Can you see why he is saying this?

Yes, that's true; I just updated my post though.
If the information has to be readily available, isn't the best way to guarantee that by regulation dictating it must be included on the packaging?

Ingredients? Sure! (sort of)

Yes, that is the system we have today, and it keeps people honest in the corporate world, after all. You have to also consider that the early twentieth century was an era of great change for society. A lot of new things were coming around - not even the people selling the stuff knew exactly WHAT they were selling, you know? They probably could have realized it was harmful (I'm sure some did), but that's why we have laws such that we can walk into their offices and say, "Hey you! The one in charge! There's a massive wave of gooey feces going around town! We're hauling you in on intent to deceive!" or something like that. I think you get the picture.

But also, as my economics prof would say quite often, that's why we have the ability to regulate - so we can adopt to new situations without weird interpretations.

I remember when my bag of cookies didn't need a "non-gluten free" stamp on it.

So, for those of us that backed and are getting a physical box already, would that mean we'd get that same commander?

No, that commander is unique* to the Early Access Retail Box.

*It is Time limited, but Uber hasn't comment how it will be available afterwards yet.

Mike

Interesting, thanks for that information. I'm not totally for or against being able to get all the commanders, but it is one of those things that having access to cool cosmetic stuff would be better than not. Although, I'm pretty happy with the Centurion I usually play as for now.

Yeah I've compile this graph that is, as far as we're aware, accurate in terms of Limited Commander Access.

Also if you're curious about that sort of thing this thread is probably a worthwhile read as well;

https://forums.uberent.com/threads/on-commander-exclusivity.61208/

Mike

The $90 tier on the Uber Store was called Galactic Edition. It did not contain the Delta com.

Nordic Early Access gets access to neither Theta nor Gamma? That's just... weird...

Nordic collector's edition does get access to Gamma.

I knew this was a bad move on ubers part from the moment a boxed early access version was announced. I didn't really go on about it like I have with a few topics though. It was only a matter of time until someone as popular as TB criticised this edition.

I myself thought this was an extremely stupid move on ubers behalf. They are going to end up with a lot of disgruntled customers who probably dont expect the game to run over a server as it does now and expect the disk to come with all the files without the need to download anything.

A boxed early access game in my opinion shouldnt even exist, and considering this is one of the first boxed early access games to be released it's probably going to cop a lot of crap. If this had been done before it wouldn't have been such a big deal but considering this is the first of its kind Uber are just digging a very deep hole for themselves. Oh and that excuse that uber needs a bit more money for development is overused and lazy.

Twitter literally doesn't allow you to to explain your opinion because of the character limit.

Great now various gaming sites are posting about the early access edition and I can tell you, some of the comments aren't looking pretty.

Okay, so in resume, this is what people are saying:

-TB is wrong

- Not giving the customers information is fine

- Selling exclusive commanders which both screw over previous buyers and entice people into paying for an unfinished product is fine

- Uber is allowed to do whatever they want

"...this is what some people are saying;"

Mike

Fortunately those people are clearly not the ones that get within a mile of a game shop.


Really, the fuss is about absolutely nothing. This is the exact thing we've had since Steam Early Access. They put it in a box. Games are just about the only thing i buy online. It may seem like a heavily download/online shopping world, but plenty and plenty of people exist who still buy in stores. If only for the payment options.


E.g. Factorio is still on my buy list, but i won't because it doesn't support the payment option i use. I use Steam heavily precisely because it has many secure payment options. I don't have a creditcard and i don't want to use e.g. paypal because it's such a hassle (and i don't want to give it carte blanche to my pay account either)

Hardly... To summarise:

Uber haven't gone back on anything as far as I can tell.

A group of people here have the idea that they are somehow entitled to all commanders ever made or it's 'screwing them over'... Why?!

Boxed early access is terrible? Again it's clearly labeled, I don't see the issue.

That rational thinking and reason are to be ignored in matters like theses.

If someone sells a bag of dicks, it doens't mean I will buy it, but I don't go slapping the guy who is selling, because he can do whatever the hell he wants.

