DLC On The Disc, What Is The Big Problem?

[StarCecil]

so, just to make this clear for me, in your examples what are the values of x and y?

Once more, this isn't a mathematical equation. This is a matter of principle and of greed.

But allow me to lay it out for you as clear as I can: On-disc DLC is made with the specific intent of getting more money from the consumer. Whether it is a character, a gun or something even more trivial, someone made the clear decision to partition content that otherwise would have been available for the express purpose of getting someone to pay for it. It's extra money for no effort.

Good DLC, on the other hand, is the Fallout example: DLC that adds a significant amount of content to the setting, as well as expands the game overall. Each of the four DLC packs adds a separate storyline - as well as a new overarcing one - as well as weapons, perks, items, enemies, traits, abilities and so forth.

One was purpose designed to obtain money. The other was designed to enhance the game.

 

[Michael Hirst]

See Saints Row 3 pre order bonus for a good example of this. None of the items in it make the game unplayable without them and indeed they're not even the most powerful/potent items in the game but they look like a bit of fun and it's a nice pat on the back to the new buyers as opposed to the draconic use of always on DRM and online passes to bully people who spent good money on the game (I know this point was made in the Jimquisition but it's a fucking good point)

I cant see any difference between "rewarding for buying new" and "punishing for buying used"

because it's not a severe punishment, you lose out on dressing with a cat head and a cannon that fires people which is fun but not vital. You can still buy preowned at a much lower price but lose out on less than 1% of the games experience. This is a case of the carrot vs the stick. With some pre-order goodies you're actively rewarding people for buying your game.

Obviously I'd rather everyone get all the content but when devs want you to buy new I think it's much better they add little goodies like Saints Row is doing or like Fallout New Vegas did rather than act like spoilt children and just bully all the customers with online passes.

 

[chadachada123]

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.

It's not a sense that people have *come* to latch on to, it's the natural response to changing the business model from "pay $60, get full game" to "pay $60, get chopped up game, and you have to pay extra to get the rest."

DLC is a recent phenomena, and day-1 DLC is obviously just there to take more money from consumers.

And, yeah, if I buy a car, I am entitled to do what I please with it (as long as I don't break other laws), and the manufacturer can't say "nuh uh, in order to use this thing that is included but shut off, you have to pay 1/6 of the price of the car extra."

 

[LostNightRecon]

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.

Omg thank you that summed matters up perfectly. Growing up with video games all the time in my house. If say Super Mario brothers was released and day one there is an expansion pack in the store for $20 more you can get the second half of the game. Or Legend of Zelda Ocarina of Time, After defeated Ganandorf you can not cross the glowing bridge without paying $10s. Day One DLC and on Disk DLC is undermining the products that we spend so much money on. The fact is the so called "DLC on the disk." Is a measure to hinder pirates. Just as our Current DRM is as well but lets face it Pirates can hack a game and cut out all the DRM and half of the bugs as well and they provide it for free to people online. That means all of the DLC, Day one DLC, and later additions. They use the excuse fighting pirates to back up everything but the fact of the matter is this is just taking their paying customers and fucking them over for an extra buck. I'm not even going into the costs because lets face it I'm from the US so $60 for a game is great imagine what the Australians must feel. What is it 100-120 dollars a game then add on $10 for the day one on the disk, Yeah forget that.

 

[Velocity Eleven]

*snip*

Simply put, why is the DLC not already unlocked?
Why do the devs need to screw the buyer over for even more money?

because people are willing to pay? I wouldn't be, but enough people are

 

[Jimbo1212]

*snip*

Simply put, why is the DLC not already unlocked?
Why do the devs need to screw the buyer over for even more money?

because people are willing to pay? I wouldn't be, but enough people are

Oh, don't get me wrong, the reason why gaming quality and value has dropped is due to the mass dipshit market that now exists, however that does mean that many people end up being unfairly screwed over because some little spoilt brat is happily fed money from mummy to keep him quiet.

 

[Velocity Eleven]

See Saints Row 3 pre order bonus for a good example of this. None of the items in it make the game unplayable without them and indeed they're not even the most powerful/potent items in the game but they look like a bit of fun and it's a nice pat on the back to the new buyers as opposed to the draconic use of always on DRM and online passes to bully people who spent good money on the game (I know this point was made in the Jimquisition but it's a fucking good point)

I cant see any difference between "rewarding for buying new" and "punishing for buying used"

because it's not a severe punishment, you lose out on dressing with a cat head and a cannon that fires people which is fun but not vital. You can still buy preowned at a much lower price but lose out on less than 1% of the games experience. This is a case of the carrot vs the stick. With some pre-order goodies you're actively rewarding people for buying your game.

