DLC On The Disc, What Is The Big Problem?

[Velocity Eleven]

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?

is somebody going to answer this?

 

[Vibhor]

Oh look, this thread again.
We all know how would this go.
Op posts something controversial and mildly idiotic
Other people post why OP is wrong and shit
OP is in denial and misses the whole point of everyone's posts.
This type of thing continues for 6 pages before OP gets bored of seeing those new inbox messages.

 

[Velocity Eleven]

so nobody believes that 22 > 20?

 

[Thyunda]

Games certainly are a special medium when it comes to this matter.

When you buy a movie or a cd there isn't any content on it that needs to be unlocked by spending more money then necesary. And comparisons probably won't hold up as well so let's try to keep it short.

The way I see it, when you pay for a game you essentially pay for a cd of data. You own the cd, its all yours, but in the case of dlc-on-disc, you do not own the data. You have to buy a key to unlock data on the CD you already own. What's worse, in a lot of cases, the prize is too damn high.

Gamers are probably the only demographic that are being milked for every penny like this. And when paying good money for DLC that just isn't worth it, or is already on the game you bought just adds insult to injury.

No, that's not how it works.

Let me tell you what you're saying in movie terms.

"Wait, they shot a scene and didn't put it in the movie that they showed on theaters? And then they're going to put it in the DVD and sell that to me as an extra? OUTRAGEOUS!"

The problem with this is that people don't know how games are made and have this stupid notion that there is a "resources" bar on game development that crunches out levels like Starcraft units, so DLC would be tacked on to the game had it not been sold separately or the multiplayer mode would have magically transmogrified into more or better single player content. Which, yeah, is not how games are budgeted, produced, coded or made in any way, shape or form.

In other words, it's the Internet whining about stuff they don't know about. Shocking, I know.

No, that's totally different. You paid for a ticket to see the film put together for the cinema. When you buy the DVD, you're entitled to view the deleted scenes and the interviews and everything else. Would you feel the same if you clicked 'Extras' on the menu and got told to enter a prepaid code to redeem these features? Hell no.

The whole problem with this is that the DLC is ON THE DISC. It's actually being withheld. Actual DLC is different. Even if the DLC is released the day after the game is launched, it still has to be downloaded separately. It's not sitting there, on the disc you paid full price for, leering at you.
Yes. We are entitled to that data. It's on the disc we paid for. At which point did we start paying £50 for 75% of a game? If I buy a disc, I want 100% of its contents. If I bought a bag of mints, I'd want 100% of the mints, so why am I in the wrong for wanting all the stuff I paid for? The developer has no reason for keeping it out of my hands. It's already on the disc. It's already finished. You haven't developed anything extra to deserve my money. You've just put a padlock on it. That's not effort. That's bullshit.

 

[Thyunda]

so nobody believes that 22 > 20?

I'm sorry?

 

[Velocity Eleven]

so nobody believes that 22 > 20?

I'm sorry?

I'm asking if anybody believes that 22 > 20?

 

[Thyunda]

so nobody believes that 22 > 20?

I'm sorry?

I'm asking if anybody believes that 22 > 20?

Yes, I saw that. I don't understand its relevance.

 

[Vibhor]

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?

is somebody going to answer this?

Okay I am gonna answer this bullshit question
Firstly, this isn't realistic. You cannot judge the quality of content for a video game like this. People rate a video game based on many factors. If you count production values as quality then it doesn't mean that a game with little to no production value sucks(Look at STALKER) and if you rate a game on fun you had then guess what? Fun is subjective and doesn't really is the same for everyone(MMOs,RTS,FPS etc.). Even if the game is not fun then it still can be good or innovative(SOTC,Ico,Thief to name a few).
Secondly, there is no game with worthwhile on disc content. And even if it is worthwhile then it is overpriced. Honestly, name one game with great on disc content. Also, if the game B has the quality of "22" then it is given that it would be liked much more. The only thing that would give a problem would be the business practices of the developers.
Thirdly, Charging for content that didn't make it to the final version of the game is just plain wrong. If it was supposed to be in the game then why the fuck are you selling it differently, OR even if the content was cut then why wasn't the price cut? Why are they charging full for a game with less content than they wanted. If they managed to complete the content and add it to disk then why the fuck can't they make it available to all? Its not like that is going to cost them extra work.

