DLC abuse

[Pyro Paul]

None of that changes that the content was done at the time of release, it was them taking a bunch of perfectly functional game content out of the game, and then deciding to charge extra money to DL it. As opposed to taking a popular game, and making more characters/content for it after the fact as was the stated idea of DLC (to easily and cheaply produce content expansions for established and successful products).

Unfortunatly that is a diffrence of perspective from a Designer/Publisher as opposed to a Consumer/Gamer.

Us being on the receiving end of this can only really see this as them trying to gouge us, the consumers, for more money. But more often then not that really isn't the case. From a Designer/Publishers point of view, it is optimization of data usage and to provide a convienence to players.

consider.
Printing isn't a cheap process.
and one thing about printing is that you are paying them 'per unit' not 'per usage'

in the example of printing game disks... you pay per disk.
It doesn't matter if you use 25% of that disk or 99% of that disk.

Inversely, when uploading content for download you pay for Time and Size.


say a game takes 75% of the disk space on print.
And you have DLC you plan to sell at a later date already done
(note: modelling/animating isn't too time consuming. and considering it was made under a contractual agreement with Sony to be an exclusive release with Vita... it was no doubt done in advance and already seen approval of all parties involved.)

Would you rather hold onto that data, spend more money to upload large files onto servers for download, and inconvience your customers for not only having to download the DLC but also download Compatability packages so others can play with them...

-ore-

Would you simply put the data on the Extra space of a disk which will cost you absolutely nothing as you pay per unit rather then size. Then partition it off with a 7kb content key which you'll put up for download later which will take next to no time nor be too difficult for the consumer...

 

[Pyro Paul]

I would make this long winded explination refrencing software licenses, data restrictions, and production management and try and be as nice as possible in the process... but it would be lost on you.

You're right, it would be lost on me because this isn't the place for your legal bullshit.

yes, because clearly being emo will truely help you and your situation.

Screw logic and reason!
Screw Law and Contract!
I'm Butt-hurt and want my way!

Your self entitled prattle on your assumptions on how the world works is not right.

A studio of 100+ employees can work on a lot of stuff at once
... and you're not entitled to all of it.
The visual representation is less then 1% of the acctual content
... locked characters and animations are an insuggnificant amount.
The Software License you get is usually defined by the EULA
... Just because you don't read it doesn't mean that it is automatically a GPL.

You are about as anti-gamer as they come aren't you? Here's a tip, when I refuse to buy a game and defend the rights of gamers against DLC abuse then I'm not being self entitled now am I?

i'm anti-stupidity.

here is a tip...
when you say 'here is a tip', generally it is to make an informative statement. Not to pose a question.

and to the tip.
Self-entitled: a person whose personal interests have created the illusion that, they believe, gives them a right to what they want.

since you believe that publishers/developers should adhear to a your moral code and that their current practice is 'Abuse' against said code. Yeah i would say you're acting self-entitled.

I'll say it again because you fail to understand. Legality is not morality. I can't believe you will defend developers and publishers ripping off gamers as if it their right to do so. "welp, legislation says they can". Pitiful.

Go away.

Right, because imposing your emotional beliefs is the moral high ground.
but aside from that... Morality has no place in this argument because morality is not something tacit. It is emotional and based on an individuals views and perspective.

As such, Morality always has a bias based on the presented point of view.

What if they did what they did in order to cut costs so they wouldn't have to fire a couple of employees? It is immoral to try and optimize your own spending so you can keep people working?

morality is biased and philosophical.
not the best things to try and base an argument around.

 

[TorqueConverter]

i'm anti-stupidity.

here is a tip...
when you say 'here is a tip', generally it is to make an informative statement. Not to pose a question.

and to the tip.
Self-entitled: a person whose personal interests have created the illusion that, they believe, gives them a right to what they want.

Wow, you are really amazing. That is an odd definition of self-entitled but lets roll with it.

How am I self-entitled? What are my personal interests again? What am I trying to claim for myself? How about you? How much do they pay you to troll these forums as a payed mouthpiece in support of abusive business practices?

since you believe that publishers/developers should adhear to a your moral code and that their current practice is 'Abuse' against said code. Yeah i would say you're acting self-entitled.

I find developers and publishers ripping off gamers to be unethical. You do not. That does not make me self-entitled.

"Don't scam the consumer" is not my moral code. It's obvious to anybody and everybody that such scams should not be permitted.

Morality has no place in this argument because morality is not something tacit. It is emotional and based on an individuals views and perspective.

As such, Morality always has a bias based on the presented point of view... morality is biased and philosophical.
not the best things to try and base an argument around.

Your argument sounds like one a Nazi sympathizer would offer up right before handing over his friends and family to the Gestapo.

What do you mean morality does not apply? You can't be serious. Morality is the foundation upon which law is written. While it is true that all that is legal is not moral, you certainly can't imply that morality is irrelevant.

To say the developers and publishers have a right to rip off the consumer because of some broken piece of legislation is open to interpretation is just wrong. It's your opinion, but your opinion is wrong.

You want to know why EULA is broken? When was the last time you were able to read and agree to the EULA before purchase? According to EULA:

1. you don't own the video game

2. you are not permitted to modify the game files

3. you are not allowed to sell a video game as a used product

4. you are not allowed to access all the content on the disk

Is your argument really based around the EULA? Developers have the right to block access to content or otherwise screw the consumer as long as the loose wording in the EULA allows them to do so? This is a problem. It's one thing to boycott a game with such EULA but since when are the consumers made aware of such things before purchase? The EULA implies that content may be withheld and sold back as an unlock key, but very few games actually do this. There is no honest advertisement to the content present on the disk. There is no way to find out if a company is pulling this bullshit until you buy the game or it's leaked and turned into a shitstorm on the net.


Would you not find a practice in which a developer blocks access to content on the disk only to sell an unlock key of a file size equal the locked content, months after release, to be abusive? This is a DLC abuse topic. This is a hypothetical worst case scenario and clearly would be DLC abuse.

To inform the consumer that the developer reserves the right to withhold content present on the disk from the consumer, only to sell it back at a later date through an unlock key after the consumer has already purchased the game, through the EULA is ridiculous.

It's nice when the EULA is made available before purchase as it is with the Xbox and PS3. The problem is that the EULA has not been a standard by which the game companies have been closely following. Gamers have been able to sell their games. Modders have been allowed to mod files. Developers have been giving us content compete games on day one and not withholding content.

To break these standards and point at the EULA as justification is a blatant excuse. It's a money grubbing scheme. Is the industry going to implode tomorrow? Better gouge the consumers now to build a nest egg?

 

[Pyro Paul]

i'm anti-stupidity.

here is a tip...
when you say 'here is a tip', generally it is to make an informative statement. Not to pose a question.

and to the tip.
Self-entitled: a person whose personal interests have created the illusion that, they believe, gives them a right to what they want.

Wow, you are really amazing. That is an odd definition of self-entitled but lets roll with it.

How am I self-entitled? What are my personal interests again? What am I trying to claim for myself? How about you? How much do they pay you to troll these forums as a payed mouthpiece in support of abusive business practices?

Odd definition?

Entitle: To furnish with a right or claim to something.

adding the prefix 'self' defines that You yourself endows yourself with the right or claim to something.

as such, you are assuming or creating the illusion that you are in a position of power which allows you to give yourself the right of claim to something.

that isn't an odd definition...
that is the definition.

it might be odd because of your ill education seeing as how you are unable to form any sort of argument with out including some type of backwords insult.



and your personal intrests.
i thought that would be clear.

Spending your money.
by spending your money you feel that entitles you to all the content on the disk regardless of what legal, offical, or acctual rules apply.

you try and mask this under the guise of 'free market' but ultimatly it boils down to the same thing. My Money pays for this, they should do what i want.

since you believe that publishers/developers should adhear to a your moral code and that their current practice is 'Abuse' against said code. Yeah i would say you're acting self-entitled.

I find developers and publishers ripping off gamers to be unethical. You do not. That does not make me self-entitled.

"Don't scam the consumer" is not my moral code. It's obvious to anybody and everybody that such scams should not be permitted.

yes it does.

you are applying your definition of ethics and Moral to a third party.
you sternly belive your point of view has more value then any one elses.

you are self-entitled in that you are preceiving yourself as having the higher moral ground which gives you the power to denounce others.

Morality has no place in this argument because morality is not something tacit. It is emotional and based on an individuals views and perspective.

As such, Morality always has a bias based on the presented point of view... morality is biased and philosophical.
not the best things to try and base an argument around.

Your argument sounds like one a Nazi sympathizer would offer up right before handing over his friends and family to the Gestapo.

What do you mean morality does not apply? You can't be serious. Morality is the foundation upon which law is written. While it is true that all that is legal is not moral, you certainly can't imply that morality is irrelevant.

again with the insults... can you think of nothing else?

