DLC On The Disc, What Is The Big Problem?

[SirDoom]

If it's something minor like skins or something that doesn't affect gameplay, I'm fine with it. It's likely on the disk for compatibility issues in that case- So you can see other people using that content when you play online without having to download a patch, for example.

However, when you cut a huge chunk of content out of the finished project, that's a terrible idea. I'm paying $60, so I expect $60 worth of game on the disc. If I get $50 worth of game and a roped-off area saying "Pay us $10 more to get to this part!", I'm most certainly going to be mad, because I've already paid for the whole thing. I bought the disc so I could access all the content on it.

Obligatory scenario time!

Let's say I buy an expensive CD at the local music store. The box says it includes the standard $15 CD, along with a DVD of a live concert by the band, all for about $25. So, I buy this, and listen to the CD on the way home. So far, so good. But when I get home and take out the DVD and put it in my compy, I find a locked rar file. When I try to open it, I get a message saying "To open this file, you will need to pay the music store $2.50 for the passkey".

Now, technically I have everything I paid for. I have the CD, the packaging, and a video file of a live concert. I just can't access that video file. They want me to pay more in order to access content I've already paid for, and they're going to make me go through the trouble of driving back to (or at least calling) the music store to do it. That is not reasonable customer service.

This is the inherent flaw of companies wanting to treat the disc itself as the property of the buyer, but the content on the disc a service provided to the payer. It should be one or the other, not just parts taken from both systems that would benefit the publisher the most.

 

[Rawne1980]

I think it stems more from this sense of self-entitlement most people have come to latch on to. There's a muddled way of thinking that goes: I bought the game, I own the game, I should have access to everything on the disk/included with the game, I can do whatever I want with the game.

. . . and as soon as someone hears they spent $60 on a game, only to find out there's some locked content they can't access, all hell breaks loose because they feel entitled to it.

Of course they are entitled to it.

I spend £40 on a game then I want whatever is on the disk. If I spend £40 on a game and find out I need to spend another £10 to unlock something on the disk then of course i'm going to be pissed.

Getting sick of seeing people use "entitled" without knowing what it bloody means.

Go back a few years. You bought a game and you get what you paid for. You buy a game now and then they try and milk you for more money. Being annoyed at that isn't feeling "self entitled" it's common bloody sense.

That argument you put up there has to be one of the worst i've ever seen.

When I buy a game then I do own the game and after buying it on day one I damn well better have access to everything on the disk or i'm being ripped off.

The only people who are happy and don't complain about it are what I like to call .... mugs.

A mug is someone who will happily dole their cash out every which way they can.

I;m sorry to bring age into it but it does factor. Us "older" folks have come up buying a game and getting what we paid for so all this DLC bollocks does piss us off a bit. It's like were being used as cash fountains which is exactly how the publishers today view us. We're used to paying once for a game and thats it.

The younger generation don't mind all this DLC crap because it's become the "norm" for them it just isn't the "norm" for us and we'll never be happy about it.

And thats why I never purchase DLC outside of cheap as monkey nuts GOTY editions.

Thats not feeling "entitled" thats being sensible. No game, and I mean no game is worth close to or over £100 which is what games today with DLC cost. Unless that game is going to give my wife a back rub while sucking me off then £100 is a complete waste of money.

It doesn't matter that I can afford it I have better things to spend my money on.

 

[Yopaz]

Interesting. Ive actually never heard of on-disk DLC as a big thing. Do you have any examples?

Resident Evil 5's Versus mode. Capcom revealed it was already on the disk and were selling it for 400MSP, which is a rip-off seeing as the mode wasn't even very good.

Also Jill Valentine on Marvel vs Capcom 3 was already on the disk. Yet again, selling for 400MSP.

Capcom seem to love holding stuff from people, but the Jill stuff for MvC3 apparently wasn't completed in time or something, so not all of it was on the disk.

I don't think Resident Evil 5's Versus mode was on the disc. At least not considering it was released after the main game and the fact that I had to download it. Maybe if you bought the Gold edition for PS3, but that was a long time after the original release.