Obviously I'd rather everyone get all the content but when devs want you to buy new I think it's much better they add little goodies like Saints Row is doing or like Fallout New Vegas did rather than act like spoilt children and just bully all the customers with online passes.

so what you mean is that the stuff you get for pre-ordering should be trivial?

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.

Omg thank you that summed matters up perfectly. Growing up with video games all the time in my house. If say Super Mario brothers was released and day one there is an expansion pack in the store for $20 more you can get the second half of the game. Or Legend of Zelda Ocarina of Time, After defeated Ganandorf you can not cross the glowing bridge without paying $10s. Day One DLC and on Disk DLC is undermining the products that we spend so much money on. The fact is the so called "DLC on the disk." Is a measure to hinder pirates. Just as our Current DRM is as well but lets face it Pirates can hack a game and cut out all the DRM and half of the bugs as well and they provide it for free to people online. That means all of the DLC, Day one DLC, and later additions. They use the excuse fighting pirates to back up everything but the fact of the matter is this is just taking their paying customers and fucking them over for an extra buck. I'm not even going into the costs because lets face it I'm from the US so $60 for a game is great imagine what the Australians must feel. What is it 100-120 dollars a game then add on $10 for the day one on the disk, Yeah forget that.

most games are total rip-off nowadays, I mean, the DLC as well as the game is far too expensive and I dont think the games are even that good

 

[Michael Hirst]

*snip*

Simply put, why is the DLC not already unlocked?
Why do the devs need to screw the buyer over for even more money?

because people are willing to pay? I wouldn't be, but enough people are

Oh, don't get me wrong, the reason why gaming quality and value has dropped is due to the mass dipshit market that now exists, however that does mean that many people end up being unfairly screwed over because some little spoilt brat is happily fed money from mummy to keep him quiet.

This problem also relates to greedy f***ing publishers. They know there's a market for DLC now and will pressure devs into creating DLC or removing parts of a game to sell later (I imagine a lot of multiplayer maps are ready before launch day but get held back now) afterall if they can keep draining money out of a game it's better for them and with games like Call of Duty, even if half the people who bought the previous game decided to boycott the next title it wouldn't matter because the other half would still buy the DLC (which costs as much as the main game all together) and they'd still make as much money

 

[Velocity Eleven]

I have no problem with DLC, bought alot of DLC for many games. But charging for content already on the disc is not DLC. DLC stands for Downloadble content. Charging for content already on the disc is just trying to squeeze a few more dollars out of people. Totalbiscuit said it best;

'The time they spent deciding what content they were going to chop off so they could charge you a few more bucks could have gone into making your game better'

Also if it's 'on disc dlc' it means it was part of the original game, and they chose, just to get a few more bucks out of you, to cut it out of the main game. And you're fine with that?

what I am saying is that my problem is with the overall cost for content. I would not want to pay £50 for a new COD game, and I definetly wouldn't pay £15 for extra maps. If the game was £30 with a £20 unlock for the on-disc extra maps then that itself is somewhat of a better deal.

a lot of it I believe has to do with the short lifespan of these games, DLC is something you cant re-sell. the companies want to try and stop people from selling their games... as a business practice, it makes sense, they dont get money for time spent playing the game, just the purchases. But at the same time I would just prefer it if they made games that have a longer lifespan

 

[Michael Hirst]

*snip*

I cant see any difference between "rewarding for buying new" and "punishing for buying used"

because it's not a severe punishment, you lose out on dressing with a cat head and a cannon that fires people which is fun but not vital. You can still buy preowned at a much lower price but lose out on less than 1% of the games experience. This is a case of the carrot vs the stick. With some pre-order goodies you're actively rewarding people for buying your game.

Obviously I'd rather everyone get all the content but when devs want you to buy new I think it's much better they add little goodies like Saints Row is doing or like Fallout New Vegas did rather than act like spoilt children and just bully all the customers with online passes.

so what you mean is that the stuff you get for pre-ordering should be trivial?

Pretty much, I'm saying a pre order bonus should be something the player can enjoy but not something vital to the games experience, a cannon that shoots people in Saints Row will be fun but not a core element of the game. The carvan pack I got with New Vegas gave me a slight edge early game but didn't matter after a few hours. I think it's a lot fairer for people who pre order to get a little gift like that than to force things like online passes onto everyone and completely restrict the pre owned market.

Some people won't be interested in some of what's in a pre-order package, I sure as hell don't buy into most of it but for those that do pre order, they feel rewarded for their faith and loyalty to a game while the people who aren't so convinced and get the game later still get to experience more than 99% of what that game is.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

I believe I payed for a game and I don't want to pay more because they felt like ripping out half the game and calling it an extra. If I could find a way then any locked content on my disc I will unlock for myself. I bought the disc, what I do with it is up to me. I am okay with DLC that comes out later like castle crashers character packs. That really is an extra not just a dirty way to get money.

