Whats the problem with day 1 dlc

[Catchy Slogan]

That sounds fine, as long as they don't go over-board and 'Ryan Air' that shit up.

Umm, "Ryan air"?

It's a really cheap-ass airline company, which if you wanted to, you could pay for just a flight and your seat, anything else and you have to pay extra. Want to get checked in? Extra. Want some in flight entertainment/ food? Extra. Want a packet of peanuts? Extra. Pilow? Extra. Be treated like a decent human being? Extra. Land in Rome, as stated, instead of 90 miles away and have to take a replacement bus? Extra. You get the gist.

 

[Hitman Dread]

Day 1 DLC tends to be things that should be in the game anyway, or in some cases, is already on the disc, and we're being charged extra.

Nope.
It is more than likely that they were able to expend the extra resources BECAUSE it was DLC. Without the extra possible income, most DLC would not of had the man power devoted to them, a common misconception.

 

[Forktongue]

Sometimes I think the DLC debate has replaced the console debate. You get people on both sides who feel passionate about his/her arguments and very little headway is made.

Personally, I don't mind Day 1 DLC. The quality of the DLC varies from game to game, but so does the quality of the game itself. I usually only pick up day one DLC when it comes free with the game but I have bought day one DLC on occasion. From what I understand, more often than not the DLC is content that would've otherwise been cut from the final game. There has never been any required DLC.

For now, it's a feature that is here to stay. Until developers can come up with a better way to entice people to buy new copies of a game, no amount of griping will change that.

 

[-Dragmire-]

After reading a couple of posts on various threads about portal 2 They were all complaining about day 1 dlc and I don't see why people hate it its only worthless dlc that you don't need and that the developers put in so they can get more money to develop games and they probaly did it while portal 2 was being developed as a side project so I would like to know what do you think about Day 1 dlc

day 1 dlc means to me that the developer had a completed game and took nonessential bits out to raise the price of the game.

For a weird analogy, look at it this way:

You buy a cheeseburger, everything is there upon you ordering it but then they decide to scrape off the condiments and charge you extra if you want ketchup, mustard etc.. You don't have to have it but it was done already and it's supposed to be part of the product.

... makes sense in my head anyway...

Basically they purposely created an unfinished product to raise profits.

 

[orangeban]

DLC on day one isn't really DLC, it's part of the main game they held back on purpose to make more money. If you don't see anything wrong with that, then think look at it this way. Imagine ordering a pepperoni pizza and then going there to pick it up, only to be told your pizza is done but you have to pay $5 extra for them to add the pepperoni. It just comes off as a shady business practice.

Well no, that analogy would work if you got the game and had to pay for either the multiplayer or singleplayer i.e. the juicy bit of the game as the pepperoni is the juicy part of the pizza. It's really like being asked if you want extra cheese. Or if you get fish and chips being asked to pay for salt and vinegar or something. You're paying for an optional extra, you don't have to.

 

[Gigano]

It's a poorer deal for the consumer.

The developer made a product, and at the same time it also spent its time creating small associational products which would in the past have been part of the main product (or the time would have been used to polish the main product further). Even worse if the main product is actually poorer or plain unfinished without the DLC, then it's truly nothing but a half-hidden price hick.

But yeah, supply and demand, so if people are willing to pay up for the Day 1 DLC, then it'll be made.

 

[The Lunatic]

More often than not, Day 1 DLC seems to be about removing content from the game and charging it separately.

 

[AMAZED]

It's a marketing strategy (which is obvious) to make games they need money. Now I'm not a valve fanboy the only game I have produced by them is the orange box so this isn't me going on about how they deserve it because their so great, I am simply stating to make the game we enjoy they need money thats non negotiable and their retail sales don't always go as planned so they need to find a way to get some extra money out of it. As for the games that do return a profit is it really so evil to want to be successful and be in a comfortable financial state, and on another point they aren't forcing you to buy these if you don't want the DLC don't buy it, for example I think the COD map packs look cool and fun but their just to expensive so I don't buy them. Am I disappointed, yes but I do get why they are priced like that (not to say I necessarily agree).
BTW this is in talking about all DLC not just 1 day DLC

 

[viranimus]

/Facepalm

Seriously? Ok I am no fan of valve or Portal but I think there is entirely too much confusion here. This ISNT day 1 DLC. These are optional addons for the game. No different than TF2 hats and all the other microtransaction bullshit makes available for their products. The difference is they made them available from the start. If it was actually DLC.. then at least on the PC version, it would be free like how Valve treats basically every other DLC theyve released.

Day 1 DLC is when CONTENT was created, Quests/missions/narrative/gameplay that was finished by and ready by the time the game was released, and then trying to sell that as an item for profit.

