PDA

View Full Version : Any possibility of legal action?



X_Hamilton_X
06-24-2006, 05:23 PM
I wonder if this could lead to any sort of consumer legal issues with Microsoft or Ubi.

Consider: what if a large % of the Live community gets this game? This would leave those who don't get it unable to play the game on online despite paying for the Xbox Live service and the game as advertised by Ubi as playable on Live. The game was sold without notice than an extra $15 would be required to play on Xbox Live past a certain date.

Scenario: Joe Smith buys this game 2 months from now. Joe tries to get on Xbox Live but is unable to join any games because he has not paid the extra, unadvertised, $15 fee. Does Joe have a case?

Is this any sort of actionable case for consumers who bought the game for $60 but did not pay the extra $15 fee to play on Live?

Yeah, I know it isn't likely to happen. I'm posting this more just as food for thought than any sort of expectation this would come to pass. I should probably post this question in a legal forum somewhere.

Scoliotic
06-24-2006, 06:02 PM
He can still play with people that don't have the DLC. You can't sue because the game doesn't have a huge online community. There are plenty of dead games out there are playable on the 360. Can they sue each company for those games?

Aj6627
06-24-2006, 07:59 PM
1. You don't need the DLC to play with people. You can play with anyone as long as they are playing on old maps.

2. This content is an ADD ON to the game. Not a $15 part of the game.

3. I would love to see you or anyone else go up against Ubi in a court. You would go broke just hiring a lawyer to go up against them.

X_Hamilton_X
06-24-2006, 09:14 PM
So far, most people who have posted have said you can't play with people who have the DLC if you don't. Now if you can, then that's great and this point is moot.

However, the scenario I've set up is one where most have it, you can't play if you don't have it, and thus you can't play online because there is no one to play with.

This is really just for the sake of argument. I'm not threatening to sue nor encouraging anyone else to. I'm just wondering if a company brings any legal liability on itself if it puts out a game advertised as playable online and then demands an extra, unadvertised, fee in order to play online.

MeanMF
06-24-2006, 09:16 PM
I'm just wondering if a company brings any legal liability on itself if it puts out a game advertised as playable online and then demands an extra, unadvertised, fee in order to play online.
I'm sure they could wiggle their way out of it even if there was some sort of legal case.. But you CAN still play online. It just sucks now.

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2006, 05:17 AM
They supply the means to get online, would it be there fault if everyone one else decided not to play the game/s you wanted?

Do you sue the users for not playing ball with you?

We got the DLC for free with the other Ghost Recons on xbox where was all the praise then?
now we have to pay a lot of people are complaining, Why should it be free? didnt the new content take time to make, someone has to be paid to put it all together.

I feel that now we got content we have to pay for we will get more instalments. if it was free why should they even bother. personaly i'd buy content priced at 10.00 every month, far cheaper then buying a new game.

if you really think about it nothing is really free in our world, theres always some angle to get you in. Free is great while it lasts but we all know it don't last long.

The way I look at it is what can entertain me for 10.00 and give me x amount of hours enjoyment.

zerodreams
06-25-2006, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by methz68:
The way I look at it is what can entertain me for 10.00 and give me x amount of hours enjoyment.

It's a bit more complex than just $ for X hours in this case. What people are saying is, how much the DLC is worth to you. If it's not worth it, don't buy it right? There in is the problem though. I buy the DLC but my friend doesn't think it's worth it. From there on out I can't play a game with him AT ALL since he doesn't have the DLC. Not even on the old maps.

So in a way, for $15 I lost the ability to play with my friend... that doesn't sound right. While he shouldn't get the extra content for not buying the DLC; Why should I LOSE something for paying for it? It's just flat out wrong, very very wrong. There is no justifying that at all.

This affects BOTH sides not just the people who don't buy it, ya know.

In the end if just ONE of your friends buys the DLC, the rest of you have to pay for it too if you want to enjoy a game with them from there on. While it's a clever way to TRICK people into buying the DLC; sounds like bad business ethics.

xnothanksx
06-25-2006, 09:17 AM
on the back of every UK game it says that some live services or downloads may require additional fees.
Theres no chance of succesfull legal action, they didnt really do anything wrong, just made a mistake on the pricing. Ideally i wouldnt expect any download to be more than a fiver...id lap them up if that was the case, im not willing to pay the current price.

zerodreams
06-25-2006, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by xnothanksx:
Theres no chance of succesfull legal action, they didnt really do anything wrong, just made a mistake on the pricing.

