I just finished watching Jimquisition when I had a theory that MIGHT be helpful for certain games.
I know on disc DLC is technically "evil" but the idea behind it may actually work in this aspect.
Take a game like Battlefield 3, recently there was a massive update which introduced Back to Karkand that also included new maps and guns. I got the DLC for free but imagine had the game been sold without it first, then EA decided to release the DLC over time while it was all still on disc, all dlc was free. (No jokes about this, this is all theoretical)
The idea is much like a stimpak or the ability to jumpstart a game as it begins to lose popularity with the content being free.
I think about this but I also do feel it still may be somewhat evil, mostly due to people who are not online the inability to access the content.
It strikes me as being unnecessarily complicated. If it's on the disc and playable by anyone who bought it, why not just let them play it? There is the DRM angle, but why would they lock off a fraction of the product when they could have a similar DRM check that applies to the whole game?
I think the main problem with on-disc DLC is that people expect their DLC to be downloadable...not unlockable. People don't mind paying another 5 or 10 bucks for a DLC pack, it's when they find out that they paid 5 to 10 bucks to unlock something that was on a disc they already paid 60 bucks for that they start getting angry.
Bad Jim: It strikes me as being unnecessarily complicated. If it's on the disc and playable by anyone who bought it, why not just let them play it? There is the DRM angle, but why would they lock off a fraction of the product when they could have a similar DRM check that applies to the whole game?
Remember, its a theory.
Like I said, the idea is to provide DLC over time quickly and without any complaints, it lengthens the span of the games life over time for free.
People need to get over the On Disk DLC. It doesn't matter what is on the disk.
You dont get what is on the disk. You get what you pay for. Servers for multiplayer isn't on the disk but you get that because that is what you paid for. Apply the same logic to the rest of the game
Draech: People need to get over the On Disk DLC. It doesn't matter what is on the disk.
You dont get what is on the disk. You get what you pay for.
Yes, you get what you paid for, and you pay for the disc and what is on it. When you lock away part of that you are no longer getting what you paid for.
Draech: People need to get over the On Disk DLC. It doesn't matter what is on the disk.
You dont get what is on the disk. You get what you pay for.
Yes, you get what you paid for, and you pay for the disc and what is on it. When you lock away part of that you are no longer getting what you paid for.
Quoted for truth. I am HIGHLY against on-disc DLC. I paid for my copy of the game. That disc, that is sitting in my PS3, is mine. And so is all the data on it. Why, oh why, do I have to pay MORE money to access something that is already mine?
Draech: People need to get over the On Disk DLC. It doesn't matter what is on the disk.
You dont get what is on the disk. You get what you pay for.
Yes, you get what you paid for, and you pay for the disc and what is on it. When you lock away part of that you are no longer getting what you paid for.
Quoted for truth. I am HIGHLY against on-disc DLC. I paid for my copy of the game. That disc, that is sitting in my PS3, is mine. And so is all the data on it. Why, oh why, do I have to pay MORE money to access something that is already mine?
Thats why I wonder if it was free would it be a good thing? If released at the right times, it could provide "jump starts" for games that are losing popularity.
Yes, you get what you paid for, and you pay for the disc and what is on it. When you lock away part of that you are no longer getting what you paid for.
Quoted for truth. I am HIGHLY against on-disc DLC. I paid for my copy of the game. That disc, that is sitting in my PS3, is mine. And so is all the data on it. Why, oh why, do I have to pay MORE money to access something that is already mine?
Thats why I wonder if it was free would it be a good thing? If released at the right times, it could provide "jump starts" for games that are losing popularity.
Quoted for truth. I am HIGHLY against on-disc DLC. I paid for my copy of the game. That disc, that is sitting in my PS3, is mine. And so is all the data on it. Why, oh why, do I have to pay MORE money to access something that is already mine?
Thats why I wonder if it was free would it be a good thing? If released at the right times, it could provide "jump starts" for games that are losing popularity.
If it was good enough it wouldn't die out.
Case in point. CS 1.6, Quake 3, COD2.
You do at least see my point?
