DLC On The Disc, What Is The Big Problem?

[Callate]

Quite aside from ownership issues, I feel a certain concern about any game that might cease to be accessible in its original form because a server goes offline. Some of the stories on "Good Old Games" make it pretty clear that if we do view games to any degree as an art form rather than just a disposable entertainment commodity we should seriously question decisions that may mean it's impossible to install all or part of a game five years later on a different computer.

 

[FoolKiller]

I personally consider illegal. It's fraudulent and a misrepresentation. DLC stands for downloadable content. If it's on the disc then I didn't download it; I merely installed it. They should have to be upfront with what is already on the disc and what is not.

 

[blackdwarf]

it is a problem, because it is not really DLC (downloadable content). it is already on the disc. and i think the big problems is how it was in the past. first we had expansions. those were on a seperate disc and the contents were created after the release of the original game. then came DLC. it was a replacement for the disc based expansions, and because the developers were still used to exp. they created the content for DLC after the game.

now the got really low. the sell content that already on the disc is, but still call it DLC. if i pay for DLC, i pay for the work they did after the game, but now the cut a piece of the original game and sell it as DLC. i just find it a dick move. i wouldn't mind it of they weren't acting so damn proud because they have supposed DLC.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

If you buy the disk then you own everything on it. They cant charge you extra money to unlock stuff on a disk you already bought? Thats just retarded.

 

[Lunar Templar]

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

With alice:madness returns there was a DLC on the disc but it was origin exlusive(people on steam couldn't play unless editing the .ini file)

>.>? oh? the steam version has Alice 1? interesting, but, since it was never advertised (and i looked) and it being $10 cheaper then the consul version that did have it, i saw it (the consul version W/ Alice 1) as the better buy.(due in no small part to what Alice 1 was/is going for o.o;

as for 'on disk' DLC, I'm against it, for the 'i paid for the disk, and everything on it why do i have to pay more to access everything now' reason.

now, not against DLC, its a wonderful idea, 'new content for a game i like, hells yes', but i see few company's using it wisely, from 'on disk' DLC which basically rips people off to half assed map packs that cost to much, weapon/armor packs that are pretty much worthless.

but give how industry tends to view gamers (ie: we're all pirates stealing from them) trying to get them to listen to reason would be better accomplished at gun point

 

[yuval152]

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

With alice:madness returns there was a DLC on the disc but it was origin exlusive(people on steam couldn't play unless editing the .ini file)

>.>? oh? the steam version has Alice 1? interesting, but, since it was never advertised (and i looked) and it being $10 cheaper then the consul version that did have it, i saw it (the consul version W/ Alice 1) as the better buy.(due in no small part to what Alice 1 was/is going for o.o;

as for 'on disk' DLC, I'm against it, for the 'i paid for the disk, and everything on it why do i have to pay more to access everything now' reason.

now, not against DLC, its a wonderful idea, 'new content for a game i like, hells yes', but i see few company's using it wisely, from 'on disk' DLC which basically rips people off to half assed map packs that cost to much, weapon/armor packs that are pretty much worthless.

but give how industry tends to view gamers (ie: we're all pirates stealing from them) trying to get them to listen to reason would be better accomplished at gun point

Alice:madness returns

If you still don't get it, its Alice 2 not 1.

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

With alice:madness returns there was a DLC on the disc but it was origin exlusive(people on steam couldn't play unless editing the .ini file)

>.>? oh? the steam version has Alice 1? interesting, but, since it was never advertised (and i looked) and it being $10 cheaper then the consul version that did have it, i saw it (the consul version W/ Alice 1) as the better buy.(due in no small part to what Alice 1 was/is going for o.o;

as for 'on disk' DLC, I'm against it, for the 'i paid for the disk, and everything on it why do i have to pay more to access everything now' reason.

now, not against DLC, its a wonderful idea, 'new content for a game i like, hells yes', but i see few company's using it wisely, from 'on disk' DLC which basically rips people off to half assed map packs that cost to much, weapon/armor packs that are pretty much worthless.

but give how industry tends to view gamers (ie: we're all pirates stealing from them) trying to get them to listen to reason would be better accomplished at gun point

Alice:madness returns

If you still don't get it, its Alice 2 not 1.

