Jimquisition: On-Disc DLC Cannot Be Justified

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

AetherWolf:

hermes200:

Nicolairigel:
Okay, so, someone may need to clarify something for me. Is the entire "From Ashes" DLC from Mass Effect 3 "on disk dlc?" As in, was all the content for it on the disk? If it was, then in that case I would agree with Jim.

However, from what I heard concerning the entire "From Ashes" dlc was that Bioware developed it while the game was being shipped and then added some compatibility on the disk. I remember having to actually physically download the expansion and install the dlc, I don't THINK it was already on the disk, but I'm not too sure. If this is true, then I don't really have a problem with it. If Bioware chose to make new content while waiting for it to be shipped, then I just don't really understand what the complaint is, it isn't "locking off" any of the games actual content, it's just something extra.

No, its not about "From Ashes". That DLC was planned during the development of the game, but it was not included on the disc. It was proper "downloadable content" (some people have a problem with it being ready at the same time as the retail game, but that is another issue. Officially, the retail disc didn't have the content).

Actually, it was included on the disc. This video shows you:

Parts of it were included, as in the parts that were finished when it went to certification.
That video shows only half the story. While yes, you could unlock the character, none of his quests were available and he barely spoke on mission.

IIRC, they did clarify this and said that they put everything that was finished at the time on disk, knowing that the rest would be added ,via DLC ,when it was finished.

Should we call it DLK (downloadable key)?. And you know, some still remember when DLCs used to be called "updates" and were free to begin with.

Thank You! You don't know how much time I've spent trying to tell people that on-disc DLC is absolute bullshit. You focused on the reaction of Game Devs and publishers, but you'd be shocked by the amount of people who are consumers who act like they're unpayed employees for the devs/publishers.

"Well It's not illegal"
"You don't own the content on the disc"
"If you don't want the content, don't buy it"
"Companies have been doing this for years, deal with it"
"You just want everything for free"

These are real responses I've heard from people defending these companies. Stop acting like complacent investors and start acting like responsible consumers.

How about a third option - organisation that ensures that DLC isn't overcharged, unreasonable or on-disc.

Come what may, I think almost everyone agrees that a lot of DLC is simply a naked money-grab on top of of us paying top-drawer prices for a game. In essence, all gamers are being ripped off and deep down, we know it. (Even if we try to rationalise it.)

While I appreciate the business side of things, and acknowledge the publisher and developer's right to make money. But what they don't have a right to is to rip off the paying public. The publishers are abusing their own power with DLC and are using their developers as a mask to claim poverty with.

To me, this is nothing short of extortion - hell, it IS extortion. Yet, the publishers have the sheer temerity to complain about pirates being thieves.

Pirates may be scumbags with their outright thievery but unlike the publishers, but at least they're honest and don't use developers as human shields.

God dammit Jim if you haven't grown on me. I'm agreeing with you more and more. Keep up the good work.

As someone who has been gaming for 25 years and used to both console and PC gaming, I think that the DLC business is bad for the consumers in the long run. Not because it has to be, but because we consumers allow it to become that way by buying everything no questions asked.

Lets face it (game) companies will do anything to squeeze extra money out of consumers. I think EA is one of the champions of this activity by releasing every year "new" games which are a rehash of the old ones. And now with DLC they can withhold content that was previously sold with the game, and sell it as "extra" content on the first day. Where is the blame?, not all at the companies side, but also on the gamer side as well, as they have chosen with their wallet that DLCs are a good thing, these are probably the same people that buy every single yearly update of the same game are probably going to buy every DLC that comes available to them, regardless of value, which is why it's bad have DLCs in the first place. If gamers could show little restraint I think they would be able to get more gaming for their dollars, and maybe sensible DLCs.

The excuse for higher prices now is that the cost of making games has increased, which is true because compared to 25 years ago, due to hardware limitations, games were simpler and cheaper to make. However the market size has also increased during the past 25 years, so I think it's a moot point.

