Aardvark:
You're not paying for individual bits, 1s and 0s. Those are free. What you're paying for is a contract between you and the publisher/developer stating that you are allowed to use those 1s and 0s in an arrangement of which they have legal title. The media, the data, even the packaging that comes with it, all provided free of charge, as long as you agree to and pay for the license. If they choose to include extra content that is not part of the original agreement, then they are well within their rights to charge you to unlock it, as this is altering of the original agreement between you and them.

Think of it as them saving you the hassle of having to download the content in contest with every other schlub out there, thus adding precious time between the parting of the money and the enjoying of the content. You should be thanking them, not cursing them. Get down on your scrawny little knees and kiss the ground they walk on, puny mortals, for they are infinitely better than you and you should be thankful that they even deign to toss you their tablescraps.

What they are holding back from you is not the game that you purchased, it's the additional content. Content that they will charge for regardless of the delivery system. It's not as if they are withholding multiplayer, or the second half of the campaign.

i think it is unfair and that dlc content should be made according to what the players want and how could they know what we want when it is on the original disk that we paid up to $120 for (or $200 in the case of MW:2) it is just a cold act of money garbing without listening to what the players want

Option 3:
Play Valve games and get free DLC.

Aardvark:

Hiphophippo:
Really? It doesn't bother you to buy something only to have the person you bought it from tell you to buy it again?

You're not buying it. You're buying a license. That's how software works. That's how it has worked for decades.

I'll give you another example. Back in the days of yore, when iD software were still dealing with sprites and 2d planes, you could purchase your favourite games on CD. Doom 2, Hexen, Shadow Warrior, etc. These games never weighed in at the 700 meg mark, but the discs were full. Of what, I hear you ask, giddy with glee as you sit at the feet of the ancient one, hanging onto his every word? Other games. Heretic, Duke Nukem, games you didn't purchase. All there, encrypted. Why would they do such a thing? Simple. Upsell. You had the option, back in the days when dial-up was the standard and digital distribution was backwards and slow, of purchasing an unlock code and gaining access to said games.

Sure, things are faster and we're talking about DLC rather than a separate product, but the same principle applies. Don't like it? Don't purchase it.

I don't subscribe to the morality of that whole license thing but I did know about it. Legally speaking you're correct, but ethically and morally the license tripe is so far up the ass of immoral selling that it can't or will ever see the light of day.

That said, I ignore it and do what I like with shit I buy. Which also means I don't buy DLC.

Hiphophippo:
ethically and morally the license tripe is so far up the ass of immoral selling that it can't or will ever see the light of day.

So it's more morally correct of them if they did not include it, but made everybody download it instead? The end result is the same, they get money, you get DLC. The only difference is this way, less electricity is used up in the transaction.

If anything, they should be applauded for saving the environment, just the tiniest amount.

Look, if you don't like it don't buy it. That's "Kapitalizm fur u"

Whenever I get the option, I buy the Disks. I just like having the case, and Digital distribution can burn in hell.

XinfiniteX:
In my opinion this dosent bother me in the slightest. The less content I have to download and have taking up space on my HDD the better.
Realistically companies are going to charge for DLC regardless of how it's accessed. Does this sort of thing bother you?

The main problem is that the idea of paying for DLC is that you pay for the extra work and support the developers put into a game you already bought. If the DLC was already included in the game but locked away with a code, you're essentially paying twice for the same thing. All the work was already done and you already paid for the data on the disk, but the devs are just trying to cash in a second time for the same thing without spending a second more to earn it.

It's like, imagine buying a car. You've just bought an awesome car and you enjoy it. If you want to add something new to the car, for example a new audio system, you can go out and buy it. That's pretty normal. Now imagine that, after buying the car, they tell you that your audio system won't work unless you buy an unlock code. The system is already installed in the car you bought and there's nothing wrong with it at all, you just need to fork over an extra 1/5th of the car's original price to be able to listen to music while you drive. Sounds like bullshit? That's because it is.

Harddrive space and time spent downloading aren't really an issue unless you've got no harddrive or no internet.

Aardvark:

Hiphophippo:
ethically and morally the license tripe is so far up the ass of immoral selling that it can't or will ever see the light of day.

