The Consumer... Doesn't Matter Anymore?

[Hakudamashi]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqgRP5_YKu0&feature=plcp&context=C415b0d9VDvjVQa1PpcFMjUCRFIelSOx-IxiUuAzv42aOqE_gUmjY%3D

I watched this video, and then I look back at games that get all the cash ala unfinished games like Street Fighter.

So like, we're no longer part of the equation when a game is made? Developers can now exploit the f*ck outta their games to milk as much money as they can, and we're just to... "deal with it"?

[Supersonic196]

Solution: don't buy those games, or just don't buy the DLC.

[Hakudamashi]

Solution: don't buy those games, or just don't buy the DLC.

That's what I used to think, but then now that more and more companies are pulling off this sh*t, it's starting to get to me because I WANT to play those games

Like Street Fighter X Tekken, I like the roster, the team combat system intrigues me, and being a fighting game fan myself, I go giddy as I see these pros explain the technicallities and pull of feats that I WANT to do myself. I want to buy this game, and give the well deserved money to those people who came up with the ideas that make it worth the $60 I spend on it.
But on the opposite end of the spectrum, by giving my money to them means  I also support the idea of Disc-Locked content(Why am I paying more money for content that is already on the disc I payed $60 for?), no story mode in a crossover game(I'll save that for some other topic), the broken sound in online matches that's jarring as f*ck, lack of modes other than fightfightfight, and I can go on.

In other words this isn't a case of Super Mario 3D Land where even though I hate and don't support mandatory collecting, there is enough positives to it to make me sad "I'm happy with my purchase". The game interests me, I WANT to play it, I DON'T want to resort to pirating, I WANT to support those good people who worked hard to make the gameplay and content worth the money I spend on it, but even more so I don't want give money saying I support your practice and to say "An incomplete game is cool with me", worse that if these practices are bringing in the money, then more companies will start doing it with their games (I'm looking at you Soul Calibur V >=U).

"Don't Buy The DLC"
Again, same problem, I WANT the content in the DLC, I WANT to pay the people who thought of the content in it, I DON'T want to support how it's used ( Day 1 DLC, pre-order bonuses, retail exclusive bonuses etc.)

[Supersonic196]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h472NmF1HEQ&feature=player_embedded

[Hakudamashi]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h472NmF1HEQ&feature=player_embedded

I watched this sometime ago when it was funny, watching it now makes me shed a tear...

[Elija2]

Apparently Final Fantasy 13-2 ends with some cliffhanger and to get the full story you have to buy the DLC.

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/121/1218042p1.html

[Hakudamashi]

Apparently Final Fantasy 13-2 ends with some cliffhanger and to get the full story you have to buy the DLC.

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/121/1218042p1.html

Old news bro

That's right, you need to pay more moneys to g\unlock the "true ending", which hasn't released yet btw. Looks like not even our RPGs are safe from this practice =/
Again, another game I REALLY wanted to support, but said "f*ck it" because I found out it pulled off sh*t like this...

[Elija2]

I hear Katawa Shoujo 2 will have DLC for the true endings and sex scenes.

[TheGameNinja]

I agree with what he said. I disliked the ending(s) to ME3, but I don't think they should have to change it because of that. It's not right to tell someone to change their work because you don't like it.

That said, I disagree with what he said about the DLC. The fact that it is on the disc is what makes it wrong, not the fact that the DLC exists. If they want to make DLC available the day the game comes out, fine. But if I buy that disc, I deserve to have access to anything on it. That is not entitlement, that is ownership. If someone sold you a car at full price and then you bought a sunroof as an extra, but you found out the sunroof was there all along and you only paid them to open it up... you would not like that, would you?

[shadowDOESrock]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqgRP5_YKu0&feature=plcp&context=C415b0d9VDvjVQa1PpcFMjUCRFIelSOx-IxiUuAzv42aOqE_gUmjY%3D

I watched this video, and then I look back at games that get all the cash ala unfinished games like Street Fighter.