 

[chadachada123]

I have no problem with DLC, bought alot of DLC for many games. But charging for content already on the disc is not DLC. DLC stands for Downloadble content. Charging for content already on the disc is just trying to squeeze a few more dollars out of people. Totalbiscuit said it best;

'The time they spent deciding what content they were going to chop off so they could charge you a few more bucks could have gone into making your game better'

Also if it's 'on disc dlc' it means it was part of the original game, and they chose, just to get a few more bucks out of you, to cut it out of the main game. And you're fine with that?

what I am saying is that my problem is with the overall cost for content. I would not want to pay £50 for a new COD game, and I definetly wouldn't pay £15 for extra maps. If the game was £30 with a £20 unlock for the on-disc extra maps then that itself is somewhat of a better deal.

a lot of it I believe has to do with the short lifespan of these games, DLC is something you cant re-sell. the companies want to try and stop people from selling their games... as a business practice, it makes sense, they dont get money for time spent playing the game, just the purchases. But at the same time I would just prefer it if they made games that have a longer lifespan

Our problem is not with a cheaper game being sold with an activation fee, if the content is the same either way and the end cost is the same. What we're bitching about is paying the FULL $60USD for a game and THEN being forced to pay MORE for the already-finished content that is on the disc and should be included in the main game to justify the $60 price tag (and day-1 downloadable DLC is the same thing). We have a problem with greed because it ends up making a crappier product that costs more.

If a new game came out for $30 but clearly stated that to unlock the rest of the content it would cost $20, I would not be too opposed to it. It'd suck for those without internet connections, but as long as it didn't *require* you to play online, there is not much of a problem, it ends up cheaper for me, and I get the full package. A new game for $60, though, with another $10-15 for content that is already on the disc, is what we're complaining about. Don't even bring up the former, because we're discussing the latter.

Additionally, we're not talking about if $60 is worth it or not, we're talking about why $60 plus additional costs is NOT worth it in comparison, because it's evidence of extreme greed and poor quality.

*EDIT* And, really, whether or not the DLC is on the disc or not is irrelevant, because the point is *the content was already finished, but they are withholding it to get more money.*

 

[thenumberthirteen]

I really don't care about on the disc DLC. You are paying for the game as advertised whether it contains two whole other games you need to pay extra for on the disc, or whether you have to download them online makes no difference to me.

All the arguments I've been in about this have been people saying "I paid for the game so I deserve the DLC" or "I'm paying for a disc with DLC on I don't want"

The first is simply false entitlement. If the game said it came with free map packs (or whatever) on the disc, but then you found out you had to pay for them, then that makes sense to be angry. Though you paid your money for the game as advertised. You don't deserve the DLC out of hand. If you want it, pay for it. If the developers want to give it out for free then that's awesome.

The second argument I hear is that your £40 is paying towards the creation of DLC packs you can't have. That's not true. Developers nowadays plan DLC strategies from the start. They are budgeted in time and resources like the main game, and that spend is balanced out by planned revenues from the sale of the DLC. You're not paying for the DLC if you don't buy it. If you think the experience without the DLC makes it not worth the cost of the game then don't buy it. Just like I will not buy a game where I don't think the experience is worth the price.

Consider a service like OnLive where all the games are stored on, and played from, a server. I bought a game from that server. That game is mine (for the sake of argument), but there are 50 other games stored on that server! Do I own them too?

 

[SovietPanda]

See Saints Row 3 pre order bonus for a good example of this. None of the items in it make the game unplayable without them and indeed they're not even the most powerful/potent items in the game but they look like a bit of fun and it's a nice pat on the back to the new buyers as opposed to the draconic use of always on DRM and online passes to bully people who spent good money on the game (I know this point was made in the Jimquisition but it's a fucking good point)

I cant see any difference between "rewarding for buying new" and "punishing for buying used"

your kidding right? You dont see a difference between a company saying "hey, Your a loyal customer who bought new (or preordered) so have a few fun little extra's that don't really change the game but you might enjoy" and "hey you bought this used so you can't have this and this and that untill you pay us extra money"

Now i'm not saying i'm entirely comfortable with $10 passes for online or multiplayer content when buying used. But I don't really understand the economics of server upkeep and everything involved so i generally stay out of that argument. But in general rewarding good favorable behaivours has always been more effective then punishing unfavorable ones. we're talking basic psychology here.

Now to the topic at hand. People that get all up in arms about locked on-disc content, in all it's forms irritate me. It is done to different extents and for different purposes and that needs to be taken into consideration. If it's skins or novelty weapons for multiplayer (read "non-gamechanging") it's no big deal to me. it means i have the code required to see the people with their rocketlaunchers that shoot top hats or baked goods or whatever. But if it is arguably a core part of the game then we have issues. It's at that point I'll be bombarded the developer involved with irate emails till i get some kind of satisfatory answer.

