If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(IGN)   CapCom will re-evaluate how to block on-disc content so they can sell it to you later   (ign.com) divider line 99
    More: Stupid, Capcom, downloadable content, debris disk  
•       •       •

4243 clicks; posted to Geek » on 15 May 2012 at 12:24 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



99 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-15 02:24:00 PM
Capcom, Activision/Blizz, EA, Ubisoft, they call all go farking die. Buncha goddamn shysters.
 
2012-05-15 02:37:16 PM
Has anyone played Episode I of The Walking Dead? I'm halfway through it, and I am kinda impressed, though I'm worried that they have no release dates for the rest of the episodes...
 
2012-05-15 02:43:22 PM
Add my vote to the "this is unethical" side.

Former model:
Halo(just an easy example) does up the campaign and so many multiplayer maps.
For whatever reason, they aimed too high, and cut maps due to time and space constraints.
Maps are finished after the disk, and downloaded because the didn't make the original cut.

Newer Model:
Battlefield 2 does the same first part. Make a campaign and multiplayer game, include maps.
Lock half the content and gametypes that come on the disk. Include a key with the game to unlock within 3 months, code only good once.
limits the usefulness of buying a game used well after release. Prompt to make money from selling the same copy of the game a second time.

Today's model:
Make game
Lock content.
Make the game only playable online, require that the user establish an account with that independent maker(even if you're on a console).
In effect, it's charging twice for the game content, even original buyers.

It's gotten out of hand, especially as the original buyer, a casual game player, usually won't know about the locked content.

And they wonder why people pirate games more and more?

Despicable, really.
 
2012-05-15 02:46:21 PM
This isnt new. Sonic Adventure 2 for the Dreamcast had all additional content on its disc, you needed to go online via its browser and download a small binary file from SEGA in order to access additional themes and characters IIRC.

/they included everything by default in the GameCube edition due to poor online support
 
2012-05-15 02:47:33 PM

Mentalpatient87: Capcom, Activision/Blizz, EA, Ubisoft, they call all go farking die. Buncha goddamn shysters.


And, yet, they're all making substantial money because if there's one group of consumers that really personifies the concept of a victim crawling back to their abuser, it's gamers. They will whine, scream, cry and threaten over the tiniest perceived sleight, but the instant the game is available they all shut up and coddle the fist that was hitting them.

DRM, fake DLC, shiat quality control and just generally abusive practices are only going to get worse because gamers just do not care what rights they surrender or how badly they're being gouged as long as they get that sweet digital fix....
 
2012-05-15 02:53:12 PM

ProfessorOhki: It's done all the time with hardware for cost reasons. Your video card might have the same chip as the next one up, but with a core shut off because that was cheaper than fabricating and managing two different chips.


I don't know about today, but it used to be it was the same chip but slowed down or sectioned off because it was a faultier batch from production, more prone to be unstable. Instead of take a hit on reliability, or just throw the chips away, they make them stable at a cost of performance, and sell them as a lesser model.

OR

The keep the expensive one and ship it as unreliable(not advertised that way, obviously), and just lower the cost on the stable version. When customers complain they whistle innocently and talk about sports after blaming it on faulty installation / handling of the video card by the user, not their fault.
 
2012-05-15 03:00:38 PM
For this reason, i've stopped buying capcom games. They sell you everything on disk for $60, then charge more to play what you already have. that means the content was complete before release or cert, they just want you to pay above MSRP for the game.
 
2012-05-15 03:04:11 PM

Splinshints: Mentalpatient87: Capcom, Activision/Blizz, EA, Ubisoft, they call all go farking die. Buncha goddamn shysters.

And, yet, they're all making substantial money because if there's one group of consumers that really personifies the concept of a victim crawling back to their abuser, it's gamers. They will whine, scream, cry and threaten over the tiniest perceived sleight, but the instant the game is available they all shut up and coddle the fist that was hitting them.

DRM, fake DLC, shiat quality control and just generally abusive practices are only going to get worse because gamers just do not care what rights they surrender or how badly they're being gouged as long as they get that sweet digital fix....


