: 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).

Yes. You presume from the start it's a "bad decision", subjectively. Therefore, not appropriate or applicable.

: 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.

Eh?
"You're saying they should go back on their word."
"No, I'd prefer they not make it exclusive in the first place, if they've already made it exclusive."
"Does not compute."

Which is it? Release Exclusive content, then go back on their word - or don't release Exclusive content in the first place?

: 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).

Sorry, no.
Yes, that's still entitlement. You can't have everything just because you want it.

: Yes, and this is not one of those times, because all of the limitations on
: that are artificial.

Sorry, no.
They can sell and give away their stuff however they want. You have every right not to buy, and not to receive. You don't have the right to everything.

: Now who's making unfitting analogies? Firstly, no one's demanding anything
: here.

Yes, you're demanding access to content you can no longer have. That is what you are advocating - making Exclusive content no longer the Exclusive content it was released and announced as.

: Secondly, a 50% off sale on something could happen at any time, and
: multiple times.

Not if they don't want it to.

: The same is true of this kind of content, of course, it
: could be made available later

Not if they said it's a once-off.

: but your whole argument is that if the
: company said they wouldn't do that they should never do that.

Exactly.

: 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?

Buying in early.

: Why are they getting rewarded, why should they get rewarded?

Because the publisher wants to reward them.
(have a problem with that? make noise so they don't do it again in the future)

: You mentioned something about fans and loyal customers before

They shouldn't frame it as "loyal fans get exclusive X bonus", because not every fan can afford what's needed to get X bonus. They makes enemies of said loyal fans. Framing matters. Make it exclusive, and sell it appropriately, or you risk making enemies. Including any decision to make an exclusive bonus no longer exclusive - upsetting customers who were under the impression of something different.

: 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?

Because they want to reward people who can buy in early. And marketers want people to spend money even if they can't. =P It would NOT be good to say that people who can't get it don't "deserve" it, and no one here has ever said that, that I recall. Not being able to buy something doesn't mean someone doesn't deserve something. But it doesn't mean they're entitled to get it at any point in the future.

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

There you go. Getting somewhere.

Likewise, there are many things I would LOVE to have that have been awarded exclusive bonuses for preorders of games I currently own. There's no way in hell I'd presume that I should have access to that by any means. I'd love to, but I have no right to. If they choose to provide it in some way, great! They run the risk though of upsetting those who received it under the impression of whatever exclusivity they announced it as. I would not advocate that. I can live with not having it, precisely because it was exclusive.

: 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.

Not "E"xclusive in the first place - great. Changing Exclusivity later and going back on word - Not Great.

: 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.

Ok, that's thoughtful of you I suppose, keeping in mind those items are rightfully yours and no one would be right in complaining about you having them.

: 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.

Also very thoughtful of you. That's your choice, and very nice one at that.

: You might not like that reasoning;

What reasoning? Gift-giving?

: 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.

Right, because doing so would be them going back on their word.

: 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.

Again, nice and thoughtful of you, because it's unnecessary and selfless considering you have every right have to those items exclusively, having done what was necessary to get them.

:: 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.

From this:
"I guess my issue is that it's not so much bad as it's not good, i.e. it doesn't help the majority of the buyers/players, plus it seems like a cash grab a lot of the time, which puts it in questionable territory, and although I don't pirate or reverse-engineer things or otherwise break copyright law (even when it's ridiculous), I do believe to a large degree that information should be free."

That to me read as a valuation of the content. Is it worth being exclusive if it doesn't "help" anything? That's not your call - that's theirs.

: 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).

Again, it is if you're saying that it's good for devs to reverse their word and release Exclusive content in a different manner.
I'm saying, what's done is done. Don't demand old exclusive content to be released now, but push for them to NOT release once-only Exclusive content in the first place. I believe you fully support the latter, but it sounds to make like you're still advocating for the former.

: 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).

Nice swing.
You are just as steadfast in not changing your viewpoint that reversing their word is a Bad Thing and should not be done.

:: 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.

*sigh* Laws that make software free from copyright in time is not the same as enforcing your own arbitrary time limit on content that is still legally owned and controlled by the seller. Yes, games and software can become "free" in time. Lovingly coined "abandonware". That is an entirely different matter.

: 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.

Yep.
Oh well.

Look, can we just leave it at this:
1) You believe that it's better for publishers to go back on their word and release content they previously said was Exclusive to one time only, so that more people can get it who couldn't before, than to keep their word and leave it Exclusive as it was intended and announced to be.
2) I believe it's better for publishers to keep their word, both for the sake of people who trusted their word and were able to obtain that Exclusive content, and for public opinion on their integrity, even if it means upsetting people who want things they can no longer have.
3) We both believe it's better for the publisher NOT to release Exclusive content (my addendum: if they don't intend to keep it exclusive to the degree they say it will be); but rather to properly announce content exclusive to whatever temporary limitation, AND keep their word about it; in that ideally, any bonus content should be disclaimed as temporarily exclusive, so people will know they may still have a chance at it if they can't get it now.