DLC abuse

[TorqueConverter]

snip

1. proof of that.... ohh wait.... you have none.

What are you talking about? At least reference what the hell you talking about. You mean this? http://xboxlive.ign.com/articles/121/1219156p1.html

2. From ashes was a completely optional DLC that provided no real importance to the ME story. If you think making completely optional content that isn't needed to get a full game experience is bad then all new content is bad.

So I can go a head and steal shit from you and then turn around and sell it back to you? As long as I give you the option to buy it back then it alright? Good to know.

3. Does the notion that book writers get to determine what is necessary to a book's story scare the shit out of you?
does the notion that a movie directer gets to determine what is necessary to a book's story scare the shit out of you?
It is their game, their story, and only they ever have and ever will have the ability to determine what is needed to tell a story.

Why do you keep going on about story? I don't care if the content is a bunch of purple dildo bats and fancy hats. It's irrelevant if dildo bats and funny hats some sort of huge story implication or none at all. It's still content withheld from the game and sold as extra.

also your analogy fails because when you order something like fires it is they who get to determine how it is cooked. You don't like the way its cooked well too damn bad in most places fires are cooked in some specific way.

What are you talking about? My analogy is as simple as they come. Let me write it again. This time pay attention. Ever ordered a meal before and been told to wait for a portion of it to finish cooking? Do they charge you AGAIN for it when brought to your table?

4. The only part that was on the disk was the character and SOME of its dialog files, most of the content was not on the disk, and thus they have every right to charge for it.

I don't think so. You can pick and choose whichever content you want to write to the disk and keep other content off the disk. You can't say we are only entitled to whatever content they choose to put on the disk and nothing else. That opens the door for all sorts bad shit.

5. It seems more like that after the base game was content complete and in testing phase some of the devs were able to finish part of the DLC's files and put them on the disk you you would have less to download later.

Again, define base game. We are only entitled to a base game when we purchase a game? That's pretty pretty fucking scary. BTW, do you have a lot, like a whole bunch, of like minded friends? Shit, I'll make a base game and sell it to you guys! 3/4 of the game may be micro transaction DLC conveniently available on day one no less, but hey as long as you get a base game right?

6. Considering Shale, Warden's Keep, The Prothean, and all other bioware's Day 1 DLC HAVE BEEN OPTIONAL and WERE TOTALLY UNNEEDED, your argument kinda fails.

Just because they remove it from the game and call it an option, does not make it optional. The necessity of the content to the story is irrelevant. It is the very principal of removing. content. from. your. video. game. and. selling. it. back. to. you. as. fake. DLC. that is unethical.

7. Content complete is when the game and all the things in it are done and in testing, that the devs are working on project 2 does not make project 1 somehow not content complete. I swear do you even think about your arguments before you make them?

This is where we disagree. It's not content complete until it's released and if they fuck up that simple standard then we better give them hell less they continue such dickery.

9. Shale is optional because you DONT need to get a full game experience, that she was free with new copies of the game does magically negate the fact that not having her does not mean you don't have a full game, with a full story, and a full endings.

It's not a full game if it's missing shit now is it? You realize there is more to games then story, right? You are saying that as long as the story is complete then they can remove all the items and characters they want? That bullshit and you know it.

Shale is part of the game and was free to anyone who bought the game new. Shale was not on the disk and made free DLC so as to encourage new game sales. Shale is part of the game.

 

[SajuukKhar]

snip

1. Yet all that shows was that they knew they weren't gonna have time to put the DLC into the game and thus had plans to make the DLC once the game was done, there is nothing there that shows the content was being worked on while the game was, or that content was removed.

2. It isn't stealing because it was never promised to be in the base game. Also how can they steal their own content? seriously you made no sense with what you just said.

3. Except withheld, as you use it, implies a willing consent to not put it in the game, which you have literally 0 evidence to support that they did.

No, but again your analogy has nothing to do with what is going on here. What it is more like is you ordering something, they bring it to you, you pay for it, then they say ohh yeah we are also making X meal in the back would you like to try it for Y dollars. Optional.

4. Yeah and they chose to put Javik in the disk so you wouldn't have to download more later, such a fucking travesty, game companies doing something nice for people. for shame.

5. What you are saying is that, if you went to watch a move in theaters, was able to watch the entire movie, but then they announce they are making a spin-off movie that tell you more about some magical item or character in the movie, that while it may or may not be important, its backstory wasn't but they still want to tell it to you anyways that there is something wrong with that? not sure if serious?

You are implying once again that said content was removed from the base game, which it wasn't.

