MeChaNiZ3D said:
On-disc DLC is no different from regular DLC.
Yes it is. It's on the disc. In some cases the statement is true, although it's always hard to discern. But in a lot of cases the content looks like content that should have been included as part of the vanilla game, most noticable when in past games of the series it WAS. Basically, it's too easy to wall off a bit of content that was going to be part of the game for DLC, and leaving it on the disc is just even more disingenuous.
I know I'm opening up the mother of all cans of worms here, but I need to disagree. You can do on-disc DLC right, and you can do it wrong.
Examples:
Capcom released a game with almost a years worth of future-dlc on the disc, and charged for all of it. In the end, ALMOST as much content post-launch was made available as there was at launch, and it was all on-disc and paid for. These were entirely new characters and more. This is wrong.
Visceral put several extra suits for Issac on the disc for Dead Space 2 (and again on 3). You could choose to buy these for purely cosmetic purposes with no end game effect on how the game played, or you could ignore them. The game was no different other than in what your avatar looked like. This is done right.
Let me explain more on this... in Capcom's way it was clear they intended to micro transact a lot of DLC out of the players over a long course of time, using content that was all clearly made pre-ship. In the case of Visceral, we are talking about a few pallet swaps that took a designer, a modeler, and an engineer to basically throw together in about a week during their 4-8 week downtime from when the game was in their "content lock" phase to when it was pressed to disc. This is something that can easily be approved by first party and packed into a disc at the last moment while the greater game is going through certification. Not to mention, in some cases this content HAS to be on disc. In my example, Dead Space has multiplayer... and for other characters who do NOT own the DLC to see the suits on other players, they need to still have access to the models and art.. this is where being on disc comes into play. In order to not segregate gamers into two classes, the content NEEDS to be on disc, or else they need to download a compatibility pack. The later option, while it works, is impractical, far more expensive, and sometimes first party simply says no to it.
My long winded point to all this, is that on-disc DLC is not a black or white issue. There is a right way. with good intentions to do it, and a wrong way with bad intentions to do it. You need to judge each individual game on its merits once you have checked it out... and not raise the pitchforks and torches up before a game even ships just because someone somewhere utters "on-disc DLC".
