DLC abuse

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Pyro Paul:

TorqueConverter:

The problem arises when they bite the hand that feeds them. Day one DLC is such an instance. Unless the game developers can prove that the day one DLC is not content removed from the game, then they are blatantly milking the consumer. Milking the consumer is to treat them as if they are not even human. A thing; a resource to wring every last drop of value out of. I'd rather get a hate letter from a developer than have them cut content only monetize it on day one.

Most Day 1 DLC is made through contractual agreements with third parties.

most of it isn't really content removed but rather additional content developed on the side because some one some where paid a sum of money for it to happen.

It's ok to remove content from the game or downright block the content on the disk as long as you use words like extras and additional, right?

I'm sorry but I just don't understand this logic.

Developed on the side of what with what money exactly? You mean developed in parallel? How does the outsourcing of game development to a 3rd party justify an additional cost on the consumers end? Hell, they can 3rd party it up with the DLC after the game is launched. If content is in development when the game is in development then you better get that content when the game is released, provided that content is finished. Charge as much as you want for the game. Let the free market speak.

It isn't abuse as long as we're never misled. People vastly misinterpret 'responsibilities' that publishers owe their consumers.

It may be unpopular of Capcom to absolutely rinse their fighter fanbase, but seeing as those consumers will be staring at exactly the same thing for potentially hours breaking into the centuries there is a demand for their palette swaps and so forth.

Similarly, regarding their characters on the disk direction - not once was it advertised 'all fighters available', they advertise those that are provided and than advertise those that will be provided in the future.

We all know Capcom's operating model and if you still complain yet still purchase their games you're going to be perpetually disappointed.

Certain things such as Assassin's Creed II and Deus Ex: Human Revolution having story based content available later is a bit more tetchy, but again these items are completely superficial - the overall integrity of the story was never compromised.

Companies can pursue whichever revenue stream they wish with their product, as long as it isn't dishonest.

A few companies are abusing DLC but if we got rid of DLC just because a few or even several companies take advantage of it, I thinking gaming itself probably would of disappeared by now. besides you aren't forced to buy the DLC or even the game in question.

If the company doesn't feel that they'll make adequate profit off of the base game, then they'll withhold content to help boost sales. It works. If you don't like it, stop buying it.

Good DLC is stuff that expands the origional game but isn't nescessary as such. GTA 4, Oblivion ect all had great dlc. Hell Even red deads was pretty good.

Bad DLC is when whiney publishers attempt to kill the trade in 2nd hand games by withholding content until you've unwrapped the game and input the codes. If a games like this I purposely buy the game second hand as a fuck you to the publisher, and when they dont (ala skyrim, mw3 ect) I buy day of release. That way I do my little part to see horse-shit like Rage die. :)

Theo Rob:
A while ago my friends and I got to talking about DLC. my friends said that DLC would be the next step in in gaming since it allows new content without the need of a expansion disc and while I agreed with this I said that this could be used as a excuse to charge us more for things that are already finished.

The street fighter x tekken hacking has got me worried that what I said wasn't a load of bull and companies are really thinking this way. The future is bleak if other games meet the same fate all because where charged extra for content that's already there so now well all be suspicious of DLC.

disscusion:
1.Is companies abusing DLC for personal gain?
2.do you believe that DLC is one of the best things in resent gaming ?

I Should also say that I don't hate the idea of DLC I just hate what's being done to it

1.Companies do everything for personal gain. That's why they are companies.
2.No, I liked expansion packs better. But those are only good for strategy games and rpg's, mostly. DLC is very good for some games. But it's true that some DLC aren't worth their price.

lacktheknack:
If the company doesn't feel that they'll make adequate profit off of the base game, then they'll withhold content to help boost sales. It works. If you don't like it, stop buying it.

Yep. It's shit but it works as business model. There is no system in place to keep the game developers and publishers under control, only our wallets.

It's good to be informed as consumer. I wish like hell I had known about of the Deus Ex DLC shenanigans or might have not bought the game and saved myself the trouble of that boring FPS cover based shooter.

