Why Do You People Hate On-Disc DLC?

[Robinski]

 

I know game devs probably dont think like this, but lets be optimistic and look on the bright side of on disc DLC. People with slow internet(I know people who still have frickin' 1Mb connections!) want to buy the DLC, but the downloading is a pain and will take a lot of time. So, having on disc DLC actually helps since you just need to download a few source files to unlock the content

You're crazy. What you put forward here is an argument in favour of selling DLC in a physical form as well, e.g. Episodes from Liberty City. If anything, it's a hindrance to those with a slow/no internet connection because they have to download something extra (the access code or whatever it is) when everything they need to access the content is already on the disc. Imagine if you didn't have the internet for a couple of weeks, so you go out to buy the new album from that band you like. You get home and whack it in your (now offline) computer only to get to the 3rd from last track to get a message saying you need to pay an extra 99p to access the last couple of tracks. Tracks that you can see in the file viewer. They are there, but you can't play them, on the album you bought.

 

Or you buy a DVD of that movie you've heard loads about. But once you get to the end, it didn't really make any sense. After the credits roll a message appears on screen telling you that you can purchase the key 4 scenes from the middle of the film that explain why all the events of the beginning and the end happened.

 

You don't seem to grasp the concept that it's not even DLC once the content is on-disc. It's literally just putting a paywall around certain features of the game, much like games built on micro-transactions except this time you've actually purchased the game.

[G The Generous]

 

I know game devs probably dont think like this, but lets be optimistic and look on the bright side of on disc DLC. People with slow internet(I know people who still have frickin' 1Mb connections!) want to buy the DLC, but the downloading is a pain and will take a lot of time. So, having on disc DLC actually helps since you just need to download a few source files to unlock the content

then why not make it for free ? why not put it in a full game so people don't have to download it ?

you pay DLC to get extra contents ingame, not to get contents that should be in game.

 

beside, it's called DLC for a reason, you must DOWNLOAD IT, if you don't have a good internet, that's your problem.

on Steam, the maximum speed I can get is around 200-400kb/s. yeah, it's a pain in the arse, it took time and require a lot patient. but what's the problem? soon or late it will be completed anyway

Edited August 14, 2012 by badboy_zay

[Pat]

 

So you've only played modern games, then? Not even Grand Theft Auto III, Vice City, or San Andreas?

Why in the world are you bringing up last gen games? There was no such thing as DLC then.

Because you said, and I quote, "I haven't played a single game which didn't have DLC." If you've never played "a single game which didn't have DLC," you've obviously never played anything that came out before the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 existed. Either that, or you're contradicting yourself.

 

 

You're not even supposed to know that the content was there in the first place. So I dont see what's the problem.

So if I sell you a car and take out the spare tire without telling you, and you realize it only after purchasing the car, what I did is totally acceptable because you were never supposed to know the spare tire was there in the first place. Infallible logic.

 

Please f*ck off and never return.

[spiderman3000]

So you've only played modern games, then? Not even Grand Theft Auto III, Vice City, or San Andreas?

Why in the world are you bringing up last gen games? There was no such thing as DLC then.

Because you said, and I quote, "I haven't played a single game which didn't have DLC." If you've never played "a single game which didn't have DLC," you've obviously never played anything that came out before the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 existed. Either that, or you're contradicting yourself.

 

 

You're not even supposed to know that the content was there in the first place. So I dont see what's the problem.

So if I sell you a car and take out the spare tire without telling you, and you realize it only after purchasing the car, what I did is totally acceptable because you were never supposed to know the spare tire was there in the first place. Infallible logic.

 

Please f*ck off and never return.

Your argument is laughable. Seriously? How idiotic can you be? You're talking about games not having DLC when DLC NEVER EXISTED! Your argument doesn't hold water AT ALL. Its basic common sense. I've been gaming since 1996 and have seen and lived the best gaming era ever. This generation has to be the worst gaming generation ever.

