DLC abuse

[Shrapenel92]

The advantage AND the problem of DLC is the ease with which it can be produced and published. One one side it makes it easy to get addons to games with minimum effort. On the other side it get's abused for tons of minimal dlc.

Now companies even started trying to offer endings to games as DLC. The simple solution? Only buy those you deem worth your money, give them a clear answer with your wallet what kind of DLC won't be tolerated.

I think that Lapan makes the end-all point here. Love or hate DLC, we're the consumer and only we have the power to decide the fate of DLC by voting with our wallets. I think there are good examples of DLC, and bad examples of DLC, but by showing the industry which we think is which with our wallets, we can root out DLC abuse. Perhaps I'm just an optimist though

 

[Xanadu84]

If a company can cut corners for the sake of money, and desire to take this approach, they will do so, DLC or no. If you are capable of deciding if a games content is worth the monetary investment...you know...like an adult...then the only possible outcome of DLC is to grant you more choices. If you choose not to pay for DLC, that is you participating in the world of functional human beings with self control. If you do buy the DLC, then it appeared to be worth it to you, and the publishers simply understand the basics of buisness, charging a price their customers will pay. If DLC is poor quality, remember that people have paid for games they dislike long before downloadable content. Don't complain about a bad piece of $5 DLC taking the place of a bad $30 expansion.

 

[TorqueConverter]

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?

um... Yeah?

Haven't you ever heard of 'Extended Edition' or 'Directors Cut' for movies?
Haven't you ever seen the words 'Uncensored' or 'Unrated'?

It is done every where.

Pay a little extra... Get a little more.

Don't pay extra... Get something that is missing content and incomplete at full price. Lovely. I can't wait until games turn into $60 game engines with the majority content sold as extra* on day one just to silence you people. Who am I kidding, you'll probably support that as the new industry standard?

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.

you do not own the developers...
Nor do you own what they develope.

This idea that you're entitled to what they make is a flawed one...

You get what they want to give you. nothing more, nothing less.
you are entitled to nothing beyond that.

We have been getting the content competed before launch on the disk or at the very least as day one free DLC for, idunno, a long time now. It is very much the standard. They develop a game and you buy that game. All the content that is finished by day one, you get on day one when you purchase the game.

The game developers/publishers want to change this to milk more money from us by withholding completed game content from new copies of the game, without a reduction in price for game, only to sell the withheld content on day one under the guise of extra. I want them profitable but I also demand they do it ways that do not rip off the consumer. Find another legit revenue stream. Raise the price of your game if you have to but don't charge for shit twice.

I can't believe you are OK with this. We are the consumer. We are in control as we are the hand that feeds them. Without us the game developers/publishers have nothing more than a very expensive hobby.

 

[theultimateend]

I didn't know you could abuse extra content. You know, since it's optional. And extra content.

Except it shapes the entire production process and impacts everyone regardless of their desire to purchase it or not.

Lets say you have game X.

Game X only has men in it.

You want to play a lady, there is optional DLC to get women.

SURE it's optional, but your game is missing a content piece that used to be a given.

Anyone who thinks DLC doesn't negatively impact the direction of >all< games is not looking at it with a wide enough eye.

I personally take it a step further and just don't buy the game at all usually, which would be a better response if someone doesn't like dlc. Because if you buy the game they know they can still get the sales and SOME people will buy the extra content, so no need think about the issue or how they handle it.

If they don't even sell the game they'll need to rethink their development cycle, what they prioritize, and what they'll monetize.

However, if an individual is happy with progressively smaller games (that admittedly look nicer) then I can't say anything, since that's what is had. Heck, they are starting to even sell cheat codes. That to me is remarkable.

I will note that using the word entitlement in a discussion about DLC is flawed.

It's not only entitlement one way. Look at the cheat code example, it was at one time a free content piece. Now they are charging you because they feel entitled to extra money. In many cases you are getting charged for tools they already built for designing the game and testing it.

 

[Phlakes]

I didn't know you could abuse extra content. You know, since it's optional. And extra content.

Except it shapes the entire production process and impacts everyone regardless of their desire to purchase it or not.

Lets say you have game X.

Game X only has men in it.

You want to play a lady, there is optional DLC to get women.

SURE it's optional, but your game is missing a content piece that used to be a given.

Anyone who thinks DLC doesn't negatively impact the direction of >all< games is not looking at it with a wide enough eye.