I paid $15 to lose the ability to play with my friend. That sounds pretty damn wrong to me. Do these additional fees require me to pay for my friend as well? Or was it just for additional content? I believe it was for additional content, not for additional and conditional content.

While they may not be breaking any law per se, I'm sure there are ways to bringing a case to agitate them to never do such a thing again. People have rights too, no company is infallible.

Choke_A_Smurf
06-25-2006, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by zerodreams:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by xnothanksx:
Theres no chance of succesfull legal action, they didnt really do anything wrong, just made a mistake on the pricing.

I paid $15 to lose the ability to play with my friend. That sounds pretty damn wrong to me. Do these additional fees require me to pay for my friend as well? Or was it just for additional content? I believe it was for additional content, not for additional and conditional content.

While they may not be breaking any law per se, I'm sure there are ways to bringing a case to agitate them to never do such a thing again. People have rights too, no company is infallible. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>If you brought a case to court saying that you can't play with your friend anymore, they would laugh and probably make you pay Ubisoft for wasting their time.

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2006, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by zerodreams:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by methz68:
The way I look at it is what can entertain me for 10.00 and give me x amount of hours enjoyment.

It's a bit more complex than just $ for X hours in this case. What people are saying is, how much the DLC is worth to you. If it's not worth it, don't buy it right? There in is the problem though. I buy the DLC but my friend doesn't think it's worth it. From there on out I can't play a game with him AT ALL since he doesn't have the DLC. Not even on the old maps.

So in a way, for $15 I lost the ability to play with my friend... that doesn't sound right. While he shouldn't get the extra content for not buying the DLC; Why should I LOSE something for paying for it? It's just flat out wrong, very very wrong. There is no justifying that at all.

This affects BOTH sides not just the people who don't buy it, ya know.

In the end if just ONE of your friends buys the DLC, the rest of you have to pay for it too if you want to enjoy a game with them from there on. While it's a clever way to TRICK people into buying the DLC; sounds like bad business ethics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong..

I had the content and a friend didnt he hosted and we played fine no problem at all.

really you should get your facts right.

zerodreams
06-25-2006, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by Choke_A_Smurf:
If you brought a case to court saying that you can't play with your friend anymore, they would laugh and probably make you pay Ubisoft for wasting their time.

Bah! Of course if you do it like that. There's a lot more layers of the law than just "I can't play with my friend". Maybe something like misleading the consumer or blah blah blah. Something like that, I'm definately no lawyer, but there are smaller and dumber things that have been brought to the courts that people have won.

zerodreams
06-25-2006, 09:59 AM
Originally posted by methz68:
Wrong..

I had the content and a friend didnt he hosted and we played fine no problem at all.

really you should get your facts right.

Hey it's all hypothetical to be honest, the OP said and I have seen people complain about not being able to play with DLC owners. I'm just arguing the case. If it's possible, then by all means this arguement is moot. But since the OP hasn't been refuted up until now, I was making a hypothetical case.

bravo_4_613
06-25-2006, 10:39 AM
the real question imo is "does Joe have a job" ??!?!

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2006, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by zerodreams:
I was making a hypothetical case.

So why even bother to say you can't join a friends game who does not have the content.

its not the case and some people would read your post and assume you can't play people without the content.

REV1Z
06-25-2006, 01:55 PM
well you cant play on servers who have and are running the DLC, however... there most certainly be ppl online that will refuse to pay for the 1200 points, that will be most glad to run servers for other ppl that refuse to buy it also.

REV1Z
06-25-2006, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by methz68:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zerodreams:
I was making a hypothetical case.

So why even bother to say you can't join a friends game who does not have the content.

its not the case and some people would read your post and assume you can't play people without the content. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


thats not true i tried to join a room and it refused me saying my content didnt match his or some b.s.

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2006, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by REV1Z:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by methz68:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zerodreams:
I was making a hypothetical case.

So why even bother to say you can't join a friends game who does not have the content.

its not the case and some people would read your post and assume you can't play people without the content. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


thats not true i tried to join a room and it refused me saying my content didnt match his or some b.s. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you calling me a liar? I downloaded the content and a friend invited me in to a room, when i entered the room it was on Temple and i asked the host if he had the DLC his reply was NO and he would be getting it after we played.

How do you expect to join a room when they are running the content and you are not. thats what you tried to do.

If you read the post i commented on you will see he said "I buy the DLC but my friend doesn't think it's worth it. From there on out I can't play a game with him AT ALL since he doesn't have the DLC" you we see my post is correct.

