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

[Stogi]

You what a company struggling could do to make a little more profit? Make a better game.

[nickmitch]

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.

The thing about that is the people bitching about DLC know what they're buying. If I sell you a fighting game with 18 characters and 4 "secret" ones, you're gonna know who they are. If I say, "There's three more on the disc, I'll let you have 'em for $5" that's separate consideration.

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.

Let's not do that since the transmission is an essential part of a car, and DLC is not an essential part of a game. I made a reference to satellite radio and OnStar earlier that I think are more applicable.

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.

A "huge amount"? That's not accurate as you pretty much have to actively avoid spoilers on the internet. And it's really not hard to find websites where people review games and actively talk about game content, though I can't think of one right now. . .

And if you're worried about not getting spoilers, you can only finding out that you're paying for disc locked content by going online, a place you'd avoid to not receive spoilers. And if you didn't know the difference then why would it matter?

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.

It depends on if people actually feel genuinely ripped off or just entitled to something they were never promised. That's the line. Is there potential for abuse? Yeah, but that's the thing about everything.

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

Not really. If the box says "X charcters" and you get "X characters" no body lied to you. If they say, "Get Y more character for $5," no one lied to you whether it was on the disc or not.

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.

The purpose of DLC IS to nickle and dime you. Whether the developer legitimately continued making new **** for the game after release or not. They would only keep working because they can get another big pay off for incremental work done, instead of having to come out with another full sized project.

Also, the idea of ownership when it comes to software has come up time and time again as to exactly what you "own." Ultimately, it's a license. Not a list of 1s and 0s.

And then there's the idea of a developer shipping out an "incomplete game." What exactly makes a game incomplete? There are obvious lines we could draw, like not having a last level, incomplete story, etc. But no one would buy those games anyway. So, where is the incomplete game line?

[Chozo Ghost]

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.

That's not the point. Instead of Transmission, let's say Y is some part of the car which is important but not critical for it to function.What do you have to say now?

You are just deliberately changing the subject because you have no argument.

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.

Remember how pissed off and disappointed you were over Skyrim and how buggy it was on the PS3? By your own logic, you should have done your research and by your logic it is all entirely your fault and Bethesda is not to blame for it at all.

But as I recall you were bashing Bethesda and also Sony's QA for allowing that to be released. You didn't blame yourself or other consumers for not doing enough research.

So I guess what it comes down to is your principle about business having the right to do whatever the market will tolerate only extends so far. When it does things which piss you off, then its a different story.

[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.

That's not the point. Instead of Transmission, let's say Y is some part of the car which is important but not critical for it to function.What do you have to say now?

I say that nickmitch already covered this argument.  DLC is at best equivalent to something like satellite radio or GPS.  When you buy the car, you still have to pay for those services.  Just because they're in the car, that doesn't mean you get free access to them.  They're extras, and you pay accordingly.

[Chozo Ghost]

I edited my post while you were replying. That "its your job to be an informed customer" argument seemed to have went out the window when you were pissed off about Skyrim and its many bugs.

[broodwars]

I edited my post while you were replying. That "its your job to be an informed customer" argument seemed to have went out the window when you were pissed off about Skyrim and its many bugs.

I was as informed a customer about Skyrim PS3 as anyone could have been at the time of my purchase.  The gaming media didn't do their job and report on/review PS3 Skyrim, allowing themselves instead to be suckered into reviewing the versions Bethesda wanted them to review.  If you bought Skyrim PS3 in that first week, as I did, there was no way to know ahead of time how bad that version would be since the information just wasn't out there (especially since the most egregious bugs only appeared after you'd put a substantial amount of time into the game).  After my best friend's time with Oblivion and my own time with Fallout 3, I expected bugs to be sure, but nowhere near as bad as Skyrim PS3 was.

The difference is that Bethesda not only shipped a bad product, but that they shipped a bad product and then conspired with Sony and the gaming media to make sure that no one could know how bad it was until they'd already given their non-refundable $60.  I consider the whole PS3 Skyrim debacle to be borderline fraud willingly perpetuated by multiple entities in the industry, which is especially bad since the bugs in PS3 Skyrim could corrupt your HDD and destroy your PS3.  That's a far cry from having content on the disc you have to pay extra for, especially since PS3 games (and I see 360 ones do as well, though it's more hidden) have a descriptor on the back of the case telling you that add-on content for the game exists.

[oohhboy]

BS. One moment your saying the consumer bares the resposibility to stay informed. Then with the next moment it's no longer your job to be informed passing on the blame to others? You were suckered as much as the next person and it was by design by the company with full knowledge that they were releasing an incomplete/buggy game.