...What?

Okay, let's say I order a hamburger. Then I pay a bit extra to put cheese on it. Does that mean the hamburger was missing something that used to be a given? Does that negatively impact its direction? Hell no, it's a hamburger that you pay the price of a hamburger for, and if you want cheese you pay extra to get cheese. Just because you can have cheese doesn't mean the hamburger is inherently flawed somehow.

 

[TorqueConverter]

I didn't know you could abuse extra content. You know, since it's optional. And extra content.

Except it shapes the entire production process and impacts everyone regardless of their desire to purchase it or not.

Lets say you have game X.

Game X only has men in it.

You want to play a lady, there is optional DLC to get women.

SURE it's optional, but your game is missing a content piece that used to be a given.

Anyone who thinks DLC doesn't negatively impact the direction of >all< games is not looking at it with a wide enough eye.


If they don't even sell the game they'll need to rethink their development cycle, what they prioritize, and what they'll monetize.

However, if an individual is happy with progressively smaller games (that admittedly look nicer) then I can't say anything, since that's what is had. Heck, they are starting to even sell cheat codes. That to me is remarkable.

I will note that using the word entitlement in a discussion about DLC is flawed.

It's not only entitlement one way. Look at the cheat code example, it was at one time a free content piece. Now they are charging you because they feel entitled to extra money. In many cases you are getting charged for tools they already built for designing the game and testing it.

The only thing we as a consumer are entitled to is a working, content complete game on day one. That's it. We are not entitled to content developed after day one and we sure as hell are not entitled to it for free.

I personally take it a step further and just don't buy the game at all usually, which would be a better response if someone doesn't like dlc. Because if you buy the game they know they can still get the sales and SOME people will buy the extra content, so no need think about the issue or how they handle it.

I agree with you wholeheartedly on this one. If you don't like a companies business practices then don't encourage their bullshit. Don't buy their game, at least not on day one at full price.

 

[Guardian of Nekops]

I didn't know you could abuse extra content. You know, since it's optional. And extra content.

One problem is that, optional though it is, it's not really clear what you're buying, or the extent to which you need it.

In an age where all sorts of things are sold in the demo-free boxes called "DLC," everything from silly cosmetic hats to items that change the balance of the game to new missions that can add in hours of game time, you don't really know what you're getting, and whether it will be worth it, until you put your money down. In an environment like that, where $10 could get you anything from an extra half a game to a slightly better weapon, there's plenty of room for abuse.

 

[TorqueConverter]

...What?

Okay, let's say I order a hamburger. Then I pay a bit extra to put cheese on it. Does that mean the hamburger was missing something that used to be a given? Does that negatively impact its direction? Hell no, it's a hamburger that you pay the price of a hamburger for, and if you want cheese you pay extra to get cheese. Just because you can have cheese doesn't mean the hamburger is inherently flawed somehow.

These food analogies can get silly very quickly. I would say that day one DLC at least, is like ordering a double cheeseburger only to be told that cheese and second patty is extra*. Wait? I already paid a premium for a double cheeseburger so why in the hell do I have to pay again for the cheese and second patty? It's just a hamburger then. Don't buy the cheese and second patty, but still end up with a very expensive hamburger? If I wanted a hamburger I would have ordered a fucking hamburger. Wait, why is my drink hall full of ice? Didn't I order fries? Where are they? What do mean they are locked in drawer somewhere? What do you mean you'll sell me an option to complete my meal? Fuck you rEstAurant.

 

[Phlakes]

...What?

Okay, let's say I order a hamburger. Then I pay a bit extra to put cheese on it. Does that mean the hamburger was missing something that used to be a given? Does that negatively impact its direction? Hell no, it's a hamburger that you pay the price of a hamburger for, and if you want cheese you pay extra to get cheese. Just because you can have cheese doesn't mean the hamburger is inherently flawed somehow.

These food analogies can get silly very quickly. I would say that day one DLC at least, is like ordering a double cheeseburger only to be told that cheese and second patty is extra*. Wait? I already paid a premium for a double cheeseburger so why in the hell do I have to pay again for the cheese and second patty? It's just a hamburger then. Don't buy the cheese and second patty, but still end up with a very expensive hamburger? If I wanted a hamburger I would have ordered a fucking hamburger. Wait, why is my drink hall full of ice? Didn't I order fries? Where are they? What do mean they are locked in drawer somewhere? What do you mean you'll sell me an option to complete my meal? Fuck you rEstAurant.