So it's more morally correct of them if they did not include it, but made everybody download it instead? The end result is the same, they get money, you get DLC. The only difference is this way, less electricity is used up in the transaction.

If anything, they should be applauded for saving the environment, just the tiniest amount.

I just want to make sure...you are actually using the "going green" arguement with regards to DLC on disc?

That might be the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

hURR dURR dERP:

It's like, imagine buying a car. You've just bought an awesome car and you enjoy it. If you want to add something new to the car, for example a new audio system, you can go out and buy it. That's pretty normal. Now imagine that, after buying the car, they tell you that your audio system won't work unless you buy an unlock code. The system is already installed in the car you bought and there's nothing wrong with it at all, you just need to fork over an extra 1/5th of the car's original price to be able to listen to music while you drive. Sounds like bullshit? That's because it is.

Harddrive space and time spent downloading aren't really an issue unless you've got no harddrive or no internet.

Actually quite a lot of new cars come with the parts which would normally be sold as options already built in, they just are missing the control in the ECU or simple thing like switches (I just put in tiptronic paddle shifters in my standard auto - all the wiring harnesses and ECU controls were already there). These car companies do this because it works out cheaper this way. I guess the gaming industry have caught onto this too.

As for HDD space, well once you have dumped a whole bunch of movies and stack of downloaded games it runs out quite quickly.

XinfiniteX:

hURR dURR dERP:

It's like, imagine buying a car. You've just bought an awesome car and you enjoy it. If you want to add something new to the car, for example a new audio system, you can go out and buy it. That's pretty normal. Now imagine that, after buying the car, they tell you that your audio system won't work unless you buy an unlock code. The system is already installed in the car you bought and there's nothing wrong with it at all, you just need to fork over an extra 1/5th of the car's original price to be able to listen to music while you drive. Sounds like bullshit? That's because it is.

Harddrive space and time spent downloading aren't really an issue unless you've got no harddrive or no internet.

Actually quite a lot of new cars come with the parts which would normally be sold as options already built in, they just are missing the control in the ECU or simple thing like switches (I just put in tiptronic paddle shifters in my standard auto - all the wiring harnesses and ECU controls were already there). These car companies do this because it works out cheaper this way. I guess the gaming industry have caught onto this too.

As for HDD space, well once you have dumped a whole bunch of movies and stack of downloaded games it runs out quite quickly.

It's one thing to have the support for future modifications built in. It's another to have those 'future modifications' 100% present at purchase but simply disabled.

Oh dear. You guys wouldn't survive in the world of networking or computer techies.
This system is very common in other industries. For example, if I wanted to install Win7 on 40 computers for a company, and I already owned the Win7 disc, I'd have to pay for an email with 40 CD key's written in it.

Yep. What's even funnier, when you bought Vista, you actually got Vista Ultimate with it. Just you needed a code to unlock it, you could install the trial version, but unless you bought the code you'd be stuck with the student edition.

This system happens in almost every other industry that uses optical media, with perhaps the exception of the movie industry, so going this long without encountering it to a massive degree is probably something you should be thankful for. Stop whining.

Edit: Oh, and by the way. When a publisher does put the content on a disc, they actually risk piracy in a major way. As anyone with a bit of experience in cracking could find this data and make it avaliable to the entire world. So really it's the publisher that could end up losing out more then the consumer.

I would rather use up download than pay for content twice. Money is worth more to me than hard drive space, also its just plain wrong.

I couldn't care either way. They're going to make you pay for the extra content either way. And I certainly don't see how people could possibly think that they own it just because it's on the disc.

Hiphophippo:
I just want to make sure...you are actually using the "going green" arguement with regards to DLC on disc?

That might be the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

About as stupid as corporate morals and ethics meaning they give away their stuff for free, as was stated earlier in this thread. My point happens to have the advantage of being true.

I disagree with a lot of the statements here. Generally speaking I feel anything that is done at the same time as the game and put onto the disc should be part of the game. To me extra content is an actual expansion to that. I consider things like "Forge Of Virtue" or "The Silver Seed" (to referance Ultima 7) examples of what additional content should be. Something that is developed after the game's release if it proves to be popular.

