Oh god, no. I assumed Mass Effect fans would be reasonable, then I took an...Internet...to the eyes. OK, I'll stop now. Anyway, until I saw some actual ME fans I didn't think much of them. But some actually claim that ME's story is somehow superior to, I don't know "everything" or "mostly everything" else. Or something along those lines. I'm not saying the story is bad but, really, "superior"? I would classify it as decent (I might be undervaluing it but not by a lot). The gameplay is also nice. So all in all, the ME games were worth the money I paid. And I got the first one for £2.50. ME1 and 2 were around £10-£12 in total. There is no way I'm paying full price for the third one. I'd like a conclusion (inb4 endings are blah-blah) but I don't value the story that high. And the DLC doesn't give me anything I require.
Also, get this, the some ME fans claim that the DLC is crucial to the whole plot. And you can't have the game without the DLC. I can just play it without to prove a point, if I wish.
So, you believe that a lot of people - voice actors, animators, story writers, developers and so on, come together put a year and whatever much it took to make the game, than sit there and wait to get money from people buying it? Maybe they can only afford food thanks to the preorders.
That's not how it works, is what I'm trying to say. If you work a job and you do something extra - overtime or something, or take an additional responsibility, do you not expect to be paid more? In your words - not, because your customers couldn't care less if you did extra work or not.
The cheese is not worth 99c. I don't want to buy food that is trying to rip me off in that fashion when it's not worth it.
I am going to wait until I get a McDonald's voucher, where it will be worth my money. But guys don't complain about it if you're going to buy it anyway!
Yeah, I just recently noticed this. While legally they have a right to do this, I do believe it is - to misappropriate your words - a bit sleazy to put content actually on the disk and then charge you extra for it.
Yeah, it kind of ceases to be "downloadable content" when you aren't actually downloading everything, but that's actually rather pedantic when you look at the heart of the problem.
Still, I can't help but feel that I'm getting screwed when I realize the data I'm paying for is already there on the disc, and that the cost of "hosting/distributing" it was technically already paid for (by me).
*On topic:*
After discussion with more level-headed individuals (you know who you are, and thank you), I'm going to posit that this is simply economics in action.
Mass Effect 1 was a hit, EA noticed the increased demand, they hiked prices for the full experience. Cue that Cerberus Code/Network nonsense. People bought it. It was a success. Cue even MORE Day 1 DLC for ME3. Of course, since it's a price hike, some people are calling EA out on it.
Please keep in mind THAT THIS WOULD HAPPEN EVEN IF THE DEVELOPMENT BUDGET BETWEEN ME1 AND ME2+ME3 STAYED EXACTLY THE SAME*. Increased Demand? Well, even though Supply isn't limited here, the fact that Demand is higher means that Demand is more willing to pay more for the same thing.
This happens for a variety of reasons. (Popularity and inclusion foremost. Assurance of quality amidst mediocrity, or at least the perception thereof...hype is a very powerful marketing force that can cause prices to rise via the logic of a Network Good. It also helps that most of the market STILL perceives games as products instead of services.)
Fact is: EA is going to continue gradually hiking prices in such a manner until it blows up in their face.
In short: Yeah, gamers are getting exploited, yet enough gamers enable it anyway despite the grumbling. Look at their competition, be more frugal if you want better deals. That's all the advice I can provide there.
************
To address the "controversy" of the subject more directly:
Well, the complaints about Day 1 DLC are expected; Customers don't like higher prices in general. No shit, right?
However, complaining about it is ultimately futile.
Why? Because the new standard has been set, loathe as I am to admit it.
The fact that a lot of other people are causing this to happen against my wishes (and the wishes of many others) is the source of great animosity, (as all the recent DLC hate topics may testify) because logically, we who don't support this sort of DLC have nobody else to blame for its rise in popularity, and the subsequent rise in effective costs.
It causes backlash.
Hell, this topic is a backlash to THAT backlash.
Personally, I'm tired of all the people throwing around the word "Entitled" as a cop-out argument, since it makes no sense when you look at the truth of the matter. No, really. Before you reply to disprove me in your furious, zealous fervor, just stop and think for a minute about what you're actually arguing here.
What makes a Supplier's "Greed" different or "more justified" than Demand's "entitlement"?
Nothing. The argument is pure raging, hyperbolic nonsense FROM EITHER SIDE (this is why I say the complaints are futile).
In fact, economics RELIES on the presence of these two forces to work, to find/approach the marginal cost, and to crash when one side takes too much from the other.
Unless our social behavior changes radically to be less self-centric in general (not happening), that is what we're stuck with in a free market.
You say the cost of DLC is justified because YOU think it's worth the money and everyone else who disagrees is acting childish?
That argument is 100% subjective, not definitive. Not fact. We all occupy different parts of the Demand curve. Some are more willing to pay than others, for whatever the reason.
So telling people to "Shut the fuck up" over it (or any other such argument) is no less presumptuous or childish, no matter how irritating the deluge of topics on the subject has become. You are sinking to their level when you argue that.
**************
Good fucking grief I miss the days when topics on these forums were more civil...even if just a little.
Personally, I think it has less to do with "rising development costs" since Bioware is paid the same no matter what up to launch (which includes development of Day 1 DLC, despite being done in effective overtime). That's how studio contracts work in general, and it's something of a point of controversy among developers because it enables legal loop holes in labor laws (which EA loves, and has been sued for before), though that strays a bit too far off topic here.
I don't mean to exclude rising fixed costs for development entirely (which has been a HUGE topic in itself over the years, though I feel as though the costs have plateaued with the limitations of current console hardware being reached), but in this case it's fair to call it a Red Herring, given the enormous financial success of Mass Effect 1 in spite of its LACK of Day 1 DLC.