I have bought a lot of expansion packs in the past for games that I liked to get a little bit more of the same action, but I haven't bought a single DLC yet or so I thought until I bought BF:BC2 Vietnam expansion that came with an empty DVD holster and a serial key that made me download the whole thing using my limited internet capabilities, I think I have made my feelings clear. The unlockable content on the disk is disingenuous, and we should have seen it coming after the 1. day DLCs. And in this case CAPCOM, which is famous for their many versions of SF2, for them pulling a stunt like this is very much in their manner of nickle and dime their fan base for every little character update.

Another negative point with DLCs in multiplayer community, that has been raised before, is that it fragments it. You either buy it and can't find servers with players that have it or you don't buy it and find that your usual servers are not as popular as they used to be. Then there is possibility that DLC may give unfair advantage to players buy offering new weapons.

Their is one more point about the DLC that seems to be forgot from the debate at this time, it's that you don't buy anything other then a license key, instead of a real physical copy that can be resold if one wishes. This limits the rights of the consumers, which is why I never buy DLC in the first place. I think we are heading in the direction that we don't buy games only license to play them at times fitting to the services of the publishers, which I think is a scary future for gamers. It will be like in the old days of arcades where you were literally nickled and dimed to play games.

TL:DR: DLC bad, 1-day DLC worse, On disk DLC worst. Who is to blame, greedy companies and stupid buyers.

Thought:

If the DLC is already on the disc, why not make it available to get the content on the disc through some extraordinarily difficult task ALONG WITH the 'pay for a key, One-Day DLC' idea?

Kind of like, in Battlefield 3's new DLC, they're allowing you to buy your way through the new classes and packs instead of progressing through them normally, they should allow you a fund to access the content automatically, or make some sort of in-game task you have to complete in order to get the content free, such as "Beating the game on the hardest difficulty" or "Completing all of the achievements" or "Quickscope the entire enemy team in a Search and Destroy Modern Warfare 3 game".

That way, you can technically 'have' the One Day DLC as long as there's a free, but relatively difficult way to access it, and people who don't have the patience but a lot of money can give you the money then. Of course, it probably won't happen, since that would 'cut into their profits', but it's just an idle suggestion.

That's why I don't don't like DLCs
Extension packs is my preferable method of gaining new content (besides mods)
As for DLCs
Like I said numerous times before- just charge me slightly more, so I can get all in one piece
I played Mass Effect 2 DLCs only when ME3 was about to be released (so that I could have bought and setup all additional DLCs at once)

DVS BSTrD:
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.

You don't have to be more mature than MovieBob, you just have to understand where Bob's coming from and not be so hung up over ONE example of ONE incident that may or may not relate to his opinions of DLC as a whole. In other words, don't put words in his mouth.

My gripe with Capcom and Street Fighter x Tekken ISN'T the whole on-disc DLC, but rather they were planning on actually "releasing" it MONTHS later... I know fighting gmaes have long lifespans, but who, other than the obsessively dedicated, are going to buy that DLC after that long? Seriously, while I don't claim to speak for everyone, I think that most people experiences with a game are like so: they buy it, they play it, they're done with it. Sure they might go back to it from time to time, but still, it seems like it'd be a better business move to release the DLC closer to the release date. Perhaps not day-one DLC, but still, close enough that the game is still in the public's conscience.

AetherWolf:

hermes200:

Nicolairigel:
Okay, so, someone may need to clarify something for me. Is the entire "From Ashes" DLC from Mass Effect 3 "on disk dlc?" As in, was all the content for it on the disk? If it was, then in that case I would agree with Jim.

However, from what I heard concerning the entire "From Ashes" dlc was that Bioware developed it while the game was being shipped and then added some compatibility on the disk. I remember having to actually physically download the expansion and install the dlc, I don't THINK it was already on the disk, but I'm not too sure. If this is true, then I don't really have a problem with it. If Bioware chose to make new content while waiting for it to be shipped, then I just don't really understand what the complaint is, it isn't "locking off" any of the games actual content, it's just something extra.

No, its not about "From Ashes". That DLC was planned during the development of the game, but it was not included on the disc. It was proper "downloadable content" (some people have a problem with it being ready at the same time as the retail game, but that is another issue. Officially, the retail disc didn't have the content).

