DLC On The Disc, What Is The Big Problem?

[Flare Phoenix]

Well people have been complaining about DLC in all forms since it pretty much started. The reason on-disc DLC is particularly derided is that it is seen as even more of a cashgrab. When you think about it, it's really the developers/publishers/whoever telling the consumers "yeah, we actually had this part finished but we know you're suckers who'll pay more for our game".

DLC that comes out a week or so later feels like something the developers didn't have time to complete, but wanted to get into the game anway. It feels like the developers went to a bit of extra effort with the game to give the best possible experience to the player.

Your examples are kind of flawed, by the way. The difference with Super Mario Brothers is you don't have to PAY to unlock the remaining levels; they are unlocked through gameplay. Also, show me a CD where you have to pay to unlock an additional song on the disc and I'll call that a valid argument. Although all you're really doing is saying people who don't like on-disc DLC condone piracy.

 

[Batou667]

I'm still bitter at Bungie for doing that to Halo Reach, I managed to play online once before they started releasing maps for it.

A bad example as I'm almost certain you CAN still play just fine without the DLC. They have dedicated playlists for people who want to use te DLC (Premium Slayer and Premium Team, or something like that), and everything else is completely DLC-free - with the exception of Firefight, where the DLC mine complex map is selected preferentially if and only if all players have the DLC. You occasionally get "reminded" to buy the DLC, and there's a flashing warning saying "you do not have recommended DLC", but the only things that are locked-off are the two Premium playlists. The vast majority of the Reach multiplayer experience is still there free to use.

 

[Velocity Eleven]

As suspected, everyone is ignoring the points I made in my initial post and jump to radical conclusions about me that just aren't true. This happens all the time, why do I even bother?

 

[rohansoldier]

I agree with the poster above that dlc included with limited editions is fine and dlc excluded from second hand purchases is ok, but not stuff that is included on the disc but blocked unless you pay extra. That is unacceptable and it is about time publishers realise that if this continues people will start to get hacked off with it.

Sure the odd one or two people not buying the game (or at least getting it preowned) won't make much difference, which is why us gamers should band together to voice our complaints to the publishers we feel they are getting too greedy, which in this case they definately are.

To the publishers: games are a luxury item, not a necessity. Eventually people will just decide not to buy if they feel they are getting ripped off. Keep your customers by giving us a better deal with your product.

 

[StarCecil]

As suspected, everyone is ignoring the points I made in my initial post and jump to radical conclusions about me that just aren't true. This happens all the time, why do I even bother?

Well, put simply, your original point is flawed. It isn't a mathematical equation because it's a matter of principle and precedent. Not only does accepting the on-disc DLC create a dangerous precedent for the future, but it's a very blatant case of corporate greed. What else is it besides double-dipping? I paid for something - nay, I bought something, a disc! And now I'm being told in order to use this item I bought to its fullest I have to pay again.

That's bullshit, no matter how good the game is, even if I don't want the damn DLC!

To turn it around, what's the justification for charging me for on-disc DLC?

 

[Flare Phoenix]

As suspected, everyone is ignoring the points I made in my initial post and jump to radical conclusions about me that just aren't true. This happens all the time, why do I even bother?

Actually you're ignoring the points other people have made and jumping to radical conclusions that are false. Seriously, I'm starting to get annoyed by the people who come on here with some idea they've spent five minutes thinking of, and having a temper-tantrum when people don't immediately recognize their greatness.

Most of the posts on here have actually made some very good points, and the only reason you're complaining is they counter your arguments. This is a forum for discussion. Were you really so arrogant to think you wouldn't get people with different opinions to yours?

Face it: your arguments were flawed at best. Pretty much none of them have anything to do with the point you were trying to make. I hate to tell you but it doesn't matter if you have the best point out there if you can't argue it properly (oh, another tip, bitching at people when they don't instantly agree with you doesn't help either).

 

[Velocity Eleven]

As suspected, everyone is ignoring the points I made in my initial post and jump to radical conclusions about me that just aren't true. This happens all the time, why do I even bother?

Well, put simply, your original point is flawed. It isn't a mathematical equation because it's a matter of principle and precedent. Not only does accepting the on-disc DLC create a dangerous precedent for the future, but it's a very blatant case of corporate greed. What else is it besides double-dipping? I paid for something - nay, I bought something, a disc! And now I'm being told in order to use this item I bought to its fullest I have to pay again.

