SonicWaffle said:
There isn't really any argument to support Day-One DLC except as a preorder bonus, and even that argument has shakier legs than a postcoital giraffe.
It's quite possible to develop DLC in the time between a disc being finalised and the release date. Whether you like it or not, this is a valid argument.
The problem comes in when they instead use funds, resources and time for the game for DLC, load it n the disc and lie.
Shdwrnr said:
There is a pro-DLC argument that seems to never come up: Video game prices have gone down a lot while the cost to produce them has gone up by a very large margin. It was not uncommon to see a cartridge for the Nintendo Entertainment System clock at $50 dollars back in the '90s (I recall my Super Mario Brothers 3 cartridge was $49.99 from a Woolworths store in 1990). According to inflation, that game would cost almost $90 today. Currently, the cost to create video games has risen, the demand for content has risen, but the MSRP has been locked at $50-$60. Consumers would throw a conniption fit if video game publishers began charging the $90-$100 dollars inflation predicts, so they have been recouping what they can by charging the MSRP and creating smaller packets of additional content for $5-$15 (for Australians, the increased rate would still be in effect in addition to your arcane tariff artifacts: you would be paying $170-$200).
To me, this kind of falls into the same category as other psychological perceptions. In practice, it's better this way for everyone but it FEELS like you're being ripped off (the same as how clothing retailers are cheating you with price manipulation in that it FEELS better to get a $100 pair of pants for $50 dollars even though those pants have always and will always only ever cost $50).
You know this argument comes up all the time, right? It's also incredibly ignorant. It assumes the only meaningful measure of cost beyond the price sticker is inflation. With standard wages and buying power dropping as cost of living rises, arguing it would be X dollars based on modern currency is meaningless because people could better afford the extra money. Inflation, outside of a vacuum, is pointless. Games are also a big industry now. Game costs may have increased, but so to have game profits. This industry is experiencing major growth even as it complains that piracy, used games, sharing, and witches are destroying it.
Even ignoring all that, the argument is effectively that gaming should be able to live outside its means. If, and this means ignoring a lot of evidence to the contrary, but if the problem is that games aren't making enough back on their up front costs, they need to be working towards making the process sustainable. DLC, like many methods, is only a stopgap method here. Still, this is a multi-billion dollar industry, and the notion that they need to make up for production costs is utterly inane.