Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by CardJoe, 12 Mar 2010.
I guess its a good way to save bandwith and pretend that they are selling you newly created downloadable content.
Could this be classed as false advertising as DLC?
Great so we now have a situation where companies are making a game, then working out what content they can lock away again so that they can charge you for it later. I can't help but think that if they had time to burn the DLC onto the disc then they should have just included it in the game.
I'm fine with them doing this if it is an incomplete part of the game and the dlc is the final touches to get it working. However, if it is already completed on the disc and just needs to be unlocked, than that should count as stealing if it isn't free.
The thing that should upset people is that they're paying for content that was created before the game was released.
Personally, I don't mind if developers pull stunts like this as long as the core game that they sell is finished.
So what? Content is content, what does it matter when it was made or how it's technically delivered to you? This is certainly not something to feel cheated about. If anything, the developers should get kudos for saving bandwidth.
They're charging you extra to use what's on a disc you've bought. How is that good, in any way???
You're licensing some of the content of that disc and then purchasing a licence for another part - it's done all the time by other data/software industries. Imagine you wanted to buy a route map of the UK for your satnav and then decided you wanted the whole of Europe at a later date - you simply buy a licence to unlock that part of the disc. You don't own the game - you own a licence to play that game.
Let's put it this way. The Windows Vista retail install disc contained the install files for all editions as far as i know. Would you expect to be able to use all of them, including Ultimate if your license was for Home Premium? Just because they're all on the disc?
Physical media is just a means to deliver the files and holds little to no value. What you pay for is the license.
This is just the beginning. I expect publishers will be asking developers to lock away parts of games before it's shipped so they can make you pay for it later.
In the end, what's the difference between unlocking or downloading the same content? Can i have some response to that? It's starting to feel like you guys are completely ignoring me.
this whole DLC will only end one way ( DISASTER) people will either boycot with there wallots or pirate the dlc. Its crazy to expect people to pay for stuff thats on a disk.
So, anyone here offering up any 24KB hash-check files for download?
this is no different than having DLC available on release day or two weeks later. im not defending it, it should be included if it has been made before the game is released.
sad truth is it works
they can do whatever they want.. the pieholes are always open and will gobble up burn the rope if you sold it to them
I didn't play bioshock 2.. but it didn't get a good review.. if you have a game like mass effect or dragon age which already has a lot of content.. then sure it might be worth it
I don't see a massive problem TBH, when you buy a game you're buying the rights to play bits of content, not the contents of the disk. People knew what they were getting when they bought Bioshock 2 so there's not really massive grounds for complaint here.
But then I don't own BS2 so I'm not really bothered, I don't think I will buy it either TBH, I'd probably feel a bit gypped if I did
The difference is that 10-15 years ago we were getting this stuff for free from developers who themselves were passionate gamers, making games for likeminded people without the massive 7-figure amounts of money involved and the kind of pressure that comes from publishers in such a lucrative industry.
In the past the industry was small, passionate and driven more by artistry and fun than it is today, where greed is the prime motivation for everything.
The publishers of today have turned into the music labels of the 80s and we've all seen how that worked out for the best for everyone in the meantime.
The difference is that what we used to get for free as thanks from developers for supporting them we now have to pay for.
The difference is that we have to pay twice for content that we used to only pay once for if at all.
The difference is that the content being on the disc already means that there's absolutely no excuse for charging us extra for content that was developed as part of the game's standard development cycle and no excuse for artificially prolonging the game's longetivity or spotlight in the market at the customer's expense.
This entire DLC fiasco of the past couple of years (from ridiculous 'Horse Armor' in Oblivion to content artifically held back in Bioshock 2) is yet another symptom of the dominance of big money and big names in the industry, fuelled by greed both from publishers and consumers (since the pirates are half the problem in all of this) and a market who are either ignorant or apathetic about what they get for their money.
Thanks for the lengthy answer that has nothing whatsoever to do with the question. I didn't ask what the problem with premium content is, i asked why one method of delivering said content is okay while another is treated as some sort of scam.
It's the principle of it. DLC released after the game suggests you're paying for content which the developers have made after the game has been released, i.e. they've spent more time working on it so should be compensated for that. If they do, then I don't a problem with them charging for it whatsoever.
Here, however, the content has already been made and included on the disc before the game is even released, but we can't use it until we give them more money. So we're paying extra for content which should have been included in the original release, as they haven't done any extra work to warrant charging for it. It's a sneaky, underhanded tactic designed to milk more money from consumers without creating a public backlash which would inevitably result from increasing the price of the game itself, as well as losing sales. Here, people have already paid for the game, but paid DLC is so prevalent now they don't think about paying another £5 on top for it, yet they would probably be quite angry if they charged £45 instead of £40 for the game itself.
And what if they make the DLC along with the game and release it like 2 weeks later? They do that AFAIK.
They've spent more time working on it, you say? If they model and texture a horse armor 2 weeks after the game is released, do you think that takes any more effort than creating the same item at the same time as the rest of the game?
Separate names with a comma.