That's bullshit, no matter how good the game is, even if I don't want the damn DLC!

To turn it around, what's the justification for charging me for on-disc DLC?

I dont think most games are worth their retail price even including the DLC. I dont think there is justification for the overall price of games that are being sold these days, regardless of where or when you get it.

 

[Velocity Eleven]

Were you really so arrogant to think you wouldn't get people with different opinions to yours?

I was expecting around 97% disagreement because thats what I usually tend to get, though this figure will have an error margin as I have not studied the averages

 

[StarCecil]

As suspected, everyone is ignoring the points I made in my initial post and jump to radical conclusions about me that just aren't true. This happens all the time, why do I even bother?

Well, put simply, your original point is flawed. It isn't a mathematical equation because it's a matter of principle and precedent. Not only does accepting the on-disc DLC create a dangerous precedent for the future, but it's a very blatant case of corporate greed. What else is it besides double-dipping? I paid for something - nay, I bought something, a disc! And now I'm being told in order to use this item I bought to its fullest I have to pay again.

That's bullshit, no matter how good the game is, even if I don't want the damn DLC!

To turn it around, what's the justification for charging me for on-disc DLC?

I dont think most games are worth their retail price even including the DLC. I dont think there is justification for the overall price of games that are being sold these days, regardless of where or when you get it.

That's a completely separate issue. If you're arguing against people being anti-disc-DLC, then give a compelling reason why on-disc DLC is not wrong. Otherwise, you have to admit that it is a pretty shady way of making a deal.

 

[Velocity Eleven]

As suspected, everyone is ignoring the points I made in my initial post and jump to radical conclusions about me that just aren't true. This happens all the time, why do I even bother?

Well, put simply, your original point is flawed. It isn't a mathematical equation because it's a matter of principle and precedent. Not only does accepting the on-disc DLC create a dangerous precedent for the future, but it's a very blatant case of corporate greed. What else is it besides double-dipping? I paid for something - nay, I bought something, a disc! And now I'm being told in order to use this item I bought to its fullest I have to pay again.

That's bullshit, no matter how good the game is, even if I don't want the damn DLC!

To turn it around, what's the justification for charging me for on-disc DLC?

I dont think most games are worth their retail price even including the DLC. I dont think there is justification for the overall price of games that are being sold these days, regardless of where or when you get it.

That's a completely separate issue. If you're arguing against people being anti-disc-DLC, then give a compelling reason why on-disc DLC is not wrong. Otherwise, you have to admit that it is a pretty shady way of making a deal.

i have already made the case that it is advantageous to non on-disc DLC due to the download times and the memory space requirements. I made no point of saying that DLC as a whole is good or bad

 

[StarCecil]

As suspected, everyone is ignoring the points I made in my initial post and jump to radical conclusions about me that just aren't true. This happens all the time, why do I even bother?

Well, put simply, your original point is flawed. It isn't a mathematical equation because it's a matter of principle and precedent. Not only does accepting the on-disc DLC create a dangerous precedent for the future, but it's a very blatant case of corporate greed. What else is it besides double-dipping? I paid for something - nay, I bought something, a disc! And now I'm being told in order to use this item I bought to its fullest I have to pay again.

That's bullshit, no matter how good the game is, even if I don't want the damn DLC!

To turn it around, what's the justification for charging me for on-disc DLC?

I dont think most games are worth their retail price even including the DLC. I dont think there is justification for the overall price of games that are being sold these days, regardless of where or when you get it.

That's a completely separate issue. If you're arguing against people being anti-disc-DLC, then give a compelling reason why on-disc DLC is not wrong. Otherwise, you have to admit that it is a pretty shady way of making a deal.

i have already made the case that it is advantageous to non on-disc DLC due to the download times and the memory space requirements. I made no point of saying that DLC as a whole is good or bad

The question wasn't whether or not DLC is good or bad, it's why should I not be pissed about on-disc DLC. Space and memory requirements are dubious because there's still the problem - the main conflict, mind you - that the content was already there and had no good reason for not being mine to begin with.

 

[Something Amyss]

Well people have been complaining about DLC in all forms since it pretty much started. The reason on-disc DLC is particularly derided is that it is seen as even more of a cashgrab. When you think about it, it's really the developers/publishers/whoever telling the consumers "yeah, we actually had this part finished but we know you're suckers who'll pay more for our game".