Also, you are incorrect.

Morality is not the foundation of which law is written.

The foundation of law is built upon the equiality of a culture and the idea to perserve it. Cultural moralities and ethics may alter specific laws and entirely be codified into law based on a cultures level adherence through out the populace to said morals/ethics. However, there are still many laws which are 'immoral' or 'unethical' which we still adhere to to this day.

Case in point.
I steal some money to give it to a needy homeless individual.

That is seen as a morally appropriate gesture and is even romanticised in works such as 'robin hood'. however, legally this is wrong as you are obtaining something that does not belong to you through illicit means. Regardless of how exactly you intend to use your ill gotten gains doesn't matter, you did something illegal.

To say the developers and publishers have a right to rip off the consumer because of some broken piece of legislation is open to interpretation is just wrong. It's your opinion, but your opinion is wrong.

You want to know why EULA is broken? When was the last time you were able to read and agree to the EULA before purchase? According to EULA:

1. you don't own the video game

2. you are not permitted to modify the game files

3. you are not allowed to sell a video game as a used product

4. you are not allowed to access all the content on the disk

Because the data on the disk is digital information...

It takes 15 months of work and a few million dollars to build the core engine a game runs on.

you look at games like Metal Gear Solid 4 with a budget of 60 million dollars. Over half of that is probably spent core source code of the game and the process of integrating that with Sony hardware on the PS3.

The data on that disk is litterally over 30 Million Dollars.

If i had free reign over the data and full access to all the content on the disk, I could rip the source code, Modify bits and peices i wanted, and then Release my Own game for a little over $20,000 built ontop of their 30 million dollar engine.

and you're concerned about not getting a couple of ragdolls and texture files which take all of 2 hours to make...

Gamers have been able to sell their games. Modders have been allowed to mod files. Developers have been giving us content compete games on day one and not withholding content.

To break these standards and point at the EULA as justification is a blatant excuse. It's a money grubbing scheme. Is the industry going to implode tomorrow? Better gouge the consumers now to build a nest egg?

You 'Think' that is the case...
that is because you're using your definiton of standard based on your own personal intrests and interactions.

but that doesn't make it correct... nor does it make it the standard.
to each point:

You are not able to sell your game, you're able to sell the disk/cartrage. You own the Disk, not the data on it. you never have.

---

A lot of games have content partitioned off which they have deemed un-nessary. Infact it is a common practice in basic coding to simply break off branch codes which you no longer wish to use rather then to delete them.

Infact, Many companies have acctually gotten in trouble for this because partioned off in the code there was some controversial content. GTA 'hot coffee' mod and the Oblivion 'topless' mod just to name a few.

---

users are acctually not allowed to modify the files of the game. hence why most files of games are encrypted in specialized formats and why most games can not be altered unless if you a developers kit.

the infamous 'Nude Raider' mod for the Eidos game Tomb Raider.

in 2004 Eidos sent out multipule 'Cease and Desist' notices to websites which distributed the player made patch or posted screen shots of the patch in action, all of which where shut down or removed due to copyright infringement of intelectual property.

the main website that this patch was hosted on, nuderaider.com, was eventually awarded to Eidos.

While there are some companies that are more relaxed on enforcement of their own intelectual property, such as valve and bethesda, all of them still have the right to shut down things on the grounds of violation of copyright.


Also.
If you think the practice of unlocking content you already have is anything new... look up Shareware Doom.

 

[Therumancer]

None of that changes that the content was done at the time of release, it was them taking a bunch of perfectly functional game content out of the game, and then deciding to charge extra money to DL it. As opposed to taking a popular game, and making more characters/content for it after the fact as was the stated idea of DLC (to easily and cheaply produce content expansions for established and successful products).

Unfortunatly that is a diffrence of perspective from a Designer/Publisher as opposed to a Consumer/Gamer.

Us being on the receiving end of this can only really see this as them trying to gouge us, the consumers, for more money. But more often then not that really isn't the case. From a Designer/Publishers point of view, it is optimization of data usage and to provide a convienence to players.

consider.
Printing isn't a cheap process.
and one thing about printing is that you are paying them 'per unit' not 'per usage'

in the example of printing game disks... you pay per disk.
It doesn't matter if you use 25% of that disk or 99% of that disk.