Alright, if you want to assume they take content out of the game and sell it back as DLC, go ahead. I've learned that it's better to not even try with you people.

 

[TorqueConverter]

Alright, if you want to assume they take content out of the game and sell it back as DLC, go ahead. I've learned that it's better to not even try with you people.

You are correct. Most dev/pubs currently do not and have not in the past. The gaming industry as a whole as been pretty damn good to us, and remember this is an industry without competition. Very few video games have a direct competitor to keep each other in check with pricing and content quality, yet they still have been good to us despite being in a position to potentially feed us shit at ridiculous prices.

It is however, a future we quickly heading towards. The day a big publisher and developer took the 1st step in this direction is when the tone was set. Mass Effect 3. It'd be too late to gripe about it if it was already the industry standard.

 

[Phlakes]

Alright, if you want to assume they take content out of the game and sell it back as DLC, go ahead. I've learned that it's better to not even try with you people.

You are correct. Most dev/pubs currently do not and have not in the past. The gaming industry as a whole as been pretty damn good to us, and remember this is an industry without competition. Very few video games have a direct competitor to keep each other in check with pricing and content quality, yet they still have been good to us despite being in a position to potentially feed us shit at ridiculous prices.

It is however, a future we quickly heading towards. The day a big publisher and developer took the 1st step in this direction is when the tone was set. Mass Effect 3. It'd be too late to gripe about it if it was already the industry standard.

Speculation: It's a ***** (TM). See you five years from now, let's see what the industry standard is.

 

[TorqueConverter]

Alright, if you want to assume they take content out of the game and sell it back as DLC, go ahead. I've learned that it's better to not even try with you people.

You are correct. Most dev/pubs currently do not and have not in the past. The gaming industry as a whole as been pretty damn good to us, and remember this is an industry without competition. Very few video games have a direct competitor to keep each other in check with pricing and content quality, yet they still have been good to us despite being in a position to potentially feed us shit at ridiculous prices.

It is however, a future we quickly heading towards. The day a big publisher and developer took the 1st step in this direction is when the tone was set. Mass Effect 3. It'd be too late to gripe about it if it was already the industry standard.

Speculation: It's a ***** (TM). See you five years from now, let's see what the industry standard is.

Deal.

 

[Pyro Paul]

-snip-

I'm sorry your entire argument is built on ignorance.

The idea that the product isn't complete unless if you have DLC is wrong.

regardless of your thoughts on how things should work, the simple fact of the matter is this:
You are sold a complete Product.

Do you need the DLC to continue in the game?
Do you need the DLC just to play?
Do you need the DLC to beat the game?

answer: No. you don't need the DLC to do any of those.


Trying to create the parallel that they complete a game then cut it up to sell it peice-meal through DLC is false and misleading. If they did that, then you would not be able to complete the game unless if you had the DLC.

How/When this DLC is developed; is completed; or is distributed is ultimatly irrelevent.

 

[Pyro Paul]

I would say that day one DLC at least, is like ordering a double cheeseburger only to be told that cheese and second patty is extra*. Wait? I already paid a premium for a double cheeseburger so why in the hell do I have to pay again for the cheese and second patty? It's just a hamburger then. Don't buy the cheese and second patty, but still end up with a very expensive hamburger? If I wanted a hamburger I would have ordered a fucking hamburger. Wait, why is my drink hall full of ice? Didn't I order fries? Where are they? What do mean they are locked in drawer somewhere? What do you mean you'll sell me an option to complete my meal? Fuck you rEstAurant.

You would say that...
and you would be completely incorrect.

If you order a double cheeseburger and only get a hamburger...
then you didn't order a double cheeseburger.

 

[LiquidSolstice]

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.

really?

So huge improvements to the engine are just dlc to you.
So crysis 2 is just dlc, or all the call of duty sequels. All sports games sequels.

Stop the absurdness.

Strange, I didn't say anything about any other game...

Changing my stance and attacking that one instead. Isn't that called...something to do with straw....can't seem to remember it off the top of my head, goshdarnit.

 

[TorqueConverter]

You would say that...
and you would be completely incorrect.

If you order a double cheeseburger and only get a hamburger...
then you didn't order a double cheeseburger.

It would be called getting ripped off.