Actually, it was included on the disc. This video shows you:

Ohh, how dramatic and epic (the music is a nice touch).

What it fails to show is that not everything from the DLC is included, like

Which is part of what I mean when I wrote about "other ways to handle it". For example, a fighting game can have all the models, textures and art assets from DLC characters on the disc (the bulk of the character data), but release all the animation and stats information as part of a online patch when the DLC is released. That way, the content not included is available to users online, but hackers can't unlock the characters before time. The alternative is how MK handle it (that game truly had no on-disc "downloadable content"), and we all know how that turned out...

MonkeyPunch:

Crono1973:
Also, the problem is that if Disc Locked Content keeps up, soon half the content on the disc will be locked.

But I don't see how that is specifically a Disk Locked Content issue. You could apply the same argument to Downloadable content.
Hence why I say the gripes I have are the same with both types of DLC and I don't see why having it on the disk is any worse than making you download it later. They're both just as bad as each other just that one way actually makes it less of a hassle for you.

Just for the record though, I agree with Jim on the part where he doesn't like developers whining about it like it's not them who "create the problem" in the first place, but I think I disagree that he's venting his disdain for the on-disk stuff without throwing traditional DLC in to the same pot. Extra content which may or may not be stuff that you should have from the get-go is a whole different argument. The medium its on shouldn't really make much of a difference.

I can't speak for everyone, but the big reason I hate on-disc DLC is that there's nothing stopping it from being included in the game in the first place other than somebody being greedy. The content was completed within the alloted budget and managed to make it onto the disc before the game went gold, so why the f*ck can't I access it after having payed 60 dollars for the game in the first place? I have an equal problem with regular day-1 DLC that simply got cut out of the game entirely so it could be sold as DLC later and both are complete and utter bullsh*t.

Now if the content only gets partially completed but couldn't be finished before the game goes gold, then finishing it and selling the missing pieces as DLC makes sense and is understandable since the devs had to put in extra time and effort in order to finish the incomplete content. However, that is almost never the case in this day and age.

Note, however, that not all DLC is simply content that was cut from the game at the last minute in order to scam consumers out of their money. DLC that's actually made after the game's release is fine in my book as long as it's not needed in order to enjoy the core game itself; since once again the devs need to put extra time, effort, and money into making the extra content.

blackrave:
That's why I don't don't like DLCs
Extension packs is my preferable method of gaining new content (besides mods)

You know that is just a marketing name, don't you. Expansion packs and downloadable content are pretty much the same (only difference being the delivery method).

Even when the delivery method made cost-effective to release small chunks of content as DLC, but not as expansion pack (it skips most of the production schedule, and you don't need to burn another disk to sell horse armor), some DLC can be considered as big as expansion packs (like Minerva's Den, Undead Nightmare or Claptrap's New Robot Revolution) while some expansion packs are on the poor side (like The Sims packs)

MB202:

DVS BSTrD:
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.

You don't have to be more mature than MovieBob, you just have to understand where Bob's coming from and not be so hung up over ONE example of ONE incident that may or may not relate to his opinions of DLC as a whole. In other words, don't put words in his mouth.

The point wasn't to assume Movie Bob's opinions on DLC, I was mocking his over protectiveness of what he deems "artistic integrity". And I WOULDN'T be so hung up on this ONE incident if Movie Bob hadn't gotten so hung-up that ONE example of gamer "entitlement". And the worst part is, by Friday I had actually gotten over his diatribe about Retake Mass Effect, but then he just HAD to go out of his way to insult us again with "Re-take Cabin in the Woods". The way he painted those poor helpless, blameless developers at Bioware as the victims in this whole thing set my cynicism sensors into overdrive. Now In Bob's mind he has set himself up as the valiant white knight defender of the "underdog" gaming industry against the "mainstream" rage at their refusal to "conform" to their "hopelessly unrealistic expectations", ala the Star Wars Prequels. He didn't take a stand on ME3 because he ever gave two shits about the series OR Bioware OR integrity, he's just trying to be alternative. And I intend to call him out on that for as long as he chooses to continue this charade.

My gripe with Capcom and Street Fighter x Tekken ISN'T the whole on-disc DLC, but rather they were planning on actually "releasing" it MONTHS later... I know fighting gmaes have long lifespans, but who, other than the obsessively dedicated, are going to buy that DLC after that long? Seriously, while I don't claim to speak for everyone, I think that most people experiences with a game are like so: they buy it, they play it, they're done with it. Sure they might go back to it from time to time, but still, it seems like it'd be a better business move to release the DLC closer to the release date. Perhaps not day-one DLC, but still, close enough that the game is still in the public's conscience.

Just be glad you didn't have to wait MONTHS before they released the [/b]actual conclusion[/b] to your game.

V da Mighty Taco:

I can't speak for everyone, but the big reason I hate on-disc DLC is that there's nothing stopping it from being included in the game in the first place other than somebody being greedy. The content was completed within the alloted budget and managed to make it onto the disc before the game went gold, so why the f*ck can't I access it after having payed 60 dollars for the game in the first place? I have an equal problem with regular day-1 DLC that simply got cut out of the game entirely so it could be sold as DLC later and both are complete and utter bullsh*t.

Now if the content only gets partially completed but couldn't be finished before the game goes gold, then finishing it and selling the missing pieces as DLC makes sense and is understandable since the devs had to put in extra time and effort in order to finish the incomplete content. However, that is almost never the case in this day and age.

Note, however, that not all DLC is simply content that was cut from the game at the last minute in order to scam consumers out of their money. DLC that's actually made after the game's release is fine in my book as long as it's not needed in order to enjoy the core game itself; since once again the devs need to put extra time, effort, and money into making the extra content.

Well that's precisely my point. Disk Locked Content is just as bad as day 1 DLC and no different. Which is why I think the rage towards Disk Locked Content alone is misplaced.
It's the whole mentality behind Day 1 DLC.
Whether you get it on the disk or whether you're downloading it later makes no difference. The only difference is in the way you receive the extra content.

Also, as a little heads-up. Most DLC is planned and worked on before the game is shipped, whether you get it on day 1 or not.

since once again the devs need to put extra time, effort, and money into making the extra content.

This part puzzles me slightly because how are you to know how much time, money and effort it took the devs to make from whether or not it's Disk-locked or Downloadable?

Take for example SFxT. It has 12 locked characters on the disk, among other things like extra costumes etc. There are 50 in the roster as-is.
Chances are that making the extra content did cost them extra time, effort and definitely money, but they chose to put them on the disk in advance.

You can't know though, because you don't know the team size and when they started working on the project.

DVS BSTrD:

The point wasn't to assume Movie Bob's opinions on DLC, I was mocking his over protectiveness of what he deems "artistic integrity". And I WOULDN'T be so hung up on this ONE incident if Movie Bob hadn't gotten so hung-up that ONE example of gamer "entitlement". And the worst part is, by Friday I had actually gotten over his diatribe about Retake Mass Effect, but then he just HAD to go out of his way to insult us again with "Re-take Cabin in the Woods". The way he painted those poor helpless, blameless developers at Bioware as the victims in this whole thing set my cynicism sensors into overdrive. Now In Bob's mind he has set himself up as the valiant white knight defender of the "underdog" gaming industry against the "mainstream" rage at their refusal to "conform" to their "hopelessly unrealistic expectations", ala the Star Wars Prequels. He didn't take a stand on ME3 because he ever gave two shits about the series OR Bioware OR integrity, he's just trying to be alternative. And I intend to call him out on that for as long as he chooses to continue this charade.

Even if you WERE mocking Bob's take on the Mass Effect 3 ending, do you REALLY need to drag that into this kind of discussion? Seriously get over yourself, it's just one guy's opinion on one game series and it's ending. I'm not sure I entirely agree with him, either, but that doesn't mean I have to berate him and mock him every chance I get just because of that.

Also, I'm not sure I understand the "re-take Cabin in the Woods" thing, mostly because I've been trying to avoid reading up on anything related to that movie because I might just see it...

Also, I don't like how you THINK you know what Bob's thinking, because you don't, you know know what he really means or what he's trying to say, because you're not him. You can disagree with him and argue with him, sure, but don't pretend you think you got him nailed down and berate him for what you think he is. Granted, Bob has earned more than his fair share of beatings for sharing his opinion, but really, I feel like your comment on him at the beginning of this topic was uncalled for, unnecessary, and only tangentially related to what Jim was talking about, if even by THAT much. If you're angry at Bob, fine, go ahead a be angry about him. but write a blog post about it or make a topic about it, and keep it out of this discussion.

Just be glad you didn't have to wait MONTHS before they released the [/b]actual conclusion[/b] to your game.

I really don't know what to say about that... Seriously, this Mass Effect this has gone over my head since I'm not a fan, though I've been meaning to get into the series. But again, it's not like you don't have a right to get made or anything, just, you know, pick your battles and don't let it consume you...

It's kind of like how My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic tend to invade every topic and everyone gets upset about that. I'm feeling the same way about this. If you're upset about the Mass Effect 3 ending, and anyone who disagrees with you on it, that's fine, but please, keep it to yourself or save it for another topic.

Oh Jim, the compatibility issue is complete bullshit as well. The same day DLC is released, so is a patch for all users so that they can still play with non-DLC users. That's the way games have worked for years, anyone who tells you different just doesn't know any better.

EDIT: And the Mass Effect "From Ashes" is arguably a bit different. It was part of the game for me, because I bought the collector edition. If you didn't pay for the collector edition but you wanted the collector edition content, well then you had to pay for it. See how that works?

Another in the sad line of examples of "Hey, you think we can get away with this shit?" thinking on the part of the game developers.

Downloadable content has been around almost since the advent of the internet (Barney-Doom mod anyone?) but it took the advent of stable and reliable high-speed internet as well as stable and reliable purchasing platforms (console marketplace, Steam, etc.) to make whole expansion and game downloading a real product-mover and money maker for developers.

There was a brief shining window of time in which the technology and its use worked together to the benefit of all parties involved. Players got the possibility of getting updates and expansions to their favorite games (it never has to end!) and developers got the ability to cash in again on successful titles without having to build an entire soup-to-nuts new game. Sure there were always going to be frivolous extras (costumes, hats, etc.) but that's an innocent expense in that nobody has to get it.

Unfortunately the MBA-types got their dirty hands on it and now some unscrupulous and/or lazy developers are peeing in the pool. The sins are: A) Releasing a broken game in beta form and charging full fare for it, then patching it with downloads (at least this doesn't cost more); B) Releasing an incomplete game at full price and then charging for "DLC" when really it's not extra, it's just the second half of what should have been a complete game in the first place; C) Creating paid DLC that tips the balance of play in multiplayer games in favor of those who pay for it. This is a new bastard child of the same sort - the game is COMPLETE but they want to charge you full price to only get a part of it, then charge you more for the rest of it. Why not just charge full price for the whole thing? I wouldn't have a problem paying $75 for a game if it is complete and worth it. Selling me locked disk for $60 and then charging me again the next $15 puts me in the same situation financially, but morally and ethically it makes me feel like I'm being robbed.

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

Rather simple really.

I think the real issue is being forced to pay for on disc content. The actual idea of having content on disc from the start doesn't bother me.

MB202:

DVS BSTrD:

The point wasn't to assume Movie Bob's opinions on DLC, I was mocking his over protectiveness of what he deems "artistic integrity". And I WOULDN'T be so hung up on this ONE incident if Movie Bob hadn't gotten so hung-up that ONE example of gamer "entitlement". And the worst part is, by Friday I had actually gotten over his diatribe about Retake Mass Effect, but then he just HAD to go out of his way to insult us again with "Re-take Cabin in the Woods". The way he painted those poor helpless, blameless developers at Bioware as the victims in this whole thing set my cynicism sensors into overdrive. Now In Bob's mind he has set himself up as the valiant white knight defender of the "underdog" gaming industry against the "mainstream" rage at their refusal to "conform" to their "hopelessly unrealistic expectations", ala the Star Wars Prequels. He didn't take a stand on ME3 because he ever gave two shits about the series OR Bioware OR integrity, he's just trying to be alternative. And I intend to call him out on that for as long as he chooses to continue this charade.