So like, we're no longer part of the equation when a game is made? Developers can now exploit the f*ck outta their games to milk as much money as they can, and we're just to... "deal with it"?

I agree with this guy.

Its not like you're gonna compain when buying a car (e.g BMW) that you have to pay extra for the navigation system - even though its already in the car - they just unlock it.

Same here - if you're gonna buy (e.g Street Fighter X Tekken) you get exactly what you knew you're gonna get.
There is DLC Content on the disc, so what? If you want that additional content, you pay for it!
In SFxT's case - the characters are free to the Vita Version so that you buy a Vita & the Vita copy of the game.

Now, if (in Capcom's Case) the content was not stored on the disc - instead downloaded over e.g Xbox Live no one would complain.
No one complained before when everything was downloaded and not stored on the Disc. No one complained about Battlefield Bad Company 2 having DLC for an entire year on the disc. No one complained about Halo 3's Map packs. No one complained about Street Fighter 2 releasing various times with additional content. No one complained about  Rollercoaster Tycoon 3 adding a few objects on a disc at an unbelieveable high price. No one complained that Forza 3 released all the DLC on a Disc afterwards for a cheaper price that the original game.

So why now? I dont get it to be honest. Why complain about something now when you've been fine with since the introduction Street Fighter 2? Instead of buying the entire game at full price again with some new content on it - you get it as DLC for e.g 1500msp.

Lets take Call Of Duty for example - people have been complaining about the DLC beeing 'priced to high' & 'should have already been on the disc'.
You get like this huge multiplayer experience with 16 Maps. Then, almost a half year later you get a bunch of maps.
'I've been ripped off'

No, you have not been ripped off since you where the Idiot who bought the DLC in the first place. You know what you're gonna get. If you dont want it or think its priced to high dont buy it. IF you want it - you buy the additional content.

Or don't even buy the game at all - wait for a couple of months until a 'Ultimate Edition' comes out.

Or what about Sonic Adventure? No one really complained about having to buy the entire game again just to get a mission mode and slightly enhanced graphics? Nor that the 360/PS3 version has a 'Sonic Adventure DX Upgrade' DLC just to get the Mission Mode.

I can only repeat - If you want the additonal content, you buy it. Its addtional - stored on the disc or not.

-------------------

Now, i dont get whats going on exactly with Mass Effect 3's Ending. But as far i get it - people dont like the games ending - they bitch about it - now a DLC's coming out for a better ending - people bitch about having to pay for the DLC? What?

[jkid101094]

-Words-

I kinda skimmed this but your points seemed to be from times where:

A). People had money.
B). DLC was not an option.

In the days of Dreamcast you couldn't just log onto the online store and download a graphics patch. That made SA to SADX perfectly plausible. These days our tech has gotten better and as a result these remakes aren't going to cut it. Why pay $60 for the mission mode and graphics updates to a game when we are just as capable of paying $20 through DLC? The only reason remakes would be justified these days is if said remakes were for a different system than the original. Obviously games for the N64 can't download shit from the E Shop so something like Mario 64 DS makes perfect sense. MvC3, however, is PERFECTLY capable of releasing a patch over DLC and that's why UMvC3 isn't justified in any sense. The games offer only 8 different character and a changed HUD. That's just about it. That could have just as well been DLC. At least the LBP to LPB2 switch offered more than new costumes, I say it's justified because as DLC it would devour your hard drive. Games like UMvC3 have no excuse.

As for on disc DLC I can't see any company that has seen what the fans can do would put DLC on a disc for any other reasons than saving hard drive space.

[shadowDOESrock]

I kinda skimmed this but your points seemed to be from times where:

A). People had money.
B). DLC was not an option.

