Sometimes you buy a game, and there is content on the disc that you have to buy an "unlock key" to gain access to. I simply don't see why people have such a hate for this system.
Firstly, if we compare it to the other form of day-one DLC, which is simply downloading the content, then the on-disc system has 2 main advantages:
1. It takes less time to download
2. It takes up less space on your hard drive
I don't see how this is such a bad thing. Just because the information is on the disc you bought doesn't mean you are suddenly entitled to everything on it by default. You cant for example legally distribute music from a CD you bought, just because you own the physical disc doesn't mean you suddenly can do whatever you want with it because there are rules and regulations, laws and agreements.
Did people ever complain that they should suddenly be granted access to all the levels in Super Mario Bros. just because they bought the cartridge?
The thing is, people don't buy games because they have read all the guides and walkthroughs to know every nook and cranny of the game. Its not like the buyer agreed to "x amount of gameplay time" when they bought the time. Some games last just a few hours, others can last hundreds. We buy games naturally knowing that we don't know the full content of what we are getting. The fact is that people look at the content and judge that as standard.
If (hypothetically) Sonic The Hedgehog had another level after the final boss that you had to pay extra for even though it was on the cartridge, there would be an outrage:
"why are they making me pay for something that comes on the cartridge? I should get it with the rest of the game"
but as the game stands, are people complaining that there is no extra level after the final boss? No. Why? because like I said before, the range of quality/time in which games are made is so vast to begin with is that there is no real standard of how long a game has to be.
lets say "x = quality of a game when you buy it"
and "y = quality of a game as on-disc DLC"
since the range is so wide, 1 < x < 100 (arbitrary numbers to denote "quality" by the average player)
now, if "Game A" has "x = 20, y = 0" with no on-disc DLC
and, if "Game B" has "x = 22, y = 3" with y being the DLC
in that case we would have people complaining that Game B's "x" should be 25, because y should be transferred onto x.
Why?
If Game A's "x = 20" is acceptable then why isn't Game B's "x = 22" acceptable? This makes no sense at all!
Now lets say "Game C" has "x = 15, y = 5"
This means that if both games are charged for at retail at an equal standard price, this is a completely different issue. This is the issue of where the overall price of the game (x+y) is increased. And with "y" being something you download with your account, this brings in different issues. The issues that come with DLC in general, such as not being able to re-sell it and taking up harddrive space. But this issues have NOTHING to do with where the DLC actually resides.
What I am against is prices that are too high for the game, the cost of the game should be relative to "x" and the cost of DLC should be relative to "y" (maybe not in the same proportions, but still relative none the less)
TLDR Version: Cost of games and DLC should be based on much each thing is worth, not based on where the information lies
Firstly, if we compare it to the other form of day-one DLC, which is simply downloading the content, then the on-disc system has 2 main advantages:
1. It takes less time to download
2. It takes up less space on your hard drive
I don't see how this is such a bad thing. Just because the information is on the disc you bought doesn't mean you are suddenly entitled to everything on it by default. You cant for example legally distribute music from a CD you bought, just because you own the physical disc doesn't mean you suddenly can do whatever you want with it because there are rules and regulations, laws and agreements.
Did people ever complain that they should suddenly be granted access to all the levels in Super Mario Bros. just because they bought the cartridge?
The thing is, people don't buy games because they have read all the guides and walkthroughs to know every nook and cranny of the game. Its not like the buyer agreed to "x amount of gameplay time" when they bought the time. Some games last just a few hours, others can last hundreds. We buy games naturally knowing that we don't know the full content of what we are getting. The fact is that people look at the content and judge that as standard.
If (hypothetically) Sonic The Hedgehog had another level after the final boss that you had to pay extra for even though it was on the cartridge, there would be an outrage:
"why are they making me pay for something that comes on the cartridge? I should get it with the rest of the game"
but as the game stands, are people complaining that there is no extra level after the final boss? No. Why? because like I said before, the range of quality/time in which games are made is so vast to begin with is that there is no real standard of how long a game has to be.
lets say "x = quality of a game when you buy it"
and "y = quality of a game as on-disc DLC"
since the range is so wide, 1 < x < 100 (arbitrary numbers to denote "quality" by the average player)
now, if "Game A" has "x = 20, y = 0" with no on-disc DLC
and, if "Game B" has "x = 22, y = 3" with y being the DLC
in that case we would have people complaining that Game B's "x" should be 25, because y should be transferred onto x.
Why?
If Game A's "x = 20" is acceptable then why isn't Game B's "x = 22" acceptable? This makes no sense at all!
Now lets say "Game C" has "x = 15, y = 5"
This means that if both games are charged for at retail at an equal standard price, this is a completely different issue. This is the issue of where the overall price of the game (x+y) is increased. And with "y" being something you download with your account, this brings in different issues. The issues that come with DLC in general, such as not being able to re-sell it and taking up harddrive space. But this issues have NOTHING to do with where the DLC actually resides.
What I am against is prices that are too high for the game, the cost of the game should be relative to "x" and the cost of DLC should be relative to "y" (maybe not in the same proportions, but still relative none the less)
TLDR Version: Cost of games and DLC should be based on much each thing is worth, not based on where the information lies