See the bit about "I can't play a game with him AT ALL" Thats wrong and your wrong.

MeanMF
06-25-2006, 02:19 PM
Somebody with the new DLC can join a room hosted by somebody without it.

BUT, unlike many other games... Somebody without the DLC can't join a room hosted by somebody with the DLC - even if they're hosting an old map and have all the new guns turned off.

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2006, 02:21 PM
Thank you MeanMF

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2006, 05:30 PM
As MeanMF has said anyone without the content can host a room and bring in players who have it, however if the host does then the joining players also need it.

The resolution to the 'my friend has the content i dont' is to ensure the hosting player is the one without the content.

Be assured im not happy about the cost of the content, everyone on my friends list with graw has it and i mean everyone but that doesnt mean i can take ubi for court for annoying me.

I have a choice i can buy the content or i dont, if i dont and i want to play my friends i will have to host pure and simple.

The only difference between this premium content and ones before it is the price point, so any suggestion microsoft or ubisoft are liable in a court of law for upsetting someones gaming is daft (sorry hamilton but it is lol)
It would be like them offering a free download but joe bloggs doesnt have enough space left on his HD after downloading all the arcade games on the planet and then wanting to sue because ms didnt give him a big enough HD to download everything he wanted. It just isnt going to happen.

GZUS96
06-25-2006, 06:46 PM
Originally posted by Aj6627:
1. You don't need the DLC to play with people. You can play with anyone as long as they are playing on old maps.
Not so the very next day after the DLC came out I tried to play a game online and I tried for over two hours to find a game to play but every lobby I tried to join I was told that the room has the content that I don't and wouldn't allow me to connect, my Xbox would even freeze up every time.


2. This content is an ADD ON to the game. Not a $15 part of the game. Sort of wrong I almost felt forced to have to buy the DLC because I was unable to get into any game for over two hours.


3. I would love to see you or anyone else go up against Ubi in a court. You would go broke just hiring a lawyer to go up against them. Not so a public attourney would take this case all someone would have to do is file a petition with their local DA. If there is any grounds then they would go forward with it.

X_Hamilton_X
06-25-2006, 08:49 PM
Originally posted by ms-kleaneasy:

The only difference between this premium content and ones before it is the price point, so any suggestion microsoft or ubisoft are liable in a court of law for upsetting someones gaming is daft (sorry hamilton but it is lol)
It would be like them offering a free download but joe bloggs doesnt have enough space left on his HD after downloading all the arcade games on the planet and then wanting to sue because ms didnt give him a big enough HD to download everything he wanted. It just isnt going to happen.

Not quite. A free download does not place an undue burden on the customer. Requiring an unadvertised fee to play online does. The poster below you states his own difficulty finding games to join online and this is only the 4th or 5th day since the DLC came out.

My question has to do with the rights of the consumer. Can a publisher rig its game in such a way that continued fees are required to play the game online without notifying the customer before the original purchase? Every MMRPG I've ever seen (like Everquest or World of Warcraft) states on the box that a monthly fee is required for online play. If Ubi is going to fix its DLC so that only people who pay for it can continue to play online in a reasonable manner (i.e., finding games to play in) then it seems like some sort of notice would be required on the box. Not doing so seems to perhaps be a form of fraud.

Now, it may be that so many people choose not to buy the DLC that my point is moot. That's a possibility.

Choke_A_Smurf
06-25-2006, 09:20 PM
Can't you just say Yes to Match My Packages when searching if you don't have it?

X_Hamilton_X
06-26-2006, 05:45 AM
Originally posted by Choke_A_Smurf:
Can't you just say Yes to Match My Packages when searching if you don't have it?
I've seen this suggestion once before and it may be a good one . . . for now, but what happens when a sizable portion of the community has the DLC? Then it may be extremely difficult to find a game to join, esp. one with decent connection quality.

And why didn't Ubi build it into the game to automatically match packages? That's a bit esoteric for a lot of gamers. Poor planning.

eclipsed4utoo
06-26-2006, 08:25 AM
Originally posted by zerodreams:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by xnothanksx:
Theres no chance of succesfull legal action, they didnt really do anything wrong, just made a mistake on the pricing.

I paid $15 to lose the ability to play with my friend. That sounds pretty damn wrong to me. Do these additional fees require me to pay for my friend as well? Or was it just for additional content? I believe it was for additional content, not for additional and conditional content.

