On-Disc DLC

[Fishy]

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.

Ok. Well I agree. They shouldn't get riled up only about on-disc. Everyone should just get pissed off about DLC in general.

As for the reason why? Probably just because it's more obvious that DLC is a money-grabbing sham when it's already on the disc.

[omnipotentBagel]

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.

Well, the general DLC argument, I think, is a co-requisite argument for the on-disc one, because things aren't black and white. It would facetious to say that all DLC is bad. Additional missions for a game released a year after the game was completed for an affordable price? That's great and I'm in favor of that. Content released with or shortly after the initial game, that feels no different than the content included in the initial release? You can't convince me that's not content that should be in the initial game.

I am opposed to what I see as unnecessary or non-value-add DLC. Stuff that doesn't merit an additional purchase beyond the initial cost of the game should be included with the initial game. Not all DLC is like this, and while everyone will have their own opinion of where the difference is, I've yet to hear a good argument for early-release DLC being "worth it". That is why I am opposed to on-disc DLC and day one DLC but not all DLC ever.

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.

We know it costs money to make games. And some games do offer a lot of content for their price tag. But a lot of games (often the ones with a lot of "big ticket" DLC) don't. They offer significantly less content in the initial release because they can release the rest as paid content down the line. It may not be that bad yet, but all gaming companies care about is how much profit they can make, so they'll just continue to push the envelope and try to make as much money off as little content as possible. That's capitalism. Our role in this as consumers is to decide how much we're willing to put up with. And a lot of us are drawing the line here.

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.

Why would we need to? 1) That's an appeal to accomplishment. If personal experience were required to be able to competently argue a subject, nothing would ever get discussed ever. 2) It doesn't take a genius to realize that DLC is not a lynchpin of the video game economy. Before it existed, companies were fine and companies that don't use it at all (Nintendo up to very recently, for example) are fine.

[SenPi]

define *fine*

Also, I'm allowed to argue Micro-Biology even though I know nothing about it? Awesome!

My main point I guess, is it's fine to talk about how this affects you, and how you feel about it, but when people start saying things like "who cares if they originally decided it was DLC, if it was done before hand they should just give it to people for free", then I'm going to introduce the fact that they don't know what it's like to plan, schedule, budget, etc, etc, etc a game like that.

When you budget for certain things it's not easy to just go "oh well, we should just give it to them for free", just because it was finished a little early. The budget was already spent on creating this extra content, and so because they were efficient and finished it early, they should be penalized for it? (using the "something was completed ahead of schedule" example).

People like to pretend that every company is out to get them. While I agree that some companies pull some bullshit, people like to lump EVERYBODY in to that category, without trying to put their feet in the companies shoes, or without thinking of possible situations that these companies go through.

[Bleck]

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.

What's important to realize here is that all developers need to draw a line as to what they can actually ship with their game. Yeah, Bethesda could have released Shivering Isles with Oblivion - but that assumes that a) the company and the customers were okay with the extra time needed to finalize that extra content, and the Shivering Isles expansion content would not have been hindered by any size restrictions on physical media.

DLC provides an opportunity for developers to develop extra content for a game without having to worry about the inherent problems with space and time that come with the develop of that content. For fighting games, for example, it can be a way to give a fighting game extra characters without having to cut other content to make room for those characters. In music games like Rock Band, it gives the player the ability to greatly expand the library of songs without having to remove any that come with the disc. The list of positive examples goes on - DLC is (often, but not always) the more digitally oriented version of an expansion pack, a la Diablo II: Lord of Destruction.

The problem with 'On-Disc DLC', as becomes apparent, is that it doesn't serve the same function as actual DLC. It's already on the disc, so the developers already had time to finish it and the space to put it on there. There is no rational reason for me to have to pay extra for stuff that is already sitting right there, ready to be used, because the company didn't do any extra work to produce it. You're just asking me to pay for the same product twice... or, like I said earlier, to buy a locked box and then later charge me extra for the key.