Imagine Starcraft but after the standard races, Blizzard releases more races for you to access for free, allowing you to try out new strategies etc.
Draech: People need to get over the On Disk DLC. It doesn't matter what is on the disk.
You dont get what is on the disk. You get what you pay for.
Yes, you get what you paid for, and you pay for the disc and what is on it. When you lock away part of that you are no longer getting what you paid for.
What if they just pulled it off the disc and made it downloadable instead? I never understood this debate, or why publishers don't just avoid this whole problem by keeping stuff off the disc.
Thats why I wonder if it was free would it be a good thing? If released at the right times, it could provide "jump starts" for games that are losing popularity.
If it was good enough it wouldn't die out.
Case in point. CS 1.6, Quake 3, COD2.
You do at least see my point?
Imagine Starcraft but after the standard races, Blizzard releases more races for you to access for free, allowing you to try out new strategies etc.
No, I would imagine that would piss off the community a lot as there is no point trying to form strategies to see them useless in a month or so.
If you want to jump start a game then do what Valve did with TF2, make and release new content for free post launch.
Imagine Starcraft but after the standard races, Blizzard releases more races for you to access for free, allowing you to try out new strategies etc.
No, I would imagine that would piss off the community a lot as there is no point trying to form strategies to see them useless in a month or so.
If you want to jump start a game then do what Valve did with TF2, make and release new content for free post launch.
What if it worked for little things. I love DLC shit (stuff that isn't on the Disc) but imagine the little things that could be release, a new gun here or there to a new skin, and they are free.
I do see your point but remember that this topic is more of a theory rather than an actual idea.
Imagine Starcraft but after the standard races, Blizzard releases more races for you to access for free, allowing you to try out new strategies etc.
No, I would imagine that would piss off the community a lot as there is no point trying to form strategies to see them useless in a month or so.
If you want to jump start a game then do what Valve did with TF2, make and release new content for free post launch.
What if it worked for little things. I love DLC shit (stuff that isn't on the Disc) but imagine the little things that could be release, a new gun here or there to a new skin, and they are free.
I do see your point but remember that this topic is more of a theory rather than an actual idea.
Again, it's not just a theory, it's been done.
Look at TF2 and Valve, they are doing exactly what you are saying.
If it's on the disc, and free, it's part of the game already and there's nothing to be discussed.
If the only purpose is to delay that particular content, don't bother. Either put out DLC or don't, but don't start time-locking included elements of the game for arbitrary reasons.
Well I'm certainly not for the idea but to be honest I can't say I'm against it either, at least not until the companies take it to it's seemingly inevitable conclusion of an ever increasing amount of the game being locked until "further notice".
Here's the problem I have with on disk DLC. If the content is already on disc that means it was prepped before being sent out to be reviewed, packaged, etc. It was made alongside the product you paid for. IMO that is bullshit. Any material that is finished before the game goes into that final stage of production should be available to the consumer since it was made with the funds the company was given to produce the initial game. Now if the company wants to make DLC while the game is in that final stage, by all means go ahead, but purposefully locking content (any content even if its free is dumb).
Couldn't you argue that Nintendo has been doing this with Pokemon for more than a decade? All the legendary Pokemon have always been on-cartridge from the start but you need to wait for Nintendo to unlock them, either by going to an event or, more recently, via wifi.
You could argue that since these Pokemon are on disk you should be allowed to catch them from day. Heck you can't even complete the Pokedex without these guys. And some people do think they should have access from day 1 and find ways to access this part of their game and no one seems to mind.
Assuming companies were reasonable about this and acted like Nintendo has about the whole situation above (made the release of the free content fun and not worried about people who find ways to access it early) I'd be all for it. It gives you a reason to come back and the Pokemon example has shown fans of a franchise don't mind shaking up their strategies when the new content is released.
Terminate421: I just finished watching Jimquisition when I had a theory that MIGHT be helpful for certain games.
I know on disc DLC is technically "evil" but the idea behind it may actually work in this aspect.
Take a game like Battlefield 3, recently there was a massive update which introduced Back to Karkand that also included new maps and guns. I got the DLC for free but imagine had the game been sold without it first, then EA decided to release the DLC over time while it was all still on disc, all dlc was free.
