Redownloading

[ASL Veteran]

I think you miss the point. This is not so much about $5 as the principle. The OP had the game installed and clearly said his BACKUP FAILED.

If the OP is being honest and I see no reason to call someone a liar unless you have something, even on line. The customer did what he was supposed to do. BACKUP the download.

Why is this such a hard concept for some of you to get? Also, as has already been pointed out. BF has options for allowing a paying customer to download the game again. BT is useful. BF could take it a step further by having an allow list. I accept bandwidth is costly but options do exist.

Let's assume that you bought a game CD (hardgoods) and played the game for two years, then for whatever reason your dog got into your storage bin and chomped the CD into little pieces. What do you figure the company that sold you the CD two years ago is responsible for?

Note that I'm not referring to BFC specifically. I'm just asking a general question and depending upon your answer I would be curious to know if any company selling software commercially has a policy that matches your expectation.

[agusto]

1) The first step says "purchase the game". By using the word "purchase", people are mislead to think this alone is the price of admission. When I think about other things I have purchased (a car, a toaster, other games both digital and physical), the act of purchasing doesn't include a later charge to access whatever it is I already purchased based on whatever arbitrary conditions. So this is immediately misleading, because we aren't really purchasing the game.

What you purchase from BFC is exactely what they tell you: a DL link for the game that expires after 365 days and an activation key. That is waht you bought. You could have selected the 'mail' option, wich gets you a disc from wich you can reinstall until the plastic the CD is made of starts to disintegrate.

I cannot see why you have a problem (or actually i can, but i think your problem is that you blame others for your own faults, same as scmerc224, effectively preventing you from reflecting your behaviour).

---------------------------------------

Anyways, this thread just inspired me to make another backcopy in case my backup fails. Thanks scmerc224.

[agusto]

If the OP is being honest and I see no reason to call someone a liar unless you have something, even on line. The customer did what he was supposed to do. BACKUP the download.

Obviously it wasnt a good backup. It is not BFCs responsibility to make sure their customers make working backups. You dont have to make a backup at all actually, they just recommend it to you because they are just that nice and want to help you (yes, some useres wouldnt thnik of making backups without beeing told so).

[Mad Mike]

Let's assume that you bought a game CD (hardgoods) and played the game for two years, then for whatever reason your dog got into your storage bin and chomped the CD into little pieces. What do you figure the company that sold you the CD two years ago is responsible for?

Note that I'm not referring to BFC specifically. I'm just asking a general question and depending upon your answer I would be curious to know if any company selling software commercially has a policy that matches your expectation.

I don't know, it is quite uncommon, for games at least, to have a specific download charge applied to them. The cost for providing an infrastructure is certainly included in the full price for the license, i.e. it is hidden, but it will have been calculated.

I guess what BFC must have calculated is the cost for them for the expected number of customers downloading the installer 10 times.

I know for sure I only downloaded CMBN and CMFI exactly one time, so I paid for 18 downloads (and the associated bandwidth) which I never used. I would be more than happy to share these with anybody whose download expired. I would also bet that I'm not the only one never used all the downloads. Just something to take into consideration when talking about numbers and cost.

[cool web head]

What you purchase from BFC is exactely what they tell you: a DL link for the game that expires after 365 days and an activation key.

Wrong. The buying process (as quoted by c3k on page 2) says:

1) Purchase your game.

Not

1) Purchase your link to the game's installer files that will expire after 365 days (you need to pay $5 dollars to recieve another one, watch out!) and an activation key.

You must be intentionally trying to be obtuse, there's no reason why I should have to have pointed this out to you. Especially since I already stated the not-so-subtle difference between these two things in the post you quoted.

As for your claim that I blame others for my own faults, I don't know what you mean or what that has to do with anything.

[cool web head]

For the people claiming that expecting to be able to download the game again is akin to expecting to have a physical copy that you broke replaced, please stop with this silly comparison.

It is more like if the installer on the disc stopped working after a year, requiring an additional $5 dollars to reinstall. The company tells you that its your own fault for needing to install the game again.

Lastly, it bears repeating since no one seems to understand: No other company that distributes their games digitally uses this policy. Not even companies SMALLER than battlefront. There is no reasoning behind this policy besides that it is a cash grab.

