Your thoughts on Day 1 PAID DLC

Phoenixmgs_v1legacy

Muse of Fate
Sep 1, 2010
4,691
0
0
Let me start off by saying I have no issue with DLC if the developers are INDEED adding to the game. When a game is being made, there is no way to fit everything into the game during the dev cycle and have the game be ready on time. So I have no issue with stuff being cut just because there isn't time, and it's nice for the dev to be able to spend more time on the stuff that they couldn't finish and be able to have gamers experience that stuff. Also, I have nothing against expanding the game like say Fallout 3, all the Fallout 3 expansions could not have been done and completed in time to be apart of the game.

The thing I have a huge issue with is DLC that would've (or should've) been in the game that is purposely cut to make more money through DLC. The thing is that this isn't always black and white. For example, I haven't done full research on this but Assassin's Creed 2's "missing" sequences seem like they should've been in the game, I do know it was stated that the sequences weren't supposed to be in the game but at the same time, the dev or publisher is not going to say that the DLC was supposed to be in the game but we cut it just so we could make more money (Note: I didn't play the DLC missions but it did seem kinda odd how they were skipped in game). Even if the AC2 sequences weren't ready for release, it's seems to me they should've part of the game. And if the game isn't done, don't release the game in that state and finish off the game then release what should've been in the game at a price. I could be completely wrong on this AC2 DLC stuff (maybe I'm wrong and the DLC was never intended to be part of the main game) but I'm sure there has been times when content was purposefully cut to make more money or the game had to be put out during a certain period (like the holiday season) and the game was released when not properly finished.

---

Finally, onto Day 1 DLC and my stance. If a game has Day 1 PAID DLC, I will BOYCOTT the game. If it's a game I really do want to play, I'll wait until it's really cheap or buy used because I'm not going to support any company that does that. If it's a game I'm on the fence about, it'll push me on the side of the fence that involves me not playing it. The reason I think Day 1 paid DLC is bullshit is because:

- the content was definitely done and very well should be part of the game.
- even if the content wasn't quite done, it was so far along that delaying the game for like a week or two should be enough time to finish since the game goes gold like a week or two before it is released. So, the devs only have like 2 weeks to finish that content if it is indeed not done; either delay the game for a week or make it free DLC.
- sometimes the content is on the fucking game disc (Dragon Age Origins) and you are paying only to unlock it
- if legit DLC is released on Day 1, the game was obviously pushed back at least a month (probably more) to release during a certain period. Just release the game when it's done as it'll sell or won't sell regardless of release date. I can see pushing a game past the holiday season if it'll for sure be overlooked by all the other holiday release but the rest of the year is pretty much fair game. It's also fine to release the game like a week or two late to avoid going up against some big game that will for sure overshadow it if you release it the same week like how Sega released Resonance of Fate the same day as FFXIII.

So far, the 2 games I have noticed that have Day 1 paid DLC are Dragon Age and Mafia II, which I probably will never play. Both of those games I was kinda interested in but with Day 1 DLC, I have no interest in playing them. I probably wouldn't have played them anyways though because I'm tired of the D&D fantasy setting and mob related stuff never interested me, I HATE mob movies.
 

Dark Knifer

New member
May 12, 2009
4,468
0
0
Phoenixmgs said:
The 'missing segments' in AC2 were meant to be exclusive for the collectors edition of the game. This actually makes sense considering they don't advance the plot in any way, so it works well for an optional extra. I agree with ypu on the day 1 dlc though. Charging more money immediately after the release of a game just doesn't seem fair. They could put it in as an update for free or free DLC. WHy not, it's jsut ones and zeros after all, nothing is really lost.
 

jamesworkshop

New member
Sep 3, 2008
2,683
0
0
What dragon age wasn't long enough already for you, hell took me just under 90 hours during my first play through
 

scnj

New member
Nov 10, 2008
3,088
0
0
Yet again, the development part of the game is done with long before the game is released. After the dev team is finished, there is a long period of testing, having the game rated, quality control etc. After this, there may be more time before the game actually hits shelves, which can lead to months of waiting. During this time nothing can be added to the game itself otherwise the whole process has to be restarted.

In previous years, the development team would have been broken up or moved onto another project. More recently, the team can stay together creating DLC for the yet to be released game. In order to finance this DLC creation period, more money has to be fronted by the publisher. DLC is budgeted separately from the game itself. They can't just give that away for free, because it needs to make money to pay the publisher back. They need to make a return on their investment.

Carry out your futile boycott by all means, but at least do some research before posting a hate filled rant.
 

