Let's talk about ethics

So far as I'm aware, there has been vague talks/threats of legal action since Curse of the Moon came out. Very little back then but since the release over the last couple months more and more, but I've yet to hear about any actual cases being brought to IGA, Artplay, 505 or anyone else and I've not seen any impact to sales of the game from their choices. Most of the non-backer community that I've talked to/heard from either don't know about it, or are hands off on the issue and just want to know if the game is any good. This constant reminder that legal action could be/may at some point be taken has entered the realm of put up or shut up in my opinion (To be clear I'm not saying anyone needs to silence their opinions)

However if you (the backers that feel wronged) are going to take action then stop raging in the comment sections and forums and subreddits and get a lawyer and do it. The thing I'm really tired of hearing is how most of those that are upset about this frame their arguments as they represent "The Backers". You don't. Stop claiming to represent all backers. You represent an indeterminate number of the the backers maybe, but I've been talking about this issue myself since the Kickstarter ended almost half a decade ago and I've found that most often even those that are against the exclusivity being broken are not fans of the exclusivity themselves. So long as I get the actual content (any time now please 505/Artplay) I'm getting what's important, the exclusivity being removed literally does nothing to harm my enjoyment of the content quite the opposite actually.

I know that many feel a legitimate claim to dissatisfaction with how the issues have been handled and it does suck that not everyone could be completely happy, though I often times wonder how many of these are simply upset that the excess copies they ordered my sell for less now.

The arguments of ethics is pointless in my opinion is it "ethical" to cut off a part of a game to be relegated to eventual obscurity because a "promise" is more important than as wide of an audience having access to the full game and enjoyment of that game or is it "ethical" to keep a promise regardless of fan enjoyment of a video game I mean that is the end goal right to enjoy the game by the largest number of people? Most have said that they actually don't mind the exclusivity eventually being dropped in one form or another meaning it becomes a matter of how long to play keep away with the content.

Regardless as others have said the genie has been sprung and the wish granted there is no corking the lamp at this point, so as I said before take legal action if you feel you have a case or don't.

Where am i saying that i'll take legal action?

I'm just urging 505 to man up and stop treating backers un-ethically.

This is why this was the second worse place, it is filled with bots. I don't care what your freind told you, crap i don't even care about the reviews, i care about my gameplay, the return of samus doesn't have that kind of problems and is on 3ds. But if you are going after that game of "someone else told me" go check the freaking news outlets, pretty much every single one of them says the switch version is bad, even 505 admited it.

Again, not even kickstarter is agree with your definition of kickstarter, go check ToS of kickstarter.

If they are selling for that console, make the game run properly for that console, i backed for xbox one as well, that kind of game is a lot better on handhelds. If they can not deliver a quality version they shouldn't make a version for that console, plain and simple. Is funny that you ran out of arguments and start throwing names. This is why they can lack ethics and get away with it, because people who doesn't feel affected feel every one should adopt they drone mindset. And that's just 1 of the things

Where did you get this from? Sure, there were some rumors about it around the time the Kickstarter was up, but after that Deep Silver was not even once mentioned or rumored to have any relations with Bloodstained. I'm just legitimately curious about where you have got this information, so don't take it the wrong way.


You may disagree with how the poll and everything about it was handled, but let me be clear here about something: once a digital content is out there in the internet, it's not exclusive anymore. Full stop. You can be certain that if that content had continued to be "exclusive", there would be mods, unofficial patch or something else to insert the same content for everyone's game. Heck, it probably would have started from a backer uploading it and making the content public. And at that stage, what's even the point of calling it "exclusive" anymore? That's just the reality of things, and you can't really blame anyone for it.


Let just be clear that while you're right that they should make the game run properly, there's no such a thing of "a game that's right for one specific platform". I, for instance, hate handhelds with a passion and can't understand for life how someone is able to enjoy a comfortable gaming session with a handheld. So, at the end of the day, that's just opinions.

Incidentally, I find it ironic how people last decade were fed up with Castlevania being launched only on handheld because of limited hardware, and now I'm seeing this kind of statement everywhere in the internet.

To answer your first question, it was not a rumour, deepsilver trademarked bloodstained, when they announced 505 on an update they announced that deepsilver transfered the rights of that trademark to artplay (who still owns it), i can show you the screenshot of deepsilver's trademark attached.

To answer your second question is irrelevant if someone pirates it, mods it or does whatever, the backer exclusive content should have remained "officially" exclusive, iga himself stated that it was more a token than something that would make a different game experience. Go check his comments on why he was offering backer exclusive content.

Yea i should have said that for me and a lot other people this kind of games are way better in handhelds, you are right everyone has his own preferences.

Hm that's interesting, thank you for sharing it, I wasn't aware of the fact.


Well I can understand yours and IGA's opinion but I'm not so sure if it is worth "fighting" reality because an official label.

 Well as a matter of fact this has a bigger implication, the content was going to be on the build of the game, meaning the build had to be different to that of retail, this would have made physical copies way more valuable. I'm not as big of an asshole as ya'll want to believe and i was not really expecting that to happend, this is more in line of "your lack of ethics has the potential of bitting you in yer arse", because this is grounds for some other type of action. Probably my main problem with all this backer exclusive thing is that we effectively overpaid for the game and retail got a way better deal.