DLC abuse

[Indecipherable]

I like it, I get my money's worth from it. I do look at what is included in the DLC and if I deem it unworthy I don't buy it. Pretty simple.

 

[Pyro Paul]

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.

no, the context which is being discussed:
'Is on Disk DLC 'abuse'?'

DLC abuse would be the over dependence on DLC of games...
And we see it already happening in examples as 'Maple Story' which only runs because of DLC purchases. the Asian MMO market is almost entirely built off of this market strategy, although i'm not too sure that it will be as effective in the Western market place as we are all still keen on the 'I buy, I own' way of thought.

But to the point of the discussion,
On Disk DLC is not Abuse.
You're not purchasing the content on the disk, nor do you have the rights to everything on the disk.

Ultimatly the digital content on the disk falls under 'Intelectual Property' laws and as such, you are only allowed access to the extent of which owner of said IP allows.

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.

Remember when Capcom got away with this because there was acctually nothing wrong with it? How you don't have any say what-so-ever on what they put on a disk? How the information on a disk is defined as an 'IP' and that you don't own any of it?

I suppose it would be beyond you because you're a mindless consumer that doesn't really understand anything and only greedily demands more and more for less and less, all the while thinking that your dime some how permits you ownership over some one elses efforts...

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.

Acctually... that sounds quite accurate...

A game is a program which runs with minimal flaws and allows a player to reach what is considered 'end content' through only their own efforts with out any extra programs or aid independent of said program.

what is your standard?

 

[TorqueConverter]

'Is on Disk DLC 'abuse'?'

DLC abuse would be the over dependence on DLC of games...
And we see it already happening in examples as 'Maple Story' which only runs because of DLC purchases. the Asian MMO market is almost entirely built off of this market strategy, although i'm not too sure that it will be as effective in the Western market place as we are all still keen on the 'I buy, I own' way of thought.

But to the point of the discussion,
On Disk DLC is not Abuse.
You're not purchasing the content on the disk, nor do you have the rights to everything on the disk.

Ultimatly the digital content on the disk falls under 'Intelectual Property' laws and as such, you are only allowed access to the extent of which owner of said IP allows.

Lets not confuse morality with legality. You are correct, a video game is the intellectual property of the game developers. According to the law, the consumer is not purchasing the video game, but rather a license to that intellectual property. The thing is, game developers haven't been all that interested is selling you licenses. They very much have been encouraging the notion that the consumer is purchasing a video game rather than a license.

They want to flex their legal muscles now? "We will lock as much content on the disk as we please because it's our IP, so fuck you and give us your money" is not going to endear anyone to that publisher or developer. Fans were outraged at Capcom for that crap they pulled with Street Fighter. There have been no less than 12 cases closed with the Better Business Bureau in the past 12 months over that game. That's their fucking fans. No one else buy Capcom games.

What about used games sales? A bit OT but still tied into the IP of the publisher and developer.

What about the right of the consumer to modify the files of digital IP not belonging to the consumer as long as it is for personal use? IE: a PC gamers getting access to that Disk-Locked-Content because his/her platform is not closed.

You can see where this is going. A very shitty picture is painted for the consumer when the game developers and publishers adhere to loopholes in broken legislation. "It's their IP and they can do whatever they want to us with it" is bullshit.

I suppose it would be beyond you because..

demands more and more for less and less, all the while thinking that your dime some how permits you ownership over some one elses efforts...

Yeah, I'm greedy. Any game developer that can't be bothered to make DLC, but still wishes to sell DLC, by dipping into the competed game content before launch to lock some of that content on the disk only to sell an unlock key, or cut and paste it to a server, is greedy and unethical.

Any developer practicing this shit is trying to get something for nothing. They want extra money yet refuse to offer extra content. I'll gladly pay extra for extra content. Completed game content withed from the game is not extra; it's competed game content and part of the video game being held for ransom.

you're a mindless consumer that doesn't really understand anything and only greedily

"Blame the consumer.. blame the consumer.... blame the consumer..." "Resistance is futile."

OK I got it.

You are either:

A) A payed mouth piece of these game developers and publishers

B) An apathetic consumer who thinks the only way to show your support for video games is to blindly support the industry.

C) EA employee.

A game is a program which runs with minimal flaws and allows a player to reach what is considered 'end content' through only their own efforts with out any extra programs or aid independent of said program.

what is your standard?

