Gamers and Entitlement Issues

[-Drifter-]

It's pure greed.

You lost me.

Actually, you lost me earlier, but this is where the fog started rolling in.

The way you say it, you make it sound like every DLC is a patch you have to pay exorbitant prices for. That's not the case.

There's a difference between "pure greed" and wanting to make money. If you are giving players a decent amount of content, like the above listed, then it hardly seems unreasonable to expect people to pay some cash in return.

 

[Breaker deGodot]

A good game shouldn't need the excuse of DLC to keep people playing it. It's like multiplayer. It should be a small feature; part of a bigger picture. With a game like GTA, on the other hand, you have a relatively average game that at best would've lasted 2 or so years before fading. But because developers can't be bothered to actually make a full game, they take one or two aspects not in the original game, and charge $10-20. It's pure greed.

tl;dr: I don't like DLC at all.

The GTA IV DLC had a lot to do with the original game. It took minor characters that interacted with Niko, and expanded on their back story. Not only that, but it added new weapons, vehicles, and characters for the player to interact with.

I don't see what difference that makes. A lot of DLC is made with that very idea in mind, and I don't mean that GTA IV is special. My point is, I'd rather see an entirely new story, with new locales, characters, etc., that just go deeper. It's not like GTA has a particularly rousing story, or very interesting characters anyway. In fairness, this might be my dislike of GTA in general talking, but I'd rather leave Liberty City entirely than just go to different parts of it.

 

[godofallu]

Because us gamers can still remember when DLC was ALWAYS FREE. If a company 10 years ago said they were going to charge for DLC, that would be the end of that company.

I can remember when games were advertised with the downloadable content sticker on them, and it meant that you could expect to recieve a few updates to the game for free. It was kind of like a warranty or a promise that helped sell the game to people.

5-25 dollars for what is usually 1-2 hours of playtime is the new average for DLC packs. Not to mention I have to download them, oh and thats fun when you have no HD space left.

 

[RobfromtheGulag]

I think the blanket argument made against DLC covers this.

Back in the day there was no DLC. A game was released with all the content it would ever have. $50 got you the whole shabang.

Now you pay $50 then $10 then $10 then....
Putting aside inflation and the fact that games cost more to make nowadays, as Shamus has well covered in his FF7 article;

So it circles back to the DLC debate:
Good DLC: Adds to the game and is well worth paying for.
Bad DLC: Fills missing chunks of the original game and should have been included with the main game.

 

[Breaker deGodot]

It's pure greed.

You lost me.

Actually, you lost me earlier, but this is where the fog started rolling in.

The way you say it, you make it sound like every DLC is a patch you have to pay exorbitant prices for. That's not the case.

There's a difference between "pure greed" and wanting to make money. If you are giving players a decent amount of content, like the above listed, then it hardly seems unreasonable to expect people to pay some cash in return.

Sorry, I was kind of frenzied, and probably rambling. I don't think that it's pure greed to make more content, nor do I think that all DLC is all patches. I just don't like the idea of playing more of the same game, but with more stuff added. I'd prefer something all new.

 

[Breaker deGodot]

Me personally, I'd rather a game either include the DLC with the retail game at a higher price, or just no DLC at all. I hate micro-transactions. Megaman 9 was a perfect example of this. 20 points for a different suit of armor? No thanks!

A good game shouldn't need the excuse of DLC to keep people playing it. It's like multiplayer. It should be a small feature; part of a bigger picture. With a game like GTA, on the other hand, you have a relatively average game that at best would've lasted 2 or so years before fading. But because developers can't be bothered to actually make a full game, they take one or two aspects not in the original game, and charge $10-20. It's pure greed.

tl;dr: I don't like DLC at all.

There's a simple solution for you. If you hate the concept of DLC that much, don't buy it.

Here's a simple reply for you; I don't.

So what's the problem, then?

I don't get that argument. If something irritates me, it's going to irritate me regardless of whether or not I look at it. Maybe that's just the way I think, though.

 

[-Drifter-]

I sense this is more of a retorical thread. A thread supposed to make us feel guilty.

Well I'm sorry if that's the case. I really do want to hear other people's opinions on this, but if it is making anyone feel guilty is it really a bad thing? Making people reflect on whether they themselves have self-entitlement problems isn't my goal, but it would be a nice side-effect.

 

[Radeonx]

A good game shouldn't need the excuse of DLC to keep people playing it. It's like multiplayer. It should be a small feature; part of a bigger picture. With a game like GTA, on the other hand, you have a relatively average game that at best would've lasted 2 or so years before fading. But because developers can't be bothered to actually make a full game, they take one or two aspects not in the original game, and charge $10-20. It's pure greed.

tl;dr: I don't like DLC at all.

