content on the disc and then locked it seems a little... dickish. Why?

 

[shadow skill]

Hmm, didn't Bungie do something really cool for people who bought the DLC Maps? THey creted new playlists when the released it! That way people who never had the DLC could still play with people who did have it, though on the original maps, and people who had the DLC Maps could play with OTHER people who had DLC maps. Seems like a simple solution that cou;d've solved this before it started.

As for the fact that they put this content on the disc and then locked it seems a little... dickish. Why?

Because enough people are stupid enough to buy it even after finding this out. Not to mention the hordes of people who will buy the DLC, ignorant of the fact that it is already on the disc.

 

[dirt_empire]

Hmm, didn't Bungie do something really cool for people who bought the DLC Maps? THey creted new playlists when the released it! That way people who never had the DLC could still play with people who did have it, though on the original maps, and people who had the DLC Maps could play with OTHER people who had DLC maps. Seems like a simple solution that cou;d've solved this before it started.

As for the fact that they put this content on the disc and then locked it seems a little... dickish. Why?

Because enough people are stupid enough to buy it even after finding this out. Not to mention the hordes of people who will buy the DLC, ignorant of the fact that it is already on the disc.

This is why I will wait to buy Bioshock2 until it comes out as a $20 platinum hit, if that. Even then I only want to play it for the story which I could get from reading wikipedia or a detailed FAQ.

 

[dirt_empire]

It's ridiculous how dlc is getting to be the way it is. Next thing you know we will be paying for other half of full games where we play it up to a point and it stops like those old arcade games and says please insert another quarter. I hate how its gone.

Dragon Age "Warden's Keep" ring a bell? Unless you have it on the PC you are pretty much paying for a party chest that should've been in the original game. If you DO have it on the PC then congrats, you can mod the hell out of it complete with a Morrigan makeover and a party chest.

 

[shadow skill]

Everyone who reads EULA raise your hand.

All five of you will know that you do NOT "own" anything beyond the physical disc and packaging. What you own is essentially a license, a license which like any other license can be revoked at any time for any reason. That's how software works.

So to everyone who complains about how they "own" the game, read up on it before you make your arguments, because you're basing your arguments on a misconception. You own a pretty case and a shiny disc. And don't ***** about that, that's how it's worked since the days of floppy discs.

As to the DLC, would everyone be happier if it wasn't on the disc but was available on day 1? At what point does this arbitrary "I am not pissed off" rule kick in? Exactly how far from release does something have to be released to be considered not a rip off? Because if an entire second game can be considered a rip off by some, I'd say we're pretty much shit out of luck any way we go. I mean ultimately this comes down to if it's on the disc it should be free.

Special editions have extra material on disc, and those cost extra. If they had simply called this Bioshock 2 Uber Edition would everyone be fine with it?

Really, this whole thing seems more like people complaining about the phrasing of the material rather than the actual action itself.

I don't own the rights to any books I buy either, however I do expect to be able to actually read any book that I purchase. I would love to hear the legal justification for the EULA (This is not even universally accepted in the US.) that essentially tramples over the reasonable expectation that people have that purchasing a software entitles them to actually use the full functionality of what they purchased. If I buy Windows 7 Ultimate I expect to be able to use the full functionality of Windows 7 edition I payed for, not to be charged again to use undisclosed functionality I have already installed.

 

[squid5580]

Ahh, the quote to end all quotes

I am always struck by exactly how ignorant many gamers are of how game or software development actually works. Let me try to explain this for you all:

First, any studio-developed game has a set time limit and budget for development. This should be common sense. All of the time that artists, writers, voice actors, programmers, and QA testers spend working on content is time that they are paid for.

Because of this, there is a set amount of content that can be included in a retail game (which pretty much has a fixed price). This is typically decided early on, and as the game development progresses things are added and removed depending on the difficulties the developer encounters. At each point, a decision is made as to whether X feature is important enough to increase the time/cost of the game development - if it's not, it can get cut from the game. Many of these features might be very cool, and developers can be sad to see them cut, but this happens with every game.

