Poll: Are We Entitled?

[Daystar Clarion]

snip

you know what. Congratulations. This is probably the worst argument I have ever seen.

"PEOPLE BK DEN BUY USE BUT EXPECT NEW QUALITY" First of all. Who? Who bought used and expected New? I dont believe that was the majority good sir, because that would be completely illogical to expect new quality with used quality.

The your last point, I assume you THINK it ties everything together, but sorry friend. I dont know how to tell you this. Your argument is logically flawed in every way. You have to tie point a to point B. You cant have some random ass story then assert your point at the end and that is your argument. That's nonsense.
Plus no one is even talking about New versus used. We are talking about day one dlc's. You know content on the disc? You know what people expect when they buy used: the fucking game. NOTHING more, nothing less. When shit is being hacked off for profit, we have a big fucking problem here.

It wont be long before we pay $60 for the engine, textures and 1st level then $10 to download each subsequent level (which are all on the disc of course) and we'll still have people paying it, saying it's a brilliant strategy and calling everyone who says it's awful entitled.

Ah yes, slippery slope fallacy, I haven't seen you in a while.

'X has done Y, which means they will eventually do Z'

A pleasure, as always.

Yeah, people used that fallacy when DLC first started getting popular and they said that eventually DLC would be coming out on Day One. We all know how wrong they were..right?

Yeah, except one thing coming to fruition doesn't automatically validate any other theories, it's still a fallacy.

Yeah and every slippery slope isn't a fallacy either.

It's considered a fallacy because there's no evidence to support it. Hindsight doesn't sudenly make supposition from the past less of a fallacy.

No evidence to support it? You don't see any evidence of games being sold in pieces? Look around buddy, it's happening.

You mean games being sold with extra content available should I wish to buy it?

I have yet to play a game that I felt was incomplete because something was 'cut' from it.

Now, that's my own anecdote, and such, does not make it an absolute to anything except my own experience (which a lot of people seem to forget).

Games used to cost 50-60 quid when I was growing up, I thought they would get more expensive, but they actually went down in price.

Since then, I'm very careful about throwing around 'X has done Y, therefore they will do Z'.

 

[cookyy2k]

No one is saying that this is a good idea. All we said is that this is a legitimate business practice. You're essentially complianing because bacon didn't come with your cheeseburger and you don't feel like paying for it.

"legitmate" in what way. Can you name anyother industry that takes away content from the original purchase and then charges you more for it.

To put it in perspective. If i buy a combo; i get the burger, fries and the drink. This day one dlc is like charging me for the combo but withholding the drink until I pay the "special drinkers fee"

your still going on like its removed content when its not guess some people won't see reason even if you hit them with it

You've yet to prove to me that its additional not subtractive. The prothean dlc in particular was mentioned in the leaks. So you know, it was planed to be in the original game and then shucks! They figured they could use it to screw more money out of us.

denying content to others just to make a quick buck. Deplorable.

Well on disc is most certainly subtractive as it's well on the disc...

 

[Epona]

The new buyer bought a copy that Gamestop had paid full price for the right to sell.
The used buyer bought a copy of a game that has been played by another person, all included codes have been used, and the money is going directly to Gamestop, with no profits going to the developer.

The developer should reward someone who is not supporting them? Argument fallacy is fallacious.

Online passes don't "reward" anyone, they punish both the new and used buyers. Anyway, think about it, if you bought a used copy of Final Fantasy X (a PS2 game). Square doesn't have to go out of their way to let you play the whole game. Indeed, it would be more trouble for Square to withhold content than just to let you play what's on the disc. People aren't asking to be "rewarded" when they buy used. The "reward" is actually a punishment.

 

[Epona]

Well yes, Gamestop is retail. It doesn't matter if the goods are new or used.

Anyway, the way I see it, you can't punish used customers without also punishing new customers because they are part of the same chain.

The new customer bought a game for $60 and when they go to resell it, it's worth $10 less (plus they had to put a code in, something they didn't have to do until recently). The used customer doesn't get the full game because some of it has been locked behind a code.

It's ok though, fucking over your customers will eventually bankrupt you.

The new buyer bought a copy that Gamestop had paid full price for the right to sell.
The used buyer bought a copy of a game that has been played by another person, all included codes have been used, and the money is going directly to Gamestop, with no profits going to the developer.

The developer should reward someone who is not supporting them? Argument fallacy is fallacious.

Technically its Gamestop thats fucking the developer over. they are the ones encouraging used sales and making it so much fucking cheaper than new. Why are customers punished for simply picking the better deal?

Reward new sales, don't punish potential customers. I buy your game used, i just might like it enough to buy the sequel new.

Ever sold anything used? Were you screwing over Sony when you sold that TV? No, you weren't.

Gamestop only sells games for a few dollars less! It is not "so much fucking cheaper".

