Why gamers should embrace on-disc DLC

[Gatx]

There is a very, very easy way for devs and publishers to avoid the bad press of "on disc DLC." It's basically Day 1 DLC anyway, so just don't put it on the damn disc.

Anyway here's an article that argues the same thing, just more reasonably and with a less accusatory tone.
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/10/op-ed-why-on-disc-downloadable-content-isnt-a-big-deal/

 

[Vault101]

[

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.)

I'd argue anyone calling the ME3 incident entitlement doesn't know what the actual problem was (or doesnt care)

but then lets not dig that up again

and way everyone else has already said...bullshit....bullshit all round

 

[BoredAussieGamer]

Alright, I'm gonna invoke it as no-one else has done it yet. I call Poe's law-

Come on guys, this is obviously either a flame bait article or satire, more likely the latter.

Poe's law?

Damn you and your ninja ways! But yes, I smell a terrible satirist.

Either that, or he's an obnoxious turd who knows nothing about economics.

 

[Palademon]

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.

There's something wrong with this entire paragraph.

Oh shit man, we are greedy for not buying products we disagree with. We should give to publishers like charities, because they obviously need more money if they're gunna make good games!

...the hell is this.

It's not customers' fault that Battlfront 3 wasn't finished. We've been begging for it for ages. When you have tons of customers begging, how does that not seem like a good idea as opposed to games we're crucifying?
The reason Battlefront 3 wasn't made was because the publishers were fucking with whatever developer they gave it to.

This guy is trying to screw with us.

 

[Sandjube]

He's trolling, right? He must be. I actually refuse to accept any other explanation. If he's not then I sincerely hope his computer blows up or something because he's the reason I hate games sometimes.

 

[Yopaz]

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.

Maybe it's the best for consoles, but that doesn't change the fact that there is an even better free online service called Steam out there. The second best might cost a bit, but the best is free.

As for the rest, sure publishers need money and it doesn't bother me that they actually do things to make it. I have spoken in favour of project 10 dollars on numerous occasions because it awards people who buy new without withholding content from those who buy used. I don't really see the difference between Day 1 DLC and on disc DLC. While I find it questionable to have on disc DLC that you have to pay for I do see the reasoning behind it.

 

[Wolfhowl the shadow lurker]

Nope.. just nope why should it me up to me to help them make better games? its not thats their job! the job of which they are given money for if they fail at it im not to blame. also why do people keep making out that on disc DLC is some kind of big evil that people who make games have to do as jim says "waaa! they made me do it waa! they made me take more money!" no you wanted more money for less work and people are going to be pissed about it as i am

 

[Baron von Blitztank]

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).

Aaaaannnnnnd, THERE! That is where I stop reading.
You could have made some valid points Mr Writer but with a statement like that it's finally made me notice that you were writing this underneath a bridge. Begone from the depths thou hast come from foul fiend!

 

[Jandau]

People, the article is either written sarcastically or is deliberate troll bait. Or both. It's fairly obvious since the author put in several remarks that are outright untrue. It's actually a clever piece of satire in its own way.

However, what is concerning is that the OP quoted the article seriously. THAT'S worrying. It's like when someone starts seriously quoting articles from the Onion in an honest debate about politics...

 

[Razentsu]

Street Fighter X Tekken

an otherwise decent game

Loooool. SFxT flopped not only because of the on-disc DLC hooplah, but mainly because the game just wasn't that good.

But yeah, after reading all that, I doubt this guy is serious.

 

[Dandark]

I am pretty sure he is trolling it. I would give it a 9/10 as I actually believed he was serious for a bit and it was quite entertaining.

I mean come on, there are no good free games? Don't say TF2 because it was better on console anyway? No way he is serious if he has any idea what he is talking about.

 

[dimensional]

Street Fighter X Tekken

an otherwise decent game

Loooool. SFxT flopped not only because of the on-disc DLC hooplah, but mainly because the game just wasn't that good.

But yeah, after reading all that, I doubt this guy is serious.

Exactly what I was thinking to be honest Capcom didnt do themselves any favours in this game its supposed to be a competitive game and the locked on disc DLC pissed a lot of people off as it takes away a lot of the potential pieces then there is the gem system and being able to buy gems to give you an even greater edge in battle, its not quite pay to win but its pay to have an advantage which is not good for a competitive game.

Also the timer was incredibly short before the patch(es) so most rounds ended with time out not to mention the number of infinites in the game and even game breaking glitches even after the patch especially the rolento knife/ fireball glitch oh and the fact that one of its unique features Pandora mode is almost completely useless basically its use is so niche and situational that if you activate it its almost as if you are throwing away the match.

Stylistically it resembles SFIV so it looks the same as an old game and most people seem to think that watching matches of SFXT are pretty boring which isnt good (I think they are ok but I would rather watch almost any other fighting game). No doubt people more familiar with it could give more reasons why SFXT is having a really hard time. Capcom is still supporting it and patching it and trying to get a strong competitive scene going for it but they have a huge uphill battle most people it seems have either ignored it or moved on leaving only a few faithful.

I agree with others in that more money does not necessarily make a better game they just need enough money to realise their game concept if they dont expect it to make loads of cash they should budget accordingly. You should never make your customers feel like they are getting ripped off you can do it if they think they are getting a good deal but as soon as they feel they are being done its extremely hard to make them feel that the money they have to pay/have paid is justified.

 

[Legion]

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.

