DLC On The Disc, What Is The Big Problem?

[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.

 

[JonnWood]

Day one DLC is a disgrace in itself, so of course people are miffed with content on a disc they paid for that they have to pay extra to unlock.

that itself is a separate issue, which I'm not too sure about at this point

Well you said on disc DLC is a form of day one DLC, and I agree with that, but it's still disgraceful that the business model actually endorse such things.

Karma, DLC is planned into a game's development. They rarely just randomly shave completed things off the game specifically to add into DLC. If there is any cut content in DLC, it's usually something they couldn't work into the original game, and maybe decided to finish later.

There is nothing wrong with having the extra 25% of sandwich ready when the person finishes the first sandwich. It's like saying a hot-dog vendor is in the wrong for having more hot dogs in his cart after you bought one hot-dog. Maybe you decide you need two hot dogs, maybe not, but the deliciousness of your initial hot dog is not diminished because more hot dogs exist. The only real reason for thinking so would be a sense of self-entitlement and sour graping.

As for the topic at hand, I would like to ask everyone who thinks on-disc extra content is wrong a simple question: do you consider Hot Coffee part of GTA San Andreas, or cut content separate from the game itself, like deleted scenes on a DVD?

 

[Yearlongjester]

It honestly depends on how it's implemented. For example, Bethesda has always done DLC very well. They are not integral to the main story of the massive epic they have laid out before you, but tasteful after-dinner mints to add-on (ba-dum tish) to the established setting and characters, most of the time giving us more imaginative set pieces to play with.

What they should never be, EVER, is what Ubisoft has decided to do with Assassin's Creed. Take a few memory sequences from the game, say F that, and charge $10 for each sequence because you can. People who came up with that idea need to be burnt alive, but the people who bought the DLC and fell for their gimmick (Me) deserve just as much if not worse for allowing them to get away with it.

 

[JonnWood]

What they should never be, EVER, is what Ubisoft has decided to do with Assassin's Creed. Take a few memory sequences from the game, say F that, and charge $10 for each sequence because you can

Citation needed.

 

[Yearlongjester]

What they should never be, EVER, is what Ubisoft has decided to do with Assassin's Creed. Take a few memory sequences from the game, say F that, and charge $10 for each sequence because you can

Citation needed.

Did you play ACII? Do you remember the "Corrupted sequence" part, where the game arbitrarily jumped ahead ten or so years? Those two sequences that you could pick up and buy them for $10 each on the XBL marketplace? Yep, and they did the exact same thing for ACII: Brotherhood.

 

[Xannieros]

If it's on disc, then it means they aren't creating content to support the title. It's them trying to get more money for their game.

If they could put DLC on the disc itself, it means they cut part of the content out of the game for extra money.

 

[kenu12345]

Off world slavery what's the big problem?

 

[elvor0]

-snip-

What is wrong with you, seriously?

If the content is on the disc, that means that it was that content was done and the devs decided to put it on the disc before it went gold, which means they intended it to be packaged with the game, which means we should have access to it, not have to pay for content that's already there.

Your example of with Mario is fucking awful, because we still have ACCESS to all the content on the cartridge, sure if you're not good enough to get there you won't be able to play it, but its there for when you do get to the level once you complete the levels before it. This isn't the same as the versus mode (Resident Evil) being ON the disc, not elsewhere, not on the internet to download, but actually on the fucking disc, but being greyed out until you pay for it is fucking bang out of order.

Paying for a key to unlock something on the disc isn't paying for EXTRA content, as you are not downloading ANYTHING all you're doing is paying to be able to play something that you should be able to access already because it's already on the fucking disc.

The fact that I don't have to download it doesn't mean jack shit, I don't care if I have to download it, 2gb is only gonna take 30 mins- 1 hour anyway, the fact is we're paying for something we already have but the devs have decided at the last minute they would like to charge for again, despite the fact that they already put it on the disc.

If they put it on the disc, it must be finished and ready otherwise why would they put it on there in the first place? We should be allowed access to all the features that are on the disc. Buying dlc that you have to actually download (as y'now it's DOWNLOADABLE content) is fair enough because it's not on the disc and there's no other way to obtain it, however if it is on the disc, why should we not be allowed access to it just because some greedy **** in a suit wants some more money?

You don't buy a movie and certain scenes are missing from it until you download them from universal studios, or a cd with bits of tracks missing until you pay EMI for the complete version do you?

 

[Korzack]

It's a simple situation of if they include the features on the disk, they should be part of what gets handed to the customer under the terms of both the licence and the money paid to possess that disk. It's common knowledge that features are trimmed from a game's development to make extra dough on DLC anyway (And what would constitute an "expansion" seven or more years ago constitutes a sequel today in many examples), but day one DLC is insulting. I accept many of the day one DLC's aren't core aspects or story-essential scenes on a DVD, but more having to pay 50p on top of your £5 burger meal if you want ketchup or mustard on the thing, but it's all at once the lack of convenience, lack of trust and the sheer cheek of it from the publishers who sit there going "lol, if they pay full price for this P.O.S, they'll pay for the rest" It shows what they [the publishers] think of the people who're keeping their backsides out of the unemployment dole queue, that's for definite, and to an extent what they think of the developers they paid to make the product for them.