Well, I disagree with Jim that all on disc DLC is all of the demons. In my opinion, there is one reason to have on disc DLC - to allow for post-release content.
Let me use Mass Effect 2 as an example - the game required the basics of Katsumi and Zaeed to be on the disc in order for those characters to be selected in the character select screen without possibly inducing game breaking bugs. But the only thing on the disc was a hook to place those characters and missions, and nothing more. Nothing more is needed, and this is good - it allows for the game to be expanded, and expanded quickly and easily.
This is in juxtoposition to (for example) Mass Effect 3.[1] Javik is a DLC character for Mass Effect 3, and I have heard reports of that character being unlocked for free by altering the games files. Jim also mentioned games that have DLC that is merely a code that unlocks DLC already on the disc. This is bad, because you're purposefully selling a game that is incomplete.
As for your idea - it's not horrible, and I wouldn't "HATE 4EVERS" a company that did that. However, I still don't like it, especially because that additional content needs to be certified at the same time as the rest of the game is certified.
[1] I have no wish to rag on Mass Effect 3 on this thread, I'm just working with what I know.
To quell the upcoming on-disc "dlc" argument and provide a solution: If you're making D1DLC after you've sent the game to the publishers/console manufacturers, then when you send it off, fucking tell the public "We're done making the game, it's being tested right now, we're going to go make more content for you guys." Then release it as a preorder bonus. Bam, problem solved.
"Booster Pack dlc": It honestly depends on the genre and style of the game. In a game like ME3 multiplayer, there's too much chance involved for it to be regularly worth it, unless you made the low level items actually worth a damn and added in a trading between players aspect. In other games, like online ccg's, then feel free if your game heavily uses on chance. Otherwise, make it trivial in both cost and output. (no irl cash used)
Terminate421: I just finished watching Jimquisition when I had a theory that MIGHT be helpful for certain games.
I know on disc DLC is technically "evil" but the idea behind it may actually work in this aspect.
Take a game like Battlefield 3, recently there was a massive update which introduced Back to Karkand that also included new maps and guns. I got the DLC for free but imagine had the game been sold without it first, then EA decided to release the DLC over time while it was all still on disc, all dlc was free. (No jokes about this, this is all theoretical)
The idea is much like a stimpak or the ability to jumpstart a game as it begins to lose popularity with the content being free.
I think about this but I also do feel it still may be somewhat evil, mostly due to people who are not online the inability to access the content.
I don't see what the point would be, though. If these are essentially "stimpaks", implying they are relatively small, having to download them to temporarily boost popularity isn't really that inconvenient.
Yeah, I'm still having a hard time seeing what added benefit on-disc DLC has for consumers, paid or not.
It seems kinda pointless to include free on disk DLC that will be unlocked at a later date it will just discourage people from buying the game right away when it costs more and you get less, besides people would just mod it into the game.
Leemaster777: I paid for my copy of the game. That disc, that is sitting in my PS3, is mine. And so is all the data on it. Why, oh why, do I have to pay MORE money to access something that is already mine?
You paid for a licenses not the data on the disk the disk is just a delivery method. If you don't like the idea of on disk DLC don't buy games that have it.
Draech: People need to get over the On Disk DLC. It doesn't matter what is on the disk.
You dont get what is on the disk. You get what you pay for.
Yes, you get what you paid for, and you pay for the disc and what is on it. When you lock away part of that you are no longer getting what you paid for.
Quoted for truth. I am HIGHLY against on-disc DLC. I paid for my copy of the game. That disc, that is sitting in my PS3, is mine. And so is all the data on it. Why, oh why, do I have to pay MORE money to access something that is already mine?
Okay you can use it. But you have to figure out a way to unlock it yourself.
Draech: People need to get over the On Disk DLC. It doesn't matter what is on the disk.
You dont get what is on the disk. You get what you pay for.
Yes, you get what you paid for, and you pay for the disc and what is on it. When you lock away part of that you are no longer getting what you paid for.