 

[Joccaren]

If you have to pay extra to get it even though you've bought the full game first hand, limited edition and all? Absolute cash in by the company. Sorry, but why isn't it a part of the full game, and why do I have to pay extra for it?
Stuff that people who bought the limited edition get but others don't... yet: I find it acceptable. If they include part of that limited edition bonus content stuff on the disk, W/E.
Stuff that you don't have to pay extra for unless you buy second hand? Perfectly reasonable. Don't like it, tell your game retailer giving $0 from resales to the developer that you want it cheaper, not the developer.

 

[Velocity Eleven]

Obligatory scenario time!

Let's say I buy an expensive CD at the local music store. The box says it includes the standard $15 CD, along with a DVD of a live concert by the band, all for about $25. So, I buy this, and listen to the CD on the way home. So far, so good. But when I get home and take out the DVD and put it in my compy, I find a locked rar file. When I try to open it, I get a message saying "To open this file, you will need to pay the music store $2.50 for the passkey".

Now, technically I have everything I paid for. I have the CD, the packaging, and a video file of a live concert. I just can't access that video file. They want me to pay more in order to access content I've already paid for, and they're going to make me go through the trouble of driving back to (or at least calling) the music store to do it. That is not reasonable customer service.

This is the inherent flaw of companies wanting to treat the disc itself as the property of the buyer, but the content on the disc a service provided to the payer. It should be one or the other, not just parts taken from both systems that would benefit the publisher the most.

in that example, you bought a product which was advertised as "x" but turns out to be "y" meaning that you were directly lied to, and I believe that is extortion... I could be wrong though

 

[StarCecil]

-snip-

That example implies you keep buying the exact same game over and over. It might work if they were different types of sandwich.

Still trying to make my mind up about the idea.

It'd be more like buying a sandwich only to discover that a slice of meat or condiment is missing, and you have to pay extra for it. It's not a devastating deal, but there's no good reason to withhold something that anyone else would just include the damn sandwich.

snip

I'm fairly certain it was, unless I'm missing something, seeing as the mode had trophies on it even before the DLC was "released".

 

[Velocity Eleven]

One question to this thread, why are you buying games for 40 quid, most new games cost 30 online (even cheaper if you pre-order) hell i got the assasins creed pre-order this year for 25 quid.

Puzzled man is puzzled.

its very rare that I do, most of the games I buy are under £10, some around £15

 

[Zhukov]

Yeah, I've never quite understood it either.

Either way, you're still paying X money for Y content. It's just a different method of delivery. If you hate all DLC or additional content then fair enough, but being fine with DLC while hating unlocked on-the-disc stuff makes no sense to me.

However, I can kind sort of see why people get pissed over Day One DLC (D1DLC?). It's basically a case of, "That's profiteering. They're removing parts of the game and charging me extra to re-include them. They had already complete that portion of the game, therefor they should have to include it with the main game."
Of course, the obvious response is, "Umm... why?"
And the inevitable answer boils down to, "Because I feel entitled to it!"

 

[Truly-A-Lie]

Day one DLC, at least when it comes to smaller pieces of content, is usually stuff that's been made during the time between going gold and the finished disc being put on store shelves. Largely, this will be stuff that they wanted in the full game, but couldn't finish or tweak enough before the game had to be sent to be put to disc.

Which is the inherent difference between Day One DLC and on disc DLC. The excuse is no longer there, it isn't being made or finished after the disc has gone out because it was quite clearly finished along with everything else. So why shouldn't it be unlocked and part of the full game like everything else? If it's a bonus character, or mission or whatever that doesn't fit in with the main campaign, then it should be an unlockable extra you get for finishing the game.

 

[Velocity Eleven]

I think it stems more from this sense of self-entitlement most people have come to latch on to. There's a muddled way of thinking that goes: I bought the game, I own the game, I should have access to everything on the disk/included with the game, I can do whatever I want with the game.

