DLC abuse

[Pyro Paul]

Uhm, in regards to question 1, I don't think you understand how the market works. DLC is a way the publisher can use to increase profits. You put it in a way that make it sound like DLC is supposed to be there because the company cares about us.

I will let you in on a secret. Almost every product ever made is made with the intention of making money. Games are no exception. DLC isn't an exception. So yes, DLC is something added to maximize profits from a game.

Question 2: I rarely buy DLC because I rarely see a need for it. If I like a game a lot and can buy extra missions then it's great. I wont say it's the best thing ever, but it can be neat sometimes.

not really...

DLC acctually fills many roles, it just depends on the publishers usage of DLC.

In most cases DLC is intended to produce the money required for the 'after release support' stage of a game. Hammering out bugs and patching the game isn't a cheap process, and a lot of companies really don't want to have their bottem line dwindled after they have 'finished' the game.


In some cases though, such as Shale from Dragons Age, it is an attempt to act as a Stop-gap to piracy/Resale. And this is acctually a fairly common practice in the Asian Market where DLC is often the only source of income for companies simply because piracy goes unchecked there.


And, of course, there are some cases such as with Bethesda where the DLC is effectively Expansion Packs for a game allowing them to set up Long Term support for a game while not going into the red for doing so.


The problem DLC faces now adays is simply that there isn't really enough of it out there to make people look at it diffrently.

Most DLC we see is +1 character/weapon/stage/costume... And we really don't see much of it after the initial release. Although people make jokes in videos of huge lists of DLC which unlock diffrent features, the truth of the matter is that most every game we see rarely ever goes past 6 individual DLC options for their game.

If we saw more DLC like Civ5 (11 DLC options of maps, civilizations, and units) then people would probably have a more positive outlook at DLC.

 

[GoaThief]

Where else is this behavior tolerated? Are passengers seats in automobiles optional? You don't need passenger's seat for 100% driving experience. It's ok if the dealer removes them from all their cars and sells them to the consumer for an additional fee of course, right? You haven't bought the car yet right? The dealer can do what they want. It's their cars. Just don't buy the passenger's seat, right?

It seems you've never bought a new car before, there are fucktons of optional extras that you have to pay more for such as air conditioning, electric windows, better speakers, better headunit, satnav, etc. Hell, even bodywork and wheel upgrades are quite common. Engines too, how many special editions of cars offer more power or a diesel engine for economy at an additional cost? Pretty much every industry charges for extras, even your previous example of restaurants often don't provide side orders for free.

None of this will matter though as you're set in your ways, maybe experience will change your opinion.. who knows? The gaming industry won't wait on you however, like it or not I'm sure consoles will go the way of PC with virtually zero second hand sales so Project Ten Dollar and it's ilk will be as redundant as your current stance will be.

 

[newdarkcloud]

I vented my opinions on this just a few days ago.

http://pressstarttodiscuss.blogspot.com/2012/04/15-dlc-how-it-is-being-handled-and-how.html

 

[Pyro Paul]

The problem arises when they bite the hand that feeds them. Day one DLC is such an instance. Unless the game developers can prove that the day one DLC is not content removed from the game, then they are blatantly milking the consumer. Milking the consumer is to treat them as if they are not even human. A thing; a resource to wring every last drop of value out of. I'd rather get a hate letter from a developer than have them cut content only monetize it on day one.

Most Day 1 DLC is made through contractual agreements with third parties.

most of it isn't really content removed but rather additional content developed on the side because some one some where paid a sum of money for it to happen.

 

[Avalanche91]

DLC has potential for great good. GTA 4's DLC, Dragon Age's Witchhunt, Mass Effect's Shadow Broker all expended on the story, or involved the player in the stories of side characters.

Mass Effect 3's from Ashes, Ashura's Wrath real ending and Street Fighter vs Teken DLC however seem to purposefully cut content from the main game to get another few extra bucks.

So yeah....Currently they seem to abuse the hell out of DLC, while it seems to have such great potential.

