Callin' for a DLC boycott.

[Wolfram23]

Yeah I don't really buy DLC. Let me think... Oh right, I did buy one of the Fallout 3 DLC expansions. That's it, no other DLC for me. Often games are a rip off from the get go, but I definitely think that "unlocks stuff already on the disc" is the absolute worst form of it. I wonder if PS3 hackers can unlock that? Would be cool. And no I don't think that would constitute pirating because they/I bought the DVD and everything on it is now mine (minus some copyright issues for example), EULA or no.

I was thinking the other day... so many people who buy CoD games are only buying it for the multiplayer. I know people who don't have more than like 2 trophies in Black Ops because they haven't touched single player. So why are they paying $60 for an online experience that is literally copied from many previous versions of the game with a bit of tweaking?? CoD in particular should begin selling MP only versions for $20 because honestly they can't be putting much development into the MP. Change some stats, add a few new challenges. Hardest part would have been creating, what, 10 new maps? I can see the SP game being expensive as it's so scripted and has many large set pieces. But anyway... I'll stop it here.

 

[Normandyfoxtrot]

Frankly if the game can be played to completion then I have absolutely zero problem with any DLC and ULC and tend to think of the people who do as largely unreasonable twats. Face it just because you don't like them making a costume pack either before or after the release of a game is to fucking bad, it's their choice if you don't like it fine don't buy it/find a different developer to love until they "sell out to the soulless monsters".

 

[LiftYourSkinnyFists]

Before I get into it, I'm just going to say that I have nothing against DLCs. Actually, I think that the idea behind them is wonderful. Major bug slipped past playtesting? Now it can be fixed with minimum fuss! Reviews say the main issue with your game is not enough of 'x'? Now you can add 'x'!

I'm not even saying that DLCs should be free. Developers work hard on their games, but they do have fairly strict deadlines. Maybe they couldn't find the time to shove something into the gold build of the game? Well, then they can use the DLC system to get it out there.

No, my issue isn't with Downlodable Content. It's with Unlockable Content, or as I shall refer to them from now on, ULC's. If you look in the Playstation Network (Assuming. Don't have a PS3) or Xbox Live Marketplace and you see a DLC that is about 300kb in size, that would be a 'key' to unlock content that is already on the disk that you paid full price for.

Many people just say 'Well if you don't like it, then don't buy it.' That doesn't stop it from being major douchebaggery, and some people will still fork over the $5 or however much it costs to get at the ULC. If noone buys the ULC, maybe some gaming companies *CoughEAcough* will get the hint and actually start letting you have everything on the disk that you've already paid them for.

In otherwords, Believe in your force and head into the Garden of Madness. [sub]Shameless No More Heroes reference. Don't hurt me.[/sub]

It's already on the disc but it's two separate entities and is a measure to save you time! Like you would care if bought a box and it had 3 muffins... those muffins are not yours unless you buy them.

 

[Normandyfoxtrot]

I think it's worth noting that just because it's on the game disc doesn't mean that it was ever intended to be a part of the basic vanilla experience, after all most modern video games, particularly blue ray PS3 games have massive amounts of empty unused space on the disk that otherwise sits there like a lump.

 

[TheDarkestDerp]

DLC should never be conspicuous in its absence from the main game.

For example, Dragon Age pulled a real dick move by putting characters in-game who tried to sell you DLCs.

THIS! I was just talking about this exact thing with my roommate last night, using this example. I have no problem with DLC that adds to a game after it's release. But screwing me and mine out of a few more dollars just because you can? Bad form, master Pan. Bad form, indeed.

 

[HellspawnCandy]

I find the DA:O DLC to be a huge waste of money(not including awakening, that's an expansion) they may have more stuff to do than other DLC with longer quests and stuff but there's just so much for so little. I miss expansions, I miss playing a game for awhile then the expansion comes out then play the same game for even longer with the expansions. Like Red Alert 2 Yuri's Revenge, an expansion but with a new faction new storyline and some new vehicles and stuff.

 

[Seneschal]

If the publishers were to sell you their content, they would basically be selling their IPs to you. That's not what happens when you purchase a game - you only pay for the right to use their content for personal entertainment. You licence someone else's property.

Now, I don't agree with intellectual property laws, but they perfectly justify DLCs and "ULCs". Microsoft did the same thing with Windows 7, they made two versions: one to be installed from scratch, the other one ($100 cheaper) could "upgrade" a previous Windows OS into 7. They turned out to be basically the same, only the latter one had a bit that detected whether you have Windows installed already. Sounds unfair, but this is how things work when you try to sell stuff in a post-scarcity market - prices are arbitrary and you have to make people cash out for immaterial stuff like brands and licences.

 

[dancinginfernal]

DLC should never be conspicuous in its absence from the main game.

For example, Dragon Age pulled a real dick move by putting characters in-game who tried to sell you DLCs.

Didn't those come in the main game if you bought it new anyways?

 

[Chibz]

Oh look, ANOTHER ineffective gamer-"boycott". You guys talk big now, but when a big name game comes out you want (with DLC)...

 

[Normandyfoxtrot]

Oh look, ANOTHER ineffective gamer-"boycott". You guys talk big now, but when a big name game comes out you want (with DLC)...

The snark's really not necessary or called for if they want to try to do it they bloody well should hell the worse thing about modern society if the constant reiteration of "don't bother won't make a difference."

 

[TerranReaper]

I find it funny that you make it sound like you HAVE to buy DLC for a game. Buying DLC is completely optional from what I've seen, and there is no drive from the developers either to make you buy it. Also with ULC, I'm fairly sure you would be complaining about downloading it if they didn't stuff it on the disk. The only excuse that I find people can legitimately have would be if the DLC would be a major influence to the game, mainly referring to multiplayer games.

 

[Chibz]

The snark's really not necessary or called for if they want to try to do it they bloody well should hell the worse thing about modern society if the constant reiteration of "don't bother won't make a difference."

Actually, my attitude is either "shit or get off the pot". This is yet ANOTHER gamer protest/boycott but guess what? When it comes down to it, they just cave in easily.

Either stick to your shit, or don't go running your mouth.

 

[Normandyfoxtrot]

The snark's really not necessary or called for if they want to try to do it they bloody well should hell the worse thing about modern society if the constant reiteration of "don't bother won't make a difference."

Actually, my attitude is either "shit or get off the pot". This is yet ANOTHER gamer protest/boycott but guess what? When it comes down to it, they just cave in easily.

Either stick to your shit, or don't go running your mouth.

That's impossible to judge particularly on a message board it's not like we can check in three week's and see if they have and DLC, but chances are at least some of the people who posted here will stick to their guns. How many I don't know probably not many one or two at most, but honestly how successful is any boycott or march, and how many of those people actually stick with it. Frankly turning into a snarky asshat for people being sort sighted or human isn't expanding the discussion, or offering reasoned criticism.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Personally, I hate DLC. Either give us a full expansion, or give us the piddly extra bit of content for free. The industry was still doing proper expansions at the beginning of this hardware generation -- F.E.A.R. got two of them, Battlefield 2 got one full one and a couple of DLCs which were eventually included for free in the final patch, even Oblivion, which, thanks to horse armor, is a posterchild for what is wrong with DLC, eventually collected the minor DLCs into a full expansion, while providing The Shivering Isles as a second full sized expansion. And then suddenly, a couple of years after those games came out, we stopped seeing true expansion packs. I have never seen any industry get away with gouging its customers the way the Videogame industry does. At least customers in other industries with exorbitant prices know they're getting ripped off, and find legal alternatives to get the product or a comparable one for less. A significant portion of gamers not only bend over and take it, they deride other gamers for not doing so.

 

[The Bucket]

Have you guys read the OP?

OT: No, I'm not going on a boycott. ULC is annoying, sure, but not worth all the time and effort to get rid of it.

Yes, yes I did. I disagreed that the issue was solely with ULC, as the OP seemed to suggest. Many developers do the exact same thing (withold content that could have gone on the disc) but make it DLC. Meaning a boycott (as well as being, ya know, ineffectual) would find it difficult to know where to aim their protest.
Could you please point out were it seemed like I ignored the OP?

O.T I've got nothing against DLC in most any form. I think Project 10 dollar is a good way to combat second hand games (as long as it doesn't go any further) and I usually only buy it during sales anyway.

 

[Normandyfoxtrot]

Personally, I hate DLC. Either give us a full expansion, or give us the piddly extra bit of content for free. The industry was still doing proper expansions at the beginning of this hardware generation -- F.E.A.R. got two of them, Battlefield 2 got one full one and a couple of DLCs which were eventually included for free in the final patch, even Oblivion, which, thanks to horse armor, is a posterchild for what is wrong with DLC, eventually collected the minor DLCs into a full expansion, while providing The Shivering Isles as a second full sized expansion. And then suddenly, a couple of years after those games came out, we stopped seeing true expansion packs. I have never seen any industry get away with gouging its customers the way the Videogame industry does. At least customers in other industries with exporbitant prices know they're getting ripped off, and find legal alternatives to get the product or a comparable one for less. A significant portion of gamers not only bend over and take it, but then deride other gamers for not doing so.

But what makes expansion packs better than DLC's after all their not about making a full second tangent a separate game entity entirely in effect, DLC are Modules more or less official mods offering modular plug and go content that's not tied do to large some times frankly cumbersome expansion pack and when they do take the forum of a "real" expansion pack like say FO3's Broken steel they seem to be frankly superior to traditional expansion packs and trust me as a LONG LONG time PC gamer expanse packs in the past where not any better and in fact often where worse that what you are now complaining about in the form of multiple DLC's.

 

[RowdyRodimus]

Honestly, I've never bothered with buying dlc. Within about a year and a half or so the publishers tend to release a pack that includes the full game and all dlc, usually at or lower than the price of a new game.

This is the best strategy. Unless you just have to be a first day adopter there are plenty of games that will scratch that itch until the GOY Edition (or vanilla becomes so cheap it's worth getting anyway, like when Borderlands was $10 everywhere) comes out.

 

[mjc0961]

No, my issue isn't with Downlodable Content. It's with Unlockable Content, or as I shall refer to them from now on, ULC's. If you look in the Playstation Network (Assuming. Don't have a PS3) or Xbox Live Marketplace and you see a DLC that is about 300kb in size, that would be a 'key' to unlock content that is already on the disk that you paid full price for.

Many people just say 'Well if you don't like it, then don't buy it.' That doesn't stop it from being major douchebaggery, and some people will still fork over the $5 or however much it costs to get at the ULC. If noone buys the ULC, maybe some gaming companies *CoughEAcough* will get the hint and actually start letting you have everything on the disk that you've already paid them for.

In otherwords, Believe in your force and head into the Garden of Madness. [sub]Shameless No More Heroes reference. Don't hurt me.[/sub]

Ah, that. My thoughts on this are that if the content is already on the disc, one of three things should be done:

1. Include a one use only unlock code for the content in new copies of the game, so people who already gave money to the publisher for the disc can get the unlock for free.

2. Charge less for the actual disc itself.

3. Stop charging me extra to access all of the content on the disc I already paid $60 for.

That's it. If you want $60 for the disc and another $10 just to let me use everything on that disc, you can take your game and go fuck yourself.

Of course, launch day DLC that's actually content that was made after the game went gold and thus is not on the disc is fine by me. The way DLC should work is simple: if you made something extra after the game was finished and the discs were printed, you deserve extra money. If you made something before the game was out and put it on the disc, you do not deserve extra money, as that content is already on the disc you're selling me and I have a right to play EVERYTHING on the disc free of charge.

Online passes for used game buyers are still fine by me though: online servers are NOT on the disc, so charge away, doesn't bother me any. Unless, of course, your game doesn't have servers and you're having one of the people in the game act as the host. Then you can't say they owe you anything because if you aren't running servers for the game, you don't have extra costs associated with that.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Personally, I hate DLC. Either give us a full expansion, or give us the piddly extra bit of content for free. The industry was still doing proper expansions at the beginning of this hardware generation -- F.E.A.R. got two of them, Battlefield 2 got one full one and a couple of DLCs which were eventually included for free in the final patch, even Oblivion, which, thanks to horse armor, is a posterchild for what is wrong with DLC, eventually collected the minor DLCs into a full expansion, while providing The Shivering Isles as a second full sized expansion. And then suddenly, a couple of years after those games came out, we stopped seeing true expansion packs. I have never seen any industry get away with gouging its customers the way the Videogame industry does. At least customers in other industries with exporbitant prices know they're getting ripped off, and find legal alternatives to get the product or a comparable one for less. A significant portion of gamers not only bend over and take it, but then deride other gamers for not doing so.

But what makes expansion packs better than DLC's after all their not about making a full second tangent a separate game entity entirely in effect, DLC are Modules more or less official mods offering modular plug and go content that's not tied do to large some times frankly cumbersome expansion pack and when they do take the forum of a "real" expansion pack like say FO3's Broken steel they seem to be frankly superior to traditional expansion packs and trust me as a LONG LONG time PC gamer expanse packs in the past where not any better and in fact often where worse that what you are now complaining about in the form of multiple DLC's.

A good expansion pack gives you an entire new campaign to work with, as well as new multiplayer modes, and is essentially a new game that is sold for less because it reuses a lot of old assets from the previous game. If Modern Warfare 2 had been released 10 years ago, it could have been sold as an expansion pack, and nobody would have batted an eye. Or they might, actually -- to complain that it didn't contain enough new content. Modern DLCs are sold for significantly more money than old style expansion packs, at least on a content vs. price scale. The various map packs that get sold for $15 today would have been free in the old days, because they just don't contain that much content. If you were to combine enough DLCs together to actually reach expansion pack levels of content, it would cost far and beyond the $20-$30 that was once standard price for expansion packs. There's also the fact that in online modes, expansion packs always had their multiplayer segregated from the original game, meaning you didn't have to buy them if you didn't want to. There was no such thing as getting kicked off of a server because you hadn't paid the company for the new maps.

 

[Normandyfoxtrot]

Personally, I hate DLC. Either give us a full expansion, or give us the piddly extra bit of content for free. The industry was still doing proper expansions at the beginning of this hardware generation -- F.E.A.R. got two of them, Battlefield 2 got one full one and a couple of DLCs which were eventually included for free in the final patch, even Oblivion, which, thanks to horse armor, is a posterchild for what is wrong with DLC, eventually collected the minor DLCs into a full expansion, while providing The Shivering Isles as a second full sized expansion. And then suddenly, a couple of years after those games came out, we stopped seeing true expansion packs. I have never seen any industry get away with gouging its customers the way the Videogame industry does. At least customers in other industries with exporbitant prices know they're getting ripped off, and find legal alternatives to get the product or a comparable one for less. A significant portion of gamers not only bend over and take it, but then deride other gamers for not doing so.

But what makes expansion packs better than DLC's after all their not about making a full second tangent a separate game entity entirely in effect, DLC are Modules more or less official mods offering modular plug and go content that's not tied do to large some times frankly cumbersome expansion pack and when they do take the forum of a "real" expansion pack like say FO3's Broken steel they seem to be frankly superior to traditional expansion packs and trust me as a LONG LONG time PC gamer expanse packs in the past where not any better and in fact often where worse that what you are now complaining about in the form of multiple DLC's.

A good expansion pack gives you an entire new campaign to work with, as well as new multiplayer modes, and is essentially a new game that is sold for less because it reuses a lot of old assets from the previous game. If Modern Warfare 2 had been released 10 years ago, it could have been sold as an expansion pack, and nobody would have batted an eye. Or they might, actually -- to complain that it didn't contain enough new content. Modern DLCs are sold for significantly more money than old style expansion packs, at least on a content vs. price scale. The various map packs that get sold for $15 today would have been free in the old days, because they just don't contain that much content. If you were to combine enough DLCs together to actually reach expansion pack levels of content, it would cost far and beyond the $20-$30 that was once standard price for expansion packs. There's also the fact that in online modes, expansion packs always had their multiplayer segregated from the original game, meaning you didn't have to buy them if you didn't want to. There was no such thing as getting kicked off of a server because you hadn't paid the company for the new maps.

Expansion packs as far back as I can call where never cheaper than the actual base game and as for segregated MP guess what you still had to upgrade because everyone stopped playing the old vanilla game, and it's not like the expansion era was with out it's fair share of redundant titles.