[agusto]

Wrong. The buying process (as quoted by c3k on page 2) says:

1) Purchase your game.

Not

1) Purchase your link to the game's installer files that will expire after 365 days (you need to pay $5 dollars to recieve another one, watch out!) and an activation key.

You must be intentionally trying to be obtuse, there's no reason why I should have to have pointed this out to you. Especially since I already stated the not-so-subtle difference between these two things in the post you quoted.

"1. Purchase your game

.

.

.

.

6. Backup the installation files you downloaded! Downloads expire automatically after 365 days or 10 downloads. We do not offer digital storage for your purchased games."

Where does it not say the download link is expiring after 10 downloads or 365 days?

As for your claim that I blame others for my own faults, I don't know what you mean or what that has to do with anything.

This was more directed to scmerc224. But if you had lost your game files i bet you would behave the same way, judging from what i ve read from you so far.

[agusto]

It is more like if the installer on the disc stopped working after a year, requiring an additional $5 dollars to reinstall. The company tells you that its your own fault for needing to install the game again.

If the company i purchased the installer from told me before the purchase that the installer will cease to function after 365 days, that would be totally okay. I decided that i will purchase the product anyways. But that is not the case here. The case is about buying an installer that works for an infinite amount of time but 'ceased funtion' due to inproper storage by the customer.

[cool web head]

Where does it not say the download link is expiring after 10 downloads or 365 days?

Like I have said 3 times now: In the very first step, where the customer is initially mislead into thinking he is purchasing the game. To say the first step is the customer purchasing the game is simply not true. You yourself just said that you are not purchasing a game, you are purchasing a 1 year oppurtunity to download the game. They are obviously different, distinct things.

Furthermore, saying the download link will expire after the fact is not the same as saying you will need to purchase another download if you need one after this one has expired.

Also, for the second time: I don't care if you think I'm a whiny baby or whatever you're saying, you can keep those comments to yourself. It's really not going to convince me that I'm wrong about this.

[ASL Veteran]

For the people claiming that expecting to be able to download the game again is akin to expecting to have a physical copy that you broke replaced, please stop with this silly comparison.

It is more like if the installer on the disc stopped working after a year, requiring an additional $5 dollars to reinstall. The company tells you that its your own fault for needing to install the game again.

Lastly, it bears repeating since no one seems to understand: No other company that distributes their games digitally uses this policy. Not even companies SMALLER than battlefront. There is no reasoning behind this policy besides that it is a cash grab.

Well my friend, there are probably many BFC customers who didn't buy a digital copy. What you are then saying is that someone who bought their game digitally is to receive preferential treatment if their game is damaged or lost over someone who bought a hard copy. "I got the game digitally because I'm suave and debonaire, therefore I'm entitled to a lifetimes worth of downloads. You got your game as a hard copy so if something happens to it you are out of luck because only hillbillies living in the mountains buy hard copies these days."

From a sales standpoint, there is absolutely no difference between a hard copy and a digital copy as far as BFC is concerned. The game is the same no matter which way you purchased it. The only difference is the way in which the game was delivered to you.

[ASL Veteran]

Like I have said 3 times now: In the very first step, where the customer is initially mislead into thinking he is purchasing the game.

So if you buy the game and select digital download only you haven't bought the game? I suppose it would be theoretically possible for you to buy the "download link" and then not actually download the game within the 365 day time frame, but if that's the case then why are you paying anything in the first place? You are trying to split hairs on something that's effectively irrelevant.

[agusto]

Like I have said 3 times now: In the very first step, where the customer is initially mislead into thinking he is purchasing the game. To say the first step is the customer purchasing the game is simply not true. You yourself just said that you are not purchasing a game, you are purchasing a 1 year oppurtunity to download the game. They are obviously different, distinct things.

I just went to the battlefront.com store and checked what it sys there. It is

cleaerly stated before you pay for your product that

1) you purchase a downloadlink. You have to select "Download Only" as delivery method.

2) your download link is going to expire after 365 days or 10 downloads. That is why they recommend you to backup your files.

Do you want me to make a screenshot and add it to this thread?

Furthermore, saying the download link will expire after the fact is not the same as saying you will need to purchase another download if you need one after this one has expired.

Well, what else would one expect? Besides you will not have to purchase a fully priced 55$ download again, only 5$. I consider it as a service that BFC offers me in case i wasnt able to store my files properly.

Also, for the second time: I don't care if you think I'm a whiny baby or whatever you're saying...

Obviously you do, otherwise you would not have mentioned it twice. Besides that i didnt call you a whiney baby, just to make that clear.

[cool web head]

Well my friend, there are probably many BFC customers who didn't buy a digital copy. What you are then saying is that someone who bought their game digitally is to receive preferential treatment if their game is damaged or lost over someone who bought a hard copy. "I got the game digitally because I'm suave and debonaire, therefore I'm entitled to a lifetimes worth of downloads. You got your game as a hard copy so if something happens to it you are out of luck because only hillbillies living in the mountains buy hard copies these days."

That is not preferential treatment, because it costs next to nothing to copy a file for download, but the cost to make an extra copy of the disc packaging, ship it, ect is not negligible. That is why no one would expect to get a free replacement hard copy, but would expect to be able to download the game as much as they need. That and the fact that no other company charges users to redownload games they already bought

[ASL Veteran]

That is not preferential treatment, because it costs next to nothing to copy a file for download, but the cost to make an extra copy of the disc packaging, ship it, ect is not negligible. That is why no one would expect to get a free replacement hard copy, but would expect to be able to download the game as much as they need. That and the fact that no other company charges users to redownload games they already bought

Oh but it is preferential treatment. Two gamers, both with broken games, one gets a replacement and the other does not. The game is identical for both players. The only difference was how they chose to take delivery of it when they initially purchased it.

[igbee]

Well my friend, there are probably many BFC customers who didn't buy a digital copy. What you are then saying is that someone who bought their game digitally is to receive preferential treatment if their game is damaged or lost over someone who bought a hard copy. "I got the game digitally because I'm suave and debonaire, therefore I'm entitled to a lifetimes worth of downloads. You got your game as a hard copy so if something happens to it you are out of luck because only hillbillies living in the mountains buy hard copies these days."

From a sales standpoint, there is absolutely no difference between a hard copy and a digital copy as far as BFC is concerned. The game is the same no matter which way you purchased it. The only difference is the way in which the game was delivered to you.

Funny I didn't pick up on this "suave" thing.

As its been already stated and clearly you over looked it, BF could easily setup a BT download with a private tracker. I am going to guess that many members would be willing to help.

This would allow both DVD users and DOWNLOAD users the same access. I know this might be a hard concept for you to understand. By not offering an alternative it in fact looks like a minor money grab. Its also been stated that companies smaller do not charge you to re-download your purchased game.

BF needs to get paid or none of us get games we want. I'm simply not sure what is so hard to understand when it comes to the many possible alternatives that cost no money....

The File Repository... Charge you to re-download your product but offer unlimited downloads on their own Repository... Hmmmm

[cool web head]

Oh but it is preferential treatment. Two gamers, both with broken games, one gets a replacement and the other does not. The game is identical for both players. The only difference was how they chose to take delivery of it when they initially purchased it.

Ok, you just ignored everything I said and restated your position so I don't think we have anything to argue about.

[agusto]

brianfairservice@gmail.co,

Just to proove you that BFC is not misleading you:

[cool web head]

brianfairservice@gmail.co,

Just to proove you that BFC is not misleading you:

[screenshot]

I already went through the payment process though and they never mention (unless I missed it) an additional 5 dollar charge to get a link to the game. The only other thing in your screenshot is the "how it works" steps which have already been pasted in this thread, and which I have already criticized.

[agusto]

I already went through the payment process though and they never mention (unless I missed it) an additional 5 dollar charge to get a link to the game. The only other thing on your screenshot are the "how it works" steps which have already been pasted in this thread, and which I have already criticized.

They would not have to offer you the possibility to redownload the game at all. Judging from what it says at 'how t works', this would IMO be a more meaningful asumption to make than to believe that you can redownload it as often as you want for free. Also, you do not have to pay an additional 5 dollars for a downloadlink to your game if you download it within the 365 days and store the files properly.

[Vanir Ausf B]

They would not have to offer you the possibility to redownload the game at all. Judging from what it says at 'how t works', this would IMO be a more meaningful asumption to make than to believe that you can redownload it as often as you want for free.

I agree. The actual implication is that if you lose your backup you have to repurchase the game at full price.

[cool web head]

Judging from what it says at 'how t works', this would IMO be a more meaningful asumption to make than to believe that you can redownload it as often as you want for free.

Unless you've ever used a digital distribution service from any other company before. Plenty of services have the link expire after awhile. Only with this system does that mean you no longer can access the files without paying an additional fee.

Why do you think that little bit of information (that you need to pay to get another link) is conspicuously absent from the "how it works" bit during the buying process? Why wouldn't they include that? Can battlefront not afford to transfer a few extra bytes of bandwidth for that sentence?

[c3k]

1) The first step says "purchase the game". By using the word "purchase", people are mislead to think this alone is the price of admission. When I think about other things I have purchased (a car, a toaster, other games both digital and physical), the act of purchasing doesn't include a later charge to access whatever it is I already purchased based on whatever arbitrary conditions. So this is immediately misleading, because we aren't really purchasing the game.

I'll take you up on your examples. Have you ever had your toaster give out? If it was within the warranty period, was the repair free? This would be akin to the one-year/10 download limit BFC places on the DOWNLOADS. You can install it as many times as you'd like from a single download. THAT and the ACTIVATION - for 4 machines, or is it 5, is what you purchased.

If your toaster dies after 10 years do you demand a new one for free?

What about your car? If something breaks outside of warranty, does it get fixed or replaced for free?

Do you demand that your car be in the same shape, at no cost to you, 10 years after you purchase it? 15 years? 20 years?

Yes, you did purchase the game. You can do anything you want with your purchase. You can drive your car over your toaster. However, you cannot simply demand a new item if you haven't operated it correctly. Drive a car into a tree and then demand that the dealer fix it under warranty.

Download an installation file, delete the file (purposely or not) and then demand a new one?

2) No where does it indicate that there will be a 5 dollar fee to get another link to the installer, because everyone (even battlefront) knows thats unfair and it might scare off customers. Furthermore, no one in their right mind would ever assume that there will be a 5 dollar fee to access the game, because as far as I know there is no other company which takes advantage of their customers like that. There really needs to be text there that says you aren't actually purchasing the game, and there will be additional charges to play later on if you lose your backup.

Actually, the instruction IMPLIES that you would pay a FULL re-purchase price outside the 1 year/10 download timeframe. Pretty cool that it's only $5. That's the part where it tells you what BFC will do for you in exchange for the $55 purchase price. It's called a contract. No commercial transaction outside that contract is implied.

If you drive your car into a tree, wouldn't it be nice if your dealership gave you a 90% discount on the parts you needed for the repairs? That's what you get with the $5 download price.

3) Two simultaneous failures is something that is well within the realm of possibility. More than that, it's not even an "outlandish" scenario. One time I had some old pictures on my computer that I backed up to a USB. A year or so later I had to reformat my hard drive. After that was done I wanted to get the pictures and was disappointed to find the USB had failed in the interim. Is this really beyond imagination for you?

No. My imagination is quite broad and flexible. However, a backup which doesn't work isn't a backup. It's a paperweight.

Years ago, I religiously backup up to a second, internal, hard-drive using Acronis. It's a well-known, successful, backup software company. My harddrive failed. Cool. I'll just use the rescue disk, etc... Except none of it worked. I had never tested it. I had ASSUMED something.

I have had 3 hard-drive failures. (I've used over 3 dozen, or more, drives in the various computers I've had over the last 20 years.)

My new backup process: Macrium backup to a second, internal drive. Remove the initial drive. Add in a NEW, unformatted, clean drive. Use the backup to reinstall onto my new drive. If it works, I have a backup. If not, then I put the original back in and try something else. That is the only way to be sure you have a backup.

It takes...wait for it...patience, work, and effort. You do the backup, you test the backup, you archive the backup, you make new backups NOT on the archived backup.

Is that good for your imagination?

I cannot see a USB drive "going bad" if it has been unused and stored correctly. Perhaps a stray cosmic particle? With the price of USB sticks, I'd think an extra copy wouldn't be too onerous. Although, the $5 cost of a new download is pretty competitive.