 

 

So why the hell are you comparing hardware to software? You play the game, that's it. You're not supposed to look inside of the source. Just play and enjoy the experience. How can you EVER find out that there was supposed to be DLC content in the disc unless you poke around in the files? The answer is, you're never supposed to know!

Its not like they are teasing and annoying you to buy the damn DLC. So what difference is there between on disc DLC and downloadable DLC besides having to download a chunk of data?

 

So cars have to come with spare tires? What sort of logic is this? You just want to find a way to just make yourself feel somebody important by having to find some way to contradict me. If you want to do that, come up with a better reason. I dont mind people giving reasons for contradicting, but this is just stupid.

[Pat]

 

Your argument is laughable. Seriously? How idiotic can you be? You're talking about games not having DLC when DLC NEVER EXISTED! Your argument doesn't hold water AT ALL. Its basic common sense. I've been gaming since 1996 and have seen and lived the best gaming era ever.  This generation has to be the worst gaming generation ever.

It's not an argument, it's an observation. You're too stupid to even realize that you've contradicted yourself. If you have been playing video games since 1996, you have, at some point, played a video game that did not feature DLC. It does not matter whether DLC existed at the time or not, because the fact of the matter is that the game did not feature DLC. How f*cking hard is this to comprehend?

 

 

So why the hell are you comparing hardware to software? You play the game, that's it. You're not supposed to look inside of the source. Just play and enjoy the experience. How can you EVER find out that there was supposed to be DLC content in the disc unless you poke around in the files? The answer is, you're never supposed to know!

Here comes the argument that I'm so accustomed to dealing with when debating on-disc DLC. "You can't compare that to the video game industry!" That's exactly right. I can't. Do you know why? Because this sh*t does not fly in any other industry. The video game industry is the only commercial industry in existence where you can sell an unfinished product to a consumer, sell them the rest of the product later on for an additional fee, and suddenly it's 100% acceptable because "well they're a corporation, they have to make money somehow." This is why people like John Riccitiello have even gone so far as to consider charging their consumers to reload their weapon in the middle of a battle - because they know people like you will sit back and take it.

 

 

So cars have to come with spare tires? What sort of logic is this?

The kind of logic that has existed since 1904. All modern vehicles include a spare tire of some form. All older vehicles featured a spare tire of some form. Over 95% of all antique vehicles that were manufactured after 1904 featured a spare tire of some form. Really, it baffles me how you don't already know this.

[ccrogers15]

Because ok disk DLC is content on a disk YOU BOUGHT. Meaning there keeping portions of the game locked until you buy it. Saints Row The Third for instance, all the content was unlocked in the PC version by a hacker and he found alot of it and accessed all the "DLC" missions. 50% of saints row 3 is DLC. In total, this DLC adds up to around 10GB on the disk, but the DLC you download from the store to unlock it is under 1MB. Its ridiculous. DLC should be free, or banned.

[anuj]

Before we start, I swear to Allah if I see any more name calling I'm going to start issuing bans.

 

You're raising an interesting question. What do we actually own when we buy a physical copy of a game from a retailer? I went out and bought MW3 for the 360. As soon as I opened that package, the five page black and white manual informed me that by opening the package and using the software installed on the disc, that I agreed to several things that are probably beyond the scope of comprehension for the average person who enjoys COD.

 

According to this jumble of legalese, when you use this software you agree that you're basically getting a limited license to the software on-disk that they intended for you to have access to. To quote the SLA "Your license confers no title or ownership in this Program and should not be construed as a sale of any rights in this Program." They're not even joking around. If you try (and succeed) to access content that you would not find in the normal course of play, or that you were never intended to have free access to, you literally have to destroy your own disk.

 

I completely understand the development reason why they include day-1 DLC on disk. Doesn't exactly pertain to bandwidth, but it's close. Microsoft certification for patches is a thunderous raging c*nt of a process, takes valuable time, and makes gamers who were going to purchase the DLC irate because it might not be available immediately. But if they ship with the DLC on the disk, and then just put up a store option to unlock it? That avoids a lot of wasted money and time.