I agree entirely. I'm often sad that I'm the only one with enough willpower to not buy every shiat sandwich shoved in front of me because "well, you better get used to it" or "that's the way it is."

If you made some weak excuse to buy an online pass or give Bobby Kotex more money, then fark you you spineless nerd.
 
2012-05-15 03:14:36 PM

Mentalpatient87: Splinshints: Mentalpatient87: Capcom, Activision/Blizz, EA, Ubisoft, they call all go farking die. Buncha goddamn shysters.

And, yet, they're all making substantial money because if there's one group of consumers that really personifies the concept of a victim crawling back to their abuser, it's gamers. They will whine, scream, cry and threaten over the tiniest perceived sleight, but the instant the game is available they all shut up and coddle the fist that was hitting them.

DRM, fake DLC, shiat quality control and just generally abusive practices are only going to get worse because gamers just do not care what rights they surrender or how badly they're being gouged as long as they get that sweet digital fix....

I agree entirely. I'm often sad that I'm the only one with enough willpower to not buy every shiat sandwich shoved in front of me because "well, you better get used to it" or "that's the way it is."

If you made some weak excuse to buy an online pass or give Bobby Kotex more money, then fark you you spineless nerd.


You're not the only way. The last game I bought was Skyrim, and their day one patch that required Steam to launch even if you were playing in offline mode has finally pushed me away for good. The arrogance displayed by video game companies has introduced a level of politics to something that was supposed to be purely for entertainment purposes. I may pick up something eventually from some of these Kickstarter projects, but the days of purchasing games and consoles from the big developers for me are over.
 
2012-05-15 03:17:18 PM

The_good_doctor: ProfessorOhki: It's done all the time with hardware for cost reasons. Your video card might have the same chip as the next one up, but with a core shut off because that was cheaper than fabricating and managing two different chips.

I don't know about today, but it used to be it was the same chip but slowed down or sectioned off because it was a faultier batch from production, more prone to be unstable. Instead of take a hit on reliability, or just throw the chips away, they make them stable at a cost of performance, and sell them as a lesser model.

OR

The keep the expensive one and ship it as unreliable(not advertised that way, obviously), and just lower the cost on the stable version. When customers complain they whistle innocently and talk about sports after blaming it on faulty installation / handling of the video card by the user, not their fault.


Yeah, they do that. Video cards were just the first thing that came to mind. A slightly better example might have been a wiring harness in a car. Even if you don't have, let's say, the backup camera, the wires for it are probably included installed anyway. The assumption being that enough people will get it and the cost savings of not having to manage the options at the factory far offset the losses of including the extra wires in car. Also, if you buy the car without it, you have the option of easily adding it later. Obviously, it's an imperfect analogy (as most analogies between software and tangible goods are), but the principle is there.

/Keyless entry too
//The "option" is handing you a fob and entering an unlock sequence
///Equipment is installed either way.
 
2012-05-15 03:18:09 PM
OT, but I got me one of these sweet Capcom pads:
t1.gstatic.com

I think I'm going to convert it to USB.
 
2012-05-15 03:50:26 PM
timujin: /number one rule in IT security, physical access means total control

Yep, assume direct control of the hardware and you can eventually do whatever the hell you want.

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-05-15 03:50:34 PM

Splinshints: Mentalpatient87: Capcom, Activision/Blizz, EA, Ubisoft, they call all go farking die. Buncha goddamn shysters.

And, yet, they're all making substantial money because if there's one group of consumers that really personifies the concept of a victim crawling back to their abuser, it's gamers. They will whine, scream, cry and threaten over the tiniest perceived sleight, but the instant the game is available they all shut up and coddle the fist that was hitting them.

DRM, fake DLC, shiat quality control and just generally abusive practices are only going to get worse because gamers just do not care what rights they surrender or how badly they're being gouged as long as they get that sweet digital fix....


Look at COD, many I believe didn't even about the IW mess going on but Black Ops and MW2 maps sold like hot cakes, casual gamers didn't know or care and wanted their fix.

