Topic: PlayStation4 - News/Rumor/Speculation - Over 1 Million Sold on Day 1

[broodwars]

By the way, I think there is a distinction that should be made here between saying that there is locked content that should be part of the main game and saying all content on the disc should be part of the original purchase.  In certain cases such as Mass Effect 3, I think the former is perfectly valid.  From everything I've heard about the "From Ashes" DLC, that is content that is important to conveying the themes and story of the main game.  Bioware should have made that content part of the main game and made something else DLC content, IMO.  In the end, I ended up buying it with some free Microsoft points, so I don't feel particularly bad about that.  But if I'm perfectly content with the content of the main game, I don't see what right I have to complain that additional content should have been made available to me.

It all comes back to the quality of the game you bought, whether the developers made you feel like your $60 was well-spent.  Sadly, some developers don't really seem to care, like Capcom.

[Chozo Ghost]

Actually, yes they totally are.

Webster's Dictionary

The more specific meaning of the term commodity is applied to goods only. It is used to describe a class of goods for which there is demand, but which is supplied without qualitative differentiation across a market.[3] A commodity has full or partial fungibility; that is, the market treats it as equivalent or nearly so no matter who produces it. "From the taste of wheat it is not possible to tell who produced it, a Russian serf, a French peasant or an English capitalist."[4] Petroleum and copper are examples of such commodities.[5] The price of copper is universal, and fluctuates daily based on global supply and demand. Items such as stereo systems, on the other hand, have many aspects of product differentiation, such as the brand, the user interface, the perceived quality etc. And, the more valuable a stereo is perceived to be, the more it will cost.

A commodity by the definition I was referring to (which is the economic definition) is a good which has no qualitative difference no matter who provides it. Oil is an example of a commodity. No matter who you buy oil from it is always exactly the same. So again, Video games are not commodities. There are qualitative difference, and they are not interchangeable.

And I don't care that Webster has multiple definitions. This is the definition I mean.

[NWR_insanolord]

By the way, I think there is a distinction that should be made here between saying that there is locked content that should be part of the main game and saying all content on the disc should be part of the original purchase.  In certain cases such as Mass Effect 3, I think the former is perfectly valid.  From everything I've heard about the "From Ashes" DLC, that is content that is important to conveying the themes and story of the main game.  Bioware should have made that content part of the main game and made something else DLC content, IMO.  In the end, I ended up buying it with some free Microsoft points, so I don't feel particularly bad about that.  But if I'm perfectly content with the content of the main game, I don't see what right I have to complain that additional content should have been made available to me.

It all comes back to the quality of the game you bought, whether the developers made you feel like your $60 was well-spent.  Sadly, some developers don't really seem to care, like Capcom.

Okay, now that you've said that I'm pretty clearly in your camp, broodwars.

I don't have a philosophical issue with DLC, but I don't think I've bought any outside of Rock Band (though I've probably spent at least $100 on extra songs for that game). When it's used properly it can work out very well for everyone involved: the publisher gets money, and gamers get extra content they wouldn't have otherwise. If companies begin to abuse it we need to speak up, and more importantly not buy it.

[Stogi]

But they could pull a McDonald's and make the cheeseburger smaller and smaller each year until you don't recognize it anymore.

So don't buy it.  That's how capitalism works.  Take your business to Wendy's, where they make better burgers anyway.

Not buying McDonald's and simply not eating are two different things though. But let's get away from this metaphor.

DLC is good in theory, as I can always turn down extra content, but it's a slippery slope. What if movies made you pay to unlock the director's cut? What if books made you pay to unlock the preface? What if ESPN made you pay to unlock the highlights of the championship game?

Your argument would be that "Didn't you enjoy the movie though? Didn't you enjoy the story though? Didn't you enjoy the game though?"

So what if I did? Am I not entitled to what I have bought, payed and PHYSICALLY own though?

[TJ Spyke]

What if movies made you pay to unlock the director's cut?

They already do that. If you buy a movie and then they release a directors cut (James Cameron announced before Avatar released that they would released an extended version later, so people knew ahead of time), then you have to pay for it.

