Jimquisition: On-Disc DLC Cannot Be Justified

[darksakul]

People who complain about on-disc DLC (a misnomer) don't understand how video games are made.

Rather simple really.

Agreed 100%.

Not all downloads to enable DLC is just a serial key for unlocks.
What if a particular segment, character or stage is glitched and there do in time to fix it before release?

An easy way to remove bad or erroneous content is to lock it out of normal use.
Programers do it all the time with bad code. It is called \\commenting out bad code.

In the code you put the symbol for a comment. Parts of the code that supposed to serve as a note to the developers/programers but not as normal code. When a script does not work, some programers comment out such code to see how the program works with out it.

Now what if that last part of the product cycle, where the development team does jack shit. They get resigned to other projects or get FIRED. Instead of firing perfectly good staff, you have them fix these errors for this locked content and have them release the fix as a update.

Additional work cost Money unfortunately, why do work for free when you can charge for it.

The other hand, side projects that becomes add-ons or other DLC are done by staff that do not work on the main project. Locked on the disk or not the Studio does not do work for free. Why not charge for it.

Jim Sterling, we both don't give a fuck how the big name publisher proffits at the end of the year, but you expect the underpaid over worked staffers to get fired because he can't work on his side project DLC?

Think of it this way, you buy a car (new or used) I am pretty sure the dealer will charge for the gas already in the tank.

 

[Dryk]

Now what if that last part of the product cycle, where the development team does jack shit. They get resigned to other projects or get FIRED. Instead of firing perfectly good staff, you have them fix these errors for this locked content and have them release the fix as a update.

It's really strange this only ever seems to happen at companies with these types of business practices. Companies that value their customers can always seem to find something for their staff to do.

 

[Doom-Slayer]

On-Disc DLC Cannot Be Justified

There are explanations for games that ship with downloadable content already included. There are, however, no excuses. While you may have a reason, you do not have validation, because on-disc DLC is a problem willingly created by the industry, and it doesn't have to exist in the first place. You cannot justify a problem arranged by design, no matter how much you try and pretend it's out of your hands.

This week, the Jimquisition takes on one of this generation's growing aggravations, and you won't even get charged for it.

Watch Video

Eeeeh for one of the first times Im going to have to disagree. Because there always ARE situations where the on disk dlc is necessary. If a developer has a strict time frame for their game to be released and they run out of time during the normal development for the extra content they want to include, they can then work on it during that validation process. The fact is if the game is going through that process, they cant simply just add it in, and if it isn't very necessary content, all they do is put it up for sale for a few dollars. Ya they probably should put it up for free, but thats a different issue, its still fine for it to be there

That seems to be a big issue Jim ignored is when devs actually may NOT have a choice about these things. Publishers are the ones that decide release dates and how the content is shipped, so it is plausible for them to have these restrictions.

Also am I the only one that thinks this whole thing is completely stupid? If they went ahead and made the SAME dlc, in the SAME time, then just released it after launch, nobody would bat an eyelid, except now when its made easier for consumers to get at, we call them out on it. For all we know a vast amount of dlc COULD be being made during these times then not put on disk, and apparently thats better than it being on the disk, even though its made during the same time, and its the same content, but the delivery method is different.

 

[RaffB]

Okay, so, someone may need to clarify something for me. Is the entire "From Ashes" DLC from Mass Effect 3 "on disk dlc?" As in, was all the content for it on the disk? If it was, then in that case I would agree with Jim.

However, from what I heard concerning the entire "From Ashes" dlc was that Bioware developed it while the game was being shipped and then added some compatibility on the disk. I remember having to actually physically download the expansion and install the dlc, I don't THINK it was already on the disk, but I'm not too sure. If this is true, then I don't really have a problem with it. If Bioware chose to make new content while waiting for it to be shipped, then I just don't really understand what the complaint is, it isn't "locking off" any of the games actual content, it's just something extra.

No, its not about "From Ashes". That DLC was planned during the development of the game, but it was not included on the disc. It was proper "downloadable content" (some people have a problem with it being ready at the same time as the retail game, but that is another issue. Officially, the retail disc didn't have the content).

Actually, it was included on the disc. This video shows you:

Parts of it were included, as in the parts that were finished when it went to certification.
That video shows only half the story. While yes, you could unlock the character, none of his quests were available and he barely spoke on mission.

