EPIC says why they think on-disc DLC is rad

[Small Waves]

>Having to pay for content that's already on the fucking game disc
THIS IS RETARDED

 

[Grant Delmore]

I actually agree with epic on this one, they finished up early and had time to finish some planned DLC aswell before the release, so why not put it on the disk to save people bandwith?
I mean so long as it wasnt planned as game content and changed to DLC i don't see a problem.

 

[Twilight_guy]

How does anything that any developer eve dopes besides being Valve or Bethesda makes the Escapist feel? angry. Seriously, you guys. Ever damn story has people yelling. What? They do something I don't agree with RAGE! TO the point where I think the Escapist must secretly be a support group for people with anger issues that I stumbled across and never noticed (or MAYBE I'M JUST ANGRY!!!)

I don't have a problem with on-disc DLC Lots of people seem to have begun a person crusade to rid the world of the scourge of DLC. I'd rather just program games for the art like the dirty hipster I am and let publishers and management hash out the issues of industry monies.

 

[Sixties Spidey]

It's still on the disc. You're still charging us. You're still trying to justify it by saying it will splinter your player base even when that's already happening to begin with. Conclusion: You're all assholes Epic. I hope that makes you feel better while I get the content from someone else's console.

 

[Zhukov]

*shrug*

I don't understand the rage over on-disc DLC. You're still paying X amount for Y content.

 

[Thaluikhain]

*shrug*

I don't understand the rage over on-disc DLC. You're still paying X amount for Y content.

Exactly...it's a new way of doing it, yeah, but I don't see the issue.

If nothing else, you can always buy games that don't do this, the existence of those others isn't harming the children, inciting hatred, offensive to your country or any of the other usual complaints.

 

[Batou667]

I remember the last time the issue of on-disc DLC came up, I strongly (and angrily) argued against it. I reasoned that it was a shameless and cynical practice, since it was't so much providing EXTRA content for a fee, but WITHHOLDING existing content until gamers coughed up ransom money to be allowed to play 100% of the game they had already paid full retail price for.

And I stand by that, but I feel distinctly torn because I just paid for, and am enjoying, the most recent Gears 3 DLC (which is on-disk).

I absolutely hate to side with the (evil, cynical, profiteering) games publishers, but when Epic says "It ensures the community isn't fractured", I must condede that they're at least partially right. The DLC has been out for a few days and already it's appearing regularly in matchmaking playlists, I'm running around with my gratuitiously blingy plasma-skinned Retro Lancer, and I'm happy as pie.

Compare this to the situation in Halo Reach, where I paid a pretty penny for both map packs, and yet I hardly ever get to play them because they're NOT part of regular matchmaking playlists. DLC-owners in Reach get a raw deal becuase they have to go to special, segregated playlists to play with a much smaller pool of players.

A thorny problem - which would of course be solved by all publishers just giving us DLC for free so everybody would be playing with the same version of the game (I'll just be running along to my gingerbread house on lollipop lane now, I hear my magic beans have sprouted).

 

[Batou667]

This is why I love Nintendo and will go with them next gen along with my PC. They don't pull this bullshit, they make a game, they playtest it and they don't hold anything back.

And then they make you pay for the exact same game in higher-definition graphics on each new generation of console.

Oh yes, I went there.

 

[aba1]

*shrug*

I don't understand the rage over on-disc DLC. You're still paying X amount for Y content.

Exactly...it's a new way of doing it, yeah, but I don't see the issue.

If nothing else, you can always buy games that don't do this, the existence of those others isn't harming the children, inciting hatred, offensive to your country or any of the other usual complaints.

but that's is just it if games that do this do well then it says that people don't care and soon every developer will do this and well be stuck paying 300$ just to get everything in a game available to us that we already would have bought with the initial $80 we spent to begin with.

 

[aba1]

This is why I love Nintendo and will go with them next gen along with my PC. They don't pull this bullshit, they make a game, they playtest it and they don't hold anything back.

And then they make you pay for the exact same game in higher-definition graphics on each new generation of console.

Oh yes, I went there.

I am not one to back Nintendo after they screwed me with the wii but while its true what you say at least they arn't double charging you for there games you get what you pay for.

 

[dyre]

Well, that changes almost nothing at all...

*shrug*

I don't understand the rage over on-disc DLC. You're still paying X amount for Y content.

Exactly...it's a new way of doing it, yeah, but I don't see the issue.

If nothing else, you can always buy games that don't do this, the existence of those others isn't harming the children, inciting hatred, offensive to your country or any of the other usual complaints.

but that's is just it if games that do this do well then it says that people don't care and soon every developer will do this and well be stuck paying 300$ just to get everything in a game available to us that we already would have bought with the initial $80 we spent to begin with.

First of all, they're talking about on-disc DLC being no different than regular DLC
Second, that's one of the more ridiculous slippery slope arguments I've heard this week. They're trying to cut into the consumer surplus, which has its limits.

 

[Irridium]

If the content is on the disk, it's not fucking downloadable content. It's content they lock away even though we've already payed for it by buying the game itself.