I hate the new business practice and hardcore gamers will say NO but the casuals...if hear nothing about it, they won't fight back.
 
2012-05-15 03:53:46 PM

ProfessorOhki: but the principle is there.


I don't think so, because it's not an efficiency issue in the backshop of the programmers, it's a money issue by the producers. They want more money for the same content, the same amount of work before finishing, actually more because they have to orchestrate a lock.

A more tandem thing would be to buy a brand new car delivery price included, right to your door! But get it delivered inside a cargo container that you don't have the rights to unlock or open and is guarded 24/7 to protect the container, and then have to pay extra.

It's ransom, not efficiency.
 
2012-05-15 04:12:36 PM
eddievercetti: I hate the new business practice and hardcore gamers will say NO

Not just no but hell no.

MW1 was the last COD game I bought, after Infinity Ward was gutted I knew it would just be downhill from there.

// used to buy the IW COD games new, but the Treyarch made games used.
 
2012-05-15 04:13:09 PM

impaler: Cars are physical items. You're literally buying the material.


That's why I specifically referenced that you were leasing your car in this example.
 
2012-05-15 04:18:47 PM

eddievercetti: hardcore gamers will say NO


They'll say no to the regular version because they've already pre-ordered the collectors edition maybe.
 
2012-05-15 04:19:40 PM
This is all DLC will ever be, and all it was ever intended as: a way to nickel-and-dime players to death for content that should have either been in the game's single, complete release or in a sequel. Everything else has been a gateway drug at best.
 
2012-05-15 04:30:09 PM

styckx: ^^^ This.. Have you seen the herpa derp Pre-Order shiat Game Stop is doing for Black Ops ][?

Pre-order Call of Duty Black Ops 2 and receive a 2 Sided Poster!

A farking two sided poster..


The first wave is already underway, with pre-order customers receiving a double-sided poster. As an added incentive, GameStop PowerUp Rewards members who put in their pre-order by June 30 will also receive a Prestige Token for use in Modern Warfare 3's multiplayer mode.

so yeah, you get the poster, and some badass thing-a-majog for MW3. Plus all the other stuff being released over the next few months.
 
2012-05-15 05:02:52 PM
Anybody else remember the Best Buy preorder bonus for Battlefield 2142? It replaced one of the factions default assault rifles with a custom skin that took up like 60% of the screen. The hate for this thing was so epic they had to release a file to revert it back to its regular, mundane appearance.
 
2012-05-15 05:38:13 PM

The_good_doctor: ProfessorOhki: but the principle is there.

I don't think so, because it's not an efficiency issue in the backshop of the programmers, it's a money issue by the producers. They want more money for the same content, the same amount of work before finishing, actually more because they have to orchestrate a lock.

A more tandem thing would be to buy a brand new car delivery price included, right to your door! But get it delivered inside a cargo container that you don't have the rights to unlock or open and is guarded 24/7 to protect the container, and then have to pay extra.

It's ransom, not efficiency.


It's not the programming, it's everything that comes after - If they actually had to ship two different copies of the game, the stores had to stock and manage two copies of the game, etc it would become an efficiency issue over the whole length of the supply chain. Rationalizing on-disc DLC rests entirely on being stuck in a brick-and-mortar system. Once GameStop folds, there's no excuse. I feel like that's the only justification for day-0 DLC: the instance where you'd be just as well selling two completely different products and there'd be a market for both. But you're right, that's not how it's being used.

See my keyless entry example. It's an "option" that simply needs to be activated. All the hardware is already installed in the car, but you can't use it until you (quite literally), buy the key.

Millennium: This is all DLC will ever be, and all it was ever intended as: a way to nickel-and-dime players to death for content that should have either been in the game's single, complete release or in a sequel.


Rockband's a pretty solid counter example to that. Why sell or develop a sequel that adds nothing but new songs when you could just let the customer pick and chose the songs they want? They only bother to release a new game when there's actual gameplay changes and even then it essentially works like a songpack because your old DLC is forward compatible. DLC can be done well, it just usually isn't.
 
