Bleszinski: On-Disk DLC an "Unfortunate Reality"

[GonzoGamer]

Since Cliff Bleszinski put his views the way he did, I agree with the developers and Day 1 DLC.
Game making like ant other production is a business not a hobby.

Side projects are not allowed unless there profit to be made. And most Day 1 DLC are not integral in the main story plot or game play.

Even online passes have there reasons, Ensure that people buy there product even if someone buys a used copy of the game, "Oh you want online multi-player, $10 please".

Some On Disk content has to be disabled on disk, maybe that one extra character still is buggy, whole stages that are cut out of the game and instead of deleting the stage it is fair easier to disable it. Programers will know what I mean it is called "Commenting out" sections of code.

Mainly its to do what Major corporations number 1 legal obligation is, pay their investors. Paying Investors means you have to make profit.

If I take a car for a test drive and decide to buy it right there, is the dealer going to charge me for the gas in my tank?!!
Well?

You technically you already pay extra for that. Take a look at the price of the car, then sales tax. This will include Tax and Title(tax on the car it self not the sale of), any last minute maintenance cost like installing extras. If you look real carefully I am sure there many car dealerships that charge you for that Tank of Gas, at premium rates. So many people fail to read all the fine print.

Before the time of digital distribution and Digital DLC there where the expansion packs, where you have to pay for the additional content later on. And it is not uncommon that some of that content is already locked up on the original disk.

Other businesses are doing similar practices that game publishers do with day 1 DLCs now for decades, the practice is actually centuries old.

Here is you "insert product here" oh the "insert accessory here" is sold separately.
This will include vacuum bags, USB cords, power adapters, memory cards, printer ink.
All items you think that should be included in the product.

Yea, sure. I get all that.
I just think that I (as well as many others) would be a lot more tolerant of those kinds of schemes if they were practiced by the small struggling indie studios rather than the more established companies that were making huge profits before they had online pass & day1 dlc.

 

[rembrandtqeinstein]

A pretty good rule is check wikipedia to see what the publisher is. If the publisher is a public corporation don't buy the game new. Borrow it from a friend, get it used, or just do without.

There are plenty of independent games developers that care about their product, don't rip people off, and aren't beholden to parasitic executives or stockholders. There are also totally free games are free as in beer, or microtransaction where they give you a big demo and you pay if you like it.

Don't support market segmentation, its only purpose is to make people who don't have unlimited amounts of money feel bad.

 

[Murmillos]

Car Analogy; with "on disk" DLC
You buy the car, it has power windows, air-conditions, and even a radio, but all of them are missing the switch that makes them work; as all hardware and cabling is already done. It costs you $100 to activate any one.

Car Analogy; with standard downloadable "Internet" DLC
You buy the car, it doesn't have power windows, AC or a radio, but you see the ground work that some cables and mounting brackets are there. It costs you $100 to install any one.

Yes, and restaurant meals/being served shit as a dessert for other complaints.

Personally, we should stop using shit as a dessert analogy, because shit is well, unsanitary. I like to think of it more as a horseradish or Wasabi drizzle all over over your desert, be it cheese cake, cherry pie or vanilla ice-cream . It's still "edible" (unlike shit), but the taste is completely off -- and more off putting then anything.


--------------------

There is a big difference between laying the "ground work" of a added DLC elements, to which most gamers would understand (ME3 Tavik DLC fury would have been less if they didn't update his character model at the last minute for the main game), to including the whole DLC on the CD and then charging customers access to that.

Also, if all of these "development" teams know that there is this 2-3 month "gap", then why in the fuck don't they plan to leave out a few core features of the game that they can easily develop and add back in during that 2-3 month gap, and then give it away free as a patch; either on disk or off disk. Your workers are still getting paid out of the core budget, and you get to continue the good will towards your customers -- as it doesn't look like you are trying to screw them over.

Oh wait.. this silly $$$ thing comes in, where you are trying to justify to yourself why you should be nickel-and-diming your loyal customers. Oh, so its our fault that you make crappy 8 hour games that most people want to trade back in in minute we finish it? I get it, Gamestop has in issue of pushing used games, but used games wouldn't be a problem if gamers didn't have a need to get rid of your games after beating it in 8 hours -- ON FUCKING LAUNCH WEEK! The only thing you do to make it "last" longer is by trying to pad the achievement chasers.

Don't want to see your game floating around in the used bin on the weekend of launch week? Then make a game that isn't easily described as "disposable diapers".