So by you standards a $60 game with 3/4 of the content locked on the disk is permitted, hell encouraged, as long as the 1/4 of content that remains adheres to the most basic of video game standards? You. are. insane.

My standards? A content complete, working, video game on day one and ethical business practices. If the game is buggy then patch it. If the game developers can't be bothered to make DLC then don't lock, or remove content on the disk to sell back to the user as false DLC. Don't murder kittens..ect.

 

[Therumancer]

Dont like it. Dont buy it.

If you think that the game isn't complete without all the extras, then you just got to calculate the price as such.

A good example is Dungeon Defenders. Sold with the intend of making dlc and selling it. The models were available on launch, but has only resently been finished as DLC. Do we deserve them because the models were there?

No we get an offer, and we can take or leave it. We dont go into McDonalds and pay for a hamburger then expect a cheeseburger. You get what you pay for. Inform yourself what you are buying, and in this case what you arn't buying.

The problem of course has a lot to do with the gaming industry infamously keeping it's cards close to it's chest, or deliberatly lying about it's products. Games increasingly demand a leap of faith, and you won't know if your going to feel a product was complete until after you paid for what is effectively an unreturnable product.

A lot of the information that causes an outcry usually comes from people AFTER the buy a game and say go through the code to see what's on the disc but locked out.

I mean I'd agree with you if it was as straightforward as "Hamburger Vs. Cheeseburger" where the name says it all. But as it is, your not going to find out what's missing, either on disc or otherwise, until you play the game.

Too much is passed back on the consumers, even the arguement that you should "wait until other people buy it" is kind of ridiculous, because honestly you shouldn't have to get all paranoid about buying a video game.

I tend to agree with the OP to an extent, as originally promised DLC was supposed to be this great idea that would allow developers to cheaply release substantial expansion packs for games without having to worry about packaging, shipping, and other things. The idea being that you would see expansions like "The Forge Of Virtue" or "The Silver Seed" (for Ultima 7 and 7 part 2) more frequently and for more games. That isn't what has happened though, instead of becoming a way of releasing substantial content affordably, it's become a way to nickel and dime people, especially when the company is holding most of the information. Rather than developing content and expansions, they also hit on the idea of having their cake and eating it too, but pulling as much out of a game as possible to sell later in order to make more money off their products.

Saying that this kind of thing is "just good business" is not a justification, something being good business does not make it right. I'm all for capitalism, but there is a point where people get too greedy, and that's what we're seeing here. I do not consider "deal with it, or go without" to be a valid counter-arguement for something like this as well, especially seeing as if we wait for the industry to push things to the point where they alientate everyone to the point where the gamers decide to actually go without their games, we're probably looking at another 80s-esque video game crash. I'd much prefer for the industry to just grow up and content themselves with making a profit, as opposed to trying to gouge every possible penny out of everything they can.

 

[theultimateend]

...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.

Uh.

Edit:

You are arguing that what you are getting is a Hamburger with the option to buy cheese.

A Hamburger is a cheaper burger because it does not come with content you would normally find on a conventional burger.

This is not what DLC gets you.

DLC charges you the cheeseburger price for the hamburger and then tells you that you can buy cheese on top of that to get a full cheeseburger.

So yes, a Hamburger for the price of a Cheeseburger with the added cost of cheese on top of that is flawed and does you not services.

IF games charged less and made it up through DLC I could see your argument being rock solid.

ANYWHO, some folks like to get conned, I won't get in your way. I'm not forced to buy the games at all and I choose not to, I just find it a shame that good IPs get ruined through very poor (but highly succesful) marketing practices.

 

[Zeckt]

It all depends on the type of DLC. I have no problem shelling out 800 ms for dlc on games like Kingdom of Amalur where they keep making content post game but on the other side bioware has proven to be awful with ME3 as in even if you pre-order you still have to buy the 800 point dlc for the game that was cut to get another 10 dollars off of their loyal fans.

And I'm tired of this crap from bioware, the post launch dlc and garbage ending for ME3 and DA2 being awful has poisoned them in my book. After ME3, I will have nothing to do with them ever again and this is coming from someone who played their games since the original baldur's gate.

 

[theultimateend]

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.

This is my major problem with Capitalism.

People treat it like a religion. This unquestionable thing that is brutally objective somehow.