2012-05-15 07:21:21 PM

PanicMan: And note to game makers, I will always pay $5 for a digital download of your game soundtrack. $10 if it's good.

But give it to me for free and I'm twice as likely to buy your next game.


Considering that the company has already paid for the soundtrack content to be produced or licensed, and that the assets for it are already distributed as a part of the game package, there's absolutely no reason NOT to make the tracks available as MP3 files for minimal to no additional charge.
 
2012-05-15 07:28:16 PM

The_good_doctor: A more tandem thing would be to buy a brand new car delivery price included, right to your door! But get it delivered inside a cargo container that you don't have the rights to unlock or open and is guarded 24/7 to protect the container, and then have to pay extra.


This would be a good analogy if the car wasn't inside the cargo container but a set of entirely optional floormat upgrades were, and also if the container didn't take up any space.
 
2012-05-15 07:35:08 PM

ajgeek: Most DLC is produced post-release.


This was the theory, you could smash a traditional expansion in to much smaller chunks and allow players to have a buffet of their choice for less money than the expansion would of cost them; as it works out cheaper per customer you get more people showing up at your door and reap the rewards of 30 items a £1 rather than 3 expansion sales at £5.99.

However it's not longer being used for that and companies are actively designing the game with the concept of DLC in mind even if a traditional expansion would be better (like say an RPG). They are also scripting and recording VA work that features NPC's interacting with DLC-only items which does strongly suggest parallel development as opposed to post-release development; for the record I don't mean Javik the Regge Regge Prothean either, I'm talking about Shale in Dragon Age:Origins, if you take her in to Orzimmar then the dwarfs notice one of their ancient golems wandering around.

Things such as FPS's releasing map pack DLC is also, fundamentally, retarded. It splits the player base in to the haves & have-nots, which reduces the number of potential games available to someone, which increases the likelihood of them getting bored and going to play something other than your companies products.

DLC as a concept is very good, but we're just seeing it used as a way to nickel & dime the paying customers.
 
2012-05-15 07:42:50 PM

Subtle_Canary: Anybody else remember the Best Buy preorder bonus for Battlefield 2142? It replaced one of the factions default assault rifles with a custom skin that took up like 60% of the screen. The hate for this thing was so epic they had to release a file to revert it back to its regular, mundane appearance.


I'd never heard of that, so I hit the googles: Not 60% of the screen, but probably 100+% more space on the screen than the unskinned gun (traced in red).

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-05-15 07:46:25 PM

Splinshints:
And, yet, they're all making substantial money because if there's one group of consumers that really personifies the concept of a victim crawling back to their abuser, it's gamers. They will whine, scream, cry and threaten over the tiniest perceived sleight, but the instant the game is available they all shut up and coddle the fist that was hitting them.


Add in the general young age of a lot of video gamers and well, this is why we can't have nice things.

I am not buying D3. I am not buying ME3 (and cancelled my sub to TOR just as I said I would). I have VERY little to do with Ubisoft beyond the ANNO series (I brought 2070 not realising it was a Ubi game... DOH!) and frankly Activision could stuff the boxes of their games with £100 notes but so long as Bobby 'fark You' Kottick remains CEO they can go to hell. Conversely, CCP the makers of EVE now have one subscription returned to them. They backed down, behaved themselves and made amends as they said they would.

I tolerate Steam's DRM as it gives a nice trade off, the sales, social stuff and like all work to offset my irk. But I am aware it is a DRM solution and i've read the EULA; something I doubt the majority of Steam users either know or have done themselves.
 
2012-05-15 09:36:39 PM
It's starting to get depressing that everything is tied into online services, central servers, and third party providers just to play a farking single player game. My hobby is becoming less and less fun as time goes on, and I really hope it changes soon.

//Mass Effect 3 was awesome, though, and the online was well done.
///That's probably the last console game I'm ever going to buy, though. And that makes me really sad about my hobby.
////But I just bought a copy of Jade Cocoon 2 off eBay, so that's cool. Viva le PS2!
 
