DLC On The Disc, What Is The Big Problem?

[XT inc]

Actually Game designers should legally be required to lable their game boxes with.

"Warning Disc contains content that require's a separate purchase to unlock"

If that doesn't sound good, that's why people are mad at on disc dlc.

Who wants to pay a game retailer for an incomplete game? they'd probably have to have sold RE5 for 54.99 so when you buy the versus mode you gat a 60$ game.

 

[Sixties Spidey]

We paid 60 fucking dollars for the game. We are entitled to EVERY piece of content that is stored on the disk, and asking us to pony up more is simply put, extortion.

No. You payed $60 for the experience of the game, as it was coded. That doesn't include locked dlc content. If you don't like it, and you don't think that the content is worth $60 without the locked content, then don't buy the game. The fact that you are willing to buy it, shows that the experience, as it was coded, without that locked content, is worth $60.

I'm sorry, but that argument is absolute bullshit. You're essentially saying that the money that I paid for the disc doubles as a ticket to getting shafted by publishers who want to make some extra coin, and if that's the case, you clearly aren't aware of a thing called consumer rights.

On-disc DLC really isn't "Downloadable Content". It's just "C" as in "Content", and content that I am more than entitled to if I already paid 60 dollars of MY money to buy a disc with all that content and more that is already burned onto the thing. The disc is MINE. The money that I paid for it is MINE. Therefore what I choose to do with the disc, be it play it, or sell it is MY FUCKING CHOICE. On-disc DLC smacks of extreme greed mixed with laziness, and I will not allow companies like Capcom to treat me like a piggy bank just waiting to be smashed open. That in itself is a massive infringement on consumer rights.

Any more straw-man arguments?

 

[Aprilgold]

Fucking disgrace of an idea, and shame on you OP for defending them. There is no noble intent behind content locked on the disc. There is no concern for what gives the gamer a better experience. They are doing it simply because they can get away with it, and it makes them more money. It doesn't matter to them that more people than ever now simply don't have the money to spend on stuff already on the disc.

If you're defending this, then you're defending your own right to bent over and rammed up the arse by publishers. You may enjoy being shafted like that, but I would like to keep some dignity while playing my games.

This and their doing it to make sure the publisher gets ALL the money. Publishers used to be a shining company, helping noteworthy developers, now they are forcing devs to bring scissors to their babies with each and every game. Always, always just hungry for money, and will betray even the most loyal companies to get the money. EA and Ubisoft are great examples, forcing loving devs to permanently handicap their games so that customers have to pay more to fix the hobbled mess.

 

[imnot]

I hate it because it means they where working on ways to make extra money, before the game was even released, I mean at least DLC a few months later didn't get in the way of the main game!

 

[dickywebster]

But its your game disc that you paid full price for, so not only are they making you pay the same price as a game with no dlc on the disc, but they still own part of the disc, so realy its just a way to make you pay more to own the entire disc.

Ok i will admit im against dlc patches, added content i have no problem with, but when its on something your meant to own, then its just taking hte mick.
Imagine if any other product did this, say cars, food, dvds, cds, books etc, if they refused to let you have access to all of the product you had paid money for, no one would stand for this.
So why is it alright for games to do this? as all it seems to be is a cheap way to hike the price up a bit for something you have by rights already paid for.

If it was optional there probably wouldnt be as big an uproar, but it is kinda a massive dick move to stop people owning 100% of what they have bought.

 

[M-E-D The Poet]

Sometimes you buy a game, and there is content on the disc that you have to buy an "unlock key" to gain access to. I simply don't see why people have such a hate for this system.

Firstly, if we compare it to the other form of day-one DLC, which is simply downloading the content, then the on-disc system has 2 main advantages:
1. It takes less time to download
2. It takes up less space on your hard drive

I don't see how this is such a bad thing. Just because the information is on the disc you bought doesn't mean you are suddenly entitled to everything on it by default. You cant for example legally distribute music from a CD you bought, just because you own the physical disc doesn't mean you suddenly can do whatever you want with it because there are rules and regulations, laws and agreements.

Did people ever complain that they should suddenly be granted access to all the levels in Super Mario Bros. just because they bought the cartridge?

The thing is, people don't buy games because they have read all the guides and walkthroughs to know every nook and cranny of the game. Its not like the buyer agreed to "x amount of gameplay time" when they bought the time. Some games last just a few hours, others can last hundreds. We buy games naturally knowing that we don't know the full content of what we are getting. The fact is that people look at the content and judge that as standard.

