Why gamers should embrace on-disc DLC

[Syzygy23]

This guys ENTIRE argument revolves around his notion that "More money = better game".

BULL.
FUCKING.
SHIT.

Resident Evil 6 had TONS of money to support it's development, and it was a mediocre pile of sludge.

And if he did even a LITTLE bit of research he would know that Star Wars Battlefront 3 was never made due to internal meddling by the publisher, and had nothing to do with how much money the previous titles had made (Star Wars Battlefront 2 was the 5th most profitable game of 2005 if I remember correctly)

This guy sounds like a corporate shill to me, and I don't just toss that label around liberally because I disagree with others opinions. This guy is trying to JUSTIFY on-disc DLC, especially the On Disc DLC from that SF X Tekken game, which is currently the BIGGEST offender.

He needs to shut up before he spreads his stupid any further.

 

[mitchell271]

The reason that companies put on-DLC in their games is so that "everyone can get the same experience, whether they buy it or not." Bullshit. When you release the DLC, include the characters in a title update. If it's on the disc, we shouldn't have to pay for me because we already payed for the disc and that should include everything that is playable on it.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

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.

I laughed and agreed.

I have a question. How is on-disc "dlc" being advertised in general? Because it seems like when these stories pop up(high enough to become visible to me) it's that someone was perusing the data on the disc or that suspiciously small downloads have given it away. Has any company actually been upfront about the practice beforehand? I know I've never bought a game with any such thing advertised on the box, and I suppose for obvious reasons...

 

[Quazimofo]

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 agree my friend.

I do not like the idea of paying for things on day one though. Perhaps a week later they could release some dlc, or even a few days after launch, but not day 1. Not because I disagree with the practice of making dlc pre-launch, but because of the mindset it causes when I get a new game. If the DLC is out as soon as the game is, suddenly i feel like im not getting the whole game, because there is a "new" piece of content that happens to be available at the same time. Its kinda like if they released a movie and its sequel on the same day. You would feel like they should have just made it one big ol' movie.

If it comes out very soon afterwards, then this feeling of "man, now i gotta pay extra for the whole thing, which is divided into multiple parts" is gone, and instead is replaced by a surprise at new stuff being released so soon after, which is much less frustrating/disheartening.

so i kinda wish they would just wait 2-7 days AFTER the release day to put out dlc. It can't possibly effect dlc sales negatively, so i really wish a game dev who is planning on day 1 dlc give day 3-7 dlc a shot instead.

 

[Robot Number V]

OK, upon further review...Yeah, I'm about 95% sure it's satire. I mean, look at the caption under the "COD Elite" picture: 'So worth the money'. It's dripping with sarcasm. And the only other picture he chose to show the "better quality games" was of a glitch.

So yeah. Pretty good satire, I guess. Especially since it fooled a lot of people. Almost fooled me.

EDIT: Wow. Fooled a LOT of people.

 

[Something Amyss]

That is true. I made the mistake of buying AC2 in the first day. Some months later (like 8 I think) I got the "GOTY" edition for around 10 bucks, cheaper than buying the dlcs separately. Never going to buy a AC first day ever again.

I liked the Jimquisition where Jim Sterling talks about this. They have literally conditioned us to wait for price drops which happen like two weeks later or GOTY that come out around the half year mark (usually a bit more, but still close). There are very few games I will buy Day 1, and even then I only do so because I want it early. Buying early seems like there's no other incentive, because it's virtually guaranteed that the game will come down in price in the foreseeable future (as opposed to "eventually").

Few games outside of niche titles and handheld titles beat this trend. Oh, and Nintendo's core games tend to do better.

If they need the money that bad, they should just raise the price of the product, not try to sell it in multiple pieces.

Or just not spend so damn much on the product at the first place.

 

[lacktheknack]

If they need the money that bad, they should just raise the price of the product, not try to sell it in multiple pieces.

Or just not spend so damn much on the product at the first place.

True. Marketing budgets are in need of a reeeeeally good haircut right now.

 

[Something Amyss]

I do not like the idea of paying for things on day one though. Perhaps a week later they could release some dlc, or even a few days after launch, but not day 1. Not because I disagree with the practice of making dlc pre-launch, but because of the mindset it causes when I get a new game.

The mindset seems largely to be semantics. I mean it's fine if they develop it as long as they intentionally sit on it for a week or two?

The biggest problem I see, honestly, is transparency. They claimed the Day 1 DLC argument with Mass Effect 3, and that was false. It's easy to argue that you're making day 1 DLC, but enough people are lying and it's really on disc.

I don't mind day 1 DLC, long as it's actually DLC and not Disc Locked Content. I probably won't buy it if it's Day 1, however.

 

[Netrigan]

I don't have a problem with certain unlockables being on-disc DLCs for on-line games.

Many companies use pre-order bonuses and having some cosmetic or minor variant as a reward is a decent enough if frivolous reward (although if they really want to encourage players to buy new, give them the first DLC free... $10 value versus $5 discount for buying used). Borderlands recently did this by offering up the Mecromancer free to anyone who pre-ordered the game.

