>We should not make it easier for the corporations to abuse us.
I fail to see how this is "abuse"? At worst the game is taking up an extra 20GB or whatever for a map pack that you can't use. Then again, localization files (for the games that don't selectively download those) are on the same order of magnitude, but I doubt that would garner the same amount of outrage.
>As far as I'm concerned, if it ships, it's considered part of the base product. Don't want people hacking around to get the things you ship but don't want them to access? DON'T SHIP WHAT YOU DON'T WANT THEM TO HAVE WITHOUT PAYING THEN.
So the point of contention is that it's a hardware lock vs a software lock? About a decade ago, CPU makers would disable cores at the software level, which means you could potentially unlock cores if they were non-defective (they often were). Later they caught on to this and physically disabled the core by lasering it off. If I have this correctly, you'd be against them in the first case, but are okay with it in the second case?
Localization files are not normally sold as DLC packages, so that's not the same thing at all.
>So the point of contention is that it's a hardware lock vs a software lock? About a decade ago, CPU makers would disable cores at the software level, which means you could potentially unlock cores if they were non-defective (they often were). Later they caught on to this and physically disabled the core by lasering it off. If I have this correctly, you'd be against them in the first case, but are okay with it in the second case?
I don't like either, but if something is physically damaged (which lasering it off effectively does), then it's more reasonable (and it's not like software could reactivate it anyway). But then again, a core that's "lasered off" is not able to be used at all, even if you pay Intel a bit of money, so that's not the same either.
What I'm talking about are features that are perfectly functioning, that are present in in the hardware/software, but that are locked off because the manufacturer wants to nickel and dime you. The business model of "soft-upgrading" CPUs is garbage for this reason.
It'd be like selling a Swiss Army Knife with 75% of the features physically blocked off, but still present. Would you take issue with someone modifying such a knife to access the parts that are already there?
why is it more reasonable? from a purely rational point of view, there really shouldn't be any difference between a physical method of disabling feature, and a software method of disabling it. Instead, I feel like it's more emotional than anything else, similar to "if I (the consumer) can't have it, they (intel) can't have it either!".
>What I'm talking about are features that are perfectly functioning, that are present in in the hardware/software, but that are locked off because the manufacturer wants to nickel and dime you. The business model of "soft-upgrading" CPUs is garbage for this reason.
Isn't lasering off cores the same here? Often times the cores are perfectly working. The only difference is the lack of soft-upgrades, but the "nickel and diming" arguably still occurs at the point of sale.
>It'd be like selling a Swiss Army Knife with 75% of the features physically blocked off, but still present. Would you take issue with someone modifying such a knife to access the parts that are already there?
No, I wouldn't take any issue with them trying to modify it. It's their property and they can do whatever they see fit. That said, I fail too see how that's relevant to the discussion, and it feels more like a strawman. Everyone in the comment thread is talking about whether it's "right" for intel to do it, or whether people are justified in being outraged at intel. At no point were people arguing for/against "tak[ing] issue with someone modifying such [product] to access the [features] that are already there".
We were talking about game discs.
>In places where "unlimited" mobile data is not common, this raises costs for people to get the base product
But it decreases the price of enhancing the product.
>and then they still have to pay to unlock data that is now already on their device.
What's wrong with that? There is plenty of software like that already. Take Microsoft Windows. The whole operating system is already there, you just need to enter a license to unlock everything. This applies to a lot of other software that has some sort of trial.
We should not make it easier for the corporations to abuse us.
And yes, if an indie software developer ships all the DLC and just sells license keys, I would crucify them. It's not "downloadable content" if you don't actually have to download it.
As far as I'm concerned, if it ships, it's considered part of the base product. Don't want people hacking around to get the things you ship but don't want them to access? DON'T SHIP WHAT YOU DON'T WANT THEM TO HAVE WITHOUT PAYING THEN.