Why gamers should embrace on-disc DLC

[Andy of Comix Inc]

I hate that "we need more money" bullshit. This is an industry that is notorious for not passing on their savings to customers. Games with no instruction manuals? $60. Games that are distributed digitally? $60. Games with content cut out to sell later? $60.

I'm sure people would pay $70 for a game that has all its stuff out of the gate, rather than $60 and then they have to pay later as well. This is a problem the industry created itself; I feel no sympathy and no responsibility to keep paying them so they can CONTINUE TO DO IT.

 

[The_Great_Galendo]

So, I'm pretty certain the author was writing in jest. At least, I was pretty certain until I started reading these responses. Now I'm wondering: is my sarcasm detector broken, or is most of yours?

 

[Jfswift]

Edit: if this is meant to be sarcasm than go somewhere else. You're wasting everyone's time.

 

[Raioken18]

The TC clearly trolling, during the 4th paragraph he stops making any points and has a conversation with himself. It's like the ramblings of a madman that you would find written in a bathroom stall in an abandoned mental facility.

Basically his argument boiled down to, you the gamer are greedy for paying full price for something, then having to pay for something that was in that product to begin with. It'd be like if someone sold you a fridge, but the freezer had a padlock on it and they then told you that you would have to pay extra for them to take the padlock off the freezer so you could use it. It just doesn't make sense and most SANE gamers see through it which is why it is a bad business decision.

 

[Kae]

It seemed like he was being sarcastic, I seriously thought this was a parody when I first started reading it.

About the author: The Lemming is a die-hard follower of the Xbox. He started gaming with the original Xbox, and considers anything that isn?t M-rated and/or a sim racer to be games for children. Although Microsoft has since abandoned him as a target audience with the Xbox 360 and Kinect, he still feels satisfied playing his Halo rehashes and the various multiplats that he could get anywhere else.

Come on, really? This has to be a joke.

I agree, it must be some sort of joke character, because he sounds like a caricature of an X-box fanboy.

 

[ThriKreen]

Correct me if I'm wrong. I never really looked into this on-disc DLC thing as I didn't understand it. But then it came to me, you pay full retail price for the thing and they expect buy the "DLC" which is just something that unlocks it on the disc amirite? So they're essentially screwing you over.

If so, that's a load of bullshit. If it's that simple I can't believe it took me this long to figure it out hah.

Depends, sometimes it's done as a technical reason to prevent multiplayer fragmentation of the content, i.e. Capcom fighter costumes. That way everyone can still play with everyone else, even if one player lacks the unlocked content. Sure you could design it with a fallback, if player 2 cannot see player 1's costume 7, then fall back to default costume 1. But you kinda don't want to do that as you want the players that paid for the unlocked stuff to advertise for you.

Or alternatively, in the case of the Prothean in ME3, the character was done and cut, but the regular squad member data stayed in the game (as it's sometimes easier to leave legacy data than risk cutting it out and creating errors of missing data elsewhere). The actual story mission was released later for download, reusing the character data and thus reducing the download size.

But I agree that only having a pay option to unlock it is a money-grubbing act, if there's no other way to unlock the content with regular play via achievements, doing some challenges, etc.

Like BF3's system with unlocking weapons and accessories via regular play, or pay to unlock them all.

 

[NiPah]

This guy was just trying to be one of those edgy comedians (IE: Yatzee style) but forgot without some form of humor he just comes off as exceedingly pretentious without a bridge to stand on. His initial inaccuracy (of which there were many) was "people angry about on-disk DLC=reason for bad sales", was it? was it just a bad game? Who knows, he certainly doesn't, and thanks to that his sole reason gets crushed by logic.

I would say that fanboyism is another detriment of game development, but I'm sure he would fail to see the irony (or at least his painfully fake edgy persona would, hopefully he's a bit more sensible then his writing would lead you to believe).

 

[Berithil]

Come on guys, this is obviously either a flame bait article or satire, more likely the latter. Look at his About the Author description. Look at his blatant X-Box fanboyism.

" It?s no real secret that the best services in gaming are the ones that cost the most*."

" *Unless it?s a PC or Sony product."

I mean, his username is "The Lemming".

I can't be the only one who sees this, right?

 

[Loonyyy]

He's an idiot. If games cost too much for them to make, and they won't be bought, then they have to reduce the price. They're "supplying demands for more demand". http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=15469

The fool who wrote it should go to business school and shut up until he realises that telling people they have to accept a price hike rather than going without is pointless, and stupid, and shows a lack of even basic understanding.