Other than that, it was just a couple of gold colored guns that you'd almost certainly throw away an hour into the game and a key to unlock a chest which offered items usually not any better than what you can easily find in-game.

But, all-in-all a cool pre-order package, much of which was on-line DLC.

The problem is locking out real content, which people never take kindly to. Had the Mecromancer been on the disc at launch, people would have been pissed.

 

[Twilight_guy]

I think on-disk DLC can be a good thing. It's not for the reasons this guy specified. (Those reasons are dumb). I would share my reasons but I don't talk to walls and trying to talk about DLC to gamers is like talking to a wall because nobody is listening, only shouting. Also, I almost consider this thread as trolling because its quiet obvious to anyone who's been here for more then a few weeks that this is going to create a shitstorm. Even mentioning DLC, let alone posting a very opinionated story on it, kicks up massing amounts of anger and rage. I too would like to think that people can have a civil discussion but I've seen time and again that the Escapist cannot discuss this. (some people on here can but as a whole it cannot). I don't think yopu're going to get anything meaningful out of this thread besides lots of angry posters.

 

[Siege_TF]

When I bought my first new car Mitsubishi didn't sell me a car with tires that were manufactured bald, then ask me if I wanted to pay another ten tollars for treaded tires. They came with the damned car. A spoiler? Heated seats? GPS? Sure, that shit's extra, but it's not something that anyone has a right to expect on the base model of an average sedan (in 2006).

 

[Loonyyy]

-snippage-

While I am completely on the same page as you I mostly run into people justifying their demand for specific content as a right.

In other word the other side of the coin. That is what gets me annoyed.

I think the problem is, people are set on a pricing dynamic. Games cost $60 American, or $100 Au(Fuck I hate gaming in Aus), and they can't look beyond it, so they define all acts which challenge their preconceptions as immoral (Which they can't logically defend. The content is on the disk, and you bought the disk. But when you consider digital downloads, and the example that follows, you'll see how faulty that premise is). If the Disk Locked Content was not on the disk, and was delayed by a month arbitrarily and then released, but made in the original development time, people WOULD NOT NOTICE. It's the same price hike, and the same business practice, it's just disguised. If From Ashes, or the Tekken characters, or any D1DLC was just delayed for a month, people wouldn't get outraged, and that's tragic.

All DLC is an attempt to make more money off the same essential game. They make a little more content using that version of the engine, re-using old stuff at will, and sell it for up to 25% of the cost of the full game. It's a price-hike for minimal effort. If people evaluated the price of games based on personal desire to own the game (Like consumers usually do for products), rather than their sliding scale of game cost against time, then they'd have a totally different view on it.

 

[Loonyyy]

Actually, one game I wish was all day-1 DLC. Guitar/Rock band games. I got Rocksmith recently, finally released in my area, and so much DLC is out for it. But it's not available here, probably because they're afraid of being Day 1 DLC demons. And that's tragic, because some games I'd like to customise what content I get. Dropping the price of a game and stacking DLC so that the player can choose what they want is a good strategy, and it gives players the game they want.

 

[disgruntledgamer]

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.

QFT trying to embrace on-disc DLC is like trying to embrace someone who slapped you in the face and spit on you.

FYI I'm not about to turn around and say thank you sir may I have another.

 

[Thomas Hirst]

So essentially his argument is "Pay for price for a game and then smile and pay more to actually play the full game and if you don't then your a whiny ***** and don't deserve the limited content your given." Goes on to call all free to play trash and then proceeds to immediately dismiss the largest hole in his argument ie. TF2 and does all of this while defending EA?

 

[Superlative]

http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2012/038/a/c/troll_threads_by_deventh-d4oz460.jpg
yep, the pic speaks for itself here.

 

[AnotherAvatar]

Major flaw I can see in your logic: More money does not equal better games.

Example:
Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3 - Absurd amounts of cash invested, absurd amounts made from previous games in series - is a recycled hunk of shit that just repeats the series formula without trying anything original


Eternal Darkness - Moderate budget at best, which shows in it's pretty poor for the time graphics (don't blame the cube, it was actually stronger than the Xbox if I recall right, however due to it's storage medium it often couldn't work up the same quality of textures), no previous games and the few the studio had put out (I think just the one), while doing okay, weren't exactly summer blockbusters - Widely considered one of the best games of all time.


I imagine there are thousands of other examples like this.



Sir, don't be a tool of the publishers. It's cool to respect and even love the developers of your favorite game to the point where you want to give them money, but don't mistake the publisher of the game (who had nothing to do with production other than giving money and likely fucking it up by demanding shit) gouging you for alternate costumes for the developers politely asking for more to put towards other games.

 

[CardinalPiggles]

If you have money to throw around then be my guest, but if you don't earn a lot of money then supporting anti consumer practices isn't really a good idea. I'll support whoever I deem worthy thanks.

 

[Doom972]

First of all, we the customers are entitled to whatever standards we deem acceptable. We should both make it clear to the publishers/developers on official forums and by voting with our wallet.
Second, if they actually need more money than the ridiculously high $60 price provides, it means they spent too much money on making the game. Next time, they should use a lower budget. Steam sales show that you can vastly increase profits by putting your game on a 75% sale.