SirBryghtside:

Crono1973:

SirBryghtside:
I feel like you've got the wrong end of the stick here. Publishers shouldn't be greedy, but the reason that they're greedy is entirely our fault. Not necessarily yours, not necessarily mine. But as consumers, people buy these products. Your metaphor makes no sense as it says that they are robbing us, when we are the ones who make the ultimate choice on whether or not to buy a product.

I'm not OK with it, I've said at least three times now that it's bloody ridiculous. But it's not abuse. Everyone knows what they're paying, everyone knows what they're getting out of it. The only solutions are for the corporations to either suddenly all become paragons of charity, or for them to find out that products without DLC are more profitable. The former is never going to happen, and the latter will only happen if we, as consumers, stop buying DLC and support DLC-less games. Please, explain where the abuse is here.

Both sides have responsibility but where we expect the thief NOT to take advantage of the unlocked door, we give corporations card blanche to do almost anything they like to make money. Now, I am not saying there should be laws against it, I am saying that consumers, like you, need to start being more consumer friendly and stop blaming consumers alone.

Remember when people were pissed off because of Bethesda's Horse Armor? Not pissed off at consumers, pissed off at Bethesda for even offering it at the price it was offered at. After that, Bethesda DLC improved. That's what I am talking about, corporations are responsible for their actions if they set out to rip people off. Blaming consumers alone is wrong and will never improve the situation.

The difference between Horse Armour and the situation today is that people put their money where there mouth was. Horse Armour phased out because it was a huge sales flop - seriously, do you know anyone who bought that? But today, EA can push out the Javik DLC and it will get bought. It did get bought.

Although I do agree with you in one sense there - that Bethesda push out good quality DLC apart from that. But that's one of the rare cases where the company is nice. And again, I think you're getting the wrong end of the stick, because I am saying we should punish the companies that are pushing out Day-1 DLC by not buying the DLC. But the customers are not. How the hell are we supposed to send a negative message when 75% of people are just going along with it? It's a battle, and in the end there are no winners. The companies will collapse under their own weight, and the consumers will be stuck with an even worse version of the current model. It is the fault of both the consumers and the corporations, but the consumers are far too willing for me to even think about siding with them on this matter. Both sides are as bad as each other.

Horse Armor wasn't a flop:
http://www.gamesradar.com/oblivions-horse-armour-dlc-is-still-selling-bethesda-calls-it-inexplicable-we-call-it-basic-human-degradation/

and it wasn't phased out. As far as I know they are still selling it.

Bethesda was rightly shamed about Horse Armor even though people have been buying it all along and it resulted in better DLC.

TorqueConverter:

Yopaz:

You also say you want companies to earn money, but you're against day 1 DLC because they are removing content. Really, what difference does it make if they are removing content from a full game (and still giving you a full game) or if they are adding content to a full game? You're makinf a big deal out of the difference between Pepsi and Cola, sure there is a difference, but it's no big deal.

Well Pepsi is a cola..

The difference is that in one instance, removing completed content from a game to sell as day one DLC, is cheating the consumer and the other is not. It's not a "full game" if content has been removed from it. It's no different than than a cashier ringing something up twice at the register to maximize profits.

Games are usually complete even with day 1 DLC, but no matter the significancen of it people usually say the publishers are cutting out content. Take the sewers in RAGE. They made no impact on the story and barely added anything, yet making that day 1 DLC made everyone complain that they cut out important content. I fail to see the logic in this and you fail to explain it.

SirBryghtside:
or for them to find out that products without DLC are more profitable.

But that's the thing: Products without DLC are not more profitable.

And to be honest: I think people are vastly overexagarating. No one forces you to buy DLC and most important: I have yet to see day 1 DLC that matters to the story (ME3 day 1 does not matter, DA:O does not matter, Batman AC does not matter).