While they may not be breaking any law per se, I'm sure there are ways to bringing a case to agitate them to never do such a thing again. People have rights too, no company is infallible. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

that was your choice to buy the DLC.

zerodreams
06-26-2006, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by eclipsed4utoo:
that was your choice to buy the DLC.

Hmmm... well I guess no one really gets it. While MeanMF has explained, there are limitations to how you can play with a friend that weren't explained by Ubi, we just happened to stumble upon it. While I don't agree with the limitation of not being able to host a game and invite friends that don't have the DLC, at least there's still a way to play which does make my "hypothetical" arguement moot.

The point was this, yes it was my choice to buy it... but where was the detailed EULA to lose the ability to host games for my friends? I don't remember hitting "I Accept" to that. It's suppose to be additional content; that means it only adds to what you already have. It never warned me that it would take away my ability to host games for non-DLC owners. If you can't see how misleading that is... well, there was no convincing you in the first place I suppose.


Originally posted by methz68:
See the bit about "I can't play a game with him AT ALL" Thats wrong and your wrong.

P.S. Funny how you saw that but read nothing else of what I said about it hadn't been refuted up until you said something. I already said if you CAN, it was moot. I was making a hypothetical case to show I'm not BIAS towards the debate. Meaning, I don't have a problem with the DLC, I was just making the case for the people who DO have a problem with it. I'm very open to both sides of the arguement. You proved to me that you can join a game but there were other people other than yourself that couldn't.

Thankfully, MeanMF cleared it all up though. But I still made a point that completely went unnoticed.

P.S.S. Yeah it's my fault for not saying "Hypothetically" in the first place... bah, oh well.

XyZspineZyX
06-26-2006, 11:16 AM
technically anyone with the content could still host for those that dont by removing the content from their HD, of course no one wants to do that but my point being that would be the defence to that arguement im sure.

I have to say im very dissapointed that theres no way for those without the dlc to join those with it, why couldnt a method similar to that in pgr be used? where by the player without the content is left in the lobby when playing a track from the dlc?

If i want to play with my friends i will have to host, sadly i dont have as good a connection as many of my friends so while i can host a 10 man room without problem they cant host a 14-16 man room and so would mean its unlikely i would get them all in my room if i hosted..

I dont like the hgh charge of the content but that aside the fact players cannot join rooms of those with or without content is a pain and shouldnt have even become an issue imo

Vylence
06-26-2006, 11:20 AM
There is no possibility of legal action. Host your own games without the content. And by the way, thanks to the content I had a 44-5 game yesterday!

zerodreams
06-26-2006, 11:29 AM
Originally posted by ms-kleaneasy:
technically anyone with the content could still host for those that dont by removing the content from their HD, of course no one wants to do that but my point being that would be the defence to that arguement im sure.

I have to say im very dissapointed that theres no way for those without the dlc to join those with it, why couldnt a method similar to that in pgr be used? where by the player without the content is left in the lobby when playing a track from the dlc?

If i want to play with my friends i will have to host, sadly i dont have as good a connection as many of my friends so while i can host a 10 man room without problem they cant host a 14-16 man room and so would mean its unlikely i would get them all in my room if i hosted..

I dont like the hgh charge of the content but that aside the fact players cannot join rooms of those with or without content is a pain and shouldnt have even become an issue imo

Exactly my point. While I AGREE that a legal case doesn't have much grounds but it WAS indeed the thread topic so I was going off of that. Although there are other "legal" ways to deal with things like this that can agitate Ubisoft. Not so much as to sue them, but as X_Hamilton_X said, a petition of some sort?? I don't know. All I do know is people (NOT EVERYONE) feel underminded and they need to do SOMETHING and not just be pushovers.

X_Hamilton_X
06-26-2006, 02:35 PM
As time goes by, fewer and fewer people will play this game online. Only the hardcore GRAW fans will stick with it regardless of newer games that come out. The hardcore fans are the ones most likely to pay for the DLC.

Little Johney's mother buys him the game for his 13th birthday. Johney puts the game in to play it. He gets on Xbox Live. He can't find a game because it says he doesn't have the DLC. His older brother searches online and finds some vague reference to "matching packages." After some hunting around they find the appropriate box in the settings and Johney is all excited. He clicks search and . . . finds he still needs the DLC because there simply aren't any games to join without the DLC.

Johney's Dad reads the back of the box carefully and finds no mention of extra fees to play online beyond the Xbox Live subscription.