FieryTrainwreck

New member
Apr 16, 2010
1,968
0
0
After the dev team is finished, there is a long period of testing, quality control etc.
I haven't laughed like that in a long time...

Anywho, do what I do: stop buying DLC. The vast majority of the stuff is an outright scam, and I don't intend to contribute to that particular revenue stream any longer.

Besides, you're always better off spending money on a new game. DLC is priced to make money based on maybe 10-20% sell-through, which means you're lucky to get 10-20% of the same bang for your buck.
 

mjc0961

YOU'RE a pie chart.
Nov 30, 2009
3,847
0
0
scnj said:
Yet again, the development part of the game is done with long before the game is released. After the dev team is finished, there is a long period of testing, having the game rated, quality control etc. After this, there may be more time before the game actually hits shelves, which can lead to months of waiting. During this time nothing can be added to the game itself otherwise the whole process has to be restarted.

In previous years, the development team would have been broken up or moved onto another project. More recently, the team can stay together creating DLC for the yet to be released game. In order to finance this DLC creation period, more money has to be fronted by the publisher. DLC is budgeted separately from the game itself. They can't just give that away for free, because it needs to make money to pay the publisher back. They need to make a return on their investment.

Carry out your futile boycott by all means, but at least do some research before posting a hate filled rant.
I pretty much have to agree with this with the exception of when they are selling you unlock codes. If the content is on the disc already then that means they have already tested it and they know it works and everything. It should just be there in the game for us if it's on the disc we already payed for.

If it's not on the disc though, even if it is on day one then I'm fine with it. I just don't get how the whole "pay for content that's already on the disc right after you bought the disc" thing is something they expect us to be okay with.

FieryTrainwreck said:
After the dev team is finished, there is a long period of testing, quality control etc.
I haven't laughed like that in a long time...
Not all games are made at Obsidian and Lionhead Studios.
 

tzimize

New member
Mar 1, 2010
2,391
0
0
Same opinion as most regular DLC. Borderline scam, and usually terrible value.
 

LawlessSquirrel

New member
Jun 9, 2010
1,105
0
0
That happened with Sims 3. Horrible, horrible cash grab, considering the game was lacking in content unless you paid for the day 1 DLC stuff. That's not my only complaint about that game, but easily my biggest.

Fable 3 annoyed me by having dyes as paid DLC too. Common issue nowadays, it seems.
 

Vortigar

New member
Nov 8, 2007
862
0
0
I tend to call it "canned bs" and should have someone make a funny little picture of it.

DLC added on later is perfectly understandable but why have extra stuff if no one played your game yet? Its patently silly.

I've never gotten any DLC for my games and enjoy myself just fine. I'm about to be in a bit of a quagmire though, as MvC3 is going to have DLC characters.
 

Telperion

Storyteller
Apr 17, 2008
432
0
0
scnj said:
Yet again, the development part of the game is done with long before the game is released. After the dev team is finished, there is a long period of testing, having the game rated, quality control etc. After this, there may be more time before the game actually hits shelves, which can lead to months of waiting. During this time nothing can be added to the game itself otherwise the whole process has to be restarted.
In a perfect world this would actually be true, but in reality hardly anyone has the money and time to do this. In reality products as pushed out as soon as the software stops crashing long enough to allow for a single play through and doesn't show any signs of incredibly obvious faults. Of course, even then you get products that are filled with horrible bugs when released to the hungry masses.

Naturally there are exceptions to the rule: World of Warcraft expansions and Diablo 3 come to mind. However, these are products that are essentially guaranteed to sell like crazy no matter what. Most gaming development projects are less likely to succeed.
 

Rednog

New member
Nov 3, 2008
3,567
0
0
Not to derail the topic, but people really need to go and look up and understand what Boycotting is, honestly the word has begun to become some sort of fad to just throw out there anytime someone doesn't buy a game.
Boycotting boiled down to the core is really wanting something but abstaining from it because you have some problem with the means in which an item was created or what the item represents. And with this you're actually supposed to turn around and tell the company "hey you know what, I really love your games, but I don't agree with X, Y, and Z and until these things are fixed I will not buy your game."
But people seem to throw it around more as, I don't like the game itself, so I'm not buying it, thus I am boycotting the game. No, you just don't like the game. I don't like bananas, but it doesn't mean I'm boycotting them when I don't buy them.

The same in this thread, boycotting is supposed to have a point, if you're just waiting to buy a game when it is cheaper that isn't boycotting it, that is just waiting until its cheaper, because that is the dollar amount that you as a consumer have placed upon said object and that is what you are willing to pay versus the cost of not playing on day one of the release.
If you are boycotting something you will never buy it until the problem you have with it is solved, and you will explicitly tell the company that is making the product why. Just not buying it, or not buying it until it is cheaper tells the company absolutely nothing about the problem.
 

Sovereignty

New member
Jan 25, 2010
584
0
0
You know how to boycott properly with new releases you want?

Don't buy the DLC and when purchasing the game, buy it used. After all they're complaining about how they don't get a cut of the revenue from used game sales. So yeah! Beat them that way.

OT: I only approve of DLC for a few kinds of games.

Sports games (Updated rosters/player images/etc.)
Fighters (New characters)
Racing games (New cars/Tracks)

I don't like multiplayer maps for shooters, because I feel they should all come with create-a-level type modes.

And tacking on things to single player... Well it should be on the product when they release it. They're either too insignificant to make worth the purchase, or so large leaving them out of the game was a mistake.

Being the buyer I shouldn't have to pay for said mistake.
 

Dys

New member
Sep 10, 2008
2,343
0
0
scnj said:
Yet again, the development part of the game is done with long before the game is released. After the dev team is finished, there is a long period of testing, having the game rated, quality control etc. After this, there may be more time before the game actually hits shelves, which can lead to months of waiting. During this time nothing can be added to the game itself otherwise the whole process has to be restarted.
DLC goes through exactly the same rigorous (well, usually) testing as game and expansion pack releases. If the DLC is completed to the point where it is included on the disc, and a day one purchase will unlock the content (without the need to download any further content) this development cycle argument is pretty obviously irrelevant.
In previous years, the development team would have been broken up or moved onto another project. More recently, the team can stay together creating DLC for the yet to be released game. In order to finance this DLC creation period, more money has to be fronted by the publisher. DLC is budgeted separately from the game itself. They can't just give that away for free, because it needs to make money to pay the publisher back. They need to make a return on their investment.

Carry out your futile boycott by all means, but at least do some research before posting a hate filled rant.
Of course, it's completely reasonable for a publisher to want to make money. It's also completely reasonable for a consumer to choose not to purchase a relatively expensive product if they feel they are being mistreated for whatever reason. It isn't unreasonable to feel that publishers are treating the main game as secondary to the sale of addons when a 0 day, priced DLC is included on the disc that you've paid for. Especially given the overall quality of a great many games that are released (lacking, particularly in the single player).
 

The Lunatic

Princess
Jun 3, 2010
2,291
0
0
Frankly, I find Day-one DLC to just be disgusting.

Often it's poorly cut from the game, and worse yet, it's advertised in game.
 

RobCoxxy

New member
Feb 22, 2009
2,036
0
0
I disliked the old "CoD" DLC handling.

"Buy our map packs for a fucking ridiculous amount of cash!!"

"No."

*browsing servers, connect*

Play a couple of good matches, then get kicked for not having the paid content on the rotation.

Wank.
 

tharglet

New member
Jul 21, 2010
998
0
0
A lot of DLC stuff seems to me to be akin to the "special edition" DVD stuff you tend to get. It's often of little value or interest, and barely worth the price paying for it.

I'm happy with not buying the DLC, if it doesn't offer value for money. Most games I get the value out for what I pay for them (delayed cycle ftw).

Day 1 DLC is not a smart thing imo, unless it's paying for the "collector's edition" content, if you decide you like a game that much, or the game price is adjusted to reflect the missing content.
 

Phoenixmgs_v1legacy

Muse of Fate
Sep 1, 2010
4,691
0
0
Rednog said:
boycotting is supposed to have a point, if you're just waiting to buy a game when it is cheaper that isn't boycotting it, that is just waiting until its cheaper, because that is the dollar amount that you as a consumer have placed upon said object and that is what you are willing to pay versus the cost of not playing on day one of the release.
If you are boycotting something you will never buy it until the problem you have with it is solved, and you will explicitly tell the company that is making the product why. Just not buying it, or not buying it until it is cheaper tells the company absolutely nothing about the problem.
I understand what boycotting means. If I buy the game used, I'm not giving the publisher ANY money. Waiting for the game to become really cheap (like $20) is telling publisher something as well because games have to have a good opening week and month to be profitable nowadays. Very few games are able to sell well over the long-term. Therefore, if very few people decide to purchase the game when it comes out, the game is not going to make money. Why wouldn't I buy the game at some point if I really wanted to play it? It's not like Day 1 DLC is something morally reprehensible, they aren't killing dolphins to make the game.