you're twisting my words, I said I dont see a difference between rewarding new buying and punishing used buyers... nothing to do with whether the content is trivial or notSovietPanda said:
DLC On The Disc, What Is The Big Problem?
- Thread starter Velocity Eleven
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Okay, let's work with models.
Price of a media product = Value of individual product at time of release
That's an optimal model. Of course, things do not work that way - never have, and never will.
The obvious reason for that is that publishers need to make a profit, which might be in excess of the value customers might see in the product but still within the range of what a customer is willing to pay. Hence:
Price of a media product = Value of individual product at time of release + Profit margin
This works under the assumption that a product includes all of its advertised components. However, with on-disc or day-one DLC, that is not the case. What is advertised, or at least implied by the customer/consumer is: "The game includes the results of ALL WORK DONE before gold master", i.e. "You pay for everything the developer has created on this project to date, plus a reasonable profit margin".
If you have day-one DLC, the customer has reason to doubt that this is the case. In fact, resources that, regardless of internal structure, belonged to the project itself in the eye of the customer, are suddenly no longer part of it. From a marketing perspective, the simple act of announcing day-one or on-disk DLC lowers the value of the original product because instead of creating new value, it takes some of its "expected value" and builds itself around it.
At this point, it does not matter if the DLC feature was part of the original feature list or not - the customer will feel that the value of their product has been decreased. Suddenly, the value has decreased, but the price remains the same.
Ultimately, what is my opinion? On-Disk DLC is sheer idiocy. Telling your customer "we could provide more value to you at the same price, but we won't" is essentially marketing suicide. I don't want my local fast food joint to put tomatoes, salad, cheese and meat on a burger, only to then take the cheese off and sell it separately. But mostly, I disagree with it because this type of marketing strategy displays a sort of arrogance and bullying behaviour in game publishers that can only hurt the industry.
Price of a media product = Value of individual product at time of release
That's an optimal model. Of course, things do not work that way - never have, and never will.
The obvious reason for that is that publishers need to make a profit, which might be in excess of the value customers might see in the product but still within the range of what a customer is willing to pay. Hence:
Price of a media product = Value of individual product at time of release + Profit margin
This works under the assumption that a product includes all of its advertised components. However, with on-disc or day-one DLC, that is not the case. What is advertised, or at least implied by the customer/consumer is: "The game includes the results of ALL WORK DONE before gold master", i.e. "You pay for everything the developer has created on this project to date, plus a reasonable profit margin".
If you have day-one DLC, the customer has reason to doubt that this is the case. In fact, resources that, regardless of internal structure, belonged to the project itself in the eye of the customer, are suddenly no longer part of it. From a marketing perspective, the simple act of announcing day-one or on-disk DLC lowers the value of the original product because instead of creating new value, it takes some of its "expected value" and builds itself around it.
At this point, it does not matter if the DLC feature was part of the original feature list or not - the customer will feel that the value of their product has been decreased. Suddenly, the value has decreased, but the price remains the same.
Ultimately, what is my opinion? On-Disk DLC is sheer idiocy. Telling your customer "we could provide more value to you at the same price, but we won't" is essentially marketing suicide. I don't want my local fast food joint to put tomatoes, salad, cheese and meat on a burger, only to then take the cheese off and sell it separately. But mostly, I disagree with it because this type of marketing strategy displays a sort of arrogance and bullying behaviour in game publishers that can only hurt the industry.
Most DLC is garbage, just plain and simple. The only good DLC I've seen for the 360 era has been from Rockstar (Episodes from Liberty City and RDR Undead Nightmare) which honestly shouldn't even count as they are more like expansions (expansion is a term being phased out except for MMO games these days).
I should not be forced to pay extra for something I already own. If it's on the disc, it should be mine. I shouldn't be made to pay again for something I already have in my position. Your CD analogy doesn't hold up. Having free access to content I already own is not the same as illegally distributing it. The analogy would be the same if I was to rip the data off the disc and put it up on a torrent site. I'm not, I just want to have what I've actually payed for. And also you analogy of unlocking levels doesn't hold either. Progression in the game is what the game is about. The enjoyment of the content of the game is done by progression through it. I actually don't oppose giving people the ability to skip content and just play the levels in a game they want, but that doesn't have anything to do with the fact that if I legally own the physical disc that physically contains the data of the content, then no-one should be allowed to charge me to access that content. It's already mine. Although on-disc DLC may perform in the same way as day 1 DLC without download times, that doesn't change the fact that they are charging you for something you already own twice. It's unfair, and unethical extortion. It should not be allowed.