Humanity1: Couldn't you argue that Nintendo has been doing this with Pokemon for more than a decade? All the legendary Pokemon have always been on-cartridge from the start but you need to wait for Nintendo to unlock them, either by going to an event or, more recently, via wifi.
You could argue that since these Pokemon are on disk you should be allowed to catch them from day. Heck you can't even complete the Pokedex without these guys. And some people do think they should have access from day 1 and find ways to access this part of their game and no one seems to mind.
Assuming companies were reasonable about this and acted like Nintendo has about the whole situation above (made the release of the free content fun and not worried about people who find ways to access it early) I'd be all for it. It gives you a reason to come back and the Pokemon example has shown fans of a franchise don't mind shaking up their strategies when the new content is released.
This made me lol . I hope you aren't serious. Worst . Metaphore . Ever.
OT: your theory makes little sense . Why lock content to just start a game when it's getting old? Why not just make a game people will want to play for a long time . Even then . Wouldn't it be more fun to have all the content in the begining . Also remember theres a chance that a) people don't replay the game because of this little jumpstart and b) people will buy the game later and get the content from go . Plus don't companies make dlc , less for fans and more for making money?
Draech: People need to get over the On Disk DLC. It doesn't matter what is on the disk.
You dont get what is on the disk. You get what you pay for.
Yes, you get what you paid for, and you pay for the disc and what is on it. When you lock away part of that you are no longer getting what you paid for.
Ok so you only get what is on the disk. No patches, no services?
No you want both. And you didn't pay for it.
They decide what to sell you. If they inform you then you are the problem not them.
What is on the disk doesn't matter. It is like saying "It is on the server, therefore I paid for it".
in some case, i want what is only on the disk. If not having online multiplayer on some games would mean a price drop for me, i'd be all for it. Games should be like easyjet, the base package it cheap, but to make it how you want it, you need to buy upgrades
Draech: People need to get over the On Disk DLC. It doesn't matter what is on the disk.
You dont get what is on the disk. You get what you pay for.
Yes, you get what you paid for, and you pay for the disc and what is on it. When you lock away part of that you are no longer getting what you paid for.
Except from a legal point of view you are wrong.
Who cares about the legal side of things, companies to many legal but unethical things in general. Does that make it ok?
Draech: People need to get over the On Disk DLC. It doesn't matter what is on the disk.
You dont get what is on the disk. You get what you pay for.
Yes, you get what you paid for, and you pay for the disc and what is on it. When you lock away part of that you are no longer getting what you paid for.
Ok so you only get what is on the disk. No patches, no services?
No you want both. And you didn't pay for it.
They decide what to sell you. If they inform you then you are the problem not them.
What is on the disk doesn't matter. It is like saying "It is on the server, therefore I paid for it".
When you buy a game, it should work. You pay money for a working game. Patches usually fix problems with the game, so yes, you paid for that too.
Who cares about the legal side of things, companies to many legal but unethical things in general. Does that make it ok?
I believe most intelligent people care about the legal side of things, and those pesky police, lawyers, and governments.
As for the unethical part who is saying its unethical? It might seem unethical to you but that doesnt mean it is actually unethical to the majority of people.
I am fine with you getting what you paid for when you buy a game and not what you didnt pay for.
When you buy a game, it should work. You pay money for a working game. Patches usually fix problems with the game, so yes, you paid for that too.
As long as it starts up and runs it can be so buggy its unplayable and you will not have any real recourse. That obviously does not happen very often because companies like making money but it has in the past. Hell just take a look at the first two fallouts or most of bethesdas games.
I just finished watching Jimquisition when I had a theory that MIGHT be helpful for certain games.
I know on disc DLC is technically "evil" but the idea behind it may actually work in this aspect.
Take a game like Battlefield 3, recently there was a massive update which introduced Back to Karkand that also included new maps and guns. I got the DLC for free but imagine had the game been sold without it first, then EA decided to release the DLC over time while it was all still on disc, all dlc was free. (No jokes about this, this is all theoretical)
The idea is much like a stimpak or the ability to jumpstart a game as it begins to lose popularity with the content being free.
I think about this but I also do feel it still may be somewhat evil, mostly due to people who are not online the inability to access the content.