 

[masticina]

Oh you mean the lets sell a game like assasins creed and have part 12 and 13 out of the story line DLC

Well guess what I didn't buy that game.

We can vote with your wallets.. if we don't like how certain business is ran we can just not buy the product.

Seriously I haven't bought quite a few games.. not to mention kinda have to play out quite a few games more. Hell got some games out of 2008 that ..:! a shame the weekend is so busy

The best DLC so far I bought I guess is the DLC for Gran Turismo 5, I mean you get a nice set of tracks.. some nice cars.. it really adds to the game. The pack with the speed test is lovely who wouldn't want to know how quick their car is. And why as DLC... mmm you know for the detail and work in that pack I don't mind paying.

 

[Yopaz]

Uhm, in regards to question 1, I don't think you understand how the market works. DLC is a way the publisher can use to increase profits. You put it in a way that make it sound like DLC is supposed to be there because the company cares about us.

I will let you in on a secret. Almost every product ever made is made with the intention of making money. Games are no exception. DLC isn't an exception. So yes, DLC is something added to maximize profits from a game.

Question 2: I rarely buy DLC because I rarely see a need for it. If I like a game a lot and can buy extra missions then it's great. I wont say it's the best thing ever, but it can be neat sometimes.

not really...

DLC acctually fills many roles, it just depends on the publishers usage of DLC.

In most cases DLC is intended to produce the money required for the 'after release support' stage of a game. Hammering out bugs and patching the game isn't a cheap process, and a lot of companies really don't want to have their bottem line dwindled after they have 'finished' the game.


In some cases though, such as Shale from Dragons Age, it is an attempt to act as a Stop-gap to piracy/Resale. And this is acctually a fairly common practice in the Asian Market where DLC is often the only source of income for companies simply because piracy goes unchecked there.


And, of course, there are some cases such as with Bethesda where the DLC is effectively Expansion Packs for a game allowing them to set up Long Term support for a game while not going into the red for doing so.


The problem DLC faces now adays is simply that there isn't really enough of it out there to make people look at it diffrently.

Most DLC we see is +1 character/weapon/stage/costume... And we really don't see much of it after the initial release. Although people make jokes in videos of huge lists of DLC which unlock diffrent features, the truth of the matter is that most every game we see rarely ever goes past 6 individual DLC options for their game.

If we saw more DLC like Civ5 (11 DLC options of maps, civilizations, and units) then people would probably have a more positive outlook at DLC.

Patches are made to correct bugs. DLC is extra content. Basically what I said was that DLC is made to increase profits from a game. That is the same thing you said so I can't really understand why you feel like telling me.

 

[Pyro Paul]

I vented my opinions on this just a few days ago.

http://pressstarttodiscuss.blogspot.com/2012/04/15-dlc-how-it-is-being-handled-and-how.html

On Disk DLC are not as bad as you think...
Most of the time it is acctually used as a mechanism to bypass certain restrictions or fees placed on digital delivery systems.

You see it happen a lot for games designed for Xbox LIVE which has so many restrictions on what you can and can't do on it from the publisher/developer stand point that many publishers/developers simply bypass this altogether posting a bulk of the DLC content on disk with only minor alterations provided by the DLC packet up for digital distribution.

 

[Pyro Paul]

Patches are made to correct bugs. DLC is extra content. Basically what I said was that DLC is made to increase profits from a game. That is the same thing you said so I can't really understand why you feel like telling me.

because most forms of DLC are not intended to maximize profits.

most forms of DLC are acctually taken from the concept of Subscription based content in which you're paying for the support... not to line their coffers.

 

[Yopaz]

I will let you in on a secret. Almost every product ever made is made with the intention of making money. Games are no exception. DLC isn't an exception. So yes, DLC is something added to maximize profits from a game.

I want my game companies profitable too. Hell, I'd pay a premium for PC games if that ment they were developed to maximise the platform rather than a console port.