Yopaz:

TorqueConverter:

Yopaz:

You also say you want companies to earn money, but you're against day 1 DLC because they are removing content. Really, what difference does it make if they are removing content from a full game (and still giving you a full game) or if they are adding content to a full game? You're makinf a big deal out of the difference between Pepsi and Cola, sure there is a difference, but it's no big deal.

Well Pepsi is a cola..

The difference is that in one instance, removing completed content from a game to sell as day one DLC, is cheating the consumer and the other is not. It's not a "full game" if content has been removed from it. It's no different than than a cashier ringing something up twice at the register to maximize profits.

Games are usually complete even with day 1 DLC, but no matter the significancen of it people usually say the publishers are cutting out content. Take the sewers in RAGE. They made no impact on the story and barely added anything, yet making that day 1 DLC made everyone complain that they cut out important content. I fail to see the logic in this and you fail to explain it.

You honestly fail to see the logic in being cheated out of something?

On totally unrelated note got some shit laying around I'm trying to sell. I want you to get fist dibs on it before it goes to craigslist. You seem like a nice guy.

It's the very principal of be being cheated out of something and not how much that item costs or the significance of the item to some story that is important. It's the very principal that a portion, any portion, of the game was blocked off in Rage so as to incentivise new game sales that had people upset. I'm willing to live with bits of day one DLC as long as it is included for free to anyone who purchases the game new.

The pubs/devs have the fight back against the retailers in some way.

Fieldy409:
Its interesting. It occured to me just today that they actually intentionally left a small gap in the story of Deus Ex revolution purely for dlc.

When adam hides in this cargo hold on a boat. He lost contact with the guy on the radio he talks to for a long amount of time, I think a week. The guy on the radio asks him when Adam gets radio contact with him again what happened and Adam replies "Ill tell you later"

Then they release DLC about what happened while Adam Was in transit.

So....Intentionally leaving a hole in the story for dlc? I dunno, It doesnt upset me that much, just makes me uneasy....

The trouble with that is that when they were making HR they needed to cut some things near the end to get the game finished. I believe Montreal for instance was originally going to be another hub city, but that was cut. It's probably also why you revisit Detroit and Shanghai and while they have some more quests to do, there aren't nearly as many.

Having played the Missing Link DLC, it wasn't required for the story to work, and the DLC itself worked quite well as a stand alone adventure that takes place within the time frame of the game. Not only that, the fact that the boss battle was actually well done makes me far more forgiving of it. I like to think of it not as something which got cut so it could be DLC, but something which never would have been released unless it was DLC since it was already cut due to time constraints which is the sense I get from it.

As for my thoughts on DLC. I like DLC that's an expansion for a game. I enjoy being able to go back to a game I liked for substantial new content. I don't like when companies try to nickel and dime for stupid shit like costumes or items that don't affect the game. A good rule of thumb is that if it took a single artist a day's work to pump something out and they're charging $3 for it, it's not worth it.

MercurySteam:

Skoldpadda:

MercurySteam:

Sorry dude, no dice. I know that some people have their issues with Jessica Chobot after ME3 but as far as I know, she was an excellent reporter before that. I couldn't really find anything better to use as my avatar this month so you're just gonna have to bear with me.

:D

I think you misunderstood me. ;)

This is the internet, sarcasm and other such things don't travel well. Please explain.

As in: I can't take my eyes off your avatar because it's really hot. I didn't know there was a ME3-thing around this sexy thing. All a big misunderstanding! Fast forward a couple of years, and we'll be able to laugh about this.

Say, how does one pronounce her name? French, like Cheaubeaux? Or rhyming with Robot?

CAPTCHA: run the gauntlet. Oh every day, my dear Captcha. Every day.

SirBryghtside:
Exactly my point.

Heh, then I misread it so hard that it made my coffee cold!

Vivi22:
I don't like when companies try to nickel and dime for stupid shit like costumes or items that don't affect the game. A good rule of thumb is that if it took a single artist a day's work to pump something out and they're charging $3 for it, it's not worth it.

