ME3 Prothean DLC on disc after all

[PhantomEcho]

The squadmate is on the disc but the mission probably wasn't, at least that's what the download in origin would suggest.

And if what they define as piracy is true, there's a LOT of modders in trouble, I mean have you seen Skyrim mods? Editing that code and putting whatever they wanted in there! Pirates all of you!

the difference is Bethesda lets them do it, and the EULA of the creation kit is equally as restrictive.

I want you to read that back to yourself. Read it a few times. What you are saying is this:

I have given money to a company, and they have given me nothing in return.

They have the right to take everything back if they want to, without giving me back my money.

You cannot equate this to a running service, such as an MMO or real world resort or club, as there are no more upkeep costs after development. Bug fixes do not count as an upkeep cost, as they are developers repairing mistakes on the product they've made.

If this is the case, and this is the future of the gaming industry, then I think I'll stop playing games altogether. It hardly seems worth it to pay for something I can't own.

Please, stop supporting bad business practises. Companies have their own best interests at heart, and if you allow them to effectively rob you, they will. It doesn't make them bad people... it is only a reflection on you.

They did give you something in return for the money you payed, a license.

please actually read what someone types before responding to it.

this isn't the "futue" of gaming. EULA's have been almost the exact same since 1990.

the only difference now is that with the internet and services like Origins they finally have the means to do what they always legally could.

This? This is the way our world ends... mired in obscurity and intentional manipulation of the human brain's non-native capability to process and understand abstract thoughts.

Without careful training and explicit instructions, the average human isn't going to understand the obfuscated abstract distinctions made within their End User License Agreements. Our brains have been programmed for thousands of years to understand the concept of "I give, you take, you give, I take" as the primary means of exchange.

The information age has brought about the easily-exploited weakness of a company being able to abuse its customers by saying "You pay us for our product, but you don't get the product itself. You get permission to USE the product, but only in the way we say you can."


This pivotal distinction in the mechanics of trade has been the absolute bane of the human economic system in the modern age. There is no longer a clear connection between the consumer and what they are actually paying for, and as a result... the consumer is paying the price. This isn't just bad for the consumer, either.

This is bad for business.

But the people in authorities within businesses like these are insulated from the costs. The CEO isn't going to starve because the company lost a few hundred thousand dollars. Instead, that loss will be shouldered by the lesser employees... usually in the form of a loss of benefits, retirement options, office accoutrements, and (if the situation is bad enough, or the company shady enough) a loss of your job.

After all, the company doesn't matter either. It's just a source of wealth.

When a CEO amasses enough money and clout that the company he runs no longer matters to him, he can simply let it drive itself into the ground and walk away without any personal loss. This is why things, as they are, will never change.

Not until consumers change.

 

[beniki]

I haven't bought the game. I'm waiting for a version that I'll actually feel comfortable buying first. It's not that I can't afford the game, but I'm willing to wait for something that seems worth the price.

If I pay for something, I expect to own it. If they are selling a license, then that should be made explicitly clear, on the box, in the store, and by the people selling it. If it isn't marked down somewhere, then I will have to assume that I own everything that I pay for in my hand at the time.

At worst, the company is taking your money, and retaining ownership of the product. I've previously said why it is not a service that can be taken away after purchase. A rather gentle way of robbing you, but you're still out of pocket.

At best, they are advertising a complete product, when it is in fact, only a license.

Either option is a bad business practise, which you are allowing to happen. Don't let it happen.

Just about every game made now has the words "this product is subject to a licensing agreement" on the box.

It is in that small text on the bottom of the back of the box that you are expected to read before purchase.

Not doing so is legally considered to be the solely the fault of the customers.

I've just looked.

I concede that I'm an idiot... but I still think it's bad business practise to put it like that. Most of the confusion would go away if this was more clear.

 

[Elamdri]

I haven't bought the game. I'm waiting for a version that I'll actually feel comfortable buying first. It's not that I can't afford the game, but I'm willing to wait for something that seems worth the price.

Well that is smart on your part at least

If I pay for something, I expect to own it. If they are selling a license, then that should be made explicitly clear, on the box, in the store, and by the people selling it. If it isn't marked down somewhere, then I will have to assume that I own everything that I pay for in my hand at the time.

Please, don't feign ignorance here. You know like everyone else born after 2000 that software is always subject to a license and that you don't actually own the product. You're put on constructive notice that there exists a EULA at the very least and you either assent to it by clicking an OK button or installing the software.

At worst, the company is taking your money, and retaining ownership of the product. I've previously said why it is not a service that can be taken away after purchase. A rather gentle way of robbing you, but you're still out of pocket.

At best, they are advertising a complete product, when it is in fact, only a license.

Either option is a bad business practise, which you are allowing to happen. Don't let it happen.

Of course they are retaining ownership of the software. If they didn't, then you could make and sell your own copies of Mass Effect 3. A License is not a service, it is a contract right you purchase to use the property of another. Selling you a license does NOT mean you are being sold an "incomplete product."

 

[beniki]

I did read. It didn't make any sense to me. Not the picture showing the development cycle. That's pretty simple, and it's only a mistake on EA BioWare's part to make it Day 1 DLC, rather than content they can sell a month later... and a bigger mistake to include the data on the disc if they don't want people to access it. It only makes people suspicious.

What I found to be nonsensical was the assumption that you've bought a license, rather than a physical product, when it's marketed and sold as a physical product.

It isn't marked and sold as a physical product.

Games state on the back of their boxes that "this product is subject to a licensing agreement"
.
.

Also why should bioware have to sit on finished content because of schizophrenic paranoia on the consumers side?

that is just silly.

Because good business is about making everyone happy with a deal, and making sure no one feels cheated.

 

[SajuukKhar]

That image may be true in some cases, but its not true in all cases, and its 100% incorrect to use in trying to defend the 'From Ashes' DLC. But it's not even correct when looking at the facts at hand.
Where in that image does it shows that assets are striped from the main game to be made into DLC later. Or where DLC assets are able to be placed into the "core" game before its shipped to make DLC downloading quicker/faster.

From what BioWare and EA have tried to make is believe (along with that continued use of that factually incorrect image for THIS case), is that everything about 'From Ashes' was made 100% in a vacuum from the main game and the two [DLC/Core Game] teams were separated from each other. What do they believe their customers are, mouth breathing morons?

If BioWare was just 100% honest and stated that many of the DLC ideas, concepts, artwork and audio work was completed along with the core team and that they only included as much as the DLC components into the main game before going gold, this would have all blown over in a mater of days.. WEEKS ago.
But because BioWare and EA have continued act dismissive toward their fans and continued to perverse the lie that nothing about the DLC was even integral or developed along with the core game development -- people have the right to be god honestly angry when the truth shows 100% otherwise.

Nowhere in the image does it shows items are stripped form the main game. Nice try though.

Secondly animations/character skin/dialog are all very easy and very quick things to do. they can be done in the pre-production phase of the DLC and put into the base game during its testing phase.

Also they said the DLC was made after the base game was done. The testing phase is considered done from a development standpoint, they should have been more clear on that though.

Beyond that they don't owe anyone an explanation. They have stated what they did, and did not ie. customer ignorance on the subject of what constitutes done isn't their fault.

 

[kouriichi]

Why do you guys not expect this from EA?

They are greedy, selfish, and they hate their customers.

I refuse to get Origin, I refuse to support them. I buy the games used.

They are a plague on gaming society.

^This guy has the right idea (And an amazing avatar)

If you dont like it, dont support the company. I dont mean pirate, i mean go out and rent it instead like i did. Barrow it from a friend. Wait till its used.

"Oh no, day one DLC". Well either your going to get it, or your not going to get it. It doesnt matter what day it comes out. It could have came out day one, or 3 months later. Either way, its still DLC. Your going to be charged 10 bucks for it, and theres nothing we can do about it.
Complaining about it is pointless. All were doing is saying "We want this DLC so bad were willing to make a fuss about it."

Im not saying its good business practice, or that i agree with it. But the general idea is "Oh well, get over it."

 

[Elamdri]

This? This is the way our world ends... mired in obscurity and intentional manipulation of the human brain's non-native capability to process and understand abstract thoughts.

Without careful training and explicit instructions, the average human isn't going to understand the obfuscated abstract distinctions made within their End User License Agreements. Our brains have been programmed for thousands of years to understand the concept of "I give, you take, you give, I take" as the primary means of exchange.

The information age has brought about the easily-exploited weakness of a company being able to abuse its customers by saying "You pay us for our product, but you don't get the product itself. You get permission to USE the product, but only in the way we say you can."


This pivotal distinction in the mechanics of trade has been the absolute bane of the human economic system in the modern age. There is no longer a clear connection between the consumer and what they are actually paying for, and as a result... the consumer is paying the price. This isn't just bad for the consumer, either.

This is bad for business.

But the people in authorities within businesses like these are insulated from the costs. The CEO isn't going to starve because the company lost a few hundred thousand dollars. Instead, that loss will be shouldered by the lesser employees... usually in the form of a loss of benefits, retirement options, office accoutrements, and (if the situation is bad enough, or the company shady enough) a loss of your job.

After all, the company doesn't matter either. It's just a source of wealth.

When a CEO amasses enough money and clout that the company he runs no longer matters to him, he can simply let it drive itself into the ground and walk away without any personal loss. This is why things, as they are, will never change.

Not until consumers change.

Licenses are a necessity of intellectual property, be it games, music or movies. The problem is that a company cannot sell you the actual game, music, or movie, because then you would OWN the game, music, or movie. Then what prevents you from copying it, selling it, or doing whatever else you want with it? You own it. That's where the license comes in. Under a licensing agreement, you don't own the property, you own the right to use the property.

 

[SajuukKhar]

This? This is the way our world ends... mired in obscurity and intentional manipulation of the human brain's non-native capability to process and understand abstract thoughts.

Without careful training and explicit instructions, the average human isn't going to understand the obfuscated abstract distinctions made within their End User License Agreements. Our brains have been programmed for thousands of years to understand the concept of "I give, you take, you give, I take" as the primary means of exchange.

The information age has brought about the easily-exploited weakness of a company being able to abuse its customers by saying "You pay us for our product, but you don't get the product itself. You get permission to USE the product, but only in the way we say you can."


This pivotal distinction in the mechanics of trade has been the absolute bane of the human economic system in the modern age. There is no longer a clear connection between the consumer and what they are actually paying for, and as a result... the consumer is paying the price. This isn't just bad for the consumer, either.

This is bad for business.

But the people in authorities within businesses like these are insulated from the costs. The CEO isn't going to starve because the company lost a few hundred thousand dollars. Instead, that loss will be shouldered by the lesser employees... usually in the form of a loss of benefits, retirement options, office accoutrements, and (if the situation is bad enough, or the company shady enough) a loss of your job.

After all, the company doesn't matter either. It's just a source of wealth.

When a CEO amasses enough money and clout that the company he runs no longer matters to him, he can simply let it drive itself into the ground and walk away without any personal loss. This is why things, as they are, will never change.

Not until consumers change.

Licenses are a necessity of intellectual property, be it games, music or movies. The problem is that a company cannot sell you the actual game, music, or movie, because then you would OWN the game, music, or movie. Then what prevents you from copying it, selling it, or doing whatever else you want with it? You own it. That's where the license comes in. Under a licensing agreement, you don't own the property, you own the right to use the property.

What Elamdri said.

 

[Xpheyel]

snip

1. You are aware it is possible to put game data on a disk during the testing phase?

Sure. But their defense was that they made it when they couldn't.

2. Legally you don't own the game disk, it had been upheld in several courts, though there are also several in which it hasn't. It really depends on what court you get into.

