Should Games Arbitrarily Withhold Content?

[Maze1125]

Withholding content until the player gives you more money? No. Never.

Yeah, I hate expansion packs. How dare a company work for months on content and then expect me to pay for it...
The bastards!

Expansion packs made after the game has come out are basically new games. Not withheld content. I mean, you know that, right?

Yes they are withheld content. Factually so.
It is content. Fact.
They refuse to give it to you until you give them money. Fact.

Therefore, it is, 100%, without a doubt, content that is withheld until the player gives them more money.

Which you said should never happen.

If that's the case, then all games in their entirety are withheld content.

Well, except free to play games, but they have their own more specific version of withheld content.

Yes, exactly. The claim that "withholding content until you pay for it is always bad" is absurd.
Of course it's not always bad, it's how developers earn a living.

 

[Thanatos2k]

Withholding content until the player gives you more money? No. Never.

Yeah, I hate expansion packs. How dare a company work for months on content and then expect me to pay for it...
The bastards!

Expansion packs made after the game has come out are basically new games. Not withheld content. I mean, you know that, right?

Yes they are withheld content. Factually so.
It is content. Fact.
They refuse to give it to you until you give them money. Fact.

Therefore, it is, 100%, without a doubt, content that is withheld until the player gives them more money.

Which you said should never happen.

You think you're making some kind of point, but really you're not. I mean, we all know the difference between what we're talking about. Even you.

 

[Maze1125]

You think you're making some kind of point, but really you're not. I mean, we all know the difference between what we're talking about. Even you.

Ehh, I'm not really sure it's that analogous. Seems to me that he's talking more about on disc DLC and the like. I think there's a bit more of a difference than you think.

It's not about how much of a "difference" there is. It's all on a scale. Every example here is one of "developers withholding content until you pay". Some are considered "bad" some are considered "good".

Hence say that it's "always bad" is flat out wrong. Regardless of if people "know what we're talking about".

 

[Thanatos2k]

You think you're making some kind of point, but really you're not. I mean, we all know the difference between what we're talking about. Even you.

Ehh, I'm not really sure it's that analogous. Seems to me that he's talking more about on disc DLC and the like. I think there's a bit more of a difference than you think.

It's not about how much of a "difference" there is. It's all on a scale. Every example here is one of "developers withholding content until you pay". Some are considered "bad" some are considered "good".

Hence say that it's "always bad" is flat out wrong. Regardless of if people "know what we're talking about".

It's always bad when the content is not included in the full price of the purchased product. You know what we're talking about, you're attempting an intentionally dense semantics argument for no reason.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I suppose it depends on the context. Given Splatoon's context, the answer is no (it's not okay).

 

[Andrew Plocinski]

Withholding content until the player gives you more money? No. Never.

Yeah, I hate expansion packs. How dare a company work for months on content and then expect me to pay for it...
The bastards!

There is a difference, between the digital age of content(STEAM and etc). The only way to put out "DLC(and I use this term loosely)" is to put out expansions. Most expansions added MORE than what DLC does, sometimes anther whole game. Look at Diablo 2, Starcraft and other older games. Most of the game content that was put out or gobbled up back in the 90s were better.

I personally feel at times that most of the product is "left out" on purpose. Like Borderlands... As they were putting it together and or had ideas for the storylines... The ones that didn't "make it" or didn't "make sense" in the story was withheld till later. Hell most of the games nowadays coming out on steam you can buy a season pass. Like they purposely are planning DLC as they make their game. Sad to say I'm not going to be nickeled and dimed for extra 5 hours of content that could have been in the original game.

 

[mrscott137]

Warhammer 40k space marine reminded me of this, I wanted to make my fabulous pink marines in the multiplayer, but you have to unlock it all first. Not only is it a multiplayer graveyard a year in anyway, but the devs decided to divide everyone up depending on what exact DLC everyone had, meaning you couldn't get a game even if you wanted to at the time, so by their shitty multiplayer unlock design I don't get to make the Pink Marine.

 

[Charli]

I'm going to take this argument in a direction to where it applies negatively and positively and has been raging since it's inception. Specifically MMO games.

The problem with it being that the carrot on the stick has always been 'more content', to which players answer with 'more time' or more importantly 'more money'. And if the creators of the MMO cannot keep that treadmill running, the money... goes bye bye.

The content has to be gated, or players have no reason to keep running on the treadmill. They don't see the 'other players' who've braved the vast golden gate and come out with shinier gear and fancier mounts, and then ask themselves the damning question; 'Why am I still playing?' And depending on the individual they'll likely stop before making those social ties.

Now reapplying this argument back to splatoon, it's a very different beast with significantly less content, I feel that formula has been trying to creep more and more into the online functionality of games like splatoon because it's how MMO's function and how they see all that money thrown their way without the developers stopping to ask themselves how and why that formula worked there. They're simply told about it and and to work it into their 'game plan' somewhere because it was a buzz phrase heard at a dev convention or some bullshit.

It would and could work if the content was vast and varied enough, but...as you said...five maps, it's not quite a juicy enough carrot.


Edit: My bottom line is as a concept it is not inherently wrong, it is however applied to the wrong type of game here.

 

[Las7]

There is a simple solution in Splatoon's case, if you are interested in the game but want total control over what you play - wait until August. That's when custom lobbies and team matchmaking is released.

I don't know if it's the right idea to wall off content for users but for example Bayonetta would not allow you to play the highest difficulties until you had cleared the game on Normal. Certain players who are great at games like Bayonetta might view this as a problem since why would you waste time in a difficulty which is not challenging but due to most items requiring in game money to unlock it might be a decent option.

Personally I only have a problem with the in-game Amiibo specific missions - but that's a minor gripe. I don't personally plan to purchase Amiibos, but would like some additional SP Content. The missions only require you to do the same SP Missions with a different weapon but if it was something more substantial it would be bad for me. It's difficult stiking a balance with this plastic crap either it's features are just not worthy of the asking price in terms of functionality or you are locking content behind a plastic figure.