The DLC debate

[lazygecko]

Discussion about DLC and wether consumers are being ripped off or not has really kicked into high gear lately, specifically due to Street Fighter X Tekken having locked "DLC" content on the disc, and also Mass Effect 3 in spite of Bioware/EA claiming otherwise. The most hilarious thing is that people looked into the PC version of ME3, sure enough the content was already there on the disc you purchased, and all it took was editing one line of code to enable it. This of course results in you being banned from Origin.

It's such a hot topic now that we have a Forbes article on the subject:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/03/10/the-problem-with-biowares-mass-effect-3-day-one-dlc-from-ashes/2/

Personally I've found the handling of DLC to be shit from the very start and gamers are worse off because of it. As someone who actively played PC games since the 90's, purchased expansion packs and recieved smaller content for free, I definitely feel the bar has been lowered and value has gone down the shitter. But ultimately they only do this because obviously people are willing to buy into it.

[GreyGhost]

IMO, locked content on the disc isn't DLC - and having to pay extra to access parts of the game is extortion. This is one business model I want no part of.

[Technician]

GreyGhost said:

IMO, locked content on the disc isn't DLC - and having to pay extra to access parts of the game is extortion. This is one business model I want no part of.

Agreed.

[Jodwin]

GreyGhost said:

IMO, locked content on the disc isn't DLC - and having to pay extra to access parts of the game is extortion. This is one business model I want no part of.

This, but "genuine" DLCs that add smaller parts of new content for a small price are fine in my book.

[andrewj]

GreyGhost said:

IMO, locked content on the disc isn't DLC - and having to pay extra to access parts of the game is extortion.

I disagree, I don't see any difference between paying to access content which is on a far away computer, and paying to access content that is sitting on the same CD or DVD as the game you bought. They both boil down to paying for access to content which you could not ordinarily access.

[Doom Marine]

Okay, let's say you bought Ultimate Doom, with all episodes onboard, only to find out that the secret levels are "onboard DLC's" and that you need to transact a small fee to iD software to unlock them.

Sounds stupid? It's exactly what EA is doing.

[Xaser]

Jodwin said:

This, but "genuine" DLCs that add smaller parts of new content for a small price are fine in my book.

This. Stuff like every Borderlands DLC and DX:HR's Missing Link are totally cool. No different from the expansion packs of the old days.

andrewj said:

I disagree, I don't see any difference between paying to access content which is on a far away computer, and paying to access content that is sitting on the same CD or DVD as the game you bought. They both boil down to paying for access to content which you could not ordinarily access.

The fact that it was on the disc anyway means that it possibly could have been included with the main game anyway, but wasn't for the sake of cash-cowing. This leads to people feeling cheated that they didn't get their money's worth, especially if it's something like a major-ish area of the game being locked out (didn't one of the Dragon Age games do this?). Pre-order bonuses fall into the same category too, IMO (especially since sometimes these are offered later as cheap DLCs to latecomers anyway, a la DX:HR again).

Now, I know what it means to buy software (i.e. obtaining a license) and that legally speaking it's no different than downloading the DLC after buying it. However, I strongly dislike the idea of having possesion of a physical item that contains software I'm not allowed to use even though it's packaged with software I did buy.

Requiring the use of Steam and Origin for these sorts of things mucks it up even further, since one can then argue that the content on the game disc is "incomplete" and can only be used in conjunction with the Steam/Origin software. So while you own the actual DLC content, you don't own the "piece of software" (i.e. unlock code) that 'completes' the set.

Any person with a brain should see how bastardly this is, I would hope. :P

[DoomUK]

GreyGhost said:

IMO, locked content on the disc isn't DLC - and having to pay extra to access parts of the game is extortion. This is one business model I want no part of.

In cases like this I see nothing wrong with unlocking the content yourself with the aid of an "illegal" crack. You've already bought it anyway.

[Quasar]

DoomUK said:

In cases like this I see nothing wrong with unlocking the content yourself with the aid of an "illegal" crack. You've already bought it anyway.

But you haven't since it's "licensed, not sold." That's their stance, I mean. I am not suggesting that I agree with it.

[printz]

DoomUK said:

In cases like this I see nothing wrong with unlocking the content yourself with the aid of an "illegal" crack. You've already bought it anyway.

You only bought the unlocked part. For the encrypted files you have to buy the "key". However, I don't really understand why they need to give the encrypted content to you... To reduce download times and payload, so you only download the licence key, not the whole content? It's a real temptation for cryptology enthusiasts to try to crack it open. Doing that is equal to downloading warez, because you're not paying the creators (and publishers) for their work (business).

The real problem here is that people should be able to know what they're paying for. If the bought game only includes a part of the story, then that has to be written on the box!

[Quasar]

It's included on the game from the get go because of precisely what other people have suggested: DLC has changed from being new content generated in response to good sales as a bonus for the game's devoted fans, into content cut from the release of the game not because of scheduling or funding constraints, but by deliberate design in order to extend the profit window for that product.

It's nothing but another sign of how the game industry is aught but a bunch of suits in boardrooms with $'s in their eyes now.

[printz]

Quasar said:

It's nothing but another sign of how the game industry is aught but a bunch of suits in boardrooms with $'s in their eyes now.

Their games suck anyway, so I don't lose anything by not buying them. Anything!

They may work as examples of using your graphics card well, though, but not all games test it to the limits.

[TwinBeast]

I think DLC should be free. If it's like a bunch of new models or a few multiplayer maps or something like that, then it should be free. If it's a full length expansion episode, then it's ok to set a price for it.

[Darkman 4]

Jimi said:

I think DLC should be free. If it's like a bunch of new models or a few multiplayer maps or something like that, then it should be free. If it's a full length expansion episode, then it's ok to set a price for it.

The problem is that game production costs are increasing, making it harder to give things out for free. If you're putting around $60 million USD in a game, you need something else to get more money just in case game sales don't get the profits you were expecting. I think this applies more to games made by the big publishers, like EA, because corporations like them have a huge emphasis on short-term profits.

That doesn't mean that giving things away for free is gone forever, it's just that you're going to see it happen less often than in the past.

[Sporku]

You know who did DLC right? The guys who made the game Rock Band. The games already have plenty of content on-disc (I believe there's about 80 songs for each of the 3 games with most of them exportable into the newest version of the game), but they've had massive post-release support in the way of weekly music releases for the game. They've currently got something along the lines of 3,000+ songs available for download.

They've also reached out to the community by adding a section called the Rock Band Network, where lesser known and/or smaller bands can promote their music by creating note charts for their songs and putting them up for sale within the game.

[Jodwin]

Jimi said:

If it's like a bunch of new models ... or something like that, then it should be free.

Definitely not. This is a very good example, IMO, of a DLC that's justified as not being free. After all, they're called vanity packs and for a good reason: They add nothing to the gameplay, instead they only let people to wave their DLC e-peen around. I'll gladly let developers milk vane customers out of their money with vanity packs if that means more money into the production of real gameplay content.

[geo]

People could just wait a year for a game when they have all DLC and the game for $20. Instead of paying $50 + $20 x 4 for DLC.

[Csonicgo]

Wow I said this a year ago and now people are starting to agree with me? You guys hated this last time I said anything about it.

http://www.doomworld.com/vb/everything-else/50187-bioshock-2s-dlc-is-on-the-disc/


Which is it, doomworld?

[geo]

I think it all boils down to if you like it you'll pay. Like me buying Alien Vs Predator. I bought it for $2. There are extra maps for $2... but you know... I'd rather keep my $2.

[kmxexii]

Thank goodness the Doom community produces such a wide variety of freely-available DLC

[geo]

I'd actually pay $5 to have a megawad like Scythe, Eternal, Icarus and so on for X-Box Live. I can't be the only one. I have a feeling at least 10,000 other people would too.

[Csonicgo]

geo said:

I'd actually pay $5 to have a megawad like Scythe, Eternal, Icarus and so on for X-Box Live. I can't be the only one. I have a feeling at least 10,000 other people would too.

that's because you already know the content, or at least, parts of it.

[geo]

True true. Perhaps with profit sharing the .wad makers would get 20% and if it sells 10,000 copies at $5 then they'd get $10,000 for their hard work. If it takes a year to make a 32 level megawad that might be a nice suppliment. There would of course be quality control. Start with the top megawads and add one or two megawads from there. Anyway that's probably best for a new topic.

[DoOmEr4LiFe]

http://games.yahoo.com/blogs/plugged-in/rumor-next-playstation-coming-2013-200015017.html

After looking at this thread, I read that article. Sounds like Sony wants all of the PS4 games to be locked and usable only by the original owner and the new PSN will ensure that is how it works.

I'm not a fanboy, but I have preferred Playstation to the alternatives since 1996 but if this is the direction they want to go how can they expect to make any money? At what point will them and other companies start losing mass amounts of money because their customer base thinks this is boneheaded? The loss I can almost guarantee would be tenfold of whatever piracy is going on. Same for the game companies themselves.

[geo]

Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo don't want you to buy used games. It is in their best interest to keep getting 10% - 30% of games.

[GreyGhost]

geo said:

People could just wait a year for a game when they have all DLC and the game for $20. Instead of paying $50 + $20 x 4 for DLC.

What a great idea! Buy a game when its online community is showing signs of rigor mortis and hope you can play it through before the authentication servers are taken offline.

[geo]

... only a year not 5.

[Quasar]

DoOmEr4LiFe said:

http://games.yahoo.com/blogs/plugged-in/rumor-next-playstation-coming-2013-200015017.html

After looking at this thread, I read that article. Sounds like Sony wants all of the PS4 games to be locked and usable only by the original owner and the new PSN will ensure that is how it works.

I'm not a fanboy, but I have preferred Playstation to the alternatives since 1996 but if this is the direction they want to go how can they expect to make any money? At what point will them and other companies start losing mass amounts of money because their customer base thinks this is boneheaded? The loss I can almost guarantee would be tenfold of whatever piracy is going on. Same for the game companies themselves.

I predicted this would be a feature of the next generation of game consoles not very long ago in #zdoom. Looks like I am becoming a DRM prophet now :P

[geekmarine]

If DLC means that developers support a game after its initial release, I'm all for it. A good example, and I know this might be controversial, to me would be Team Fortress 2. Some people hate the emphasis on hats and whatnot, but honestly, it's because of those cosmetic items you can buy in the store that Valve has been able to support the game for so long, adding new weapons, maps, game modes, etc. In that sense, both parties benefit from the exchange. Valve continues to make money on a 5-year-old game, and players continue to have the game supported via new content. This is part of what makes on-disc DLC so terrible - the content's already been produced, so the developers can earn more money without lifting a finger to support the game with new content.

[GreyGhost]

geo said:

... only a year not 5.

Depends on the game and publisher. EA's policy is to retire games as their online player base dwindles, with their annually updated sports franchises probably being hardest hit. Other publishers most likely have similar policies so I'd be wary of any budget re-release that relies on online authorization.