Blah, is Gaming Discussion so flooded with Mass Effect that the dam broke and it's now leaking into Off-Topic? Come on, guys, I don't want to talk about Mass Effect butthurt anymore, that's why I'm in Off-Topic.
I do think that picture is a little unfair - it's not as if all, or even most, games companies are doing that. And even in this case, it's not in a big way.
For a lot of games, DLC more takes the form of expansion packs. Mass Effect 2 had plenty of DLC like this (Lair of the Shadow Broker, most notably). Most multiplayer shooter map packs fit the category, too, for all the flak they get.
Sorry. I snapped. Look. You are WRONG. You do not OWN those files. They are not yours. They are subject to a license. You did not pay for ALL of the content on the disc, you paid for part of it. Some of the content is subject to a separate license which you must agree to and pay for.
Sorry. I snapped. Look. You are WRONG. You do not OWN those files. They are not yours. They are subject to a license. You did not pay for ALL of the content on the disc, you paid for part of it. Some of the content is subject to a separate license which you must agree to and pay for.
Already addressed in the thread. Look here: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.353930-You-people-are-ridiculous#14052898). What I said up there is how it SHOULD be.
I don't have a problem with paying more for more content, but they could at least assemble the burger for me, instead of selling me the burger, locking the cheese in a box, giving me the key with the box, and then expect me to install software on my PC that will let me open the box.
It's more convenient for everybody to have the DLC on the disc. It means the producers don't have to keep track of multiple production lines for the standard edition and the collector's edition and that should you want to buy the DLC you don't have to waste time downloading it because it's already on the disc. There's nothing wrong with it being on the disc. If it wasn't on the disc, would it really be different? Would your anger at EA subside if you had to download the DLC instead of just unlocking it? Either way, you are handing over money for this content, how it's delivered to you shouldn't matter.
Says the person making yet another worthless fucking thread about it, bringing up no new or interesting points and is just reposting someone elses picture we have all seen a dozen times in the last 2 fucking days. How about you shut the fuck up about day one DLC, or if you simply must run your mouth about it and share your uninteresting opinion on it for the 257th time, then do it in one of the other 50 threads already about it instead of flooding the forum with yet another one because you are somehow under the delusion that your opinion is somehow more important.
An example I keep going back to is Magus from Chrono Trigger. Having him in the party was optional and didn't need to happen, but we got him without having to pay $10 over the price of the game we paid for. Yes, it wasn't downloadable (due to the tech at the time), but he probably would be if the game was made today. Games used to have these litte extras hidden as part of the game: extra characters and unlockable bosses in fighters, extra optional charactrs in RPGs, extra modes in platformers, hidden levels in shooters. I gueess if you're an older gamer you don't view the complete game as the shortest path between "press start" and "game over".
Or Vincent/Yuffie in Final Fantasy VII. My first play-through of that game, I didn't encounter either of those characters and therefore didn't experience their plotlines. However, I didn't need to pay Square $10 to unlock them on subsequent playthroughs. . .
I don't like when DLC is included on a game disc and just locked behind a money-barrier, because that's being greedy, but I tend to ignore most DLC anyway, no matter what it is. The only reason I had any of the Mass Effect 2 DLC was because the PS3 version came with a bunch of it already unlocked.
Captcha: Search Inventory. Captcha is getting intelligent. It must be purged.
Yes, Micalas this is how it works. You don't own the information in the CD. Are you going to tell me, I can reverse engineer I game I bought and then release a product based on it for profit? Because your argument takes under no account that situation. Claiming "you own everything on the disc" effectively means that I can do that. However, you actually agree on ways you can use the software you buy and that is the the EULA. You do not get ultimate access to everything. Just take a look at the people who tried to do something with a game and were stopped by the product owners.
Sorry, but that is complete bullshit. Owning something and reverse-engineering it for commercial gain are completely different things. If I buy a car I can do whatever I want to do with it, but I still can't reverse-engineer it and produce my own car using patented technology. Owning something has nothing to do with using it for commercial purposes. Same thing with music, if I own a music CD I can do what I want with it and its content, as long as I don't use tracks for anything but private purposes. I can make a totally rad song using copyrighted material, I just can't release it.
So yes, nothing would stop me from creating my own Mass Effect 4 by reverse-engineering Bioware's products, as long as I didn't make it available to the public. And even then there's the fair use rationale for non-commercial purposes. See: mods.
Please don't talk about copyright law if you don't know much about it. If Bioware were to go to court over someone unlocking the files on the CD it sure as hell won't be an instant win, especially not just because of the EULA, which gets regularly thrown out of court for not being considered legally binding. Things just aren't that black and white in law.
I don't have a problem with paying more for more content, but they could at least assemble the burger for me, instead of selling me the burger, locking the cheese in a box, giving me the key with the box, and then expect me to install software on my PC that will let me open the box.
Same here. It's not even the cost of DLC that bothers me, it's just the messiness of the experience. At a time when I am excited to play a new installment of a favorite series, the last thing I want to do is mess around with files. I find that installing both a game and a DLC approximately doubles the chance of technical headaches.
And with DLC that comes out after launch, sometimes it integrates poorly with the main game, so I have to launch the program differently to access the DLC. Then I have to figure out how to access it in-game, which might be tricky, causing me to search online and encounter frustrating spoilers.
So your comment really hit home with me, since I don't mind an extra $10 for a great game, but I do mind a bunch of hassles and messiness that reduces its greatness.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
