F**K Project Ten dollar and others... let's take some actions

[TPiddy]

Everything that is a day one DLC is something that was going to be (or could have been) in the game, they just take it away and put a price tag on it for the sole purpose of having you pay extra cash.

Ok, at first I thought you were trying to make a point, but now you're spouting a bunch of bs.

Some games go GOLD (as in, inscribed on the FUCKING DISC) months before launch. Since the developers still have to pay their employees, they get them to make extra content in this time. Some DLC is planned well in advance, but not all of it is a cash grab. You need a better understanding of the software development life cycle before making a claim like that.

Also, Mass Effect 2, because I bought it new, gave me 5 pieces of DLC content for FREE. Not stuff I'm unlocking on my own disc (which I don't agree with), stuff that they completed AFTER the game had gone gold. Not all companies abuse DLC.

So, ultimately, if a company wants to give me extra incentive to buy new (other than shitty accessories like a map of the world or a storybook guide) then they have a right to do so, and they have a right to refuse said content to players who buy used.

Now, content that's already on the disc? That's another can of worms entirely. You should never have to pay more to unlock content that's on the disc. If you have the disc you should have the right to the content on it.

 

[Irridium]

Here's what I posted in the news thread:

So if I buy this game and use the code, if my brother wants to play with friends he'll have to pay $5?

Yeah, fuck you THQ. What if I loan the game to a friend? What if like I said my brother wants to play online? What if I have friends over, or go to a friends house and we want to play online? Will they all have to pay $5?

I will not buy any game that goes down this route. Its just screwing over the consumers, and sadly the consumers are quite content with being nickeled and dimed.

 

[Danzaivar]

It's got me buying new games rather than second hand ones. Like it or loathe it, it's giving the games industry reliable income.

 

[elvor0]

In other words, you expect that if you buy a used chair, it should only come with three legs? Or if I buy a used book, it should only come with two-thirds of the pages? Very poor logic, my friend. You are paying for a FULL product when you buy used...the fact that none of that money makes its way back to the developer/publisher does not concern the customer. Nor should it.

Now, if they want to work out some sort of deal with used game retailers which does benefit them, that's fine, but instead they're just screwing over their customers who can't afford to spend $300 a month on video games.

Yes, because all the free DLC leaves the game UTTERLY CRIPPLED without it, just like a missing leg on a chair...oh wait.

This is much more like buying a book on day one and getting another book for free - even if its a crappy short paperback, its still nice for the first customer to get alittle more for buying new and supporting the author. By your logic, if the guy doesn't sell both books together, the publishers are 'screwing over the customer' (inspite of the fact that the second hand buyer isn't their customer).

We're talking about EA's new business model here, which is sure to spread. It keeps you from playing online if you don't have the DLC which comes with the purchase of a new copy. You're damn straight that's crippling.

I'm not a fan of any DLC, because for the most part it turns out to be stuff that was supposed to be included in the game to begin with, but instead people are charged extra for it. Normally I just ignore it and move on, but THIS type of BS is worth complaining about.

No EAs model is including bonus DLC with new copies, which is perfectly okay by me

THQs the bad guys here, who're not letting people play online and they can fuck off.

 

[Jaded Scribe]

Everything that is a day one DLC is something that was going to be (or could have been) in the game, they just take it away and put a price tag on it for the sole purpose of having you pay extra cash.

Ok, at first I thought you were trying to make a point, but now you're spouting a bunch of bs.

Some games go GOLD (as in, inscribed on the FUCKING DISC) months before launch. Since the developers still have to pay their employees, they get them to make extra content in this time. Some DLC is planned well in advance, but not all of it is a cash grab. You need a better understanding of the software development life cycle before making a claim like that.

Also, Mass Effect 2, because I bought it new, gave me 5 pieces of DLC content for FREE. Not stuff I'm unlocking on my own disc (which I don't agree with), stuff that they completed AFTER the game had gone gold. Not all companies abuse DLC.

So, ultimately, if a company wants to give me extra incentive to buy new (other than shitty accessories like a map of the world or a storybook guide) then they have a right to do so, and they have a right to refuse said content to players who buy used.

Now, content that's already on the disc? That's another can of worms entirely. You should never have to pay more to unlock content that's on the disc. If you have the disc you should have the right to the content on it.

I agree. Another point about DLC: it also keeps up interest in a particular game between installments, which leads to higher sales of the sequel/expansion. It's not a money grab. It is to keep the game current and popular so they can better grow their fanbase.

 

[DaOysterboy]

I'm not strictly opposed to project $10, but I have to wonder where some of the game publishers are getting these ideas. For example, extra costumes in Street Fighter 4 were an extra $10. The data is on the disk apparently, but costs $10 to unlock. To me, that's just not worth it. I'll go online and google the pics if I want to know what they look like, but that's just too much for me to pay, and I raise an eyebrow that they are actually making money doing this. Part of me misses the days of cartridges and no internet connection where games were actually completed when they were released instead of needing 50 some odd patches to work out the kinks after the shipping date, and then having 5 DLC packs for $10 a pop that add 15 minutes each to an otherwise 40 hour game. My games are mostly on PC, so none of them are used, and the only tool I have to say "this isn't a good enough deal" is my wallet. Sure, it grates on me a bit that they think they can squeeze another wad of cash out of me after I already bought the game, but I think what's more annoying is their perception that I'm stupid enough to shell out money for every little non-essential chunk of a game rather than actually that they are trying to sell it. I had a similar take on WOW when it came out. "Pay every month for a product that I already bought? No thank-you-and-a-half!" Result? I have never played (and will never unless they give up the monthly charge scheme) WOW. And Blizzard will go on because they have a business model that people ARE willing to pay for. Not me, but other people. More power to them. I vote with my wallet. It's really all I have.

 

[bpm195]

Here's the thing:

I buy new. I think used game pawnshops like Gamestop are terrible establishments. If I do buy used, I'll buy from some place like eBay, where the price difference is worthwhile (often to the tune of half of what Gamestop is charging).

Because I'm a smart consumer, I either buy my games new and get the bonus content free, or buy my games used at a price that ensures that even after paying the cost for the bonus content, I still saved money.

This is exactly where my problem lies. I tend to give away, trade, or sell most of my console games over time. Thanks to project $10, when I trade game for game with a peer we're looking at an extra $20 to access the full content. If I sell a game, it's going to cost my buyer $10 extra. Worst of all, when I give a game away for free to some kid that can't afford it,then they're looking at $10 they don't have to access the full game except they can't because usually they don't have their console online. It's not a large sum of money, but the fact they're making the games less transferable is what pisses me off.

Frankly, knowing that I can't resell or trade as freely as I'd like makes me less likely to buy mediocre games both new and used since the net money lost is likely to grow in both cases.

 

[TPiddy]

I agree. Another point about DLC: it also keeps up interest in a particular game between installments, which leads to higher sales of the sequel/expansion. It's not a money grab. It is to keep the game current and popular so they can better grow their fanbase.

Exactly... I put down Gears of War 2 for a while as I was wandering through the Capital Wasteland, but I decided to head back to Sera when they released some new maps.... good maps at a decent price no less.

 

[Doug]

We're talking about EA's new business model here, which is sure to spread. It keeps you from playing online if you don't have the DLC which comes with the purchase of a new copy. You're damn straight that's crippling.

I'm not a fan of any DLC, because for the most part it turns out to be stuff that was supposed to be included in the game to begin with, but instead people are charged extra for it. Normally I just ignore it and move on, but THIS type of BS is worth complaining about.

Ah, the online passes. So, you think the publishers/developers have an infinite obigation to support the online capacity regardless of cost or time? You must have been really annoyed when Microsoft dropped Halo 2 then.

But back to the metaphors. Lets say, you had a cable box (cable isn't used over here, so if there is no 'box' for decoding the signals, my bad) - if you sold the cable box to someone else, would you expect the cable company to use your last payment to run his box for the time that remained, or would you expect them to charge him for the new subscription and/or hook up?

Now, with XBox Live, I don't know how much obligation the publisher has in terms of support - I imagine that whilst the game servers are handled by Microsoft, the game publisher has to support servers like statistical storage or online match making themselves. i.e. they have to maintain a service for a period of time. Now, traditionally, we've got it free as a perk, but if the publishers decide that they can't provide that anymore, fair enough in my book - unless they lie on the box and say 'online multiplayer supported free to the owner of this disc for the lifetime of the disc'.

 

[Double A]

I kinda thought this was bad, since EA was doing it to just get more money. However, I read some comments saying that we should get more money to the companies who won't make something if there's no profit in it.

Now I think, as long as it's 5-10 bucks, no harm can come of it. Paying 25 or 30 instead of 20 is still better than paying the full-out 60.

 

[sheic99]

Day one DLC is a product that is made after the process of Going Gold. Nothing new can be added to the disc at this point, since printing as already started. In the pre-dlc days, designers and coders were either laid off or transferred to a new project because the current one is done. DLC is a way for the same group to continue working and for long term support on a game.

Yet how does that explain DLC that is already on the disc, but requires cash to unlock it? Most of your Day One DLC is already on the game you own.

Ok, let's take Resident Evil 5 for an example, there was an public outcry about the versus mode when it was added as DLC. The main complaint was the size of it. It seemed to small to be anything substantial and most people assumed it was just a key, myself included. What was in the DLC was simply the matchmaking tools for the versus, but it used data that was on the disc, like the maps for Mercenary mode, and character models. All DLC uses data on the disc.

Although, you may be referring to the alternate costumes for Street Fighter 4. You wanna know how to tell the difference between the two. A key is only a couple of kilobytes. If you can't be bothered to look at the size of the file you're about purchase, you deserve to be ripped off.

For the record here, I rent all my games because my family can't afford to purchase them new or used.

 

[Doug]

I just threw a random number out there, but at $60 a game plus $30-$40 for all the later-released DLC, it wouldn't take much for somebody to lose track of spending on this crap.

Wait, so now corporations are responsible for ensuring people don't spend foolishly? Best get the word out to all those casino's, shopping malls, spam sites that offer fake medicine, and so forth.

These aren't small little independent devs we're talking about here. If they were, I wouldn't have an issue. But I have a hard time believing that so many people feel the need to defend EA, Activision, and other known multi-million dollar corporations upon release of a new DLC scheme which charges the customer extra while providing nothing additional in return.

Customer? You mean, second hand customers who provide nothing to the company in the first place? I would have an issue if this was affecting people who where their customers, but the second hand market is not their customers. They are GameStop's customers or whichever second hand seller they buy from.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Not really much we can do about it since nobody has the RIGHT to video games per ce...just another industry joining the ranks of greedy assholes. It blows, but that's capitalism for you.

Sure we can. We can refuse to buy their games, new or used. Of course that would require a commitment by a significantly large portion of the gaming community.

 

[Doug]

If online capability costs developers/publishers so much, why can I still play games from the 90s online for free? Because it costs jack shit, that's why.

Which games? And typically, older games are supported by private individuals who pay for the servers they run. This is either done on a charitable basis or through selling 'premium' spots on the server with perks.

Or in the case of, say, Valve, they are still making sales off of Steam, and the numbers of gamers on the old servers is likely so low that it has little impact on them.

Alternatively, some games used a direct connection.