I like a lot of those little items and do buy them if the price is right, however the price is often not. If the monetary value of the item equal to or less than the amount of enjoyment I recieve from the item, then it's fair game.

In a sandbox game where story really isn't that important, interesting weapons and armor can really improve the game. I couldn't imagine life in Fallout 3 without the guass rifle or the Octo-gun in Saints Row 3. The Operation Anchorage Alaska story? Don't care. The guass rifle in that DLC? Do care.

I remember when games came with unlocks that you earned by playing the game, that you didn't need to pay extra to get.

I remember when games were actually actually tested for bugs, and most were removed before release rather than "patched later".

I remember when expansion packs actually added to the game that you got, not being parts of games that were cut and resold to you later.

I remember when I didn't require a hard drive just to play a game.

I remember when I could lend a game to a buddy and he could experience it for himself, without developers/publishers calling him a thief.

I remember when games came out that were made for gamers, not profits.

I remember a time when DLC could be used for good and furthering the industry rather than the milking that it is used for now.

There are very few developers I respect anymore that I grew up with, publishers even less. And it's mainly this generation of gaming that has sent most of them into the toilet, much of it to do with DLC and their anti-consumer practices.

TorqueConverter:

Yopaz:

TorqueConverter:

Well Pepsi is a cola..

The difference is that in one instance, removing completed content from a game to sell as day one DLC, is cheating the consumer and the other is not. It's not a "full game" if content has been removed from it. It's no different than than a cashier ringing something up twice at the register to maximize profits.

Games are usually complete even with day 1 DLC, but no matter the significancen of it people usually say the publishers are cutting out content. Take the sewers in RAGE. They made no impact on the story and barely added anything, yet making that day 1 DLC made everyone complain that they cut out important content. I fail to see the logic in this and you fail to explain it.

You honestly fail to see the logic in being cheated out of something?

On totally unrelated note got some shit laying around I'm trying to sell. I want you to get fist dibs on it before it goes to craigslist. You seem like a nice guy.

It's the very principal of be being cheated out of something and not how much that item costs or the significance of the item to some story that is important. It's the very principal that a portion, any portion, of the game was blocked off in Rage so as to incentivise new game sales that had people upset. I'm willing to live with bits of day one DLC as long as it is included for free to anyone who purchases the game new.

The pubs/devs have the fight back against the retailers in some way.

I don't feel cheated when I buy games even if they come with day 1 DLC, but I do agree that when elements that are important for story is exclusive for new purchases then that is a bad move. Now I never buy used games, but I believe that we should have the right to do so. My two reasons for not buying used games is Steam and the fact that I have a personal dislike for GameStop after they have sold me several titles that didn't work (new titles) and they refused to give me a refund. However I guess we can both agree that DLC is OK as long as we get a complete game right out of the box.

Pyro Paul:

newdarkcloud:
I vented my opinions on this just a few days ago.

http://pressstarttodiscuss.blogspot.com/2012/04/15-dlc-how-it-is-being-handled-and-how.html

On Disk DLC are not as bad as you think...
Most of the time it is acctually used as a mechanism to bypass certain restrictions or fees placed on digital delivery systems.

You see it happen a lot for games designed for Xbox LIVE which has so many restrictions on what you can and can't do on it from the publisher/developer stand point that many publishers/developers simply bypass this altogether posting a bulk of the DLC content on disk with only minor alterations provided by the DLC packet up for digital distribution.

Even still, I feel that the consumer really should be entitled to the content on the disk that they legally purchased.

Side-Note: I can't be the only one that finds these captcha ads slightly irritating.

newdarkcloud:

Pyro Paul:

newdarkcloud:
snip

and snip

Even still, I feel that the consumer really should be entitled to the content on the disk that they legally purchased.

Side-Note: I can't be the only one that finds these captcha ads slightly irritating.