You wanna point me to where they said that you don't own the physical media of the game disk? If I destroy a video game disk by accident or purpose, I'm destroying EA's property now? The disk isn't what is recorded on the disk.

3. software modification isn't illegal in many circumstances in which the developers allow it, I.e. Bethesda and the Elder scrolls games.

No I'm pretty sure it just isn't illegal, period. As long as it's to software you've purchased. It might be against an EULA. You'll find all kinds of people saying it is or isn't legal to do that. Circumventing DRM is against many EULAs but it isn't illegal to use a copy that does so if you own a legal copy also.

 

[T_ConX]

snip

Yes because saying you don't own the disk or the box, both of which are legally true, makes me a troll?

So what you're saying is... I can walk into a Best Buy, purchase a boxed, physical copy of a game at full price...

And not LEGALLY own the physical object I'm leaving the store with.

Just about every game made now has the words "this product is subject to a licensing agreement" on the box.

It is in that small text on the bottom of the back of the box that you are expected to read before purchase.

Really? I can't seem to find it on my copy of AC:Revelations...

Look, it's bad enough that publishers are trying to push this 'Games as Licenses' crap, but having you parrot the though is worse.

Besides, companies do this kind of thing all the time. A while back, the RIAA (spit) said that the very act of copying songs from a CD to a hard drive was copyright infringement. That's right. Copying music from YOUR OWN CD onto YOUR OWN HARD DRIVE was piracy...

So why hasn't anyone been arrested for it? Well, mostly because the only people who believed that stupid crap was the industry. They never got a judge to agree with them. Of course, they managed to convince a few half-wits into believing it was illegal, forcing them to re-purchase their favorite songs on iTunes.

So until I see an actual judge say that buying a game only gets you a license for that game... Then as far as I care, The Protean is on the disc, and you should have to pay $10 to access him.

 

[SajuukKhar]

Sure. But their defense was that they made it when they couldn't.

Actually they said the game was done, testing phase is considered "content complete" and done.

 

[Murmillos]

Nowhere in the image does it shows items are stripped form the main game. Nice try though.

DUH.. that's what I was asking. Where is it. Good job on your reading skills.

Secondly animations/character skin/dialog are all very easy and very quick things to do. they can be done in the pre-production phase of the DLC and put into the base game during its testing phase.

But Casey said this DLC was only completed AFTER the "Core" game was completed. So how could animations/skins/dialog be in the "Core" game if it was done after?

Again, you are clearly not understanding the argument of the problem. They [the game developers] have clearly tried to perverse the idea that this DLC was ONLY developed on AFTER the core game was completed. So again, how can most of his assets be in the Core game if it was done after. Either we are all seeing the same illusion, or they lied to us.

Also they said the DLC was made after the base game was done. The testing phase is considered done from a development standpoint, they should have been more clear on that though.

It looks like the only thing completed AFTER the core game was completed, was the Eden Prime mission (videos and map). Everything else was completed along with the core game. All of the voice work. Some of it was packaged with the DLC; but I doubt all that extra voice work was completed in that 2 months after the core game was completed.

Beyond that they don't owe anyone an explanation. They have stated what they did, and did not ie. customer ignorance on the subject of what constitutes done isn't their fault.

Right right, they don't have to explain themselves, because their actions have already spoken for them.

 

[beniki]

I haven't bought the game. I'm waiting for a version that I'll actually feel comfortable buying first. It's not that I can't afford the game, but I'm willing to wait for something that seems worth the price.

Well that is smart on your part at least

If I pay for something, I expect to own it. If they are selling a license, then that should be made explicitly clear, on the box, in the store, and by the people selling it. If it isn't marked down somewhere, then I will have to assume that I own everything that I pay for in my hand at the time.

Please, don't feign ignorance here. You know like everyone else born after 2000 that software is always subject to a license and that you don't actually own the product. You're put on constructive notice that there exists a EULA at the very least and you either assent to it by clicking an OK button or installing the software.