6. And again neither Shale, nor Warden's Keep, nor Javik was removed from the game. It was simply extra content they provided for free for people who bought the game new and or a special edition.

You still got everything that was gonna be in the game regardless of if you bought Shale or not.

7. Content complete = no more content is being added to it, that is the definition, that isn't my definition, that is THE definition. It has nothing to do with when the game is released, never has, never will.

8. But again, you aren't missing anything by not getting Shale. Saying you are missing content by not getting Shale is like saying you are missing content from the base game by not getting Shivering Isles.

It is wrong

 

[TorqueConverter]

Yet all that shows was that they knew they weren't gonna have time to put the DLC into the game and thus had plans to make the DLC once the game was done, there is nothing there that shows the content was being worked on while the game was, or that content was removed.

Buddy, if that leak is to be believed - they were trying sell the shit before the fucking game was released! Hell. the game might not have even been finished by that time. Check the file size, the only thing that gives it a shred of credibility. It's 628MB.

2. It isn't stealing because it was never promised to be in the base game. Also how can they steal their own content? seriously you made no sense with what you just said.

Yeah it more or less it. Where else is this behavior tolerated? Are passengers seats in automobiles optional? You don't need passenger's seat for 100% driving experience. It's ok if the dealer removes them from all their cars and sells them to the consumer for an additional fee of course, right? You haven't bought the car yet right? The dealer can do what they want. It's their cars. Just don't buy the passenger's seat, right? That will sure put a stop that unethical practice.

3. Except withheld, as you use it, implies a willing consent to not put it in the game, which you have literally 0 evidence to support that they did.

Day one DLC? It's pretty self evident when the DLC is on fucking day one. They better have a damn good reason why the DLC is not on the disk. "we didn't feel like it" or "we want more money" is not an excuse.

No, but again your analogy has nothing to do with what is going on here. What it is more like is you ordering something, they bring it to you, you pay for it, then they say ohh yeah we are also making X meal in the back would you like to try it for Y dollars. Optional.

OK, no more analogies then because it's just going to go nowhere?

4. Yeah and they chose to put Javik in the disk so you wouldn't have to download more later, such a fucking travesty, game companies doing something nice for people. for shame.

Again do you have lots of like minded friends? I'll make a game just for you guys. All future DLC will be simple 15MB files. Our proprietary technologies allows for nearly instant access to DLC! No download times, no waiting and nothing to seperate you from the action! Just down load the key and the DLC is available instantly!

5. What you are saying is that, if you went to watch a move in theaters, was able to watch the entire movie, but then they announce they are making a spin-off movie that tell you more about some magical item or character in the movie, that while it may or may not be important, its backstory wasn't but they still want to tell it to you anyways that there is something wrong with that? not sure if serious?

No, i was talking about dildo bats. Video . games. are. not. stories. Go "play" Dear Ester if ALL you want is a story.

You are implying once again that said content was removed from the base game, which it wasn't.

Again you refuse to define what a "base game" is

6. And again neither Shale, nor Warden's Keep, nor Javik was removed from the game. It was simply extra content they provided for free for people who bought the game new and or a special edition.

No, shale is part of the game and not removed from the game BECAUSE SHE IS FUCKING INCLUDED IN THE GAME. You buy the game, you get that shit on day one. Javik is not in the game, well he is in the game just not 90% of the From Ashes DLC. Warden's Keep was not free.

You still got everything that was gonna be in the game regardless of if you bought Shale or not.

No. Shale is part of the game that's why she is included with any new purchase of the game. If you buy DA used then you are missing out on part of the game. Shale as free DLC is a way to incentivise new game sales and discourage used game sales. You don't get all your game if you buy it used. It wasn't some sort of free option. She is part of the game.

7. Content complete = no more content is being added to it, that is the definition, that isn't my definition, that is THE definition. It has nothing to do with when the game is released, never has, never will.

Content complete ON RELEASE. Have you forgotten the entire context of this discussion?

8. But again, you aren't missing anything by not getting Shale. Saying you are missing content by not getting Shale is like saying you are missing content from the base game by not getting Shivering Isles.

I know exactly what you are missing if you do not get Shale? Care to guess?

SHALE!!! < that bit of video gamey content.

It is wrong

What is? Video games not being solely about telling you a story? There is more to video games than story. Quit comparing them to novels and movies.

