DLC abuse

[masticina]

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.

Mmm a good point extending a game for longer gameplay is a good thing. Now sure a game out of 2008 probably doesn't gets DLC anymore.. and a follow up will be there. But indeed in the past if you wanted something fixed what did they says "Buy the version of this year"

Lovely no patches because they could sell the 2011 version instead.

Now at least we do get patches for the worst bugs and we even get some extra content. Sure we have to pay but.

I agree though that you can go to far. A patch for a game in our internet age should be free. Also really writing a long story then taking out part 6 and 7... so you can sell it as DLC..bad bad!

DLC is not terrible as long as what you pay is what you get. For $60 we expect a full game not a game with a room and a locked door saying "You need DLC for this"

Really just make that there is no door at launch of the game until you install the DLC. I stay with it good DLC is worth the price! It isn't a silly hat.. it isn't either the "unlock everything" pack of EA.

 

[Epona]

The idea of DLC abuse is inherently flawed. If people buy it, then it's entirely their fault. I hate what it's become, but the companies are only riding the wave of money that the consumers provide.

So you're one of those people who don't think criminals shouldn't have to resist an unlocked door but that people who don't lock their door are to blame if they are robbed?

Nope. I'm one of those people who thinks that if no one buys DLC then they won't sell it. Comparing it to being robbed is just laughable.

Yes, the Day-1 on-disc DLC for Mass Effect 3 was ridiculous. But people bought it. I didn't, and I wouldn't for a second say that I was 'robbed', I'd just say it was stupid. There's too much hyperbole in this discussion.

Yes you are one of those people. Publishers could restrain themselves from being too greedy and ripping people off but they don't and you're ok with that. Publishers are just like the thief that can't resist the unlocked door.

 

[TorqueConverter]

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.

I'm not going out without a fight. I'm not going to stand for unethical business practices that cheat the consumer in my video games. The rest of you may roll over and take it, but I'm sure as hell not.

I don't think you understand what "extra" really is. Show me a car where the optional trim or equipment is the option to pay for it twice? It's one thing to remove $10 of content from a $60 game and then sell that game for $50 with the option to purchase the content for $10. It's entirely different when $10 of content is removed from a $60 game and the game is still sold for $60. Automobiles start a base price and then increase with options and packages. The base trim does not start with a fully loaded product then proceeds to remove all the optional equipment while still retaining the full loaded pricing. I believe that practice is called bullshit.

The options present in a automobile are legit. A $30,000 car optioned out to $40,000 is not the same as removing content from a video game only to sell it as optional when the price for the game, with content removed, has not been adjusted.

In 2011 Ford sold the Mustang GT with the 5.0L V8. Prior to 2011 the car had the old 4.6L. Why didn't Ford continue to use the 4.6L as the GT engine and make the 5.0L a very expensive option? It's not because they ran out of 4.6L, it's because people would have been irate and refused to buy the car. That engine was developed for use in the Mustang as a replacement for 4.6L. When that engine was ready for launch you better believe it was going to become the base engine in the GT without any increase in GT base pricing and not a goddamn high dollar option.

The difference here is there is heavy competition in the automobile industry. Ford cannot afford to slip up with the Mustang in some money grubbing scheme as the consumers will simply spend their money elsewhere.

Where's the competition is video games? Really, where are the Mass Effect fans going to go for a character driven, science fiction shooter RPG fix? Bioware can charge as much money as they wanted to for Mass Effect. Let the free market speak. They sure as hell better not cheat their customers out of money.

 

[Epona]

The idea of DLC abuse is inherently flawed. If people buy it, then it's entirely their fault. I hate what it's become, but the companies are only riding the wave of money that the consumers provide.

So you're one of those people who don't think criminals shouldn't have to resist an unlocked door but that people who don't lock their door are to blame if they are robbed?

Nope. I'm one of those people who thinks that if no one buys DLC then they won't sell it. Comparing it to being robbed is just laughable.

Yes, the Day-1 on-disc DLC for Mass Effect 3 was ridiculous. But people bought it. I didn't, and I wouldn't for a second say that I was 'robbed', I'd just say it was stupid. There's too much hyperbole in this discussion.

Yes you are one of those people. Publishers could restrain themselves from being too greedy and ripping people off but they don't and you're ok with that. Publishers are just like the thief that can't resist the unlocked door.

I feel like you've got the wrong end of the stick here. Publishers shouldn't be greedy, but the reason that they're greedy is entirely our fault. Not necessarily yours, not necessarily mine. But as consumers, people buy these products. Your metaphor makes no sense as it says that they are robbing us, when we are the ones who make the ultimate choice on whether or not to buy a product.

I'm not OK with it, I've said at least three times now that it's bloody ridiculous. But it's not abuse. Everyone knows what they're paying, everyone knows what they're getting out of it. The only solutions are for the corporations to either suddenly all become paragons of charity, or for them to find out that products without DLC are more profitable. The former is never going to happen, and the latter will only happen if we, as consumers, stop buying DLC and support DLC-less games. Please, explain where the abuse is here.