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

With alice:madness returns there was a DLC on the disc but it was origin exlusive(people on steam couldn't play unless editing the .ini file)

>.>? oh? the steam version has Alice 1? interesting, but, since it was never advertised (and i looked) and it being $10 cheaper then the consul version that did have it, i saw it (the consul version W/ Alice 1) as the better buy.(due in no small part to what Alice 1 was/is going for o.o;

as for 'on disk' DLC, I'm against it, for the 'i paid for the disk, and everything on it why do i have to pay more to access everything now' reason.

now, not against DLC, its a wonderful idea, 'new content for a game i like, hells yes', but i see few company's using it wisely, from 'on disk' DLC which basically rips people off to half assed map packs that cost to much, weapon/armor packs that are pretty much worthless.

but give how industry tends to view gamers (ie: we're all pirates stealing from them) trying to get them to listen to reason would be better accomplished at gun point

Alice:madness returns

If you still don't get it, its Alice 2 not 1.

no!! really .....

-.- why thank you for pointing that out, when i was just to lazy to type it

 

[spartan231490]

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.

^nail on the head. People feel entitled to it. I have no idea why, that train of thought makes no sense and is easily dismantled by the simple analogy that the OP used. But no, it's on the disk so they feel entitled to it. Admittedly, I think all day one dlc is a pretty dick move cuz it takes away from development time of the game, but on disk dlc is no worse than other day 1 dlc.

 

[Magicman10893]

Imagine you're buying a car. You have the option of paying extra for the CD player. The car functions without it and if you don't need/want the CD player it is no problem. The problem, however, is that the CD is already in the car and in order to install it you have to buy a special key from the dealer in order to open the console or whatever to hook the wires up.

Considering the CD player is already in the car when you buy it (not just a random occurance in your car, but there's a CD player in EVERY NEW CAR like this) but you have to pay extra to use it, you are literally paying extra to use something you've already bought.

 

[JamesStone]

I see it this way. The post launch DLC´s, like the four pieces from Fallout: New Vegas, are made after, or at least finished after, the actual game is released. And even if it isn´t, it´s made at the developers expenses, that add to the expense of making the actual game. Also, most of them are expansions, that is, separate experiences that are only connected to the game, not dependant.

Now, key-DLC´s? Things that are already present in-game, but I have to pay more to get? Fuck no. Simply because they were made ALONGSIDE the main game. They are part of it. A "new" armor, or a "new" weapon, or something, that was made with the main game, is a direct part of the main game, but you have to pay more to get what is in your rights to own, just because millions of dollars worth of profit just aren´t enough to some assholes.

Shame on you for defending this insulting way to make profit. Just... shame on 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.

 

[spartan231490]

Simply put, they're charging us for data we already have. That's bullshit, and it needs to stop.


I haven't bought a game so infected, but if I do, you can bet money I won't be buying any of the content I just bought. But I will use it. Because I bought the contents of that disc, and god damnit I'm going to use every single byte there.

No. You payed $60 for the experience of the game, as it was coded. That doesn't include locked disk content, any more than it includes other dlc content, or the sequel. 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.

 

[Stitches Retro]

If you buy a disk you should get all content on the disk.

 

[Velocity Eleven]

Ok. So far most of the people here disagree with the original poster and think DLC on day one is evil.

Did I ever make any comment whether day one DLC as a whole is either good or bad? no I did not. I said that with day 1 DLC there is no disadvantage to it being on the disc as opposed to off... why must people keep twisting my words?

 

[spartan231490]

Simply put, they're charging us for data we already have. That's bullshit, and it needs to stop.


I haven't bought a game so infected, but if I do, you can bet money I won't be buying any of the content I just bought. But I will use it. Because I bought the contents of that disc, and god damnit I'm going to use every single byte there.

No. You payed $60 for the experience of the game, as it was coded. That doesn't include locked disk content, any more than it includes other dlc content, or the sequel. 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 believe you misunderstood what I said.


I bought the contents of that disc. I will use what I have as I see fit. I do not care what the EULA says, I do not care what the publishers say, I do not care what the software itself says. If it's on the disc and I want to use it, I will use it, and I will not be paying for content I already fucking own!

My money, my rules, if the publishers don't like it they can sit on it and rotate. I'm not going to sit back and watch them nickel and dime me for content that's quite literally in my hand. Nope. Not gonna happen.

