sorry about the late reply again, I meant to look at this yesterday and the day before and longer, and I kept skipping it or not noticing it
also I realize I said I would leave this alone in my first post; I wasn't sure then if it would be just for a while or not, and I didn't go in reading it the second time planning to post; maybe I should've stuck with what I said regardless (irony comment goes here)

: Releasing "E"xclusive content for fans != physically stabbing
: anyone. Your analogy is inflamatory and inappropriate.

I didn't say they were equal, I said they were similar-- I didn't mean they were similar in severity, and I thought it would be easy enough to see that. The point was to ask, in the case of a bad decision that was made by a person (or a company) where they stated they would carry out that decision, whether it would be better to stick to their word and do the bad thing or to break their word and not do the bad thing (to put it in general terms).

: And as I said, I can accept releasing or not releasing Exclusive content, or
: releasing time-exclusive content. I cannot support a developer releasing
: "Exclusive content" and then falling back on that label making
: it no longer what it was called. That is not integrity.

Well I'm not saying they should keep doing that, and I said I'd prefer they not make it exclusive in the first place, that's the best option, to me, if they have already released this kind of exclusive comment.

: That's an entitlement attitude.

what?

: That's the attitude saying that if someone else can get it but I can't, it's not fair,
: and I should be able to get it.

Well yeah, that's what I meant, except it's not just me, it's everyone from release date until the end of human thought (except for the holes I pointed out).

: Sometimes you can't get stuff you want - whether from money or if it was before your time.

Yes, and this is not one of those times, because all of the limitations on that are artificial. The most opening up content like this could do is get their network (the publisher's, the developer's, the console maker's, whoever) used more than expected.

: That's exactly the same argument as "There was a week-long 50% sale on that HDTV
: last month but I couldn't afford it at that price during the sale. I can now, so I
: demand that you sell it to me at that price now." or "You sold that console with
: MGS as a free bonus last year, but I couldn't buy it then. I demand that you give me
: MGS with the console since I'm buying it today."

Now who's making unfitting analogies? Firstly, no one's demanding anything here. Secondly, a 50% off sale on something could happen at any time, and multiple times. The same is true of this kind of content, of course, it could be made available later, but your whole argument is that if the company said they wouldn't do that they should never do that.

: The devs will have hopefully decided that any negativity aimed at them by people
: who can't get Exclusive content is acceptable to them, given the benefits of rewarding
: people who can get it.

You know, that wasn't one of my problems with this, but for some people it is and I think it probably should be addressed-- what are they getting rewarded for? Why are they getting rewarded, why should they get rewarded? You mentioned something about fans and loyal customers before, if not in this thread then in another, but someone could just pre-order it because it sounds like a good game. Why does that deserve a reward, and why do fans and normally loyal customers who aren't really feeling this game or don't have the money or are just not paying attention to game stuff for while (maybe because they can't because of schooling or a job or being in an isolated part of the world) not deserve that reward?

: 1) Because I can accept that if *I* can't get something that's called
: Exclusive, then I lose out (some people can't accept that).

I can accept it, I just don't like it.

: I won't demand that said Exclusive content be released to me later freely
: or at some reduced price, because it reduces the value of it for those that
: DID get it, and it reduces my respect for the word of the dev/publisher,
: eg for future Exclusive content, if it can be trusted to remain what they said
: it was).
: If they choose to, awesome!, but I would not be surprised if
: people erupted at the fact that the Exclusive content is no longer
: Exclusive, and it I would remember that falling back on their word next
: time they release "Exclusive" content.

That would be good, to me, as far as reducing the expectation of exclusive content, making there be less reason to have it be exclusive in the first place. Also, again, I'm not demanding anything.

: 2) If I *can* get something that's called Exclusive, while it's available,
: then Hooray! and much <3 and gratitude for the devs.

That's not how I feel about it. My mom pre-ordered Halo Anniversary without telling me about it for my Christmas the year it came out, and before I said anything to her about pre-orders, so I got the avatar armor and the extra skull, or more like the skull that was cut out, but I didn't feel good about it or like it, because everyone with the game couldn't have it. I gave away the codes for the armor and I only used the skull code because it seemed like a cut from the game, because I figured people that wanted it would have it, because I couldn't think of anybody to give it to, and because if it was turned around someone might well give it to me. You might not like that reasoning; I'm not sure I like it either, but unlike saying certain content will be exclusive to pre-ordering customers, it's not something that can easily be undone.
Money doesn't even play into it. I don't like that I and others can't get the stuff Bungie used to put out only on Bungie Day, and I don't like that I got blue flames in Reach because I clicked a few things in the right time period, but no one else can get them, and I haven't (intentionally) worn them since I found out you couldn't get them any more.

: Subjective. If your opinion is that it's not worth being exclusive, well then
: who cares anyway?

What? Where are you getting this from? I didn't say anything about being worthy of being exclusive. It doesn't matter what the content is.

: If you don't want it, you don't need it, you shouldn't demand that it become
: non-exclusive at some point so that you can get it. If you don't want it, you
: don't need it, you shouldn't demand that it become non-exclusive at some point
: so that you can get it. Who cares if you don't think it's worth buying while
: it's available exclusively? Who cares if you think it's a cash grab?

What? It's not about whether I think it's a cash grab, it's whether it is a (cynical, pandering, over-hyped) cash grab. It's also not about whether I like it or not or whether I personally have it or can have it (and again, it's not a demand).

: If people see it that way, and people don't buy it, that's a negative result that
: will fall back on them. If I don't think something is worth the price someone is
: selling it for, that doesn't mean I have any right to access it other than at what they
: are selling it for. I would rather they keep their word, even though I'd love
: to have what they're selling (or be willing to accept the consequences of
: falling back on their word - like angry mobs of fans who trusted their
: word beforehand, and people who may not trust their word as much in the
: future). It happens all the time. Bad marketing decisions.

Well that answers that question at least (which means that point is at least settled-- we see it differently and don't seem prone to changing our viewpoints, so it can be dropped).

: Information != Product. "Information should be free" does not mean
: "I should have access to everything everyone makes at some point for
: reduced or no cost".

As far as how it's used, it pretty much does. I'm tempted to make a disclaimer here, but I think I was clear enough, I don't stand by everything that that thought or philosophy entails. Copyright and patent law in most of the world (AFAIK) backs me up on this: the point of it is (or was) to restrict the sale of given information or products for a certain, relatively small amount of time so that the person or people who produced it can get just compensation.

: Creators of a game can release bonus content exclusively to whoever can get
: it, if they want, at whatever limited accessibility they want (eg
: permanent exclusivity, or timed, or at some other line), described as such
: to retain integrity of their word and public perception. And they should
: be prepared to accept the net result of whatever negative and positive
: outcomes spawn from that decision. No one has a right to access content
: they aren't allowed to access by the creators of that content. If they
: plan to make it available, they should announce it that way at the
: beginning so as not to deceive current and/or future customers.

I don't disagree with any of that, except for how everything legally becomes open to the public eventually. I would be fine with just letting that be that and run its course, the only problem is that nowadays, in most of the world, by the time that happens, anyone who missed out on it when it was available through a pre-order will probably be dead.