 

[Richardplex]

Day 1 DLC that is free to people who buy it new is fine. Day one DLC that everyone needs to pay for, I'll go grab my pitchfork and join the mob. If it's on the disk, then that makes my life easier.

 

[Engarde]

I feel somewhat afraid to say this, but... I never really felt like I bought a disc, I own the disc, I own all of the content. I felt it in a more metaphysical way, I bought access to nice things that happen to live as part of a disc which is nothing more than a means of transport. I guess there are two ways of looking at it.

On one hand, as the majority feels about this, you go buy a car but the salesperson says "Ah ah ah, you cannot use the radio yet, that costs a bit more. Pay up if you want it, until then, it is waiting for you..."

On the other hand, closer to what I feel, you go buy a car and the salesperson says "Hey, since you got a new car, we have cushy seat covers or a different paint job, are you interested in any of that?"

And of course if I do want those cushy seat covers it's much nicer to have them at the same place I have my car rather than wait a day for delivery, no?

 

[Dr Jones]

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.

I'm careful with my money, if I dont think something's worth buying then I wont bother, and I dont believe that paying £40/$60 for a game is justified 99% of the time... I buy maybe one or two full-priced games a year. Most games I buy for less than £10, I don't call that being bent over and rammed up the arse by publishers, I call it being sensible and realistic.

So you really don't want all of the game you buy for 60 dollars? You'd rather pay 10 extra dollars to unlock it? What is the sense in that?

 

[Dendio]

What other product out there sells 3/4 of itself up front and then for an additional fee the customer can gain access to the rest of it (Prostitutes maybe?). Imagine buying a house with 2 rooms being locked unless you pay an additional fee. Video games don't have a standard for what should be dlc and what shouldn't be. Nobody knows how much content is cut to be resold until after the purchase. It'd be like buying a house without knowing which rooms are locked off and how many.If you buy the physical product then all of it should be made available without requiring additional fees.

 

[4173]

I feel somewhat afraid to say this, but... I never really felt like I bought a disc, I own the disc, I own all of the content. I felt it in a more metaphysical way, I bought access to nice things that happen to live as part of a disc which is nothing more than a means of transport. I guess there are two ways of looking at it.

On one hand, as the majority feels about this, you go buy a car but the salesperson says "Ah ah ah, you cannot use the radio yet, that costs a bit more. Pay up if you want it, until then, it is waiting for you..."

On the other hand, closer to what I feel, you go buy a car and the salesperson says "Hey, since you got a new car, we have cushy seat covers or a different paint job, are you interested in any of that?"

And of course if I do want those cushy seat covers it's much nicer to have them at the same place I have my car rather than wait a day for delivery, no?

Funny you should mention the radio. I've seen car dealers recently selling vehicles with satellite radio and a couple free months of service. That's a pretty decent analogue.

 

[JustOrdinary]

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?

is somebody going to answer this?

I'll take a shot at it.

Because in the second scenario, you're still being charged by the developers for the locked data on the disc. It's unusable and worthless to you otherwise, and the idea of charging you for it twice is contemptible, especially so with the ridiculous pricing. In a good business transaction, the seller and the customer both come out happy for mutually benefiting each other. In this case, both parties end up like feeling the other's trying to cheat them out of what they're supposedly entitled to.


Basically, even if Game B is much better overall, you're going to hold a grudge against the developers for their shoddy business practices and avoid their future products.


To use a less confusing mathematical analogy, it's like if I preferred Restaurant A's food to Restaurant B's food, but I instead frequent Restaurant B because I prefer the quality of the service they provide (e.g waiters are polite, less waiting time to get my meal, etc). I may not like the food as much, but I'm much more willing to pay for a better overall experience.