Last time I checked people are still responsible for their actions. I still extensively research the game and read the back of the box before buying.

Early access hard copies and even pre-orders are good things if you consider their advantages. Just don't add "exclusive content" to them. As that is the disease that's raging around in the gaming world.

Okay, let us see, why is this not okay?

1. A boxed copy costs much more then a digital copy. I do not mean for the consumer, but for the developers. You are putting a lot more effort into making a disk, putting it in a box, and getting it sold in a store, just so that customers can essentially preorder a game.

2. It entices people into buying the game before it is done. Most good early access games make a big fuss out of how you should not buy it since it is not done, and that you only do so if you really want to support them, but in this case, they are straight up advertising it as the best way to buy it, with an exclusive commander to top it off.

3. It screws over previous customers. This is a cheaper version, which includes a custom commander, effectively screwing over everybody who bought it before. The message given is that not only are we now paying for testing their games, but we are being punished for doing so, as waiting to buy it would give us more content for less money.

(As for the "all commanders", no, we are not. What we ARE entitled too is ALL the content made before the games release not in the kickstarter version. Not giving us this commander is no better then on disk day 1 dlc. This here is the same game bought, and nobody had told us that if we waited, the cheaper version would give us MORE content. By all accounts, you assume that the special early edition, which both supports the developers and puts you at risk of buying something which will either be bad or not finished, would have more content, not less)

I think we can easily agree on that food is a necessity. Try going without it a few days if you don't believe it.
Additionally unhealthy food is something you won't directly notice. You may eat it for YEARS, thinking "oh this is tasty" and then you get sick, with potential severe consequence for your health. Without laws on "write the real info on it" companies also will constantly try to praise their 50% sugar containing stuff as "healthy". Which obviously is a plain lie, but people would not even notice while eating it.

Are they obligated by law? Dunno. Buying shares yet again is quite different, if you do it wrongly you can ruin yourself. Kinda similar to the food-health-issue: You won't notice your purchase was bad, until it hits your health/your money in a way that can totally ruin you.

You can't really compare these things to buying a game that you play or not play, depending on how fun it is. Maybe you lose 40$ on that and get angry for an hour or two. That's outright ridiculous to compare to eating unhealthy food for years or buying worthless shares.

I never said food wasn't a necessity. Buying food however is not. I could own a farm or grow my own food, and thus not need to buy it. But somehow because buying food is a necessity for someone else, food labelling is required?

The definition of necessity is not always as straightforward as you think. I might need internet access to survive, someone else might not. There are many things in life that arn't necessary for survival, but still require disclosure of information either by law or accepted best business practice. Your logic on this is just really really flawed. I was simply asking, what is your definition of necessity in the context of this issue (the applicationable definition), and what gives it universal truth in the first place as the deciding factor?

Because as far as i can see, it seems like an entirely arbritrary rule with no logical justification. Just because i can escape from buying something, doesn't mean protecting buyers of that good isn't a something you would want. Caveat emptor only goes so far.

As for shares, you're obligated by law under any kind of corporations act in your country. Why? Because it involves risk, accessibility to the public and information outsiders is high, there is possible motive to screw over buyers by information insiders, and it involves money that you may not be able to get back. Without proper disclosure, you may be intentionally misled to believe the risk adjusted value of a company to be more than it actually is/will be. These same conditions hold true for early access games.

It's a cop out to say they are different because 'shares can ruin your life'. You're somehow trying to compare $40 game purchase with some huge $x share purchase, when in reality a $40 purchase of shares is fundamentally the same thing.

In the end, it seems no example will be perfectly exact enough for you. The entire point however was to illustrate the problem of information assymetry and moral hazard. Necessary to life or not, society tends to put protections on these sort of things when they involve money. To protect customers, to advocate consumer rights, and to discourage/prevent questionable behaviour by companies.

*Also in the context of the food analogy, it was nothing to do with unhealthy food as you put it, but everything to do with 'HEALTHY' foods advertising things about their products which turn out to be flat out untrue.

True but you can link to posts/blogs where you DO explain your stance.
The character limit is often used as a shield to allow oneself to make such curt, and harsh statements.