DLC On The Disc, What Is The Big Problem?

[Vibhor]

I just dont get why you would prefer having to download 2gb rather than 2kb for the same result

How about not having to download anything at all?

 

[Velocity Eleven]

I just dont get why you would prefer having to download 2gb rather than 2kb for the same result

How about not having to download anything at all?

who doesn't love free stuff?

 

[Omey]

Ok. So far most of the people here disagree with the original poster and think DLC on day one is evil.
Move a step forward.

What can we do to discourage the developers from doing stuff like that? Should we boycott such attempts? Amazon-bomb them? Is there some kind of law that can stop this kind of bullshit?

One way I see is that this should violate some kind of "hiding info from the customer" law. I don't know what they are called. If the distributor explicitly promises the whole game on the box but withholds information about inaccessible areas or hidden content in the promised game, I'm sure that should violate some kind of consumer law somewhere. However I guess in the above scenario they will pass the buck back on to the consumer claiming "you didnt read the fine print" or blame us for not knowing or inquiring about it when we bought the game.You know...Like any other consumer product.The kind when you find out you have to pay the company a annual maintenance contract for some device you bought-a fee that was nowhere mentioned in the million times you talked with the salesman about the product

Letting the developers know this shit wont fly should be our responsibility. And being fully aware what we are getting into before buying our game is also our responsibility. Some people may think its okay to have on disc content, but others should let the developer have a piece of their minds.

 

[Sixties Spidey]

We paid 60 fucking dollars for the game. We are entitled to EVERY piece of content that is stored on the disk, and asking us to pony up more is simply put, extortion.

 

[Enslave_All_Elves]

I swear to god every single time I see someone use the word "entitled" these days I want to kick their heads in. You know what? Ultimately nobody is entitled to anything at all. Not air, not water, not shelter, not safety, not clothing. Nature didn't give you any fucking rights, it said, "Try not to die before you spit out a baby." My issue is that other people seem to feel that they are the sole arbiters of what others deserve.

I wouldn't have an issue if I wasn't paying high prices for every damn thing I want to play. I'm in school, I can only work part time, and while I have gotten a small raise my pay still sucks.

On top of all that I have more important costs every week to worry about. Gas to drive to school (I drive for 40 minutes to school, and for 40+ back), I have car payments, car insurance, and food to worry about. What I make barely leaves anything to spare on games.

Is it too much to ask that in the spare time I do have I'm not having to sell organs on the black market to afford as innocuous a hobby as video games? I think not. If I were being nickel and dimed that would be fine, but I'm being sixty-dollared and fifteen-dollared. I already brought the fucking shit home with me.

What comes next? Pay 5 dollars to unlock your controller? Put a fucking check in the reader on your console?

News flash: The economy is shit. Lower your fucking prices on DLC at least. You might not have an issue screwing people out of their money but all the same I have no issue doing my part in making these tits unemployed. And for Christ's sake, if you're going to charge me 60 bucks then make more than 6 hours of gameplay. I wasn't aware buying a product was a form of nerd gambling.

 

[Apocalypse0Child]

I always compare DLCs with oldskool Expansions. If the DLC truly expands the core of an already robust game, it's a win/win scenario: I want more of that game, you give me more of that game.

However, I never purchase:

- single characters in fighting games (specially since most are priced 5$ a pop, which is ludicrous)

- Modes (unless it is something really revolutionary and a real addition to the game). 10 bucks for online multiplayer? Dream on, developer.

- Things that should obviously be part of the core game.

Games are being released more and more half-assed because the collective consumer is willing to keep on paying and being ripped off. A sad state of affairs.

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.

Reading both of those just gave me an idea, which nobody will probably care about, but hey, it's the internet.

What if the DLC was available to buy when you got the game if you wanted to use the 'extras' from the get go, but available as unlocks for the people who liked challenges/didn't want to pay because it's a blatant rip off?
I think that would be a good idea, they still get their extra money from approx 70% (I'd guess) of their game sales, because by my estimation that's the percentage of casual/lazy gamers out there (I don't mean that offensively, I merely mean people who aren't bothered about a challenge*) and the ones of us so hung up about the extra cost can keep our pride and money by unlocking them the GOOD, old fashioned way.

 

[Dastardly]

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.

TLDR Version: Cost of games and DLC should be based on much each thing is worth, not based on where the information lies

You are quite correct in saying that people will always claim that content from any kind of DLC was somehow "stolen" from the core game. If two groups are given a 100% fantastic game, and then one of those groups is given a bonus, the other group will always view it as a "penalty" of some kind on them.

That part of this whole thing has a lot to do with entitlement mentality. "If it exists, I should have it, regardless of whether I've paid for it." You can't offer anyone a bonus without someone claiming they should get it, too -- and for free! Your formulae adequately illustrate the problem.

However, I will say that on-disk DLC is a problem for people for several very legitimate reasons:

1. Part of the pricing model as we've currently "accepted" it includes things like packaging, distribution, etc. That's why it's somewhat puzzling that digital downloads cost the same as boxed copies(though there are reasonable explanations for this, at least for games that exist in both forms). But on-disk DLC? There is no need to package or ship it, yet it's nearly always priced the same as other content. They're simply charging that because it's what people are "used" to.

2. Day One DLC makes sense because some content begins development after the core game is finished, but before it is released. If it finishes around release time, they can put it out there... but it would be too costly and time-consuming to add it to the original disk. If this content is on the disk, it's evidence that this content was actually completed in time for release. That gives people a more legitimate perception that this was supposed to be in the game, but was removed to be sold separately.

