How the %&#$ does this keep happening?

[Fencers]

on disc DLC wants a word with you

Unless the buyer paid for that content inclusion, it is not theirs. The content you have paid for at the point of sale is the only thing you are entitled to ownership &/or lease.

also the illegality of false advertisement

There are so few instances of false advertising in the video game industry as to be nonexistent. The seller would have to knowingly and willing mislead the buyer at point of sale to be so.

I do product quantitative research for litigation as part of my job. False advertisement is something companies are VERY careful about- as even their competitors can sue under these terms in the US.

[Wilian]

Unless the buyer paid for that content inclusion, it is not theirs. The content you have paid for at the point of sale is the only thing you are entitled to ownership &/or lease.

Just because something is legal does not make it immune of criticism as it's terribly poor practice.

[Nirawen]

What microtransaction can't be grinded in game in a Ubisoft game? Proof?

Well as this is a Siege thread I'll just use that and say the weapon skins.

If you don't buy it, it's meaningless because you can get it in game anyways why the hell do you care that other people do buy it? Things like that are why Video Games have not risen with inflation even with development costs for AAA games increasing every year.

You're making the assumption that I dislike the concept of microtransactions. I don't have a problem with most of them, especially things like the aforementioned skins, but Ubisoft are far from having a clean record when it comes to the negative aspects of microtransactions.

As for microtransactions in general it's not always about what other people have (though it often is i.e. Payday2) but what the individual doesn't have, some people would just prefer to pay a set modest fee and get all content (where applicable obviously) and don't care about what others have. I don't necessarily feel that way but I don't think it's entirely unwarranted either.

[Fencers]

Just because something is legal does not make it immune of criticism as it's terribly poor practice.

Subjective value attribution. Not my concern to argue over.

[Jtbrig7390]

Unless the buyer paid for that content inclusion, it is not theirs. The content you have paid for at the point of sale is the only thing you are entitled to ownership &/or lease.

Sadly this isn't true even more so on PC gaming then console (Not starting a Console Vs PC argument)

On pc each company EA,Valve,Ubisoft in there TOS state they have the right to end said license at anytime. Even more so if you break any of there rules for using said license. Example being those who got banned and GTAV removed from there account due to breaking TOS.

At lease on console all they really can do is ban me from the online part of the game. I can still play SP just fine. This is one reason why I won't go 100% digital.

Online only games is another example of this.

I have come to accept the current state of gaming because it isn't going to change. Not enough people give a shit to change it. So I look at a product see what is there and what is cut and then decide the price its worth to me.

[Auxora]

I do agree that DLC took a dark turn in 2015 for video games. I'm not anti-DLC generally if it's actually added content and reasonably priced, and if content in the original game isn't stripped and then resold as "DLC". But looking at games this year like Evolve, Battlefront, RB6: Siege (and plenty of other examples), this has been the year of blatantly selling 60-70% of a full game as a whole game and then selling a season pass for the remainder. That's way different than getting 100% of a game and then purchasing DLC for an extra 10-20% of additional content. Worse yet, then later some of the companies try dumping the base game for cheap to lure unsuspecting late buyers into buying the game just to sell more DLC which they leave at full price. Evolve selling the base game for $10 when the season pass is still $50 for example.

Dying Light was an example at the other end of the spectrum, where the game was huge and there was a reasonably priced season pass (which they are still continuing to add included content for by the way) to just add even more content. Unfortunately for 2015, Dying Light was more the exception than the rule. Witcher 3 I'd add in the good list too. But still too many like Evolve/The Crew/Battlefront/Siege this year.

[Fencers]

Sadly this isn't true even more so on PC gaming then console

In the quoted part of my text you posted here it states: "&/or lease."

[Jtbrig7390]

In the quoted part of my text you posted here it states: "&/or lease."

True myfault. Just pointing out the difference's of "Owning" on each platform.

[Radaney]

Subjective value attribution. Not my concern to argue over.

But do you think it's a pretty scummy thing to do?

[Atrea]

People on these forums complain about Blizzard, but don't realize how good they have it by comparison.

[badzerath]

Errors in the programming are transitory for the most part.

You have to consider whether these 'issues' you cite are affecting a significant portion of the player base as to cause the developer to lose money.

Games only have to meet a minimum spec to be published. It becomes exponentially more costly to delay release or (worst case scenario) pull a game from retail. It just has to be mostly playable for most of the customer base. Nothing else.

This literally translates to "do the absolute fucking minimum to push shit out the door on this date".............in what other industry is that acceptable?

This is not a sensible talking point. The customer is only ever entitled to what is included with the product as sold at checkout. Everything else, everything, is an addendum which is the seller's right to charge additional payment as they see fit.

I understand this. Everyone over the age of 13 understands this. That's why I explained in detail that they are following a market trend in gaming where pieces of shit think it's ok to push out a base product (which you already admitted is given minimal effort for a release asap) that has had half the content stripped out so that it can be sold as DLC. Or, as you called it "addendum". It's cancerous, dishonest, shady, insulting, greedy, and fucking unnecessary.

We fucking get the reality of it being DLC. I am saying I am not so stupid as to not recognize bullshit when I smell it. I am honestly shocked that you thought people didn't understand what DLC meant, and that you are seemingly defending the trend.

I do product quantitative research for litigation as part of my job.

Holy shit I found the problem.

You don't buy something from ubisoft, you steal it.

Seems to be behavior they are encouraging.