Why gamers should embrace on-disc DLC

Recommended Videos

Mr. Fister

New member
Jun 21, 2008
1,335
0
0
Way back in the dark, distant times known as ?half a year ago,? fans of Capcom?s latest fighting mash-em-up Street Fighter X Tekken were shocked and outraged to discover that $60 was not enough to get them the full game. Indeed, 12 fully functional and playable fighters were locked away within the game?s code, with no means of obtaining them other than paying Capcom a fee to download a code that flips their visibility switch from ?off? to ?on.? Gamers were quick to decry this as a dirty attempt by Capcom to extract more money from player?s wallets without doing a lick of extra work.

As such, Street Fighter X Tekken, a game filled with iconic characters such as Ryu, that old guy with the white hair, Chun-Li, and that guy with the tiger mask, flopped with a measly 700,000 copies sold worldwide. It did so badly that, according to VGChartz.com, it didn?t sell a single unit on either the PC or the PS Vita (though given the Vita?s poor performance, the latter isn?t too surprising). It?s such a shame that all it takes is a little bit of greed to cause an otherwise decent game to not sell and prevent the publisher from making anything more than a mild profit of a few millions.

But it?s not the publishers who are being greedy; no, it?s the gamers. Thanks to the shortsightedness of a few penny-pinchers, very few people are truly able to appreciate the upside to paying more for your games. In fact, on-disc DLC and other similar services are a stepping stone that will lead to a new generation of great games and great gaming.

?But Lem,? I can hear you saying already, despite what my neurologist tells me. ?On-disc content and day-one DLC has no reason not to be included in the game already. How could that possibly lead to better games??

First off, shut up. I paid a ton for these pills, and I expect them to at least make you all sound a little less whiny. Secondly, it?s such a simple answer that even a grade-schooler could grasp it: the more money a developer has, the better their games will be.

I?m going to throw some big concepts out here, so bear with me. Game development is a process that runs entirely on money. The more money a developer has to throw around, the more they can put towards a project. This leads to things like bigger production values, larger set pieces, more detailed graphics, better voice-actors, and more epic music. Why else do games like Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto get consistently high reviews after multiple iterations? Money, dear boy.


Money also prevents immersion-shattering glitches like these.

In other words, adding more money to a game is like injecting it with a cocktail of awesome mixed with some kick-ass. Unfortunately for developers, the costs needed to make these insanely good games are constantly going up. Even EA, with all of their million-selling franchises, has been consistently losing more money than they?re making since this generation began. Naturally, this means developers have to ask gamers to pay a little extra for their products to guarantee future awesomeness. Sometimes this leads to things like DLC released on day one or content locked on the disc.

Yet for even these meager attempts at raising the price of games, gamers still refuse to pay for them. Gamer entitlement has rapidly grown out of control since the beginning of this generation. ?Why should I pay so much to be able to play the games I like?? to paraphrase about 9 out of 10 forum gamers. ?I can get the same amount of content in other games for way cheaper.? This may sound sensible and logical on the surface, but asinine comments like these only show just how ignorant these people can be.

Allow me to divulge a valuable piece of wisdom that will clear up this confusion: You get what you pay for. Never in any other medium has this kernel of truth been more evident than in video games.

It?s no real secret that the best services in gaming are the ones that cost the most*. Xbox Live Gold costs $50 for a year of online, but it?s hands down the strongest online of the consoles. Activision released an optional subscription service for Call of Duty last year, but the DLC and fancy stats you get with it make it the most engaging CoD ever. Conversely, this same reason is why nobody takes the smartphone gaming market seriously, or why there is no such thing as a great game that is also free-to-play (don?t say Team Fortress 2. That game was better on Xbox, anyway).


So worth the money.

But gamers still insist on being as shrewd as possible, and the developers suffer for this. Companies live and die on the money given to them from gamers, and the less money a company receives, the more likely they are to go out of business and never make games again.