2012-05-15 09:57:31 PM
On-disc DLC needs a more accurate descriptor, although marketing isn't exactly known for transparency in advertising. Howabout, "Selling Content, Really, Everyone Wins" ("SCREW"). Or "Downloadable Instantly Accessible Files" ("DIAF"). Or, "Already Paid? Premium Access Like Losers Entitled to Data" ("APPALLED"). Or, "Universal Files, Instant Access" ("UFIA").
 
2012-05-15 10:29:37 PM
Though this practice has been going on for at least a decade (I remember Project Gotham Racing 2 had both the Paris and Long Beach tracks locked away on the disc unless you bought the "DLC"), I'm surprised that the FTC hasn't gotten involved in the matter. You bought the disc, you should have access to everything on the disc. I cannot think of any other product category where you have to spend extra money to "unlock" stuff already located in the product.

Patcher on GameTrailers defended this practice, comparing it to a cable box actually receiving all the channels, but you only have access to the ones you paid for. However, he ignores the fact that cable is considered a "service" while when you buy a game disc it is a "product."
 
2012-05-15 10:45:38 PM
Also worth adding this is why I do not have an Xbox Live account, and actually bought a PS3 (on an after-Christmas sale) for my online gaming. Sure it ain't as pretty as Xbox Live, but it gets the job done and doesn't expect me to drop $60 per year to enjoy a service which should be free.

/especially considering the amount of ads found on the XBL service
 
2012-05-15 11:22:58 PM

Electrify: Also worth adding this is why I do not have an Xbox Live account, and actually bought a PS3 (on an after-Christmas sale) for my online gaming. Sure it ain't as pretty as Xbox Live, but it gets the job done and doesn't expect me to drop $60 per year to enjoy a service which should be free.

/especially considering the amount of ads found on the XBL service


If you buy the cards online, it's as low as 35-45 bucks a year.

I think it's worth it just for the added comfort of the controllers(everyone I know is on xbl as well). I hate PS controllers with a passion, and PC gaming is much less comfy than that.
 
2012-05-15 11:52:13 PM

eddievercetti: I really hate the DLC craze. Preorder this and you'll get derp! Besides the extra content gets released weeks later, if it's like Undead Nightmare, Infamous 2 Vampire DLC or Deus Ex Missing Link, any preorder DLC can bite me


inFamous- Festival of Blood isn't exactly DLC, since you don't need the inFamous 2 disc to unlock or play it. It's more of a side story game you pay $10 for. It's not as long as inFamous 2, but it's definitely worth the $10.
 
2012-05-15 11:54:52 PM

Dinobot: Capcom can go DIAF. I can't remember the last time I bought one of their games and they don't see to want to have me back as their customer.


Ever since Capcom cancelled both Mega Man Legends and Mega Man Universe, it seems that they don't want my money. I'm more than happy to oblige.
 
2012-05-16 12:01:05 AM

FuryOfFirestorm: inFamous- Festival of Blood isn't exactly DLC, since you don't need the inFamous 2 disc to unlock or play it. It's more of a side story game you pay $10 for. It's not as long as inFamous 2, but it's definitely worth the $10.


I loved it, what I mean since we're talking Infamous is like the exclusive powers and costumes that were retail exclusives, those piss me off. I know retailers don't do that large of DLC and that's good. It's those little DLCs I get pissed about.
 
2012-05-16 12:19:04 AM

Hand Banana: It's really no different than the type of DLC we have now, except you won't have to actually download it. If you don't have a problem with companies selling DLC then this shouldn't bother you either.


Games have deadlines and shiat. This is why DLC exists, other than $$$$. Developers can produce new levels and alternate costumes to keep the game interesting after you're tired of it. Putting it on the disc defeats the purpose.
 
2012-05-16 12:21:08 AM

Electrify: Also worth adding this is why I do not have an Xbox Live account, and actually bought a PS3 (on an after-Christmas sale) for my online gaming. Sure it ain't as pretty as Xbox Live, but it gets the job done and doesn't expect me to drop $60 per year to enjoy a service which should be free.

