http://www.computerandvideogames.com/34 ... c-content/

As in you mean you're still getting your money? And that's before you retail release the balanced version you should have done in the first place? Do fcuk off...

Technically they're right, there is no difference.
ie There's no difference that you've paid for a game, but you won't get all of it unless you pay some more.

Yeah, bit of a storm in a teacup as far as I can tell.

It's stuff they created during the usual development process and even had time to include on the disc, but then held back cos they'd like a lot more than your £35+ that you paid upfront.

A similar scam was carried out with the Catwoman missions in Arkham City, only that was to make money out of people who dared to buy a second hand game. £8 or so to download hundreds of Mbs really slowly... All it meant was 'legitimate' buyers had to be inconvenienced for hours in some cases downloading something that was designed as part of the game, story...

The games industry seems to have an extrodinary belief in it's 'right' to rip people off - even the movie industry never tried to stop or profit from second-hand sales! And that's before you get to paying to act as a games tester!

And yet clearly it works, as we're always told the games industry is huge and requires tax cuts.

My only concern there is for the developers themselves (the ones who genuinely do a good job at least), the publishers and parent studios generally boil my piss...

I don't like paying for anything, but I will if I want it enough and I can find the cash.

That's how capitalism works.

The acronyms are definitely different, if quite similar