Thursday Next

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBor7K3j2Eg

Given that the PC delay was announced a couple of days before launch, I'm guessing that the PC version was ready and that they were talking to Microsoft until the 11th hour to see if they could launch simultaneously on PC and Xbox, or Ubi had assumed that Xbox exclusivity meant PC + Xbox and MS got in touch late in the day to say "What's with this simultaneous PC launch eh?".

Fairly sure From Dust delay is due to some Summer of Arcade skulduggery.

Hehehe... Driver, I liked the first one... the rest though... dayum!

Ummm... deliberate? Yes I'll let you think about the implications. I'll believe you.

Ummm... deliberate?

Totally agree with Strangelove. You have no right to play the games unless you have paid for them. "It doesn't hurt anyone" is a weak argument because you can never prove that you would not have bought it were you unable to pirate it. Given that you have already dishonestly appropriated software, in my mind your credibility is shot so your assurances that the publisher lost nothing holds no water. You have no way of providing me with any assurance that any game you pirated was not a lost sale, so it is quite possibly that developers are being hurt. Further to this, every pirated game is counted towards or used as an excuse for lost sales by publishers so they keep prices higher on games and DLC, and increase onerous restrictive DRM, so you are in fact hurting fellow gamers who actually support the industry you leach off of. If you say that you only do it because "it doesn't hurt anyone" then you must be doing some logical acrobatics because I don't see how you and others getting something for nothing doesn't negatively affect me at least indirectly. That said, I'm wasting my time here. You get stuff free and you justify it to yourself. That's not gonna change.

That's why I have a real personal issue with many pirates. I was raised to believe that taking something that doesn't belong to you is wrong.

I'm doing the "read GoT before watching the series" thing. Partly because I am NOT paying for Sky. £30 on books makes way more sense the £300 on a Sky subscription when I rarely watch TV anyway.

Not if you have more time than money. If you can't afford it then you don't do it. Gaming is a privilege, not a right. This is the bit I really can't wrap my head around. What entitles you to pirate when others either pay or go without? I've not always had a well paid job, sometimes big game releases have happened and I've had to watch them pass me by because I couldn't afford to buy them. I never at any point thought that it would be ok to just pirate them instead so I don't get why you and others here do.

To be honest, I think most publishers would be happy with half that. The first weekend sales are pretty huge % wise and then begin to drop off after that. The first few weeks are generally where you'll see your highest PSUs and it's when the buzz for a game is highest. If it's a choice between paying and waiting almost a month, a lot of people will pay.

The Console market is similarly tiered. As Strangelove mentioned. From cheap ($2 or less) minis to you $6-$15 PSN titles and then the "full" games.

Pretty much. EA feel that it's adds value to a new customer. But as a consumer Multi-Pass and Project $10 DLC just makes it feel like something was taken out then popped back in just cos EA reckons I've been a good boy. There's no added value, no incentive. It's the usual tactic of most of the games industry, perfectly crystallized by DRM: The games publishers know only how to punish than to reward. And even basic understanding of headology tells you that you catch more flys with honey. I'm sorry that's how you feel. It genuinely I honestly believe it is extra content and is intended to reward first purchasers by giving something extra. If that's not how it comes across, then I suggest you write an open letter on your blog to raise awareness of it. I'll even reshare it to my G+ circles so other EA folk see it. With regard to my pay. Without going in to too much detail it's based on personal performance and company performance so yeah, if a game bombs it can affect my pay, and if something I do gets us sued in can affect everyone elses pay.

And.... breathe. Is my salary and bonus affected by the performance of the business? Yes.

Actually this stuff is pretty exciting to me as to how cheap it was for good quality stuff. Of course, you take the brand names and the big showroom away and you get decent quality stuff for less than the big box stores. Plus, I like to cook. I'd cook elaborate meals every day if my fiancee washed all the dishes. Ditto. Cooking is funs. Washing up is a bitch.

Fix'd And good for TN.

It's an expensive game to make. Also, somebody, somewhere probably decided that that's how much people will probably pay for it. As for charging several people for one service, my attitude to that is why should Game get the money for charging twice for the same game when EA could have it instead? If used games stopped tomorrow I'm almost certain that sales of first purchases would go up. It's the whole lost sale thing that is applied to piracy and used game sales. I know it's not 1 used game sale = 1 new game sale. But there are at least some people who would buy new if it wasn't available used. EA clearly do make a profit on first time sales. But if they got a cut of second and third hand sales (which is basically what Online Pass entails) they'd have more profit. More profit = Good.

Cars often have blanking plates where Air Con buttons and the like would go. I don't get annoyed when I see them, unless I was told they would work and they don't. P.S. "AR" thing? Depends on what makes EA greedy vs. trying to turn a profit. I don't think they are greedy. You clearly do. Difference of opinion (and me with a vested interest). To your second point. You think they should charge more?

Ok, you didn't know how many rooms the normandy had in ME2 until after you bought the game so it's not like you were tricked into buying it because you thought there were 12 party members when there were only 10 on the disc. You said that if you see something on the box (like a car spoiler) then you expect it in the game. I agree. But this extra content wasn't on the box so I don't see what your issue is. Doors or no doors you would know there are two characters that you don't have, so what's the big deal? I always thought Triple Plays were more expensive by a few quid. If you say they aren't I'll take your word for it. I've tried to explain that I've a conflict of interest in the matter. Yes, you can call it hypocritical if you like, but in both scenarios I am anti resellers whether it's because the publisher side of me wants more new purchases or the consumer side of me hates getting ripped off by the reseller. Oh incidentally, none of this should be taken as the opinion of my employer. When I comment here I do so as a private individual not a representative of a business. EDIT: Oh and with regard to the cost to EA for a new person, I conceded that point to Yante. Didn't see the need to do it again. Yes, the cost to the publisher may be lower or higher depending on use of the service. I don't know where it would all end I certainly don't think that any publisher would push the cost of an online pass higher than the wholesale price of the product, but maybe they would?

Paper, thermometer, cooking utensils and some "boring" stuff. You crazy man!

Zaeed wasn't "at a later date" it came out the same time as the launch of the rest of the game. Dragon Age has done the same too. The content was all ready n tied up for launch but instead of being in the game it was up as DLC. Oh and we're left moaning that there's a couple of rooms in the Normandy obviously added in to accommodate 2 party members, yet you can get to the end of the game and they're not filled in. I'd be a bit miffed if I bought a lego car and the picture had a spoiler on but there was none in my box. Was Zaeed on the ME2 box? If not, why would you expect him to be included? As explained before, DLC is a separate product, with a separate budget. It's not "cut" from the main game. No one seems to have an issue with "extended editions" of movies. It's the same principal here. Well once again we come across the bit of maths up top. If the used market was to stop does that mean that EA would no longer be able to afford to support these games with patches and multiplayer since the only income they have is the initial new purchase? Also Blu-Ray have online components btw (and most give you 3 versions of the film lately aswell). You have to pay quite a bit more for those triple play versions. Also, I've never seen an "online" component on blu-ray that does anything beyond direct me to a website. Because that would be easy to sort out. And a 5-10 year limit in gaming means this used sale charge spanning entire generations and in some cases out living the life of studios. And how would these fees be collected and distributed? That was a hypothetical, tongue in cheek comment. Let's get things in perspective here. I work for a publisher. I don't like that when Gamestop post profits that a large chunk of that is from selling games two or more times when I know that my company and others that actually make the content don't see any return on that. I want everyone to play my publishers games and I want them to do so by pre-ordering the stupid, exclusive, premium, uber, [studio Name], special, collectors edition. Buying it new, on day one, and purchasing every single saddle, hat, and map pack we offer up. I want this because it directly impacts my financial situation. On the other hand, I'm a consumer, when I buy retail games I always buy new, that said, I do also trade in my games, when I trade them in it annoys me that I'm being given £10 tops by Game, who will then put it on the shelf for at least £30 (selling them for over £20 is also the reason that I don't buy them used - Used should be half the price of new, not 10% off). I could fix this by selling games on ebay, but I'm too lazy. Finally, I quite like DLC. Most games I play take me a few weeks to complete if not longer what with work commitments and all, but if I really liked it, being able to get another couple of quests for a few quid is, to my mind, a bonus. I honestly think that ME2 and Dragon Age DLC does provide good value for money. The stories are generally well fleshed out and I like that the new characters blend in with the old ones and mesh with the story. If that bonus DLC comes in the form of a code in a box as a reward for buying new, so much the better.

Yes, I would complain. Just as I would have complained when EADM introduced fees for long-term(2 year) downloading of games. If I was a person who complained about these things, I would certainly do so. The point is that it's there. If you're trying to table a justifiable digital distribution service, you don't continue to implement elements that place you below the bar. You copy what works, and improve upon that. Increasingly draconian standards are silly, backwards things in the face of advancement. I won't assume you're a partisan just because you're arguing them, but anyone who supports the relentless wading through a growing mire of fees, needless restrictions and DLC, premeditated or not, surely is a masochist. How are these clauses any better? "Either you or Valve has the right to terminate or cancel your Account or a particular Subscription at any time." "C. Termination by Valve. 1. In the case of a recurring payment Subscription (e.g., a monthly subscription), in the event that Valve terminates or cancels your Account or a particular Subscription for convenience, Valve may, but is not obligated to, provide a prorated refund of any prepaid Subscription fees paid to Valve. 2. In the case of a one-time purchase of a product license (e.g., purchase of a single game) from Valve, Valve may choose to terminate or cancel your Subscription in its entirety or may terminate or cancel only a portion of the Subscription (e.g., access to the software via Steam) and Valve may, but is not obligated to, provide access (for a limited period of time) to the download of a stand-alone version of the software and content associated with such one-time purchase. 3. In the case of a free Subscription, Valve may choose to terminate or amend the terms of the Subscription as provided in the "Amendments to this Agreement" section above." In plain English: Valve can basically shut you down at any time and burn all your content. They can (if they want to) offer you a replacement download, but they don't have to. These clauses are everywhere and EA's are no more Draconian than Valves.

Fair points both. Where third party RSPs are the norm there is no justification for an Online Pass. However, since that only applies to PC, where used game sales are non-existent it's something of a moot point. Were consoles to have some form of RSP program so that users were directly paying for servers, Online Pass becomes harder to justify. With regard to number of simultaneous users, I agree that it does not necessarily mean an extra cost, in fact, if a 24/7 online player sold the game to a lighter gamer, then the load on and cost to EA would in fact decrease. I would still hold to the justification that the single player game and multiplayer service are separate. You sell the disc on with the single player content, but you burnt the code. Perhaps a suitable analogy for this would be selling a pay as you go phone. You can either sell the phone with minutes on it (i.e. don't use the Online Pass code) or you can use the minutes and sell the phone and leave the next guy to top it up with a tenner (or buy an online pass).

You are not seriously complaining that if you don't even log in to Origin for two years that EA "may" delete your account for non use? It's a classic CMA clause in the EULA. In most EULAs half of it is stuff that is included to cover worst case scenarios and the other half is bluff clauses that wouldn't stand up in court for longer than it took a judge to clear his throat. Really not worth the panic.

I hope you're not referring to Gran Torino. Remind me... exactly who does Clint kill?