[oohhboy]

It's the dishonesty that will hang companies and DLC. People don't like getting ripped off, or lied to. Hand waving it off as "Capitalism" is intellectually dishonest. When did it become socially acceptable to act like a Ferengi?

You have completely misinterpreted the word commodity. Games do not fit your linked dictionary definition.

    : an economic good: as    a   : a product of agriculture or mining    b   : an article of commerce especially when delivered for shipment <commodities futures>    c   : a mass-produced unspecialized product <commodity chemicals> <commodity memory chips>  2 a   : something useful or valued <that valuable commodity patience>; also   : thing, entity    b   : convenience, advantage 3   obsolete   : quantity, lot 4   : a good or service whose wide availability typically leads to smaller profit margins and diminishes the importance of factors (as brand name) other than price 5   : one that is subject to ready exchange or exploitation within a market <stars as individuals and as commodities of the film industry  — Film Quarterly>

The only argument you might have is that a commodity is anything defined as having value or as a "thing". Games are considered an economic good not a "Thing" therefore would fall under the economic definitions spelled out in your link and it doesn't fit any of them. Even games in the same series is considered a unique product in itself. If games are a commodity, then films are a commodity. Everyone agrees films are not a commodity, so why would videogames be considered differently?

I shouldn't have a problem with DLC if it is a fair and open exchange. But more often than not, it isn't a fair exchange. The company is almost, always dishonest about the deal and leveraging that information advantage. What you're saying broodwars is that it is ok to be abused this way as long as it is capitalism and it's legal. DLC is becoming videogame SPAM. You have a serious problem when what should be a acceptable transaction is increasingly viewed as nothing more than a scam at worse or something to be wary of at best.

[broodwars]

I shouldn't have a problem with DLC if it is a fair and open exchange. But more often than not, it isn't a fair exchange. The company is almost, always dishonest about the deal and leveraging that information advantage. What you're saying broodwars is that it is ok to be abused this way as long as it is capitalism and it's legal. DLC is becoming videogame SPAM. You have a serious problem when what should be a acceptable transaction is increasingly viewed as nothing more than a scam at worse or something to be wary of at best.

No, what I'm saying is that gamers created this situation by buying "abusive" DLC early on when the format was still new (horse armor, anyone?  Overpriced Call of Duty map packs, anyone?).  Our community gave and continues to give companies like Capcom license to do whatever they want with DLC.  Now it's here to stay, and it's our duty as consumers to either purchase or not purchase DLC.  If companies can't make money selling sub-standard products with on-disc DLC, they won't do it.  The investors that make up this company will not allow the company to keep losing money doing these practices.

But no, people complain about the DLC while our community as a whole simultaneously continues to purchase it.  Our community's purchasing patterns created this situation, and only our said community's purchasing power can undo it.

As I've said multiple times, though, if I'm happy with the game I purchased and feel I got my money's worth, if its developer puts out interesting-looking DLC I'm going to buy it and I won't care whether or not it's on the disc already.  If I didn't get that feeling, chances are I wasn't going to buy the DLC anyway, so what do I care where it's stored?

[Chozo Ghost]

I don't have a philosophical issue with DLC,

I don't have a problem with Downloadable Content which expands the game in new and substantial ways. DLC which fits that description is great. What I do have an issue with though, is Disc Locked Content. If that's what the DLC abbreviation stands for, then I'm against it.

Although its a separate issue, I also dislike DLC which is just custom bonus attires or minor little things like that. I'm not against that philosophically. If someone is willing to be nickle and dimed for that stuff, they should have that right. I would pass on it, though. That said the Borderlands DLC is an excellent example of DLC done right. Each of those DLCs was almost like an entire new game added, and the price was very reasonable. It was also not something pre-existing on the disc at launch which you had to pay to unlock. So in all respects the Borderlands DLC is a shining example of how I think all DLC should be. If all DLC were like that I would have nothing to complain about.

[nickmitch]

Your argument would be that "Didn't you enjoy the movie though? Didn't you enjoy the story though? Didn't you enjoy the game though?"