It is a market failure that one has to make purchasing decisions based on the assumption that the other party is inherently dishonest with such a basic transaction. What does that say to you about society as a whole that must operate at such a high level of distrust? Why does buying a game have to become an adversarial relationship? Buying a game shouldn't be this hard.

I told you earlier that you can't win this argument because you are advocating for a system that increases injustice, but you couldn't see pass the first sentence of that post.

[Chozo Ghost]

especially since PS3 games (and I see 360 ones do as well, though it's more hidden) have a descriptor on the back of the case telling you that add-on content for the game exists.

I tell you what, if game companies were to put a descriptor on the case specifically stating that the game contains disc locked content that you have to pay to unlock then I am on board with you 100% that the ball is now in the court of consumers. But as it is, there is no such indicator on the packaging, and that too is borderline fraud.

You say customers should be informed by reading reviews and whatnot, but when have you ever read a review in a gaming magazine stating that a game has disc locked content? It might have happened, but I've never seen it. Customers have a right to know what they are buying (or more accurately, what they are buying but not getting). That's why product labels exist. Consumers want to know if something has trans fat or high fructose corn syrup in it. But we also want to know if there is disc locked content in our games.

If people know its there and still want to buy it, so be it. But we should have the right to know so we can make our own informed decisions. You say consumers tolerate this crap, but I suspect the majority of consumers don't even know its there. Its not so much that they tolerate it as it is that they are ignorant of it, and that is due to the borderline fraud committed by the game companies. Quietly inserting this disc locked content into the launch discs and not saying anything about it is intentionally deceptive.

[Ceric]

Wasn't the Cell processor supposed to be some revolutionary huge leap forward that supposedly shattered Moore's law? At least that was how Sony seemed to have trumpeted it when it was first introduced. I guess it really wasn't all it was cracked up to be if they are kicking it to the curb.

It probably was, but in the computer game custom hardware for things like processor are barely tolerated even if its vastly superior to Von Neumann Architecture.  Its a hard force to buck.  Intel tried once and they couldn't break it.

...
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?
...

Always.  Literally, if you are a true Die-Hard Capitalist then Ferengi are the purest form you could ever achieve.  That's why all cultures and governments live somewhere in the grey.
 
If you think of the Disc like the Internet, a medium of data transportation (Which it actually is.) It sort of clears this up for a bit.  I pay every month to access the Internet and Content therein.  There is a lot of content on the Internet that I have to pay for.  I had already paid for the Internet, so if we go buy the everything on the medium approach all the software and porn that can be had should be mine for my monthly fee.  Its already on the Internet you see.  If you look at it as just a transportation mechanism that yes I pay to use the Internet and there is content, like NWR, that I am now entitled to be able to view for my monthly charge.
 
The medium of Transportation be it the Internet or Disc is irrelevant.  DLC will be planned to be sold seperately and whether you have to wait to download it from a server or just unlock it is irrelevant.  It won't change what happens.
 
An interesting side note, this is exactly how you get some of the weird loop holes and procedure in government.

[nickmitch]

BS. One moment your saying the consumer bares the resposibility to stay informed. Then with the next moment it's no longer your job to be informed passing on the blame to others? You were suckered as much as the next person and it was by design by the company with full knowledge that they were releasing an incomplete/buggy game.

You're not making an apples to apples comparison here. If I sold you an excessively buggy game and charged you for a patch after promising a reasonably bug-free game, then that could be construed as fraud. Maybe. More like extortion.
Anyway, the key piece of fraud is deception. In no way is disc locked content deceptive, unless the promise was a disc full of data, all of which you could readily access. If that were true, it'd be a different story. I don't understand why it being on the disc makes a difference. Would it make you feel any better to if devs intentionally withheld content so that they could "legitimately" let you download it later? If they flat out said it was removed from the disc, so as to not piss people off because they were getting nickle and dimed anyway?

[Adrock]

I wish this thread had DLC that re-railed this discussion. See what I did there? No? Okay, I'll see myself out.

[Ian Sane]

Here's what I think is the problem with DLC already included on the disc.  Until recently console games didn't have DLC.  EVERYTHING on the disc was accessible to the player unless it was some cancelled feature that someone forgot to physically remove.  The only DLC that existed was expansion packs for PC games but those games never were about unlocking content it was about NEW content.  Yes, many PC games clearly planned to have an expansion pack available ASAP so in that sense they were "withholding" content.  But when you bought an expansion pack you got new physical files and programs.  You were given something new.

