By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Patcher- On Disk DLC Is Plain Greedy... Your Entitled To HACK The Disc

When the topic of downloadable content in video games is brought up, there are a few issues that annoy many gamers in the way the publishers choose to deliver this DLC. One delivery technique that has been on a spiral as of late, is the practice of including DLC content on the retail release of the game disc, and then forcing consumers to pay for content that is already on the disc to be unlocked.

The recently released title that has become the poster child of this practice is that of Street Fighter X Tekken. This title was released with a great number of downloadable content that had been stored on the retail disc. This content was then locked, forcing the user to pay a fee to unlock content that was already stored on the disc that they bought the retailer.

This is a subject that was brought into the attention of the videogame analyst, Michael Pachter, in his show Pach-Attack. When this subject was brought up, this is what Pachter had to say about it:

Yeah, it’s just plain greed. The answer is that simple. I think that DLC has been so successful that publishers are trying to get a jumpstart and if you put it on the disc it allows them to unlock it when they feel like it.

A few years ago, we didn’t see DLC for typically six months after a game launch and I think it was Red Dead Redemption, but Take-Two kind of pioneered and launched DLC like a month after the original title and it was super successful, now you’re seeing a lot more guys do it.

Some guys get it right, some guys take a long time to get it out, putting it on the disc allows the publisher to determine the optimal moment to launch it. All DLC is great, games are getting shorter, DLC is keeping people engaged, it’s a profit deal. I don’t think it makes much difference how it’s delivered.”

Finally, he goes on to comment that “the stuff on the disc, some gamers feel entitled to because they bought the disc, so they should have a right to anything that’s on the disc,” he said. “And that’s a dicey one, you actually do own the disc and I think, theoretically, if you could crack the code on the DLC you probably would be allowed to access it without paying. And I’m not even sure that’s stealing because you did, in fact, buy the disc. That’s about as close as you can get to legal piracy.”

It seems that he clearly backs the same response that many gamers have announced that they represent. It is simply bad business for a publisher to develop and place DLC on a retail disc and lock it from consumers use, until they purchase that content.

http://www.examiner.com/article/pachter-on-disc-dlc-is-plain-greed-it-s-a-profit-deal



                                                             

                                                                      Play Me

Around the Network

Actually, privateering would be as close as you can get to legal piracy.

-Sir Francis Drake



noname2200 said:
Actually, privateering would be as close as you can get to legal piracy.

-Sir Francis Drake

I wonder if privateering is legal under international law, if someone were authorized by a country's armed forces for the plunder of trade without an existing state of war, would that be allowed?



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Mr Khan said:
noname2200 said:
Actually, privateering would be as close as you can get to legal piracy.

-Sir Francis Drake

I wonder if privateering is legal under international law, if someone were authorized by a country's armed forces for the plunder of trade without an existing state of war, would that be allowed?

Yes, it remains legally valid. It's been barred by treaty in several dozen nations though. I don't recall it being used anytime in the past century or so.



Mr Khan said:
noname2200 said:
Actually, privateering would be as close as you can get to legal piracy.

-Sir Francis Drake

I wonder if privateering is legal under international law, if someone were authorized by a country's armed forces for the plunder of trade without an existing state of war, would that be allowed?


Declaration of Paris outlawed it. It's subject to life imprisonment in the US. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Declaration_Respecting_Maritime_Law

On topic: Last year VGC taught me, all piracy is bad and you shouldn't do it 



Around the Network
TadpoleJackson said:


Declaration of Paris outlawed it. It's subject to life imprisonment in the US. 

?

Where are you getting that from? Do you mean "piracy" instead? Because privateering powers are included in the Constitution. And it doesn't make much sense to get life imprisonment for something that the Congress has specifically permitted you to do!



No, just no. We buy a license to play the game, just like with movies and music. I don't see a difference between on disc and day one dlc.



JoeTheBro said:
No, just no. We buy a license to play the game, just like with movies and music. I don't see a difference between on disc and day one dlc.


So you're OK with buying a movie, but then paying $5 more to be able to watch the extended cut that was actually already included on your disc in the first place?

Or with buying a music CD but paying an extra $2 to unlock a couple extra tracks that were already on it?



 SW-5120-1900-6153

JoeTheBro said:
No, just no. We buy a license to play the game, just like with movies and music. I don't see a difference between on disc and day one dlc.


Day one dlc and on disk dlcs are more or less the same. 

HOWEVER. The served purpose of DLCs at the first place are mini "expansions". What would you feel when YOU buy a game FULL priced at $60. Then parts of it are chopped off IN THE DISK itself only to be unlocked by paying $20 more.

Dont you feel ripped off? Cuz im sure as heck I would.

DLCs should be unfinished projects at the release of the full game. The yshould be add ons that should be added LATER. DLC development should not conincide with the full game development at the first place. As the company SACRIFICES and CONSUMES time to develop DLCs instead of the full game itself. In which they already KNOW that they are attempting to nickle and dime us.

 



Yay!!!

JoeTheBro said:
No, just no. We buy a license to play the game, just like with movies and music. I don't see a difference between on disc and day one dlc.

Well lookey you, Mr. On-Topic.

I don't think it's actually that clear cut. There's a clear legal difference between a "sale" (physical object sold) and a "license" (no physical object is present). The only semi-on-point case I know of regarding whether you can circumvent DRM wound up on the "yes" side.