So what if I did? Am I not entitled to what I have bought, payed and PHYSICALLY own though?

No. You are entitled to what you were sold. If I promise to give you X in exchange for $$ and I end up giving you X+Y in exchange for $$, I have fulfilled the terms of our agreement. I have not lied to you or deceived you in anyway. If later on, I decided to give you access to Y for a price, that's fair game.

No one's giving even remotely fair comparison. Paying for a car radio? Like how satellite radio comes in most new cars but you gotta pay extra to use it? Or OnStar? That **** is like $200/yr. The preface of a book? Do I need the preface to enjoy/understand the book? If no, I don't care. If yes, I either pony up or just don't buy the fucking the book.

[NWR_insanolord]

The problem is it's not entirely clear what you are being promised when you buy a game. One of the core premises of capitalism is an informed consumer, and unless you go into great detail with previews, reviews and videos before purchase you don't know exactly what you're paying for.

[Chozo Ghost]

No. You are entitled to what you were sold. If I promise to give you X in exchange for $$ and I end up giving you X+Y in exchange for $$, I have fulfilled the terms of our agreement. I have not lied to you or deceived you in anyway. If later on, I decided to give you access to Y for a price, that's fair game.

It depends on what the definition of "X" and "Y" is. Is "Y" a completely separate, distinct, and original item? Or is "Y" just something the game company decided to break off of "X" and then bundle along with X, but require you to pay extra in order to use?

Let's say "X" is a car , and "Y" is a component of that car, like let's say the transmission or something. So let's say you buy "X" and the car dealer throws in "Y" but "Y" is locked and you have to spend another $1,000 to unlock it. Do you see what I'm saying? Its not a very honest way of doing business, even if it is legal.

As Insanolord said, there's no way to know the full extent of what you are getting with a game unless you do a huge amount of research into it, but that would mean you would know all the spoilers and that might ruin the experience for you. So its not reasonable for anyone to fully know what they are getting into when they are buying a game. That makes it the game company's responsibility to not rip them off or take advantage of them by chiseling off pieces and selling them separately. But how do you draw the line? Who gets to decide where the line is drawn? The problem is its the game companies who get to make that decision, and of course they have a profit motive. So there's way too much potential for abuse.

[Adrock]

PlayStation 4: Sony “confident� of pre-Xbox 720 release
http://ht.ly/a1pXW  <--VG24/7

The design goalposts for PS4, including specs, were in place at least two years ago, we were told. Our source said that Sony is “confident� it will have the console at market ahead of the next generation Xbox next Christmas.

2 years? I don't know if I believe that. Sony is notoriously bad at keeping secrets. Everything gets leaked out of there. If we really wanted, we could probably find out what Kaz Hirai had for lunch yesterday.

“Sony are completely in the belief that they have the jump on Microsoft this time,� they said. “You should be watching the timing of next year’s E3 keynotes, and who’s going to go first.�

A second source said this morning that all next-generation systems will be in place “by 2014″.

If true, they don't seem that concerned about Nintendo getting the jump on them. Sounds like a bad move considering Nintendo launched last in 2006 with significantly weaker hardware and surprised everyone. If anything, they're the wild card here. For everything everyone thinks they know about Wii U, Nintendo has only revealed the controller. What else are they planning? Everyone seems to be counting them out.

In addition VG247 has been told that elements of Vita’s launch hardware were changed to ensure that PS4 and Vita will be able to connect in a similar style to Nintendo’s Wii U and its controller – due for release this year – with Vita’s being used to control PS4 games with both twin sticks and touch.

Sony is kidding themselves if they think Vita is a viable solution to the tablet controller.

I know both Sony & MS said they will not be talking Next Gen @ E3 this year, but you just know that one or both of them are gonna drop some sort of teaser to attempt to spoil the Nintendo party that will be E3 2012. And for as much as we will all likely luv luv luv E3 this year, E3 2013 is gonna be INSANE!!!

