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

[deathbydeath]

To quell the upcoming on-disc "dlc" argument and provide a solution: If you're making D1DLC after you've sent the game to the publishers/console manufacturers, then when you send it off, fucking tell the public "We're done making the game, it's being tested right now, we're going to go make more content for you guys." Then release it as a preorder bonus. Bam, problem solved.

"Booster Pack dlc": It honestly depends on the genre and style of the game. In a game like ME3 multiplayer, there's too much chance involved for it to be regularly worth it, unless you made the low level items actually worth a damn and added in a trading between players aspect. In other games, like online ccg's, then feel free if your game heavily uses on chance. Otherwise, make it trivial in both cost and output. (no irl cash used)

 

[LetalisK]

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.

I don't see what the point would be, though. If these are essentially "stimpaks", implying they are relatively small, having to download them to temporarily boost popularity isn't really that inconvenient.

Yeah, I'm still having a hard time seeing what added benefit on-disc DLC has for consumers, paid or not.

 

[Darknacht]

It seems kinda pointless to include free on disk DLC that will be unlocked at a later date it will just discourage people from buying the game right away when it costs more and you get less, besides people would just mod it into the game.

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?

You paid for a licenses not the data on the disk the disk is just a delivery method. If you don't like the idea of on disk DLC don't buy games that have it.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

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?

Okay you can use it. But you have to figure out a way to unlock it yourself.

 

[freakonaleash]

I like the system ME3 has where you can use credits you get in-game to buy "booster packs". It really spices up the multiplayer I think.

 

[Troublesome Lagomorph]

If its on the disk and free, then what's the bloody point of it being locked?

 

[krazykidd]

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.

This made me lol . I hope you aren't serious. Worst . Metaphore . Ever.

OT: your theory makes little sense . Why lock content to just start a game when it's getting old? Why not just make a game people will want to play for a long time . Even then . Wouldn't it be more fun to have all the content in the begining . Also remember theres a chance that a) people don't replay the game because of this little jumpstart and b) people will buy the game later and get the content from go . Plus don't companies make dlc , less for fans and more for making money?

 

[smeghead00]

in some case, i want what is only on the disk. If not having online multiplayer on some games would mean a price drop for me, i'd be all for it.
Games should be like easyjet, the base package it cheap, but to make it how you want it, you need to buy upgrades