The problem arises when they bite the hand that feeds them. Day one DLC is such an instance. Unless the game developers can prove that the day one DLC is not content removed from the game, then they are blatantly milking the consumer. Milking the consumer is to treat them as if they are not even human. A thing; a resource to wring every last drop of value out of. I'd rather get a hate letter from a developer than have them cut content only monetize it on day one.

OK, your post doesn't really make any sense. You're a PC gamer who cares about day 1 DLC? PC games with physical copies always have activation codes or you get them through Steam and in either case Day 1 DLC does not affect anyone.

You also say you want companies to earn money, but you're against day 1 DLC because they are removing content. Really, what difference does it make if they are removing content from a full game (and still giving you a full game) or if they are adding content to a full game? You're makinf a big deal out of the difference between Pepsi and Cola, sure there is a difference, but it's no big deal.

 

[Yopaz]

Patches are made to correct bugs. DLC is extra content. Basically what I said was that DLC is made to increase profits from a game. That is the same thing you said so I can't really understand why you feel like telling me.

because most forms of DLC are not intended to maximize profits.

most forms of DLC are acctually taken from the concept of Subscription based content in which you're paying for the support... not to line their coffers.

Really, I don't see the difference. Money paid for the support still adds up to the profits.

 

[TorqueConverter]

You also say you want companies to earn money, but you're against day 1 DLC because they are removing content. Really, what difference does it make if they are removing content from a full game (and still giving you a full game) or if they are adding content to a full game? You're makinf a big deal out of the difference between Pepsi and Cola, sure there is a difference, but it's no big deal.

Well Pepsi is a cola..

The difference is that in one instance, removing completed content from a game to sell as day one DLC, is cheating the consumer and the other is not. It's not a "full game" if content has been removed from it. It's no different than than a cashier ringing something up twice at the register to maximize profits.

 

[Hyper-space]

A while ago my friends and I got to talking about DLC. my friends said that DLC would be the next step in in gaming since it allows new content without the need of a expansion disc and while I agreed with this I said that this could be used as a excuse to charge us more for things that are already finished.

The street fighter x tekken hacking has got me worried that what I said wasn't a load of bull and companies are really thinking this way. The future is bleak if other games meet the same fate all because where charged extra for content that's already there so now well all be suspicious of DLC.

disscusion:
1.Is companies abusing DLC for personal gain?
2.do you believe that DLC is one of the best things in resent gaming ?

I Should also say that I don't hate the idea of DLC I just hate what's being done to it

Lets put it this way: Every good idea will be abused, there's no helping it. But its much, much better than back in the day when you had to buy THE ENTIRE GAME (again) just to get 2 extra missions or a new sprite-package. Buying DLC for 5-15$ is much better than buying DLC for 60$.

There have been a ton of great DLC and there will be more of it. But as with everything, expect 90% of it to be either mediocre or bad.

 

[masticina]

Lets put it this way: Every good idea will be abused, there's no helping it. But its much, much better than back in the day when you had to buy THE ENTIRE GAME (again) just to get 2 extra missions or a new sprite-package. Buying DLC for 5-15$ is much better than buying DLC for 60$.

There have been a ton of great DLC and there will be more of it. But as with everything, expect 90% of it to be either mediocre or bad.

Mmm a good point extending a game for longer gameplay is a good thing. Now sure a game out of 2008 probably doesn't gets DLC anymore.. and a follow up will be there. But indeed in the past if you wanted something fixed what did they says "Buy the version of this year"

Lovely no patches because they could sell the 2011 version instead.

Now at least we do get patches for the worst bugs and we even get some extra content. Sure we have to pay but.

I agree though that you can go to far. A patch for a game in our internet age should be free. Also really writing a long story then taking out part 6 and 7... so you can sell it as DLC..bad bad!

DLC is not terrible as long as what you pay is what you get. For $60 we expect a full game not a game with a room and a locked door saying "You need DLC for this"

Really just make that there is no door at launch of the game until you install the DLC. I stay with it good DLC is worth the price! It isn't a silly hat.. it isn't either the "unlock everything" pack of EA.