Why couldn't they have just made it free for everyone? You know, part of the actual game?

This isn't having to stop making it due to deadlines, and then working on it after everything with the game is all said and done, this is finishing the content before no new content can be added, and then charging for it again after we buy the game. It's COMPLETE, before any content-complete deadlines.

The fucking gall of all this is just unbelievable. They charge me $60 for the game, then ask for more money for content that's already on the disk that I already payed for.

 

[aba1]

Well, that changes almost nothing at all...

*shrug*

I don't understand the rage over on-disc DLC. You're still paying X amount for Y content.

Exactly...it's a new way of doing it, yeah, but I don't see the issue.

If nothing else, you can always buy games that don't do this, the existence of those others isn't harming the children, inciting hatred, offensive to your country or any of the other usual complaints.

but that's is just it if games that do this do well then it says that people don't care and soon every developer will do this and well be stuck paying 300$ just to get everything in a game available to us that we already would have bought with the initial $80 we spent to begin with.

First of all, they're talking about on-disc DLC being no different than regular DLC
Second, that's one of the more ridiculous slippery slope arguments I've heard this week. They're trying to cut into the consumer surplus, which has its limits.

It is a much more slippery slope than you would think I mean look at mac alone they charge almost $2500 for a laptop worth $750 tops all the time. People often just buy things because they feel like they should or because it seems like it is cool rather than buying it because they need it. My main point is that if dlc is on the disks it is clear proof that all the people arguing against dlc were right because now since dlc does so well it is no longer stuff produced after the game it is just things cut out so they can charge extra so much so they they just put it on the disk still even it just proves how fast dlc is altering the market to the place so many anti-dlc people were trying to convince people to avoid

 

[dyre]

Well, that changes almost nothing at all...

*shrug*

I don't understand the rage over on-disc DLC. You're still paying X amount for Y content.

Exactly...it's a new way of doing it, yeah, but I don't see the issue.

If nothing else, you can always buy games that don't do this, the existence of those others isn't harming the children, inciting hatred, offensive to your country or any of the other usual complaints.

but that's is just it if games that do this do well then it says that people don't care and soon every developer will do this and well be stuck paying 300$ just to get everything in a game available to us that we already would have bought with the initial $80 we spent to begin with.

First of all, they're talking about on-disc DLC being no different than regular DLC
Second, that's one of the more ridiculous slippery slope arguments I've heard this week. They're trying to cut into the consumer surplus, which has its limits.

It is a much more slippery slope than you would think I mean look at mac alone they charge almost $2500 for a laptop worth $750 tops all the time. People often just buy things because they feel like they should or because it seems like it is cool rather than buying it because they need it. My main point is that if dlc is on the disks it is clear proof that all the people arguing against dlc were right because now since dlc does so well it is no longer stuff produced after the game it is just things cut out so they can charge extra so much so they they just put it on the disk still even it just proves how fast dlc is altering the market to the place so many anti-dlc people were trying to convince people to avoid

Chill bro, everyone hates DLC here. We're just saying on-disc DLC isn't any different from regular DLC.

The point is, the DLC system is a clear attempt by publishers to reach into the consumer surplus in the video game market. For example, let's say the average person is willing/can afford to spend $50 on a game, ok? But some people are willing/can afford to spend $70 on a game, and a few very rich people are willing to spend $100. The extra $20 dollars the sort-of rich guy is willing to spend and the extra $50 the rich guy is willing to spend is called "consumer surplus."

So, how do video game companies get that money? They can't charge different prices for the same game. So they add DLC. This way, the regular person spends $50, and the other people spend $70 and $100. Maximum profit.

Is this bad? Yeah, it sucks balls for the consumer. But there are clear limits. Consumer surplus has its limits, and once you hit that cap, you can't charge any further, DLC or not.

 

[ParanoidJester]

Its the little things that annoy me, like when Cliffy B said 'hey if you want to have a pink lancer, you can have pink lancer'. He didn't say anything about paying extra for it, I mean for god sake over two thirds of the weapon skins need to be bought.

 

[mitchell271]

It's already on the disc. And you want us to pay for it. And you want us to wait 3 months to get it. Do you not see the problem here, Epic?

 

[Kopikatsu]

How does anything that any developer eve dopes besides being Valve or Bethesda makes the Escapist feel? angry. Seriously, you guys. Ever damn story has people yelling. What? They do something I don't agree with RAGE! TO the point where I think the Escapist must secretly be a support group for people with anger issues that I stumbled across and never noticed (or MAYBE I'M JUST ANGRY!!!)

I don't have a problem with on-disc DLC Lots of people seem to have begun a person crusade to rid the world of the scourge of DLC. I'd rather just program games for the art like the dirty hipster I am and let publishers and management hash out the issues of industry monies.

Actually, Bethesda makes people rage, too. (But they always forgive Bethesda in the end)

I don't have a problem with DLC, but I do have a problem with DLC that's already on-disk.

It's all content that was completed before the game went gold, but then they pulled it out to sell it separately.