Please, I know its a lot to ask, but think. Try not to get two totally different things mixed up.

 

[Imper1um]

The "Day 1 DLC" is not "true" DLC. Let me explain:

- Portal 2 is a complete game. It currently does not have any extra levels or story or game modes that you have to purchase.
- None of Portal 2 requires a special code to unlock (ala all of EA's recent titles)
- The "DLC" everyone is talking about is HATS.

The stuff you get from the hats is 100% Cosmetic. You don't run faster. You don't shoot a third portal when equipping it. Your character isn't smaller or larger. It still has to worry about turrets. These "DLC" items are cosmetic changes to your avatar on Co-Op. So, on Co-Op, unless you take your time out of playing the game to notice they are wearing a stupid small cowboy hat, no one will notice.

I see so many times "It's the principle of the thing." What principle? They gave you a $60 game. It has some of the best comedy, writing and gameplay I've seen in a really long time. You got SP and Co-Op, and both are very well done. The graphics on all three platforms are great. However, they aren't hurting anyone. If you don't like the hats, don't purchase them! Leave the purchasing to the ignorant which actually care about the hats. If someone flaunts their needless purchase, simply de-friend them and choose a new partner.

Seriously, all of these "cosmetic" things are not affecting anything. Unfortunately, it has made Team Fortress 2 a fail game, but that is because some of their "farming" and "crafting" changes have required you to be in-game in order to trade/craft. That's a dumb move on Valve's part, but I believe they realized this issue and are not going to repeat the same mistake.

Everyone who is trolling these aggregate rating sites (namely, Metacritic), are simply trolls. 95% of these negative reviews are saying it's bad because they have this DLC. Meanwhile, Valve has a 95 Metacritic anyways, people are getting exposure to their "DLC" boosting sales.

If you seriously want a game to fail, the key is to not talk about it.

 

[Bill Bread]

What's another name for an addon?
DLC.

Which day of release was it confirmed?
Day 1.

 

[monkey_man]

This is just Skin DLC? Then It doesn't offend me. It really doesn't affect gameplay as much as say, game modes and maps. It's just cosmetic, and it doesn't matter anywhere but tf2. HATS HATS HAAAATTTTSSS!

See LBP. I don't care about extra costumes costing more, I care about half the content being shipped late, therefore it MUST cost money. It's the law or something.

 

[Pat8u]

the funny thing is I only care about portal 2 for JoCos song and btw whats that like?

 

[Koroviev]

I'm really skeptical with respect to launch-day DLC. If the content is ready to go, why is it being omitted from the disk? Is the game being released episodically or something? I see some people arguing that DLC is the product of extra development resources, but I don't buy it. I'm more inclined to believe that DLC, specifically that which is substantive (i.e. not hats, skins, etc.), is a means of indirectly raising the price of games. I don't know about anyone else, but games are expensive to me. DLC makes them more so. For my part, I won't bite until the whole game is released. Substantive parts missing? I'll pass.

 

[Bill Bread]

I'm really skeptical with respect to launch-day DLC. If the content is ready to go, why is it being omitted from the disk? Is the game being released episodically or something? I see some people arguing that DLC is the product of extra development resources, but I don't buy it. I'm more inclined to believe that DLC, specifically that which is substantive (i.e. not hats, skins, etc.), is a means of indirectly raising the price of games. I don't know about anyone else, but games are expensive to me. DLC makes them more so. For my part, I won't bite until the whole game is released. Substantive parts missing? I'll pass.

definitely. The full price of all the protal 2 Day 1 DLC is something to the tune of 28 quid.

 

[D_987]

To quote RPS [Rock Paper Shotgun]:

There is no ?Day 1 DLC?. There is the daft store, with all the overpriced guff that aesthetically augments your co-op character for the enjoyment of the one other person you?re playing with. I?m very happy to be disparaging about such silly expense, but it absolutely isn?t missing content for the game being charged for on top of the box price. That is something that gets me really riled, and something that I think openly mocks the customer ? discovering that even though they?ve paid for the game, if they want to full version with all the missions/levels/weapons, then they need to pay more. But that?s in no way the case here. You?re not missing out on anything, but for some pointless skins and hats for the co-op character that make no difference at all to the game.

 

[Isan]

It's a poorer deal for the consumer.

would in the past have been part of the main product (or the time would have been used to polish the main product further)

No it wouldn't

The time would have been put into working on something else of commercial value... you think that game devs find themselves with nothing to do for long periods so they just decided to volunteer content for the luls until this evil fad of DLC came along and made us start paying for it?

DLC can be misused, but its not always like that.

Sometimes (and this is a crazy notion) it used to give us EXTRA content, stuff we wouldn't have gotten otherwise...