The Petition to Stop the Release of DLC Game Modes

[lizards]

no shut up this is a very ignorant petition and i can cut it down to a single question

do you want more content or not?

more content takes money to make and design

above that you dont want to pay THEN DONT BUY IT unless there be a guy pointing a gun at your head making you buy it you cant complain

 

[TheDukester]

Wow quick responses. I'm at work right now so I was surprised to see so many people respond to a silly little experiment.

I could throw together a formal petition if you guys are interested. To those who say the best move is to simply not buy it, that's sending the wrong message in my opinion. These modes should be included--it's not right for the gaming public to simply be deprived of modes because some greedy company withheld them until post-release.

I would not/do not buy DLC that only unlock new modes or add new modes to the game. I do this because I do not wish to purchase something that I might not like. But this is a moot point: these modes should be included in the game in the first place. I should be allowed to decide if I dislike a game mode or not; by taking the mode out of the game, I have to pay for something that might be terrible or bland (and yes, I know no one makes me buy this, but follow the logic). Furthermore, they could add modes that might be unfamiliar--instead of adding something recognizable like capture the flag, imagine a mode called Assassination Fiesta (silly, but stay with me). Who knows what it's like? I won't buy it because as a consumer I don't want to risk it, but it could be a fantastic game mode, but I don't know what it is, so why would I risk $5? It should be included in the game; I've already paid $60 dollars so let me play my damn Assassination Fiesta mode!

To those who disagree, consider this: imagine if a first person shooter included team deathmatch only. If you wanted to play capture the flag, you had to pay 5 dollars. If you wanted to play some variant of deathmatch (say hardcore deathmatch or something), you pay 5 dollars. Who is to say that they couldn't establish a system of microtransactions for game maps? Or character models? (In fact they already do). Now imagine if you couldn't play the game online unless you had those new content items? Now they are not only adding new things that should've been included in the first place but limiting the utility of your purchased games!

A first persons shooter with one map and one game type? Doesn't sound good. There are certain things that should be standard in the gaming experience; charging money for content that adds a questionable amount of new material to a game is not a part of this game experience.

 

[TheDukester]

Furthermore, I'm not opposed to adding new content or new modes. I am simply arguing companies should be either A) allowed more time to properly include these modes or B) release these modes free after the patch (like Left 4 Dead did, much to my appreciation). What I am arguing is that it's unethical to withhold a mode and then release it unless it adds new content to the game.

 

[TheRockNRolla]

Furthermore, I'm not opposed to adding new content or new modes. I am simply arguing companies should be either A) allowed more time to properly include these modes or B) release these modes free after the patch (like Left 4 Dead did, much to my appreciation). What I am arguing is that it's unethical to withhold a mode and then release it unless it adds new content to the game.

That last sentence makes no sense. If you're getting new game modes, you're getting new content for that game. It will change the way the game is played, adding some replay value.

 

[Iggy Rufflebar]

Just because game designers dont put any effort into it's games doesn't mean effort shouldent be put into it's dlc, personally I blame the wii for this.

 

[Cliff_m85]

If I ever make it into the game business I promise you good people 2 things....

1) All DLC that unlocks additional gameplay in the game will be free.
2) I will charge a $2 fee for DLC that unlocks all the characters being newd for every game.

 

[TheDukester]

That last sentence makes no sense. If you're getting new game modes, you're getting new content for that game. It will change the way the game is played, adding some replay value.

Let me define new content as something other than the rearranging of preexisting materials in the game. Capture the flag is not new content; it is the altering of rules that already exist in the game. It's as simple as changing the win condition. Now, adding new weapons, new skills, new perks, etc.

Here is the most recent example: Survival Mode in Left 4 Dead is simply utilizing the already existing resources of the Left 4 Dead game and changing the victory conditions. Instead of winning by moving from point A to point B, survivors have to live for as long as they can. This is why this patch should be free, and is.

If they were to charge for new content, I would expect the ability to play as new Infected characters, use new weapons, or interact with new things in the environment.

I'm sorry if you're not familiar with this game; I will think of another example if you don't know what the hell I'm talking about.

 

[Fantastico]

I dunno, I'm kinda enjoying Left 4 Dead's new survival mode. I say keep 'em comin', so long as they aren't already on the disc.

 

[phar]

I have no issue at all with extra game modes if it provides some extra gameplay. I played versus mode at a friends and it seemed quite fun. I cant really comment though since I dont have RE5.

The thing is disapprove of is buying maps. PC gamers get them for free yet on a console you have to pay. Maps arnt really all that hard to knock up, sure the offical ones get playtested quite a lot but still..