 

[Thyunda]

No, that's totally different. You paid for a ticket to see the film put together for the cinema. When you buy the DVD, you're entitled to view the deleted scenes and the interviews and everything else. Would you feel the same if you clicked 'Extras' on the menu and got told to enter a prepaid code to redeem these features? Hell no.

The whole problem with this is that the DLC is ON THE DISC. It's actually being withheld. Actual DLC is different. Even if the DLC is released the day after the game is launched, it still has to be downloaded separately. It's not sitting there, on the disc you paid full price for, leering at you.
Yes. We are entitled to that data. It's on the disc we paid for. At which point did we start paying £50 for 75% of a game? If I buy a disc, I want 100% of its contents. If I bought a bag of mints, I'd want 100% of the mints, so why am I in the wrong for wanting all the stuff I paid for? The developer has no reason for keeping it out of my hands. It's already on the disc. It's already finished. You haven't developed anything extra to deserve my money. You've just put a padlock on it. That's not effort. That's bullshit.

*sigh*

Yeah, ok.

Look, DLC is budgeted separately in your average game. Of course it is. Also, even if it's downloadable, it's probably finished by the time the game is printed. Whether or not it's packed into the disc is irrelevant to how the content is produced. If the content is not going to be DLC, the alternative is no content, not putting that content in the disc for free. That's just not how it works.

But hey, have it your way. Get offended if you want. Just know that because games aren't made the way you think they're made, that thing that offends you is not going to change. I mean, yeah, it might change, people might start putting it on a server rather on the disc to make you stop complaining about it, despite the fact that making you download it actually has additional cost for both you and the publisher, but that's about it.

Um. I don't care for the production. I care for the end product. If I bought a ham-and-cheese sandwich, and found there was no cheese on it because the cheese was produced at a different farm, and I'd have to pay extra for it, I'd be pretty damn pissed.

You're clearly unaware of the complaint here. What happens before it's put in the disc is not our concern. If it's in the DLC budget, sell it as DLC. Don't put it with the disc, because once that disc leaves the manufacturer, it belongs to the retailer, and from there, the consumer. The consumer owns the disc, and by all rights, everything on it. If you want to keep things out of the consumer's hands, keep it off the shelves and sell it yourself.

 

[Thyunda]

I feel somewhat afraid to say this, but... I never really felt like I bought a disc, I own the disc, I own all of the content. I felt it in a more metaphysical way, I bought access to nice things that happen to live as part of a disc which is nothing more than a means of transport. I guess there are two ways of looking at it.

On one hand, as the majority feels about this, you go buy a car but the salesperson says "Ah ah ah, you cannot use the radio yet, that costs a bit more. Pay up if you want it, until then, it is waiting for you..."

On the other hand, closer to what I feel, you go buy a car and the salesperson says "Hey, since you got a new car, we have cushy seat covers or a different paint job, are you interested in any of that?"

And of course if I do want those cushy seat covers it's much nicer to have them at the same place I have my car rather than wait a day for delivery, no?

Except, in this case, the salesman has told you the seat covers are in a compartment of the boot, and if you want them, you have to pay extra for them. Otherwise, they'll stay in that compartment until you buy the key.
Bear in mind you've just paid a shitload of money for this car and its contents.

 

[Sethzard]

The problem with it is that with Day 1 DLC, it was probably developed after the game went gold but before it came out, with DLC on the disk it must have been created before it went gold and they are just trying to get extra money out of the player.

 

[Velocity Eleven]

*sigh*

Yeah, ok.

Look, DLC is budgeted separately in your average game. Of course it is. Also, even if it's downloadable, it's probably finished by the time the game is printed. Whether or not it's packed into the disc is irrelevant to how the content is produced. If the content is not going to be DLC, the alternative is no content, not putting that content in the disc for free. That's just not how it works.

But hey, have it your way. Get offended if you want. Just know that because games aren't made the way you think they're made, that thing that offends you is not going to change. I mean, yeah, it might change, people might start putting it on a server rather on the disc to make you stop complaining about it, despite the fact that making you download it actually has additional cost for both you and the publisher, but that's about it.