Indeed, O'Neill.

Even with downloadable Day 1 DLC, there remains the possibility they kept working on it after the disc went gold.

By necessity, any DLC that's on-disc had to have been prepared and determined as DLC prior to the disc going gold. If that wasn't true, it wouldn't be on the disc. It literally could not be.

It also kind of irks me that games I'm paying for have had resources diverted away from the title, often sans transparency. This is particularly bothersome when the game itself has major, noteworthy flaws. It's like, the time that could have been spent making the game functional went to a cash grab that's locked away on the disc.

 

[Velocity Eleven]

As suspected, everyone is ignoring the points I made in my initial post and jump to radical conclusions about me that just aren't true. This happens all the time, why do I even bother?

Well, put simply, your original point is flawed. It isn't a mathematical equation because it's a matter of principle and precedent. Not only does accepting the on-disc DLC create a dangerous precedent for the future, but it's a very blatant case of corporate greed. What else is it besides double-dipping? I paid for something - nay, I bought something, a disc! And now I'm being told in order to use this item I bought to its fullest I have to pay again.

That's bullshit, no matter how good the game is, even if I don't want the damn DLC!

To turn it around, what's the justification for charging me for on-disc DLC?

I dont think most games are worth their retail price even including the DLC. I dont think there is justification for the overall price of games that are being sold these days, regardless of where or when you get it.

That's a completely separate issue. If you're arguing against people being anti-disc-DLC, then give a compelling reason why on-disc DLC is not wrong. Otherwise, you have to admit that it is a pretty shady way of making a deal.

i have already made the case that it is advantageous to non on-disc DLC due to the download times and the memory space requirements. I made no point of saying that DLC as a whole is good or bad

The question wasn't whether or not DLC is good or bad, it's why should I not be pissed about on-disc DLC. Space and memory requirements are dubious because there's still the problem - the main conflict, mind you - that the content was already there and had no good reason for not being mine to begin with.

so then I ask you this question, for what reason would you prefer that DLC to be off the disc rather than on?

 

[Smooth Operator]

Sneaky extra cost on your games, well why would anything be wrong with that.

You people must be working at the ministry of silliness

 

[Velocity Eleven]

Sneaky extra cost on your games, well why would anything be wrong with that.

You people must be working at the ministry of silliness

exactly my point, complaints should be directed at value per cost and the honesty of the developers. Glad somebody gets it

 

[Michael Hirst]

It's the idea that you've bought a product that's had content resricted from you even though you already have the physical storage of that content.

Personally provided that the content isn't significant, character skins, joke weapons etc then it's not bad to put extras on the disc, day 1 dlc is the wrong name for it. The stuff is a pre-order bonus, people rewarding their earliest customers who have put their money and faith into a game being rewarded with some extra but not important goodies.

See Saints Row 3 pre order bonus for a good example of this. None of the items in it make the game unplayable without them and indeed they're not even the most powerful/potent items in the game but they look like a bit of fun and it's a nice pat on the back to the new buyers as opposed to the draconic use of always on DRM and online passes to bully people who spent good money on the game (I know this point was made in the Jimquisition but it's a fucking good point)

Resident Evil 5 is the only game I've known that you had to pay for the on disc material instead of receiving it as a pre-order bonus and it was shite anyway, Capcom dropped the ball on this one but I don't know if anyone noticed but Capcom aren't exactly doing much good these days with ANYTHING (Dead Rising 2 being the exception)

OT: It's the pricing of general DLC that irratates me, best example is Killzone or Call of Duty Map packs, were someone to care enough to buy all the maps they would have spent about the same price as a full bloody game which is just stupid. 2 maps are not worth £5 and 4 maps are definitely not worth £12-15.

That said some devs make good DLC that is worth its money see both Fallout 3 and New Vegas, you get a significant playtime out of the DLC packs and they feel like a real addition to the game instead of a mandatory cash grab.

 

[StarCecil]

As suspected, everyone is ignoring the points I made in my initial post and jump to radical conclusions about me that just aren't true. This happens all the time, why do I even bother?

Well, put simply, your original point is flawed. It isn't a mathematical equation because it's a matter of principle and precedent. Not only does accepting the on-disc DLC create a dangerous precedent for the future, but it's a very blatant case of corporate greed. What else is it besides double-dipping? I paid for something - nay, I bought something, a disc! And now I'm being told in order to use this item I bought to its fullest I have to pay again.