 

[Epona]

The idea of DLC abuse is inherently flawed. If people buy it, then it's entirely their fault. I hate what it's become, but the companies are only riding the wave of money that the consumers provide.

So you're one of those people who don't think criminals shouldn't have to resist an unlocked door but that people who don't lock their door are to blame if they are robbed?

Nope. I'm one of those people who thinks that if no one buys DLC then they won't sell it. Comparing it to being robbed is just laughable.

Yes, the Day-1 on-disc DLC for Mass Effect 3 was ridiculous. But people bought it. I didn't, and I wouldn't for a second say that I was 'robbed', I'd just say it was stupid. There's too much hyperbole in this discussion.

Yes you are one of those people. Publishers could restrain themselves from being too greedy and ripping people off but they don't and you're ok with that. Publishers are just like the thief that can't resist the unlocked door.

 

[TorqueConverter]

Where else is this behavior tolerated? Are passengers seats in automobiles optional? You don't need passenger's seat for 100% driving experience. It's ok if the dealer removes them from all their cars and sells them to the consumer for an additional fee of course, right? You haven't bought the car yet right? The dealer can do what they want. It's their cars. Just don't buy the passenger's seat, right?

It seems you've never bought a new car before, there are fucktons of optional extras that you have to pay more for such as air conditioning, electric windows, better speakers, better headunit, satnav, etc. Hell, even bodywork and wheel upgrades are quite common. Engines too, how many special editions of cars offer more power or a diesel engine for economy at an additional cost? Pretty much every industry charges for extras, even your previous example of restaurants often don't provide side orders for free.

None of this will matter though as you're set in your ways, maybe experience will change your opinion.. who knows? The gaming industry won't wait on you however, like it or not I'm sure consoles will go the way of PC with virtually zero second hand sales so Project Ten Dollar and it's ilk will be as redundant as your current stance will be.

I'm not going out without a fight. I'm not going to stand for unethical business practices that cheat the consumer in my video games. The rest of you may roll over and take it, but I'm sure as hell not.

I don't think you understand what "extra" really is. Show me a car where the optional trim or equipment is the option to pay for it twice? It's one thing to remove $10 of content from a $60 game and then sell that game for $50 with the option to purchase the content for $10. It's entirely different when $10 of content is removed from a $60 game and the game is still sold for $60. Automobiles start a base price and then increase with options and packages. The base trim does not start with a fully loaded product then proceeds to remove all the optional equipment while still retaining the full loaded pricing. I believe that practice is called bullshit.

The options present in a automobile are legit. A $30,000 car optioned out to $40,000 is not the same as removing content from a video game only to sell it as optional when the price for the game, with content removed, has not been adjusted.

In 2011 Ford sold the Mustang GT with the 5.0L V8. Prior to 2011 the car had the old 4.6L. Why didn't Ford continue to use the 4.6L as the GT engine and make the 5.0L a very expensive option? It's not because they ran out of 4.6L, it's because people would have been irate and refused to buy the car. That engine was developed for use in the Mustang as a replacement for 4.6L. When that engine was ready for launch you better believe it was going to become the base engine in the GT without any increase in GT base pricing and not a goddamn high dollar option.

The difference here is there is heavy competition in the automobile industry. Ford cannot afford to slip up with the Mustang in some money grubbing scheme as the consumers will simply spend their money elsewhere.

Where's the competition is video games? Really, where are the Mass Effect fans going to go for a character driven, science fiction shooter RPG fix? Bioware can charge as much money as they wanted to for Mass Effect. Let the free market speak. They sure as hell better not cheat their customers out of money.

 

[Epona]

The idea of DLC abuse is inherently flawed. If people buy it, then it's entirely their fault. I hate what it's become, but the companies are only riding the wave of money that the consumers provide.

So you're one of those people who don't think criminals shouldn't have to resist an unlocked door but that people who don't lock their door are to blame if they are robbed?

Nope. I'm one of those people who thinks that if no one buys DLC then they won't sell it. Comparing it to being robbed is just laughable.

Yes, the Day-1 on-disc DLC for Mass Effect 3 was ridiculous. But people bought it. I didn't, and I wouldn't for a second say that I was 'robbed', I'd just say it was stupid. There's too much hyperbole in this discussion.

Yes you are one of those people. Publishers could restrain themselves from being too greedy and ripping people off but they don't and you're ok with that. Publishers are just like the thief that can't resist the unlocked door.

I feel like you've got the wrong end of the stick here. Publishers shouldn't be greedy, but the reason that they're greedy is entirely our fault. Not necessarily yours, not necessarily mine. But as consumers, people buy these products. Your metaphor makes no sense as it says that they are robbing us, when we are the ones who make the ultimate choice on whether or not to buy a product.

I'm not OK with it, I've said at least three times now that it's bloody ridiculous. But it's not abuse. Everyone knows what they're paying, everyone knows what they're getting out of it. The only solutions are for the corporations to either suddenly all become paragons of charity, or for them to find out that products without DLC are more profitable. The former is never going to happen, and the latter will only happen if we, as consumers, stop buying DLC and support DLC-less games. Please, explain where the abuse is here.

Both sides have responsibility but where we expect the thief NOT to take advantage of the unlocked door, we give corporations card blanche to do almost anything they like to make money. Now, I am not saying there should be laws against it, I am saying that consumers, like you, need to start being more consumer friendly and stop blaming consumers alone.

Remember when people were pissed off because of Bethesda's Horse Armor? Not pissed off at consumers, pissed off at Bethesda for even offering it at the price it was offered at. After that, Bethesda DLC improved. That's what I am talking about, corporations are responsible for their actions if they set out to rip people off. Blaming consumers alone is wrong and will never improve the situation.

 

[TorqueConverter]

The problem arises when they bite the hand that feeds them. Day one DLC is such an instance. Unless the game developers can prove that the day one DLC is not content removed from the game, then they are blatantly milking the consumer. Milking the consumer is to treat them as if they are not even human. A thing; a resource to wring every last drop of value out of. I'd rather get a hate letter from a developer than have them cut content only monetize it on day one.

Most Day 1 DLC is made through contractual agreements with third parties.

most of it isn't really content removed but rather additional content developed on the side because some one some where paid a sum of money for it to happen.

It's ok to remove content from the game or downright block the content on the disk as long as you use words like extras and additional, right?

I'm sorry but I just don't understand this logic.

Developed on the side of what with what money exactly? You mean developed in parallel? How does the outsourcing of game development to a 3rd party justify an additional cost on the consumers end? Hell, they can 3rd party it up with the DLC after the game is launched. If content is in development when the game is in development then you better get that content when the game is released, provided that content is finished. Charge as much as you want for the game. Let the free market speak.

 

[Electric Alpaca]

It isn't abuse as long as we're never misled. People vastly misinterpret 'responsibilities' that publishers owe their consumers.

It may be unpopular of Capcom to absolutely rinse their fighter fanbase, but seeing as those consumers will be staring at exactly the same thing for potentially hours breaking into the centuries there is a demand for their palette swaps and so forth.

Similarly, regarding their characters on the disk direction - not once was it advertised 'all fighters available', they advertise those that are provided and than advertise those that will be provided in the future.

We all know Capcom's operating model and if you still complain yet still purchase their games you're going to be perpetually disappointed.

Certain things such as Assassin's Creed II and Deus Ex: Human Revolution having story based content available later is a bit more tetchy, but again these items are completely superficial - the overall integrity of the story was never compromised.

Companies can pursue whichever revenue stream they wish with their product, as long as it isn't dishonest.

 

[lord.jeff]

A few companies are abusing DLC but if we got rid of DLC just because a few or even several companies take advantage of it, I thinking gaming itself probably would of disappeared by now. besides you aren't forced to buy the DLC or even the game in question.