I disagree, consumers should not be entitled to content that they did not pay for, whether or not that content is on the disk is irrelevant. However I do understand the frustration of paying to unlock content on the disk I bought.

back pain:

newdarkcloud:

Pyro Paul:

and snip

Even still, I feel that the consumer really should be entitled to the content on the disk that they legally purchased.

Side-Note: I can't be the only one that finds these captcha ads slightly irritating.

I disagree, consumers should not be entitled to content that they did not pay for, whether or not that content is on the disk is irrelevant. However I do understand the frustration of paying to unlock content on the disk I bought.

I could argue that they already paid for the content when they bought the disk. Buying the disc also purchases all the content on it.

And yes, spending money on an unlock code really makes me mad. It makes me miss Gameshark sometimes.

newdarkcloud:

I could argue that they already paid for the content when they bought the disk. Buying the disc also purchases all the content on it.

And yes, spending money on an unlock code really makes me mad. It makes me miss Gameshark sometimes.

Technically you bought a license not the disk.

Skoldpadda:
As in: I can't take my eyes off your avatar because it's really hot. I didn't know there was a ME3-thing around this sexy thing. All a big misunderstanding! Fast forward a couple of years, and we'll be able to laugh about this.

Indeed. I didn't intend to be hostile but with the shitstorm surrounding ME3, one can never be too careful. And I did suspect that there was more to your original comment, but as I said, some jokes were just never meant to be told over the internet.

And her name is pronounced exactly how its spelt.

SajuukKhar:

newdarkcloud:

I could argue that they already paid for the content when they bought the disk. Buying the disc also purchases all the content on it.

And yes, spending money on an unlock code really makes me mad. It makes me miss Gameshark sometimes.

Technically you bought a license not the disk.

Legally most software purchases are considered to be sales of goods rather than entering into licencing agreements.

SenorStocks:
Legally most software purchases are considered to be sales of goods rather than entering into licencing agreements.

Except every piece of software that has a EULA, which is to say, most of them.

Abuse, Gaming Abuse. With all this Online support Companies can throw out games and just reply with DLC to fix any problems. This is why more and more games are launching with such poor Quality (Ahem, BF3 on 360)

Dont get me wrong Battlefield 3 is an awesome game but they overlooked many details which they only fixed recently.

SajuukKhar:

SenorStocks:
Legally most software purchases are considered to be sales of goods rather than entering into licencing agreements.

Except every piece of software that has a EULA, which is to say, most of them.

Calling something a licence doesn't actually make it a licence. If the terms of sale transfer the risk of loss to the purchaser; require the payment of a one-off fee; and there is no point at which the purchaser is required to give the software back, then there is a transfer of title rather than a licence arrangement. All of these criteria would be satisfied for games.

rhizhim:

Dandark:
I used to like DLC. Now I hate it and think it's one of the worst things to happen to gaming. Companies are determined to abuse the hell out of it and people are more than happy to support them. Oblivion: "Shivering isles", Fallout: "Operation anchorage" and "Broken steel", GTAIV: "Lost and damned" and "Ballad of gay Tony".

These were great examples of DLC, I loved these pieces of DLC, they added plenty to the game after it had been released, they were also well worth the price. Most of the DLC now seems to just be content that was cut out or should have been in the game originally.
DRM and DLC abuse are two of the most **** companies do. This is why I hate EA and Ubisoft, because they do **** like this.

those were not dlcs. those were mostly expansion packs.

Considering they were content you downloaded, yes they were DLC, that's what it means.

The thing that really bugs me is overpriced DLC for small amounts of stuff, 2 swords for 5 dollars, a outfit for 5, a new spell, add that up and its four tiny items for a third of the price of the entire game. Fable 3 did that horrifically, everyday there would be something minimal added to the DLC store, and your butler would tell you every time you paused the game that it was there to buy.

LiquidSolstice:

Lagao:
This is why I like valve.

Dlc is free.

Not too difficult when almost your entire line of games are nothing more than DLC to Half Life or Half Life 2.

really?

