Poll: Extortion

[dragonslayer32]

hello fellow escapists. To be blunt, I'm broke; the reason for which, is DLC. Yes, over the last 2 months, I have spent £160 on microsoft points so I can buy DLC. Why can't the game developers just fit everything in the game? They managed with past consoles. Even if it will not all fit, why can't they just make a sequal?

So what do you think? Are we being extorted or am I just tight?

 

[micky]

i dont mind, if i like the game enough i think i would shell out money for more of it.

 

[Souplex]

As I have said in the past; DLC is an excuse for developers to charge extra for not finishing their games. If developers wanted to include it in the release, but ran out of cash for their production budget, I'd understand, but this is rarely the case.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

As I have said in the past; DLC is an excuse for developers to charge extra for not finishing their games. If developers wanted to include it in the release, but ran out of cash for their production budget, I'd understand, but this is rarely the case.

Corporate greed at its finest. Fortunately, I don't go for DLC packages. Hopefully other developers won't follow Microsoft's example and continue to finish their games before releasing it.

 

[Hashime]

Yes and no, but mainly yes. There is DLC like those for fallout 3, The Elder scrolls, Borderlands... that add something completely new and enjoyable to the game, something that obviously could not fit on the release disk. I am okay with paying for that. But DLC that only adds trivial and obviously removed for profit things like alternate appearence packs in ME2, and micro-transaction items that could have been released at launch are being used to extort the consumer because of their attached achievements...
The Worst are map packs for shooters, look at valve, they don't charge for new maps, or even game modes for most of their lineup.

 

[Wes1180]

No, I don't think we're being extorted. It's all to do with how DLC is made.

Basically, once devs have finished making a game, they have nothing to do for months. The game is in testing, and then it's in marketing. The guys who developed the game have the game engine, but they can't do anything with it because the other guys are using it.

In the past, this was wasted time, but then they figured out that they could design little bite size chunks of content during the time they had off. Thus, DLC. I don't even mind on the disc DLC. If you don't like it, don't pay for it. Sure, you might get the odd swindler, but DLC itself isn't extortive in itself. It's just extra content. Only when devs actively withhold content that should have been in the game, i.e. things that were in the game from the beginning, does it become a problem.

I agree, I don't like it when they charge you for an "unlock code", two games that instantly spring to mind are "Crackdown 1" and "Resident Evil 5's Versus Mode" although I like that when playing co-op on crackdown, if one of you have it then it's as is both of you have it.

 

[EightGaugeHippo]

For me, if its a large amount of money for something they could have fit on a memory unit.
Ie a new mission and 3 new weapons. Then I feel like its extortion.
If say its 20+ hours of BRAND NEW content, then fair enough thats fine for DLC and isnt as greedy.

 

[mikecoulter]

I don't like DLC. It's like paying for a mod. Or what was expected with the original purchase.

 

[GodKlown]

I went with no on this option because as it has been said, no one is really forcing you to pay for DLC content. If you enjoy a particular game and wish you could invest more time in it, that is what DLC is for (in some cases). Map packs and weapon packs seem to be a rip-off in my opinion as they really don't add any significant "new content" to a game... just ways to extend the life of a game by a few hours.
For example, I enjoy the Forza Motorsports games. Not everyone's cup of tea, but to each their own. They release new vehicle packs for those games... but it doesn't do much to really make the game any longer (unless you like to obsess with upgrading every car's level). Some of the cars are nice, perhaps they have really good starting stats that you would like. But does it really make the game any better? Some would argue yes, they enjoy the game more based on some DLC they paid for because it added something they felt was missing.

I feel that content that doesn't add new levels/areas/significant changes to a game shouldn't cost you anything. That "Stimulus Pack" map set for Modern Warfare 2 only set the bar pretty high for what people are willing to pay for in terms of giving more options to a game... but those were multiplayer maps, not maps for the single player campaign. If you don't play games online, then you are really not getting a lot of use from some DLC content. I really think it is just a ploy (at least in terms of Microsoft) to get you to shell out money on at least a yearly basis to continue to engage in the online community by paying for a yearly membership (which I've never done by the way). I just don't care to hear someone screaming about how they lost at a damn game they've probably invested weeks in by someone who either has better skill at the game or got in a lucky shot. It takes away from the fun of a game when you take it so seriously. What ever happened to playing games because they were fun?