 

[k3v1n]

yes, I think they are abusing this DLC thing. The best example I could find as of today, for me, is GoW III. I mean, they even said they were going to launch 4 DLC, and they said this BEFORE launching the game, so it makes me wonder, why couldn't they just, you know, include it in the final product?? but no, they had to milk off more money from the consumers. Which is pretty funny in itself, because a couple of years from now, they'll release the G.O.T.Y edition or whatever with all DLCs included for the same price they sold the game without them before. So basically, for the SAME price I get less product. It's frustrating and not fair at all.

 

[Yopaz]

Uhm, in regards to question 1, I don't think you understand how the market works. DLC is a way the publisher can use to increase profits. You put it in a way that make it sound like DLC is supposed to be there because the company cares about us.

I will let you in on a secret. Almost every product ever made is made with the intention of making money. Games are no exception. DLC isn't an exception. So yes, DLC is something added to maximize profits from a game.

Question 2: I rarely buy DLC because I rarely see a need for it. If I like a game a lot and can buy extra missions then it's great. I wont say it's the best thing ever, but it can be neat sometimes.

 

[TorqueConverter]

I understand. I miss expansion packs as well. I ever really saw DLC as the cause of the disappearance of expansion packs. If anything I was worried about the future of the modding community, as much of the DLC out there resembles game mods.

I have no idea why expansion packs are less popular these days. Perhaps game developers prefer to make sequels, as in they are more profitable?

I think many PC exclusives still do expansions, Shogun 2 just had one and Civilization 5 has one coming up, Stardock has released several big expansions for Sins of a Solar Empire and Galactic Civilizations II. Maybe it's just the strategy game genre, but those are the only triple A PC exclusives I have these days.

So based on all those PC exclusive expansions, I'd say the emphasis on smaller DLC is probably due to consoles having limited hard drives and primitive digital distribution, limitations which will hopefully get better next generation.

When is the last time a PC expansion was recent? I adore Galactic Civilizations but wasn't the last expansion for that game the ultimate edition, in what, 2008? Even the ultimate edition was really just all the previous expansions with the only new additions being higher texture quality and animations for some of the ship designer extras? I'd love a fallout 3 expansion instead of having to rely on Fallout 4 to be developed, if ever.

I'm inclined to blame the lack of expansion on the lust for sequels the games industry has these days. They seem too quick to abandon a game in favor of developing a sequel with lots of copy and paste. If I had a choice between expansions and DLC, I'd take expansions any day of the week, however I don't view the two as mutually exclusive.

 

[TorqueConverter]

I will let you in on a secret. Almost every product ever made is made with the intention of making money. Games are no exception. DLC isn't an exception. So yes, DLC is something added to maximize profits from a game.

I want my game companies profitable too. Hell, I'd pay a premium for PC games if that ment they were developed to maximise the platform rather than a console port.

The problem arises when they bite the hand that feeds them. Day one DLC is such an instance. Unless the game developers can prove that the day one DLC is not content removed from the game, then they are blatantly milking the consumer. Milking the consumer is to treat them as if they are not even human. A thing; a resource to wring every last drop of value out of. I'd rather get a hate letter from a developer than have them cut content only monetize it on day one.

 

[Pyro Paul]

Uhm, in regards to question 1, I don't think you understand how the market works. DLC is a way the publisher can use to increase profits. You put it in a way that make it sound like DLC is supposed to be there because the company cares about us.

I will let you in on a secret. Almost every product ever made is made with the intention of making money. Games are no exception. DLC isn't an exception. So yes, DLC is something added to maximize profits from a game.

Question 2: I rarely buy DLC because I rarely see a need for it. If I like a game a lot and can buy extra missions then it's great. I wont say it's the best thing ever, but it can be neat sometimes.

not really...

DLC acctually fills many roles, it just depends on the publishers usage of DLC.

In most cases DLC is intended to produce the money required for the 'after release support' stage of a game. Hammering out bugs and patching the game isn't a cheap process, and a lot of companies really don't want to have their bottem line dwindled after they have 'finished' the game.


In some cases though, such as Shale from Dragons Age, it is an attempt to act as a Stop-gap to piracy/Resale. And this is acctually a fairly common practice in the Asian Market where DLC is often the only source of income for companies simply because piracy goes unchecked there.


And, of course, there are some cases such as with Bethesda where the DLC is effectively Expansion Packs for a game allowing them to set up Long Term support for a game while not going into the red for doing so.


The problem DLC faces now adays is simply that there isn't really enough of it out there to make people look at it diffrently.

Most DLC we see is +1 character/weapon/stage/costume... And we really don't see much of it after the initial release. Although people make jokes in videos of huge lists of DLC which unlock diffrent features, the truth of the matter is that most every game we see rarely ever goes past 6 individual DLC options for their game.

