DLC On The Disc, What Is The Big Problem?

[IrateDonnie]

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.

Nope the only thing I can play online is firefight and Co-Op. It tells me I don't have the required maps to play any playlist in matchmaking, & I've tried them all.

 

[Fetzenfisch]

ITs not that its on the disc, it is that it is available from the day the game ships , ergo it should be part of the game.
DLC was made to keep replayvalue or enhance the gaming experience later. Now you get 90% of the game as it is and have to pay a second time for the complete product.
Its just ripping off people, and due to a ginormous PR campaign through the web they actually made the more gullible part of customers believe it is ok for companies to cash in twice. just like they made them believe the project 10 dollars is right.

its like buying a book and having to pay 5 dollars so the last chapter appears on the pages.
it was there when they released, so its not extra content.That is pretty much the reason why the last major company game i bought was SC2 and i doubt that there will be another, i've had enough with this behaviour. I stick to indies and my collected oldies now.

 

[The_Graff]

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./quote]

ok, who let the EA marketing bot in here???

 

[StarCecil]

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.

The CD analogy would be more apt if the disc contained songs that were simply "unlocked" by purchasing them on iTunes.

 

[SovietPanda]

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

I didn't mean to twist you words and if you read it that way i apologise. All i was trying to do was show how rewarding new purchases rather then punishing used buyers is going to be recieved better by the client base as a whole. In the long run offering the carrot rather then threatening the stick is going to be more effetive and engender greater good will and loyalty towards publishers and developers. The mention of triviality was not in refference or argument but to make clear my own personal stand on this issue that is that such extra's should not greatly alter gameplay. But rather add novelty or fanservice value.

 

[BelfastSpartan]

I think it more stems from the fact that it's on the disc that you paid for so to have that content locked and making you pay more money to use it is bullshit.

Old argument I know but so is the topic, it's like you buying a car that has fully functioning, handbrake, mirrors, whatever you want to use here but you have to pay extra to use them.
How about a house you buy a house but have to pay extra to use the bathroom....

See where it's going?
Just to note I'm ok paying for DLC if it's released a reasonable time in the future.
Again I liken it to my above examples.
If I buy a car everything that comes on the car I bought work from day 1 but if I want to upgrade it....say new wheels, etc I have to pay extra.
New house? I can use everything as soon as I buy it, if I want to upgrade it later...new cooker or whatever then I pay extra.

Conclusion when you buy something you should not have to pay extra to use a feature that is included in the product you bought, an upgrade or add on to that original product then fine.

 

[DaHero]

Just because the information is on the disc you bought doesn't mean you are suddenly entitled to everything on it by default.

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?

I'm sorry, I regret ever having faith in humanity. I'll be leaving forums forever now, this is just too much lack for my sanity to handle.

 

[Velocity Eleven]

Just because the information is on the disc you bought doesn't mean you are suddenly entitled to everything on it by default.

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?

I'm sorry, I regret ever having faith in humanity. I'll be leaving forums forever now, this is just too much lack for my sanity to handle.

I lost faith in humanity a long time ago. People paying far too much for their games has been a big trigger for this

 

[Velocity Eleven]

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./quote]

ok, who let the EA marketing bot in here???

I hate EA

 

[Joshimodo]

"Ok, so, here's your new car. Only you can't use the back seats."

"What? Why not? The seats are there, and I paid full price for the car!"

"Yeah, well, we ship the cars with all of the components, but you can't use all of them without paying extra."


Does that sound like a reasonable idea? How about buying a DVD only to find there's scenes missing, or subtitles/bonus features locked. Pay extra to unlock them!

 

[Velocity Eleven]

"Ok, so, here's your new car. Only you can't use the back seats."

"What? Why not? The seats are there, and I paid full price for the car!"

"Yeah, well, we ship the cars with all of the components, but you can't use all of them without paying extra."


Does that sound like a reasonable idea? How about buying a DVD only to find there's scenes missing, or subtitles/bonus features locked. Pay extra to unlock them!

I dont know much about car prices, but if you tell me the costs of the DVD and those extra features I might be able to give you an answer

 

[Velocity Eleven]

EDIT: sorry, double post cause I thought my first one didnt send

 

[Joshimodo]

"Ok, so, here's your new car. Only you can't use the back seats."

"What? Why not? The seats are there, and I paid full price for the car!"

"Yeah, well, we ship the cars with all of the components, but you can't use all of them without paying extra."


Does that sound like a reasonable idea? How about buying a DVD only to find there's scenes missing, or subtitles/bonus features locked. Pay extra to unlock them!

I dont know much about car prices, but if you tell me the costs of the DVD and those extra features I might be able to give you an answer

Doesn't matter on the example. It's withholding content, which if on the disk, is part of a full-price retail purchase. If they were selling games with locked content at a reasonable percentage lower, then it'd have some justification. As it is, it's just arbitrarily locking content and (in most cases) effectively forcing purchase to experience the full product that you have already brought.

 

[Velocity Eleven]

"Ok, so, here's your new car. Only you can't use the back seats."

"What? Why not? The seats are there, and I paid full price for the car!"

"Yeah, well, we ship the cars with all of the components, but you can't use all of them without paying extra."


Does that sound like a reasonable idea? How about buying a DVD only to find there's scenes missing, or subtitles/bonus features locked. Pay extra to unlock them!

I dont know much about car prices, but if you tell me the costs of the DVD and those extra features I might be able to give you an answer

Doesn't matter on the example. It's withholding content, which if on the disk, is part of a full-price retail purchase. If they were selling games with locked content at a reasonable percentage lower, then it'd have some justification. As it is, it's just arbitrarily locking content and (in most cases) effectively forcing purchase to experience the full product that you have already brought.

I cant make a decision on if I want to buy something or not without knowing the price.

 

[Avalanche91]

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 all the data. It's being dangled in front of you like a carrot and 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 for unlocking said dlc 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 makes people that much bitter about it.

 

[Velocity Eleven]

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.

I find movies and CDs to be annoying in this case as they later release "special editions" with extra scenes or tracks. Punishing those who buy early

 

[JochemDude]

You have the cookie, though you can't eat it.
[HEADING=1]That's what's wrong with it![/HEADING]

 

[Denamic]

If I buy Half-Life, I don't want to pay extra to use the crowbar.

 

[Velocity Eleven]

If I buy Half-Life, I don't want to pay extra to use the crowbar.

nobody wants to pay money

 

[ultimateownage]

The whole idea of DLC is that it's DOWNLOADABLE content, which has been made after the game to sell as extras to fans of the game. Day 1 DLC is bearable, because it was all made after the game went gold at least. It being on the disc is different, it was made well before the game went gold and is literally part of the game itself. You just don't get it until you buy a key from them to unlock it.

You'd be pretty pissed if you bought a cupboard, and then it was sent to you with the bottom parts padlocked until you gave them more money.