Both sides have responsibility but where we expect the thief NOT to take advantage of the unlocked door, we give corporations card blanche to do almost anything they like to make money. Now, I am not saying there should be laws against it, I am saying that consumers, like you, need to start being more consumer friendly and stop blaming consumers alone.

Remember when people were pissed off because of Bethesda's Horse Armor? Not pissed off at consumers, pissed off at Bethesda for even offering it at the price it was offered at. After that, Bethesda DLC improved. That's what I am talking about, corporations are responsible for their actions if they set out to rip people off. Blaming consumers alone is wrong and will never improve the situation.

 

[TorqueConverter]

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.

It's ok to remove content from the game or downright block the content on the disk as long as you use words like extras and additional, right?

I'm sorry but I just don't understand this logic.

Developed on the side of what with what money exactly? You mean developed in parallel? How does the outsourcing of game development to a 3rd party justify an additional cost on the consumers end? Hell, they can 3rd party it up with the DLC after the game is launched. If content is in development when the game is in development then you better get that content when the game is released, provided that content is finished. Charge as much as you want for the game. Let the free market speak.

 

[Electric Alpaca]

It isn't abuse as long as we're never misled. People vastly misinterpret 'responsibilities' that publishers owe their consumers.

It may be unpopular of Capcom to absolutely rinse their fighter fanbase, but seeing as those consumers will be staring at exactly the same thing for potentially hours breaking into the centuries there is a demand for their palette swaps and so forth.

Similarly, regarding their characters on the disk direction - not once was it advertised 'all fighters available', they advertise those that are provided and than advertise those that will be provided in the future.

We all know Capcom's operating model and if you still complain yet still purchase their games you're going to be perpetually disappointed.

Certain things such as Assassin's Creed II and Deus Ex: Human Revolution having story based content available later is a bit more tetchy, but again these items are completely superficial - the overall integrity of the story was never compromised.

Companies can pursue whichever revenue stream they wish with their product, as long as it isn't dishonest.

 

[lord.jeff]

A few companies are abusing DLC but if we got rid of DLC just because a few or even several companies take advantage of it, I thinking gaming itself probably would of disappeared by now. besides you aren't forced to buy the DLC or even the game in question.

 

[lacktheknack]

If the company doesn't feel that they'll make adequate profit off of the base game, then they'll withhold content to help boost sales. It works. If you don't like it, stop buying it.

 

[TorqueConverter]

If the company doesn't feel that they'll make adequate profit off of the base game, then they'll withhold content to help boost sales. It works. If you don't like it, stop buying it.

Yep. It's shit but it works as business model. There is no system in place to keep the game developers and publishers under control, only our wallets.

It's good to be informed as consumer. I wish like hell I had known about of the Deus Ex DLC shenanigans or might have not bought the game and saved myself the trouble of that boring FPS cover based shooter.

 

[Epona]

The idea of DLC abuse is inherently flawed. If people buy it, then it's entirely their fault. I hate what it's become, but the companies are only riding the wave of money that the consumers provide.

So you're one of those people who don't think criminals shouldn't have to resist an unlocked door but that people who don't lock their door are to blame if they are robbed?

Nope. I'm one of those people who thinks that if no one buys DLC then they won't sell it. Comparing it to being robbed is just laughable.

Yes, the Day-1 on-disc DLC for Mass Effect 3 was ridiculous. But people bought it. I didn't, and I wouldn't for a second say that I was 'robbed', I'd just say it was stupid. There's too much hyperbole in this discussion.

Yes you are one of those people. Publishers could restrain themselves from being too greedy and ripping people off but they don't and you're ok with that. Publishers are just like the thief that can't resist the unlocked door.

I feel like you've got the wrong end of the stick here. Publishers shouldn't be greedy, but the reason that they're greedy is entirely our fault. Not necessarily yours, not necessarily mine. But as consumers, people buy these products. Your metaphor makes no sense as it says that they are robbing us, when we are the ones who make the ultimate choice on whether or not to buy a product.

I'm not OK with it, I've said at least three times now that it's bloody ridiculous. But it's not abuse. Everyone knows what they're paying, everyone knows what they're getting out of it. The only solutions are for the corporations to either suddenly all become paragons of charity, or for them to find out that products without DLC are more profitable. The former is never going to happen, and the latter will only happen if we, as consumers, stop buying DLC and support DLC-less games. Please, explain where the abuse is here.

Both sides have responsibility but where we expect the thief NOT to take advantage of the unlocked door, we give corporations card blanche to do almost anything they like to make money. Now, I am not saying there should be laws against it, I am saying that consumers, like you, need to start being more consumer friendly and stop blaming consumers alone.

Remember when people were pissed off because of Bethesda's Horse Armor? Not pissed off at consumers, pissed off at Bethesda for even offering it at the price it was offered at. After that, Bethesda DLC improved. That's what I am talking about, corporations are responsible for their actions if they set out to rip people off. Blaming consumers alone is wrong and will never improve the situation.

The difference between Horse Armour and the situation today is that people put their money where there mouth was. Horse Armour phased out because it was a huge sales flop - seriously, do you know anyone who bought that? But today, EA can push out the Javik DLC and it will get bought. It did get bought.

