Poll: One use Downloadable content codes: Does anyone else hate these?

[riprino]

Extra credits said it best i recommend you go watch their videos I find DLC quite enjoyable it means we can get more content for the games we love. If your ticked that you can't get fully completed game just because you cant unlock some charcters just be happy unlocking the free achivment and do not worry about the stuff you do not want.

 

[Jack Hughes]

I can never get my 1000 points

Wrong, You CAN get all 1000 default points, the DLC adds another 150.

EDIT: And for the record, I always buy games new to support the developers of the games I think are worth purchasing. Honestly, it's because of the second hand market they have to add incentives to the new purchases. I don't agree with the online play codes they add in but if they want to throw me a free ninja suit in Dead Rising 2 or 2 bits of DLC in Dragon Age 2 for showing support then I'll take it.

 

[the_green_dragon]

I can never get my 1000 points

Wrong, You CAN get all 1000 default points, the DLC adds another 150.

Wait, so I CAN get all 1000 points even though theres an achievement (I scrolled through the achivements that I didn't have yet) that says I need to be friends with a character I can't access?

 

[Ironic Pirate]

The revenue generated by these DLC purchases help fund the creation of the games you like to play.

I think the original purchase of the game did that as well.

When I buy a game, I sort of expect to receive all the (at the time) completed content. Games are already expensive, and if they charge me full price AND deliberately withhold content to make more money off me, then I buy the game used and play the DLC at a friend's house, those assholes don't deserve my money.

They don't always withold content and then sell it back later on. Some of it they were unable to complete by the deadline. Some of the DLC is completely independant of the game.

Games are only more expensive because we the consumer demand bigger and better graphics, academy award winning actors to do the voice work and musical scores written by on the most famous musicians out there.

I don't have an issue with DLC as a concept, in fact I really like it's ability to maintain a game that otherwise wouldn't get a sequel.

But some companies are deliberately withholding content to make an extra buck, and they don't deserve any of my money.

 

[EzraPound]

The revenue generated by these DLC purchases help fund the creation of the games you like to play.

I'm glad at least one other person understands the basic concepts of business.

Why is that on every Escapist thread complaining of industry practices one or two idiots have to show up and be all "U DONT HAVE TO BY THE GAMES" or "DLC HLPS FUND THE GAMES YOU LIEK IMSMART." Like, yeah, everybody gets it--no one has to buy DLC--but that doesn't mean that initiating a dialogue about industry behaviours which are deemed to be exploitative won't help in one way or another.

Anyway, both those arguments are completely vacuous. Imagine the consumer regulations that would exist if everyone used them. Tanning beds giving you cancer? UDONT HAVE TO TAN ITS YR CHOICE!!!. Government giving away tickets for wearing the colour orange? IT GOES TO FUND R SCHOOLS N HEALTHCARE N00BZ!!$#%$%

I hope you guys bask in your mutual intelligence, over there.

Extra credits said it best i recommend you go watch their videos I find DLC quite enjoyable it means we can get more content for the games we love. If your ticked that you can't get fully completed game just because you cant unlock some charcters just be happy unlocking the free achivment and do not worry about the stuff you do not want.

Yeah, for sure. . . like when Rockstar released Red Dead Redemption with twenty less missions than Grand Theft Auto III then charged between ten and thirty bucks to receive ten more. Or when Capcom released Resident Evil 5 with a lazily-made versus mode on the disc then charged five to ten dollars for it.

I love the opportunities that exist to receive new content. I just hope in the future, developers will begin charge for patches, so players will have the "option" of receiving "new" updates.

 

[Rednog]

I take issue up with things like preorder content, especially ones that you never can get access to it ever.
But the whole preowned vs new, I'm still on the fence. I really do see where developers are coming from, and having been an employee of a used game store, it really made me face palm when I saw people buying a preowned game that was only like $5 less than the new one. But at the same time I do see the appeal of buying a used game when it is at least $15 or so lower and the new game is still at its full price.

 

[EzraPound]

Really, if developers wanted to make more money they should just make the natural progression to selling games at full MSRP, then charging you again when you get halfway through it. Wouldn't want to be unfair to all the people that never finish their games.

 

[rockyoumonkeys]

I have no problem with the concept...I buy all my games new anyway, so I'm not missing out.

But the number of codes we're being saddled with is getting silly. I had at least five codes to enter for DA2.

Entering codes is just tedious, and I don't think every game needs to have them. I'm looking at you, EA.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

I don't have an issue with DLC as a concept, in fact I really like it's ability to maintain a game that otherwise wouldn't get a sequel.

But some companies are deliberately withholding content to make an extra buck, and they don't deserve any of my money.

I have gotten a lot of DLC. Some of it has been worth it, some of it hasnt been. Most of the DLC for Mass Effect 2 isnt worth it (the armour/weapon and alt costume packs for example). I cant speak for Dragon Age since I barely found that game interesting and thusly skipped its DLC.

But I agree with you about companies that force you to buy content that is already on the disc is kind of a dick maneuver.

 

[Laxman9292]

So... you're annoyed that the developers of a game want you to pay them for it? If the 100% completion matters that much to you then you would pay for the DLC.