At some point in the development process, the designers have to stop adding new features and content. At this point, the programmers and QA become very busy testing, optimizing, and porting content. In the past, this is the stage where most of the writers, designers, and artists either get fired or get moved to another game.

Instead of firing the content creators, many newer games are deciding to instead have them make more content, to be tested and released separately from the game as DLC. This does not mean that the time that is used to create this is free, or that it is a part of the retail game. In some cases, the designers go back to stuff that was cut from the original game and rework it and fix the problems, because they really didn't want to see it removed in the first place.

While this is happening, the final "gold" version of the game is created. This is the version that first needs to pass the console manufacturers' certifications, and then need to be sent to manufacturing. This can take several weeks. During this time, the programmers and QA can test the DLC content that the rest of the team had been working on. Because they're working off the final version of the game now, and this is just extra content, this process goes a lot faster. It is easily possible that digital content can be tested and ready to be released before the retail versions of the game are even done being manufactured.

But all this time isn't 'free' - the assumption that the people working on this content would otherwise be being paid to add things to the retail game is just stupid. That game development time and budget has already been spent - they would either be working on something else entirely, or looking for a new job.

To create this new stuff, it has to be paid for somehow. For The Stone Prisoner, it's being paid for to see if it helps make up for used game sales - a particular problem for a mostly-linear story-based RPG. The Warden's Keep content, on the other hand, is a marketing promotion to sell the more expensive digital collector's edition (sans cloth map). If you aren't 'paying' for the content in one of those two ways, then you should expect to pay for it directly.

This is no different than Day 1 DLC. We got over that, can we get over this as well?

There is a small difference between day 1 DLC and this. Day 1 DLC is still DLC. Stone Prisoner came it at close to a gig. And they worked on it while the code was being slapped on a disc and int books were being printed.

What Take 2 did was put in extra time and effort into locking the content on the disc. They had to put in more manhours to code the "DLC" so it would be locked and unlocked only by buying. They didn't put in any extra work to improve the product (which is the entire purpose of DLC). There was no hey we got some downtime we can make 20 more challenges. No they made work for themselves by locking us out of content on the disc. Then are forcing us to pay for thier make work project to access all the content on the disc. There isn't new stuff. There was no team testing the DLC. What everyone who is foolish enough to buy this crap is paying for is the time it took the team to lock the content and for them to send your console a code. Nothing like getting rewarded for doing a bit more than nothing but accomplishing far less.

 

[Legendsmith]

For now, I shall pray at the Altar of Valve that they might protect us. But I fear they may be corrupted, too.

Well with the L4d2 "The Passing" DLC coming out, I'm pretty sure the content is not already included in the game. anyone who's gone through the GCF files (as I have) will know this.
(Except possibly the coaster survival map, which you can already play ANYWAY. Ha).
I don't think they're corrupted, but we must be vigilant. Valve listens to its community more than any other developer, if we notice something amiss, they'll listen I'm betting.

 

[bismarck55]

This is unbelievable, people are actually complaining about deceptive and manipulative business practices? This is CAPITALISM people, clearly the most american and therefore wholesome thing EVAR! I for one will not stand by and watch defenceless corporations be slandered, ridiculed and deprived of their god-given right to plunder our wallets. Quickly my friends, to the fanboi-mobile! Nurb's wicked socialist propaganda must be silenced!!11!one1!1!

/Sarcasm

It's a good thing I took a breather between reading and posting. The Banhammer-bait HATRED that was going to spew from my keyboard at certain individuals would not have gone over well.

 

[Irridium]

If that happened without a disclaimer on the box, then they could be sued for deceiving their customers, that is not the case with this DLC.

When you buy a game, you are buying the rights to play it. The data on the disc is irrelevant. If you can play the game, you got what you paid for. You bought the rights to Bioshock 2, you got to play Bioshock 2, you got what you paid for. If you want the rights to use the DLC, you can pay for that too or, if you want, you can choose not to. The physical location of the data is irrelevant.

If you bought a game that didn't work without an extra code, you would have not got what you paid for, which would be illegal.

See, the thing with DLC is that its Downloadable content. Meaning if its on the disk, its not downloadable content, its data that is purposefully locked out from the player. So buying for rights to use DLC is pointless, since there is no DLC.