DLC that is already on the disc is largely arbitrary.  It was ready for the game's release and was shipped out with the game and they just decided "no, you have to pay extra for this".  Yeah, they probably would not have spent the extra development time making it if they didn't plan on selling it as DLC but that's not the point.  The point is that until this generation when we bought a game we got EVERYTHING on the disc or cartridge and all expansions involved actual new content being provided physically.  Now we don't.  Why?  What makes it acceptable to take that away from us and to now tell us that we have to pay to unlock the full game that is on the disc we bought?  What makes it acceptable to decide that THIS portion of the game on the disc is covered by the purchase price and this section isn't?  And how does one make a clear distinction between something that should be available right away and is something that was designed specifically for DLC and wasn't part of the main game budget?  There is no way to determine that.  At least before when you got what was on the disc and all expansions were extra files you had to download or buy and install there was a clear seperation.  No one had a problem with that model and it worked well for all parties.  Consumers got to access everything on the physical copy they bought and publishers still had the ability to provide and charge for extra content.

DLC isn't new, they just changed how it works.  If we never had it, maybe this on-the-disc stuff would fly but we had it without that for years.  What justification is there to change the "rules" on us?

The thing is that you can get rid of this DLC-on-the-disc nonsense and a company like Capcom can STILL do the same thing they're doing now without any real backlash from consumers.  They can prepare the DLC during the main development like always and have it planned from the get go.  BUT they can keep it off the disc and hold off on releasing it until a few weeks after release.  It's the same thing for them but consumers won't complain that it's already on the disc or that since it was released on day one that it should have been there all along.  They're pretty greedy idiots to not realize how easily they could tweak their strategy and stop looking like the bad guys.

From a customer perspective the only benefit of DLC is to get more content for a game we really like and that was the real selling point of the first PC expansion packs.  Nickel and diming DLC only benefits the company.  What sort of nutbar would WANT to have the option to pay for all sorts of chincy stuff that 10 years ago would either be on the disc or wouldn't exist?  No one wants that, some suckers will just go with it. No one would ever have ASKED for it but they would and did ask for additional levels or missions.  That sort of DLC truly reflects the wants of gamers.

If DLC was illegal I honestly wouldn't give a ****.  The only time I wanted it was for Guitar Hero/Rock Band but instead Activision just released tons of "sequels" and Rock Band did the same thing with the Beatles.  The one time that microtransactions made sense and they instead insisted on going with the old cookie-cutter sequel model, likely because in this case that was the model that jerked consumers around more.

[oohhboy]

Wrong nickmitch, the expectation is that the game is reasonably bug free from the get go. They knew full well they were releasing a buggy game and they were deceptive in their marketing to the public and it's representation to the media.

Removing it from the disc is no different from having it on disc. Shifting it off disc is only serves to obfuscate their premeditated dishonesty. Having on disc content locked out by a pay wall only exists to hide the true price of a product, an action that is inherently dishonest and runs counter to capitalism should you frame it that way as it moves away from achieving perfect information. How do you know how much something is worth if you are not given the true price? How can ou make an informed decision if such basic information is being omitted?

They are abusing their market position and you are arguing for that continued abuse. Consumers as a whole maybe larger than any one company, but they are largely incoherent. Through that incoherence, they are largely incapable of affecting changes that are positive to their self interest short of generating massive amounts of outrage. Most are content as we are now infighting, hand waving away these abuses with one excuse after another.

[broodwars]

Sheesh, I step out for an hour to do some minor grocery shopping and suddenly the topic erupts again...

Oohhboy - What you're missing is that I did every bit of research possible on Skyrim before I purchased it.  I read and watched reviews, listened to podcasts discussing the game, read posts on the PS3 Skyrim forums, and talked about the game extensively with my best friend (who had purchased the game ahead of me and was 10-15 hours in at the time).  IGN, in fact, even had a video at launch talking specifically about the PS3 version where they said that the game was "fine" on that console.  I did my research as an informed consumer, and neither fellow gamers nor critics gave a sign that the PS3 version was as messed-up as it was.  I bought a bad version of a good game despite my every move to avoid doing so, and as a result I am not giving Bethesda more of my money until they change their ways.

By contrast, gaming websites frequently post press releases, news stories, and reviews that specifically mention the presence of DLC.  I remember the internet fury when it was leaked that Street Fighter x Tekken had on-disc DLC characters several weeks ahead of the game's launch.  There are plenty of sources on the internet where an interested gamer can research the presence of DLC, so I don't see the two things as equivalent.

Chozo Ghost - I'm fine with games having more clear disclaimers on the case stating that there's content on the disc locked behind DLC pay walls.  The current disclaimers don't bother me, but there's no harm in having more specifics so gamers can be better informed.  That sounds like a fine middle ground on the subject.