Anything less than a full system reveal and games isn't going to spoil the Nintendo party. Still, Sony and Microsoft don't need to spoil the party; they simply have to go out and show solid games. Remind everyone that PS3 and 360 have a lot of life in them (because they do and Wii U won't change that). In fact, announcing successors might have the opposite effect. Instead of raining on Nintendo's parade, they make their current products look like they're going to be replaced soon. Nintendo has more pressure to release a sucessor because of how dated Wii hardware is. PS3 and 360 are still going strong, with no signs of slowing down. I remember reading last year that 360 was actually enjoying better sales.

[broodwars]

Let's say "X" is a car , and "Y" is a component of that car, like let's say the transmission or something. So let's say you buy "X" and the car dealer throws in "Y" but "Y" is locked and you have to spend another $1,000 to unlock it. Do you see what I'm saying? Its not a very honest way of doing business, even if it is legal.

Considering a car can't run without a transmission, I'd say that's a laughably poor comparison at best.

As Insanolord said, there's no way to know the full extent of what you are getting with a game unless you do a huge amount of research into it, but that would mean you would know all the spoilers and that might ruin the experience for you. So its not reasonable for anyone to fully know what they are getting into when they are buying a game. That makes it the game company's responsibility to not rip them off or take advantage of them by chiseling off pieces and selling them separately. But how do you draw the line? Who gets to decide where the line is drawn? The problem is its the game companies who get to make that decision, and of course they have a profit motive. So there's way too much potential for abuse.

As someone who does extensive research on the games I'm interested in purchasing weeks to months ahead of when I buy them, I'd argue that it's your job as an informed consumer to do your research.  If you don't do it, you only have yourself to blame if you get scammed.  You'd be expected to do your research if you were going to buy any number of other expensive thing in your life, and I don't see how games should be any different.

[Stogi]

Your argument would be that "Didn't you enjoy the movie though? Didn't you enjoy the story though? Didn't you enjoy the game though?"

So what if I did? Am I not entitled to what I have bought, payed and PHYSICALLY own though?

No. You are entitled to what you were sold. If I promise to give you X in exchange for $$ and I end up giving you X+Y in exchange for $$, I have fulfilled the terms of our agreement. I have not lied to you or deceived you in anyway. If later on, I decided to give you access to Y for a price, that's fair game.

No one's giving even remotely fair comparison. Paying for a car radio? Like how satellite radio comes in most new cars but you gotta pay extra to use it? Or OnStar? That **** is like $200/yr. The preface of a book? Do I need the preface to enjoy/understand the book? If no, I don't care. If yes, I either pony up or just don't buy the fucking the book.

It's dishonest marketing though, unless it distinctly says "DLC already included for extra fee" right on the box.

Obviously you guys have no problem with partially owning something. I do. If it's on the disc, and I own the disc, I should be able to access the entire disc. The foresight for a company to pull that off is down right insulting. At least make us think you aren't trying to nickel and dime us.

Again, you guys may see this as no different than selling the package online, but it is! It's shipping out with an incomplete game and only later can you buy what the developer would call the "Full Experience". That's bullshit and you know it.

[NWR_insanolord]

Let's say "X" is a car , and "Y" is a component of that car, like let's say the transmission or something. So let's say you buy "X" and the car dealer throws in "Y" but "Y" is locked and you have to spend another $1,000 to unlock it. Do you see what I'm saying? Its not a very honest way of doing business, even if it is legal.

Considering a car can't run without a transmission, I'd say that's a laughably poor comparison at best.

As Insanolord said, there's no way to know the full extent of what you are getting with a game unless you do a huge amount of research into it, but that would mean you would know all the spoilers and that might ruin the experience for you. So its not reasonable for anyone to fully know what they are getting into when they are buying a game. That makes it the game company's responsibility to not rip them off or take advantage of them by chiseling off pieces and selling them separately. But how do you draw the line? Who gets to decide where the line is drawn? The problem is its the game companies who get to make that decision, and of course they have a profit motive. So there's way too much potential for abuse.

