Aerothorn on 24/8/2011 at 18:54
God, I hope that's true; it would not only make all the sense in the world but (as noted previously) make me NOT want to use the "bonuses." I don't WANT extra balance-screwing credits.
Though this also raises the question as to whether the "special mission" comes up.
redrain85 on 24/8/2011 at 19:27
I definitely believe the additional mission isn't available without a pre-order bonus code. Though it wouldn't surprise me if the level was on the disc and/or in the Steam download, just locked.
(
http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=119899) I found this topic on the official DX:HR forum where someone posted the description of how the DX:HR bonuses from the Augmented Edition are supposed to work.
Quote:
The bonus mission - Tong's Rescue: will be offered to you by a character in Hengsha during the game.
The Grenade launcher will be given to you upon completion of the bonus mission.
Extra weapons and credits, including the Remote-detonated explosive device will be added to your inventory at the start of the Sarif Manufacturinf Plant mission.
The AUD will available as loot throughout the game.
This still doesn't entirely clear up what is not included without pre-order bonus codes. Though it sounds like: in addition to the Tong's Rescue mission, the Grenade Launcher and AUD may not be available at all? While all the rest of the weapons are, just later in the game instead of right away?
Still a bit confusing.
BTW, in case you folks haven't heard yet: (
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/08/report-gamestop-opening-deus-ex-copies-removing-free-game-code.ars) Gamestop is deliberately removing codes from the standard PC version of DX:HR that would allow you to play the game (and DX1: GOTY) on OnLive for free.
I stopped buying from Gamestop when they screwed me over once before, on pre-order bonuses. (I actually almost never pre-order games. But that one time with Gamestop was an exception, and of course they had to dick around and rip me off the one time that I did.)
Ostriig on 24/8/2011 at 19:38
Is that even, like,
legal? From a contractual standpoint, unless this is done with Square's explicit approval? The publisher puts out a boxed product, then the reseller takes it upon themselves to take something out of that box, but - I'm guessing - still sells it as the original package without informing the customer. Would any of our lawyermen's brigade care to weigh in, isn't that a form of misrepresentation? I mean okay, I've read the link and I understand the rationale behind it, but if GameStop felt that the product didn't represent what they had specifically entered a contract to resell wouldn't they be in a position to stop selling it, as opposed to
changing it without authorisation? Can they take a wank in the box while they're at it too?
Aerothorn on 24/8/2011 at 20:57
Ostriig: IANAL, but I'm almost totally confident that that is ILLEGAL. If they informed the consumer, then it might be legit; but if they do it secretly it's total BS and I imagine they'll get in trouble for it.
But Gamestop has been a shit company for years. Even ignoring their moronic stance towards selling PC games (which boils down to "Let's have a horrible selection of PC games priced well over market value, then use their poor sales to justify further isolating the PC games and giving sales to Steam because we hate making money") they've been really trying to make the consumer/employee experience suck. It started when employees were told to try and push strategy guides and the Edge card on you every time you bought something; it continued when they installed Gamestop TV, so the customer is forced to listening to idiotic blathering advertisements while they try to shop, and the poor employees are forced to listen to the same looping ads 8 hours a day.
redrain85 on 24/8/2011 at 22:55
So now, instead of opening copies of DX:HR and removing the codes, apparently Gamestop has decided to stop selling standard PC copies altogether. Which is probably what they should have done in the first place. But in my mind it's still atrocious anti-competitive behavior. And as if we needed another reason not to shop at Gamestop for PC titles.
Stay classy, Gamestop.
Ostriig on 25/8/2011 at 08:36
Yes, it is rather anti-competitive, but at least cancelling on selling the PC version is within the realm of reason, they have the defense that they never agreed to sell a competitor's marketing campaign and you can understand why they wouldn't want to. Most companies would probably do the same. As far as I'm concerned it's an acceptable end to the situation, unlike gutting the product package you're only authorised to resell.
Quote Posted by Aerothorn
Ostriig: IANAL, but I'm almost totally confident that that is ILLEGAL. If they informed the consumer, then it might be legit; but if they do it secretly it's total BS and I imagine they'll get in trouble for it.
Joystiq (
http://www.joystiq.com/2011/08/24/gamestop-intentionally-removing-deus-ex-onlive-coupons-from-reta/) reached out to a lawyer, a certain Mark Methenitis, and in his opinion it was "probably legal" as far as the consumer was concerned because the OnLive component was never advertised to them. Where they had liability was in the corporate department, according to him, as GameStop were probably opening themselves up for a lawsuit from Square and/or OnLive.
Matthew on 25/8/2011 at 09:20
Yes, I suspected that a threat from SE had probably prompted the removal from sale.
All very poor from a PR standpoint too.
redrain85 on 25/8/2011 at 17:32
I'm somewhat amazed the lawyer Joystiq contacted felt that Gamestop was within their rights to tamper with a factory sealed product and still sell it as new.
I understand why Gamestop didn't want a trial for a competitor's service in the product they sell. But the irony is that the game was still linked to a competing service, anyhow. Why did they draw the line with OnLive, yet were willing to sell it with Steamworks? Simply because Steam is too entrenched now for them to push around? Bullies on the playground, and all that . . . :p
It's rather sad to see so many recent game releases affected by politicking going on behind the scenes.
Aerothorn on 25/8/2011 at 17:38
They also wouldn't be able to sell Blizzard's products, because that's tied to Battle.net, etc. This seems pretty arbitrary, some mid-level executive who doesn't understand the nature of PC gaming.