Inversely, when uploading content for download you pay for Time and Size.


say a game takes 75% of the disk space on print.
And you have DLC you plan to sell at a later date already done
(note: modelling/animating isn't too time consuming. and considering it was made under a contractual agreement with Sony to be an exclusive release with Vita... it was no doubt done in advance and already seen approval of all parties involved.)

Would you rather hold onto that data, spend more money to upload large files onto servers for download, and inconvience your customers for not only having to download the DLC but also download Compatability packages so others can play with them...

-ore-

Would you simply put the data on the Extra space of a disk which will cost you absolutely nothing as you pay per unit rather then size. Then partition it off with a 7kb content key which you'll put up for download later which will take next to no time nor be too difficult for the consumer...

Which overlooks the fact that in order to do this the DLC is not being developed as an additional expansion, but as an intentional part of the product's marketing to begin with. If the stuff is being developed alongside/as part of the game, then it become an issue of holding content back to attempt to make more money.

I'm sure companies would love people to accept the justification your giving, but that really isn't the case. It's a matter of them going after more money simply because they can, there is no more to it. if the material is ready to go at the time of release, and is included on the disc, there is no real justification for making people pay to access it other than pure, unmitigated greed.

... and yes, I understand businesses exist to make money, I do not begrudge pursueing a profit, but there is such a thing as going too far. I have less of an issue with smaller companies and niche products doing unusual things to try and survive, but when you have big companies with popular franchises doing it to simply add a few more feet to the top of their giant piles of money, that's just ridiculous.

 

[Pyro Paul]

Which overlooks the fact that in order to do this the DLC is not being developed as an additional expansion, but as an intentional part of the product's marketing to begin with. If the stuff is being developed alongside/as part of the game, then it become an issue of holding content back to attempt to make more money.

Why is every one getting hung up on this?
This content isn't being developed to be apart of the core product... it is additional.

regardless of when it was developed, its purpouse from the start has been to not be apart of the core game. If this additional content was intended to be apart of the core game, then the core game would not function properly with-out it...

 

[TorqueConverter]

Odd definition?

Entitle: To furnish with a right or claim to something.

adding the prefix 'self' defines that You yourself endows yourself with the right or claim to something.

as such, you are assuming or creating the illusion that you are in a position of power which allows you to give yourself the right of claim to something.

that isn't an odd definition...
that is the definition.

it might be odd because of your ill education seeing as how you are unable to form any sort of argument with out including some type of backwords insult.

"Self-entitled" is the biggest blanket excuse I have ever seen.

Gamers: "Hey Capcom we caught you locking characters on the disk."

Gamers: "Hey Capcom why did you lock chracters on the disk and plan to sell them back to us months later as DLC with an unlock key?"

Gamers: "Hey Capcom that is some seriously deceptive and unethical business practices you have there and we're not buying your game because of it."

Capcom: "You're all just self-entitled"

Gamers: "Entitled to what? Not buying your game and calling you out on your bullshit?"

Self-entitled would apply if a gamer purchased the game fully aware of Capcom's deception and then demanded the content anyways.

and your personal intrests.
i thought that would be clear.

Spending your money.
by spending your money you feel that entitles you to all the content on the disk regardless of what legal, offical, or acctual rules apply.

you try and mask this under the guise of 'free market' but ultimatly it boils down to the same thing. My Money pays for this, they should do what i want.

Refusing to buy a game because of unethical business practices makes someone self-entitled?!

yes it does.

you are applying your definition of ethics and Moral to a third party.
you sternly belive your point of view has more value then any one elses.

you are self-entitled in that you are preceiving yourself as having the higher moral ground which gives you the power to denounce others.

No... that is not how that works. I'm not even going to go there with analogies.

Also, you are incorrect.

Morality is not the foundation of which law is written.

The foundation of law is built upon the equiality of a culture and the idea to perserve it.

Sigh...

Cultural moralities and ethics may alter specific laws and entirely be codified into law based on a cultures level adherence through out the populace to said morals/ethics. However, there are still many laws which are 'immoral' or 'unethical' which we still adhere to to this day.

Case in point.
I steal some money to give it to a needy homeless individual.

That is seen as a morally appropriate gesture and is even romanticised in works such as 'robin hood'. however, legally this is wrong as you are obtaining something that does not belong to you through illicit means. Regardless of how exactly you intend to use your ill gotten gains doesn't matter, you did something illegal.

Robin hood stole from the the unethical to give to the ethical and is a work of fiction. Some jackoff pirating EA video games because they believe EA to be some empire of evil is no Robin Hood and is damn unethical.

