Jimquisition: On-Disc DLC Cannot Be Justified

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Crono1973:

Grey Day for Elcia:
People who complain about on-disc DLC (a misnomer) don't understand how video games are made.

Rather simple really.

People who use this argument don't understand how video games were made BEFORE this gen. Also, the consumers doesn't need to know how a product is made to have an opinion about it.

You know Escapist, I don't get hassled with having to type slogans/captcha on any other forum.

People who complain about captcha simply don't understand how it works.

Rather stupid really...

We should battle attempts to nickle and dime us whenever they arise. Games before 2007 were just great without this bullshit.

Oh Jim, you always know exactly what to say. Thank God for Jim!

Mr. Omega:

DLC was a good concept. Hell, putting stuff on-disc had a couple practical uses. But as usual, some greedy motherfuckers decide to ruin it for everyone. We're paying $60 for a glorified beta test. And people wonder why I've been getting more enjoyment out of the Wii this generation...

That's the thing, everyone used to like dlc until some unfortunate publishers looked at it purely as a means to rape consumers' wallets.
I like it when a great game with a lot of content adds more great content for a good value. Borderlands (even if it did cost you $100 in the end) is a great example of getting your money's worth out of dlc and the original release.
What sucks is that most of the games that come out now are rather light on content then add more content at premium prices.
For all the shit the wii has taken this generation, it has at least managed to keep console gaming pretty straightforward.

Sexual Harassment Panda:

We should battle attempts to nickle and dime us whenever they arise. Games before 2007 were just great without this bullshit.

It's funny. I think of San Andreas. If it came out this generation, they would've been able to patch a lot of those annoying bugs. However, we probably would've had to pay $60 for the first island and $30 for the other two.

Flimsii:

DVS BSTrD:

Mr. Omega:
Cliffy B. is the embodiment of everything that is wrong with the modern game industry, at least in term of a single person.

DLC was a good concept. Hell, putting stuff on-disc had a couple practical uses. But as usual, some greedy motherfuckers decide to ruin it for everyone. We're paying $60 for a glorified beta test. And people wonder why I've been getting more enjoyment out of the Wii this generation...

Classy. Taking a defense for a completely unrelated matter on an unrelated video to take a shot at someone.

Just like Movie Bob!

Retake Mass Effect: Because everyone who disagrees with us is either retarded or bought by EA.

And everyone who thinks that developers should change something about their game is an entitled fanboy with NO respect for artistic integrity.

Yeah, i was going to forgive MovieBob for his comments on the ME3 Ending because he was making them in ignorance until he brought it up again in his cabin in the woods article. Comparing horror fans who want the exact same movie formula played out over and over to those who wanted bioware to release a decent ending, then repeated this over and over for a full page of writing.

I still go to him for movie reviews, because it's a subject he actually PRETENDS to have some fucking appreciation of.

Spot on. I don't care if the DLC wouldn't exist without these methods, I don't want it to exist. All DLC has done this generation is fragment fanbases to no end.

Fighting games seem to be the most atrocious example for this to happen with. How can anyone be on an equal playing field when half of the content is behind a premium paywall? Doesn't that fundamentally alter the tournament scene? How is that ever acceptable?

It's just scummy to no end. I refuse to believe that these global powerhouses need paid DLC to exist when so many smaller developers like CD Projekt, Atlus and many others seem to get by just fine without it.

CatmanStu:
The thing is, Jim contradicts the title of this video in the video itself. In a round-about way he said that on disk DLC is justifiable if you say you did it as a money grab.

That's one way of looking at it. I look at it the same way their "it makes it easier to ensure everyone has the content" line -- it's a reason. It's just a more honest reason than one made to sound like the dev had no choice.

What games just give you a 'key' as DLC that unlocks content already on the disk? What DLC has ever been mandatory for a game?

Is this just about Street Fighter additional characters?

