DLC On The Disc, What Is The Big Problem?

[Avalanche91]

Games certainly are a special medium when it comes to this matter.

When you buy a movie or a cd there isn't any content on it that needs to be unlocked by spending more money then necesary. And comparisons probably won't hold up as well so let's try to keep it short.

The way I see it, when you pay for a game you essentially pay for a cd of data. You own the cd, its all yours, but in the case of dlc-on-disc, you do not own all the data. It's being dangled in front of you like a carrot and you have to buy a key to unlock data on the CD you already own. What's worse, in a lot of cases, the prize for unlocking said dlc is too damn high.

Gamers are probably the only demographic that are being milked for every penny like this. And when paying good money for DLC that just isn't worth it, or is already on the game you bought just makes people that much bitter about it.

 

[Velocity Eleven]

Games certainly are a special medium when it comes to this matter.

When you buy a movie or a cd there isn't any content on it that needs to be unlocked by spending more money then necesary. And comparisons probably won't hold up as well so let's try to keep it short.

The way I see it, when you pay for a game you essentially pay for a cd of data. You own the cd, its all yours, but in the case of dlc-on-disc, you do not own the data. You have to buy a key to unlock data on the CD you already own. What's worse, in a lot of cases, the prize is too damn high.

Gamers are probably the only demographic that are being milked for every penny like this. And when paying good money for DLC that just isn't worth it, or is already on the game you bought just adds insult to injury.

I find movies and CDs to be annoying in this case as they later release "special editions" with extra scenes or tracks. Punishing those who buy early

 

[JochemDude]

You have the cookie, though you can't eat it.
[HEADING=1]That's what's wrong with it![/HEADING]

 

[Denamic]

If I buy Half-Life, I don't want to pay extra to use the crowbar.

 

[Velocity Eleven]

If I buy Half-Life, I don't want to pay extra to use the crowbar.

nobody wants to pay money

 

[ultimateownage]

The whole idea of DLC is that it's DOWNLOADABLE content, which has been made after the game to sell as extras to fans of the game. Day 1 DLC is bearable, because it was all made after the game went gold at least. It being on the disc is different, it was made well before the game went gold and is literally part of the game itself. You just don't get it until you buy a key from them to unlock it.

You'd be pretty pissed if you bought a cupboard, and then it was sent to you with the bottom parts padlocked until you gave them more money.

 

[Velocity Eleven]

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?

is somebody going to answer this?

 

[Vibhor]

Oh look, this thread again.
We all know how would this go.
Op posts something controversial and mildly idiotic
Other people post why OP is wrong and shit
OP is in denial and misses the whole point of everyone's posts.
This type of thing continues for 6 pages before OP gets bored of seeing those new inbox messages.

 

[Velocity Eleven]

so nobody believes that 22 > 20?

 

[Thyunda]

Games certainly are a special medium when it comes to this matter.

When you buy a movie or a cd there isn't any content on it that needs to be unlocked by spending more money then necesary. And comparisons probably won't hold up as well so let's try to keep it short.

The way I see it, when you pay for a game you essentially pay for a cd of data. You own the cd, its all yours, but in the case of dlc-on-disc, you do not own the data. You have to buy a key to unlock data on the CD you already own. What's worse, in a lot of cases, the prize is too damn high.

Gamers are probably the only demographic that are being milked for every penny like this. And when paying good money for DLC that just isn't worth it, or is already on the game you bought just adds insult to injury.

No, that's not how it works.

Let me tell you what you're saying in movie terms.

"Wait, they shot a scene and didn't put it in the movie that they showed on theaters? And then they're going to put it in the DVD and sell that to me as an extra? OUTRAGEOUS!"

The problem with this is that people don't know how games are made and have this stupid notion that there is a "resources" bar on game development that crunches out levels like Starcraft units, so DLC would be tacked on to the game had it not been sold separately or the multiplayer mode would have magically transmogrified into more or better single player content. Which, yeah, is not how games are budgeted, produced, coded or made in any way, shape or form.

In other words, it's the Internet whining about stuff they don't know about. Shocking, I know.

No, that's totally different. You paid for a ticket to see the film put together for the cinema. When you buy the DVD, you're entitled to view the deleted scenes and the interviews and everything else. Would you feel the same if you clicked 'Extras' on the menu and got told to enter a prepaid code to redeem these features? Hell no.

The whole problem with this is that the DLC is ON THE DISC. It's actually being withheld. Actual DLC is different. Even if the DLC is released the day after the game is launched, it still has to be downloaded separately. It's not sitting there, on the disc you paid full price for, leering at you.
Yes. We are entitled to that data. It's on the disc we paid for. At which point did we start paying £50 for 75% of a game? If I buy a disc, I want 100% of its contents. If I bought a bag of mints, I'd want 100% of the mints, so why am I in the wrong for wanting all the stuff I paid for? The developer has no reason for keeping it out of my hands. It's already on the disc. It's already finished. You haven't developed anything extra to deserve my money. You've just put a padlock on it. That's not effort. That's bullshit.

 

[Thyunda]

so nobody believes that 22 > 20?

I'm sorry?

 

[Velocity Eleven]

so nobody believes that 22 > 20?

I'm sorry?

I'm asking if anybody believes that 22 > 20?

 

[Thyunda]

so nobody believes that 22 > 20?

I'm sorry?

I'm asking if anybody believes that 22 > 20?

Yes, I saw that. I don't understand its relevance.

 

[Vibhor]

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?

is somebody going to answer this?

Okay I am gonna answer this bullshit question
Firstly, this isn't realistic. You cannot judge the quality of content for a video game like this. People rate a video game based on many factors. If you count production values as quality then it doesn't mean that a game with little to no production value sucks(Look at STALKER) and if you rate a game on fun you had then guess what? Fun is subjective and doesn't really is the same for everyone(MMOs,RTS,FPS etc.). Even if the game is not fun then it still can be good or innovative(SOTC,Ico,Thief to name a few).
Secondly, there is no game with worthwhile on disc content. And even if it is worthwhile then it is overpriced. Honestly, name one game with great on disc content. Also, if the game B has the quality of "22" then it is given that it would be liked much more. The only thing that would give a problem would be the business practices of the developers.
Thirdly, Charging for content that didn't make it to the final version of the game is just plain wrong. If it was supposed to be in the game then why the fuck are you selling it differently, OR even if the content was cut then why wasn't the price cut? Why are they charging full for a game with less content than they wanted. If they managed to complete the content and add it to disk then why the fuck can't they make it available to all? Its not like that is going to cost them extra work.

 

[Richardplex]

Day 1 DLC that is free to people who buy it new is fine. Day one DLC that everyone needs to pay for, I'll go grab my pitchfork and join the mob. If it's on the disk, then that makes my life easier.

 

[Engarde]

I feel somewhat afraid to say this, but... I never really felt like I bought a disc, I own the disc, I own all of the content. I felt it in a more metaphysical way, I bought access to nice things that happen to live as part of a disc which is nothing more than a means of transport. I guess there are two ways of looking at it.

On one hand, as the majority feels about this, you go buy a car but the salesperson says "Ah ah ah, you cannot use the radio yet, that costs a bit more. Pay up if you want it, until then, it is waiting for you..."

On the other hand, closer to what I feel, you go buy a car and the salesperson says "Hey, since you got a new car, we have cushy seat covers or a different paint job, are you interested in any of that?"

And of course if I do want those cushy seat covers it's much nicer to have them at the same place I have my car rather than wait a day for delivery, no?

 

[Dr Jones]

Fucking disgrace of an idea, and shame on you OP for defending them. There is no noble intent behind content locked on the disc. There is no concern for what gives the gamer a better experience. They are doing it simply because they can get away with it, and it makes them more money. It doesn't matter to them that more people than ever now simply don't have the money to spend on stuff already on the disc.

If you're defending this, then you're defending your own right to bent over and rammed up the arse by publishers. You may enjoy being shafted like that, but I would like to keep some dignity while playing my games.

I'm careful with my money, if I dont think something's worth buying then I wont bother, and I dont believe that paying £40/$60 for a game is justified 99% of the time... I buy maybe one or two full-priced games a year. Most games I buy for less than £10, I don't call that being bent over and rammed up the arse by publishers, I call it being sensible and realistic.

So you really don't want all of the game you buy for 60 dollars? You'd rather pay 10 extra dollars to unlock it? What is the sense in that?