Ian - I'd rather have the option to purchase or not purchase on-disc DLC than have the content simply not be made (which it wouldn't be if companies couldn't profit off of it).  The industry is never going back to "the good old days", and I don't see the problem in giving gamers further choice in how they choose to experience their games.  You don't have to purchase this content.

[Fatty The Hutt]

There's a lot of words up there, so if someone's said this already, I apologize for repeating and also commend you for being correct.
The gist of (at least one of the) arguments in opposition to on-disc, unlockable DLC seems to be that it is offensive or dishonest in some way to be artificially locked out from content you purchased and have otherwise in-hand. I think this argument is misplaced.
 
You just seem to be arguing about delivery method. If the extra content it is somethig you download, that apparently is OK. But if all you download is an unlock key for content already on your disc, this is not OK. Personally, I see little distinction. In fact, I would rather the extra, unlockable content already be on the disc. It will be faster to access, if and when I want it. I won't have to wait for a potentially large file to download and install.

[Ian Sane]

Ian - I'd rather have the option to purchase or not purchase on-disc DLC than have the content simply not be made (which it wouldn't be if companies couldn't profit off of it).  The industry is never going back to "the good old days", and I don't see the problem in giving gamers further choice in how they choose to experience their games.  You don't have to purchase this content.

No is forced to buy anything so it is nice to have options.  It does kind of suck though that you'll pay full price for a game that charges you to unlock something that ten years ago would have been free.  I'm not saying DLC should be outlawed but I sure wouldn't care if it was.  I could do without the whole concept.

[oohhboy]

It didn't matter how much research you did, they knew and they lied to everybody including you. The media had on good faith believed when told the PS3 version was "fine". They had clearly abused their postion and trust. It wasn't some obscure bug they didn't find, it is something that would happen with every play through. If they are willing to lie to you over this, imagine the lies they are tell ing you to sell on disc content and striped dlc.

It's a lot more than simply a delivery method problem. Ian Sane had expanded well on that issue. It's about the motives, intentions and premeditation of striped DLC and on disc content. DLC isn't new, but before it was always honest new substantial content. It's not a question of choice or "It doesn't exist if not for DLC", it has always existed and the company isn't giving you a "choice", they are double dipping, selling the same thing twice, on content they have already created and normally available as part of a whole package in one transaction. This is an unacceptable change in relationship between the developer and gamer.

Such a "choice" isn't one you should have to make in a first place. The choice is a false one. For those who don't buy into on disc content or striped dlc are left with an incomplete base game and it's done by design only to extract more money on the same amount of content as before.

[Luigi Dude]

[Chozo Ghost]

If DLC comes out weeks or months after the release of a game, and if you download it and the file is at least a few hundred megabytes or 1 or 2 gigabytes then you can feel confident you are getting some new expansion which significantly adds to the original game and you know you are getting your money's worth. But if the DLC is available on release day or soon after, and is only a 100kb or similar file, then you immediately know you are being ripped off. Nothing substantial could ever be packed into a download that's only 100kb. That's only enough for an avatar or wallpaper at best.

But a serious issue of all DLC which I don't think anyone has brought up in this thread yet is how is that going to be accessible 10 years from now after all the online services get shut down? You may have the disc with the DLC on it locked away, but without that online service how the hell can you access it? You can't. Even if you paid for it years ago. And that's wrong.

[broodwars]

But a serious issue of all DLC which I don't think anyone has brought up in this thread yet is how is that going to be accessible 10 years from now after all the online services get shut down? You may have the disc with the DLC on it locked away, but without that online service how the hell can you access it? You can't. Even if you paid for it years ago. And that's wrong.

Honestly, I'm not terribly concerned about that.  10-15 years from now, I foresee all these games and consoles being hacked and the content archived on some future website or whatnot.  Considering how widely hacked all the previous consoles have been, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility.  The internet loves archiving this stuff.  You download some PS3/360-compatible file, open it up on your PS3, and it unlocks and installs all the DLC and patches.

That's assuming that the content rights holders don't shut all that stuff down.  But considering how successful they've been so far with content from old consoles, I doubt that'll be the case.

That's assuming that by that point I'll still care about these games, and that I didn't already repurchase my old favorites on some subsequent console.

[Ian Sane]

The issue of what happens to DLC ten years from now is the same issue about always-online single player games and locking out used titles and going with a download-only model.  I'm not thrilled about it but I've realized that a lot of people don't care.  How do you expect someone to care about what's going to happen in ten years when they trade their games into GameStop a month after they buy it?  It doesn't matter for people that exist only in the present and that's why any of this stuff has taken off.  If the whole world thought like me then DLC would never have taken off and a game like Diablo III would be doomed to failure on its DRM alone.

