EA: Retail is Great and Day-One DLC is Awesome

[V da Mighty Taco]

snip

That analogy has absolutely nothing to do with what EA is doing. If anything, it paints what EA does as even more generous. What we have here is a similar situation to if Coca-Cola charged you $3 (the price of a 600 ml bottle) and then gave you a 1.5 liter bottle, saying you could pay them for the other 900 Ml when you wanted to drink it. You get the exact amount you paid for (the 600 ML you bought) with your disc - all of that content is yours, and you can play it. However, the other content you didn't pay for yet, you need to pay extra to get. Do you get it yet?

But you have the 1.5L bottle in your hands, and that extra 900mL is already there. Obviously, when it came time to bottle, they made 1.5L, but removed 900mL from the initial purchase to sell it to you later. You paid for "A full bottle" not "A full bottle, minus 900mL".

And that's the thing. The general consensus (whether it's right or wrong I honestly don't know) is that Day 1 DLC was developed and always intended to be part of the game, but that it was intentionally removed so they could claim it to be bonus content created after the fact, and thus charge extra for it. And the fact that this content is, at least in part, on the disc at initial purchase seems to provide proof to this.

No it doesn't, it provides you don't understand how business works. Even if that content was made before the game was finished, that does not prove it was ever, ever intended to be on the disc. What, you think that a company like EA is going to spend the several million dollars it took to make this content for absolutely no reason? If they could not sell you that content extra, they would not make it. End of story. No further discussion. There is not a single thing you can say that makes the situation any different. The content was made to be sold. If it wasn't going to be sold, it wouldn't be made.

Of course it was made to be sold. There's no question there.The question was whether it was A) made to be sold along with rest of the game, and then removed afterwards to be sold as an extra, or B) made after the game was already finished to be sold as an extra. The companies say B), the consumers say A).

Common sense says B), Entitled whinging says A).

And you didn't pay for a "a whole bottle", you paid for 600 ml. That those 600 ML come along with 900 ml you cannot experience unless you pay extra is irrelevant - you get the exact same amount of coke you would have otherwise, and are free to do with it what you want. But you are not entitles to the 900 ml you didn't pay for, and that you are not entitled to.

Okay, putting aside Coke for the moment, let's imagine you're buying a remake of Super Mario Bros for the NES, only in this version, the third Level in each World is locked as paid DLC. You could argue that, yes, even with that bit removed, it's still technically a "complete" game. You still defeat Bowser and rescue the Princess at the end of World 8. But it doesn't change that there's still a chunk of the game that they arbitrarily decided you shouldn't be able to play without paying them extra.

Yeah, lets not say that, because its a fucking stupid argument. Lets instead say that its a remake of SMB, except with ten new levels that weren't on the original game made as paid DLC extras. Thats the one thats in any way like the reality.

Your argument is that, because those levels exist, you deserve them, as they are part of the "complete" experience. Except they're not, they're extra levels that were never in the original product that was made without DLC in minjd, they were made specifically to be sold under DLC.

The problem with both of your arguments is that it's often difficult to know for sure whether it was A or B.

Foolproof, do NOT assume that devs / publishers don't cut out content that was originally suppose to be apart of the main game just so they can sell it later, because it's a fact that some of them do. One shouldn't automatically assume that devs / publishers won't try to screw them over in order to get as much money as humanly possible unless they've proven themselves otherwise. As for your argument about entitlement, I'm personally among the crowd that says that we are indeed entitled to everything that's fully complete and put on the disc. Customers are paying full-price with the expectation that they are getting the full game. It's on the customer's dollar that these business' are running on, therefore the customer does have a right to complain or refuse their business if they feel that said business isn't living up to their part of the bargain.