 

[Blueruler182]

If you don't want it, don't buy it. It's not extortion, it's marketing, and it's simple. It's like complaining about having to pay for a webcam when you've already paid for a computer.

 

[Hexenwolf]

if you don't have the money for it, then don't buy it! No one is forcing you to spend your money.

 

[Yureina]

Sorta... It depends on the game. If I feel like its extortion, such as with the MW2 DLC packs, then I don't buy them, but I was willing to buy the Fallout 3 DLC's because they added quite a bit to the game experience (Except Zeta, obviously).

 

[omega 616]

On the topic of extortion, people cry about the price of MW2 DLC have you seen the cost of BC2? It's like £35 for it all so far!

So on that basis, yeah, were being willingly robbed.

 

[Sky Captanio]

On the topic of extortion, people cry about the price of MW2 DLC have you seen the cost of BC2? It's like £35 for it all so far!

So on that basis, yeah, were being willingly robbed.

Yes but there is more content in the BC2 DLC. And also: 15euro for VIP.

OT: Well you're getting extra content for your money so no.

 

[crudus]

Why can't the game developers just fit everything in the game? They managed with past consoles. Even if it will not all fit, why can't they just make a sequal?

So what do you think? Are we being extorted or am I just tight?

I have spent £160 on microsoft points so I can buy DLC.

It is nice to see people being able to answer their own questions.

 

[Xiorell]

I don't really mind DLC or spending money on it... I am not sure if such a situation exists, but personnaly I have yet to come accross a gamw which I couldn't finish or was being held back due to me not buying DLC.

I've brought "add-on" shit for games before, like Oblivion, but I didn't actually need it to play or enjoy the game I went out and spent money on, it was just stuff I decided I would add to that game.

I can understand people getting pissed when the content in question is ON the disk you just brought and I do think it's a bit cheeky but, the main game I brought operates just fine without it, "does what it says on the tin" and I am not FORCED to buy it.

 

[dragonslayer32]

Why can't the game developers just fit everything in the game? They managed with past consoles. Even if it will not all fit, why can't they just make a sequal?

So what do you think? Are we being extorted or am I just tight?

I have spent £160 on microsoft points so I can buy DLC.

It is nice to see people being able to answer their own questions.

my question was what do you think, some people may not think that £80 a month is much.

 

[sephiroth1991]

Some DLC is obviously held back like how the DLC for Resident Evil 5(The Mansion one) was originally going to be in the game but was removed. If game needs DLC like Fallout 3 they i welcome it but if game dosn't need it(MW2) then i ignore it.

 

[dragonslayer32]

No, they didn't fit everything in past games. Look it up. The difference is that with past games they couldn't release it as DLC and rarely had enough to make a sequel or expansion out of it so they just had to completely scrap it. OoT and WindWaker are FULL of shit like this for example. As are dozens of GBA and SNES games.

With that being said, it's your own choice to spend the money on DLC. The game works perfectly fine without it and you do get the full game, in most cases they are not cutting out massive segments of the game and holding it ransom (I won't deny this ever happens, but I will say it's in the minority) and it's entirely your own fault that you spent over a hundred dollars on shitty MS points and are now broke. Learn some fucking self restraint. For fucks sake, how do you see yourself getting extorted anyway? You are getting EXTRA material for your money, if you buy shitty deals that's your own problem, but it's not like every game says you can't play the single player campaign until you buy fifty bucks of DLC.

first of all, CALM THE FUCK DOWN, there is no need to get aggressive. this thread came mainly with the modern warefare 2 map pack release. if the last cod was anything to go by, they will be needed for online play, otherwise id have to skip every fucking game. i know i chose to buy those ms points, but the content is not value for money in my opinion; yet i feel obliged to buy it. at the end of the day, it is my choice, just as you said. i asked if YOU feel it is extortion, so if you aren't going to add anything to the discussion, don't post.

 

[Layz92]

I say no as long as the DLC could stand alone as it's own story. As long as it is it's own story but isn't necessarily long enough to be sold as it's own game I have no problem with the DLC. DLC that just extends the main story of the game is just money grabbing.