When I buy it, I buy the rights to play everything on the disk. Locking out a part and saying I have to pay more to play data I basically already have a right to play is bogus.

 

[CheckD3]

DLC is a way for game companies to syphon every penny from our pockets. It's like giving up a grenade launcher with a single grenade and a huge open space to fire it, but charge $2 for every other grenade afterwards, what's the point?

Now, you can get a lot of joy from some of the grenades, but sometimes you miss or it's a dud and you wasted the money. $15 for 5 MW2 with 2 of them being remakes from CoD4 is wrong and a rip-off, but making 10 maps and charging $15 for it, with some being levels BASED OFF of the older models, and the others brand new modes made from an added bonus, more story mode for the game, is a good idea

I think that IW should stop making new MW games, and turn MW2 into a DLC fest, make more story modes, charge $10 for a full add-on, with 3-6 new maps and about 6 full levels of new gameplay is an example of good DLC, and would make not only IW a bunch of money to feed into making new levels and story modes, but also gives gamers more money to spend, thus allowing the evil corp. Activision to release new games that we'd have money to spend on the new games because we aren't shelling out full price for something that could have been turned into the perfect DLC in games

 

[ZeroDotZero]

I don't see the fuss. I bet most people who are complaining haven't played to Rank 40 in the Bioshock 2 multiplayer.

'But its the principle of it' - I'd rather have content on the disc than clogging up my memory. If it was prepared before the game's release, then I would rather have it require a paid unlock than waste my space. Principle my ass.

 

[NickCooley]

Ahh, the quote to end all quotes

I am always struck by exactly how ignorant many gamers are of how game or software development actually works. Let me try to explain this for you all:

First, any studio-developed game has a set time limit and budget for development. This should be common sense. All of the time that artists, writers, voice actors, programmers, and QA testers spend working on content is time that they are paid for.

Because of this, there is a set amount of content that can be included in a retail game (which pretty much has a fixed price). This is typically decided early on, and as the game development progresses things are added and removed depending on the difficulties the developer encounters. At each point, a decision is made as to whether X feature is important enough to increase the time/cost of the game development - if it's not, it can get cut from the game. Many of these features might be very cool, and developers can be sad to see them cut, but this happens with every game.

At some point in the development process, the designers have to stop adding new features and content. At this point, the programmers and QA become very busy testing, optimizing, and porting content. In the past, this is the stage where most of the writers, designers, and artists either get fired or get moved to another game.

Instead of firing the content creators, many newer games are deciding to instead have them make more content, to be tested and released separately from the game as DLC. This does not mean that the time that is used to create this is free, or that it is a part of the retail game. In some cases, the designers go back to stuff that was cut from the original game and rework it and fix the problems, because they really didn't want to see it removed in the first place.

While this is happening, the final "gold" version of the game is created. This is the version that first needs to pass the console manufacturers' certifications, and then need to be sent to manufacturing. This can take several weeks. During this time, the programmers and QA can test the DLC content that the rest of the team had been working on. Because they're working off the final version of the game now, and this is just extra content, this process goes a lot faster. It is easily possible that digital content can be tested and ready to be released before the retail versions of the game are even done being manufactured.

But all this time isn't 'free' - the assumption that the people working on this content would otherwise be being paid to add things to the retail game is just stupid. That game development time and budget has already been spent - they would either be working on something else entirely, or looking for a new job.

To create this new stuff, it has to be paid for somehow. For The Stone Prisoner, it's being paid for to see if it helps make up for used game sales - a particular problem for a mostly-linear story-based RPG. The Warden's Keep content, on the other hand, is a marketing promotion to sell the more expensive digital collector's edition (sans cloth map). If you aren't 'paying' for the content in one of those two ways, then you should expect to pay for it directly.

This is no different than Day 1 DLC. We got over that, can we get over this as well?

Everyone who reads EULA raise your hand.

All five of you will know that you do NOT "own" anything beyond the physical disc and packaging. What you own is essentially a license, a license which like any other license can be revoked at any time for any reason. That's how software works.

So to everyone who complains about how they "own" the game, read up on it before you make your arguments, because you're basing your arguments on a misconception. You own a pretty case and a shiny disc. And don't ***** about that, that's how it's worked since the days of floppy discs.

As to the DLC, would everyone be happier if it wasn't on the disc but was available on day 1? At what point does this arbitrary "I am not pissed off" rule kick in? Exactly how far from release does something have to be released to be considered not a rip off? Because if an entire second game can be considered a rip off by some, I'd say we're pretty much shit out of luck any way we go. I mean ultimately this comes down to if it's on the disc it should be free.

Special editions have extra material on disc, and those cost extra. If they had simply called this Bioshock 2 Uber Edition would everyone be fine with it?

Really, this whole thing seems more like people complaining about the phrasing of the material rather than the actual action itself.

These quotes explain everything. Read until the FALSE sense of entitlement leaves your mind

 

[Plurralbles]

On the box it says it has the second disc.

And Bioshock 2 doesn't advertise anything.


Also, if it's such a HUGE problem that it's not actually "downloadable" content, then would you stop bleeding if they said it was "unlockable" content?

I'm going to ignore your insult.

And actually, just stop arguing because you can't do so in an intelligent manner. You must insult someone in order to convince yourself that your side is right.

I'm not trying to be confrontational here, but I don't really see an insult.

actually, that was not what I thought i was quoting at all.

I meant to reply to a post where it said, "stop your bleeding" Which is the person calling me a PMS-ing girl for not wanting to pay extra for stuff that was ready before launch.

 

[MR T3D]

Ahh, the quote to end all quotes

I am always struck by exactly how ignorant many gamers are of how game or software development actually works. Let me try to explain this for you all:

First, any studio-developed game has a set time limit and budget for development. This should be common sense. All of the time that artists, writers, voice actors, programmers, and QA testers spend working on content is time that they are paid for.

Because of this, there is a set amount of content that can be included in a retail game (which pretty much has a fixed price). This is typically decided early on, and as the game development progresses things are added and removed depending on the difficulties the developer encounters. At each point, a decision is made as to whether X feature is important enough to increase the time/cost of the game development - if it's not, it can get cut from the game. Many of these features might be very cool, and developers can be sad to see them cut, but this happens with every game.

At some point in the development process, the designers have to stop adding new features and content. At this point, the programmers and QA become very busy testing, optimizing, and porting content. In the past, this is the stage where most of the writers, designers, and artists either get fired or get moved to another game.

Instead of firing the content creators, many newer games are deciding to instead have them make more content, to be tested and released separately from the game as DLC. This does not mean that the time that is used to create this is free, or that it is a part of the retail game. In some cases, the designers go back to stuff that was cut from the original game and rework it and fix the problems, because they really didn't want to see it removed in the first place.

While this is happening, the final "gold" version of the game is created. This is the version that first needs to pass the console manufacturers' certifications, and then need to be sent to manufacturing. This can take several weeks. During this time, the programmers and QA can test the DLC content that the rest of the team had been working on. Because they're working off the final version of the game now, and this is just extra content, this process goes a lot faster. It is easily possible that digital content can be tested and ready to be released before the retail versions of the game are even done being manufactured.

But all this time isn't 'free' - the assumption that the people working on this content would otherwise be being paid to add things to the retail game is just stupid. That game development time and budget has already been spent - they would either be working on something else entirely, or looking for a new job.

To create this new stuff, it has to be paid for somehow. For The Stone Prisoner, it's being paid for to see if it helps make up for used game sales - a particular problem for a mostly-linear story-based RPG. The Warden's Keep content, on the other hand, is a marketing promotion to sell the more expensive digital collector's edition (sans cloth map). If you aren't 'paying' for the content in one of those two ways, then you should expect to pay for it directly.

This is no different than Day 1 DLC. We got over that, can we get over this as well?

Everyone who reads EULA raise your hand.

All five of you will know that you do NOT "own" anything beyond the physical disc and packaging. What you own is essentially a license, a license which like any other license can be revoked at any time for any reason. That's how software works.

So to everyone who complains about how they "own" the game, read up on it before you make your arguments, because you're basing your arguments on a misconception. You own a pretty case and a shiny disc. And don't ***** about that, that's how it's worked since the days of floppy discs.

As to the DLC, would everyone be happier if it wasn't on the disc but was available on day 1? At what point does this arbitrary "I am not pissed off" rule kick in? Exactly how far from release does something have to be released to be considered not a rip off? Because if an entire second game can be considered a rip off by some, I'd say we're pretty much shit out of luck any way we go. I mean ultimately this comes down to if it's on the disc it should be free.

Special editions have extra material on disc, and those cost extra. If they had simply called this Bioshock 2 Uber Edition would everyone be fine with it?

Really, this whole thing seems more like people complaining about the phrasing of the material rather than the actual action itself.

These quotes explain everything. Read until the FALSE sense of entitlement leaves your mind

It's legal, but it sure as hell isn't right to make the game and have some content on the disk require additional payment.
thing is, they made the content before the game 'went gold' so it's not exactly like they had put in a lot of extra time and programming sweat and tears.
yeah, if it were actual DLC, which would imply that they made the content after sending the game to evaluation, then the first argument is somewhat valid.
And if it were in some extra price special edition, I'd call BS on that just as much.
but then, I'm old-school PC gamer whom believes in community made maps and modifications, FOR FREE, and in this day and age there are more than enough folks content with paying more to make these developers realize they can get away with this madness. wallets like mine pale in numbers to wallets than bend over and take it.

 

[squid5580]

it's not a big deal. If it was expensive then sure, but it's 5 dollars for christ's sake.
You want it, pay for it. That's it.
Maybe if it made the game unbalanced then people would have cause to compain. It doesn't though. Stop bitching.

Yes we are unhappy so we will now stop bitching and start taking it dry just for you. Ok? Happy now? Or you could find that lost brain cell of yours realize this is a thread about bitching and move on to the next thread to spread your ignorance.

Escuse me? Reported. Keep it civil buddy.
Disagreeing with you does not make me stupid. Making baseless personal insults when somebody says something you disagree with is a good indicator of it though.

Not bothering to read the posts makes you ignorant. Coming in with the whole it is only 5 bucks is ignorant. DO you think we care if it is 5 bucks or 5 cents? Did it ever cross your mind for just one second that it isn't about the cost? No of course not otherwise you wouldn't spout such ignorance.

And telling us to stop bitching makes you arrogant! What gives you the right to tell us what we can or can't do? We are unhappy. We are discussing our unhappiness. Unless of ccourse you have some god given right to come into a thread and tell us to stop.

 

[Nurb]

Everyone who reads EULA raise your hand.

All five of you will know that you do NOT "own" anything beyond the physical disc and packaging. What you own is essentially a license, a license which like any other license can be revoked at any time for any reason. That's how software works.

So to everyone who complains about how they "own" the game, read up on it before you make your arguments, because you're basing your arguments on a misconception. You own a pretty case and a shiny disc. And don't ***** about that, that's how it's worked since the days of floppy discs.

As to the DLC, would everyone be happier if it wasn't on the disc but was available on day 1? At what point does this arbitrary "I am not pissed off" rule kick in? Exactly how far from release does something have to be released to be considered not a rip off? Because if an entire second game can be considered a rip off by some, I'd say we're pretty much shit out of luck any way we go. I mean ultimately this comes down to if it's on the disc it should be free.

Special editions have extra material on disc, and those cost extra. If they had simply called this Bioshock 2 Uber Edition would everyone be fine with it?

Really, this whole thing seems more like people complaining about the phrasing of the material rather than the actual action itself.

EULAs are thrown out in court frequently because they violate the First-sale doctrine as determined by the ruling of Vernor v. Autodesk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernor_v._Autodesk,_Inc.

United States v. Wise (9th Cir. 1977) If the transferee was entitled to keep the copy acquired from the copyright holder, it was a sale. If the transferee was required to return the copy, it was not a sale.

Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc. Ruling: Given the conflicting precedents, the court felt compelled to rely on the earliest precedent, Wise, and thus found in Vernor's favor.

In this case, meaning that people are right to expect they should have access to all data that is on the disc they just purchsed so long as there's no monthly fee like for an MMO.