Extra Credits makes an interesting counterpoint.

http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/mass-effect-3-dlc

DVS BSTrD:
But Jim! That's the way the developers wanted the game to be! Don't you understand asking them to get rid of On-Disk DLC would impune the artistic integrity of the game! Do you WANT to set gaming back 10 years (to when they knew better)? It's THEIR game! Think how the developers must feel every time you point out something they shouldn't have done! LEAVE THE POOR DEVELOPERS ALONE! LEAVE THEM ALONE!Kony 2012!
-Movie Bob

But seriously that is one sweat ax!

Oh wow, you're OH so mature about dealing with MovieBob's opinions on things. I just love how you sneaked in the Kony 2012 thing, as if you weren't sure whether or not people would get you're purposefully antagonizing Mr. Chipman. 9_9

Anyway, about the actual video.

This is going to be about the Street Fighter x Tekken on-disc "DLC", where the characters were complete and fully playable? Among other things... Yeah, that's pretty messed up, ESPECIALLY considering Capcom wasn't going to actually RELEASE the DLC until MONTHS LATER! It's just, I just... WHY?!?!?

So the argument in this video is that companies are trying to get more money from their consumers and how dare they? I'm not saying on-disk DLC is the best way for these companies to go about increasing their profit, but this argument sounded like it was coming from someone who just doesn't like the idea of spending money on something they want.

I find it very enlightening that Jim's argument is almost the exact opposite of the folks over at Extra Credits in an episode on a similar topic, but at least they brought up better evidence than heresay. As for Cliff Blezinski's statement: there's a big difference between lying and being diplomatic.

CatmanStu:
The thing is, Jim contradicts the title of this video in the video itself. In a round-about way he said that on disk DLC is justifiable if you say you did it as a money grab. I completely agree with that sentiment; in business terms it is completely justifiable to lock off part of a finished product to try and get extra money for it, it's money for literally nothing. BUT (before the hate responses start flooding my inbox) it is also completely justifiable to refuse to purchase a product on the grounds you are not getting everything you paid for. You wouldn't buy a car if you had to pay extra for the keys to the trunk.

I can see this heading in a very insidious direction (especially with the rise in downloadable purchases), a move towards games becoming $10 more expensive with an option to purchase a discounted product with content removed in an attempt to train consumers to accept this model with reverse psychology.

It's not that it's justifiable, it'd just be nice for some honesty rather than the pitty trip. They know it's a money grab, and know that we know it's a money grab, but are desperte to put on the "customer first" mask so that we don't do exactly what you say: stop buying their games. Capitalism is far less the product than the PR.

for some reason i can see a company with a sense of humor use this as a marketing slogan: "GET EVERYTHING ON THE DISC BY BUYING IT"

targren:
Can't argue with Jim on any of that.

OT, though: I've been out of the series for awhile. When did "M. Bison" become "Vega?"

He was always Vega in japan. I have no Idea why but In Street Fight 2 the translation team switched around all the Boss Characters (except Sagat cause his name was already pre-established)

Balrog was M.Bison (Mike Bison, for the obvious reference)

Vega was Balrog

And Bison was Vega

Hear hear!

Publishers created the situation, they created their problem, and they're making customers put up with something on a full priced game for the sole purpose of soaking an extra 2-15 dollars from them.

The large publishers and their developers are not worth supporting anymore, and I have no sympathy at all when they're crying to me about piracy, then try to screw me out of content already on a disc I buy but can't access without shelling out more cash or need an internet connection and a damn account somewhere to play it.

So fuck those guys, I hope pirates take a huge chunk out of their profits the size of all day-one and story-essential DLC

MB202:

DVS BSTrD:
But Jim! That's the way the developers wanted the game to be! Don't you understand asking them to get rid of On-Disk DLC would impune the artistic integrity of the game! Do you WANT to set gaming back 10 years (to when they knew better)? It's THEIR game! Think how the developers must feel every time you point out something they shouldn't have done! LEAVE THE POOR DEVELOPERS ALONE! LEAVE THEM ALONE!Kony 2012!
-Movie Bob

But seriously that is one sweat ax!