/especially considering the amount of ads found on the XBL service


Someone's never heard of PSN Pass or Playstation Plus. Sony knows damn well it made a huge mistake in not charging for its online service, and is now withholding updates from everyone but its premium users. At least I don't have to pay extra for Netflix.
 
2012-05-16 01:50:26 AM

mccallcl: NeoCortex42: impaler: ajgeek: Hand Banana: It's really no different than the type of DLC we have now, except you won't have to actually download it. If you don't have a problem with companies selling DLC then this shouldn't bother you either.

Actually it's quite different. Most DLC is produced post-release. This stuff is being sold to you after release date, despite being ready ON release date.

Imagine a car company telling you a year later that you have to purchase licensing rights to your airbags oh and by the way, we've had them turned off (but in the car) for the last year.

Yeah. Imagine if car manufacturers had extra content that you could add to a car, available at the release date, and they charged extra for them. It's crazy.

Now excuse me. I'm trying to decide if I want a sunroof in my new car.

Apples and oranges. A closer analogy would be if all cars came standard with a sunroof, but were boarded up by default. You then had to pay for them to allow access to the sunroof that's already there.

Or like if a movie theater already had the movie playing in the next room but nooooooooooo they've just gotta be dicks about it when you walk in without paying!

/try a new hobby yours sucks


Ok, how about if I own a car and I decide to cut a whole in the roof and make a sunroof, am I doing anything wrong? Or I my wife buys a dvd and and is watching it in the next room so I decide to join her, am I doing anything wrong? Now what if I buy a disk that has a game on it and I crack it so I can play everything that it on the disk, now am I doing anything wrong?

No one has a right to tell me what to do with the stuff I have paid for.
 
2012-05-16 02:34:08 AM

ODDwhun: mccallcl: NeoCortex42: impaler: ajgeek: Hand Banana: It's really no different than the type of DLC we have now, except you won't have to actually download it. If you don't have a problem with companies selling DLC then this shouldn't bother you either.

Actually it's quite different. Most DLC is produced post-release. This stuff is being sold to you after release date, despite being ready ON release date.

Imagine a car company telling you a year later that you have to purchase licensing rights to your airbags oh and by the way, we've had them turned off (but in the car) for the last year.

Yeah. Imagine if car manufacturers had extra content that you could add to a car, available at the release date, and they charged extra for them. It's crazy.

Now excuse me. I'm trying to decide if I want a sunroof in my new car.

Apples and oranges. A closer analogy would be if all cars came standard with a sunroof, but were boarded up by default. You then had to pay for them to allow access to the sunroof that's already there.

Or like if a movie theater already had the movie playing in the next room but nooooooooooo they've just gotta be dicks about it when you walk in without paying!

/try a new hobby yours sucks

Ok, how about if I own a car and I decide to cut a whole in the roof and make a sunroof, am I doing anything wrong? Or I my wife buys a dvd and and is watching it in the next room so I decide to join her, am I doing anything wrong? Now what if I buy a disk that has a game on it and I crack it so I can play everything that it on the disk, now am I doing anything wrong?

No one has a right to tell me what to do with the stuff I have paid for.


See, here's the thing: You didn't pay for it. You can do whatever you want with the physical disc. You, however, can't run unauthorized code in the console owing to the part where it said, "do you agree not to run unauthorized code?" and you said "yes."

If you bought a car with no sun roof and on the paperwork you signed it says, "I agree that if I ever install a sunroof, you can repo the car," then no, it probably wouldn't be the best idea to cut that hole yourself.

Now, if you can buy a second hand console and game, get it to run said game without signing up for a PSN account or agreeing to an update, and you can crack the game using tools not derived from leaked software... then, yes, by all means, enjoy the entire contents of the disc.
 
2012-05-16 02:36:23 AM
Oh and if you want to get all technical, there's all the DMCA BS that comes with just the act of circumventing a protection scheme.
 