 

[spartan231490]

amoral

I think the main problem with this debate is people keep going off track. You get one side comparing wanting full use of a product they paid for to copying and distributing it for a profit. Saying that on disc dlc is bullshit is not the same as the piracy argument. Now the morality of cracking that content would be relevant to piracy but the debate about putting something on a disc, selling it to us and then not letting us use it is a different story entirely.

They are comparable. In both examples, you are trying to put the content to a use you have no legal or moral right to put it to.

Yes, they are different points, and I posted my thoughts on the original question, but I was discussing whether or not it is "right" to crack the content. I'm not really seeing what you're trying to say here.

Also, they aren't selling you the locked disk content. I've said it time and again, you aren't buying the code to do with as you please, you are buying the code as it's written, and that means that you aren't buying the content that is locked out. They are selling you the rest of the content, the game. It's no different from any other dlc because it isn't a physical sale. Not really. What you are buying is the game, not all the little bits of code on the disk.

 

[nikomas1]

This thread is just plain anything to read... First of all, I think DLC is bad and not just bad, I believe it is an outright terrible practice that should die.

Remember all those "Extras" and "Unlocks" games used to have, that came on the disk that required some sort of in game feat to unlock? That's your day 1 DLC now, and there is no excuse for this. And its not like this died long ago, look back to the last generation of PS2 and Xbox games, many, many MANY of them had secrets and other fun things to unlock, often you had "Extras" right there on the main menu.

Skins, Bonus Levels, Cheats (Remember when fighting games would put a cheats/modifications tab right there on the menu? Bloody Roar at 2x the speed was so much fun for example) Costumes and Alternate characters. Granted, some games do this but not many, GoW3 is a perfect example of this is it not?

Those of you who speak of the "Budgeting", this is, in my eyes, total bullshit. Look, I'm pretty sure you only need one guy to do 1 or 2 pallet swaps on a few guns, or "make X model work in X mode". And to flip it, how do you KNOW it was never intended to be in the game in the first place, and not just cut off later on? If it was on the disk, it was complete, if it was on the disk and incomplete, it should be patched for free.

All you have to go on when you speak of the magical "DLC Budget" is your faith in the developers and their publishers, and let me tell you right now, that is in some cases some finely misplaced trust there.



Imagine this, Day 1 Expansions... now how would this sound? Because well, DLC has replaced expansions these days, fucked up as it sounds.

(And don't get me started on removing mod support for PC games so they can sell DLC, THAT is were you can tell how much trust you can put in devs if you ask me, removing mod and ded server support just proves that they know people will make better DLC for their game than they can/are willing to on their own.)


Edit:

For me, isn't really a question about morals as it is wanting devs to put geunine effort in games, because the "Skin packs" that get released these days, well fuck, "I" could do those with some effort... And this really says something.

 

[elvor0]

amoral

I think the main problem with this debate is people keep going off track. You get one side comparing wanting full use of a product they paid for to copying and distributing it for a profit. Saying that on disc dlc is bullshit is not the same as the piracy argument. Now the morality of cracking that content would be relevant to piracy but the debate about putting something on a disc, selling it to us and then not letting us use it is a different story entirely.

They are comparable. In both examples, you are trying to put the content to a use you have no legal or moral right to put it to.

Yes, they are different points, and I posted my thoughts on the original question, but I was discussing whether or not it is "right" to crack the content. I'm not really seeing what you're trying to say here.

Also, they aren't selling you the locked disk content. I've said it time and again, you aren't buying the code to do with as you please, you are buying the code as it's written, and that means that you aren't buying the content that is locked out. They are selling you the rest of the content, the game. It's no different from any other dlc because it isn't a physical sale. Not really. What you are buying is the game, not all the little bits of code on the disk.

Hey, I've got this laptop here I can sell you for £1000, you can't use the USB ports or the CD drive until you pay me another £30 for the unlock code though. However here''s a catch, when you buy it from my store, I'm not going to tell you about the fact that you have to pay £30 to unlock the USB and CD drive, and if you come in and complain I'll tell you to piss off.

If you were presented with this scenario you'd go batshit, no?

 

[Sectan]

If the DLC is a reward to a pre-order customer then I'm totally cool with it. If the DLC is an extra instead of a pretty important piece then that's cool too.

 

[spartan231490]

amoral

I think the main problem with this debate is people keep going off track. You get one side comparing wanting full use of a product they paid for to copying and distributing it for a profit. Saying that on disc dlc is bullshit is not the same as the piracy argument. Now the morality of cracking that content would be relevant to piracy but the debate about putting something on a disc, selling it to us and then not letting us use it is a different story entirely.

They are comparable. In both examples, you are trying to put the content to a use you have no legal or moral right to put it to.