Oh wow, you're OH so mature about dealing with MovieBob's opinions on things. I just love how you sneaked in the Kony 2012 thing, as if you weren't sure whether or not people would get you're purposefully antagonizing Mr. Chipman. 9_9

Anyway, about the actual video.

This is going to be about the Street Fighter x Tekken on-disc "DLC", where the characters were complete and fully playable? Among other things... Yeah, that's pretty messed up, ESPECIALLY considering Capcom wasn't going to actually RELEASE the DLC until MONTHS LATER! It's just, I just... WHY?!?!?

And why should I have to be more mature than Movie Bob?

BUT!!!!!
In response to your question, the answer is simple: Monie$
This what mainstream video-game industry has become. They're willing to cut out whatever they can (be it endings or characters) to squeeze more money from you. Complaining about ETHER one doesn't make you an entitled fan-boy but the truth is, No matter what gaming may mean to you personally, it's still another business.

Gotta disagree here. On-Disc DLC is no different than regular DLC.

Developers can start creating the DLC content on day 1 of the development cycle and have it completed months of years before a game is ready for launch if they want.

I don't agree with trying to hide the truth behind it in PR talk, as companies love to do. But there's nothing wrong with companies planning DLC to be part of their game and making that content upfront.

It doesn't matter when the DLC was made or how it's delivered to the end user. All that matters is that it doesn't feel required to enjoy the core gaming experience.

The games industry is a business. And in the business to make money. If something will make them more money then they were making before than they will do it. True they are lying or at least obfuscating behind other reasoning. If they were to flat out say, we want more money, that would be bad PR. And thus decrease sales. So they're not going to do that.

Now on the other hand if people A didn't buy Day one DLC, or B didn't buy games that have Day one DLC at all, they would lose money. And then probably stop doing the practice.

You don't have to like it but yeah, it is what it is.

RaikuFA:
Whats with all the worms, Jim?

Jim and Cliffy B don't like each other very much, so I imagine he's doing it to take the piss.

Jimothy Sterling:

CatmanStu:
The thing is, Jim contradicts the title of this video in the video itself. In a round-about way he said that on disk DLC is justifiable if you say you did it as a money grab.

That's one way of looking at it. I look at it the same way their "it makes it easier to ensure everyone has the content" line -- it's a reason. It's just a more honest reason than one made to sound like the dev had no choice.

I see your point. I guess justification is like beauty; it only exists in the eye of the beholder.
If your moral compass points towards offering value for money or good service then on disk DLC is akin to buying a house only to find the top floor is occupied by a tiger; if your compass points to making profit then any decision that makes money will be justified.
Hell, tradesmen have been doing the whole "oooh, don't like the look of that, I'll have to get a new part" trick to get extra money for years; it's an unfortunate bi-product of greedy business people and specialised labour.

Eric the Orange:

targren:
Can't argue with Jim on any of that.

OT, though: I've been out of the series for awhile. When did "M. Bison" become "Vega?"

He was always Vega in japan. I have no Idea why but In Street Fight 2 the translation team switched around all the Boss Characters (except Sagat cause his name was already pre-established)

Balrog was M.Bison (Mike Bison, for the obvious reference)

Vega was Balrog

And Bison was Vega

I was not aware of that. </WayneCampbell>

Cool. Learned something new today. :)

NinjaDeathSlap:
Jim is fast becoming the best thing on The Escapist. Funnier than Yahtzee and talk more sense than Moviebob (much more as of late).

I was just thinking the same thing. The Jimquisition has significantly grown on me. Today I started and ended the episode with a grin on my face. At the same time, watching Yahtzee and MovieBob doesn't entertain me nearly as much as it used to.

Keep up the good work, Jim.

Eric the Orange:
Extra Credits makes an interesting counterpoint.

http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/mass-effect-3-dlc

Their ideas are valid but shot down by one simplt truth. Aftermarket support. I get that budgets are tight BUT i don't have enough sympathy for multi-billion dollor corporations to see why this is so suddenly necessary.

EA, Capcom and everyone esle are doing this because they can. An example i like to use is Command and Conquer 3. The game was a hit, it made a good deal of profit. EA and EA studios LA had the common decency to release free maps for the game post release, even so ar as a whole year afterwards to keep it fresh. Same for the expansion Kane's Wrath.

EA didn't go bankrupt. Developing this kind of content is pretty cheap. The community can churn decent maps/skins out by the bucket-load with ZERO resources. Once upon a time it used to be a common courtasy for a developer to give an online PC game a few free updates here and there back when console games were not generally online. Companies have been doing this for decades without going out of business. Its called aftermarket support. Why do publishers act like any post-shipping support will cripple them?! It is a big fat LIE.

Even IF time is legitimately left over during the ratings period why make this content paid at all? Here is an idea guys, use it to fight used sales with a carrot instead of a stick. Let new buyers of the game unlock this extra ondisk content for free with a code. Give commited consumers something instead of taking something away. This is a no-brainer.

Yep Jim hit the nail on the head again. Man is next gen going to be rough when we're buying half a game for a 100 dollars and then the other half is unlocked for a further 50 dollars and they tell us "THIS WAS THE ONLY WAY GUYS BOO HOO WAHHH FEEL SORRY FOR US"

targren:
He was always Vega in japan. I have no Idea why but In Street Fight 2 the translation team switched around all the Boss Characters (except Sagat cause his name was already pre-established)

Balrog was M.Bison (Mike Bison, for the obvious reference)

Vega was Balrog

And Bison was Vega

Eric the Orange:
I was not aware of that. </WayneCampbell>

Cool. Learned something new today. :)

Akuma is Gouki too :). I didn't know about Mike Bison either.

Sober Thal:
What games just give you a 'key' as DLC that unlocks content already on the disk? What DLC has ever been mandatory for a game?

Is this just about Street Fighter additional characters?

The King of fighters XIII does that too.

Edit: Apparently Mortal Kombat too.

esperandote:

Sober Thal:
What games just give you a 'key' as DLC that unlocks content already on the disk? What DLC has ever been mandatory for a game?

Is this just about Street Fighter additional characters?

The King of fighters XIII does that too.

So this only really about having access to extra characters for extra money in fighting games? I'm guessing the 'DLC' is only a few kb large and is this 'key' that unlocks content already on the disk.

Good thing I don't care about fighting games that much! I was kinda shocked at the amount of anger, and it seemed like this happens a lot. Thanks for clearing it up!

EDIT: See what you mean for KoF... $1 for 3 more character pictures sucks. I only see costumes for Street Fighter and KoF...

*shrugs

I don't see a big deal here.

Plastic or otherwise, that ax had a lot of sharp points on it. I'd be a little scared to hold it.

Scrumpmonkey:

Eric the Orange:
Extra Credits makes an interesting counterpoint.

http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/mass-effect-3-dlc

Their ideas are valid but shot down by one simplt truth. Aftermarket support. I get that budgets are tight BUT i don't have enough sympathy for multi-billion dollor corporations to see why this is so suddenly necessary.

EA, Capcom and everyone esle are doing this because they can. An example i like to use is Command and Conquer 3. The game was a hit, it made a good deal of profit. EA and EA studios LA had the common decency to release free maps for the game post release, even so ar as a whole year afterwards to keep it fresh. Same for the expansion Kane's Wrath.

EA didn't go bankrupt. Developing this kind of content is pretty cheap. The community can churn decent maps/skins out by the bucket-load with ZERO resources. Once upon a time it used to be a common courtasy for a developer to give an online PC game a few free updates here and there back when console games were not generally online. Companies have been doing this for decades without going out of business. Its called aftermarket support. Why do publishers act like any post-shipping support will cripple them?! It is a big fat LIE.