Id be interested to see how many people have bought things like horse armour or even the dead space skins which are the two most useless DLC ive seen.

 

[Cliff_m85]

That last sentence makes no sense. If you're getting new game modes, you're getting new content for that game. It will change the way the game is played, adding some replay value.

Let me define new content as something other than the rearranging of preexisting materials in the game. Capture the flag is not new content; it is the altering of rules that already exist in the game. It's as simple as changing the win condition. Now, adding new weapons, new skills, new perks, etc.

Here is the most recent example: Survival Mode in Left 4 Dead is simply utilizing the already existing resources of the Left 4 Dead game and changing the victory conditions. Instead of winning by moving from point A to point B, survivors have to live for as long as they can. This is why this patch should be free, and is.

If they were to charge for new content, I would expect the ability to play as new Infected characters, use new weapons, or interact with new things in the environment.

I'm sorry if you're not familiar with this game; I will think of another example if you don't know what the hell I'm talking about.

Survival mode features a new map though. So technically it should be charged for in your argument.

 

[TheRockNRolla]

Let me define new content as something other than the rearranging of preexisting materials in the game. Capture the flag is not new content; it is the altering of rules that already exist in the game. It's as simple as changing the win condition. Now, adding new weapons, new skills, new perks, etc.

Here is the most recent example: Survival Mode in Left 4 Dead is simply utilizing the already existing resources of the Left 4 Dead game and changing the victory conditions. Instead of winning by moving from point A to point B, survivors have to live for as long as they can. This is why this patch should be free, and is.

If they were to charge for new content, I would expect the ability to play as new Infected characters, use new weapons, or interact with new things in the environment.

I'm sorry if you're not familiar with this game; I will think of another example if you don't know what the hell I'm talking about.

Then your logic of "new" is flawed. Did you have previous access to said content before? No. Now you do, which would make it new. Another thing is, you don't have to get this content of which you're crying about. Hell RE5's MP is still considered "new" since they never did it before.

 

[Lord_Jaroh]

Best form of protest against unfair DLC:

Just don't buy it

Problem is, just like with Wal-Mart, there are enough stupid people that will happily eat up whatever is produced that it over-rides those who don't want it. Thus we will get smaller and smaller "games" only to have to pay more in order to get the full one. Regular games will turn into an MMO pay scheme, all for the almighty dollar and to the detriment of games and gamers everywhere...

 

[TheDukester]

I dunno, I'm kinda enjoying Left 4 Dead's new survival mode. I say keep 'em comin', so long as they weren't originally on the disc.

But this was free! I'm not protesting against this at all. This is the example of the way things should be done. What I'm protesting is PAYING for things that should've been on the disc in the first place!

On a side note, (off-topic), survival mode is amazing, eh? Me and my buds have been trying to come up with the best way to survive the lighthouse level. And I loved the tagline on the loading screen poster: "It doesn't end well." I laughed for a while.

Can't believe someone posted a 150 minute survival time.

 

[bad rider]

Pay someone, for doing more work, for me?

 

[TheDukester]

Pay someone, for doing more work, for me?

Absolutely. It's the initial $60 dollars you pay for the game. I will pay for them to do more work when they provide new things for the game.

 

[TheRockNRolla]

Best form of protest against unfair DLC:

Just don't buy it

You won't know whether or not a game will get DLC before you buy it.

That doesn't make any sense. Even if you don't know if the game won't have DLC or not, you still have the option of not buying the DLC, which is what everyone who cries about paying for it should do.

 

[Therumancer]

See, for all of it's whining about piracy and how it's a victim, the game industry is about as crooked and messed up as an institution can get. If they find a way to gouge/pressure people into spending money they will.

I want to see an example of what makes them crooked, and how they pressure/gauge prices. They don't force you to buy the DLC, they don't force you to buy the game, they don't force you to play video games at all. So what makes them crooks?

Well I could go on about video game addiction and the nature of the market, but that would lead to another topic.

The idea behind DLC was to allow gaming companies to release new content for games more quickly, and far less expensively than they could through traditional retail. A good example would be say releasing the equivilent of Ultima 7's old Add On packs for a fraction of the cost because they wouldn't have to worry about packaging, shipping, or anything else.

In reality what happened was that companies started using this as an excuse to release partially complete games and then charge you extra money for what should have been there to begin with. For example a Vs. Mode is something one expects to come with a game that goes online, charging you extra money for what would have been a standard feature/part of the package if there wasn't a chance to gouge users with DLC fees is rather crooked behavior.