IIRC, they did clarify this and said that they put everything that was finished at the time on disk, knowing that the rest would be added ,via DLC ,when it was finished.

 

[Strazdas]

Should we call it DLK (downloadable key)?. And you know, some still remember when DLCs used to be called "updates" and were free to begin with.

 

[Nergy]

Thank You! You don't know how much time I've spent trying to tell people that on-disc DLC is absolute bullshit. You focused on the reaction of Game Devs and publishers, but you'd be shocked by the amount of people who are consumers who act like they're unpayed employees for the devs/publishers.

"Well It's not illegal"
"You don't own the content on the disc"
"If you don't want the content, don't buy it"
"Companies have been doing this for years, deal with it"
"You just want everything for free"

These are real responses I've heard from people defending these companies. Stop acting like complacent investors and start acting like responsible consumers.

 

[Gunner 51]

How about a third option - organisation that ensures that DLC isn't overcharged, unreasonable or on-disc.

Come what may, I think almost everyone agrees that a lot of DLC is simply a naked money-grab on top of of us paying top-drawer prices for a game. In essence, all gamers are being ripped off and deep down, we know it. (Even if we try to rationalise it.)

While I appreciate the business side of things, and acknowledge the publisher and developer's right to make money. But what they don't have a right to is to rip off the paying public. The publishers are abusing their own power with DLC and are using their developers as a mask to claim poverty with.

To me, this is nothing short of extortion - hell, it IS extortion. Yet, the publishers have the sheer temerity to complain about pirates being thieves.

Pirates may be scumbags with their outright thievery but unlike the publishers, but at least they're honest and don't use developers as human shields.

 

[Mr.Pandah]

God dammit Jim if you haven't grown on me. I'm agreeing with you more and more. Keep up the good work.

 

[Knuckles]

As someone who has been gaming for 25 years and used to both console and PC gaming, I think that the DLC business is bad for the consumers in the long run. Not because it has to be, but because we consumers allow it to become that way by buying everything no questions asked.

Lets face it (game) companies will do anything to squeeze extra money out of consumers. I think EA is one of the champions of this activity by releasing every year "new" games which are a rehash of the old ones. And now with DLC they can withhold content that was previously sold with the game, and sell it as "extra" content on the first day. Where is the blame?, not all at the companies side, but also on the gamer side as well, as they have chosen with their wallet that DLCs are a good thing, these are probably the same people that buy every single yearly update of the same game are probably going to buy every DLC that comes available to them, regardless of value, which is why it's bad have DLCs in the first place. If gamers could show little restraint I think they would be able to get more gaming for their dollars, and maybe sensible DLCs.

The excuse for higher prices now is that the cost of making games has increased, which is true because compared to 25 years ago, due to hardware limitations, games were simpler and cheaper to make. However the market size has also increased during the past 25 years, so I think it's a moot point.

I have bought a lot of expansion packs in the past for games that I liked to get a little bit more of the same action, but I haven't bought a single DLC yet or so I thought until I bought BF:BC2 Vietnam expansion that came with an empty DVD holster and a serial key that made me download the whole thing using my limited internet capabilities, I think I have made my feelings clear. The unlockable content on the disk is disingenuous, and we should have seen it coming after the 1. day DLCs. And in this case CAPCOM, which is famous for their many versions of SF2, for them pulling a stunt like this is very much in their manner of nickle and dime their fan base for every little character update.

Another negative point with DLCs in multiplayer community, that has been raised before, is that it fragments it. You either buy it and can't find servers with players that have it or you don't buy it and find that your usual servers are not as popular as they used to be. Then there is possibility that DLC may give unfair advantage to players buy offering new weapons.

Their is one more point about the DLC that seems to be forgot from the debate at this time, it's that you don't buy anything other then a license key, instead of a real physical copy that can be resold if one wishes. This limits the rights of the consumers, which is why I never buy DLC in the first place. I think we are heading in the direction that we don't buy games only license to play them at times fitting to the services of the publishers, which I think is a scary future for gamers. It will be like in the old days of arcades where you were literally nickled and dimed to play games.

TLR: DLC bad, 1-day DLC worse, On disk DLC worst. Who is to blame, greedy companies and stupid buyers.