As an example, think of Diablo II. Imagine that Diablo II came with Lord of Destruction - all of the content already there, ready to be used - but to use it, you had to pay Blizzard an extra forty dollars. Or, to be an even more direct comparison, imagine that Diablo II only came with the Barbarian, and you had to pay extra money to use the other characters - even though all of the data that the game needs for them to work has already been produced and is sitting right there.

To reiterate, the problem with ODDLC is that you're asking me to pay for a single product twice - and since this is a fighting game we're talking about, where the playable characters themselves are the only non-cosmetic part of the game, it's like asking me to pay for a single product and then charging me extra for things that are, arguably, necessary for the product to function fully.

[omnipotentBagel]

I'm allowed to argue Micro-Biology even though I know nothing about it? Awesome!

That's not what I said. You can argue microbiology without having a degree in microbiology. That doesn't mean you can just make shit up, but it's possible to have an understanding of an issue and to be able to intelligently debate an issue without being an "expert".

My main point I guess, is it's fine to talk about how this affects you, and how you feel about it, but when people start saying things like "who cares if they originally decided it was DLC, if it was done before hand they should just give it to people for free", then I'm going to introduce the fact that they don't know what it's like to plan, schedule, budget, etc, etc, etc a game like that.

It's not being given for free. They want us to pay for it twice. If it's done when the game goes gold, it's part of that game. The point of planning, scheduling, and budgeting is to ensure that they can get everything done. If they're planning to have content done with the game's release and sell it separate, that's the exact thing we're upset about. That's dirty and underhanded moneygrubbing strategy. They should be planning to provide X amount of content by release and selling it all as the game. If they want to create additional content later outside that, fine. But don't split the initial game up into separate pieces and still charge full price for the final product because that's just a way of giving us less and charging us more.

When you budget for certain things it's not easy to just go "oh well, we should just give it to them for free", just because it was finished a little early. The budget was already spent on creating this extra content, and so because they were efficient and finished it early, they should be penalized for it? (using the "something was completed ahead of schedule" example).

If they're that "ahead of schedule" then they're doing what I mentioned above (screwing us over by intentionally underdeveloping the main release) or they really such at scheduling and budgeting.

People like to pretend that every company is out to get them. While I agree that some companies pull some bullshit, people like to lump EVERYBODY in to that category, without trying to put their feet in the companies shoes, or without thinking of possible situations that these companies go through.

If we're villainizing companies by speaking out against a practice we don't like, you're victimizing them by trying to justify it. As a consumer, it's not my concern what's going on behind the scenes at a company. I have certain expectations they should be meeting and it's their responsibility to meet those expectations, end of story. That's how customer-company relationships work. (Note: I don't necessarily 100% agree with this stance personally, but it's the model our economy is based on.)

[SenPi]

it's funny to me because a company could technically complete a shit ton of DLC before a game goes gold, but hides it and releases it a while after the game comes out and all of you would be completely happy with it. The only difference here is that you know about it.

Also, this chart is somewhat relevant, while not 100% relevant to the on disc dlc thing. http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17eig06xukt8apng/original.png

(I hope you guys enjoy people losing jobs just so you can get content after the game comes out )

As a customer I want all companies to give everything they make for free. I don't care what goes on in the background. I don't care if/how they make money. I want it all for free. Those are my expectations, and it's their responsibility to meet those expectations, end of story.

[AngelCityOutlaw]

it's funny to me because a company could technically complete a shit ton of DLC before a game goes gold, but hides it and releases it a while after the game comes out and all of you would be completely happy with it. The only difference here is that you know about it.

Also, this chart is somewhat relevant, while not 100% relevant to the on disc dlc thing. http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17eig06xukt8apng/original.png

(I hope you guys enjoy people losing jobs just so you can get content after the game comes out )

As a customer I want all companies to give everything they make for free. I don't care what goes on in the background. I don't care if/how they make money. I want it all for free. Those are my expectations, and it's their responsibility to meet those expectations, end of story.