Just because a company is not forced to do the right thing does not mean that they shouldn't do the right thing.

Humans, as it is now, are not entitled to healthcare in the United States. But they should be. That's the clencher.

And "content complete" is about as empty a statement as you could possibly have given me. I understand its because this is a vague topic, but it was entirely devoid of substance.

What is content complete? Is it what the developer says it is? This is why I don't like the word "entitled" or "entitlement" because people shift it to one direction or the other. Whichever direction they agree with is the correct one.

If I made a city builder game with a single building and a road. Would that be a content complete game? Yes, if that was what I set out to do.

But we should encourage people to ask more of their developers, to challenge people. Not to just eat up any half assed money grab. And I do strongly think there is a difference between running a business to make money and shamelessly trying to milk people for money.

Valve makes money hand over fist, as do a few indie companies, and each of them do it in a way that is largely positive. A company like EA can be a monolith, they can buy up competition and abuse laws to make competition difficult or impossible, they can but that doesn't mean they should and it doesn't mean people should support them.

That latter part is not directed at you since you seem to get it, but that's where I sit with these discussions.

If people continue to let business be this heartless creature that happily preys on the consumer the worse it will get. We should expect the highest caliber of person in the companies we support and anything less is foolish and deserves to be punished (which, luckily [for companies], it always is,).

 

[Therumancer]

[
I do disagree with with you on the hiding information.

It is quite literally impossible to do so after the internet. Back in the NES era you could get away with it because the only referent point you would have would be the pictures on the Box. Now the game store attendant is the least reliable source of info available.

I am going bring out ME3 here as an example because it is the latest example people losing their shit.
There was an extensive demo as well as a ton of press releases telling you what you bought. There was drawn clear lines what content you got extra from buying specific versions. With the invention of the internet there is no excuse not knowing what you are paying for.

If you are going to say
"the gaming industry infamously keeping it's cards close to it's chest, or deliberatly lying about it's products."
you are going to provide me with an example. Preferably one where they got away with it.

There are numerous examples, one recent one is "Street Fighter X Tekken" where the DLC being on the disc as opposed to new character they were considering adding later was not something that was widely known before release. The same can be said of say "Marvel Ultimate Alliace 2" where as many people pointed out the screen shots and even some of the gameplay trailers did not match the actual product they released.

The thing is also that saying something on The Internet does not mean that the information is actually disseminated to the general public. Someone who frequents a site like "The Escapist" or even "Gamefaqs" is by definition abnormal compared to the majority of the gaming public, many of whom are people who do not follow games and their development and buy them entirely on a whim or based on the most widely availible information. As you can tell just from The Escapist forums, Gamestop employees are wrong as much (or more) than they are right, in part because they tend to release whatever information the company tells them to in order to move products.

With "Mass Effect 3" there is an example of them lying in the form of the ending, given that the developers clearly said things like "this is not an A B or C ending" and then that's what we got, as planned out by other developers who were outed in other interviews that were only availible for pay after the game's release.

See, a crucial point here is also what DLC is as well. For example the ME3 DLC was a fairly crucial part of the storyline, as a lot of people pointed out. Something they took out of the game in order to pressure people to pay even more money, due to the fact that it was a fairly crucial part of the game's lore and storyline.

All excuses aside, if "DLC" is availible at launch, or is based on assets included on the disc, it's by definition not working against the initial premise of DLC which was to expand games later on, after launch, with new content.

Half the time the game industry doesn't even bother to justify itself, which makes my point for me. For example Capcom has been taking the tact that "the game still presents a huge value in what you get for the initial sale price" totally sidestepping the issue, the intent of DLC, and similar things. It's an example of companies basically treating customers like junkies saying "deal with the gouging, or go without", that's wrong on a lot of levels (including on the original promises made abotu what DLC would be to get it to this point), but also a bad movie because gamers aren't literally junkies, we like gaming enough where we'll do a lot to continue it, but with this pushing eventually gamers WILL decide to go without, and by definition it's not going to be a temporary thing the industy can just wait through and get back to business as usual, it's going to cause another video game crash... one of the causes of the 80s video game crash was the industry producing what amounted to a sh@t product at a premium price, and while not identical this is similar as the cost of games including all the microtransations is getting to the point where it's increasingly not worth it. Some games approaching or exceeding the $100 mark to have all the content availible at launch, not counting store exclusive bonuses.