Because the data on the disk is digital information...

It takes 15 months of work and a few million dollars to build the core engine a game runs on.

you look at games like Metal Gear Solid 4 with a budget of 60 million dollars. Over half of that is probably spent core source code of the game and the process of integrating that with Sony hardware on the PS3.

The data on that disk is litterally over 30 Million Dollars.

If i had free reign over the data and full access to all the content on the disk, I could rip the source code, Modify bits and peices i wanted, and then Release my Own game for a little over $20,000 built ontop of their 30 million dollar engine.

and you're concerned about not getting a couple of ragdolls and texture files which take all of 2 hours to make...

Good effort but again you are skirting around the issue. What does any of this have to do with the topic at hand? Do you not see the difference between video game content on the disk withheld from the gamer in a money grubbing scheme and right of the game company to protect itself from copyright infringement?

"Hey what if the consumer uses the data on the disk commit copyright infringement?"

"I know, we'll withhold content from the gamer by locking it on the disk, then sell it back to them as bogus DLC." "That'll solve that problem."

The ends do not even remotely justify the means. They're not even in the same ballpark on the same planet.

You 'Think' that is the case...
that is because you're using your definiton of standard based on your own personal intrests and interactions.

but that doesn't make it correct... nor does it make it the standard.
to each point:

You are not able to sell your game, you're able to sell the disk/cartrage. You own the Disk, not the data on it. you never have.

And... this is where DLC abuse comes in. "Well, technically, when you bought the game, you didn't buy all the content on the disk with the purchase price." "We can go ahead and charge you any additional amount of money we see fit to have access to that locked content because EULA"

Why is this abuse?

Where was it advertised that the purchase price of the game will not include access to all of the game content present on the disk? When and where are they informing the gamer of this? In the vaguely worded EULA post-purchase? What does the EULA say, post-purchase? "We reserve the right to protect ourselves from copyright infringement." "We reserve the right to block access to pieces of development tools present on the disk"

How does this justify blocking access to video game content only to turn around and sell access to that content as DLC, again? Oh, it doesn't. It's no more justification than any other scam hiding in a very loose interpretation of a contract. It's even worse when that contract is agreed to post-purchase.

A lot of games have content partitioned off which they have deemed un-nessary. Infact it is a common practice in basic coding to simply break off branch codes which you no longer wish to use rather then to delete them.

Nice tidbit of information, but how does this apply to locking video game content on the disk only to sell access to that content as fake DLC?

It doesn't.

Infact, Many companies have acctually gotten in trouble for this because partioned off in the code there was some controversial content. GTA 'hot coffee' mod and the Oblivion 'topless' mod just to name a few.

Developers will be developers. The controversy was not that there is game content on the disk that is not included with the purchase price of the game, it's that content was boobs.

users are acctually not allowed to modify the files of the game. hence why most files of games are encrypted in specialized formats and why most games can not be altered unless if you a developers kit.

the infamous 'Nude Raider' mod for the Eidos game Tomb Raider.

in 2004 Eidos sent out multipule 'Cease and Desist' notices to websites which distributed the player made patch or posted screen shots of the patch in action, all of which where shut down or removed due to copyright infringement of intelectual property.

the main website that this patch was hosted on, nuderaider.com, was eventually awarded to Eidos.

While there are some companies that are more relaxed on enforcement of their own intelectual property, such as valve and bethesda, all of them still have the right to shut down things on the grounds of violation of copyright.


Also.
If you think the practice of unlocking content you already have is anything new... look up Shareware Doom.

Shareware is not the same as purchasing a game at full price with content locked on the disk.

Modding is an entirely different issue from locked content. Modding is permitted as long as it does not constitute a copyright infringement. This means that it is permitted until the devs and pubs pull the copyright card. Chances are you're doing something wrong if they pull that card out.

Selling a game mod without permission from the developer and publisher is illegal and unethical. I don't much care for the use of Addfly to distribute mods and I would have no problem with developers cracking down on the use of Addfly.

 

[Therumancer]

Which overlooks the fact that in order to do this the DLC is not being developed as an additional expansion, but as an intentional part of the product's marketing to begin with. If the stuff is being developed alongside/as part of the game, then it become an issue of holding content back to attempt to make more money.

Why is every one getting hung up on this?
This content isn't being developed to be apart of the core product... it is additional.

regardless of when it was developed, its purpouse from the start has been to not be apart of the core game. If this additional content was intended to be apart of the core game, then the core game would not function properly with-out it...