 

This argument just seems to exist because of the distribution system that is in place now. There's a strange disconnect here. If you buy a physical copy from a retailer, you own that physical piece of media, but you have no rights to the software contained within. If you buy a game from Steam, you are basically getting a license to use the software that you download to your computer. If you really hate the term "downloadable content" that much, think of it as "disk locked content".

 

In the end, the reason people don't like on-disk DLC is because it's one of those things that just strike them as a greedy cash-grab from distributors who want to milk a little bit of extra money out of a studio's hard work before they move on to the next big thing. It's like paying for cheat codes in Godfather or horse armor in Oblivion. They are things that gamers feel entitled to because they're used to getting them for free, or that they feel it is a rip off to have to pay for them. "Gamer entitlement" is another huge issue though.

 

[The Killa]

You could buy a nice steak at a restaurant for $30.

 

Oh, but the $30 is only for 2/3 of it. The rest is an extra $15, discounted to $13 if you decide to buy it in the first minute. Also you get a free hat for buying it.

[Gtaghost22]

because they are f*cking greedy.

No, because they have to recover the cost of making the disks, the box, the manuals, etc plus profit.

Oh, Really?

 

I don't recall Rockstar cutting content from GTA IV and selling it to us later, thier DLCs are one of the best selling expansion packs this gen for a reason. because they are f*cking quality.

 

@OP

It's your choice if you want your wallet raped by greedy publishers but don't try to convince us it's ok, because it's not

[anuj]

You could buy a nice steak at a restaurant for $30.

 

Oh, but the $30 is only for 2/3 of it. The rest is an extra $15, discounted to $13 if you decide to buy it in the first minute. Also you get a free hat for buying it.

You could buy a nice steak at a restaurant for $30.

 

And gamers would think they're entitled to the cow.

[Pat]

They are things that gamers feel entitled to because they're used to getting them for free, or that they feel it is a rip off to have to pay for them. "Gamer entitlement" is another huge issue though.

Again, the video games industry is the only industry where sh*t like this flies. In no other industry can a disgruntled consumer be ignored simply by labeling them as "entitled." What the f*ck ever happened to "the customer is always right?" I'm sorry anuj, but I cannot and will not respect anyone who takes this "gamer entitlement" bullsh*t seriously. It is the absolute anti-thesis of capitalism. A consumer should never be blamed for the actions of a corporation.

[anuj]

 

They are things that gamers feel entitled to because they're used to getting them for free, or that they feel it is a rip off to have to pay for them. "Gamer entitlement" is another huge issue though.

Again, the video games industry is the only industry where sh*t like this flies. In no other industry can a disgruntled consumer be ignored simply by labeling them as "entitled." What the f*ck ever happened to "the customer is always right?" I'm sorry anuj, but I cannot and will not respect anyone who takes this "gamer entitlement" bullsh*t seriously. It is the absolute anti-thesis of capitalism. A consumer should never be blamed for the actions of a corporation.

It seems like the absolute anti-thesis of capitalism would be to let someone have it for free when people will willingly pay for it.

 

I've given legal and business reasons why on-disk DLC is the norm. The only other side of the argument seems to be:

 

a) I bought this physical media, I'm allowed to have whatevers on the disk. Which would be an amazing legal ground to stand on, seeing as how many software companies ship out trial disks of their software fully functioning, and simply needing activation to become full products.

b) The corporations are greedy. Well no sh*t. Don't support them. Don't buy their games. Don't buy the DLC. I don't go to the DMV, get a driver's license, and then get mad when I can't legally operate motorcycles with it.

 

I don't support on-disk DLC because I'm opposed to the idea that they couldn't have just included it without having to activate it. I'm also against retailer-specific preorder DLC. Which is why I don't bother with them. But I can understand the reason they exist.

 

PS "The customer is always right" in regards to capitalism is ridiculous for two reasons.