As for Buretsu, you're ignoring the fact that it can be virtually impossible to tell if content was ever meant to be a part of the game or, more importantly, fully completed before the game went gold. Day-1 DLC can be used to finish up incomplete code that couldn't be finished in time for the game's release. For example, a character and a couple weapon models could be complete, but the bonus missions for that character might still need to be finished up though. In this situation, Day-1 DLC makes since here; since otherwise the missions involving the missing character's missions could've never been completed otherwise and players wouldn't be able to enjoy it as it was suppose to be. It's on this end that I expect that the "entitled" argument stems from, since in this case people are expecting content to be free that the devs had to work on after the game went gold and thus after the point that they were required to even work on the game.

As for my personal opinion on this, it all depends on whether the content was complete before the game went gold. If it was, then the consumer is indeed entitled to it; since it was completed on the game's regular budget and schedule. I must stress that before the game goes gold, all money and time should be put into content for the regular game instead of focusing on DLC. They shouldn't be setting aside DLC budget and manpower before the game even hits gold. On the other hand, If the Day-1 DLC is used to finish off content that simply couldn't be finished within the timeframe or budget, then finishing it up and selling it for a reasonable price is perfectly fair and the customers aren't entitled to it; since extra time and money was required in order to finish said content that otherwise wouldn't have been playable.

For both the customer and the business, the sale of the product or service needs to be a balancing act. The business is giving the customer something they want, and in return the customer pays them and makes said business possible. If either side asks for too much or if one side feels they're being ripped off, then they have the right to say "screw off" and take their business elsewhere. That, my friends, is where both issues lie.

 

[V da Mighty Taco]

snip

Look, if you're not actually going to pay attention to what I say then I'm not going to even bother arguing with you.

It isn't extra time if the DLC is being worked on before the game even hits gold, as people should be working on the game then anyways. Putting money and manpower into DLC before the game hitting gold is setting things aside for it, since that money and manpower could and should be used on the actual game itself at this stage. Btw in case anyone doesn't know what I mean by a game "going gold", it's the stage in development when a game is actually finished and copies are being produced. If the game isn't even finished yet, then they simply shouldn't be putting time and manpower into developing DLC at that point.

Your "Are you spending all your money on it?" argument is ridiculously flawed on many levels, including not taking into account whether the customer has sixty-five dollars or sixty-five million as well as flat out not being relevant to the debate at hand. They're making a product and trying to get the customer to buy it. It makes since to expect them to do everything they can to make the product as good as possible, not cut out content or set aside money that could be going into the actual game at this stage and putting it into making DLC. The main game should be the primary focus before said game goes gold.

As for your preset price argument, your forgetting that it's the publishers who set the pricetag. They're the ones who are trying to sell the consumer the game, and it's them who thought that pricetag was reasonable. Remember how I said that the sale of the product needs to be a balancing act? Both sides need to come into agreement about the product and how much it's worth. If either side feels they're getting ripped off, then they are entitled to say "No deal" and take their business elsewhere. It does go both ways, hence why this debate even exists in the first place. However, you keep ignoring this fact and accusing people of being entitled whenever they complain about feeling ripped off when as a matter of fact they are entitled to complain about what they feel is a bad deal on the businesses' part, especially since in the end it's on the customer's dollar that allows these companies to operate. Once again, the entire transaction only works if both sides are in agreement; something a lot of people here on both sides of this debate are seeming to forget or deliberately ignore.

You've been taking all of this way too personally as well. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean you need to start resorting to ad hominems and it doesn't mean that they're attacking you personally. My previous post attacked both Buretsu's argument as well as yours, but not either of you personally. So why in the world are you acting like I did? My point was that both sides of the debate had their issues and I expressed my personal viewpoint as well. It was never anything personal, so quit acting like it was.

Last but not least; I do not have a problem with DLC in general, contrary to what your saying. I have a problem with DLC that's worked on and completed before the game itself is finished, as that should have absolute priority over everything else. DLC that can't be completed before the game goes gold, but is finished up before launch and sold Day-1 is perfectly fair imo; no matter whether part of the code for it is on the disc or not. On-disc DLC that's entirely on the disc in a 100% completed state but locked out at the last minute in order to sell it later, on the other hand, is where my and many other people's issues lie. You stated earlier that nobody cuts out content to be resold later and that I just made that up. Yes, some companies out there actually do that and such things are not below them. Content that is fully completed and is already on the disc is being locked away and being sold for later. That means one of three things:

A) Sometime during development, someone took ideas that were going to be put into the final game and decided that it was going to be made DLC instead. Thus money, time, manpower, and content was being taken away from the main game while said game was still in development in order to work on DLC.

