Callin' for a DLC boycott.

[mjc0961]

No, my issue isn't with Downlodable Content. It's with Unlockable Content, or as I shall refer to them from now on, ULC's. If you look in the Playstation Network (Assuming. Don't have a PS3) or Xbox Live Marketplace and you see a DLC that is about 300kb in size, that would be a 'key' to unlock content that is already on the disk that you paid full price for.

Many people just say 'Well if you don't like it, then don't buy it.' That doesn't stop it from being major douchebaggery, and some people will still fork over the $5 or however much it costs to get at the ULC. If noone buys the ULC, maybe some gaming companies *CoughEAcough* will get the hint and actually start letting you have everything on the disk that you've already paid them for.

In otherwords, Believe in your force and head into the Garden of Madness. [sub]Shameless No More Heroes reference. Don't hurt me.[/sub]

Ah, that. My thoughts on this are that if the content is already on the disc, one of three things should be done:

1. Include a one use only unlock code for the content in new copies of the game, so people who already gave money to the publisher for the disc can get the unlock for free.

2. Charge less for the actual disc itself.

3. Stop charging me extra to access all of the content on the disc I already paid $60 for.

That's it. If you want $60 for the disc and another $10 just to let me use everything on that disc, you can take your game and go fuck yourself.

Of course, launch day DLC that's actually content that was made after the game went gold and thus is not on the disc is fine by me. The way DLC should work is simple: if you made something extra after the game was finished and the discs were printed, you deserve extra money. If you made something before the game was out and put it on the disc, you do not deserve extra money, as that content is already on the disc you're selling me and I have a right to play EVERYTHING on the disc free of charge.

Online passes for used game buyers are still fine by me though: online servers are NOT on the disc, so charge away, doesn't bother me any. Unless, of course, your game doesn't have servers and you're having one of the people in the game act as the host. Then you can't say they owe you anything because if you aren't running servers for the game, you don't have extra costs associated with that.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Personally, I hate DLC. Either give us a full expansion, or give us the piddly extra bit of content for free. The industry was still doing proper expansions at the beginning of this hardware generation -- F.E.A.R. got two of them, Battlefield 2 got one full one and a couple of DLCs which were eventually included for free in the final patch, even Oblivion, which, thanks to horse armor, is a posterchild for what is wrong with DLC, eventually collected the minor DLCs into a full expansion, while providing The Shivering Isles as a second full sized expansion. And then suddenly, a couple of years after those games came out, we stopped seeing true expansion packs. I have never seen any industry get away with gouging its customers the way the Videogame industry does. At least customers in other industries with exporbitant prices know they're getting ripped off, and find legal alternatives to get the product or a comparable one for less. A significant portion of gamers not only bend over and take it, but then deride other gamers for not doing so.

But what makes expansion packs better than DLC's after all their not about making a full second tangent a separate game entity entirely in effect, DLC are Modules more or less official mods offering modular plug and go content that's not tied do to large some times frankly cumbersome expansion pack and when they do take the forum of a "real" expansion pack like say FO3's Broken steel they seem to be frankly superior to traditional expansion packs and trust me as a LONG LONG time PC gamer expanse packs in the past where not any better and in fact often where worse that what you are now complaining about in the form of multiple DLC's.

A good expansion pack gives you an entire new campaign to work with, as well as new multiplayer modes, and is essentially a new game that is sold for less because it reuses a lot of old assets from the previous game. If Modern Warfare 2 had been released 10 years ago, it could have been sold as an expansion pack, and nobody would have batted an eye. Or they might, actually -- to complain that it didn't contain enough new content. Modern DLCs are sold for significantly more money than old style expansion packs, at least on a content vs. price scale. The various map packs that get sold for $15 today would have been free in the old days, because they just don't contain that much content. If you were to combine enough DLCs together to actually reach expansion pack levels of content, it would cost far and beyond the $20-$30 that was once standard price for expansion packs. There's also the fact that in online modes, expansion packs always had their multiplayer segregated from the original game, meaning you didn't have to buy them if you didn't want to. There was no such thing as getting kicked off of a server because you hadn't paid the company for the new maps.

 

[Normandyfoxtrot]

Personally, I hate DLC. Either give us a full expansion, or give us the piddly extra bit of content for free. The industry was still doing proper expansions at the beginning of this hardware generation -- F.E.A.R. got two of them, Battlefield 2 got one full one and a couple of DLCs which were eventually included for free in the final patch, even Oblivion, which, thanks to horse armor, is a posterchild for what is wrong with DLC, eventually collected the minor DLCs into a full expansion, while providing The Shivering Isles as a second full sized expansion. And then suddenly, a couple of years after those games came out, we stopped seeing true expansion packs. I have never seen any industry get away with gouging its customers the way the Videogame industry does. At least customers in other industries with exporbitant prices know they're getting ripped off, and find legal alternatives to get the product or a comparable one for less. A significant portion of gamers not only bend over and take it, but then deride other gamers for not doing so.

But what makes expansion packs better than DLC's after all their not about making a full second tangent a separate game entity entirely in effect, DLC are Modules more or less official mods offering modular plug and go content that's not tied do to large some times frankly cumbersome expansion pack and when they do take the forum of a "real" expansion pack like say FO3's Broken steel they seem to be frankly superior to traditional expansion packs and trust me as a LONG LONG time PC gamer expanse packs in the past where not any better and in fact often where worse that what you are now complaining about in the form of multiple DLC's.

A good expansion pack gives you an entire new campaign to work with, as well as new multiplayer modes, and is essentially a new game that is sold for less because it reuses a lot of old assets from the previous game. If Modern Warfare 2 had been released 10 years ago, it could have been sold as an expansion pack, and nobody would have batted an eye. Or they might, actually -- to complain that it didn't contain enough new content. Modern DLCs are sold for significantly more money than old style expansion packs, at least on a content vs. price scale. The various map packs that get sold for $15 today would have been free in the old days, because they just don't contain that much content. If you were to combine enough DLCs together to actually reach expansion pack levels of content, it would cost far and beyond the $20-$30 that was once standard price for expansion packs. There's also the fact that in online modes, expansion packs always had their multiplayer segregated from the original game, meaning you didn't have to buy them if you didn't want to. There was no such thing as getting kicked off of a server because you hadn't paid the company for the new maps.

Expansion packs as far back as I can call where never cheaper than the actual base game and as for segregated MP guess what you still had to upgrade because everyone stopped playing the old vanilla game, and it's not like the expansion era was with out it's fair share of redundant titles.

 

[Shycte]

DLC should never be conspicuous in its absence from the main game.

For example, Dragon Age pulled a real dick move by putting characters in-game who tried to sell you DLCs.

You refering to Shale?

 

[mighty_wambat]

no, this is not accurate, the ea games unlock content game comes with a code in every new box. you buy used, its your fault. don't blame ea, blame game stop and your self

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Personally, I hate DLC. Either give us a full expansion, or give us the piddly extra bit of content for free. The industry was still doing proper expansions at the beginning of this hardware generation -- F.E.A.R. got two of them, Battlefield 2 got one full one and a couple of DLCs which were eventually included for free in the final patch, even Oblivion, which, thanks to horse armor, is a posterchild for what is wrong with DLC, eventually collected the minor DLCs into a full expansion, while providing The Shivering Isles as a second full sized expansion. And then suddenly, a couple of years after those games came out, we stopped seeing true expansion packs. I have never seen any industry get away with gouging its customers the way the Videogame industry does. At least customers in other industries with exporbitant prices know they're getting ripped off, and find legal alternatives to get the product or a comparable one for less. A significant portion of gamers not only bend over and take it, but then deride other gamers for not doing so.

But what makes expansion packs better than DLC's after all their not about making a full second tangent a separate game entity entirely in effect, DLC are Modules more or less official mods offering modular plug and go content that's not tied do to large some times frankly cumbersome expansion pack and when they do take the forum of a "real" expansion pack like say FO3's Broken steel they seem to be frankly superior to traditional expansion packs and trust me as a LONG LONG time PC gamer expanse packs in the past where not any better and in fact often where worse that what you are now complaining about in the form of multiple DLC's.

A good expansion pack gives you an entire new campaign to work with, as well as new multiplayer modes, and is essentially a new game that is sold for less because it reuses a lot of old assets from the previous game. If Modern Warfare 2 had been released 10 years ago, it could have been sold as an expansion pack, and nobody would have batted an eye. Or they might, actually -- to complain that it didn't contain enough new content. Modern DLCs are sold for significantly more money than old style expansion packs, at least on a content vs. price scale. The various map packs that get sold for $15 today would have been free in the old days, because they just don't contain that much content. If you were to combine enough DLCs together to actually reach expansion pack levels of content, it would cost far and beyond the $20-$30 that was once standard price for expansion packs. There's also the fact that in online modes, expansion packs always had their multiplayer segregated from the original game, meaning you didn't have to buy them if you didn't want to. There was no such thing as getting kicked off of a server because you hadn't paid the company for the new maps.

Expansion packs as far back as I can call where never cheaper than the actual base game and as for segregated MP guess what you still had to upgrade because everyone stopped playing the old vanilla game, and it's not like the expansion era was with out it's fair share of redundant titles.

The way I remember it, they were about $10 cheaper at launch than a brand new game -- the price of a brand new game being about $40 in the heyday of expansion packs -- and they dropped in price over time just like the full games did. As for everybody quitting the multiplayer when the expansion came out, that is patently false. There's still people playing the vanilla version of Quake 3 today, despite the Team Arena expansion having been released closer to a decade ago than not. People migrating en masse because the next big thing came out is a thing of the modern era, not of the past; for that matter, it's more a thing of consoles than PCs, even today.

 

[Normandyfoxtrot]

No, my issue isn't with Downlodable Content. It's with Unlockable Content, or as I shall refer to them from now on, ULC's. If you look in the Playstation Network (Assuming. Don't have a PS3) or Xbox Live Marketplace and you see a DLC that is about 300kb in size, that would be a 'key' to unlock content that is already on the disk that you paid full price for.

Many people just say 'Well if you don't like it, then don't buy it.' That doesn't stop it from being major douchebaggery, and some people will still fork over the $5 or however much it costs to get at the ULC. If noone buys the ULC, maybe some gaming companies *CoughEAcough* will get the hint and actually start letting you have everything on the disk that you've already paid them for.

In otherwords, Believe in your force and head into the Garden of Madness. [sub]Shameless No More Heroes reference. Don't hurt me.[/sub]

Ah, that. My thoughts on this are that if the content is already on the disc, one of three things should be done:

1. Include a one use only unlock code for the content in new copies of the game, so people who already gave money to the publisher for the disc can get the unlock for free.

2. Charge less for the actual disc itself.

3. Stop charging me extra to access all of the content on the disc I already paid $60 for.

That's it. If you want $60 for the disc and another $10 just to let me use everything on that disc, you can take your game and go fuck yourself.

Of course, launch day DLC that's actually content that was made after the game went gold and thus is not on the disc is fine by me. The way DLC should work is simple: if you made something extra after the game was finished and the discs were printed, you deserve extra money. If you made something before the game was out and put it on the disc, you do not deserve extra money, as that content is already on the disc you're selling me and I have a right to play EVERYTHING on the disc free of charge.

Online passes for used game buyers are still fine by me though: online servers are NOT on the disc, so charge away, doesn't bother me any. Unless, of course, your game doesn't have servers and you're having one of the people in the game act as the host. Then you can't say they owe you anything because if you aren't running servers for the game, you don't have extra costs associated with that.

to be fair if what most of these people are bitching at is what I think it is (namely like ME2 10 dollar Cerberus network and the two or three (I forget now) free peaces of DLC that new copies got free access to but use copies had to buy. In this case to only difference being the DLC is on the disk rather than their servers which is IMO a pretty good idea considering how much a clusterfuck simple online activation can be on the release day without bringing in thousand of medium sized downloads.

 

[Normandyfoxtrot]

Personally, I hate DLC. Either give us a full expansion, or give us the piddly extra bit of content for free. The industry was still doing proper expansions at the beginning of this hardware generation -- F.E.A.R. got two of them, Battlefield 2 got one full one and a couple of DLCs which were eventually included for free in the final patch, even Oblivion, which, thanks to horse armor, is a posterchild for what is wrong with DLC, eventually collected the minor DLCs into a full expansion, while providing The Shivering Isles as a second full sized expansion. And then suddenly, a couple of years after those games came out, we stopped seeing true expansion packs. I have never seen any industry get away with gouging its customers the way the Videogame industry does. At least customers in other industries with exporbitant prices know they're getting ripped off, and find legal alternatives to get the product or a comparable one for less. A significant portion of gamers not only bend over and take it, but then deride other gamers for not doing so.

But what makes expansion packs better than DLC's after all their not about making a full second tangent a separate game entity entirely in effect, DLC are Modules more or less official mods offering modular plug and go content that's not tied do to large some times frankly cumbersome expansion pack and when they do take the forum of a "real" expansion pack like say FO3's Broken steel they seem to be frankly superior to traditional expansion packs and trust me as a LONG LONG time PC gamer expanse packs in the past where not any better and in fact often where worse that what you are now complaining about in the form of multiple DLC's.

A good expansion pack gives you an entire new campaign to work with, as well as new multiplayer modes, and is essentially a new game that is sold for less because it reuses a lot of old assets from the previous game. If Modern Warfare 2 had been released 10 years ago, it could have been sold as an expansion pack, and nobody would have batted an eye. Or they might, actually -- to complain that it didn't contain enough new content. Modern DLCs are sold for significantly more money than old style expansion packs, at least on a content vs. price scale. The various map packs that get sold for $15 today would have been free in the old days, because they just don't contain that much content. If you were to combine enough DLCs together to actually reach expansion pack levels of content, it would cost far and beyond the $20-$30 that was once standard price for expansion packs. There's also the fact that in online modes, expansion packs always had their multiplayer segregated from the original game, meaning you didn't have to buy them if you didn't want to. There was no such thing as getting kicked off of a server because you hadn't paid the company for the new maps.

Expansion packs as far back as I can call where never cheaper than the actual base game and as for segregated MP guess what you still had to upgrade because everyone stopped playing the old vanilla game, and it's not like the expansion era was with out it's fair share of redundant titles.

The way I remember it, they were about $10 cheaper at launch than a brand new game -- the price of a brand new game being about $40 in the heyday of expansion packs -- and they dropped in price over time just like the full games did. As for everybody quitting the multiplayer when the expansion came out, that is patently false. There's still people playing the vanilla version of Quake 3 today, despite the Team Arena expansion having been released closer to a decade ago than not. People migrating en masse because the next big thing came out is a thing of the modern era, not of the past; for that matter, it's more a thing of consoles than PCs, even today.

We're going to have to agree to simply disagree my recollection is not the same as yours.

 

[Catalyst6]

It really depends on the kind of DLC. I might gladly consider buying new map packs or weapons, or even additional quests for game like Dragon Age if I had the money.

However, well, for the other half let's take Alan Wake. I loved the game, I loved the story. But putting half the main story, not a side-thread, into DLC was a DICK move. While I can understand trying to get some money out of used sales, like they got out of me, they also horribly punished everyone that bought it early. "Take that, you supporting bastards, that's what you get for trying to help the developer and games industry"!

In all, it's fine to release unnecessary DLC, but make it part of the main game and you're just being an ass.

Hell, I might agree to boycott people who do the latter if the Escapist wasn't your own personal army.

EDIT:

DLC should never be conspicuous in its absence from the main game.

For example, Dragon Age pulled a real dick move by putting characters in-game who tried to sell you DLCs.

You refering to Shale?

I believe that there was a person standing in your camp that asked you to save/kill someone, you dug through the conversation tree before arriving at "Sure, I'll help you. [GO TO DLC STORE]". That's one of the examples, at least.

 

[PrototypeC]

Well I don't own any systems that can even use DLC, except for my computer of course, but it's getting rather old and I don't try new games on it.

So, I'm complicit in this scheme, sort of.

 

[Palademon]

Believe in your force and head into the Garden of Madness. [sub]Shameless No More Heroes reference. Don't hurt me.[/sub]

I like that reference. I don't know why I haven't seen it more often.
And yes, ULC is douchebaggery.

 

[Ben Legend]

DLC doesn't work the way it should, and thats the problem I have. Fixing issues, or allowing extra content months down the line. Yeah fine, brilliant actually.

But releasing DLC a few days after the game is released and expect me to pay for it? No chance. If DLC is announced before the game is even released, you know you're getting screwed over. I can guarantee the DLC will have been lifted directly from a game. And its not fair.

 

[Normandyfoxtrot]

DLC doesn't work the way it should, and thats the problem I have. Fixing issues, or allowing extra content months down the line. Yeah fine, brilliant actually.

But releasing DLC a few days after the game is released and expect me to pay for it? No chance. If DLC is announced before the game is even released, you know you're getting screwed over. I can guarantee the DLC will have been lifted directly from a game. And its not fair.

Well lets be fair charged content should never be used to fix bugs period ever end of story, but be honest and think how do you know that the DLC was lifted from the game and even if it was if it has no effect on the greater impact of the game truly how is it not fair that they didn't give to one fucking gun or stupid costume? face it it's not that it's unfair you just feel like their jacking you out of something you believing you are entitled to and that is the problem with the whole DLC issue to begin with is gamers (and yes I'm as guilty as anyone else here) grossly overinflated sense of what we are entailed to by the use of our money.

Think of this if a person went out and bought a movie and then started trowing a tantrum because it didn't include a digital copy like the limited edition one we'd rightly consider them a asshole yet gamers pull the same asinine stunt all the time.

 

[dtthelegend]

Resident Evil 5 had an entire versus mode locked and then sold it on a later date.
unacceptable.
AND...

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/11/6/
^
THIS

 

[Normandyfoxtrot]

Resident Evil 5 had an entire versus mode locked and then sold it on a later date.
unacceptable.
AND...

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/11/6/
^
THIS

Why is it unacceptable by what reason does the game have to include verses?

 

[MarkDavis94]

Resident Evil 5 had an entire versus mode locked and then sold it on a later date.
unacceptable.

This is what I was going to say!
Heres your £40 game. Oh yeah its got online features, Co-op? Yeah thats free, versus? Oh no, its on there but we want an extra £5 for it.

It was like a 50kb unlock key. The versus was there, they had made it, it was on a disc we had paid for yet they wanted more! Disgraceful!

 

[Kopikatsu]

Before I get into it, I'm just going to say that I have nothing against DLCs. Actually, I think that the idea behind them is wonderful. Major bug slipped past playtesting? Now it can be fixed with minimum fuss! Reviews say the main issue with your game is not enough of 'x'? Now you can add 'x'!

I'm not even saying that DLCs should be free. Developers work hard on their games, but they do have fairly strict deadlines. Maybe they couldn't find the time to shove something into the gold build of the game? Well, then they can use the DLC system to get it out there.

No, my issue isn't with Downlodable Content. It's with Unlockable Content, or as I shall refer to them from now on, ULC's. If you look in the Playstation Network (Assuming. Don't have a PS3) or Xbox Live Marketplace and you see a DLC that is about 300kb in size, that would be a 'key' to unlock content that is already on the disk that you paid full price for.

Many people just say 'Well if you don't like it, then don't buy it.' That doesn't stop it from being major douchebaggery, and some people will still fork over the $5 or however much it costs to get at the ULC. If noone buys the ULC, maybe some gaming companies *CoughEAcough* will get the hint and actually start letting you have everything on the disk that you've already paid them for.

In otherwords, Believe in your force and head into the Garden of Madness. [sub]Shameless No More Heroes reference. Don't hurt me.[/sub]

It's already on the disc but it's two separate entities and is a measure to save you time! Like you would care if bought a box and it had 3 muffins... those muffins are not yours unless you buy them.

I would care and those muffins are mine. I have a real life example, actually. I went to Sam's Club and bought a box of Pop-Tarts. I opened the box, and there were supposed to be six bags of PT's in there, and there were...but one bag was empty. Totally sealed, but empty. I went back to Sam's and got them to give me a NEW box for free, and I got to keep the old one.

The moral of the story is, you don't screw with my Pop-Tarts.

 

[Kopikatsu]

The snark's really not necessary or called for if they want to try to do it they bloody well should hell the worse thing about modern society if the constant reiteration of "don't bother won't make a difference."

Actually, my attitude is either "shit or get off the pot". This is yet ANOTHER gamer protest/boycott but guess what? When it comes down to it, they just cave in easily.

Either stick to your shit, or don't go running your mouth.

Actually, I don't have Xbox Live. (And no PS3) which makes it literally impossible for me to buy D/ULCs even if I wanted them.
Paying $50 for the router...thingy, then a monthly fee for service doesn't do it for me. Same reason I don't play pay-to-play MMOs. (To be fair, I don't play free-to-play MMOs either, but hey.)

Edit: Hm...thought I put these two in a single post. Whoops...

 

[wammnebu]

Boycotts: the sanctions of the gaming industry

 

[Normandyfoxtrot]

Before I get into it, I'm just going to say that I have nothing against DLCs. Actually, I think that the idea behind them is wonderful. Major bug slipped past playtesting? Now it can be fixed with minimum fuss! Reviews say the main issue with your game is not enough of 'x'? Now you can add 'x'!

I'm not even saying that DLCs should be free. Developers work hard on their games, but they do have fairly strict deadlines. Maybe they couldn't find the time to shove something into the gold build of the game? Well, then they can use the DLC system to get it out there.

No, my issue isn't with Downlodable Content. It's with Unlockable Content, or as I shall refer to them from now on, ULC's. If you look in the Playstation Network (Assuming. Don't have a PS3) or Xbox Live Marketplace and you see a DLC that is about 300kb in size, that would be a 'key' to unlock content that is already on the disk that you paid full price for.

Many people just say 'Well if you don't like it, then don't buy it.' That doesn't stop it from being major douchebaggery, and some people will still fork over the $5 or however much it costs to get at the ULC. If noone buys the ULC, maybe some gaming companies *CoughEAcough* will get the hint and actually start letting you have everything on the disk that you've already paid them for.

In otherwords, Believe in your force and head into the Garden of Madness. [sub]Shameless No More Heroes reference. Don't hurt me.[/sub]

It's already on the disc but it's two separate entities and is a measure to save you time! Like you would care if bought a box and it had 3 muffins... those muffins are not yours unless you buy them.

I would care and those muffins are mine. I have a real life example, actually. I went to Sam's Club and bought a box of Pop-Tarts. I opened the box, and there were supposed to be six bags of PT's in there, and there were...but one bag was empty. Totally sealed, but empty. I went back to Sam's and got them to give me a NEW box for free, and I got to keep the old one.

The moral of the story is, you don't screw with my Pop-Tarts.

And you had every right to do so they sold you six pop tarts and you got five that is wrong, it is also unrelated to what we're talking about. The DLC isn't a missing sixth poptart in the box, it's a extra seventh one you can pay/redeem a code for at the check out lanes.