4) "A failed backup is not a backup." ? I'm a little surprised I need to point this out, but this is a logical contradiction. I thought you were joking, but you go on to use this contradictory logic to argue that OP is a liar. I don't know how to explain this well since its so plainly contradictory, but by saying "a failed backup is not a backup" you are saying that if there is something that is a backup and that something has also failed, then that something is not a backup. In order for this statement to be true, something would need to be both a backup and not a backup. I hope this doesn't sound like I'm talking down to you, it's just that this is such elementary stuff.

Well, see above. If you don't TEST your backup, your strategy is really just HOPING that it works. The odds of a PROPER backup failing simultaneously with the original are zero.

If I copy my download file to another folder on the same hard drive, have I made a backup? Some would say "yes". I call that a copy, not a backup. Relying on a single-point failure (the same hard drive) is foolish.

So, elementary stuff: if you call it a backup but have never tested it, is it a backup? No, it is, again, merely a hope.

5) It's "cheap" to not want to pay 5 dollars for something you were mislead into believing you already purchased? Personally, I think its foolish to pay for something you already bought. But this is a pointless vein of discussion, I think. Its just name-calling.

How was the OP misled? Did he receive the product for which he paid? Yes. He want MORE than what he paid for.

If I buy a car, do I think I'll get a motorscooter tossed in?

I don't understand why you are defending this policy with such anger. This policy is unprecedented, and hidden from customers at the time of purchase. It's misleading and exploitive. There are plenty of alternatives available to Battlefront which are far better for customers, but they go with this instead for obvious reasons.

I am not defending the policy with "anger". I am calling out the OP. Look at my first response. I believe it was civil. He may not be mature enough to understand that disagreement does not equate with rudeness.

The policy is not unprecedented. When I buy games, I NEVER assume I get to buy it twice.

You are correct: it is Battlefront's decision. The free market allows them to succeed or fail based on their decisions. That same market allows you to choose to engage in commerce with them based on their business decisions.

"Misleading and exploitive" :) and an "LOL" for good measure. Really? A written agreement is misleading? Perhaps for the illiterate. "Exploitive"? Could you, please, expand on that? That word is used a lot, usually, in my experience, by those who demand the benefit of someone else's labor.

(Reminds me of the video of Tom Morello (sp?), of "Rage Against the Machine" leading an Occupy Wallstreet chant against corporations, all while strumming his corporation produced guitar, given the free time gained by his recording corporation proceeds, financed by the music distribution corporation, aided by the concert corporation, to listeners who adore him based on cd's and itunes distributed and produced by yet more corporations. And this multi-millionaire is telling these people that corporations exploit them. That is a classic.)

Seriously: How is this exploitive?

[cool web head]

Saying "the download link expires" does not imply that "you will no longer be allowed to download the installer without paying an additional fee". They are very different things first of all, as I have illustrated many times in this thread. Second of all, there is no reason you would jump to that conclusion since that type of policy is unprecedented amongst digital distribution services.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Saying "the download link expires" does not imply that "you will no longer be allowed to download the installer without paying an additional fee".

Given that they don't mention any way of getting a new link outside buying the game again, I think it kinda does.

My guess, and I am just guessing at their thinking here, is that if they stated that you actually could download in perpetuity for 5 dollars that could weaken the customers' incentive to back up. For a lot of people 5 bucks is nothing.

[agusto]

Unless you've ever used a digital distribution service from any other company before. Plenty of services have the link expire after awhile. Only with this system does that mean you no longer can access the files without paying an additional fee.

So you are saying that your expiriences with other digital distribution services led you to the misbelieve that you can redownload your BFC purchases for free even if the DL link expired. On the first hand this looks like a valid speculation on BFCs distribution services, but you cannot assume that speculation to be a true statement about BFCs distribution services without further information retrieval on your side. The information is there. I personally have used several online distribution services from several different companys in my life and i did not misunderstand BFCs distribution policy.

Why do you think that little bit of information (that you need to pay to get another link) is conspicuously absent from the "how it works" bit during the buying process? Why wouldn't they include that? Can battlefront not afford to transfer a few extra bytes of bandwidth for that sentence?

While i do not agree with you on that BFC is trying to grab peoples money by charging them 5$ for reactivating an expired DL link, i agree with you on your suggestion that they should offer that information in the 'how it works', just in order to prevent further misunderstandings of their distribution policy in the future.

EDIT: BTW i also doubt that BFC gets lots of money from the 5$ ppl have to pay for additional downloads. I dont think that many customers use that service.