As for DLCs and sequels...I have no idea where you got those from, they're exempt from this rule since they're not on the disc I buy when I buy the original. Lonesome Road would be exempt because it doesn't come with a retail copy of Fallout: New Vegas. It's not on the disc when I buy that disc.

I understood you perfectly, I'm saying that that is amoral, illogical, and illegal, because you didn't buy the contents of the disk. The code, and all the information that makes the game work, is still the property of the company, that's why you can't just copy the disk and sell it to all your friends for $20. All you purchased was the game as it was coded. That doesn't include any of the content that is locked.

What you are saying is logically and morally equivalent to saying that because you bought Call of Duty: Black Ops, and because the disk has perks and killstreaks on it, you should be able to reprogram the disk so that you can use the gunship after a 1 "killstreak," or so you can play with all perks active at once. It's an illogical byproduct of a sense of entitlement that doesn't belong.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Two major reasons from what I see. For one, people don't know jack shit about how data works. There as clueless a monkey with a toaster. That's why so many people think buying a game gains you copyright decision making powers or compare piracy to borrowing. Its not borrowing when you don't loss something and instead duplicate it. The unique status of data is something that needs more exploring and needs to be settled probably by the court and probably over the next however many dozens of years.
THe second issue is that culturally gamers are conditioned to want to play as much of a game as possible and thinking that they are entitles d tot eh on dick data. That's not necessarily true, or at least developers don't see it as true and the law has yet to state that its not. This causes a conflict when the two ideas clash.
Personally I don't have a problem with it because I see developers and publishers as having the right to do that sort of stuff within reason but lots of people take issue with it.

 

[spartan231490]

I understood you perfectly,

Then why are you trying to tell me things that go against what I said?

I'm saying that that is amoral,

Lolwut? Amoral? The fuck? This just makes no sense at all.

illogical,

What's illogical is bending over backwards for the big, lubed up dong the publishers are trying to force up one's hind end with shit like this. Logically, I bought that disc, I can and will do whatever the fuck with it and what's on it.

and illegal,

So is ripping your customers off, your point?

because you didn't buy the contents of the disk. The code, and all the information that makes the game work, is still the property of the company, that's why you can't just copy the disk and sell it to all your friends for $20. All you purchased was the game as it was coded. That doesn't include any of the content that is locked.

I bought the disk, and that includes rights to a single copy of the contents. I can and will do whatever the fuck I want to with what's on it.

Ford can't tell me what I can and can't do to my F150, nVidia can't tell me what I can and can't do to my 8800GS, Ruger can't tell me what I can and can't do with my 10/22 rifle, so why the fuck should game publishers get an exception?

Answer: They shouldn't, and they don't. Not from me anyways. If it's on the disk I will use it, and if the publsihers object, they can QQ me a river, build a bridge and get the fuck over it.

What you are saying is logically and morally equivalent to saying that because you bought Call of Duty: Black Ops, and because the disk has perks and killstreaks on it, you should be able to reprogram the disk so that you can use the gunship after a 1 "killstreak," or so you can play with all perks active at once.

My computer, my rules. If I want to have a gunship killstreak in SP then god damnit I will.


As far as MP, that would qualify as cheating, which I wouldn't do. But then again I wouldn't play such a shitty game online in the first place so it's moot, and if it wasn't cheating and I wanted to do it there's nothing Activision can say or do to prevent it.

It's an illogical byproduct of a sense of entitlement that doesn't belong.

It's showing the same contempt to the publishers that they're showing to me. They want to fuck me over? I'll fuck THEM over! If it's on the disc I will use it as I see fit, and nothing you, the mods here or the publishers say can change that. I'm not renting that game, so they have no right to tell me what I can and cannot do with the content on that disc. If I want to modify the enemy NPCs to be giant walking wangs, I will. If I want to use on-disk DLC I will. My money, my computer, my rules. End of story. I'm simply not going to pay for something I've already paid for, it isn't going to happen.

"Ford can't tell me what I can and can't do to my F150"
This isn't a physical sale, not in the truest sense. You are buying the game, the information, the code, not the physical storage device used to hold it.
"Answer: They shouldn't, and they don't. Not from me anyways. If it's on the disk I will use it"
Never said you wouldn't, you can do what you want, it's still amoral, illogical, and illegal, because you are buying the game, not the storage medium for the data. By saying that you can only use it as one copy, you are already letting them tell you what to do with it. You aren't entitled to the locked content, do what you want, but don't expect me to buy your high-and-mighty act. You're just doing what you want because you want to, despite the fact that it's wrong. That's all there is to it.
"and if the publsihers object, they can QQ me a river, build a bridge and get the fuck over it."
If the prosecute you for stealing that locked dlc, I think you are the one who will be crying a river.