As someone who does extensive research on the games I'm interested in purchasing weeks to months ahead of when I buy them, I'd argue that it's your job as an informed consumer to do your research.  If you don't do it, you only have yourself to blame if you get scammed.  You'd be expected to do your research if you were going to buy any number of other expensive thing in your life, and I don't see how games should be any different.

Because doing extensive research into games can significantly reduce their enjoyment. Most other expensive things are a lot more straightforward.

[broodwars]

It's dishonest marketing though, unless it distinctly says "DLC already included for extra fee" right on the box.

Actually, I've noticed that a lot of PS3 games do have something similar.  If you look at the back of the case, there's usually a series of descriptors in the upper-right corner.  For example, my Tales of Graces F case has the following descriptors: "Leaderboards * Add-On Content * Trophies".  And Tales of Graces F has a lot of on-disc DLC, some of which I've purchased for the sake of having it available during my 1st playthrough of the game (basically boosters to help me get through grinding faster, all of which are available in the New Game+ Grade Shop.  I just value my time).

DLC should be free. I'm just going to come out and say it. Because unless it's not, you can't know for sure what the intentions were by the company and therefore can't vote with your dollars.

Intentions don't matter, and you as consumer can always vote with your dollar.  This is the silly argument I was railing against earlier, and just reading it reminds me of Linkara's Superboy Prime vocal routine.  Saying "something should be FREE" because you don't want to pay for it is childish.

[oohhboy]

Broodwars, you're blaming the victim. I have no doubt that there are some rape victims that enjoy being raped, but it doesn't make it right even if there is a majority that enjoy it.

It is not an unreasonable assumption that what should be an everyday transaction should be a fair one. You are making an unreasonable and impossible demand where everybody must have perfect or near perfect information before making a purchase of any kind. You're advocating for a no hold bars world where the relationship is one of Perpetrator and Victim. In your world, if I trick you out of everything you own because of some fine print, it's fair game because you didn't do your research. This is the logical conclusion of your argument and it's one you can't win. It's that same argument that allow people to say that we should let people die because they can't pay. You're arguing for an increase of injustice.

[broodwars]

Broodwars, you're blaming the victim. I have no doubt that there are some rape victims that enjoy being raped, but it doesn't make it right even if there is a majority that enjoy it.

It is not an unreasonable assumption that what should be an everyday transaction should be a fair one. You are making an unreasonable and impossible demand where everybody must have perfect or near perfect information before making a purchase of any kind. You're advocating for a no hold bars world where the relationship is one of Perpetrator and Victim. In your world, if I trick you out of everything you own because of some fine print, it's fair game because you didn't do your research. This is the logical conclusion of your argument and it's one you can't win. It's that same argument that allow people to say that we should let people die because they can't pay. You're arguing for an increase of injustice.

 



There is so much wrong with that post, I don't even know where to begin and I'm not sure why I should even bother.  Silly me for assuming that if you're going to spend $60 (which is a lot of money for a single product) on a game that you are responsible for spending it wisely and doing your due diligence, and likewise for any additional funds.  No, it's the companies' fault that you don't know how to be a responsible consumer.  And it's apparently totally equivalent to sexual crime, because that's certainly not a horrible, laughable straw man.  Gotta love how today's society believes they shouldn't have to be responsible for their actions, that someone else is always to blame and if you want something, you should just be given it because you want it.  Ugh...

[Stogi]

You're basically defending nickle and diming though. I don't why you, the consumer, would do that.

And I'm not saying something should be free because I don't want to pay for it. I'm saying it should be free because I already did pay for it. I bought it. It's in my hands. I can break it or set it on fire, but I can't access everything that's on it?

That's plain stupid; the opposite of common sense.

[oohhboy]

This is coming from the guy who doesn't even understand the meaning of a commodity even after linking to a dictionary of your choosing. If you don't even understand basic economic definitions, it is a safe assumption you have little to no understanding of economic systems.

[broodwars]

You're basically defending nickle and diming though. I don't why you, the consumer, would do that.

