Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Why yes it is. (Score 1) 908

The business model is not under dispute; the (apparent) lack of transparency in selling the product _is_. Consider:

Game A (one-time extra charge for unlockable content): "Buy this game! It's awesome! You will have fun! Comes with extra stuff!"

Game B (carries extra charge per owner for unlockable content): "Buy this game! It's awesome! You will have fun! Comes with extra stuff!"

In both cases, the first purchaser expects to be able to sell the entire game, including the extra content, based on how the game is packaged. At no time is the first-time purchaser made aware of the fact that game B will have lower resale value than game A (for otherwise-identical games) - and *that* is the issue here - the expectation that a purchase is fully transferable. If game B's packaging had a small asterisked footnote - something like 'per-owner charge applies for extra stuff' then at least the first-time purchaser is informed about what is being purchased

In your used movie analogy, unless the DVD specifically mentions ON THE OUTSIDE of the case that special features cost extra for each owner of the physical disc, then I expect most people would presume that the special features do not cost extra - and the same should be true of games. Without that notice on the external packaging of the product, the first-time purchaser is being (some would argue deliberately) misled.

Felson's Law: To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is research.

Working...