Would you mind "booster packs" in your games? (Free on disc DLC)

[Terminate421]

I just finished watching Jimquisition when I had a theory that MIGHT be helpful for certain games.

I know on disc DLC is technically "evil" but the idea behind it may actually work in this aspect.

Take a game like Battlefield 3, recently there was a massive update which introduced Back to Karkand that also included new maps and guns. I got the DLC for free but imagine had the game been sold without it first, then EA decided to release the DLC over time while it was all still on disc, all dlc was free. (No jokes about this, this is all theoretical)

The idea is much like a stimpak or the ability to jumpstart a game as it begins to lose popularity with the content being free.

I think about this but I also do feel it still may be somewhat evil, mostly due to people who are not online the inability to access the content.

 

[Bad Jim]

It strikes me as being unnecessarily complicated. If it's on the disc and playable by anyone who bought it, why not just let them play it? There is the DRM angle, but why would they lock off a fraction of the product when they could have a similar DRM check that applies to the whole game?

 

[RJ 17]

I think the main problem with on-disc DLC is that people expect their DLC to be downloadable...not unlockable. People don't mind paying another 5 or 10 bucks for a DLC pack, it's when they find out that they paid 5 to 10 bucks to unlock something that was on a disc they already paid 60 bucks for that they start getting angry.

 

[Terminate421]

It strikes me as being unnecessarily complicated. If it's on the disc and playable by anyone who bought it, why not just let them play it? There is the DRM angle, but why would they lock off a fraction of the product when they could have a similar DRM check that applies to the whole game?

Remember, its a theory.

Like I said, the idea is to provide DLC over time quickly and without any complaints, it lengthens the span of the games life over time for free.

 

[Leemaster777]

People need to get over the On Disk DLC. It doesn't matter what is on the disk.

You dont get what is on the disk. You get what you pay for.

Yes, you get what you paid for, and you pay for the disc and what is on it. When you lock away part of that you are no longer getting what you paid for.

Quoted for truth. I am HIGHLY against on-disc DLC. I paid for my copy of the game. That disc, that is sitting in my PS3, is mine. And so is all the data on it. Why, oh why, do I have to pay MORE money to access something that is already mine?

 

[Terminate421]

People need to get over the On Disk DLC. It doesn't matter what is on the disk.

You dont get what is on the disk. You get what you pay for.

Yes, you get what you paid for, and you pay for the disc and what is on it. When you lock away part of that you are no longer getting what you paid for.

Quoted for truth. I am HIGHLY against on-disc DLC. I paid for my copy of the game. That disc, that is sitting in my PS3, is mine. And so is all the data on it. Why, oh why, do I have to pay MORE money to access something that is already mine?

Thats why I wonder if it was free would it be a good thing? If released at the right times, it could provide "jump starts" for games that are losing popularity.

 

[Terminate421]

People need to get over the On Disk DLC. It doesn't matter what is on the disk.

You dont get what is on the disk. You get what you pay for.

Yes, you get what you paid for, and you pay for the disc and what is on it. When you lock away part of that you are no longer getting what you paid for.

Quoted for truth. I am HIGHLY against on-disc DLC. I paid for my copy of the game. That disc, that is sitting in my PS3, is mine. And so is all the data on it. Why, oh why, do I have to pay MORE money to access something that is already mine?

Thats why I wonder if it was free would it be a good thing? If released at the right times, it could provide "jump starts" for games that are losing popularity.

If it was good enough it wouldn't die out.

Case in point. CS 1.6, Quake 3, COD2.

You do at least see my point?

Imagine Starcraft but after the standard races, Blizzard releases more races for you to access for free, allowing you to try out new strategies etc.

 

[dyre]

People need to get over the On Disk DLC. It doesn't matter what is on the disk.

You dont get what is on the disk. You get what you pay for.

Yes, you get what you paid for, and you pay for the disc and what is on it. When you lock away part of that you are no longer getting what you paid for.

What if they just pulled it off the disc and made it downloadable instead? I never understood this debate, or why publishers don't just avoid this whole problem by keeping stuff off the disc.

 

[Terminate421]

People need to get over the On Disk DLC. It doesn't matter what is on the disk.

You dont get what is on the disk. You get what you pay for.

Yes, you get what you paid for, and you pay for the disc and what is on it. When you lock away part of that you are no longer getting what you paid for.

