A little question, what was the game in the middle? With the big swords and silly demon knights... and Yoda...?
I think that was Soul Calibur 4, which came with Yoda on the Xbox 360 and Darth Vader on PS3.
And if I remember correctly, you could later buy the exclusive characters through a DLC on the other system.
I think he should have focused more on his last point; for a while it sounded like he was ranting against DLC in general which is NOT the problem.
The fact that on-disc DLC is NOT DLC is the issue. It's premium unlockable content and it should be called as such. It's a bad thing but at least if you call it that, you're being honest about what it is. The dishonesty factor is the biggest problem.
There is no excuse for it, other than the fact that the developer and the publisher want to make money.
That's hardly a crime. Especially given that they make luxury items, not necessities.
Yeah, we consumers obviously want things to be cheaper, and we can call the publisher out when they make up a lame excuse to try to justify increasing the price. But at the end of the day, there are no "villains".
Of course companies want to make more money. They're companies. That's natural for them. What, you think they make games out of the goodness of their heart? Are you 10 years old? They make games because they want money.
Obviously they want to raise prices as high as they can. Obviously we want prices to be as low as they possible can.
But don't get this confused with IMPORTANT issues, like Water, Sanitation, Electricity or Education. Overcharging for THOSE things IS a crime, because they are basic human necessities. Video games are NOT basic human necessities. They're entertainment. Luxury items. Being able to even afford one console game a year means you are in a privileged position compared to most people on this planet.
So yes, while Companies are obviously money-hungry and make up lame excuses to try to get more money, the outrage is phoney and betrays the fact that most people who make a big deal out of it don't have much real life-experience, or have genuinely suffered. If all you have to complain about is "evil" video game companies putting silly DLC out on discs, buddy, you don't know what really matters.
Grey Day for Elcia:
People who complain about on-disc DLC (a misnomer) don't understand how video games are made.
Rather simple really.
... Did you even watch the video? I am guessing you didn't.
We understand how they are made, what we also understand is that they are deliberately made this way, where they [game developers] try and act as if it's not their choice.
I disagree to some extent. If the original game is actually good and actually worth the money spent, I wouldn't care if they try to squeeze out a few extra bucks. But they actually have to deserve said money rather than giving us crap.
I think a lot of people are missing the point here. This is fundamentally about honesty and trust -- Disc-Locked-Content can undermine the trust a player places in the publisher and developer, especially when it's paired with the publisher or developer being dishonest about it.
With any DLC, there's always the possibility that it was deliberately withheld, something originally intended to be part of the experience, but carved out for extra profit. The player generally has no way of knowing if that's the case, so all they can go on is whether or not the game "feels complete" without it, or whether it feels like there's a deliberately gaping hole, just waiting to be filled. But when that content is already on the disc, it removes that sense of doubt -- and the player feels that they've been cheated. Here's something that could have been part of the original purchase price, was produced in the same time frame, on the same budget, but they're being charged extra for, seemingly arbitrarily.
The argument that Disc-Locked-Content was produced between submitting the game for certification and publishing is suspect: If they modified the game to add that locked content, then I would think it would have to be resubmitted for certification. Either you have a shipping build or you don't. Maybe I'm wrong and the rules are different for video games than they are for regular PC software -- there's no comparable third-party certification process -- but it doesn't make any sense to submit one build for certification, and actually ship a different build that hasn't been thoroughly tested.
Now, if the player is informed up-front that some of the content is locked, that can feel different. If it's touted as some kind of only-pay-for-the-content-you-what model, that it's a way of giving the player a choice to discount the product, then a lot more people are going to feel sympathetic to the idea. Some will still complain that they don't feel like they're getting good value for their money, but they probably won't feel like they've been conned. And that's what it's all about -- making an informed decision. Full disclosure is going to be received more favorably than lies and deceit.
I'd suggest that the majority of people who don't have a problem with Disc-Locked-Content are approaching the situation as an informed customer, not as someone who's just been bitten. Either they expected Disc-Locked-Content and factored that into their purchasing decision, or the DLC has already been released, and they're just now making the original purchasing decision. They may have trouble understanding the sense of betrayal that others are feeling.
Well, I suppose Sterling is right. While having an entire AAA development team on hand for 4 months would certainly be an expense large enough to force anyone's hand, there's no need to have it on hand for those 4 months (or that it couldn't start up another project). So it's entirely in the hands of the developer to put it on the disc.
On the other hand, there's little need to "justify" that in the first place. One is still getting a full game, and there's no compulsion in buying the Downloadable key if you don't want it. Sure, it'd be neat if you got it for free, but when you don't, so what? The main game didn't get any poorer (...and if it did, then that is what you should quite reasonably complain about, not that you didn't get extra free stuff).
My question then, does this include on-disc DLC when it comes to something such as Borderlands's "Game of the Year" edition, which includes the four expansions to the game on-disc, but was not something intended to be released at the game's launch? I'm just curious, because I don't see as much of an issue if a game dev decides that they are going to package the game with aspects of DLC, much like what Bethesda did with Elder Scrolls IV.
The only people who are defending on disc DLC are Publishers / Developers who are posing as gamers or toolish Fanboys, and when I say Fanboys I don't mean the average ignorant retarded ones; I'm referring to the supremely idiotic ones that you can only find at the bottom of the barrel.
I still don't get it. Could someone explain this to me like to an idiot? I mean let's say we have a fighting game. And now scenario 1: the game gets a dlc character. You pay ~5$, download it and play. Now scenario 2: you have the character locked on the disc. You pay ~5$ and play. To me that is the difference between on disc dlc and standard dlc. Now you say that scenario 1 (standard dlc) is ok, but 2 (on disc dlc) is somehow evil.
I am not being sarcastic or anything. I honestly just don't get the issue. Could someone PLEASE bring it down to my level?
I explained it in detail just a few posts up the page, but I'll try a different approach, following your example. Let's say you have a fighting game, and there's 20 characters. It retails for $60. Then, they create 5 more characters, and make them available as DLC for $5 each. If you purchase them all, you have 25 characters, for a total price of $85.
Let's say they do the same thing, but instead, they withheld 5 of the characters, so there's initially a roster of 15. Then they release 10 characters, each for $5. Total price: $110, or $25 more for the same amount of stuff.
The issue is that it's impossible to tell which scenario has actually occurred, but there's obviously a financial incentive for the publisher/developer to do the latter. When the DLC is on the disc, but locked away, it's very tempting to believe that they're just cutting up the game and asking you to pay more. It feels dishonest, like you're being tricked, rather than participating in a mutually beneficial transaction.
The price points on newly-released titles don't show a lot of variance. Most of them are $60, regardless of the amount of "content", partially because that's hard to measure. So it seems suspicious when a developer appears to be trying to shift the numbers even more in their favor, getting more than the street price for the same amount of content, by shifting it to a digital addon.
hahaha 30 seconds in and I'm already laughing at the "bikini" remark