Pachter: On-Disc DLC Is "Just Plain Greed"

[RvLeshrac]

Well, one of the big issues here is that game companies like to argue that you don't own anything. They are giving you permission to play with one of their toys, permission they maintain they can remove or change the terms of at any given time.

Well, the thing is that that should be illegal since you sign a contract without ever reading, seeing or even knowing there is one.

I go in a store, buy a game. There is nowhere written that I don't own the game. There is no EULA that I accept.
I see the EULA only once I come home and start the installation of the game. But then if I don't want to accept the EULA, I have no other choice but to say goodbye to my money. I can't use it, I can't give it back.

You might think "that should be illegal," but it isn't. So don't use that phrase.

When you talk about the world, or business practices, you need to talk about the world we live in. You can say "We should make it illegal to...", but saying "that should be illegal" doesn't further the discussion.

 

[RvLeshrac]

I wouldn't recommend using Pachter as your defense if you decide to go this route. Even if you can make the case that you "own" the contents of the disk (which itself is increasingly dicey), you probably enter into a contract not to "reverse engineer" the game by putting it into your system of choice, and accessing the software by non-approved means may mean that you've effectively done just that.

Please to learn the legal definition of "reverse engineering," kthx.

 

[OldNewNewOld]

Well, one of the big issues here is that game companies like to argue that you don't own anything. They are giving you permission to play with one of their toys, permission they maintain they can remove or change the terms of at any given time.

Well, the thing is that that should be illegal since you sign a contract without ever reading, seeing or even knowing there is one.

I go in a store, buy a game. There is nowhere written that I don't own the game. There is no EULA that I accept.
I see the EULA only once I come home and start the installation of the game. But then if I don't want to accept the EULA, I have no other choice but to say goodbye to my money. I can't use it, I can't give it back.

You might think "that should be illegal," but it isn't. So don't use that phrase.

When you talk about the world, or business practices, you need to talk about the world we live in. You can say "We should make it illegal to...", but saying "that should be illegal" doesn't further the discussion.

Well, it doesn't hold any legal ground in my country.
That's why I said it should be illegal, like illegal on a global level. I know it is legal, unfortunately.

AFAIK, it's barely legal in the EU.

EDIT:
I'm saying SHOULD because I can't do anything to change that in the USA. I'm not a citizen, nor do I want to. I'm just saying that it should be illegal, maybe some people reading that will realize and try to change it.

 

[Therumancer]

Well, one of the big issues here is that game companies like to argue that you don't own anything. They are giving you permission to play with one of their toys, permission they maintain they can remove or change the terms of at any given time.

Well, the thing is that that should be illegal since you sign a contract without ever reading, seeing or even knowing there is one.

I go in a store, buy a game. There is nowhere written that I don't own the game. There is no EULA that I accept.
I see the EULA only once I come home and start the installation of the game. But then if I don't want to accept the EULA, I have no other choice but to say goodbye to my money. I can't use it, I can't give it back.

A valid point, and one I've mentioned before. I was a Criminal Justice major and mostly picked up other stuff about the law in regards to a very specific area (working Casino Security for a long time) but when I was in school we were required to learn a bit about other kinds of law and how they differed and how they generally worked.

Contract law is pretty much it's own little specialization, but just from the basics, in the US what the gaming industry is doing here should be illegal. By definition they should have you sign the contract BEFORE the product is purchused and money changes hands. What's more these contracts are complicated enough where they shouldn't be binding because I don't think they would qualify as being concise enough for the average person to understand. Having them notarized would be a way around that (more or less) but needless to say that doesn't happen. Heck these EULAs also frequently referance laws that it doesn't provide as an attachment to the contract.

I'm not saying you'd nessicarly win on those grounds, just that it seems very dubious, and no challenge I have yet seen has attacked EULAs from those directions. I tend to chalk that up to the lawyers bringing cases against the the gaming industry (when it happens) being out of their element, with most of the specialists who could fight that and win having accepted money so as not to be able to act against the companies due to a "conflict of interests" even if they don't actually represent the companies directly. Not to mention the budget your typical gamer, or even group of gamers (which has been prohibited) has to work with to fight what is going to be a long, drawn out case. Really to have this kind of thing properly heard the goverment would have to get involved and bring the case itself, and that's entirely dependant on the politicians not having been bought off. With states getting involved with game studios nowadays and even investing in them (as we say with 38 Studios and Rhode Island), the goverment rapidly is having no real motivation for seeing the right thing as goverments (state, federal) are rapidly become partners in this garbage.

When it comes purely to the contract aspect of things, digital purchuses are a little differant because at least there it can be argued that you are ageeing to a EULA of some sort as part of the purchusing process (and you frequently have to click on it for the payment to be taken). Of course whether those contracts would pass the basic test of being concise and understandable to both parties is debatable. On merits of sheer length I'd imagine your typical EULA should technically be declared unbinding in court unless there was a lot more behind the agreement (like Notaries representing both parties to act as witnesses to understanding and intent). Every time a EULA has been challenged the avenue of attack has been absolutly borked, and to my knowledge nobody has gone so far as to actually challenge their very right to exist or be considered contracts on a fundemental level, and if they did it, they probably did it badly with a lawyer who had no clue.