Um. I don't care for the production. I care for the end product. If I bought a ham-and-cheese sandwich, and found there was no cheese on it because the cheese was produced at a different farm, and I'd have to pay extra for it, I'd be pretty damn pissed.

You're clearly unaware of the complaint here. What happens before it's put in the disc is not our concern. If it's in the DLC budget, sell it as DLC. Don't put it with the disc, because once that disc leaves the manufacturer, it belongs to the retailer, and from there, the consumer. The consumer owns the disc, and by all rights, everything on it. If you want to keep things out of the consumer's hands, keep it off the shelves and sell it yourself.

Yeah, no, I get it. You don't care about the production realities of it. You'll be happier paying more money for the perception that it's a different product, even though it isn't. Sure.

You don't want your ham and cheese sandwich to be 1.25 when your ham sandwich is just 1.00, you'd much rather have a ham sandwich and then buy a separate cheese supplement for 0.30. Yep. Cool.

You won't make me admit that it makes sense or is clever in any way, though.

depends on whether you want cheese in your sandwich, I for example dont like cheese in sandwiches so I would prefer the £1 ham sandwich

 

[Thyunda]

*sigh*

Yeah, ok.

Look, DLC is budgeted separately in your average game. Of course it is. Also, even if it's downloadable, it's probably finished by the time the game is printed. Whether or not it's packed into the disc is irrelevant to how the content is produced. If the content is not going to be DLC, the alternative is no content, not putting that content in the disc for free. That's just not how it works.

But hey, have it your way. Get offended if you want. Just know that because games aren't made the way you think they're made, that thing that offends you is not going to change. I mean, yeah, it might change, people might start putting it on a server rather on the disc to make you stop complaining about it, despite the fact that making you download it actually has additional cost for both you and the publisher, but that's about it.

Um. I don't care for the production. I care for the end product. If I bought a ham-and-cheese sandwich, and found there was no cheese on it because the cheese was produced at a different farm, and I'd have to pay extra for it, I'd be pretty damn pissed.

You're clearly unaware of the complaint here. What happens before it's put in the disc is not our concern. If it's in the DLC budget, sell it as DLC. Don't put it with the disc, because once that disc leaves the manufacturer, it belongs to the retailer, and from there, the consumer. The consumer owns the disc, and by all rights, everything on it. If you want to keep things out of the consumer's hands, keep it off the shelves and sell it yourself.

Yeah, no, I get it. You don't care about the production realities of it. You'll be happier paying more money for the perception that it's a different product, even though it isn't. Sure.

You don't want your ham and cheese sandwich to be 1.25 when your ham sandwich is just 1.00, you'd much rather have a ham sandwich and then buy a separate cheese supplement for 0.30. Yep. Cool.

You won't make me admit that it makes sense or is clever in any way, though.

Except I've paid for the ham and cheese BOX for £1.25. There IS a ham sandwich in there, but the cheese is not. Because, as it turns out, I didn't understand the production and therefore cheated myself out of the fillings I was promised, which I have paid full price for.
If I paid £1.00 for a ham sandwich, and was disappointed, so I bought a cheese blanket for 30p, that would be a totally different story. At that point, I've paid for a ham sandwich. What I paid for is what I got. I'm not missing part of my promised sandwich. What I do from then on is my own business, and is irrelevant. But, when I buy a game, I want access to everything on the disc, because that's what I paid for. I didn't pay for the story mode. I didn't pay for the multiplayer. I picked a box up from the shelf, the cashier placed a disc in the box and sent me home with it. That disc is mine. I've paid for it, so everything on it should be mine. You can't justify the fact that the publisher STILL OWNS part of my purchased product. If I bought that ham and cheese sandwich, and the president of HamCheese Sandwich Co. came over and took my cheese out of my sandwich, I'd punch him in the damn mouth. I don't care who made it, or how it was made. Once I pay for it, it's MINE.

 

[beniki]

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.

Er... no. You are entitled to it. That's why you paid the money to buy the CD. If the seller didn't want to give you access to it he shouldn't have sold it to you in the first place. If you pay for something, and you have it, then it's simply common sense that you should be able to do whatever the hell you like with it.