B) From the get go, someone decided that they wanted Day-1 DLC and put money, time, and manpower that could've been put into the main game itself in order to make DLC alongside the development of the main game.

C) The content was already completed, but someone decided to lock it out of the players access to it entirely so it could be sold for extra later. In other words, players are being denied what was to be a part of the game and is already completed on the disc in order to try to get them to pay extra for it.

In all three of these cases you either have content being taken away from the main game in order to sell it as DLC, taking money and manpower that could've been used on the main game itself in order to make said DLC, or both. It's also extremely naive to assume that A and C never happen and that no publisher would think of something like that. Not all publishers do, mind you, but it can't honestly be said that it flat-out never happens. As I said earlier, one should never assume that a business of any kind won't try to screw them over any chance they get, unless said business proves itself trustworthy. Quite a few publishers out there have also proven themselves untrustworthy and very anti-consumer (ask any PC gamer about Ubisoft). Don't automatically assume that cutting out content that's already on the disc in order to sell it as DLC is below them.

Now if you actually read my post this time, I really would enjoy discussing this more with you. However, if you just ignore half of what I say again then I'm not even going to bother to reply. I don't feel like wasting another two hours arguing with someone who's just going to ignore me.

 

[V da Mighty Taco]

snip

You didn't prove anything. You're bias towards the publishers is blinding you to the fact that not only can they lock out content without breaking the game, but that some of them actually do. It really is as simple as adding an IF statement that kicks in when a certain code is present. Tampering with extremely sensitive code isn't required to, say, keep a certain level locked; how do you think that Easter Egg levels or cheat codes are kept locked? You also keep repeating that these DLC's are concepts that otherwise wouldn't have possibly made it into the game; yet they had the money, time, and manpower to fully complete this DLC before the game even went gold. So how in the world would that not have been possible to not lock it off at the last minute otherwise? If they had all these extra assets, then why weren't they put into the main game itself? You also keep using broken metaphors such as you're "Obama American citizen" crap that is radically different from what you're comparing it to.

You're not even acknowledging the possibility that the publishers just might not have the customer's best interests in mind. You're also refusing to even try to see the other side of the argument or even fully grasp what my argument actually is (hint: my problem is entirely on content that was completed before a game went gold but resold later for extra. Not all Day-1 DLC is bad, let alone DLC in general). You're arguments are full of insults and you actually think that customers don't have a right to complain if they feel like they're getting ripped off. It is the customers who decide if these games are indeed worth their money, and according to most customers these games with locked out content are - in their eyes - a ripoff. The only way a company can understand why customers aren't liking or buying the product is if said customers actually speak out on why they're upset. All of that is indeed entitlement, because they are in fact completely entitled to do so.

I'm done with this. You really are taking this way too personally, as your constant insults at the opposition are proof of. At this point, I'm honestly wondering if you're just trolling, but at least I acknowledge that it's possible that you're not. You, on the other hand, refuse to accept that it's even possible that the other side of the argument may be right on a few things or that companies don't know how to lock off content without utterly breaking the game. I attacked both sides of the argument as well as threw in my own two cents into the mix. You threw a temper tantrum at anyone that didn't agree with you 100% (another hint: I agreed with you on a few things). Whether you are indeed a troll or not, I'm fucking done with your half-ass insult-filled arguments that don't even acknowledge the possibility that they could be even slightly wrong. Don't expect any more responses from me, and have a nice day.

 

[Something Amyss]

That analogy has absolutely nothing to do with what EA is doing.

Except for it being exactly what they're doing, of course.