If we saw more DLC like Civ5 (11 DLC options of maps, civilizations, and units) then people would probably have a more positive outlook at DLC.

 

[GoaThief]

Where else is this behavior tolerated? Are passengers seats in automobiles optional? You don't need passenger's seat for 100% driving experience. It's ok if the dealer removes them from all their cars and sells them to the consumer for an additional fee of course, right? You haven't bought the car yet right? The dealer can do what they want. It's their cars. Just don't buy the passenger's seat, right?

It seems you've never bought a new car before, there are fucktons of optional extras that you have to pay more for such as air conditioning, electric windows, better speakers, better headunit, satnav, etc. Hell, even bodywork and wheel upgrades are quite common. Engines too, how many special editions of cars offer more power or a diesel engine for economy at an additional cost? Pretty much every industry charges for extras, even your previous example of restaurants often don't provide side orders for free.

None of this will matter though as you're set in your ways, maybe experience will change your opinion.. who knows? The gaming industry won't wait on you however, like it or not I'm sure consoles will go the way of PC with virtually zero second hand sales so Project Ten Dollar and it's ilk will be as redundant as your current stance will be.

 

[newdarkcloud]

I vented my opinions on this just a few days ago.

http://pressstarttodiscuss.blogspot.com/2012/04/15-dlc-how-it-is-being-handled-and-how.html

 

[Pyro Paul]

The problem arises when they bite the hand that feeds them. Day one DLC is such an instance. Unless the game developers can prove that the day one DLC is not content removed from the game, then they are blatantly milking the consumer. Milking the consumer is to treat them as if they are not even human. A thing; a resource to wring every last drop of value out of. I'd rather get a hate letter from a developer than have them cut content only monetize it on day one.

Most Day 1 DLC is made through contractual agreements with third parties.

most of it isn't really content removed but rather additional content developed on the side because some one some where paid a sum of money for it to happen.

 

[Avalanche91]

DLC has potential for great good. GTA 4's DLC, Dragon Age's Witchhunt, Mass Effect's Shadow Broker all expended on the story, or involved the player in the stories of side characters.

Mass Effect 3's from Ashes, Ashura's Wrath real ending and Street Fighter vs Teken DLC however seem to purposefully cut content from the main game to get another few extra bucks.

So yeah....Currently they seem to abuse the hell out of DLC, while it seems to have such great potential.

 

[masticina]

Oh you mean the lets sell a game like assasins creed and have part 12 and 13 out of the story line DLC

Well guess what I didn't buy that game.

We can vote with your wallets.. if we don't like how certain business is ran we can just not buy the product.

Seriously I haven't bought quite a few games.. not to mention kinda have to play out quite a few games more. Hell got some games out of 2008 that ..:! a shame the weekend is so busy

The best DLC so far I bought I guess is the DLC for Gran Turismo 5, I mean you get a nice set of tracks.. some nice cars.. it really adds to the game. The pack with the speed test is lovely who wouldn't want to know how quick their car is. And why as DLC... mmm you know for the detail and work in that pack I don't mind paying.

 

[Yopaz]

Uhm, in regards to question 1, I don't think you understand how the market works. DLC is a way the publisher can use to increase profits. You put it in a way that make it sound like DLC is supposed to be there because the company cares about us.

I will let you in on a secret. Almost every product ever made is made with the intention of making money. Games are no exception. DLC isn't an exception. So yes, DLC is something added to maximize profits from a game.

Question 2: I rarely buy DLC because I rarely see a need for it. If I like a game a lot and can buy extra missions then it's great. I wont say it's the best thing ever, but it can be neat sometimes.

not really...

DLC acctually fills many roles, it just depends on the publishers usage of DLC.

In most cases DLC is intended to produce the money required for the 'after release support' stage of a game. Hammering out bugs and patching the game isn't a cheap process, and a lot of companies really don't want to have their bottem line dwindled after they have 'finished' the game.


In some cases though, such as Shale from Dragons Age, it is an attempt to act as a Stop-gap to piracy/Resale. And this is acctually a fairly common practice in the Asian Market where DLC is often the only source of income for companies simply because piracy goes unchecked there.


And, of course, there are some cases such as with Bethesda where the DLC is effectively Expansion Packs for a game allowing them to set up Long Term support for a game while not going into the red for doing so.


The problem DLC faces now adays is simply that there isn't really enough of it out there to make people look at it diffrently.

Most DLC we see is +1 character/weapon/stage/costume... And we really don't see much of it after the initial release. Although people make jokes in videos of huge lists of DLC which unlock diffrent features, the truth of the matter is that most every game we see rarely ever goes past 6 individual DLC options for their game.