 

[Daystar Clarion]

snip

you know what. Congratulations. This is probably the worst argument I have ever seen.

"PEOPLE BK DEN BUY USE BUT EXPECT NEW QUALITY" First of all. Who? Who bought used and expected New? I dont believe that was the majority good sir, because that would be completely illogical to expect new quality with used quality.

The your last point, I assume you THINK it ties everything together, but sorry friend. I dont know how to tell you this. Your argument is logically flawed in every way. You have to tie point a to point B. You cant have some random ass story then assert your point at the end and that is your argument. That's nonsense.
Plus no one is even talking about New versus used. We are talking about day one dlc's. You know content on the disc? You know what people expect when they buy used: the fucking game. NOTHING more, nothing less. When shit is being hacked off for profit, we have a big fucking problem here.

It wont be long before we pay $60 for the engine, textures and 1st level then $10 to download each subsequent level (which are all on the disc of course) and we'll still have people paying it, saying it's a brilliant strategy and calling everyone who says it's awful entitled.

Ah yes, slippery slope fallacy, I haven't seen you in a while.

'X has done Y, which means they will eventually do Z'

A pleasure, as always.

Yeah, people used that fallacy when DLC first started getting popular and they said that eventually DLC would be coming out on Day One. We all know how wrong they were..right?

Yeah, except one thing coming to fruition doesn't automatically validate any other theories, it's still a fallacy.

Yeah and every slippery slope isn't a fallacy either.

It's considered a fallacy because there's no evidence to support it. Hindsight doesn't sudenly make supposition from the past less of a fallacy.

No evidence to support it? You don't see any evidence of games being sold in pieces? Look around buddy, it's happening.

You mean games being sold with extra content available should I wish to buy it?

I have yet to play a game that I felt was incomplete because something was 'cut' from it.

Now, that's my own anecdote, and such, does not make it an absolute to anything except my own experience (which a lot of people seem to forget).

Games used to cost 50-60 quid when I was growing up, I thought they would get more expensive, but they actually went down in price.

Since then, I'm very careful about throwing around 'X has done Y, therefore they will do Z'.

That's an interesting thought. If a game was incomplete how would you know it? Aslong as they aren't ruining the ending. You have no way of telling how complete something is. Until you notice how much content is being denied.

Plus play Dragon age origins: where thats that wanker that waits around camp, giving you quest info but no quest until you buy the DLC. Or quest that have markers but you cant start until you buy the dlc. Crazy isn't it? It's there, you just aren't looking hard enough.

I played the Dragon Age DLC. It added nothing to the overall story and did not make my experience richer, it was simply an optional side quest. Granted, unless I buy every DLC for every game I buy, ever, I will not know what I'm missing out on. But in the grand age of the internet, I can check these things out, and as of yet, I've feel I've been forced to buy DLC 'to get the full experience', I've bought it because I like the game and want something more to do with it.

 

[cookyy2k]

The new buyer bought a copy that Gamestop had paid full price for the right to sell.
The used buyer bought a copy of a game that has been played by another person, all included codes have been used, and the money is going directly to Gamestop, with no profits going to the developer.

The developer should reward someone who is not supporting them? Argument fallacy is fallacious.

Online passes don't "reward" anyone, they punish both the new and used buyers. Anyway, think about it, if you bought a used copy of Final Fantasy X (a PS2 game). Square doesn't have to go out of their way to let you play the whole game. Indeed, it would be more trouble for Square to withhold content than just to let you play what's on the disc. People aren't asking to be "rewarded" when they buy used. The "reward" is actually a punishment.

The other way to view the used argument is; I bought fallout 3 for £5, because it was £5. I have all DLC for that game, I bought New Vegas new. I bought Skyrim off the back of it been the same developer.

They've made a lot of money out of me, can anyone argue they gained nothing in that initial used sale? Before that I never had an interest in fallout and I'd never played a TES game. So without that very cheap used game, which is the main thing that sparked my interest, the price. They would have made less on other things. Remind me how I'm destroying the industry? Because publishers think I am.

 

[Vault101]

I suppose, I do not have to worry too much about this since I normally stick with Nintendo systems. I like having the games cost $40-$50 and complete. Sure, the Wii may not be "hardcore" or "manly", but at least I know I will have my money's worth.

thats exactally why I scoff at the Wii

it isnt MANLY enough for me! I need testosterone fuled Power fanties FULL of blood and gore to satisfy my mighty manly gaming needs...that fact that I'm a straight female doesnt matter

GIVE ME VIOLENCE AND TITS!! YEEEEAAAARRRRRGGGHHH!!!!!!

and you know..its got nothing to do with the fact that my choices would range from over-priced nintendo games to shovelware

 

[Tony2077]

No one is saying that this is a good idea. All we said is that this is a legitimate business practice. You're essentially complianing because bacon didn't come with your cheeseburger and you don't feel like paying for it.

"legitmate" in what way. Can you name anyother industry that takes away content from the original purchase and then charges you more for it.

To put it in perspective. If i buy a combo; i get the burger, fries and the drink. This day one dlc is like charging me for the combo but withholding the drink until I pay the "special drinkers fee"

your still going on like its removed content when its not guess some people won't see reason even if you hit them with it

You've yet to prove to me that its additional not subtractive. The prothean dlc in particular was mentioned in the leaks. So you know, it was planed to be in the original game and then shucks! They figured they could use it to screw more money out of us.

denying content to others just to make a quick buck. Deplorable.

how can you be so sure its the dlc that being talked about in the leak. you can't now can we stop this bs before i go insane. the forum thing says it was worked on after the game was done now kindly stop forcing the same old bullshit on us

you are the one that came in here going "YOU DONT KNOW SHIT!!". When in this post alone you've proved that YOU, MY FRIEND, DON't know SHIT Z from SHIT B. If you do not have all the information stop claiming otherwise. I don't just have probability on my side, i have a clear trend of Bioware/EA Games doing subtractive DLC's. So you need to just shut up.

no need to get all uppity about this i showed you proof that you were wrong and then when push come to shove you tell me to shut up. learn some manners for a change i know I'm being a hypocrite but it still needed to be said

 

[cookyy2k]

but if Option A is 20 and Option B is 14.99. Who picks Option A?

People who've been expertly conditioned by the company to think that "oh no if I pick option A the multi-billion corporation loses a couple of bucks" and then think that's such a terrible thing they should put in the extra money from their much much smaller bank accounts.

 

[Epona]

snip

you know what. Congratulations. This is probably the worst argument I have ever seen.

"PEOPLE BK DEN BUY USE BUT EXPECT NEW QUALITY" First of all. Who? Who bought used and expected New? I dont believe that was the majority good sir, because that would be completely illogical to expect new quality with used quality.

The your last point, I assume you THINK it ties everything together, but sorry friend. I dont know how to tell you this. Your argument is logically flawed in every way. You have to tie point a to point B. You cant have some random ass story then assert your point at the end and that is your argument. That's nonsense.
Plus no one is even talking about New versus used. We are talking about day one dlc's. You know content on the disc? You know what people expect when they buy used: the fucking game. NOTHING more, nothing less. When shit is being hacked off for profit, we have a big fucking problem here.

It wont be long before we pay $60 for the engine, textures and 1st level then $10 to download each subsequent level (which are all on the disc of course) and we'll still have people paying it, saying it's a brilliant strategy and calling everyone who says it's awful entitled.

Ah yes, slippery slope fallacy, I haven't seen you in a while.

'X has done Y, which means they will eventually do Z'

A pleasure, as always.

Yeah, people used that fallacy when DLC first started getting popular and they said that eventually DLC would be coming out on Day One. We all know how wrong they were..right?

Yeah, except one thing coming to fruition doesn't automatically validate any other theories, it's still a fallacy.

Yeah and every slippery slope isn't a fallacy either.

It's considered a fallacy because there's no evidence to support it. Hindsight doesn't sudenly make supposition from the past less of a fallacy.

No evidence to support it? You don't see any evidence of games being sold in pieces? Look around buddy, it's happening.

You mean games being sold with extra content available should I wish to buy it?

I have yet to play a game that I felt was incomplete because something was 'cut' from it.

Now, that's my own anecdote, and such, does not make it an absolute to anything except my own experience (which a lot of people seem to forget).

Games used to cost 50-60 quid when I was growing up, I thought they would get more expensive, but they actually went down in price.

Since then, I'm very careful about throwing around 'X has done Y, therefore they will do Z'.

Personally, I think Shale was ripped from the game. That's just one off the top of my head but Bioware is the topic of the day so it makes sense that I would be thinking of a Bioware game. Remember how they were selling an NPC selling DLC in DAO.

 

[cookyy2k]

but if Option A is 20 and Option B is 14.99. Who picks Option A?

People who've been expertly conditioned by the company to think that "oh no if I pick option A the multi-billion corporation loses a couple of bucks"

Or those who think "Well, if I pick option A at 20 USD (if this is considering New) then I will also get the DLC which would retail at around 5 to 10 dollars. Option B at 15 is most likely used and so I won't get the DLC and an inferior product (considering Scratches, dents, dings, and whatnots).

The sensible option would be A as, if the DLC is 5 USD then you would pay the same price for option B and also get a superior product as it hasn't been opened and therefore it wouldn't have any markings/scratches or other such things.

It depends on if you actually want whatever DLC they're throwing in. Also I couldn't care less about scratched or dents as long as it plays, which my local game store guarantees. The book/box being in pristine condition does not justify an extra couple of hour's wages. I don't know about the US but in the UK there are massive savings to be made buying used.