Yes, they are different points, and I posted my thoughts on the original question, but I was discussing whether or not it is "right" to crack the content. I'm not really seeing what you're trying to say here.

Also, they aren't selling you the locked disk content. I've said it time and again, you aren't buying the code to do with as you please, you are buying the code as it's written, and that means that you aren't buying the content that is locked out. They are selling you the rest of the content, the game. It's no different from any other dlc because it isn't a physical sale. Not really. What you are buying is the game, not all the little bits of code on the disk.

Hey, I've got this laptop here I can sell you for £1000, you can't use the USB ports or the CD drive until you pay me another £30 for the unlock code though. However here''s a catch, when you buy it from my store, I'm not going to tell you about the fact that you have to pay £30 to unlock the USB and CD drive, and if you come in and complain I'll tell you to piss off.

If you were presented with this scenario you'd go batshit, no?

That's not what's happening. It's closer to being sold a computer and told it has no cd drive or usb ports, and then after buying it they tell you that it does have them, they just won't work unless you buy this other part. How is this so hard to understand. It's not included in the original game, and you were never told that it was. it's absolutely no different than any other dlc except that it's already downloaded. It's just like sharing a 360 with a brother, and each having a different xbox live account. If your brother buys and downloads a dlc, you won't be able to use it even though it's on the hard-drive because your account never paid for it, you don't own it, even if it's information is on your hard-drive.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

I think it's a fairly reasonable mindset, putting aside any technical issues, if you buy a disc, you expect to be able to use what's on there. I was going to make some kinda analogy about a TV with a metal plate over a quarter of the screen, and a coin slot that makes it slide back, but I think the above guy does it better

Essentially, if you're going to charge us for more stuff, we've been conditioned over centuries of bartering for things, that if we pay for something, we get something. Not pay for something and you let us use something we already have.

In essence, it's ok, really, but I think you'll struggle to convince anyone it's right, because it just doesn't feel right.

I guess another question would be, how do the makers of the game decide they've made $60 worth of game, and this next bit is going to be DLC? That they're SO sure it's that wonderful that they can quit there and move on to making added extras?

 

[Kermi]

Generally the point of DLC is to add content to a finished game - usually this content is finished after the game is released and is added later, as a bonus.

If it's on the disc but being withheld from us until we pay more money, it feels like we're being ripped off. They could at least perpetuate the illusion we're not being ripped off by needing to download the content from somewhere instead of just unlocking it.

It's just like sharing a 360 with a brother, and each having a different xbox live account. If your brother buys and downloads a dlc, you won't be able to use it even though it's on the hard-drive because your account never paid for it, you don't own it, even if it's information is on your hard-drive.

Uh, 360 DLC I pay for is usable by my wife, and we use seperate accounts.

 

[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

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

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

once again, I ask:

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?

Because with A i get 100% of the game and with B i dont. I fucking love fallout. I fucking hate DLC. See an issue here? I dont know how fallout 3 ends. I dont. I have to pay to find out. As far as i know i die at the end. When someone talks about the fact that you dont i tell them they are wrong and you die, because i for one deserve to know a games fucking ending when i buy it, and i decided that you DONT survive. And nothing happens after. No integral story. Im being forced to buy something TO FIND OUT HOW THE GAME ENDS.

When you sell a product, You sell the whole thing it functions well without the addition, there is no major feature im missing out on. When i buy a car it comes with goddam seats and a radio. I do not want to pay extra after i buy the car to get these things unlocked if they are already inside it. Its a hassle, id pay 3 quid extra to just fucking shove it on the disc. How hard would that be? Day one DLC is a massive fuck you to the customer. You dont have the right to enjoy 100% of the product you bought, you have to PAY FOR IT! Unlocking levels with SKILL NOT CASH is goddam different and any parallels drawn are just incorrect.

 

[XT inc]

The fact is DLC has grown cancerous and mutated well and truly beyond what it started off as.

It came out as a way to release expansion content via the internet, content you download. It was more or less cheap, and it actually was bonus content, that was added onto full complete games.

Now The issue with on disc DLC, is that you?ve bought the disc you should feel entitled to every last scrap of code on the disc. Maybe not to the full extent of say stripping out all the content into some bizarre Gary?s Mod esque game and building your own games off it to then resale.

You buy a game, you get the disc, and everything held therein should be yours, not to have the creators say, ? yeah well now you have to buy this content you already have in your possession.? What the Hell is that some lame Xzibit joke ? I heard you liked buying games, so we put a game you could buy in a game you just bought, so you can buy while you buy.?

Just because it wasn?t advertised, doesn?t mean they can hide content on my property, and charge for it, otherwise every game has to come with a full complete prima guide free of charge detailing every single iota of information on the game so I know what it entails to the very last bit.

This all of course isn?t even dipping into the problem of day one dlc, ludicrous map packery, horse armour, pay for cheat codes, and all the other shit devs have been pulling since next gen came out.

FFS they even charged money for the more preferable colors for dying your clothing in fable 3.