If we saw more DLC like Civ5 (11 DLC options of maps, civilizations, and units) then people would probably have a more positive outlook at DLC.

Patches are made to correct bugs. DLC is extra content. Basically what I said was that DLC is made to increase profits from a game. That is the same thing you said so I can't really understand why you feel like telling me.

 

[Pyro Paul]

I vented my opinions on this just a few days ago.

http://pressstarttodiscuss.blogspot.com/2012/04/15-dlc-how-it-is-being-handled-and-how.html

On Disk DLC are not as bad as you think...
Most of the time it is acctually used as a mechanism to bypass certain restrictions or fees placed on digital delivery systems.

You see it happen a lot for games designed for Xbox LIVE which has so many restrictions on what you can and can't do on it from the publisher/developer stand point that many publishers/developers simply bypass this altogether posting a bulk of the DLC content on disk with only minor alterations provided by the DLC packet up for digital distribution.

 

[Pyro Paul]

Patches are made to correct bugs. DLC is extra content. Basically what I said was that DLC is made to increase profits from a game. That is the same thing you said so I can't really understand why you feel like telling me.

because most forms of DLC are not intended to maximize profits.

most forms of DLC are acctually taken from the concept of Subscription based content in which you're paying for the support... not to line their coffers.

 

[Yopaz]

I will let you in on a secret. Almost every product ever made is made with the intention of making money. Games are no exception. DLC isn't an exception. So yes, DLC is something added to maximize profits from a game.

I want my game companies profitable too. Hell, I'd pay a premium for PC games if that ment they were developed to maximise the platform rather than a console port.

The problem arises when they bite the hand that feeds them. Day one DLC is such an instance. Unless the game developers can prove that the day one DLC is not content removed from the game, then they are blatantly milking the consumer. Milking the consumer is to treat them as if they are not even human. A thing; a resource to wring every last drop of value out of. I'd rather get a hate letter from a developer than have them cut content only monetize it on day one.

OK, your post doesn't really make any sense. You're a PC gamer who cares about day 1 DLC? PC games with physical copies always have activation codes or you get them through Steam and in either case Day 1 DLC does not affect anyone.

You also say you want companies to earn money, but you're against day 1 DLC because they are removing content. Really, what difference does it make if they are removing content from a full game (and still giving you a full game) or if they are adding content to a full game? You're makinf a big deal out of the difference between Pepsi and Cola, sure there is a difference, but it's no big deal.

 

[Yopaz]

Patches are made to correct bugs. DLC is extra content. Basically what I said was that DLC is made to increase profits from a game. That is the same thing you said so I can't really understand why you feel like telling me.

because most forms of DLC are not intended to maximize profits.

most forms of DLC are acctually taken from the concept of Subscription based content in which you're paying for the support... not to line their coffers.

Really, I don't see the difference. Money paid for the support still adds up to the profits.

 

[TorqueConverter]

You also say you want companies to earn money, but you're against day 1 DLC because they are removing content. Really, what difference does it make if they are removing content from a full game (and still giving you a full game) or if they are adding content to a full game? You're makinf a big deal out of the difference between Pepsi and Cola, sure there is a difference, but it's no big deal.

Well Pepsi is a cola..

The difference is that in one instance, removing completed content from a game to sell as day one DLC, is cheating the consumer and the other is not. It's not a "full game" if content has been removed from it. It's no different than than a cashier ringing something up twice at the register to maximize profits.

 

[Hyper-space]

A while ago my friends and I got to talking about DLC. my friends said that DLC would be the next step in in gaming since it allows new content without the need of a expansion disc and while I agreed with this I said that this could be used as a excuse to charge us more for things that are already finished.

The street fighter x tekken hacking has got me worried that what I said wasn't a load of bull and companies are really thinking this way. The future is bleak if other games meet the same fate all because where charged extra for content that's already there so now well all be suspicious of DLC.

disscusion:
1.Is companies abusing DLC for personal gain?
2.do you believe that DLC is one of the best things in resent gaming ?

I Should also say that I don't hate the idea of DLC I just hate what's being done to it

Lets put it this way: Every good idea will be abused, there's no helping it. But its much, much better than back in the day when you had to buy THE ENTIRE GAME (again) just to get 2 extra missions or a new sprite-package. Buying DLC for 5-15$ is much better than buying DLC for 60$.

There have been a ton of great DLC and there will be more of it. But as with everything, expect 90% of it to be either mediocre or bad.