Bleck Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 it's always sad when someone tries to argue by copypasting a dictionary definition Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngelCityOutlaw Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 it's always sad when someone tries to argue by copypasting a dictionary definition Well it was easier than typing out the same definition as the one in the dictionary on the bookshelf. If on-disc dlc is extortion, then my power bill is treason or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Strader Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 it's always sad when someone tries to argue by copypasting a dictionary definition At least it wasn't wikipedia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC2151 Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 (I tend to more or less instantly ignore any arguments made using Wikipedia articles but that's just me) I am trying to fathom AngelCityOutlaw's analogy but I just can't. I'll try sprucing it up a bit: "If video-game companies are making me pay for content that's all-ready on my disc, that is like me paying a car dealership to activate the break pedal on a vehicle that I had purchased from them." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Level 99 Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 (I tend to more or less instantly ignore any arguments made using Wikipedia articles but that's just me)I am trying to fathom AngelCityOutlaw's analogy but I just can't. I'll try sprucing it up a bit: "If video-game companies are making me pay for content that's all-ready on my disc, that is like me paying a car dealership to activate the break pedal on a vehicle that I had purchased from them." It depends exactly which content you're talking about as to whether that analogy is accurate. If the game you're playing is a racing game and DLC is the ability to use brakes, than yeah, point valid. It's more of a case-by-case basis. Some DLC, like the character skins, could be aking to being charged normal for a car that has different paint underneath but in order to get to that paint, you have to pay extra. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Modus Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 He said capitalist extortion, not just extortion. Putting "capitalist" in front of a word doesn't automatically Americanize it. I'm not even sure what "capitalist extortion" could mean. To extort means to coerce someone out of their money or property, which in any sense, capitalistic or not, these companies are not doing. The hardest language you could use in this situation is "exploitation". Capitalist exploitation, there ya go. When you start throwing words around like "extortion", you're getting into Fox News sensationalist territory, and we're smarter than that, right? Tell me we are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Necrotic Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 so you guys do realize you were so busy bickering about word choice that you completely are missing the point right Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gario Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 look at me I'm a privileged north americansomehow my media-addled brain cannot understand why buying a box that you later have to buy the key for is capitalist extortion No, what I don't understand is why people are upset about this and yet are just fine with regular DLC. It's fundamentally the same thing, yet this is throwing people off the handle, for some reason...? I don't think anyone has a convincing argument yet that this is any different than regular DLC, save for the fact that it's located in a different spot (that is, on the disc). So when some company has some unlockable extras online available as DLC content, does that send a community into a panic? Not normally, but when that same content is on the disc and yet is purchased in exactly the same way, suddenly people get infuriated? You guys aren't making any sense. From where I stand, it all sounds like some false sense of entitlement - it's on the disc so for some reason you now should be able to access it for free. What is anyone solving by thinking like this? I suppose the easiest solution for companies is to just remove the material from the discs and sell it as regular DLC content again, but then you're back at square one (actually, you're slightly worse off, since now you'd need to D/L the material, there might be compatibility issues, etc., that on-disc DLC would've solved). You're not going to get publishers to produce the content that they planned on customers paying extra for free, so the only other step is a step backwards for everybody. Unless the content is game breaking, as mentioned before, then people really shouldn't get flared up about the practice. Of course, if the content was game breaking in some form then it would be a problem whether it was on-disc or regular DLC, so that's a completely moot point. Maybe I should rephrase my question: what exactly is the problem inherent to on-disc DLC that isn't a problem with regular DLC? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Modus Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 so you guys do realize you were so busy bickering about word choice that you completely are missing the point right My point is that word choice matters. I have enough of that stuff when I visit my parents and have to hear Fox News in the background all day. Yes, it was a tangent, but it's an important aspect of intelligent discussion in general. Tangent over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Necrotic Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 No, what I don't understand is why people are upset about this and yet are just fine with regular DLC. It's fundamentally the same thing, yet this is throwing people off the handle, for some reason...?I don't think anyone has a convincing argument yet that this is any different than regular DLC, save for the fact that it's located in a different spot (that is, on the disc). So when some company has some unlockable extras online available as DLC content, does that send a community into a panic? Not normally, but when that same content is on the disc and yet is purchased in exactly the same way, suddenly people get infuriated? You guys aren't making any sense. From where I stand, it all sounds like some false sense of entitlement - it's on the disc so for some reason you now should be able to access it for free. What is anyone solving by thinking like this? I