1) It's a customer service rule.

2) It's the last argument someone can possibly pull out when they feel that they deserve something.

 

It has nothing to do with capitalism.

[Pat]

 

It has nothing to do with capitalism.

That explains why EA, the company that is more or less responsible for the term, has been facing an economic crisis lately. Last time I checked their stocks, they were less than ten dollars a share, and that's the first time they've been that low in over twenty years. Now, thinking logically, one would assume that this is merely consumers saying "I don't want to support this corporation" and taking their business elsewhere, a basic function of capitalism - if you don't please your customers, you will lose them.

 

I'm sure it's a complete coincidence though.

 

Complete coincidence.

[anuj]

What is that even supposed to mean? The customer is always right is the reason EA's stock is tanking? I don't remember the last time I bought an EA game. The last time I even HEARD of EA, I was laughing at how stupid their "online pass" is.

 

You can cherry pick any company you want, say they did something stupid, and then say that's the reason your argument is correct. The only problem is that it doesn't make a lick of goddamn sense.

 

EA Games - supposedly responsible for term "on disk DLC" - stock at lowest point in 20 years.

Microsoft - created a digital distribution service that basically doesn't allow companies to give away free DLC - Doing pretty goddamn well for themselves

 

Let me put it to you this way - If you pay $60 for a physical copy, and I pay $60 for a digital distro copy, why are you allowed to have that extra content that is not applicable to your license? Should I get to download it too?

[Pat]

EA Games - supposedly responsible for term "on disk DLC" - stock at lowest point in 20 years.

No, no no no. You've misread my post. We were discussing "gamer entitlement," which is what I was referring to by EA being responsible for the term. They were the first ones to start using it during the Mass Effect 3 on-disc DLC controversy, and I'm implying that their stocks have suffered because of it. Not exclusively because of it, but it has definitely played a role.

[anuj]

EA Games - supposedly responsible for term "on disk DLC" - stock at lowest point in 20 years.

No, no no no. You've misread my post. We were discussing "gamer entitlement," which is what I was referring to by EA being responsible for the term. They were the first ones to start using it during the Mass Effect 3 on-disc DLC controversy, and I'm implying that their stocks have suffered because of it. Not exclusively because of it, but it has definitely played a role.

Well EA can f*ck a duck, I hate on-disc DLC with a passion so I rented ME3 and watched all the bonus sh*t on youtube.

[Pat]

EA Games - supposedly responsible for term "on disk DLC" - stock at lowest point in 20 years.

No, no no no. You've misread my post. We were discussing "gamer entitlement," which is what I was referring to by EA being responsible for the term. They were the first ones to start using it during the Mass Effect 3 on-disc DLC controversy, and I'm implying that their stocks have suffered because of it. Not exclusively because of it, but it has definitely played a role.

Well EA can f*ck a duck, I hate on-disc DLC with a passion so I rented ME3 and watched all the bonus sh*t on youtube.

Then I really don't see why you support the concept of "gamer entitlement," because the kind of people I usually see throwing that term around are the people who defended Mass Effect 3's on-disc DLC. I'm starting to get very confused here.

[anuj]

EA Games - supposedly responsible for term "on disk DLC" - stock at lowest point in 20 years.

No, no no no. You've misread my post. We were discussing "gamer entitlement," which is what I was referring to by EA being responsible for the term. They were the first ones to start using it during the Mass Effect 3 on-disc DLC controversy, and I'm implying that their stocks have suffered because of it. Not exclusively because of it, but it has definitely played a role.

Well EA can f*ck a duck, I hate on-disc DLC with a passion so I rented ME3 and watched all the bonus sh*t on youtube.

Then I really don't see why you support the concept of "gamer entitlement," because the kind of people I usually see throwing that term around are the people who defended Mass Effect 3's on-disc DLC. I'm starting to get very confused here.

Just because I disagree with a company's product doesn't mean that the company should not be able to conduct its business however it wants.

[Creed Bratton]

That explains why EA, the company that is more or less responsible for the term, has been facing an economic crisis lately. Last time I checked their stocks, they were less than ten dollars a share, and that's the first time they've been that low in over twenty years. Now, thinking logically, one would assume that this is merely consumers saying "I don't want to support this corporation" and taking their business elsewhere, a basic function of capitalism - if you don't please your customers, you will lose them.

 

I'm sure it's a complete coincidence though.

 

Complete coincidence.

No one should be surprised by the drop in EA's share prices. It was bound to happen. Most consumers aren't idiots. When you keep milking people for money they don't have, they will eventually move on someplace else. On top of that EA wants to take over the market by making the exact same games as Activision and other publishers, only with ridiculous DLC and pre-order bonuses. And they force insane deadlines on their studios which results in lower quality products (DA2 and ME3 anyone?). Now, why would anyone buy an EA game filled with insane pre-order bonuses, DLCs, butchered gameplay etc. if they can just get a better game someplace else? EA doesn't realize that gamers want diversity. EA is afraid of taking risks. They don't realize that in the long run making the same games all over again is a bigger risk. Eventually gamers will get tired of the same-old games and shady business practices. They already lost their NBA Live to 2k's NBA. I hear they're gonna make a new NBA Live 13, but I can tell you right now they won't be able to beat 2k's NBA. They will try to copy them. Also, EA focuses entirely on short term profiteering. That's the main reason they will start losing money again, and that will probably end in closing of another studio. Perhaps Bioware. Parasites.

[anuj]

[Finn 7 five 11]

Spiderman3000, pretty much all your arguments about why there is nothing wrong with On-Disc DLC were answered on the first page, i am not going to reiterate, you can put the pieces together yourself.

 

 

No one should be surprised by the drop in EA's share prices. It was bound to happen. Most consumers aren't idiots. When you keep milking people for money they don't have, they will eventually move on someplace else. On top of that EA wants to take over the market by making the exact same games as Activision and other publishers, only with ridiculous DLC and pre-order bonuses. And they force insane deadlines on their studios which results in lower quality products (DA2 and ME3 anyone?). Now, why would anyone buy an EA game filled with insane pre-order bonuses, DLCs, butchered gameplay etc. if they can just get a better game someplace else?.

 

You know Vanja, i actually didn't realize i was doing this until just now, i have not purchased an EA game for a number of years now i don't think.

And the reason is (never actually thought about this) because i have looked at their games and seen all the DLC and other "bonus" stuff that you need to enjoy the game properly and it has put me off, sort of sub-consciously, it's all overwhelming and gets confusing as f*ck when every game you own has patches slapped all over the place and DLC jutting out of every corner.

It's too much saturation, it's getting complicated and that's why i am not buying their products anymore.

[Dj_Gh0zt]

Sigh

 

Another reason why i hate on disk DLC.

[cidamelo]

I'm SHOCKED!! I didn't know this exist! So you buy a CD, and you have to pay to access some contents of the CD?! This is OUTRAGEOUS!!!!! Isn't it agaisnt THE LAW?

anuj this image is so sad!! I loved Maxis and Bullfrog

Edited August 15, 2012 by cidamelo

[nightwalker83]

Oh, Really?

 

I don't recall Rockstar cutting content from GTA IV and selling it to us later, thier DLCs are one of the best selling expansion packs this gen for a reason. because they are f*cking quality.

Well, that would be why the cost of a disk version is more expensive than if you bought the downloadable version. What you say about cutting content from games reminds me of a pic I saw on here a while ago. The picture was comparing how much of a game you got today compared to several years ago for the same price.

[redx165]

 

Oh, Really?

 

I don't recall Rockstar cutting content from GTA IV and selling it to us later, thier DLCs are one of the best selling expansion packs this gen for a reason. because they are f*cking quality.

Well, that would be why the cost of a disk version is more expensive than if you bought the downloadable version. What you say about cutting content from games reminds me of a pic I saw on here a while ago. The picture was comparing how much of a game you got today compared to several years ago for the same price.

Games now a days suck compare to PS2 and Xbox. Atleast 75% of developers hold back content to make it a DLC so they can make a quick buck. The whole Idea of a DLC is to add more to the game. A DLC shouldn't be anything above $10 unless it adds more to the story and has alot of features. Look at Call of Duty's DLC. $15 for 5 maps??? That's just a rip off. I'm not ready for next gen cause these developers are going hold back even more content than they do now.

[nightwalker83]

Oh, Really?

 

I don't recall Rockstar cutting content from GTA IV and selling it to us later, thier DLCs are one of the best selling expansion packs this gen for a reason. because they are f*cking quality.

Well, that would be why the cost of a disk version is more expensive than if you bought the downloadable version. What you say about cutting content from games reminds me of a pic I saw on here a while ago. The picture was comparing how much of a game you got today compared to several years ago for the same price.

Games now a days suck compare to PS2 and Xbox. Atleast 75% of developers hold back content to make it a DLC so they can make a quick buck. The whole Idea of a DLC is to add more to the game. A DLC shouldn't be anything above $10 unless it adds more to the story and has alot of features. Look at Call of Duty's DLC. $15 for 5 maps??? That's just a rip off. I'm not ready for next gen cause these developers are going hold back even more content than they do now.

I haven't played COD but I sppose it would have to do with how much time was spent on creating the DLC and difficulty in making it.

[Darrel]

 

Because it's already on the f*cking disk.

Why are they charging extra money for for on-disk content? that's right, because they are f*cking greedy.

 

I haven't bought any DLC this gen except the ones from R* of course, those are f*cking quality, not like the on-disk bullcrap we get from most developers.

Pretty much this

 

I see no reason to defend this action from developers. The OP must be someone who wastes his money on DLC and is getting stiffed he cant even see it.

Edited August 15, 2012 by Darrel

[Finn 7 five 11]

Oh, Really?

 

I don't recall Rockstar cutting content from GTA IV and selling it to us later, thier DLCs are one of the best selling expansion packs this gen for a reason. because they are f*cking quality.

Well, that would be why the cost of a disk version is more expensive than if you bought the downloadable version. What you say about cutting content from games reminds me of a pic I saw on here a while ago. The picture was comparing how much of a game you got today compared to several years ago for the same price.

Digital downloads cost about the same, often they cost even more on PS3 and 360, it's BS.

[nightwalker83]

 

Oh, Really?

 

I don't recall Rockstar cutting content from GTA IV and selling it to us later, thier DLCs are one of the best selling expansion packs this gen for a reason. because they are f*cking quality.

Well, that would be why the cost of a disk version is more expensive than if you bought the downloadable version. What you say about cutting content from games reminds me of a pic I saw on here a while ago. The picture was comparing how much of a game you got today compared to several years ago for the same price.

Digital downloads cost about the same, often they cost even more on PS3 and 360, it's BS.

That is because in Australia we get ripped off big time. From memory the only two expansions (four, if you include the complete NWN) I bought were Throne of Bhaal for Baldur's Gate 2 which, added 3 chapters to the original BG2. The other expansion was Bloodmoon for The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind which was huge.

Edited August 15, 2012 by nightwalker83

[Guest]

jesus you should see what happened when I made a thread on the SD forum asking about the day-one DLC. you know what happens? i get threatened with a ban by TWO moderators, and them trying to twist my words and they are just utter cockheads in my opinion. here's the thread.

 

http://forums.sleepingdogs.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1376

 

And then some little weasel prick makes this post and I felt like killing myself.

 

"dude im in uk and i am 100000000000% happy when i seen the dlc on xbox live i was like OH YEA MORE CONTENT!!! and i downloaded both straight away i dont see why ur mad man as its awsome!!! thanks square"

 

I do NOT want to live on this sh*tty planet anymore.