Even if you WERE mocking Bob's take on the Mass Effect 3 ending, do you REALLY need to drag that into this kind of discussion? Seriously get over yourself, it's just one guy's opinion on one game series and it's ending. I'm not sure I entirely agree with him, either, but that doesn't mean I have to berate him and mock him every chance I get just because of that.

Movie Bob didn't have to bring it up in his Intermission article about "Cabin in the Woods", but he did anyway. Movie Bob didn't have to berate and mock dissatisfied ME3 fans, but he did it an. Once again, I'LL get over it when HE gets over it.

Also, I don't like how you THINK you know what Bob's thinking, because you don't, you know know what he really means or what he's trying to say, because you're not him. You can disagree with him and argue with him, sure, but don't pretend you think you got him nailed down and berate him for what you think he is. Granted, Bob has earned more than his fair share of beatings for sharing his opinion, but really, I feel like your comment on him at the beginning of this topic was uncalled for, unnecessary, and only tangentially related to what Jim was talking about, if even by THAT much.

Movie Bob doesn't know how I feel about Mass Effect and I doubt he TRIED to understand what the fans were upset about. All he heard was "Bioware caves to fan demands" and just flew right off the handle. If he's going just asume the worst about our, and by extension my, intentions, I'm going to assume the worst about him. The fact that HE thought the dissatisfaction with Cabin in the Woods was on the same level with ME3's ending just proves how out of touch he is with the subject. My joke post here was just a well justified.

Just be glad you didn't have to wait MONTHS before they released the actual conclusion to your game.

I really don't know what to say about that... Seriously, this Mass Effect this has gone over my head since I'm not a fan, though I've been meaning to get into the series. But again, it's not like you don't have a right to get made or anything, just, you know, pick your battles and don't let it consume you...

This is what I'm talking about. The biggest issue was that the promotions kept telling us that the choices we had made with Shepard through-out the series would impact the eventual outcome. Not only did we get the same ending no matter HOW we played through,

See I WAS actually ready to put all that behind me, But Bob just HAD to get one more jibe in. And in the most condescending way possible. Unless you quote me again this is actually the last time I intend to bring it up on these forums

Also, I'm not sure I understand the "re-take Cabin in the Woods" thing, mostly because I've been trying to avoid reading up on anything related to that movie because I might just see it...

Oh no spoilers, just suffice to say that some people are upset that it doesn't follow the "traditional" horror format. Movie bob said as much in his review. The way he connected that to ME3 implies that he thinks ME fans are only upset because we didn't get an ending that was "Happily ever after" enough.

hermes200:
You know that is just a marketing name, don't you. Expansion packs and downloadable content are pretty much the same (only difference being the delivery method).

Even when the delivery method made cost-effective to release small chunks of content as DLC, but not as expansion pack (it skips most of the production schedule, and you don't need to burn another disk to sell horse armor), some DLC can be considered as big as expansion packs (like Minerva's Den, Undead Nightmare or Claptrap's New Robot Revolution) while some expansion packs are on the poor side (like The Sims packs)

Not exactly, there are DLCs, content packs and expansion packs
While those all bring new content to the game, there is a size difference (expansion packs being the biggest ones)
Like I said I prefer big additions instead of some useless weapon (ME2's Arc Projector, I'm looking at you >:( )

Qitz:
On-Disc DLC will go away, not because of Jim, but because it's cracked within 24 hours of the games release. As it should be really, I don't care if the EULA / TOS says, I paid for the disc so I'm going to do whatever I want with it. If that includes using it as skeet, yay for me.

Actually, I've pointed this out before but you never have to worry about the EULA for on disc DLC. The companies argue that when you buy the game, you buy the license for certain content and the EULA applies to that. As you didn't buy the DLC, you never agreed to the EULA regarding the DLC, so it's yours to do with as you please.

