The Consumer... Doesn't Matter Anymore?

[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.