So huge improvements to the engine are just dlc to you.
So crysis 2 is just dlc, or all the call of duty sequels. All sports games sequels.

Stop the absurdness.

Lagao:
This is why I like valve.

Dlc is free.

So I didn't pay for Crash Course or the Passing? I didn't have to pay for a new game mode in L4D2 that hasn't been updated in forever? Methinks someone owes me some money then.

squid5580:

Lagao:
This is why I like valve.

Dlc is free.

So I didn't pay for Crash Course or the Passing? I didn't have to pay for a new game mode in L4D2 that hasn't been updated in forever? Methinks someone owes me some money then.

No you didn't pay Valve... you paid Microsoft in order to download content off their servers... funny bit... Valve Also paid Microsoft to put said content you downloaded On their Servers.

Microsoft LIVE: Dicking over Consumers and Developers alike.

newdarkcloud:

Pyro Paul:

newdarkcloud:
I vented my opinions on this just a few days ago.

http://pressstarttodiscuss.blogspot.com/2012/04/15-dlc-how-it-is-being-handled-and-how.html

On Disk DLC are not as bad as you think...
Most of the time it is acctually used as a mechanism to bypass certain restrictions or fees placed on digital delivery systems.

You see it happen a lot for games designed for Xbox LIVE which has so many restrictions on what you can and can't do on it from the publisher/developer stand point that many publishers/developers simply bypass this altogether posting a bulk of the DLC content on disk with only minor alterations provided by the DLC packet up for digital distribution.

Even still, I feel that the consumer really should be entitled to the content on the disk that they legally purchased.

Side-Note: I can't be the only one that finds these captcha ads slightly irritating.

There is an argument there that has been made many times before and will probably be made many times to come.

what it ultimatly boils down to is that Digital Information isn't the same as Physical Property. As it stands now, with Digital information you are simply purchasing the 'right to observe'.

TorqueConverter:
It's ok to remove content from the game or downright block the content on the disk as long as you use words like extras and additional, right?

um... Yeah?

Haven't you ever heard of 'Extended Edition' or 'Directors Cut' for movies?
Haven't you ever seen the words 'Uncensored' or 'Unrated'?

It is done every where.

Pay a little extra... Get a little more.

I'm sorry but I just don't understand this logic.

Developed on the side of what with what money exactly? You mean developed in parallel? How does the outsourcing of game development to a 3rd party justify an additional cost on the consumers end? Hell, they can 3rd party it up with the DLC after the game is launched. If content is in development when the game is in development then you better get that content when the game is released, provided that content is finished. Charge as much as you want for the game. Let the free market speak.

you do not own the developers...
Nor do you own what they develope.

This idea that you're entitled to what they make is a flawed one...

You get what they want to give you. nothing more, nothing less.
you are entitled to nothing beyond that.

Pyro Paul:

newdarkcloud:

Pyro Paul:

On Disk DLC are not as bad as you think...
Most of the time it is acctually used as a mechanism to bypass certain restrictions or fees placed on digital delivery systems.

You see it happen a lot for games designed for Xbox LIVE which has so many restrictions on what you can and can't do on it from the publisher/developer stand point that many publishers/developers simply bypass this altogether posting a bulk of the DLC content on disk with only minor alterations provided by the DLC packet up for digital distribution.

Even still, I feel that the consumer really should be entitled to the content on the disk that they legally purchased.

Side-Note: I can't be the only one that finds these captcha ads slightly irritating.

There is an argument there that has been made many times before and will probably be made many times to come.

what it ultimatly boils down to is that Digital Information isn't the same as Physical Property. As it stands now, with Digital information you are simply purchasing the 'right to observe'.

You've got me there. I admit, this argument becomes much more one-sided once you go into the digital realm. There is no denying that.

Why do people act like you're forced to buy DLC?

I like expansions, big expansions with lots of content, even if it's in DLC form. I don't like piecemeal DLC that adds a skin, or a new gun, or a new shop or a new X little thing not worth 7 quid.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked