[LDSO] Tron 2.0 Forum

Burn, EA! Buuuuurrrrrrrnnnnnnn!!!!!

This video will probably be taken down soon. If so, I'll see if I can find another source for it.


More about this story on Forbes.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/20 ... y-on-disc/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Man, EA and Bioware are committing suicide now. Take a look at this . . .



Editing one line in a configuration file, to unlock content already on the disc, is piracy, huh?

Words fail me.

Another day, another instance where someone pokes fun at EA. This guy needs to do videos on Activision/Blizzard and Ubisoft, too. Brilliant work.

Aww, that video was brilliant!

I'm not sure about how Mass Effect 3 works, but my favorite game at the moment has a similar feature in it.

All copies of Payday:The Heist contains files that are only available if you pay for the DLC. The reason that you have them in your game files even if you did not pay for the DLC is so that when you play multiplayer online games, you can play alongside others that have purchased it and have acquired the extras that came with it. Your game files have to be able to render those items/characters/skins so that you can see them when you play, though you can't use them yourself unless you paid to unlock them.

I am assuming that this is similar to what the files in Mass Effect 3 are for.

I don't see your reasoning that if somethings on a type of media that also contains something you paid for, that you own all of it and can do with as you please.

Does one own everything on the internet, whether it's been downloaded yet or not? Isn't it also just a media format, a method of sharing programs like a DVD/CD?

The only reason a disk contained more than what you might own at one time is ease and reduced cost of delivery. The only negative I see is that they are freely using your hard-disk space for future sales opportunities.

You've written lots of code and put in alot of effort on Tron 2.0 mods, you surely know how much time is involved, and if one tries to make a living doing what they enjoy, don't they have the right to make a few $$ doing it?

Don't get me wrong, I don't like the aspect of having to pay for add-ons that might seem a basic part of the game/content, that sucks. But it's easy to find out what your getting into by reading game reviews. You don't have to buy. These days I'd rather spend the time (and money!) creating, like you guys do.

Daddyo wrote:The only reason a disk contained more than what you might own at one time is ease and reduced cost of delivery. The only negative I see is that they are freely using your hard-disk space for future sales opportunities.

The publishers are freeloading on the backs of consumers by doing this. Pinching a few pennies, by putting the content on the disc to begin with, rather than spend a bit more later in order for you to acquire it.

Not to mention, it's then clear the content was produced and completed during development. This isn't something they're making after the game's release that required extra effort. It's just a cash grab.

Denying you content already on the disc is a bit like a car manufacturer denying you better fuel efficiency the car is already capable of, and charging you extra to unlock the better fuel efficiency profile. Do you think customers buying cars would stand for something like that? No? Then why should we put up with it when we buy games?

Sure, we have the choice to inform oursleves beforehand. Or simply not to buy. But if someone finds a way to unlock content already included in a game, I'm not going to shed a tear for the publisher. There are much better ways to earn customer loyalty and earn revenue. Withholding content you technically already own, isn't the way to do it.

The case of Bioware censoring people - for revealing a simple change in one line of a script within the game's code - took this situation to the height of absurdity. Changing an attribute, in what is essentially an .ini file, is considered piracy now?

GTFO here, Bioware.

OK. <Devil's Advocate> here. Whatever comes next is from a cash-money dev's POV:

Software is never sold. It's LICENCED. Customer's don't buy a game. They buy the RIGHT to play the game on ONE system. This was not part of a big discussion until the advent of easily available copying and distribution of software. Back in my college days, only the biggest nerds would be able to freely distribute software amongst themselves. (Like me!)

When the internet became popular, this issue exploded and needed to be dealt with. In comes STEAM, and despite the initial cry of "foul" from the aforementioned distributors, it succeeds in reducing the distribution to its own channels and a few super-nerds that like putting in the effort of "beating the system." But now that I think about it, that's kind of irrelevant here.

The point is: in all the fine print of licences, even if it is allowed to be freely distributed, the software belongs to someone or some organization. Even open-source code asks to be recognized somewhere in the credits, right? So even if there is "expansion" code on a disk distributed with a "main" game for a console, the argument is strong that the owner of the rights and usage of that code still lies with the publisher.

Now, </Devil's Advocate> even if I admit that all the above is valid and enforceable in a court of law, I personally argue that it's incredibly naive of any publisher to include anything "extra" on a disk. It's going to be dissected and found out. (Hot coffee anyone?) Even on the X-Box line of systems, hacks happen. To be lazy with content distribution and expect people to be honorable about using it is just living in a fantasy land. Complaining about when people act like people though, makes them legitimate targets of ridicule.

Everyone... feel free to continue pointing and laughing.