I do like it when an OP's argument is countered completely on the very first post.

Gamers do sometimes have a bizarre sense of entitlement, yes. Like when they throw around words such as "betrayed" when a company doesn't include something in a sequel that they want to. That doesn't automatically discredit people with the same complaints who simply see it as something less personal.

Case in point: Mass Effect 3's ending had issues, and people had the right to be pissed off with it. The ones who cried out that they deserve an apology or free DLC to make up for it are somewhat childish, and where the criticism in regards to entitlement are valid. Those who swear off buying Bioware games until they learn to stop screwing up on the other hand are simply exercising their right as paying customers to decide whether or not they support a business practice or not.

When it comes to DLC, customers have every right to be angry when disc-locked content exists, because it is not something extra, it is something they cut out and made you pay for.

To use a car analogy as they work well:

You go to buy a car that's say £2000 (just to have an example).

DLC is going into a shop and paying to upgrade your sound system to be able to play MP3's for an extra charge of £50.

Disc locked content is having that MP3 ability already installed in the £2000 car, but it is not available to use unless you cough up some more money.

If you bought the car, and it has the feature installed, then there is no valid reason for you not having access to it, you did not pay for part of the car, you paid for the whole damn thing.

 

[VeneratedWulfen93]

That was bit of a slog for no reason. The only thing I could semi-agree with is that Gamers are more 'entitled' now.

 

[KissmahArceus]

I'm never happy about on disc DLC but Day One DLC? Bring it on I say, DLC for single player focused titles sells better in the first month than any other time,

The dev view on day one dlc Look, it's simple. One team puts together a rough estimate on how much they expect to make from DLC.
Let's call that "A". Then another team puts together an estimate on how much it will cost to develop that DLC.
Let's call that "B". A > B, you get Day One DLC.

That's sorta how a developer explained it in a live chat on Kotaku, paraphrased a wee bit but that's the gist.
If it makes money, they make DLC.
As a side note, I LOVE DLC, if I am in to a game, more of that game is a win for me, it gets me playing again, mixes up the way it plays, provides new locations or experiences etc
LOVE IT but I prefer substantial expansions to piecemeal content anyday

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

Xbox Live is strongest online of the consoles: There are really only two competing here, and other is FREE. I would be saddened if PSN was better.

No good free-to-play games(don't say TF2, it was better on Xbox): Well f*** that, I say TF2. Because it wasn't.

Most engaging CoD due to Elite: Engaging CoD you say. A novel concept. Black Ops had by far enough stats to be useful to your gameplay and you didn't have to pay for those.

No-one takes the smartphone gaming market seriously: Jesus Christ you are slow on the uptake. It's getting more and more serious by the day.

Look imma cut to the chase. On-disc DLC is bad because it is inherently cut from the main game because it has to pass certification. This is due to one of two things: Money-grubbing developers or uncompromising dick publishers. Neither of those things have anything to do with the people who buy the game. Even worse is the potential for abuse. On-disc DLC presents the possibility that working sections of the game could have been cut purely to make an extra buck. I've often thought of Skyrim. There is a massive amount of material in that game, and honestly, if it weren't for established lore I don't think anyone would have noticed had one or two races not been present, and would have ruptured money if they were offered later.

Also, how is it entitlement to see a quick buck being made and deciding to have no part of it? This guy suggests that companies going under because people don't think their games are worth the money, or because players decide not to shell out additional money, is somehow the players' fault. Ehm...no. That is the company's fault for making a game that wasn't worth what they sold it for. It is a severe problem: developers are forced to release unfinished games and promise DLC to fix it, and publishers are perplexed when the game doesn't do well. Hint: It's because some of the game is MISSING.

tl;dr: Making games and DLC that aren't worth their price tags is not the player's fault, and companies that do it deserve to go under. We have no obligation to give companies more money than we expect to for the product we expect to get.

 

[Legion]

When it comes to DLC, customers have every right to be angry when disc-locked content exists, because it is not something extra, it is something they cut out and made you pay for.

To use a car analogy as they work well:

You go to buy a car that's say £2000 (just to have an example).

DLC is going into a shop and paying to upgrade your sound system to be able to play MP3's for an extra charge of £50.

Disc locked content is already having that MP3 ability already installed in the £2000 car, but it is not available to use unless you cough up some more money.

So the whole definition goes up in smoke the second you add the ability long as you add the ability to patch your product. The game is no longer defined as is what is on the disk, but defined as the functionality that you were promised.

The car analogy is quite simply wrong here.

As a matter of fact the whole analogy falls apart from a production and a functionality standpoint. Cars gets made without extras and have the extras added. That is physically impossible in your definition right here. If you download the extra afterwards or you take it from the disk shouldn't make any difference. It is just the delivery method. The product and the offer is the same.

You have actually just completely proved my point.

The car analogy is wrong, because they could never get away with doing what game developers are doing.

Some cars have a normal CD player.
Some have a CD player that can play MP3's.

If you have the former, then you need to go out and install the latter, as it doesn't come with the car that you bought.

If you have the latter then you don't need to, as it's already in the car when it was manufactured, so you have already paid for it and already own it.

The reason that it is wrong is because car manufacturers could never get away with including a piece of content in a car that comes with it what you bought, and deliberately blocking you from using it unless you paid more for it.

I was not suggesting that they did. I was suggesting that my analogy would be the equivalent of what some game companies are doing, and I was making the point to show how ridiculous it is.