What's more you are also frequently dealing with content that is already on the disc. You pay the company for the game, and then they charge you X amount of money for 108k Downloads which do nothing but unlock material that was already there. A way of gouging you extra money for something you already purchused.

There is DLC I have no real problem with, such as the Fallout 3 expansion packs.

I do on the other hand have some issues with paying to unlock character costumes already on your disc, a VS. mode for an online game, or things of that sort.

What is being done is not criminal per se, but probably should be. Though I admit I can't think of any objective way to regulate it in law.

Hop on Gamefaqs sometime and you'll frequently see guys show up and talk about how they went into the code of whatever game and what they found. Sometimes predicting DLC months before it's announced simply because the DLC was actually on your disc all along and your paying to unlock it.

Opinions are going to vary of course, and I don't expect you to nessicarly agree with me, but *I* think DLC was a nice concept, but had been ruined by the factor of simple human greed. It went from an idea to benefit everyone, to a way to nickel and dime gamers for things that would never have been charged for had DLC not become an option.

 

[TheDukester]

Survival mode features a new map though. So technically it should be charged for in your argument.

You're right. Valve was extremely generous, and that's why I love them as a developer and admire everything they do.

Then your logic of "new" is flawed. Did you have previous access to said content before? No. Now you do, which would make it new. Another thing is, you don't have to get this content of which you're crying about. Hell RE5's MP is still considered "new" since they never did it before.

I didn't have previous access, but the developers did, so why didn't they include it when the game was released? Were they rushed? Then they should have been allotted more time by the publisher, or they should provid the unlocked modes for free post-release since they are the ones who ran out of time.

And while I appreciate the discussion we're developing here, please don't attack my views by saying I'm crying about it. If you're logic is falling apart, personal attacks don't cover logical holes.

I'm not crying about anything--I'm encouraging people to make a stand. There's obviously a lot of controversy about this, so let's try and act like intelligent people and have a conversation.

 

[TheDukester]

See, for all of it's whining about piracy and how it's a victim, the game industry is about as crooked and messed up as an institution can get. If they find a way to gouge/pressure people into spending money they will.

I want to see an example of what makes them crooked, and how they pressure/gauge prices. They don't force you to buy the DLC, they don't force you to buy the game, they don't force you to play video games at all. So what makes them crooks?

Well I could go on about video game addiction and the nature of the market, but that would lead to another topic.

The idea behind DLC was to allow gaming companies to release new content for games more quickly, and far less expensively than they could through traditional retail. A good example would be say releasing the equivilent of Ultima 7's old Add On packs for a fraction of the cost because they wouldn't have to worry about packaging, shipping, or anything else.

In reality what happened was that companies started using this as an excuse to release partially complete games and then charge you extra money for what should have been there to begin with. For example a Vs. Mode is something one expects to come with a game that goes online, charging you extra money for what would have been a standard feature/part of the package if there wasn't a chance to gouge users with DLC fees is rather crooked behavior.

What's more you are also frequently dealing with content that is already on the disc. You pay the company for the game, and then they charge you X amount of money for 108k Downloads which do nothing but unlock material that was already there. A way of gouging you extra money for something you already purchused.

There is DLC I have no real problem with, such as the Fallout 3 expansion packs.

I do on the other hand have some issues with paying to unlock character costumes already on your disc, a VS. mode for an online game, or things of that sort.

What is being done is not criminal per se, but probably should be. Though I admit I can't think of any objective way to regulate it in law.

Hop on Gamefaqs sometime and you'll frequently see guys show up and talk about how they went into the code of whatever game and what they found. Sometimes predicting DLC months before it's announced simply because the DLC was actually on your disc all along and your paying to unlock it.

Opinions are going to vary of course, and I don't expect you to nessicarly agree with me, but *I* think DLC was a nice concept, but had been ruined by the factor of simple human greed. It went from an idea to benefit everyone, to a way to nickel and dime gamers for things that would never have been charged for had DLC not become an option.

I couldn't have said this any better myself--extremely well put.

 

[TheRockNRolla]

Hop on Gamefaqs sometime and you'll frequently see guys show up and talk about how they went into the code of whatever game and what they found. Sometimes predicting DLC months before it's announced simply because the DLC was actually on your disc all along and your paying to unlock it.

I'm on gamefaqs all the time and 90% of the users are idiots/fanboys. Even if it's on the disc, you still don't have to buy it. You can say it's highway robbery all you want, but in the end it's the customer that makes the final choice and buys it.

EDIT: However, the RE5 dlc is a joke. They did announce it before the game was released, then charged for it. So I can see where you guys are coming from.