Those are good points about dlc in general, but here's the thing

The great idea behind DLC is that you can expand upon the game with ideas that may come to you later, or release content later so that the game maintains an affordable price for the average consumer upon release. But if you purchase the disc, you should be entitled to all of the discs contents. That is the argument in a nutshell.

Personally I don't really care in the sense that I won't go broke by purchasing these 12 extra characters that are already present on the SFXT disc I have....but for shit sake why do I have to wait till the damn fall for them!?

[omnipotentBagel]

Nice graphic but, citation? Anyone can make up a chart and when I see Gawker in the URL, I don't exactly have a lot of faith in the quality and/or validity of the information. I'm genuinely interested where it came from because an insiders perspective into this would be great.

And it's possible that a company could do that and I'd be okay with it, it's probably not an unheard of process. But the key to it being successful would be that the company would have to be incredibly prolific and efficient to produce that much content in the first place. Again, the issue isn't timing, it's about amount of content for the money we're being charged. If they produce a really bare-bones product for $60, then release more content for it a year later, I'm probably still going to be upset, but my complaint would probably be that they overcharged for the base product. If I later found out they had withheld content that could have been in the initial release, I'd be even more upset. Conversely, if I found out that, say, the DLC for Fallout 3 was completed along with the main game, I wouldn't be too upset, as that game earned its $60 paycheck. I still have a problem with the practice on principle (producing content and withholding it for more profit later is just a really dishonest practice and I will never be okay with it no matter how much you try to justify it), but there's "I don't like it, but it's not over the line" and there's "this is crap", and you seem to be having trouble seeing the difference.

As a customer I want all companies to give everything they make for free. I don't care what goes on in the background. I don't care if/how they make money. I want it all for free. Those are my expectations, and it's their responsibility to meet those expectations, end of story.

Reductio ad absurdum. Wanting something for free is not an expectation they should be meeting. But expecting a minimum of X amount of content (be that playtime, level caps, whathaveyou) for Y amount of money isn't unreasonable. I have a predecided limit of how much I'm willing to pay for what I consider a full gaming experience and if companies want my business, they should be trying to match that. I don't care if they make money, that's not part of my role, but I understand that profits are their main goal and try to set my expectations accordingly. If you want everything for free that's your choice, but they're never going to provide that to you so it's a stupid expectation to have.

[Bleck]

all of you idiots need to either stop posting or respond to my fucking post because you're all talking about shit that I've already got goddamn covered

[AngelCityOutlaw]

all of you idiots need to either stop posting or respond to my fucking post because you're all talking about shit that I've already got goddamn covered

Oh poor you, we should really pay more attention to what Bleck said.

[DarkeSword]

all of you idiots need to either stop posting or respond to my fucking post because you're all talking about shit that I've already got goddamn covered

Hey, knock it off.

[omnipotentBagel]

Oh poor you, we should really pay more attention to what Bleck said.

Actually, we really should. He summed up my thoughts on the matter pretty succinctly.

[Avatar of Justice]

There is no rational reason for me to have to pay extra for stuff that is already sitting right there, ready to be used, because the company didn't do any extra work to produce it.

There is a completely rational reason. That's what the market will bear.

[Moomba]

There is a completely rational reason. That's what the market will bear.

Only because people continue to be dumb enough to let companies continue down this route. If we just let them keep pushing, eventually we WILL be buying all games in chapters/levels.

It's perfectly natural that developers and their publishers will continue to do their best to push up game prices to try and make a greater profit, and as long as everyone continues to accept their growing use of DLC, we're going to be paying more and more to get the complete game.

In my opinion, DLC is only acceptible when it either introduces superficial changes after the game has gone gold (and nothing more can be added to the disc) or in the place of expansions for large content additions well after the game has released. When I say large content additions, I don't mean 4-5 maps and 6 short missions either. I'm not paying £10 just for five extra missions that add a little story and a new ending. If the game's "real" ending wasn't ready for release, you're doing it wrong.