Although I do agree with you in one sense there - that Bethesda push out good quality DLC apart from that. But that's one of the rare cases where the company is nice. And again, I think you're getting the wrong end of the stick, because I am saying we should punish the companies that are pushing out Day-1 DLC by not buying the DLC. But the customers are not. How the hell are we supposed to send a negative message when 75% of people are just going along with it? It's a battle, and in the end there are no winners. The companies will collapse under their own weight, and the consumers will be stuck with an even worse version of the current model. It is the fault of both the consumers and the corporations, but the consumers are far too willing for me to even think about siding with them on this matter. Both sides are as bad as each other.

Horse Armor wasn't a flop:
http://www.gamesradar.com/oblivions-horse-armour-dlc-is-still-selling-bethesda-calls-it-inexplicable-we-call-it-basic-human-degradation/

and it wasn't phased out. As far as I know they are still selling it.

Bethesda was rightly shamed about Horse Armor even though people have been buying it all along and it resulted in better DLC.

 

[Yopaz]

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.

Games are usually complete even with day 1 DLC, but no matter the significancen of it people usually say the publishers are cutting out content. Take the sewers in RAGE. They made no impact on the story and barely added anything, yet making that day 1 DLC made everyone complain that they cut out important content. I fail to see the logic in this and you fail to explain it.

 

[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.

Games are usually complete even with day 1 DLC, but no matter the significancen of it people usually say the publishers are cutting out content. Take the sewers in RAGE. They made no impact on the story and barely added anything, yet making that day 1 DLC made everyone complain that they cut out important content. I fail to see the logic in this and you fail to explain it.

You honestly fail to see the logic in being cheated out of something?

On totally unrelated note got some shit laying around I'm trying to sell. I want you to get fist dibs on it before it goes to craigslist. You seem like a nice guy.

It's the very principal of be being cheated out of something and not how much that item costs or the significance of the item to some story that is important. It's the very principal that a portion, any portion, of the game was blocked off in Rage so as to incentivise new game sales that had people upset. I'm willing to live with bits of day one DLC as long as it is included for free to anyone who purchases the game new.

The pubs/devs have the fight back against the retailers in some way.

 

[Vivi22]

Its interesting. It occured to me just today that they actually intentionally left a small gap in the story of Deus Ex revolution purely for dlc.

When adam hides in this cargo hold on a boat. He lost contact with the guy on the radio he talks to for a long amount of time, I think a week. The guy on the radio asks him when Adam gets radio contact with him again what happened and Adam replies "Ill tell you later"

Then they release DLC about what happened while Adam Was in transit.

So....Intentionally leaving a hole in the story for dlc? I dunno, It doesnt upset me that much, just makes me uneasy....

The trouble with that is that when they were making HR they needed to cut some things near the end to get the game finished. I believe Montreal for instance was originally going to be another hub city, but that was cut. It's probably also why you revisit Detroit and Shanghai and while they have some more quests to do, there aren't nearly as many.

Having played the Missing Link DLC, it wasn't required for the story to work, and the DLC itself worked quite well as a stand alone adventure that takes place within the time frame of the game. Not only that, the fact that the boss battle was actually well done makes me far more forgiving of it. I like to think of it not as something which got cut so it could be DLC, but something which never would have been released unless it was DLC since it was already cut due to time constraints which is the sense I get from it.

As for my thoughts on DLC. I like DLC that's an expansion for a game. I enjoy being able to go back to a game I liked for substantial new content. I don't like when companies try to nickel and dime for stupid shit like costumes or items that don't affect the game. A good rule of thumb is that if it took a single artist a day's work to pump something out and they're charging $3 for it, it's not worth it.

 

[Skoldpadda]

I'm actually only replying in order to say that I can't take my eyes off your avatar. Please change it, as it is possibly life-ruining on a global scale.

Sorry dude, no dice. I know that some people have their issues with Jessica Chobot after ME3 but as far as I know, she was an excellent reporter before that. I couldn't really find anything better to use as my avatar this month so you're just gonna have to bear with me.

I think you misunderstood me.

This is the internet, sarcasm and other such things don't travel well. Please explain.

As in: I can't take my eyes off your avatar because it's really hot. I didn't know there was a ME3-thing around this sexy thing. All a big misunderstanding! Fast forward a couple of years, and we'll be able to laugh about this.

Say, how does one pronounce her name? French, like Cheaubeaux? Or rhyming with Robot?


CAPTCHA: run the gauntlet. Oh every day, my dear Captcha. Every day.

 

[TorqueConverter]

I don't like when companies try to nickel and dime for stupid shit like costumes or items that don't affect the game. A good rule of thumb is that if it took a single artist a day's work to pump something out and they're charging $3 for it, it's not worth it.

I like a lot of those little items and do buy them if the price is right, however the price is often not. If the monetary value of the item equal to or less than the amount of enjoyment I recieve from the item, then it's fair game.

In a sandbox game where story really isn't that important, interesting weapons and armor can really improve the game. I couldn't imagine life in Fallout 3 without the guass rifle or the Octo-gun in Saints Row 3. The Operation Anchorage Alaska story? Don't care. The guass rifle in that DLC? Do care.