Poll: Extortion

[JasonKaotic]

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.

*cough*DRAGON AGE*cough*


But yeah. Some devs are milking money out of us, others are just doing it for whatever other reasons they have. Fun, boredom, or maybe they're just generous enough to give players extra fun.

 

[wordsmith]

I voted yes, however I don't think "extorted" is the expression you're looking for. That expression is "blatantly ripped-off". When developers complete content and then consciously choose to remove it from the game in order to make you pay extra for it later, you're being ripped off, no question of it.

Not really, it's the same with burger joints lately. If you buy a burger, you buy a burger. Cheese will cost extra, sauce will cost extra, onions cost extra. Why isn't that "ripped off"? Because you are buying the burger, everything else is optional. If you think the extra money is worth the content, go for it. If not, the game doesn't require the DLC to run, so what's the issue?

This metaphor fails on so many levels...

And yet... you fail to mention one of them? Wierd how that works, isn't it?

 

[AdmiralMemo]

I'd say no, but with a few yeses on a case-by-case basis.

 

[Blackvegie]

Nobody is forcing you. On the other hand it may not be extortion but it is evil.

 

[Artina89]

I don't like DLC, and so I don't buy it, but I wouldn't say that it was extortionate. You are not forced to pay for the DLC, it's all a matter of personal choice. I personally, like to wait for the "Game of the year" edition like I did for Fallout 3.

 

[wkrepelin]

Some DLC would be nice to have in the game like the two missing chapters from Assassin's Creed II but Fallout 3, Oblivion, Borderlands, and to a lesser extent Mass Effect 2 all have good DLC that just expands what is already a complete gaming experience

 

[AMMO Kid]

Considering the time and effort the game makers put into the game I'd say they've earned the extra cash. Also, I find it creepy that you spent so much money on DLCs. That is all.

 

[hawkeye52]

if its proffesionaly done dlc that adds a new experience to SINGLEPLAYER version of the game then im happy (e.g. oblivion with shivering isles and knights of the nine) but if its a blatent attempt at making people annoyed because they cant do certain things on MULTIPLAYER like getting kicked off of servers because you dont have the right map (e.g cod6 and the new stimulus pack which is just a big rip off of cod4 and required no time to make) then its extortion.

well that or they did something horrendously horrible where the game crashes or is just a bug then they should fix that for free since thats a problem caused by them that they didnt inform you about. so it shouldnt be your responsibility to pay for it (it would be like ordering food in a restaurant to find out that the chefs taken a shit on it and expecting you to pay for another meal for that reason)

usually one sure fire way to tell if theres gonna be annoying dlc that you most likely need to pay for to play the game to its fullest for computers is that they will not have any mod support and will also not have dedicated servers if its a multiplayer game (both of them needed) perfect example of game with mod support and coincidently amazing dlc that should be paid for if you want it oblivion or fo3. example of game that had both no mod support and no dedicated servers cod6

 

[DC1]

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.

Word. I hate paying for DLC. You can't return if it sucks, too.

 

[Abedeus]

It's not extortion if nobody forced you to spend that much on nothing. You knew what you were buying.

Besides, the X in extortion makes it look cool, so don't complain!

 

[clipse15]

Ya like people already mentioned this is in no way close to extortion. Game prices have been the same since the previous generations but making games has become much more expensive so game companies are trying to make up the cash somehow. Would you prefer it if gmes were 10 dollars more expensive but DLC was free? No, because this way the consumer has a choice.

 

[Billion Backs]

Not extortion, but companies that don't fucking finish their game on release deserve to be kicked in their collective balls. If you don't provide a good product, you can go fuck off.

It's like being sold a seemingly new car at the full price of a new car, just to discover that it has no engine. And then the people who sold you the car come back and say, heeeeeeey, wanna get that engine? Pay us extra!

 

[Anah'ya]

Let's see.

I finish a game I enjoy (lets take Splinter Cell: Conviction, for example). I go through all the Deniable Ops maps and finish each in the available modes. I keep playing though, even though the thing is getting a bit stale, considering the maps don't change.

Ta-da! Suddenly there's a map pack I can download. It costs me some money, sure, but the additional maps have me dive right back into the fun.