But I agree with broodwars in that 10 years from now all of this stuff will be hacked so it won't be lost.  Still, you know that these companies are not going to be cool with this.  They'll try to track down on the illegal stuff and for any part of it that is legal, they'll be lobbying the government to make it such.  I don't like the idea that we don't own the copy of IP we buy, that it is only a "licence" for a finite period of time the company arbitrarily decides.  That puts too much power in the hands of corporations.  Public acceptance of those practices will push the law more in that direction.  Yeah, right now, they can't really nail us too hard for bypassing these things but we don't know what things will be like in ten years.  What if in ten years the internet is strongly regulated so it isn't as easy to do this stuff?  What if ten years from now being caught hacking your old PS4 results in such an overblown punishment that it isn't worth the risk?  The videogame companies are lobbying this stuff and as people gleefully accept the concept of "licencing" IP it will make it easier for the government to cater to the videogame companies.

We'll never "lose" any videogame but it might be such a pain in the ass to retrieve the old stuff that it isn't worth the hassle.  And of course being able to circumvent something easily isn't justifcation enough to allow the restriction in the first place.  I would prefer to just not have it there at all.  If the law was such that it was illegal to drink straight from a milk carton I wouldn't be too scared of getting in trouble for doing it in the privacy of my own home.  BUT it would be better if I didn't have think about it at all.  I would prefer to just play my old used games without any issues.

[Chozo Ghost]

Honestly, I'm not terribly concerned about that.  10-15 years from now, I foresee all these games and consoles being hacked and the content archived on some future website or whatnot.  Considering how widely hacked all the previous consoles have been, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility.  The internet loves archiving this stuff.  You download some PS3/360-compatible file, open it up on your PS3, and it unlocks and installs all the DLC and patches.

That is certainly a possibility, but as Ian pointed out it would be illegal and it shouldn't be illegal to be able to indefinitely enjoy the DLC you legally purchased. It isn't morally wrong to do it in any way, but the law wouldn't care. You could face something like 10 years in prison or a 500,000 dollar fine, or whatever it gets jacked up to by then. Just because you had legally purchased the game in the past wouldn't matter, and there would probably be no way for you to prove it anyway.

[oohhboy]

I come bearing another piece of gaming shame. EA voted America's worse company.

And a pretty good follow up article on Forbes.

I voted with my wallet years ago and haven't brought an EA game in the longest time. The problem is that companies don't have a concept of a negative/spoiled vote. If you don't spend money, you don't exist and if you spend money you have just done what they wanted you to do all along. The only time they notice anything is wrong when somehow gamers manage to form a barely coherent boycott of a game, crashing the sales, something that happens so rarely I doubt they even it comes up on an actuary tables since they push so heavily for day one sales. All this is in the face of the jabbering masses new to the industry who don't know what their rights are when handed them and the apologist like broodwars who consistently insist that the we have "moved on", with one excuse after another, saying the new regime is better than the old when it was with old is where both gamer and developer reached maximum benefit.

Current DLC model only exists to hide the price of a game. Imagine if instead of striping out content to sell back to you, they jacked up the price to the same amount as if you brought the DLC. $60 games now $70 or $80, reflecting the true amount of what the company wants from you. Would you still buy it given the sticker price shock? or do you prefer being boiled slowly like a frog?

I should have found Luigi dude's image ages ago. In 3 pictures it shows why the current DLC model is both unethical and broken.

[Oblivion]

That's a very great infographic.

[nickmitch]

Current DLC model only exists to hide the price of a game. Imagine if instead of striping out content to sell back to you, they jacked up the price to the same amount as if you brought the DLC. $60 games now $70 or $80, reflecting the true amount of what the company wants from you. Would you still buy it given the sticker price shock? or do you prefer being boiled slowly like a frog?

I would wait until the price came down or just buy the game used. It's not that complicated.

And I'm sorry companies you hate still exist even if you don't buy their products. It's just one of those things that happens sometimes.

And that picture again is a terrible metaphor. The last picture has a noticeable chunk missing from it. Seeing the full picture costs an extra $45. Anyone who's seen the rest of the picture (a reviewer) can tell me what the deal is ahead of time, leaving me free to decide that's horseshit and not be bothered with it.

Honestly, I don't know what the **** you're even talking about any more. You're posts are starting to read like something I'd rather not describe to avoid breaking any rules.