That's bullshit, no matter how good the game is, even if I don't want the damn DLC!

To turn it around, what's the justification for charging me for on-disc DLC?

I dont think most games are worth their retail price even including the DLC. I dont think there is justification for the overall price of games that are being sold these days, regardless of where or when you get it.

That's a completely separate issue. If you're arguing against people being anti-disc-DLC, then give a compelling reason why on-disc DLC is not wrong. Otherwise, you have to admit that it is a pretty shady way of making a deal.

i have already made the case that it is advantageous to non on-disc DLC due to the download times and the memory space requirements. I made no point of saying that DLC as a whole is good or bad

The question wasn't whether or not DLC is good or bad, it's why should I not be pissed about on-disc DLC. Space and memory requirements are dubious because there's still the problem - the main conflict, mind you - that the content was already there and had no good reason for not being mine to begin with.

so then I ask you this question, for what reason would you prefer that DLC to be off the disc rather than on?

To be clear, I prefer the DLC to be something made after the game's release - that is, created after the game was in a finished state - to add onto or enhance the experience. Take, for instance, the DLCs for New Vegas that each add self-contained storylines and extras for the game as well as creating a story arc that can be followed through them, if desired, but only requires one specific DLC to be "really" played.

On-disc DLC, however, is content that was on the disc and specifically sectioned off by the developer so they could charge for it later.

Downloaded DLC can still be bullshit, but that's a subject separate from this debate.

 

[Velocity Eleven]

OT: It's the pricing of general DLC that irratates me, best example is Killzone or Call of Duty Map packs, were someone to care enough to buy all the maps they would have spent about the same price as a full bloody game which is just stupid. 2 maps are not worth £5 and 4 maps are definitely not worth £12-15.

I completely agree, most DLC is a total rip-off

As suspected, everyone is ignoring the points I made in my initial post and jump to radical conclusions about me that just aren't true. This happens all the time, why do I even bother?

Well, put simply, your original point is flawed. It isn't a mathematical equation because it's a matter of principle and precedent. Not only does accepting the on-disc DLC create a dangerous precedent for the future, but it's a very blatant case of corporate greed. What else is it besides double-dipping? I paid for something - nay, I bought something, a disc! And now I'm being told in order to use this item I bought to its fullest I have to pay again.

That's bullshit, no matter how good the game is, even if I don't want the damn DLC!

To turn it around, what's the justification for charging me for on-disc DLC?

I dont think most games are worth their retail price even including the DLC. I dont think there is justification for the overall price of games that are being sold these days, regardless of where or when you get it.

That's a completely separate issue. If you're arguing against people being anti-disc-DLC, then give a compelling reason why on-disc DLC is not wrong. Otherwise, you have to admit that it is a pretty shady way of making a deal.

i have already made the case that it is advantageous to non on-disc DLC due to the download times and the memory space requirements. I made no point of saying that DLC as a whole is good or bad

The question wasn't whether or not DLC is good or bad, it's why should I not be pissed about on-disc DLC. Space and memory requirements are dubious because there's still the problem - the main conflict, mind you - that the content was already there and had no good reason for not being mine to begin with.

so then I ask you this question, for what reason would you prefer that DLC to be off the disc rather than on?

To be clear, I prefer the DLC to be something made after the game's release - that is, created after the game was in a finished state - to add onto or enhance the experience. Take, for instance, the DLCs for New Vegas that each add self-contained storylines and extras for the game as well as creating a story arc that can be followed through them, if desired, but only requires one specific DLC to be "really" played.

On-disc DLC, however, is content that was on the disc and specifically sectioned off by the developer so they could charge for it later.

Downloaded DLC can still be bullshit, but that's a subject separate from this debate.

so, just to make this clear for me, in your examples what are the values of x and y?

 

[Velocity Eleven]

See Saints Row 3 pre order bonus for a good example of this. None of the items in it make the game unplayable without them and indeed they're not even the most powerful/potent items in the game but they look like a bit of fun and it's a nice pat on the back to the new buyers as opposed to the draconic use of always on DRM and online passes to bully people who spent good money on the game (I know this point was made in the Jimquisition but it's a fucking good point)

I cant see any difference between "rewarding for buying new" and "punishing for buying used"