Even IF time is legitimately left over during the ratings period why make this content paid at all? Here is an idea guys, use it to fight used sales with a carrot instead of a stick. Let new buyers of the game unlock this extra ondisk content for free with a code. Give commited consumers something instead of taking something away. This is a no-brainer.

Thing is they're a business. If they can make more money they will. They understand that people do not like day one DLC and that will effect sales. But there math is, if money lost in sales is less than money gained in day one DLC, we will put in day one DLC. If they thought they would make more money by raising game prices to $100 a game, they sure as hell would do it. It's just the harsh reality of business.

Now the counter argument you could make to them is that they lose more money from sales with day one DLC than they would make up with it. Or that by doing this they are losing Consumer loyalty which could hurt them in the long run. Both of which may be true, I don't know, but all I'm saying is that in a business money is the reason to do anything. If a business decides to give to charity you can bet it's only because they want the positive publicity.

RaikuFA:
Whats with all the worms, Jim?

Also, put this vid on Capcoms site and watch the shitstorm.

I think you mean: "What's your obsession with the Earthworm, Jim?"

image

I usually agree with you, but I think the video misses the point that people are complaining about the on-disc part, not the DLC itself. I've heard a lot of people say they'd be okay with it if they would be downloading the actual content, and it seems like that's what Cliff was talking about.

To clarify, people want DLC, they just don't like the principle of it being on the disc and that part is the necessary evil, in the case that they want the DLC (which a lot do).

I mean, it wouldn't be there at all if there was no demand for it, not trying to say it's the consumers' fault, but it's not like developers are just doing it for the lulz.

So, all developers need to do is change the label from "DLC (DownLoadable Content)" to "ULC (UnLockable Content)"...

There, problem solved!

When it comes to on disk content, my question tend to revolve around "How do we determine if what is on the disk is in fact nothing but hooks?". For example, the ME3 thing. It was about 650-675 MB. That was a good size bit of data. Of course I have no Idea how large the space would have taken as they could have used various compression techniques, but I digress.

The general way to tell if something was on the disk and what you are downloading is a key is size right. A key would generally be a few hundred KB to maybe 2MB, right?

Phlakes:
I usually agree with you, but I think the video misses the point that people are complaining about the on-disc part, not the DLC itself. I've heard a lot of people say they'd be okay with it if they would be downloading the actual content, and it seems like that's what Cliff was talking about.

To clarify, people want DLC, they just don't like the principle of it being on the disc and that part is the necessary evil, in the case that they want the DLC (which a lot do).

What games are actually being talked about with this? I haven't noticed anything to be upset about.

I needs to be less ignorant on this!

I remember people thinking the ME3 extra character was on the disk, but it wasn't. Sure maybe a line of code had the same name as the character, but that's a far reach to call the DLC just a key to unlock it, eh?

623 mb key? I don't think so.

when consoles started going online I was very hopefull about it ...
... but then
whiney kids calling people fags
pre order bonus dlc dlc dlc dlc map pack dlc dlc weapon pack dlc
cut content cut only to be sold later
glitchy games
patch
patch
patch
patch
patch
patch
patch
patch

I wasnt happy :(

I find the whole on-disc dlc fiasco totally confusing. What seems to me is that on-disc dlc is just a part of the development cycle now for many games. If a developer has the time and resources they can create content which they deem 'extra' and place it on the disc alongside the main content. The problem with this model, is that we basically have to take it on good faith that what a developer classifies as 'extra' is indeed content which they planned in addition to the main content. Unfortunately for the developer there is no way that they can really prove this and all we see is a game with content purposely locked out to us. For me, this also raises interesting questions on what it is we're actually paying for when we buy a game. Are we paying for the developers time and so therefore we should expect access to all content created in that time? Or are we just paying for a finalised product as the developer envisaged it?

I think on disc DLC is silly but it works: Extra Credits had a episode on it which had some good points: http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/mass-effect-3-dlc

Also, on disc content means I don't have to use a ton of hard drive memory just to get expansion after expansion. Which is kinda nice.

But to try and pretend it's a problem that has been 'created' is utter crap.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here