we all know about the legality of it but activision as with any company should serve there customers equally and not say these people get it first because they pay so much a month for in what my opinion is a junk console. if you buy the game you should have rights to any and all game content they release. simple.
What your doing is taking business personal, its business nothing more and nothing less. Dont like it purchase another game! The right that you speak of it an illusion, the free market determines that, Microsoft pays for the privilege Sony doesn't, period!
Honestly, if they didn't sell the season pass, I don't think Activision is obligated to even offer DLC for the PS3. Did Wii get DLC in MW3? They are equal customers too, no? You have no "right" for a company to sell you thier product.
No, they can't release DLC for the Wii it's a whole different network and a different concept. It was really difficult to have DLC released for that.
we all know about the legality of it but activision as with any company should serve there customers equally
Do you even realize this statement is a contradiction?
Because the DLC topic seems to be on many new players minds, I hope this thread helps those somewhat.
I hereby sentence you to lay with Jinx's Sister for 30 days... Crime... Making sense..
Another good post. Too many people lack even a basic understanding of contracts. There is no should or should not. There only is what was agreed to. Personal feelings of right versus wrong are completely irrelavent. For those wanting to "make it right for PS3 users," they need to focus their attention on Sony not Activision. I'm sure that Sony was offered the opportunity to get the DLC first and they decided that it was in their best business interest to not pursue that option. It's as simple as that. Just for the record, Wii decided the same thing. So in other words, both Sony and Wii feel that their business dollars are better spent on other features. XBOX saw it differently. There are no second class consoles out there.
Another point that I'd like to make with regards to contracts is that they also contain a clause for remediation if one party isn't living up to their obligations. The world is not a perfect place, so somewhere along the way somebody in a contract is going to have problems living up to their obligations. This is why this clause exists and it always provides established protocols for identifying the problems and a timeframe for resolution. It is never allowed to nullify the contract immediately just because someone hasn't fully delivered on his promises. So for all of those out there proclaiming that they want their money back the second an issue is discovered, you are showing your ignorance of the situation and lessening the power of your position by making such demands without first providing an official notice of the issue and providing the specified timeframe for resolution. It is far better to identify the issue in a contructive way and allow the process to run it's course than it is to try and jump immediately to the refund. Showing an understanding of the actual process upfront is much more intimidating than proving that you are clueless and as such are a minimal legal threat.
yea good post bro! i work in and around contracts with Engineering firms and Construction companies on an every day basis and there's a way to do good and fair business and AV did some "good business."
More than likely AV made an offer to the highest bidder and Microsoft won the bid...fair and simple.
If you really think about it, this contract wouldn't make a lick of sense without exclusivity; and also being a good marketing strategy for the XBOX. The sole purpose was for AV to ultimately make more money while tipping the hat not to a more loyal customer, but to a thriving competitor (1) month in advance P.E.R.I.O.D.
Personally...i'd like to know how much they paid!