You're welcome :)

The problem is that we don't usually know what was pulled from the game to be sold as DLC. When we take up the attitude that this DLC is ok and this one isn't, we are really telling the publishers to do a better job of hiding their greed. We really need to start saying NO to all DLC if we expect this stuff to stop.

FoolKiller:

Actually, I've pointed this out before but you never have to worry about the EULA for on disc DLC. The companies argue that when you buy the game, you buy the license for certain content and the EULA applies to that. As you didn't buy the DLC, you never agreed to the EULA regarding the DLC, so it's yours to do with as you please.

You're welcome :)

That I did not think about. Though I would have figured that most EULAs have DLC covered in some "Amended Product" line or some such. If not I'm sure they're going to start considering it.

)= That was an excellent debunk of the compatibility argument, but it seems like he completely glossed over the idle dev team argument.

Dryk:

It's really strange this only ever seems to happen at companies with these types of business practices. Companies that value their customers can always seem to find something for their staff to do.

Then my reply is, You have no idea who corporations work in the real world.

Big companies care nothing for there employees (at all), there first legal, moral and contractual obligation is to their investors FIRST. Charities and stuff like that is 3rd or 4th on there priority list, employees are DEAD LAST. First thing you learn in business management is you have to do well before you can do good.

And things like niceties cost money, Game companies are not in the business of just hiring and paying programers, testers. engineers, artist, write4rs and so on for the benefit of those staff members. They are there to churn out a product for that company and make a profit from it. And if they found a way for the consumer to pay for that same product twice, there doing better than everyone else apparently.

See the thing is, its not that the President or the CEO needs to get paid, it is the fricking stock holders, the loan officers and various other investors that want there GOD DAMN MONEY.
And if they do not get it, the least of your worries is laying off staff or pissing on ungrateful gamers whop think they are entitled.

If you do not like games with on Disk DLC, stop buying those games (or ignore the DLC).
Don't play Mass Effect, Street Fighter (and other fighting games), Modern Warfare, Skyrim, Halo or Insert annual sports title here. DLC is here and it is HERE TO STAY, stop acting all like a bunch of entitled twits and suck it up.

Why should I be complacent in a system that rewards people who buy shares in a company, encouraging them to make a massive short-term spike in profits by running every one of their assets into the ground then jumping to the next ship just before it sinks?

Dryk:
Why should I be complacent in a system that rewards people who buy shares in a company, encouraging them to make a massive short-term spike in profits by running every one of their assets into the ground then jumping to the next ship just before it sinks?

Because if you do not, the communist will win.

So... what? What was this entire episode all about? On-disk DLC exists? No shit. People are upset about it for reasons they can't prove? No shit. I'm just not sure what you're getting at Jim. That you want all DLC to be downloadable which you've presented absolutely no evidence that that's the superior model for distributing this content. That you want DLC content to just simply not exist? All you've done is regurgitate facts that we already knew and then went "WHA WHA WHA" the rest of the episode. Poor form and very indicative as why you need to quit while you're ahead because you seem to be running out of things to talk about and/or have switched to the Yahtzee model of "I'm an entertainer, not a person with an informed opinion".

This week, I agreed with Jim Sterling and disagreed with MovieBob...

Swings and roundabouts.

The fact that so many get upset about on disk DLC, but not at downloadable DLC, indicates that we haven't really gotten used to the notion of paying for intellectual property yet. WHERE the information is makes little difference, really. You didn't buy the disk, so much as you bought the information on the disk. I know, I know, you're all pointing at it and saying "But the DLC is RIGHT THERE! I therefore own it!" Not unless you paid for it.

Same day DLC is a completely different issue, of course. But really, it's more about the rising price of videogames than anything else. No one blinks twice at "collector's editions" with additional content, after all. And so long as game can be played without the DLC, there's no reason (other than cost) to get one's knickers twisted over the notion of paying for extras. You can drive a car without a stereo system, but if you want one installed by the dealership, you're going to pay more for it.