Nope the only thing I can play online is firefight and Co-Op. It tells me I don't have the required maps to play any playlist in matchmaking, & I've tried them all.Batou667 said:
ITs not that its on the disc, it is that it is available from the day the game ships , ergo it should be part of the game.
DLC was made to keep replayvalue or enhance the gaming experience later. Now you get 90% of the game as it is and have to pay a second time for the complete product.
Its just ripping off people, and due to a ginormous PR campaign through the web they actually made the more gullible part of customers believe it is ok for companies to cash in twice. just like they made them believe the project 10 dollars is right.
its like buying a book and having to pay 5 dollars so the last chapter appears on the pages.
it was there when they released, so its not extra content.That is pretty much the reason why the last major company game i bought was SC2 and i doubt that there will be another, i've had enough with this behaviour. I stick to indies and my collected oldies now.
DLC was made to keep replayvalue or enhance the gaming experience later. Now you get 90% of the game as it is and have to pay a second time for the complete product.
Its just ripping off people, and due to a ginormous PR campaign through the web they actually made the more gullible part of customers believe it is ok for companies to cash in twice. just like they made them believe the project 10 dollars is right.
its like buying a book and having to pay 5 dollars so the last chapter appears on the pages.
it was there when they released, so its not extra content.That is pretty much the reason why the last major company game i bought was SC2 and i doubt that there will be another, i've had enough with this behaviour. I stick to indies and my collected oldies now.
I didn't mean to twist you words and if you read it that way i apologise. All i was trying to do was show how rewarding new purchases rather then punishing used buyers is going to be recieved better by the client base as a whole. In the long run offering the carrot rather then threatening the stick is going to be more effetive and engender greater good will and loyalty towards publishers and developers. The mention of triviality was not in refference or argument but to make clear my own personal stand on this issue that is that such extra's should not greatly alter gameplay. But rather add novelty or fanservice value.Velocity Eleven said:
I think it more stems from the fact that it's on the disc that you paid for so to have that content locked and making you pay more money to use it is bullshit.
Old argument I know but so is the topic, it's like you buying a car that has fully functioning, handbrake, mirrors, whatever you want to use here but you have to pay extra to use them.
How about a house you buy a house but have to pay extra to use the bathroom....
See where it's going?
Just to note I'm ok paying for DLC if it's released a reasonable time in the future.
Again I liken it to my above examples.
If I buy a car everything that comes on the car I bought work from day 1 but if I want to upgrade it....say new wheels, etc I have to pay extra.
New house? I can use everything as soon as I buy it, if I want to upgrade it later...new cooker or whatever then I pay extra.
Conclusion when you buy something you should not have to pay extra to use a feature that is included in the product you bought, an upgrade or add on to that original product then fine.
Old argument I know but so is the topic, it's like you buying a car that has fully functioning, handbrake, mirrors, whatever you want to use here but you have to pay extra to use them.
How about a house you buy a house but have to pay extra to use the bathroom....
See where it's going?
Just to note I'm ok paying for DLC if it's released a reasonable time in the future.
Again I liken it to my above examples.
If I buy a car everything that comes on the car I bought work from day 1 but if I want to upgrade it....say new wheels, etc I have to pay extra.
New house? I can use everything as soon as I buy it, if I want to upgrade it later...new cooker or whatever then I pay extra.
Conclusion when you buy something you should not have to pay extra to use a feature that is included in the product you bought, an upgrade or add on to that original product then fine.
I lost faith in humanity a long time ago. People paying far too much for their games has been a big trigger for thisDaHero said:
"Ok, so, here's your new car. Only you can't use the back seats."
"What? Why not? The seats are there, and I paid full price for the car!"
"Yeah, well, we ship the cars with all of the components, but you can't use all of them without paying extra."
Does that sound like a reasonable idea? How about buying a DVD only to find there's scenes missing, or subtitles/bonus features locked. Pay extra to unlock them!
"What? Why not? The seats are there, and I paid full price for the car!"
"Yeah, well, we ship the cars with all of the components, but you can't use all of them without paying extra."
Does that sound like a reasonable idea? How about buying a DVD only to find there's scenes missing, or subtitles/bonus features locked. Pay extra to unlock them!
I dont know much about car prices, but if you tell me the costs of the DVD and those extra features I might be able to give you an answerJoshimodo said:
Velocity Eleven said:
Doesn't matter on the example. It's withholding content, which if on the disk, is part of a full-price retail purchase. If they were selling games with locked content at a reasonable percentage lower, then it'd have some justification. As it is, it's just arbitrarily locking content and (in most cases) effectively forcing purchase to experience the full product that you have already brought.
I cant make a decision on if I want to buy something or not without knowing the price.Joshimodo said: