EA have finally pushed the post-launch DLC thing too far.

super_furry

Was reading the Kotaku review of the new Tiger Woods golf game - a guilty pleasue of mine when one paragraph struck me.

"There are six events on my first year with the PGA Tour that I'm not qualified for because I haven't bought the course off the game's very robust DLC menu. EA Sports says it was responding to community requests that DLC courses be playable within one's career."

I know people always claimed that companies were cutting out content to sell back to players as DLC later but no-one has ever been this blatant about it before. The courses and there, in the game callendar, but you can't touch them without spending more money.

The Masters has gone from a 'will probably pick-up' game to something I won't ever consider buying now.

Retr0gamer

Yea it's gotten absolutely ridiculous. Stuff that was considered unlockables or free updates is now being paid for and it's even worse when what you are paying for unlocks content already on the disk. Big companies like EA really can't be thathard pressed for cash that they do this? Unfortunately people do fork out for these.

Punishing players for not buying DLC though is a new low.

CORaven

It seems similar to what they did in Dragon Age where mid-game, a person would ask you to do something for them and it would then prompt you to buy the DLC to continue.

What you have described has obviously been poorly implemented. They should have had the game detect if you had the courses or not and worked around them.

Helix

tiger 12 is absolutely dreadful anyway

major step backwards

Overheal

I am wondering now how many Heroes in Darkspore will show up in the arsenal with a $ or a € plastered over them.

Grayditch

Words can't describe how disgusted I am at the suggestion of paying to unlock something on the disc.

al28283

Makes sense to me. I haven't bought anything but trade-in games for years now so the only money EA have gotten out of me was for whatever DLC I chose to buy.

DarkJager

I wouldn't buy it anyway, much too soon for release after Tiger Woods 11. As anyone who has played them will know, you get to a point where you are just burned out from playing it.

Outkast_IRE

it would make more sense for EA to reward buyers who get the game new from a shop and implement the DLC thing for second hand buyers .

al28283

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

it would make more sense for EA to reward buyers who get the game new from a shop and implement the DLC thing for second hand buyers .

That is what they do, for the most part

Outkast_IRE

al28283 wrote: »

That is what they do, for the most part

I wish it was, their games on the pc are becoming littered with more and more DLC content Available on the day of lauch !!! if its available on launch day it should be on the bloody game in the first place.

super_furry

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

it would make more sense for EA to reward buyers who get the game new from a shop and implement the DLC thing for second hand buyers .

I honestly wouldn't mind if they blanked out those six courses for people who bought the game second-hand. But to pay full whack for a brand new game and to be instantly told that you've only actually bought two-thirds of the game and that you'll have to spend another €20 for the DLC is a step too far.

I'm not against DLC stuff like Borderlands and GTA do it brilliantly - working on it after the release and offering you more game when you're done with a full and complete game. But EA are holding back content that should be included in the game just to rip you off.

Varik

CORaven wrote: »

It seems similar to what they did in Dragon Age where mid-game, a person would ask you to do something for them and it would then prompt you to buy the DLC to continue.

What you have described has obviously been poorly implemented. They should have had the game detect if you had the courses or not and worked around them.

gizmo

I'd regard the addition of Pre-order Exclusive/DLC fatalities to the new Mortal Kombat to be worse than that to be honest.

As for paying for content on the disk, well it's not really fair to label it all as the spawn of satan. For instance, take the Bioshock 2 DLC which was released awhile back and only contained new multiplayer character skins. People raged about it already being on the disc but the developer came out with a very simple explanation. In order to join a multiplayer game you must have the exact same content as the other people in the game. If other people buy the DLC and you don't then you wouldn't be able to join their game thus the community would be splintered. This is different from something like a map pack as the change only affects another player. Therefore it makes more sense to have the data come on the disc.

Now, there is "moral" issue of whether it was right to lock said content and then ask people to pay for it despite it already being on the disc that you own but again, it's not really clear cut. Perhaps additional development time was allotted so that said content could be included and whose inclusion could only be warranted by the fact that it would be paid DLC? In that case it's perfectly reasonable to lock it.

There are, of course, probably plenty of examples of more unscrupulous DLC-based decisions but in general I do think they need to be assessed on more of a case-by-case basis rather than grabbing the pitchfork any time it happens.

EDIT: For what it's worth, I'd regard the manner in which the DLC was advertised in Dragon Age to be completely and wholly unacceptable.

Helix

super_furry wrote: »

I honestly wouldn't mind if they blanked out those six courses for people who bought the game second-hand. But to pay full whack for a brand new game and to be instantly told that you've only actually bought two-thirds of the game and that you'll have to spend another €20 for the DLC is a step too far.

I'm not against DLC stuff like Borderlands and GTA do it brilliantly - working on it after the release and offering you more game when you're done with a full and complete game. But EA are holding back content that should be included in the game just to rip you off.

would you have had less of an issue if the courses werent hinted at in the game? i think this is the main problem here, people are seeing the extra courses but the fact that they have to pay immediately gets them angry. if ea didnt actually mention that the courses were there, and instead just let people who wanted to buy them get the dlc and have it plug in automatically, i reckon people would be fine with it

i think what theyre doing here is advertising more than anything else. theyre not "holding the courses back" theyre just advertising them. theyre not part of the game, theyre available as add on content if you like, but if you dont it doesnt stop you from playing the game in any way at all

i hate the whole dlc thing like, id never buy it and only ever bother when im given free codes, but i do think that this was more a poor choice of advertising the content than anything else

Skerries

now downloading "kick to the developers groin"
would you like to add 30% more force?
yes please!

Jazzy

dlc can suck a fat one

Healium

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

I wish it was, their games on the pc are becoming littered with more and more DLC content Available on the day of lauch !!! if its available on launch day it should be on the bloody game in the first place.

A PC player, complaining about having too much choice of DLC?

it.

Sisko

****in SF4, the DLC (extra costumes) was ON THE DISC when you bought it. But you had to pay to unlock them....

Its just going to get worse and worse as people will always buy it. Eventually we'll be paying extra to play the last level of our games and see the ending, which will all be on the game in the 1st place.

ugh

Oh and monthly fees to play single player games. And people will just say 'you get what you pay for' using examples of bad single player games that don't have a monthly fee, ignoring the decades of good games with no fee so as to not feel bad about their purchase of their 800 euro xbox720.

We're doomed!

al28283

Sisko wrote: »

****in SF4, the DLC (extra costumes) was ON THE DISC when you bought it. But you had to pay to unlock them....

I think someone has already explained why that's acceptable/necessary

Penn

al28283 wrote: »

I think someone has already explained why that's acceptable/necessary

I understand their point about not being able to play against someone who got the DLC and you didn't if it wasn't included on the disk, but at the same time, they're withholding content that is already on the disk and asking you to pay more to unlock it. It would be a lot better if they made that content unlockable, even if it was really difficult to do so, or allow you to purchase it as DLC. Hell, it's not even DLC if it's on the disk already, you're just paying to unlock it.

Taking the SF4 costumes as an example, if it was on the disk already, allow people to pay to unlock it, or set a challenge mode where you have to perform certain tasks to unlock them. Adds to the replay value for offline (particularly if you make it difficult to persuade more people to just pay for it), allows everyone to play together online whether or not they've unlocked/purchased it. Job done. And even people who've purchased it might still try the challenge mode.

penev10

RE:SF4 totally agree but if your paying (€6 is it?) for 4 costumes you've more money than sense!

An extra course in Tiger Woods I can understand (although they go for €10 do they not - you could get an entire game for that price!) as it adds replay value but costumes!

Penn

But thats the problem, there are people who will pay for them, meaning that people who don't will be kicked out of games for not having it downloaded.

Having them unlockable on the disk or even just making people download a patch to allow everyone to play whether or not they downloaded or unlocked the content themselves. They're forcing people to pay more money to get the full game

penev10

If you're getting enough content for your original purchase price then I've no problem with the dlc being on the disc eg. if all the previous Tiger Woods games had 10 courses and the new one has 10 then I don't see the problem, whereas if a new one comes out with 8 and they expect you to pay for the other 2 then that's when it becomes a rip-off imo.

DLC is too expensive, that's the real problem, whether it's on the disc or not is largely irrelevant.

cherryghost

Wasn't Resi 5 the same way? The DLC was already on the disc. The whole DLC thing is a complete farce. You pay for 70% of a game, and then you pay MORE than the original price to get the other 30% of the game. Ugh.

Retr0gamer

al28283 wrote: »

I think someone has already explained why that's acceptable/necessary

I remember when you unlocked extra costumes for free and map packs were provided by the developer after launch for free and if not then provided by the community. TBH it's pure greed. I really don't mind paying for DLC when it's actually worth the price like GTA4 or Fallout 3 but paying for stuff already on the disc or ready at launch is just pure greed on the developers or publishers part.

johnny_ultimate

Paying for cheat codes took it too far IMO. Pay now to unlock everything! Whatever happened to the Konami code

penev10

cherryghost wrote: »

You pay for 70% of a game, and then you pay MORE than the original price to get the other 30% of the game. Ugh.

That's exactly it!

I understand in the current climate of ever-more expensive development costs that developers need "alternate revenue streams" as the pricing structure of games is rigid (i.e. they cant just release a game at €65 and expect to get away with it!) but they need to provide value for money with the DLC.

Paying for cheat codes took it too far IMO. Pay now to unlock everything! Whatever happened to the Konami code

We'd all like to go back to the good old days of free hidden goodies but with more and more studios struggling to keep their heads above water they need to find a way to recoup the extra costs associated with HD games development. I just wish they'd do it with a bit more consideration for their customers

Duggy747

I remember when DLC was just known as an expansion pack and you downloaded it for free or at the very least paid a small amount and got your money's worth.

Never in my life would I pay for DLC. Times may be tough for developers but there's better ways of going about it.

gizmo

Barrington wrote: »

I understand their point about not being able to play against someone who got the DLC and you didn't if it wasn't included on the disk, but at the same time, they're withholding content that is already on the disk and asking you to pay more to unlock it. It would be a lot better if they made that content unlockable, even if it was really difficult to do so, or allow you to purchase it as DLC. Hell, it's not even DLC if it's on the disk already, you're just paying to unlock it.

Yes but you didn't pay for that content though, you paid for the game that you play when you turn on the console. As one other user above said, the only reason you're really annoyed about it is because you found out it was already on the disc which technically doesn't make a difference.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I remember when you unlocked extra costumes for free and map packs were provided by the developer after launch for free and if not then provided by the community. TBH it's pure greed. I really don't mind paying for DLC when it's actually worth the price like GTA4 or Fallout 3 but paying for stuff already on the disc or ready at launch is just pure greed on the developers or publishers part.

Yes but costumes and maps are far more time consuming to make now than they were with several people involved in creating them over a longer period of time. Don't get me wrong, I used to love getting the demo discs on PC Zone and finding them stuffed with extra content but I don't begrudge a developer charging for something they've spent the time and resources to create.

NTMK

meh i dont mind the tiger woods dlc i only buy the game every 2-3 years so ill prob get the extra 17 courses for €40 (im only paying 7 for the game itself id just wish they had the same system as rockband where the dlc tranfers from one game to the next its optional after all courses were nearly double that 2 years ago

there is much worse dlc extorsion goin on i.e COD

ShadowHearth

gizmo wrote: »

Yes but you didn't pay for that content though, you paid for the game that you play when you turn on the console. As one other user above said, the only reason you're really annoyed about it is because you found out it was already on the disc which technically doesn't make a difference.


Yes but costumes and maps are far more time consuming to make now than they were with several people involved in creating them over a longer period of time. Don't get me wrong, I used to love getting the demo discs on PC Zone and finding them stuffed with extra content but I don't begrudge a developer charging for something they've spent the time and resources to create.

Okay, when you pay money for your game, you pay for physical copy of the actuall product ( can be digital these days). So if you got that dlc on disc allready, it means that i don't even own that full game, as developers has theyr own stuff on it... It's like buying a dozen pack of eggs in tesco, pay a full price, but then you can eat Only 10 eggs, you have to pay extra 20 cent to eat ather two!

Developers used make game as full as possible. More content more appeal. Now they make a full game, then they cut part of it which is not critical and make it dlc.

Imagine this now: diablo 2 comes out, you can play 1 2 and 4 act. Act 3 on the disc, but you have to pay anather 10 eu for it. We would pay that and would newer realise that act 3 was actuolly a part of the game!

It brings me to anather point: nobody set a rule or definition - full game. We, as consumers, don't know if that content which was called dlc was not a part of full game. No one has set a rule how many levels or tracks have to be Iin full game. It's a creative entertainment, you can't set this rule!

We had expansions back in the day, it was a big chunk of content for which we payed. We were happy to pay it: d2 lod, war 3 TFT, hl opfor, war 40k expansions. It was alot of content for reasonable money.

Now having to pay for content that is allready developed and on disc you payed for allready is just unfair.

There are companies who use dlc as drm: EA, as long as you get that content with a new game you bought, and only the secondhand owners got to pay fir it, is fair enough paying for content that is allready developed or multiplayer is a joke.

Then you got really nice bits of dlc like fallout did. That was content developed to bring life to game for a small fee. Nothing wrong with that. Paying for a horse armour or costumes is I big nono for me. There were times you were actuolly getting these rewards for playing games, finding secrets. Imagine if back in the day, you would need to pay for B sides of resident evil 2! If it would be out now I bet we would have payed for that!

Retr0gamer

gizmo wrote: »

Yes but costumes and maps are far more time consuming to make now than they were with several people involved in creating them over a longer period of time. Don't get me wrong, I used to love getting the demo discs on PC Zone and finding them stuffed with extra content but I don't begrudge a developer charging for something they've spent the time and resources to create.

How come the mod community is still able to churn them out at a fast rate at a quality that can eclipse paid for DLC and all for free? I also very much doubt that a costume pack requires much work.

That_Guy

Wow: The list of DLC for this new Tiger Woods game is huge.

Costly too.

Tiger Woods Pga Tour 12: The Masters
Adidas Proshop Pack (£0.79/€0.99)
Banff Springs Golf Course (£3.19/€3.99)
Birdie Pack (£11.99/€14.99)
Bridgestone Proshop Pack (£0.79/€0.99)
Callaway Proshop Pack (£3.19/€3.99)
Callaway Sponsorship (£3.19/€3.99)
Cleveland Proshop Pack (£2.39/€2.99)
Cleveland Sponsorship (£2.39/€2.99)
Cobra Proshop Pack (£1.59/€1.99)
EA Online Pass (£6.29/€7.99)
EA Sports Proshop Pack 1 (£0.79/€0.99)
EA Sports Proshop Pack 2 (£0.79/€0.99)
EA Sports Proshop Pack 3 (£0.79/€0.99)
EA Sports Sponsorship (£2.39/€2.99)
Eagle Pack (£19.99/€24.99)
Emerald Dragon (£3.19/€3.99)
Footjoy Proshop Pack (£0.79/€0.99)
Greek Isles (£5.49/€6.99)
Grip Item Pack (£1.59/€1.99)
Harbour Town Golf Links (£3.19/€3.99)
Hazeltine National Golf Club (£3.19/€3.99)
The Highlands (£3.19/€3.99)
Loudmouth Golf Proshop Pack (£0.79/€0.99)
Mizuno Proshop Pack (£1.59/€1.99)
Nike Clothing Pack 1 (£0.79/€0.99)
Nike Clothing Pack 2 (£0.79/€0.99)
Nike Proshop Pack 1 (£2.39/€2.99)
Nike Proshop Pack 2 (£2.39/€2.99)
Nike Proshop Pack 3 (£2.39/€2.99)
Nike Proshop Pack 4 (£2.39/€2.99)
Nike Sponsorship (£5.49/€6.99)
Oakley Proshop Pack 1 (£0.79/€0.99)
Oakley Proshop Pack 2 (£0.79/€0.99)
Oakmont Country Club (£3.19/€3.99)
Pinehurst (£3.19/€3.99)
Ping Proshop Pack (£2.39/€2.99)
Ping Sponsorship (£2.39/€2.99)
Prototype Starter Suit (£3.99/€4.99)
Quagmire Golf Proshop Pack (£0.79/€0.99)
River Course At Blackwolf Run (£3.19/€3.99)
Riviera Cc Golf Course (£3.19/€3.99)
Shaft Item Pack (£1.59/€1.99)
Sheshan Golf Club (£3.19/€3.99)
Spyglass Hill Golf Course (£3.19/€3.99)
Sundog Proshop Pack (£0.79/€0.99)
Taylormade Proshop Pack (£0.79/€0.99)
Taylormade Sponsorship (£2.39/€2.99)
The Els Club (£5.49/€6.99)
The Predator (£3.19/€3.99)
The TPC Blue Monster At Doral (£3.19/€3.99)
Torrey Pines Golf Course (£3.19/€3.99)
TPC Boston (£3.19/€3.99)
Wolf Creek, Nv (£3.19/€3.99)

ShadowHearth

Holy ****, is that a brand new game, with so many dlcs?!?!

That_Guy

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Holy ****, is that a brand new game, with so many dlcs?!?!

Madness. You'd probably spend over €150 if you buy the physical copy and download all of these items.

gizmo

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Okay, when you pay money for your game, you pay for physical copy of the actuall product ( can be digital these days). So if you got that dlc on disc allready, it means that i don't even own that full game, as developers has theyr own stuff on it... It's like buying a dozen pack of eggs in tesco, pay a full price, but then you can eat Only 10 eggs, you have to pay extra 20 cent to eat ather two!

Well not quite, your argument is based around the fact that the DLC should be part of the main game which is not always the case. You're also discounting the point I made earlier which said that the only reason that content was made in the first place was specifically for DLC.

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Developers used make game as full as possible. More content more appeal. Now they make a full game, then they cut part of it which is not critical and make it dlc.

Same as above, you're saying the DLC is "cut out" whereas it may have only been added in the first place for DLC purposes. For instance, Assassins Creed II DLC missions, they didn't really fit into the flow of the main story and would not have been missed if you didn't play them but they were slotted in, chronologically speaking at least, with DLC. If there had been no DLC then those missions would simply have been left out of the game.

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Imagine this now: diablo 2 comes out, you can play 1 2 and 4 act. Act 3 on the disc, but you have to pay anather 10 eu for it. We would pay that and would newer realise that act 3 was actuolly a part of the game!

Same again, doesn't apply here as you're saying you've paid for a "full game" and are only getting 75% of it whereas in reality, you paid for "100%" of a game and are getting an additional % in most cases.

As a matter of interest, can you think of one game which you deemed "not complete" without the DLC which came out for it later?

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Now having to pay for content that is allready developed and on disc you payed for allready is just unfair.

Why is it unfair? What's the difference between a company saying during development "Okay we can dedicate resources to X content for the disk but only if it's sold as DLC" or said company saying after the game is released "Okay now we'll dedicate resources to X content and sell it via DLC"?

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Then you got really nice bits of dlc like fallout did. That was content developed to bring life to game for a small fee. Nothing wrong with that. Paying for a horse armour or costumes is I big nono for me. There were times you were actuolly getting these rewards for playing games, finding secrets. Imagine if back in the day, you would need to pay for B sides of resident evil 2! If it would be out now I bet we would have payed for that!

I certainly agree personally on the horse armour issue but did you miss the story the other day where Bethesda said people are still buying it? So clearly some people think it's good value for money.

As for said rewards well there are two issues here. Firstly, said bonuses cost more to make now in terms of resources than they previously did. Secondly, companies realised people are willing to pay for them so why give them away for free when it's costing them money to make them? You could argue that it's showing loyalty to those who purchased the game but given the strict budgets most studios are working on these days, it's unfortunately naive to think every studio can afford to do that.

Kimbot

Tiger Woods Pga Tour 12: The Masters

Banff Springs Golf Course (£3.19/€3.99)
EA Online Pass (£6.29/€7.99)
Emerald Dragon (£3.19/€3.99)
Greek Isles (£5.49/€6.99)
Harbour Town Golf Links (£3.19/€3.99)
Hazeltine National Golf Club (£3.19/€3.99)
The Highlands (£3.19/€3.99)
Oakmont Country Club (£3.19/€3.99)
Pinehurst (£3.19/€3.99)
River Course At Blackwolf Run (£3.19/€3.99)
Riviera Cc Golf Course (£3.19/€3.99)
Sheshan Golf Club (£3.19/€3.99)
Spyglass Hill Golf Course (£3.19/€3.99)
The Els Club (£5.49/€6.99)
The Predator (£3.19/€3.99)
The TPC Blue Monster At Doral (£3.19/€3.99)
Torrey Pines Golf Course (£3.19/€3.99)
TPC Boston (£3.19/€3.99)
Wolf Creek, Nv (£3.19/€3.99)

What really annoys me is that in all the previous tiger woods you got most of the above for free as standard courses!!!!

cherryghost

€200.46 for the entire DLC

That_Guy

cherryghost wrote: »

€200.46 for the entire DLC

+€50 for the actual game.

Penn

gizmo wrote: »

Yes but you didn't pay for that content though, you paid for the game that you play when you turn on the console. As one other user above said, the only reason you're really annoyed about it is because you found out it was already on the disc which technically doesn't make a difference.

I paid for what's on the disk. It does make a difference if it's on the disk or not because they are locking something on the disk and making you pay for it.

Think of it like this. They have already made the content and put it on the disk, before the game is released. That means it's part of the game. So if you buy the game, you have already paid for everything on the disk. By charging for something on the disk, they are charging you twice for part of the disk.

DLC is meant to be stuff they couldnt add to the disk on time or created after the game was released. Then, you are paying for the work which went into the new content.

ShadowHearth

gizmo wrote: »

Well not quite, your argument is based around the fact that the DLC should be part of the main game which is not always the case. You're also discounting the point I made earlier which said that the only reason that content was made in the first place was specifically for DLC.


Same as above, you're saying the DLC is "cut out" whereas it may have only been added in the first place for DLC purposes. For instance, Assassins Creed II DLC missions, they didn't really fit into the flow of the main story and would not have been missed if you didn't play them but they were slotted in, chronologically speaking at least, with DLC. If there had been no DLC then those missions would simply have been left out of the game.


Same again, doesn't apply here as you're saying you've paid for a "full game" and are only getting 75% of it whereas in reality, you paid for "100%" of a game and are getting an additional % in most cases.

As a matter of interest, can you think of one game which you deemed "not complete" without the DLC which came out for it later?


Why is it unfair? What's the difference between a company saying during development "Okay we can dedicate resources to X content for the disk but only if it's sold as DLC" or said company saying after the game is released "Okay now we'll dedicate resources to X content and sell it via DLC"?


I certainly agree personally on the horse armour issue but did you miss the story the other day where Bethesda said people are still buying it? So clearly some people think it's good value for money.

As for said rewards well there are two issues here. Firstly, said bonuses cost more to make now in terms of resources than they previously did. Secondly, companies realised people are willing to pay for them so why give them away for free when it's costing them money to make them? You could argue that it's showing loyalty to those who purchased the game but given the strict budgets most studios are working on these days, it's unfortunately naive to think every studio can afford to do that.

How do you know or any of us: where full game starts and where it ends? If developer had time and recourses to make for release date it means it was possible and can go to game it self. Dragon age dlcs are perfect example of a rip off.

As for the rest of the topic, horse armour just sums it all up, dlcs are profitable becouse there are lots and lots of stupid poeple. Developers see that and use it.

Small dlcs that give content AFTER release is a good thing. Dlcs on the disc, dlcs for costumes and right to play multiplayer aka bc2, moh are rip offs.


Main thing that you can't even argue: we don't know what is a "full" game. Developer can't bull**** ass all day long with dlc ant release, but we all know the true: it was developed before the game even came out, it's on a disc we allready payedcmoney for and we can't use it, unless we pay again!

penev10

There's a parallel between saying when you buy the disc you should own everything on it and the argument the PS3 hackers are making (saying when you a PS3 you should be allowed to do what you like with it)

Until it gets to the stage where, unannounced, you are prompted to pay to play the next level of a game you thought you had purchased in it's entirity, you are getting what you paid for.

gizmo

Barrington wrote: »

I paid for what's on the disk. It does make a difference if it's on the disk or not because they are locking something on the disk and making you pay for it.

Nope, you paid for the game, not what's on the disk.

Barrington wrote: »

Think of it like this. They have already made the content and put it on the disk, before the game is released. That means it's part of the game. So if you buy the game, you have already paid for everything on the disk. By charging for something on the disk, they are charging you twice for part of the disk.

If you read what I wrote above you'd see that's not always the case. Additional development time could have been spent on creating content which was specifically for DLC, if there was to be no DLC then the time would not have been allotted and the content not made. I'm sure there are plenty of exceptions to this rule, notably Tiger Woods above, but the point is not all DLC is created equally.

Barrington wrote: »

DLC is meant to be stuff they couldnt add to the disk on time or created after the game was released. Then, you are paying for the work which went into the new content.

Who said DLC was meant to be that? The term "new content" is what's causing the problem there, a more apt term nowadays is "DLC content" which handles content developed both during and after release.

ShadowHearth wrote: »

How do you know or any of us: where full game starts and where it ends? If developer had time and recourses to make for release date it means it was possible and can go to game it self. Dragon age dlcs are perfect example of a rip off.

No one needs to say it but look at it this way. If you played through Assassins Creed II without the DLC missions or Dragon Age without being ridiculously prompted for that DLC, would you have felt hard done by? Not in the slightest I'd wager. The only reason you're annoyed about the latter is because you were made (painfully in this case) aware of it. Therefore that game was "finished" to you and you weren't ripped off in the slightest.

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Small dlcs that give content AFTER release is a good thing. Dlcs on the disc, dlcs for costumes and right to play multiplayer aka bc2, moh are rip offs.

You're clearly not going to agree with any of the rational explanations for this so I won't continue to try. I've given you a couple of reasons why content comes on the disc and I've given other examples and indeed agreed with some of them which are unacceptable but the point I'm getting at is, tarring it all with the same "rip off" brush is simply wrong whether you disagree or not.

super_furry

So anyone who wants the complete Tiger Woods 2012 experience has to fork over €250.

The content is there, it was made during the game's production - which incidently was shortened to coincide with The Masters - and is being held back to bleed more money from consumers. That's fair enough, EA are within their rights to do that, but as a consumer I'm within my rights to see it for the absolute rip-off it is, and tell EA to go fúck themselves. Metaphorically.

Penn

gizmo wrote: »

Nope, you paid for the game, not what's on the disk.


If you read what I wrote above you'd see that's not always the case. Additional development time could have been spent on creating content which was specifically for DLC, if there was to be no DLC then the time would not have been allotted and the content not made. I'm sure there are plenty of exceptions to this rule, notably Tiger Woods above, but the point is not all DLC is created equally.


Who said DLC was meant to be that? The term "new content" is what's causing the problem there, a more apt term nowadays is "DLC content" which handles content developed both during and after release.

How is DLC downloadable content if the content isn't downloadable? It's on the disk. You're not paying for it, you're paying for the right to use it. There is a big difference. And I'm not being pedantic about the name. You shouldn't have to pay to access something that was included on the disk for general release. Take any other form of media. Would you pay for an unlock code for extra songs on an album even though they are already on the album? Would you pay to unlock a Making Of feature on a DVD?

I see what you're saying about certain things having time allocated to them so they can recover the cost by charging for it as DLC. But if they're including it on the disk, they are putting stuff on the disk, possibly even at the expense of something else, which you have to pay extra for. And that isn't right.

Take extra costumes for example. What if someone who bought the game didn't have Internet and couldn't go online? Those extra costumes are sitting on the disk with no way to access them. By including a way to unlock them by doing something in the game, that person could use those costumes. Obviously, who gives a **** about extra costumes really, but the example of not being able to play online with others who have downloaded the costumes is bogus because that could be fixed with a free update.

All it boils down to is games companies making more money by putting stuff on the disk and making you pay for it. And that's bull****.

gizmo

Barrington wrote: »

How is DLC downloadable content if the content isn't downloadable? It's on the disk. You're not paying for it, you're paying for the right to use it. There is a big difference. And I'm not being pedantic about the name. You shouldn't have to pay to access something that was included on the disk for general release. Take any other form of media. Would you pay for an unlock code for extra songs on an album even though they are already on the album? Would you pay to unlock a Making Of feature on a DVD?

It's not about the user being pedantic about the name, it's about the industry embracing the term (incorrectly may I add) for all of this type of extra content.

As for the music CD / DVD comparison, I think the "Making Of" feature is the only fair comparison given the manner in which that content is made. Look at it like this for instance, you can buy a standard edition movie for €10 and it comes with the movie on it's own. Alternatively you buy the Special Edition movie which is €15 but which comes with the additional Making Of material. No real problem there is there? Now, what happens if the studio decides to combine both releases into one disc but only allow you to access the additional content for €5 extra but still sells the disc at €10 at retail? Would that be a problem for you?

Barrington wrote: »

I see what you're saying about certain things having time allocated to them so they can recover the cost by charging for it as DLC. But if they're including it on the disk, they are putting stuff on the disk, possibly even at the expense of something else, which you have to pay extra for. And that isn't right.

My above analogy is relevant here too but I don't agree with what you're saying about putting DLC content on the disc rather than content which should have been in the main game, that just doesn't happen.

Barrington wrote: »

Take extra costumes for example. What if someone who bought the game didn't have Internet and couldn't go online? Those extra costumes are sitting on the disk with no way to access them. By including a way to unlock them by doing something in the game, that person could use those costumes.

But doing that would all but eliminate the possible revenue generated from those who could pay for it online because if it was available by simply playing the game, the majority of people would do it rather than unlocking it, thus making it not worth the developers time.

Barrington wrote: »

Obviously, who gives a **** about extra costumes really, but the example of not being able to play online with others who have downloaded the costumes is bogus because that could be fixed with a free update.

It's not free for the developers/publishers though, Microsoft and Sony charge for updates remember.

Gunsfortoys

This will only push piracy further up the ladder in my opinion.

I really loved the GTA IV expansions(nearly better than the original game) and had no problem paying for them as they are an add on.

This is just ridiculous.

Retr0gamer

gizmo wrote: »

It's not free for the developers/publishers though, Microsoft and Sony charge for updates remember.

Then put out something that justifies the price and stop selling a product with chnks taken out of it.

Helix

Barrington wrote: »

All it boils down to is games companies making more money by putting stuff on the disk and making you pay for it. And that's bull****.

whats the difference between having it on the disk or having it online on launch? none at all

very few games take up all the room on their optical media, so why not save people a big old download and whack the files on the disk for unlocking

Helix

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Then put out something that justifies the price and stop selling a product with chnks taken out of it.

everything is justified in terms of price if people are buying it

i cant understand why on earth people would pay money for some of the utter turd released as dlc, but so long as theyre willing to i bear no ill will towards the developers who want to part them from their money like the fools they are