 

[ThunderCavalier]

Thought:

If the DLC is already on the disc, why not make it available to get the content on the disc through some extraordinarily difficult task ALONG WITH the 'pay for a key, One-Day DLC' idea?

Kind of like, in Battlefield 3's new DLC, they're allowing you to buy your way through the new classes and packs instead of progressing through them normally, they should allow you a fund to access the content automatically, or make some sort of in-game task you have to complete in order to get the content free, such as "Beating the game on the hardest difficulty" or "Completing all of the achievements" or "Quickscope the entire enemy team in a Search and Destroy Modern Warfare 3 game".

That way, you can technically 'have' the One Day DLC as long as there's a free, but relatively difficult way to access it, and people who don't have the patience but a lot of money can give you the money then. Of course, it probably won't happen, since that would 'cut into their profits', but it's just an idle suggestion.

 

[blackrave]

That's why I don't don't like DLCs
Extension packs is my preferable method of gaining new content (besides mods)
As for DLCs
Like I said numerous times before- just charge me slightly more, so I can get all in one piece
I played Mass Effect 2 DLCs only when ME3 was about to be released (so that I could have bought and setup all additional DLCs at once)

 

[MB202]

And why should I have to be more mature than Movie Bob?

BUT!!!!!
In response to your question, the answer is simple: Monie$
This what mainstream video-game industry has become. They're willing to cut out whatever they can (be it endings or characters) to squeeze more money from you. Complaining about ETHER one doesn't make you an entitled fan-boy but the truth is, No matter what gaming may mean to you personally, it's still another business.

You don't have to be more mature than MovieBob, you just have to understand where Bob's coming from and not be so hung up over ONE example of ONE incident that may or may not relate to his opinions of DLC as a whole. In other words, don't put words in his mouth.

My gripe with Capcom and Street Fighter x Tekken ISN'T the whole on-disc DLC, but rather they were planning on actually "releasing" it MONTHS later... I know fighting gmaes have long lifespans, but who, other than the obsessively dedicated, are going to buy that DLC after that long? Seriously, while I don't claim to speak for everyone, I think that most people experiences with a game are like so: they buy it, they play it, they're done with it. Sure they might go back to it from time to time, but still, it seems like it'd be a better business move to release the DLC closer to the release date. Perhaps not day-one DLC, but still, close enough that the game is still in the public's conscience.

 

[hermes]

Okay, so, someone may need to clarify something for me. Is the entire "From Ashes" DLC from Mass Effect 3 "on disk dlc?" As in, was all the content for it on the disk? If it was, then in that case I would agree with Jim.

However, from what I heard concerning the entire "From Ashes" dlc was that Bioware developed it while the game was being shipped and then added some compatibility on the disk. I remember having to actually physically download the expansion and install the dlc, I don't THINK it was already on the disk, but I'm not too sure. If this is true, then I don't really have a problem with it. If Bioware chose to make new content while waiting for it to be shipped, then I just don't really understand what the complaint is, it isn't "locking off" any of the games actual content, it's just something extra.

No, its not about "From Ashes". That DLC was planned during the development of the game, but it was not included on the disc. It was proper "downloadable content" (some people have a problem with it being ready at the same time as the retail game, but that is another issue. Officially, the retail disc didn't have the content).

Actually, it was included on the disc. This video shows you:

Ohh, how dramatic and epic (the music is a nice touch).

What it fails to show is that not everything from the DLC is included, like

Spoiler

dialogue options in Thessia and the Normandy.

Which is part of what I mean when I wrote about "other ways to handle it". For example, a fighting game can have all the models, textures and art assets from DLC characters on the disc (the bulk of the character data), but release all the animation and stats information as part of a online patch when the DLC is released. That way, the content not included is available to users online, but hackers can't unlock the characters before time. The alternative is how MK handle it (that game truly had no on-disc "downloadable content"), and we all know how that turned out...

 

[V da Mighty Taco]

Also, the problem is that if Disc Locked Content keeps up, soon half the content on the disc will be locked.

But I don't see how that is specifically a Disk Locked Content issue. You could apply the same argument to Downloadable content.
Hence why I say the gripes I have are the same with both types of DLC and I don't see why having it on the disk is any worse than making you download it later. They're both just as bad as each other just that one way actually makes it less of a hassle for you.