The GTA IV DLC had a lot to do with the original game. It took minor characters that interacted with Niko, and expanded on their back story. Not only that, but it added new weapons, vehicles, and characters for the player to interact with.

I don't see what difference that makes. A lot of DLC is made with that very idea in mind, and I don't mean that GTA IV is special. My point is, I'd rather see an entirely new story, with new locales, characters, etc., that just go deeper. It's not like GTA has a particularly rousing story, or very interesting characters anyway. In fairness, this might be my dislike of GTA in general talking, but I'd rather leave Liberty City entirely than just go to different parts of it.

What your suggesting renders the entire point of DLC useless.

 

[Radeonx]

I can answer your question about whether or not this is unreasonable with one simple example:

EVE Online

EVE Online doesn't need to charge for that, because it is a Pay To Play MMO.
Everyone not only has to buy the game, but they pay monthly.

 

[Rarhnor]

I sense this is more of a retorical thread. A thread supposed to make us feel guilty.

Well I'm sorry if that's the case. I really do want to hear other people's opinions on this, but if it is making anyone feel guilty is it really a bad thing? Making people reflect on whether they themselves have self-entitlement problems isn't my goal, but it would be a nice side-effect.

True. Manipulation shouldn't be a priority, however.

Personally, i spend a buttload of money on DLC. I don't complain. Why? It's JUST money. Happiness > money

 

[-Drifter-]

Back in the day there was no DLC.

Yeah, there was. It was called expansion packs.

Does expecting the same from all companies make gamers 'self-entitled pricks'?

I'd say so, yes.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Eve Online is a subscription based MMO, is it not? I think the subscription fee pretty much pays for any DLC.

 

[TOGSolid]

Because us gamers can still remember when DLC was ALWAYS FREE. If a company 10 years ago said they were going to charge for DLC, that would be the end of that company.

I can remember when games were advertised with the downloadable content sticker on them, and it meant that you could expect to recieve a few updates to the game for free. It was kind of like a warranty or a promise that helped sell the game to people.

5-25 dollars for what is usually 1-2 hours of playtime is the new average for DLC packs. Not to mention I have to download them, oh and thats fun when you have no HD space left.

You can't play the "I remember card" and completely forget about expansion packs from the days of yore. Guess what, that was essentially pre-internet DLC.

Most DLC is pretty damn fair, and in some cases a great bargain. For ten bucks, you're getting quite a bit with RDR's DLC for instance. If you want criminal DLC, Modern Warfare 2 takes the cake by having half of it just be recycled maps and still trying to charge people for it. THAT is a ripoff.

Gamers in general seem to think that they "deserve" to play games. That the companies owe them something. Get over yourselves, the stuff they're making isn't cheap to produce and it's hard for them to put out freebies like they used to.

EDIT:

Yeah, there was. It was called expansion packs.

Damn you Drifter, you beat me to it! Hive mind, etc.

 

[SnowdensOfYesteryear]

Honestly I think it's because most people everywhere are self-entitled pricks.

If it was bug fixes, I could see why people rage. As far as I can see, if you don't think it's worth it, don't buy it.

 

[Zulu-Echo14]

Valve spoiled us.

 

[squid5580]

There is the whole patch included in the DLC thing to fix griefing. That IMO is a good reason to be pissed off. Other than that people will complain even if it is free so meh can't win.

 

[V8 Ninja]

Valve spoiled us.

Basically this.

 

[oppp7]

entitlement HAS been common lately. not sure why.

 

[-Drifter-]

There is the whole patch included in the DLC thing to fix griefing. That IMO is a good reason to be pissed off.

I will admit, I can see why people might be pissed off about that. On the other hand, that's the only pack who's price is still TBA, so who knows, it could be free.

 

[theSovietConnection]

I can answer your question about whether or not this is unreasonable with one simple example:

EVE Online

Just do a quick search on exactly how much content has been added FOR FREE in each of the past 13 expansions.

Is it possible, therefore, for companies (not all of them obviously, just the efficient and well-run ones) to provide large amounts of content for free? Yes.

Does expecting the same from all companies make gamers 'self-entitled pricks'? No, it just makes them less content with the offerings at these companies.

Something that happens, by the way, to be the very mechanism driving capitalist, free-market economies.

You are aware you must pay monthly to even be able to play the game to begin with, right?