At worst, the company is taking your money, and retaining ownership of the product. I've previously said why it is not a service that can be taken away after purchase. A rather gentle way of robbing you, but you're still out of pocket.

At best, they are advertising a complete product, when it is in fact, only a license.

Either option is a bad business practise, which you are allowing to happen. Don't let it happen.

Of course they are retaining ownership of the software. If they didn't, then you could make and sell your own copies of Mass Effect 3. A License is not a service, it is a contract right you purchase to use the property of another. Selling you a license does NOT mean you are being sold an "incomplete product."

Not feigned ignorance, actual ignorance. It shames me to say it, but I've been clicking 'OK' on those EULAs for years without reading them, or understanding what they were.

I wonder how many other people do the same thing, and if all the anger would disappear if companies were more clear about what consumers were buying.

...

I feel doubly stupid, since I've been buying licenses for Anti-virus software and other programs for years too, and have always known what I was buying. I don't know why games fell into a blank spot.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

Well f*** that for a joke, once you own it, you can't be expected not to use it to its full potential if you know how. Now I hate Bioware already for all this DLC, Collectors' Editions, pre-order bonus bullshit that they're pulling, but I think it serves them right if people access DLC that's on the disc without paying for it. You don't sell someone a car and say "By the way, if you want to open the passenger side door, you have to come back with another 30 dollars" and expect them not to just open the f***ing door whenever they feel like it...because it's THEIR CAR. As a more general thing, I hate that videogame companies are beginning to think that their products are somehow exempt from the rules that govern all other products. DLC (that ISN'T on the disc) is just at the threshold of what I consider acceptable. I think it's immoral, but I can't say anything that makes it wrong. Now free DLC, that's almost a lost art, but it's one of the most awesome things a developer can do for a community. Restricting multiplayer access from used games I consider unacceptable, because it reduces the value of the game once the buyer has it without reflecting that in the asking price (the buyer cannot then provide the full product to their buyer, resulting in a lower price).

Look I'm rambling, it just fucking ANNOYS ME, but in essence, if you can get at the content, use it, Bioware knew what they were doing and they hardly have to moral right to restrict you from something that you've bought and have the abiliity to access without reflecting that in the price.

And don't give me license agreement bullshit. Maybe I have poor sight and don't read English.

[Captcha: Tace Tuesday. Am I missing something, or is it Monday?]

 

[SajuukKhar]

snip

The core game is considered done when it goes into testing phase, they spent time in the testing phase to copy-paste the animations from one squad-mate to another, since most of the games characters use the same animations just slightly altered for height, and did the voice work.

All of THAT was done during the time the game is testing phase and considered complete, and that is why THOSE things were on the disk. There is nothing preventing them from putting game data on a disk during the testing phase.

So what you're saying is... I can walk into a Best Buy, purchase a boxed, physical copy of a game at full price...

And not LEGALLY own the physical object I'm leaving the store with.

Yes because legally you don't own the disk you own the license. It has been that way since the 90's

Really? I can't seem to find it on my copy of AC:Revelations...

Look, it's bad enough that publishers are trying to push this 'Games as Licenses' crap, but having you parrot the though is worse.

It should be in the very small text at the bottom of the back of the box.

Secondly they aren't "pushing" anything, its been that way since the 90's, they have had us on the Ball and chain for ages.

Thirdly I never said i agree with it, just that it is legally the way things are. dont make assumptions about my views.

Besides, companies do this kind of thing all the time. A while back, the RIAA (spit) said that the very act of copying songs from a CD to a hard drive was copyright infringement. That's right. Copying music from YOUR OWN CD onto YOUR OWN HARD DRIVE was piracy...

Well if the license that the music CD said you couldn't they would be legally correct.

quote="T_ConX" post="9.353853.14049888"]So why hasn't anyone been arrested for it? Well, mostly because the only people who believed that stupid crap was the industry. They never got a judge to agree with them. Of course, they managed to convince a few half-wits into believing it was illegal, forcing them to re-purchase their favorite songs on iTunes.