He's bought the game, he deserves all the characters. To me, this just seems like removing Alyx or Barney from Half Life 2 if you didn't pre order, or pay extra.

Was he a worthwhile character though? I'm on my third play through and am managing just fine with my current companions. You can't really compare the removal of an arguably useless side character to the removal of a character like alyx who is integral to the advancement of a games story. Besides all the comments I've heard about the dlc character have been about how bland he is.

I've no idea if the character is good or not, didn't buy DA2 'cause I'm short on cash. I think it's just the principle of removing a character based on how much you're willing to spend that annoys me.

I think of it more as adding a character based on how much you are willing to pay. Clearly the character is not integral to the story,or else he/she would have been a priority in development. I imagine what happened was that as it got closer to crunch time they had to focus on more important things and just did not have the space/time/resources to finish the character. Then later they complete him/her and offer it as DLC on the first day to people who care enough to have pre-ordered the game. I really have no problem with that, I DO have a problem with EA and its money-grabbing ways in general. I respect that they need to watch the dollars but one-time multiplayer activation codes? That is just testing the waters to see what they can get away with later. Unfortunately, I love a lot of the games that EA comes out with so I am forced to go along with it for now. Damn you FIFA and NHL!

 

[MrJoyless]

I think this trend of one use DLC codes is a way to reward original purchase buyers, instead of buying into the recycle market. One major point i do not agree with in your post tho is that you say you MUST buy online or pre order to get these codes, not for me, every new game that has come out recently with day 1 DLC/1 time DLC has included the DLC codes in their boxes. This may be my Best Buy burning off all the extra pre order games they over purchased but some of these games were bought weeks after release. What i do not like about this system is that for ME2 and DA2 i had to go online or on XBL and put in 5-6 codes for each game to unlock little DLC snips in the form of unique items etc. i understand that its to get you to bounce around and look at allied gaming sites but ugh doesnt make me have to like it.

 

[Ajna]

While I absolutly hate one use DLC for a number of reasons, achivrments are a bloody petty reason to do so.
Honestly, why do sa many people care about a little pop up that interupts your game annoyingly and does absofuckinglutly nothing to benifit you in any way?

For the same reason people care about their armor in Halo: Reach. To show off.

 

[Icehearted]

Actually, if there are online achievements you're paying to unlock those as well, so there's little room for complaint because one way or another they're going to attempt to get more of your money. As for DLC, bad news and worse news; the bad news is if they can find a way to exploit customers for more money they will, the worst news is that all too many people are perfectly okay with being exploited. Millions in sales for a map "pack" that offered only 4 maps for $20 proves that people are okay with being hosed, so game companies have little reason to stop hosing their customers.

Like you, I have an appreciation for getting 100% in a game, my gamertag speaks for me on this, but the best thing I ever did for myself was turn the notifications off. Those things serve no purpose other than to bait you into paying more for a game than you should. I've yet to play a game where these things were clever, or funny, or anything that wasn't filler or meant grinding, or shelling out extra cash. It was a good concept, but it's so badly executed that most people either don't care at all, or they care too much. Pretty soon you might find yourself basing your purchasing choices on the type of achievements that are in the game and whether or not it'll cost you an arm and a leg just to get them all. It's not your fault, it was designed to influence how you think about the game you purchase and play.

Not worth it.

 

[moretimethansense]

While I absolutly hate one use DLC for a number of reasons, achivrments are a bloody petty reason to do so.
Honestly, why do sa many people care about a little pop up that interupts your game annoyingly and does absofuckinglutly nothing to benifit you in any way?

For the same reason people care about their armor in Halo: Reach. To show off.

To who?!
Who honestly cares?
Achievements are one of the bioggest things I hate about the way the industry is going at the minuite, they are a lazy way to pad out the leangth of a game, an annoying interuption, they are a blatent use of skinner box technology and they literaly add nothing to the game nor do they do anything to benefit the gamer.

 

[Ajna]

While I absolutly hate one use DLC for a number of reasons, achivrments are a bloody petty reason to do so.
Honestly, why do sa many people care about a little pop up that interupts your game annoyingly and does absofuckinglutly nothing to benifit you in any way?

For the same reason people care about their armor in Halo: Reach. To show off.

To who?!
Who honestly cares?
Achievements are one of the bioggest things I hate about the way the industry is going at the minuite, they are a lazy way to pad out the leangth of a game, an annoying interuption, they are a blatent use of skinner box technology and they literaly add nothing to the game nor do they do anything to benefit the gamer.

Note that I'm playing Devil's Advocate here (I always do).

People do notice the armor in Halo Reach. If somebody has the lightening effect on their armor, people notice. Besides that, armor (though not achievements) are a way to represent yourself over the internet, which some games won't allow.

Achievements are only an irritation if you allow them to be, btw. The notifications can be turned off in "preferences". And thought they can be a lazy way to pad out the length of a game, so can many [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FakeDifficulty][footnote]Sorry for robbing you of the rest of your day.[/footnote] things. A hard mode could be interpreted as padding the length of a game, if you really wanted to. Also, sometimes achievements can add further gameplay to a game you wouldn't otherwise continue playing, if done right. For example, an achievement for getting both endings in a game may be the motivation to replay it, and then the player may find they enjoyed the story more when they knew what happened. Or an achievement for leveling up every gun online may cause a player to realize that the reason they disliked a game is because they weren't using a weapon they liked.

I don't know what skinner box technology is, so I can't comment on that.

 

[Lukeje]

So... you're annoyed that the developers of a game want you to pay them for it? If the 100% completion matters that much to you then you would pay for the DLC.

Why should they feel entitled to be paid twice for the same product? That'd be like Chevy wanting me to pay them because I wanted to buy a second-hand Corvette. It's derp for both industries and I don't get why people will defend game companies doing something they'd vilify car companies for doing.

No, it's more like buying a second-hand Corvette and then going back to Chevy and asking it to be refitted with leather upholstery. Something which it makes perfect sense to pay Chevy for.

No. Asking a dealer to fit leather upholstery would be like buying Dead Money. What OP is ranting about is something that you get when you buy the game new, but is taken away from anyone who buys it used. When this happens devs are trying to be paid twice for the same exact thing, hence my analogy. Buy a used 2009 Corvette and Chevy wants royalties because you didn't buy an otherwise identical but much more expensive 2011 'Vette.

It's derp and you know it.

I disagree. To take the analogy further: just because the '11 Corvette happens to come with such upholstery as standard and the '09 doesn't, this doesn't mean that you should be entitled to get the upholstery upgraded for free.

 

[Lukeje]

So... you're annoyed that the developers of a game want you to pay them for it? If the 100% completion matters that much to you then you would pay for the DLC.

Why should they feel entitled to be paid twice for the same product? That'd be like Chevy wanting me to pay them because I wanted to buy a second-hand Corvette. It's derp for both industries and I don't get why people will defend game companies doing something they'd vilify car companies for doing.

No, it's more like buying a second-hand Corvette and then going back to Chevy and asking it to be refitted with leather upholstery. Something which it makes perfect sense to pay Chevy for.

No. Asking a dealer to fit leather upholstery would be like buying Dead Money. What OP is ranting about is something that you get when you buy the game new, but is taken away from anyone who buys it used. When this happens devs are trying to be paid twice for the same exact thing, hence my analogy. Buy a used 2009 Corvette and Chevy wants royalties because you didn't buy an otherwise identical but much more expensive 2011 'Vette.

It's derp and you know it.

I disagree. To take the analogy further: just because the '11 Corvette happens to come with such upholstery as standard and the '09 doesn't, this doesn't mean that you should be entitled to get the upholstery upgraded for free.

That is incorrect. My analogy assumes identical except one's used and one isn't. The sole difference between the two cars is a couple thousand miles and the owner count. They even have the same CD in the radio. We're talking "Whoa I'm seeing double" identical here. You're trying to fit differences in to twist thing to fit your analogy, and this needs to stop.

The difference is that one is used and one is not. Thus they are not identical.

Edit: to be clear, the analogy I gave corresponds to the actual situation and puts it into a reasonable context given the analogy. Yours presents what you wish were true of games.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

i understand the concept..and i don't like it, but i can see why they do it. honestly i do.

the only thing that "grinds my gears" is that originally i bought DA:O for 360, using the same EA account to this day, in which i bought all the DLC for the game, now i built a pretty shnazzy computer and so i got DA:O for computer along with awakening, but NONE of my content transferred over DLC wise, even though it was linked to my EA account, in which that causes me to frown because i don't want to spend another 20 dollars buying all that DLC again, fuckk thattt.

so yeah, in that case, if it is ON MY EA ACCOUNT it should BE MINE and i should be able to do with it what i please, not be locked into my old 360 game.

 

[Weaver]

So... you're annoyed that the developers of a game want you to pay them for it? If the 100% completion matters that much to you then you would pay for the DLC.

He's bought the game, he deserves all the characters. To me, this just seems like removing Alyx or Barney from Half Life 2 if you didn't pre order, or pay extra.

Was he a worthwhile character though? I'm on my third play through and am managing just fine with my current companions. You can't really compare the removal of an arguably useless side character to the removal of a character like alyx who is integral to the advancement of a games story. Besides all the comments I've heard about the dlc character have been about how bland he is.

Well he's the only archer. Verric is technically an archer, but won't equip bows as he has Bianca.

Hence if your hawke isn't an archer you may as well just sell every single bow you come across because you're never going to pick up a character who has the proper skill trees to use bows.

 

[GonzoGamer]

So... you're annoyed that the developers of a game want you to pay them for it? If the 100% completion matters that much to you then you would pay for the DLC.

He's bought the game, he deserves all the characters. To me, this just seems like removing Alyx or Barney from Half Life 2 if you didn't pre order, or pay extra.

Now I don't care about achievements, but characters? Seems a little annoying.

I don't care about achievement trophies either but what does bother me is when they make game content 'bonus' dlc.
LA Noir is doing this as well but R* is being even more annoying about it: there's different 'bonus content' depending on what retailer you buy it from.
SO, no matter where you pre-order from, there will be game content missing that you will have to pay for later.
That's just a dick move.