Because I believe companies have the same right to try to nickle & dime you as you (the consumer) have the right to not buy it and make the system financially ruinous.  And the best part is that so long as you exercise your right, those mega, evil, NEFARIOUS gaming companies can't monetarily justify exercising theirs.  The reason they put out this DLC is because they think you will buy it.  If you don't buy it, they don't make money and stop doing it.  The only reason it's gotten to this point is because you (the gaming community) have bought it in sufficient amounts.  The companies are responding to the Demand we as a community have demonstrated, so if you want to point fingers at anyone point it at yourselves.

[Stogi]

You completely ignored the part where I said this:

And I'm not saying something should be free because I don't want to pay for it. I'm saying it should be free because I already did pay for it. I bought it. It's in my hands. I can break it or set it on fire, but I can't access everything that's on it?

That's plain stupid; the opposite of common sense.

[broodwars]

You completely ignored the part where I said this:

And I'm not saying something should be free because I don't want to pay for it. I'm saying it should be free because I already did pay for it. I bought it. It's in my hands. I can break it or set it on fire, but I can't access everything that's on it?

That's plain stupid; the opposite of common sense.

Well, I don't believe you'd written part of that yet when I originally responded, and I wanted to address that main line while it was fresh in my mind.  As for that quote, as painful as it may be think of a physical product that way, you did not pay for everything on that disc.  My father (who is a higher-level employee at a major PC software company) must drill this into me at least twice a month.  You pay for a license to access the content the developers intend for you to experience.  For better or worse, that's in your EULA.

Now, do I agree with that from a moral perspective?  *shrugs* I can see several sides to that argument, but as I've said whether or not I actually care tends to come down to what I thought of the experience I was allowed access to.  If it was an unsatisfactory experience, it tends to bother me quite a bit if something worthwhile that would have made that experience satisfactory is locked behind an on-disc pay wall.  If it was a satisfactory experience, whatever.  I got my money's worth, and perhaps I'll pay for more content, regardless of where it is stored.

In some cases, it's also somewhat necessary for DLC content to be on-disc.  For instance, I've heard many problems cited with Mortal Kombat players trying to play online with DLC-downloaded characters.  If you or your opponent doesn't have a character one of you pick (and you didn't download some kind of compatibility DLC), the match can't proceed.  So on some level, it's probably a good thing that Capcom puts DLC fighters on the disc.  It ensures that all players online have characters their opponent may use against them, for the sake of stable online play.  That's one example I've heard cited on various podcasts, anyway.

Now, I've listed a few examples where I thought the game's content was satisfactorily handled before DLC, so here's one where I didn't: Assassin's Creed 2.  I thought the main game was completely satisfying until I reached near the end of the game where the game practically screams at you that you're about to skip 2 DLC chapters.  If the game hadn't just advertised in the narrative that I was missing out on content, I would have been OK with purchasing the later content.  But the way that was handled just soured me on the whole thing, and I didn't end up getting the DLC packs until last July or so (looong after I had traded the game in) when they were bundled with the digital version of the game for around $10.

[Enner]

Doesn't help that the two missing Assassin's Creed 2 memory sequences are bad, especially when compared to the rest of the game.

[Spak-Spang]

Wow, this is getting into a heated debate about nothing. 

The fact is companies are going to do this.  Period.  It is right or wrong...it is how it is.  Some people will like it because it means easier access to DLC...no waiting for downloads and they can quickly enjoy an extra bonus to a game they enjoy.  Others see it as nickeling and dining because if the company could put it on the disc it should be available to play.  Some one else might see it another way...hey free content I can hack into and not pay for it...like iI would if I had to download it. 

In the end, you the consumer are choosing whether or not you are being nickeled and aimed and whether or not you want to accept it...by purchasing the additional content or even purchasing the original game.  You have the right to just say no.

That said the honest question of SHOULD game companies do this...is an interesting question, but largely irrelevant because unless the masses of gamers reject this type of pay to play content already on the disc then companies will continue to do it.

Personally, I don't like the practice, but I don't see it as evil or even nickeling and diming I see it as a company struggling to make a little more profit on a high risk product they pro ducted.