 

[Epona]

I would say that day one DLC at least, is like ordering a double cheeseburger only to be told that cheese and second patty is extra*. Wait? I already paid a premium for a double cheeseburger so why in the hell do I have to pay again for the cheese and second patty? It's just a hamburger then. Don't buy the cheese and second patty, but still end up with a very expensive hamburger? If I wanted a hamburger I would have ordered a fucking hamburger. Wait, why is my drink hall full of ice? Didn't I order fries? Where are they? What do mean they are locked in drawer somewhere? What do you mean you'll sell me an option to complete my meal? Fuck you rEstAurant.

You would say that...
and you would be completely incorrect.

If you order a double cheeseburger and only get a hamburger...
then you didn't order a double cheeseburger.

Um no, if you order a double cheeseburger but only get a hamburger, you still ordered a double cheeseburger.

 

[TorqueConverter]

I'm sorry your entire argument is built on ignorance.

The idea that the product isn't complete unless if you have DLC is wrong.

How/When this DLC is developed; is completed; or is distributed is ultimatly irrelevent.

Don't forget the context of this discussion. DLC abuse. Check the thread title in case you have forgotten. What exactly is your stance on this btw? Do you think it is impossible for game developers and publishers to abuse DLC? I'm inclined to call your argument ignorant, but I digress as you have yet to clearly define your argument.

Trying to create the parallel that they complete a game then cut it up to sell it peice-meal through DLC is false and misleading. If they did that, then you would not be able to complete the game unless if you had the DLC.

Bullshit. You can hypothetically cut, or downright lock on the disk, tremendous amounts of content and still adhere to the most basic standards of "video game". This practice would be dangerous for obvious reasons. Remember when Capcom pulled this crap when a bunch of characters were locked on the disk? The DLC was an unlock key. That's fucked up and should be obvious to anyone. It's beyond me why any consumer would support these practices.

regardless of your thoughts on how things should work, the simple fact of the matter is this:
You are sold a complete Product.

Do you need the DLC to continue in the game?
Do you need the DLC just to play?
Do you need the DLC to beat the game?

answer: No. you don't need the DLC to do any of those.

Need =/= complete. You don't need all sorts of content in your video games. I take it your standards for a video game are these:

1. The ability to continue playing the game, as in you don't need to put quarters into the machine anymore.

2. As long as the game allows you to play.. the... game?

3. You must be able, as in permitted by the game, to beat the game.

That's it? Your standards for video games are abysmal.

 

[Aprilgold]

DLC is a concept, first and foremost, and therefore, from its very nature has no want for money. DLC is simply content that can be downloaded through the internet. This could be as simple as a soundtrack or as wide as a brand new game for the game itself.

A concept does not want your money. A publisher abusing DLC does not mean DLC is bad or is inherently wanting your wallet, it just means that a coporate dick wants a few thousand more at the end of his pay-check. DLC is a great concept and it really comes down to how we'll use it to progress gaming in the future. Hopefully, we'll stop being stupid and notice the guy trying to steal money out of our wallets and call him out on his thievery.

To sum up, a concept does not want your money, a human being or corporation wants your money.

If you want to see abuse of DLC, go to the IOS market and play one of their free games. More then likely, they will shove down your throat you NEED to buy this or that.

 

[Pyro Paul]

I would say that day one DLC at least, is like ordering a double cheeseburger only to be told that cheese and second patty is extra*. Wait? I already paid a premium for a double cheeseburger so why in the hell do I have to pay again for the cheese and second patty? It's just a hamburger then. Don't buy the cheese and second patty, but still end up with a very expensive hamburger? If I wanted a hamburger I would have ordered a fucking hamburger. Wait, why is my drink hall full of ice? Didn't I order fries? Where are they? What do mean they are locked in drawer somewhere? What do you mean you'll sell me an option to complete my meal? Fuck you rEstAurant.

You would say that...
and you would be completely incorrect.

If you order a double cheeseburger and only get a hamburger...
then you didn't order a double cheeseburger.

Um no, if you order a double cheeseburger but only get a hamburger, you still ordered a double cheeseburger.

If you ordered a double cheeseburger and only get a hamburger then there is clearly a fault in the line of communication in which your acctual order was not taken correctly or your idea of the order was not correct.

ergo, you did not order a doublecheese burger.

His comparison is flawed in the concept that 'a doublecheese burger' is identical to a 'Hamburger', and in order to get the stuff that makes it a double cheeseburger you have to pay extra after getting the product.