The entire idea of DLC to begin with was to be able to deliver things like the old Origin expansion packs much more easily and inexpensively to fans. Less money to develop, means of course less money they were going to charge you.

Game Informer sort of called it right when the trend began with their initial comments about how EA was going to start charging people to "put air in the ball" with their sports titles. Right now companies basically create a product and then look at what they can isolate from it and sell to customers for additional money. Additional colors and costumes for fighting game characters, and similar things like that are my target gripe.

I think the big problem is that a lot of companies plan around milking customers for every dime they are worth from the very beginning. In part because the industry doesn't operate according to the principles they are supposed to, where there should be direct competition between companies with them all constantly trying to deliver the biggest, and highest quality product, at the lowest price. Rather they do things like coordinate their release schedules not to directly compete with each other. For example all the games that got pushed up from last year into the first quarter of this year due to Modern Warfare 2 is an example of what is supposed to be forbidden in the US at least. The idea being that all of the games that were pushed up should have been promising extras and lowering their prices to entice people away from the big release, and of course the big release is supposed to respond in kind, leading to a situation where you see the lowest prices possible... but rather you see staggered release schedules, and coordinate price increases when it happens. This kind of thing is hard to prove however, the goverment is STILL fighting gas companies over it for example. So far for all of it's claims of monster profits the goverment has yet to turn an eye on the gaming industry, probably because we have yet to spawn many consumer watch groups who have whined to State and Federal Attorneys around the country yet.

Do not misunderstand, I realize game development is not a charity venture, and that the people making games are out to make a profit. I don't have any problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the gouging of the consumer base. I consider there to be reasonable and unreasonable profiteering. As I've mentioned before while I tend to agree with the Conservative side of things in most case, I do not agree with it on all matters. I am far from being a socialist, but I very much believe in tempering capitolism with mandatory competition, I am against monopolies, I am against cartel behavior, and by and large I support unions.

I see the current DLC issues as being largely related to the way the game industry operates. Right now they are free to gouge people with DLC, and holding back features of a game for money, largely because of a lack of competition. Right now companies can approach things in terms of how much they can strangle us for, rather than going head to head and trying to figure out how much they can deliver to the customers for how low a price while still making a profit off their goods. If games were in more direct competition, I very much doubt you'd see things like fighting game costumes, characters on a disc, or multiplayer modes being held back after completion.

Right now I've noticed occasional comments about failed games and comments from the gaming press about how so and so company probably shouldn't have released alongside a well known franchise or whatever. Well the thing is that that is the kind of thing that is supposed to happen, and regularly enough where (as I said) everyone fights for how much they can give customers and to have the lowest prices. Right now this kind of thing is only notable because the industry does not operate the way it's supposed to within the US market.

Aardvark:

Hiphophippo:
I just want to make sure...you are actually using the "going green" arguement with regards to DLC on disc?

That might be the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

About as stupid as corporate morals and ethics meaning they give away their stuff for free, as was stated earlier in this thread. My point happens to have the advantage of being true.

That's cool. You don't mind getting fucked. Just means they love you.

If its on the disk and I need to pay for a code to access it, I feel cheated. It feels like the company is arbitrary making me pay more to get what essentially is part of the game they released initially.

It isn't the space that bothers me. And, anyways, if there is a code that unlocks it ON THE DISC, why not include it in the game in the first place?

Instead of complaining about it, why don't you sell your MW2 to a game store? Then you won't have to worry about whether or not you can play content that was already on the disc. OR you can stop whining and just pay for the damn code if the DLC means so much to you. Activision obviously put the DLC on the disc so they could make money later on. If you don't agree with that, then why are you even playing their games? It's not like they are going to stop trying to make money.

See, this is why everyone is rags on the younger generation. You aren't entitled to shit and no one owes you a damn thing. Get over it.

Hiphophippo:
That's cool. You don't mind getting fucked. Just means they love you.

Let's recap, shall we? They're companies. They're in the business of making money. Morals and ethics do not factor into it. If you don't like how they do business, don't do business with them.

Got it? No? Then there's no helping you, son.

Aardvark:

Hiphophippo:
That's cool. You don't mind getting fucked. Just means they love you.

Let's recap, shall we? They're companies. They're in the business of making money. Morals and ethics do not factor into it. If you don't like how they do business, don't do business with them.

Got it? No? Then there's no helping you, son.

I like it when people bring out the "kid" and "son" card because I suspect you have no idea how old I am. Or perhaps you do. Regardless, as you're only interested in arguing, I'm afraid I'm going to back out of this.

It is the DLC revolution gone mad. See the Stolen Pixels comic on this for further reading.

Dogmeat T Dingo:
This is why I don't regret selling my console and just using PC games. If they pull this crap with a physical PC game the extra content will be hacked within a week of release, and I would have no issue using it because I already bought everything on that disk when I paid for it in the store.

The only case of this ever having happened I know of is Resident Evil 5. Everything else is just rumor so I guess this discussion is idiotic anyways.

XinfiniteX:
What they are holding back from you is not the game that you purchased, it's the additional content. Content that they will charge for regardless of the delivery system. It's not as if they are withholding multiplayer, or the second half of the campaign.

I tend to look at it like this: All that "additional" content, when coupled with the game, make a complete package. So, they are holding out on selling the person a whole game. For my $60, I would certainly like to know that I am playing Dante's Inferno, not Dante's Inferno version 1.2 or whatever, because that isn't what I paid for. I paid for the totality of the game, but developers choose not to see things that way, and we all get screwed.

Aardvark:
Here's your homework, small child.

This, after you call him "son", which was also uncalled for, is insulting. Please try to be respectful of other users, even if you don't agree with them.

Sorry, double post.

Maybe if we are lucky they will come out and say that the extra content on the disc is FREE because we are such loyal customers! That would blow my mind if a company release free DLC that is actually good. ARE YOU LISTENING INFINITY WARD?? :D

Let it take up HDD space. PS3 120 GB hard drive FTW.

XinfiniteX:
I've been reading around forums looking for info on MW2 DLC (release dates etc.) and from what I've seen it sounds as if the content itself is already on the disc, so essentially we will be paying for the code to unlock what's already there. Now this isn't the first time this has happened with DLC for games. (RE5 anyone?)

Anyway, the main thing I found is everyone is complaining about this, saying they won't pay for it because they already own it etc. In my opinion this dosent bother me in the slightest. The less content I have to download and have taking up space on my HDD the better.
Realistically companies are going to charge for DLC regardless of how it's accessed. Does this sort of thing bother you?

Smells like bullshit to me. This isn't about taking up HDD space...it's about the fact that they obviously developed this DLC prior to the release of the game, so it damn well should have been included for no additional price. ESPECIALLY since the content is already on the disc. In other words, they were purposefully shipping an incomplete game so that they could later charge for completing it.

I have no problem with DLC if it is developed post-release and designed to add something to the core game, not complete it.

If its already on-disc, developers shouldn't be tight and get us to pay for it. The same principle applys to day one DLC; if you release it same day as the full game, why not just have it on disc.

It all comes down to money, and the fact that developers are trying to make more of it, not actually make gamers completely happy.

Aardvark:

Hiphophippo:
That's cool. You don't mind getting fucked. Just means they love you.

Let's recap, shall we? They're companies. They're in the business of making money. Morals and ethics do not factor into it. If you don't like how they do business, don't do business with them.

A business hasfinancial, social and personal goals. just because the first goal is the most important doesn't allow the company to do whatever it takes to make money and ignore the other two factors.

Khitten:
I think it is absolute bullshit. Not that I am against DLC however I honestly believe that even day 1 DLC is only acceptable because I believe they were still working on shit while the game was already being shipped. However if it was finished on time to come with the game on the damn disc then it should be part of the game anyway.
That is not a case of "shit! We want to add more to the game to make it better" it is just "eh, they dont really need these parts of the game so we can lock it away then fuck them out of more money to access what they already paid for"

Couldnt have said it better myself

Option 1 = Haha, lets fuck them out of as much money as possible

Option 2 = a bit of something they thought up after release

On-disc DLC angers me. They make us pay extra for something they made. How long before we pay $60 for the disc, and then $10 extra for each chapter we want to play?

On-disc DLC is also the reason GameSharks and CodeBreakers are not made. With them, you could bypass the nonsense and could access everything on the disc.