Just for the record though, I agree with Jim on the part where he doesn't like developers whining about it like it's not them who "create the problem" in the first place, but I think I disagree that he's venting his disdain for the on-disk stuff without throwing traditional DLC in to the same pot. Extra content which may or may not be stuff that you should have from the get-go is a whole different argument. The medium its on shouldn't really make much of a difference.

I can't speak for everyone, but the big reason I hate on-disc DLC is that there's nothing stopping it from being included in the game in the first place other than somebody being greedy. The content was completed within the alloted budget and managed to make it onto the disc before the game went gold, so why the f*ck can't I access it after having payed 60 dollars for the game in the first place? I have an equal problem with regular day-1 DLC that simply got cut out of the game entirely so it could be sold as DLC later and both are complete and utter bullsh*t.

Now if the content only gets partially completed but couldn't be finished before the game goes gold, then finishing it and selling the missing pieces as DLC makes sense and is understandable since the devs had to put in extra time and effort in order to finish the incomplete content. However, that is almost never the case in this day and age.

Note, however, that not all DLC is simply content that was cut from the game at the last minute in order to scam consumers out of their money. DLC that's actually made after the game's release is fine in my book as long as it's not needed in order to enjoy the core game itself; since once again the devs need to put extra time, effort, and money into making the extra content.

 

[hermes]

That's why I don't don't like DLCs
Extension packs is my preferable method of gaining new content (besides mods)

You know that is just a marketing name, don't you. Expansion packs and downloadable content are pretty much the same (only difference being the delivery method).

Even when the delivery method made cost-effective to release small chunks of content as DLC, but not as expansion pack (it skips most of the production schedule, and you don't need to burn another disk to sell horse armor), some DLC can be considered as big as expansion packs (like Minerva's Den, Undead Nightmare or Claptrap's New Robot Revolution) while some expansion packs are on the poor side (like The Sims packs)

 

[MonkeyPunch]

I can't speak for everyone, but the big reason I hate on-disc DLC is that there's nothing stopping it from being included in the game in the first place other than somebody being greedy. The content was completed within the alloted budget and managed to make it onto the disc before the game went gold, so why the f*ck can't I access it after having payed 60 dollars for the game in the first place? I have an equal problem with regular day-1 DLC that simply got cut out of the game entirely so it could be sold as DLC later and both are complete and utter bullsh*t.

Now if the content only gets partially completed but couldn't be finished before the game goes gold, then finishing it and selling the missing pieces as DLC makes sense and is understandable since the devs had to put in extra time and effort in order to finish the incomplete content. However, that is almost never the case in this day and age.

Note, however, that not all DLC is simply content that was cut from the game at the last minute in order to scam consumers out of their money. DLC that's actually made after the game's release is fine in my book as long as it's not needed in order to enjoy the core game itself; since once again the devs need to put extra time, effort, and money into making the extra content.

Well that's precisely my point. Disk Locked Content is just as bad as day 1 DLC and no different. Which is why I think the rage towards Disk Locked Content alone is misplaced.
It's the whole mentality behind Day 1 DLC.
Whether you get it on the disk or whether you're downloading it later makes no difference. The only difference is in the way you receive the extra content.

Also, as a little heads-up. Most DLC is planned and worked on before the game is shipped, whether you get it on day 1 or not.

since once again the devs need to put extra time, effort, and money into making the extra content.

This part puzzles me slightly because how are you to know how much time, money and effort it took the devs to make from whether or not it's Disk-locked or Downloadable?

Take for example SFxT. It has 12 locked characters on the disk, among other things like extra costumes etc. There are 50 in the roster as-is.
Chances are that making the extra content did cost them extra time, effort and definitely money, but they chose to put them on the disk in advance.

You can't know though, because you don't know the team size and when they started working on the project.

 

[MB202]

The point wasn't to assume Movie Bob's opinions on DLC, I was mocking his over protectiveness of what he deems "artistic integrity". And I WOULDN'T be so hung up on this ONE incident if Movie Bob hadn't gotten so hung-up that ONE example of gamer "entitlement". And the worst part is, by Friday I had actually gotten over his diatribe about Retake Mass Effect, but then he just HAD to go out of his way to insult us again with "Re-take Cabin in the Woods". The way he painted those poor helpless, blameless developers at Bioware as the victims in this whole thing set my cynicism sensors into overdrive. Now In Bob's mind he has set himself up as the valiant white knight defender of the "underdog" gaming industry against the "mainstream" rage at their refusal to "conform" to their "hopelessly unrealistic expectations", ala the Star Wars Prequels. He didn't take a stand on ME3 because he ever gave two shits about the series OR Bioware OR integrity, he's just trying to be alternative. And I intend to call him out on that for as long as he chooses to continue this charade.

Even if you WERE mocking Bob's take on the Mass Effect 3 ending, do you REALLY need to drag that into this kind of discussion? Seriously get over yourself, it's just one guy's opinion on one game series and it's ending. I'm not sure I entirely agree with him, either, but that doesn't mean I have to berate him and mock him every chance I get just because of that.

Also, I'm not sure I understand the "re-take Cabin in the Woods" thing, mostly because I've been trying to avoid reading up on anything related to that movie because I might just see it...

Also, I don't like how you THINK you know what Bob's thinking, because you don't, you know know what he really means or what he's trying to say, because you're not him. You can disagree with him and argue with him, sure, but don't pretend you think you got him nailed down and berate him for what you think he is. Granted, Bob has earned more than his fair share of beatings for sharing his opinion, but really, I feel like your comment on him at the beginning of this topic was uncalled for, unnecessary, and only tangentially related to what Jim was talking about, if even by THAT much. If you're angry at Bob, fine, go ahead a be angry about him. but write a blog post about it or make a topic about it, and keep it out of this discussion.

Just be glad you didn't have to wait MONTHS before they released the [/B]actual conclusion[/B] to your game.

I really don't know what to say about that... Seriously, this Mass Effect this has gone over my head since I'm not a fan, though I've been meaning to get into the series. But again, it's not like you don't have a right to get made or anything, just, you know, pick your battles and don't let it consume you...

It's kind of like how My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic tend to invade every topic and everyone gets upset about that. I'm feeling the same way about this. If you're upset about the Mass Effect 3 ending, and anyone who disagrees with you on it, that's fine, but please, keep it to yourself or save it for another topic.

 

[Kojiro ftt]

Oh Jim, the compatibility issue is complete bullshit as well. The same day DLC is released, so is a patch for all users so that they can still play with non-DLC users. That's the way games have worked for years, anyone who tells you different just doesn't know any better.

EDIT: And the Mass Effect "From Ashes" is arguably a bit different. It was part of the game for me, because I bought the collector edition. If you didn't pay for the collector edition but you wanted the collector edition content, well then you had to pay for it. See how that works?

 

[cefm]

Another in the sad line of examples of "Hey, you think we can get away with this shit?" thinking on the part of the game developers.

Downloadable content has been around almost since the advent of the internet (Barney-Doom mod anyone?) but it took the advent of stable and reliable high-speed internet as well as stable and reliable purchasing platforms (console marketplace, Steam, etc.) to make whole expansion and game downloading a real product-mover and money maker for developers.

There was a brief shining window of time in which the technology and its use worked together to the benefit of all parties involved. Players got the possibility of getting updates and expansions to their favorite games (it never has to end!) and developers got the ability to cash in again on successful titles without having to build an entire soup-to-nuts new game. Sure there were always going to be frivolous extras (costumes, hats, etc.) but that's an innocent expense in that nobody has to get it.

Unfortunately the MBA-types got their dirty hands on it and now some unscrupulous and/or lazy developers are peeing in the pool. The sins are: A) Releasing a broken game in beta form and charging full fare for it, then patching it with downloads (at least this doesn't cost more); B) Releasing an incomplete game at full price and then charging for "DLC" when really it's not extra, it's just the second half of what should have been a complete game in the first place; C) Creating paid DLC that tips the balance of play in multiplayer games in favor of those who pay for it. This is a new bastard child of the same sort - the game is COMPLETE but they want to charge you full price to only get a part of it, then charge you more for the rest of it. Why not just charge full price for the whole thing? I wouldn't have a problem paying $75 for a game if it is complete and worth it. Selling me locked disk for $60 and then charging me again the next $15 puts me in the same situation financially, but morally and ethically it makes me feel like I'm being robbed.

 

[AnarchistFish]

People who complain about on-disc DLC (a misnomer) don't understand how video games are made.

Rather simple really.

I think the real issue is being forced to pay for on disc content. The actual idea of having content on disc from the start doesn't bother me.