If (hypothetically) Sonic The Hedgehog had another level after the final boss that you had to pay extra for even though it was on the cartridge, there would be an outrage:

"why are they making me pay for something that comes on the cartridge? I should get it with the rest of the game"

but as the game stands, are people complaining that there is no extra level after the final boss? No. Why? because like I said before, the range of quality/time in which games are made is so vast to begin with is that there is no real standard of how long a game has to be.

lets say "x = quality of a game when you buy it"
and "y = quality of a game as on-disc DLC"

since the range is so wide, 1 < x < 100 (arbitrary numbers to denote "quality" by the average player)
now, if "Game A" has "x = 20, y = 0" with no on-disc DLC
and, if "Game B" has "x = 22, y = 3" with y being the DLC

in that case we would have people complaining that Game B's "x" should be 25, because y should be transferred onto x.

Why?

If Game A's "x = 20" is acceptable then why isn't Game B's "x = 22" acceptable? This makes no sense at all!

Now lets say "Game C" has "x = 15, y = 5"

This means that if both games are charged for at retail at an equal standard price, this is a completely different issue. This is the issue of where the overall price of the game (x+y) is increased. And with "y" being something you download with your account, this brings in different issues. The issues that come with DLC in general, such as not being able to re-sell it and taking up harddrive space. But this issues have NOTHING to do with where the DLC actually resides.

What I am against is prices that are too high for the game, the cost of the game should be relative to "x" and the cost of DLC should be relative to "y" (maybe not in the same proportions, but still relative none the less)

TLDR Version: Cost of games and DLC should be based on much each thing is worth, not based on where the information lies

BECAUSE IT'S ON THE GOD DAMN DISC

I am sorry but how damn obvious can it get

DOWNLOADABLE means from somewhere else
You don't buy a house with a clause that you can't walk in the bedroom till you pay for the bedroom seperately now do you?

 

[spartan231490]

We paid 60 fucking dollars for the game. We are entitled to EVERY piece of content that is stored on the disk, and asking us to pony up more is simply put, extortion.

No. You payed $60 for the experience of the game, as it was coded. That doesn't include locked dlc content. If you don't like it, and you don't think that the content is worth $60 without the locked content, then don't buy the game. The fact that you are willing to buy it, shows that the experience, as it was coded, without that locked content, is worth $60.

I'm sorry, but that argument is absolute bullshit. You're essentially saying that the money that I paid for the disc doubles as a ticket to getting shafted by publishers who want to make some extra coin, and if that's the case, you clearly aren't aware of a thing called consumer rights.

On-disc DLC really isn't "Downloadable Content". It's just "C" as in "Content", and content that I am more than entitled to if I already paid 60 dollars of MY money to buy a disc with all that content and more that is already burned onto the thing. The disc is MINE. The money that I paid for it is MINE. Therefore what I choose to do with the disc, be it play it, or sell it is MY FUCKING CHOICE. On-disc DLC smacks of extreme greed mixed with laziness, and I will not allow companies like Capcom to treat me like a piggy bank just waiting to be smashed open. That in itself is a massive infringement on consumer rights.

Any more straw-man arguments?

I've already made my very valid argument. You can call it straw-men argument as better justification for your self-entitlement if you want, but that doesn't change the fact that I'm right. If you were right, and you really did own the disc and more importantly it's contents to do with as you chose, then there would be no legal barrier to copying the code onto more discs and selling the game for $20, which anyone can tell is illegal and amoral. If that's true, then you obviously don't own the contents of the disc to do with as you choose. If you don't own the disc's content to do with as you choose, but instead only own it in the context of the uses allowed by the publisher: AKA playing and selling, then you don't have any entitlement to the on-disk locked dlc.

Oh, and if you payed $10,000 of YOUR money for a truck that had a syrius satalite radio set-up in it, you wouldn't automatically be entitled to syrius satalite radio. It's a similar concept.

 

[Vibhor]

I just dont get why you would prefer having to download 2gb rather than 2kb for the same result

How about not having to download anything at all?

who doesn't love free stuff?

Yeah, because paying 60$ for the disk sure is free.

 

[HassEsser]

DLC
Downloadable Content
On disc DLC
On disc downloadable content
download
on disc

Wat.

OT: Because day one DLC literally exists to take more money from the consumer, after doing it already, and that is just plain wrong.

 

[Justice4L]

Lets take sandwiches as an example.

You spend £10 on a sandwich, You eat it, you're happy.

Scenario 1:
The next day you go to the same sandwich shop, the sandwich is now 75% of the size of yesterdays sandwich but the same price. "Don't worry" says the sandwich maker, smiling suspiciously, "We now sell chunks of sandwich which you can by to make it a full sandwich". You pay £10 like last time but also spend £3 on a chunk of sandwich to make it the same size as yesterdays sandwich, other wise you'll just be hungry.

Scenario 2:
The next day you go to the same sandwich shop, and happily buy the same sized sandwich for the same price. "Hey" says the sandwich maker smiling happily, "We just started selling quarter sandwiches, since you enjoy that so much why not treat yourself to a little bit extra". Deciding you treat yourself you buy an extra quarter sandwich for £3 (a little over a quarter of the price, but hey, there's extra packaging) and munch it down happy at that little bit extra you've had.

Scenario 3:
The next day you go to the same sandwich shop, and happily buy the same sized sandwich for the same price. As you happily munch on your sandwich you finish about 3/4 but find the last 1/4 locked inside a box. Angry, you return to the sandwich shop. "Hey mister what's the deal, why can't I reach the rest of my sandwich?" you complain. "oh that?" says the sandwich maker, smiling like a Grinch. "You need to pay me an extra £3 for the key to unlock that part of the sandwich". "But you've already spent money and materials on that part!". "Yeah but if you're hungry, you'll pay it" he says rubbing his hands together. You begrudgingly hand over £3 extra and munch on your last 1/4 of a sandwich with nothing but a bitter taste in your mouth.

To make matters worse you realise that he forgot to put the filling in that final 1/4.


This is basically the difference between Post release DLC and DLC already on the disk.

The problem with this is what games are a sandwich?

There is a big difference between buying a sandwich and buying 20 sandwiches for the same price. If I am getting 20 sandwiches for the price of one, it's not as big of a deal to pay for the last quarter of 1 of the sandwiches.

What I am trying to say with my sandwich analogy is that if you are given a game with heaps and heaps of gameplay, I don't really care about on disc DLC. But games like Resident Evil 5 that does not have that much gameplay, then yes, on disc DLC is ridiculous as Capcom should be trying to add as much gameplay to that game as possible.

 

[Daumantas Kasperavicius]

All these dlc and other crap they make u pay for , its just companies taking ur money giving u something ,then chaning their mind and taking it back. I mean u dont buy a car with ac just to find out that air-conditioning wont work unless u pay the dealer to turn it on. if that was the case i bet u the dealer would get sued
My point is that as long as we buy all these dlc and don't boycott it devs are just gonna get worse and worse soon u wont be able to play the singleplayer without purchasin atleast 1 dlc.
Remember when people boycotted l4d2 ? that game whilst not having new graphics, expanded upon the gameplay of l4d1 and gave all new content that was't just few re-skins. why arent people boycotting COD and all the DLC now ? Cause people dont realize that they end up paying even more when paying 15e for a dlc rather than paying 60euro for a game and having all those things there for them.

 

[Velocity Eleven]

I just dont get why you would prefer having to download 2gb rather than 2kb for the same result

How about not having to download anything at all?

who doesn't love free stuff?

Yeah, because paying 60$ for the disk sure is free.

I never meant the game itself would be free, I meant the DLC would become free. If your statement is that you would prefer to not pay for something than pay for something then you have stated the obvious.

Lets go back to the sandwich analogy

scenario 1: off-disc DLC is where you buy a ham sandwhich for £1, and if you want the cheese, you have to head over to the queue for 10 minutes where people are being served cheese to add to their sandwich for 20p. By doing this you also have to carry a 1kg weight around with you.

scenario 2: on-disc DLC is where you buy a sandwich, and when you look inside the packaging, there is a little machine where you insert 20p, it gives you cheese and the machine disappears

what you are saying is that in only scenario 2, you feel it's not good enough to have to pay for the cheese and you are entitled to get the cheese with no added cost, despite the fact that it's a better deal than scenario 1

 

[Vibhor]

I just dont get why you would prefer having to download 2gb rather than 2kb for the same result

How about not having to download anything at all?

who doesn't love free stuff?

Yeah, because paying 60$ for the disk sure is free.

I never meant the game itself would be free, I meant the DLC would become free. If your statement is that you would prefer to not pay for something than pay for something then you have stated the obvious.

Still being twisted are we?
What is DLC on disc is called? Just content as you do not download it.
When you buy on disc shit, you are buying content for a game you already had bought and the developers even put on the disk. In fact they even went to the trouble of specifically removing the content until the consumer ponies up 5 dolla for the shit that was already there.

DLC is crappy business already, having the shit on disc is like committing murder after being fined for jaywalking.

 

[Trivun]

Lets take sandwiches as an example.

You spend £10 on a sandwich, You eat it, you're happy.

Scenario 1:
The next day you go to the same sandwich shop, the sandwich is now 75% of the size of yesterdays sandwich but the same price. "Don't worry" says the sandwich maker, smiling suspiciously, "We now sell chunks of sandwich which you can by to make it a full sandwich". You pay £10 like last time but also spend £3 on a chunk of sandwich to make it the same size as yesterdays sandwich, other wise you'll just be hungry.

Scenario 2:
The next day you go to the same sandwich shop, and happily buy the same sized sandwich for the same price. "Hey" says the sandwich maker smiling happily, "We just started selling quarter sandwiches, since you enjoy that so much why not treat yourself to a little bit extra". Deciding you treat yourself you buy an extra quarter sandwich for £3 (a little over a quarter of the price, but hey, there's extra packaging) and munch it down happy at that little bit extra you've had.

Scenario 3:
The next day you go to the same sandwich shop, and happily buy the same sized sandwich for the same price. As you happily munch on your sandwich you finish about 3/4 but find the last 1/4 locked inside a box. Angry, you return to the sandwich shop. "Hey mister what's the deal, why can't I reach the rest of my sandwich?" you complain. "oh that?" says the sandwich maker, smiling like a Grinch. "You need to pay me an extra £3 for the key to unlock that part of the sandwich". "But you've already spent money and materials on that part!". "Yeah but if you're hungry, you'll pay it" he says rubbing his hands together. You begrudgingly hand over £3 extra and munch on your last 1/4 of a sandwich with nothing but a bitter taste in your mouth.

To make matters worse you realise that he forgot to put the filling in that final 1/4.


This is basically the difference between Post release DLC and DLC already on the disk.

I had an entire post in my head ready to write, except that this post sums up what I was going to say in a much better, much more easily accessible, and more amusing way than I ever could. Except for one thing. I wouldn't spend £10 on a sandwich anyway, if I went somewhere and was charged £10 for a sandwich I'd think of it as a ripoff from the start and just leave and go to Subway - where I'm guaranteed my entire sandwich for less than a fiver ;D...

 

[Azure Sky]

While I normally don't care, the part that irritates me is they spent time and resources for the sole reason lock down already finished content to try and skim a little more money out of consumers. As someone who has been gaming for almost 20 years, it makes me feel quite sad as to what the industry has become.

 

[valleyshrew]

All these analogies are false because DLC is not missing content, it's extra. So a fair comparison would be you order a pizza and find out you have to pay for extra toppings. Putting it on the disc is just convenient and has no relevance to the analogy. Games have gotten much more expensive, yet the prices have gone down. DLC is a great way to get them a little extra money, yet not raise the price for the majority of people who dont want the DLC. You do realise complaining about games being too expensive when most of them lose money is a little entitled of you? I think meaningless superficial skins that only idiots care about are a great way for the developer to stay in business.

There are some games that are so big they're worth at least the cost of 2 games. Fallout New Vegas could cut half of it's content out and still be much better value than Enslaved. Yet if they did make 1/2 the game pay to unlock areas people would complain because of that sense of entitlement.

Would you rather pay $60 for 1/2 of fallout new vegas, considering 80% of people didn't even complete it, and the 20% who did can pay $60 extra. Or would you rather everyone pay $120?

 

[Sixties Spidey]

We paid 60 fucking dollars for the game. We are entitled to EVERY piece of content that is stored on the disk, and asking us to pony up more is simply put, extortion.

No. You payed $60 for the experience of the game, as it was coded. That doesn't include locked dlc content. If you don't like it, and you don't think that the content is worth $60 without the locked content, then don't buy the game. The fact that you are willing to buy it, shows that the experience, as it was coded, without that locked content, is worth $60.

I'm sorry, but that argument is absolute bullshit. You're essentially saying that the money that I paid for the disc doubles as a ticket to getting shafted by publishers who want to make some extra coin, and if that's the case, you clearly aren't aware of a thing called consumer rights.