In the days of Dreamcast you couldn't just log onto the online store and download a graphics patch. That made SA to SADX perfectly plausible. These days our tech has gotten better and as a result these remakes aren't going to cut it. Why pay $60 for the mission mode and graphics updates to a game when we are just as capable of paying $20 through DLC? The only reason remakes would be justified these days is if said remakes were for a different system than the original. Obviously games for the N64 can't download shit from the E Shop so something like Mario 64 DS makes perfect sense. MvC3, however, is PERFECTLY capable of releasing a patch over DLC and that's why UMvC3 isn't justified in any sense. The games offer only 8 different character and a changed HUD. That's just about it. That could have just as well been DLC. At least the LBP to LPB2 switch offered more than new costumes, I say it's justified because as DLC it would devour your hard drive. Games like UMvC3 have no excuse.

As for on disc DLC I can't see any company that has seen what the fans can do would put DLC on a disc for any other reasons than saving hard drive space.

You dont have to buy UMvC3 and UMvC3 Enhanced Edition. 

[jkid101094]

You dont have to buy UMvC3 and UMvC3 Enhanced Edition.  

You don't have to buy the first game either, however, if you want to stay updated with the game you have to pay for two new games (possibly either $60 or $120 depending on which ones you buy) for the sole purpose of getting content which could have just as easily have been DLC. You also have to pay to play online because I'm pretty sure MvC3 and UMvC3 players can't play together. If they wanted to give us both an option to buy the disc and the option to separately buy DLC it might be better, but we don't even get that. Instead we have to repay for a game we already have just to get a small update. At least something like Mortal Kombat: Komplete Edition let us pay for the DLC instead of buying another disc.

Also, I doubt data carries over between the games so not only do you have to pay $60 for a small update but if you completed Arcade mode and unlocked all the titles and profiles you have to do it all over again.

[TheGameNinja]

It just isn't morally right for them to make you pay for something that you have technically already paid for. They are making you pay for unlockable content. Like if you had to pay every time you unlocked a character in Brawl. If it is on the disc, it should be yours to access.

DLC is not the problem I have with this. DLC is fine. Day one DLC, I don't care. That's all optional. But you paid for that disc, and forcing you to pay to unlock part of the disc is not right.

[jkid101094]

It just isn't morally right for them to make you pay for something that you have technically already paid for. They are making you pay for unlockable content. Like if you had to pay every time you unlocked a character in Brawl. If it is on the disc, it should be yours to access.

DLC is not the problem I have with this. DLC is fine. Day one DLC, I don't care. That's all optional. But you paid for that disc, and forcing you to pay to unlock part of the disc is not right.

I understand what you're talking about but the intention of putting it on the disc is usually for a good cause. It reduces the amount of space that your hard drive needs to use said DLC in the first place. They are not making you pay for unlockable content because you can't actually unlock it. If anything paying for the disc with DLC on it would be the same as paying for said DLC to take nothing off your hard drive. I think that's a pretty fair deal, but I do see where you're coming from.

What needs to be done is the ability to store DLC on something like a CD or a flash drive. I'm sure they could lock the files so they couldn't be redistributed and it would get rid of both, "on-disc DLC" and it would save hard drive space. Hell, Nintendo does it.

[Hakudamashi]

Now, if (in Capcom's Case) the content was not stored on the disc - instead downloaded over e.g Xbox Live no one would complain.
No one complained before when everything was downloaded and not stored on the Disc. No one complained about Battlefield Bad Company 2 having DLC for an entire year on the disc. No one complained about Halo 3's Map packs. No one complained about Street Fighter 2 releasing various times with additional content. No one complained about  Rollercoaster Tycoon 3 adding a few objects on a disc at an unbelieveable high price. No one complained that Forza 3 released all the DLC on a Disc afterwards for a cheaper price that the original game.

First off, we prefer having to download off the internet rather than unlocking it on the disc because at least the downloads aren't included in the disc you spent $60 on.

Second, people didn't rage as much about the Street Fighter 2 back then because there wasn't any other way to update a game at the time, not to mention games weren't as expensive.