 

[Therumancer]

-snip-

Here you are blurring the point again. ME3 ending has nothing to do with dlc.

Not only is the game perfectly enjoyable without "from ashes" you were also told what you got in great detail. Dont dodge that.

You said "examples of when they lied, or did not properly present the truth" the ME3 ending is an example of dishonesty in the industry. It was also just a reinforcing point, I ALSO mentioned "Capcom X Tekken" which has caused a LOT of contreversy when the planned DLC content was shown to actually already have been created and put on the disc for launch.

I'm also not dodging the point of "From the Ashes" whether the game can be finished or not without it, the bottom line is that Javik and his provided information fill in key backround and plot details for the game series up until this point. It's pretty obvious this was all intended to be present from the start and was removed to get more money from people, especially seeing as it was done at the time of release.

You also use "me" as an example, when really I don't work because I, just by being present on this site, represent a huge exception to the standard gamer. Most gamers do not hang out on company/industry websites, read gaming news (other than post release reviews) and hang out in places like this, which is why we do not have a daily posting population in the millions. What *I* know from careful research is not what the typical person knows, and it's ridiculous to say that before buying any product a consumer should be expected to do paranoid amounts of research.

I'll also say that in a general sense even I have been blindsided by the game industry in the past. An example would be how some MMOs pushed promises of beta access as an incentive to pre-order, printed on sales packages and everything else. To find out "details" not mentioned on the package (or referanced) you might need to find some dev annoucement hidden deep down in the game forums (and frankly, even I do not get on the forums for every planned game). This has lead to some interesting situations with devs scrambling to let tons of people into promised betas when it wasn't intended for legal reasons when enough POed people showed up and took issues with the advertising and not getting in... basically the industry promising something they didn't really expect to deliver.

Nowadays you'll notice that MMO companies have stopped doing that (mostly) though (which I mention to be fair). Fun Com is careful to say "access to beta weekends starting on May 11th" in pretty much all the releases for "the Secret World" and it's pre-order I've run accross. Oddly that contributed to my desician to pre-order it after all, as it does show that they are at least being more careful in presenting themselves than they were with "Age Of Conan" and learned from that mistake at least.

 

[Pyro Paul]

snip

Do you even understand why Capcom put on-disk DLC for Tekken X Streetfighter?

 

[Therumancer]

[
firstly.
Looked up on the tekken X streetfighter. People were informed. Clearly as well. The act that you cant see the Batteries not included isn't an excuse for ignorance.

Secondly:
That you speak for the average gamer doesn't change the fact the information is there. Not the companies fault. They did not hide it or make it unavailable.

Actually, I disagree here. It's the responsibility of the company to disseminate the information properly. If you see outcry over things like "Street Fighter X Tekken" then the company failed in it's responsibilities, probably intentionally.

This is exactly the reason why drug companies are required to list all the possible side efects along with advertising on TV and such (which has lead to much mockery). If the gaming industry continues, I imagine it's going to get hammered much the same way.

The technicality of information being availible somewhere (say in a filing cabinet in the basement of an abandoned building guarded by a tiger) does not excuse a company's behavior. At this point they can't be held legally accountable, but the backlash is understandable, and they are engaging in deception by heavily promoting certain information, but holding back information they know isn't going to work in favor of selling their product.

Also I will say that if you know contract law, which is not my area of focus, but was covered in brief as an aside when I was learning Criminal Justice, "fine print" is generally not legally binding. In fact there are actually requirements that contracts be written in a way to be easily understood by a casual reader, and provide all relevent documents and referances in an similar manner, and not be of unreasonable length. Basically in a contract dispute between you and another person, the whole thing can be tanked if the court feels the document was inherantly deceptive. Loopholes aren't quite what hollywood and popular fiction make of them, or at least not anymore. For contracts that are by definition going to have to be very complicated, notaries are usually employed, the point of which being that the notaries witness the contract, and are availible to testify as to their understanding of it should questions arise. As a result if there is a conflict between one or more parties in the contract, who is supported by more notaries (depending on how many are present) is going to be a HUGE advantage, far more important than how what the contract itself says might be interpeted. Of course there are problems with this, with people signing their own contracts acting as their own notaries, or having their secretaries registered, or whatever else, raising questions as to the impartial nature of those who notarize contracts, which is why it's usually a good idea to have your own lawyer (with notary power) and/or a paid neutral party to notarize on your behalf.

