Jimquisition: On-Disc DLC Cannot Be Justified
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Obviously, the solution is to leave it off the disc and force everyone to download it, thereby eating up more bandwidth and hard drive space on consoles.
Or, you know, crazy idea, sell the game with everything unlocked and advertise the shit out of the idea that they aren't screwing you over by charging extra for stuff they already shipped.
Or, you know, crazy idea, sell the game with everything unlocked and advertise the shit out of the idea that they aren't screwing you over by charging extra for stuff they already shipped.
I agree with this for the most part, but issues arise specifically with something like Mortal Kombat. None of the DLC characters were on-disc, thus requiring a compatibility patch to be downloaded by anyone who didn't buy the character. The patch was too big to push through discreetly, though, so every consumer HAD to download it by choice. So long story short: I bought and turned out to be INCREDIBLY good with Kenshi, but I was unable to use him in around half the games I got into because even offering someone a pair of free costumes isn't enough to get them to click a few buttons (or they had the minimalist Xbox with too little memory).
So I think that's more what people refer to when they say it's an evil of THIS generation (though it's also one that could be solved by simply removing patch limits, but that's on the console manufacturers at that point).
So I think that's more what people refer to when they say it's an evil of THIS generation (though it's also one that could be solved by simply removing patch limits, but that's on the console manufacturers at that point).
But I don't see how that is specifically a Disk Locked Content issue. You could apply the same argument to Downloadable content.Crono1973 said:
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.
Jim is fast becoming the best thing on The Escapist. Funnier than Yahtzee and talk more sense than Moviebob (much more as of late).
There is a way that makes compatibility a non-issue and that is through a free DLC character/stage demo available the same day as the DLC release. If I'm playing a game online and I see something is a free demo, why won't I download that? You don't have to worry about compatibility since I did download the content, just I downloaded the content with a locking clause after a set condition (expires in a week or after 10 uses).
An don't tell me it saves space. What the hell am I supposed to do with a 160GB hard drive?
An don't tell me it saves space. What the hell am I supposed to do with a 160GB hard drive?
People who complain about on-disc DLC (a misnomer) don't understand how video games are made.
Rather simple really.
Rather simple really.
People who use this argument don't understand how video games were made BEFORE this gen. Also, the consumers doesn't need to know how a product is made to have an opinion about it.Grey Day for Elcia said:
You know Escapist, I don't get hassled with having to type slogans/captcha on any other forum.
The thing is, Jim contradicts the title of this video in the video itself. In a round-about way he said that on disk DLC is justifiable if you say you did it as a money grab. I completely agree with that sentiment; in business terms it is completely justifiable to lock off part of a finished product to try and get extra money for it, it's money for literally nothing. BUT (before the hate responses start flooding my inbox) it is also completely justifiable to refuse to purchase a product on the grounds you are not getting everything you paid for. You wouldn't buy a car if you had to pay extra for the keys to the trunk.
I can see this heading in a very insidious direction (especially with the rise in downloadable purchases), a move towards games becoming $10 more expensive with an option to purchase a discounted product with content removed in an attempt to train consumers to accept this model with reverse psychology.
I can see this heading in a very insidious direction (especially with the rise in downloadable purchases), a move towards games becoming $10 more expensive with an option to purchase a discounted product with content removed in an attempt to train consumers to accept this model with reverse psychology.
Yeah, i was going to forgive MovieBob for his comments on the ME3 Ending because he was making them in ignorance until he brought it up again in his cabin in the woods article. Comparing horror fans who want the exact same movie formula played out over and over to those who wanted bioware to release a decent ending, then repeated this over and over for a full page of writing.DVS BSTrD said:
People who complain about captcha simply don't understand how it works.Crono1973 said:
Rather stupid really...
We should battle attempts to nickle and dime us whenever they arise. Games before 2007 were just great without this bullshit.
That's the thing, everyone used to like dlc until some unfortunate publishers looked at it purely as a means to rape consumers' wallets.Mr. Omega said:
I like it when a great game with a lot of content adds more great content for a good value. Borderlands (even if it did cost you $100 in the end) is a great example of getting your money's worth out of dlc and the original release.
What sucks is that most of the games that come out now are rather light on content then add more content at premium prices.
For all the shit the wii has taken this generation, it has at least managed to keep console gaming pretty straightforward.
It's funny. I think of San Andreas. If it came out this generation, they would've been able to patch a lot of those annoying bugs. However, we probably would've had to pay $60 for the first island and $30 for the other two.Sexual Harassment Panda said:
Spot on. I don't care if the DLC wouldn't exist without these methods, I don't want it to exist. All DLC has done this generation is fragment fanbases to no end.
Fighting games seem to be the most atrocious example for this to happen with. How can anyone be on an equal playing field when half of the content is behind a premium paywall? Doesn't that fundamentally alter the tournament scene? How is that ever acceptable?
It's just scummy to no end. I refuse to believe that these global powerhouses need paid DLC to exist when so many smaller developers like CD Projekt, Atlus and many others seem to get by just fine without it.
Fighting games seem to be the most atrocious example for this to happen with. How can anyone be on an equal playing field when half of the content is behind a premium paywall? Doesn't that fundamentally alter the tournament scene? How is that ever acceptable?
It's just scummy to no end. I refuse to believe that these global powerhouses need paid DLC to exist when so many smaller developers like CD Projekt, Atlus and many others seem to get by just fine without it.
That's one way of looking at it. I look at it the same way their "it makes it easier to ensure everyone has the content" line -- it's a reason. It's just a more honest reason than one made to sound like the dev had no choice.CatmanStu said:
Extra Credits makes an interesting counterpoint.
http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/mass-effect-3-dlc
http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/mass-effect-3-dlc
Oh wow, you're OH so mature about dealing with MovieBob's opinions on things. I just love how you sneaked in the Kony 2012 thing, as if you weren't sure whether or not people would get you're purposefully antagonizing Mr. Chipman. 9_9DVS BSTrD said:
Anyway, about the actual video.
This is going to be about the Street Fighter x Tekken on-disc "DLC", where the characters were complete and fully playable? Among other things... Yeah, that's pretty messed up, ESPECIALLY considering Capcom wasn't going to actually RELEASE the DLC until MONTHS LATER! It's just, I just... WHY?!?!?
So the argument in this video is that companies are trying to get more money from their consumers and how dare they? I'm not saying on-disk DLC is the best way for these companies to go about increasing their profit, but this argument sounded like it was coming from someone who just doesn't like the idea of spending money on something they want.
I find it very enlightening that Jim's argument is almost the exact opposite of the folks over at Extra Credits in an episode on a similar topic, but at least they brought up better evidence than heresay. As for Cliff Blezinski's statement: there's a big difference between lying and being diplomatic.
I find it very enlightening that Jim's argument is almost the exact opposite of the folks over at Extra Credits in an episode on a similar topic, but at least they brought up better evidence than heresay. As for Cliff Blezinski's statement: there's a big difference between lying and being diplomatic.
It's not that it's justifiable, it'd just be nice for some honesty rather than the pitty trip. They know it's a money grab, and know that we know it's a money grab, but are desperte to put on the "customer first" mask so that we don't do exactly what you say: stop buying their games. Capitalism is far less the product than the PR.CatmanStu said: