Rebellion Says "No Justification" for DLC Already on Discs
- Thread starter Tom Goldman
- Start date
If DLC is already built and is included in the disc, then it really shouldn't cost anything, or even be DLC (unless it's like that Uplay thing, where it only requires you to play the game to unlock further things that arn't relevant or even needed in the game/main storyline).
If something new is made and then requires a purchase to unlock, download and install into the game, that's ok cos people've had to work to create that item and should be rewarded in the standard working way: get paid.
If something new is made and then requires a purchase to unlock, download and install into the game, that's ok cos people've had to work to create that item and should be rewarded in the standard working way: get paid.
I have nothing against publishers who bring out DLC, just like I have nothing against Simon Cowell for the karaoke factor.
It's the people ie the consumer base, that I have a problem with. If it wasn't for them waiving their wallets around itching to spend, DLC would be a way of breeding new life into old games, not a way of milking the gamer for every last penny.
Sorry for the rant
It's the people ie the consumer base, that I have a problem with. If it wasn't for them waiving their wallets around itching to spend, DLC would be a way of breeding new life into old games, not a way of milking the gamer for every last penny.
Sorry for the rant
Do you really think games companies would lower the price of games due to DLC becoming more popular?ItsAPaul said:
Try millions for any game.Trivun said:
A small application like Notepad is close to 10,000 lines (inc. standary libraries for C and WIN32).
I have worked on an enterprise level e-commerce site with over 4 million lines, spread over >1,000 apps, web pages, databases and DLLs.
Most of my systems are over 250,000 lines (client + server + comms + RTUs) and take less than a year to develop, test and commission.
I have done this so long however I can write in a few hours what a new graduate struggles to do in a week (I have already made all the mistakes they make and learnt from these errors).
Longest I have spent (in the last 10 years) is 2 months to find a single, critical bug, which in the end I fixed by moving (not changing) 2 lines of code...Trivun said:
I never said PC was above the Console. The reason they pay for DLC is distribution cost from Sony and Microsoft so it makes sense on the Console. On the PC the distribution comes from the Developer themselves, and in the olden days it was FREE. If its enough content released at one time to justify an expansion, guess what, they released an EXPANSION and you would either buy it out not. Never was there a time when they they added one unit into a game on PC and decided it was worth $3, (Empire:TotalWar) Just look at all the stuff they have added to TF2 PC from Valve, did they charge you a dime? no.JeanLuc761 said:
I understand that even the Developers have costs associated with developing new content and that charging for it makes a lot of sense, BUT the reason y it WAS free was because Developers want your return business and to attract more customers by showing ppl they are still committed to a product without trying to nickel and dime you all the way to hell.
My observation was thanks to the trend of Console gamers never questioning y they are being charged for something has lead to some serious complacency among gamers in general and particular the PC gamer. Y is it suddenly wrong to question the man now? We should all just bend over and take it?
Plus its a matter of choice, if you feel there is a need for you to spend on DLC by all means do. Shoot if they release DLC that has the same play time as the original game i mite even consider that an expansion altogether and at a price of $10 its a steal. But paying for a Map Pack, yeah... no.
Uh, no you wouldn't, not if it's on the disc. What this guy is talking about is the Resident Evil 5 flava of DLC: content on the game disc, which you do not need to download: but in order to play said content, you have to purchase a key. In other words, paying for shit you already have for the permission to play it... which this dude has rightfully noted as bullshit.dagens24 said:
Oh good lord.LunarCircle said:
Look, can we all just agree to stop mentioning the Dragon Age/Borderlands storage chests, already? I've pretty much been confirmed that you don't goddamn need the thing to play Borderlands, and others have told me that the Dragon Age one isn't necessary either. The chests are a nice ADDITIONAL feature, but they're not necessary in any way, shape, or form unless you're lazy and don't sell your shit when you should.
I do agree that I'd like to see more expansion pack type materials though. DLC is nice, but it's fragmented nature means that it can't be integrated into certain games very well.
Funnily enough I was going to post in another thread about this very matter. There should be some kind of law about doing stuff like that. Companies want to make money, sure, but if the content is already made and on the disc when we buy it then charging for it is simply not fair.
They couldn't care less. I can't figure out how people still get this mixed up.Tom Goldman said:
There are lots of ways one can offer additional content and make money off it. I still haven't played Dragon Age so I can't comment on how they did it but the DLC released for Killing Floor was a good model to follow I think. After releasing the Level Up pack (for free) which added tons more features and added a few hours of playable time to the game they released the extra character skins for 2 dollars. Something which, though isn't necessary at all to play the game is worth the amount you pay for it (frankly I just picked it up with a bunch of other stuff off steam when I was bored one day).
I DO NOT, however, think that DLC should entirely replace the Expansion pack. That is my one worry I think, that DLC will just become a much less substantial version of game expansions.
I DO NOT, however, think that DLC should entirely replace the Expansion pack. That is my one worry I think, that DLC will just become a much less substantial version of game expansions.
Actually, I think that they are two distinct development teams that are part of the same company; you know, like the Ion Storm that made Deus Ex and the Ion Storm that made Daikatana.Void(null) said:
Also, I agree with just about everything David Brickley said. As long as I'm not being "horse-armored" or "Halo-playlist-locked" I have no problems with DLC.
I don't have a problem with "fluff" dlc like costumes, emotes, non-combat pets, paintjobs, house decorations, etc. That is crap I'll never buy but makes money for the publisher/developers and doesn't affect gameplay.
The other kinds I DO have a problem with is the "side quest" DLC, Bethesda is a major offender here but pretty much everyone is jumping in on this bandwagon. Obviously since DLC is optional it can't be part of the main story. So there are two possibilities. One is that there aren't enough side quests and the game is effectively unfinished without the DLC, or two there are enough side quests and the DLC doesn't add anything. And in fact DLC breaks the game balance because "vanilla" isn't balanced around the added DLC capabilities.
The correct way to extract money from the people who bought your first game is EXPANSIONS. Remember those? Baldur's Gate I and II, Diablo I and II, Ultima 7, Icewind Dale, etc etc. Expansions ADD to a story rather than get stuffed in the middle. The ideal expansion is Diablo II Lord of Destruction. Not only did it add to the story but it gave players a reason to start over.
From a player's perspective a 20-30$ expansion is a much better value proposition than a $10 sidequest where you get a new suit of armor.
The other kinds I DO have a problem with is the "side quest" DLC, Bethesda is a major offender here but pretty much everyone is jumping in on this bandwagon. Obviously since DLC is optional it can't be part of the main story. So there are two possibilities. One is that there aren't enough side quests and the game is effectively unfinished without the DLC, or two there are enough side quests and the DLC doesn't add anything. And in fact DLC breaks the game balance because "vanilla" isn't balanced around the added DLC capabilities.
The correct way to extract money from the people who bought your first game is EXPANSIONS. Remember those? Baldur's Gate I and II, Diablo I and II, Ultima 7, Icewind Dale, etc etc. Expansions ADD to a story rather than get stuffed in the middle. The ideal expansion is Diablo II Lord of Destruction. Not only did it add to the story but it gave players a reason to start over.
From a player's perspective a 20-30$ expansion is a much better value proposition than a $10 sidequest where you get a new suit of armor.