That's their excuse, but the bottom line is that if it's done at the time of release, and put on the disc during initial release, then it is part of the core product that people are being gouged for.

Expansion material by definition is something developed AFTER a game is done, to be added to it. When your charging people more money for something that was already there to begin with, it becomes an issue.

I understand a lot of people disagree, it wouldn't be a big issue throughout the gaming world if they didn't but this is the bottom line. Day #1 DLC is just plain wrong and ridiculous, and an affront to the original idea that people supported to make this even viable. While companies claim otherwise, rather than seeing cheaply produced, high quality expansion packs, DLC is being used to hold back as much from a product as possible, in order to sell it seperatly for more money.

See, even if they planned to sell this stuff seperatly, the only reason why they made that plan was because they knew they could get away with developing material at the same time to sell seperatly. Rather than packing as much as possible into the game to give the best possible value for someone's money, they were looking at ways to get even more money out of people from a product they already released. They doubtlessly planned the game, and then decided which characters they could cut from the game that would have a high enough demand for people to pay real money to unlock, yet wouldn't be considered so central to the franchise that the product couldn't stand without them (ie characters like Ryu in a game carrying the Street Fighter game, since he's been it's face from the very beginning).

 

[Pyro Paul]

-snip-

That isn't how the design world works.
and regardless of how much i argue the point, the simple fact of the matter is that you just don't understand how the design and production world work as a whole.

I see an optimized work cycle to keep people employed and streamline production... you see money gouging.

And truth be told, this is the same development cycle used in Magazines and Car development, so it is hardly something new or outlandish...

While companies claim otherwise, rather than seeing cheaply produced, high quality expansion packs, DLC is being used to hold back as much from a product as possible, in order to sell it seperatly for more money.

you do know that expansion packs are designed at the same time the previous game is... right?

Burning Crusade entered its Design cycle in 2003, a year before the release of WoW (2004)
Wrath of the Lich King was well into development in 2006, during the development cycle of Burning Crusade (released 2007)

This is just one of those things that you would only really know if you knew how projects worked in a production industry...

 

[Therumancer]

-snip-

That isn't how the design world works.
and regardless of how much i argue the point, the simple fact of the matter is that you just don't understand how the design and production world work as a whole.

I see an optimized work cycle to keep people employed and streamline production... you see money gouging.

And truth be told, this is the same development cycle used in Magazines and Car development, so it is hardly something new or outlandish...

While companies claim otherwise, rather than seeing cheaply produced, high quality expansion packs, DLC is being used to hold back as much from a product as possible, in order to sell it seperatly for more money.

you do know that expansion packs are designed at the same time the previous game is... right?

Burning Crusade entered its Design cycle in 2003, a year before the release of WoW (2004)
Wrath of the Lich King was well into development in 2006, during the development cycle of Burning Crusade (released 2007)

This is just one of those things that you would only really know if you knew how projects worked in a production industry...

Which of course doesn't mean that they were right to do things that way, and your talking about things developed in the 2000s when the problems were starting to appear. A company should not be developing expansion material before the core product is released.

What's more, this isn't a situation where the DLC is being released as part of a seperate, expansion pack, when it was planned. This is content that was developed with the game, and put on the disc. Had "Burning Crusade" been on the original WoW discs we would have seen this entire issue much sooner.

Drawing analogies to other industries, producing physical products, is like comparing apples and oranges. Especially seeing as the gaming industry existed in a viable form before DLC even became viable, it's not like these later developments were in any way nessicary to the industry, simply a useful tool, which has moved away from it's initial intent to become a tool for cash gouging.

Like it or not I know a LOT about how the game industry works, people tend to forget but there have been people talking about the games industry and how games are produced and made, and the relationships between developers, publishers, and even independant companies for decades now. The thing is that most people don't really get it, and those that do who have been following it for a very long time (like me) and call the industry on BS, tend to get ignored by those who simply look at the most current reasons and explanations given. Things that have less to do with realities, than companies trying to justify whatever move they are making at the moment.

It's sort of like how for a while game developers liked to run around and tell everyone they lived hand to mouth, and did this just because of the "love for the product" exclusively. IGN did an article a while back "why do Game Developers Drive Ferraris" or something like that which gave the average salary figures for people doing crap like line coding (cubicle work, with little real work, and no physical risk, employing computer skills which are currently present in society to the point you have programmers getting laid off and unable to find work). It caused a bit of an outcry, but after that and some similar articles I've noticed game developers being a little less willing to jump out and take the whole "I like to eat" and "regular guy" tact in justifying business desicians and prices.