Need I remind everyone about companies such as Midway and Acclaim? Back in the day, these two companies were massive forces in the game industry, and churned out quality game after quality game. So what happened to them? People quit buying their games, and they died.

Everyone suffers when a company goes under. Hundreds of workers are suddenly out of a job in a terrible economic climate filled with competing tech university grad students. They may be lucky if they can land a job pushing out shovelware for the rest of their lives. Meanwhile, gamers may never get the chance to play new installments in their favorite franchises again.



Thanks to greedy gamers, we will never get to play this.

It?s a simple choice, really: Pay publishers the extra money for DLC and guarantee the continuation of our favorite franchises, or stop and watch companies go under faster than a fat, armless kid in a swimming pool. It?s time to give publishers the respect and cash they deserve. Next time you see a game you like confirmed to have a good chunk of its content locked on the disc for you to pay an extra sum on top of the $60 price-tag, pay for it with a smile. A smile and cold, hard cash.
Source: http://systemwarsmagazine.com/2012/10/11/lemming-why-gamers-should-embrace-on-disc-dlc/

As obnoxious as this guy is, he does raise a point on gamer entitlement. It's impossible to go on a forum and not find someone whining about corruption or something they want changed in a game (See: Mass Effect 3 and Left4Dead 2.)

So what say you, Escapist? Yay or nay on On-Disc DLC and developer support?
 

tippy2k2

Beloved Tyrant
Legacy
Mar 15, 2008
14,870
2,349
118
Bullshit.

I should probably be more specific...

As a consumer, it is not my job to make sure that your company receives money. If I feel what you are releasing is worth the money, I will purchase it. If I do not think it is worth the money, I do not purchase it. It's not my job to make sure your company stays afloat, it's yours (as in the game developer/publisher, not you the person reading this. Unless you are a CEO of a publisher, in which case I am talking to you).

On DLC:
Extra Credits makes a compelling argument for Day-1 DLC [http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/mass-effect-3-dlc]. If you don't want to watch, I'll give a quick run-down: The certification process to make games good to go to retail takes a few months. In these few months, a team has minimal to do. Put said team to work on DLC, which is ready by launch or near it. Bam! Day 1 DLC. Not everyone is OK with this practice but I am. If I feel the new DLC is worth the money, I will happily hand you my cash.

On-disc DLC is bullshit on the other hand. If the DLC is on the disc, that means that it was created with the bulk of the game (since this DLC would have to go through certification process in order to be included on the disc; you couldn't create it later like day 1 DLC and put it on afterwards). That means that this DLC was created with the game and then cut out to make DLC. Most gamers see this as a very despicable practice and will not financially support a game (you know, by buying it) when companies do this. Gamers have figured out this trick and it's your own damn fault if your game crashes because you think gamers haven't figured it out.
 

Fr]anc[is

New member
May 13, 2010
1,893
0
0
Got about halfway through before I got sick of trudging through that bias of his. He's not even pretending to be neutral or objective.
 

Vegosiux

New member
May 18, 2011
4,381
0
0
Utter load of bull.

If a company tries to guilt trip me into buying a shitty product, just who is sporting a rather glaring case of self-entitlement?

Hint: It's not me.
 

Windcaler

New member
Nov 7, 2010
1,332
0
0
Yeah he's full of it.

As a consumer I make the choice whether something is worth my money and by my purely subjective point of view I see on disk locked content and day 1 DLC as business practices that I will not support. If a game pulls either of those I wont buy it and I will actively encourage other consumers not to buy it by sharing my point of view

A company standing there and saying I should buy these games even though they have business practices that I dont support is acting as if they are entitled to my money. They arent. They have to earn my money by putting out a good product with business practices that I agree with or feel indifferent about.

There is also the fallacy that more money = better games. To draw a comparison Mass effect 1 was quite possibly one of the best RPGs Ive played from Bioware but even though it had a smaller budget then ME3 it was still the better game. Tighter story, better controls, bigger feeling world, etc. What determines if a game is good or not is the talented designers behind it, not money
 

Rawne1980

New member
Jul 29, 2011
4,144
0
0
I think tippy just about hit the nail on the head.

