What does that have to do with it not actually being as bad as literally stabbing someone?

: 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?

Is it really that hard to understand? Honestly, am I explaining it that badly, am I leaving something out, and I using a word in a weird way? Sometimes it's hard for me to notice these things.
Anyway, I don't want them to put it out. If they do, I want them to undo it by making it open and free.

: Sorry, no.
: Yes, that's still entitlement.

What you mean by that?

: You can't have everything just because you want it.

I know. What does that fact have to with what I said? I was thinking maybe I should've paid more attention and negated your use of the word "should", but I said what I meant to say, which just leaves whatever you meant to say.

: 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.

I know that. :? I'm not sure on the connection here either. I think I know what you're getting at, but I'm not sure, especially with the "you don't have the right to everything" line. I did say not being able to get something that was a pre-order exclusive-- and I guess I should clarify here I mean in-game or at least in-console pre-order exclusives-- isn't one of those times where you can't have something, you could very easily have it, the company just decided not to allow that.

: 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.

What are you talking about? Where did I demand anything?

: Buying in early.

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

OK

: 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.

I see what you're saying and I've established I agree with some of it and disagree with some of it-- well really one part-- so I'll just let that be that.

: Because they want to reward people who can buy in early. And marketers want
: people to spend money even if they can't. =P

even if who can't what?

: 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.

So you're not saying that people who come along later or didn't have the money or weren't aware at the time don't deserve to have this content, but you're also not saying they do deserve to have this content, is that right? If not, I have no idea what you're saying.

: 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.

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

: 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.

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

Well, as of now, I'm complaining that I got those things, because they should've been present or absent for everyone.

: What reasoning? Gift-giving?

My reasoning for keeping and using the skull code.

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

I would ask what that has to do with anything but you didn't get the first part of the sentence so it makes sense the rest would seem different. What I was saying is that I can't "un-use" the skull code, whereas Microsoft could give it to everyone, effectively undoing their declaration and practice of exclusivity for that item.

: : 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.

I intended for that to be an additional reason, and to call into question the mindset of making things exclusive like that in the first place-- I could've said that better, for example the way I just did.

: 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.

It is what?

: 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.

I do prefer not having it be exclusive in the first place, and if it's already happened, I'd prefer for the content to be opened up for everyone, so I want both, ideally.
Also I still haven't demanded anything and I don't know why you want to put words in my mouth.

: Nice swing.

huh?

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

Yes, I am. I wasn't trying to make a point there, if that's what you thought, I was trying to show that I accept that particular part of the conversation has been resolved and I won't push it any more.

: *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.

I was using it as precedent, and any amount of time I come up with (I haven't come up with any BTW) would be just as arbitrary as what it is now in the US (and a few other places), I mainly just want to know it'll probably be within my lifetime.

: Yes, games and software can become "free" in time. Lovingly coined "abandonware".
: That is an entirely different matter.

That's not what I meant, I meant the copyright actually expiring and the software actually legally becoming free. Unfortunately, because of a combination of the laws mentioned above, the fairly recent invention of software, the way computer technology has progressed, there isn't much software that was originally copyrighted (and protected with that copyright) and has had its copyright expire, especially when it comes to games and anything you've ever heard of, because personal computers have only been around for about half as long as software.

: 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.

Intended by who? The publisher, definitely, but what about the developers?

: 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.

I'd like to say here, again, I would agree with you if was about... well, something where I thought the downsides of doing what you say are less important than keeping your word, which would the majority of situations that exist IMHO.

: 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.

pretty much