Instead of buying the entire game at full price again with some new content on it - you get it as DLC for e.g 1500msp.

To be able to update a game without having to re-buy the entire game all over again, that's what DLC should be, just a way to keep the consumer invested in your game months after it's released so that's it talked about for years to come.
With that in mind, Day 1 DLC only says 1 of 2 things:
a).You're gonna be bored with this the same day you get it, so here's something extra after you beat it. Correct me if I'm wrong,but back in the day, games also did this by giving you UNLOCKABLES, y'know, bonus content and rewards you get after completing the game which were earned by skill and actually exploring and investing your time to everything the game had to offer, not putting out more money -_-.

b).This is simply a way to squeeze out extra money outta you. They purposefully sold you an incomplete game so that they can charge you for something for extra moneys. Call me crazy, but I think that classifies as getting "ripped off"

Now, i dont get whats going on exactly with Mass Effect 3's Ending. But as far i get it - people dont like the games ending - they bitch about it - now a DLC's coming out for a better ending - people bitch about having to pay for the DLC? What?

Hey, the Witcher 2 got and enhanced version with better endings, better sex scenes, and more, those who haven't bought the original have to pay $40, those who already own the original get it patched in for FREE

[jkid101094]

[Supersonic196]

Ohlawd x3

[Hakudamashi]

And that's why Nintendo is king

[Tanassy]

That is not entitlement, that is ownership.

Actually, that's where you're wrong. When you buy a game, you're not buying the game, you're buying a license to play it.

But anyway.. I hate it just as much as the next guy, you know. Giving us the content all on the disc and letting us play only half of it means we're playing an unfinished game and have to pay to play the rest. With prices these days, that's unfair on the consumer and just plain unnecessary. If they plan to extend the life of the game over an amount of time they could at least unlock that content for free over an amount of time. "DLC" however should be as it has always meant to be. Something NEW that didn't make it into the dev cycle, released as an add-on to the game for a price.
DLC's early roots was in the form of expansion packs. Generally, to release an expansion pack, it had to be sizeable enough to be worth the purchase price, and generally added a good amount of content to the game. (Some games still do this of course) and that was always an amazing feeling, to extend a game you've been playing over a year or so. These days that just doesn't hold true.. (Perhaps Skyrim will do it though)
In terms of DLC, I've seen this very rarely... the feeling when Big Surf Island was released for Burnout Paradise, for example. That was an example of the RIGHT thing to do with payed DLC. I would happily fork over cash for a good load of well made content, created as a result of thousands of people giving feedback of the game.


Only a generation ago, if content was on a disc, you had access to all of it. (Unless it was preorder bonuses or content you needed a serial key for)
I haven't got much against payed DLC, if I don't think it's worth it I don't buy it. But put it this way, this isn't even DLC... this is just... C. Stuff that has ALREADY BEEN MADE ON T THE DISC that people are being forced to pay for. I hope these companies get what's coming to them and plenty of people hack out all that content and teach them a lesson.

Also, consider localisation. Over here we pay an excess of $100 for our new-release console games. Would we pay that much money for half a game? Would you? You thought $60 was bad!

[shadowDOESrock]

forced to pay

No.

[TheGameNinja]

You buy a license when you buy a digital copy. Not so with a physical disc. You are buying that disc, along with everything included on it. At least, that's the way I understood it. If that is wrong then that's a whole other can of worms to be opened. What would be the point of even having content on the disc in that case? Or even have a disc at all?

And yes, they are being forced to pay for it if they want access to what they already own. Or should own. No one is making them buy it, but if they bought the game in the first place they are going to want that content too. And forcing you to pay more for something that is on the disc is... extortion. They know you want it and they know that if they withhold it they can get you to pay for it. Exploiting that is wrong though. They don't sell books with the last chapter sealed and the only way to access it is to buy a key. They don't charge you extra to see the alternate endings included on DVDs of movies.