 

[Xiroh86]

For the most part on-dsic DLC kinda irks me. The whole "I paid full price and don't have the full game" stuff. I get whole heartedly.

Now, there is one type of on-disc DLC that I'm relatively ok with, and that comes in the form of alternate character skins.

Let's take Resident Evil 6. If someone pays and downloads extra characters for Mercenaries character/skins, and I don't, my game still needs to be able to register this in multiplayer mode, and having it on-disc makes that considerably easier.

Now if its an extra campaign, or level, or some other such thing, that's what bugs me.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Standard industry apologist that can't see an inch off his nose.

Simple fact is conglomerates that pull this shit are in it for the money and money alone, they do not care if X move fucks up the game/franchise/dev/community as long as it projects greater profits, and profits are the only way to keep them in line.
If you pay into their bull blind then they will just keep pushing to get more because their only goal are not great games but great earnings.

 

[Waaghpowa]

"Team Fortress 2 was better on Xbox anyway"

Obvious troll is obvious. That or incredibly ignorant.

Edit: Don't even post comments on the blog. The guy is so obviously a Microsoft fanatic it's painful to think that so much ignorance could come from one person.

 

[Waaghpowa]

Come on guys, this is obviously either a flame bait article or satire, more likely the latter.

Poe's law?

 

[DonTsetsi]

I can't believe most people here can't distinguish between a genuine opinion and an obvious satire like this. HINT: A genuine opinion wouldn't talk about pills making others less whiny.


Unless.... Did I miss secondary sarcasm????

 

[IBlackKiteI]

From all the crap that guy spewed he must either be a dumbass or a dumbass who doesn't know how to pull off a decent parody.

Biggest issue, of which there are many, in that article is the assumption that more money towards the game always = more money for the developers which always = a better product. What guarantee do you have that this will at all be the case?

 

[BNguyen]

big problem I see with this statement:
"Secondly, it's such a simple answer that even a grade-schooler could grasp it: the more money a developer has, the better their games will be."

Uh, no, A developer will make a game then watch how it sells. If the game doesn't offer much but sells a lot, that will usually delude the developer into thinking that the customers will shell out for barely quality material. So no, the more money you give doesn't always mean the developer will make better products - timing is key and the longer you hold out, the more likely the developer will do something good in order to get people to buy.
If a developer is only going to give what amounts to the same as dlc at full price and give the rest of the game at a nominal fee, then we've essentially gone backwards
I expect a full game at full price
gamers are entitled to good answers from developers but are not always entitled to complain about what they get when it isn't exactly expected - for example, a developer tries a different style but the gamers push to have it reverted to the old look - this is where I would draw a line - reasonable arguments for reasonable issues

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

"don't say Team Fortress 2. That game was better on Xbox, anyway"

That's called a dog whistle. Nobody think TF2 was better on Xbox. It's pretty clear the author isn't serious.

This was must have been written by someone who dearly loves small budget indie games.

 

[SpectacularWebHead]

Sorry I didn't read your OP, but the only reason we should like on disc DLC is that "It's like a fun scavenger hunt!"

 

[Lucem712]

To be fair, I imagine Rockstar actually spends their earnings on developing the GTA games. (GTA 4 being one of the most expensive productions to date, or when it was made at least.) The COD devs and their parent companies spend all their money on hookers and coke parties.

I don't think it should be embraced, if it's on-disk, it's either something cut from the game and packaged as extra content, or budget re-skins or weapons which in the ole days was included in the games and unlocked via gameplay.

Now I understand that they need to get the game certified and have extra time to make content, but no one, after spending 60+ USD (100+ in Aussieland), wants to lay down more money to unlock something mostly included on their disk.

Also, Game Devs and Pubs should be selling their product the right way. Not nickel and diming their fanbase but by -gasp- selling a good/great product.

 

[Aeonknight]

While I do share the OP's distaste for TF2 (tried it, hated it, thought TFC was better but that could be nostalgia goggles talking), I dare say he's taken what should be considered a somewhat logical line of reason to the unlogical extreme.

money != quality. it ='s potential. but all the money in the world won't save a bad idea or bad implementation.

But on the other side of the fence it's a damn shame to see some games that could be really really good if they just had the funds to iron out a few things, or perhaps hire a bigger team to expand on an idea everyone liked.

As for day 1 DLC... I'm not really offended by it. Yea it's content that's on the disc that's been locked away. So what? It could just as easily be locked away on a server somewhere. On disc DLC = more exposure. Anyone who's taken marketing 101 could tell you that. But I'm not a huge partaker of DLC in the first place, and the DLC I do download usually comes months if not years after release.