Man, was that worth it. Did I feel as though someone was stealing my money? Nah.

Another example here would be BioWare releasing the Darkspawn Chronicles. While I got every other DLC they threw at me so far, the Chronicles one didn't tickle my interest. So.. I didn't get it.

I gots me a very powerful ally there. It's called choice.

No one in the entertainment industry can really extort you. It's not as though the vitamins in your food is DLC.

 

[Seldon2639]

You assume there's such a thing as "everything" in a game. Yes, the loss of true sequels bugs me, but the games we get now aren't incomplete. There's is assumption that if DLC exists, it's because they made more content, and consciously decided to remove it from the game, in order to bilk us out of more money. I've not seen anything suggesting this. Game finish dates are (barring the unforeseen) hard deadlines, which means any content not finished wouldn't be included. But between the completion date and the release date there are usually weeks if not months of extra time to work on DLC.

There's only so much game that goes into any commercial release, and anything that's left over can have one of three things happen: (1) it gets recycled into another game, or discarded, (2) it's put into the sequel if the game sells well, or (3) it becomes DLC.

I voted yes, however I don't think "extorted" is the expression you're looking for. That expression is "blatantly ripped-off". When developers complete content and then consciously choose to remove it from the game in order to make you pay extra for it later, you're being ripped off, no question of it.

That's the paranoia I was looking for. Have you seen any evidence I haven't that suggests that the content which is released (even as day-one DLC) is actually complete at the time of shipping, and is intentionally left out, or is this just wild speculation based on the idea that if there's more content available, it must be something they decided to hold off on putting in the game?

Incidentally, all of this assumes there's some value to the DLC that makes the extant game incomplete. If Mass Effect 2 was worth $60 to me in and of itself, then the DLC is a bonus; if ME 2 wasn't worth $60 by itself, I shouldn't have bought it.

I'm not that smart, but it's a simple metric.

 

[justnotcricket]

It depends. If the original game was a bit flimsy, and you find yourself needing DLC to pad it out and make it more enjoyable, then yeah, it's a bit of a cop-out on the part of the game company. However, if you loved the original game so much that you just have to have more, then DLC is probably worth it.

Bottom line: the company is not actually *forcing* you to buy DLC. It's always your choice, so 'extortion' is a little strong a term to use.

 

[MajorKris]

DLC helps keep a game alive in my opinion. Besides, who says that you even have to buy the DLC right away? It will continue to be there for you to buy and download when you can afford it and have the time. Unless I absolutely love the game, I will usually wait till the DLC is cheaper, or if they offer a pack for all the DLC (Example; Borderlands)

Like many before me have said, it is not extortion. You are not being forced to buy this DLC. Extortion is way to strong a word. You have a choice, and feel free to take the time to research what you're buying before you complain about it not being worth it later.

 

[Wayneguard]

no one is forcing you or threatening you to partake so no.

EDIT:

No one's threatening us or making us buy this, so no.

Wow. I did not see or know of your post prior to posting. It's eerily strange how similar the wording is.

 

[Tiswas]

When you see the likes of Red Dead Redemption, Bioshock 2 and Mass Effect getting dlc less than a month after release. Then yes. Extortion. No reason those couldn't have been in the game to start with really.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

I voted yes, however I don't think "extorted" is the expression you're looking for. That expression is "blatantly ripped-off". When developers complete content and then consciously choose to remove it from the game in order to make you pay extra for it later, you're being ripped off, no question of it.

Pretty much this, that's why I like valve, "Here, have another FREE update!"

 

[manaman]

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.

Ah, Furby you can't believe that. Take two of the largest games at the forefront of the DLC outbreak. Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age. Both games felt naked, barren, and incomplete. They lacked all depth: Until you installed the DLC. Face it those games where left minimalist so that they could sell a bunch of crap later on without over-crowding the game world. ME2 was especially bad, the episodic feeling you where left with (as really the game was only told in four or so missions) was a direct result of this. It's almost like they designed the game around being able to add shit in later. DA just felt like half the game was missing, almost as much as the first Gears of War did.

Expansions, and added content are nothing new, but at least the games felt complete, and the content came out six months later.