2012-05-16 03:30:49 AM
id be surprised if every morsel of extra DLC map isn't already produced tested etc at the time of pressing the game discs

if you want it, you will pay for it.

putting it on the disc in advance, is a convenience for YOU

don't confuse your anger at the business model with some derp about it being your bloody disc
 
2012-05-16 04:41:41 AM

ProfessorOhki: You, however, can't run unauthorized code in the console owing to the part where it said, "do you agree not to run unauthorized code?" and you said "yes."


LOL

/not a contract

The only thing they can do is kick you off the service for modding.(or even being a douche, same as fark can do).

You did buy that copy of the game code if it came on a disk. Just because it is not tangible to human senses does not mean it is not actually there.

The license malarky is just that, BS. It is not a rental or a lease or any kind of loan, they cannot reposes the item, it is, of physical fact, yours, indefinitely.

If I buy anything, say, a wrench, there is no obligation for me to not use it as a hammer, not to inscribe my name upon it, or only use it on Ford products. No matter what kind of restriction guideline is inside of the packaging, it is not legally binding. I signed no contract upon purchase.
 
2012-05-16 05:43:03 AM

moothemagiccow: Someone's never heard of PSN Pass or Playstation Plus. Sony knows damn well it made a huge mistake in not charging for its online service, and is now withholding updates from everyone but its premium users. At least I don't have to pay extra for Netflix.


Citation needed, please. Everyone gets to updates at the same time. The only advantage PS Plus gives in that respect is that you can select which time you want the updates to download. I know a few Plus members and they got their updates the same time I did.
 
2012-05-16 01:13:12 PM

The_good_doctor: The only thing they can do is kick you off the service for modding.(or even being a douche, same as fark can do).


Which is why they're all trying to shift the entire ecosystem to digital distribution at which point "getting kicked off the service" = "enjoy your brick"

You've noticed how console games require software updates now?
 
2012-05-16 01:19:28 PM

The_good_doctor: You did buy that copy of the game code if it came on a disk. Just because it is not tangible to human senses does not mean it is not actually there.

The license malarky is just that, BS. It is not a rental or a lease or any kind of loan, they cannot reposes the item, it is, of physical fact, yours, indefinitely.


If you want to argue right vs. wrong, that's subjective and pointless to argue about.

If you want to argue the law, then what you've bought is a disc and a license that spells out explicitly what you're allowed to do with the data on that disc. It's the same for music and movies, etc.

On disc "DLC?" Well, the license you bought doesn't grant you access to it. You'll have to buy a different license to access that content. If you access it without that license you've broken a few laws.
 
2012-05-16 02:01:04 PM

Honest Bender: If you want to argue right vs. wrong, that's subjective and pointless to argue about.


That sentiment is why society is going down the shiatter.

Honest Bender: If you want to argue the law, then what you've bought is a disc and a license


Courts are split on that, but go ahead and spread all the misinformation you want.
Modding for your own use is legal. Copying for your own use is legal. [This is where I ask for a citation that isn't highly controverted by various findings or outright buried in findings opposite of what you claim]

Copying for sale is not legal.
 
2012-05-16 02:21:27 PM

The_good_doctor: Copying for your own use is legal. [This is where I ask for a citation that isn't highly controverted by various findings or outright buried in findings opposite of what you claim]


Sort of? One of the derpier results of the DMCA:

"So while it may well be fair use for an individual consumer to store a backup copy of a personally owned DVD on that individual's computer, a federal law has nonetheless made it illegal to manufacture or traffic in a device or tool that permits a consumer to make such copies,"

("while it is not unlawful to circumvent for the purpose of engaging in fair use, it is unlawful to
traffic in tools that allow fair use circumvention.").


/U.S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel - Link (pdf)
 
2012-05-16 03:03:17 PM

ProfessorOhki: "while it is not unlawful to circumvent for the purpose of engaging in fair use, it is unlawful to
traffic in tools that allow fair use circumvention."


Modding for persona use = fair use = totally legal
Modding for $ = unlawful.