It's not our job to make sure a developer or publisher does well. The only thing that concerns me is getting value for my money.

If DLC is on the disk already then it was created with the game and therefore i'm not paying extra for, what is essentially, extra bits to an unfinished game.

If a game has on disk DLC or day 1 DLC then I don't buy that game at all.

I do so it as money grabbing.

I don't buy DLC as it is. I pay once for a game and once only.

The only thing I know for sure about all this entitlement bullshit that's flying around is that i'm entitled to spend my money how I please.

Considering I usually wait until a game hit's bargain bucket prices on Amazon before I buy it then there is very little chance i'm going to spend money on any extra content for that game.

It's very rare I buy a game on release and if I get the faintest whiff of on disk DLC or day 1 DLC then I avoid like the plague.
 

Kopikatsu

New member
May 27, 2010
4,924
0
0
He says that, but Starwars Battlefront never had DLC, ondisk or otherwise.

So no. Eff that guy.
 

WoW Killer

New member
Mar 3, 2012
965
0
0
The only way I can describe this is Stockholm Syndrome.

I don't even care about on-disc DLC. Off-disc DLC is often in production before the game is released, and fitting it in with the main game saves on distribution costs. The box price still covers the cost of developing the main game, and the DLC price covers the cost of developing the DLC (though arguably often over-priced; separate issue). It's all the same, whether it's on disc or not.

But this argument is frankly insane. This is saying that it's our duty to buy the products the producers are rolling out, in order to keep them in business. That's nonsense. As consumers, we have only one duty, which is to buy precisely what we want to buy. If the producers want to stay in business then they need to be creating the products that we want to buy.
 

BiggyShackleton

New member
Nov 15, 2008
272
0
0
Holy shit, so much shitstorm bait and then I saw this.

or why there is no such thing as a great game that is also free-to-play (don't say Team Fortress 2. That game was better on Xbox, anyway).

http://d22zlbw5ff7yk5.cloudfront.net/images/cm-26400-0507b97a7ece10.gif
 

skywolfblue

New member
Jul 17, 2011
1,514
0
0
Game development is a process that runs entirely on money. The more money a developer has to throw around, the more they can put towards a project.
Ho boy. I shouldn't need to explain what an obvious fallacy that is.

How much money the company makes has nothing to do with the end product.
 

luckshot

New member
Jul 18, 2008
426
0
0
yeah....gonna join the masses and say no, on disk dlc is not good for gaming.

throwing money at a problem does not always solve it,

and in the case of bugs and in game issues on disk content locked off by a key the development has been paid for.

allowing them to get away with locking of chunks of a developed game behind pay walls will just lead to people paying for bullets in call of duty


day one dlc can be good and useful because it can be developed during the down time after the main game is completed but not shipped/on shelves yet


edit: also his comment that the best services cost money, while i may sound like a fanboy i will direct him to steam which is free and i find fantastic...okay i might be a fanboy
 

OldDirtyCrusty

New member
Mar 12, 2012
701
0
0
Oh come on people. This guy is clearly joking around to show us how this twisted publisher advertising logic works. Hard cash for more and better content is such a hollow promise. If this buisness model would really work we would get less and less content for the same price. To a certain degree it already works this way.
The way he wrote this article i just can`t take it serious and i don`t think it was meant to be.
 

Soviet Heavy

New member
Jan 22, 2010
12,218
0
0
Kopikatsu said:
He says that, but Starwars Battlefront never had DLC, ondisk or otherwise.

So no. Eff that guy.
Not quite. Battlefront 2 did have one DLC, but it was Xbox exclusive. It added two new heroes, Assajj Ventress and Kit Fisto, added the Yavin IV Arena map to the game, and made Hero Assault playable on Kashyyyk.
 

Kopikatsu

New member
May 27, 2010
4,924
0
0
Soviet Heavy said:
Kopikatsu said:
He says that, but Starwars Battlefront never had DLC, ondisk or otherwise.