 

[Velocity Eleven]

I really don't care about on the disc DLC. You are paying for the game as advertised whether it contains two whole other games you need to pay extra for on the disc, or whether you have to download them online makes no difference to me.

All the arguments I've been in about this have been people saying "I paid for the game so I deserve the DLC" or "I'm paying for a disc with DLC on I don't want"

The first is simply false entitlement. If the game said it came with free map packs (or whatever) on the disc, but then you found out you had to pay for them, then that makes sense to be angry. Though you paid your money for the game as advertised. You don't deserve the DLC out of hand. If you want it, pay for it. If the developers want to give it out for free then that's awesome.

The second argument I hear is that your £40 is paying towards the creation of DLC packs you can't have. That's not true. Developers nowadays plan DLC strategies from the start. They are budgeted in time and resources like the main game, and that spend is balanced out by planned revenues from the sale of the DLC. You're not paying for the DLC if you don't buy it. If you think the experience without the DLC makes it not worth the cost of the game then don't buy it. Just like I will not buy a game where I don't think the experience is worth the price.

Consider a service like OnLive where all the games are stored on, and played from, a server. I bought a game from that server. That game is mine (for the sake of argument), but there are 50 other games stored on that server! Do I own them too?

exactly

 

[Velocity Eleven]

your kidding right? You dont see a difference between a company saying "hey, Your a loyal customer who bought new (or preordered) so have a few fun little extra's that don't really change the game but you might enjoy" and "hey you bought this used so you can't have this and this and that untill you pay us extra money"

you're twisting my words, I said I dont see a difference between rewarding new buying and punishing used buyers... nothing to do with whether the content is trivial or not

 

[Monsterfurby]

Okay, let's work with models.

Price of a media product = Value of individual product at time of release

That's an optimal model. Of course, things do not work that way - never have, and never will.
The obvious reason for that is that publishers need to make a profit, which might be in excess of the value customers might see in the product but still within the range of what a customer is willing to pay. Hence:

Price of a media product = Value of individual product at time of release + Profit margin

This works under the assumption that a product includes all of its advertised components. However, with on-disc or day-one DLC, that is not the case. What is advertised, or at least implied by the customer/consumer is: "The game includes the results of ALL WORK DONE before gold master", i.e. "You pay for everything the developer has created on this project to date, plus a reasonable profit margin".

If you have day-one DLC, the customer has reason to doubt that this is the case. In fact, resources that, regardless of internal structure, belonged to the project itself in the eye of the customer, are suddenly no longer part of it. From a marketing perspective, the simple act of announcing day-one or on-disk DLC lowers the value of the original product because instead of creating new value, it takes some of its "expected value" and builds itself around it.

At this point, it does not matter if the DLC feature was part of the original feature list or not - the customer will feel that the value of their product has been decreased. Suddenly, the value has decreased, but the price remains the same.

Ultimately, what is my opinion? On-Disk DLC is sheer idiocy. Telling your customer "we could provide more value to you at the same price, but we won't" is essentially marketing suicide. I don't want my local fast food joint to put tomatoes, salad, cheese and meat on a burger, only to then take the cheese off and sell it separately. But mostly, I disagree with it because this type of marketing strategy displays a sort of arrogance and bullying behaviour in game publishers that can only hurt the industry.

 

[tehroc]

Most DLC is garbage, just plain and simple. The only good DLC I've seen for the 360 era has been from Rockstar (Episodes from Liberty City and RDR Undead Nightmare) which honestly shouldn't even count as they are more like expansions (expansion is a term being phased out except for MMO games these days).

 

[Yopaz]

-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".

The trophy section was expanded with new DLC, but it was present beforehand. I know for certain I downloaded it and I had the game since it was released. The Versus mode as not there when I got it at least.

 

[Scrustle]

I should not be forced to pay extra for something I already own. If it's on the disc, it should be mine. I shouldn't be made to pay again for something I already have in my position. Your CD analogy doesn't hold up. Having free access to content I already own is not the same as illegally distributing it. The analogy would be the same if I was to rip the data off the disc and put it up on a torrent site. I'm not, I just want to have what I've actually payed for. And also you analogy of unlocking levels doesn't hold either. Progression in the game is what the game is about. The enjoyment of the content of the game is done by progression through it. I actually don't oppose giving people the ability to skip content and just play the levels in a game they want, but that doesn't have anything to do with the fact that if I legally own the physical disc that physically contains the data of the content, then no-one should be allowed to charge me to access that content. It's already mine. Although on-disc DLC may perform in the same way as day 1 DLC without download times, that doesn't change the fact that they are charging you for something you already own twice. It's unfair, and unethical extortion. It should not be allowed.