3. Sometimes, it's more what the content is than anything. A few extra costumes? Cool. An entire game mode? Not as cool. No company anywhere should ever gate multiplayer, I'll tell you that. In multiplayer gaming, players are content. You want as many people filling those servers as possible, even if it means giving away multiplayer for free. Otherwise, you end up with ghost town servers--no one wants to spend 20 minutes waiting to play a game, especially if a round only lasts a few minutes or something.

Really, this on-disk DLC is exactly what companies could use to compete with used sales. Give new boxes an unlock code so that new buyers get this extra content included in the purchase price of the game. Then, your used buyers have the option of throwing down $5-$10 to get that bonus, if they want to.

While there is nothing illegal, unethical, or immoral about on-disk DLC, it does tend to reinforce the appearance of nickel-and-diming your loyal customers -- the ones that bought early and bought new. Even the vague appearance of that kind of business model is enough to send people elsewhere, so it's just plain good business for folks to avoid using it.

 

[direkiller]

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?

its too hypothetical to answer
you pulled numbers out of your ass and expect people to justfy numbers you littlerly made up on the spot

However
There are 2 types of Day 1 DLC/on disk DLC

1. Used to combat used game sales involve typing in a 1 time use code. This just flat out tells the customer yes you bought our game now prove your worth.(See a few Jim's videos for more details)

2. Content they wish to sell to everyone
There is only a certain amount of time/money you can put into a game before it launch for any given company. Day 1 DLC represents time/money devoted to ways to get more money out of customer(mostly due to clamming used games are strangling the industry as Used game buyers still tend to buy DLC). This untimely leads to unfinished and buggy games as more money/time is devoted to DLC content rather then the core game and polishing it.

 

[Mikkaddo]

the way I view it is on disc DLC IS day one DLC IS pre release unlocked DLC

The idea especially with on disc DLC being bad is this: I bought the disc, meaning I bought the right to access the data on that disc. Yet, now I'm being told that I am not allowed access to a certain part of that data THAT I ALREADY PAID FOR until I pay again . . . even though I already paid for the access TO that data. Since it's on the disc.


Now, I've always thought it would be a lot better if they took the Need for Speed plan: have amazing shit be unlockable in the game, OR you can cop out shit tons for the stuff up front. You're not paying extra for something you CANNOT ACCESS without copping out, UNLESS YOU WANT TO. If you don't want to cop out the extra cash, just play untill it's unlocked.

 

[Batou667]

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.

Are you totally sure about that? When you go into matchmaking, yeah, it flashes up a message that "you don't have the recommended DLC". But it's just a message. You can still enter matchmaking.

At least, that was the situation up to a few months ago, and if Bungie really had blocked online play to non-DLC I'd have expected a huge outcry, which I heard nothing of. Lastly, my google-fu brought up nothing.

Please, try one more time. I bet it would work.

 

[Jodah]

The only way I support On Disk DLC is if its done to entice new sales. Basically a one time code, anyone who gets the game new gets the DLC no questions asked. If you buy a preowned then its 5-10 dollars to unlock the DLC, or you can play without it.

 

[Batou667]

is somebody going to answer this?

What the flaming, flipping, flying f*ck are you banging on about? This isn't an issue that can be reduced down to a pair of numbers.

 

[demoman_chaos]

Tl;dr: Charging for on-disc DLC is phenomenally greedy and a middle-finger to the people who have just bought your game. If I had bought a game and figured out a way to unlock the on-disc DLC without paying, I'd do it in a heartbeat and then post the method online without a shred of guilt. No money-grubbing b*stard is going to dictate to me which parts of MY PROPERTY that I OWN can be used, when, and for what extra charge.

Yet another reason they killed off the Gameshark/Codebreaker/GameGenie. If those were still around, On-Disk DLC would be 100% unsuitable since the GameShark could get it for free (like with the famous Hot Coffee thing from GTA: San Andreas).

I miss the PS2. Power to do most everything you want, easy enough to develop for, cheats a plenty, games had to ship finished (unlike today where they are spit out half-arsed and then they worry about patching it after they get their money), no on disk DLC nonsense, and it didn't weigh an imperial ton.

 

[Callate]

Quite aside from ownership issues, I feel a certain concern about any game that might cease to be accessible in its original form because a server goes offline. Some of the stories on "Good Old Games" make it pretty clear that if we do view games to any degree as an art form rather than just a disposable entertainment commodity we should seriously question decisions that may mean it's impossible to install all or part of a game five years later on a different computer.

 

[FoolKiller]

I personally consider illegal. It's fraudulent and a misrepresentation. DLC stands for downloadable content. If it's on the disc then I didn't download it; I merely installed it. They should have to be upfront with what is already on the disc and what is not.

 

[blackdwarf]

it is a problem, because it is not really DLC (downloadable content). it is already on the disc. and i think the big problems is how it was in the past. first we had expansions. those were on a seperate disc and the contents were created after the release of the original game. then came DLC. it was a replacement for the disc based expansions, and because the developers were still used to exp. they created the content for DLC after the game.

now the got really low. the sell content that already on the disc is, but still call it DLC. if i pay for DLC, i pay for the work they did after the game, but now the cut a piece of the original game and sell it as DLC. i just find it a dick move. i wouldn't mind it of they weren't acting so damn proud because they have supposed DLC.