[Tanassy]

No, even if you buy a disc you're buying the right to play it and then having a local copy of the game to play. Often in games you have to prove your license to get most out of the game. Whether it's simply to unlock multiplayer features in most games or as DRM in a PC game. Some companies don't do that, but legally, you don't "Own" the game.

DRM is "Digital rights management" and it manages... digital rights. I think that pretty much gives my point.

[shadowDOESrock]

EA stored all their DLC on the Disc for ages. No one ever complained.

[Supersonic196]

EA stored all their DLC on the Disc for ages. No one ever complained.

That's because real gamers don't play games by EA. -shot-

[TheGameNinja]

That's because real gamers don't play games by EA. -shot-

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NoTrueScotsman

[PurpleOrangePoo]

That's because real gamers don't play games by EA. -shot-

EA games? I play those a lot, and i'm an avid gamer. Your argument is invalid. -shot-



EA Games. Challenge Everything

[jkid101094]

That's because real gamers don't play games by EA. -shot-

Correction. Real gamers don't waste time with EASports.

[Tanassy]

EA stored all their DLC on the Disc for ages. No one ever complained.

Example?

Correction. Real gamers don't waste time with EASports.

Guess nobody's ever played SSX...

[shadowDOESrock]

Example?

Guess nobody's ever played SSX...

Example - Every in-house EA Title after '08

SSX is (or was) part of EA BIG - not EA Sports, until EA BIG vanished.

[Supersonic196]

Guess nobody's ever played SSX...

I forgot about SSX, That's literally the only thing EA has ever crapped out that I enjoyed.

[jkid101094]

I forgot about SSX, That's literally the only thing EA has ever crapped out that I enjoyed.

No Sims? :c

[Supersonic196]

No Sims? :c

lolno I'm not a big fan of casual games.

[Super Sonic Boom]

I forgot about SSX, That's literally the only thing EA has ever crapped out that I enjoyed.

You know EA jointly worked with Valve on Team Fortress 2, I think it was the console version.
But that maybe off topic.

[Supersonic196]

You know EA jointly worked with Valve on Team Fortress 2, I think it was the console version.
But that maybe off topic.

I think they helped with the online client.

[shadowDOESrock]

You know EA jointly worked with Valve on Team Fortress 2, I think it was the console version.
But that maybe off topic.

EA distributes Valve Titles on Disc.

[Tanassy]

Example - Every in-house EA Title after '08

SSX is (or was) part of EA BIG - not EA Sports, until EA BIG vanished.

EA BIG was EA Sports BIG, which was more or less a part of EA Sports. SSX has always been part of EA Sports. But I can say, that even if it's just the new one that counts, then it counts for a LOT.

There are some good titles I've loved that were developed by EA or even just published by them. I could probably name many from my childhood, and even some recent ones. Their DRM sucks ass, but their games are usually better than say.... Activision..

[shadowDOESrock]

EA BIG was EA Sports BIG, which was more or less a part of EA Sports. SSX has always been part of EA Sports. But I can say, that even if it's just the new one that counts, then it counts for a LOT.

There are some good titles I've loved that were developed by EA or even just published by them. I could probably name many from my childhood, and even some recent ones. Their DRM sucks ass, but their games are usually better than say.... Activision..

Activision Blizzard is like a Wii - there is alot of crap,  and alot of good.  the things that are good, are all superb. but there is like, nothing mediocre - just either bad or awesome.


however, Activision doesnt make us pay 15 bucks for buying a used game.

[jkid101094]

however, Activision doesnt make us pay 15 bucks for buying a used game.

[TheGameNinja]

Ha. That's not what he meant, but ha.

[jkid101094]

Ha. That's not what he meant, but ha.

I'm not sure how to respond to this.

[Tanassy]

Yeah well the majority of Activision's games are utter crap. Some of them that are half-decent aren't even made by Activision themselves.

The great ones.. simply aren't.

[shadowDOESrock]

Thats GameStop (?) you twat. I'm talking about the Game Passes which force you to pay extra 15 bucks to access online play.

Yeah well the majority of Activision's games are utter crap. Some of them that are half-decent aren't even made by Activision themselves.

The great ones.. simply aren't.

There is 'Fall of Cybertron' & 'Diablo 3' coming which probably both are great games.
Then there was 'War for Cybertron', 'Blur', 'Goldeneye 007', 'Wolfenstein', 'Singularity', 'Prototype', 'LEGO [Movie]' and a bunch more.
Also, 'Call of Duty'. (Shitstorm incoming)

Those where all great.

[jkid101094]

Thats GameStop (?) you twat. I'm talking about the Game Passes which force you to pay extra 15 bucks to access online play.

Neither does the Wii, which I thought you were talking about as well and why I got confused.

[shadowDOESrock]

What was in the case in pulp fiction?
Did you had to ask the director to change the ending so that we get answers?

[TheGameNinja]

What was in the case in pulp fiction?
Did you had to ask the director to change the ending so that we get answers?

Was the ending good though? I haven't seen the movie, but I've heard this comparison before. And it seems like people liked that ending. Should the creators of the work be satisfied if a large percentage of their fanbase dislikes a part of their work? A lot of people, myself included, only want the ending of Mass Effect 3 expanded upon. Nothing has to be removed. Sense can be made of the ending, but only if this is not the real ending.

ME3 has 17 endings. 16 of them end with Shepard dead. 1 of them does not. And if the ending is what everyone thinks it is, then the game isn't over yet.

Did Pulp Fiction end with a cliffhanger ending that you could only see the rest of if you paid to see it a second time?

ME3 is the end of Shepard's story. Bioware has said that repeatedly. There may be more Mass Effect, but no more Shepard. But the one ending where Shepard lives, the one ending where the possibility for success is still available, does not conclude Shepard's story. Every other ending does, but if those endings are correct, then if there IS another Mass Effect game, it will either be set in the distant past or distant future since the Mass Relays being destroyed isolates everyone in the galaxy from each other.

So, going by the fact that Shepard's story is not over (the game says as much after the credits) and 3 is Shepard's last game AND anything to the contrary will be so far removed from the current ME lore that it may as well not be Mass Effect anymore (this isn't like Star Wars's Long Time Ago In A Galaxy Far, Far Away), we know that the ending WILL be changed via DLC. Again, the game says as much after the credits and has since been confirmed by Bioware.

That means Bioware sold everyone unfinished copies of the game. The ending is not in the current game. No, the consumer does not matter anymore. They only exist to squeeze money out of. Their opinions are meaningless. Bioware says they are working on additional content to address the issues people have with the game, but I know, you know, EVERYONE knows that they obviously planned it all. They might even already have the ending done and are just waiting to release it, teasing us all along the way.

[Hakudamashi]

This seemed relevant
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VEQ78WS5UE&feature=plcp&context=C4d299a5VDvjVQa1PpcFNVioaHToKRoErGTtiH4jgzmBXPxVAc38g%3D

[shadowDOESrock]

This seemed relevant
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VEQ78WS5UE&feature=plcp&context=C4d299a5VDvjVQa1PpcFNVioaHToKRoErGTtiH4jgzmBXPxVAc38g%3D

i was hoping that atleast with CC i can understand what hes saying, but i still cant.

[Hakudamashi]

i was hoping that atleast with CC i can understand what hes saying, but i still cant.

Seriously, what's not to understand? We're being ripped off, plain and simple.

[shadowDOESrock]

Seriously, what's not to understand? We're being ripped off, plain and simple.

no, i mean, i literally do not understand what hes saying becaue of that voice morphing.

[Supersonic196]

no, i mean, i literally do not understand what hes saying becaue of that voice morphing.

This.

[jkid101094]

i was hoping that atleast with CC i can understand what hes saying, but i still cant.

This.

You two both have terrible ears.