{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
8/19/2016 10:39:05 AM
1
Two different vendors, both offering a theoretically same product, a cheeseburger. You went to Burger King for the extras and then were refused them at McDonalds because of opposing loyalties. The theoretical example is still there.
Thing is, when you pay for a game, you don't own it, you pay for the license and all that license entails. This includes all content that you have paid for. When you are told you can't have that, it may not be illegal, but it's the shadiest bullshit this side of the digital decade. Same goes for vendor-specific pre-order bonusses. Either offer the same product and promotions to everyone, or -blam!- off.
English
-
Edited by talhasen123: 8/19/2016 10:55:48 AMThen again If they made same cheeseburger, mcdonalds would be called burger king not mcdonalds. Dont take this as an insult brother but you want every product as same as other ones in the same category. Then we would have only 1 publisher for every product and it would not be cool. For the license part, I am pretty sure there is a part for exclusivity in that. That is why we have contracts for it. Sony do it for marketing. Like exclusive games. They want people to buy ps4. I cant see that "big" problem in this. Like even xbox players can get the items they just have to wait...