Jimothy Sterling:
On-Disc DLC Cannot Be Justified

There are explanations for games that ship with downloadable content already included. There are, however, no excuses. While you may have a reason, you do not have validation, because on-disc DLC is a problem willingly created by the industry, and it doesn't have to exist in the first place. You cannot justify a problem arranged by design, no matter how much you try and pretend it's out of your hands.

This week, the Jimquisition takes on one of this generation's growing aggravations, and you won't even get charged for it.

Watch Video

god damn luv ya Jim. thanks for putting what i couldnt, into words

All I wanna know is, what the hell was wrong with the old expansion packs? Even earlier DLC seemed to resemble this system of downloading/buying additional content for the game that was already installed on your PC or whatever.

Now they turn it into extra cashing in at launch date. Wasn't the idea of expansion packs to extend the life of the original product they had spent so long working on? Was it not making enough money or something? Or just a way of somehow making it feel like if you don't buy this DLC you are missing out on something major or more integral to the original.

Very much agree on this Jim, on-disk DLC (and most DLC in general) is a scam.

Bostur:

Eric the Orange:
Extra Credits makes an interesting counterpoint.

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

Paraphrasing one of ECs counterpoint:
Publishers needs to get DLCs out quickly before people lose interest in the games.

That's indicative of a much larger problem: That most games just don't have any staying power anymore.

I apologize for the length of this reply, but there's a lot of forces at work here.
Feel free to skip to my conclusion.

Back before games had "DLC" they had "expansion packs" instead, the idea was to hold the player's interest for a longer period of time, SOMEHOW. Some games did this legitimately by providing more content, but some padded out the game's length (traditional repetition or worse, grind).
Some of them had strong modding support, and those were the sorts of games that lasted a LOOONG time (Morrowind and UT99 spring to mind).

That's in part because these games weren't designed to be beaten in a day then swiftly forgotten so they can get to the sequel. Why the change? Well, in part because of Tech/Graphics Inflation and the inflation of development costs, but an even larger part is just that the publisher wanted to make "blockbusters" where the games played in part like movies, first attempted (badly) by FMV games, but later re-pioneered by industry shakers like Squaresoft (Final Fantasy 7) and Bungie (Halo).

Gameplay and new mechanics began to become peripheral to cutscenes and glory-shots. Today, your generic shooter is likely to feature sweeping camera shots, fully-voiced cutscenes that last several minutes long, and "Baysplosions", often in the middle of a level.
(Which has its own profound effects on gameplay design, but goes beyond the scope of this already too long argument)

What I'm laboring towards is this: not only the amount of content the average game contains has decreased over time, but the TYPE of content has in part, taken away from gameplay. So in order to bring the play time closer to its old standard, they release DLC.

But just to make DLC a more appealing choice, most Publishers have gone out of their way to keep user-created-content out of their games. This is a big reason why consoles are the primary market over PCs; it gives the publisher a virtual monopoly on all post-sale content.

You think that single-player-only Phalanx rifle in ME2 was patched into the core game code for COMPATIBILITY? How well do you think it would sell if some amateur could mod something similar (or BETTER) into the game themselves?

The growing emphasis on multiplayer is done to keep people playing longer without actually adding much more content. Multiplayer is variant enough to accomplish this by itself as long as it doesn't suck.

In fact, all the elements Bioware added to ME3 seemed to be playing for time in ways that didn't require them to add to the overall story. This is the only rational reason I could think of for Bioware to add multiplayer to their narrative-driven trilogy, and so late in the game at that. It certainly wasn't because the combat might be good for it! Mass Effect's combat is childishly easy and bland to begin with.

(Yes, there are exceptions like Little Big Planet and the Bethesda mega-games, but they are by far the minority among AAA games.)

So the end result is this: Shorter, flashier games, backed the publisher flexing their monopoly power to shove as much DLC out as quickly as they can because they know their game isn't likely to sell strong for very long.

ASIDE:
Consider this: Used Games have higher resell value under such a system because gamers are far more willing to just buy it, beat it, and sell it back. If nobody perceives that the games will be worth keeping, then they have more reason to put more used games onto the market, and more quickly.

A little question, what was the game in the middle? With the big swords and silly demon knights... and Yoda...?

 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