Jimquisition: On-Disc DLC Cannot Be Justified

[TitanAura]

Plastic or otherwise, that ax had a lot of sharp points on it. I'd be a little scared to hold it.

 

[Eric the Orange]

Extra Credits makes an interesting counterpoint.

http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/mass-effect-3-dlc

Their ideas are valid but shot down by one simplt truth. Aftermarket support. I get that budgets are tight BUT i don't have enough sympathy for multi-billion dollor corporations to see why this is so suddenly necessary.

EA, Capcom and everyone esle are doing this because they can. An example i like to use is Command and Conquer 3. The game was a hit, it made a good deal of profit. EA and EA studios LA had the common decency to release free maps for the game post release, even so ar as a whole year afterwards to keep it fresh. Same for the expansion Kane's Wrath.

EA didn't go bankrupt. Developing this kind of content is pretty cheap. The community can churn decent maps/skins out by the bucket-load with ZERO resources. Once upon a time it used to be a common courtasy for a developer to give an online PC game a few free updates here and there back when console games were not generally online. Companies have been doing this for decades without going out of business. Its called aftermarket support. Why do publishers act like any post-shipping support will cripple them?! It is a big fat LIE.

Even IF time is legitimately left over during the ratings period why make this content paid at all? Here is an idea guys, use it to fight used sales with a carrot instead of a stick. Let new buyers of the game unlock this extra ondisk content for free with a code. Give commited consumers something instead of taking something away. This is a no-brainer.

Thing is they're a business. If they can make more money they will. They understand that people do not like day one DLC and that will effect sales. But there math is, if money lost in sales is less than money gained in day one DLC, we will put in day one DLC. If they thought they would make more money by raising game prices to $100 a game, they sure as hell would do it. It's just the harsh reality of business.

Now the counter argument you could make to them is that they lose more money from sales with day one DLC than they would make up with it. Or that by doing this they are losing Consumer loyalty which could hurt them in the long run. Both of which may be true, I don't know, but all I'm saying is that in a business money is the reason to do anything. If a business decides to give to charity you can bet it's only because they want the positive publicity.

 

[The.Bard]

Whats with all the worms, Jim?

Also, put this vid on Capcoms site and watch the shitstorm.

I think you mean: "What's your obsession with the Earthworm, Jim?"

 

[Phlakes]

I usually agree with you, but I think the video misses the point that people are complaining about the on-disc part, not the DLC itself. I've heard a lot of people say they'd be okay with it if they would be downloading the actual content, and it seems like that's what Cliff was talking about.

To clarify, people want DLC, they just don't like the principle of it being on the disc and that part is the necessary evil, in the case that they want the DLC (which a lot do).

I mean, it wouldn't be there at all if there was no demand for it, not trying to say it's the consumers' fault, but it's not like developers are just doing it for the lulz.

 

[InvisibleMan]

So, all developers need to do is change the label from "DLC (DownLoadable Content)" to "ULC (UnLockable Content)"...

There, problem solved!

 

[ryo02]

when consoles started going online I was very hopefull about it ...
... but then
whiney kids calling people fags
pre order bonus dlc dlc dlc dlc map pack dlc dlc weapon pack dlc
cut content cut only to be sold later
glitchy games
patch
patch
patch
patch
patch
patch
patch
patch

I wasnt happy

 

[Simonoly]

I find the whole on-disc dlc fiasco totally confusing. What seems to me is that on-disc dlc is just a part of the development cycle now for many games. If a developer has the time and resources they can create content which they deem 'extra' and place it on the disc alongside the main content. The problem with this model, is that we basically have to take it on good faith that what a developer classifies as 'extra' is indeed content which they planned in addition to the main content. Unfortunately for the developer there is no way that they can really prove this and all we see is a game with content purposely locked out to us. For me, this also raises interesting questions on what it is we're actually paying for when we buy a game. Are we paying for the developers time and so therefore we should expect access to all content created in that time? Or are we just paying for a finalised product as the developer envisaged it?

 

[Smokescreen]

I think on disc DLC is silly but it works: Extra Credits had a episode on it which had some good points: http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/mass-effect-3-dlc

Also, on disc content means I don't have to use a ton of hard drive memory just to get expansion after expansion. Which is kinda nice.

But to try and pretend it's a problem that has been 'created' is utter crap.

 

[370999]

But Jim! That's the way the developers wanted the game to be! Don't you understand asking them to get rid of On-Disk DLC would impune the artistic integrity of the game! Do you WANT to set gaming back 10 years (to when they knew better)? It's THEIR game! Think how the developers must feel every time you point out something they shouldn't have done! LEAVE THE POOR DEVELOPERS ALONE! LEAVE THEM ALONE!Kony 2012!
-Movie Bob

Sorry, but I will give you a 1/10. Its the best I can do.

You failed to bring up how "entitled" gamers are. This must be done at least 5 times in each sentence to make it a believable parody of Bob.

If you want to make it even more convincing you have to shoehorn in

A) References to Bob's life in high school, try to link RME with jocks.
B) Mention Feminism but have a creepy rant about how totally hot a lesbian romance between Princess Peach and Daisy would be.

 

[Cecilthedarkknight_234]

oh Jim that was great, from a programers point of view it's stupid to have content on disc then making said consumer buy that content you already payed for. I can actually see law-suits out this from game contracts when you buy the game unless they have changed those 100 page legalese BS again. The simple fact is that if the content exist on the disc then let the players have accesses to it or host it online to legitimately call it dlc.

 

[Azuaron]

Jim, I rarely disagree with you, but I think you don't know enough about development cycles to have a leg to stand on here.

Let's get right to the meat of the situation: would you rather have the content as on disk DLC, day 1 actual download DLC, or would you rather not have the content.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

Have I just fallen in love with Jim? I think I have.

Thanks for voicing how most of us feel towards on-disc dlc. (Which shouldn't even be called dlc, just like you said.)

Who's worse with the dlc stuff? Capcom or EA?

No! Don't say that. They might see/hear that and turn it into a contest.

As for the topic at hand? Well they will probably never stop this, so they can at LEAST be honest about what it really is.

 

[lord.jeff]

I've heard some of the on disc content was just unfinished/untested elements that got cut for time, and your paying for a large patch that makes it payable.