. . . and as soon as someone hears they spent $60 on a game, only to find out there's some locked content they can't access, all hell breaks loose because they feel entitled to it.

Of course they are entitled to it.

I spend £40 on a game then I want whatever is on the disk. If I spend £40 on a game and find out I need to spend another £10 to unlock something on the disk then of course i'm going to be pissed.

Getting sick of seeing people use "entitled" without knowing what it bloody means.

Go back a few years. You bought a game and you get what you paid for. You buy a game now and then they try and milk you for more money. Being annoyed at that isn't feeling "self entitled" it's common bloody sense.

That argument you put up there has to be one of the worst i've ever seen.

When I buy a game then I do own the game and after buying it on day one I damn well better have access to everything on the disk or i'm being ripped off.

The only people who are happy and don't complain about it are what I like to call .... mugs.

A mug is someone who will happily dole their cash out every which way they can.

I;m sorry to bring age into it but it does factor. Us "older" folks have come up buying a game and getting what we paid for so all this DLC bollocks does piss us off a bit. It's like were being used as cash fountains which is exactly how the publishers today view us. We're used to paying once for a game and thats it.

The younger generation don't mind all this DLC crap because it's become the "norm" for them it just isn't the "norm" for us and we'll never be happy about it.

And thats why I never purchase DLC outside of cheap as monkey nuts GOTY editions.

Thats not feeling "entitled" thats being sensible. No game, and I mean no game is worth close to or over £100 which is what games today with DLC cost. Unless that game is going to give my wife a back rub while sucking me off then £100 is a complete waste of money.

It doesn't matter that I can afford it I have better things to spend my money on.

I agree with most of what you say

 

[Normandyfoxtrot]

Except the game is full without the dlc their "withholding" from you.

They are withholding content from me. This was content that was good to go on the game's release, that they decided to arbitrarily lock off to charge me an extra buck for something that was already there, just denied to me for the sake of charging an extra buck. It's dirty and underhanded. As has been pointed out above, the Versus mode of Resident Evil 5 was already on the disc. Capcom decided to lock it off so they could charge another fifteen dollars on top of the game's cost.

Except RE5 was a full experience with out the versus mode a shit experience but a experience none the less. Nor do I believe was RE5 ever advertised as including it's verses mod.

 

[StarCecil]

Except the game is full without the dlc their "withholding" from you.

They are withholding content from me. This was content that was good to go on the game's release, that they decided to arbitrarily lock off to charge me an extra buck for something that was already there, just denied to me for the sake of charging an extra buck. It's dirty and underhanded. As has been pointed out above, the Versus mode of Resident Evil 5 was already on the disc. Capcom decided to lock it off so they could charge another fifteen dollars on top of the game's cost.

Except RE5 was a full experience with out the versus mode a shit experience but a experience none the less. Nor do I believe was RE5 ever advertised as including it's verses mod.

Perhaps RE5 isn't the best example. However, it doesn't matter if the DLC is not necessary for the full experience (and it would be essential to the discussion that it not be advertised, or else that's outright illegal). It's the simple fact that there no good reason - no, none, not one - to withhold content from me other than to charge more money for nothing. I bought the game, all the information on the disc, and the right to play it. Now you want to charge me again for the right to play something I already bought?

 

[IrateDonnie]

DLC on the disk doesn't bother me as much as games that make you buy the dlc just so you can keep playing multi-player, no I'm not going to spend an extra $40 just to get all the required maps so I can play MP. I'm still bitter at Bungie for doing that to Halo Reach, I managed to play online once before they started releasing maps for it.
I won't even buy a game if it has day one dlc,and I don't buy it if I hear it's already on the disk unless there's a good reason for it not being in the full game.

 

[Titan Buttons]

If it is on the disc it should not be a DLC unless it is a promotional item given to people who pre-ordered or got a special addition.

 

[razer17]

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.

Know what I can do with that CD? Access every song. I don't stick it in my PC and it suddenly takes me to iTunes to buy another song that is on the album. Know what else I can do? Give it to a friend, and he won't have to buy seperate things to have the same experience as me.

