Why gamers should embrace on-disc DLC

[TwoSidesOneCoin]

Holy shit, so much shitstorm bait and then I saw this.

or why there is no such thing as a great game that is also free-to-play (don't say Team Fortress 2. That game was better on Xbox, anyway).

http://d22zlbw5ff7yk5.cloudfront.net/images/cm-26400-0507b97a7ece10.gif

When I made it to that section of the.....I'll go with the word post, because I can't bear to call it an article, anyways, when I made it to that part of the article, I knew it was just a troll bait. I trudged on until I got to the cod elite bit and lol'd as I stopped reading and decided to check the replies to the obviously biased post.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

"This leads to things like bigger production values, larger set pieces, more detailed graphics, better voice-actors, and more epic music."

None of these things make a better game.

None.

Not one.

This article is making me legitimately physically angry. Why is this man typing on the internet again? Why does he want to feed an industry that constantly over-gorging itself? If a game can't make its money back for the price they sell it for, why are they still selling it for that price/why are they making content they can't afford? Does he understand what a product is? What a consumer does? I... I... eurgh.

 

[mooncalf]

Disc Locked Content is not a path to better games, more likely a backwards feature creep of developers arguing with publishers over what should or shouldn't be included in the original purchase price.

 

[l0ckd0wn]

My reply to the guys original, garbage post.

Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Lots of talk about you? http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.391649-Why-gamers-should-embrace-on-disc-DLC?page=1

And I?m going to go ahead and disagree as well. It?s a shame the audience you are trying to speak to you put down so harshly and unnecessarily, totally detracts from the original weak point you attempt to make. Your examples for EA are bogus, mostly because they have become the corporate machine of bloat that many other public entities become when their upper management staffs salaries reach orbit. For example: http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/12/910R.html $82 Million over 5 years? Really? How much money do they have on hand if you can honestly justify paying your CEO of a publicly traded company over $12 million per year? I?d like to make comparisons to the programmers wages who build this thing from the ground up, I wonder what their royalties and salaries are?

This whole thing is fail and more fail.

As for the original topic; it's laziness and a very bad and brash attempt at exploiting a market. It seems like an attempt to try and grab money that they expect to be there but isn't, and in turn it just further exacerbates the exodus away from the product... the original authors example of Street Fighter X Tekken was perfect.

"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.

Yeah that bothered me too, especially considering I still play too much TF2 and love the additions to the game that I can only imagine are not present in the consoles...

Some good laughs in this thread to, thank you Escapists!

 

[Playful Pony]

I couldn't finish reading.. I'm sorry, I can usually wade trough some pretty bad magnitude of crap, but this was too much! I'll post anyway damnit! As far as I got in reading that, this can't possibly be serious. I refuse to believe someone to be this backwards, even here on our beloved internet. I'm going to go ahead and stamp this as a troll post. I tend to want to take people seriously most of the time (which is why I'm very easy to trick and lie to, much to my friends amusement >.<), but this is too much...

Also, I'm not a fighting-game fan... But seriously, did ANYONE expect this to sell on PC? Really?!

 

[mirage202]

I would have agreed with the guy if his point about more money = better games was actually true.

In reality the vast majority of publishers out there do not give us more for more, we get less for more. Games are progressively releasing buggier, shorter, with more reusable multiplayer focused content.

If on-disk locked content actually felt like something new, wouldn't be an issue yet it isn't, it is more often than not, cut, or just locked out content denied to us to force paying more money.

Personally I'd be fine with this practice if they had the decency to charge us $30 for 50% of a game or $45 for 75% of one but they don't, they want their full $60 for the half game and everything else on top. Instead, it's actually getting worse. Some publishers are trying to slip in increases in prices. Noticing more and more PC releases creeping over the £30 price point, some 32, a lot 35, even a few trying to push £39.99. We don't get better games for that, we get the same old same old, with ever increasing amounts of DLC to buy to get the full flavour.

Numbers might seem low/cheap to you funny foreigners so I'll add a little context: when in Philadelphia, I can order two large pizzas for $14.50. To do the same here in London, $45-50 depending on exchange rate fluctuations.

 

[OldDirtyCrusty]

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?

Read some of the other posts and be reliefed, you`re not alone.
I would guess it`s meant to be satire and i`m a bit shocked how many don`t seem to get it.

 

[Bigsmith]

Sorry, seams like a load of shit.

Plus I stopped reading at "...don't say TF2..."

 

[Sylveria]

On-Disc DLC is not DLC. It is content you paid for being restricted, like a new home with a locked room. Any argument to support this practice is little more than acting as an apologist or white-knight for the same publishers who are trying to screw you.

If games are too expensive, companies need to manage their priorities and assets better to reach an optimal cost-profit point, not make you pay more for less, then pay again for the rest.

Additionally, if anyone thinks for a second that higher profits = more money for developers to use on games, they need some sense smacked in to them. How many studios have we seen screwed over because their game was successful, but not quite successful enough to please their publisher overlord and then get shut down.

 

[bafrali]

I wouldn't care to listen to opinions of a man when he says TF2 is better on Xbox.

Edit: Now I get that this guy is either trolling or trying to relay sarcasm without success. I don't know which one is sadder

 

[Longstreet]

The bullshit is high in this one.

Do you have ANY basic concept of marketing / selling your products?
[sub][sub] by the looks of this post, no [/sub][/sub]

 

[Flames66]

Yeah he's full of it.

As a consumer I make the choice whether something is worth my money and by my purely subjective point of view I see on disk locked content and day 1 DLC as business practices that I will not support. If a game pulls either of those I wont buy it and I will actively encourage other consumers not to buy it by sharing my point of view

A company standing there and saying I should buy these games even though they have business practices that I dont support is acting as if they are entitled to my money. They arent. They have to earn my money by putting out a good product with business practices that I agree with or feel indifferent about.

There is also the fallacy that more money = better games. To draw a comparison Mass effect 1 was quite possibly one of the best RPGs Ive played from Bioware but even though it had a smaller budget then ME3 it was still the better game. Tighter story, better controls, bigger feeling world, etc. What determines if a game is good or not is the talented designers behind it, not money

If you remove the word "consumer" from this you pretty much have my opinion as well. You (game makers) are not entitled to any money, you must make a product that I want to spend money on and sell it in a way and at a price I am willing to accept.

 

[Westaway]

One of the stupidest articles I've ever had the misfortune to read.

Why is gaming journalism SO shit?

 

[gigastar]

I feel like a just read an article from Fox News or the Daily Mail.

Now im going to not continue typing to prevent fire and bile spilling onto my keyboard.

 

[mew4ever23]

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

All credibility lost. How's the big pile of unfixed bugs and exploits, you poor hatless simpleton? TF2's been running better on PC for years now.

I'm sorry, but this guy is just full of it. On disc dlc is just another way a publisher is trying to target our pocket. Way I see it, if you buy a game, you get everything on the disc, no additional money required. Achievements to unlock things (like Super Smash Brothers or TF2 on the PC), that's fine. But don't ask for more money to access content that I already have.

 

[cheesefreak]

not sure if this article was satire to begin with.

why are we seriously debating this that ends with
"pay for it with a smile. A smile and cold, hard cash." ?

 

[Lt._nefarious]

I think on disc DLC is acceptable IF it's free, non essential (like an extra multiplayer character or something) and is obtained by signing the company's fansite, testing the game's beta or something along those lines and becomes readily available after an update later down the line.