# Talk:Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning

Why is outrage over DLC worthy of its own section here? Isn't there outrage over most, if not all DLC?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.192.34 (talk) 13:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC) 

I was not the one who added this paragraph, however what is specific is that the DLC was discovered even before the game shipped, meaning that the code was already in the box but you had to unlock it. A lot of game medias covered this because it explicitly put used games buyers aside. I'm not pro or con, but if you type amalur pass, you will have hundreds of valid sources covering it. By the way, I took the liberty to add a title before your questoin, because it was in the previous "File:991143 161068 front.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion" section. Hervegirod (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Why is it not an outrage worthy of giving EA a great big FU! instead of just shrugging and saying meh each time they (and so many others in this increasingly douch-ey industry) keep fleecing and hurting people who actually bought their game.
If we as gamers had any sense we should throw goddamn molotovs on their cars for all this dlc garbage instead of even whining about a sub section on the wikipedia of all things, grow a spine will you?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.105.5.91 (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC) 

I would recommend that you stay away from editing articles, such as this one, where you have such a strong POV.  The purpose of Wikipedia is to spread factual knowledge; not to push a particular point of view.  You are also whining about perceived whining, which is counterproductive and hypocritical. Also, don't personally attack other editors, and sign your talk page posts with four tildes 192.136.210.87 (talk) 02:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
That person appears to be humorously exaggerating the issue to demonstrate that the argument itself is silly. "DLC" that isn't actually DLC but just limiting access to stuff already sold inside the box has caused controversy in the past, often garnering way more attention than the product concerned itself. If a flopped game's most memorable and biggest legacy was scandal and fueling community debate about ethical DLC, well, it is what it is. 68.183.124.21 (talk) 10:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120201005402/http://asia.gamespot.com/features/creating-the-world-of-amalur-an-interview-with-ra-salvatore-6349389/ to http://asia.gamespot.com/features/creating-the-world-of-amalur-an-interview-with-ra-salvatore-6349389/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120206030340/http://reckoning.amalur.com/en/r/game/races to http://reckoning.amalur.com/en/r/game/races
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120214151721/http://blip.tv/day9tv to http://blip.tv/day9tv
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120202024440/http://www.analoghype.com/video-games/playstation-3-news/the-controversy-surrounding-kingdoms-of-amalur-reckonings-online-pass/ to http://www.analoghype.com/video-games/playstation-3-news/the-controversy-surrounding-kingdoms-of-amalur-reckonings-online-pass/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:43, 6 May 2017 (UTC)