If owning the disc doesn't entitle you to the data on it, then basically publishers could start selling discs, but you only get the first level of the game with it. Want to complete the story? On disc DLC will unlock that for you. Multiplayer? Yep, we'll take an extra 20 of your hard earned dollars. I doubt it would ever go quite that far, so yes, I am exagerating, but in principle this is what you agree with by saying we don't own the stuff on the disc.

I hate DLC in general. It's usually crap, overpriced (if you want to experience all of CoD's multiplayer, be prepared to pay like an extra £40 on top) and not worth it. Worst of all is when an important part of the story is released with DLC.

Then again there ARE times when it is on the disc fully ready and they are just trying to stop Pirates, sadly it never works and people on the internet are greedy little fuckers. I personally love DRM, any way to stop pirates from getting games.

Yes, but this assumes that DRM actually stops pirates getting the games. Name one game where this is true. DRM only hurts legitimate customers.

 

[SirDoom]

in that example, you bought a product which was advertised as "x" but turns out to be "y" meaning that you were directly lied to, and I believe that is extortion... I could be wrong though

All it takes is a little sticker on the bottom saying "Some content requires additional purchase to unlock" to avoid that issue. Most consumers see "multiplayer!" on the front, and don't even look on the back where it says "online access code required". Sad, but true.

 

[Fishyash]

One question to this thread, why are you buying games for 40 quid, most new games cost 30 online (even cheaper if you pre-order) hell i got the assasins creed pre-order this year for 25 quid.

Puzzled man is puzzled.

PC games are usually £30, but console AAA titles tend to be close to £40.

On topic, I just don't like the fact that they withold something from us on release. DLC should really be worked on after the game has been finished... it just seems like time that could have been spent on developing the game (fixing bugs for example) is spent on trying to grab more money from consumers.

Then again there ARE times when it is on the disc fully ready and they are just trying to stop Pirates, sadly it never works and people on the internet are greedy little fuckers. I personally love DRM, any way to stop pirates from getting games.

DRM feels like a losing battle. Cracking I swear is almost like a competetive sport, with how ridiculously fast cracked versions of games come out, and DRM getting more and more inconvenient for the people who bought the games. I think it's going in the wrong direction when someone gets a better version of a game for free illegaly than someone who purchased the game brand new.

 

[Flare Phoenix]

Well people have been complaining about DLC in all forms since it pretty much started. The reason on-disc DLC is particularly derided is that it is seen as even more of a cashgrab. When you think about it, it's really the developers/publishers/whoever telling the consumers "yeah, we actually had this part finished but we know you're suckers who'll pay more for our game".

DLC that comes out a week or so later feels like something the developers didn't have time to complete, but wanted to get into the game anway. It feels like the developers went to a bit of extra effort with the game to give the best possible experience to the player.

Your examples are kind of flawed, by the way. The difference with Super Mario Brothers is you don't have to PAY to unlock the remaining levels; they are unlocked through gameplay. Also, show me a CD where you have to pay to unlock an additional song on the disc and I'll call that a valid argument. Although all you're really doing is saying people who don't like on-disc DLC condone piracy.

 

[Batou667]

I'm still bitter at Bungie for doing that to Halo Reach, I managed to play online once before they started releasing maps for it.

A bad example as I'm almost certain you CAN still play just fine without the DLC. They have dedicated playlists for people who want to use te DLC (Premium Slayer and Premium Team, or something like that), and everything else is completely DLC-free - with the exception of Firefight, where the DLC mine complex map is selected preferentially if and only if all players have the DLC. You occasionally get "reminded" to buy the DLC, and there's a flashing warning saying "you do not have recommended DLC", but the only things that are locked-off are the two Premium playlists. The vast majority of the Reach multiplayer experience is still there free to use.

 

[Velocity Eleven]

As suspected, everyone is ignoring the points I made in my initial post and jump to radical conclusions about me that just aren't true. This happens all the time, why do I even bother?