Not quite seeing the derp you mention, but then again I hate how all these are worded.

The tools that permit backing up? Ie cd/dvd burners are illegal?
Maybe derpy. I doubt any court would rea..........well, in today's society, they would enforce just that. I mean, hot coffee lady? Yeah, society is full of derp as a whole.
________________
Anyhow, when the legitimacy of law is part of the discussion, what's legal and illegal is not a legitimate platform.
"You have to follow the law, because it's the law!"
"You can't revolt, it's not legal!"

There are lots of controversial laws everywhere, many of them plain unfair, ridiculous, and/or bought and paid for.

They deserve to be questioned, poked and prodded, or in some cases, ignored completely.
I seem to recall that in some state, when released from jail, they have to provide you with a horse and a gun before they send you on your way.
HA!

If they pass a law tomorrow, that says I can't turn my CD's into MP3's, and we all know the industry would love that, who would actually follow that law?
 
2012-05-16 05:07:26 PM

The_good_doctor: ProfessorOhki: "while it is not unlawful to circumvent for the purpose of engaging in fair use, it is unlawful to
traffic in tools that allow fair use circumvention."

Modding for persona use = fair use = totally legal
Modding for $ = unlawful.

Not quite seeing the derp you mention, but then again I hate how all these are worded.

The tools that permit backing up? Ie cd/dvd burners are illegal?
Maybe derpy. I doubt any court would rea..........well, in today's society, they would enforce just that. I mean, hot coffee lady? Yeah, society is full of derp as a whole.


I think you're misunderstanding it. You're allowed to make a copy of a DVD?CD/Blu-Ray. However it's not legal for anyone to sell or manufacturer the software capable of cracking the encryption on the disc. Which essentially means that you have the right to copy it, but no way of exercising it. That's why I find it derpy. It's true to the letter of the law, but ridiculous in practice- a total runaround fair use. "Manufacture" being another key word there. You can't even, yourself and for your own use, legally make the tool to enable you to execute a backup of a modern piece of media.

Whether anyone follows it or not is a totally different issue. I don't even disagree with you in principle. I'm just saying that, as it is now, you did not buy the DLC on the disc when you purchased the disc. You might think you should have, I might think you should have, but that's not how it currently works.
 
2012-05-16 06:07:58 PM
From the supplied link, the section quoted by Prof.

The DMCA makes illegal the act of trafficking in circumvention tools. 17 U.S.C. §§ 1201(a), (b).
The DMCA prohibits the circumvention of technological measures that guard copyrighted material,
but does not prohibit the downstream or end use of those materials after circumvention has occurred.
.....
Because RealDVD makes a permanent copy of copyrighted DVD content, there is no
exemption from DMCA liability, statutory or otherwise, that applies here. Whatever application the
fair use doctrine may have for individual consumers making backup copies of their own DVDs, it
does not portend to save Real from liability under the DMCA in this action


It's a court transcription about the tools themselves. Which Real was actually contracted to hold within a certain guideline via a CSS License Agreement with the major studios.
Reading the top and bottom of court transcripts goes a long way to understanding what they're about.
more info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-user_license_agreement#Enforceabilit y _of_EULAs_in_the_United_States

The first is about legal contracts
The second is a more shady area.

Irrelevant to:

ProfessorOhki: you did not buy the DLC on the disc when you purchased the disc

That is the thing that is up in the air.

The old school of thought is that if we buy the physical copy, we own that physical copy.

What the media industries want to try to do is to change that model of thought, in to that we're buying a liscence(IE the UELA for casual viewers/users of media) to play the game/music/movie, but only in the way they want.

There is no law governing the later, yet.
Court precedent isn't law, it only gives credence to an argument. Ruling by precedent alone is a semi-contestible form of making a decision depending on who you talk to.
The courts are split on the validity of non-express "agreements".

What they want or are trying to do =/= law or "how it currently works".

How it currently works = the old school of though. That stands in the general eyes of the law until it is changed/modified in the general eyes of the law.
 
Displayed 49 of 99 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report