So no. Eff that guy.
Not quite. Battlefront 2 did have one DLC, but it was Xbox exclusive. It added two new heroes, Assajj Ventress and Kit Fisto, added the Yavin IV Arena map to the game, and made Hero Assault playable on Kashyyyk.
Oh. Well, meh. Why does Microsoft get exclusive content while the PS3 gets exclusive games? It's bothersome.
 

Kaamos

New member
Oct 2, 2012
20
0
0
It seemed like he was being sarcastic, I seriously thought this was a parody when I first started reading it.

About the author: The Lemming is a die-hard follower of the Xbox. He started gaming with the original Xbox, and considers anything that isn?t M-rated and/or a sim racer to be games for children. Although Microsoft has since abandoned him as a target audience with the Xbox 360 and Kinect, he still feels satisfied playing his Halo rehashes and the various multiplats that he could get anywhere else.
Come on, really? This has to be a joke.
 

The_Lost_King

New member
Oct 7, 2011
1,506
0
0
tippy2k2 said:
Bullshit.

I should probably be more specific...

As a consumer, it is not my job to make sure that your company receives money. If I feel what you are releasing is worth the money, I will purchase it. If I do not think it is worth the money, I do not purchase it. It's not my job to make sure your company stays afloat, it's yours (as in the game developer/publisher, not you the person reading this. Unless you are a CEO of a publisher, in which case I am talking to you).

On DLC:
Extra Credits makes a compelling argument for Day-1 DLC [http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/mass-effect-3-dlc]. If you don't want to watch, I'll give a quick run-down: The certification process to make games good to go to retail takes a few months. In these few months, a team has minimal to do. Put said team to work on DLC, which is ready by launch or near it. Bam! Day 1 DLC. Not everyone is OK with this practice but I am. If I feel the new DLC is worth the money, I will happily hand you my cash.

On-disc DLC is bullshit on the other hand. If the DLC is on the disc, that means that it was created with the bulk of the game (since this DLC would have to go through certification process in order to be included on the disc; you couldn't create it later like day 1 DLC and put it on afterwards). That means that this DLC was created with the game and then cut out to make DLC. Most gamers see this as a very despicable practice and will not financially support a game (you know, by buying it) when companies do this. Gamers have figured out this trick and it's your own damn fault if your game crashes because you think gamers haven't figured it out.
Yay this guy said exactly what I was thinking and said it better than i would have. Sometimes it is nice to be ninjad(is it ninjad or ninjaed?).

Also I love how you say not buying DLC stopped us from having a battlefront 3 when it was really Lucas Arts stupidity by not allowing pandemic to make another.
 

Orthus

New member
Mar 16, 2011
12
0
0
I'm not a fan of on on-disc dlc, since if it is ready before the game was released than it should have been part of the game.But I think a major issue with on-disc dlc is that it makes gamers feel like they are not getting the full game when they buy it.

Now if the content was made after the game was released or "printed", than I can understand why it would be dlc and have no problem with that, or even a dlc disc released near the same time as the game.
 

DugMachine

New member
Apr 5, 2010
2,566
0
0
Correct me if I'm wrong. I never really looked into this on-disc DLC thing as I didn't understand it. But then it came to me, you pay full retail price for the thing and they expect buy the "DLC" which is just something that unlocks it on the disc amirite? So they're essentially screwing you over.

If so, that's a load of bullshit. If it's that simple I can't believe it took me this long to figure it out hah.
 

DugMachine

New member
Apr 5, 2010
2,566
0
0
BiggyShackleton said:
Holy shit, so much shitstorm bait and then I saw this.

or why there is no such thing as a great game that is also free-to-play (don't say Team Fortress 2. That game was better on Xbox, anyway).

http://d22zlbw5ff7yk5.cloudfront.net/images/cm-26400-0507b97a7ece10.gif
Oh my god I didn't even see that. This guy has just lost all credibility.