Oh man... how are we possibly getting words crossed here? I read what you're saying, and I understand what you're saying, so attempt to clarify - balance it with what I'm saying so we can walk away with an understanding - and you don't understand. What am *I* not saying properly?

:: Look, can we just leave it at this:
:: 1) You: Go back on their word of how it was intended to be available
: Intended by who? The publisher, definitely, but what about the developers?

Whoever has the legal right to determine how the product is sold! You know what I mean in this context, the spirit of my words, not the letter. This isn't about publishers vs developers. That's a different topic. This is simply, plainly, legal access to content as the owners want to allow it. I use the words interchangeably sometimes with the presumption that everyone involved before the software is on shelves are on the same page with regards to selling. If not, well only one has the ability to make the decision. That's not the subject of this discussion.

:: 2) Better to keep their word.
: 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.

So... you believe it's better for them to keep their word? Or better for them to go back on their word? This is where you are confusing me. Perhaps I don't grok how you think it's better for them not to KEEP their word, yet you still want access to content you're no longer able to gain access to. Legally.

:: 3) Better to NOT announce and release Exclusive content if they think
:: they'll change the announced terms in the future. Announce it the way it will
:: always be. And keep it that way.
: pretty much

Yay

See this is where you lose me:

: 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.

EXACTLY

You want them to go back on their word.
To re-release content they said was Exclusive given some level of limitation (eg pre-order exclusive) and no longer available, and allow everyone access to that; effectively at whatever point in time you want to have it. Law says there is a time in the future when the software will become "abandonware" (or when copyright is voided), but until that time - you have no right to that content. You only have a right to it however they allow their product to be sold and/or distributed to the public. You want them (see: demand) to go back on their word in these cases, making it no longer the Exclusive that it was to those who did qualify and "earn" (for lack of a better said) said exclusive content properly.

You want them to A) ONLY release exclusive content as advertised, at most temporarily limited (so no word has to be broken) so that more will have access to it in the future, and B) break their word in the cases they DO release Exclusive content (such as pre-order exclusives) which will no longer be available at any point in the future; yet still make it available for the broader audience after the fact.
A: Sure!
B: NO!

Ok I'm getting too frustrated with the roundabout here. It seems we clearly disagree about the value of integrity the developer/publishers' word with regards to what is available when and for how long. Or else I'm not just reconciling how you're trying to have it both ways.
Let's just leave it at that.
Out.