Quoted for truth. I am HIGHLY against on-disc DLC. I paid for my copy of the game. That disc, that is sitting in my PS3, is mine. And so is all the data on it. Why, oh why, do I have to pay MORE money to access something that is already mine?

Thats why I wonder if it was free would it be a good thing? If released at the right times, it could provide "jump starts" for games that are losing popularity.

If it was good enough it wouldn't die out.

Case in point. CS 1.6, Quake 3, COD2.

You do at least see my point?

Imagine Starcraft but after the standard races, Blizzard releases more races for you to access for free, allowing you to try out new strategies etc.

No, I would imagine that would piss off the community a lot as there is no point trying to form strategies to see them useless in a month or so.

If you want to jump start a game then do what Valve did with TF2, make and release new content for free post launch.

What if it worked for little things. I love DLC shit (stuff that isn't on the Disc) but imagine the little things that could be release, a new gun here or there to a new skin, and they are free.

I do see your point but remember that this topic is more of a theory rather than an actual idea.

 

[Jadak]

This just seems dumb...

If it's on the disc, and free, it's part of the game already and there's nothing to be discussed.

If the only purpose is to delay that particular content, don't bother. Either put out DLC or don't, but don't start time-locking included elements of the game for arbitrary reasons.

 

[Rumpsteak]

Well I'm certainly not for the idea but to be honest I can't say I'm against it either, at least not until the companies take it to it's seemingly inevitable conclusion of an ever increasing amount of the game being locked until "further notice".

 

[NightHawk21]

Here's the problem I have with on disk DLC. If the content is already on disc that means it was prepped before being sent out to be reviewed, packaged, etc. It was made alongside the product you paid for. IMO that is bullshit. Any material that is finished before the game goes into that final stage of production should be available to the consumer since it was made with the funds the company was given to produce the initial game. Now if the company wants to make DLC while the game is in that final stage, by all means go ahead, but purposefully locking content (any content even if its free is dumb).

 

[Humanity1]

Couldn't you argue that Nintendo has been doing this with Pokemon for more than a decade? All the legendary Pokemon have always been on-cartridge from the start but you need to wait for Nintendo to unlock them, either by going to an event or, more recently, via wifi.

You could argue that since these Pokemon are on disk you should be allowed to catch them from day. Heck you can't even complete the Pokedex without these guys. And some people do think they should have access from day 1 and find ways to access this part of their game and no one seems to mind.

Assuming companies were reasonable about this and acted like Nintendo has about the whole situation above (made the release of the free content fun and not worried about people who find ways to access it early) I'd be all for it. It gives you a reason to come back and the Pokemon example has shown fans of a franchise don't mind shaking up their strategies when the new content is released.

 

[Zen Toombs]

I just finished watching Jimquisition when I had a theory that MIGHT be helpful for certain games.

I know on disc DLC is technically "evil" but the idea behind it may actually work in this aspect.

Take a game like Battlefield 3, recently there was a massive update which introduced Back to Karkand that also included new maps and guns. I got the DLC for free but imagine had the game been sold without it first, then EA decided to release the DLC over time while it was all still on disc, all dlc was free.

Well, I disagree with Jim that all on disc DLC is all of the demons. In my opinion, there is one reason to have on disc DLC - to allow for post-release content.

Let me use Mass Effect 2 as an example - the game required the basics of Katsumi and Zaeed to be on the disc in order for those characters to be selected in the character select screen without possibly inducing game breaking bugs. But the only thing on the disc was a hook to place those characters and missions, and nothing more. Nothing more is needed, and this is good - it allows for the game to be expanded, and expanded quickly and easily.

This is in juxtoposition to (for example) Mass Effect 3.[footnote]I have no wish to rag on Mass Effect 3 on this thread, I'm just working with what I know.[/footnote] Javik is a DLC character for Mass Effect 3, and I have heard reports of that character being unlocked for free by altering the games files. Jim also mentioned games that have DLC that is merely a code that unlocks DLC already on the disc. This is bad, because you're purposefully selling a game that is incomplete.

As for your idea - it's not horrible, and I wouldn't "HATE 4EVERS" a company that did that. However, I still don't like it, especially because that additional content needs to be certified at the same time as the rest of the game is certified.