 

[imperialreign]

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.

You might want to take the time to review the EULA with any title you've recently installed - contrary to belief, you DO NOT own what's on that disk in any way shape or form . . . all you're purchasing is a LICENSE to USE said media. It's been that way for nearly 30 years now.

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.

How far back do you want to go? I can clearly remember the shareware days of the Amiga and C64/128 . . . I remember the golden age of PC gaming as well.

I'm not sure what specifically you're talking about, but we still get the same amount of goods for titles that we used to . . . it's simply that instead of a printed owner's manunual, many times it's on the disk in .pdf format. We still get additioanl media (like maps, cards, stickers, patches, etc.) if you purchase hard copies, too . . . at least, PC games do (can't say about console versions).

If anything, we're many times offered MORE now than we were in the past. At least, with games of the past, there was no such thing as "DLC" or additional media. If there was ever an expansion of the original game, you were gonna be paying nearly 2/3 the price of the original for the expansion . . . granted our current "expansions" aren't anywhere near as big as the older ones, but still . . .

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.

See my above comment. You DO NOT own the game, nor a copy of it . . . you're only licesned to make use of one specific copy of the game. End of discussion.

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.

Age has nothing to do with it . . . I'm part of the older gaming generation, and if I don't feel something is worth the amount the want to charge, I simply don't buy it or play it.

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 beg to differ - the attitude you cast here comes across as "entitled" . . . it's the same attitude I've seen from players who don't want to spend $60 for a game, or the price of any purchase, so they pirate the game instead.

. . . and I'm sorry as well, but I can't go by your monetary measurement. I know y'all EU gamers do pay a lot more than we US gamers do, but . . . at least going by our pricing, all things considered, we're paying less now for a game (including DLC) than we did 10 or 20 years ago (once inflation is factored in). I still don't get the price arguement, either. 15 years ago when Quake and Duke3D were brand new - that was $60 on the shelf, no different from todays cost.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

You poor, poor, indoctrinated little person...You must be too young to remember a time when the games you buy on the disc or on the cartridge were the complete, final product with no strings attached. It's kind of sad that the game industry has introduced a system of up-selling it's product but, of course, it was only a matter of time. The difference between buying day-one DLC and having to pay to unlock content already on the disc is like the difference between paying extra for bacon on a cheeseburger or, paying extra to have bacon added to your BLT. I don't care for day-one DLC but I'm firmly against locking content that's already on the disc until you give the game companies that extra $5, %10 or, $15. I don't care that it's something I could very well go the whole game without using. When you buy Street Fighter you pay for the entire roaster of characters, not just the handful you end up playing with. Sure, I never actually play as Dan Hibiki or, Cammy but I still want the option to play as them. Even if Akuma is locked until I complete objective X, that's perfectly fine. That's the way it should be if it must be done at all and back when they used to do things that way it worked damn fine.

 

[Scow2]

On-Disk DLC that requires only a code to unlock is wrong, as it is[/i part of the finished game. Now, if it was content on the disk, but wasn't implemented/properly finished and requires a download to properly unlock, that's different.

I see DLC as content that would-have and should-have been in the original game, but the developers didn't have time to properly implement, especially in games that are already large and ambitious in their scope (such as most sandbox games).

Considering how much content gets cut from games due to hardware restrictions, I cannot buy the argument that you're getting "The Full Game" if it has finished, locked, on-disk content.

 

[Sentox6]

1.) Just because it is on the disc does NOT mean it is in its finished state.

What the hell are you on about? We're talking about on disc DLC, when a tiny key that in no way patches the content is used to unlocked it. Clearly a 100KB access key is not going to make sweeping changes to unfinished assets, is it?

2.) They can claim that it wasn't finished when it wasn't finished.

See above.

I personally love DRM, any way to stop pirates from getting games.

I can only refer you to your own statement: "it never works". I'm not sure why a futile measure that only inconveniences you, the paying customer, would bring you joy, unless you're masochistic.