On-disc DLC really isn't "Downloadable Content". It's just "C" as in "Content", and content that I am more than entitled to if I already paid 60 dollars of MY money to buy a disc with all that content and more that is already burned onto the thing. The disc is MINE. The money that I paid for it is MINE. Therefore what I choose to do with the disc, be it play it, or sell it is MY FUCKING CHOICE. On-disc DLC smacks of extreme greed mixed with laziness, and I will not allow companies like Capcom to treat me like a piggy bank just waiting to be smashed open. That in itself is a massive infringement on consumer rights.

Any more straw-man arguments?

I've already made my very valid argument. You can call it straw-men argument as better justification for your self-entitlement if you want, but that doesn't change the fact that I'm right. If you were right, and you really did own the disc and more importantly it's contents to do with as you chose, then there would be no legal barrier to copying the code onto more discs and selling the game for $20, which anyone can tell is illegal and amoral. If that's true, then you obviously don't own the contents of the disc to do with as you choose. If you don't own the disc's content to do with as you choose, but instead only own it in the context of the uses allowed by the publisher: AKA playing and selling, then you don't have any entitlement to the on-disk locked dlc.

Oh, and if you payed $10,000 of YOUR money for a truck that had a syrius satalite radio set-up in it, you wouldn't automatically be entitled to syrius satalite radio. It's a similar concept.

There's nothing stopping me from going to my friend's console and copying the content from his hard disk onto mine, is there? Likewise, the same thing can be said about your truck example which has absolutely fuck all to do with what we're talking about. Nothing is stopping me from getting the same radio from a friend of mine or buying another one entirely. You can talk about "amoral" and "self-entitlement" as much as you want, but what the publishers are doing is amoral and what you describe as self-entitlement is common fucking sense for every other form of media.

Let's say you bought an album from your favorite band. That album has a bunch of songs, but the other part of that album is held from you until you insert it in your computer and download a ten dollar code to unlock the tracks that are burned on the disc, and the disc itself is being sold for full price. meanwhile, your other favorite band has just released their CD for full price, but it contains all the songs from the get-go without any bullshit hoops to go through. What would you prefer? The album you have to jump through hoops to access the content you legally bought with your own money? Or the album that has every song without any prerequisite bullshit?

If I bought a disc, I expect 100 percent of the content on the disc to be available to me from the outset, not 75 percent of the content. Post-game support like map-packs and expansion packs are a different story, but if it's on the disc, that content should be available from the moment the consumer boots the game up. Saying things like "It's for convenience" or "You're meant to play the game the way the publisher meant it to be played, content included." is equivalent to drawing a massive arrow down your back and shouting "IN MY BUTT." to publishers who unabashedly pull this shit.

 

[spartan231490]

We paid 60 fucking dollars for the game. We are entitled to EVERY piece of content that is stored on the disk, and asking us to pony up more is simply put, extortion.

No. You payed $60 for the experience of the game, as it was coded. That doesn't include locked dlc content. If you don't like it, and you don't think that the content is worth $60 without the locked content, then don't buy the game. The fact that you are willing to buy it, shows that the experience, as it was coded, without that locked content, is worth $60.

I'm sorry, but that argument is absolute bullshit. You're essentially saying that the money that I paid for the disc doubles as a ticket to getting shafted by publishers who want to make some extra coin, and if that's the case, you clearly aren't aware of a thing called consumer rights.

On-disc DLC really isn't "Downloadable Content". It's just "C" as in "Content", and content that I am more than entitled to if I already paid 60 dollars of MY money to buy a disc with all that content and more that is already burned onto the thing. The disc is MINE. The money that I paid for it is MINE. Therefore what I choose to do with the disc, be it play it, or sell it is MY FUCKING CHOICE. On-disc DLC smacks of extreme greed mixed with laziness, and I will not allow companies like Capcom to treat me like a piggy bank just waiting to be smashed open. That in itself is a massive infringement on consumer rights.

Any more straw-man arguments?

I've already made my very valid argument. You can call it straw-men argument as better justification for your self-entitlement if you want, but that doesn't change the fact that I'm right. If you were right, and you really did own the disc and more importantly it's contents to do with as you chose, then there would be no legal barrier to copying the code onto more discs and selling the game for $20, which anyone can tell is illegal and amoral. If that's true, then you obviously don't own the contents of the disc to do with as you choose. If you don't own the disc's content to do with as you choose, but instead only own it in the context of the uses allowed by the publisher: AKA playing and selling, then you don't have any entitlement to the on-disk locked dlc.