 

[Murmillos]

I think games of any sort are willing to deal with DLC as long as it feels fair.

PAID day-one DLC (if its seen as typically short and non-trivial to the non OCD-horders) as fair, because most of us have come to understand that there is a time gap between a game finally being "done" to the game being in our consoles.
This time can be used to find last minute bugs, create extra content that couldn't make it in the core game, etc.etc. (but even this is tricky line here between "feels like extra last minute made" and "cut core feature to be sold for extra revenue for the publisher" *cough*Javik*cough*)

On-Disk DLC buggers this fairness line and it just rots as a greedy cash grab. The content was created well in advanced to be shipped along with the core game -- and yet seems to warrant its own price tag? That may not have been their intentions, but that is how its perceived.

 

[The Wooster]

The comments on these types of articles are usually aggravating rage-festivals, but you guys are making some good points and keeping things fairly civil. Nice work.

 

[Bvenged]

If there's DLC on the disc, I'm not buying it. Plain and simple. Never have, never will.

Even if it was Fallout 4, or Halo 4, or Rainbow Six Patriots, or Far Cry 3, or Bioshock Infinite, or the best game ever made: If it's on the disc when I buy it and the publishers want me to pay extra to access it, I don't want it. Not even if it came with a free bowl of trifle [https://encrypted-tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRfTuETLp5_YJenPCVmSVxkVWN6z7ABsQ-8M8eusNPwVveX9TvY]. I'll buy the game, but not the extra (but usually quite profound) content.

I just wish the majority of other gamers followed this mentality of mine, just this once. It would actually do our industry some good for a change. I.E. look at Capcom. they're probably still doing Day One DLC, a fight for another day, but at least you don't have locked-out content on YOUR disc.

Best scenario, drives down production costs, possibly drives down overall retail costs and gives us a full disc of content (optimistically). Worst-case, hardly anything changes from having the disc-locked content that we have now.

 

[BeerTent]

No offense to Pachter, but maybe he should stick to talking about something he actually knows squat about.

I half agree, and half disagree on this subject. But to me, what this guy is saying is "I don't know shit, but here's how I feel." and not "This is bad because I've done my research."

 

[Something Amyss]

Is there a notable ethical difference between on-disk DLC and day-one DLC? Because I'm not really seeing it.

I think the main issue is that on-disc dlc is already done and could be included with the final product there and then. Whereas Day-one DLC can be worked on and finished after the disc content is sent to be certified, which IIRC can take a couple of weeks or more.

It's also worth noting that on-disc DLC isn't really DLC and therefore it trods on the whole "false advertising" thing.

 

[Epona]

I wouldn't recommend using Pachter as your defense if you decide to go this route. Even if you can make the case that you "own" the contents of the disk (which itself is increasingly dicey), you probably enter into a contract not to "reverse engineer" the game by putting it into your system of choice, and accessing the software by non-approved means may mean that you've effectively done just that.

I'll bet you gave away the rights to your TV when you turned it on. LOL @ ridiculous ideas.

 

[Epona]

Is there a notable ethical difference between on-disk DLC and day-one DLC? Because I'm not really seeing it.

I think the main issue is that on-disc dlc is already done and could be included with the final product there and then. Whereas Day-one DLC can be worked on and finished after the disc content is sent to be certified, which IIRC can take a couple of weeks or more.

It's also worth noting that on-disc DLC isn't really DLC and therefore it trods on the whole "false advertising" thing.

Well, getting DLC on the GOTY Edition makes it's what?

 

[everythingbeeps]

Well here's an interesting conundrum. Pachter's coming down on the side of those whining about on-disc DLC, and as we all know, Pacther is always wrong, about everything. So what now, whiners?

 

[tmande2nd]

Remember the days when you walked into a store dropped your cash and got YOUR GAME.
Those days are gone.

Today we pay as much money as we once did, but now get less and less game.
Its like buying a car but having to pay to have the AC vents unplugged.

The vents are RIGHT THERE, but you have to pay someone to remove the plug that the developer put there. But somehow its illegal to remove said plug yourself, when its RIGHT THERE.

Then again you know its right there BEFORE you buy it (From Ashes anyone?), so you buy said car knowing it has plugged vents.

I just want to go back to the days when I got to buy 100% of a game at the store, not 90% at the store, then 10% at home for stuff I got at the store.

 

[Epona]

Well here's an interesting conundrum. Pachter's coming down on the side of those whining about on-disc DLC, and as we all know, Pacther is always wrong, about everything. So what now, whiners?

Is this a serious post?

You must be unaware of how gamers regard Pachter. In the opinion of many, if Pachter says it, the opposite is true.

 

[TotalerKrieger]

I rather like all this extra on-disk content. With a few developer console commands and a bit of save editing, I got to try out most of the ME3 pre-order and CE weapons (they all suck, except one of the pistols).

I fully support such stupidity amongst developers...I do feel sorry for the people gullible enough to pay them for it however.

EDIT: Obviously, it is a different situation for console gamers, I'd be far more annoyed if I were in their shoes.