Ubi has just committed fraud on the family of a 13 year old kid. Perhaps not intentionally but the result of poor programming/planning is the same.

eclipsed4utoo
06-26-2006, 05:57 PM
Originally posted by X_Hamilton_X:
As time goes by, fewer and fewer people will play this game online. Only the hardcore GRAW fans will stick with it regardless of newer games that come out. The hardcore fans are the ones most likely to pay for the DLC.

Little Johney's mother buys him the game for his 13th birthday. Johney puts the game in to play it. He gets on Xbox Live. He can't find a game because it says he doesn't have the DLC. His older brother searches online and finds some vague reference to "matching packages." After some hunting around they find the appropriate box in the settings and Johney is all excited. He clicks search and . . . finds he still needs the DLC because there simply aren't any games to join without the DLC.

Johney's Dad reads the back of the box carefully and finds no mention of extra fees to play online beyond the Xbox Live subscription.

Ubi has just committed fraud on the family of a 13 year old kid. Perhaps not intentionally but the result of poor programming/planning is the same.

maybe you(or Johney's dad) needs to go read on the back of the box again.

clearly stated on the back of the GRAW box...


Paid subscription required for online multiplayer, co-op, and some downloads. Some Xbox Live services require additional hardware(e.g. headset and camera) and fees.

so tell me again how UbiSoft committed fraud?

hell, it's even written in bold on the back of the box.

beonder13
06-26-2006, 07:39 PM
Host your own games and stop complaining... oh yeah, WAAAAA!

X_Hamilton_X
06-27-2006, 12:32 AM
Originally posted by eclipsed4utoo:
maybe you(or Johney's dad) needs to go read on the back of the box again.

clearly stated on the back of the GRAW box...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Paid subscription required for online multiplayer, co-op, and some downloads. Some Xbox Live services require additional hardware(e.g. headset and camera) and fees.

so tell me again how UbiSoft committed fraud?

hell, it's even written in bold on the back of the box. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You are not quite getting it. Reread what you didn't bold: "Paid subscription required for online multiplayer".

My point is that this DLC could make online multiplayer difficult to impossible over time. Nowhere on the box does it say that fees beyond the paid subscription will be required for online play.

Ubi has every right to charge for the DLC. I'm not sure they have a right to rig the game in such a way that the DLC is required to play online.

ghost_indiano
06-27-2006, 01:54 AM
while i acknowledge the fact that the box has on it:

"some xbox live services require additional hardware (e.g. headset and camera) and fees."

i agree with Hamilton. the fact that its practically impossible to play online without paying for the DLC is wrong. ubi DOES have the right to charge for the optional content they are providing. but they DONT have the right to "force" people into paying for it by making xboxlive "impossible" without it. especially when xboxlive is already being paid for separately.

jsonedecker
06-27-2006, 07:42 AM
Originally posted by zerodreams:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by methz68:
The way I look at it is what can entertain me for 10.00 and give me x amount of hours enjoyment.

It's a bit more complex than just $ for X hours in this case. What people are saying is, how much the DLC is worth to you. If it's not worth it, don't buy it right? There in is the problem though. I buy the DLC but my friend doesn't think it's worth it. From there on out I can't play a game with him AT ALL since he doesn't have the DLC. Not even on the old maps.

So in a way, for $15 I lost the ability to play with my friend... that doesn't sound right. While he shouldn't get the extra content for not buying the DLC; Why should I LOSE something for paying for it? It's just flat out wrong, very very wrong. There is no justifying that at all.

This affects BOTH sides not just the people who don't buy it, ya know.

In the end if just ONE of your friends buys the DLC, the rest of you have to pay for it too if you want to enjoy a game with them from there on. While it's a clever way to TRICK people into buying the DLC; sounds like bad business ethics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you kidding me! What kind of insane argument is this? I bought a 360 and GR:AW with it and my friend went to another check out line and bought his 360 and Madden.... Oh ****, MS screwed me because even though we both bought a 360 my friend decided he wanted something different to play then me and now we can't play or 360's together.

My goodness, buy it if you want to or don't but don't try to pawn this off as anything more than a company put out a product and charged for it.

It is exactly the same as a mission pack sold in retail that requires the original game to play. Why is it that just becuase it's downloadable it should be treated any differently? There is absoluetely no difference between charging for DLC and a packeged MP product at retail other than how you get it.

Would you go after RSE back in the day for releasing Desert Siege to OGR on the PC?
-John

eclipsed4utoo
06-27-2006, 07:52 AM
Originally posted by X_Hamilton_X:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by eclipsed4utoo:
maybe you(or Johney's dad) needs to go read on the back of the box again.

clearly stated on the back of the GRAW box...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Paid subscription required for online multiplayer, co-op, and some downloads. Some Xbox Live services require additional hardware(e.g. headset and camera) and fees.

so tell me again how UbiSoft committed fraud?

hell, it's even written in bold on the back of the box. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You are not quite getting it. Reread what you didn't bold: "Paid subscription required for online multiplayer".

My point is that this DLC could make online multiplayer difficult to impossible over time. Nowhere on the box does it say that fees beyond the paid subscription will be required for online play.

Ubi has every right to charge for the DLC. I'm not sure they have a right to rig the game in such a way that the DLC is required to play online. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

buying the DLC is NOT REQUIRED TO PLAY ONLINE. once again, last night, I was able to play just fine for about 3 hours without the DLC.

X_Hamilton_X
06-27-2006, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by eclipsed4utoo:
buying the DLC is NOT REQUIRED TO PLAY ONLINE. once again, last night, I was able to play just fine for about 3 hours without the DLC.

The point is it will be as time goes by. The ones most likely to keep playing GRAW will be those who have the DLC. Those who try to play online without the DLC won't be able to join any games without a constant message popping up about needing to buy DLC to play.

And we've already had at least one person state they had a hard time finding games to join. It will only get worse.

RSE and Ubi broke this game for those who chose not to buy the DLC. People should keep that in mind before purchasing their future products. We've seen what they are capable of, either deliberately or through poor programming.

And do you not think that the marketing people (and perhaps developers) never considered the built in incentive to buy the DLC they were creating by making the game this way? I don't.

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2006, 01:03 PM
I think Hamilton has a valid point about people finding it increasingly difficult to find games as time goes on, sadly its being lost behind the suggestion of lawsuits etc.

zoompooky
06-27-2006, 01:45 PM
Personally I think UBI does smart things in a stupid manner.

What they SHOULD have done is release the new maps for free, but then created exclusive (but optional) content that people could buy. This way, it's still one big community, the game would still be refreshed, and they'd still get their money.

Things they could produce that people would buy?
- A new class with it's own new weapons.
- New, specialized weapons for the various existing classes.
- Custom logos or badges that could be applied to players so they are visible in-game.

and so on and so forth.

Imagine a "Close Combat" class who's secondary weapon is a knife and gets silence bonuses. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

So the playerbase remains unified, nobody feels forced to buy anything, and those who want extra goodies have them to purchase.

zerodreams
06-28-2006, 01:27 AM
Originally posted by jsonedecker:
Are you kidding me! What kind of insane argument is this? I bought a 360 and GR:AW with it and my friend went to another check out line and bought his 360 and Madden.... Oh ****, MS screwed me because even though we both bought a 360 my friend decided he wanted something different to play then me and now we can't play or 360's together.


You've seemed to miss the WHOLE point of it. So, you're saying you bought a 360 and your friend did too. He bought a completely different game than you. That's not the same thing at all.

Here, I'll break it down for you (hypothetically speaking):
-I buy GRAW and friend buys GRAW
-I host a game because I have a great connection but my friend doesnt, so I'm always hosting
-I decide to buy the DLC for $15 because I'd like some ADDITIONAL content, but my friend doesnt
-I paid $15 for something just to find out that I can't host games for my friend anymore (which btw was NEVER mentioned to the consumer beforehand)
-Since there are no refunds, the only solution to my problem is either A) My friend buys the DLC B) My friend gets a better connection or C) I delete the DLC to where now I'm down $15

~My friend still has GRAW, I still have GRAW; not Madden, GRAW. I still have the old maps, the old weapons, the old game settings; not a football or some cleats. It's the same damn game. I just happen to have ADDITIONAL content he won't be able to use, but I can because I coughed up $15 for it. But it's okay, I can still host a game for us using the old stuff... NOPE! All because I decided to support Ubisoft's pricey content?

Real nice. I still don't see how that isn't a valid arguement. It's quite a slimey tactic employed by Ubisoft, but this is all hypothetical anyway. I'm glad I don't have to deal with this problem, but the problem exists.

X_Hamilton_X
07-01-2006, 12:36 PM
1 Up Yours' latest podcast - 6/30/06 (go to iTunes for it and fast forward 26 minutes into the show) talks about the GRAW DLC again. They state that their PR department came to them a bit concerned that they were "telling" the community the DLC was too much on their show.

I bet Ubi's PR people called 1Up's and complained the 1Up Yours guys were making fun of their DLC.