Oh, and if you payed $10,000 of YOUR money for a truck that had a syrius satalite radio set-up in it, you wouldn't automatically be entitled to syrius satalite radio. It's a similar concept.

There's nothing stopping me from going to my friend's console and copying the content from his hard disk onto mine, is there? Likewise, the same thing can be said about your truck example which has absolutely fuck all to do with what we're talking about. Nothing is stopping me from getting the same radio from a friend of mine or buying another one entirely. You can talk about "amoral" and "self-entitlement" as much as you want, but what the publishers are doing is amoral and what you describe as self-entitlement is common fucking sense for every other form of media.

Let's say you bought an album from your favorite band. That album has a bunch of songs, but the other part of that album is held from you until you insert it in your computer and download a ten dollar code to unlock the tracks that are burned on the disc, and the disc itself is being sold for full price. meanwhile, your other favorite band has just released their CD for full price, but it contains all the songs from the get-go without any bullshit hoops to go through. What would you prefer? The album you have to jump through hoops to access the content you legally bought with your own money? Or the album that has every song without any prerequisite bullshit?

If I bought a disc, I expect 100 percent of the content on the disc to be available to me from the outset, not 75 percent of the content. Post-game support like map-packs and expansion packs are a different story, but if it's on the disc, that content should be available from the moment the consumer boots the game up. Saying things like "It's for convenience" or "You're meant to play the game the way the publisher meant it to be played, content included." is equivalent to drawing a massive arrow down your back and shouting "IN MY BUTT." to publishers who unabashedly pull this shit.

Sure. go ahead and do what you want. You're still wrong.

 

[KarmaTheAlligator]

Day one DLC is a disgrace in itself, so of course people are miffed with content on a disc they paid for that they have to pay extra to unlock.

that itself is a separate issue, which I'm not too sure about at this point

Well you said on disc DLC is a form of day one DLC, and I agree with that, but it's still disgraceful that the business model actually endorse such things.

Karma, DLC is planned into a game's development. They rarely just randomly shave completed things off the game specifically to add into DLC. If there is any cut content in DLC, it's usually something they couldn't work into the original game, and maybe decided to finish later.

I'd agree for normal DLC, but if it's on the frigging disc with the game, it's not something that they finished later, it's something they locked away and intend people to pay extra for.

 

[silverbullet1989]

Lets take sandwiches as an example.

You spend £10 on a sandwich, You eat it, you're happy.

Scenario 1:
The next day you go to the same sandwich shop, the sandwich is now 75% of the size of yesterdays sandwich but the same price. "Don't worry" says the sandwich maker, smiling suspiciously, "We now sell chunks of sandwich which you can by to make it a full sandwich". You pay £10 like last time but also spend £3 on a chunk of sandwich to make it the same size as yesterdays sandwich, other wise you'll just be hungry.

Scenario 2:
The next day you go to the same sandwich shop, and happily buy the same sized sandwich for the same price. "Hey" says the sandwich maker smiling happily, "We just started selling quarter sandwiches, since you enjoy that so much why not treat yourself to a little bit extra". Deciding you treat yourself you buy an extra quarter sandwich for £3 (a little over a quarter of the price, but hey, there's extra packaging) and munch it down happy at that little bit extra you've had.

Scenario 3:
The next day you go to the same sandwich shop, and happily buy the same sized sandwich for the same price. As you happily munch on your sandwich you finish about 3/4 but find the last 1/4 locked inside a box. Angry, you return to the sandwich shop. "Hey mister what's the deal, why can't I reach the rest of my sandwich?" you complain. "oh that?" says the sandwich maker, smiling like a Grinch. "You need to pay me an extra £3 for the key to unlock that part of the sandwich". "But you've already spent money and materials on that part!". "Yeah but if you're hungry, you'll pay it" he says rubbing his hands together. You begrudgingly hand over £3 extra and munch on your last 1/4 of a sandwich with nothing but a bitter taste in your mouth.

To make matters worse you realise that he forgot to put the filling in that final 1/4.


This is basically the difference between Post release DLC and DLC already on the disk.

you make a delicious point, a tasty, mouth watering point, im gonna go make a sandwich =p