You'll notice that while there are exceptions, nowadays you don't typically see the "batteries not included" thing hidden the way it used to be, it's far more noticible, not to mention large print and illustrations oftentimes spelling out that a product needs batteries right on the packaging. Many products just toss in the batteries now as a way of avoiding the whole mess. This change is specifically because of your example, and how it eventually wound up backfiring.

Right now the gaming industry is in the unusual position of never having been challenged properly on a lot of it's more dubious practices. A lot of which probably has to do with major companies like EA paying off lawyers who are experts in that kind of law just enough to create a potential "conflict of interests" to prevent them from representing clients against them, even if they don't keep the lawyers on the payroll. I've run accross some mentions of it. Given time though I imagine it will happen, especially if it keeps pushing.

Like it or not the gaming industry IS involved in deceptive practices, whether they happen to be illegal or not. The sheer numbers of people making the complaints kind of speak for themselves (beyond anything else). As nice as it is to claim that people spontaneously rally for no reason, that's generally not true, it takes a lot to get this kind of reaction. You may not like, or agree with it, but it happens to be true.

 

[Fwee]

It's up to us as the consumers to let the companies know exactly what we expect from their products. If they keep cutting out chapters of their games to merely force another $15 out of our wallets we have to refuse to buy them.
This year will be full of DLC experiments. EA especially will be fiddling with their new titles just to see exactly what they can get away with. If enough people cave in and reward greed we'll probably have to pay extra money to play as Female Shepard in Mass Effect 4. We'll not only have to buy every squad member, but then pay for their loyalty missions as well.
Bethesda does a great job on DLC. You get an entire game right out of the box and after a couple months of fun, guess what? There's an entire new batch of fun for less than a third of what you paid for the game.

 

[Therumancer]

snip

Do you even understand why Capcom put on-disk DLC for Tekken X Streetfighter?

Oh sure, I know their excuse. The idea that if it was already on the disc it would work better, reduce loading times, and make it easier for people who don't buy the DLC to be able to play with those who haven't bought it without having to DL a compadibility pack.

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).

In the end it's all a song and a dance on the part of Capcom. The bottom line is that they realized they could charge people money for content that was on the disc, and that while people would complain, they would buy it, because they have seen consumers do it before.

It's all pretty transparent, I've read the criticisms and the defenses of them and their counter statements. The bottom line is that those characters should have been part of the initial release of the game. If later on down the road they wanted to say release R. Mika, or really any character that isn't currently in the game, and charge more money for it as an expansion developed after the game, that would be one thing, this is quite another. At least the need for compadibility downloads and such shows that they are actually developing expansions rather than trying to cut down a product to sell as much content seperatly as they think they can get away with.

 

[Therumancer]

[
I am sorry we will never see eye to eye on this.

There is only so much the company can do. Providing extensive information on what they are selling is what they are doing.

You cannot be paint them as the bad guys for you not taking an active interest in what you are paying for. Sorry. Not gonna fly.

I know what I buy. The info is available. Easily available. And rather than throwing a hissy fit when i get obvious stuff wrong I feel embarrassed as I should.

You should really cut down on your posts, because you keep going off point. How the companies is deceptive by nature isn't a good enough. Keep it on point.

That is on point, because there is a differance between information being technically availible, and readily availible. What seems to be "easy" for someone fanatically following a game for months upon months before release, is not nessicarly the case for someone who might hear about a game a few days before it's release, or only has a casual interest in the title but winds up picking it up in the end.

An industry (or even business in general) being known for deceptive practices reinforces the statements here when they follow a known pattern.

I do not agree that customers should need to be experts on every product they are going to buy before purchuse.

I also believe things like Day #1 DLC, and on the disc DLC, are inherantly wrong in of themselves before any issues of information dissemination, which is actually a side point. Which is another point we're not going to agree on.

 

[Relish in Chaos]

I?m not a fan of DLC. I just want to be able to buy a game, stick it in the slot and play it. No extra content, no bullshit hassle. I?m not fucking made of money.

 

[TorqueConverter]

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.

If you want a discussion on IP and legality then go create a thread just for that purpose. It's actually an interesting topic as it encompasses used game sales and locked content. Word of warning, bring your flame shield if you plan to tell gamers they should not be allowed to sell their games and the developers have the right to block access to content.

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'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.