So until I see an actual judge say that buying a game only gets you a license for that game... Then as far as I care, The Protean is on the disc, and you should have to pay $10 to access him.[/quote]

Because it costs more money for EA to arrest everyone who breaks open game files then they could possibly make back. They aren't inclined to actually go through with it.

Secondly people HAVE been arrested for it before, it is just rare.

thirdly there are many court ruling were judges have said that. Look them up.

 

[black_knight1337]

Ea Bioware is wrong on so many levels with this. Firstly they are selling the rights to the use of the content provided on the disc. If this happens to include dlc content then thats there own mistake. Secondly they are saying that modding is considered as piracy. This is a total load of bullshit. I am not stealing anything from bioware by making a mod. All I am doing is changing the way in which the game is played. I understand that this may be against there license agreement however it is not piracy.

@SajuukKhar
Please give me a link to where it says that I am not allowed the content that I paid to use.

 

[Elamdri]

Not feigned ignorance, actual ignorance. It shames me to say it, but I've been clicking 'OK' on those EULAs for years without reading them, or understanding what they were.

I wonder how many other people do the same thing, and if all the anger would disappear if companies were more clear about what consumers were buying.

...

I feel doubly stupid, since I've been buying licenses for Anti-virus software and other programs for years too, and have always known what I was buying. I don't know why games fell into a blank spot.

Sorry, didn't mean to come off sounding...mean. Here is the thing about ownership vs. licensing.

If I sell you a pizza, I have completely given up my rights to that pizza. You now own that pizza and can do whatever you want with the pizza. I can't complain if you cut that pizza up into 8 slices and then sell each slice for twice what you paid me for the pizza.

Now, that system services tangible property fine. But intellectual property is different.

If I sell you ownership of a video game, a song or a movie, you OWN it, just like you owned that pizza. I don't own it anymore. So if I sell someone else a copy of that media, I've got two problems. The first problem is that I've sold something that belongs to you. The second problem is that I have sold something I didn't have the right to sell to someone else. Now I've got some real problems.

Therefore, I have two things I could do to rectify this:

1: I could sell you THE GAME, for whatever price I think would compensate me for it. So figure...whatever it cost to make Mass Effect 3 and a little extra for profit. Then you are free to do what you like with the game, and I don't have to worry about

2: I can license the media. This way, I retain ownership of the property. You can use the property as much as you like, but I can still make copies and sell the media without violating any rights you have. Likewise, you cannot make copies and sell the media without violating my rights.

Now, the really issue with licenses is that the contract that creates the license is pretty one sided, and well that sucks. But your ultimate remedy as a consumer is that a company can't force you to buy their product. EA can't make you buy ME3 and agree to their terms.

Now, this isn't to say go out and read every EULA for everything you ever purchase, because most of the time EULAs are structured to never really crop up if you use a product as intended. But it is important to know what things are commonly forbidden under EULAs (Things like modifying, copying, selling content).

 

[SajuukKhar]

Ea Bioware is wrong on so many levels with this. Firstly they are selling the rights to the use of the content provided on the disc. If this happens to include dlc content then thats there own mistake. Secondly they are saying that modding is considered as piracy. This is a total load of bullshit. I am not stealing anything from bioware by making a mod. All I am doing is changing the way in which the game is played. I understand that this may be against there license agreement however it is not piracy.

@SajuukKhar
Please give me a link to where it says that I am not allowed the content that I paid to use.

You didn't pay for the content you paid for a license.

the ME3 EULA can be found here
http://www.ea.com/1/product-eulas

 

[madster11]

Wait, people actually needed MORE reason to call EA a bunch of moronic fucktards?

I purchased the fucking disc, the content is on the disc, and you can get stuffed if you think it's piracy when you unlock something YOU PAYED FOR.

Why the FUCK do video games get away with this?
They don't try this shit with movies or ebooks, but suddenly because video games are obviously so much different they can get away with making you pay for a product you've already bought?

This is the same sort of thing as if you bought a DVD and had to pay $5 to unlock the directors edition already on the disc.