suppose the easiest solution for companies is to just remove the material from the discs and sell it as regular DLC content again, but then you're back at square one (actually, you're slightly worse off, since now you'd need to D/L the material, there might be compatibility issues, etc., that on-disc DLC would've solved). You're not going to get publishers to produce the content that they planned on customers paying extra for free, so the only other step is a step backwards for everybody. Unless the content is game breaking, as mentioned before, then people really shouldn't get flared up about the practice. Of course, if the content was game breaking in some form then it would be a problem whether it was on-disc or regular DLC, so that's a completely moot point. Maybe I should rephrase my question: what exactly is the problem inherent to on-disc DLC that isn't a problem with regular DLC? How about this for an argument: DLC is a shitty method of content delivery in general specifically because it allows developers to withhold game content that already exists, whether on-disc or not, for a premium and in a completely arbitrary way. It's an attempt at artificially adding value to something by pretending to add it later. Besides, "Day One" DLC has always had a sort of stigma to it whether it was included on the disc or not. The other side of the argument is that it also allows unfinished work that otherwise would've been cut the opportunity to get finished, but it raises the question of what ratio of withheld content there is versus that which is added later due to time constraints. Examples of this would be things like map packs, or expansions like SSF4 Arcade Edition. This is how DLC is done right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crowbar Man Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 DLC is what the industry is heading to. Get over it, and quit bitching. DLC is corrupting the industry. So when some company has some unlockable extras online available as DLC content, does that send a community into a panic? Not normally, but when that same content is on the disc and yet is purchased in exactly the same way, suddenly people get infuriated? Actually, most people frown upon Day 1 DLC, even if there is an "excuse" that the content was developed between Gold and Release. When its on the disc, it was done well before Gold, so there isn't any excuse anymore. DLC for fighting game characters makes it even more ridiculous, because fighting game characters generally take a while to balance, its not a skin change or hat/accessory they can slap together to make a buck, or something optional that doesn't matter to the game. This is a fully planned out fighting character. Theres no reason for it to be DLC in the first place, especially this early. Being on disc just ups the ridiculousness level to extreme. Add to the fact that its not even going to be available for purchase, for people who actually are okay with this horrible thing, makes it even MORE extreme. what exactly is the problem inherent to on-disc DLC that isn't a problem with regular DLC? If I didn't already answer it: Its the evolution of things getting worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PriZm Posted March 9, 2012 Author Share Posted March 9, 2012 No, what I don't understand is why people are upset about this and yet are just fine with regular DLC. It's fundamentally the same thing, yet this is throwing people off the handle, for some reason...?I don't think anyone has a convincing argument yet that this is any different than regular DLC, save for the fact that it's located in a different spot (that is, on the disc). So when some company has some unlockable extras online available as DLC content, does that send a community into a panic? Not normally, but when that same content is on the disc and yet is purchased in exactly the same way, suddenly people get infuriated? You guys aren't making any sense. From where I stand, it all sounds like some false sense of entitlement - it's on the disc so for some reason you now should be able to access it for free. What is anyone solving by thinking like this? I suppose the easiest solution for companies is to just remove the material from the discs and sell it as regular DLC content again, but then you're back at square one (actually, you're slightly worse off, since now you'd need to D/L the material, there might be compatibility issues, etc., that on-disc DLC would've solved). You're not going to get publishers to produce the content that they planned on customers paying extra for free, so the only other step is a step backwards for everybody. Unless the content is game breaking, as mentioned before, then people really shouldn't get flared up about the practice. Of course, if the content was game breaking in some form then it would be a problem whether it was on-disc or regular DLC, so that's a completely moot point. Maybe I should rephrase my question: what exactly is the problem inherent to on-disc DLC that isn't a problem with regular DLC? Thank you. That was my original question but you worded it much better. I was trying to make the point that if a company has planned to release DLC, the fact that it is on the disc is in fact more convenient to the customer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngelCityOutlaw Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 I am trying to fathom AngelCityOutlaw's analogy but I just can't The analogy was supposed to be ridiculous and demonstrate that if you're going to refer to something as a crime (even if it is not) you should actually know the meaning of the word you are using to describe it as such. Anyway DLC is corrupting the industry. The thing that has me concerned with DLC is when the next generation of consoles takes over in full, what becomes of games I've purchased which are download only titles? If I deleted one of those games from my hard drive and decide in the future I want to play it again, how can I do so without an actual disc? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crowbar Man Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 The thing that has me concerned with DLC is when the next generation of consoles takes over in full, what becomes of games I've purchased which are download only titles? If I deleted one of those games from my hard drive and decide in the future I want to play it again, how can I do so without an actual disc? well that has more to do digital content delivery as a whole than anything to do with DLC. But to answer your question: MOST digital content delivery services let you redownload things you have already purchased. whether its on disc or off disc, if its DLC it ties into a "rights" management system of sorts (ie,PSN, XBLA, Steam, etc) that has to confirm you have access to it all. If you delete your "DLC", (again whether its on or off disc), the system that gave you rights to access it has to be there to give it back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darklink42 Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 How about this for an argument: DLC is a shitty method of content delivery in general specifically because it allows developers to withhold game content that already exists, whether on-disc or not, for a premium and in a completely arbitrary way. It's an attempt at artificially adding value to something by pretending to add it later. Besides, "Day One" DLC has always had a sort of stigma to it whether it was included on the disc or not.The other side of the argument is that it also allows unfinished work that otherwise would've been cut the opportunity to get finished, but it raises the question of what ratio of withheld content there is versus that which is added later due to time constraints. Examples of this would be things like map packs, or expansions like SSF4 Arcade Edition. This is how DLC is done right. Exactly this. You're not going to get publishers to produce the content that they planned on customers paying extra for free, so the only other step is a step backwards for everybody. This is what I said before, but I'll repeat myself: this is all kinds of wrong. Companies should not be forced to pick what must be DLC from the game they've completed simply because that's the thing to do now and going against the trend would make them less money theoretically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleck Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 I was trying to make the point that if a company has planned to release DLC, the fact that it is on the disc is in fact more convenient to the customer. so me paying to unlock the characters that are just sitting there on the disc is convenience is that what it is Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doulifée Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Next step will be pay a fee for each chapter of a game. DLC is basically a good idea to release stuff rather than waiting for a whole expansion like the old time, but as usual some stuff just go over the top. The best argument you can have is aiming where it hurts. your money. don't buy dlc or game you don't feel worth paying full price to pay more to have some more stuff. that's how i work now. As an oldschool gamers i prefer skill to unlock stuff that's right, but i remember some not so old game that allow both. Pay for immediate access or use your skill to unlock it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC2151 Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 As much as I'd prefer skill-based-unlocking, I see that as the most-viable (or rather, the least-onerous) compromise for the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollgagh Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 I feel like I could support that style in good conscience Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishy Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Thank you. That was my original question but you worded it much better.I was trying to make the point that if a company has planned to release DLC, the fact that it is on the disc is in fact more convenient to the customer. It is inconvenient to deny me access to content, when I have payed money for a product. The convenience with which they inconvenience me, is of no consequence. It's very simple: If you have shit that works by release date, put it in the game. If you have shit you want to put in the game, take the time and put it in the game. DLC is crap on or off-disc, almost universally over-priced, and makes me feel like every game I buy is trying to reserve future estate in my wallet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Strader Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Most games suck pretty hard these days, not just Japanese ones. Most games aren't worth playing, and 99% of the time DLC is entirely unjustifiable. On-disc DLC is just the epitome of stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Phalanx Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Next step will be pay a fee for each chapter of a game. They did that with FF4: The After Years. And look how well THAT game ended up being. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PriZm Posted March 10, 2012 Author Share Posted March 10, 2012 Fishy and Bleck, I am not even trying to argue for or against DLC in general, I am speaking specifically of on-disc DLC. If a company has decided that some content will be DLC, then it will be DLC. I am just saying that when that decision has already been made, the fact that they put it on the disc is more conveninent for both the consumer and the producer. The assumption here being that this particular would have been DLC anyways. I know I got side-tracked in previous posts, but, like Gario said, the only thing I am curious about (in this thread anyways) is why people get all riled up only when DLC is on-disc, as opposed to being opposed to all DLC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SenPi Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 I like the part where everybody in this thread owns a video game company that puts million and millions of dollars in to their games and knows about all the monetary implications of the industry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngelCityOutlaw Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 I like the part where everybody in this thread owns a video game company that puts million and millions of dollars in to their games and knows about all the monetary implications of the industry. Like I said in the SFXT thread, consumers are going to have to learn that it costs a lot of money to make and promote games. Gamers want more content and so companies make more content, but notice the games still stay at an average 60$ price tag? That's because they offer you more content that you can pay for at your own desire. That's not a bad thing in my opinion. What I do think is stupid is the fact that Capcom won't give us the option to purchase these extra 12 characters right off the bat and instead waits until AFTER the Vita version to do so.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.