 

[LiquidSolstice]

But their all "only dlc" to their respective franchise your either a hypocrite, or an idiot.

Please point out tto me where I mentioned a goddamn thing about Crysis, CoD, or any "sports games". (Hint: You won't be able to.) How can I be hypocritical about a statement I never fucking made?

PROTIP: Read the fucking thread (or in this case, literally just two posts before mine) before you start jumping in guns blazing.

 

[OldDirtyCrusty]

Woah, walls of text in this thread. I make it short.
Capcom hates it`s own fanbase and they seem to have fun going for cheap excuses when it comes to DLC.
They suck ass and they shouldn`t be supported. That goes for every company who put`s DLC content on the disc of a just launched game.

This whole legal crap about what is right and what they can do won`t help if no one buys it anymore because they managed to anger their last customers.

 

[Baron von Blitztank]

I put up a good rant about DLC not too long ago, should still be able to find that post:

I've got no problem with companies making money, if they didn't make it they wouldn't be able to produce as many games as they could. But the problem is that they often become too obsessed with making a profit and so they will try to add in DLC pretty much everywhere, to the extent where it can feel like they are deliberately cutting out parts of the game just so they can charge you to pay for more content which should have already been there to begin with.

A more recent example would be Asura's Wrath (have not played Mass Effect 3 so you can leave your Prothean complaining at the door). This game is already kind of short, something I'm not complaining about because even short games can be pretty good like Vanquish or Portal, but here there is a definite stink of cut-content-DLC here which is really disappointing because it means they cutting up the length of a game that isn't that long to begin with. At the end of one of the games levels there is a huge monster that Asura can see over the distance, easily setting up for another fight. What he does then is grab his sword and charge headfirst into it. Afterwards there's a mysterious explosion you can't see the cause of which in the next level leaves Asura charred up. Playing through the game, you wouldn't expect it to leave you out of the loop like this. The game revels in showing you the most over the top fist fighting you'll see outside of Dragonball Z so why would it suddenly shy away and not show you how Asura killed this gigantic thing with just his head? Well if you want to know then Capcom will happily charge you £1.50 to find out in the Chapter 11.5 interlude! But this isn't even the worst of the DLC in this game. The ending of the game ends at quite a cliffhanger (and this is regardless you played the true episode or not). Some may say this was left as a sequel bait but actually this is DLC bait where Capcom in all their generosity are going to charge £5.49 for three more episodes which they call "the true conclusion to Asura's Wrath". That's right folks! You now have to pay more for DLC if you want to see the actual ending to a game! This is really unacceptable! The developers have deliberately cut out content in a game, let alone necessary content like the fucking ending and are then going to resell it to you as additional DLC! Truly outrageous!

This is an attitude that really has to stop. Developers shouldn't remove content from a game and then expect you to pay for it after you buy the game. Capcom have already taken it to a stage where you have to pay for the ending to the game but what if it doesn't stop there? What else are they going to remove and then sell back to you later on? The first level? Tutorials? The cutscenes? Where does it end? If this doesn't stop now, the over-reliance on DLC may get even worse and we'll start having to pay more in DLC that should already be in the game then we did in actually buying the game itself.

I'm not saying that all DLC's are bad. Fallout: New Vegas, Borderlands, Batman: Arkham City, Mass Effect 2, Bioshock 2 and Resident Evil 5 all have good DLC for them because the DLC in question feels more like an expansion pack rather than cut content. The story that the game wants to tell has already been given out in the main game. Here, the DLC just serves as extra little side missions you can buy if you want to. If you choose not to and are already satisfied with the game as it is then you'll just miss out on the missions but nothing that is integral to the plot. It is once it starts feeling like you're paying for content that should already be in the game that DLC goes from "expansion pack" to "rip off".

 

[Pyro Paul]

Which of course doesn't mean that they were right to do things that way, and your talking about things developed in the 2000s when the problems were starting to appear. A company should not be developing expansion material before the core product is released.

What's more, this isn't a situation where the DLC is being released as part of a seperate, expansion pack, when it was planned. This is content that was developed with the game, and put on the disc. Had "Burning Crusade" been on the original WoW discs we would have seen this entire issue much sooner.

... it was.

Mount Hyjal for Burning Crusade and Cataclysm was on the orginal data files off the disk. Silver moon city, the Ghostlands, gilnaes, karazhan... a lot of content which was only unlocked later in the games history can be found in the orginal data files.

Data Mining the WoW files have become a common practice and is often used to theorize what is held in the future of the World of Warcraft.

There are Data files hidden in wow refrencing the emerald dream, leading many to think that we may see an expansion dedicated to that. there are data files and map refrences of a complex beneith karazhan, which was dubbed karazhan 2.0, yet to be used.

If a company plans long term support for a game, you can be certain content for future expansions are being developed at the same time as the orginal game. Fallout 3 and New Vegas saw key development of its expansions done at the same time as the game proper.

Drawing analogies to other industries, producing physical products, is like comparing apples and oranges. Especially seeing as the gaming industry existed in a viable form before DLC even became viable, it's not like these later developments were in any way nessicary to the industry, simply a useful tool, which has moved away from it's initial intent to become a tool for cash gouging.

Like it or not I know a LOT about how the game industry works, people tend to forget but there have been people talking about the games industry and how games are produced and made, and the relationships between developers, publishers, and even independant companies for decades now. The thing is that most people don't really get it, and those that do who have been following it for a very long time (like me) and call the industry on BS, tend to get ignored by those who simply look at the most current reasons and explanations given. Things that have less to do with realities, than companies trying to justify whatever move they are making at the moment.

it is hard to say you know a lot about the industry when you can't see the parallels between the game industry and other production industries.

simple run through.
A project is split into multipule stages.
Pre-production, Production, Testing, release.

Each stage is worked on by an team of individuals whom are specialized at doing that specific task.

concept artists, designers, and planners in pre-production.
Engineers, mechanics, and workers in Production.
Analysts, scientists, and focus groups in Testing.
Representatives and publishers in release.

diffrent fields may call it diffrent things.
In magazines: Layout, Type, Edit, Print.
In Cars: Concept, Prototype, Auto Safty Testing, Manufacture.

but it is all the same.
and it comes down to the same result.

your people working Pre-production are not going to be working on the project when it enters the next stage of its development.

an Artist is not going to be a big help when your engineers are trying to prototype a design. And it is kinda problematic if you have your printer trying to edit your articles during print on a magazine.

Now in the well establish industries of printing and car making, the process of rotating a team around products is rather well established and not really questioned.

While you have your researchers and writers filling out articles for one issue you have your layout designers already working on the next one, and your editors correcting the previous one.

While you are testing a prototype of a 2 door sedan, your engineers will be making modifications to alter the car into a 4 door sedan.


This rotation hasn't existed too well in the rather infantile game design world... As one team is finished they are usually laid off or sent to do completely diffrent project with diffrent people altogether, maybe even with a diffrent studio.

So, if you start making DLC or expansions after a game is released you would be very hard pressed to get the same team together. This leads to expansions and DLC having a completely diffrent feel, or being incoherent or controdictary with the orginal content. Such as seeing the addition of imbalanced or over powered items...

with DLC the game design world is starting to hit this stride where a studio can rotate its design team on the same project so that the same look and feel is carried through out the entire process.

Once Pre-production for the core game is done, the Pre-production team starts working on DLC for that project instead of being shuffled off to who knows where.

and because a majority of this DLC is much smaller in nature, often these things are finished well in advance of the core game or the final release. This ultimatly feeds into the issue of packaging optimization as i mentioned earlier, and tends to be a reason you see on-disk DLC.


like i said.
differnce in perspective.

you don't have this point of view, so you don't see it that way.

 

[OldDirtyCrusty]

@ Pyro Paul
You use a lot of words to justify abusive DLC practices. Your examples don`t fit and ending your post with "you don't have this point of view, so you don't see it that way" doesn`t make it right either. On-disk DLC is abusive. It`s like buying a car and having to pay for the trunk keys (yay throwing around examples, at least this one fits).

 

[Pyro Paul]

-snip-

and you use very few words to try and justify your unfounded claims of abuse.
why is it abusive?

 

[Pyro Paul]

-snip-

and you use very few words to try and justify your unfounded claims of abuse.
why is it abusive?

 

[hermes]

This is why I like valve.

Dlc is free.

Not too difficult when almost your entire line of games are nothing more than DLC to Half Life or Half Life 2.

Not to mention: you also own the distribution channel.

 

[OldDirtyCrusty]

"ON-disk-DOWN-LOADABLE-Content" The abusive comes into play when a customer has to pay for this kind of senseless word abomination.

edit: @ Pyro Paul